Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I want to take a brief moment to speak about one element of the education issue which as we move towards the debate on the education bill will be discussed at considerable length in this Chamber. I want to lay out a predicate for this discussion. That involves the issue of what I call portability, or choice. Some have tried to place on it the nomenclature of vouchers, which really isn't accurate. But the issue is giving parents options in the educational system to assist them in ensuring that their children get an education which is of benefit to them and allows them to be competitive in our society. I think we all understand that the core element of success in our society is quality education. We especially understand that in New Jersey where we don't have a natural resource to mine or agricultural products. We don't have some unique physical characteristic that gives us the ability to create income as a result of that characteristic. The essence of what gives our State its competitive advantage is the fact that we have a lot of people who are well-educated, intelligent, and are able to compete successfully in a very highly technical society. That is a definition that can be applied to our country as we see a global market develop in all sorts of commodities. It becomes very clear that the theories of Adam Smith apply in our society and in our world today. There are certain products and certain capabilities which one society is better at than other societies. Fortunately, our society is best at those activities which produce the most wealth and the most prosperity. A large percentage of those products and capabilities involve technology. They involve intellectual capacity, and they require a strong education system to succeed. Regrettably, what we have seen in our society today is an educational system that has not kept up with the needs of our Nation. In fact, tens of thousands--literally hundreds of thousands--of kids in our educational system simply aren't being educated at a level which makes them competitive in this high-technology world. It makes them capable of being successful, which means when they leave school they have the capacity to compete with their peers in English and math and basic science. We have seen this regrettably for years and years. The situation hasn't improved a whole lot. In fact, we see in study after study the conclusion that our school systems aren't working that well in many parts of our country; that we are well behind other nations which we are competitors with in the international community in the industrialized world. We rank close to last in math and science. It is especially true of kids who come to the table of education who have a natural disadvantage of coming from a low-income background. Those kids are even further behind than kids who do not have that disadvantage coming to the educational table. In fact, as I commented in this Chamber before, the average child in the fourth grade coming from a low-income background reads at two grade levels from his or her peers. The same is true nationally. It is throughout the system. It is not just fourth grade. We have seen the dropout rate. We see the lack of capacity to be competitive academically on the low-income side, and especially the minority side in our urban areas is a staggering problem. It hasn't improved even though we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars in this country trying to improve the system. What can we do to change that? We are bringing out an educational bill on the floor with amendments to address a number of areas, and it has some very unique and creative initiatives. The President made it his No. 1 priority. He brought forward the debate and I think moved the debate dramatically down the road or significantly down the road towards trying to get a different approach to this issue, recognizing that we have not been successful with the way things have been working for the last 20 or 30 years. He has suggested that we give schools more flexibility, but in exchange for flexibility for parents, teachers and principals in the school system require more accountability, and that we hold that accountability to be applied not only to the norm but to every individual group within the norm, whatever their ethnic, race, or income background. It is basically a testing program that requires kids maintain that level of proficiency in their grade level. But what happens when you see a school system which continues to fail year in and year out? You may say: Who defines failure? The Federal Government? No. Failure is defined by the local school district or the State school board deciding what a child should know in the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth grades. It is not the Federal Government setting the standard. It is the local school boards. But we know literally thousands of schools in this country year in and year out meet the standards when it comes to teachers teaching kids in those school districts and those school buildings--standards which are set up not by the Federal Government but are set up by the local school districts or by the States. Literally thousands of schools are not cutting it this year. They have not cut it for