Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. They did congratulate themselves. They even boasted about the ``pay-go surplus'' on the pay-go scorecard. But they shouldn't congratulate themselves for hard choices--they should congratulate themselves for thinking up gimmicks and machinations to fool people into believing they made hard choices.

Mr. GREGG. Can you believe that? They included a 1-month extension of the mandatory MILC program in the 2007 emergency supplemental. Then the chairmen of the Senate and House Budget Committees told CBO to put the spending into the baseline--which covers 10 years of the program--to the tune of $2.4 billion. The topper: They included an enforcement mechanism in their budget resolution that prohibited this practice, but they exempted the 2007 supplemental.

Mr. GREGG. In the SCHIP bill, the Democrats reduced funding from $14 billion per year to $3.5 billion in the last year, 2012. The gimmick hides $45 billion in spending. The farm bill in the Senate also used this early sunset tactic to hide $18 billion in costs.

Mr. GREGG. You bet. The student loan reconciliation bill phased down interest rates to 3.4 percent in 2011, then snap them back up again to 6.8 percent in 2012. This kept $17 billion in costs hidden. The student loan bill turned off mandatory Pell Grant spending in 1 of the 10 years--hiding $9 billion in spending. Mr. President, $10 billion in farm bill spending is pushed out beyond 2017--totally escaping pay-go enforcement. I haven't even mentioned all of the corporate estimated tax shifts they have used, which move revenues from one fiscal year into another. Even Budget Chairman Conrad himself called this ``funny-money financing'' during debate on the last highway bill.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, $143 billion--quite a chunk of change.

Mr. GREGG. We can try and reinstitute a first-year deficit test, and we can try and reinstitute a second 5 years deficit test. We can adopt a scoring rule that prohibits shifts such as the corporate estimated tax shift from being used to satisfy pay-go. But I am not confident they will accept such changes. They seem determined to keep up what the Wall Street Journal called ``a con game from the very start.''

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, first, I would like to join with fellow Members of the Senate who have risen today to congratulate Senator McCain. He is a force for right in this country. He is a person whose personal history is extraordinary. As somebody said: What you see is what you get. And what you get is an extraordinary American hero who understands we need to defend ourselves around the world and we need to be fiscally responsible in the United States. New Hampshire sort of brought him back in this campaign, and so we played a small role in that, although I was not necessarily a part of that role. But, in any event, I now join with my colleagues and look forward to supporting him aggressively as he goes forward in this campaign. I think the Senator from Texas raised some excellent questions. The question is, what happened with the Democratic budget last year, as I understand it. Essentially, what happened was they produced a budget which they claimed was going to do one thing, and it ended up doing the exact opposite. They claimed, for example, they were going to basically produce a budget which would produce a surplus. In fact, they produced a budget which produced a huge tax increase--a $900 billion tax increase. To try to put that in context, that means every American--or 47 million Americans who pay income taxes--will have their taxes go up $2,700 as a result of the Democratic budget. It means 18 million seniors will have their taxes go up $2,400 as a result of the Democratic budget. It means small businesses across this country--24 million small businesses--will have their taxes go up $4,700 because of this almost genetic factor within the Democratic Party which says they have to raise taxes and they have to spend your money. So their budget was a huge tax increase, I would say to the Senator from Texas, through the Chair.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, to respond the Senator from Texas, what happened was the Democratic leadership last year produced a budget which raised taxes by $900 billion on the American people. They said: Oh, but out of the generosity of our heart, we are going to offer an amendment which cuts back that tax increase by about $154 billion, I think it was--the Baucus amendment--because we are going to extend the child care tax credit, the 10-percent individual rates, the marriage penalty. We are going to do all these wonderful things, even though we are raising taxes, even after that, by $750 billion. But lo and behold, once again, we saw their actions be a lot different than their words. Even though they passed that amendment, took credit for that amendment, they never actually extended any of those tax cuts. So those tax rates are still in place on the American people, and that was a total fraud that was exercised last year by the Baucus amendment because nothing came of it.

Mr. GREGG. Well, Mr. President, I regret to inform the Senator from Texas, not surprisingly, he was not. In fact, they dramatically increased spending in last year's budget in the discretionary spending. They increased it well over what the President asked for--$250 billion of additional spending over what the President asked for over 5 years in their budget. Then, on top of that--that was not enough for them-- they stuck $21 billion into the supplemental, which translates into another $200 billion of spending increases. So they had a total of approximately $450 billion of new spending--almost $500 billion of new spending--over 5 years in their budget last year. So they did not discipline the budget spending at all. So when Senator Conrad said on ``60 Minutes,'' ``We need to be tough on spending,'' they were not able to live up to that.

Mr. GREGG. Well, Mr. President, again, regrettably, for the American people at least, the Democratic leadership said one thing last year on the budget and did the exact opposite. Not only did they not control any entitlement spending, entitlement spending expanded by $466 billion over their budget. This is similar to their claim they were going to not be raising taxes, when they raised taxes over $750 billion; similar to their claim they were going to be tough on spending, when they actually increased spending on the discretionary side by over $450 billion. This entitlement spending is another example of saying one thing and doing the opposite.

Mr. GREGG. Yes, they definitely ``used'' it. In my view, the Democrats manipulated the reconciliation process to increase gross spending by $21 billion, while saving a paltry net $750 million over 6 years.

