Floor Statements

Mr. President, I must say I am disappointed the Democratic leadership continues to preclude the Senate from debating and amending the insufficient resolution sent over from the House of Representatives. This denies the Senate from robustly debating other alternatives, including the bipartisan Warner resolution.

The strategy is to avoid controversial procedures that split the Democratic caucus regarding cutting off funding for the troops and capping the deployment of troops in Iraq. We have the same kind of split to a degree in the Republican caucus. The Warner resolution represents a negotiated agreement that reflects a bipartisan approach to the war and deserves to be debated and voted upon.

This is the second piece of legislation this week that Democratic leaders have brought to the Senate floor straight from the House with no amendments for debate allowed, and I think this is setting a dangerous precedent and frustrates the role the Constitution envisions for the Senate.

I will continue to back the minority's right to bring up amendments and participate in real debate, even if I don't agree with those ideas. I tried to support that when we were in the majority. The American people want Congress to play a role in the way this war is being handled. The first step is to demand a better plan, and we owe the people more than 10 lines in the House Resolution. You can't even begin to address a real solution to a complex situation in 10 lines.

I wish to emphasize to my colleagues that there are 15 cosponsors of the Warner resolution, 6 of whom are Republicans and 9 are Democrats. The resolution has the support of the Democratic chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Joseph Biden, who has been here for many years--a very wise individual. It has the support of the Democratic chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin. It also has the support of the No. 2 ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Chuck Hagel. I mention this because I wish to stress that the Warner resolution is believed to be a fair and reasonable resolution that is broadly supported by both Republicans and Democrats. I believe, if given the opportunity, that resolution will attract over 60 votes of the Senate.

That is why tonight I wish to share some of my thoughts about our current situation in Iraq. I wish to stress that had we received better, more comprehensive prewar intelligence and done our homework about what would be needed after the military offensive, we could have entered Iraq adequately prepared to win the war and secure the peace. We would have been more adequately prepared. Both the administration and Congress should have recognized that by removing Saddam Hussein from office, we would shift the balance of power within the country from Sunni to Shiite and change the contour of the region. Our intelligence errors, our lack of troop preparation, and the bungling of the initial efforts on the ground, specifically disbanding the Army and isolating former Baathists--in spite of advice from people such as GEN Jake Garner and others--is unacceptable. And today, we are paying the price for that, which means all of us have to pay a lot more attention to every decision and plan we endorse from here on out.

I cannot support the proposed troop surge. In spite of meetings at the White House, two with the President, private-session briefings as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and a meeting with General Petraeus for over 40 minutes, I am not convinced the additional troops who are proposed is the best means toward success in Baghdad. That is why I have decided to support the Warner resolution.

A military solution is not sufficient to win the peace in Iraq. As I will get into it, Iraq faces political problems, a power struggle, and primal hate between the fighting sects. More troops alone cannot solve these problems. That being said, I continue to have the highest praise for the generals and, more importantly, for their troops who have remained steadfast in their efforts to secure Iraq. I am grateful to those who have served and continue to serve our Nation in a time of need. I am especially indebted to those who made the ultimate sacrifice and whose families have suffered and who will grieve and those whose lives have been changed forever, as well as some 25,000 men and women who have been wounded over there, 13,000 of them not able to go back into the service.

Winning this war, securing peace in Iraq and stability in the region requires a comprehensive approach and the use of different tools, the most important of which is the will of the Iraqis. At this point, I am afraid we have focused disproportionately on the military component of this war, and we have not adequately stressed the nonmilitary arm of our strategy.

Moving forward in Iraq, we must focus on strengthening our nonmilitary or political tactics. That is why now, more than ever before, I am concerned about Iraq's willingness to bring an end to the violence. As the Warner resolution states:

The responsibility for Iraq's internal security in halting

sectarian violence must rest primarily with the government of

Iraq and Iraq security forces.

I recently met with a young man from Ohio out of Bethesda who had completed three tours of duty in Iraq and who was wounded by an IED. I asked him what he did. He said: My main goal, Senator, every day was to keep my men alive and keep peace in the neighborhood.

We have to ask ourselves: How long can we continue to do this? Even if the surge is successful, how long will we have to stay before the Iraqis can handle the situation themselves? Even when I talked with General Petraeus, he did a good job in Mosul--they secured the neighborhoods--but when the Iraqis came in and they left, they lost it. How many American lives will be lost in what is best described as a civil war between Sunni and Shiite that has 1,400 years of Sunni domination over Shiite at its root? More of our Members of the Senate should read about the history of Iraq and the people who are there.

After many closed-session briefings with the National Security Council, four meetings at the White House, including two with the President, and as I mentioned, 40 minutes with General Petraeus, and after hearing hours of witnesses testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I can feel confident saying it is time for the Iraqi people and their leadership to stand up to the sectarian violence between Sunni and Shiite. They need to recognize that all Iraqis and the future of the Nation of Iraq is threatened by this constant bloodshed, and their future is in their hands, not our hands.