years in sequence. In some of our urban areas, 80 or 90 percent of the schools simply are not teaching the children in those school systems at a level that the local school district or the local school board or State school board defines as educational proficiency. A parent who has to send their child to that school says to themselves: What am I to do? My child started in this school in the first grade and the school was failing. Now my child is in the fifth or sixth or seventh grade and the school is still failing. My child has passed through a system which simply wasn't teaching them what they were supposed to be taught, and everyone knew that child wasn't learning what they needed to learn. What can the parent do under our present rules? The parent can do virtually nothing to try to help their child unless they happen to come from a reasonably high-income family. Then they can take the child out of school, or even a moderate-income family if they have a Catholic school system somewhere or a religious school system somewhere that has a low cost and have their child go to that school. But for most low- income families in our urban communities, their options are nonexistent. If you are the single mother with two or three kids, or even one child, and your child is trapped in that school system, you are saying to yourself: How is my child ever going to have the knowledge they need in order to be successful? How am I going to get my child to a point where they can read and do math, where they can step out of that school and get a good job, and where they aren't going to be assigned to a situation where they cannot compete in our society because they haven't been taught? That single mother's options are nonexistent today. Some of us on our side of the aisle, and a few on the other side of the aisle, have suggested giving parents some options. Let's say to a parent whose child is locked in the school that has failed year in and year out--we are not talking about all parents. We are just talking about parents in low-income families, and single moms trying to make a living. They have a job. They are sending their kids to school. Their kids are in a school that doesn't work. Let's say to those parents that we have some other options. After 3 years in that school system that has failed, the parent will have an option to use the special money which the Federal Government sends to that school system to benefit low-income children, which obviously isn't doing any benefit. You, the parent, will have the ability to take a proportion of that money and have it follow your child to another school, either a public school or a private school, where your child will have a chance to succeed. Your child will have a chance to participate in the American dream rather than to be locked out of it because they are in a school that does not work. This concept has been demonized. This concept has been vilified. This concept has been aggressively attacked, primarily by the liberal educational establishment in this country, essentially the leadership of the labor unions. Why is that? This concept of giving parents whose kids are stuck in failing schools--low-income parents, most of them single parents, most of them women--an option to do something to try to bring their kids out of that destitute situation, why has it been so attacked by the major labor union movement in this country which controls the teachers' unions? Primarily because it is the first step to what is known as competition. Competition is an evil term when it comes to the liberal educational establishment in this country. I am not really sure why it is an evil term. If you go out to buy a car, you decide on buying that car because there is competition. Competition has produced the one car that does a better job of what you are interested in than what somebody else has built. You buy a Ford over a Chevrolet or a Chrysler over a Chevrolet or maybe a Chevrolet over a Chrysler because you decide they build a better product that meets your needs more appropriately. Competition has been the essence of what has produced quality in the area of products in our country. They will say, this is not a Chevrolet; it is education. No, it is not a Chevrolet. This isn't cars. This is service. In the area of service you do exactly the same thing. If you have a doctor who you think is not taking care of you or your family correctly, you go to another doctor. If you have a dentist who is not taking care of you correctly--maybe he drilled into your tooth and did not give you any novocaine which caused you a little pain--you go to another dentist. For service providers, the same is true right across the board in our country. The only place where service isn't provided in a competitive way in our society with any significance, outside of pure Government is in public education. As a result, regrettably, when a child is locked in a failing school, the parent has no options. That is not fair. It is not fair to that child. It is especially not fair to the low-income parent in America. It is not fair to the urban poor in America that their children are the only children who are subjected to this lack of ability to have a chance at the American dream because we have a society which demands that they attend a school