Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I wasn't referring to 15 minutes as the time for debate. I was referring to it as the time that you allow votes on the floor and that the votes on the floor have been condensed and they are efficient. I respect the leader's accomplishing that in such short order. The debate has actually occurred. Senator Conrad gave a very impassioned response to the amendment. I understand Senator Carper has an amendment similar to my amendment. So, yes, it might take a little time to debate it, but I believe we could still deal with it promptly.

Mr. GREGG. Was that question directed at me initially?

Mr. GREGG. I guess I would ask the inversion of that question which is why not do it now? The amendment has been pending. It has been debated. People are fairly sophisticated about this amendment since it has been an issue that has been around here for awhile. I think it could be easily moved forward and discussed and voted on in a very prompt way. But independent of that, the reason why I think we should proceed is, I can't imagine bringing the bill down over an amendment like this which is not a partisan amendment. It has always been bipartisan and it has substance to it. It would seem appropriate. But independent of that, as you know, the ability to amend this vehicle gives me a vehicle with this amendment which, first off, the amendment is relevant. It may not be germane, but it is certainly relevant, considering the fact that it deals primarily with earmarks. But it gives me a vehicle with which to go to conference, and I want to at least get this thing to conference. Granted, the House will probably stand in disagreement, and you will control the conference. And you may decide that you are not going to take it and you will recede to the House. But at least I will have gotten to the conference with what I consider to be a fundamental reform, which goes to the issue of ethics, which is when the President sees something in a bill which he thinks inappropriate and it probably got in there through lobbying, he can send it back for another look by us. That is my primary concern. If the position of the Democratic leader is that you will give us time on the floor and if we succeed, we will have a commitment to go to conference, assuming we can conference--I mean, is the House going to pass a bill that we get into a position where it can get to conference somehow--that is something I would consider.

Mr. GREGG. Yes, if I had a commitment that we would somehow get it to conference.

Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will yield for a further question. If the Senator could in the same unanimous consent give me some sort of safe harbor that I will get to conference with my language, I think we might be on to something.

Mr. GREGG. If the leader would yield further, I don't think this should be characterized as an amendment to bring down the bill. That is sort of a unilateral authority of the leader, of course. But it is certainly not my intention with this amendment, nor was it my intention with this amendment. I simply want to move this item along. I think this is an appropriate vehicle. But it sounds to me as if there might be a framework here for some progress. I will leave it to the good leaders to discuss this.

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. GREGG. If I may follow up on the Senator's comments, it is obvious that the only person who can bring the bill down is the Democratic leader, if that is his choice. His choice appears to be based on the fact that he doesn't want to vote on the second look at waste amendment or enhanced rescission, which is tied into this bill. As I mentioned earlier, almost 30 percent of the amendments offered have dealt with earmarks, and half of the time of the debate here in the last 8 days has been on earmarks. So it is not as if this is something that is totally off track or truly outside the realm. This isn't a farm amendment on the lobbying bill; this is a lobbying amendment on the lobbying bill. It doesn't have germaneness because that is a very narrow test, but it is sure relevant and on point. It clearly deals with earmarks, and it also deals within appropriate actions from lobbyists who get earmarks into the bills and bury them in omnibus bills. That is the purpose. So the idea that this amendment is some sort of poison pill to the bill, it wasn't offered for that purpose and doesn't have that as its purpose. The Republican membership is ready to go forward and vote and is ready to either win or lose on this amendment. The language of the assistant Democratic leader is such that it sounds to me as if maybe they don't want the bill. Maybe they concluded they don't want the bill because they are the only ones talking about pulling the bill down. We are not talking about pulling the bill down. We are talking about getting a vote on a reasonable amendment. Independent of that, I have made an offer----

Mr. GREGG. Yes, I will.

Mr. GREGG. No, that is absolutely true. We should have a vote on our amendment, and as soon as we get a vote on our amendment, we can go to final passage. What is wrong with that?

Mr. GREGG. I have not yielded the floor.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, if I may reclaim my time, I have actually suggested to the Democratic leader and have taken him up on his suggestion as a way we can pursue this issue. I hope it will be done that way and that will resolve the matter. But I continue to hear, even after making that suggestion to the assistant leader, that we on our side of the aisle are attempting to bring the bill down. That is not a defensible position because the only people who can bring this bill down are on your side. You can take it off the floor. We can insist on our right to a vote, which we have every right to do, and it is reasonable to do, and especially reasonable to do in the context of this amendment which the Senator claims is complicated. It is not; it is fairly straightforward. In fact, it is much more straightforward and less complicated than the substitute amendment which has never gone through committee. It came here as a substitute amendment, drafted by the two leaders out of their offices. It is a very complex amendment-- in fact, so complex that I heard both sides of the leadership of the bill trying to explain certain sections of it and they had different explanations as to how it affected, for example, private citizens who happen to be married to Members of Congress. It is extremely complex language. My language at least has pretty much been vetted. It has been vetted all the way to the Supreme Court. It has gone through subcommittee, committee, it has been on the floor, debated, it has been debated again, it has been debated, and it was offered--in fact, my language was actually offered, in essence, by the Democratic Party as their substitute to the original line-item bill. In fact, the Senator from California supported the language when it was offered back in 1995. The Senator from California said: I believe that what a line-item veto essentially does is encourage caution on the part of both the Chief Executive and the legislative branch. I think the time has come for fiscal discipline and, as I said, I sincerely believe the line-item veto can help us achieve that goal. So this matter has been debated extensively on the floor. It has been voted on before. It is not a matter of first impression. It is a matter of considerable discussion, and it is not unique. It is related to this bill. The Senator from California used the term ``scope.'' Were the term ``scope'' applied to postcloture standing of an amendment, this amendment would stand. But scope is not the operative language. Germaneness is, and germaneness is a much narrower test in postcloture, as we know it is extraordinarily difficult to get germaneness with any amendment that has any breadth to it. That is the reason it falls postcloture, and that is the reason why it should be taken up and voted on before cloture. But I am willing to push the vote off if we are guaranteed what the Democratic leader has suggested he will guarantee us. I won't put words in his mouth. I think what he said was: You will get the vote on your amendment; you will have an amendment from your side; they will both be subject to 60 votes, with time limit on debate, and it will go to conference. In that context, I think we can resolve this matter. But I take a little bit of umbrage at the idea that the other side of the aisle continues to characterize, even after that presentation had been worked out, our side of the aisle as trying to bring this bill down because the only person who has the right to bring this bill down right now is the majority leader. He controls the floor, he decides what is on the floor, and he can bring it down if he wishes. We do not wish to bring this bill down. We simply wish to get a vote on a reasonable amendment that won't survive germaneness postcloture; therefore, it has to be voted before cloture. It is an entirely reasonable position for the minority to take, especially since the amendment has been aggressively vetted by having been through this process so many times and actually has been pretty well defined by the Supreme Court as to what rights we have and what rights we don't have. That is why it is structured the way it is so it is constitutional. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, that is correct. This is 4 years, but this President probably won't get 2 years of it. He will probably get a year and a half.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I just want to thank the Republican leader and the majority leader for their efforts to try to move forward with my amendment. There was a lot of work done, and we had, I thought, a reasonable understanding as to how to proceed, which was outlined on the floor earlier in a colloquy between myself and the Republican leader and the Democratic leader and the assistant Democratic leader. I regret that there is an objection on the other side. But I appreciate the Republican leader's willingness to protect my rights by maintaining my ability to amend this bill, if I cannot get this amendment up at a later date under a time certain, as we had an understanding at least between the four of us. I have no objection.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize William K. Phillips, the longtime Director for the Small Business Administration's New Hampshire district office. Since 1981, Bill has led the agency through economic booms and slumps while demonstrating a sharp commitment to the business community in this state. On March 2 of this year, Bill will be retiring. His leadership will be missed, and I want to offer him my deepest thanks for not only the advice he has given me throughout the years but for everything he has done to make this State a better place to live. Because of his unique professional resume, there are few people in the region who better understand the critical role small businesses play in a healthy economy and who know what entrepreneurs need to expand and thrive. Bill founded Benchmark Industries, a leader in resistance welding technology. He worked as senior vice-president of the Bank of New Hampshire, was the president of the former Londonderry Bank and Trust, and served on the board of directors of First NH Banks, which is now Citizens Bank of New Hampshire. For the past two and half decades, Bill has been directing the SBA's operations in New Hampshire. It was in this role he made his name as a champion for small businesses. His dedication was most obvious during the banking and real estate crisis our State experienced during the early 1990s. Fortunately, Bill and his team at the SBA were here to meet this difficult challenge. Using their expertise and resources, the New Hampshire SBA under Bill Phillips relieved much of the anxiety business and homeowners were feeling and helped the State recover. New Hampshire today is a great place to work and start a company, and Bill can certainly feel proud of his role in strengthening our state's excellent reputation. The definition of a vibrant economy goes beyond just a bunch of numbers and figures on a graph. What it really means is that people are working, improving the communities in which they live, building wealth, providing a better quality of life for their families and, in some cases, realizing life long dreams. Bill has been successful because he knows this and has always remembered that people, not statistics, are what matter. His experience and insights have served him well in the position of district director but, more importantly, they have benefitted New Hampshire. There are many businesses here, both small and large, which can be described as success stories because Bill took an interest in their future. Thank you, Bill. You have earned a long and healthy retirement.

Mr. GREGG

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

Mr. GREGG. I have been wondering what the specific position of the Democratic leadership was on the other side of the aisle relative to Iraq. If I understand it correctly, it is that we should redeploy-- which, I presume, is a euphemism for withdraw--is that correct?

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, if I may use the term withdraw, I have heard the term withdraw being used, but apparently it doesn't mean the troops would be coming out of Iraq. The Senator further suggested that that should be done immediately, is that correct?

Mr. GREGG. The Senator used the term ``immediately'' in his statement. That is why I wanted to clarify that. So we should withdraw over the horizon, i.e., redeploy, the Senator said, and that withdrawal should be at a pace of about 10,000 troops per month, and that process should begin immediately, I guess, and that it would be completed within 18 months, being the first quarter of 2008. Is that basically the specifics of how the Senator would approach the situation on the ground?

Mr. GREGG. I appreciate the specifics from the assistant leader. I have not heard specifics from the other side of the aisle. I think it is constructive. Can I continue to ask the question, however, to get a sense of what the specific proposals are from the other side. The President is going to send up a supplemental estimated to be over $100 billion. We have already had one of approximately $70 billion. So we are talking of a total supplemental of $170 billion. This additional supplemental would be, I presume, to cover what is being represented in the press as potentially a surge in troops and additional spending of significant dollars for reconstruction. Is it the position of the Senator that that $100 billion is more money than needs to be spent? In other words, if the proposal of the Senator, which is a withdrawal over the horizon, to begin over the next 2 or 3 months, accelerated to the point where it was completed by the beginning of 2008, averaging about 10,000 people per month--is it therefore the Senator's position that if you pursue that course of action, you would not need $100 billion?

Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator; he is always forthright. I will ask a followup question. Does the Senator believe this supplemental that is coming up, as I believe, should go through the regular order rather than being declared an emergency and have authorization language, or go through the authorizing committee for review and then go to the appropriating committee and then come to the floor?

Mr. GREGG. I appreciate the Senator's courtesy in allowing me to ask him some questions.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to discuss again what I consider to be the single largest quality-of-life issue we have confronting us as a nation. That is the issue of how we pay for my generation, the baby boom generation, which is about to begin to retire and the effect our retirement as a generation will have on the capacity of our children to be successful and have a quality of life that is equal to what we have had as a nation. We confront a conundrum. The baby boom generation has been the most productive and most resilient generation in the history of the Nation. As a result, through each decade of its growth, beginning in the 1950s when it added a lot of elementary schools, right through the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and into the 2000s, when it created a huge engine of economic activity in this country because there are so many of us, so highly educated and so aggressive as a productive engine for the whole Nation, we have been able to contribute to society and to our Nation the highest quality of life in the history of our Nation--in the history of the world, for that matter. But now this generation, which is the largest generation in our history, is going to begin to retire. All of the retirement systems were built up over the years in order to benefit people who retire in our Nation, to make sure they can retire with dignity, Social Security, Medicare and, to a lesser extent, Medicaid. It was based on the promise that Franklin Roosevelt had, which is that you would have a lot of people working and a few people retiring. In 1950, the concept was that you would have, for example, 13 people working for every 1 person retired, so that the working Americans would be able to not only earn a good living for themselves but would also be able to support those people who are retired. Well, that equation fails in the present projected future because the baby boom generation doubles the number of retirees from approximately 35 million to 70 million, and from a system which had 13 people working for every 1 person retired in the 1950s to about 2 people working for every 1 person retired by 2025. So you go from a pyramid to a rectangle and you have those working people trying to support the people who are retired. There are not enough people working to do that. So you create a huge burden and basically a fiscal crisis of inordinate proportion. I have a chart nearby that clearly reflects this problem. This simply shows three costs that the Federal Government incurs, which are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, the three largest entitlement accounts, as they are referred to. Those accounts make up about 8 percent of our gross national product today. Historically, the Federal Government spends about 20 percent of GDP. If it gets much above that 20 percent of the GDP, it becomes an extreme burden for the productive side of our economy and you end up with people being able to produce less because the Government is taking so much out of their paycheck and productivity drops and quality of life drops. So we have as a nation always sort of maintained within a fairly small range this concept that the Federal Government should spend about 20 percent of GDP. That goes way back. This chart takes us back to 1962. In times of war, that spikes, and it has historically--especially in World War II. But that is the traditional amount. However, the problem we confront is that the cost of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid alone--those three items--because of the retirement of this huge generation and the price which it will take to pay benefits for that generation, actually will absorb 20 percent of GDP in the mid 2020 period, which is not that far away. It is within 20 years, which is not that far. We will actually have a situation where three Federal programs are using all of the dollars which historically the Federal Government has used in order to support the purposes of the Federal Government. So that would mean, theoretically, that the only thing you could pay for would be those three programs. You could no longer pay for national defense, which is the first responsibility of Federal Government; you could not pay for education, health care, environmental protection, or all of the things the Federal Government does that are significant in improving the quality of our standards of life. That, however, doesn't end the problem, because the cost of this generation continues to go up. In fact, just those 3 programs break through the 20-percent line and go well up into the high 20 percent-- 28, 29 percent of GDP, as projected--as we head out into 2030 to 2040. Basically, what you see is the fact that we are headed toward a situation where the cost of these three programs alone will essentially bankrupt our country. The practical implications of this are that the younger generation, the people working for a living, our children and grandchildren, will have to pay a tax burden that is so high that their discretionary income won't be able to be spent on educating their children with a better college education, or on buying a home, or on living a better lifestyle. Their discretionary money will go to taxes to support the cost of these three entitlement programs. This is not a sustainable idea. This is not an idea that any responsible person involved in governance could subscribe to. Certainly, one generation has no right to pass on to another generation a set of costs that is going to bankrupt the capacity of the next generation to live as good a quality of life as the prior generation was living. It is not right, fair, or appropriate. Another thing this chart shows is that, as a practical matter, you cannot tax your way out of the situation. A lot of people say: we will just raise taxes. You cannot tax your way out of the situation. You cannot raise taxes high enough to pay for the costs we are going to incur as a result of these entitlement programs having to benefit so many Americans. Why? It is very simple. Historically, Federal taxes have been 18.2 percent of GDP. Today we have Federal tax of 18.4, 18.5. So we are over the historic norm today. Once you get Federal taxes up above 20 percent and they head toward 23, 24, 25 percent, or even higher, in order to accomplish the coverage of these costs, you are essentially going to be taxing productive Americans at a level where you would reduce dramatically their productivity.. It is sort of a downward spiral event. It is akin to killing the goose that is laying the golden egg situation. You cannot lay a tax burden on a productive people and expect them to continue to be productive because human nature, the natural response to something such as that, is people become less productive. As they see 60, 70, 80 percent of their next dollar they earn going to the Federal Government or to taxes, they are going to be less inclined to go out and earn that next dollar because they are keeping so little of it. That is just human nature. So it is a downward spiral event. Once you get taxes above a certain level, they stop producing revenues because people do tax avoidance activity or, alternatively, they simply stop being productive and society stops investing, capital formation drops off, jobs stop being created, and you basically drive yourself into a severe recession or you become less competitive with the rest of the world, which doesn't have the same problem. We cannot tax your way out of this issue. We actually have to address the fundamental, underlying problem, which is that these programs, as they are presently structured, are not sustainable in the future, and we have to figure out a way to make them sustainable. There are many ways to do this. There is no one solution to this problem. There is no magic bullet out there, although with Social Security it is a much simpler exercise in the sense of moving parts. But there are many ways to continue to deliver high-quality retirement services in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid but have them be affordable to the generation who is paying for it. Five years ago, myself, Senator Breaux, Senator Bob Kerrey, Senator Chuck Robb, Senator Moynihan, and on our side of the aisle, Senator Craig Thomas and a number of other Senators, came together to develop a plan for Social Security which was bipartisan, which would have solved the problem over the long term, which would have continued the benefit structure which was extremely robust--in fact, a more robust system than what seniors are facing today--yet put it in a position that was affordable. Yes, there were revenues included in that package. Any solution is going to have to involve benefit adjustments and revenues. There is no way we can do it on one side. The fact is, we have to face up to this situation. As a society, we have to face up to this need. I guess that is my point today. We are running out of time. I have been delivering this message for a while. The clock continues to run. We are running out of time. We have an opportunity, a window. It is a unique window. There are not a whole lot of advantages to the fact that I am no longer chairman of the committee I used to be chairman of, but one of the advantages is, from my perspective, we now have a divided Government. We have a Democratic Congress and a Republican Presidency. I happen to believe that any solution to this issue has to be absolutely bipartisan. There can be no question from the American people that a solution on these issues is not done in a bipartisan way because if the American people think it isn't fair, they are not going to be attracted to it; they are going to think it is gamesmanship by one party or the other. So anything that has to be done has to be done in a bipartisan way. We are in a climate where any solution that is going to occur is going to be bipartisan. That is the good news. But that window of opportunity isn't going to be open that long. We are going to be heading into a Presidential election pretty soon, and in both of the last Presidential elections, we have seen outrageous, despicable, in my opinion, demagoguery on the issue of Social Security. The well was poisoned before the day even started in both those campaigns. The opportunity to aggressively and effectively address this issue, to develop a bipartisan solution has to occur sooner rather than later, and it has to be done in a way with which the American people are comfortable because it is fair. I put forward a proposal on this issue. I put forward a proposal that deals a lot with this responsibility package called SOS that has about 30 sponsors. One part of that package was to structure a procedure to deliver results. I believe we should use procedure to drive policy because I believe that once you put policy on the table, everybody takes shots at it, all the different interests in this city sit around and pick it apart. It makes much more sense to use procedure, and the procedure I use is a fast-track, bipartisan commission, where you absolutely have to have bipartisan decisions, you have a supermajority approval, and you do it on a fast track and have people who are going to be players sitting around a room to try to work it out. That is not the only way to approach this issue. There are a lot of different ways to approach this issue. I hope we, as a Congress, and our leadership in this body--and I know our leadership is interested in this issue. I talked with people on the other side of the aisle who are active on this issue and active in the leadership, and there is key interest in this issue, but the time to move is now. We are running out of time, and we have to get on with this. I wanted to make this point, again. I stand ready, a lot of Members on my side stand ready to pursue substantive action in this area. Hopefully, we can do it. On a second note, this is a point I raised with the assistant leader, we are about to get a $100 billion-plus supplemental on the war. Nobody in this Senate in any way is going to vote in a manner that doesn't give our troops what they need when our troops are in the field--at any time, especially when they are in the field. These supplementals are important to make sure we adequately fund people who are putting their lives on the line for us, but the process that has evolved is not right; it is just plain not right. This will be the fourth year--I think it is like the sixth supplemental, maybe it is the seventh or maybe it is the eighth--I have lost track--that a bill will have come up designated as an emergency from the Pentagon and basically bypasses the process of review through the authorizing committee and, for all intents and purposes, through the Appropriations Committee and comes directly to the floor and spends tens of billions of dollars. It is a shadow budget, as I have described it. We have a budget process around here. Granted, it is not working that well. Hopefully, it will work better this year. But we do have a budget process, and the purpose of the budget process is to give adequate review and fiscal discipline so that we are responsible stewards of the taxpayers' money. But when we have this shadow budget that comes up, entirely outside the budget process and continues to come up and has become almost the regular order of approach as to how we fund the Pentagon now, you are essentially saying budgets don't matter, review of the substance doesn't matter, spending should simply be done as requested, without any oversight and without any discipline as to how much is going to be spent. I don't think that is the right way to approach this. In the last budget, I set aside almost $90 billion for supplementals for the war. The Pentagon wouldn't give us a number. They sent up a euphemistic number. They wouldn't even support that number. So we arbitrarily set $90 billion because that was the average of what the supplemental requests had been over the prior 3 years. Then we subjected it to budgetary restraint, so that if it went over the $90 billion, they had to explain it, they had to justify it. We had to have a supermajority if we wanted to accomplish it, if somebody wanted to challenge it--but only if somebody wanted to challenge it. What is happening now is we are looking at $170 billion, not $90 billion, of spending in this year. That is almost $130 billion over what the Pentagon claimed they euphemistically set up as a throwaway number, which they wouldn't even defend when we had a hearing on this subject. Essentially, what we are seeing is that there has been a decision downtown to do an end run around the budget process and essentially an end run around the oversight process. We are also seeing, regrettably, that they are gaming the system, at least in the last supplemental--and it is reported that in this supplemental, although I haven't seen the numbers--there is a fair amount of spending which had nothing--well, it had something, but it was truly tangential to the war effort. It went to the core issue of the Defense budget, which is still spending over $400 billion. That is on top of the supplementals. They were using this shadow budget, where they knew they had no restraints, to basically pick up spending which should have been in the core budget and had at least gone through the authorizing process. There were a number of items in there that fell into that category, including the whole restructuring of the Army. And now we are hearing they may even have joint strike fighters in this next supplemental, two of them potentially. At least that is what has been reported. Maybe they will be out by the time it gets here because light has been shined on them. The fact is, it shouldn't work that way. We know we are in a war. We know, approximately, what that war is going to cost. We should have a process which reviews it in an orderly fashion, and that is the way it was historically done here. The Vietnam war was appropriated and authorized. Almost all the spending went through an authorizing and appropriating process. Almost all the appropriations of the Korean war went through the authorizing and appropriating process. It is a very predictable number right now, or within range of a very predictable number. They don't have to send $170 billion up as a supplemental and designate it an emergency to fight this war. We know it is going to cost us in that range, and it should go through the authorizing process and then through the appropriating process. It shouldn't come up as an emergency. Sure, there may be some amount on top of that which may occur during the year, we may need to put in another X number of dollars, and that may be a legitimate emergency, but the core spending of this war should be accounted for in the regular order and reviewed so it doesn't end up being a gamesmanship exercise coming to us from downtown which is essentially to avoid, ignore, and mute the capacity of the Congress to have an impact on how the spending occurs, whether it is legitimately part of the war or legitimately part of the Defense Department. I am concerned about this situation. I have heard mumbling from the administration, at least from OMB, that they are going to try to budget for this stuff that is appropriately not in the war--by ``this stuff,'' I mean things that are appropriately not in the war effort but are in the Defense Department's underlying budget--and that they are going to take those out and put them in the underlying Defense budget. They need to do more than that. They need to structure the budget they send up here so that if they want to have a separate account for the war fighting, fine. I can understand that because we don't want to build it into the base. I am 100 percent for that. But it shouldn't be a separate budget, an emergency budget, and it should go through the authorizing and appropriations process. We have time to do that. We have a strong authorizing committee. I sit on the appropriating committee, and we have an extremely strong appropriating committee. We can review the numbers quickly and analyze whether it is fair and appropriate, and I suspect 95, 98 percent of it will be approved. But the fact that we are going to approve it doesn't mean it shouldn't at least be reviewed. Basically, muting and undermining the legitimacy of the congressional role in funding is, undermining, in some degree, the commitment to the war effort itself. It is counterproductive to having popular support for the war effort. I hope that when they send up this next supplemental that they not designate it as an emergency and that they ask that it go through the process, but tell us to do it in a quick way, don't spent a month doing this; do it in a week and a half, 2 weeks, and we can do that; otherwise, I believe we will continue on a path that is harmful not only to the relationship between the executive and the legislative branches, it is harmful to good governance and the good stewardship of tax dollars and it is, more importantly, more harmful to the war effort itself. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield so I may ask a question?

Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the Senator's remarks, I be recognized.