U.S. Central Commander GEN John Abizaid, who the President relied upon to lead the ground campaign in Iraq, testified to Congress on November 15:

I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the

Corps commander and General Dempsey. We all talked together.

And I said, ``In your professional opinion, if we were to

bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably

to our ability to achieve success in Iraq?'' They all said

no. The reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It

is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do this work. I

believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from

doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own

future.

That is General Abizaid. If we don't follow the advice of our generals and other military people I have talked to, we run the risk of helping one side at the expense of another, and the Sunnis could interpret our offensive as part of a larger effort to do the dirty work of the Shiite. And don't you think the Sunnis would not spin it that way.

The reality we face today is that an overwhelming majority of the Muslim population in Iraq, be they Shiite or Sunni, look upon us as infidels and occupiers. They do. And our presence there is exploited every day by our enemies. In fact, one poll claimed 60 percent of the people in Iraq said it is OK to kill Americans. While we cannot even begin to capture what is happening in the hearts and minds of the Iraqis with one poll, it sends a striking

message about what additional troops might face there.

We have to consider the reliable information we have that suggests the surge could ignite an even more aggressive countersurge, in which every martyr--every martyr--in the country is drawn to Baghdad to defeat the infidels, as the Sunnis were drawn to Mecca on Ramadan. We could see a terrible situation there, and I don't want--I wish to make clear I am not analogizing the Sunnis going to Mecca on Ramadan. I am saying it would bring lots of people into Baghdad.

The fact of the matter is we cannot stop the sectarian violence with combat brigades and more forces alone. Implementing martial law in Iraq would be impossible because of the sheer number of Iraqi citizens and our commitments elsewhere around the globe. At this point, we wouldn't begin to have enough forces.

Mr. President, the only way to bring stability to Iraq is by addressing a number of serious political problems that lie at the root of this violence. Before the war, Iraq was united by Saddam's reign of terror, as Slobadan Milosevic kept everybody under his control or, before him, Marshal Tito in Yugoslavia. When he was removed from office, the major power struggle ensued, and it is not surprising. In fact, it should have been expected. In fact, as we later found out, many academics and intelligence officers did predict this. In the aftermath of Saddam's regime, many different sects and local leaders realized a power shift was taking place, and they wanted to come out on top. They knew the greatest source of potential power is in oil. That is why the critical component of the political solution must be to reach a decision on how the oil can be distributed to all sects and communities in Iraq. It is absolutely critical that Prime Minister Maliki moves quickly--tomorrow--to pass the legislation that guarantees that all Iraqis will benefit from oil. If he can do this, it will show the sects how the power in Iraq will be dispersed in the future.

Recently, I met with the Foreign Minister, Deputy Prime Minister of Turkey. The Foreign Minister agreed that the oil situation is the most important issue today and the one that will have profound impact on the long-term stability of Iraq. This must be a component of the overall national reconciliation plan to unite Iraqis and give them confidence in their Government.

A second key political priority must be the reintegration of the Sunni Baathists into society. When we went into Iraq, we cut the Baathists out of the military and security forces. The result of the policy was they had nowhere to go. They were frightened about their futures. They could not feed their families. They were angry. They were resentful. So they went to the streets. Before long, they became part of the problem, joining with militias and other fighters to resist the Shia government. So a major political priority must be to develop a plan to reintegrate the former Baathists and it needs to happen now. It is essential that the Iraqi Government work toward provincial elections so there is more equal representation of the different sects.

The third vital component of our nonmilitary strategy must be greater regional diplomacy. We must work to encourage Iraq's neighbors to get involved in containing the violence. Specifically, these neighboring countries have the ability to put pressure on the different sects and local leaders to help unite the Iraqi Government. They have the ability to pass debt relief, participate in border control, and help avoid a potential refugee problem. I don't think people realize that there have been over 3.5 million refugees who have come out of Iraq.

In December 2006, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group issued their recommendations for a successful United States strategy in Iraq. A core component of their proposal was that the United States act immediately to undertake a ``diplomatic offensive'' consisting of ``new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region.'' The recommendation called on the administration to engage the international community, the Arab League, traditional United States allies in the Middle East, and all Iraq's bordering neighbors in order to address regional conflicts and jointly bring stability to Iraq. They advised the administration to work quickly to convene a regional conference--it has not happened--which would complement the Iraq Compact undertaken by the United Nations. We need to embrace the study group's recommendations on this issue and act now to increase diplomatic engagement with the international community.

Without a broad political strategy, our military objectives, no matter what the tactic, will be pursued in vain. These political elements must be the focus of our plan in Iraq. And that said, I agree there is a military component here, as well. I want to be very clear that I do not support a military withdrawal from Iraq nor do I support disengagement from the Middle East.

