Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GREGG. There have been a lot of representations here, but we need to go back to the fact that on our side of the aisle we had to produce a budget--and we did, something that didn't happen last year from the other side of the aisle relative to bringing it to the floor. When the other side of the aisle was talking dollars, they were willing to give up on $4 billion relative to children in title I. That was their gap last year in their appropriating bill. For them to come forward this year and say suddenly that gap is an unacceptable event and inappropriate and inconsistent with everything that is right about taking care of our children in this country is truly a bit of an inconsistency, to be kind. The issue of balancing this against a tax cut I find difficult. Tax cut for the rich? Sixty percent of the people who get the dividends cut, should we actually put it in place, are going to be senior citizens. It is their money. It is their money. The issue is, how do you prioritize spending? The President of the United States has prioritized spending. He has put education right at the top of his priorities, at a much higher level than President Clinton put it--in fact, at a level so much higher than President Clinton put it that it represents a factor of two or three times what President Clinton did during his time in office. He has done it at the same time as he has limited overall spending of the Federal Government. The spending on education in this bill significantly exceeds the overall spending of the Federal Government in all accounts except possibly defense, because we are at war. That is a hard commitment, and it translates into real dollars, $1 billion of additional money every year since he has been President for title I, for IDEA, over $3 billion of new money--$3.9 billion--for title I. Those are hard dollars, real dollars, done in a responsible budgeting way. Mr. President, is my time up?

Mr. GREGG. I appreciate the Senator's question, and I am sure it was a question, although I never really actually heard the question. But I make the point this is 2001 money, 2 years ago; August has already come and gone for 2001; and 2002 is fast approaching. The fact is, we are putting so much money in the pipeline so fast because we are prefunding this issue, as we should be, that we are not creating an unfunded mandate. We are actually creating a situation where many States are, for at least the moment, not making money but seeing a significant surplus in the amount of money coming in relationship to the amount of money they are having to spend to reach the goals of No Child Left Behind, which, as we all know, is to give low-income kids a better shot at the American dream by educating them properly. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. GREGG. Is this a question?

Mr. GREGG. The Senator from Massachusetts argued it might have credibility and might have legs were it not for the fact there is presently--because of the huge amount of money the President of the United States, George Bush, has put into this account--there is presently unspent title I dollars representing billions.

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator from Oklahoma yield a couple of minutes to respond?

