Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

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

Mr. GREGG. I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. GREGG. I have to object.

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Wisconsin and my other cosponsors for offering this amendment. This amendment is going to be our best opportunity to put in place long-term, effective budget enforcement mechanisms. There are no significant loopholes in this amendment.

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, what is the status on the time?

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, let me respond quickly to the comments made relative to the technical aspects of the amendment. First, I am impressed that it has received such adulation but so little support. The Senator from New Mexico, whom I immensely respect, said it is a wonderful idea except for a couple little points but he thinks it might be a good marker. The Senator from North Dakota appears to be saying essentially the same thing with a little more intensity. I am glad we have put something out here that appears to be pretty close to what we need. Why do we need it? We need it because without any budget disciplines in place, we will be in serious trouble as we move down the road, as was highlighted by a number of speakers. We need to have something in place that we can look to at least to give us some guidance, some signposts. On the issue of pay-go, obviously you don't need pay-go if you are in surplus. It makes no sense to have pay-go if you are in surplus. In fact, we have shown that every time we have been in surplus, with the last appropriations bill coming out across the floor, we have basically put a hold on or stopped the application of pay-go. This bill makes it very clear. The language says: There shall be no sequestration under this section for any fiscal year in which a surplus exists. It is very specific. There must be a surplus in order for pay-go to be withdrawn. But if there is not a surplus, clearly pay-go exists, and it is available. How do you find out if there is a surplus? You have to have scorekeeping, and that is the way we work around here. We have scorekeeping for lots of spending. Rosy scenarios, I seriously doubt it. In fact, I suspect just the opposite is going to be the case for the next few years. That is a bit of a straw dog. Nobody is projecting any surpluses. I point to the chart of the Senator from North Dakota. He is not projecting any surpluses out there. Nobody else is for the foreseeable future. It is important we have pay-go in place during this period of that red ink. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. GREGG. What is the present status of the time?

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator allow us to close since it is our amendment? I will yield our last 2 minutes to the Senator from Washington.

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive the applicable section of that act for the consideration of the pending Gregg-Feingold amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. GREGG. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Chafee.

Mr. GREGG. I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Feingold, Senator Chafee, Senator Kerry, Senator Voinovich, and Senator McCain. Essentially, this amendment does two things. It reinstitutes the caps and it reinstitutes the pay-go language. It puts back in place budgetary discipline as we move through this process of appropriations bills. Recently, we have seen the budget discipline within the Congress has eroded rather dramatically. We have seen the Agriculture bill and the trade adjustment bill both adding massive new entitlement programs. We know as we look down the road we will have very significant costs in the area of fighting terrorism and in the area of natural defense. It is absolutely critical in this context that we start to put some budget discipline in place. We are facing, regrettably, a deficit, something we hoped would not happen, but it has happened as a result of the economic slowdown and as a result of the effects of terrorism. The deficit is growing rather radically, unfortunately. Our job as legislators is to make sure we do not aggravate that deficit by not being fiscally responsible as we bring forward appropriations bills and other bills which might have entitlement spending included. Unfortunately, the disciplining mechanism which actually exists out there, or has existed for the last 5 or 6 years, is about to lapse; that is, the ability to have a fixed number beyond which if we are going to spend we have to have a supermajority to do that. That is called caps. The second budget discipline, which is pay-go, essentially says if you are going to add a new entitlement program or you are going to cut taxes during a period, especially of deficits, you must offset that event so that it becomes a budget-neutral event that also lapses. This language which Senator Feingold and I have put together and which failed on a very close vote in the Budget Committee, a tie vote, in fact--it would have passed with one more vote--reinstitutes the same traditional approach--so 5-year caps, 5-year pay-go, and, as a result, put in place some discipline. There are some subtleties to our bill about which I want to be open. Some people have looked at them and said they are interested in them and some said they are concerned about them. One is the way we enforce this mechanism by saying the bill which exceeds the caps allocated to it by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the 302(b) allocation, that if a bill exceeds that cap, that bill is subject to a point of order on specific parts of that bill, depending on what part of that bill is unable to be sustained with 60 votes. So it becomes a targeted approach of trying to bring that bill back into proper perspective as far as appropriations and the budget are concerned. Second, the basis for the cap is the Democratic budget proposal as it passed the committee. So the numbers are for the 5 years. Those were the gross numbers. Those numbers are higher than those of the President this year by $9 billion, but over the 5-year period they are actually about the same as the President's number. In fact, I think they are within a couple of billion dollars of each other. As a practical matter, there is a path toward maintaining fiscal responsibility. If we do not do this, if we do not put back in place caps and pay-go mechanisms, we will have no budget discipline in this Congress, and, as a result, we will dramatically aggravate the deficit which, of course, impacts a lot of important issues, but especially impacts Social Security. I hope my colleagues will support this effort. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. GREGG. I yield to the Senator from Washington 1 minute 45 seconds.