As we debate this issue, we must consider our broader national security interests in the Middle East. We are only focusing on Iraq. We have to start thinking about the whole greater Middle East area. Despite one's views about the current situation in Iraq, it is in our country's vital security interest to pursue a strategy of diplomacy and military action in the region. To put it simply, the stakes are too high for us to sit on the sidelines. We must remain active players in the Middle East to maintain regional stability, to protect vital energy supplies, and to guarantee peace and security at home.

We have had long-standing economic and military interests in the Middle East and we were involved in the region long before we decided to challenge Saddam Hussein for his defiance of the U.N. Security Council. But today, with conflicts brewing in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, between Israel and the Palestinian territories, it is even more critical we remain steadfast in our commitment. Despite what one might believe about the President's strategy in Iraq, we cannot confuse debate over tactics with the nonnegotiable need to remain engaged in the Middle East.

Currently, the greatest threat to the stability in the Middle East is the possibility of failure in Iraq which threatens to destabilize the region and poses a critical national security risk to the United States. A premature withdrawal from Iraq will signify in essence that we are abandoning the region in its entirety. Our departure could greatly damage, if not sever, relationships with key allies, resulting in dire political and social consequences throughout the world.

The long-term security interests of the United States will be best served by a peaceful Iraq that can sustain, govern, and defend itself. That is why we must figure a way forward and why we cannot withdraw from Iraq.

The National Intelligence Estimate which was just released underscores the danger of withdrawal, stating succinctly:

If coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term

of this estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would

lead to significant increase in the scale and scope of

sectarian conflict in Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to the

Iraq government, and have adverse consequences for national

reconciliation.

They conclude that the immediate withdrawal of United States troops likely would lead the Iraq security forces to unravel, encourage neighboring countries to engage openly in the conflict, and lead to massive civilian casualties and population displacement. It is also very likely, were the United States to pull out of Iraq prematurely, al-Qaida would use Iraq as a training ground to plan future attacks, and this escalation of violence could ultimately prompt Turkey to launch a military incursion of its own. These are outcomes we cannot afford to risk.

I will refer to a few of the experts whom I have met or who have testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in recent weeks.

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger testified that ``withdrawal is not an option'' and continued that:

An abrupt American departure would greatly complicate

efforts to stem the terrorist tide far beyond Iraq: Fragile

governments from Lebanon to the Persian Gulf would be tempted

into preemptive concessions. It might drive the sectarian

conflict in Iraq to genocidal dimensions, beyond levels that

impelled U.S. interventions in the Balkans.

Think of that. It might drive sectarian conflict in Iraq to genocidal dimensions beyond levels that impelled United States intervention in the Balkans.

The new Ambassador from Jordan sat next to me at the prayer breakfast, and we started talking about Iraq and the Middle East. He told me that if you do not handle this right, we could see a schism between the Sunni and Shiite that extends from Malaysia to Indonesia.

Another reason I back the Warner resolution is it does not in any way threaten to reduce or jeopardize critical funding for United States troops serving in Iraq. In fact, the resolution states explicitly:

Congress should not take any action that will endanger the

United States military forces in the field, including the

elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field, as

such an action with respect to funding will undermine their

safety or their effectiveness in pursuing their assigned

missions.

A decision to cut funding would be a serious, irreversible mistake.

Last month, this Senate confirmed General Petraeus as the commanding general of the multinational force in Iraq without a dissenting vote. He is carrying out the orders of the President. It is critical that General Petraeus get the resources and equipment he believes are necessary to complete the mission and keep his forces safe in the field. I spoke to General Petraeus and I told him to make sure to ask for what he needs to be successful. He is concerned about receiving the equipment and other nonmilitary resources he will need to be successful, such as contributions of the State Department and other agencies. We cannot send our forces into the field without the necessary equipment. We did this at the beginning of the war. Our soldiers were underequipped. It was despicable. It cannot happen again. We have the resources in this country to ensure that our men and women have everything they need in combat.

We also must provide the funding to reset the equipment when it comes home and to keep the Armed Forces from breaking under the strain of the war. We must ensure that soldiers have the proper training before they leave and we must fund the mobilization centers and other military facilities at home so we can undergo the necessary training.

In my State of Ohio, I met this week with the head of the Ohio National Guard who is now being told he is going to have to train the troops in Ohio because they do not want to send them someplace else because they want them trained fast so they can get them to Iraq and Afghanistan. The fact is, he said:

I don't have the additional funds or equipment to do this.

We have lost 150 Ohioans, 150 in Iraq. In terms of the States, we are probably two or three in the United States in the number of members lost. We lost two because humvees rolled over and they were not trained to drive those humvees. Now they are much heavier than they were before.

