Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. GREGG. I am going to send it up in a little while, Mr. President. To show the difference in its importance in the two different administrations and the impact it has on the special education community in America, when President Bush came into office he did not suggest a zero increase, as President Clinton had in 1999. In the year 2000, he suggested a $1 billion increase. That $1 billion increase was in his first budget. He followed it up with another $1 billion increase in his second budget. So now he was up $2 billion. And then, in the year 2003, he has added another $1 billion increase. So he is now up $3 billion in 3 years, which is a 30-percent increase in just 3 years-- just in 3 years--over the funding baseline of special education. So the commitment from this administration has been there and at a level which is historic and has had a dramatic impact in the funding needs of the special education children of America. The practical implication is that the Federal Government's role has now gone from about a 6-percent commitment to special education to around 20 percent. It is a huge increase, a dramatic increase, and it is on a rising path to full funding if we can get the cost of special education under control, which brings me to the second point. We are now in the process of trying to reauthorize the special education bill within the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. There are a lot of issues involving special education that do not involve funding; issues such as discipline, in which the Senator from Alabama has been involved; issues such as excessive regulation; issues such as too many consultants, too many lawyers taking money out of the system instead of having it go to the kids. The fact is that the system has become convoluted, officious, and bureaucratic. It needs to be adjusted, and it needs to be improved so we are getting the money back to the children who need the assistance as special needs children. So reauthorization is very important in this whole context of what we do. It is really difficult to continue to put money into the program at these huge increased rates without doing reauthorization. Why is that? Because it is like the goalposts keep moving every year. We have seen, unfortunately, in some areas excessive coding, where kids who should not end up with the stigma of special needs end up being stigmatized as special needs children simply because the school system wants to get more money out of the special education accounts. That is not right and not appropriate, and it undermines the ability to help the kids who really need the assistance. So we need to reauthorize this bill to get some controls back in place over how many children really are special needs children and make sure those kids who really are special needs children get the assistance they need, which brings us back to this amendment. This amendment is well intentioned. I am in favor, as I have said before on this floor, of doing proper prioritization, of saying: What is it the Federal Government should be doing today? In what areas should the Federal Government be putting its resources? The No. 1 area, obviously, is fighting terrorism, protecting the homeland, of making an aggressive effort in this area. Certainly the Senator from Maryland, who is seeking the floor, has been a leader in this effort. But the fact is, after we get into dealing with terrorism, the next area that I think is most important is education. I think the Federal commitment to education is critical. That is why I was a strong supporter, last week, of an amendment which came to the floor which said we are going to put $5 billion more into education, No Child Left Behind proposals, title I, but in doing that we have to be willing to prioritize. We have to be willing to recognize that this country--our Federal Government--is now spending more than it is taking in. We have to be willing to set a ceiling as to how much we can afford to spend and then live within that ceiling. But within that ceiling we need to make priorities back and forth between what are the right programs, what programs should get more money, what programs should get less money. We did that last week when we adopted the amendment which said we are going to increase title I funding, funding for the education of low-income kids, by $5 billion but, in exchange for that, we are going to make an across-the-board cut. The Senator from Connecticut has come forward with this amendment to jump, by another $1.5 billion, the