Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise in support of the McConnell amendment which is based on legislation introduced by the senior Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, who was joined by several of us as cosponsors and which seeks a responsible comprehensive national energy policy.

First, I would like to thank Senator Domenici for his continued leadership on this issue. For years, many of us have followed his lead in trying to guide us toward policies that would expand our domestic production and supply of energy. Quite frankly, if more of my colleagues had listened to him, we would likely not be here on the floor today decrying the high cost of energy, especially gasoline.

There are three necessary components that we must address to move us toward an energy independent future: Supply, conservation, and alternative sources. I and many of my colleagues understand that conservation and alternative sources are critical pieces of this puzzle. We took some steps to address those issues in the 2000 energy bill with higher CAFE standards and incentives for technological innovation such as hybrids and fuel cells. This amendment before us deals with the third of the three necessary components--domestic supply--because none of the three are by themselves sufficient to achieve real energy security.

The United States is in the midst of an energy crisis. The folks in my State know that all too well. Every day they are working harder and smarter to make ends meet as the prices of the most basic essentials, food and energy, continue to rise at record rates. Between 2000 and 2005, 208,000 manufacturing jobs in Ohio have been lost, and 3 million nationwide, in part because of high energy costs that have forced employers to find savings elsewhere such as payrolls.

There is no question that because of the high cost of natural gas, we have gone from a country where we exported some $19 billion of chemical products to now importing chemical products. The reason for that is we didn't realize natural gas was part of the food stock we needed for the chemical industry.

Energy costs have been skyrocketing in Ohio. Since 2000, gasoline costs have risen 175 percent. Natural gas is up 107 percent. Heating oil prices are up 130 percent. The nearly 350,000 Ohio families with annual incomes of less than $10,000 are now spending more than 47 percent of their aftertax income on energy costs. You wonder how people are able to handle these additional costs they are paying.

I believe it is the result of a tail-wagging-the-dog environmental policy that

has ignored our energy and economic needs. This policy prevents us from taking advantage of our domestic sources of energy and has helped put us in the current crisis. The chickens have come home to roost. Many of us predicted it 8 or 9 years ago. No one seemed to listen.

We need to enact an energy policy that broadens our base of energy resources to create stability, maintain reasonable prices, and protect our Nation's security. It must be a policy that will keep energy affordable, and it must be a policy that would not cripple the engines of commerce that fund the research that will yield environmental protection technologies for the future.

We need a ``second declaration of independence'' to move us away from foreign sources of energy in the near term and away from oil in the long term. While we may not become truly independent of foreign energy, we must make investments today that will help us achieve our goal tomorrow, including renewable fuels and alternative methods of powering our vehicles, such as hybrids, plug-ins, and fuel cells.

I believe the country that becomes least dependent on oil is the country that is going to be prevailing in this century. Other countries are becoming addicted to oil, and we all have heard about why some of this is happening today. The Chinese are building automobiles every day and sucking up as much oil as they possibly can from whatever source they can get it.

I believe this crisis was foreseeable. Since I entered the Senate in 1999, Congress has chosen not to design a comprehensive, long-term national energy policy. We have failed to harmonize our energy, environmental, and economic needs. Unless we do, we will experience a diminished standard of living in the future.

I have been calling for increased domestic production for years. Before I came to the Senate, Congress and President Clinton had a chance to open ANWR to responsible oil exploration. In 1995, when oil was only $19 a barrel--did you hear that, $19 a barrel--President Clinton vetoed increased domestic production. In addition, many of us have been trying to open the Outer Continental Shelf to expanded exploration for years. Again, we have been blocked. Had we opened these domestic sources of oil and gas years ago, prices of gasoline, natural gas, and home heating oil would not be where they are today. As I said, the chickens have come home to roost.

A few years ago, we finally made some limited progress when we passed the 2005 Energy bill. That bill should have been passed early on in this century. We debated it back in 2003 for 6 weeks, and then it got stopped because we could not get the Senate to agree to it. We finally, as I say, got it done in 2005. That bill took some good steps forward. It provides incentives for more oil and gas production. It increases the use of clean coal technologies, nuclear power, and renewable sources of electricity and fuel, and it encourages conservation.

We need to do more, however, if we are to continue to remain competitive in the global economy. We need a plan for a future of tight energy supplies in the near term and plan accordingly so we have a stable bridge to the future that does not set us at a disadvantage against other countries. In the short term, we need to wake up to the fact that our Nation will continue to rely on more traditional forms of energy, such as oil, coal, and natural gas, to fuel our vibrant economy, as no viable alternatives are yet available to take their place.

This is important not just for the economy but for our national security and our environment. In this era when the United States is engaged in the war on terror, energy independence is even more critical. So many of the world's energy exporters are also breeding grounds for the terrorists and anti-American regimes, such as Venezuela, that want to destroy America. Being dependent on these regimes for our energy supply increases the danger to our way of life.

American people should also understand that more and more countries are nationalizing their oil. As a result, they are driving out companies that could invest in exploration, as has been the case in Venezuela, and the same way in Russia. So we are seeing a situation-- and I have heard the arguments that we have to get the Commerce Department and other Federal agencies involved, but some of the problem we have is as they nationalize the oil, what they do not do is the exploration that is needed to produce the oil that should be coming on the marketplace.

Increasing domestic energy production, renewable sources, and alternatives to oil would help smooth this country's transition to a carbon-constrained world.

But we are on the cusp of another gathering storm--a storm that could deal a destructive blow to my State of Ohio's already struggling economy and our quality of life. In its wake, we could see the loss of hundreds of good-paying jobs, shocking increases in natural gas, electricity, and gasoline prices, and pocket-numbing decreases in household incomes. I know Americans right now are up against it. But I can tell you, we ain't seen nothing yet if this legislation that is now pending in Congress is passed.

This storm comes in the form of current legislative efforts in Washington to mandate massive reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The debate is not about whether these reductions are necessary. I think I make that very clear; these reductions are necessary. Most of us agree to that. And we must act quickly to address climate change. The debate is about whether to invest the time and effort necessary to do it in a responsible, comprehensive, and progrowth fashion as opposed to rushing through an irresponsible, piecemeal plan that will raise energy costs on already hurting families, send jobs overseas, and fail to help the environment as intended.

As ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety, I am at the center of the debate, and I believe Ohioans should pay close attention. The decisions made could result in the most massive bureaucratic intrusion into the lives of Americans since the creation of the Internal Revenue Service.

As I mentioned, I have long championed harmonizing our economic, energy, and environmental needs. I did so as mayor of Cleveland, as Governor of Ohio, and we had great success in bringing both sides to the table for the betterment of our State and Nation. That is why I am so committed to educating my colleagues and Ohioans about the unprecedented opportunity we have before us when it comes to crafting a comprehensive solution to climate change. We must be smart and measured in our steps forward, always keeping in mind what is best for working families, seniors, and those trying to make ends meet on fixed incomes.

The smart way to go about addressing this problem is not through unilateral actions that would hurt our economy and drive jobs overseas. The policy proposal now under consideration in the Senate--the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act--would do exactly that.

A recent analysis of the bill by the Environmental Protection Agency provided a devastating critique of their policy proposal, estimating that passage could result in annual losses in gross domestic product as high as $2.5 trillion by 2030. By 2050, annual losses in the GDP could be as high as $5 trillion, with electricity rates doubling over the same period of time.

The impact of this legislation will be disproportionately felt in States such as Ohio that depend on coal for much of their energy needs. Duke Energy, a major electricity provider in Ohio, has released data indicating that if the policy becomes effective in 2012, customers in their service area could suffer a 53-percent increase in their electricity bills.

According to a recent study by the American Council for Capital Formation, Ohio would lose 139,000 jobs by 2020. By 2050, net job losses could grow as high as 487,000. And with Ohio consumers paying as much as 29 percent more for gasoline, 50 percent more for natural gas, and 80 percent more for electricity, disposable household income would be reduced by about $2,000 per year by 2020 and $3,500 per year by 2050.

Additionally, the Lieberman-Warner bill completely disregards the international dimension of the problem. Countries such as China and India refuse to slow their economic development in order to address climate

change. China--and listen to this one--puts two new coal-fired powerplants in service every week and now uses more coal than the United States, the European Union, and Japan combined. India is in the process of building the largest coal mine in the world. With facts like these, America could totally shut down all of our emissions-producing activities and we would not make a dent in CO2 emissions.