Mr. GREGG. Yes, in last year's budget, the Democrats failed to protect Social Security for seniors. Democrats, in their fiscal year 2008 budget, threw out both the bipartisan Social Security ``circuit breaker'' and the bipartisan ``save Social Security first'' budget point of order contained in the Senate-passed version, thus removing crucial tools to eliminate the practice of spending the Social Security surplus on other programs. Under the Democrats' fiscal year 2008 budget, every dollar of the Social Security surplus, or $1 trillion, was spent. They failed to protect workers against tax increases. Democrats, in their fiscal year 2008 budget conference report, threw out a bipartisan budget point of order against raising income tax rates that had been included in the Senate-passed version. They failed to protect the integrity of the reconciliation process. Democrats threw out a bipartisan point of order in the Senate-passed version that would have limited any new spending in response to reconciliation instructions to 20 percent. By converting reconciliation to a spending exercise, Democrats allowed new spending that was 2,900 percent larger than the savings instruction in their budget. They failed to protect State and local governments from expensive mandates. Democrats threw out a Senate rule requiring a supermajority to waive the unfunded mandates budget point of order, thus making it much easier to burden State and local governments with costs from Federal Government requirements. They failed to protect the firewall between mandatory and discretionary spending. Democrats weakened a budget point of order against mandatory spending in appropriations bills, and exempted the 2007 supplemental appropriations bill from the requirement altogether, thus allowing no enforcement protection against the $2.4 billion MILC program enacted last year.

Mr. GREGG. I completely agree. As Republicans, our top priority is to pass on prosperity and a strong economy to the next generation. We need to keep spending in check, take the needed steps to address entitlement reform, and keep the economy growing with a fair, progrowth tax system in place. It is unconscionable to leave behind this kind of fiscal mess the majority is making.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, what is the regular business? Are we in morning business? Do we have a half hour?

