Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. All right. I will identify that from 7 to 7:30 the Snowe- Wyden amendment on bargaining relative to Medicare will be in order.

Mr. GREGG. At the end of this time, we will determine whether we are going to vote on these amendments tonight. I certainly hope we will.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we suspend that process for a second so I may make a request for a unanimous consent.

Mr. GREGG. Should we go through the list?

Mr. GREGG. I think we have to see amendments first, but I presume there are going to be no second-degree amendments.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GREGG. Right.

Mr. GREGG. Dorgan amendment on runaway plants.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that prior to the vote which is about to occur on the amendment by Senator Byrd, there be 1 minute on both sides.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, it is now our plan to vote on four items in the following sequence: The first will be Senator Feingold's amendment on pay-go; the second will be Senator Ensign's amendment on veterans; the third will be Senators Murray and Akaka on veterans; and the fourth will be Senator Specter on NIH education. I ask unanimous consent that the time will run during the pendency of those votes. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be deemed to have been ordered on all four amendments.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, let me enthusiastically second the fine comments of the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. GREGG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GREGG. Yes.

Mr. GREGG. I also ask that be applied to the next vote, which will be on ANWR.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, at the conclusion of the Specter amendment, which is about to be voted on, we are going to proceed with a series of amendments and debate. We will begin a debate for an hour, hopefully, around 5:10, 5:15 on a Medicaid amendment by Senator Smith. That will be followed by debate from 6:15 to 7 o'clock on the Carper amendment dealing with reconciliation, followed by debate from 7 to 7:30 on a Wyden amendment on bargaining, followed by debate from 7:30 to 7:45 on a Harkin amendment on education, followed by debate from 7:45 to 8:05 on a Hutchison-Ensign amendment on Border Patrol, followed by debate from 8:05 to 8:20 on a Landrieu amendment on----

Mr. GREGG. No, I will not yield. The point, of course, is this: If you have 51 votes for your position, you win. Fifty-one votes to say there should not be drilling, that there should not be exploration, that this small postage stamp of land in this vast area of land should not be looked at for the purposes of giving us some independence in the area of energy, addressing our energy needs as a nation--if you have 51 votes to say that, you win. If, on the other hand, the Senators from Alaska, who feel that in good conscience they had a commitment from the Senate for many years that they would be allowed to pursue this initiative and that they can do it in an environmentally sound way, have 51 votes for their position, they win. That is the way the rules of the Senate are set up. So it is totally inappropriate for a Senator to come to this floor and represent that this is some sort of unethical act, as was implied by the Senator from Massachusetts. We are using the rules of the Senate as they are set up to be used, and that happens to be the rule of the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, let me speak, and then the Senator from Pennsylvania can wrap up.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield myself time off of the resolution. The representation by the Senator from Massachusetts that somehow this is outside the rules to proceed within the rules is a very unique view of the rules. We are using the rules of the Senate. That is what they are. Reconciliation is a rule of the Senate set up under the Budget Act. It has been used before for purposes exactly like this on numerous occasions. The fact is, all this rule of the Senate does is allow a majority of the Senate to take a position and pass a piece of legislation, support that position. Is there something wrong with majority rules? I don't think so. The reason the Budget Act was written in this way was to allow certain unique issues to be passed with a majority vote. That is all that is being asked for here.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Pennsylvania bringing this amendment forward. I know of his deep commitment to NIH and education, and as chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee which has jurisdiction over both of these accounts on the discretionary side, it is challenging, to say the least. He has the second largest appropriating account in the Senate after defense, but he probably has the job with the most demands on it well beyond defense, and he has attempted to balance those demands very effectively. However, in this instance, I believe we should stay with the basic numbers we have put forward in this budget. It is critical if we are going to have fiscal discipline around here to have a top-line discretionary number which we have agreed to--843-- and that we not within the budget process try to redirect funds within that number in a way that either negatively impacts other accounts or positively impacts accounts. That would be a unilateral activity of the Senator from Pennsylvania when he starts marking up the bill. The 920 account, if it is used here, will have the practical effect of an across-the-board cut on all other accounts in the Government that are discretionary so that it creates a pressure that will be difficult to handle if it is put forward in this way. On the specific issue of funding, we all recognize NIH is a premier institution and has done an extraordinary job, but we have to recognize this Congress has been extraordinarily generous over the last few years with NIH. Beginning at the beginning of the Bush administration, there was a decision to double the funding of NIH, and that is exactly what happened. It has grown at rates of 13 and 14 percent annually compounded. It has gone from $13 billion to a $27 billion account and $28 billion account in the last 5 years, a huge expansion in the commitment to research in the area of health care. There are some concerns with whether we should not take a brief breathing period and make sure dollars are being used efficiently. The President has proposed an increase for NIH but not as much as maybe NIH believed it would like, but certainly in the context of the dramatic increase in funding over the last few years it is appropriate. In the education accounts, this President has committed huge increases in education. The numbers are staggering, quite honestly. It is the commitment the administration has made relative to the prior administration. In the area, for example, of the overall discretionary budget, the Department of Education has gone up 33 percent since the Clinton years. In the area of No Child Left Behind, it has gone up 46 percent, title I has gone up 52 percent, IDEA has gone up 75 percent. The way the President structured the budget was to say let's take a look at the miscellaneous educational programs that are targeted that have a small impact and see whether those priorities, in comparison with the big programs in which the Federal Government has a major role, such as No Child Left Behind, special education, Pell grants, and title I, the President decides to put more money into those programs rather than to the specific targeted programs. Obviously, it will be up to the Senator from Pennsylvania, working with his committee and working with Senator Enzi, chairman of the Education Committee, to make decisions as to how that should shake out. But in this budget the President has proposed significant increases in the core educational programs. In special education he is up $450 million; in title I, he is up $1 billion; and in No Child Left Behind, up $1 billion; in Pell, which is not reflected appropriately, in my opinion, in this budget, or has not been discussed appropriately, he is up half a billion. We have specifically raised the cap--hopefully, it will end up there, but we have no control over how the allocations occur--to give Senator Specter's subcommittee an additional half billion specifically for Pell. So the grants can go from $4,150 and give it authority to allow the Pell grants to be restructured so you can get a $5,100 Pell grant under the new structure which is being proposed under this bill should Senator Enzi's committee decide that is how they want to proceed. In addition, we have set aside $5.5 billion in the budget in a reserve fund specifically to fund a new Higher Education Act, the purpose of which is to dramatically expand the Pell grants and take them up to $5,100 for those who go to school 4 years and dramatically expand borrowing for students through the Guaranteed Student Loan Program. Education is strong in this budget and I hope we will stay within the terms of this budget rather than expanding beyond that. I recognize the problems the Senator from Pennsylvania has are difficult, probably the most difficult of any of the Appropriations subcommittees, and I understand why he brought this amendment forward. I presume I have used all my time.

Mr. GREGG. And we have coming up 45 minutes on the two veterans amendments.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, how much time do we have on the resolution on our side before we get to the 1 o'clock vote?

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of the times the reconciliation process has been used for actions very similar to this, many of which were in periods when the Democrats controlled this Senate.

Mr. GREGG. National Guard, followed by debate from 8:20 to 8:35 on a Santorum amendment on HIV, followed by debate from 8:35 to 8:50 on a Voinovich sense of the Senate on budgeting, and followed by debate from 8:50 to 9 o'clock on a Dorgan amendment on----

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, as a way to resolve this, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Stevens be given 10 minutes off the resolution and that the vote occur at 1:10.