Americans should not suffer for symbolism while countries such as China and India emit increasingly large quantities of greenhouse gases without consequences. Ohioans are already struggling with the cost of living due to higher prices for gasoline, home heating fuel, electricity, food, and health care. Lieberman-Warner will only make things worse.

We cannot tolerate policies that harm our economy and drive businesses overseas to countries that do not recognize their environmental responsibilities or just do not have the political will to act. If we do, we will be worse off on two counts: fewer jobs and an environment that is not any cleaner than when we started.

That is why I am spearheading the development of an alternative solution to climate change which is less intrusive, less costly, and will more quickly achieve greater environmental benefits than the one option now before us. The smart way to address this problem is through collaborative, multinational efforts to develop and deploy the clean energy technologies that everyone recognizes as necessary to solve this global environmental problem.

I am pleased, with the support of our President, that consideration is being given to a clean energy technology fund--of some $2 billion we would participate in--an international clean energy technology fund. I know from reading a paper by Dr. Lin Jiang that China is giving serious thought to working with us. In a paper called ``The Nexus of Energy, Global Warming, and Environmental Concerns: Opportunities for U.S.- China Cooperation,'' Dr. Lin wrote:

It is clear that greater investment is urgently needed to

help China develop cost-effective methods to use coal more

cleanly, through, for example, gasification and carbon

capture and storage (CCS)2. Collaboration between the U.S.

and China in accelerating the adoption of such technologies

could be mutually beneficial, since the U.S. is equally

abundant in coal reserve as well.

The Asian Pacific Partnership, which resulted from the passage of the Hagel-Pryor-Voinovich, et al. bill, is in its infancy in sharing technological breakthroughs on controlling carbon emissions. It is already happening through the Asian Pacific Partnership. For those who are really interested, you can go to www.asianpacificpartnership.org for more information on what is happening.

Recently, Richard Armitage and Dr. Joe testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and submitted for the record a paper called ``Implementing Smart Power: Setting an Agenda for National Security Reform.''

In this paper, Dr. Nye suggested that:

The next administration and Congress should establish and

fund a joint technology development center. International

collaboration helps reduce costs and accelerate the pace of

innovation. The U.S. Department of Energy in partnership with

major global energy companies should establish a 10-year

endowment for funding energy and technology related research.

This could be administered by an international consortium of

the National Science Foundation and equivalents and disburse

grants through a peer review process to researchers to

provide venture capital to develop and deploy next generation

energy technologies, such as biofuels.

Also, the paper suggests that the next President should ``seek to identify areas of mutual interest between the United States and China on which the two powers can work together on a smart power agenda.

``Work together.''

Energy security and environmental stewardship top that

list, along with other transnational issues such as public

health and non-proliferation. Global leadership does not have

to be a zero-sum game.

The point I am making is, we are on the edge. We are seeing the result now in terms of the high cost of gasoline, the high cost of natural gas, the high cost of heating oil because of the fact that we did not put together a comprehensive plan some years ago, realizing we are in a global economy, the world is expanding, demand for these resources is growing every day, and in order for us to survive in this century, we have to become a whole lot more independent in terms of energy--as I said, the ``second declaration of independence.'' The only way that is going to happen is to develop a comprehensive plan.

My colleague, Senator Alexander from Tennessee, did a very good job earlier this evening in laying out a comprehensive plan we should put in place. It is not going to happen overnight. It is going to take time for it to take place.

The reason I am bringing up the issue of the legislation dealing with climate change is, again, how do we handle that issue? Do we just go ahead and say: ``Well, we are going to go forward with it. Cap in trade. This is going to solve the problem,'' when most of us know the technology is not there in order to cap carbon and sequester carbon, when most of us know the Chinese and the Indians and other growing economies are sending these greenhouse gases into the air.

Instead of just saying: Well, we will do it on our own, I think it is time for us to get together and realize we are part of this global economy. By working together, not only could the United States be a leader in dealing with climate change and greenhouse gases, but it would also be one of the most fantastic things our country could do in terms of public diplomacy.

We have been banged over the head over the years because we have not got on into Kyoto. That was voted on here on the floor of the Senate and it went down overwhelmingly ``no.'' Then, 2 years ago, we passed the Pryor-Hagel bill. The reason it passed is because it had an international dimension to it.

I think where we are today is we have to say: Here we are and here is where we want to be, and how do we get there. Wouldn't it be wonderful, as I have said, if the United States could be a leader in doing this and bringing other countries together in saying we are going to do this together. I have a motto: Together we can do it. I think that is the approach we should take. If we don't do that, if we go ahead with this cap-and-trade legislation and say: Well, it is going to take care of the problem, we are going to be having the same problem we are having today, only it will be compounded: a 55-percent increase in electric costs by 2012, an 80-percent increase in natural gas costs, and a 30- percent increase in gas costs. We can't handle that. We have to worry about the standard of living of our people. So we have to balance this.

I think if we work on a bipartisan basis, we can come up with something that is spectacular. It is overdue.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, the time for a honest, national discussion of fundamental tax reform is long overdue. Each year, April 15 looms on the calendar as a day of reckoning for American taxpayers facing a laborious and needlessly stressful process. Since enacting the Tax Reform Act of 1986--legislation intended to simplify the filing process for taxpayers--more than 15,000 provisions have been added to the Internal Revenue Code.

The irony of our complex Tax Code is that in order to take advantage of all the benefits and deductions for which they qualify, Americans have to spend a significant amount of money to pay someone or something to do their taxes for them--thus decreasing the value of their return. According to the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform, only 13 percent of taxpayers are able to file without the help of either a tax preparer or computer software.

The Tax Foundation estimates that in 2005, individuals, businesses, and nonprofits spent an estimated 6 billion hours complying with the Federal income tax code, with an estimated compliance cost of more than $265 billion. This amounts to imposing a 22-cent tax compliance surcharge for every dollar the income tax system collects.

Tinkering with the current Tax Code won't get the job done. Tinkering is what got us into this mess in the first place. We must enact fundamental tax reform--a complete overhaul of the system that would make the Tax Code simple, fair, transparent, and conducive to economic growth and private savings.

Tax reform is not just a matter of simply saving taxpayers time and effort. This is about saving taxpayers real money. Comprehensive tax reform could save Americans the $265 billion in compliance costs. Now, that would be a real tax reduction that wouldn't cost the Treasury one dime.

A new tax system is also vitally important to job creation and economic growth. In addition to simplification for average families, we must address one of the biggest problems with the current code: it rewards moving production activity--and the good-paying jobs that accompany such activity-- overseas. It taxes domestically produced goods heavily and taxes foreign-made goods lightly. We have the second highest corporate tax rate in the developed world, but we are near the bottom in corporate tax collections as a share of the economy. Such a system sounds absolutely perverse, but that is what we have in the United States.

Some of my colleagues will suggest that we can just increase marginal rates to raise the revenue we need. But in a competitive global economy, I can't understand why we would choose such a self-defeating approach. Higher marginal rates on an already-broken tax system would only discourage economic ingenuity and reduce U.S. competitiveness. Recent economic research concludes that in a global economy workers bear the brunt of higher corporate tax rates, through lower wages and fewer jobs.

The bottom line is Congress needs to take tax reform seriously. I am actively evaluating proposals that would simplify the Tax Code, save taxpayers billions of dollars, expand the economy, and most importantly, protect American jobs. I have already discussed the need for such legislation with many of my colleagues, and I know there is bipartisan support in the Chamber for comprehensive and timely action.

We can start the process by enacting legislation to create a bipartisan commission to propose tax and entitlement reform legislation that Congress must vote on under fast-track procedures, such as my SAFE Commission Act or the Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action that has been proposed by Senate Budget Committee chairman Kent Conrad and ranking Republican Judd Gregg. With or without such a commission, Congress and the next President must move forward on comprehensive tax reform that simplifies the code and creates jobs in the United States.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment, and I now send the modification to the desk.

Mr. President, the chairman of the Finance Committee has voiced concern about the original revenue loss associated with our amendment, which is bipartisan, with several members of the Finance Committee as sponsors. Senator Stabenow and I have worked very hard with Finance Committee staff and the Joint Committee on Taxation to bring the revenue estimate down. We managed to cut it by two-thirds to about $1.3 billion over 10 years. I am pleased Senator Baucus finds it acceptable and now supports my amendment.