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I am going to speak, and then I understand the Senator from Texas is going to speak a little bit about the coming events of the next 2 weeks which will be the issue of how we address the budget of the United States. This is an annual event, of course, and so what I am going to give is a little review of last year's budget and where we are going with this year's budget. I regret to say it is a review of what amounts to basically a horror movie because the budget which was produced last year by the Democratic Congress was a horrible thing for the American people in the way of increasing taxes and increasing spending and increasing debt on the American people. Now, we will hear from the other side of the aisle: Well, the President's budget does this and the President's budget does that and the President's budget does this. However, I think the people who are listening to this discussion should understand the President has no legal responsibility in the area of the budget and producing the budget; that under the Budget Act, the President can send up a budget and that is where it stops. The actual budget is produced by the Congress of the United States, the House and the Senate. It is not--and this is important--it is not signed by the President of the United States. He cannot veto it. The budget of the United States is purely a child of and a product of the House and the Senate and the U.S. Government. So it is our responsibility--not the President's responsibility--to produce a budget that is responsible for the American people and especially for working Americans, so they are not overburdened by the Government, and for our children and our grandchildren, so we don't put too much debt on them as a government. Last year was the first time the Democratic Congress produced a budget in 12 years. They had the benefit of the doubt. When they said they were going to control spending, people gave them the benefit of the doubt. When they said they were going to address the problems which we confront with entitlements because of the baby boom generation and the cost that is going to be put on our children, people gave them the benefit of the doubt. When they said they were going to use pay-go rules--this motherhood term--to discipline spending around here, people gave them the benefit of the doubt. When they said they weren't going to raise the national debt any more than the President was, people gave them the benefit of the doubt. When they said they weren't going to raise taxes on the American people, that they were going to find revenues by simply collecting taxes that were already owed, people gave them the benefit of the doubt. Well, the shell game is over. The benefit of the doubt no longer applies. The record is in and the record is pretty dismal. The budget from last year produced by the Democratic Congress increased taxes over a 5-year period by $736 billion. It dramatically increased spending. In the discretionary accounts, the Democratic budget last year, as it was finally executed, increased spending over what the President requested. The President requested a $60 billion increase in discretionary spending. It increased spending or proposed to increase spending when you combine the supplemental proposals and the actual budgeting proposals by over $40 billion. It added $2.5 trillion--trillion--to the Federal debt over the 5-year period. This term ``pay-go'' is the most abused term on the floor of the Senate and on the floor of the House in the area of fiscal discipline: ``Oh, we are going to use pay-go to discipline Federal spending.'' We hear that from every Democratic candidate starting with their Presidential candidates right down to their House Members. Last year on 15 different occasions they either directly waived pay- go or they gamed it in the most cynical manner by changing dates, changing years, moving money here, moving money there, to the tune of $143 billion of new spending, which should have been subject to pay-go, which was not. It was simply added to the deficit and to the debt of our children, that our children will have to pay. They didn't do one thing about addressing the most significant fiscal issue we face as a country, which is the pending meltdown of our Nation's fiscal policy because of the $66 trillion of unfunded liability we have on the books as a result of obligations and commitments we have made to the baby boom generation which is beginning to retire right now--$66 trillion. The President at least sent up a package which proposed trying to discipline the rate of growth of entitlement spending--specifically Medicare--in very reasonable ways, by asking people such as Warren Buffett, for example, to pay a fair cost of their drug benefit--people over 65 who have a lot of money should pay some cost of their drug benefit; by using technology more aggressively, by limiting the number of lawsuits that are brought against doctors to something reasonable along what is known as the California or Texas models. The President's proposals would have limited this liability here as it related to health care by $8 trillion. It would have reduced it. They were reasonable proposals. But the Democratic budget, as passed and as executed, not only didn't limit or reduce in any way this outyear liability, they actually aggravated it. They aggravated it dramatically, by $466 billion over a 5-year period. It was totally irresponsible. On the tax side, this tax increase is real dollars--real dollars that Americans are going to have to pay. For 43 million Americans, under the Democratic budget as was passed last year, their taxes will go up by $2,300 a year--$2,300 a year beginning in 2011. For 18 million seniors, their taxes will go up by $2,200 a year--that is a lot of money for somebody--beginning in 2011. For low-income Americans, 7.8 million Americans who do not pay taxes today because the 10-percent bracket is in place, their taxes will go up. They will have to start paying taxes. For small businesspeople, 27 million small businesses that file what is known as a subchapter S, which means they basically are taxed as individuals, their taxes will go up on average $4,100. Those are real dollars people are going to have to pay in new taxes as a result of the Democratic budget. Let's put it in another context. The Democratic budget, the nightmare budget, the shell budget, added $2.5 trillion to the debt: $736 billion in new taxes, $466 billion in new deficit spending in the area of mandatory increases, $205 billion over 5 years in discretionary increases over what the President suggested--huge increases, totally irresponsible. Equally important, as I mentioned, here is the tax increase, discretionary increase, the debt increase under the Democratic budget and absolutely no mandatory savings, which is the biggest issue of concern for us as a nation as we look into the outyears from the standpoint of being able to pass on to our children affordable Government. If you give to your children the debts of today, this $2.5 trillion they added, and you put on top of that $66 trillion of debt as a result of Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security costs that we haven't figured out how we are going to pay for, you are essentially going to say to our children: I am sorry, you can't have as good a life as we have had as a generation. You are not going to be able to send your kids to college. You are not going to be able to buy your first house. You are not going to be able to live the quality of life Americans have been experiencing throughout the generation of the baby boom generation because we are going to put on you so much debt, so many costs, we are simply going to overwhelm you. What did the Democratic budget do to address that? Nothing. A lot of lip service. In one of the most obscene--obscene is the only accurate term--actions of budgetary gimmickry, the Democratic budget claimed they were going to raise $300 billion in tax revenues from people who owe taxes but weren't paying them. This is how they are going to pay for all their new programs. They are going to raise $300 billion collected from people who owe taxes. Well, yes, those are the estimates. There is a huge amount of money out there that isn't being collected today and should be collected. But how much was collected under the Democratic budget of that owed and unpaid balance? Zero. Why was that? Why did they only get zero? Because they actually cut the dollars going to the Internal Revenue Service for enforcement. So not only could the Internal Revenue Service not collect the additional money--and they could never have gotten $30 billion anyway--the highest estimate the Internal Revenue Service gave us was something in the range of 20 billion to 30 billion was their best number. They plugged this number in that the Democrats said they were going to get, which is $300 billion, and why did they plug it in? Because they wanted to spend it. They wanted to spend $300 billion. It is pretty interesting because, if you go back here, you will notice discretionary spending went up $205 billion, right here, and they claimed they were going to pay for that and have a little surplus with this empty number which they never got of $300 billion. Where did the $205 billion actually get paid for? How did it get paid for? It got paid for by putting debt--debt--on our children's shoulders. Then, on top of that, of course, they are going to raise taxes by $336 billion, as I mentioned. For 34 million Americans, it means a $2,300 tax increase. As if this isn't bad enough, their track record now is such a glaring example of fraud and misdeeds and misrepresentation of a shell game, of claiming one thing and doing the opposite in the area of tax policy and raising taxes when they said they would not, raising spending when they said they would not, not addressing entitlements when they said they would. As if that isn't bad enough, we now have the Presidential candidates out there campaigning. On top of the track record of total gross fiscal mismanagement, we have Presidential candidates on their side of the aisle making proposals to increase spending which dwarf what is already here, a dramatic rise in spending. Senator Obama, for example, has proposed 158 new programs that we know of, that we can score--158--totaling annual increases in spending--annual--of $300 billion a year plus. Senator Obama and Senator Clinton say: Well, we are going to pay for this by taxing the rich; we will just tax the rich, tax the rich, tax the rich, tax the rich. Let's look at the numbers. If we take the top rates in America, which are the rates the rich pay, back to the days of Bill Clinton, you take them from 35 percent--they pay 35 percent of their income to taxes now--take it back up to approximately 40 percent, 39.6 percent which is, I presume, what they are referring to--and, in fact, that is what they are specifically referring to--they say they are going back to the Clinton tax rates for the rich. You raise $25 billion in income taxes. Senator Obama has already proposed spending $300 billion plus a year. So he is short $280 billion. From where is that going to come? That is going to come from raising taxes on all the other Americans who work and pay income taxes. He is talking about basically repealing all the Bush initiatives and, believe me, even if he does that, he cannot raise enough money to pay for what he is proposing. So he is talking about adding dramatically to the debt. It is a spend-arama, an Obama spend- arama, which is going to cause us huge problems with taxes. So as we go into this next budget, there is no longer the benefit of the doubt out there for our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. They now have a track record of a budget that raised taxes $736 billion, a track record of a budget that increased discretionary spending by $205 billion, a track record of a budget that increased the debt by $2.5 trillion, a track record where they game their own pay-go rules--game them--so they spend $143 billion, which they should have had to offset, without any offsets, and a track record of not addressing the most significant issue we have today, which is how do we pay for the future costs of the retirement of the baby boom generation and not put that burden on our children. I suspect the budget they are going to bring forward next week is going to look a lot like the one they passed last year. But when they claim this year they are going to get another $300 billion from some wizard behind the screen by collecting taxes that are owed but are not collected, I hope the press and the American people will say: But hold it. You already claimed that once. Are you going to do it again? When they claim they are going to discipline spending around here by using pay-go, I hope people will say: Hold it. Last year you said you were going to do that, and you spent $143 billion subject to pay-go. When they claim they are not going to raise taxes, somebody has to say: Hold it. The only way you can pay for your program is to repeal the tax laws as they presently exist and make the taxes go up dramatically on all Americans, not just on wealthy Americans. And when they claim they are not going to increase discretionary spending, somebody needs to ask: Hold it. Last year you increased discretionary spending by $205 billion over what the President wanted in nondefense discretionary. They have no credibility any longer. So I hope the American people and the press, and certainly I hope the Senate, will ask some serious questions of them as they bring forward their budget. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