that fails year in and year out. So we have suggested, let's give these parents and these kids a chance. Let's take a small percentage of the funds and allow the parent to use those funds to bootstrap that child into some other educational venue where they think they can do a better job, where the parent thinks they can do a better job. It can be a public school or it can be a private school. This is an idea that has caused great disruption obviously in the educational community. But let me point out it is working today with State and local dollars. It is working in the city of Milwaukee and in the State of Arizona. They allow the State tax dollars and the local tax dollars to follow the child to the educational venue, the educational place they wish to go. It works very well. Listen to the mayor of Milwaukee, who happens to be a very active Democrat, and he proselytizes on this issue about how good it has been for the kids in the inner city, to give them a chance to be more successful, a chance to live the American dream. Remember, we are not proposing--and this is critical to understand--a unilateral Federal program that comes into the State, comes into the community, and says: You must allow the parent to have portability, to have those dollars follow the child. What we are saying is this: We are going to put on the cafeteria line of Federal programs an idea. You, the local school district, you, the State, if you decide to, through your elected officials--and it is key to underline that; through your elected officials--can take off that cafeteria line the idea of portability, having the dollars follow the child. So it is going to be a program which is totally controlled by publicly elected officials. It will be only at the discretion of publicly elected officials who control the public educational system. So if the public education system in Milwaukee wants to use the Wisconsin dollars and the Milwaukee dollars, and then wants to also use the Federal dollars, they can do that. But if the public education system in Chicago does not want to use Federal dollars or local dollars or State dollars in order to give parents the option, then it will not happen. This is not a unilateral exercise. This is an exercise which is related to the local community making the decision, through its locally elected officials, who control local education. So it is not some huge scheme that is going to be settled on the community from above. Why shouldn't we say to the city of Milwaukee: All right, you have a program that you think is working very well. You are taking your State tax dollars, you are taking your local property tax dollars, and you have set up a program where those dollars follow the child. But, unfortunately, you, Milwaukee, today, under our law today, cannot take Federal dollars and follow the child. Your Federal dollars have to go to the public school system. They have to go to the public schools, and it is not in relation to how many low-income kids there are in the schools--and there can be some low-income kids who do not get any dollars for education--but, rather, it is in relationship to some arbitrary formula settled back in 1976 that simply happens to be a formula based on political expediency today. Why shouldn't we say to Milwaukee: We are not going to do that any longer, Milwaukee. You have made a decision as to how you think you can educate your children. We are going to let the Federal dollars follow the local and State dollars. Specifically, in Milwaukee, if you decide to do it, we are going to allow you to use these dollars with portability, so the parents can have options; the same with Arizona. That is what we are proposing. It is really not radical at all. It is not a Federal initiative demanding we have a national program on ``vouchers,'' a word that has been made a pejorative term. It is a program that suggests that local communities and States may decide that parents, who have their kids in failing schools, where those schools have failed year in and year out, can do something for their children that will create some competition in the educational market, something which is fundamental to the American society in producing quality. It is a program that suggests that those school districts which have made those decisions locally or statewide, through their elected leaders, will have the option, with our Federal dollars, to do the same. That idea has retained huge resistance; the resistance isn't rational. The resistance is political. It is driven by a desire basically not to allow competition, not to allow creativity in our local school districts, but to drive the process of education from Washington, so that an elite few can decide for many how education is pursued nationally. We are going to discuss this at greater length as we move down the road on the education bill. But I thought it would be appropriate at this time to at least lay down the foundation for the predicate of the debate because it is grossly misrepresented in the press, not because the press does not understand the issue but because the presenters to the press maybe want to misrepresent. I believe it is appropriate to maybe begin to make clear for the record what is being proposed. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GREGG

