Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I yield the floor, and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to U.S. Marine Corps LCpl Ryan Thomas McCaughn, of Manchester, NH, a brave American who has made the ultimate sacrifice in service to our country. Raised in a family that was familiar with the virtues of military service, Ryan knew from an early age that it was his calling to be a U.S. marine. Graduating from Manchester's Central High School in 2005, Ryan gave us a glimpse of the characteristics that would later make him a remarkable marine. While others may have been deterred, Ryan rose to meet the academic challenge by taking three English classes in one semester during his senior year at Central in order to fulfill his dream of joining the Corps. This can-do attitude, as well as his sense of humor and creativity, will always be remembered by those who knew him. Like Ryan, another man who was in the service of his country and from New Hampshire, Daniel Webster said, ``God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it.'' In this spirit, a week after graduating from Central, Ryan left for Marine Corps Recruit Training at Parris Island, SC. After completing his initial training, Ryan went to the School of Infantry at Camp Lejeune, NC, where he graduated as mortarman. In February 2006, then Private First Class McCaughn joined 1st Battalion, 6th Marines at Camp Lejeune. In March 2006, Ryan was promoted to Lance Corporal; 6 months later he arrived in Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Tragically, on November 7, 2006, this brave marine was killed during combat operations in Ar Ramadi, Iraq, when an improvised explosive device detonated while he was conducting combat operations against enemy forces. Throughout his short career, Ryan earned accolades which testify to the dedication and devotion he held for the Marine Corps, his fellow marines, and his country. Lance Corporal McCaughn's awards and decorations include the National Defense Service Medal, the Iraqi Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Purple Heart Medal, and the Combat Action Ribbon. Patriots from the State of New Hampshire have served our Nation with honor and distinction from Bunker Hill to Baghdad--and U.S. Marine Corps LCpl Ryan McCaughn served in that fine tradition. As he told his mother, he knowingly put himself in harm's way so that others did not have to, and for this, we are eternally grateful. To his last day, Lance Corporal McCaughn exemplified the motto of the U.S. Marine Corps, ``Semper Fidelis--Always Loyal.'' My heartfelt sympathy, condolences and prayers go out to Ryan's parents, his brothers, and his family and friends who have suffered this grievous hurt. The death of Ryan, only 19 years old, on a battlefield far from New Hampshire is a true loss for our State, our Nation and the world. Although he will be sorely missed by all, his family and friends may sense some comfort in knowing that because of his devotion, sense of duty, and selfless dedication, the safety and liberty of each and every American is more secure. May God bless LCpl Ryan Thomas McCaughn. Sergeant Jeremy Mulhair

Mr. GREGG

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

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wonder if we can set a timeframe on speaking. Would it be possible for us to ask unanimous consent that after the Senator completes his statement, the other Senator from North Dakota be recognized and then I be recognized?

Mr. GREGG. I am talking about time.

Mr. GREGG. Of course, we usually go back and forth in a debate of this nature. But since that is the order, that is fine. I ask unanimous consent that after the Landrieu statement, I be recognized for an equal amount of time consumed by the Democratic side.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation relative to time?