I would now like to turn the floor over to Senator Stabenow.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana for those words of support.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Yes.

Madam President, I send amendment No. 4406 to the desk.

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

Madam President, along with my colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, we have worked to craft an amendment to help struggling companies and their employees during this time of economic downturn. The two of us have been joined by a bipartisan group of cosponsors, including Senators Hatch, Smith, Vitter, Levin, Cantwell, and Rockefeller.

Without a job and financial security, it is extremely difficult to keep paying your mortgage and keep your home out of foreclosure. A job is the first step in ensuring that Americans can achieve the dream of home ownership.

My hometown of Cleveland is the epicenter of the foreclosure crisis, and with Ohio ranked No. 1 in foreclosures nationwide, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association, addressing this issue is of critical importance to me and all of my constituents in the great State of Ohio. The reason Ohio is experiencing a foreclosure crisis has nothing to do with speculators. It has to do with a bubble of rapidly rising prices. Ohio has a foreclosure crisis despite the fact that house prices never did increase there as they did in other parts of the country. Ohio families have been losing their homes because Ohio manufacturing workers have been losing their jobs.

It is the same story next door in Michigan. Our amendment is one step in the plan to turn things around for workers in these and other manufacturing States so families have the income to stay in their homes.

Our amendment will help unprofitable companies--many of which are in Ohio--to use existing AMT and R&D credits in 2008 to stimulate their businesses, turn profits, and create new jobs. The amendment would allow companies operating in the red to use the AMT and R&D credits already on their books instead of bonus depreciation deductions, as long as the money is used to expand operations in the United States.

Bonus depreciation has already been included in the economic stimulus package, but it left out companies that don't have income against which to deduct their expenses because they are not making any money. This is an important thing. Ironically, these are the companies that are most in need of relief during a strained economy, but they are not receiving it.

My colleagues should also note that this amendment is fiscally responsible because it simply allows for the speedier use of tax credits that would be used anyway in the future. In other words--and I wasn't aware of this--companies that are not making money pay an AMT corporate tax, and what happens is when they do start making money, they deduct the corporate AMT from the taxes, so in effect they get credit for that corporate AMT. We are basically saying let's let those companies--because they cannot use the bonus depreciation--use that AMT credit so they can create jobs and keep people working. So this basically lets them use these credits speedier than they would ordinarily be used if we waited over a longer period of time.

I want everybody to know we will continue to work with the Joint Committee on Taxation to get a fiscally responsible revenue estimate. We have every reason to believe it is going to be very small during this 10-year period. As a matter of fact, if you take into consideration that these companies, down the road, would use the R&D or their corporate AMT, it could end up being a wash.

This bipartisan amendment has wide-ranging support from the biotech industry, to the American auto industry, to the coal industry. All of these industries are hurting and need a boost to get back on track. This amendment would give them that boost to make investments now and create jobs so Americans can keep their homes. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and work to protect their constituents' jobs and homes.

I yield the floor to the Senator from Michigan, whom I appreciate joining me on this amendment. It is something the two of us have been working on for quite some time. I am glad we have a bipartisan group that understands how important it is to our respective States and to this country.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to

correct what I perceive to be an anomaly in the law. I am grateful to be joined in my efforts by my good friend and partner in human capital reform, Senator Akaka.

The enabling statute of the Department of Homeland Security requires the Chief Human Capital Officer, or CHCO, to be appointed by the President. This differs from all other departments and agencies where the head of the agency designates the CHCO. Using that authority, agency heads have varied in appointing Chief Human Capital Officers who are political appointees as well as career employees.

This bill would strike the provision of statute that requires the Chief Human Capital Officer to be appointed by the President. Therefore, the Department would be covered by section 1401 of title 5, which directs the head of each agency to appoint the CHCO. Of the 23 agencies that make up the Chief Human Capital Officers Council, 11 are career employees.

As the Department prepares for its first transition between administrations, it is imperative that there are able and capable individuals in place to continue its important mission and all related functions. Key to a successful Department of Homeland Security is a well trained workforce. I believe central to this smooth transition would be a career Chief Human Capital Officer. While I have no intention of mandating that position be a career position, I believe the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security should have the flexibility and authority to hire a career employee to that position, just as all other agency heads do, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to

correct what I perceive to be an anomaly in the law. I am grateful to be joined in my efforts by my good friend and partner in human capital reform, Senator Akaka.

The enabling statute of the Department of Homeland Security requires the Chief Human Capital Officer, or CHCO, to be appointed by the President. This differs from all other departments and agencies where the head of the agency designates the CHCO. Using that authority, agency heads have varied in appointing Chief Human Capital Officers who are political appointees as well as career employees.

This bill would strike the provision of statute that requires the Chief Human Capital Officer to be appointed by the President. Therefore, the Department would be covered by section 1401 of title 5, which directs the head of each agency to appoint the CHCO. Of the 23 agencies that make up the Chief Human Capital Officers Council, 11 are career employees.

As the Department prepares for its first transition between administrations, it is imperative that there are able and capable individuals in place to continue its important mission and all related functions. Key to a successful Department of Homeland Security is a well trained workforce. I believe central to this smooth transition would be a career Chief Human Capital Officer. While I have no intention of mandating that position be a career position, I believe the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security should have the flexibility and authority to hire a career employee to that position, just as all other agency heads do, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to one of the giants in Ohio history, Senator Howard Metzenbaum. On March 12, Ohio and our Nation lost a public servant who dedicated 19 years of his life to this institution and to defending and advocating the principles and ideals he held so passionately.

Though our political views differed, I admired and respected Howard's tenacious work for those things he felt would make a difference for Ohio and our country. One always knew where he stood.

Much has been said about how Howard was a self-made man. He epitomized the nose-to-the-grindstone, Midwestern work ethic. As a fellow Clevelander, he grew up poor. But that did not prevent Howard from seizing opportunities as they presented themselves. And he seized those opportunities even as a young boy. Howard graduated from the Ohio State University College of Law, working the entire time to put himself through school.

As public servants for Ohio, Howard and I were brought together on many issues and occasions. Many times we did not see eye to eye. However, there were also times when we worked together. While I was Governor of Ohio, then-Senator Metzenbaum, Representative Marcy Kaptur and I worked together in a bipartisan fashion to plant the seed for the Veteran's Glass City Skyway bridge in Toledo, Ohio. Through his leadership, we were able to dedicate the bridge this past summer.

Some of my colleagues today were here for parts of Howard's 19 years in

the Senate. Those who were here and were on the opposite side of an issue quickly found out what a formidable challenge and powerhouse he could be. Howard did not go along to get along. Howard did what he thought was right and what he thought was in the best interests for the people he represented.

It was with respect for his service and convictions that Howard was honored in 2005 by renaming the renovated United States Courthouse in Cleveland the Howard M. Metzenbaum Courthouse--a fitting tribute to a man who, when he perceived an injustice, fought so hard to make a wrong right. Howard Metzenbaum made a difference.

Howard will be missed. His family, including his wife Shirley and his four daughters, Shelly, Amy, Susan and Barbara, are in our prayers.

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, amendment 4238, which I will call up at the appropriate time, but for now I would like to explain to my colleagues what this amendment is about.

This amendment is very similar to a provision Senator Gregg included in the Fiscal Year 2007 Budget resolution. It would stop Congress's addiction to emergency spending. It would create a point of order against any spending over a designated amount set aside for emergencies--called an ``emergency reserve fund.'' By now Congress knows that we will have emergencies every year.

We should, therefore, set aside a designated amount for true emergencies to meet that obligation and try to stick to it, rather than continuing on with an unlimited emergency designation that just invites abuse and irresponsible budgeting.

When I was Governor of Ohio I had a rainy day fund, or a savings account, for those economic downturns or unforeseen events beyond the control of even the best money managers. Soon after I arrived at the statehouse, I discovered that Ohio's rainy day fund was at 14 cents, but by the end of my eight years as Governor, I had increased the rainy day fund balance to $906.9 million.

Again and again, the United States Congress has abused the emergency designation to skirt around budget limits and pay-go. We all understand that on occasion we face natural disasters or unanticipated crises such as Hurricane Katrina and 9/11 that require emergency resources. For this reason, we cannot estimate all of our emergency spending in the budget each year.