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

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I wish to speak in morning business on the issue of education, which the Senate will take up over the next few weeks. There has been a considerable amount of discussion on this issue within the Senate membership but even more discussion within the populace in general. The President ran for election on the issue of education and how he intended to address that issue. In fact, he considered this to be the primary issue before us as a nation--the fact that he wants an educational system which leaves no child behind. This is a goal that is laudable and which all of us should pursue. So the matter is now coming to the Senate. We have in the committee on which I serve--the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee-- been able to produce a bill which came out of committee 20-0, a bipartisan bill, to try to move the issue of education along in a positive way--the Federal policy on education. There is still much to do and, therefore, as we in this body take up the debate on the education policy during this week, there will be a considerable discussion of points that were left out of the bill as it came out of committee. I think it is important to note, as we address the issue of education, that the Federal role in education is narrow. Most elementary and secondary education issues are addressed at the local level. Madam President, the Duke University basketball team is a group of young men who reflect the type of athletes, sportsmen, and good citizens to which citizens of this Nation should strive. I congratulate the leadership of Duke University for producing a basketball program that excels not only in athletic ability but as a role model for our youth and our Nation. It is very appropriate that before an education speech we should have the opportunity to meet these fine young men who set such a good example for kids across America. The majority of funds that are spent on education are controlled at the local level. Approximately 93 percent of the funding for elementary and secondary school education comes from the local school districts or the States. The Federal role in elementary and secondary school education is really quite narrow and is focused on two basic themes: One, making sure, for kids with special needs, special ed programs are funded; and two, making sure that children who come from low-income families have an equal opportunity to succeed as children who come from families who are better off. For the last 25 years, we have pursued both these goals: special education and the education of low-income children. Unfortunately, both of these Federal programs have fairly significant flaws. In the special education area, the Federal Government has failed to live up to the obligation of funding the full share of special education. Originally, the Federal Government said it would pick up 40 percent of the cost of special education. Unfortunately, as of 4 years ago, the Federal Government was only picking up 6 percent of the cost. Due to a concerted effort by myself, quite honestly, and a number of others on our side of the aisle, the majority leader, chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee, Chairman Specter, and chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Chairman Jeffords, we took on the issue of funding special education. We have dramatically increased funding--2\1/2\ times. We are now up to funding, if we accept the President's budget, almost 20 percent of the needs of special education. In fact, President Bush has proposed the single largest increase in special education funding ever proposed by a President in the history of this country. At least we are trying to address that issue. The bill that will come to the floor later this week addresses the needs of kids from lower income families. In this area, regrettably, although the Federal Government has chosen to step on the ground in its responsibility, it has done a poor job of pursuing this responsibility. This program was begun 35 years ago. It is called title I. It helps kids with lower incomes get the same education as their peers. We have spent $120 billion on this program over its life. The vast majority of the spending has occurred since 1990. What have been the results? The results have been that the educational achievement of low-income kids has actually gone down or, at best, has remained stagnant. The average fourth grader today from a low-income family reads at two grade levels lower than his or her peers in that same classroom. The graduation rate, the dropout rate, and the level of academic ability of kids from low-income families in each grade level have been falling back. We have left a lot of children behind even though we spent $120 billion. We have proved unalterably that money cannot solve the problem. If it could solve the problem, it would have significantly improved or we could have at least seen a marginal improvement in academic achievement. The President of the United States, President Bush, came into office saying he would change this. He has put forward a series of proposals, the purpose of which is to fundamentally adjust the Federal role as we pursue the improvement of education of low-income kids. It has four basic themes: First, we will change the Federal role so we don't focus on the bureaucracy; we don't focus on the structure; we don't focus on the administration; rather, we focus on the child. That may seem logical. One may ask, aren't we already doing that? No, the money today does not flow to the child. The money flows to the school system and the bureaucracy. The President said let's look at the child and make our program child centered. The second thing stressed by this administration and by those on this side of the aisle is, let's give the local school districts, the parents, the