Mr. GREGG. The record on special education is even more dramatic. Where the Clinton administration essentially flatlined special education for 8 years, this administration has increased it, by historic levels, over a billion dollars a year every year--dramatic increases for special education. We will get into that. We will get into the issue of the Pell grants, where the numbers are equally stark, where this administration has made huge commitments in comparison to the time when the responsibilities for funding education actually fell into the hands of our colleagues across the aisle. But what we have today, unfortunately, is an attempt to use the lack of responsibility to have to produce a budget to throw out numbers which are irresponsible and claim that they are responsible. The last budget the Democrats produced on the issue of education was a blank. That is what they brought to the floor on the issue of education last year, whereas the President of the United States stepped up to the plate and increased title I funding by $3.9 billion in 3 years. That is real commitment to the kids of America. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, first, I always enjoy hearing the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Washington discuss education, especially the Senator from Massachusetts. I appreciate the fact we put microphones in the Chamber because that certainly helps me hear him as we go forward. I wish to start, however, with the question of the budget. I thought I would bring along the budget on education that we passed last year when the Democratic membership controlled the Senate. So I did, and here it is. You may be asking, Where is it? It did not pass. The budget on education was not even brought to the floor last year. An epiphany has occurred. Suddenly, they are concerned about education. Suddenly, they are interested in education enough to debate it in this budget. But where were they last year? Where were they? They were not on the floor of the Senate promoting a budget to promote education. This is their budget last year on education. A blank page. We have to go back in history to find out what the position of the membership of the other party is relative to the issue of funding education in comparison with what this President has done. This President has dramatically increased funding for education, and if we compare his commitment to education to the prior administration's commitment to education in the years when the prior administration proposed education funding, we will see that in the last year of the Clinton administration, there was $42 billion being spent on education. This year, a proposed $66.5 billion is being spent on education by this President. President Bush's commitment to education has been the second largest factor of increase in the Federal budget over the last 3 years. It has meant real dollars going to the issue of education. Now let's turn to the question of title I, which is the purpose of this amendment, which is the No Child Left Behind issue. Let's look at all the issues for a moment. Let's compare what the Democratic leadership did when they controlled the Senate versus what we have done under Republican control of the Senate over the last few years. From the period 2001 to 2004, when we had Republican leadership in the Senate, the red bars reflect increases in education funding for title I, for IDEA, Pell grants, and total discretionary education. Increases from the Democratic side of the aisle during this same period were minuscule; in fact, one was even a negative in the Pell grant area during that same period. There are dramatic increases coming from this President. Let's look at title I because this is the most stark, dramatic, and I think precise chart we have to reflect what is really being done. Since the Republicans took control of the Senate and the Congress, we see these huge increases in funding for title I: $1 billion a year since President Bush has been in office. Every year, $1 billion, $1 billion, $1 billion on top of the prior amounts, as compared with 1993 through 1995. In fact, if we went back further, it would be worse coming in from the prior administration. So the commitment has been there. If we look at the history of title I increases, which is what this amendment is about, and compare what President Clinton did when the Democrats were in control to what President Bush has done since he has been in charge, during the 1994 to 2001 period, over the 8-year period, President Clinton proposed $2.4 billion in increases in title I funding; in 3 years, President Bush has proposed $3.9 billion in increases in funding. It is very easy to come to the floor in a difficult fiscal time when we are facing a war, when there are a lot of pressures on us because of a deficit, and say you have no responsibility because you do not produce budgets that you are willing to increase spending ad infinitum, which is what this amendment essentially does. It is a little more difficult, however, in a time of deficits, when we are at war, to come forward and actually increase spending, which is exactly what President Bush did. I note, during this period, 1994 to 2001, we were running surpluses. The opportunity was there to increase spending without a great deal of choice in the area of priorities. Today it is a much tougher situation, and the choices on priorities have been made, and President Bush is committed to that funding. Now I will go to one other chart, which I find absolutely startling because I think this shows some of these amendments we are going to be getting from the other side, especially on the issue of education, are