Mr. GREGG. I have no personal objection; however, I believe we should consult with the Republican leader, Senator Stevens. At this time, I am constrained to object.

Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. GREGG. I thank the chairman of the committee. I rise in opposition to this amendment which is obviously well intentioned but unfortunately is not affordable at this time, and certainly not on this bill. It is inconsistent with some of what we have already done in the area of summer school education. First, the reason it is inconsistent is that there is no way this bill is going to pass in time for this money to get out for the summer school activities. As a practical matter, although it would be a nice vote and obviously would be politically attractive, its impact on summer school will be negligible, if any at all, because the money simply will not get there. Secondly, it is important to remember that in the ESEA bill, we have given the authority to local school districts to spend title I money for the purposes of summer school, which makes a great deal of sense, and the President has increased funding for title I by $1.6 billion last year and asked for another $1 billion this year. Those are significant dollar increases. If a local school district desires, it can use those moneys for the purpose of extending the school year or aggressively promoting summer school. The money is in place, already appropriated. As a practical matter, it is following a path which we set under ESEA, which was the bill we passed, No Child Left Behind, and is part of that entire package. Although this additional money is certainly well intentioned, I don't see it having much effect because it is not going to get to the schools by this summer because the money will not be available in that timeframe. Secondly, we have already funded these programs through the dramatic increase in title I which has come about as a result of the President's leadership. For that reason, I oppose the amendment. I yield back my time.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of the great town of Dublin, New Hampshire. This year, as our Nation observes the 226th anniversary of our independence, Dublin will celebrate the 250th anniversary of its founding. It is therefore timely and appropriate that we recognize this unique New Hampshire community. Dublin's rich history is closely entwined with that of our country's. Its first settler was William Thornton whose brother, Matthew Thornton, was a delegate to the Continental Congress and one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. In fact, Matthew Thornton, although he never lived there, was one of the original proprietors of what was then called Monadnock No. 3 but soon became known as Dublin after the Irish city. Although the ``winds are often strong.'' as described in the official history of Dublin, the air ``is pure and bracing'' and the location proved to be ideal. By the year 1775, the town's population had rapidly increased to 305 people. Many came from the Colony of Massachusetts seeking greater economic opportunities and were undoubtably drawn by the area's natural beauty, dominated most notably by Mount Monadnock. As our country strived to build a government free of British control, so too did Dublin. In a tradition that continues to this day, the citizens elected Thomas Morse, Henry Strongman and Benjamin Mason to the Town's first Board of Selectmen. Of course, New Englanders, and New Hampshirites in particular, are known for their fierce independence. It is no surprise then that twenty-six Dublin residents fought in the American Revolution. At least four town residents were at the Battle of Bunker Hill--Jonathan Morse, Richard Gilchrist, Thomas Green and John Swan. Richard Gilchrist vividly demonstrated the ideals of courage and honor by carrying upon his back from the field of battle Thomas Green, who had been severely wounded in that fight. Jonathan Morse later served at the battles of Bennington, Ticonderoga and Monmouth. He was later described by a friend as being ``so humane and honest, so rough and ready that, had he lived to this time, he might have been President of the United States.'' I am sure that such a sentiment could describe many other past and present citizens of Dublin. To this day, Dublin continues to be a vibrant community with a population of over 1400 people. Dublin is home to Yankee Magazine, which wonderfully chronicles New England's culture, and the Old Farmers Almanac. As a side note, I would point out that since it was first published in 1792, the Almanac has never given an incorrect weather forecast. Because of how this town perfectly embodies this way of life, it became a well-known summer resort for artists and families from around the country. One of the most famous visitors was Mark Twain who spent the summers of 1905 and 1906 here. His love of the town was clearly evident. His response to a reporter's question that ``Dublin is the one place I have always longed for, but never knew existed in fact till now'' best captures the special feeling Dublin has on those who live there and those who simply pass through its borders. So, on this the 250th anniversary of Dublin, we salute its citizens and honor their accomplishments, their love of country and their overwhelming spirit of independence.