funding that is already going into special education. I am supportive of that, but, in the context of allocating resources fairly, of saying, if we are going to make that type of decision, that is a priority, and we have to reduce somewhere else. So what I am offering today, and what I will send to the desk, at the request of the Presiding Officer, is an amendment which says, let's put in the $1.5 billion in special education, but also have a cut across the board so we stay within this $750 billion number, which is the amount of money which we have all agreed to pretty much is a reasonable number to spend as the Federal Government in the year 2003. This $750 billion was not pulled out of a hat. It was aggressively negotiated between both sides of the aisle and the White House. Prior to the Republicans taking back the Senate, it was actually agreed to as the number we would reach in a bipartisan way. Now it seems to be eroding with some of the amendments that are being brought forward. But as a practical matter, it is the right number for us, as a Congress, to say: This is what we can afford to spend in the year 2003. But that does not mean that within that $750 billion we cannot make different priorities on the floor of the Senate. I happen to think one of those priorities should be special education. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment and ask that it be reported.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, Senator Dodd has offered an amendment which increases special education funding by $1.5 billion. As an individual who has spent a tremendous amount of time, after being elected to this Senate, trying to bring special education funding in line with what the obligation of the Federal Government is supposed to be pursuant to the 1976 bill, I like the idea of increasing special education funding and, in fact, have driven the effort here in the Senate for many years to try to do exactly that, increase special education funding. When special education was originally proposed, as has been mentioned, the understanding was that the Federal Government would pay about 40 percent of the cost. Unfortunately, when I was first elected to Congress, the Federal Government was only paying about 6 percent of the cost of special education. But I think it is important to review the history to determine where we are and how we have gotten there relative to increases in special education funding because the increases have been rather dramatic over the last few years. In fact, as a result of the commitment of the Republican Senate, when we had control of the Senate back in the 1990s--and now with President Bush-- we are seeing the most significant increases in special education funding in the history of the program. Special education funding, as a function of the Federal Government, has increased faster than any other funding element within the Federal Government on a percentage basis. So let's review the history. When the Republicans took control of the Senate in 1996, we made S. 1 the first bill introduced by the new Republican Senate. S. 1 called for significant increases in special education funding. As a result, we have dramatically increased special education funding every year. That is as a result of the Congress's effort, and now the President's effort, to the point where we are up to, this year, $7.5 billion in 2002. It will be $8.5 billion in 2003. It will be $9.5 billion in 2004 if we follow the President's proposals. This is an important factor because this funding commitment was made by the Republican Congress, not by the prior administration. During President Clinton's term in office, his proposed special education budget increases were essentially nonexistent. In the year 1997, he proposed a $280 million increase. In the year 1998, he proposed a $139 million increase. In the year 1999, he proposed a zero increase in special education funding. In the year 2000, he proposed a zero increase in special education funding. But during this exact period, special education funding went up, as I mentioned, rather dramatically. Why? Because the Republican Members of the Senate insisted upon it. We put it in our budget resolutions. We passed it out of our budget resolutions. And as a result, we dramatically increased funding in the special education accounts. There has been a 224-percent increase in special education funding since 1996. Then President Bush came into office. And to show the difference in priorities from one administration to another administration, to show the importance----

