Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, it has a huge gap in the way it is paid for. Secondly, it sets up a system of verification which the Social Security system says it can't accomplish, and, therefore, presumes that a large number of people who are in this country illegally will end up in this program. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the response of the Social Security Administration on this point and a letter to Jim McCrery, who is a Congressman and the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, to summarize, everybody around here is supportive of a plan which would fully fund what is necessary to take care of children whose families make 200 percent of poverty or less. But what we on our side don't want to see is an expansion of this program as a method of taking people out of private insurance and putting them on the public system, creating a single-payer plan and, as a result, moving down the road toward the nationalization of the entire health care industry. It would be at a cost of $71 billion to the American taxpayer, a cost which isn't accounted for in this bill and which is not paid for. The program has a fundamental flaw in it as to how they verify who is participating so we don't even know if we are going to have citizens participating in this program versus illegals. It is a bill which is flawed. It should be opposed, and it should be vetoed. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask to proceed in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, as I understand it, morning business on our side has been extended to 10:35.

Mr. GREGG. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise as an alumni of Columbia College to ask a question which I suspect is on the mind of a lot of the alumni of Columbia College and probably a lot of average Americans wandering around the country, which is, why did they create a forum for the President of Iran in a way that basically almost made him look like a sympathetic figure because of the actions of the President of the college? Open dialog on our campuses is important. We all recognize that. In fact, it is the essence of a good education. Columbia has a strong history, ironically, of having an extraordinary curriculum called a core curriculum which requires you to study all sorts of subjects whether you want to study them or not so that you gain knowledge in a variety of different areas and are exposed to a variety of different areas. I have always believed that core curriculum was one of the great strengths of the college and was certainly one of the things I most enjoyed while I was there. So open discussion and having people on the campus who have an opinion which is antithetical to the values of our society is, I suppose, reasonable. But you have to put it in the context of what other discussion is allowed on our allegedly elite university campuses or even some campuses which are maybe Ivy League; that is, if you have a view which is conservative and you happen to want to express that opinion, you are quite often limited as to your ability to speak on those campuses. I, for example, suspect it would be very hard to get a date for Donald Rumsfeld to speak at Columbia. I suspect it would be probably even more difficult to get a date for the President of the United States to speak at Columbia. I am absolutely sure the Vice President of the United States would never be invited to speak at Columbia. So one has to ask the question, Why did they decide to give a forum to an individual who is running a government of a country, the purpose of which is to develop a nuclear weapon, which nuclear weapon and weapons will be used to threaten world stability and clearly threaten their neighbors in the Middle East? Ahmadi-Nejad has said he intends to eliminate Israel. In his speech yesterday, he affirmed his view that the Holocaust was a theoretical event, maybe never happened--an absurd statement. Yesterday, he went so far as to even describe his whole society as having nobody of a homosexual persuasion. He is leading a terrorist nation, or a terrorist government--the nation itself isn't terrorist, I suspect--but a terrorist government which is in the process of arming people in Iraq who are killing American soldiers. Yet Columbia invites him and gives him a forum in which to spread his values, to the extent you can call them values, or his views. It seems ironic and inconsistent and highly inappropriate in the context of what Columbia would not allow in the area of open discussion, which would be to have, for example, the Vice President of the United States speak, I suspect. Then, to compound this error--the President of Iran is going to have his forum today at the U.N. Columbia did not have to give him an additional forum--but to compound that error, the president of the university was so egregious in the way he handled the situation, in my opinion, that he actually almost made the President of Iran look somewhat sympathetic, which is almost impossible to do. The attitude of arrogance and officiousness and the posturing of positions and questions by the president of Columbia in a way that basically gave Ahmadi-Nejad the opportunity to basically respond as if he were being coherent--because the questions and the attacks were so aggressive in a way that was arrogant and inappropriate, even in dealing with somebody like Ahmadi-Nejad--was a startling failure of leadership at the university by the president of the university. As an alumni, I was embarrassed, to put it quite simply. I was embarrassed by the fact that they would choose to give this individual such a forum, this individual who will probably, for my children, my children's children, and maybe even our generation, be the most significant threat to world peace that we have as soon as he develops his nuclear weapon, which he is on course to do, and then to compound that by setting up the forum in a way where the president of the university basically went way