taking advantage of the fact that the other side does not have to produce a budget. Let's look back when they did, theoretically, have to produce a budget. Of course, they did not. We could go back to their budget, which was a blank page, but they did produce an appropriations bill, which they never passed. In fact, they never even called it to the floor of the Senate. It took the Republican Congress 2 weeks to pass it. The other side had a whole year. They were not able to do it, but we were able to do it. I will get into the numbers there, but the fact is when they produced their budget, or their appropriations bill, what did they have in their numbers for funding? They had $11.8 billion. What was the authorization level? It was $16 billion. So by their own terms, the last time they had control, the last time they had the opportunity to do the job of governing, they underfunded the title I account by $4 billion--by their terminology, not by mine. How many children did they silence, to use the term of Senator Kennedy? How many are added up in that $4 billion figure? I do not know. Personally, I do not think that is a proper way to address it, but if those are the terminologies one is going to use, then what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The fact is they were $4 billion short of their own goal. So a lot of what we are hearing today is tilting with straw dogs when it comes to the issue of how much is being spent and who is spending what. Let's look a little bit, though, at what this President has done--a 145 percent increase in education funding, as compared with health, as compared with defense, a huge increase. The argument is being made that title I has not been fully funded because the authorization levels have not been met. That, of course, goes to this chart. If we were to fully fund every bill that has been authorized by this Congress--well, just by our committee--we would be talking trillions of dollars. We all recognize that authorization level is not the level at which we end up. We end up at an appropriated level. And the question becomes: How do different accounts compete within those appropriation accounts? Who is being successful, who is not? Where are the priorities? Where are the choices being made? The point this chart unalterably makes is that as far as this administration is concerned, the priority is education--a billion dollars of new funding for title I every year since this administration has been in office--in fact, $1.5 billion one year, I think, and $1 billion for special education funding every year since this administration has been in office, which compares rather starkly, as I mentioned, with the Clinton years in the area of title I, where essentially there were very little funding increases. Over 7 years, it was $2.4 billion as compared with $3.9 billion for the Bush administration. The issue of whether or not this is an unfunded mandate is a total misrepresentation relative to No Child Left Behind. The fact is the funding that is flowing into the States to support No Child Left Behind is flowing in before the States and the communities have an obligation to do things under No Child Left Behind. We are actually prefunding many, if not all, of the obligations which the States are assuming under No Child Left Behind to the extent we ask them to do things. For example, testing regime. In the State of New Hampshire it costs about $300,000 to produce a test. Under No Child Left Behind, we have asked that instead of testing three grades, they are going to have to test three more grades, a number of more grades, actually, but they do not have to have those tests up and running for awhile. However, we are giving them the money today to design the tests. Not only are we giving them money, but on the average we are giving New Hampshire at least $500,000 to develop new tests. It only costs them $300,000 to do the test. They are making $200,000 per test that they develop, and that is true across the country. It is also true of the basic funding regime relative to issues, for example, like teachers. We heard a little talk about teachers. The President's commitment for funding for teachers is up 35 percent over what the prior administration did, a $726 million increase coming into this year. More importantly, under No Child Left Behind, we no longer put strings behind those dollars. We say to the local school districts, instead of having to use this new money, the 35 percent increase in funding for education for teachers and for teacher support, instead of having to use that money to hire more teachers, you, the principal, can make the decision to use that money to hire more teachers, if that is what you need, to pay your best teachers more, if that is what you think is going to get you good teachers to stay there, to give your teachers better education by sending them out to schools and getting supplemental education for them, by giving them technology support. You have the choice. You, the school district, are going to get this extra money. Plus, you are going to get it without strings. You are going to have flexibility as to how to use it so you can make that dollar go further. So to represent that the teacher side of the No Child Left Behind bill has not only been underfunded but is not being adequately managed is just inaccurate. The fact is, it has been funded, it has been increased, and it is a dramatically more liberal use of the dollars at the discretion of the local school district. I know they are going to get more for the dollars spent. Now I guess we are going to have time later on--I ask the Chair how much time I have remaining?