teachers, and the principals, flexibility when they get Federal funds. Today and, unfortunately, for a number of years, the Federal Government, especially the Congress, has believed it knows best how to educate the child in Epping, NH, or Tuscaloosa, AL, or in Cheyenne, WY. Even though we have never met the children--at least I haven't met the ones in Cheyenne or Tuscaloosa--we know best how to educate them, so we have attached innumerable strings to the dollars we have sent out for the purpose of helping the low-income children get better educated. We have had program after program that has been categorical; it specifically says what the money should be spent for, who gets it, when they get it, and where they get it. The amount of bureaucracy behind the Federal dollars is absolutely staggering. Some States spend almost two-thirds of their time complying with Federal regulations, which represents 7 percent of their actual spending. As a result, we have created a bureaucratic maze of disproportionate complexity. We have strings running out from the desks that intertwine, and we are pulling the strings as they attach to the people who try to teach the kids in the local school districts. The President has said: Let's cut the strings. We have said on this side: Let's cut those strings. Send the money back to the local school districts. Acknowledge the fact that parents, teachers, and principals have as much or more knowledge of how to educate the local child in their school system than we do. Let's give them credibility for being concerned about their kids--something this Congress over the years has not been willing to acknowledge. The money will come back in a flexible form. That is a proposal the President has suggested. The first proposal is that it be child centered. The second proposal is that the money be flexible. The third proposal is, in exchange for this new flexibility, in exchange for getting the money with very few strings attached, we are going to ask for one thing. We are going to ask that the children learn, that they have academic achievement levels which reach and exceed, hopefully, their peers, that low-income kids are not left behind in the academic world. That is what we will ask. Instead of controlling all the input and instead of controlling the way the money goes in and how it is spent, we will say, you can take the money, but in exchange for taking the money, you have to make sure the children learn; you have to make them academically capable of competing in the world so they have a prosperous life. Academic achievement is what we are going to request. The fourth item is an accountability system so we can be assured that there is academic achievement. We are no longer going to allow a system to take the low-income child, and especially the minority child, merge them with a peer group of children in the classroom, have the group achieve an average score that is acceptable, and say everybody in that classroom is learning. We know that by not doing it that way you end up with a lot of problems being masked by the majority. So we are going to require disaggregation. We are going to say for different ethnic groups, different racial groups, different income groups, explain whether or not those kids are learning, along with the whole group in the classroom. We are going to put in place a testing regime developed at the local level, designed at the local level, which simply says, OK, local school system, decide what a third grader should know, what a fifth grader should know, what a sixth grader should know. Once you decide what that third, fifth, or sixth grader should know in math or English, then make sure the kids actually know that. We are not going to tell them what they should know; we are not going to tell them what the standard should be. We are going to say, after you set the standards, we will expect all the kids in that classroom to achieve at the level that meets that standard. That is the system being proposed--four new proposals, four new concepts which merge together to, hopefully, create a system where no child will be left behind: One, that it is child centered; two, that there is flexibility; three, that there is academic achievement; and four, that there is accountability. As we move forward with the debate on this bill, there are going to be a lot of major issues as to how we accomplish those goals. The jury is still out. There are ways this bill could be amended on this floor which would make it hard for me to support, although it came out of the committee 20-0. But there is good intention, I believe. There is a desire to reach a bipartisan agreement and move it forward. That is reflected not only in the committee bill but in the fact that over the last month we have been negotiating, in a very conscientious effort, to reach agreement on some of the more difficult issues of policy and the most difficult issue of money. As we go forward in this debate, I hope we understand that we are not going to be able to change the educational system for everyone in this country. That is not our role. It is the local school district and the States that control local education, primarily. We do have an obligation to do a much better job for low-income kids. We have extended into this issue. We have spent $120 billion of American taxpayers' hard-earned income, and we have produced very weak results. It is time for a change. It is time to recognize that we need to take a different approach to help ensure that the low-income child is not left behind. So we have come up with some creative ideas, and we are going to try to pass them. We are going to try to pass them in a bipartisan way. Then we are going to hope they will be used in the system to produce a much better result for a large percentage of our students who, up until now, have been left behind. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