beyond what would be considered to be a coherent and thoughtful and balanced approach to addressing this individual. It would have been much more effective had the president of the university simply allowed the President of Iran to make his statement and, by his own statement, indict himself because that is exactly what he would have done, and he did. But, unfortunately, rather than the President of Iran becoming the issue, which he should be, the president of the university made himself part of the story and the issue. It was not a good day for Columbia or for alumni of Columbia, in my humble opinion, and it speaks volumes about the level to which the universities in our country, especially those which proclaim themselves elite, have sunk in the area of setting up open and free dialog because, as I said, as has been seen in various universities across this country, conservative thought would not have been given the type of forum this militaristic individual, whose purpose it is to essentially destabilize the world through the use of nuclear weapons, was given. Others would not be given such a forum. So it is with regret that I rise today to ask why--again, why--why did Columbia pursue this course and why did the president of the university pursue the course he pursued in responding to the attendance of the President of Iran on his campus? I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wish to correct a press release issued by my office on August 2, 2007. In this release, we correctly quoted Senator Baucus during the SCHIP debate when he stated, ``We're the only country in the industrialized world that does not have universal coverage. I think the Children's Health Insurance Program is another step to move toward universal coverage.'' Due to a misplaced quotation mark in the release, the following statement I made on the floor was included in the same quotation attributed to Senator Baucus: ``Everyone realizes that the goal of this legislation moves us a giant step further down the road to nationalizing healthcare, which would result in a drop in quality and in rationing.'' Although this is an accurate quote, it should have been attributed to me and not Senator Baucus, and I apologize for any confusion that our press release may have created.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I rise today to speak about the passage of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments of 2007. This bill includes the reauthorizations of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, PDUFA, and the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act, MDUFMA, both of which provide an essential source of funding to the FDA to ensure faster review times and enhanced patient access to safe and effective drugs and devices. The bill also reauthorizes two programs that have had a great impact on the safety of medicines for children. I support the reauthorization of the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, BPCA, and the Pediatric Research Equity Act, PREA, in particular the provision that maintains the current 6 months of data exclusivity provided under current law to create a meaningful incentive for drug manufacturers to perform pediatric safety studies. It is because of the great success of these two programs that I am pleased that the bill requires both programs to be reauthorized together in 2012. This joint sunset date allows for further reauthorizations to continue balancing the incentives and authorities that drive pediatric study. Most of all, I am pleased that the drug safety portion of the bill contains provisions from my Safer DATA Act. This language requires the FDA to establish and maintain an active surveillance infrastructure to collect and analyze drug safety data from disparate sources, such as: adverse events reports, Medicare Part D and VA health system data, and private health insurance claims data. The private sector and many academic institutions have had these capabilities for years. With this legislation, the FDA will finally have access to the best information possible. The legislation also directs the FDA to establish drug safety collaborations with private and academic entities to perform advanced research and further analysis of drug safety data once the surveillance system detects a serious risk. And finally, to enhance risk communication, the language establishes a one-stop shop web portal to give patients and providers better access to drug safety information, including aggregate information from the surveillance system. I congratulate Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi for their support of the inclusion of this provision and for their efforts to get this bill finalized before the September 21 deadline. We have consistently heard from HHS Secretary Leavitt and Commissioner Von Eschenbach over the past few months that if we failed to complete the reauthorizations of PDUFA and MDUFMA by September 21, they would be required to issue reduction-in-force--RIF--notices to FDA drug and device reviewers--the key staffers who are on the front lines of ensuring the safety and efficacy of FDA approved products. In 1997, when Congress failed to reauthorize PDUFA on time, the 1 month delay caused departures to the extent that it took 18 months for FDA to return to full staffing levels. Not only would the issuance of RIF notices this year have affected nearly 2,000 FDA employees and their families, but it would have essentially obliterated the ability of the agency to fulfill its public health mission. So it may be surprising to some, that the key obstacle to finishing this bill over the last few weeks was the House Democratic leadership's insistence on a provision that they included on behalf of their most precious constituents--not the FDA employees, not the scientists, not even the patients, but the trial lawyers. Yes, included deep in section 901 of this bill is a one-sentence rule of construction that makes the obvious statement that, notwithstanding