Mr. GREGG. I ask to be yielded 15 minutes.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, what is the status of the time?

Mr. GREGG

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

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Kennedy, DeWine, Harkin, Smith, Mikulski, Collins, Bingaman, Snowe, Sarbanes, Kerry, Bayh, Corzine, and Dayton in introducing the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2003. This legislation would extend to firefighters and police officers the right to discuss workplace issues with their employers. With the enactment of the Congressional Accountability Act, State and local government employees remain the only sizable segment of workers left in America who do not have the basic right to enter into collective bargaining agreements with their employers. While most States do provide some collective bargaining rights for their public employees, others do not. Studies have shown that communities which promote such cooperation enjoy much more effective and efficient delivery of emergency services. Such cooperation, however, is not possible in the States that do not provide public safety employees with the fundamental right to bargain with their employers. The legislation I am introducing today is balanced in its recognition of the unique situation and obligation of public safety officers. To accomplish this the bill: 1. Requires States, within 2 years, to guarantee the right of public safety officers to form and voluntarily join a union to bargain collectively over hours, wages and conditions of employment; 2. Protects the right of public safety officers to form, join, or assist any labor organization or to refrain from any such activity, freely and without fear of penalty or reprisal; 3. Prohibits the use of strikes, lockouts, sickouts, work slowdowns or any other action that is designed to compel an employer, officer or labor organization to agree to the terms of a proposed contract and that will measurably disrupt the delivery of services; 4. Continues to allow States to enforce right-to-work laws which prohibit employers and labor organizations from negotiating labor agreements that require union membership or payment of union fees as a condition of employment; 5. Preserves the right of management to not bargain over issues traditionally reserved for management level decisions; 6. Exempts all states with a State bargaining law for public safety officers that are equal to or greater than the rights granted under Federal law; 7. Gives States the option to exempt from coverage subdivisions with populations of less than 5,000 or fewer than 25 full time employees. Labor-management partnerships, which are built upon bargaining relationships, result in improved public safety. Employer-employee cooperation contains the promise of saving the taxpayer money by enabling workers to give input as to the most efficient way to provide services. In fact, States that currently give firefighters the right to discuss workplace issues actually have lower fire department budgets than States without those laws. The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2003 will put firefighters and law enforcement officers on equal footing with other employees and provide them with the fundamental right to negotiate with employers over such basic issues as hours, wages, and workplace conditions. I urge its adoption and ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Kennedy, DeWine, Harkin, Smith, Mikulski, Collins, Bingaman, Snowe, Sarbanes, Kerry, Bayh, Corzine, and Dayton in introducing the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2003. This legislation would extend to firefighters and police officers the right to discuss workplace issues with their employers. With the enactment of the Congressional Accountability Act, State and local government employees remain the only sizable segment of workers left in America who do not have the basic right to enter into collective bargaining agreements with their employers. While most States do provide some collective bargaining rights for their public employees, others do not. Studies have shown that communities which promote such cooperation enjoy much more effective and efficient delivery of emergency services. Such cooperation, however, is not possible in the States that do not provide public safety employees with the fundamental right to bargain with their employers. The legislation I am introducing today is balanced in its recognition of the unique situation and obligation of public safety officers. To accomplish this the bill: 1. Requires States, within 2 years, to guarantee the right of public safety officers to form and voluntarily join a union to bargain collectively over hours, wages and conditions of employment; 2. Protects the right of public safety officers to form, join, or assist any labor organization or to refrain from any such activity, freely and without fear of penalty or reprisal; 3. Prohibits the use of strikes, lockouts, sickouts, work slowdowns or any other action that is designed to compel an employer, officer or labor organization to agree to the terms of a proposed contract and that will measurably disrupt the delivery of services; 4. Continues to allow States to enforce right-to-work laws which prohibit employers and labor organizations from negotiating labor agreements that require union membership or payment of union fees as a condition of employment; 5. Preserves the right of management to not bargain over issues traditionally reserved for management level decisions; 6. Exempts all states with a State bargaining law for public safety officers that are equal to or greater than the rights granted under Federal law; 7. Gives States the option to exempt from coverage subdivisions with populations of less than 5,000 or fewer than 25 full time employees. Labor-management partnerships, which are built upon bargaining relationships, result in improved public safety. Employer-employee cooperation contains the promise of saving the taxpayer money by enabling workers to give input as to the most efficient way to provide services. In fact, States that currently give firefighters the right to discuss workplace issues actually have lower fire department budgets than States without those laws. The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2003 will put firefighters and law enforcement officers on equal footing with other employees and provide them