But I am extremely concerned that Congress has abused the emergency designation in recent years to spend large sums of money outside the budget for purposes that are not true emergencies. Congress doesn't even count the money as spending. If spending is designated as ``emergency,'' it is exempted from budget controls and spending limits. Congress doesn't even count the money on spending.

An example of the sort of abuse of emergency spending that concerns me is the designation of funding for the 2000 Census as an emergency, even though the U.S. Constitution has required a census be conducted every 10 years since 1790. The definition of ``emergency'' uses words like ``sudden'' and ``unforeseen.'' But in 2000 we had known about the census for 210 years. This is absurd.

As part of my effort to reign in wasteful spending and conduct meaningful oversight of government programs, I asked the GAO to review trends in so-called ``emergency'' and ``supplemental'' spending over the decade stretching from 1997 through 2006, as well as propose reforms to ensure that emergency funding truly is for real emergencies and not simply a way to camouflage spending that is driving up the national debt.

GAO found that $31 billion over a 10-year period did not fit the definition of an ``emergency,'' 35 spending accounts received emergency funding in at least six out of 10 years, and over one-third of emergency spending has no time limit on when agencies can spend the money.

My amendment would state that the fiscal year 2009 emergency designation can only be used for $65 billion worth of spending- reserving $50 billion for the global war on terror and leaving another 15 billion for any legitimate emergencies. Of course, this $50 billion would be in addition to the $70 billion already in the Budget for Iraq and Afghanistan-and so my amendment would allow $120 billion total for the global war on terror outside the discretionary spending limits.

This point of order could be raised against any spending over the designated amount set aside for emergencies and would make clear that this increase in spending would have to bust through the regular budget. Of course, the Senate could still bust the budget with 60 votes, but at least someone would be throwing a penalty flag so that we are being honest about it, instead of using the emergency label to claim we are staying within the budget when we are not.

Mr. President, $50 billion is based on the 5-year average for emergency defense spending and $15 billion is based on the 10-year average for certain other types of emergencies, as estimated by the GAO. These levels are based on a recent study conducted at my request by the Government Accountability Office evaluating recent trends in emergency spending.

I hope that my amendment can find broad bipartisan support, and that we can begin to eliminate some of the outright abuses of the emergency designation.

It is time for us to be honest with the American people about the true state of our nation's fiscal health and stop relying on smoke and mirrors. The longer Congress waits before it gets serious about fiscal responsibility, the heavier the burden will be for our kids and grandkids. And it all starts with honest and transparent budgeting.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, as we prepare to consider the budget resolution next week, I rise today to comment on the need for fiscal responsibility and reform of the very financial pillars that support our Government's foundation. Building on a speech I gave last October, and in the tradition of another Member of this body, Senator Fritz Hollings, I hope to regularly provide my colleagues and the American people with updates on our growing national debt. We need to be reminded of the fiscal reality which we find ourselves in. We cannot continue to live in a state of denial.

The Congressional Budget Office projects a $219 billion budget deficit for 2008--that is the fiscal year we are in right now--which does not include the $152 billion economic stimulus package President Bush recently signed into law. With the addition of the economic stimulus bill, the 2008 projected deficit can be assumed to be $371 billion in 2008.

But even that figure hides the true degree to which our official situation has deteriorated, mainly because it uses every dime of the Social Security surplus. I think it is important for our colleagues to understand we are using every dime of the Social Security surplus, as well as surpluses in other trust funds, to hide the true size of the Government's operating deficit.

If you wall off the Social Security surplus so that Congress can't spend it on other programs, as I believe we should, then the Government's operating deficit amounts to $566 billion, over 50 percent more than the reported deficit of $371 billion. In other words, what we do is we hide from the American people the fact that we are borrowing money from ourselves to run our Government, and the only thing we report to them is the public debt, but we don't report to them the Government debt. So when we make these figures available, we will say, oh, the deficit is $371 billion, but the truth of the matter is, when you add in the Social Security surplus, it is $566 billion.

But the annual difference between revenues and outlays is not what is truly threatening our future. It is the cumulative ongoing increase in our national debt that matters. Unfortunately, many in Washington pretend that the debt doesn't even exist. How often do you hear anybody talk about the national debt? They don't.

I think we all remember that in 1992 Ross Perot was out running around America talking about our fiscal irresponsibility and the national debt. At that time, Ross Perot--and this is 1992--predicted that by 2007, the national debt would be $8 trillion. Well, the fact is, he was wrong. It is $1 trillion more. It is $9 trillion.

Now, the interesting thing is that from the beginning of our country to 1992, it is something like 200 years. We have since 1992 increased the debt--doubled it--from what it was. In other words, in the last 15 years, we have increased the debt more than what it was for the first 200 years. Think about that--200 years. And the tragedy of it is that each and every American--man, woman, and child--owes $30,000. That is what we all owe today.

Here are some additional facts: 47\1/2\ percent of that privately owned national debt is held by foreign creditors, mostly foreign central banks. That is up from 13.3 percent only 5 years ago. And who are the foreign creditors? The three largest creditors are Japan, China, and the oil exporting countries, or the OPEC nations. Can you imagine how high our interest rates would soar if these countries moved out their investment to somewhere else? In other words, if they would get shaky about where we are in terms of our U.S. economy.

According to the S&P and Moody's, U.S. treasuries will lose their triple-A credit in 2012. In other words, by 2012, our treasuries are going to lose their triple-A rating. That is the best rating you can get. In dollar purchases, I think most of us remember when we could take the American dollar and buy more Canadian dollars. Today, a dollar buys 98 cents of a Canadian dollar. In Europe, it takes $1.52 to buy one Euro.

I have traveled overseas in the last several years, and at one time everybody wanted the American dollar. They called them Reagans. I want a Reagan.

Well, the fact is, today they do not want Reagans, they wanted Euros. Our long-term fiscal situation makes short-term responsible budgeting today even more important. The adoption of a biennial budget for the Federal Government, as I had as Governor of Ohio, would ensure Congress can get its work done on time while also conducting the oversight necessary to ensure that programs and agencies are functioning effectively.

I am hoping we can convince the chairman of the House Budget Committee that this is something that would be great for this country because it is a systemic change that would make a real difference.

I have long championed this issue. I have been a cosponsor of Senator Domenici's Biennial Budgeting Act since I came to the Senate in 1999. I have been advocating for its passage nearly 10 years.

In 25 of the last 30 years, Congress has failed to enact all of the appropriations bills by the start of the fiscal year, instead passing omnibus bills and continuing resolutions. Government-by-CR has consequences: Agencies cannot plan for the future, they cannot make hiring decisions, and they cannot sign contracts.

In the next several weeks, I am going to give another speech on the floor of the Senate to remind people about the disruption our not being able to pass budgets on time and the effect continuing resolutions have on inefficient Government and our inability to do the

job the taxpayers want us to do. As I said, we get more waste and inefficiency from the Government by what we are doing. We get lower quality services provided to the people. At the end of the day, we get higher spending and less accountability and oversight of the taxpayers' money. This is irresponsible management, and it has to stop.

Biennial budgeting will ensure Congress does its job and actually looks back to see if the money we have spent is doing what it is supposed to do.

While biennial budgeting can restore order to the appropriations process, it will not solve our long-term entitlement problems or reform our Tax Code. We must enact fundamental tax reform to help make the Tax Code simple, fair, transparent, and economically efficient.

Tax reform is not just a matter of saving taxpayers time and effort; this is about saving taxpayers real money. The Tax Foundation estimates that comprehensive tax reform could save us much as $265 billion in compliance costs associated with preparing our returns.

People come to my office every day, and I ask them: How many of you do your own tax returns? And the answer is most of them--the hands go up. I am an attorney. I used to make out my own return. I used to do them for my clients. I would not touch my tax return today with a 10- foot pole.

Now, if we can straighten this out through good tax reform, fair, easy to understand, even if we did it halfway, it would save almost $160 billion for all of the taxpayers of this country. That is a real tax reduction, and it is something that would not cost the Treasury one dime.

In January 2005, President Bush announced the creation of an all-star panel led by former Senators Mack and Breaux, and that panel spent most of the year engaging the American public to develop proposals to make our Tax Code simpler, more fair, and more conducive to economic growth.