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

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I understand we are in morning business.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly about one of the issues that has been debated over these 2 days, which is the reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This bill, which passed the Senate in a bipartisan way, is now sitting in the House. This bill is critical to our national security. I know there are some who will argue that the bill represents a threat in some way to American civil liberties. From my standpoint, nothing is more important to me than protecting the rights of Americans under the terms of our Constitution. One of the terms of our Constitution is that the Federal Government has the responsibility to protect the American citizens and America from attacks by enemies. That is what we swear an oath to, by the way, when we take this job, to protect and defend this Nation. We know for a fact that the forces of Islamic fundamentalists, which are led by fanatical individuals, have committed themselves to attacking our Nation, destroying our culture, and killing Americans. We have already seen their actions take place in the 1990s when they attacked the warship USS Cole, when they attacked our Embassies in Africa, and, of course, on 9/11. We also know for a fact that our best weapon of self-defense in this war is to be on the offense, to find them before they can harm us. That is one of the reasons we are in Iraq and in Afghanistan. The great advantage we have in this war is the sophistication of our Nation. Obviously, the greatest advantage we have is we have the cause of right on our side--freedom, democracy, and liberty. But the great tactical advantage we have is the sophistication of our Nation and our capacity to use that sophistication in the area of our military and in the area of our intelligence gathering to defeat these people before they attack us. At the essence of this, at the center of this is the ability to gather effective intelligence. We cannot stop someone who wants to attack us if we wait until they commit the act. This is not like a criminal situation where somebody goes out and robs a bank and then we go and find them. This is a situation where people want to use every weapon at their disposal, and if they get a weapon of mass destruction, they will use it to try to kill hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of innocent civilians, and Americans specifically, in order to carry out their perverse purpose of promoting what they see as their Islamic faith, as they interpret it. We cannot be so naive as to believe these people are not out there and intending to pursue these courses of action when they have made it absolutely clear that is what they intend to do, when they have said innumerable times that is what they intend to do, and when they have actually done it by attacking us on 9/11. To stop them, we have to find them before they can harm us. And the way we find them is we use, in part, our great advantage in the area of tracking them through electronic surveillance. And that is what the FISA bill is all about--giving the legal tools necessary to totally dedicated American citizens who man agencies, such as the National Security Agency, the Defense Department, the CIA, the State Department, and the FBI--to give those individuals who are totally dedicated to finding the people who want to attack us the tools necessary to do that, and to do that in a way that protects Americans' rights and civil liberties. This law does accomplish exactly that. No American can have their calls intercepted or overheard intentionally unless there has been a court review of that decision and a court order approving that action. This law is directed not at Americans, it is directed at foreigners-- not Americans--whose purpose it is to do us harm, and they do not have the same rights as Americans. They should not. Their purpose is to destroy America. Why would we give them American rights? Yet for some reason the House of Representatives refuses to act on this critical issue in the area of giving our people who work for us, who work for the American people, and who are trying to protect America, the tools they need to accomplish that. It makes no sense to me at all. Some argue the force behind denying this right and these authorities to the people who have responsibility to monitor these foreign activities and foreign individuals, these Islamic fundamentalists who wish to do us harm, the terrorists, the people who wish to limit that right wish to do so because they want to give the trial lawyers more capacity to bring lawsuits against the telephone companies, which are, obviously, an integral part of any electronic monitoring that is going to go on. I think that is unfortunate if that is the case. We have asked these various groups, these corporations--remember, they are made up of American citizens. An American corporation is nothing more than a group of American citizens who have gotten together. Most of these corporations are pension funds which involve pensions of people who work at day-to-day jobs. Most Americans have some interest in stock through their pension funds, and these stocks are the companies that, basically, we are talking about, the telephone companies, in many instances. These companies are being asked, and have been enlisted, and have been asked in the past to participate in protecting America. When the Government does something such as that, I think the Government also has a responsibility to say to those companies and their stockholders and their employees, many of whom are Americans, many of whom are working Americans, obviously, the ones who work for them and the stockholders who have pension funds who invest in them, that they should have protection from lawsuits which are basically inappropriately pursued because these companies are doing the bidding of the American Government as we try to protect the American people. For some reason, the desire to energize those lawsuits has held up the ability to give the tools necessary to our intelligence community to pursue surveillance of very evil people who intend to do us harm. It would be a great tragedy and a terrible outcome of this situation if America is attacked and that attack could have been thwarted or muted if we had the intelligence which would have been able to be gathered by electronic surveillance which would be made available through the authorities of FISA. It would be a true tragedy. I cannot imagine the recrimination that would occur in this country from the American people were we to be attacked and then discover that the information which might have thwarted that attack was unable to be obtained because the law which gave people the authority to pursue that type of information through electronic surveillance was being held up in the House of Representatives because the trial lawyers want a cause of action against the telephone companies. It is incomprehensible to me that we have gotten to this point in the process of trying to develop our defense as a nation against people who clearly exist and who have expressed their intent so clearly and who have executed on that intent, as was shown on 9/11. I cannot imagine that when a bill passes the Senate which has bipartisan support--this is not a partisan issue. It should not be a partisan issue. It has bipartisan support. It came out of the Senate, and it has been worked out between the leaders of the key committees in the Senate in a way that protects American civil liberties--that such a bill which gives the authority to those we ask to protect us, the authority they need to pursue the course of action they see is appropriate in electronic surveillance, that such a bill would be stopped in the House of Representatives out of what appears to be a tangential question of lawsuits--tangential in the sense that nothing is more critical to this whole exercise than protecting Americans from attack. I join my colleagues who have risen over the last couple of days to express their frustration with the failure of the House of Representatives to act in this area. We need the House to act on the Senate bill, pass it, send it down to the President, and have it signed so that the people who we ask to protect us through electronic surveillance of terrorists who do not have the rights of Americans and who are not American, so that electronic surveillance can continue. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I wanted to speak a little bit to the situation we find ourselves in. We have been here before. This is ``deja vu all over again,'' to quote Yogi Berra. We were under the same stricture when we were debating the agriculture bill a couple months ago. The Senate, by definition, is an institution that is supposed to work its will on legislation. The legislation doesn't come to the Senate under a closed rule as they have in the House, where the House leadership says this amendment will be offered, and that amendment will be offered, and time will expire and we have to vote. The whole concept of the Senate is that you have an open and free-flowing debate, where people can bring their thoughts to the floor. You don't limit amendments and they can be on about anything. As a practical matter, the Senate then votes after it has fully digested the various ideas that have been put forward. This approach the Senate has always taken was first defined and most effectively defined, ironically, by George Washington, when he said that the Senate is the saucer into which the hot coffee is poured--the coffee being the House ideas. Now, the majority leader seems to view the Senate as an adjunct of the House, that we should actually be a replication of the House, that the majority leader should have the unilateral right, first, to bring a bill to the floor, which he has done, but once he does that, he should not have the unilateral right to determine what the amendments will be, how many will occur, and how long the debate will be on those amendments. This is not an autocratic institution. In fact, the Senate is about as far from an autocracy as you can get. Each Senator has the capacity to have a fairly strong impact around here. Each Senator has the right, under the rules of the Senate, to make their case. So the majority leader should not be surprised when he suggests he is going to immediately file cloture on a bill--which is fairly substantive-- stimulus II, as it is called--in order to shut off amendments from our side, our side is going to say, no, that is not the way the Senate works. We want to be heard. We want to be able to have the capacity to have our amendments. The package they are talking about bringing forward may not be a stimulus at all. In fact, it may be the antistimulus package. What they are suggesting is a change in bankruptcy laws that will raise the cost of mortgage insurance--and it is estimated by 1 percentage point--for all Americans who try to get a mortgage after this, if this law were to become effective. It is populist politics, no question about that. You can beat the desk and say we are going to give relief to mortgages by allowing people to go into bankruptcy court and write their mortgages down. But the practical effect of that will be that the market will react and mortgage prices will go up, because people who lend money will have to anticipate that risk. That is what interest rates on mortgages account for--the risk of repayment of that money. So it is a terrible idea, the practical implications of which will be not to stimulate the housing market but to undermine the housing market. There are initiatives here that might stimulate the economy; some have to do with housing. The Senator from Georgia has a superb idea. But some are tangential to the housing issue but would have a significant impact on our economy. For example, we could begin the process of straightening out our health care system. That would certainly help the economy. We could extend the dividend and capital gains rates. That would have a huge impact on our economy, if people knew they were going to have an extension of the capital gains rates. We could address the issue of employing and attracting to America more smart people to work in America, so they could be individual engines for economic activity, by extending the H-1B program. There are a lot of good ideas that could stimulate this economy. There is absolutely no reason that the majority leader should try to use his position as majority leader to shut down the opportunity of the minority to bring those ideas and amendments forward. Let's vote on them. I can understand that the majority leader wants to move things along, and he does not want to have his Members make any difficult votes. That is his responsibility, I suppose to some degree, as leader. That is not the way the Senate works. The Senate is designed to be a place where you can put forward challenging ideas, debate them, and then vote on them. We can deal with this bill in a fairly prompt way, but we cannot deal with it in a prompt way if those of us on our side of the aisle who believe we have some good ideas that maybe the majority leader does not like are not allowed to bring those ideas forward as to how to stimulate this economy. We went through this exercise on the Agriculture bill, and it did not work. The leadership of the Senate and the majority leader finally decided we better get to the amendment process after 2 weeks of basically trying to shut down the amendment process. There is no reason to go through this process again. Let's have an open amendment process where we in the minority agree to a certain number of amendments, but we certainly are not going to agree to preclear those amendments with the majority leader because he does not have that authority under the way the Senate works. Madam President, I will have to oppose cloture on this bill at this time, although I would certainly like to see us get to this bill and do some serious consideration of how we stimulate this economy because I would like to see us extend the capital gains rates, extend the dividend rates, bring more smart people into this country to energize our economy, and address our health care needs to energize our economy. Those are issues I would like to see debated and voted on as we move forward. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wish to speak briefly about an important issue in my State that involves one of our country's great natural treasures, the White Mountain National Forest. Encompassing nearly 800,000 acres and drawing more than 6 million visitors each year, the White Mountain National Forest is not just a place for skiing, hiking, snowmobiling, or timber harvesting it is a source of pride for New Hampshire. And considering its relatively large footprint in our State, how this special place is managed by the U.S. Forest Service matters a lot. Fortunately, the Forest Service especially Forest Supervisor Tom Wagner has done a great job in overseeing the White Mountain National Forest. Starting in 1997 when the new forest management plan was being developed, the agency made a concerted effort to reach out to the public, welcomed outside comments, and was sensitive to the sometimes competing views of interested parties. This planning process was not an easy task. Forest management is about addressing multiple uses and priorities, and ultimately it should be about compromise. The White Mountain National Forest has long been utilized for a variety of purposes, and any management plan should carefully strike a balance among them while also protecting the forest for future generations. To come up with a balanced plan, Supervisor Wagner went out of his way to listen to public input and worked closely with government officials, environmental organizations, businesses, and recreation clubs. I met with him during the planning process and was encouraged by his outreach and evenhanded approach. After years of hard work, Supervisor Wagner and the Forest Service arrived at a forest management plan that achieved general consensus among the major stakeholders and was well received across New Hampshire. I was pleased to support it when the final plan was released in 2005, including working with Senator Sununu on legislation implementing its wilderness recommendations. Signed into law in December 2006, this bill designated nearly 35,000 acres of new wilderness in the White Mountain National Forest and was applauded by environmental groups from across the State. I should also note that even our State's logging industry, represented by the New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association, supported the wilderness measure out of the spirit of compromise. Clearly, it was not in their business interest to support more wilderness designation, but they did it anyway since it was part of a balanced management plan that also included limited timber harvesting. Unfortunately, this balance is now under attack, years after the plan was finalized and other elements have been implemented. A few environmental groups based outside New Hampshire have filed a lawsuit against two timber harvesting projects that were part of the 2005 Forest Management Plan. Encompassing less than 1,200 acres, the projects already have been subject to environmental review, would be very limited in scope, and would be carried out over existing road systems. By delaying these projects, this lawsuit is not only blocking an economic boost for the State and additional revenues for local governments but also blocking the projects' environmental benefits since they would create habitats critical for wildlife management. Well respected environmental groups such as the Society for Protection of New Hampshire Forests, Appalachian Mountain Club, and Audubon Society have come out against this legal challenge, and I support their efforts to maintain the consensus approach underlying the 2005 Forest Management Plan. The White Mountain National Forest can and should be accessible to a wide variety of users, and we have a carefully crafted plan to accommodate them. It is unfortunate that a few groups who had their chance to provide input during the planning process are resorting to litigation to take apart the 2005 Forest Management Plan. Of course, the Forest Service must follow the law and carry out certain environmental reviews, and I defer to the courts to resolve these legal questions. However, I strongly believe that this lawsuit runs counter to New Hampshire's interests and undermines the good will among our State's major stakeholders which has been critical for advancing sound environmental policies. I therefore hope that this legal challenge is resolved as soon as possible and that we can all support the Forest Service's management of the White Mountain National Forest, including its proposed timber harvesting projects.