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

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Like your State of South Dakota, New Hampshire is currently plagued by low Medicaid reimbursement rates. Skilled nursing facilities caring for our frail and elderly are expected to take this meager reimbursement rate and provide 24-hour care, room, board, meals, and some therapies--and of course, nursing salaries come out of this cost as well. So it is no surprise that the average Certified Nurse Assistant turnover rate is approximately 80 percent. In New Hampshire, the livable wage for a single parent with two kids is $18.92 an hour. The average starting salary of a Certified Nursing Assistant starts at $8.50 an hour, and the average salary is $10.26. Skilled nursing facilities in our state have their hands tied over how much they can pay due to low reimbursement rates. We simply must invest in the care of our frail and elderly. I hope Congress will address this problem of long term care staffing shortage. restrictions on advance appropriations

Mr. GREGG. We have similar problems in New Hampshire, and I agree with my colleague that we have a shortage of trained health care workers, particularly those providing services to our nation's elderly. If this problem is not addressed, the viability of our nation's entire health care system will be threatened.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I understand that. I guess my question is, Hasn't the Chair, in fact, ruled on this issue? Is it not the precedent of the Senate, as defined by this language at least, which is fairly clear?

Mr. GREGG. In reviewing the Record of the Senate, I noted that when the ruling was made in 1996, the question asked by Senator Daschle to the Chair was: Is it the opinion of the Chair that this resolution would continue to be a budget resolution if it directed the creation of that third reconciliation bill--the one that solely worsens the deficit-- And I underline and emphasize those words, ``the one that solely worsens the deficit''-- Even under circumstances when the Congress had failed to enact the prior two reconciliation bills. And the Chair ruled: If the Senator's question is, can the budget resolution direct the creation of a reconciliation bill which lowers revenues, the answer is yes. Can this language be any clearer, I would ask the chairman of the Budget Committee, that the Chair has ruled that reconciliation can be used to reduce taxes even if it worsens a deficit and therefore is not a deficit issue?

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for another question?

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. GREGG. At the same time, the Senator from West Virginia argued reconciliation was an inherently inappropriate concept because it cut off debate here in the Senate and therefore it was inappropriate in the sense that it limited the ability of this Senate to exercise its due privileges on an issue. Aren't those two arguments inconsistent: To say that reconciliation could be used in one instance, no matter what the instance is, but, on the other side, it is inappropriate to use reconciliation at any time because of the nature of the Senate and its need to have debates?

Mr. GREGG. In listening to the presentation of the Senator from West Virginia, as I understood it, the Senator from West Virginia was essentially saying you could use the reconciliation for the purposes of raising taxes in order to reduce the deficit but you cannot use it for the purposes of cutting taxes that do not involve addressing a deficit.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Mexico yield for a question?

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator from North Dakota yield for a question?

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I will yield to the Senator from New Mexico. Let me complete this thought. It is so important I have to complete it. The practical implication of the Harkin-Wellstone amendment is this: The American taxpayers will have to be taxed further to pay down debt which isn't available to be bought back today because it is not retireable. So we end up, instead of saving money, costing the taxpayers money by doing it this way. That half of the Wellstone-Harkin amendment makes no sense on its face. I yield to the chairman of the committee.

Mr. GREGG. I am happy to yield when I finish my statement.

