Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. 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 that the yeas and nays on this amendment be vitiated and Senators agree to take it by voice vote.

Mr. GREGG. That will be the first amendment voted on, beginning probably around 11, maybe a little earlier, tomorrow morning.

Mr. GREGG. We presume it would occur at some time around 3:35 or 4 o'clock.

Mr. GREGG. I will amend the unanimous consent request so that the amendment on Specter-Harkin will be the last amendment to be voted on in the series.

Mr. GREGG. Why don't we amend the unanimous consent request to say that the Specter-Harkin amendment will be voted on when the managers of the bill reach an agreement as to a time certain.

Mr. GREGG. That is asking for a lot, it seems to me. But I guess it will be all right.

Mr. GREGG. How much time does the Senator need?

Mr. GREGG. I can help this situation. I am claiming the time in opposition and I will yield to the Senator from Iowa 8 minutes off of my 15 minutes.

Mr. GREGG. So there are 8 minutes and 45 seconds.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment, although I yielded time off my time in support of the amendment to Senator Harkin. I was happy to do that, obviously. First, on the substance, Senator Harkin was speaking to the President's budget, not to this budget. I can understand, he probably has a lot of things going on and maybe has not had the time to take a look at this budget. But we actually--assuming we had any force of law in allocation, which I pointed out a number of times is not the case-- took $3 billion and moved it from Defense over to the Labor-HHS bill-- $3 billion; $1.5 billion for education, $1.5 billion for health care. In fact, we address some of the concerns specifically. We upped NIH by $1 billion. We put enough money in so the GEAR UP and TRIO and voc ed was fully funded. We increased funding for bioterrorism. So we adjusted. Furthermore, we put in a reserve fund of $6 billion to address the American Competitiveness Initiative, which is the initiative of the Senator and the Presiding Officer. And that is a big number. We have made a strong commitment toward education, and we have basically relieved the pressure that was put there by the President's budget--which would have actually cut, by going to levels slightly above a freeze--with our budget. So I think a lot of what the Senator from Iowa said may have been directed to the President's budget, but it is not accurately directed at this budget. Secondly, I have a problem with the way this is paid for. This is an advance appropriation. What is an advance appropriation? Well, basically, it is borrowing from next year to fund things this year, which creates a hole in the next year, which then has to be filled. So as a practical matter, what you are doing is adding to debt, but, more importantly, you are adding to the base and you are basically creating a problem for the next budget, as well as creating significant increases in spending in this budget. This advanced appropriation in this amendment is, I think, about $8 billion, or something in that range. The practical effect of it would be that advanced appropriations--which have grown over the years, unfortunately, and are now up to about $23 billion--would jump to about $30 billion--$30.1 billion, $30.2 billion. That is a big number because that number gets carried forward every year. It is not good budgeting to do that type of action, where you borrow from a future year to fund this year and represent that you are basically doing sound budgeting. That is not sound budgeting. Advanced appropriations are a thin ice of budgeting to step on. We should not be moving in that direction. We should not be expanding the advanced appropriations. We have carried the $23 billion advanced appropriation number in this bill. That has, over the years, been built up. But I do not want to have to, next year, have a $30 billion advanced appropriation, which is what this amendment would create if we were to approve it. So I must, regrettably, oppose this amendment. I understand the position the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee for Labor-HHS find themselves in. But I think there are other ways to solve this problem. I hope we would not do it in this manner. Plus, I do think we did make a genuine attempt within this budget to try to address these concerns by moving $3 billion into these accounts. With that said, I believe we are on to the amendment by the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I will claim the time in opposition and yield it back.

Mr. GREGG. I will yield 2 minutes off my time, even though I disagree vociferously with their position, but out of the kindness of my heart, I yield a minute to the Senator from New York, the senior Senator from New York, so they can make their case, which is only worth about 2 minutes, anyway.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I think Senator Murray is next to be recognized.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I believe there was a unanimous consent agreement that the Bingaman amendment would run until 3 o'clock, and then we would start voting. I believe the time was to be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents. So my understanding would be the Senator from New Mexico would have about half of that time. I think it started at about 2:25, so the Senator from New Mexico would have half of 35 minutes. Was that not the understanding that was reached? I thought it was the understanding reached.

Mr. GREGG. I ask for 30 seconds also.

Mr. GREGG. Take a minute.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I think the Senator is making my case. Basically, he is admitting the fact that he is proposing to raise taxes by $133 billion. You can't do it the way he is reflecting. You are going to have to do it some other way. In fact, all his offsets raise about $11 billion, according to the Finance Committee. The uncollected taxes there--sure, we would like to get them, but CBO won't score them so we can't use it. The fact is the pay-go language is one way to generate a lot of new revenue because it will essentially say you can't extend the tax cuts and you are going to have to raise taxes dramatically if you do try to extend those tax cuts, so if you want to raise some big-time taxes around here you vote for this pay-go language. Simply as an aside, I have to say the reason we didn't offer a budget, in response to the Senator, when they were in control of the Senate was because the last year they were in control of the Senate, they didn't offer a budget themselves. They haven't offered a budget now for 6 years, I think--maybe it is 5. We would love to have them offer a budget because then we would see very specifically this philosophy which is reflected in the amendment process, which is one of growing the Federal Government, spending a lot more money and raiseing a lot of taxes to do it. Mr. President, I understand under the prior order the Senator from Missouri is to be recognized to offer an amendment.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this amendment is a classic tax-and-spend amendment of which we have seen a large number coming from the other side during markup. In fact, $133 billion in new taxes and $126 billion in new programs were offered by the other side. That is called growing the Government--dramatically. It is also called putting a lot of burden on people working to pay taxes. This amendment is a continuation of that approach. The euphemism ``loophole'' is used to try to avoid the fact that what we are proposing is major tax increases to pay for this. If you are going to have a responsible budget, you have some budget discipline. You have set priorities. We have attempted to do that with this budget. Certainly this Presidency has done a great deal in the area of education. The Senator from Massachusetts says we need a massive effort in the area of education. I would say adding $9 billion just last month into the higher education accounts is a pretty big effort. The Senator from Massachusetts voted against that. It was in the Deficit Reduction Act where we took a big chunk of money and put it into higher education. I believe $4.5 billion went to low-income students who were college bound. There was about $4 billion which went to reduce origination fees for students who want to go to college. Those are big numbers. And $1.9 billion went to people who were taking up special education as their vocation when they got out of college or math/ science. There was loan forgiveness for those folks who decided to pursue those disciplines which are in great need. That was a huge infusion, and this administration supported that. In general, this administration's support for education has been so much more dramatic than the last Democratic administration that it is almost embarrassing, I would think, for members of the other party to come to the floor and claim this administration hasn't done too much in this area when you consider what they have done in comparison to what the Clinton administration did. This chart reflects that in dollar terms, the type of increases we have seen on an annual basis. You can see that the Clinton increases for title I, for example, were about a third of what this President did. Clinton increases in IDEA special education were about one-seventh of what the President has done. The Pell grants, this President has significantly increased Pell grant funding. The Clinton administration actually reduced it. And the total discretionary funding on an annual basis, this administration has added an annual $3 billion increase; the Clinton administration about half a billion dollars. Those are big numbers, a big commitment to education. Yes, the President's budget, as it was sent up, in some of those accounts that have grown so dramatically did limit the rate of growth this year. But we actually adjusted that in our bill, and we have put another $1.5 billion into these accounts which is reasonable. Of course, I have to emphasize that we don't actually control that number. That is controlled by the Appropriations Committee. All we do is control the top number. The Appropriations Committee makes the allocations. We have departed from the guideposts which the President put out there and put in some ideas of our own, but they will all be decided, of course, by the allocations made by Senator Cochran, chairman of the Appropriations Committee. The number commitment which is shown by this chart is dramatic, and it is reflected in the fact that we just did a $9 billion infusion in the higher education accounts over 5 years, which is significant. Every time we have done a Republican budget, the Senator from Massachusetts has, in his own inimitable way, come to the floor and offered an amendment to dramatically increase spending. This year isn't any different. I am not surprised by the amendment. But I do think if you are going to have a disciplined budget, you have to live within the spending restraints with which you are confronted. We have heard a lot from the other side about the failure to address the issue of debt. The failure to address the size of the Federal Government is what drives debt. If you are going to allow the Federal Government to grow by $6.3 billion, which is what this amendment does, if you are going to raise the cap so that spending is not limited but is suddenly exploded by $6.3 billion, you are going to aggravate the debt. You are going to pay for it with loophole closings, but we all know it is a little difficult to do that. The spending is easy, but the paying for it is hard. As a result, you will end up without any discipline. This amendment is essentially an attempt to break the caps, to eliminate fiscal discipline, and to do it in account areas in which every account could use more money, but these accounts have not been underfunded. These accounts have been aggressively funded by this administration, especially in comparison with the prior administration. It is hard to argue that on top of these dramatic increases, the $9 billion which we specifically put in for higher education is not a fairly significant commitment--in fact, a very large commitment--to funding higher education. Where this money is going to flow, I am not sure. That will be the decision of the Appropriations Committee. But I am confident that, because year in and year out the Appropriations Committee has supported programs such as TRIO and GEAR UP, those accounts will be funded because we have adequate resources to do it. I strongly oppose the amendment on the grounds that, A, it breaks the caps and therefore ends fiscal discipline; B, it is a tax-and-spend amendment in the tradition of some of our more liberal colleagues; and, C, it is spending money in accounts where we have already made very strong commitments as a party and as a Government under this President. Those accounts have received substantial increases and will continue to receive strong support. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I am not sure what budget the Senator from Maine is talking about, but it is not the budget we brought to the floor as a Republican Senate. The budget that was reported out of committee by the Republican membership funds vocational education. The President's may not have, but our does, and there is $1.4 billion in the budget for that program. We actually put in money that would allow the TRIO Program, the GEAR UP Program, the LEAP Program, and the Perkins loan programs to be increased if the committee wants to do that. We added $1.5 billion of additional funding. What the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Massachusetts are suggesting is that we should blow the caps by $6.3 billion, raise taxes by $6.3 billion, and do that to fund accounts which already have received significant dollars and which are going to continue to receive significant dollars. As I mentioned, the higher education funding has received a $9 billion infusion just by the passage of the reconciliation bill in February which was voted against by the Senator from Massachusetts. This budget has a very strong commitment to education, as have budgets that have come before this body, as has this President who has done more for title I, IDEA, and Pell grants by a factor of three, four, five times what the prior administration did and has made a stronger commitment in the education accounts than probably in any other account, with the exception of accounts necessary to fight the war on terrorism that are discretionary. It does seem to me a bit over the top to say that within the number $873 billion, which is what we are already spending in discretionary money, there is no ability to adequately fund education in light of the track record that we have funded education very well. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Sununu.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, there is an inconsistency in the argument coming from the other side of the aisle. The Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from Massachusetts argue that we need a significant infusion of funds into higher education funding to assist students going on to college. Yet they both voted--I believe the Senator from New Jersey, in the House at the time, and the Senator from Massachusetts, in the Senate--against the deficit reduction bill which included a $9 billion infusion into higher education. That was a big number. The argument that Pell grants haven't been increased flies in the face of the fact that we have created a new account which actually allows up to $8,000 of the cost for a low-income individual to go to college, to be reimbursed on the basis of the Pell structure, and as a result those funds which weren't available prior to the deficit reduction bill are available today. That is $8,000 for low-income students who pursue certain types of disciplines that they can get. In addition, our commitment as a Federal Government since President Bush took office has been dramatic in the area of title I. These are the numbers. They have gone up exponentially--exponentially--under President Bush. Look at what they did under President Clinton. They just crept along. They just crept along. President Bush came into office and we increased them dramatically. What about the IDEA? IDEA funding, once again, under President Clinton, just crept along. When President Bush came into office they increased dramatically. Massive increases in funding in IDEA, massive increases of money in title I, massive increases of money going into higher education accounts to assist people wanting to go to college. Not enough. Not enough. You have to come here and propose an amendment which breaks the caps and ignores the fact that we put an extra $1.5 billion into these education accounts over what the President requested with our budget and ignore the fact that we fully funded the vocational accounts over what the President requested and say, no, we have to raise taxes by $6.3 billion and raise the caps by $6.3 billion. Tax and spend. I have to say this President has had a commitment to education which has been unique in the history of this country relative to dollars, relative to philosophy, and relative to results. I take a back seat to no one on funding education in this institution, and I believe we have a record to stand by, and this budget continues that record. I yield the remainder of our time to the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. GREGG. I appreciate the Senator's passion. I just wish he had been there when we voted on the deficit reduction bill and we put $9 billion in student assistance and increased the Pell grant concept $8,000 per student, students with low income to pursue academic careers which are needed in this country so we could be more competitive. As I have mentioned before, the numbers are pretty staggering, what we put into education accounts, and this budget puts in another $1.5 billion over what the President suggested, although again it is not binding. Nothing we do in this budget is binding in a specific account. The only binding number we have and we should keep is that top line on the issue of how much we are going to spend as a Government. I would say not only is it important to pass along good education to our children, but it is also important to pass along a healthy economy to them and a nation which they can afford to live in. But raising their taxes as this amendment does is not going to make us more competitive or make them have a better lifestyle. It means they end up paying more taxes. Not living within your budgets is not a good idea for government, it is not a good idea certainly for students, and I think this amendment sets a bad precedent. It establishes a precedent of saying, well, we will just blow the cap off with either higher taxes or more debt. It is a very inappropriate approach and certainly unfair to those kids who want to go to college and have a country they can afford to live in and be able to make a decent living in and not have to pay too much in taxes. This amendment, in my opinion, is excessive, inappropriate, and clearly, as a result of busting the budget, is not constructive to fiscal responsibility and to maintaining fiscal discipline here at the Federal level. Now I would yield back the remainder of my time. I understand the next amendment will be offered by the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, will the Senator from Rhode Island yield?

Mr. GREGG

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