Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, will the Senator from Kansas yield for a question?

Mr. GREGG. I see the Senator from California is in the Chamber. I was wondering if we could enter a game plan. I understand the Senator from Kansas has two amendments, one dealing with the Mexico City language and one dealing with Kemp-Kasten.

Mr. GREGG. The Senator from California has an amendment that deals with the language in this bill also in that general area. I was wondering if we can work out an agreement where the Senator from Kansas can have the time he has already taken, plus an additional 30 minutes on his two amendments, and the Senator from California can have 30 minutes on her amendment, and then maybe we can vote on all these amendments.

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Kansas have 30 minutes and be allowed to offer his two amendments without second-degree amendments, and the Senator from California then follow with 30 minutes and be allowed to offer her amendment without second-degree amendments, and those three amendments be voted on at the conclusion of that time.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we are going to begin voting in about 15 minutes. The Senator from Oklahoma has offered a series of amendments. I happen to be in great sympathy with the basic thrust of these amendments. They are basically trying to make these programs which address disease more efficiently delivered and have better oversight with more transparency. They are legitimate proposals. I hope as we participate in this voting sequence we can work with the Senator and come to an agreement on most of these amendments because I do believe the thrust of them is the correct direction to go, which is to demand transparency and to make sure the money we are spending gets where it is supposed to go and make sure, especially in the area of the malaria and HIV battles which we have in Africa, that we are using these funds efficiently and that the right medicines are being delivered. I appreciate the Senator's proposals. Hopefully, as we proceed with these amendments--I know the chairman feels this way and I certainly feel this way. I believe we should wrap this bill up tonight. We can wrap it up tonight if Members will tell us how they want to handle their amendments. We are ready to vote on them. If they want to vote on them, we will vote on them. We do need to get some Members to come forward. They have offered their amendments, filed their amendments, and they should tell us specifically how they want to handle those amendments so we can complete the process of passing this legislation, which is important and should be moved forward. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent for that.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I am certainly in sympathy with the purposes of the amendment. The Peace Corps is an extraordinary organization filled with very dedicated and special people who give of their life, willing to go into the countryside in parts of this world and help people out, out of their concern for social well-being and the betterment of others. They are very admirable people. So I support the number. But the offset is an issue. I have discussed this issue with Senator Dodd. I have not had a chance to discuss it with Senator Feinstein. Senator Dodd and I reached an understanding that we would try to find a better offset in conference. With that understanding, I certainly have no objection to this amendment. I ask that it be approved.

Mr. GREGG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. GREGG. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I join with Senator Leahy and thank him for the fair and open way he has pursued this bill. I thank his staff again, as I did earlier, for their great work, and my staff, obviously, also. It has been a very fair and open process, and I very much appreciate his treatment of the Republican membership in this exercise. Accelerating RFA for Soils, Water, and Ecosystem Services CRSP

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would say if the Senator is suggesting we adjourn sine die, I could support that.

