Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this is actually a pretty significant amendment. In fact, it is a very significant amendment if we are able to follow through on its purposes. It is something the chairman and I have worked on a great deal for a number of years. I believe, and I think I speak correctly that the chairman believes, our problems in this Nation relative to the cost of the Government in the years to come, especially as we move into the full retirement of the baby boom population, are extraordinary; that we are facing massive amounts of expenditures to support the baby boom generation in retirement. As we know, the baby boom generation essentially doubles from 35 million to 70 million. The cost of the entitlement programs that support that generation and others simply overwhelm the ability of the Government to pay those programs and forces us into a situation where the debt of the Government will overwhelm our children. The discussion on this issue has been broad and extensive in our Nation, carried forward in large part by a number of citizen groups which are totally dedicated to trying to address constructive action in this area, especially the Peterson Group, which is headed by the former Comptroller General, David Walker. This amendment is an attempt to start addressing that issue sooner rather than later through a task force procedure. But it is not your typical task force. We have all seen commissions and task forces. In fact, on these specific issues--Medicare reform, Social Security reform, and tax reform--we have seen a lot of task forces. This is a little different--substantially very different. Essentially, what this does is create a task force which is bipartisan so there can be no question about everybody being at the table and everybody having a fair hearing of their views, which involves the players who are involved in the decision process--Members of Congress and members of the administration. The idea is to set up a procedure where that task force reaches agreements, hopefully, on issues such as reforming Social Security, so we continue to deliver high-quality Social Security benefits to our retirees, reforming Medicare along the same lines so people continue to get high-quality Medicare and health care who are retired, reforming our tax laws so we basically have the opportunity to make sure we have a tax law that works for the Nation and produces the revenues we need. It moves down the road, coming forward with policy in all those areas so those programs, specifically the entitlement side--Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--become either solvent over their actuarial life or move dramatically down the road toward solvency. The problem we have is those three programs alone--Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--presently have an unfunded liability of $60 trillion over their actuarial life. Mr. President, $60 trillion is a massive amount. The goal is to try to reduce that unfunded liability in a constructive way that allows the benefits to still be robust and reasonable, while the cost is affordable to the younger generation that has to pay those benefits through their tax burden. The reason we have chosen this procedure is that we have concluded that if you put policy on the table initially, if you say, OK, we are going to change this element of Social Security or this element of Medicare or this element of tax law, there are constituencies in this city who immediately surround you and start shooting at you for a variety of reasons. Some genuinely disagree with the policy. Much of it is essentially the way Washington works. There are a lot of constituency groups in the city that basically generate their revenues from the fact that they are able to create concern amongst the people who participate in their group. And as a result of our putting a policy on the table--somebody putting a policy on the table--they try to use that as a mechanism to generate concern and raise money for their organization. It has never worked. A lot of different people tried putting the policy on the table first. All that happens is everybody goes to their corners and starts shooting away. What we have concluded is we should have a procedure that drives the policy, and it is a procedure that leads to policy action. So this task force, which will be absolutely bipartisan in its makeup, would be required to report in a way that is absolutely bipartisan, which is what is critical, so their report would be seen and would be actually fair and bipartisan. We would have a series of initiatives, of policies, which would then come to the Congress and have to be voted on with supermajorities. It would have to be voted on what is known as fast track around here, where there is no way to avoid voting on it and where you cannot hide behind amendments. You actually have to vote up or down on the various policies proposed by this task force. Then, of course, it would go to the President. He would have the right to veto it if he did not like it, but it would get to the President because it would be a fast-track event. It would lead to action on these core issues that are really at the essence of our problems as a society relative to going forward and being fiscally sound as a nation and also being able to take care of people who are retired and make sure our children have a nation they can afford and a government they can afford. It is a pretty significant step if we were able to pursue this course. I congratulate the chairman for being a force on this issue for many years. That is basically the amendment, which essentially says we want to pursue that course of action. It, unfortunately, does not legally create this event because that type of an action would require legislation, and as those who follow the budget process know, the budget is not signed by the President. It is a resolution; it is not a bill. In order to execute on this, it would require an actual piece of legislation signed by the President. But this amendment makes a fairly definitive statement that this is the course of action we need to get about doing. We do need to get about doing it. We do need to. I think it is a positive statement on a very critical issue. If we were to do this, if we were to actually pursue this initiative on a task force as the chairman and I have talked about for a while, my goodness, we would be doing good work for the American people. We really would. We would be taking on what is so critical to making sure we pass on to our kids a better nation. I hope it will be supported. It has bipartisan support. My primary cosponsors are Senators Lieberman and Voinovich. I have been working with the chairman. Hopefully, he is reasonably comfortable with it. As we move down the road, hopefully we can accomplish this. Mr. President, I ask of my time--not at this point, but at some point down the road that is convenient to the chairman and myself in the debate--that 5 minutes be reserved for the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Voinovich, so he can speak on this matter.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would just note on this number--because the number is important--that I disagree with the logic here that the chairman has put forth because the purpose is bipartisanship. It is not that one party controls the Government or the other party controls the Government; the whole purpose here is to get bipartisanship so that the American people are confident that whatever this task force reports is fair because this task force is going to have very significant authority and extra legislative authority, and it is not going to work unless people are comfortable. Regrettably, under the format the chairman is talking about, you would only need two of the six Republicans. There would only be 6 of the 16 who would be Republicans, and only 2 would have to vote with the majority in order to report it, and that means that doesn't work. You don't end up with bipartisanship that way, I don't think. That is why a majority vote means you would have to have four of the six Republicans vote with it, and one presumes that is not going to be the problem. Hopefully, all 6 and all 10--all 16--will be voting for whatever the proposal is. You can't create a situation where one side will be viewed as having the capacity to roll the other side within this task force. That is the opposite of the purpose of a task force. That is why we went to this proposal. In fact, the original concept was 16--8 and 8--back when the Democratic Party controlled the Congress and we controlled the administration, and with the 8 and 8 split, it took 4 members of either party--half of either party's membership on the task force--to vote for it. So that concept of having a commitment of the membership from both sides to the bill--at least the majority of both sides--is something we have actually had in the past. In any event, I would regret it if the chairman opposes this because I think it will undermine our ability to move forward. But I see Senator Kyl is here, and he has the next amendment.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I want to make sure the Senator's rights are protected.