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I do feel it is uniquely ironic that the first amendment offered--and this was the first amendment offered after the election--would increase the debt of this country by $4.9 billion; that it would abandon the budget and essentially say we should spend additional funds and pass those costs on to our children. Throughout the election cycle, I think I heard a great deal about fiscal responsibility. I especially heard it from the other side of the aisle, about how we as Republicans have been profligate allegedly. Maybe those were just words, because the first formal action taken by the other side, which is now moving into the majority position, is to spend $4.9 billion which we do not have on an emergency which is declared in the agricultural community, and which funds are, in many instances, not even emergency related if you were to define a traditional emergency. It is hard to understand how we can want to increase the debt on our children in this manner. Clearly I think it is inconsistent with what the American people asked for when they voted in the last election. I think they asked that we have a reasonable approach to fiscal policy, that we start spending within our means, and that we stop passing on to our kids the costs of today. This is a cost of today. This amendment should have been handled in the regular order of the appropriations process. It should have been handled by being offset or by a reduction in expenses somewhere else, or it should have been handled within the spending cap which was proposed for the agricultural community. It is not. It is an emergency which is a designation placed on it basically for the purposes of avoiding the obligations of the budget. Let me ask, is it really an emergency that we spend $24 million provided solely to the sugar beet producers rather than giving them the assistance through the crop disaster program? That is an earmark, that is not an emergency. Is it really an emergency to spend $3 million specifically providing sugarcane growers in Hawaii nondisaster assistance? It is simply an earmark. A $95 million payment to dairy producers for losses? Earmark. What about $6 million provided for a flood area in North Dakota? An earmark. Or $1 million for a land replacement and retention program? An earmark. Or $10 million for the purposes of a watershed project in another State? An earmark. These are not emergencies. This is simply an attempt to get votes. That is the way it works around here. You get a big chunk of money, you put an ``emergency'' title on it, and then you run around and adjust the spending in that amount of money so you can pass it and avoid the 60-vote point of order. Logrolling is the term that historically has been applied to that. People don't remember that term, but that is what it is historically. The irony is, of course, the underlying bill already had $4 billion of emergency money designated in it which should not have been designated, but that money wasn't allocated in a way that the sponsors of this bill felt comfortable enough with to get the 60 votes, so they took that money and cleared it with this money and basically added $4 billion to the debt. When we say added to the debt, what we are saying basically is our children are going to have to pay for it. Our children are going to have to pay tomorrow for costs that are going to benefit a small group of farmers today. That cost should have been borne by expenditures being reduced today or expenditures being reallocated today. It should not be borne by throwing it on the deficit and making our kids pay for it. There are some other things in this declaration of additional deficit spending of $4.9 billion which are questionable. For example, dairy farmers and certain crop programs can receive this payment for production if they can show they had a loss in 2005 net farm income compared to 2004. There is no requirement that loss be shown related to anything that had to do with an emergency; it could be that they became inefficient, ineffective, or simply didn't know what they were doing and made mistakes. But they are going to get paid for not making as much money in 2005 as they did in 2004. It has nothing to do with an emergency. It is only if they can show they didn't do as well in 2005 as they did in 2004, they are going to get tax dollars. There are a lot of businesses in this country today that did not do as well in one year as they did in the next year. Are we to declare that every one of those businesses should get emergency funds simply because they had a difference between their income in one year from the next year? The fact may be that the difference in income was because 2004 was a great year, as it happened to be, and 2005 wasn't a great year. It was a good year, a very good year in many farm communities, but the difference is now going to be picked up by the taxpayers. So essentially there wasn't a lot of incentive to do better in 2005 than 2004. Essentially we are saying to those folks who worked harder and were more productive and did have a better year in 2005 than 2004: Sorry, your activity wasn't relevant. The person who didn't work as hard as you, who wasn't as productive as you, maybe ran his farm more poorly than you, we are going to pay him the difference in income from 1 year to the next. That is classic 1930s Government, I guess, if you believe in that theory of governance, the theory that people should be paid for doing a lousy job and not being productive. This amendment in and of itself represents a 23-percent increase in 1 year in the subsidies for farm programs in this country; 23 percent. That is a huge 1-year shot of expenditures. It is rather dramatic, to reflect the