with the fundamental right to negotiate with employers over such basic issues as hours, wages, and workplace conditions. I urge its adoption and ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Virginia organizing this opportunity to discuss what is obviously one of the most serious issues which we as a nation are facing and which the world is facing; that is, the question of how we address terrorism, and specifically how we address terrorist states such as Iraq. The leadership of the Senator from Virginia on this point has been long and strong and continuous. I admire the fact that he has given us that leadership, and I appreciate the fact that his service in the Senate and his expertise are brought to bear on this type of a very difficult question. When we begin to address this issue of terrorism, I think we should start with the source. Let us turn to the words of the man who has basically orchestrated the attacks on the United States, Osama bin Laden, and his intentions and the intentions of the people he directs, and unfortunately encourages. Osama bin Laden, on the issue of weapons of mass destruction, in an interview in 1999 from Time magazine, said the following: Acquiring weapons for the defense of Muslims is a religious duty. If I have indeed acquired these weapons-- Weapons of mass destruction-- --then I thank God for enabling me to do so. And if I seek to acquire these weapons, I am carrying out a duty. It would be a sin for Muslims not to try to possess the weapons that would prevent the infidels from inflicting harm on Muslims. In a religious order he states: We, with Allah's help, call on every Muslim who believes in Allah and who wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah's order to kill Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies, civilians and military, is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it. These are the words of a fanatic who has a purpose. We have seen the execution of his purpose in the attacks on Americans, with thousands dying in New York and others here in Washington, military men and women in Yemen, and in our Foreign Service personnel in Africa. The question becomes: From whom would he obtain these weapons of destruction? It is clear that one of the core sources of weapons of mass destruction is terrorist states which are producing those weapons of mass destruction--states which act outside the responsibility of the civilized world. The state which has most flagrantly pursued that course of action is, of course, Iraq. They have weapons of mass destruction. That has been confirmed beyond question--biological and chemical--and they clearly are trying to develop nuclear. More importantly, Saddam Hussein has used those weapons not only against what he perceives as an enemy--the Iranians--but against his own people. He has killed thousands of his own people and tens of thousands of Iranians using weapons of mass destruction--chemical weapons. We know there are literally tons of Vx gas and pounds of anthrax which are unaccounted for and which cannot be found--and which are in the possession of Saddam Hussein. Should they fall into the hands of Osama bin Laden, it is very clear from his own words that they would be used against us here in the United States, and the implications are staggering. If they were to be dispersed in any number of ways, tens of thousands of Americans might be harmed and possibly even die. The United Nations has equally recognized that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the civilized world, and a number of resolutions have been passed by the United Nations calling for action to be taken by Saddam Hussein and his regime to comply with international law. In April 1991, almost 12 years ago, the U.N. Security Council decided in Security Council Resolution 687 that Iraq shall unconditionally accept, under international supervision, the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless of its weapons of mass destruction, and ballistic missiles with a range over 150 kilometers. It further required Iraq to make a declaration within 15 days of the location, amounts, and types of such items. Twelve years ago that resolution was passed. It is uncomplied with. It has been ignored. It has been intentionally obfuscated by Saddam Hussein. In August 1991, Security Council Resolution 707 demanded that Iraq provide, without further delay, full, final, and complete disclosure of its proscribed weapons and programs as required by the previous resolution. That resolution has been ignored, obfuscated, undercut, and actively avoided by Saddam Hussein's regime. In June 1996, Security Council Resolution 1060 deplored the refusal of the Iraqi authorities to allow access to sites designated by the Special Commission, which constituted a clear violation of three previous resolutions. That resolution has been ignored, obfuscated, and undercut by Saddam Hussein, and intentionally undermined. In June 1997, Security Council Resolution 1115 condemned Iraq's actions and demanded Iraq allow UNSCOM's team immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any sites for inspections, and officials for interviews by UNSCOM. Again, the resolution has been ignored, undermined, and actively obfuscated and circumvented by Saddam Hussein. In October 1997, Security Council Resolution 1134 demanded that Iraq cooperate fully with the Special Commission and demanded also that Iraq, without delay, allow the inspection teams immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all areas, facilities, equipment, records, as well as to persons whom the inspectors wish to interview. The resolution has been ignored, undermined, and actively obfuscated by Saddam Hussein. In November 1997, Security Council Resolution 1137 condemned the continued violations by Iraq, its tampering with monitoring cameras of the Special Commission, and demanded that Iraq cooperate fully, and immediately. That was in 1997. And there has been no immediate cooperation. In fact, there have been active--active--attempts to interfere with and undermine that resolution. In March 1998, Security Council Resolution 1154 stressed that Iraq must accord immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the Special Commission, and that any violation would result in the severest consequences for Iraq. Again, Iraq has ignored the resolution and actively worked to undermine it. In November 1998, Security Council Resolution 1205 