Mr. GREGG. We are going to get a vote on the Senator's amendment prior to the vote-arama?

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, traditionally--I think we ought to go back to the usual order on Whitehouse-Boxer. It being a second degree, it would go first.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we would be willing to take the Lieberman- Collins amendment by unanimous consent.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Lieberman- Collins amendment be agreed to.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we approve the following amendments, agreed to by both sides: Senator Casey, amendment No. 783; Senator Kerry, amendment No. 732; Senator Isakson, amendment No. 762; and Senator Shaheen, amendment No. 776.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I remind our colleagues that these are 10- minute votes. This is sort of like the hors d'oeuvre for tomorrow. Get used to this. Please try to stick around.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Isakson be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this amendment is an attempt to move down the road in resolving what is at the center of the problems which we have as a nation for fiscal policy in the future, which is that we are passing on to our children a country they cannot afford, primarily driven by the cost of entitlement programs. There are $66 trillion of unfunded entitlements. This is a proposal to start to address that issue through using a fast-track procedure, with a bipartisan task force. The debate this morning was about how that task force is structured. We believe, I feel strongly, that the task force must be bipartisan or will not be viewed as fair. In order to be bipartisan, a majority of both the minority members of the task force and the majority members of the task force have to vote for the proposal, whether or not there is going to be a membership which gives the majority a significant number of members more than the minority. But that minority membership has to vote as its group as a majority. It is the only fair way to do this; otherwise, you could end up with a report where, let's say, there are six Republicans on the task force and only two approve it. That would not work properly. We need bipartisanship in this effort.