fact it is in relationship to the emergency process when there is no relationship; they are disjointed here. There is some, but it is primarily disjointed. The way this amendment is structured, the way this language is structured, under the traditional crop insurance program a person is supposed to buy crop insurance. Under this bill, if you do not buy crop insurance you are still going to get paid. In fact, they are no longer subject to the percentage cap, which is the traditional way. So you could actually end up making more under this program, under these proposals, with a crop loss than you would make if you had actually brought your crops in on target. It is inconsistent with marketplace economics, as is the concept that you would get paid for having a bad year, the difference between a good year and a very good year. The contrast is pretty significant because what they have done is reversed what has been a historical factor with our agriculture bills, which is that you include in most of the agriculture disaster bills that come through this body--in fact, all of them--that they have included a percentage cap and a requirement to purchase crop insurance. This bill rejects both of those concepts, which is sort of even a bigger grab at the taxpayers' wallet. This bill affronts the sensibilities of fiscal responsibility. I mean, the idea that you would spend $4.9 billion outside the budget as the first act of the Congress, after returning from an election when the American people said get your fiscal house in order, is an affront to the election process. It is like saying there was no election. People didn't have anything to say in the last election about fiscal responsibility; it was all about other subjects. I disagree with that. This sets a very bad tone, in my opinion, for the next Congress. This is truly the first act of the next Congress, whether we are going to live within the budget for the fiscal year under which the next Congress is going to function. Under this proposal, we are not only going to not live within it, we are going to make a joke out of it. We are going to spend $4.9 billion, much of it earmarked--not much of it but a significant amount of it earmarked--much of it reorganized so it is structured in a way that benefits folks who may not have had a disaster at all and much of it structured in a way that rejects what has been the historical approach toward farm disasters, which is it has to have a relationship to a percentage cap and to production and to purchasing of crop insurance. It is terrible, fiscally. It is bad policy from a farm standpoint, also. It is essentially an attempt to build a coalition of 60 votes, which 60 votes will then represent a raid on the Treasury on behalf of an interest group, an interest group which has compelling arguments but which is still an interest group and is difficult to defend in the context of fiscal responsibility. That being the case, this proposal is subject to a point of order. If the Senator from North Dakota is ready, I will make the point of order now. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to raise the point of order at this time.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, pursuant to the fiscal year 2006 budget resolution, I raise a point of order against the emergency designation of the pending amendment.

Mr. GREGG. I now yield to the Senator from Oklahoma such time as he may desire.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to pay special tribute to U.S. Army CPL Nicholas A. Arvanitis of Salem, NH. On October 6, 2006, this brave 22-year old paratrooper gave his life for his Nation while engaged in combat operations with enemy forces near Bayji, Iraq. Corporal Arvanitis had been stationed in Iraq since August 2006, serving as a squadron leader assigned to Company C, 1st Battalion, 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division, Ft. Bragg, NC. Nicholas, or ``Nick'' to family and friends, grew up in Salem, NH, and was a 2003 graduate of Salem High School. He was a member of the wrestling team and played guitar in the jazz band and sousaphone in the marching band. Friends remember him as a team player, who got along with everyone and was always smiling. Nick joined the U.S. Army in August 2003 because he wanted to protect his country and his family. Friends and family said he loved his country, wanted to defend it, and sensed a call to duty. He completed Infantry One Station Unit Training at Fort Benning, GA, in December 2003 and the Basic Airborne Course in January 2004. He reported to Fort Bragg, NC, in March 2004 and was assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division in April 2004. Corporal Arvanitis deployed to Afghanistan in the fall of 2004 in support of the Afghan elections and deployed to Iraq in July 2006 as a member of 3rd Brigade Combat Team in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Corporal Arvanitis' awards and decorations include the Bronze Star Medal, Purple Heart, Army Commendation Medal, Army Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Iraq Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, Combat Infantryman Badge, Parachutist's Badge, and Expert Weapons Qualification Badge. Patriots from the State of New Hampshire have served our Nation with honor and distinction from Bunker Hill to Bayji--and U.S. Army CPL Nicholas Arvanitis served and fought in that same fine tradition. My sympathy, condolences, and prayers go out to Nick's maternal grandparents Leonard and Rita, his parents Maureen and Richard, his sister Kimberly, and to his other family members and many friends who have suffered this most grievous loss. All will sorely miss Nicholas Arvanitis, the forgiving young man with a heart of gold, the patriot who always thought of his family and friends, the courageous and outstanding paratrooper who served our Nation with distinction and honor. In the words of Daniel Webster, may his remembrance be as long lasting as the land he honored. God bless Nicholas A. Arvanitis. Lance Corporal Michael Scholl

