Obligation of Funds Transparency Act of 2005

Mr. President, today I am introducing a package of five measures to sustain and indeed renew the Federal commitment to restoring the water quality and living resources of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Joining me in sponsoring one or more of these measures are my colleagues from Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, Senators Warner, Allen, Mikulski, and Santorum.

In his 1984 State of the Union message, President Ronald Reagan called the Chesapeake Bay a ``special national resource'' and pledged $10 million a year for 4 years to ``begin the long, necessary effort to clean up'' the Bay. Today, despite more than 2 decades of effort and the investment of hundreds of millions of dollars on the part of Federal, State, and local governments and the private sector, the goal of a clean, restored Bay appears elusive. For the past 3 years, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation has given the Chesapeake Bay a failing grade of 27 out of 100 on its annual report card--far short of the ``70'' level believed necessary for the Bay to be declared ``saved.'' The continued flood of sediments and nutrient pollution from sewage treatment plants, farms, urban runoff, and air deposition, combined with continued rapid growth in population and development in the watershed, is offsetting the progress that has been made to date in restoring the Bay. The Bay remains an ``impaired water body'' under the Clean Water Act, and Chesapeake Bay Program scientists are forecasting another summer of very low oxygen levels in the deep waters of the Bay, further stressing oysters, crabs, and other living resources. As author and naturalist Tom Horton points out in a recent National Geographic article,

``No one had illusions that the work of the Chesapeake Bay Program, a massive Federal-State restoration effort, begun in 1983 and unmatched anywhere in the world, would be quick or easy. But no one anticipated that 22 years later we would still be struggling.''

If the Bay is to be restored, we must redouble our efforts. Nitrogen pollution from all sources will have to be substantially reduced, thousands of acres of watershed property must be preserved, significant efforts must be made to restore living resources, and buffer zones to protect rivers and streams need to be created. Likewise, assistance to community organizations, local governments, and educational institutions at all levels must be expanded dramatically to help foster local stewardship and entice more of the 16 million residents who live in the watershed to play active roles in the efforts to restore the Bay.

The five measures that we are introducing are an important part of, but by no means the entire, solution for addressing the Bay's problems. Earlier in this Congress, Members from the Bay-area States, from both parties, joined with me in a letter to President Bush, urging him to make restoration of Chesapeake Bay a top environmental priority and to commit $1 billion in his budget as a down-payment towards restoring the Bay's water quality. We called upon the Secretary of Agriculture to release $100 million provided under the 2002 Farm Bill for farmers to test new, innovative techniques for reducing agricultural nutrient pollution in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Under Senator Warner's leadership, we succeeded in getting a provision in the Senate-passed SAFETEA legislation, which would provide more than $70 million for the Bay area States and local governments to mitigate the impacts of storm- water runoff from highways and related impervious surfaces. We have fought to prevent a significant cut in funding for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. And we have continued to press the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that the Clean Water Act is fully enforced. All these are critical components of a more comprehensive effort on the part of the Federal, State and local governments and the private sector that will be needed over the course of the next few years to restore the health of the Chesapeake Bay.

The first measure, the Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization and Environmental Accountability Act of 2005, would reauthorize and enhance EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program and would increase the program's accountability for improving the health of the Bay. The Chesapeake Bay Program, which has guided the clean-up effort for the past two decades, expires this year and must be reauthorized. Originally authorized in the Water Quality Act of 1987 and reauthorized in the Estuaries and Clean Water Act of 2000, the Chesapeake Bay Program provides support and coordination for Federal, State, and local efforts in developing strategies and action plans, conducting system-wide monitoring and assessment, implementing projects to restore and protect the Bay and its living resources, and communicating with the public about the Bay and efforts to restore and protect it.