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator McCain's legislative fellow, Navy LCDR Paul Gronemeyer, be granted the privilege of the floor during the consideration of the 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, in 1989, President Bush challenged our Nation and our Nation's governors to do two things: first, to develop a strategy to improve our educational system and thereby the academic performance of our Nation's students and second, to work toward the goals that all children would enter school ready to learn. Well, the first part of the challenge was realized with the landmark reforms made earlier this year in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. With its passage, we have taken significant, if not monumental, steps to improve the education of our K-12 students. The second part of the challenge, that all children would enter school ready to learn remains, and has now become, the focus of our attention. The President has taken the first step by launching his ``Good start, Grow Smart'' Early Childhood Initiative. Following the President's lead, Senator Kennedy and I are today introducing the Early Care and Education Act. This legislation will hopefully bring together many of the Federal, State and local efforts already underway in the area of early education. The United States currently invests more than $18 billion per year in early childhood care and education through a variety of Federal, State, and local programs. Unfortunately, we are seeing very mixed results. Many children continue to enter school unprepared to learn, despite our best efforts. And despite this significant current investment of resources, 85 percent of child care is of poor to mediocre quality. This says to me that we need to spend our funds more wisely, and to target them more effectively at what works. That is what the Early Care and Education bill will do. Under ECEA, we will ask states to do seven basic things as a condition for receiving an incentive grant: One, blend and coordinate existing early learning resources; two, identify barriers which prevent them from fully utilizing Federal, State, an local public and private funds for early care and early education; three, promulgate voluntary program guidelines for early care and early education programs in the State; four, develop general goals for school preparedness for children entering kindergarten; five, provide a list of suggested activities for parents and care-givers to offer young children that can improve children's school preparedness; six, establish a workforce development plan that ensures comprehensive training for early childhood education professionals that is linked to a compensation package; and seven, ensure that this training uses curricula that will prepare early childhood professionals to effectively implement curricula identified as scientifically based and effective to prepare young children to succeed in school. Then, to make sure States are actually making measured improvement in attaining their goals and performance measures, we set aside 20 percent of the funds appropriated for bonus grants to high performing states. States that are making measured improvement in improving the competencies of early learning professionals in the state and in the overall school readiness of their kindergartners will be eligible for this bonus, which becomes effective when appropriation levels reach $500 million. This is significant and is somewhat of a departure form what Washington is used to. But we must no longer settle for programs that are untested and unaccountable to the American taxpayer for results. Our children, especially our disadvantaged children deserve better. Under the ECEA, States will have the flexibility to identify, target and fund the most significant needs in their own states. They will be required to recognize and include parents as equal partners in the education of young children and respect the choices parents make to use or not use out-of-home child care or preschool settings. They will be asked to set specific goals for school readiness and workforce improvement and then will be held accountable for reaching them. They will have the assistance of a National Panel of Experts in developing these goals and measures and the resources of the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services who will be required to work together, jointly, to administer this program. The largest investments in child care and early education are scattered throughout these two agencies and it is absolutely essential that they work together to effectively meet the needs of working families and young children. This is unprecedented but it must happen. Let me conclude my saying that I am very excited about this legislation and encouraged by the willingness of members of both sides of the isle to work together for the good of the children to create a system where No Child Will be Left Behind. I am hope that by working together in partnership with parents, and States we will make great strides in preparing our young children for school. I look forward to our continued dialogue on this issue and to moving this legislation through the Congress and to the President.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, in 1989, President Bush challenged our Nation and our Nation's governors to do two things: first, to develop a strategy to improve our educational system and thereby the academic performance of our Nation's students and second, to work toward the goals that all children would enter school ready to learn. Well, the first part of the challenge was realized with the landmark reforms made earlier this year in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. With its passage, we have taken significant, if not monumental, steps to improve the education of our K-12 students. The second part of the challenge, that all children would enter school ready to learn remains, and has now become, the focus of our attention. The President has taken the first step by launching his ``Good start, Grow Smart'' Early Childhood Initiative. Following the President's lead, Senator Kennedy and I are today introducing the Early Care and Education Act. This