Mr. GREGG

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

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a little bit what has been talked about at length in this debate. I think it has been a very helpful and good debate. It has not been about Congressman Nussle and his qualifications. That seems to be universally agreed upon. It has been about the issue of policy and how we approach fiscal policy in this country. The other side of the aisle, for whatever reason, seems to think 24 quarters of economic growth, with the addition of 8.4 million new jobs over the last few years, a tax law which was put into place which has caused us to generate more receipts as a Federal Government than we ever received before over a 3-year period relative to growth and as a percent of gross national product, is something we should not have, that this is bad policy for some reason, that giving people jobs, creating economic activity, having a tax policy that is fair, is not good. Therefore, they are attacking Congressman Nussle for him being proposed to become OMB Director and for the fact he happens to ascribe to those approaches. Now, I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I am not sure what they expect. Maybe they are sort of like Claude Rains in ``Casablanca,'' where he comes out of the room and says: I'm shocked--shocked--to find out that there's gambling going on in Rick's. What? Are they shocked to find out the President nominated a Director of OMB who agrees with him? I mean, really. Obviously, he is going to nominate a Director of OMB who agrees with him. For as much as I admire the Senator from Vermont, his philosophies, which he of his own accord has described as socialist--although he affiliates with the Democratic Party--are not necessarily the philosophies of the President. So I do not expect he is going to nominate somebody with the philosophy of the Senator from Vermont. Even France, quite honestly, has rejected the philosophy of the Senator from Vermont. So I do not think the President is going to subscribe to it. What is hard to accept, however, is this argument that for some reason the tax cut the President has put in place has been regressive, that it has been unfairly distributed. Let's go back to the record. The simple fact is today the top 20 percent of earned income or taxable income under the income tax laws-- the top 20 percent of earners in those categories is paying 85.3 percent of the burden of Federal taxes. That is more than was paid under the Clinton administration when those same people, the top 20 percent, were paying 81 percent of the burden of Federal taxes. People of lower income or moderate income who do not pay income taxes basically--individuals do, but as a group they do not pay a net income tax--the bottom 40 percent of income earners in this country is actually getting more back from the Federal Government in the form of earned income tax credit and other benefits than they received under the Clinton years--almost twice as much back. So you have the highest income people in this country paying more than under the Clinton years, who are bearing a larger share of the burden, and you have the lower income people or the moderate income people getting more back from the Federal Government. That, ladies and gentlemen, is called progressivity. That is a tax law that is working. Why is it working? Why are the people with higher incomes paying more taxes? That is called human nature. It is called human nature. If you say to someone: ``I am going to take the next 90 cents of the $1 you earn, and take it to the Federal Government and the State Government and the local government''--I do not know that Vermont reaches 90 percent. They are probably pretty close. That is why people come to New Hampshire to buy liquor and other goods; they are not subject to a sales tax. That is just a bit of PR for our State. But if you say that to a person, they are not going to go out and make the effort to earn that extra dollar, whether it is 90 percent, 70 percent, or 50 percent. Why? Because they do not want to pay the taxes. They do not want to work for the Government half the year. Actually, everybody is working for the Government half the year, but they don't want to work for it for two-thirds of the year. So if you put in place a tax law that is fair, where you say to a person: ``You go out and invest, you take a risk, you become an entrepreneur, and as a result you create jobs, and we are going to tax you fairly,'' then you get more economic activity that is taxable. As a result, you get more money to the Federal Government. That is what has happened over the last 3 years. We are now receiving more revenue than we have historically. In fact, we have had the largest increase in the history of our Government in the last 3 years as a percentage, and we are getting more in than what has been the historical norm. Usually, we have been getting, since World War II, about an 18.2-percent raise in revenues from the gross national product. Now we have gone up to 18.6 percent and 18.7 percent, and those are big increases. Why are we getting those increases? Because people are willing to participate in the taxable economy. Because there is a fair tax rate that is in place today. What is the other side of the aisle suggesting? Let's raise those taxes. Let's raise those taxes way up so we can spend the money--not to put it to debt reduction, as the Senator from North Dakota talks about--so we can raise taxes on the American people to spend the money. Their budget suggests we increase taxes by somewhere between $400 billion and $900 billion over 5 years. Their budget suggests we increase spending on the discretionary side by around $200 billion over the next 5 years. Their budget suggests we increase spending on the entitlement side by a number that is so astronomical I cannot even calculate it, but I think it is around $1 trillion. It is a classic tax-and-spend approach. Its purpose is not to make the economy stronger. Its purpose is not to reduce the debt. Its purpose is to raise taxes, to spend the money on interest, which the other side of the aisle finds attractive. Well, that is reasonable if you do it in a way that is