In November 2005, the panel issued its final report. While not perfect in everyone's mind, the panel's two plans provided a starting point for developing tax reform legislation that will represent a huge improvement over the current system. The panel's proposals belong as a key part of the national discussion on fundamental tax reform.

Last January, I introduced the Securing America's Future Economy--or SAFE--Commission Act, legislation that would create a bipartisan commission to look at our Nation's tax and entitlement systems and recommend reforms to put us back on a fiscally sustainable course and ensure the solvency of entitlement programs for future generations. My colleague, Senator Isakson, has joined me as a cosponsor.

Democratic Congressman Jim Cooper of Tennessee and Republican Frank Wolf of Virginia introduced a bipartisan version of the SAFE Commission in the House, where they have 73 cosponsors from both parties. This bipartisan, bicameral group has support from corporate executives, religious leaders, think tanks across the political spectrum, from the Heritage Foundation to the Brookings Institution, and former members from both parties.

On the heels of this, two of my colleagues, the Budget Committee chairman from North Dakota and the ranking member from New Hampshire, recently introduced a bipartisan bill that would create a tax and entitlement reform commission entitled the ``Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action.'' I signed on as a cosponsor of the Conrad- Gregg proposal. I look forward to working with them to restore fiscal sanity to the U.S. Government.

I would like to comment on the efforts of Divided We Fail, a coalition comprised of the AARP, Business Roundtable, Service Employees Union, and the National Federation of Independent Businesses, for encouraging bipartisan congressional action on this legislation. I want to repeat that. Here is a group. They call themselves Divided We Fail. It is made up of the AARP, the Business Roundtable, and the National Federation of Independent Businesses, which are supporting this. What an interesting array of individuals who think it is time for us to do entitlement and tax reform.

I am encouraged that the Senate Budget Committee is planning to mark up the Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action, and I urge my colleagues to pass this critical legislation before the close of 2008.

The next President, whoever that may be, should be ready in January 2009 to work with the task force in addressing these critical reform issues. What we are doing now is not working for us. We know that oversight is an important part of our job. But oversight takes time. We must identify programs that are mired in waste, fraud, and abuse.

Another piece of legislation I have introduced, along with Senator Cornyn, is the United States Authorization and Sunset Commission Act. This legislation would create a bipartisan commission to make recommendations to Congress on whether to reauthorize, reorganize, or terminate Federal programs. It would establish a systemic process to review unauthorized programs and agencies and, if applicable, programs that are rated as ``ineffective'' or ``results not demonstrated'' under the program assessment rating tool, which is called PART. Hopefully, the next administration will adopt the criteria the Bush administration has set for PART.

Now, this legislation does not take away from our obligations to make difficult decisions about which programs to continue and those that we can no longer afford to support. What it does is provide an opportunity to work harder and smarter and do more with less.

I believe by establishing this commission to do a thorough examination of programs and agencies using the established criteria, and a transparent reporting process, we can carry out our oversight responsibility more efficiently and effectively.

The legislation will help us distinguish between worthwhile programs and those that have outlived their purpose, are poorly targeted, operate inefficiently, or simply are not producing results taxpayers expect. I used such a commission as Governor of Ohio, and it has helped us work harder and smarter and do more with less.

As we near the end of the Presidential primary season and move into the nominating conventions, the Presidential candidates of both parties should address the critical issue of tax reform, entitlement spending, and budget process reform.

All of the leading Presidential candidates are Members of the Senate. The American electorate should demand that they take a stand on the SAFE Commission and on the Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action. Voters should demand that Congress pass this bill this year and insist Presidential candidates pledge that upon being elected, they will guarantee that one of their first actions they take as President is to make their appointments to this task force. The Presidential candidates should have recommendations on tax reform, entitlement reform, and biennial budgeting.

But I am afraid that the candidates, whether Democratic or Republican, will avoid these topics, because these challenges require tough choices. Where is Ross Perot? Where is Ross Perot? Voters must ask candidates if they are willing to discuss our country's financial future. If a candidate avoids this topic of responsibility in the campaign, how can voters trust them to be forthright after they are elected?

The former Comptroller General, David Walker, has said:

The greatest threat to our future is our fiscal

irresponsibility.

He added:

America suffers from a serious case of myopia, or

nearsightedness, both in the public sector and in the private

sector. We need to start focusing more on the future. We need

to start recognizing the realities that we are on an

imprudent and unsustainable fiscal path and we need to get

started now.

I have three children and seven grandchildren. My wife Janet and I are wondering whether they are going to have the same opportunities we have had, as well as the same standard of living or our quality of life. I question what kind of legacy we are going to leave them as a nation.

The time to act is now. When you look at the numbers, it is self- evident that we must confront our swelling national debt, and we must make a considered bipartisan effort to reform our tax system, slow the growth of entitlement spending, and halt this freight

train that is threatening to crush our kids' and grandkids' future. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to take care of it now. All of us--all of us--should think about them. We have a moral responsibility to the future of this country, our children and our grandchildren, to make sure our legacy is one that we can be proud of, that they will have the same opportunities we had during our lifetime.

Mr. President, I wish to remember the trials faced by the Ukrainian people and to pay tribute to their fortitude and love of freedom. At times in its history, Ukraine has been exploited and suffered greatly under repressive occupations. The Stalinist regime of the former Soviet Union sought to maintain control of the people and resources of the Ukraine through vicious oppression. The Ukrainian people have weathered many trials, but they have always fought for their freedom. It is my belief that as we embrace Ukraine's future, we must always remember the hardships of its past.

The Ukrainian peasantry rebelled against the collectivization policies imposed on them by the Stalinist regime starting in 1925. It is documented that very few farmers voluntarily joined collectives until Soviet secret police and Bolshevik brigades were sent to crush the resistance. As agricultural production fell in 1932 due to drought and these Stalinist policies, the regime attempted to maintain its export level. To do this the regime brutally confiscated grain and foodstuffs from hunger-stricken villages. Trade and supplies of food and goods were banned from those villages which were considered to be ``underperforming,'' while families who resisted were banished to central Asia. The totalitarian regime meted out harsh sentences, even the death penalty, against those who stole even small amounts of grain. We can never forget that over 2,000 innocent people, including children as young as 12 years old, were executed under this law.

In 1932, Stalin imposed barricades throughout the USSR to prevent peasants from fleeing those regions stricken by famine. It was a state- organized program of mass starvation against the nation of Ukraine as a whole and the revived Ukrainian nationalism. It had been inflicted on them deliberately to punish Ukraine and destroy the basis of its nationhood. The famine-genocide of the Holodomor resulted in the tragic and unforgettable loss of millions of Ukrainian lives. Nevertheless, the Stalinist regime denied reports of mass deaths and forbade travel to the area to deter foreign journalists from reporting on these terrible crimes. In fact, these horrible crimes remained largely unknown to the broader world for decades as a result of the denials and coverups of the Soviet authorities and their refusal of offers of international aid.

Through its determination to remember the victims of the famine and Soviet oppression, the Ukrainian American community has helped to bring these events to light. Their efforts have helped to give a voice to the millions of people who suffered, starved, and died as a result of a flawed policy and authoritarian regime.

On the 75th anniversary of the Ukrainian famine-genocide, we must continue the important work of the Ukrainian American community by remembering the cruel injustices suffered by the Ukrainian people during that part of history. By so doing, we are not only honoring the millions of victims of this oppression, but we are helping to prevent a tragedy like this from happening again in the future.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the Levin amendment on Iraq. As my colleagues know, I have long supported a greater level of oversight in the war in Iraq. Many of us feel we should have done a better job of force oversight at the beginning of the war. I was quite taken with a quote from Condoleezza Rice recently, who said, ``I wish we had known more about Iraq before we went in.''

While in Iraq in August, I witnessed a great deal of progress on the ground. That gave me encouragement. However, I was also convinced that it would not be possible to sustain the current level of troops and funding for Iraq over the long term without damaging our national security and long-term fiscal health.

As stated before, I believe we need to implement a plan to reduce our military presence in Iraq and focus the remaining military presence on a more limited role. This is clearly the plan General Petraeus is implementing now, and it is the stated goal of the President, as mentioned in the Levin amendment, supported by Secretary Gates and others who are concerned about our force level, and that we need more troops in Afghanistan. I have been working with Senator Levin for several months now to come up with a piece of legislation that could secure bipartisan support in the Senate and send a message to the President and the world that the Congress intends to exercise oversight to ensure we are making progress toward this goal. I have been careful to avoid supporting any measure that I thought would hurt our troops in any way, tie the hands of our brave commanders in the field, or prevent the President from responding to the situation on the ground.