Last year, Senator Mikulski, Senator Warner, and I asked the Government Accountability Office to conduct a review of the Bay Program that would assess the overall restoration progress reported for the Bay; determine how progress is measured in the Bay watershed; and evaluate the effectiveness of Chesapeake Bay Program efforts to ensure that proper measures are being used. That study is nearing completion. Its preliminary findings recommend a number of improvements to the Program, which we have incorporated in this measure. The Chesapeake 2000 Agreement provides goals for the Bay, but the GAO found that EPA has not developed a plan to achieve these goals. Bay restoration has also been hampered by a lack of interim goals and time frames against which progress can be assessed. The legislation we are introducing today requires the EPA Administrator to develop an implementation plan for reaching the goals of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, including a timeline with specific annual goals for nutrient and sediment reduction, associated costs, and measures for assessing progress, and to prepare an annual report for Congress that describes the accomplishments of the previous year and the reductions likely to occur in the future. The legislation also directs the Administrator to publish and widely circulate annual ``tributary report cards'' that describe the progress made in achieving the nutrient and sediment reduction goals for each major tributary or tributary segment in the Bay watershed. These ``report cards'' will provide the public with a clear and accurate picture of the progress toward restoring the Bay, which is currently lacking. In addition, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget is to submit an annual report on Chesapeake Bay Program funding.

The second measure, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Nutrient Removal Assistance Act, would establish a grants program in the Environmental Protection Agency to support the installation of nutrient reduction technologies at major wastewater treatment facilities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. I first introduced this measure during the 107th Congress, and provisions of the legislation were included as part of S. 1961, the Water Investment Act of 2002, reported favorably by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Unfortunately, no further action was taken on that legislation.

Despite important water quality improvements over the past decade, the overabundance of the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus continues to rob the Bay of life-sustaining oxygen. Recent modeling of EPA's Bay Program has found that total nutrient discharges must be reduced by more than 40 percent from current levels to restore the Chesapeake Bay and its major tributaries to health. To do so, nitrogen discharges from all sources must be reduced drastically below current levels. Annual nitrogen discharges into the Bay will need to be cut by at least 100 million pounds from the current 275 million pounds to less than 175 million pounds. Municipal wastewater treatment plants, in particular, will have to reduce nitrogen discharges by nearly 75 percent.

In December 2004, the Chesapeake Bay Commission issued a report entitled ``Cost-Effective Strategies for the Bay''; of the six most cost-effective strategies listed in that report, upgrading wastewater treatment plants is Number One. There are more than 300 significant municipal wastewater treatment plants in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. These plants contribute almost 60 million pounds of nitrogen per year-- one-fifth--of the total load of nitrogen to the Bay. Upgrading these plants with nutrient removal technologies to achieve nitrogen levels of 3 mg/liter would remove as much as 30 million pounds of nitrogen in the Bay each year, or 30 percent of the total nitrogen reductions needed. Nutrient removal technologies have other benefits, as well. They provide significant savings in energy usage, 20-30 percent, in chemical usage, more than 50 percent, and in the amount of sludge produced, 5-15 percent. Furthermore, the benefits from upgrading sewage treatment plants have an immediate result on the Bay's water quality, unlike other methods that primarily affect nutrients in ground water and may take years to produce results. This legislation would provide grants for 55 percent of the capital cost of upgrading the plants with state- of-the-art nutrient removal technologies capable of achieving nitrogen levels of 3 mg/liter. Any publicly owned wastewater treatment plant which has a permitted design capacity to treat an annual average of 0.5 million gallons per day within the Chesapeake Bay watershed portion of New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, Delaware, Virginia, and the District of Columbia would be eligible to receive these grants. As a signatory to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the EPA has an important responsibility to assist the states with financing these water infrastructure needs.

The third measure, the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Education Pilot Program Act, would establish a new environmental education program in the U.S. Department of Education for elementary and secondary school students and teachers within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. There is a growing consensus that a major commitment to education to promoting an ethic of responsible stewardship and

citizenship among the 16 million people who live in the watershed is necessary if all of the other efforts to save the Bay are to succeed. Expanding environmental education and training opportunities will lead not only to a healthier Chesapeake Bay ecosystem but also to a more educated and informed citizenry, with a deeper understanding of and appreciation for the environment, their community, and their role in society as responsible citizens.

One of the principal commitments of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement is to ``provide a meaningful Bay or stream outdoor experience for every school student in the watershed before graduation from high school'' beginning with the class of 2005. There are more than 3.3 million K-12 students in the watershed, and despite important efforts by Bay area states and not-for-profit organizations, only a very small percentage of these students have had the opportunity to engage in meaningful outdoor experiences or receive classroom environmental instruction. Many of the school systems in the Bay watershed are only at the beginning stages in developing and implementing environmental education into their curriculum, let alone exposing students to outdoor watershed experiences. What's lacking is not the desire or will, but the resources and training to undertake more comprehensive environmental education programs.

This legislation would authorize $6 million a year over the next four years in Federal grant assistance to help close the resource and training gap for students in the elementary and secondary levels in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. It would require a 50 percent non-Federal match, thus leveraging $12 million in assistance. The funding could be used to help design, demonstrate or disseminate environmental curricula and field practices, train teachers or other educational personnel, and support on-the-ground activities or Chesapeake Bay or stream outdoor educational experiences involving students and teachers, among other things. The program would complement the NOAA Bay Watershed Education and Training Program that we established several years ago.

The fourth measure, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Forestry Act, would continue and enhance the USDA Forest Service's role in the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Forest loss and fragmentation are occurring rapidly in the Chesapeake Bay region and are among the most important issues facing the Bay and forest management today. According to the National Resources Inventory, the States closest to the Bay lost 350,000 acres of forest between 1987 and 1997--almost 100 acres per day. More and more rural areas are being converted to suburban developments, resulting in smaller contiguous forest tracts. These trends are leading to a regional forest land base that is more vulnerable to conversion, is less likely to be economically viable in the future, and is losing its capacity to protect watershed health and other ecological benefits, such as controlling stormwater runoff, erosion and air pollution. Restoring and conserving forests is essential to sustaining the Bay ecosystem.

Since 1990, the USDA Forest Service has been an important part of the Chesapeake Bay Program. The Service has worked closely with Federal, State, and local partners in the six-state Chesapeake Bay region to demonstrate how forest protection, restoration, and stewardship activities can contribute to achieving the Bay restoration goals. With the signing of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, the role of the USDA Forest Service has become more important than ever. Among other provisions, this Agreement requires the signatories to conserve existing forests along all streams and shoreline; to promote the expansion and connection of contiguous forests; to assess the Bay's forest lands; and to provide technical and financial assistance to local governments to plan for or revise plans, ordinances, and subdivision regulations to provide for the conservation and sustainable use of the forest and agricultural lands.

This legislation codifies the role and responsibilities of the USDA Forest Service to the Bay restoration effort. It requires an evaluation of the urban and rural forests in the watershed. It strengthens existing coordination, technical assistance, forest resource assessment, and planning efforts for urban, suburban and rural areas of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. It authorizes a small grants program to support local agencies, watershed associations, and citizen groups in conducting on-the-ground conservation projects. It establishes a regional applied forestry research and training program to enhance urban, suburban and rural forests in the watershed. Finally it authorizes $3.5 million for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2010, a modest increase in view of the six-State, 64,000-square-mile watershed.

The fifth measure, the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Watershed Monitoring, Education, Training, and Restoration Act, would enhance the authorities of the Chesapeake Bay Office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, to address the goals and commitments of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement with regard to living-resource restoration and education and training. It builds upon provisions contained in the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act Amendments of 2002, and addresses several urgent and unmet needs in the watershed. To help meet Bay-wide living resource education and training goals, it codifies the Bay Watershed Education and Training, or B-WET, Program--the first federally funded environmental education program focused solely on the Chesapeake Bay watershed--that we initiated in the Fiscal 2002 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill; it establishes an aquaculture education program to assist with oyster and blue crab hatchery production; and it codifies the ongoing oyster restoration program and authorizes a new restoration program for submerged aquatic vegetation.

To better coordinate and organize the substantial amounts of weather, tide, habitat, water-quality and other data collected and compiled by Federal, State, and local government agencies and academic institutions and to make this information more useful to resource managers, scientists, and the public, this bill also establishes an integrated observing system for the Chesapeake Bay. This system will build on and coordinate existing monitoring and observing activities in the Bay and its watershed, and will include development of an internet-based system for integrating and disseminating the vast amounts of information available.

These measures would provide an important boost to our efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay. They are strongly supported by the Chesapeake Bay Commission and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills and supporting letters be printed in the Record. I urge my colleagues to join with us in supporting the measures and continue the momentum contributing to the improvement and enhancement of our Nation's most valuable and treasured natural resource.

Mr. President, last Congress I introduced a rules change proposal to allow points of order to be raised against unauthorized appropriations and policy riders in appropriations bills and conference reports in an effort to reign in wasteful pork barrel spending. Today I am introducing a modified version of that proposal. I am pleased to be joined in this bipartisan effort today by Senators Feingold, Coburn, Bayh, Sununu, Graham, Ensign, DeMint, and Kyl.

According to data compiled by the Congressional Research Service, in 1994, there were 4,126 Congressional earmarks added to the annual appropriations bills. In 2005, there were 15,877 earmarks, the largest number yet, that's an increase of nearly 300 percent! The level of funding associated with those earmarks has more than doubled from $23.2 billion in fiscal year 1994 to $47.4 billion in fiscal year 2005.

Our bill, entitled the Pork-Barrel Reduction Act, would establish a new procedure under Rule XVI, modeled in part after the Byrd Rule, which would allow a 60-vote point of order to be raised against specific provisions that contain unauthorized appropriations, including earmarks, as well as unauthorized policy changes in appropriations bills and conference reports. Of importance is that successful points of order would not kill a conference report, but the targeted provisions would be deemed removed from the conference report, and the measure would be sent back for concurrence by the House.

To ensure that Members are given enough time to review appropriations bills, our proposal would also require that conference reports be available at least 48 hours prior to floor consideration. It also prohibits the consideration of a conference report if it includes matter outside the scope of conference.

Additionally, our bill includes the provisions of S. 1495, the Obligation of Funds Transparency Act, which Senator Corburn and I introduced last July, to prohibit Federal agencies from obligating funds for appropriations earmarks included only in congressional reports, which are unamendable.

To promote transparency, our bill requires that any earmarks included in a bill be disclosed fully in the bill's accompanying report, along with the name of the Member who requested the earmark and its essential governmental purpose. Additionally, our bill would require recipients of Federal dollars to disclose any amounts that the recipient expends on registered lobbyists.

In summary, this proposed rules change, if adopted, would allow any member to raise a point of order in an effort to extract objectionable unauthorized provisions from the appropriations process. Our goal is to reform the current system by empowering all members with a tool to rid appropriations bills of unauthorized funds, pork barrel projects, and legislative policy riders and to provide greater public disclosure of the legislative process.

I would like to highlight just a few examples of recent earmarks, many of which clearly do not belong in the measures that they were included:

From the Defense Conference Report for FY 2006: $500,000 to teach science to grade-school students in Pennsylvania. $900,000 for ``Memorial Day'' out of the Army Operations and Maintenance account. $4.4 million for a Technology Center in Missouri. $1 million to a Civil War Center in Richmond, Virginia. $850,000 for an education center and public park in Des Moines, Iowa. $2 million for a public park in San Francisco. $500,000 for the Arctic Winter Games, an international athletic competition held this year in Alaska. $1.5 million for an aviation museum in Seattle, $1.35 million for an aviation museum in Hawaii, $1 million for a museum in Pennsylvania, and $3 million for the museum at Fort Belvoir. There's also $1.5 million for restoring the Battleship Texas. Funding for farm conservation. A provision protecting jobs in Hawaii and Alaska. A provision transferring as a direct lump sum payment to the University of Alaska the unobligated and unexpended balances appropriated to the United States-Canada Railroad Commission. And, of course, the ANWR provisions.

From the FY06 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill Conference Report Statement of Managers: $500,000 for the Burpee Museum of Natural History in Illinois. $500,000 for Chesapeake Bay submerged aquatic vegetation research. $600,000 to study fish passage in Mud Mountain, Washington. $3 million to study the beneficial uses of dredged material for Morehead City, North Carolina. $1.25 million for the Sacred Falls demonstration project in Hawaii. $2 million for the Desert Research Institute, Nevada. $3.5 million for the Iroquois Bio-Energy Consortium Ethanol Project, Indiana. $500,000 for the Washington State Ferries Biodiesel Demonstration Project, WA. $1 million for the Canola-based Automotive Oil R&D, PA. $1 million for the Mt. Wachusett Community College Wind Project, MA. $7 million for the Arctic Energy Office, Alaska.

These Energy and Water projects that I just mentioned are just a few examples of report language earmarks, none of which are subject to an amendment to strike.

From the FY 2002 and 2003 Defense Appropriations Conference Reports: During conference negotiations on the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002, unprecedented language was inserted into the final bill to allow the U.S. Air Force to lease 100 Boeing 767 commercial aircraft and convert them to tankers. The total cost to taxpayers, about $30 billion.

However, Congress did not authorize these provisions in the Act, or in any other bill for that matter. In fact, the Senate Armed Services Committee was not even advised of this effort by the Air Force Secretary during consideration of the authorization measure. Moreover, these aircraft were not in the President's budget, the joint chiefs' unfunded priority list, or the pentagon's long range defense budget. Additionally, the purportedly compelling need for these aircraft (which the air force repeatedly cited for having taxpayers pay $6 billion more for leasing these tankers than they would if the air force simply bought them outright) was, and continues to be, wholly unsupported by any serious study or analysis of alternatives.

Nonetheless, legislative language was again included in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2003 to modify the previous year's bill language on the Boeing 767 tankers. And, once again, the sweeping changes in procurement policy was made by the Appropriators without the input of the authorizing committee.

Ultimately, it was discovered that the Air Force broke a number of Federal budgetary and leasing rules; that the lease terms were fiscally irresponsible; that this deal would have set a horrible precedent for the procurement of major defense systems; and that folks at the Air Force conspired with Boeing to break the law to make this deal happen in the first instance. Mr. President, with some people, as a result, not only losing their jobs, but also serving time in jail, I think all of my colleagues know what an egregious mistake this turned out to be.

From Supplemental for War on Terror Conference Report (April 2005): A provision directing the Secretary of the Interior to analyze the viability of a sanctuary for the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow in Rio Grande Valley, TX.

A provision stating that the $40 million set forth in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 for construction of a Port of Philadelphia marine cargo terminal ``be used solely for the construction by and for a Philadelphia-based company.''

From the FY 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Conference Report: The conference report contained provisions which allow a subsidiary of the Malaysian-owned ``Norwegian Cruise Lines'' the exclusive right to operate several large foreign-built cruise vessels in the domestic cruise trade. This provides an unfair competitive advantage to a foreign company at the expense of all other cruise ship operators, and creates a de facto monopoly for Norwegian Cruise Lines in the Hawaii cruise trade. Interestingly, this provision stems from another earmark in 1998 that went awry.

The fiscal year 1998 Department of Defense Appropriation Bill granted a legal monopoly for American Classic Voyages to operate as the only U.S. flagged operator among the Hawaiian islands. After receiving the monopoly, American Classic Voyages secured a $1.1 billion loan guarantee from the U.S. Maritime Administration's, MARAD, Title XI loan guarantee program for the construction of two passenger vessels known as Project America. Project America's subsequent failure 4 years later resulted in the U.S. Maritime Administration paying out over $187.3 million of the American taxpayers' money to cover the project's loan default, and recovering only $2 million from the sale of some of the construction materials and parts. It is one hull and miscellaneous parts from these never-completed ships which cost the taxpayers nearly $200 million which are now going to be used in a foreign shipyard for building the Norwegian Cruise ships that will operate in Hawaii under this latest special interest provision.

The conference report included an agriculture policy change to make catfish producers eligible for payments under the livestock compensation program, even though hog, poultry, and horse producers are not eligible.

Despite the fact that the U.S. Department of Agriculture had implemented new organic food standards after lengthy negotiations, language was added to the conference report to permit livestock producers to certify and label meat products as ``organic'' even if the animals had not been fed organic grain. Without any consideration or debate, this last-minute rider was added to override these standards. Interestingly, a few months later, the Congress approved legislation as part of the War supplemental to repeal this provision and restore the prior organic food labeling standards.

Obviously, I could go on and on and on citing examples of unauthorized earmarks and policy riders in appropriations bills. But I think you've got the picture. And I hope that we have finally reached the point that we are going to do something to reform this very broken system of legislating.

Our current economic situation and our vital national security concerns require that now, more than ever, we prioritize our Federal spending. But our appropriations bills do not always put our national priorities first. The process is broken and it needs to be fixed.

In his farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower reflected on the spending he believed to be excessive. His words then are all the more powerful in today's out of control environment: ``As we peer into society's future,'' he said, ``we--you and I, and our government--must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.''

And yet, if we cannot change, if we will not change, we risk precisely that--becoming the insolvent phantom of tomorrow. I wonder what President Eisenhower would think of this mess. But, then, perhaps others have contemplated the same question. After all, the Defense Appropriations bill we passed in December included a $1.7 million earmark for a memorial on the National Mall that would honor none other than * * * Dwight D. Eisenhower.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, wherever I travel, Americans tell me the same things about our health care system: it costs too much, leaves too many without insurance, and does too little to help those in need.

America has the world's best hospitals, doctors, nurses, and medical research labs. But we do not always provide the best care. And we certainly do not provide it at an affordable price. We face real problems. And we need to act.

Two years ago, I appointed a task force to investigate what Congress could do. Under the leadership of Senator Judd Gregg, the task force reported back with a series of comprehensive recommendations. The President has also proposed some very constructive policy initiatives. We took all of these proposals into account when we wrote this bill.

The legislation we propose today will build upon our record of accomplishment on health care. The Republican Congress has created a Medicare drug benefit for seniors, made tax-free, portable Health Savings Accounts available to all Americans, and has begun the process of moving our medical system into the information age.

This week, we will pass and send to the President a long-overdue measure to encourage doctors and hospitals to report medical errors voluntarily. The measure will save lives, and it will improve health care quality.

But we still have more to do.

The legislation we are proposing today focuses on three broad areas: reducing costs, expanding health coverage, and improving the quality of care. In this bill--``The Healthy America Act of 2005''--we provide comprehensive solutions that will improve health care for every American.

Let me begin by speaking about cost. Every year, Americans see their health care costs soar. Just 15 years ago, less than 1 out of every 10 dollars Americans spent went for health care. In 10 years, almost one out of every five dollars you spend will go towards health care.

Rising life expectancies and the cost of new technologies, treatments, and medical procedures all drive up costs. But we can do more to hold them in check. And we must.

Rapidly rising health costs threaten our Nation's small business owners, and our largest corporations. They can harm our economy; cost jobs, and hurt Americans from all walks of life. During the past few years, for example, health care costs have grown three to four times more quickly than wages.

First, we need to reform our broken medical liability system. Under our current medical system, doctors face enormous incentives to order unnecessary tests and procedures simply to avoid the risk of lawsuits.

It's expensive, it's wasteful, and unnecessary, and, most of all, it's dangerous. It needs to change and, under this bill, it will.

Hospitals, doctors, patients, and insurers all shoulder some responsibility for rising costs. To keep costs down, we need to put the patient at the heart of health care. That's why we propose reforms to let patients own and control privacy-protected electronic medical records, cut down on fraud in our Medicare and Medicaid programs, reduce medical errors, and reduce unnecessary regulations and mandates.

Lower costs alone will help many Americans get the care they need and deserve. But we also have to look at ways to cover more Americans who would still find themselves left behind.

Through changes to tax laws, we can make it easier for lower-income individuals and small businesses to purchase affordable, high quality health insurance.

And we can also provide more options for those who take charge of their own health care by making flexible spending accounts more flexible and health savings accounts even more affordable for individuals and small businesses.

Finally, the Federal Government can help support State high-risk pools that help provide health coverage to individuals who couldn't otherwise afford care.

America is a caring Nation and we must recognize that not everyone has equal ability to take care of his or her own health. That's why we need to expand our safety net for the truly needy.

Many of those without health insurance--particularly children-- qualify for benefits under existing programs but do not receive them. By providing grants to faith-based and community organizations, we can help more families sign up their children for available health coverage.

We also need to expand the availability of health care services to individuals in need by expanding Community Health Centers and Rural Health Clinics to more rural areas and poor counties.

We should also act to make prescription drugs more affordable for low-income Americans and provide legal protections and loan forbearance that will make it easier for health care practitioners who volunteer their time and services to provide needed care in community health centers and free clinics.

Every American should have health care that's available, affordable, and always there.

And we must hold fast to this principle: patients should sit at the center of the health care system, not the government, not insurance companies, and certainly not predatory trial lawyers.

The system should free providers to focus on caring for their patients: not dealing with regulations, bureaucrats, or lawyers.

Today, we've put forward a plan that will take a major step towards centering America's health care system on the patient.

We have the vision for what American health care should look like. Now we only need the courage to make it happen.

I want to thank Senator Gregg, and all of the members of the Task Force who worked so diligently on this legislation. I also want to recognize the contributions of the other cosponsors of this legislation: Senators Mitch McConnell, Mike Enzi, Lisa Murkowski, and Jim DeMint, I urge all of my colleagues to join us in supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today, along with my friend from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, is very simple. The Obligation of Funds Transparency Act of 2005 would prohibit Federal agencies from obligating funds which have been earmarked only in congressional reports. This legislation is designed to help reign in unauthorized, unrequested, run-of-the-mill pork barrel projects.

As my colleagues may know, report language does not have the force of law. That fact has been lost when it comes to appropriations bills and reports. It has become a standard practice to load up committee reports with literally billions of dollars in unrequested, unauthorized, and wasteful pork barrel projects.

According to information compiled from the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the total number of earmarks has grown from 4,126 in fiscal year 1994 to 14,040 in fiscal year 2004. That's an increase of 240 percent. In terms of dollars, the earmarking has gone from $26.6 billion to $47.9 billion over the same period. The practice of earmarking funds in appropriations bills has simply lurched out of control.

At a conference in February, 2005, David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States, said this: ``If we continue on our present path, we'll see pressure for deep spending cuts or dramatic tax increases. GAO's long-term budget simulations paint a chilling picture. If we do nothing, by 2040 we may have to cut federal spending by more than half or raise federal taxes by more than two and a half times to balance the budget. Clearly, the status quo is both unsustainable and difficult choices are unavoidable. And the longer we wait, the more onerous our options will become and the less transition time we will have.''

Is that really the kind of legacy we should leave to future generations of Americans?

Referring to our economic outlook, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testified before Congress that: ``(T)he dimension of the challenge is enormous. The one certainty is that the resolution of this situation will require difficult choices and that the future performance of the economy will depend on those choices. No changes will be easy, as they all will involve lowering claims on resources or raising

financial obligations. It falls on the Congress to determine how best to address the competing claims.''

It falls on the Congress my friends. The head of the U.S. Government's chief watchdog agency and the Nation's chief economist agree--we are in real trouble.

We simply must start making some very tough decisions around here if we are serious about improving our fiscal future. We need to be thinking about the future of America and the future generations who are going to be paying the tab for our continued spending. It is simply not fiscally responsible for us to continue to load up appropriations bills with wasteful and unnecessary spending, and good deals for special interests and their lobbyists. We have had ample opportunities to tighten our belts in this town in recent years, and we have taken a pass each and every time. We can't put off the inevitable any longer.

Here is the stark reality of our fiscal situation. According to the Government Accountability Office, the unfunded federal financial burden, such as public debt, future Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid payments, totals more than $40 trillion or $140,000 per man, woman and child. To put this in perspective, the average mortgage, which is often a family's largest liability, is $124,000--and that is often borne by the family breadwinners, not the children too. But, instead of fixing the problem, and fixing it will not be easy, we only succeeded in making it bigger, more unstable, more complicated, and much, much more expensive.

The Committee for Economic Development, the Concord Coalition, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities jointly stated that, ``without a change in current (fiscal) policies, the federal government can expect to run a cumulative deficit of $5 trillion over the next 10 years.'' They also stated that, ``after the baby boom generation starts to retire in 2008, the combination of demographic pressures and rising health care costs will result in the costs of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security growing faster than the economy. We project that by the time today's newborns reach 40 years of age, the cost of these three programs as a percentage of the economy will more than double--from 8.5 percent of the GDP to over 17 percent.

Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office has issued warnings about the dangers that lie ahead if we continue to spend in this manner. In a report issued at the beginning of the year, CBO stated that, because of rising health care costs and an aging population, ``spending on entitlement programs--especially Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security--will claim a sharply increasing share ofthe nation's economic output over the coming decades.'' The report went on to say that, ``unless taxation reaches levels that are unprecedented in the United States, current spending policies will probably be financially unsustainable over the next 50 years. An ever-growing burden of federal debt held by the public would have a corrosive. . . effect on the economy.''

Where is it going to end? We have to face the facts, and one fact is that we can't continue to spend taxpayer's dollars on wasteful, unnecessary pork barrel projects or cater to wealthy corporate special interests any longer. The American people won't stand for it, and they shouldn't--they deserve better treatment from us. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today, along with my friend from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, is very simple. The Obligation of Funds Transparency Act of 2005 would prohibit Federal agencies from obligating funds which have been earmarked only in congressional reports. This legislation is designed to help reign in unauthorized, unrequested, run-of-the-mill pork barrel projects.

As my colleagues may know, report language does not have the force of law. That fact has been lost when it comes to appropriations bills and reports. It has become a standard practice to load up committee reports with literally billions of dollars in unrequested, unauthorized, and wasteful pork barrel projects.

According to information compiled from the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the total number of earmarks has grown from 4,126 in fiscal year 1994 to 14,040 in fiscal year 2004. That's an increase of 240 percent. In terms of dollars, the earmarking has gone from $26.6 billion to $47.9 billion over the same period. The practice of earmarking funds in appropriations bills has simply lurched out of control.

At a conference in February, 2005, David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States, said this: ``If we continue on our present path, we'll see pressure for deep spending cuts or dramatic tax increases. GAO's long-term budget simulations paint a chilling picture. If we do nothing, by 2040 we may have to cut federal spending by more than half or raise federal taxes by more than two and a half times to balance the budget. Clearly, the status quo is both unsustainable and difficult choices are unavoidable. And the longer we wait, the more onerous our options will become and the less transition time we will have.''

Is that really the kind of legacy we should leave to future generations of Americans?

Referring to our economic outlook, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testified before Congress that: ``(T)he dimension of the challenge is enormous. The one certainty is that the resolution of this situation will require difficult choices and that the future performance of the economy will depend on those choices. No changes will be easy, as they all will involve lowering claims on resources or raising

financial obligations. It falls on the Congress to determine how best to address the competing claims.''

It falls on the Congress my friends. The head of the U.S. Government's chief watchdog agency and the Nation's chief economist agree--we are in real trouble.

We simply must start making some very tough decisions around here if we are serious about improving our fiscal future. We need to be thinking about the future of America and the future generations who are going to be paying the tab for our continued spending. It is simply not fiscally responsible for us to continue to load up appropriations bills with wasteful and unnecessary spending, and good deals for special interests and their lobbyists. We have had ample opportunities to tighten our belts in this town in recent years, and we have taken a pass each and every time. We can't put off the inevitable any longer.

Here is the stark reality of our fiscal situation. According to the Government Accountability Office, the unfunded federal financial burden, such as public debt, future Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid payments, totals more than $40 trillion or $140,000 per man, woman and child. To put this in perspective, the average mortgage, which is often a family's largest liability, is $124,000--and that is often borne by the family breadwinners, not the children too. But, instead of fixing the problem, and fixing it will not be easy, we only succeeded in making it bigger, more unstable, more complicated, and much, much more expensive.

The Committee for Economic Development, the Concord Coalition, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities jointly stated that, ``without a change in current (fiscal) policies, the federal government can expect to run a cumulative deficit of $5 trillion over the next 10 years.'' They also stated that, ``after the baby boom generation starts to retire in 2008, the combination of demographic pressures and rising health care costs will result in the costs of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security growing faster than the economy. We project that by the time today's newborns reach 40 years of age, the cost of these three programs as a percentage of the economy will more than double--from 8.5 percent of the GDP to over 17 percent.

Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office has issued warnings about the dangers that lie ahead if we continue to spend in this manner. In a report issued at the beginning of the year, CBO stated that, because of rising health care costs and an aging population, ``spending on entitlement programs--especially Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security--will claim a sharply increasing share ofthe nation's economic output over the coming decades.'' The report went on to say that, ``unless taxation reaches levels that are unprecedented in the United States, current spending policies will probably be financially unsustainable over the next 50 years. An ever-growing burden of federal debt held by the public would have a corrosive. . . effect on the economy.''

Where is it going to end? We have to face the facts, and one fact is that we can't continue to spend taxpayer's dollars on wasteful, unnecessary pork barrel projects or cater to wealthy corporate special interests any longer. The American people won't stand for it, and they shouldn't--they deserve better treatment from us. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.