fair. But what they are suggesting is you raise taxes on working Americans, and specifically on seniors. Do you know who most benefits from the capital gains rate? Senior citizens. Do you know who most benefits from the dividends rate? Senior citizens. Logic tells you that; also statistics do. The fact is, when you are a senor citizen, you do not have earned income. You are probably not subject to the income tax rate for the most part, but you might have dividend income from one of the pension funds you invested in or that the company you worked for invested in. And you probably have capital gains income because you probably sold some asset such as your house to move into another lifestyle. So not only are they suggesting we raise taxes in a manner which will undermine what has been a clear economic benefit to this country, in that we have seen 24 months of economic expansion and we have added 8.4 million jobs, we have seen revenues jump dramatically. In fact, the capital gains revenues are now $100 billion over what they were estimated to be--$100 billion. Why is that? Because people are willing to take risks. They are willing to take their capital out that was locked up and put it into more productive activity, the result of which is to create jobs. People are investing in starting new restaurants and starting new software companies, starting new small businesses all across this country because there is a reasonable tax rate on doing that. As a result, we are creating jobs. What is the result of that? We generate revenues to the Federal Government. The other side of the aisle does not like that, I guess. The only way they want to generate revenue to the Federal Government is to raise taxes on people. Well, it doesn't work very well, quite honestly. President Kennedy showed the best way to do it is the way we have done it. President Reagan showed us the best way to do it is the way we have done it. And now President Bush has shown it one more time. It is hard to accept this philosophy which continues to be paraded out by the other side of the aisle, which we, regrettably, in New Hampshire are hearing a great deal of--actually, we do not regret it. We love it. We love to have the folks come to New Hampshire who are running for President and listen to their positions. But as you listen to people, your head has to spin as to the number of new programs that are being proposed by the front runners of the Democratic Party. It is program after program after program. If you listen to one of their speeches--and I have listened to all the major candidates on their side of the aisle give speeches in New Hampshire over the last few weeks--it is a litany, more or less like a merry-go-round, of ideas of how to spend money, followed by ideas as to how to tax people. The list goes on and on, but right at the top of the list is raise the capital gains rate, raise the dividend rate, raise the taxes on earning Americans, raise the taxes on productive Americans, which will result in a reduction of job activity, a reduction of revenues to the Federal Government, and it will be an unfortunate decision to reverse some very good economic news we have had over the last few years. Mr. President, at this time I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I believe we sort of agreed casually on an order that the Senator from Vermont will speak, then I will speak, and then the Senator from North Dakota will wrap up.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I simply wish to note we are about to vote on the nomination for the Director of OMB, who is a man of high integrity and high quality, and who has the expertise to do this job well. I think we should presume that the President should have the right to appoint the person of his choosing to this office which is so uniquely part of the White House to begin with. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG. I thought I had some time reserved. I don't. I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I ask the Senator from Missouri if he could give his estimate of how much of a diminution of the ability of the intelligence community occurs if we do not pass adequate FISA authorization? Would it be a 30-percent reduction in their ability, or is it 20 percent? Can the Senator give a ballpark figure?

Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object. May I ask the Senator from Missouri, the ranking Republican on the Intelligence Committee, a quick and simple question prior to that? It won't take more than 2 minutes to deal with.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this amendment essentially says what the bill is titled and represents to be, which is that the funds will go to children, to help children get health insurance. This amendment says that adults can continue to be insured by States at the reimbursement rate, which is the Medicaid rate, should they so desire, but that a higher rate should not apply to adults by putting adults under a children's program. The problem is very simple. States are gaming the system. They are using the SCHIP program, which gives a higher reimbursement rate, to bring into the system adults, and then they take that money and basically use it in their general fund. This is not appropriate. It is not appropriate, first, to have adults funded under a children's health insurance program. Secondly, it is not appropriate to give States the ability to game the system in this manner. So I hope people will vote for this amendment, which essentially keeps the program for children and actually expands the number of children who can be covered by saving some money that is being spent on adults.

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

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, will the Senator from West Virginia yield for a question?

Mr. GREGG. As one of the most leading Parliamentarians in the history of the Senate, would it be appropriate by unanimous consent to reopen that vote so that the----

Mr. GREGG. I ask the Senator if he feels it is appropriate to reopen the vote so that vote could be reconsidered and Senators could----

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I understand this is a 45-minute vote?