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I recognize that much of the debate the past 2 days has been about our status in Iraq and what we should be doing in Iraq relative to the two proposals offered by Senator Feingold. Clearly, the issue of how we fight terrorism and how we confront the threat of Islamic fundamentalism and its avowed purpose of destroying Western culture and specifically targeting America and Americans is probably the overriding issue we must address. But right behind that issue is the question of what type of nation are we going to pass on to our children relative to the fiscal strength of our Nation. We confront an issue there which is as significant for the prosperity of our children as the issue of terrorism is relative to the security of our country. We are faced with a situation where, as a result of the pending retirement of the baby boom generation, three specific programs-- Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security--will grow at such exponential rates that they will essentially bankrupt our Nation if we don't do something. This chart reflects those three programs, the red line here, and their rate of growth. This black line reflects what has historically been the amount of money the Federal Government has spent. The Federal Government has historically spent about 20 percent of the gross national product of America. These three programs alone, by the year 2025, 2028--it varies depending on who you talk to--will cost 20 percent of the gross national product. Trying to put this in perspective, by the year 2030, when the baby boom generation is fully retired and is receiving its benefits, the cost of supporting that generation through Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will be so high that if you put it in the context of what we traditionally spend in this Government, we will have no money available to do anything else as a government. We will have no money for national defense, no money for education, no money for laying out roads, no money for environmental protection. It does not stop there, because the costs incurred continue to go up. They continue to go up at such a rate that by about the year 2035, we will essentially have a situation where approximately 28 percent or more of the gross national product would have to be spent to support these three programs. Then, of course, you have the additional obligations of Government. What does that lead to? Well, if that were allowed to occur, it would lead to a situation where our children and our children's children would be paying so much in taxes to support the costs of maintaining these three programs for my generation--the baby boom generation--that our children would essentially have no opportunity to send their children to college, to buy their first home, to live the prosperous and fulfilling lifestyle we have today in America because all those discretionary dollars would be absorbed through taxes to support these programs. To put it in a different context, with numbers which are almost incomprehensible but which need to be pointed out, we are told by the Comptroller General's Office that the unfunded liability of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security is $66 trillion. That means after you figure in all the money you pay for Social Security taxes, and all the money you pay for health insurance taxes, the HI tax, the Medicare taxes--after you figure in all that money, there is still a responsibility, an obligation on the books that is not paid for. That amounts to $66 trillion--trillion with a ``T.'' Now, $1 trillion is almost an incomprehensible term, so to try to make it a little more comprehensible, if you took all the money paid in taxes since our country was formed, since we began, that is $42 trillion. That is all the money that has been paid in taxes. We have a liability on the books that exceeds all the money paid in taxes throughout the history of our Nation. To put it in another context, if you take all the assets of America-- everyone's home, everybody's car, all your stocks, all your small businesses--and you add them up--everybody's net worth--that amounts to $59 trillion. So we have a debt on the books that exceeds our net worth as a nation. That is called bankruptcy, and that is what we are headed toward unless we address this issue. This week, the administration, under a direction from the Congress, sent up a proposal to try to address the biggest part of this problem, which is the cost of Medicare. When we passed the Part D drug benefit for seniors, there was language put in that bill--remember that bill was passed with a strong bipartisan vote--that said if Medicare started to have its financial resources--its support, the dollars that paid for Medicare--come out of the general fund at a rate that exceeded 45 percent of the overall cost of Medicare, then the trustees--if that was projected to occur for 2 years over a 7-year period--the trustees were directed to direct the President to make a proposal to bring the cost of Medicare back under control. It is called a trigger. That is what it is referred to. Why did we put that in or why was that language put in? It was put in because Medicare was always conceived to be an insurance program, even though it gets a fair amount of support out of the general fund, the general fund being general taxes. Everybody pays their taxes: income taxes, corporate taxes. Those taxes are used to operate the Government generally: to pay the defense budget, to pay the education budget, to pay the environmental agency--to pay the different activities the Government undertakes. That is the general fund. Those funds were not supposed to be the funds that supported health insurance for seniors. Medicare was supposed to be an insurance program, as is Social Security, where the funds are collected from people, working under the HI tax, which you pay, which is withheld. Those funds are what are supposed to support Medicare. If you start taking money out of the general fund, it is generally acknowledged--not through too many ``generals,'' but it is generally acknowledged you are basically creating an income transfer event, a redistribution of wealth event, where you are taking money from basically the general operation of the Government and you are putting it into the support of people on Medicare who are retired. That was never the goal of Medicare. So recognizing that, but also recognizing that a brandnew benefit was being put on the books that was fairly significant--the drug benefit-- it was decided to put in place this law that said we want to keep Medicare primarily as an insurance event rather than an event which basically is unsupported, a cost that is basically supported by the general taxpayers of America who need to support the regular operations of the Government: defense, education, things such as that. So this trigger was put in. Well, we have now had the trustees evaluate the Medicare fund, and they have concluded that in the 7-year window, under present projected spending patterns, Medicare's support--the dollars necessary to support Medicare--will require a call on the general fund that will exceed 45 percent of the general expenditures of Medicare. That is a serious issue, and it goes to the larger serious issue of this unfunded liability question, because Medicare makes up $34 trillion of the unfunded liability. Do you remember the prior chart, where I pointed out there is $66 trillion of unfunded liability? Well, of that $66 trillion, the majority of it is the obligations under Medicare. So it is Medicare spending that is driving the problem which we confront, which is pointed out in this chart, which is that we are headed toward a government that our children cannot afford and which will bankrupt our children unless we do something. So this proposal that was put into the Part D drug law, in which the trustees direct the President essentially to propose changes in Medicare spending, which will allow us to make the Medicare Program affordable and continue it to be an insurance program, is a step, and a fairly significant step, if followed correctly, down the road toward reducing this outyear threat of a fiscal meltdown. It is critical we heed the law we passed and, specifically, the statement and the execution of the statement that has been made by the Medicare trustees that the trigger must be exercised. And the administration has the obligation to set up a way to accomplish these savings. Now, under the law, the administration sends up its proposal, which