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

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

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be approved.

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, the pending amendment is not germane to the measure now before the Senate. I raise a point of order under section 305(b)2 of the Budget Act.

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 806

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, for the information of my colleagues on my side of the aisle, we intend to proceed, and I will list the speakers that we have this evening who have informed us that they wish to have time. Tomorrow, when we start the voting sequence, their amendments will be in order relative to the sequence that they are speaking here tonight; so the purpose of that being they do not have to call up their amendment tonight to protect their position in the order. We are going to begin with Senator McCain for 15 minutes. It is understood that there will be alternating speakers. On our side: McCain, 15 minutes; Senator Vitter, 10 minutes; Senator Coburn for 10 minutes; Hutchison for 10 minutes; Bennett for 10 minutes; Senator Brownback for 10 minutes; Senator Snowe for 10 minutes; Senator Barrasso for 10 minutes. That is not a unanimous consent request. That is for the information of my colleagues. Actually, I ask unanimous consent that this evening, as these people arrive, these Senators be granted those times.

Mr. GREGG

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

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, do I not control the floor?

Mr. GREGG. I yield my time off the bill to the Senator.

Mr. GREGG. I have the right, do I not?

Mr. GREGG. Let's sort it out. That is a better approach.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I understand I now have the right to offer an amendment, but prior to offering the amendment, I wish to make a couple comments. I have watched this debate develop, and it develops with a certain tempo every year. One of the comments that has been made in the paper by the chairman--and it was also made by the President, interestingly enough--is that if we disagree with the budget as brought forward by the President, we should offer our own budget. Historically, the way this has happened is that the party in the minority has not offered a budget. Traditionally, the party in the minority has offered a series of amendments to try to improve the majority's budget. That is the tack we have taken this year. That seems like a more logical tack to me because it is a more bipartisan approach. We are simply trying to reach out to the majority and say: Hey, listen. If you accept this amendment and this amendment and this amendment, your product--the budget you have brought forward--is going to be a much better product. For example, if you reduce the amount of spending in your bill because your bill spends too much; if you reduce the amount of taxes in your bill because your bill taxes too much; and if you reduce the amount of borrowing in your bill because your bill definitely borrows too much, then the amendments which we offer to accomplish those three points would significantly improve your bill. In addition, we are going to offer amendments which address positive policy initiatives. For example, we will offer an amendment to try to improve the energy policy of our Nation by allowing Americans to produce more American energy rather than buy it overseas, and to conserve more American energy--which is the approach we should take. We will allow Americans to produce more American energy by allowing more drilling in an environmentally safe way, by allowing more nuclear plants, by allowing more wind and solar energy, at the same time conserving. We will offer that amendment. We will offer an amendment to improve the budget by offering a positive policy on health care where every American could be insured but where we do not add another $1 trillion in spending and don't step off on the course of nationalizing our health care system. We will offer amendments which will try to get under control the real threat we have as a nation, from the fiscal policy standpoint, which is the out- year debt, the fact we will be passing on to our children debts which are not sustainable, debts of a trillion dollars a year as far as the eye can see. That is not sustainable. So we will offer policies in that area, relative to trying to have a more balanced approach toward spending around here rather than a profligate approach toward spending. That is the approach we take to improve this budget by amendment. It is a bipartisan approach. We are not going to set up our budget versus their budget and have a partisan debate. We are going to suggest they change their budget and make it a more positive document and more bipartisan document. Interestingly enough, this is exactly the same approach taken by the chairman when he was in the minority and I happened to be the chairman, and I respected that approach and I did, on occasion, ask where is your budget and he came back with his statements, which were eloquently and brilliantly presented, that said he would do it by amendment. In fact, they were so eloquently and brilliantly stated I brought some of the