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I believe we are in a position to enter into a unanimous consent agreement relative to the Dodd amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the pending Dodd amendment be temporarily set aside and that I be recognized in order to offer a first-degree amendment relating to the same subject matter; provided that there be 60 minutes of total debate to be equally divided between Senator Gregg and Senator Dodd or their designees; provided, further, that following the use or yielding back of time, the amendments be temporarily set aside, with no amendments in order to either amendment prior to the vote; finally, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate votes in relation to these amendments, the first vote in order be in relation to the Gregg amendment.

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

Mr. GREGG. I would like to get back to getting the floor at a reasonable point of time. I suggest at 2 o'clock I be recognized to offer my amendment.

Mr. GREGG. I suggest after Senator Reed completes the presentation of his amendment, we go back to the Dodd amendment. Hopefully, I can lay down my amendment and spend up to an hour, equally divided, on it at that point and proceed to the next item of business.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, how much time does Senator Reed require?

Mr. GREGG. I suggest, if the Democrat assistant leader is so inclined, we now have a vote at 5:15. Why not begin at what time before that?

Mr. GREGG. That would be reasonable. Assuming all debate on the amendment of Senator Dodd--that there is no further amendment, with debate going forward until that time.

Mr. GREGG. That is correct.

Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object, I regret I have to object to this until we can clarify where we stand vis-a-vis this amendment.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to compliment the Chairman of the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee Senator Bond and the Ranking Member Senator Mikulski on an excellent job of balancing all the very important programs in the VA-HUD Appropriations bill, included as part of the omnibus bill now pending before the body. I know the spending limitations imposed on the Subcommittee do not permit the chairman and other members of the Subcommittee to address each and every issue as fully as they would like to but nonetheless the chairman has achieved a balanced and good result. Earlier this year, I contacted the subcommittee to express the view that the Veterans Health Administration be as proactive as possible to help ensure that disabled veterans have the most advanced prosthetic and sensory aids devices made available to them, as would be medically appropriate. In this regard, I was pleased to see that the committee approved the administration's fiscal year 2003 budget request for $739.1 million for prosthetic and sensory aids devices providing an increase of $60.3 million over the last year. One of the exciting new prosthetic and sensory aids devices known as the iBOT was invented in my home State of New Hampshire. It is a mobility device that climbs stairs, traverses all terrain and balances the seated user at standing eye-level. It would be my view that some portion, at least one percent, of the approximately 25,000 veterans with service connected spinal cord injuries should have access to this advanced mobility device. In fact, at the request of Congress, the VHA conducted a study of this mobility device last year that concluded with the finding that ``the subjects were unanimous in their recommendations that the Veterans Health Administration should provide iBOTs to veterans''--and that--``the iBOT could improve integration and work performance.'' Additionally, as Secretary Principi has established a priority of ``restoring the capability of disabled veterans to the extent possible'' it is my expectation that such devices will be actively considered and provided to disabled veterans as medically appropriate.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I thank my friends from California, Arizona, and New York for their efforts in relieving the burden of illegal immigration on our State and local governments. I know that they have been tireless in their efforts to secure both an end to illegal immigration and to ensure that the Federal Government assume a share of the financial responsibility for its inability to control illegal immigration. I know, as well, Mr. President, that my colleagues from California and Arizona were among the principal authors of the SCAAP Program when it was created by the 1994 crime bill, and that they both worked very hard to help secure the $565 million which was appropriated last year. They have also worked to ensure that the program remains authorized over the next 2 fiscal years. Knowing of the great need for adequate funding for SCAAP, I assure the Senators that I will make it a high priority during the conference between the House and Senate.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. First off, let's remember we have dramatically increased the money in this bill by $2 billion which is going back to the local police forces in this country. That is $2 billion. The Byrne program is a good program, but it is a program that buys lights and cars. It is a program that is used for basically the day-to-day operation of the police forces, and that makes sense when we can afford it. This bill is structured in a way so that we can stay at the seven- fifty level. We expect the Byrne money to come back into this out of conference. But as a practical matter, to get to the seven-fifty level, we thought it was more important to put $2 billion of new money into the police agencies where they needed it, which is in the area of supporting their efforts to fight terrorism. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. GREGG. If the Chair would advise me when I have reached a minute, then I will yield to the chairman of the committee, the President pro tempore.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, what is the remaining time?

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, although I do not believe it is stated, I believe it is the proper protocol for me to go first. The amendment is different from the one that was just passed. I think it was a good decision by the Chamber to pass the one that was just passed. The way the Kennedy amendment differs is, first, it costs more money; but, second, it is not paid for; and, third, it comes with strings. Obviously, in a time of fiscal discipline, under which we should be functioning, it is inappropriate to be passing plus-up amendments without paying for them. This amendment would take us over the $750 billion number, which is the number at which the President has requested us to stay. Regrettably, we do not have a budget resolution. We should have a budget resolution, but no budget resolution was brought to the floor of the Senate under the leadership of the other party during the 107th Congress in the second session. Therefore, we have to sort of self- discipline around here. We have just done that by passing the amendment I have offered. We will not do it if we pass the amendment the Senator from Massachusetts offers. I yield my time.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, it was 2 minutes equally divided.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, let us return to the amendments. The amendment I put forward is a $5 billion increase in educational funding. It is a process of funding, however, that sends the money back to the States without strings, gives them the flexibility they need to meet the obligations of the No Child Left Behind legislation. It addresses many of the concerns we are hearing from our local educators and our communities about whether they are going to have adequate funds and whether those funds are going to be free enough for them to accomplish what they need to do to bring these children up to speed and educated. It is a paid-for amendment. That is probably the most significant difference. This is a paid-for amendment, and in a time of deficits, in a time of economic concern, in a time of war, we need to be setting priorities and be willing to pay for them and make the tough decisions on those priorities, and this amendment does that. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. GREGG. Does the Senator from Massachusetts retain any time?

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

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes for debate equally divided prior to the beginning of the second vote on the Kennedy amendment.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, first, let me state I greatly admire the Senator from Pennsylvania, who has done an extraordinary job of attempting to fund some very complicated issues, with lots of different priorities. He has driven increases in special ed funding and has been a huge player in title I and many other positive efforts as ranking member and chairman of the subcommittee. I congratulate him. I am always happy to be the more rational of the irrational. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum.