Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Parliamentary inquiry initially: Is the second-degree amendment the pending amendment or is the Graham amendment pending?

Mr. GREGG. Is the majority leader's motion to both amendments?

Mr. GREGG. It is a point of order that this is legislating, this is the rule XVI point of order; is that correct?

Mr. GREGG. I raise the defense of germaneness with respect to the pending amendment.

Mr. GREGG. So our colleagues understand the lay of the land, because it is a fairly complicated parliamentary situation, the Graham amendment, which increases funding for Border Patrol by $3 billion, I would point out that the majority leader, I believe, misspoke when he said the extra $2.2 billion in this bill went to border security. The extra $2.2 billion in this bill, the majority of it exceeds the President's request in the area of first responders, and that is why we did not move that money out of the first responders to fund this. This is in addition to the funding in this bill to fully fund 23,000 Border Patrol agents, 45,000 detention beds, the virtual fence, the hard fence, and to make sure there are enough ICE enforcement officers. So it is a major initiative in the funding area. There is also authorizing language in here. It is the authorizing language which I guess the majority leader has the most concerns about. But that is the underlying bill. The question before the body is, as I understand it, the underlying bill, probably because the authorizing language may not be germane. This will be a vote basically on the issue, in my opinion, of whether you want to increase funding for border security by $3 billion, fully funding what is necessary in order to make the border secure, including undertaking specific authorizing language which we think is important in order to give the Border Patrol and ICE agents the necessary tools they need in order to remove people from this country who have come to this country illegally or have done illegal acts while they are here. This is essentially a vote on the underlying amendment.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I do.

Mr. GREGG. How much time remains?

Mr. GREGG. How much time remains to the offeror of the amendment?

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, when we structured the arrangement between direct student lending and private lending back in the 1990s, when Senator Kennedy was chairman of the committee, there was considerable open dialog about the fact that we were going to set an even playing field where we would allow the marketplace, essentially the students and the schools, to decide who was going to win, who would be used more often, direct lending or the private market. That was the theory. The Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Indiana, at that time Mr. Coats, and I worked on this at great length. We worked out an arrangement where this was the way we would approach it. But ever since then, or at least in the last year, there has been an attempt to tilt the playing field significantly toward direct lending and to make the Government the lender of first resort and last resort for most students, even though in most instances that has been rejected both by the students and the education community. This amendment is just an extension of that effort and is arguably an extremely expensive extension because even though the scoring rules may reflect a zero scoring--and I am not sure it will--we know those rules don't adequately reflect the cost to the Government of having participated in these types of lending programs. What we are doing now under this amendment is saying not only do you have these base lending amounts that are available under direct lending, but you are going to be able to borrow up to the full cost of your education. So it dramatically skews the system to favor direct lending and especially to allow students and parents, as has been pointed out by the ranking member on the committee, to arbitrage that money and encourages high cost schools to become even more expensive. One of the things we have seen is that there appears to be a direct correlation between tuition going up at schools and federally supported lending and Federal grants being increased. So the students are not usually advantaged by this expansion of direct lending and, many times, grants. It is, rather, the schools that are advantaged, especially high-end schools which simply raise their tuition to absorb whatever new money is flowing in out of the Federal Treasury. It has become a fairly cynical game on the part of many academic institutions, but it is exactly what has happened. This amendment needs a hearing. It needs to be vetted very aggressively in committee, as the Senator from Wyoming, the ranking Republican, pointed out. It basically, in my humble opinion, right up front, undermines three of the basic principles we should be trying to resist occurring. The first principle is we not unduly tilt the playing field in favor of direct lending over private lending or private lending over direct lending. Last week's amendment, which I think took a significant amount of money out of the subsidy for private lending, was a good step in the direction of not allowing private lending to get an advantage. This amendment should not be passed because it gives direct lending an unfair advantage. Secondly, it should not create an atmosphere where students are pushed toward higher income schools, higher cost schools, and where parents and students are allowed to basically game the system through arbitraging funds--borrowing at one rate, lending at another rate-- assuming they had some other sources of revenue. Thirdly, it should not encourage this process which is occurring out there of giving significant resources without any discipline to higher education facilities so they can then raise their tuition, at the expense of students who do not have these types of resources to pay these loans or who do not qualify for these loans and end up with education becoming more expensive simply because the higher education institutions see there is easy money out there to capture, and they do not have to be disciplined in managing their education systems. So there are a lot of issues this raises--a lot of issues. Now, I know the basic goal of some on the other side is to move the whole thing to direct lending. Unfortunately, that has become the cause celebre around here, and the purpose. Much like universal health care, they would like to have universal Federal lending policies around here. But the private sector plays a significant and constructive role in making college affordable for American students, and has. The original agreement, which was reached in the 1990s to make the playing field balanced and fair and to keep it balanced and fair, is the way we should proceed. We should not be putting in place, out of the clear blue sky, a brand-new major direct lending program which will undermine some of the major tenets and efforts we have undertaken in higher education lending. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of the time for the ranking member.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this is a reconciliation bill. The purpose of reconciliation is to not radically grow the size of Government but to control the size of Government. Under this bill, unfortunately, the size of Government will grow by $19 billion. The actual savings in the bill is now down to $750 million. So for every $1 of savings, there is now $19 billion of new spending--new spending. That is not the purpose of reconciliation. What the Senator is suggesting now is that in the second 5 years, when there is $40 billion of new spending, that another $2.3 billion of deficit reduction which was supposed to occur will be grabbed and also spent. This makes no sense at all. We are supposed to use reconciliation to reduce the rate of growth of Government, not to spend. This is an attempt to increase the spending, which is already $40 billion in the second 5 years, by another $2.3 billion, which was supposed to go to deficit reduction. I hope people will vote against it.

Mr. GREGG

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

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, is there a speaking order at this time?

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Alaska may have an amendment to offer, and when she does, I will be happy to yield the floor to the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. GREGG. Is the Senator from Alaska planning to offer an amendment?

Mr. GREGG. Does the Senator seek the floor at this time? Without yielding the floor, I yield to the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. GREGG. I will speak, and if the Senator from Alaska wishes to offer her amendment and that has been worked out, I will yield the floor to the Senator from Alaska. I am not offering an amendment at this time. Whenever she wishes to proceed, tap me on the shoulder. Mr. President, I wish to address an issue which may be perceived as a bit arcane and is outside the policy within the debate that is occurring here, which is actually quite critical to the fiscal discipline of our Government and especially the Congress. This bill comes forward as a reconciliation bill. This is an arcane term which arises out of the Budget Act. The Budget Act creates the ability for the Budget Committee, when it is creating a budget, to give instructions to various committees within the Congress to meet goals set forth by the Budget Committee. These instructions are called reconciliation instructions. The purpose of reconciliation is to control entitlement spending primarily and to control the rate of growth of the Government, in fact, as a purpose. It was structured because although part of the budget can discipline discretionary spending through what is known as caps, it is virtually impossible to discipline the rate of growth of Government on the entitlement account side through spending caps because entitlements are programs which people have a right to and a spending cap has no impact on it. So if we are going to affect the rate of growth of spending on the entitlement side, programs which people by law have a right to receive and is a Federal benefit--that is programs such as veterans' benefits, education benefits under the Pell grant, in some instances, Medicare, Medicaid. Those are all entitlement programs. If you are going to control those entitlements, you actually have to change the law. So the Budget Committee--and it is probably the primary power vested in the Budget Committee--passes a budget to direct various committees in the Congress that have jurisdiction over various entitlement programs to control the rate of those programs and, thus, the rate of growth of the Federal Government. That was always the concept of the Budget Act--control the rate of growth of the Federal Government, especially in the entitlement accounts through reconciliation. But what has happened is a total adulteration of that purpose. In a rather effective sleight of hand, the Budget Committee, with the full knowledge of the Budget Committee on the majority side and with the full knowledge of the majority side, gave a savings instruction to the HELP Committee to save $750 million over 5 years, which is a lot of money, but under the Federal budgeting process actually is still an asterisk. Why would the Budget Committee ask the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to save $750 million over 5 years, when it asked no other committee in the Congress to save money in the entitlement accounts? None. No other committee was asked to discipline fiscal spending around here on entitlement accounts. Well, because it was a ruse, a pure unadulterated ruse. The HELP Committee, under the able and wily leadership of the Senator from Massachusetts, whom I greatly admire as one of the finer legislators in this body, had identified a pool of money which they knew they could grab, specifically subsidies which are paid by the Federal Government to lenders and which are unquestionably excessive--there is no debate about that. That pool of money had been identified by the wily chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. He knew that if he could get his hands on that money, he could then spend it. But he also knew he couldn't get his hands on that money without a reconciliation instruction from the Budget Committee. So what happened was we had this small, in the context of Federal spending around here, budget savings instruction of $750 million given to the HELP Committee by the Budget Committee, with reconciliation appended to it as a protection. What reconciliation protection means is the bill comes to the floor, it has to be completed in 20 hours, and it only takes 51 votes to pass it. That is a huge protection in the Senate--protection from the filibuster rule, protection from the standard operating practice of the Senate with a lot of amendments occurring which could take up to weeks. It is an immense power to give to a bill to identify it as a reconciliation bill for the purposes of passage. So that bill, that power of reconciliation was attached to a $750 million instruction for savings. Then the HELP Committee passed out that bill, the reconciliation bill. I believe it is a $19.7 billion bill--$19.75 billion, something like that. What happened to the other $19 billion in savings? It is being spent. This chart reflects it fairly well. The new spending, under expansion of programs under reconciliation, under this bill, will be $19 billion. The actual savings under the bill will be making a farce of the concept of controlling the size of the Federal Government and Federal spending through the reconciliation process, inverting the process, to be quite honest, at a rate of 1 to 20. Ironically, when the budget left the Senate, it had an amendment in it which said--because I offered the amendment, so I am familiar with it and it was passed, which was even more surprising--which said that no reconciliation bill could spend more than 20 percent, which I thought was still too much, of the amount saved. Had that amendment survived the conference process, this bill could not have come to the floor because this bill spends $20 for every $1 it saves. Under that amendment, not the reverse but a significantly different approach would have had to have been taken. It would have had to save $5 for every $1 it spent. This is a totally new practice. This is a historical use of reconciliation. We can see that deficit reduction over the years through reconciliation has occurred rather dramatically. But in this bill, in this budget, there was no deficit reduction through reconciliation. More importantly--and this is the real essence of the problem--the spending under the Federal budget, the alleged reductions had no impact on spending. Spending continues to go up dramatically because actually the mechanisms that are supposed to be used to reduce the size of spending or the rate of growth of spending-- we never actually reduce spending around here--reduce the rate of growth of spending and the rate of growth of a Federal program is a mechanism that is now being used to dramatically expand the rate of growth of spending of the Federal Government. So the Budget Act, which has been under significant pressure to begin with, and basically in 3 of the last 5 years we haven't even been able to pass a budget, has now essentially been emasculated as a concept of disciplining spending and is now being used as a mechanism to expand the size of the Federal Government and destroy the fundamental purpose of reconciliation. Why is this a problem? Whether we like to admit to it, we have some huge issues coming at us in the area of entitlement spending in this country. We have on the books $65 trillion--that is trillion with a T-- of unfunded liability in the three major mandatory or entitlement accounts--Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. The only way, I suspect, that we are going to be able to manage some sort of disciplining of those programs so they are affordable for our children, so we don't pass on to our children a Government that basically overwhelms their capacity to pay for it, is through using the reconciliation process. But that process has been, for all intents and purposes, run over. A new concept has been developed. Reconciliation will no longer be used to control the rate of growth of the Federal Government. It will be used as a stalking horse for expanding the rate of growth of the Federal Government. The great irony, of course, is it did not have to happen this way. The equities are on the side of the Senator from Massachusetts relative to the need to reduce the subsidy to lenders and, in fact, I proposed an idea which would have probably seen a much bigger reduction in lender subsidies, which would be an outright auction so we could actually find what is the market value of what should be paid for these accounts. Even the administration wanted to take a fair percentage of those funds that would be saved from lenders and move them into Pell grants. My druthers, of course, but I am not in the majority and I suspect I wouldn't win this fight, would be to take a big chunk of the money and put it into Pell grants and a big chunk of money and put it into deficit reduction so we start to pay down some of the problems we are presenting our children. But under any scenario, the protection of reconciliation was not necessary to accomplish this funding. In fact, it would have been good had reconciliation not been used because then we would have tied to this bill the underlying policy of the Higher Education Act, which should be passing the Senate at the same time this funding mechanism is passing this Senate. But, no, the choice was to go this cut-by-half proposal, which in the process has fundamentally harmed our capacity as Congress to discipline ourselves and is using a vehicle meant to control the rate of growth of Government to expand the rate of growth of the Government. I probably am the only person in this body frustrated by this situation because I may be the last person in this body who believes we should use reconciliation for fiscal discipline. But I thought the point should be made as former chairman of the Budget Committee that we have now, for all intents and purposes, as a body, abandoned any attempt--not any attempt but the one vehicle that gave us credibility on the one issue of doing something about the most significant issue we confront as a nation after the question of how we fight Islamic fundamentalists who wish to do us harm with weapons of mass destruction. After that issue, which pervades all other issues, the most significant issue is the fact that we are about to pass on to our children a government that under no circumstances can they afford because the cost of entitlement accounts is going to exceed their capacity to pay for those accounts by huge numbers. In fact, we had a study last week from CBO that said in order to pay for the pending entitlement responsibilities of the baby boom generation--Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security--tax rates in this country will have to go to 92 percent--92 percent--of income. Obviously, that is not a doable event. The one mechanism we had around here to force action effectively has now been emasculated by the process which we are participating in on the floor. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to my longtime communications director and friend Erin Rath, who for the past 9 years has had the unenviable task of turning a sow's ear to a silk purse, of explaining what I ``really'' meant and consoling reporters whose call I missed. Erin comes from hearty New Hampshire political stock and was brought up in an environment where politics and community service was very much a part of her life. Her mother Chris is a leading educator in Concord, serving as superintendent of schools, and her father Tom is a bit of a legend in New Hampshire politics for offering sound advice to Presidential candidates who wander into the Granite State. But, anyone who knows Erin will tell you she has always cut her own path, willing to take any task and accomplishing it with a smile. Whether it was dealing with a not so media friendly member or an aggressive reporter, Erin has perfected the skills needed to pitch any story with style and grace. She understands how to craft a message and have it be understood, whether by a weekly paper in New Hampshire or the Wall Street Journal. On those rare days that I didn't want to do press, Erin was always the one coming to me and promoting an interview or conference call and, even when temporarily rebuffed, would find a way to cheerfully get her mission accomplished. And, when she was left to translate the day's events to a press corps that was disinterested or confused, Erin would find a way to make the story intelligible and get it in print or across the airwaves. Erin has also worn another very important hat in my office as the lead on appropriations issues. She excelled at organizing and managing my appropriations requests and making sure worthy New Hampshire projects were not overlooked. Erin has been responsible for helping to deliver hundreds of millions of dollars to better our State. Just as important to Kathy and I has been the friendship that went well beyond the office. Knowing Erin since she was rather young, allowed us the rare opportunity to watch a bubbly, redheaded, star athlete mature into a charming and professional woman and soon to be mother. Whether it was house-sitting or helping watch over our active family, Erin has long been a part of the Gregg family. Erin has decided to delay the dream many of us had for her of running for Congress in New Hampshire until after the birth of her first child and move to Minnesota with her husband Dan Moos as he begins his teaching career at the Gustavus Adolphus College. Erin, after being in the eye of the storm for the past 9 years, will enjoy living in a frozen, quiet land where community spirit is derived from singing the Golden Gophers fight song. Kathy joins me in wishing Erin continued great success and in thanking her for all that she has done for the Gregg family, our office, and New Hampshire.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, today I wish to express Kathy's and my greatest admiration and thanks for a person who over the past 14 years has been the heart and soul of my Washington staff. Vasiliki Alexopoulos Christopoulos has served as my administrative assistant since February 2001 and before that as my legislative director, director of appropriations and as a legislative assistant. From her first days when she began working with us during our 1992 Senate campaign, Kathy and I knew Vas was an extraordinary person. To describe Vas simply as AA does not do her justice--although that job is at the center of a well-run and effective Washington office and is critical to the success of a Senator. She, rather, has been the heartbeat of the office. Her caring, warm, and always positive personality calms the stormy times and has given all of us a shot of energy when we needed a lift. Vas understands that running an office is more than assigning tasks. Under her leadership, it has been about building an exceptional team. She always makes sure that when there is a task to be done, it is not left to one person; rather, everyone jumps in with Vas leading the way. Whether it is counseling interns through separation anxieties, interviewing people to join the office, or assisting Kathy, me, and our children in making sense out of this chaotic lifestyle, Vas has always organized, planned, and followed through in a manner that has lead to a successful end in a positive way. Walking with Vas to get a cup of coffee is like taking a field trip. This is no police officer, no maintenance staff, no congressional staff who does not know Vas and want to share a story. One quickly learns that everyone in Washington is Greek. Vas could do about anything she wishes, including probably be mayor of Nashua, but she has chosen a different course. She is moving from the friendly confines of Washington and Nashua to the cold, barren land of Grand Rapids, MI. Michigan, where the summer occurs on July 4, will be the better for this. She will bring her sunny personality which will inevitably warm even the chill climate of Michigan. As Vas and her terrific husband Jimmy embark on this new career path and challenge, seeking all things Greek, Kathy joins me in thanking her for all her years of dedication to the Gregg family, our office staff, and all the people of New Hampshire. We have all greatly benefited from her commitment and love. She has been and will remain a part of our family and although she will be a bit further away, we wish her only the best and say thank you.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, since its implementation, the No Child Left Behind Act has been successful in narrowing the achievement gap and improving student performance. Since its passage, the U.S. has witnessed a greater increase in student achievement in the last 5 years than in the previous 30 years combined, as well as a significant narrowing in the achievement gap. Because of No Child Left Behind, parents are now empowered with information on the quality of their child's school and given the ability to improve their child's education through additional tutorial services. No Child Left Behind has been tremendously successful in ensuring that all students have access to the same high academic standards. No longer can a school hide behind the averages of their higher performing students; now all students are given the same opportunities to reach academic proficiency. Today I am introducing the No Child Left Behind Act of 2007 with my colleague Mr. BURR. This bill builds upon the basic tenets of No Child Left Behind and rightly responds to the legitimate concerns of parents, teachers and principals. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2007 maintains the expectation that all students can reach or exceed proficiency when given the opportunity. Any rollback of accountability simply ignores the progress already being made and the belief that all students can reach proficiency when given the opportunity. Recognizing that each school and its needs vary tremendously, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2007 allows for differentiated consequences to ensure that schools where a majority of students are not performing at grade-level are treated differently than schools where a small segment of the school population is not meeting State standards. Coupled with additional time before advancing into the next stage of Program Improvement, these new differentiated consequences will allow schools to target resources and interventions to the students who need the most assistance in reaching state-determined levels proficiency. Under this bill, the Federal Government will continue to support States financially in their development, improvement, and administration of State academic assessments through the reauthorization of the Grants for State Assessments program. Additionally, because many States are still striving to improve their assessment systems to assess students with disabilities and limited English proficient students validly and reliably, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2007 creates a fund dedicated solely to the development and improvement of assessments for these students. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2007 recognizes that high quality teachers are the most important factor to improved student academic achievement. The bill authorizes several programs to ensure that all students are taught by a highly-qualified teacher and to ensure that low-income students are not taught by unqualified and inexperienced teachers at higher rates than their more affluent peers. This bill authorizes the Teacher Incentive Fund, a program to encourage State and schools districts to expand performance-based compensation for teachers and principals in high-need schools who raise student achievement and close the achievement gap. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2007 also authorizes the Adjunct Teacher Corp, a program to encourage highly educated and trained professionals, particularly in the areas of math and science, to teach high school courses in their area of expertise. One of the key cornerstones of No Child Left Behind, options for parents, is maintained and expanded in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2007. Notably, this bill makes supplemental services available at the same time as public school choice, expands the time period parents can enroll their children in tutorial services programs and makes it easier for supplemental service providers to readily access school facilities. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2007 authorizes a new ``money follows the child'' program and provides financial assistance to districts that permit Title I dollars to follow the child to the public school of his or her choice. This child-centered program will infuse competition into the public school system, empower parents with new choices and encourage all public schools to improve the academic achievement of all students. The combination of strengthening supplemental services and the new child-centered program will provide even greater resources for parents to ensure that the educational needs of their children are being met. This bill maintains what we know is working, accountability, transparency and expanded options, without adding burdensome new requirements. By maintaining the fundamentals of No Child Left Behind, this bill combines maximum flexibility with differentiated consequences to ensure that all schools and students have the tools necessary to reach academic proficiency.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, since its implementation, the No Child Left Behind Act has been successful in narrowing the achievement gap and improving student performance. Since its passage, the U.S. has witnessed a greater increase in student achievement in the last 5 years than in the previous 30 years combined, as well as a significant narrowing in the achievement gap. Because of No Child Left Behind, parents are now empowered with information on the quality of their child's school and given the ability to improve their child's education through additional tutorial services. No Child Left Behind has been tremendously successful in ensuring that all students have access to the same high academic standards. No longer can a school hide behind the averages of their higher performing students; now all students are given the same opportunities to reach academic proficiency. Today I am introducing the No Child Left Behind Act of 2007 with my colleague Mr. BURR. This bill builds upon the basic tenets of No Child Left Behind and rightly responds to the legitimate concerns of parents, teachers and principals. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2007 maintains the expectation that all students can reach or exceed proficiency when given the opportunity. Any rollback of accountability simply ignores the progress already being made and the belief that all students can reach proficiency when given the opportunity. Recognizing that each school and its needs vary tremendously, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2007 allows for differentiated consequences to ensure that schools where a majority of students are not performing at grade-level are treated differently than schools where a small segment of the school population is not meeting State standards. Coupled with additional time before advancing into the next stage of Program Improvement, these new differentiated consequences will allow schools to target resources and interventions to the students who need the most assistance in reaching state-determined levels proficiency. Under this bill, the Federal Government will continue to support States financially in their development, improvement, and administration of State academic assessments through the reauthorization of the Grants for State Assessments program. Additionally, because many States are still striving to improve their assessment systems to assess students with disabilities and limited English proficient students validly and reliably, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2007 creates a fund dedicated solely to the development and improvement of assessments for these students. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2007 recognizes that high quality teachers are the most important factor to improved student academic achievement. The bill authorizes several programs to ensure that all students are taught by a highly-qualified teacher and to ensure that low-income students are not taught by unqualified and inexperienced teachers at higher rates than their more affluent peers. This bill authorizes the Teacher Incentive Fund, a program to encourage State and schools districts to expand performance-based compensation for teachers and principals in high-need schools who raise student achievement and close the achievement gap. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2007 also authorizes the Adjunct Teacher Corp, a program to encourage highly educated and trained professionals, particularly in the areas of math and science, to teach high school courses in their area of expertise. One of the key cornerstones of No Child Left Behind, options for parents, is maintained and expanded in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2007. Notably, this bill makes supplemental services available at the same time as public school choice, expands the time period parents can enroll their children in tutorial services programs and makes it easier for supplemental service providers to readily access school facilities. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2007 authorizes a new ``money follows the child'' program and provides financial assistance to districts that permit Title I dollars to follow the child to the public school of his or her choice. This child-centered program will infuse competition into the public school system, empower parents with new choices and encourage all public schools to improve the academic achievement of all students. The combination of strengthening supplemental services and the new child-centered program will provide even greater resources for parents to ensure that the educational needs of their children are being met. This bill maintains what we know is working, accountability, transparency and expanded options, without adding burdensome new requirements. By maintaining the fundamentals of No Child Left Behind, this bill combines maximum flexibility with differentiated consequences to ensure that all schools and students have the tools necessary to reach academic proficiency.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. On the question of Iraq, and specifically as I have my own amendment which I will be offering--it is not my amendment; I have an amendment in which I am joined by other Members, including Senator Salazar, on how to proceed in Iraq, and we will be talking about that later--maybe even later today--I wish to speak briefly on an amendment being offered by Senator Reid and Senator Levin which fixes a timeframe for withdrawal that is arbitrary and which is condensed. That timeframe, as I understand it, would occur within 6 months, when there would be a withdrawal. There are no underlying policy proposals which say that the Government of Iraq has to be a functioning government and has to have the capacity to secure itself and has to have the capacity to maintain stability in order for the withdrawal to occur; the withdrawal simply is going to occur. I think the practical implications for that are pretty staggering and not constructive to the process, quite honestly. I think a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, which has no underlying policy and which leaves behind a stable government or attempts to leave behind a stable government, will inevitably lead to a desperate government, which will, in turn, lead to chaos, and chaos in Iraq is not in our national interests. We have to remember what the stakes are. Our purpose of being in Iraq is fundamentally to protect ourselves as a nation. The people who wish to do us harm--and they have made it clear they intend to do us harm and they have done us harm--intend to use their ability to attack the United States as the essence of their war on us. The way you keep them from attacking our Nation is to find them where they are and attack them and to make it very difficult for them to have a safe haven and to disrupt their activities and to find them before they can attack us. That is our philosophy. It is a philosophy which is totally appropriate to the war that we now find ourselves engaged in. This is not a conventional situation. We are not fighting a nation state. We are fighting individuals who subscribe to a philosophy which says they will have a better afterlife if they destroy Western culture and specifically kill Americans and destroy America. That is their purpose. They have said that and they have done it. Let's not be naive about this. Let's not look at this through rose-colored glasses and say they wish some other outcome and if we are nice to them they will go away; that if we ignore them, they will ignore us. That is not the case. So we have pursued a policy in Iraq and across the world of finding them before they find us. If Iraq, because of a precipitous withdrawal which leaves no stability behind, is allowed to devolve into chaos, it is very obvious what is going to happen. Besides a civil war, which is obviously already going on, to some degree, which will be expanded radically with many thousands of people, more thousands of people dying, there will undoubtedly occur within Iraq the creation of a client state for Iran, and Iran has made it very clear what their intentions are. Their intentions are to develop a nuclear weapon and produce hegemony throughout the Islamic world. Secondly, it will become a safe haven for al-Qaida and give them a base of operation which will represent a clear and present threat to us as a nation. So that type of course of action, although it obviously looks attractive because it gets our troops out of immediate harm's way, and everybody wants to do that to the fullest extent possible, will have the exact opposite effect on our national security. It will actually put us at greater risk. There has to be an underscoring of the withdrawal, or the drawdown, which I think is the more appropriate term, because even the most strident people on the other side of the aisle who wish to withdraw recognize there is going to have to be some residual force left for the purpose of protecting American assets, such as our embassies, and training, hopefully, troops of the Iraqi Government. But any process for the drawdown really has to be done in the context of leaving behind as stable a government as we can possibly create, or participate in helping to create. That is why I have become a sponsor of and participating in the effort to put in place the proposals of the Iraq Study Group, which essentially outlines a series of steps that can be taken which will, hopefully, lead us toward a drawdown of American troops which is tied to leaving behind a stable government. The Reed-Levin amendment abandons all of that. It abandons the Iraq Study Group proposal. It abandons the effort to try to leave in place a stable government. It essentially says: Here is the date; we are going to leave by that date. And it is a date certain. That has two effects. It means the Government of Iraq will inevitably be in desperate shape and potentially collapse, which will lead to chaos, and, more importantly, it means our troops who are on the ground will, during that period leading up to that date, be under significant stress because their morale will be at serious issue because they will know when they get to that date, they are leaving and they are leaving behind a mess and, more importantly, they will be pursuing a mission, which they will have been told by the other side of the aisle at least, has no viability. And how can you ask somebody to go out and walk the streets of Baghdad and participate in ``the surge and the clear and hold and hopefully pass on stability'' exercise that is going on there if you have the other side of the aisle saying: I am sorry, that mission is irrelevant. You are out there, we don't believe in what you are doing, we have no faith in that effort. Yes, everyone has total commitment to our troops, but we also have to have a commitment that when we send the troops out on the street, and they put their lives at risk, they know there is a policy behind that effort which is supported. In this case, what is being said is that policy isn't being supported and their efforts on the streets in Baghdad and other places are not going to have support. It is a very dangerous message to send, first, to our enemies who have a specific date and can ratchet up the violence radically to force that date on us; second, to our troops on the ground; and thirdly, to the long-term stability of a region which is critical to our national interests and which plays a major role in whether we are going to be successful in keeping our homeland, America, from being attacked. A precipitous withdrawal without a game plan will lead to a dysfunctional and disorganized and possibly collapse of the Government of Iraq, and it will lead to chaos. Therefore, I think it is a very intemperate policy to pursue. There is also a certain cynicism about it, when you get right down to it, and this bothers me. The people promoting this amendment have constituencies who are truly and sincerely, I am sure, committed to getting us out of Iraq as soon as possible, and they are trying to respond to those constituencies. We see those constituencies all the time, and their intensity is huge; especially in the Democratic Party they have great sway. But the amendment itself is almost a free pass in that everybody knows it cannot pass, and that is the irony. It is a free pass that cannot pass. It cannot pass the Senate because it cannot get 60 votes. If it did pass the Senate, and it did pass the House, it would be vetoed by the President and, clearly, would not go into effect. So, essentially, what is happening is a policy is being put forward which has serious political implications on the ground and substantive implications on the ground in Iraq but has maybe a political upside in the United States for people who are speaking to that constituency which wants to immediately get us out of Iraq but has no viability behind it, has no expectation of success behind it, and therefore is, to a certain degree--a considerable degree--a rather cynical strategy. The losers in this effort, quite honestly, are our troops on the ground because they are seeing this debate going forward, and they are scratching their heads saying: Why am I being asked to go out on the streets? Why am I being asked to do this mission when they trying to pass legislation in the Senate which says they don't support the mission, and they know for sure that is not going to become law? It is not good to pursue this type of an approach on an issue of such importance, of such significance to our Nation, and especially to the men and women who defend us. I have serious reservations about not only the substance of the proposal but about the politics behind the proposal, knowing that the proposal has no capacity to become law, that it would be put forward in such a way that basically creates false claims, in my opinion, or false opportunities, or alleged opportunities. This is an immensely serious issue, we all know that. What we need, quite honestly, is some sort of approach that has a little bit of bipartisanship to it, where both sides say: OK, we know we have a difficult situation, an extremely frustrating situation in Iraq. Let's come up with something that is a united policy, a bipartisan policy. That is why the suggestion which is being put forward--to put in place the Iraq Study Group as the blueprint for how we proceed there--is one which I think has some vitality to it. Is it the perfect answer? Obviously not. There is no perfect answer. In fact, I was interested in hearing Lee Hamilton say there are no good solutions to this situation. It was a very forthright statement that I think resonates strongly. The fact is, this little gambit--not a little gambit--this significant gambit of putting forward a proposal that speaks to a constituency, but everyone knows is not going to become law, is not constructive for the process. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I so greatly admire the Senator from Georgia, and his words are so well spoken, I hope people will take them to heart. I also wish to rise on this issue. Before I do that, I wish to speak briefly on the issue pending, which is the cloture motion on the amendment from the Senator from Virginia, Senator Webb. I haven't decided how to vote on the amendment of the Senator from Virginia. I have an immense amount of respect for the Senator, the former Secretary of the Navy, whom I greatly admire for his service to this country, but I am deeply concerned by the process which is being used. It has always been the tradition of this Senate that there would be side-by-side votes. It used to be, when I first arrived, that there were actually second-degree votes, and then we got to a position where everybody knew if you had a second degree, you could always get to the first-degree vote, so you gave people side-by-side votes. Unless the issue is on the fundamental question of an overriding bill, the use of cloture for the purposes of cutting off the debate to that amendment has not occurred around here. This is an attempt to basically make the Senate operate as if it had the autocratic Rules Committee of the House, and it is wrong. It is just plain wrong. The minority should be afforded the right--and has the right--to assert an amendment to an amendment offered on this floor. It has the right to a second degree if it wishes to, and then the author of the first degree has the right to position himself or herself so he or she can bring that amendment back up. As an alternative to that, the offer of a side by side is the way you resolve the issue. That offer was made to allow a side by side on the amendment of the Senator from Virginia. It was rejected, as I understand it. That is what this cloture vote, for me, is about. It is not about the credibility--not the credibility--it is not about the appropriateness or the correctness of the underlying amendment of the Senator from Virginia; it is about whether the minority has the procedural right to assert its standing as a functioning entity within the body and, therefore, the ability to amend or at least have a side-by-side amendment when amendments are brought to the floor on which there may be other views. So that is why I intend to vote against cloture. It is not to extend the debate; it is not to, in some way, undermine the bill or even to undermine the amendment; it is to make sure that the rights of the minority are protected in this institution where the rights of the minority are the essence of the way this institution functions.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, if the Senator will respond to an inquiry, would it be possible to have an order set up so that we could know when we are going? If I could get Senator Kennedy's attention, would it be possible that Senator Alexander be recognized and I be recognized, both for 5 minutes, at some point after Senator Specter, on Senator Enzi's time? Is that possible?

Mr. GREGG. Senator Alexander can be recognized for 5 and then I can be recognized for 5.

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Massachusetts earlier who made it possible for us to get an order for speaking. Let me associate myself with the remarks made by the Senator from Tennessee relative to card check. It is totally inappropriate to eliminate secret ballots in a democracy. I wish to talk a little bit about the immigration bill. This is going to come to a vote in a few minutes, or in about an hour, and there are some serious issues relative to the process. Since this is a process vote, I wanted to raise those issues. These are the issues: This bill could have been handled well. It could have been addressed through a process that would have allowed amendments that Members wanted to hear and take up, but it hasn't been. What has happened is there is a working organization which produced the bill, and it is now controlling the amendment process. For example, I have requested that we have an effective, clean amendment on the issue of how we do H-1Bs. H-1Bs are a critical element of getting quality people to come to the United States and do jobs which we don't presently have people to do, mostly in the science field. Those people create jobs; they don't lose jobs. By bringing a person like that, we are actually creating a job center because that type of individual adds value to the American workplace. So we need a robust H-1B program. I wasn't saying it had to be in the bill, but I did say we have to have a clean vote on it so we can get an up-or-down vote on whether we are going to have a robust and effective H-1B program. What has happened, however, is, through this process which has been developed--which prejudices those of us who are not members of the process, and since there are only five or six people in the process, it is prejudicing obviously about 90 of us--there is a situation that has been created where even if I get a clean vote on H-1B, which I am not sure they will even give me that under this clay pigeon approach, there will be language put in the managers' package which will basically gut the H-1B program. It is called the Durbin language. The practical effect of the Durbin language is this: It says if you bring somebody in under H-1B, you must pay them the prevailing wage under skill level 2 of the prevailing wage. Well, the practical effect of that is it essentially means if you bring someone in under H-1B, after you have paid all the fees, all the finding fees, all the attorney's fees, which adds a lot for bringing that type of individual into this country, you then must pay a wage which is significantly higher than other people working in that same area. Take a small software company in New Hampshire, of which there are many, that would use H-1B types of individuals, scientists, coming into our country. Let's say they had 10 positions, they only filled 9, so they had to bring in a 10th person. The average wage for a software person is about $80,000 in New Hampshire for nine of those people, but the person who came into the country would get $100,000. On top of that, they would also have the fees, the attorney's fees for getting the permit to bring the individual into the country. Obviously, the practical effect of that would be that H-1B would not work. So this language, which is essentially killer language to the H-1B program, is going to be put in the managers' package, as I understand-- although I don't really know that because nobody will actually tell us what is going on; this is just a rumor--or alternatively, it is going to be put into somebody else's amendment, which we know will pass. But, anyway, there is a deal in the works which says the people who drafted this bill are going to lock hands and make sure that language is put in the bill which, even if we get a decent vote on a decent H-1B program, will gut that vote. That raises serious issues of process and obviously fairness. I just wanted to make it clear that I am not comfortable with it in its present form and have significant reservations. Madam President, I yield the floor and yield back the remainder of my time.