the new authority granted to the FDA under this bill to require labeling changes; it is the responsibility of the drug company to comply with other regulatory requirements regarding the drug's label. This so called ``gift to the trial lawyers'' merely restates current law, and is not such a gift at all. Regardless of whether or not the drug company or the agency initiates a labeling change, it is the FDA that continues to have the express authority to approve, reject or modify the labeling of a drug. Not only is this rule of construction meaningless, but it pales in comparison to the expansive authority given to the FDA throughout the rest of the bill's 422 pages. What this bill does at the majority's insistence is expand the reach of the FDA's regulatory authority over prescription drugs, devices, food, and even tanning beds. In addition to the bill's many other provisions, section 901 gives the HHS Secretary explicit authority to request certain safety labeling changes. If the Secretary becomes aware of new safety information that the he or she believes should be included in the labeling for a drug, the Secretary may notify the drug company and begin a process to modify the label. Under existing preemption principles, FDA approval of labeling under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act preempts conflicting or contrary State law. The determination of whether or not labeling revisions are necessary is, in the end, squarely and solely the FDA's. Given the comprehensiveness of FDA regulation of drug safety, effectiveness and labeling under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, additional requirements for the disclosure of risk communication do not necessarily result in positive outcomes for patients, but create differing standards that heighten confusion. If we had intended through this legislation to give State courts and State juries the authority to second guess the scientific expertise of the FDA, we would have done so. In fact, based on the totality of the bill's 422 pages we have done the opposite. The intent of this legislation is explicitly clear. One FDA. One gold standard. One expert Federal agency charged by Congress with ensuring that drugs are safe and effective and that product labeling is truthful and not misleading.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Let me begin by thanking the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad, for moving forward with this important effort to try to reach a conclusion and progress on the most significant issue this Nation faces beyond our fight with Islamic terrorism. In the post-Katrina world, if the country knew that a category 5 hurricane was headed at us, we knew where it was going to hit, we knew the size of the hurricane, and we knew the damage it would do, the Government would be absolutely irresponsible not to respond to that. What we have coming at us is a category 5 fiscal hurricane. We know when it is going to hit, and that is when the baby boom generation retires and begins to retire next year and reaches its peak in its retirement size by about the year 2025. We know the impact of the problem, the size of the problem, that there is $62 trillion of unfunded liability which will be generated by the retirement of the baby boom generation to pay for the benefits under Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. To try to put that in context, that is more than the entire net worth of all of America--all our homes, cars, stocks, all our assets. That is how big this liability is. We know the effect of this category 5 fiscal hurricane because we know it is going to basically wipe out the ability of our children and our children's children to have as high a quality of life as we have had because the cost of paying for this fiscal tsunami will be so high. We need to get on to the issue of trying to address this looming threat. As the Comptroller General said today, we have a category 5 hurricane headed at us and people are still playing on the beach as if the wave is not going to arrive. Well, the wave is going to arrive. So what the chairman of the Budget Committee has put forward today--and I am honored to have the opportunity to participate in this effort--is a proposal to move forward with substantive and definitive legislation which will result in action. That is what we need--action. It is similar to the old Fram oil filter ad: You can pay me now or you can pay me later. If we act now, the cost is going to be less than if we act later. So this proposal, which has been put together after a lot of thought and effort on behalf of myself and Senator Conrad, is basically built around three concepts. First, that there must be absolute bipartisanship. So as Senator Conrad has outlined, the task force, when it meets, must have a three-fourths vote in favor of whatever proposal they bring forward. Secondly, everything has to be on the table. Nothing can be off. After all the discussion, in order for this to work, all these parts interplay with each other, you have to be willing to address not only reform and how you deliver better benefits at a lower cost under Medicare and Medicaid and better benefits at a reasonable cost under Social Security, but you also have to address the tax side of the ledger. So everything needs to be on the table. Third, that for this to work, there has to be an action-forcing mechanism. We have seen report after report, commission after commission. A lot of them have done excellent work. But on these issues, which are such hot buttons, what happens is, a commission will make a report, and all the interest groups will attack it from this side and that side and the next side. So this proposal is structured so there is an action-forcing event; specifically, fast-track approval which, again, has to be by a supermajority of the final report of the task force. This truly is an opportunity to move forward to address this issue. Our failure to do so would be truly ironic because the problem