In September, I introduced a bill with Senators Alexander, Coleman, and Dole to strive for a goal to reduce our military presence. We had bipartisan support for that, but Senator Levin and I had a problem with the date. Unfortunately, it fell by the wayside.

I support the Levin amendment, and I am a cosponsor to this legislation because I believe it is a very simple piece of legislation that accomplished the goals we all share. It sends the message that we support the President's declared goal of reducing our presence in Iraq over time so we can play a more supportive role, bring our forces home, and reduce the burden on our military. It is a sense of Congress and will not bind the President in any way or tie the commanders' hands in the field. It is supported by the President's own declared goals and that of his commander, General Petraeus--who is doing, by the way, an incredible job. It provides a goal for limiting our role in Iraq, and that goal is to end at the end of next year. But, unlike other past legislation, this date is not legally binding and would allow the President to respond according to the security conditions on the ground.

I believe this amendment will not hurt our aspirations in Iraq in any way but will actually help our President and General Petraeus, who are striving now to hand over more responsibility to the Iraqis.

This week, it was announced that the Iraq Government is ready to take over local security groups, with our support. This is an important step, and it is a step in the right direction. We need to continue in this direction. We need to make it our goal. We need to let the Iraqis know that they must take more responsibility for their own security.

We must make it clear to them that we spent over $550 billion, that we have lost almost 3,900 individuals, 26,000 people have been wounded over there, and half of them are going to be disabled for the rest of their lives.

We have paid a tremendous price. It is time for them to step up to the table and start doing more for themselves. I support this amendment so Congress can send that message that we are not simply funding a never-ending conflict in Iraq, we have a goal of reducing our presence there, and we are working toward it.

I hope my colleagues realize the sensibility behind this very simple piece of legislation and join me in supporting it today.

Madam President, I rise in support of the Water Resources Development Act conference report.

It has been 6 years since Congress last passed a water resources and development reauthorization bill. The time has come to finally pass this important legislation. I am very disappointed that the President has vetoed this bill.

America's infrastructure and waterways system is the foundation of our economy. For too long, we have been ignoring our infrastructure, but Katrina was a wake-up call for all of us. In the wake of this disaster, we saw firsthand the devastating impact of a weak infrastructure on our people and our economy. The more we continue to fail to fund our water infrastructure, the more we are putting our Nation's competitiveness at risk in this global marketplace.

Our physical infrastructure is a critical piece to making America more competitive. Our infinite needs are overwhelming and being squeezed. We should be rebuilding an infrastructure of competitiveness so that future generations have at least the same opportunity to enjoy our standard of living and quality of life. If we continue to ignore the upkeep--the deterioration of our locks and dams, flood control projects, and navigation channels--we risk disruptions in waterborne commerce, decreased protection against floods as we saw in Katrina and other environmental damage.

Additionally, I am pleased that this bill includes many provisions that will benefit the Great Lakes. First, there is authority for the Corps to deal with a very serious threat facing the Great Lakes. Asian carp are just miles from the lakes, and the only thing standing in their way is a temporary dispersal barrier in the Chicago Ship & Sanitary Canal. This bill authorizes the Corps to complete construction of Barrier II which is the permanent barrier as well as to convert Barrier I into a permanent facility and to operate and maintain both dispersal barriers at full Federal cost. Under this authority, the Corps would study options for hydrologic separation of the canal and the Great Lakes while maintaining the movement of cargo and recreational vessels.

This bill clarifies that any reconnaissance study under the Great Lakes Fishery & Ecosystem Restoration program is to be performed at full federal expense. The Great Lakes navigation system has been associated with impacts on Great Lakes fishery resources, and the purpose of the Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration program is for the Corps to cooperate with others to plan, implement, and evaluate projects supporting the restoration of the fishery, ecosystem, and beneficial uses of the Great Lakes. When Congress authorized this program initially, the intention was for the Corps to develop projects under this authority just like other programs. That means that the reconnaissance study is to be a fully federal expense, and cost-sharing is required for subsequent study, engineering, design, and construction.

This bill reauthorizes the Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans and Sediment Remediation and the Great Lakes

Tributary Models Program. These are two programs that allow the Corps to provide assistance for controlling the source of sediments and to identifying specific actions to resolve pollution problems.

Also contained in this bill is authority directing the Corps to expedite the operation and maintenance, including dredging, of the navigation features of the Great Lakes and connecting channels for the purpose of supporting navigation. The Corps has a huge backlog of work, and that backlog includes the Great Lakes. Freighters are getting stuck in shipping channels, other ships are carrying reduced loads, and some shipments have simply ceased altogether. The Corps estimates a backlog of 16 million cubic yards of dredging at commercial Great Lakes harbors and channels, which the Army Corps expects will cost about $192 million to address. In order to help address this backlog, the Corps will be authorized to expedite this work.

Lastly, this bill allows the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation to carry out much-needed repairs, including maintenance dredging, of the Eisenhower and Snell lock facilities and related navigational infrastructure for the St. Lawrence Seaway. Unfortunately, like many of our infrastructure projects, we have not done much upkeep of the St. Lawrence Seaway. This bill will allow for those improvements to be made at a total cost of $134,650,000.

The passage of this WRDA conference report cannot be delayed any further. It is simply too important to our Nation in terms of its benefits to our economy and environment and for the speedy recovery for the areas affected by Hurricane Katrina.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to override the President's veto.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 30 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise today to comment on the sad state of the appropriations process, as well as our long-term fiscal health. The new fiscal year began 23 days ago, and we are debating appropriations bills that haven't even passed the Senate yet, as Government agencies operate on temporary, stopgap funding. When we Republicans were in the majority, we consistently failed to enact all of the appropriations bills before the end of the fiscal year. We enacted short-term continuing resolutions, or CRs, to keep agencies funded while we wrapped several of those bills into an end-of-the-year omnibus bill.

After the Democrats won control of the Senate, I sincerely hoped they would fulfill their promises to manage the budget better. But while the party in power has changed, the results have stayed the same. In fact, the results, so far, have been even worse. Fiscal year 2008 has already started, and we have enacted exactly zero appropriation bills.

Government-by-CR has consequences. Agencies cannot plan for the future. They cannot make hiring decisions. They cannot sign contracts. As a result, we get more waste and inefficiency from Government. We get lower quality services provided to the people. At the end of the day, we get higher spending and less accountability and oversight of the taxpayers' money.

On September 23, the New York Times reported that our failures could have a devastating effect on cancer research because scientists are waiting around to hear if they will receive grants for their innovative research ideas. The same article quoted a transportation industry representative as saying our failure could have major implications for anyone who rides in cars, trucks, trains, buses, and subways. If you want more examples of how Congress's failure to do its job on time affects ordinary Americans, I invite you to visit my Web site, where I provide several additional examples.

That is why a bipartisan group of Senators agree that we need to adopt biennial budgeting by the Federal Government, such as I had as Governor of Ohio, so Congress can get its work done on time while also conducting the oversight necessary to ensure that programs and agencies are functioning effectively.

Senator Domenici has been a leader on biennial budgeting for years. We should adopt it during this Congress and name it the Pete Domenici Biennial Budgeting Act as part of Pete's legacy to this country.

Putting aside our short-term failures and focusing on our long-term problems, in January I introduced the Securing America's Future Economy, or SAFE Commission Act, legislation that would create a bipartisan commission to look at our Nation's tax and entitlement systems and recommend reforms to put us back on a fiscally sustainable course and ensure the solvency of entitlement programs for future generations.

I commend two of my colleagues, the Budget Committee chairman from North Dakota and the ranking member from New Hampshire, for recently introducing a bipartisan bill that would create a tax and entitlement reform task force very similar to my SAFE commission. In fact, I saw them on CNBC recently talking about it. The only major difference is that Senators Conrad and Gregg require every congressional appointee to be a sitting Member of Congress, whereas the SAFE commission would include outside experts. I have signed on as a cosponsor of the Conrad- Gregg proposal, and I am pleased to learn they intend to hold a hearing on the bill in the very near future. I look forward to working with them to get the bill passed.

