Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that if the yeas and nays were ordered on that amendment they would be vitiated.

Mr. GREGG. Good. Mr. President, we will now turn to the Boxer amendment, No. 3105; followed by the Bingaman amendment, No. 3121; followed by the Nelson amendment, No. 3001; followed by the Feinstein amendment, No. 3067; followed by the Stabenow amendment, No. 3118; followed by the Santorum amendment, No. 3052; followed by the Domenici amendment, No. 3128. And we reserve the right to offer an amendment after the Nelson amendment but before the Feinstein amendment relative to the same topic as the Nelson amendment.

Mr. GREGG. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3121

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the characterization of this amendment has been totally inaccurate. In fact, I haven't heard as inaccurate a characterization of an amendment today, and we have heard a lot of talk today. This amendment doesn't do what was just represented. What this amendment does is, it says that for any 2-year period the trustees of the Medicare trust fund tell us that over 45 percent of the cost of Medicare or another entitlement--but it would probably be Medicare--is coming out of the general fund. Remember, Medicare is supposed to be an insurance fund; this is part A. Then at that point, there is an opportunity to raise a point of order against new entitlement spending. It specifically excludes Social Security. The fact is, this is a point of order which will probably not come into play for many years, but it is an attempt to address what is a looming problem, which is that Medicare is taking more and more assets out of the general fund rather than being paid through the insurance process. It is good budget discipline.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I believe we can go to a voice vote.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments which have not been filed be considered en bloc, and that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table: Senator Brownback on a commission on accountability and review of Federal agencies, Senator Baucus on high intensity drug trafficking, and Senator Graham relative to the Port of Charleston.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, at this point we are ready to go to the Vitter amendment. Is the Senator from North Dakota ready?

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, 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, 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 yield to the Senator from Louisiana.

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

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be considered en bloc and that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table: A Levin amendment relative to ATP; a Salazar amendment relative to the LWCF. I further ask unanimous consent that the following amendments which have not been filed be considered and agreed to en bloc, and the motions to reconsider be laid on the table: A Conrad-Gregg amendment on tax cap; and a Gregg-Conrad amendment for Senator Byrd on mine safety.

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

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the passage of the budget--I like that--the Senate proceed to executive session and proceed to two consecutive votes on the confirmation of the following judicial nominations on the Executive Calendar: Calendar No. 547, Jack Zouhary to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio; and Calendar No. 548, Stephen G. Larson to be United States District Judge for the Central District of California; further, that prior to the first vote the two Senators from Ohio be given 1 minute each, and prior to the second vote the Senators from California be given 1 minute each; that following these votes the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. GREGG. There was not. But I will be happy to ask for that.

Mr. GREGG. I have no objection.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I understand the interest of the distinguished senior Senator from New Mexico regarding mental health parity legislation and I would concur with my colleague's assessment. S. Con. Res. 83 does assume the revenue impact of enacting a mental health parity bill.

Mr. GREGG. I thank my good friend and colleague from Georgia for highlighting this issue. Protecting U.S. borders is a basic Federal function; it is national security. I also believe these unmanned aerial vehicles can enhance our capabilities, as they have for our military as demonstrated in Afghanistan and Iraq. I am in the position of being both the chairman of the Budget Committee and manager of this budget resolution, and also the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee that oversees the Department of Homeland Security both our counterterrorism and border security programs. The distinguished Senator from Georgia is known as a real leader in this area, and we appreciate his counsel. I might note that this budget resolution proposes increases of some $4 billion for border security focused on improving infrastructure and giving our men and women on the front lines the tools to do the job. We will have to see how much of these funds survive the Appropriations Committee's 302(b) allocation process and the administration's transmittals of emergency spending. But I can assure the Senator we will take a hard look at the UAV program as a component of a border security infrastructure program.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, Senator Conrad and I are fortunate to have an outstanding staff serving the members of the Senate Budget Committee. These professionals work long hours and take great pride in the work of the committee and the institution of the U.S. Senate. I would like to take just a few minutes today to single out two of these talented individuals who work on the majority side or Republican committee staff. David Fisher serves as our health policy director on the committee. As Willie Sutton said, ``You rob banks because that's where the money is,'' and with respect to the Federal budget, the money is in health care. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are three programs that David handles for our team, and these three programs are on a glidepath to consume over 20 percent of this Nation's gross domestic product in about 30 years. If we do not find a way to control the growth of spending for these programs, there simply will not be resources available for all other priorities, from national defense to homeland security to science and research. David came over to the Budget Committee from the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee in 2005. David holds a master's in public policy degree from Georgetown University. He has held a number of key positions in both the Senate and the House of Representatives having served as both a chief of staff and legislative director. David is one of those rare individuals who can drill into specific programmatic detail and simultaneously understand the broader policy and political context in which programs operate. He is a perfectionist. David has a complete top-to-bottom understanding of medical and health care programs and has staffed me with distinction with such issues as bioterrorism, medical liability reform, and FDA drug approval. Most recently, he has been working tirelessly on Avian flu preparedness. David Fisher has earned a reputation around town, here in Congress, and down at the White House as an expert on health issues. Few people who have worked with David have not been impressed with intellect and dedication. I am proud to have him on my team. For many people, the budget resolution is just a compilation of accounts and dollar levels. But the budget is much more. The budget is a framework, a blueprint for the Federal Government and fiscal policy. Maybe good public policy states that policy drives budgets, but it is no secret that in Washington budgets often drive policy. The budget and our resolution have a real impact on the financial markets and economy. When I took over the committee, a number of people advised me to make sure that we employed a talented economist. We are fortunate in Dan Brandt to have just that. Dan Brandt serves as our Committee chief economist, and he also serves as analyst for a number of budget functions, such as what we call function 370 or commerce and housing credit. Dan is our expert who keeps on top of what the economy is doing, what is happening at the Federal Reserve, at the Securities and Exchange Commission, at the stock exchanges, and international finance. Dan is our ``go to guy'' for understanding the latest GDP and employment statistics, inflation, and other economic data. He is our expert on tax policy and works closely with the Finance Committee in ensuring that we are advocating progrowth tax policies. He works closely with the Banking Committee on a number of issues affecting financial institutions and the lending industry. Dan's academic background is in business administration and economics at the Johns Hopkins University, the American University, and the Frei Universitat in Berlin, Germany. Prior to joining the committee, Dan worked in the House of Representatives, at Solomon Smith Barney, and at the International Trade Administration in the U.S. Department of Commerce. During 2004, Dan Brandt worked on President George W. Bush's reelection campaign where he handled tax and economic issues. Dan is a workhorse for the committee. Few people could serve as a guide through the intricacies of economic forecasts and the budget rules--Dan can do both. The technical accuracy and effectiveness of his work products is a matter of personal pride. I have learned that he is a professional staff member in every sense of the word. I will conclude by just saying that Dan Brandt is a real credit to the Senate, and we are fortunate to have him here on our Budget Committee and as part of my team. Mr. President, we are now able to go to final passage. Before we go to final passage, I wish to begin by thanking Senator Conrad and his extraordinary staff.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent the following amendments be considered, agreed to en bloc, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table: One amendment by Senators Lott, Talent, Reed, Lieberman, Durbin, Baucus, and Warner, an amendment dealing with the military, dealing with defense accounts, and an amendment by Senator Schumer dealing with courthouses.

Mr. GREGG

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