condemned the decision by Iraq to cease cooperation with the Special Commission as a flagrant violation of Resolution 687 and other resolutions. In November 2002, Security Council Resolution 1441, which was unanimously approved, decided that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions and decided to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under the relevant resolutions. Resolution 1441 has been ignored, obfuscated, and actively-- actively--undermined by Saddam Hussein and his regime. There can be no question--absolutely no question--but that Saddam Hussein and his regime in Iraq continued to possess weapons of mass destruction, continued to hide those weapons from the inspectors, continued to violate resolution after resolution of the world community, as presented by the United Nations, and represents a clear and present and immediate threat not only to its neighbors, but more specifically to us, the United States. There are some in the world community, obviously--mostly in Europe-- some of our allies, who, for whatever their personal reasons or whatever their national interests, have decided Saddam Hussein does not represent the threat we know he is. I might even recall the words of Washington when I think of that. Washington advised us, of course: Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice? There are interests there that are not ours. But in the end our purpose must be our national security and the security of our people. It was not, of course, Berlin or France or Paris that was attacked. It was New York City that was attacked. As a result, it is America that is at risk. Former President Clinton made it very clear he understood the threat of Saddam Hussein. He has described Iraq as a ``rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.'' He went on to imagine: What if Saddam fails to comply with the U.N. resolutions and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third course, which gives him yet another opportunity to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? Mr. Clinton answered his own question by saying: Well, [Saddam] will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's worked on this for any length of time believes that, too. That was President Clinton. Last night, President Bush made it very clear that he understands his purpose as President, his responsibility as Commander in Chief, but more importantly, his responsibility as a leader of the free world, and the protector of the interests of the American people and the lives of Americans, must involve the disarmament of Iraq. There can be no question about that. Iraq must be disarmed. We are engaged in a war. Some on the other side have said or implied there is no war and, therefore, we should not go to war. But when our buildings were attacked and our people died in New York, and when our people died in Washington, and when our sailors were killed in Yemen, and our Foreign Service people were killed in Africa, clearly, those were acts of war directed at us and at our people. Were this the 19th century or well into the 20th century, when despots such as Saddam Hussein also existed--all through time there have been despots--then maybe we could take a more casual or leisurely approach to this, and maybe we could live by the code of some of our European allies: That we simply will do business with them and hope they go away. But those times no longer exist. Today, when a rogue nation, led by a criminal individual, attains weapons of mass destruction, the death and destruction which they can level on people who they perceive as their enemies is overwhelming. The smoking gun is no longer a single bullet. The smoking gun may be a nuclear bomb or a biological weapon or a chemical attack which kills tens of thousands of Americans. We cannot wait for the smoking gun. We know the weapons exist. We know the person who controls those weapons is fundamentally evil. And we know the people who want to attain those weapons have already killed thousands of Americans. We must take action. So I congratulate and support our President as he moves forward to make it unquestionably clear we will not tolerate an Iraq that has weapons of mass destruction, and we will do what is necessary to protect our Nation and our people and the freedom which we enjoy. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Virginia granting me this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to say I believe the speech the Senator from Tennessee has given today was an extraordinary speech, which was his first speech on the floor. Actually, it was not his first speech on the floor, but we are calling it his maiden speech. He gave a speech last week that had a huge impact relative to the Estrada nomination, which is the pending business. But this statement today by the Senator from Tennessee highlights effectively and poignantly the importance of teaching civics and history in classes in America. His bill, which he has proposed, of which I am a cosponsor, is a step which is long overdue. As he so effectively pointed out in his speech, we, as a nation, need to teach our children about our roots and our purpose as a country if we are to continue our creed of bringing one out of many. So I thank him for his statement. I think it was a superb statement. And I thank him for his legislation, which I hope we will be able to act on promptly and pass and put into operation so we can pass on to our children, through our public school system, the importance of the American culture and history.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I think the point that has been made by the Senator from Colorado is an appropriate one, citing the editorial from the Denver Post, I guess it was. And it raised a constitutional issue which is an issue that has not been discussed here very much. Knowing that the Senator is one of the leading authorities in the Senate, and really in the Nation, on the issue of constitutional law, I would be interested in his interpretation of article II, section 2, of the Constitution, which says--and I will simply read it-- He-- Referring to the President-- shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States. . . . The implication being that it does not take two-thirds to appoint a judge but, rather, a majority. Is that your interpretation of the Constitution? And what is the implication of moving to a 60-vote majority in order to appoint a judge?