I also commend Democratic Congressman Jim Cooper of Tennessee and Republican Congressman Frank Wolf of Virginia who introduced a bipartisan SAFE commission bill in the House of Representatives. I have been working with Congressman Wolf for more than a year on this proposal, and I welcome Congressman Cooper's decision to join us.

This bipartisan, bicameral group has support from corporate executives, religious leaders, and think tanks across the political spectrum, from the Heritage Foundation to the Brookings Institution, and former Members from both parties, such as former Senators Warren Rudman and Bob Kerrey, and former Congressmen Bill Frenzel and Leon Panetta.

Our entitlement programs are creaking under the strain of an aging society and runaway health care costs. Our Tax Code is imploding from the hundreds of economic and social policies that Congress pursues through tax incentives and from the dozens of temporary tax provisions that wreak havoc on families and businesses trying to plan their affairs.

Neither our major entitlement programs nor our Tax Code are sustainable in the current form. The appropriations bills that we are debating this week are shrinking as a share of the budget as entitlements crowd out domestic discretionary spending. We must come together and develop a bipartisan consensus to fix these systems so our children and grandchildren can enjoy prosperity and increasing standards of living.

I want to share with my colleagues some extraordinary numbers that reveal our Nation's looming fiscal crisis. I speak out of concern not only for our generation but also for our children and our grandchildren. They are going to bear the burden of reckless fiscal policies.

Sir Edmund Burke, the father of conservative thought, said:

Society is . . . a partnership not only between those who

are living, but between those who are living, those who are

dead, and those who are to be born.

Unless we change course, we will break that partnership with those who are yet to be born. This grave situation can be addressed only through hard bipartisan work, and we must begin our work now, for every day we wait, the solutions become more painful.

In the simplest of terms, the Federal Government continues to spend more than it brings in. Running up the credit card for today's needs and leaving the bill for future generations should not be the policy of this country, this Congress, or this administration. It represents a recklessness that threatens our economic security, our global competitiveness, and our future quality of life. The Federal Government has become the biggest violator of credit card abuse in the world.

Comptroller David Walker has said:

The greatest threat to our future is our fiscal

irresponsibility.

He added:

America suffers from a serious case of myopia, or

nearsightedness, both in the public sector and the private

sector. We need to start focusing more on the future. We need

to start recognizing the reality that we're on an imprudent

and unsustainable fiscal path, and we need to get started

now.

Everyone in this great body should heed Comptroller Walker's warning.

Our commitments to the war on terror, to securing our borders, to educating our workforce, and to investing in our Nation's infrastructure demand tremendous resources and require long-term financial commitments. At the same time, we cannot ignore the demographic tide that will soon overwhelm our resources. We need a system for raising the revenues necessary to fund these priorities that does as little damage to the economy as possible. In short, the need for tax reform and entitlement reform has never been greater.

A historical perspective helps to highlight the gravity of our current situation.

The fiscal year 2007 budget deficit was $163 billion, but that figure hides the true degree to which our fiscal situation has deteriorated, mainly because it uses every dime of the Social

Security surplus, as well as surpluses in other trust funds, to hide the true size of the Government's operating deficit. The Social Security surplus, however, must be reserved for future retirees. As far as I know, you cannot spend the same money twice, but Congress keeps pretending that it can.

If you wall off the Social Security surplus so Congress cannot spend it on other programs, as I believe we should do, then the Government's operating deficit more than doubles to $344 billion, not $163 billion. And if you add back the money the Government is borrowing from other trust funds, such as Federal employee pensions, the deficit explodes to $441 billion, almost triple the reported deficit.

In other words, we are hiding from the public how much we are borrowing because we don't tell them about the money we are borrowing from trust funds. As a result, they see these numbers, such as the $163 billion, and they think things are getting better, but we are hiding the fact that we are spending every dime of these trust funds to keep the Government going.

The annual difference between revenues and outlays is not what is truly threatening our future. It is the cumulative, ongoing increase in our national debt that matters.

Remember, in 1992 when Ross Perot ran for President and he showed us those frightening fiscal charts? Well, I have my own charts, and I call these charts my Halloween charts. I call them that because, No. 1, the Government's new fiscal year starts in October and, No. 2, because the fiscal picture is terrifying.

Fifteen years ago, when Ross Perot was sounding the alarm, the national debt was about $4 trillion. He showed a chart projecting that by 2007, the debt would increase to $8 trillion. Well, guess what. As of 2007, the national debt stands at almost $9 trillion. Ross Perot's doomsday predictions turned out to be too rosy. In the more than 200 years that have passed between the Declaration of Independence and Ross Perot's 1992 campaign, the U.S. Government accumulated $4 trillion in debt. We have now added even more than that in the last 15 years.

This Congress has acknowledged that it will pass right by $9 trillion. A few weeks ago, Congress very quietly voted to allow the national debt to increase by another $800 billion, from about $9 trillion to $9.8 trillion.

What does that mean, $9 trillion? How do we even fathom that number? For one thing, it represents two-thirds of our entire national economy, the worst number in 50 years. For another thing, it means that each man, woman, and child in the United States owes $30,000 of the Federal Government's debt. I want my colleagues to think about these young people, the pages here today. All of you, every one of you, owe $30,000 on the debt we have accumulated.

That $30,000 only represents the debt racked up by the Government in the past. Because we continue borrowing more than we bring in, that number is increasing every single day. And those numbers pale in comparison with the budget problems looming in our future as the baby boom generation begins to retire just 69 days from now, on January 1, 2008. In fact, just last week, the first baby boomer applied for Social Security retirement benefits. Reality is setting in that this is not just a far-off prediction. It is a growing storm that threatens to overwhelm our economy if we do not act now.

Perhaps even more concerning is that 55 percent of the privately owned debt is held by foreign creditors, mostly foreign central banks. That's up from 35 percent just 6 years ago. Foreign creditors provided more than 80 percent of the funds the United States has borrowed since 2001, according to the Wall Street Journal.

And who are these foreign creditors? According to the Treasury Department, the three largest holders of U.S. debt are China, Japan, and the OPEC nations. Borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from China and OPEC puts not only our future economy, but also our national security, at risk. It is critical that we ensure that countries that control our debt do not control our future.

If after hearing all this, one still thinks this is a problem that exists only in the distant future, consider recent projections by the major credit rating agency, Standard & Poor's. For decades, U.S. Treasuries have been considered the risk-free investment against which the risks of all other investments are judged. A good place to invest, our Treasuries. In fact, the global financial system is largely based on the notion of U.S. Treasuries as the only risk-free investment out there.

But in just 5 years, that will cease to be true. According to Standard & Poor's, U.S. Treasuries will lose their triple-A credit rating in 2012 because of the Government's deteriorating long-term fiscal position. Don't think that the world markets aren't looking at what we are doing in the United States. What kind of global economic turmoil awaits us 5 years from now when the U.S. Government is considered as risky as a typical corporation? What happens if the foreign banks decide they are going to move their money out of the United States and send it somewhere else? And what economic catastrophe awaits our children and grandchildren in 2025 when Standard & Poor's projects that U.S. Treasuries will be classified as junk bonds?

Why do we refuse to see the warning signs? A decade ago, who ever would have imagined that the Canadian dollar would be worth just as much as a U.S. dollar? A few years ago, the Euro was worth 83 cents. Now it is worth $1.42. Meanwhile, our trade deficit has gone through the roof as we Americans are forced to borrow the money we need to buy foreign products.

What is driving this train wreck? Certainly additional revenues have to be part of the solution. But this is not a problem that will be solved simply by reaching deeper into the American people's pockets. Many colleagues are familiar with Pete Peterson, former Commerce Secretary. He made it clear that ``The minute you start looking at a tax increase as the primary solution, you're confronted with tax increases that are clearly beyond anything anyone can imagine.''

Even the Democratic chairman of the Budget Committee has acknowledged that most of the heavy lifting will have to be done on the spending side. Revenues will be on the table for sure, but the coming storm will require significant changes to entitlement programs.

Here are some numbers tho help put this situation in perspective. Forty years ago in 1967, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid made up only 3 percent of the GDP. In 2007, their cost has tripled as a share of the economy to 9 percent. The Congressional Budget Office projects that over the next 40 years, this number could double again to 18 percent, a frightening thought when we consider that in 2006 total federal revenues accounted for only 18 percent of GDP. It reminds me of when I was Governor of Ohio. I called Medicaid the Pac-Man in Ohio.