which we confront as a nation, which I say is probably the single biggest issue after the war on Islamic terrorism, fighting the war against Islamic terrorism, is that this fiscal category 5 hurricane is headed toward us, which is essentially going to wipe out our children's opportunity to have a quality of lifestyle equal to ours, is totally the responsibility of the present generation who is governing, the baby boom generation. We are the generation of governance today. So before we pass our problem on to the next generation, we have a responsibility to address it and to try to improve the effort. I know, as I look around this Chamber and at this administration, there are people of goodwill who, given the right structure, which this task force is, would be willing to come together, make the difficult decisions, and have the expertise to know how to make those decisions to move maybe not a complete resolution of these issues but a significant resolution of the issues down the road so the next generation does not have to bear the whole burden of resolving the problems. It is time to act. I congratulate the chairman of the Budget Committee for being the force behind getting this effort going. It is a very positive initiative. I think it will be received very well on our side of the aisle. I believe strongly that the administration will receive it well. Therefore, I believe we have a great opportunity to move forward in a way which will make sure our children and their children have as good a country and as strong a country from the standpoint of fiscal policy as we have. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. GREGG. I think the Senator made an excellent point that we are now in a Presidential election. This Commission is a gift to those candidates because they can come forward and point to this Commission as taking on some of the most complicated issues they are going to face. Because this timebomb--which is an appropriate description, using the Senator's words--is going to start to explode, and the explosion will be rather large during the term of the next Presidency. So this is an opportunity to give those candidates for President a forum and a procedure where these issues, which are so critical to the success of the next Presidency, can actually be moved down the road toward resolution. Is that not true?

Mr. GREGG. I once again congratulate the chairman of the Budget Committee for his exceptional leadership in this area. This is the first step in a bipartisan effort which, hopefully, will lead to a bipartisan solution that America will see as fair and which will pass on to our children a stronger and more vital Nation. Thank you.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Let me begin by thanking the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad, for moving forward with this important effort to try to reach a conclusion and progress on the most significant issue this Nation faces beyond our fight with Islamic terrorism. In the post-Katrina world, if the country knew that a category 5 hurricane was headed at us, we knew where it was going to hit, we knew the size of the hurricane, and we knew the damage it would do, the Government would be absolutely irresponsible not to respond to that. What we have coming at us is a category 5 fiscal hurricane. We know when it is going to hit, and that is when the baby boom generation retires and begins to retire next year and reaches its peak in its retirement size by about the year 2025. We know the impact of the problem, the size of the problem, that there is $62 trillion of unfunded liability which will be generated by the retirement of the baby boom generation to pay for the benefits under Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. To try to put that in context, that is more than the entire net worth of all of America--all our homes, cars, stocks, all our assets. That is how big this liability is. We know the effect of this category 5 fiscal hurricane because we know it is going to basically wipe out the ability of our children and our children's children to have as high a quality of life as we have had because the cost of paying for this fiscal tsunami will be so high. We need to get on to the issue of trying to address this looming threat. As the Comptroller General said today, we have a category 5 hurricane headed at us and people are still playing on the beach as if the wave is not going to arrive. Well, the wave is going to arrive. So what the chairman of the Budget Committee has put forward today--and I am honored to have the opportunity to participate in this effort--is a proposal to move forward with substantive and definitive legislation which will result in action. That is what we need--action. It is similar to the old Fram oil filter ad: You can pay me now or you can pay me later. If we act now, the cost is going to be less than if we act later. So this proposal, which has been put together after a lot of thought and effort on behalf of myself and Senator Conrad, is basically built around three concepts. First, that there must be absolute bipartisanship. So as Senator Conrad has outlined, the task force, when it meets, must have a three-fourths vote in favor of whatever proposal they bring forward. Secondly, everything has to be on the table. Nothing can be off. After all the discussion, in order for this to work, all these parts interplay with each other, you have to be willing to address not only reform and how you deliver better benefits at a lower cost under Medicare and Medicaid and better benefits at a reasonable cost under Social Security, but you also have to address the tax side of the ledger. So everything needs to be on the table. Third, that for this to work, there has to be an action-forcing mechanism. We have seen report after report, commission after commission. A lot of them have done excellent work. But on these issues, which are such hot buttons, what happens is, a commission will make a report, and all the