Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, at this time we can go to third reading.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for final passage and ask for the yeas and yeas.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I think that is probably a good idea, to do the Kyl amendment first. Amendment No. 4643

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, we are now back on the Homeland Security appropriations bill. My hope is, although this is not formalized as a unanimous consent agreement yet--but the understanding I have with the Senator from Washington was that the Senator from Pennsylvania would speak for about 15 minutes and then the opposition, if they wish to speak, would speak for 15 minutes. Then the Senator from Arizona, Senator Kyl, would speak for about 10 minutes on his amendment. Then there will be 10 minutes in opposition. Then we will go to a vote on those two amendments. Either--if they are merged, one vote; if they are not merged, two votes. Then we will go back to the Menendez amendment, the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey. I understand Senator Collins wishes to speak on that, and Senator Leahy wishes to speak. I am not sure what the time understanding is before we can get to a vote on the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey, but my hope would be we could go to a vote fairly promptly on that amendment after completing the votes on the amendments of Senator Kyl and Senator Santorum. I see the Senator from Washington is here. Is that her understanding?

Mr. GREGG. At this time, I think the Senator from Pennsylvania is ready to go and we will get started.

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I appreciate the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana. I certainly intend to support it--strongly support it. I think it is an excellent amendment. I believe it is going to require a vote, however. We are now going to turn to the Senator from Connecticut who is going to offer an amendment with 30 minutes on that amendment, the Senator from Connecticut having control of 20 minutes and myself having control of 10 minutes. At the completion of the presentation of the Senator from Connecticut, I would hope we would be able to work out an agreement where we can go to a vote on the amendment by the Senator from Louisiana and a vote on the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut. That has not yet been agreed to.

Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will yield for a second?

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time on this amendment be 30 minutes, with 20 minutes allocated to the Senator from Connecticut and 10 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I believe I have 10 minutes; is that correct?

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I am a great admirer of the Senator from Connecticut. He is obviously a significant force within the Senate. He has a lot of good ideas. He thinks big. This amendment is another example of that in some ways in that this amendment would cost $16.5 billion. The bill we brought forward to the floor for Homeland Security is a $32 billion bill. What he is suggesting is that we increase the authorized amount in this bill by half. It is for accounts which already have a large amount of money headed in their direction, first responder accounts. We have spent, since we began this effort, over $14 billion on first responders. Of that $14 billion, however, that was authorized to be spent, only $6 billion has actually been spent. In other words, the States and localities, which have the right to this money, have put in place plans to spend money for first responders, but they have only been able to plan in a wa that was appropriate to the point where they have been able to use $6 billion. So we actually still have $8 billion in the pipeline before this bill is passed. When this bill is passed, we are going to add another $2.4 billion to the pipeline. So that instead of having $8 billion available to be spent, we will be up to approximately $10.5 billion that will be available and it has not been spent. Now the Senator from Connecticut comes along and says we need to put another $16 billion on top of that $10 billion, when we already know that the communities and States haven't been able to spend effectively the money that is available already, plus the additional money that we are going to provide through this bill. Yes, the Rudman Commission came forward with a series of proposals. Quite honestly, I am obviously a great admirer of Warren Rudman. He was my predecessor, and he was an incredibly strong and effective Senator. He has remained a significant force for a lot of good things, including national security issues, intelligence issues. And his work maintaining the integrity of the financial community has been exceptional. But the report that they put together is a bit stale in many ways because of all the money we put in the pipeline. It is also a touch stale because if you really wanted to spend $16.5 billion on top of the money that we have in this bill, I am not absolutely sure that I would put it on top of the money that is sitting there because it wouldn't get used that quickly. If you really want to provide these types of resources and you want to raise taxes to do so, you might want to put it on the border, into the Coast Guard, into intelligence. If you want to stop the next attack, the way you will stop it is through intelligence and through border security, especially if you are looking at weapons of mass destruction. There are things that need to be done that maybe could use some more resources. To put $16 billion on top of $10 billion which hasn't been spent yet and say you have solved some problem, I don't think solves any problems, quite honestly. I think it is a statement, yes. But these cities and towns in the next year aren't going to draw down the $10 billion that is available to them so they are certainly not going to draw down the $16 billion. My view on the first responder issue has been that we put so much money in the pipeline that it is sort of like putting a fire hose in the system. They haven't been able to handle the money yet. As they work through the system and can handle that money, then we will put in more money. I am willing to raise first responder dollars, although we have done a pretty good job in this account already with $2.4 billion. But I don't want to use resources that can get me an instant bang for the dollar, such as putting a new Border Patrol agent on the border, which is what we have done, rather than put in a dollar that is going to sit in the Treasury for 2 or 3 years while communities get their act together. I don't think from a policy standpoint this type of expenditure is necessarily the priority I would choose. From a pure budget standpoint, let's face it, this is the biggest increase I have seen proposed on this bill. There have been others. Senator Biden proposed to add a billion dollars of new money for rail transit, but this is $16.5 billion. That is a huge amount of money. The title of the amendment says it is going to be paid for by tax increases. It doesn't say what tax increases. The Senator from Connecticut says we are going to be taxing the rich. The amendment doesn't say it is going to be taxing anybody. Its title says it is going to tax. There is no operative language for taxes. So it is actually not even paid for. It is not paid for under the terms of the amendment. In my opinion, this type of tax-and-spend amendment is not justified, and it is very hard, in the context of the budget process and in what we have already done in these accounts, to justify. I oppose it. At the proper time, I will make a point of order against the amendment as exceeding our budget cap. I don't think the policy demands it, and I certainly think the number is far out of anything that is logical in the context of what we are trying to deal with relative to setting up homeland security and making sure it is effectively pursued in this country. At the termination of this debate, I hope we can get to a vote on Senator Vitter and Senator Dodd. We are waiting to hear from the other side of the aisle whether they are going to allow us to vote on Vitter. I think in the next 5 minutes we may have a couple of votes. We are still awaiting word, for the information of our colleagues. I reserve the remainder of my time

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I believe I have about 3 minutes.

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I wish to reiterate the fact that we already have $8 billion in the pipeline. We are going to have $10.5 billion, which has not been spent after this bill is passed. This amendment is a $16 billion plus-up on a bill that cost $32 billion. It is a massive expansion. It will basically be going into an account at Homeland Security and won't be spent because they cannot spend the money they already have. It is a proposal that is simply not going to have the policy impact the Senator hopes for. I know the Senator has alluded a couple of times to how much we are spending in Iraq, which is an immense amount of money. But we have soldiers on the ground in Iraq. We have equipment that has to be replaced there. We are fighting a war in Iraq. So I am sure the Senator isn't suggesting that we take the money from Iraq and move it over to the Homeland Security Department. I am just using that as an example. But the war in Iraq is being fought within the context of the budget. In this instance, this would be way outside of the budget. With that, I yield back the remainder of my time and make a point of order under section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act that the amendment provides spending in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, at this time what we are going to do--and I will make a unanimous consent request to this effect--is we are going to recognize the Senator from Maryland to make two points on germaneness: one relative to Senator Santorum's amendment and one relative to Senator Kyl's amendment. At the conclusion, we are going to recognize the Senator from Texas for up to 10 minutes. Then we are going to recognize the Senator from Maine for up to 20 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that what I have stated be the order. At the same time, I further ask unanimous consent that while this action is pending, I not lose the right of priority relative to making a second-degree amendment on the Vitter amendment.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would amend the request to have the Senator from Pennsylvania speak in response to the motion of the Senator from Maryland for up to 3 minutes.

Mr. GREGG. And the Senator from Maryland, in making his motion, will have 3 minutes to debate them, or respond.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Vermont wishes to speak. I presume the Senator from New Jersey has 20 minutes reserved under the previous order. I believe the debate should go forward, but I wish it would go forward with the unanimous consent that I continue to reserve the right to protect my second-degree position.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, if there is no further debate on this amendment--maybe the Senator from New Jersey wishes to respond, but upon completion of his response, I would suggest that all debate on this amendment be deemed to have been completed and that at 12:45 we turn to an amendment from Senator Schumer and Senator Clinton; that we have 30 minutes on that amendment, with 20 minutes for Senators Schumer and Clinton and 10 minutes in opposition, controlled by myself; and that at the conclusion of that, Senator Sessions be recognized to offer two amendments.

Mr. GREGG. Yes. And I believe Senator Collins has a little bit of time.

Mr. GREGG. I cannot represent which ones. But he has five filed.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would like to clear a series of amendments. All these amendments have been on file. Some have been modified. The amendments are at the desk. They are No. 4633, Senator Allard; 4640, Senator Murray; 4648, Senator Landrieu; 4639, Senator Murray; 4617, Senator Levin; 4594, Senator Voinovich, as modified; 4570, as modified, Senator Lautenberg; 4556, Senator Feinstein. I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be considered and agreed to en bloc.

Mr. GREGG. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. We yield back the remainder of time in morning business.

Mr. GREGG. I thank the Chair.