statements here so other Members can see the eloquence of our chairman on the subject. March 10, 2006, when I offered a budget and I asked: Where is your budget, Senator? And he said: We will offer a series of alternatives by amendment. Concise. People are concise from North Dakota. Sort of like New Hampshire. That is why we like each other. Then he made another statement when I asked the question where is your budget, Mr. Chairman, and said, on March 14--a more expansive statement: Mr. President, the chairman says we have offered no budget. I did say that. The chairman well knows the majority has the responsibility to offer a budget. Our responsibility is to critique that budget. We have great admiration for the chairman. I listened to his words when I was chairman. We are following that course of action. So I hope that as we move down the road with this discussion that we have no more statements in the newspaper to the effect there is no budget being offered by the Republican side. On another subject, I heard--and I listened to what the President said on the issue of this auto bailout issue. I have deep reservations about this. I have been a strong supporter of the initiatives that this administration has taken trying to stabilize our financial industry. The financial industry is the core systemic element of our economic well-being as a nation. The availability of credit at a reasonable price, reasonably easy to obtain, is the essence of a strong and vibrant capitalist system. It goes to the core question of Main Street and how you make Main Street work. If you think of us as a body, a nation as a body, the financial system is the blood system, it is the arteries, it is what moves the blood through the system. So it is critical that we have a viable financial system. I have been very supportive of the administration's initiatives in this area. I have been very supportive of Secretary Geithner's initiatives and I have been very supportive of Secretary Geithner. But this idea that we should step in to underwrite the automobile industry is something with which I have real problems. I had problems when the prior administration did it at the end, in the final days, and I have problems with it now. It is an important industry--no question. But, remember, cars are produced in this country that are not necessarily produced by these two companies, GM and Chrysler. There are also cars produced by Ford, Toyota, Honda, BMW. A variety of companies have manufacturing facilities in this country, so it is not as though the entire system is threatened relative to employment of the people in the auto industry. It is these specific companies that are having problems and they are important but they are not systemic. Equally significant is the fact that these companies have had problems for a long time in the production of a product that is competitive. Before we start putting tax dollars into these companies, there has to be a very specific plan that shows they will be viable, that these tax dollars will not be good dollars chasing bad dollars, and that means there has to be a plan, No. 1, to produce products people want to buy; and, No. 2, reduces significantly the debt so the bondholders actually take a fairly significant haircut; and, No. 3, brings their employment contracts in line with the employment contracts of their competitors. None of that has happened so far. It is very hard to justify putting money into this industry in this present climate and under the failure of proposals to come forward to accomplish that. Something else the President said has raised a question to me. That is, he is saying that the Government is going to insure the warranties of these automobile manufacturers, specifically GM. Because if Chrysler affiliates with Fiat, that would not be necessary, I presume. That is a fairly significant step for the U.S. Government to take, that we are going to insure the warranties on cars. Is that the business of the Government? Is that the purpose of the Government? Does that mean we put a new telephone line in my office in Portsmouth for people who have problems with their transmissions? That they are supposed to call me? Let's be honest about this. This is probably not a course of action that makes a whole lot of sense, that the Government is going to get into the business of underwriting the warranties of a manufacturer. I have deep reservations about the course of action here. I do hope before we put any more money into this--in fact, I hope we will not put anymore money into it, but if there is more money going into it, there is at least a clear and defined plan that shows these companies will be viable, which means they have to put on the table a plan that shows they are going to make products we support, that people want to buy, bondholders are taking a fairly significant hit, and their union contract and the legacy contracts are adjusted to be more in line with the competition. Amendment No. 739 On the specifics of the amendment which I am offering at this point, I ask the clerk to report my amendment.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. And the debt level, too, I suspect. In fact, we could not get into the European Union at the debt level of 90 percent of GDP. They would not even allow us in.

Mr. GREGG. Yes.