interest groups will attack it from this side and that side and the next side. So this proposal is structured so there is an action-forcing event; specifically, fast-track approval which, again, has to be by a supermajority of the final report of the task force. This truly is an opportunity to move forward to address this issue. Our failure to do so would be truly ironic because the problem which we confront as a nation, which I say is probably the single biggest issue after the war on Islamic terrorism, fighting the war against Islamic terrorism, is that this fiscal category 5 hurricane is headed toward us, which is essentially going to wipe out our children's opportunity to have a quality of lifestyle equal to ours, is totally the responsibility of the present generation who is governing, the baby boom generation. We are the generation of governance today. So before we pass our problem on to the next generation, we have a responsibility to address it and to try to improve the effort. I know, as I look around this Chamber and at this administration, there are people of goodwill who, given the right structure, which this task force is, would be willing to come together, make the difficult decisions, and have the expertise to know how to make those decisions to move maybe not a complete resolution of these issues but a significant resolution of the issues down the road so the next generation does not have to bear the whole burden of resolving the problems. It is time to act. I congratulate the chairman of the Budget Committee for being the force behind getting this effort going. It is a very positive initiative. I think it will be received very well on our side of the aisle. I believe strongly that the administration will receive it well. Therefore, I believe we have a great opportunity to move forward in a way which will make sure our children and their children have as good a country and as strong a country from the standpoint of fiscal policy as we have. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. GREGG. I think the Senator made an excellent point that we are now in a Presidential election. This Commission is a gift to those candidates because they can come forward and point to this Commission as taking on some of the most complicated issues they are going to face. Because this timebomb--which is an appropriate description, using the Senator's words--is going to start to explode, and the explosion will be rather large during the term of the next Presidency. So this is an opportunity to give those candidates for President a forum and a procedure where these issues, which are so critical to the success of the next Presidency, can actually be moved down the road toward resolution. Is that not true?

Mr. GREGG. I once again congratulate the chairman of the Budget Committee for his exceptional leadership in this area. This is the first step in a bipartisan effort which, hopefully, will lead to a bipartisan solution that America will see as fair and which will pass on to our children a stronger and more vital Nation. Thank you.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I would say to my friend from New Hampshire that my staff informs me that they, too, were not consulted on MEPI-added criteria.

Mr. GREGG. I appreciate your bringing these matters to my attention. My staff will request a briefing from the State Department on the scholarship program, and if needed, we will seek additional clarification during conference on this matter with the House.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that we immediately move to a vote on this resolution stating we support General Petraeus as general in the field, we support his men and women who are fighting for us, and that we reject the despicable ad of MoveOn.org.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I regret the decision by the majority party to not allow us to proceed in this manner, to help us give this good man his fair hearing. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to address this issue now because, as I understand, there is a bit of a lull here. I congratulate the managers for wanting to get the bill completed. I want to continue this discussion that has been going forward today on the treatment of General Petraeus by the group MoveOn.org relative to the advertisement they ran, which has been shown on the floor a number of times, which referred to him as ``General Betray Us.'' I think it was a despicable act. I think it crosses the line, where someone who has dedicated his life to defending this Nation would be subjected to this type of a personal assassination, personality assassination, character assassination. It is totally inappropriate. The troops serving us in Iraq are doing so because they believe unalterably in the cause of America. They believe what this Nation stands for is good and right. They are putting their lives on the line to make sure we can maintain the freedoms that are so critical to us. You can disagree with the policies on Iraq--and I have a lot of reservations about them, especially my severe concerns about what is happening with the Government of Iraq in both the area of creating a coalition government and stability, and specifically in the area of corruption. But what you cannot argue with and what should not occur is to say to our troops who are out there every day facing danger and, obviously, a lethal threat, that we do not support them. Yet when you impugn in such a gratuitous and vicious way the integrity of their commander in the field, you clearly impugn the troops in the field also. It is wrong, and it should not be tolerated. General Petraeus has a record which is extraordinary. He has dedicated almost four decades, I believe, to the military service of this country. He has received the Bronze Star, along with innumerable other decorations. He commanded the 101st Airborne. He has been to Iraq on three tours and spent the last 4 years overseas away from his family. He has put in place