Well, today I would refer to entitlements as the Pac-Man in terms of our national finances. If entitlement spending continues on this path, we will be required to use every cent of our Federal revenue to fulfill these entitlement obligations. Our grandchildren will have no money for national defense, energy security, education, the environment, or our infrastructure. And, they'll look back at our generation and ask how we could be so reckless with their futures.

Our Nation faces one of the most competitive environments in its history, and the question is, in this new world of global competitiveness, will future generations be able to enjoy the same standard of living we are experiencing? Will my kids, will my grandchildren be able to enjoy the same standard of living I have enjoyed? Will they have the opportunity for the same quality of life? With the largest national debt in 50 years, will we be able to remain competitive with foreign economies?

Congress must view our Tax Code, entitlement system, and the budget process as three components or pillars of the Nation's fiscal foundation, and not as separate problems. Each is linked to the other two pillars, and we must reform all three to raise the necessary revenue to fund the Government in an economically efficient manner, to keep our obligations to future generations, and to keep the size of Government to a manageable level.

We must enact fundamental tax reform to help make the Tax Code simple, fair, transparent, and economically efficient. According to the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform, headed by former Senators Connie

Mack and John Breaux, only 13 percent--think of this, only 13 percent-- of taxpayers file without the help of either a tax preparer or computer software. Since enacting the Tax Reform Act of 1986, over 15,000 provisions have been added to the Internal Revenue Code.

It is not just a matter of saving taxpayers' time and effort. This is about saving real money. The Tax Foundation estimates that comprehensive tax reform could save Americans as much as $265 billion a year in compliance costs associated with preparing their returns. Now, that would be a real tax reduction that wouldn't cost the Treasury one dime.

Mr. President, I have been working on tax reform for years. In 2003, I attached an amendment to the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act that would have created a blue ribbon commission to study fundamental tax reform. The amendment was adopted by voice vote but later removed in conference. Then, in the autumn of 2004, I offered my tax reform commission amendment again, this time to the American Jobs Creation Act. The Senate again adopted my amendment. During conference negotiations, the White House contacted me and requested I withdraw my amendment because the President was preparing to take a leadership role by appointing his own tax reform panel. I enthusiastically agreed to defer to his leadership, and I withdrew my amendment. It seemed to me that the tax reform bandwagon was finally starting to roll.

In January 2005, President Bush announced the creation of the all- star panel headed up by former Senators Connie Mack and John Breaux, and that panel spent most of the year engaging the American public to develop proposals to make our Tax Code simpler, fairer, and more conducive to economic growth. In November of 2005, the panel issued its final report. While not perfect in everyone's mind, the panel's two plans provided a starting point for developing tax reform legislation that would represent a huge improvement over the current system. The panel's proposals belong as a key part of the national discussion on fundamental tax reform.

Tinkering with the current Tax Code won't get it done. Tinkering is what has got us in this mess in the first place. It's time to rip the Tax Code out by its roots and replace it with something that works.

The President's panel had a number of great ideas that we should incorporate into tax reform legislation. For example, we should simplify the code by repealing the complex, unfair, and antigrowth alternative minimum tax. We should consolidate all the various tax- preferred savings plans into just two or three plans that average workers and families can understand and utilize. We should scale back the tax subsidies that we use to pursue social engineering and dictate economic policy, forcing Americans who fail to qualify for tax breaks to pay higher rates to make up the lost revenue.

We must create a tax system that is conducive to job creation and economic growth. We should start by addressing one of the biggest problems with the current code, and that is it rewards moving production overseas. We are taxing our exports heavily and taxing our imports lightly. Such a system sounds absolutely perverse, but that's what we have in the United States.

In fact, a constituent of mine, Tom Secor, from Norwalk, OH, who owns his own small business, came to my office and told a story about a business trip he made to China. He said he saw an editorial in a Chinese newspaper that was discussing the concerns of Americans about Chinese competition. The conclusion of the editorial was that Americans could solve most of their problems with Chinese competition if they would just reform their own Tax Code. Imagine that, even Communist China knows the United States needs tax reform to stay competitive. But for some reason we refuse to learn that lesson ourselves.

We must also understand that unless we do tax reform, the lower marginal rates, the lower capital gains taxes, the lower taxes on dividends will evaporate and we will have gained nothing in regard to fundamental tax reform and entitlement reform. And I think such reform, folks, must take into account our failure to pay for the Iraq war. This administration will have to explain why they are leaving us holding the bag and why they did not keep their promise for tax reform. They promised us.

I know there is bipartisan support in this chamber to move forward on fundamental tax reform. Some of our colleagues have already taken steps towards developing legislation that would represent a huge improvement over our current system. As I already mentioned, we have Senator Gregg and we have Senator Kent Conrad who want to get going, so we should endorse the approach they want to take and submit legislation that Congress could consider under fast-track procedures. The proposal basically is to appoint eight Democrats and eight Republicans, including two top administration officials, and it would require a three-fourths vote for submitting a proposal to Congress.

In other words, they do their work, and if three-fourths have said this is what we want to do for tax reform and entitlement reform, we have to vote on it up or down. That is really important because you can't ask some of our colleagues to spend that kind of time on tax reform and entitlement reform and not guarantee them that if they agree on something, they will get a vote on it.

Some say to me: George, it is too late to do something. Well, it is not. And I think of Bill Bradley. Bill Bradley, in 1982, came up with a tax reform program. It took 4 years, but it was adopted in 1986. In other words, Ronald Reagan, working with Congress, reformed the Tax Code in 1986, and President Reagan is still fondly remembered as the leader who set the stage for years of prosperity at the end of the 20th century. He worked on a bipartisan basis. I think this President really has an opportunity to do something in regard to this. I think the President and the administration should say to Congress: Everything is on the table. No holds barred. I will sit down with you, and I will work on it. And you know what. Maybe we will not get it done, but at least we will start it. We will let the American people know that we understand that tax reform and entitlement reform is fundamental to the future of our country. What a nice legacy for our President, to at least say he got into the game and did something about it and didn't say you guys worry about it; it is your problem.

Mr. President, the time to act is now. When you look at the numbers, it is self-evident we must confront our swelling national debt; that we must make a concerted bipartisan effort to reform our tax system, slow the growth of entitlement spending, and halt this freight train that is threatening to crush our children and grandchildren's future.

Right now, in my lifetime, where I am at this stage, what I am worried about is the kids of America. I am worried about my grandchildren and other people's grandchildren. What is the legacy that we are going to leave those children and grandchildren? I don't know about my colleagues, but I am worried. I am really worried. I am worried about whether we are going to develop the infrastructure of competitiveness so those kids can compete in that global marketplace.

It is in our hands. Folks back home sent us here to take on the tough problems and make the tough decisions and do what is right for our country.

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

Mr. President, I join my colleagues in support of the Children's Hospital Graduate Medical Education Program, known by many as CHGME.

Medicare is the only provider of graduate medical education funding, but because children's hospitals care for the young not the elderly, they are unable to access funding provided by Medicare. To correct the disparity of

Federal support between adult teaching hospitals and freestanding children's teaching hospitals, Congress created the Children's Hospitals Graduate Medical Education Program in 1999.

CHGME allows our Nation's independent children's hospitals to train many of the pediatricians American children visit each day as well as almost all of the pediatric sub-specialists who care for our Nation's most fragile children. And through stabilizing pediatric education, CHGME has also advanced the patient care and research missions of some of the Nation's most trusted hospitals for children. Without this Federal assistance, these hospitals might be forced to sacrifice a part of their critical missions.

In the current fiscal year, the program is funded at $297 million. I am proud to say that that over $30 million of those funds--more than 10 percent of the total--has supported the training of pediatricians and pediatric specialists at six outstanding children's hospitals in Ohio. But more must be done, and I urge my colleagues to provide $307 million for this program in fiscal year 2008.

In our country today there is a shortage in virtually every subspecialty of pediatrics. So it is noteworthy that the CHGME has led to the creation of fellowship programs to train pediatric specialists in areas of need such as pediatric endocrinology, surgical critical care, pediatric neurology, and child abuse and neglect--to name just a few.

The CHGME Program needs to be maintained as a sustainable and reliable source of funding for children's hospitals across the Nation.