it has done, which proposal is required to bring the Medicare system back into balance, so it is not taking more than 45 percent of the general fund. That bill is then required to be introduced by the majority and the minority on the House side and Senate side. The chairman of the Finance Committee has introduced a bill, I believe last night, with myself as ranking member of the Budget Committee as the primary sponsor on our side. That does not mean it is agreed to. It means that under the law it has to be introduced. I happen to think what the administration has sent up makes sense. But what cannot be denied is that this problem is very real. I was extremely surprised, for example, to hear Senator Kennedy say: The proposal sent up by the administration is dead on arrival, and the administration has trumped up a phony crisis in Medicare. You tell me how $66 trillion of unfunded liability is a phony crisis in Medicare. The Medicare trustees, who have a fiduciary responsibility, the highest standard we have under law to protect the solvency of the Medicare trust fund, tell us the law is being violated and that changes must occur. You tell me that is a phony crisis. What is unfortunate is this ``bury the head in the sand'' approach that is being taken by the majority party, as reflected by Senator Kennedy, in facing this issue. This issue must be faced. We need to act. Now, what has the administration suggested we do? They have suggested three basics in order to bring this in line. First--and I cannot understand why anybody opposes this proposal-- they have suggested that under Part D, which is, again, the drug benefit, people pay a portion of the premium of the cost of the drug benefit. But high-income people pay a very small portion of the cost of the drug benefit compared to what they can afford to pay. They pay about 25 percent of the cost of the premium of the Part D drug benefit. Somebody such as Warren Buffett, who qualifies for the Part D benefit--I am not picking on him specifically, but he is a national figure of some note, and he obviously has a fair amount of assets--his premium under Part D, in order to purchase drugs, is being subsidized by John and Mary Jones, who work in a restaurant in Nashua, NH, or by Bill and Susan Parker, who work in a gas station in Epping, NH. Their taxes are actually subsidizing Warren Buffett's drug insurance, his ability to buy drugs, which is totally wrong. What the administration has suggested is that people, individuals who have incomes over $80,000, and joint taxpayers who have incomes over $160,000, or approximately that amount--fairly wealthy people by American standards--should pay more than 25 percent of the cost of their drug premium. I think they have suggested they pay 50 percent or maybe 60 percent but not the entire premium. They are still going to be subsidized by John and Mary Jones who are probably making a lot less than $160,000 working at a restaurant in Nashua, NH. That is their first proposal. The second proposal they put forward is that we should have an IT proposal, something that basically means using technology to communicate more effectively the costs of health care, to create a more integrated system where you could get more effective information on what health care costs in order to drive better purchasing practices. We all know that is going to significantly improve the delivery of Medicare and all health care, if we do this. It is something that should be done and, therefore, is appropriate. The third thing they have suggested is that we limit basically frivolous lawsuits that are driving up the cost of health care and actually driving some doctors in the area of OB/GYN--baby doctors--out of the practice, that we essentially adopt what is known as the California Plan for medical liability insurance--again, a very rational approach. None of the ideas the administration has put forward are radical. None of them are even targeted in a way that would significantly affect very many beneficiaries. In fact, as to the entire proposal they put on the table, 94 percent of Medicare beneficiaries would not be affected by any of these proposals--94 percent. Only 6 percent; that is, the wealthiest 6 percent, those people with incomes over $80,000 individually or $160,000 jointly. Those folks having to pay a portion of their Part D premium would be impacted, and they should be impacted. So that proposal has been put forward. Three ideas--all of them reasonable, all of them initiatives which we should be able to accomplish, and which would, if undertaken, actually reduce this insolvency in Medicare dramatically. I think the estimates are that over the 75-year life, you might take as much as $8 billion out of this insolvency number if you did these proposals which the administration is suggesting. That is a huge number over 75 years. It would actually be a major step in the right direction. But, more importantly, it would respond to what the law says we should do. So I certainly hope we are not going to sit on our hands. I see the chairman of the Finance Committee is in the Chamber. He says he is going to act. I hope his colleagues will follow him, because that is the type of leadership we need. Now, the administration's three proposals aren't the beginning and the end of the process. Anything can be on the table to try to get this resolved. But the fact is, we need to resolve it. The trigger has been pulled. We are over the 45 percent or we are projected to be going over the 45 percent. We need to act not only because of that but because of, more importantly, this outyear problem. We have no right as policymakers to pass our generation's problem on to our children, which is exactly what we are going to do if we don't act. Our generation is the one that is creating the issue because of the demands we are going to put on the system because we are such a large generation. We are in the position of making Government change, and we should address this. We should take that action, and I certainly hope we can over the next few weeks. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy, and I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to pay a heartfelt tribute to special warfare operator CPO, SEAL, Nathan H. Hardy of Durham, NH. Sadly on February 4, 2008 while supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom, this brave 29-year old patriot gave his life for his team and for our Nation during combat operations in Iraq. Chief Hardy was a member of Naval Special Warfare Tactical Development and Evaluation Squadron THREE, Dam Neck, VA, and was serving our country in his fourth deployment to Iraq. Nathan, or Nate to family and friends, was a 1997 graduate of Oyster River High School, Durham, NH, where he excelled in soccer and lacrosse. He enlisted in the U.S. Navy on November 4, 1997, received basic training in Great Lakes, IL, Undersea Demolition/SEAL training in Coronado, CA, and attended the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, CA. During his Navy career he served entirely with east coast-based SEAL teams. Friends say from his youth Nate dreamed of becoming a U.S. Navy SEAL, one of the most challenging, rigorous, and elite fighting organizations in the history of the world. He applied his fierce competitiveness and team spirit to achieve success and served our Nation with deep pride and great courage. He loved what he did, and that was obvious. The awards and decorations Nate received serve as testimony to his strong character and extraordinary performance. They include two Bronze Star Medals, Purple Heart, two Navy Marine Corps Achievement Medals, Combat Action Ribbon--approval pending--three Good Conduct Medals, two National Defense Service Medals, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Afghanistan Campaign Medal, Iraq Campaign Medal, Kosovo Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, three Sea Service Deployment Medals, NATO Medal, Expert Rifle Medal and the Sharpshooter Pistol Medal. During our country's difficult Revolutionary War, Thomas Paine wrote ``These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.'' In these turbulent times Chief Hardy stood with the country he loved, served it with distinction and valor, and earned and deserves our love and thanks. Because of his efforts, the liberty of this country is made more secure. My sympathy, condolences, and prayers go out to Nate's wife Mindi, son Parker, parents Steve and Donna, brother Ben, and to his other family members and many friends who have suffered this most grievous loss. All will sorely miss Nate Hardy--devoted husband, caring father, dedicated son, loyal brother, good friend, outstanding SEAL. Laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery, Chief Hardy joins his fellow heroes in eternal peace at our military's most sacred place. His sacrifice will live on forever among the many dedicated heroes this Nation has sent abroad to defend freedom. In the words of another son of New Hampshire, Daniel Webster--may his remembrance be as longlasting as the land he honored. God bless Nathan Hardy.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, is the Senator yielding the floor?