an initiative in Iraq which he generally believes, as his testimony has shown both yesterday and today before the House and the Senate, is making progress in a number of critical areas relative to the war on the ground, relative to fighting the Islamic terrorists who wish to do us harm. Yet before he even got to the Senate or to the House to testify and make his case as to why he felt his policy, the policy he is pursuing as the general in command, is the correct policy and should be sustained, before that could even occur, his character was attacked in the most vicious way by people who oppose the war. Opposing the war is a legitimate position. There are very strong arguments in that area. I do not happen to agree with many of them, but I respect those arguments when they are made substantively and appropriately. But when an organization, such as MoveOn.org, which is a national organization of dramatic influence, steps out and runs a full- page ad at the cost of $160,000 in the New York Times which has as its title, ``Is he General Petraeus or General Betray Us,'' that is an inexcusable, vicious and petty act and not becoming of our society and a democracy generally. The other side of the aisle--and I have the greatest respect for Members on the other side of the aisle relative to their commitment on this issue--the other side of the aisle said: It is not us doing this. Let's remember that MoveOn.org identifies with and openly claims to be a major player in the caucus of the Democratic Party. In fact, this weekend in the New York Times, the lead spokesman for MoveOn.org said-- and I paraphrase here--but he said: I meet regularly with the Democratic leaders of the Senate, and I talk almost daily to the Democratic staff of the Democratic leaders of the Senate. Earlier in the year, MoveOn.org--and I believe it was the same individual, and I again paraphrase--said of the Democratic Party: We bought it, it is ours, we are going to dominate it. I see in New Hampshire that MoveOn.org is being one of the most aggressive arms of the Democratic Party in our State. They are the ones carrying the message relative to the war, relative to the Democratic leadership in our State, that is for sure. So I think this attempt now to step away--the attempt isn't even occurring. But this statement by MoveOn.org, which is so over the top and so outrageous and so inexcusable in its treatment of an American soldier and the troops he commands, should be repudiated openly. It should be repudiated by this Senate because it is wrong. It is common decency that we should repudiate it. Yet we see on this floor that procedural mechanisms are being used to protect MoveOn.org. That is what is happening here. Rule XVI, a procedural mechanism in this Senate, has been used to keep a very reasonably innocuous sense of the Senate from being brought forward to a vote. It doesn't take very long to vote on something such as this. We could set up a vote in 10 minutes. What does this sense of the Senate, which is so inappropriate that it has to be knocked down by a procedural action, say? It says: (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate-- (1) to reaffirm its support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, including General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force--Iraq; (2) to strongly condemn any effort to attack the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all of the members of the United States Armed Forces; and (3) to specifically repudiate the unwarranted personal attacks on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group MoveOn.org. I think it is No. 3 that must bother my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, which is causing us not to be able to go to a vote on this amendment, that we would repudiate, probably from a financial standpoint, one of the biggest contributors to the efforts to fight the war and that organization, which openly claims to essentially be an arm of the Democratic Party, would be repudiated on the Senate floor. But they deserve to be repudiated. Honestly, if an organization which identified itself with the Republican Party--I cannot think of any that we have that has the type of money that MoveOn.org has because we don't have any George Soroses funding us or any organization such as that, but if we did have such an organization and they did something such as this, I would immediately want to repudiate it because somebody of the character and commitment of General Petraeus does not deserve this attack. He came back to testify because he was asked to come back to testify by committees which are majority committees, committees where the majority is controlled by the Democratic leadership of the Congress. Yet before he gets here to testify before those committees, there is a clear attempt to discredit him personally because they do not like the message. So instead of attacking the message, they decided to kill the messenger or attempt to at least undermine the messenger. That is the goal of this ad, nothing more than a petty attempt to basically undermine the message General Petraeus has to deliver: We are going to attack him who is the messenger, which is gratuitous, inappropriate, inaccurate, unfair, and vicious, quite simply vicious, calling him ``General Betray Us.'' So if the majority party does not subscribe to this message, then they should allow us to offer this resolution right now while he is in town, while he is testifying before the Senate today and before the House yesterday. They should not ask us to wait until next week to correct this egregious act and to go on record to repudiate this egregious act. They should not use a parliamentary procedure to defend MoveOn.org. No, we should have a vote right now on this resolution, this sense of the Senate. So at this point, I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that rule XVI not apply to this sense of the Senate and that a procedural attack on this sense of the Senate not be in order.