legislation will hopefully bring together many of the Federal, State and local efforts already underway in the area of early education. The United States currently invests more than $18 billion per year in early childhood care and education through a variety of Federal, State, and local programs. Unfortunately, we are seeing very mixed results. Many children continue to enter school unprepared to learn, despite our best efforts. And despite this significant current investment of resources, 85 percent of child care is of poor to mediocre quality. This says to me that we need to spend our funds more wisely, and to target them more effectively at what works. That is what the Early Care and Education bill will do. Under ECEA, we will ask states to do seven basic things as a condition for receiving an incentive grant: One, blend and coordinate existing early learning resources; two, identify barriers which prevent them from fully utilizing Federal, State, an local public and private funds for early care and early education; three, promulgate voluntary program guidelines for early care and early education programs in the State; four, develop general goals for school preparedness for children entering kindergarten; five, provide a list of suggested activities for parents and care-givers to offer young children that can improve children's school preparedness; six, establish a workforce development plan that ensures comprehensive training for early childhood education professionals that is linked to a compensation package; and seven, ensure that this training uses curricula that will prepare early childhood professionals to effectively implement curricula identified as scientifically based and effective to prepare young children to succeed in school. Then, to make sure States are actually making measured improvement in attaining their goals and performance measures, we set aside 20 percent of the funds appropriated for bonus grants to high performing states. States that are making measured improvement in improving the competencies of early learning professionals in the state and in the overall school readiness of their kindergartners will be eligible for this bonus, which becomes effective when appropriation levels reach $500 million. This is significant and is somewhat of a departure form what Washington is used to. But we must no longer settle for programs that are untested and unaccountable to the American taxpayer for results. Our children, especially our disadvantaged children deserve better. Under the ECEA, States will have the flexibility to identify, target and fund the most significant needs in their own states. They will be required to recognize and include parents as equal partners in the education of young children and respect the choices parents make to use or not use out-of-home child care or preschool settings. They will be asked to set specific goals for school readiness and workforce improvement and then will be held accountable for reaching them. They will have the assistance of a National Panel of Experts in developing these goals and measures and the resources of the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services who will be required to work together, jointly, to administer this program. The largest investments in child care and early education are scattered throughout these two agencies and it is absolutely essential that they work together to effectively meet the needs of working families and young children. This is unprecedented but it must happen. Let me conclude my saying that I am very excited about this legislation and encouraged by the willingness of members of both sides of the isle to work together for the good of the children to create a system where No Child Will be Left Behind. I am hope that by working together in partnership with parents, and States we will make great strides in preparing our young children for school. I look forward to our continued dialogue on this issue and to moving this legislation through the Congress and to the President.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, in a moment, I will yield to Senator Collins. But let me, again, thank the chairman for the expert and professional way in which he handled this bill and moved it through the process. It is not the beginning; it is not the end; it is the middle of the process. But as a result of this bill, we will have put in place the mechanisms to produce the vaccines we need as a nation in order to protect ourselves from some of the most virulent biological agents with which we might be attacked--a very important step. As a result of this bill, we will begin the process of significantly upgrading all the public health capabilities across this Nation, whether it is in large States, small States, large cities, small cities. That is very critical because, as we learned so well in the instance of 9-11, the public health capability of dealing with a crisis is one of the core elements of the first responder, the first line of defense when it comes to a situation resulting from someone attacking our Nation, especially with a biological or chemical agent. So these two basic streams of effort, which are the core of this bill--the bill has a lot more in it, but that is the core of this bill--are going to make, I believe, a dramatic and significant difference in our capabilities as a nation to handle the threat which we, regrettably, confront now of someone using a biological or chemical agent against us as a nation. Mr. President, I yield up to 5 minutes, if she wishes it, if I have it, to the Senator from Maine.

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

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. GREGG. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Texas.