Mr. GREGG. I ask if the Senator from Utah will yield for a question.

Mr. GREGG. Point of order.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of Concord, the Capital City of New Hampshire. As the United States prepares this year to observe the 227th anniversary of our independence, the citizens of Concord will be celebrating the City's 150th birthday. It is therefore timely and appropriate that we recognize this great American community. Concord runs eight miles from north to south and covers almost 39,000 acres. However, this geographic description fails to illustrate its unique position in New Hampshire and U.S. history. First settled in the early 1700's as the Plantation of Penacook, an Indian word describing the serpentine but beautiful meanderings of the Merrimack River, the town was later renamed Rumford in 1734 and then Concord in 1765. In 1853, 150 years ago, the people living there incorporated Concord as a city. In 1788, the leaders of New Hampshire approved the new federal constitution in the Old North Meeting House in Concord and, thus, New Hampshire became the ninth and ratifying state of the original thirteen. Since 1809, Concord has served as the Capital of New Hampshire and, naturally, has been the heart of political life in our state. However, the City has a proud record for being the center of commerce and transportation as well. One of its best known industries was the Abbott-Downing Company which shipped thousands of its famous stagecoaches and wagons all over the world. In addition, the granite from Concord became the cornerstone for buildings throughout the United States. Furthermore, the City was the northern hub for the railroad industry in the first half of the 20th century. Of course, we cannot talk about this city without praising its most distinctive feature: the people of Concord. In this community, the citizens value the importance of helping one's neighbor and, thus, have long been responsible for strengthening the New Hampshire way of life. They have never been restrained in lending their talents and energy to any noble cause. The experiences of two Concord residents in the Civil War exemplifies this ethical code. On April 15, 1861, President Lincoln issued a proclamation calling for 75,000 troops to fight to preserve the Union. Within hours of learning of this announcement, Concord Police Officer Edward Sturtevant enlisted in the Army. Because he was such a natural leader, he was eventually promoted to major and later gave his life at the Battle of Fredericksburg. Harriet Patience Dame also greatly contributed during this time. At the age of 46, she offered her services as an Army Nurse. From the time of her enlistment until well after the war ended, she cared for the injured, the sick and the dying without taking one day's furlough or one day's sick leave. An exhausting schedule to be sure but one that fits the character of Concord. This spirit continues into modern times and may be best expressed by Concord school teacher Christa McAuliffe as she was preparing to become the first teacher in space: Her message ``I touch the future, I teach'' perfectly captures the dedication which characterizes the people of this community. With that, I am proud to honor and salute them as they celebrate the 150th birthday of Concord, New Hampshire, the Capital City of the Granite State.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 2 of Senate rule XXVI, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the rules of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions for the 108th Congress adopted by the Committee on February 12, 2003.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. The Senator from Maryland is correct. The committee included these funds in the National Marine Fisheries Service account to, in part, further oyster restoration and replenishment efforts in the Chesapeake Bay. It is the committee's expectation that NOAA will use the sums indicated for oyster restoration efforts in the Chesapeake Bay. Intent of Section 211

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Regular order, Mr. President.

Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will yield for a further question, are either of those universities considered conservative schools?

Mr. GREGG. That is one incredible record. Is not Columbia University a university in New York City? I believe the Senator from New York was on the floor. In fact, it is one of the finest universities in the United States. And an extremely competitive person came over when he was 17. He must have been admitted when he was 19 or 20. He matriculated there, and graduated magna cum laude; is that correct? He must be an extremely bright individual. And then he went on and graduated from Harvard. And he was editor of the Harvard Law Review, one of the finest law reviews in the country. He must be an incredibly bright individual; is he not?