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

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the bill before us today from a policy standpoint does some things which are extremely positive. It adjusts, I think appropriately, the cost of the amount of subsidy that is going into the system relative to higher education loans and takes savings from that subsidy, which was going to lenders, and moves it over to assist people who need assistance, especially under the Pell Grant Program. So it is, from a policy standpoint, moving in the right direction in many ways. In addition, as the Senator from Wyoming has pointed out, there needs to be tied to this a Higher Education Reauthorization Act, which unfortunately is not in this bill and needs to be in this bill in order to complete the package. That is critical to this whole undertaking in making sure we significantly improve our ability to support people who are going to college, making sure the loans which these people get are properly disclosed and that the money does not end up, as we increase the Pell grants, being taken away by increasing tuitions which are tied to our Pell grant increases. So there are good things about this bill. There is also a big part of this bill that is missing, which is the Higher Education Reauthorization Act, and certainly the Senator from Wyoming made an eloquent statement on that. What I wished to talk about, however, was the fact that this bill comes to the floor in an inappropriate way, using the wrong vehicle, and as a result deems serious harm to the budget process we have in the Congress. This bill comes under what is known as reconciliation. Reconciliation is a very unique vehicle which we have in the Senate, the purpose of which is to avoid filibusters and allow legislation to move, which is going to be used on the spending side of the ledger, at least, to reduce entitlement spending. It was created out of the 1974 Budget Act. It has been used over the years for the purposes of reconciliation, of reducing entitlement spending. In fact, in 1990, it reduced entitlement spending--it was used to reduce about $480 billion in entitlement spending over a 10- year period; in 1993, about $433 billion; in 1995, about $337 billion; in 1997, about $118 billion; and then in 2006, about $36 billion. Why do we use this mechanism? Well, every year we have two different types of spending in the Federal Government. We have discretionary spending, which means it occurs on an annual basis and is appropriated, it goes through the Appropriations Committee. That represents about a third of the Federal Government spending. Then we have entitlement spending, which is spending that occurs where the Federal Government, as a result of laws, has an obligation to pay money to somebody. Agriculture programs are, for example, entitlement programs, where if you plant a certain amount of fields or do not plant a certain amount of fields, you have a right to obtain payment from the Federal Government under the law. Medicare is an entitlement program. We have a lot of education programs which are arguably entitlement programs and a lot that are discretionary programs. But the problem is, when you have an entitlement program, you cannot adjust it annually through the appropriations process. The only way you can adjust it is by changing the law which affects that program and creates savings or more spending. So the Budget Act recognized this and also recognizes it is extremely hard to do that in the context of the Senate because the Senate has the filibuster, where you can basically tie anything up without 60 votes. It also requires 60 votes to pass just about anything. So this very unique and very powerful instrument was given to the budgeting process called reconciliation, where there is a limited amount of time to debate a bill, in this case 10 hours as a result of a conference report, no filibuster can apply, and it only takes 51 votes to pass the bill. But this whole concept of giving this very strong power to the Budget Committee and to the committees of jurisdiction was to allow us to reduce the rate of growth of entitlement spending in order to make the budget more manageable. What has happened, however, has been to reverse that, to actually do the exact opposite using reconciliation, with the representation that we are going to save, I believe it is $750 million, which is minuscule--remember that over the years we have been saving billions of dollars through reconciliation--with the representation that we are going to save $750 million. We have a chart which reflects this. These are savings which we have received under reconciliation when we have used it in the past: $428 billion; $433 billion; up until 2006, we did $39 billion. This year, this reconciliation bill, saves less than $1 billion net. So it is not a savings vehicle at all. In fact, what it does is it uses that $93 billion savings to mask an almost $21 billion spending event. It takes the reconciliation--as long as you get a net savings, you are allowed to use reconciliation--and uses it to dramatically increase spending. In fact, the amount of new spending in this reconciliation bill exceeds the amount of savings by 2,900 percent. In other words, the spending in this bill is 29 times larger than the savings in this bill, which totally undermines and makes a joke out of the budget process and reconciliation, and it is totally inappropriate to have done this, to use reconciliation in this manner. It could be effectively argued the proposals that have been brought forward under this bill would easily pass this Congress with 60 votes, with