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I may consume off the resolution. The amendment offered by Senator Harkin and Senator Wellstone has a number of facets to it. The first, of course, is it reduces the tax cut as proposed by the President by $450 billion over 10 years. That means it is taking money out of the taxpayers' pockets and putting that money somewhere in the Federal bureaucracy. One of the priorities that has been set out is a desire to take from the taxpayers money the Federal Government does not actually need because the Federal Government is running a rather dramatic surplus, $5.6 trillion over the next 10 years. The first priority the Senators laid out is education. The second priority is debt reduction. It takes $450 billion. It takes $225 billion of that and applies it to what they claim to be debt reduction as the first element. We need to understand that under the President's proposal, all the debt that can be paid down is being paid down. President Clinton, before he left office, sent us a budget submission which told us how much the nonmarketable debt was, debt which could not be bought down by the Federal Government over the next 10 years. I have a chart that reflects that number. President Clinton said that number was $1.2 trillion. That is debt that cannot be retired over the next 10 years. We are talking about public debt. President Bush has suggested that the nonretireable debt is $1.15 trillion. Those two numbers are important because President Bush reduces the retireable debt the maximum amount it can be reduced. In other words, he reduces it down to the $1.158 trillion. There is not any more debt that can be bought. We cannot go into the marketplace and buy more debt unless we are willing to pay a very significant premium. The practical implication of the Harkin-Wellstone amendment is that they want to pay a higher premium to buy back debt than would have to be paid by the American taxpayers if it were purchased in the regular order of events. To accomplish the goals of the Harkin-Wellstone amendment, we would have to, as a Government, take Federal tax dollars and say to people who own American debt: We are going to pay you a premium to buy it back; we are not going to retire it in the regular order of events; we are actually going to require or we are going to ask you to pay it back to us, and because you do not have to pay it back to us and you may not want to pay it back to us, we are going to give you a premium. We end up spending more money than is required to pay down that debt. That makes no sense at all. What the President has proposed is that we pay down the maximum amount of debt that can be paid down over this period. He has proposed buying back more debt faster than at any other time in history. This is a very significant point because there has been a lot of debate about this in this body over the last few months as to how much debt can be paid down. The problem is there does not seem to be an agreement on this point. However, if we look at the numbers, we can conclude pretty clearly that the President has chosen a reasonable figure. Why is that? These are the types of debt, if we were to buy them down today, on which we would have to pay a premium. The first is coupon issues, and that is $670 billion. The second is inflation-indexed issues, and that is $113 billion. The third is savings bonds, and that is $170 billion. Then comes State and local government series; that is $86 billion; bonds backing up emerging markets, the Brady bonds, $19 billion; and bonds issued as part of the S&L cleanup is $30 billion, and other bonds that are nonretireable at $63 billion, adding to $15 billion. This was not a number the President picked out of the air. It is tied to specific obligations of the Federal Government which have been determined to not be retireable. The practical effect is you cannot get below that number when you are buying back debt. The Harkin-Wellstone amendment has proposed we go below that number; that we take the nonretireable debt number down to about $900 billion. To do that will cost probably another $50 billion. We will have to tax the American taxpayer more in order to raise money to buy back debt at a premium.

Mr. GREGG. Why don't we have the Senator from New York speak, and then I will seek recognition after her.

Mr. GREGG. I ask the Senator from North Dakota, are we going to go back and forth on the time?

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

Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator from New Mexico. I wish to make a couple of points in response to the Senator from North Dakota. First, as to my original point--and the Senator makes this point with his representations as far as the unpredictability of the pricing of the commodities--I cited a pricing list put forth by CBO, and the Senator rejects CBO as a scorer on this event. Then we should be coming back to the farm issue every year. We should not be making it a mandatory 10-year event where the authorizing committee can essentially create a cost to the taxpayers of this country which will not be adjusted by the actual events that occur in the marketplace. Second, the fundamental point I am making is that the gross increase in farm spending has been uncontrolled and that the amendment that is being proposed of another $100 billion of new spending on top of the Federal baseline is a massive hole in the Federal budget. It is going to a program which makes no sense any longer. In States such as North Dakota, the American taxpayer is presently paying, in tax subsidies to the average farmer in North Dakota, twice what the farmers make in take-home pay. So it makes no sense. It is a program that makes no sense. I agree with the Senator from North Dakota on that point. But I do not think the way you resolve it is by putting more and more money into it. In fact, the last Agriculture Secretary, Secretary Glickman, said exactly that. He said the incentive for farms to be efficient any longer has been lost. Essentially, the Government role is requiring the farmer to do something in return, which has been largely eliminated by the Congress. There is essentially a program that is out of control and it is getting more and more out of control. All we are doing is suggesting we throw more and more money at it, so now we have eight States where the Federal Government pays more in subsidy than the farmers take home in pay. What type of program is that? It does not make any sense to me.

Mr. GREGG. I am not sure I have any time.

Mr. GREGG. You are not devastating my case. You are trying to devastate CBO's case.

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield?