Stop Over Spending Act of 2006

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill which is sponsored by myself and 20 other Members of the Senate.

The purpose of this bill is to put some control over spending--or at least put procedures in--to allow us as a Congress to begin to control spending.

I think we all recognize that in the short run we are headed toward a budget that looks like it may actually move toward balance. We have seen some very significant, positive gains. A deficit that was supposed to be about $425 billion this year is down to about $300 billion, and it may well go below that. That does not solve our problem even though we have gotten things moving the right way because in the outyears we face a fiscal crisis. That is reflected in this chart.

The fact is, there is facing this country a situation where we have a generation known as the baby boom generation which is such a large generation that it has basically overwhelmed the systems of America at each point in its evolution. It started out in the early 1950s and late 1940s. It overwhelmed the school systems it was so big. As it moved forward in the 1960s, it created the civil rights movement, and in the 1980s and 1990s it created the greatest prosperity in the history of our country as a result of its size and productivity.

But now that generation is beginning to retire. It will start to retire in the year 2008. It will be fully retired by the year 2020. It will be the largest retired generation in the history of our Nation by a factor of two. There will essentially be 70 million people retiring during that period.

What are the implications? The implications are rather severe for our Nation's fiscal policy, and especially for our children. All of our retirement systems in this Nation--Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid--all our major safety nets were built around the concept created by FDR, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, that there would always be many more people working than retiring.

In fact, in the early 1950s there were about 12 people working and paying into the Social Security system for every one person taking it out of Social Security. Today there are about three and a half people working for every one person who is retired. By the years 2020 to 2025, there will only be two people working for every one person taking out of the system. That means this pyramid concept goes to a rectangle, and our children and our grandchildren who will then be the working people in America will not be able to support the benefit structure which is in place for the retired.

This chart reflects the dramatic effect of this situation rather starkly. The blue line represents what percent of gross national product the Federal Government usually spends. Historically, since World War II, the Federal Government has spent about 20 percent of the gross national product. The red line represents three programs in the Federal process: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The red line grows dramatically beginning in about the year 2008 and proceeds at an exponential rate of growth, so that by the years 2025 to 2028 those three programs alone will actually cost more than 20 percent of the gross national product of America.

What does that mean? It means if we were to spend the historic amount we have spent on the Federal Government, those three programs would use up all that money and there would be no money available for education, for national defense, for laying out roads, for health care for everyone else, other than those who are retired, or for anything else the Federal Government is supposed to do. Everything would have to be spent on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. It does not stop there. It continues up at a rather dramatic movement.

The point, of course, is that our children will have to pay the cost. They will find themselves confronted with a dramatic increase in tax burden unless we address the cost of those programs from the spending side.

The point, also, is we really cannot tax our way out of this problem. We cannot possibly raise taxes high enough to keep up with the cost of these programs and still have a viable country. If we did that, we would eliminate the ability of our children to buy a new home, to send their kids to college, to even buy cars. The lifestyle of an American, our children and our grandchildren, would be dramatically reduced-- their quality of life--were we to raise taxes to try to keep up with this rate of growth of spending.

Again, it is not a revenue problem; it is a spending problem. That is important to stress. In fact, if you look at the revenues over the last few years, this reinforces this point. Revenues dropped precipitously at the beginning of this President's term for two reasons. One, we had the largest bubble in the history of the world, the Internet bubble, back in the late 1990s, where we were essentially producing false income, paper returns through the issuance of stock which wasn't backed up by productive companies. This bubble burst, and it was the biggest bubble in history, bigger than the tulip or south seas bubble. And the effect of it was to cause our economy to retrench.

Then we had the attack of September 11, which dramatically impacted our psyche as a nation. Obviously, it had a horrific effect in the area of loss of lives, but it had a dramatic effect on our economy. Those two back-to-back events basically forced a significant drop in revenues.

So President Bush came in and said: Let's try to get out of this recession--and it was a shallow recession but would have headed a lot deeper--by cutting taxes and giving people an incentive to be more productive. We have heard a lot from the other side about how it is terrible we cut taxes at the beginning of this administration. But what those tax cuts did was create an atmosphere where people who wanted to be entrepreneurial, who wanted to go out and take risks, who were willing to put their own personal efforts and their dollars behind an effort to be productive, and, thus, create jobs, did exactly that.

Then the economy started to recover. We had 39 straight months of recovery. We had one of the largest expansions of the post-World-War II period. The practical effect of that is that we have created more economic activity, created

more jobs, and created more revenue to the Federal Government. So in the last 2 years, the revenue to the Federal Government has actually jumped greater in a 2-year period than at any time in the post-World- War II period. Each of the last 2 years has had historic increases of revenues for the Federal Government.

We are at a point where revenues are essentially at the same place they would be over history as a percent of gross national product. We are essentially generating about the same amount of revenue we have always generated to the Federal Government.

The other side of the aisle says: Let's raise taxes some more. That is not going to help because we are already generating as much revenue as we usually generate. We are doing it the right way, with a fair tax system, telling entrepreneurs to make jobs and create risks. We have created jobs and given revenues to the Federal Government.

The real issue is, you have to be willing to address spending, which is what the chart shows. A group on our side of the aisle said: How do you do this? Probably the way to do it is to put in place a series of processes in the Senate and in the House, which basically forced the Congress to address the public policy issues of reducing the rate of growth and spending for the Federal Government. This is very difficult for an elected body. We know it is a natural tendency of an elected body to spend more money because people come to you and say: We need this for that. Usually the stories are compelling and the purposes are good.

The simple fact is, we cannot afford to spend all the money that people want to spend, and we need to have some mechanisms around here which energize an atmosphere of producing fiscal responsibility, delivering government that is efficient, delivering government that is effective, delivering government that people get what they expect, and, also, get their dollars used efficiently and effectively to produce a government that works.

So we are suggesting a program that basically renews, redesigns; it reforms, it rebuilds the Federal system relative to how we are going to spend money and makes sure we spend it effectively so we give people an affordable government, something that delivers the type of services they need but does it in a way that can be afforded. That is our goal. Our goal, essentially, is to contain spending so that we are able to deliver quality government and still pass on to our children a government that is affordable, a tax burden they can afford that won't overwhelm them and will give them the opportunity to have as good a life as we have had.

The proposal we have come up with has a variety of different elements to accomplish this. First, we follow the ideas put forward by the President, which has eight basic elements. It is a very extensive reform package, renewal package, redesign package, rebuilding package.

The first element is what I call fast-track rescission. I suppose that is too technical. The President calls it the line-item veto. But it says the President has the opportunity to look at bills we have passed in the Senate and say: Listen, we do not need to spend money on that item. That is really an item of earmark, or maybe you might call it pork, or it is just simply not what we need. It is not what the American people have to have their dollars spent on. He gets to put together a package of items, and he sends them to us. He says: These are the items I don't think we need. We think the American people don't need them. We don't think the Government can afford them, and you, the Congress, can take another look at them and vote them up or down. Fast- track rescission. We have to take the vote. It is an opportunity for the executive branch to have a say and for the legislative branch to take a second look. We have done it in a way so neither branch is prejudiced as to our constitutional role which is very important.

The second thing we have done is we have reinstated statutory caps. What is that? It means that we say every year how much the Federal Government is going to spend and we lock it down so that if we spend over that amount we have to go back and cut somewhere else to bring us down to that number.

What has happened around here, we have said we are going to spend X dollars. That is called a cap. But we have not had any enforcement mechanism behind the cap. Those lapsed in 2002. So when we exceed the cap, you get 60 votes and people say: Fine, we will spend the money anyway, even though we said we were not going to spend that much money, and it is ignored. This puts in place a system where we have to be responsible to the number we set out as to what the Federal Government should spend. It is basically truth in budgeting and forces budgeting to be effective and responsive.

The third item we put in, we reduce the deficit so it will move to zero by 2012. This is done by saying essentially this: The deficit today is X percent of gross national product. We are going to say that the deficit should be dropped as a percent of gross national product every year until we get to about 2012 where we expect it to be basically no deficit. If we exceed those numbers--in other words, if the deficit exceeds that percent of gross national product which we set out in the bill--and these numbers are historical numbers and they are obtainable numbers.

In fact, in the first 2 years, the numbers we have set out are basically above where the actual deficit looks like it will hit, and it is about the third and fourth year we may have some issues to keep the deficit moving down--but if the deficit is not moving down, we put in place a process called reconciliation, directed at entitlement spending.

The problem we have as a Federal Government isn't the discretionary side of the ledger. That is spending that occurs every year. Every year you have to spend X dollars on defense, X dollars on education, and you can make a choice regarding how much you will spend here, how much you spend there. Nondefense spending in those accounts has been flat for the last few years, essentially flat if you factor in inflation. The real growth of the Federal Government has been in these accounts that are entitlement accounts, mandatory accounts which I had on the first chart, three of the major ones. They represent, along with the Federal debt, about 60 percent of Federal spending.

What this bill says is that essentially you have to go back and take a look at those accounts if we are not meeting our deficit targets and bring them into line so we will meet those deficit targets.

Now, in order to help accomplish this, this proposal also includes an entitlement commission. There have been a lot of commissions around here and everyone is a little tired of commissions. This commission is different. This commission says take a look at the entitlement accounts of the Federal Government, report back to the Congress, and Congress must act on your proposal. We actually put in place a policy procedure to try to correct the entitlement issue. Then we put in place a budgeting procedure which allows us to legislate changes if the entitlement improvements are not accomplishing our goals.

The purpose is to make these entitlement programs affordable for our children while they still maintain a quality lifestyle for those who are retired. That can be and should be able to be accomplished. But it takes a Congress being willing to step up to the plate and doing it. So far, we have not been willing to do that. We have been burying our head in the sand on that issue.

Another element in this proposal is a BRAC commission, a proposal from Senator Brownback, which essentially looks at the whole Government, independent of the Defense Department, which was looked at under its own BRAC commission. And if you recall, it looked at the entire Defense Department and decided what the Defense Department needed and didn't need and set up a package and we voted on it as a package.

This is a ``BRAC Commission'' for the Government with very strong, thoughtful people being appointed to the Commission, the same way the BRAC Commission was set up relative to the Defense Department. We will be able to take a look at functions of the Government which maybe should be eliminated or reduced or significantly changed.

It is a good proposal. It is also a proposal that includes biennial budgeting--an idea that is strongly supported by the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, who is managing the bill on the floor right now, and the Senator

from New Mexico--so we can have a budget process where we are not always looking at the budget every year and everybody spinning their wheels around the budget but, rather, having a year where we develop a budget and a year where we do a lot more oversight. That is the theory behind that, so we can become more efficient.

Finally, it has reforms to what is known as the reconciliation process. The reconciliation process is the teeth under which we accomplish savings in the budget process. But it can also, unfortunately, be used for expanding spending if it is not handled properly. So these reforms make it clear that reconciliation is primarily for the purposes of controlling spending, not of expanding spending.

So the goal is simple. The goal is to put in place a package which will allow us as a Congress to step up and address the issue of overspending. That is why we call it SOS, ``stop overspending.'' The purpose of that goal is to be able to pass on to our children a government that is affordable, that continues to deliver the services people expect, continues to give high-quality services but does it in an affordable way so our children's quality of life is not overwhelmed by the burden of a government that is trying to support a retired generation that is huge.

Again, I must stress, that you cannot do this on the tax side. You cannot solve the issues of the deficit, you cannot solve the issues of entitlement concerns on the tax side. There is simply too much programmatic commitment in the pipeline to accomplish that.

Let me give you a couple numbers to highlight that fact. The General Accounting Office--the comptroller of the Government--has told us there is presently pending relative to entitlement responsibility for retired people an obligation which we don't know how we are going to pay for-- that is called an unfunded liability--of $46 trillion; and that is ``trillion'' with a ``T.'' So that is $46 trillion of responsibility that we have put on the books in costs that we don't really know how we are going to pay for.

I don't know what $1 trillion is. It is very hard to comprehend $1 trillion. But just to put it in some sort of context, since the beginning of this country, since our Revolution, we have paid something like $43 trillion in taxes. So all the taxes paid since this country started would not pay for the bills we have on the books for our upcoming retired generation. Or to put it in another context, if you took all the assets owned in America today--all the cars, all the homes, all the stock, all the small businesses, all the big businesses--and totaled them up, their total is about $47 trillion in net value. So we have on the books a liability that is essentially the same as the net worth of our Nation. That is a serious problem, and you cannot deal with that problem by simply raising taxes.

The other side of the aisle has not put forward any substantive ideas in this area relative to spending. They have suggested a proposal called pay-go, which is a stalking-horse for tax increases. Fine. That is their position: We should raise taxes to address all problems. But we know from the numbers that are now coming in at the Treasury that we are already taxing Americans at a level which is at our historic level, our traditional level, and that revenues to the Federal Government are jumping significantly because of the good tax policies we have in place, the fair tax policies we have in place.

So we know you cannot solve this problem by continuing to raise taxes on the American people. The total tax burden to the American people today, including State, local, and Federal, is almost at a historic high. How much higher can you put that tax burden on the American people? No, you cannot do it on that side of the ledger. In fact, what we have proven is you generate more revenues by giving people an incentive to be productive and to go out and create jobs by having a fair and reasonable tax rate rather than jumping tax rates to the point where people have a disincentive to be productive and thus start to reduce revenues to the Federal Government.

That was proven by John Kennedy, confirmed by Ronald Reagan, and now confirmed again by George W. Bush. It should be accepted policy around here, but it is rejected by the other side of the aisle, which still subscribes to this 1930s philosophy of governance, which is that you can always raise taxes to meet any problem. No. The problem is that we need to be willing to step up and address spending.

This package, if it were to pass in its entirety--I hope the other side will not obstruct it coming to the floor. We hope to mark it up in Budget next week and report it out, and hope the other side will let us take it up. Let's have a free-flowing debate out here on the floor about how you address this issue.

The outyear threat to our children--which is a function of the fact there is a baby boom generation floating around here that is huge--is not going to go away and is going to demand significant services which will cost a dramatic amount of money.

Our proposal is comprehensive and extensive. It is a rebuilding, retooling approach toward how we manage this Congress and especially our budgets. It is a constructive approach, one that is committed toward delivering an affordable and effective government and a government that does not overburden our children and our grandchildren with taxes. So it will lead to a balanced budget, and it will lead to a government that is affordable.

I thank all my colleagues who have joined me in this effort, and I do hope we can move it forward.

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Alabama.

Absolutely not. In fact, under most scenarios, the current rate of spending on almost all of these major programs--such as Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid--would rise significantly; they just would not rise as fast. Medicare, for example, would probably, over this 5-year period, rise by about 40 percent, instead of 43 percent--something like that. Those are numbers off the top of my head, but those are the types of numbers we are talking about. You are talking about increased spending but at a slower rate and affordable.

Mr. President, the Senator from Alabama is absolutely right. We do not have to cut anywhere. All we have to do is slow the rate of growth so it is an affordable rate of growth because the compounding effect of slowing these rates of growth is huge.

Mr. President, the Senator from Alabama is correct. The rate

of growth of revenues to the Federal Government last year was about 14 percent. This year, through the first 6 months, it was about 11 percent and continues to grow dramatically. That is a function of the fact that we now have a tax policy which encourages people to go out and take risks and create jobs, which creates revenue.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill which is sponsored by myself and 20 other Members of the Senate.

The purpose of this bill is to put some control over spending--or at least put procedures in--to allow us as a Congress to begin to control spending.

I think we all recognize that in the short run we are headed toward a budget that looks like it may actually move toward balance. We have seen some very significant, positive gains. A deficit that was supposed to be about $425 billion this year is down to about $300 billion, and it may well go below that. That does not solve our problem even though we have gotten things moving the right way because in the outyears we face a fiscal crisis. That is reflected in this chart.

The fact is, there is facing this country a situation where we have a generation known as the baby boom generation which is such a large generation that it has basically overwhelmed the systems of America at each point in its evolution. It started out in the early 1950s and late 1940s. It overwhelmed the school systems it was so big. As it moved forward in the 1960s, it created the civil rights movement, and in the 1980s and 1990s it created the greatest prosperity in the history of our country as a result of its size and productivity.

But now that generation is beginning to retire. It will start to retire in the year 2008. It will be fully retired by the year 2020. It will be the largest retired generation in the history of our Nation by a factor of two. There will essentially be 70 million people retiring during that period.

What are the implications? The implications are rather severe for our Nation's fiscal policy, and especially for our children. All of our retirement systems in this Nation--Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid--all our major safety nets were built around the concept created by FDR, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, that there would always be many more people working than retiring.

In fact, in the early 1950s there were about 12 people working and paying into the Social Security system for every one person taking it out of Social Security. Today there are about three and a half people working for every one person who is retired. By the years 2020 to 2025, there will only be two people working for every one person taking out of the system. That means this pyramid concept goes to a rectangle, and our children and our grandchildren who will then be the working people in America will not be able to support the benefit structure which is in place for the retired.

This chart reflects the dramatic effect of this situation rather starkly. The blue line represents what percent of gross national product the Federal Government usually spends. Historically, since World War II, the Federal Government has spent about 20 percent of the gross national product. The red line represents three programs in the Federal process: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The red line grows dramatically beginning in about the year 2008 and proceeds at an exponential rate of growth, so that by the years 2025 to 2028 those three programs alone will actually cost more than 20 percent of the gross national product of America.

What does that mean? It means if we were to spend the historic amount we have spent on the Federal Government, those three programs would use up all that money and there would be no money available for education, for national defense, for laying out roads, for health care for everyone else, other than those who are retired, or for anything else the Federal Government is supposed to do. Everything would have to be spent on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. It does not stop there. It continues up at a rather dramatic movement.

The point, of course, is that our children will have to pay the cost. They will find themselves confronted with a dramatic increase in tax burden unless we address the cost of those programs from the spending side.

The point, also, is we really cannot tax our way out of this problem. We cannot possibly raise taxes high enough to keep up with the cost of these programs and still have a viable country. If we did that, we would eliminate the ability of our children to buy a new home, to send their kids to college, to even buy cars. The lifestyle of an American, our children and our grandchildren, would be dramatically reduced-- their quality of life--were we to raise taxes to try to keep up with this rate of growth of spending.

Again, it is not a revenue problem; it is a spending problem. That is important to stress. In fact, if you look at the revenues over the last few years, this reinforces this point. Revenues dropped precipitously at the beginning of this President's term for two reasons. One, we had the largest bubble in the history of the world, the Internet bubble, back in the late 1990s, where we were essentially producing false income, paper returns through the issuance of stock which wasn't backed up by productive companies. This bubble burst, and it was the biggest bubble in history, bigger than the tulip or south seas bubble. And the effect of it was to cause our economy to retrench.

Then we had the attack of September 11, which dramatically impacted our psyche as a nation. Obviously, it had a horrific effect in the area of loss of lives, but it had a dramatic effect on our economy. Those two back-to-back events basically forced a significant drop in revenues.

So President Bush came in and said: Let's try to get out of this recession--and it was a shallow recession but would have headed a lot deeper--by cutting taxes and giving people an incentive to be more productive. We have heard a lot from the other side about how it is terrible we cut taxes at the beginning of this administration. But what those tax cuts did was create an atmosphere where people who wanted to be entrepreneurial, who wanted to go out and take risks, who were willing to put their own personal efforts and their dollars behind an effort to be productive, and, thus, create jobs, did exactly that.

Then the economy started to recover. We had 39 straight months of recovery. We had one of the largest expansions of the post-World-War II period. The practical effect of that is that we have created more economic activity, created

more jobs, and created more revenue to the Federal Government. So in the last 2 years, the revenue to the Federal Government has actually jumped greater in a 2-year period than at any time in the post-World- War II period. Each of the last 2 years has had historic increases of revenues for the Federal Government.

We are at a point where revenues are essentially at the same place they would be over history as a percent of gross national product. We are essentially generating about the same amount of revenue we have always generated to the Federal Government.

The other side of the aisle says: Let's raise taxes some more. That is not going to help because we are already generating as much revenue as we usually generate. We are doing it the right way, with a fair tax system, telling entrepreneurs to make jobs and create risks. We have created jobs and given revenues to the Federal Government.

The real issue is, you have to be willing to address spending, which is what the chart shows. A group on our side of the aisle said: How do you do this? Probably the way to do it is to put in place a series of processes in the Senate and in the House, which basically forced the Congress to address the public policy issues of reducing the rate of growth and spending for the Federal Government. This is very difficult for an elected body. We know it is a natural tendency of an elected body to spend more money because people come to you and say: We need this for that. Usually the stories are compelling and the purposes are good.

The simple fact is, we cannot afford to spend all the money that people want to spend, and we need to have some mechanisms around here which energize an atmosphere of producing fiscal responsibility, delivering government that is efficient, delivering government that is effective, delivering government that people get what they expect, and, also, get their dollars used efficiently and effectively to produce a government that works.

So we are suggesting a program that basically renews, redesigns; it reforms, it rebuilds the Federal system relative to how we are going to spend money and makes sure we spend it effectively so we give people an affordable government, something that delivers the type of services they need but does it in a way that can be afforded. That is our goal. Our goal, essentially, is to contain spending so that we are able to deliver quality government and still pass on to our children a government that is affordable, a tax burden they can afford that won't overwhelm them and will give them the opportunity to have as good a life as we have had.

The proposal we have come up with has a variety of different elements to accomplish this. First, we follow the ideas put forward by the President, which has eight basic elements. It is a very extensive reform package, renewal package, redesign package, rebuilding package.

The first element is what I call fast-track rescission. I suppose that is too technical. The President calls it the line-item veto. But it says the President has the opportunity to look at bills we have passed in the Senate and say: Listen, we do not need to spend money on that item. That is really an item of earmark, or maybe you might call it pork, or it is just simply not what we need. It is not what the American people have to have their dollars spent on. He gets to put together a package of items, and he sends them to us. He says: These are the items I don't think we need. We think the American people don't need them. We don't think the Government can afford them, and you, the Congress, can take another look at them and vote them up or down. Fast- track rescission. We have to take the vote. It is an opportunity for the executive branch to have a say and for the legislative branch to take a second look. We have done it in a way so neither branch is prejudiced as to our constitutional role which is very important.

The second thing we have done is we have reinstated statutory caps. What is that? It means that we say every year how much the Federal Government is going to spend and we lock it down so that if we spend over that amount we have to go back and cut somewhere else to bring us down to that number.

What has happened around here, we have said we are going to spend X dollars. That is called a cap. But we have not had any enforcement mechanism behind the cap. Those lapsed in 2002. So when we exceed the cap, you get 60 votes and people say: Fine, we will spend the money anyway, even though we said we were not going to spend that much money, and it is ignored. This puts in place a system where we have to be responsible to the number we set out as to what the Federal Government should spend. It is basically truth in budgeting and forces budgeting to be effective and responsive.

The third item we put in, we reduce the deficit so it will move to zero by 2012. This is done by saying essentially this: The deficit today is X percent of gross national product. We are going to say that the deficit should be dropped as a percent of gross national product every year until we get to about 2012 where we expect it to be basically no deficit. If we exceed those numbers--in other words, if the deficit exceeds that percent of gross national product which we set out in the bill--and these numbers are historical numbers and they are obtainable numbers.

In fact, in the first 2 years, the numbers we have set out are basically above where the actual deficit looks like it will hit, and it is about the third and fourth year we may have some issues to keep the deficit moving down--but if the deficit is not moving down, we put in place a process called reconciliation, directed at entitlement spending.

The problem we have as a Federal Government isn't the discretionary side of the ledger. That is spending that occurs every year. Every year you have to spend X dollars on defense, X dollars on education, and you can make a choice regarding how much you will spend here, how much you spend there. Nondefense spending in those accounts has been flat for the last few years, essentially flat if you factor in inflation. The real growth of the Federal Government has been in these accounts that are entitlement accounts, mandatory accounts which I had on the first chart, three of the major ones. They represent, along with the Federal debt, about 60 percent of Federal spending.

What this bill says is that essentially you have to go back and take a look at those accounts if we are not meeting our deficit targets and bring them into line so we will meet those deficit targets.

Now, in order to help accomplish this, this proposal also includes an entitlement commission. There have been a lot of commissions around here and everyone is a little tired of commissions. This commission is different. This commission says take a look at the entitlement accounts of the Federal Government, report back to the Congress, and Congress must act on your proposal. We actually put in place a policy procedure to try to correct the entitlement issue. Then we put in place a budgeting procedure which allows us to legislate changes if the entitlement improvements are not accomplishing our goals.

The purpose is to make these entitlement programs affordable for our children while they still maintain a quality lifestyle for those who are retired. That can be and should be able to be accomplished. But it takes a Congress being willing to step up to the plate and doing it. So far, we have not been willing to do that. We have been burying our head in the sand on that issue.

Another element in this proposal is a BRAC commission, a proposal from Senator Brownback, which essentially looks at the whole Government, independent of the Defense Department, which was looked at under its own BRAC commission. And if you recall, it looked at the entire Defense Department and decided what the Defense Department needed and didn't need and set up a package and we voted on it as a package.

This is a ``BRAC Commission'' for the Government with very strong, thoughtful people being appointed to the Commission, the same way the BRAC Commission was set up relative to the Defense Department. We will be able to take a look at functions of the Government which maybe should be eliminated or reduced or significantly changed.

It is a good proposal. It is also a proposal that includes biennial budgeting--an idea that is strongly supported by the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, who is managing the bill on the floor right now, and the Senator

from New Mexico--so we can have a budget process where we are not always looking at the budget every year and everybody spinning their wheels around the budget but, rather, having a year where we develop a budget and a year where we do a lot more oversight. That is the theory behind that, so we can become more efficient.

Finally, it has reforms to what is known as the reconciliation process. The reconciliation process is the teeth under which we accomplish savings in the budget process. But it can also, unfortunately, be used for expanding spending if it is not handled properly. So these reforms make it clear that reconciliation is primarily for the purposes of controlling spending, not of expanding spending.

So the goal is simple. The goal is to put in place a package which will allow us as a Congress to step up and address the issue of overspending. That is why we call it SOS, ``stop overspending.'' The purpose of that goal is to be able to pass on to our children a government that is affordable, that continues to deliver the services people expect, continues to give high-quality services but does it in an affordable way so our children's quality of life is not overwhelmed by the burden of a government that is trying to support a retired generation that is huge.

Again, I must stress, that you cannot do this on the tax side. You cannot solve the issues of the deficit, you cannot solve the issues of entitlement concerns on the tax side. There is simply too much programmatic commitment in the pipeline to accomplish that.

Let me give you a couple numbers to highlight that fact. The General Accounting Office--the comptroller of the Government--has told us there is presently pending relative to entitlement responsibility for retired people an obligation which we don't know how we are going to pay for-- that is called an unfunded liability--of $46 trillion; and that is ``trillion'' with a ``T.'' So that is $46 trillion of responsibility that we have put on the books in costs that we don't really know how we are going to pay for.

I don't know what $1 trillion is. It is very hard to comprehend $1 trillion. But just to put it in some sort of context, since the beginning of this country, since our Revolution, we have paid something like $43 trillion in taxes. So all the taxes paid since this country started would not pay for the bills we have on the books for our upcoming retired generation. Or to put it in another context, if you took all the assets owned in America today--all the cars, all the homes, all the stock, all the small businesses, all the big businesses--and totaled them up, their total is about $47 trillion in net value. So we have on the books a liability that is essentially the same as the net worth of our Nation. That is a serious problem, and you cannot deal with that problem by simply raising taxes.

The other side of the aisle has not put forward any substantive ideas in this area relative to spending. They have suggested a proposal called pay-go, which is a stalking-horse for tax increases. Fine. That is their position: We should raise taxes to address all problems. But we know from the numbers that are now coming in at the Treasury that we are already taxing Americans at a level which is at our historic level, our traditional level, and that revenues to the Federal Government are jumping significantly because of the good tax policies we have in place, the fair tax policies we have in place.

So we know you cannot solve this problem by continuing to raise taxes on the American people. The total tax burden to the American people today, including State, local, and Federal, is almost at a historic high. How much higher can you put that tax burden on the American people? No, you cannot do it on that side of the ledger. In fact, what we have proven is you generate more revenues by giving people an incentive to be productive and to go out and create jobs by having a fair and reasonable tax rate rather than jumping tax rates to the point where people have a disincentive to be productive and thus start to reduce revenues to the Federal Government.

That was proven by John Kennedy, confirmed by Ronald Reagan, and now confirmed again by George W. Bush. It should be accepted policy around here, but it is rejected by the other side of the aisle, which still subscribes to this 1930s philosophy of governance, which is that you can always raise taxes to meet any problem. No. The problem is that we need to be willing to step up and address spending.

This package, if it were to pass in its entirety--I hope the other side will not obstruct it coming to the floor. We hope to mark it up in Budget next week and report it out, and hope the other side will let us take it up. Let's have a free-flowing debate out here on the floor about how you address this issue.

The outyear threat to our children--which is a function of the fact there is a baby boom generation floating around here that is huge--is not going to go away and is going to demand significant services which will cost a dramatic amount of money.

Our proposal is comprehensive and extensive. It is a rebuilding, retooling approach toward how we manage this Congress and especially our budgets. It is a constructive approach, one that is committed toward delivering an affordable and effective government and a government that does not overburden our children and our grandchildren with taxes. So it will lead to a balanced budget, and it will lead to a government that is affordable.

I thank all my colleagues who have joined me in this effort, and I do hope we can move it forward.

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Alabama.

Absolutely not. In fact, under most scenarios, the current rate of spending on almost all of these major programs--such as Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid--would rise significantly; they just would not rise as fast. Medicare, for example, would probably, over this 5-year period, rise by about 40 percent, instead of 43 percent--something like that. Those are numbers off the top of my head, but those are the types of numbers we are talking about. You are talking about increased spending but at a slower rate and affordable.

Mr. President, the Senator from Alabama is absolutely right. We do not have to cut anywhere. All we have to do is slow the rate of growth so it is an affordable rate of growth because the compounding effect of slowing these rates of growth is huge.

Mr. President, the Senator from Alabama is correct. The rate

of growth of revenues to the Federal Government last year was about 14 percent. This year, through the first 6 months, it was about 11 percent and continues to grow dramatically. That is a function of the fact that we now have a tax policy which encourages people to go out and take risks and create jobs, which creates revenue.

Mr. President, yesterday afternoon, I placed a call to a Nevada mother, Jennifer Laybourn. These calls are not easy; they are hard. Like many other Nevada mothers, she lost a boy, 19 years old, her son David, in Iraq. He was performing his duties as a soldier when he was killed by an improvised explosive device. Again, he was 19 years old.

Nevada has lost 39 soldiers in Iraq. Nevada is a small, sparsely populated State. Thirty-nine is a lot of funerals, a lot of sorrow for those of us from Nevada. There is no way we can ever repay those 39 Nevada heroes and their parents, siblings, family, and friends for their sacrifices. But we must always make sure their service is honored, which is why today I compliment and applaud Senators Nelson from Florida and Menendez from New Jersey, and to express my complete shock and outrage that the Iraqi Prime Minister has even considered granting amnesty to the insurgents who have killed our troops.

Up to this day, today, we have lost 2,500 soldiers in Iraq. The mere idea that this proposal would go forward is an insult to the brave Nevadans who have died in the name of Iraqi freedom, and this doesn't take into consideration those Nevadans who have been grievously wounded in battle. It is my hope the President will denounce this proposal immediately--not wait for a retraction by the Iraqis but denounce it immediately. We should remember that the majority of Nevadans killed in Iraq were not killed in acts of warfare, as we historically have known warfare. They were killed in acts of terror.

All of us who are committed to freedom and democracy should recognize that their murders, 39 Nevadans, deserve justice. While I support reconciliation efforts to bring Iraqi political factions together, I don't support amnesty for those who commit acts of terror against Americans.

It sends the wrong signal to our troops, the wrong signal to the Iraqis, and it sends the wrong signal to all Americans. It certainly sends a wrong signal to the insurgents who have now been given the message that they can attack our forces without consequence.

President Bush continually makes a point of saying that a free Iraq means the United States will have a friend in the Middle East. This amnesty proposal is no sign of friendship; it is a sign of hostility which dishonors the sacrifice of our troops. Our troops deserve better. Again, I urge the President to tell the new Iraqi Government to stand down. America will not stand as our troops are dishonored in this way.

It seems so unfortunate that after the President's visit in Iraq, a day later this is floated through the Iraqi Government. It is too bad. We deserve better.

I thought the Senator was finished.

Mr. President, my friend from Kentucky and my friend from Texas are involved in a debate that doesn't exist. The amendment before the Senate, which will require a vote, is based on a sense-of-the- Senate resolution offered by the Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson, and the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez. Here is what the matter pending before the Senate now says:

Congress makes the following findings:

(1) The Armed Forces of the United States and coalition

military forces are serving heroically in Iraq to provide all

the people of Iraq a better future.

(2) The Armed Forces of the United States and coalition

military forces have served bravely in Iraq since the

beginning of military operations in March of 2003.

(3) More than 2,500 members of the Armed Forces of the

United States and members of the coalition forces have been

killed and more than 18,000 injured in operations to bring

peace and stability to all the people of Iraq.

(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that

(1) the Government of Iraq should not grant amnesty to

persons known who have attacked, killed, or wounded members

of the Armed forces of the United States; and

(2) the President should immediately notify the Government

of Iraq that the Government of the United States strongly

opposes granting amnesty to persons who have attacked members

of the Armed Forces of the United States.

That is very clear. That is what we are going to be called to vote on.

Why do we have this before us? Because last night a man by the name of Adnan Ali al-Kadhimi, a top adviser to the Prime Minister of Iraq, said, among other things, the following:

Asked about clemency for those who attacked U.S. troops, he

said: ``That's an area

where we can see a green line. There's some sort of

preliminary understanding between us and the MNF-I,'' the

U.S.-led Multinational Force-Iraq, ``that there is a

patriotic feeling among the Iraqi youth and the belief that

those attacks are legitimate acts of resistance and defending

their homeland. These people will be pardoned definitely.

That is the reason for this resolution. It is not about an amendment that will be offered and there will be some other debate. It is about whether the people of Iraq, who are running that government, should pardon those people, grant amnesty to the people who have attacked our forces either through snipers, armed combat, or explosive devices. It is a simple vote.

Further, the man went on to say they would consider taking a look at Iraqi forces who were attacked. They wouldn't necessarily be given amnesty like those who attacked Americans.

That is a pretty clear vote, Mr. President. And that is the issue before the Senate, not some make-believe thing that will come at some later time, maybe. The issue before the Senate today is whether this resolution will be approved, yes or no, based upon statements made by officials in Iraq.

Someone has since then said: We don't like that. Good. We should adopt this resolution anyway. This is no attack on the Iraqi Government other than to say: Be careful, don't tread on our soldiers' graves.

This is the debate before us. I talked about a woman I called yesterday in Nevada who lost her 19-year-old son in Iraq, and to think that anyone in the Iraqi Government--anyone in the Iraqi Government-- should pardon an Iraqi who killed this young man is repulsive. That is what the debate is about today. It is not about these terms that my friends like to throw around--cut and run, tax and spend.

The American people know what is going on here. They know what is going on. We all want the Iraqi issue to proceed even though it is costing us $2.5 billion a week, 2,500 dead soldiers, 18,000 or 20,000 wounded, a third of them grievously wounded, 20 percent of them coming back from Iraq with post-traumatic stress syndrome with a Veterans' Administration that is underfunded.

That is what this is all about. It is not about some other issue. It is about whether the Government of Iraq, now or at any other time in the future, should pardon people who harm our soldiers.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President?

Mr. President, two things that do not exist in Iraq and have not are weapons of mass destruction and cutting and running.

This is the McConnell amendment. It is not the Kerry amendment. People have the right to file amendments. They can decide whether they want to offer them or modify them or change them.

I move to table the McConnell amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

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

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

I reoffer my motion to table. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I have an amendment to provide compensation for civilian veterans of the Cold War who contracted cancer as a result of their work at our nuclear weapons facilities.

My amendment will ensure that employees who worked at the Nevada Test Site during the years of above- and below-ground nuclear weapons testing and suffer from radiation-induced cancers as a result of that work finally receive the compensation they deserve. These Cold War veterans sacrificed their health and well-being for their country. We can wait no longer to acknowledge those sacrifices and to try, in some small way, to compensate for the cancers they have suffered as a result of their service to their country.

U.S. citizens have served their country working in facilities producing and testing nuclear weapons and engaging in other atomic energy defense activities that served as a deterrent during the Cold War. Many of these workers were exposed to cancer-causing levels of radiation and placed in harm's way by the Department of Energy and contractors, subcontractors, and vendors of the Department without the knowledge and consent of the workers, without adequate radiation monitoring, and without necessary protections from internal or external occupational radiation exposures.

Six years ago, I worked with President Clinton to pass The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, EEOICPA, to ensure fairness and equity for the men and women who performed duties uniquely related to the nuclear weapons production and testing programs by establishing a program that would provide timely, uniform, and adequate compensation for 22 specified radiation-related cancers.

Research by the Department of Energy, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, NIOSH's contractors, the President's Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, and congressional committees indicates that workers were not adequately monitored for internal or external exposures to ionizing radiation to which the workers were exposed and records were not maintained, are not reliable, are incomplete, or fail to indicate the radioactive isotopes to which workers were exposed.

Because of the inequities posed by the factors described above and the resulting harm to the workers, EEOICPA has an expedited process for groups of workers whose radiation dose cannot be estimated with sufficient accuracy or whose dose cannot be estimated in a timely manner. These workers are placed into a Special Exposure Cohort, SEC. Workers in an SEC do not have to go through the dose reconstruction process, which can take years and be extremely difficult as these workers are often unable to produce information because it was or is classified.

Congress has already legislatively designated classes of atomic energy veterans at the Paducah, Kentucky, Portsmouth, Ohio, Oak Ridge K-25, Tennessee, and the Amchitka Island, AK, sites as members of the special exposure cohort under EEOICPA. Amchitka Island was designated because three underground nuclear tests were conducted on the Island.

Nevada Test Site workers deserve the same designation.

I and many other Nevadans remember watching explosions at the Nevada Test Site. We were struck with awe and wonder at the power and strength of these explosions. Little did we know that there was another side to those atomic tests--the exposure of men and women working at the site to cancer-causing substances. Now, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of these Cold War veterans face deadly cancers. Many have already passed away.

The contribution of the State of Nevada to the security of the United States throughout the Cold War and since has been unparalleled. In 1950, President Harry S. Truman designated what would later be called the Nevada Test Site as the Nation's nuclear proving grounds and, a month later, the first atmospheric test at the Nevada Test Site was detonated. The United States conducted 100 aboveground and 828 underground nuclear tests at the Nevada Test Site from 1951 to 1992. Out of the 1054 nuclear tests conducted in the United States, 928, or 88 percent, were conducted at the Nevada Test Site.

Unfortunately, Nevada Test Site workers, despite having worked with significant amounts of radioactive materials and having known exposures leading to serious health effects, have been denied compensation under EEOICPA as a result of flawed calculations based on records that are incomplete or in error as well as the use of faulty assumptions and incorrect models.

It has become evident that it is not feasible to estimate with sufficient accuracy the radiation dose received by employees at the Department of Energy facility in Nevada known as Nevada Test Site at all in some cases and in others in a timely manner. In fact, the administration has admitted that it cannot construct internal radiation dose for workers employed on the site during the aboveground test and yet is still balking at full compensation for all of these workers. There are many reasons for this, including inadequate monitoring, incomplete radionuclide lists, and DOE's ignoring nearly a dozen tests conducted at the site that vented. Because of these problems, Nevada Test Site workers have been denied compensation under the act, some of which have waited for decades for their Government to acknowledge the sacrifices they made for their country and compensate them.

Unfortunately, 6 years since the passage of EEOICPA and in some cases decades after their service to their country, very few of those Nevada Test Site Cold War veterans who have cancer have received compensation. In fact, Nevada Test Site workers are receiving compensation at a rate lower than the national average, and many who have waited decades are being told that they have to wait longer. And many have already died while waiting for their compensation.

Last November, I sent a letter to President Bush asking him to initiate this process himself. He still has not responded. However, his administration is trying to rewrite the law via regulation and cut funding to this program in order to delay compensation further and halt it for some workers altogether.

This is unacceptable.

That is why I am committed to ensuring that Nevada Test Site workers through 1993 are designated as a ``special exposure cohort.'' This will streamline and speed up the recovery process for those workers.

My amendment would ensure employees and survivors of employees who worked at the Nevada Test Site through 1993 that they receive compensation. They helped this country win the Cold War, sacrificing their personal health in the process, and after decades of waiting and suffering, it is time the Government honored these sacrifices.

This bill would include within the special exposure cohort Nevada Test Site workers employed at the site from 1950 to 1993 who were present during an atmospheric or underground nuclear test or performed drillbacks, reentry, or cleanup work following such tests; present at an episodic event involving radiation release; or employed at Nevada Test Site for at least 250 workdays and in a job activity that was monitored for exposure to ionizing radiation or worked in a job activity that is or was comparable to a job that is, was, or should have been monitored for exposure to ionizing radiation.

The Nevada Test Site has served, and continues to serve, as the premier research, testing, and development site for our nuclear defense capabilities. The Nevada Test Site and its workers have been, and are, an essential and irreplaceable part of our Nation's defense capabilities. This bill would honor the service of our atomic energy veterans and provide them with the compensation they deserve.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.

Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment.

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

Mr. President, a significant hubbub has occurred as a result of stories that have appeared in this morning's Washington Post that directly affect the defense posture of this country. It is stated in the Washington Post that the Prime Minister of Iraq is expected to release within days a ``plan [that] is likely to include pardons for those who had attacked only U.S. troops'' in Iraq. That is according to a top adviser.

As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister of Iraq is quoted as saying-- and I will get to the quote--reconciliation could include an amnesty for those ``who weren't involved in the shedding of Iraqi blood.'' Ergo, there would be amnesty for those who would have been involved in the shedding of American blood.

Now, it is possible--and this Senator hopes that something was lost in the translation because I cannot imagine the Prime Minister of Iraq turning on his heel away from American troops and suddenly--as he is trying to bring about reconciliation in his country--trying to then say as part of that reconciliation we are going to give amnesty for anybody who killed American men and women.

Well, naturally the Government of the United States should not stand for this. That is why Senator Menendez and I are offering this amendment to the Defense authorization bill, so that we can clearly set forth the policy--in this case, the sense of the Senate--that we will not stand for this.

By the adoption of this sense of the Senate amendment, clearly our President should speak to the Iraqi Prime Minister, who he just spoke with a couple of days ago, and he should speak with him immediately to get him to retract this statement. There should be no amnesty for those who murder American troops. American troops continue to serve bravely, and they are fighting for the freedom of all Iraqis. So it brings us to a point that is pretty clear. The Senate should go on record as having said that we repudiate that statement.

I will very clearly state what the Senate sense of the Congress is, that the Government of Iraq should not grant amnesty to persons known to have attacked, killed, or wounded members of the Armed Forces of the United States and that the President should immediately notify the Government of Iraq that the Government of the United States strongly opposes granting amnesty to persons who have attacked members of the Armed Forces of the United States.

It is fairly straightforward. I could go on and on with comments. I am awaiting the arrival of Senator Menendez because I want him to make some comments as well.

If you do what a number of us in this body have done in visiting either with the families of those who have borne the brunt of the fighting and have given the ultimate sacrifice or if you have visited with those who return wounded and maimed, then there is no question there should be no obfuscation as to the policy of granting amnesty to those who have killed Americans.

I remember going back to the time that I served as a captain in the Army, which was years and years ago. One of the most dread duties I had was to be the officer who was given the task of notifying the loved ones in the family of a service person who was killed. That, of course, is an exceptionally emotional event. And although it was decades ago, those experiences are seared in my memory because of the

trauma and the emotion when you meet with the grieving family of a loved one.

By the same token, there are over 18,000 of our service people who have been wounded. And many of them, because the body armor is working and saving the vital organs, their lives are being saved, but they have been maimed. The extremities are often the part of the body that is the casualty since the body armor is saving the vital organs. As a result, what we see is a lot of soldiers and sailors and Marines who come back, and they are just as optimistic as they can be in their outlook and yet think of the life that they will live with the maiming that has occurred. Their life was spared, but their life is going to be clearly different for the future.

Anyone who would dare suggest that in the formulation of a new government of Iraq, which we, the United States Government, clearly support, anyone who would even contemplate that that government have a policy that, as they try to build reconciliation, they are going to grant amnesty to those who have killed Americans, as we say in the South, they have to have another thing coming, because we are not going to tolerate it.

I offer a simple resolution on behalf of the Senate. I hope it is not going to be controversial. I hope it will be accepted.

I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

This Senator hopes, too, as I said at the outset of this Senator's remarks, that there is something lost in the translation, a mistake. But if there is, it is time for Prime Minister Maliki to step forward and clarify it. He can easily clarify it. But that does not diminish the need for the sense of Congress that says that the Government of Iraq should not grant amnesty to persons known to have attacked, killed, or wounded members of the Armed Forces of the United States.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. REID addressed the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

This Senator clearly doesn't support pulling the troops out of Iraq by the end of the year. This Senator offered an amendment which is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment that the Government of Iraq should not grant amnesty to persons known to have attacked, killed, or wounded members of the Armed Forces of the United States based on this morning's story in this newspaper that indicates comments that were made by the Prime Minister.

Is the Senator suggesting that he does not agree with the sense-of- the-Senate resolution being expressed in this amendment as laid down by this Senator from Florida?

Mr. President, since this Senator from Florida is the author of the amendment, I would recall, for the consideration of the distinguished Senator from Texas, that there is nothing in this resolution that says anything about condemnation of the Iraqi Government. It says: It is the sense of Congress that the Government of Iraq should not grant amnesty to persons known to have attacked, killed, or wounded members of the Armed Forces of the United States.

I would further call to the attention of the distinguished Senator that the yeas and nays have been ordered on the amendment, and as soon as the leadership is ready to dispose of the amendment, we can vote.

Does the Senator from Florida have the floor or----

The Senator from Florida has been seeking recognition for the past hour and has not been able to speak.

Will the Senator from Virginia, the distinguished chairman of our Armed Services Committee, agree to a unanimous consent request that the Senator from Florida would be allowed to speak on this issue immediately after the comments of the Senator from Virginia?

It is.

Mr. President, what I understand of the parliamentary procedure is that the majority will offer an additional amendment that will be a side-by-side and be voted upon, and the Senate can make its choice.

In the case of the amendment that is being proffered by the majority--indeed, in the copy that has been represented to me as being the accurate one--it will recite the comments of the gentleman to whom in Iraq the chairman has just referred.

And that side-by-side amendment will state that the national security adviser of Iraq, on today, had ``thanked `the American wives and American women and American mothers for the treasure and the blood they have invested in the country . . . of liberating 30 million people in this country . . . And we are ever so grateful.' '' And that affirms their position that they will never give amnesty to those who would kill American soldiers or those who have killed Iraqi soldiers or civilians. I think that is all well and good. This Senator would certainly intend to vote yes on that side-by-side amendment.

The reason the Senator from Florida has been seeking recognition for the last hour is this Senator's amendment has been characterized in ways that defy what the amendment says. The amendment clearly said that it is the sense of Congress that ``the Government of Iraq should not grant amnesty to persons known to have attacked, killed, or wounded members of the Armed Forces of the United States; and the President should immediately notify the Government of Iraq that the Government of the United States strongly opposes granting amnesty to persons who have attacked members of the Armed Forces of the United States.''

That is what the amendment says.

What this has been causing is a brouhaha because of something being read in to a simple little amendment that came as a result of a front- page story today in the Washington Post in which a top adviser to the Prime Minister, Mr. Adnan Ali al-Kadhimi, who happens to be the former chief of staff to the previous Prime Minister, a high-ranking official in the Dawa Party, he is the one who is quoted in the article as going on to say, when asked about clemency for those who attacked U.S. troops:

That's an area where we can see a green line. There's some

sort of preliminary understanding between us and the MNF-1

that there is a patriotic feeling among Iraqi youth and the

belief that those attacks are legitimate acts of resistance

and defending their homeland. These people will be pardoned

definitely, I believe.

Now, it is very enlightening that the national security adviser has tried to clarify Prime Minister Maliki's comments. The Prime Minister can certainly clarify his own comments. But here we have a high-ranking Iraqi official who is quoted on the front page of the paper today as saying amnesty for those who would have killed American men and women.

This Senator's name has been invoked by several speakers, including the distinguished Senator from Alaska, who I have the greatest and utmost respect for, in talking about the reconciliation process as if this were contrary to the reconciliation process. The Senator from Alaska was even quoting the reconciliation that took place after the Civil War, on which we all agree. The Senator from Alaska was talking about the reconciliation that has taken place in South Africa, of which we all agree, even talk of the reconciliation that took place with regard to Germany and Japan. But that didn't stop those who were responsible for war crimes and the killings of Americans to be brought to justice; in other words, not to have amnesty granted for them. That was not the case in South Africa where they had a process that those who did those criminal acts were brought to justice. That was certainly not the case in Germany after World War II where those who had committed those atrocities were brought to justice.

It just simply, in the opinion of this Senator, ought to be that a policy of the very government that we have helped and have liberated a people should not be amnesty for those who have killed Americans. How much more simple could it be? Yet I suspect, as others have implied politics, I suspect politics has a way of taking over and starting to make something seem like it isn't. It certainly wasn't the intention of this Senator.

As I understand, my wonderful chairman of the committee is going to offer a second-degree or will offer another amendment that will be a side by side amendment to that which I have offered, and we can vote for both. It would be the intention of this Senator to vote for both.

I said at the outset of my remarks, the first thing out of my mouth when I offered the amendment was, I hope there was something lost in the translation of what was reported in this morning's Post.

I don't understand--or maybe I do--all the brouhaha that has occurred over the course of the last 2 hours on such a simple amendment as saying that it is the sense of Congress that the Government of Iraq should not grant amnesty to persons known to have attacked, killed, or wounded members of the Armed Forces of the United States.

This Senator is referring to the rhubarb that has occurred for the last 2 hours on the floor, where statements were made about my amendment that mischaracterized the amendment and that further, then, allowed a totally different issue, an issue on which this Senator agrees with the chairman of the committee, not withdrawing all of the troops by the end of the year.

The Senator can characterize it as he would like. This Senator will characterize it as he would like.

If the Senator would like, we could have a quorum call and discuss exactly that matter.

Mr. President, I have listened with interest to my good friend from Nevada. I hope Senators will be more supportive of our elected allies who are the Government of Iraq. The national security adviser for the Government of Iraq just said a few hours ago:

And we will never give amnesty to those who have killed

American soldiers or killed Iraqi soldiers or civilians.

So this notion of amnesty about a new, duly-elected Iraqi Government is a sideshow, an effort to divert our attention away from the core issue. Over in the House of Representatives today, they are having a much needed debate on the Iraq war. I had hoped that we would have that debate in the Senate. I read that several of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle were interested in offering an amendment that would codify what they have said publicly, which is that the troops ought to be out by the end of this year. I hope they will come down and offer that amendment. I hope we will have that debate. I think it is a good time to have that debate.

It is a good time to remind the American people that it is no accident that we have not been attacked again since 9/11. Nobody would have predicted that in the fall of 2001. If we asked for a show of hands in the Senate of how many Senators thought we would be attacked again that year, I think every hand would have gone up. Certainly, the American people expected another attack. By going on the offense, which the President suggested we do shortly after 9/11, we have succeeded dramatically in the principal reason for advancing the war on terrorism, and that was to protect us at home. Almost 5 years later, we have not been attacked again. While nobody will predict that we will never be attacked again, it is noteworthy that we have not been attacked again. Believe me, it is not an accident. Why have we not been attacked again? Because we went into Afghanistan and into Iraq. We liberated 50 million people. A lot of the terrorists are dead. Several are at Guantanamo. Many are hiding in their caves. Yes, some are still around doing mischief in Baghdad rather than in Washington or New York.

This is the time we ought to be having the debate about Iraq strategy. We are on the Defense authorization bill. Colleagues on the other side have said they were going to offer an amendment to advocate withdrawal by the end of the year. Let's have that debate. I cannot think of a better time.

Right now in Iraq, according to the latest AP story, since we were able to get Zarqawi last week, we have carried out 452 raids; 104 insurgents were killed during those actions; we have discovered 28 significant arms caches; 255 of the raids were joint operations, with 143 of them carried out by Iraqi forces alone; and the raids resulted in casualties of 759 anti-Iraqi elements. That is just in the last week. So we have them on the run in Iraq.

Why would anybody want to suggest that we ought to run when we have them on the run? But I think that is a legitimate debate. I hoped that we would have it. It is 2:10. I have been waiting anxiously all day, assuming that we would have that amendment laid down by those on the other side of the aisle and get on about the debate. Maybe we should have it in any event because it is time to step up and be counted.

Do we want to stay and finish the job and continue to protect America or do we want to send a message to the terrorists, when we have them on the run, that we are about to cut and run and leave them there to their own devices? I don't know any responsible countries in the world at this point, regardless of how they may have initially felt about the decision to go into Iraq, that think it is a good idea to leave now-- particularly as we are making dramatic progress with their new constitution; a new, fully staffed government; the death of the most notorious terrorist in the country; these successful raids that have been carried out in the last week; and the effort underway to clean Baghdad out.

Why in the world would we want to say to those elements in Iraq, which want the country to be a haven for terrorism forever, that you can count on

us to be out of here by the end of the year; that we are giving you adequate notice that we are leaving by the end of the year?

I see my colleague from Texas on the Senate floor. I wondered if he had a question.

I will.

Mr. President, I say to my friend from Texas, the only alternative I heard suggested, I have read about it in the press--I have not heard it offered on the floor yet--is that we essentially give the terrorists advance notice that we are going to be out of the country by the end of the year.

Look, we all hate, as the Senator from Texas indicated, to read reports of the death of any of our troops. We value human life in this country greatly. We do not, however, honor those who have given their lives in this great cause by giving up when we are making dramatic progress. And it is also important to remember that while we value every single life, we have lost fewer of our soldiers liberating Afghanistan and Iraq--50 million people liberated--than we lost on 9/11 in one morning or in Normandy during the invasion in World War II.

So while we value every life and we regret the loss of each soldier, it is extremely difficult to fight a war and lose absolutely no one.

Mr. President, I say to my friend from Texas, I think one thing that is pretty obvious is the terrorists would have a haven from which to operate, once again, such as they had in Afghanistan for a number of years prior to our clearing that out and giving those folks an opportunity to set up a democratic government. They would have a base of operations right in the Middle East from which to attack our neighbors, to attack the Europeans, and probably attack us again. That would be the consequence of cutting and running just on the heels of making dramatic forward progress in Iraq.

It sounds to me, I answer my good friend from Texas, as some kind of diversion from the core issue we ought to be debating in the Senate, which is these suggestions that have been made by a number of our colleagues that we ought to have all the troops out by the end of the year. It is time to have that debate in the Senate, not a sense-of-the-Senate resolution about a proposal, as the Senator from Texas points out, that has been shot down today by the National Security Adviser in Iraq who, as the Senator from Texas indicated, said today:

And we will never give amnesty to those who have killed

American soldiers or who killed Iraqi soldiers or civilians.

What part of ``never give amnesty'' do our colleagues not understand?

I believe I have the floor. Would someone like to ask a question?

I yield to my friend from Florida for a question.

Mr. President, answering the question, let me just repeat what the National Security Adviser in Iraq has just said:

And we will never give amnesty to those who killed American

soldiers or who killed Iraqi soldiers or civilians.

Is it helpful to be passing resolutions condemning our allies in Iraq for positions that the National Security Adviser says the Government doesn't hold?

I am pleased to hear that my good friend from Florida opposes the amendment that I hope will be offered later today that calls for an American troop withdrawal by the end of the year. That is a debate I thought we were going to be having, rather than adopting resolutions condemning one part of the Iraqi Government or another--the Iraqi Government, of course, being a great ally of the United States in the war on terrorism.

Maybe that debate will occur later in the day, and I look forward to hearing from the Senator from Florida when we have that debate. I am sure he will be arguing the vote on that should be no, and the Senator from Florida, of course, will be entirely correct; that is exactly how that amendment should be dealt with. I hope it will be defeated overwhelmingly.

Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Does the Senator have a question or is he seeking the floor?

I yield the floor.

Would the Senator yield for a question?

I know the Senator from Texas and I covered this a few moments ago, but I would ask the Senator from Texas again if it is not the case that the national security adviser to the Iraqi Government just this very day said the following: And we will never give amnesty to those who have killed American soldiers or killed Iraqi soldiers or civilians?

Would the Senator from Texas yield for an additional question?

Might it not be just as useful an exercise to try to pass a resolution commending the Iraqi Government for the position they have taken today with regard to this discussion of amnesty?

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk to the underlying amendment.

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

Mr. President, the amendment I have sent to the desk is the amendment that I believe the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, had indicated he was going to be offering today so that we can have an appropriate debate on this very important day about whether it is appropriate to withdraw American troops by the end of 2006. That is the second-degree amendment that I just sent to the desk.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, pursuant to the agreement just entered into, I send an amendment to the desk.

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