or without reconciliation. But by using reconciliation, they allowed themselves to eliminate all amendments, for all intents and purposes of any significance, and they have this 51-vote rule, and as a result of spending 2,900 times more than they save, they essentially make a mockery of the budget process. Not only do they make a mockery of the budget process on the issue of reconciliation, they make a mockery of the budget process by the manner in which they score the bill itself. This bill is set up so the Pell grants will increase, which is what the goal of the bill is, to $5,400 per person, but the spending on the Pell grants will also increase rather dramatically over the next few years because we are taking a subsidy which is now going to lenders and putting it into Pell spending. But in the year 2013, under this bill, we are going to go back to zero, essentially zero dollars being spent on Pell grants. That is what this bill calls for in 2013, zero dollars essentially will be spent on Pell grants. What a farce. I mean, really. In order for them to take advantage of reconciliation and the protection of reconciliation, they had to put in place a program which goes from almost $5 billion in the year 2012, down to zero in 2013. Talk about truth in budgeting or integrity in budgeting. How can anybody vote for this who believes we should have an honest budget and claim that they are being honest? There is $9 billion of Pell grant, which one could realistically argue over the next 10 years is going to have to be spent, which isn't accounted for. It is sort of, well, it will appear from the sky, I guess. One would think that would be enough; that basically the proposal makes a mockery of the reconciliation process in the budget, makes a mockery of the baseline by going back to zero spending in 2013. But then we get to pay-go; pay-go, the sacred cow of fiscal discipline from the other side of the aisle that we hear so much about. We are going to stand by pay-go in order to discipline Federal Government spending. We heard that incessantly in the last Congress from the other side of the aisle. We heard it incessantly from people running for office from the other side of the aisle. But it has become Swiss cheese as bill after bill after bill has been brought to the floor which has waived pay-go when it came to spending. What a surprise. The Democratic majority waives pay-go when they want to spend money. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. GREGG. Then they claim they are using pay-go to discipline the Federal Government. It has happened time and time again. The most recent egregious event prior to this one was SCHIP, where they added $41 billion of new spending waiving pay-go. This $6 billion down here that was a pay-go violation has now grown to be about $20 billion under this bill. So the little hole in the Swiss cheese should be a great big hole. Anyone who comes to this floor and claims they are using pay-go to discipline the Federal budget at any time for the rest of this Congress will have to have a sanity test given to them because they certainly can't defend that on the basis of any facts. The problem with this bill isn't the policy. In fact, quite honestly, I would have probably used a more aggressive policy. I would have been willing to auction all these accounts to get to the real number as to what the subsidy is. We might have saved a lot more money and put more money into Pell. The problem is, this bill, in the manner in which it is brought to the floor, basically puts a stake through the heart of the budget process. It takes reconciliation, which is the most significant tool of the budget process, and makes a joke out of it by using it to increase spending 2,900 times more than it creates savings. It takes the baseline and makes a joke out of it by reducing Pell grants in 2013 to zero spending, when we know we are going to be spending $5.5 billion on Pell grants in 2013. It takes pay-go, which is alleged to be a disciplining mechanism, waives it, and then spends $21 billion that would have been subject to it. My point is obviously one of frustration, as former chairman of the Budget Committee. I would like to see us have a budget that means something. We didn't pass a budget. The Democratic Party passed a budget; I congratulated them for that. I didn't agree with it, but at least they passed it. But if they are going to pass it, they ought to have a purpose for it, and they ought to live by it. The purpose should not be to expand spending, to make a joke of the baseline, and to basically put holes in the pay-go mechanism which they claim is the essence of their fiscal discipline. From a public policy standpoint, the bill may have good policy in it, but from the standpoint of managing the fiscal house of this country, it is doing fundamental harm to the budget process. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG. Well, Mr. President, first I would like to complete my thought on this point because I think it is critical. The budget reconciliation process was not set up to be a stalking-horse for dramatic expansion in the size of Federal Government entitlement programs. That was not the purpose of the reconciliation structure. It was set up for the purposes of being able to control the rate of growth of entitlement programs. Now, we can debate whether the budget process was set up for the purposes of allowing us to return more tax dollars to taxpayers with reasonable tax rates, but certainly on the issue of spending, there is no question but that reconciliation was not intended to expand entitlement spending. independent students