Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 16, 2006 at 9:15 a.m. in SD-430.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 16, 2006 at time 3:30 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on global strike plans and programs in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2007.

Mr. GREGG

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

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I appreciate the extraordinary commitment of the Senator from Connecticut to national defense, to a responsible policy in fighting terrorism. He is clearly one of the leaders in the Senate and the Nation on the issue of how we should protect ourselves as a nation. I respect him immensely. I admire him. It is good to have his voice on the issues of foreign policy and international terrorism and how we fight it. On this issue, however, I respectfully disagree relative to the need for these additional dollars at this time. In this budget, we have robustly funded the fight on terrorism. The defense budget will be increased in the core budget by $30 billion. A lot of that goes toward fighting terrorism. We have set aside $90 billion of additional money, the purpose of which is to fight the war on terrorism. That is $40 billion more than the administration asked for. In addition, within those funds we have dedicated an additional $4 billion specifically to the issue of port security and border security. Quite honestly, as chairman of the committee that has jurisdiction over port security and border security, that is probably more money than those agencies can handle in 1 year. We will have to be careful to be sure that that money is spent effectively and not pushed out the door in purchasing blue lights and whistles. We want to make sure it purchases real assets and adds real manpower that will assist us in the war on terrorism. We have made a huge commitment in this budget to the issue of fighting terrorism. The Senator from Connecticut correctly points out that first responder funds are down in this budget. That is a decision that has been made because of the fact there was so much first responder money that came so quickly, it simply hasn't been spent effectively yet. There was $13 billion that we have put into first responders across the country. That is a huge number, so large, in fact, that $5.5 billion of it, which has already been appropriated, which is sitting there, has not been spent, going back to 2004. There is literally $5.5 billion sitting in the pipeline that first responder groups have not spent, in part because State planning has not caught up to adequately meet the need for using the available funding. As soon as they are, those dollars will go out. As soon as that pipeline of $5.5 billion starts to get drawn down--remember, we are adding another several billion dollars on top of it in this bill--we are going to refill that pipeline to make sure that first responder funding is adequate. It is not an issue of lack of dollars. It is an issue of lack of programmatic and systematic infrastructure, to a large degree--and planning, to a large degree. You could put another $40 billion or $8 billion or whatever billion on top of this, and you would still get little improvement in the amount of money flowing out to first responders because the necessity of having the money flow in a way that actually produces programmatic results has not been resolved yet. It should not be our purpose as the Federal Government to be hiring people for local police forces and local first responder teams. What this money is supposed to be used for primarily is to give them the support so they have the necessary interoperability equipment, the necessary tactical equipment, and the necessary training to be effective as first responders. We should not be taking Federal first responder dollars and replacing local dollars that are already being used for the purposes of putting people on the street. States are making progress. As they come at us, we will put more money out there. In addition, in the appropriating process we have taken the view, which is a little different than the authorizing committee, that risk should be where the money goes first. If a community has a high likelihood of risk from a terrorist attack, that community should be the place where we put the dollars. This has actually worked to the disadvantage of the State of New Hampshire. But my view is strong that these dollars, which are being used to basically upgrade the capacity of first responders to handle a terrorist attack, should go first to those places most likely to be on the front lines. We know where those places are. They know who they are. That is why we have basically funded it in that manner. That is where we stand today. Very simply stated, there is an extremely robust commitment to fighting the war on terrorism in this bill: a $30 billion increase in defense spending; $90 billion in a separate budgeting process for fighting the war on terror, $40 billion more than the President asked for; $4 billion of new funds directed right at border security and port security; $2.3 billion directed right at avian flu and the purchasing of necessary supplies and antitoxins and hopefully vaccines, to address that issue. In the pipeline already from prior appropriations, there is $5.5 billion of funds out of the $13 billion that has been appropriated which is available for first responders from prior appropriations onto which we will put another chunk of money here. The issue is not dollars in almost all these accounts. It is not dollars in terms of this budget. In terms of the President's budget, there may be a difference of opinion, but in terms of this budget the issue is not dollars. The issue is getting those dollars out effectively. I oppose this amendment. I would have opposed it, anyway, because it basically raises taxes and spends money and breaks the caps. I think that is bad fiscal policy. I also oppose it on substance. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, what is the time situation?

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, although I don't agree with him, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from Montana.

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I know the chairman of the Finance Committee is coming over, and he may want to speak to this issue, but the time may lapse before he gets here so let me make this point: The study which the Senator is asking for could occur and would occur--and I can't speak for the chairman of the Finance Committee, but I would certainly be willing to sign the letter, and I suspect the chairman would, too. But simply writing the letter down there from the committees of jurisdiction--I don't happen to be a committee of jurisdiction, although it is an interesting issue--and then the chairman and the ranking member could get the study. The reason this amendment is being put on this bill is to try to send it back to the House to delay the process so that the debt ceiling ends up with some political votes somewhere along the line. That is just gamesmanship and there is no need for it. We should have this amendment taken off this bill. If there is a desire for this information, which we could certainly obtain rather easily by sending a letter demanding that they do the study, and then have GAO do the study--a little independence on the study might even be good--do a joint task force and get the information. So the amendment really isn't necessary at all. So I agree with what I think is the leadership's position on this side, that this amendment is just dilatory and will end up delaying the debt ceiling legislation, which is a mistake. That is why it is opposed. Has all my time expired?

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I see the Democratic leader, and I will yield back my time and let the Democratic leader take leader time.

Mr. GREGG

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

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the next vote in this series be 10 minutes in length; further, that when the votes begin at 1:30, all votes after the first vote be limited to 10 minutes.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to support this amendment. I think it is an excellent idea and hopefully it will be successful. Stabilization money is certainly available. It is walking-around money. We don't need to have it sitting there, and we should use it for reducing the deficit.

Mr. GREGG. I would suggest that we reach a unanimous consent agreement that on the list you identified, everybody be granted 5 minutes.

Mr. GREGG. Sure.

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

Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent the following amendments be agreed to en bloc: Amendment 3078, Senator Vitter and Senator Landrieu; amendment 3041, Senator Baucus; amendment 3134, Senators Snowe, Vitter and Kerry; amendment 3045, Senator Lautenberg; amendment 3123, Senator Coleman; amendment 3136, as modified, Senator Conrad.

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

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

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we are 10 minutes away from the big show, which may go on for a long time. It may be a big, long show. In any event, I want to alert Members we are going to go to 10-minute votes. We are going to be holding the 10-minute votes as strictly as possible. The first vote will, obviously, not be 10 minutes. And we are going to start voting at 1:30. We have pending so many amendments that we could be here well into the evening. Cooperation is needed if people do not want to be here well into tomorrow morning. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, just for the edification of our colleagues because it is going to get a little confusing around here with all the amendments we have, we are going to begin the amendment voting process with the amendment of Senator Lieberman on homeland security. That will be followed by Senator Clinton's amendment, followed by Senator Specter's amendment on education, followed by the amendment of Senator Reed of Rhode Island on LIHEAP, followed by Senator Lautenberg's amendment on TSA fees, followed by Senator Sarbanes's amendment on function 300, followed by Senator Dorgan's amendment on tribal issues, followed by Senator Cornyn's amendment on reconciliation, followed by Senator Stabenow's amendment on veterans, followed by Senator Akaka's amendment on title I, followed by Senator Collins's amendment on homeland security, followed by Senator Lincoln's amendment on small business--oh, we are stopping at Senator Collins's amendment, and then we are going to order the next group of amendments. So that is the basic concept.

Mr. GREGG. Yes.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we made a very strong commitment to LIHEAP a few weeks ago. We passed an additional billion dollars on the Senate floor. In other vehicles, we have passed even more money for LIHEAP. This amendment does not fund LIHEAP because nothing in this bill is binding on the Appropriations Committee. What it does do, however, is raise the cap by $1 billion and raise taxes by $1 billion. It will be up to the Appropriations Committee to decide whether they are going to fund LIHEAP at this year's level or next year's level or last year's level. The history is pretty strong. LIHEAP gets well funded around here and you can pretty much presume that the Appropriations Committee will do that. But they will do it within the cap, and that is the way it should be. Therefore, I hope Members will reject this amendment because it is basically a tax-and-spend amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be deemed to have been ordered on all amendments that are proceeding here.

Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that seconds be deemed to have been approved for all the yeas and nays for the balance of the amendments.

Mr. GREGG. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we will now go to the Specter amendment. Senator Specter and those in opposition had not expected this amendment to come up so quickly. I hate to slow the voting down. I suggest the absence of a quorum.