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, obviously, I have an amendment which is caught up in this effort. I would hope we could vote on it. I think it is the right approach that we fund LIHEAP but that we also pay for that funding so we do not pass the bill for LIHEAP on to our children, so we do not put ourselves in a position where we are paying today's energy bills with our children's dollars 10 years from now, plus interest. But I understand, having heard the majority leader come to the floor earlier and say he did not want this bill filibustered or slowed down, that this is sort of part of an exercise by the leaders of this bill on this bill--because this is the Indian health bill--to try to, I guess, clear the table so amendments which are not directly relevant to Indian health do not end up slowing down this bill. I do not think this decision can be laid at the feet of either party. It appears it is a joint decision by the leadership of the committee of jurisdiction on Indian health. That is why this proposal, which Senator Sanders has laid out, which I am perfectly amenable to--and I would actually support the unanimous consent request that he propounded. It has been objected to. I understand an amendment from our side dealing with the fact that the city of Berkeley has said the Marines there are unwelcome and has offered protesters a free parking site in front of the Marine recruiting headquarters, with a megaphone to yell at the marines--men and woman who have served us in war in Iraq--that proposal, which would have basically laid out the objection of the Senate to that despicable act by the city council in Berkeley relative to the treatment of our marines, is also not going to probably be offered because there is an attempt to move this bill forward. I guess I appreciate the fact that the Indian health bill is a good-- I don't know if it is a good bill; I don't know enough about it, but it appears to be supported by both sides here, and they want to move it forward. It is unfortunate the LIHEAP issue, which I think should be addressed in the context I am proposing, which is that it be paid for, will not be able to be addressed at this time. But I understand the situation, and I understand why it has happened. But I do not think it can be laid at the feet of either party.

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, if I may seek the floor, I think it is pretty obvious what is happening. I want the Record to show that prior to the objection being made--it is not my fight--but as a practical matter, the majority leader came to the floor and castigated the fact that the bill was being slowed down by amendments, one of which would be the LIHEAP amendment.