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I hereby submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report prepared by the Congressional Budget Office under Section 308(b) and in aid of Section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. This report meets the requirements for Senate scorekeeping of section 5 of S. Con. Res. 32, the first concurrent resolution on the budget for 1986. This report shows the effects of congressional action on the 2006 budget through September 30, 2006. The estimates of budget authority, outlays, and revenues are consistent with the technical and economic assumptions of the 2006 concurrent resolution on the budget, H. Con. Res. 95. Pursuant to section 402 of that resolution, provisions designated as emergency requirements are exempt from enforcement of the budget resolution. As a result, the attached report excludes these amounts. The estimates show that current level spending is under the budget resolution by $11.869 billion in budget authority and by $4.030 billion in outlays in 2006. Current level for revenues is $6.590 billion above the budget resolution in 2006. Since my last report dated September 5, 2006, Congress has cleared and the President has signed the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2007, P.L. 109-289. In addition to providing regular defense appropriations for 2007, this act appropriated $200 million for firefighting activities in fiscal year 2006. Those appropriations were designated as emergency requirements in 2006 and did not affect the current level totals. This is my final report for 2006.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object, I also wish to speak to the amendment that is about to be called up by the Senator from North Dakota. In order to maintain continuity, I would hope that I could speak after the Senator from Hawaii, if that is going to be the speaking order. If we are going to go to the Senator from Maine as an intermediary event, that is fine, too. If we are going to continue on this amendment, I would like to participate.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, it is my understanding that I have 10 minutes under the order.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, there are some things so ironic around here that you just have to smile. We are just coming off this election--and I congratulate my colleagues on the other side for their success with a significant and dramatic win. But if we listen to the rhetoric from them, and certainly from the pundits who analyzed the election, it was obviously about the war in Iraq, but it was also about fiscal discipline. I don't know how many times I have read from national pundits, from the Washington Post and the New York Times, how the Democratic Party is now the party of fiscal discipline. Yet the first amendment brought to the floor of this Senate--the first amendment--increases the national debt by $4.9 billion. It exceeds the budget by $4.9 billion and claims it is an emergency, on an issue which has already been addressed by this Senate, I think, two, maybe three times, and rejected. Well, maybe the folks out there who voted and thought they were voting for fiscal discipline when they voted to bring in the other party should take a look at this amendment and ask: Where did this come from? Is this a bill of goods I just got sold? The first amendment brought up by the other side of the aisle after they win this significant, important, dramatic victory is to ask for $4.9 billion above the budget, throw it on the debt, increase spending. It is, as I said, ironic. It makes you wonder. I wonder where we are headed under this new regime. There is something called a regular appropriations process. In fact, it is very likely that we will get to an agriculture bill, an appropriations bill before we adjourn this session, euphemistically referred to as a lameduck session. When that bill comes up, if it is the belief, contention, and argument of those in the farm communities who have been affected by what they feel is a bad crop-year--if they believe they need additional funds, that bill will have the opportunity to shift funds around, move funds to those accounts that are needed, and which need additional funding, within the context of the budget, within the limitations of the budget. That is called regular order. But this is not regular order. This is a daytime robbery of the Treasury, a heist, in open daylight, and I give them credit for that. There is nothing secretive about this. This is just saying we have the votes, so we are going to come to the floor and spend $4.9 billion and add it to the Federal debt and call it an emergency. It is going to stuff the budget. It is not good policy. It is not good fiscal policy. It clearly, in my humble opinion--I may have misread the election. I wasn't up for reelection, but I have certainly read a lot about it, and I participated on the stump enough. I think it sells the people of this country who voted in the election a bill of goods they didn't think they were buying--in fact, just the opposite. I understand there are some folks on my side of the aisle who also feel compelled to vote for this amendment. I regret that, too, obviously. I hope they will reconsider. In any event, it is an amendment that violates the budget. It is, therefore, subject to a 60- vote point of order. We have 60-vote points of order here in order to try to maintain some semblance of fiscal discipline. This will be our first exercise in trying to maintain that semblance of fiscal discipline in what you might call the new congressional year. It will be a good test for us as a Senate for my colleagues on the other side who are about to become the majority party, and for us on this side, who will become the honorable minority. It will be a good test for us to see if we have the courage to actually initiate fiscal discipline in this new Congress. The opportunity is there. All we need is 41 votes. Mr. President, 59 people can vote for their constituencies, vote to raise spending, raise the debt, vote to increase spending outside the budget. It will be a good test to see whether there are 41 people here who took the message away from the election that the pundits have told us is the message, that the national Democratic Party told us is the message, and that some of our own folks on our side told us is the message, which is that they expect the Congress to start living within its budgets. It will be a good test of whether at least the working minority heard that message. At this point, I will make a point of order. Mr. President, pursuant to the fiscal year 2006 budget resolution, I raise a point of order against the emergency designation in the pending amendment.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I must respond briefly to the Senator from North Dakota, whom I also greatly admire and with whom I have enjoyed working. He has always been a responsible and effective Member of this Senate, to say the least. Let me make the point; he said there is no budget. There is no grand budget, that is true, but there is a budget. That is why he had to waive the Budget Act in order to get to this point. It is a function of the fact that we put in place, as those who follow the arcane nature of this institution know, a set of 302 allocations which are guiding how much money can be spent in the Senate, and that is essentially the budget. It is a pretty aggressive mechanism to put in place. Innumerable budget points of order have been brought under that, some sustained, some not sustained. As to this amendment, this amendment did fail. It failed on an issue of germaneness. So there is a history here. But more importantly, the essence of the problem of this amendment is it busts the budget. It adds $4.9 billion to the debt. And I would argue that maybe the Senator from North Dakota doesn't feel he is in the new structure, but I believe most people think, in this post-election environment, where the election was so dramatic, that Congress shouldn't be functioning under the old rules of just breaking the budget; we should be living under the discipline, and we are not. That is my point. If the American people's intent--and I think it was--was to send a message to us as the keepers of their pocketbooks, we are, in my opinion, not living up to that request when the first amendment brought to the floor of the Senate after this election is an amendment to increase spending by $4.9 billion above the budget and add that money to the debt. It is not good policy.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: It has come to my attention that this language is not only increasing the appropriations, it may also have authorizing language in it. Is this amendment subject to rule XVI?

Mr. GREGG. I wish to speak to the other side. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the pending Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007, H.R. 5385, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations provides $89.861 billion in budget authority and $84.956 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2007 for the Military Construction and the Department of Veterans Affairs programs. Of these totals, $36.961 billion in budget authority and $36.814 billion outlays are for mandatory programs in fiscal year 2007. The bill provides total discretionary budget authority in fiscal year 2007 of $52.900 billion. This amount is $111 million above the President's request, at the 302(b) allocations adopted by the Senate, $8.8 billion above fiscal year 2006 enacted levels, and $41.8 billion below the House-passed bill. As my colleagues know, the large difference with the House funding level is due to the difference in allocations. This is primarily due to the Defense Health Program in the Senate's Defense allocation but in the House's Military Quality of Life and Veteran's Affairs allocation. I commend the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee for bringing this legislation before the Senate, and I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object, with the understanding, Mr. President, that if a Republican Member wishes to speak, his time would be allotted in between the times of the Democratic Members.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to speak briefly on what is an interesting point that I think needs to be made a few times because there has been a bit of discussion in this Chamber and questions in the public's mind as to how the President's tax cuts have affected the economy and affected Americans. If we were to listen to the mainstream press from the Northeast, for example, or to the mainstream commentary and to our colleagues on the other side, you would think the President's tax cuts were basically a benefit to the wealthy in America to the detriment to those who are not so wealthy. That is the basic theme--class warfare. That is what we hear day in and day out. Well, the facts are in. The facts are in on the President's tax cuts, and they are very good for this country. To begin with, let's put in context when those tax cuts occurred. At the end of the Clinton administration, we had seen the largest economic bubble in the history of America. The stock market went up dramatically, way past real values, based on basically paper, as a result of speculation around the Internet. That bubble collapsed, forcing us into a recession. That was followed by the attack of 9/11, which was not only a traumatic cultural event for us, involving a horrific loss of life, it was also a huge economic attack on the American economy. Those two things together should have thrown us into almost a depression or certainly an extraordinarily severe recession. But what happened in the middle of this was that the President suggested cutting tax rates on all Americans. That tax cut came at just the right time because it softened the blow of those two huge economic events, those two extraordinarily recessionary events, and allowed the economy to bottom-out in a shallower and less harmful way and start to move back up dramatically. In fact, the practical effect of those tax cuts is the following because after 5 years, we know the facts, very interesting facts. No. 1, the revenue to the Federal Government has increased dramatically as a result of the tax cuts. No. 2, interestingly enough, high-income Americans, the highest income Americans, the top 20 percent of Americans in income are paying a higher share--a higher share of American income--of the income tax burden of America than they did under the Clinton years. No. 3, low-income Americans, those people who are in the bottom 20 percent who don't pay any income tax to begin with, are actually getting back from the Government in the form of direct subsidy through something called the earned-income tax credit more money than they received in the Clinton years. So you have the situation where the Federal share of revenue taken out of the economy is back to its historic level: 18.2 percent. So we have a situation where the Government is getting more revenue, where the tax laws are becoming more progressive, and where the economy recovered, creating 5.7 million jobs. Now, how did that happen, one might ask. How can we get more tax revenues if we cut taxes? How can the high-income people in this country be paying a higher burden of the taxes if we cut taxes? The other side of the aisle rejects that concept. They say: You just have to keep raising taxes. Raise taxes, raise taxes; you always get more revenue. Well, it doesn't work that way. Something that--if you just think for a moment, it is pretty obvious--is called human nature intervenes. If you raise taxes to a level that people perceive is unfair, and especially if they are high-income individuals, they can afford to, and they do, figure out ways to avoid paying taxes by investing in things which give them deductions. So tax revenues don't go up dramatically if you raise revenues. In fact, the way you raise revenues is by making the tax burden fair. You make it fair so that high-income individuals pay those taxes and are willing to go out and invest in activity which generates income, which is productive and actually creates jobs, which in turn generates economic activity, which in turn generates more revenue to the Federal Government. That is exactly what has happened as a result of the President's tax cuts. We are now at a fair tax burden, so people, rather than avoiding taxes, are willing to pay taxes. People are now willing to invest in taxable activity, and the Federal Government is benefiting from a robust recovery, there is job creation, and more people are paying more taxes, and the high-income people are paying even more in taxes. I brought along a few charts to explain this more precisely. This chart reflects the fact that in the last 2 years--these are the revenues to the Federal Government, and these are the increases in revenues--in the last 2 years--this is the period when we had the Internet bubble and we had the 9/11 attacks, when the war began. This is where the tax cuts came into place. There was a dip in revenue as a result of the recession, the Internet bubble, and the 9/11 attacks, and then those tax cuts started to work, and people started to produce more economic activity, make investments, create jobs. As a result, in the last 2 years, we have the 2 highest years of increase in revenues of the Federal Government in the history of our Government--the 2 highest years. So there has been a big jump in revenues to the Federal Government, another result of which is that our deficit has dropped precipitously. It has gone from a $450 billion estimate down to $270 billion this year. This chart reflects the fact that we are now back, after the recessionary event--well, the blue line reflects the historical level of the percent of gross national product that is usually paid in taxes: 18.1 percent. That is the blue line here. The black line represents how much we are spending as a government. The red line represents how much we are receiving as a government. You can see it goes up and down. What happened was, in the Internet bubble, when people were manufacturing money basically through paper, there was a huge amount of revenue generated as a result of mostly capital gains. But when that bubble collapsed and when we were hit with 9/11, the economy dropped, and the incomes dropped. Down here is where we made the tax cuts, and then the economy started to come back. So now we are back at a historical level of revenues for the Federal Government. We are actually above the historical level right now. We are getting 18.2 percent of gross national product into the Federal Government. A very interesting fact is that the high-income individuals in America today--these are the different quadrants, the different groups, people who make $15,000, people who make about $34,000, $51,000, $77,000. And then people making over $184,000--that is the high-end income earner in America. Those folks are now paying almost 85 percent, essentially 85 percent of the Federal income tax burden; the high-income Americans. That is a pretty progressive system when you have the low-income people, those with $34,000 or less, actually getting money back, and the high-income individuals paying the top 20 percent paying 84 percent of the tax burden. That is called progressive taxation. That is after the tax cuts. In fact, prior to the tax cuts, during the Clinton years--this is a chart of that top 20 percent--the high-income individuals during the Clinton years were paying 81 percent of the taxes, whereas now, under the Bush tax cut, they are paying 85 percent of the taxes. Again, I point out, if you think about it, this is actually just common sense. If you have a fair tax law, people who are in the high incomes, who have the knowledge, the ability, and accountants to invest their money in a way that either pays taxes or doesn't pay taxes--if they believe the tax burden is unfair, they are going to invest in a way that avoids taxes. They are going to buy interest-free bonds or buy highly depreciating assets. So they reduce their tax burden. But if you give them a fair tax burden, they are going to do things that are taxable, and that is good for the Government and actually it makes the tax law more progressive--a very important fact. As I mentioned, low-income individuals under this President are actually getting a better deal now than they did at any time in the history of the country. This is the line, what low-income people pay. Actually, it is a payment to them because this would be the line where they would pay something. Since this President has become President, low-income individuals are receiving more in direct payments as a result of the earned-income tax credit and other credits which they receive than they ever received before. You can compare this to the Clinton years. Low-income people, the bottom 40 percent of earners in America, basically received about 1.5 percent back in payments to them. They weren't paying any taxes. Under President Bush's tax plan they are getting almost 3 percent back. So we have created a tax system now which seems to be doing everything right in that it is generating a historical level of Federal taxes--how much we should take out of the economy for Federal taxes; it is generating huge revenue for the Federal Government; the highest income people in America are paying by far the greatest share of it, 85 percent, much more than they paid in the Clinton years; and low-income Americans are getting a benefit from the tax rebates which we give them at the highest level in history and about twice what they got under the Clinton years. Probably as important, if not most important, it has generated 18 consecutive quarters of economic growth. This has led to almost 5.7 million new jobs--and having a good job is the key to economic prosperity. What we have accomplished is pretty impressive with these tax cuts. Yet we continue to hear them be vilified by the Democratic Party and our liberal colleagues. They just want to keep raising rates. They want to go back to the Clinton years when they would raise rates and thus reduce the amount of taxes that the high-income individuals would pay because they would invest in shelters or find ways to generate income that were not as taxable. As a result, it also impacted low-income people because under the Clinton years we actually had low-income people getting less benefit. It probably significantly reduces this economic recovery which is a direct result of the fact that there is a tax burden today which creates an incentive for the person who is willing to take a risk, an entrepreneur, that person who has a great idea, that man or woman who says: I want to go start a restaurant. I have an idea I want to try out to build and sell. That individual who is a risk taker and a job creator has a tax climate which says: If you are successful, we are going to give you a benefit. That would be curtailed. The other side of the aisle, my liberal colleagues, they want to raise the tax on capital. They want to raise the tax on dividends. They want to raise the tax on income. All of those things are going to have the practical effect of stifling economic growth, stifling revenues to the Federal Treasury, and undermining the entrepreneurial spirit of America and the effective use of capital, which is a bit of an economic argument, but it should be pointed out. When you maintain a low tax burden on capital--capital being savings and things people are willing to invest with, money people are willing to invest--that money flows to its most efficient use. But if you put a high tax on capital and savings, people put it in places where it is not efficiently used. They put it into tax shelters to put it in hard example terms. If you are an entrepreneur and you are going to go out and start something and you have a 15-percent tax rate on capital, you are going to take a risk. You are maybe going to invest in building that new software or that new computer technology system or starting that new restaurant with that money. You are going to invest. But if you have a 30-percent tax--which is what the Democratic Party and our liberal colleagues want to return to, on capital--you are going to say to yourself: I don't want to pay that much in taxes, so I am going to invest in a tax shelter. I am going to invest in something that probably doesn't make a whole lot of money, but at least it saves me taxes. It is not an efficient way to use money, and it is not an efficient way for an economy to run and it skews investment arbitrarily, which is totally inappropriate and counterproductive and would certainly not lead to these types of numbers where you have economic growth for 18 quarters, where you have 5.7 million jobs created. We have the Federal Treasury with the two largest tax revenue years, two largest years of revenue in the last 2 years, where you have the highest income people in this country paying the largest share of Federal taxes in the history of the country, 85 percent; where you have the lowest income people paying no taxes and actually getting more back as a result of credits and benefits under the tax law than at any time in history. And where you have an incentive, most important, for the entrepreneur, who is the essence of America's economic strength, to go out and take risks, invest, and create jobs. The numbers are in. This hyperbole we hear from the other side of the aisle--which is a function of 1950s-Galbraith-Harvard University economics which says, if you just keep raising taxes on people you are going to get more revenue--a stake was put in that by John Kennedy when he cut taxes. Another stake was put in that concept by Ronald Reagan when he cut taxes and got economic growth. And certainly the final stake has been put in it by the fact that we have cut taxes, we have a fair tax system now which incentivizes people to go out and be productive and causes them to be willing to invest in things that generate revenue, thus creating jobs. So that idea doesn't work. It only makes sense probably if you are a former theater critic who happens to be an editorial writer for the New York Times. There is no economic theory that can stand up any longer because it doesn't work. The tax burdens, as are shown by the numbers in this country, are pretty close to where they should be because we are generating huge growth, huge revenues, and we have an extraordinarily progressive system of taxation where the highest earners pay the most. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I commend the chairman of the HELP Committee, Chairman Enzi, and Senator Burr, who is the energy and author of this bill. I don't think there is a bill that comes to this floor that isn't important. Obviously, it wouldn't make it to this point in legislation. So calling something ``important'' becomes sort of a common phrase around here. But when you are talking about the issue of whether America is prepared for either a pandemic flu, or a terrorist attack using a biological agent which could threaten thousands and thousands-- potentially tens of thousands--of Americans, you are talking about something that is really important. Senator Burr has focused on this issue. We have in place laws that Senator Enzi and I helped structure a few years ago on Bioshield, to try to get this process started of getting ready for that kind of a biological attack. But the process didn't work the way it was supposed to work. It wasn't getting the industry involved, which has been devastated in our country--literally wiped out for all intents and purposes--by lawsuits. It was not willing to get started up again because they didn't feel there was, first, an adequate source of resources in the area of dealing with a biological attack and, secondly, they feared the huge potential liability that might fall on them for the production of what would be not a major item within their market. Senator Burr has spent a year addressing these issues: How do we get more manufacturers and more entrepreneurs and more medical specialists into the business of developing and being positioned to develop vaccines which will deal with potential pandemic flu or a terrorist attack. In addition, he recognized that is not enough, that you have to get the communities--especially State and local communities--thinking about how they will handle a situation where they may have literally tens of thousands of people they have to care for all at once, that type of a surge, or that they have to isolate from the community. The Federal Government clearly wasn't orchestrated correctly. It was diffused, as Senator Burr pointed out, as to who was responsible and how these plans were going to be developed. This piece of legislation has evolved here through a superior exercise in legislative activity by Senator Burr and Senator Enzi, chairman of the full committee, in a bipartisan effort, a bicameral effort to address these very significant problems which we have found within our health care delivery system when it comes to dealing with a potential threat of a pandemic event or biological event. This legislation should be passed. There is no reason it shouldn't pass. It passed in the House overwhelmingly. It came out of our committee unanimously. There is no reason it should not move across this floor. The other side of the aisle may have a couple of reservations about it. There is plenty of time to go back and address those if those reservations have any legs. But the point is the basic legislation here is excellent, it is agreed to, it is bipartisan but, most importantly and most significantly, it is needed now. Obviously, we hope we don't get hit with a pandemic flu, but we have to start getting ready now if that happens. We can never predict when a terrorist attack is going to occur. Should it occur with biological weapons, we need to get ready now for that. This bill does that. I congratulate the Senator from North Carolina, and I congratulate the chairman of the committee, a superb chairman, who did a great job. But the smartest thing he did was to turn it over to the Senator from North Carolina to straighten it out. This is a good bill and should be passed. I hope the Senate will pass it today. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I object.