The Warner resolution makes it clear that we must guarantee the troops what they need when they need it. And the Gregg amendment underscores the point further. The best exit strategy for United States troops is a multifaceted and comprehensive strategy focused on creating an Iraq for the Iraqis. We must focus on training the Iraqi security forces so the Iraqis can defend and protect themselves. The Iraqi people must understand they will be given the full responsibility of defending and rebuilding their country. We must remove any ambiguity in the minds of Iraqis about our intention and desire to lead and make it clear we do not want to be there. In fact, they need to understand we want to bring our troops home and we want to help them develop the political and military tools necessary to carry on this mission without us.

Bringing stability to Iraq will require our best minds, our resources, and our bipartisan cooperation. We need a massive improvement in interagency coordination, better communication, better reporting to Congress, and the help of our allies and friends throughout the region.

This is my responsibility as a Member of Congress, to exercise oversight and to contribute to our national security. That is why I support the bipartisan Warner resolution. Again, I am confident that given the opportunity, over 60 Members of this Senate will support it.

Last but not least, all of us who represent the people of this country should get down on our knees and ask the Holy Spirit to enlighten the President and us in our decisionmaking because the impact of Iraq will not only affect Iraq, the Middle East, and world peace, but it will impact dramatically the national security of the United States of America.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my good friend and partner on the Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee, Senator Akaka, to address the critical management challenges facing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). I am pleased to have Senators Levin and McCaskill as original cosponsors of this measure.

The legislation would elevate the role and responsibilities of the current Under Secretary for Management of the Department to a Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security for Management. The language preserves the authority of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of DHS as the first-and second-highest ranking Department officials, respectively. The individual appointed as the Deputy Secretary for Management would serve a five year term and be the third highest ranking official at the Department. A term would provide management continuity at the Department during times of leadership transition, such as following a presidential election.

The role and responsibilities of the Deputy Secretary for Management would include serving as the Chief Management Officer and principal advisor to the Secretary on the management of the Department. The Deputy Secretary for Management would also be responsible for strategic and annual performance planning, identification and tracking of performance measures, as well as the integration and transformation process in support of homeland security operations and programs.

The division of labor between the Deputy Secretary and the new Deputy Secretary for Management will be similar to the leadership structure at the Office of Management and Budget. The Deputy Secretary will continue to be the Secretary's first assistant on all policy matters, while the newly created Deputy Secretary for Management will be the Secretary's principal advisor on the development of sustained, long-term management strategies.

I offer this legislation today because of my belief that the existing Under Secretary position lacks sufficient authority to direct the type of sustained leadership and overarching management integration and transformation strategy that is needed department-wide.

There continue to be significant management challenges associated with integrating the Department of Homeland Security, whose creation represented the single largest restructuring of the Federal Government since the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947. In addition to its complex mission of securing the Nation from terrorism and natural hazards through protection, prevention, response, and recovery leadership of the Department of Homeland Security has the enormous task of unifying 180,000 employees from 22 disparate Federal agencies.

Since 2003, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has included implementing and transforming the Department of Homeland Security on its high-risk list of programs susceptible to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. In announcing its 2007 high-risk list, Comptroller General Walker said that, ``The array of management and programmatic challenges continues to limit DHS's ability to carry out its roles under the National Homeland Security Strategy in an effective risk- based way.''

Similarly, in December 2005, the DHS Inspector General issued a report warning of major management challenges facing the Department of Homeland

Security. The report noted that although progress has been made since the Department's inception, ``Integrating its many separate components in a single, effective, efficient, and economical Department remains one of DHS' biggest challenges.''

The Department's own Performance and Accountability Report, released in November 2006, states that it did not meet its strategic goal of ``providing comprehensive leadership and management to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Department,'' further underscoring the need for good management.

The Homeland Security Advisory Council Culture Task Force Report, published in January 2007, detailed persisting organizational challenges within DHS, and prescribed leadership and management models designed to empower employees, foster collaboration, and encourage innovation. The third recommendation of the report is that the Department establish an operational leadership position. The report noted, ``Alignment and integration of the DHS component organizations is vital to the success of the DHS mission. The CTF believes there is a compelling need for the creation of a Deputy Secretary for Operations (DSO) who would report to the Secretary and be responsible for the high level Department-wide measures aimed at generating and sustaining seamless operational integration and alignment of the component organizations.''

The creation of the Deputy Secretary for Management will help address the concerns outlined by GAO, the DHS Inspector General, the Homeland Security Advisory Council, and the Department itself.

As former Chairman and now Ranking Member of the Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee, improving the management structure at the Department has been one of my top priorities. The Subcommittee's Chairman, Senator Akaka, and I have been committed to ensuring that DHS has the proper tools to make continual improvements in its operations. It has become clear that the Department needs a stronger management focus to enable programmatic and operational success. Congress must act to strengthen the management function at DHS.

During my long career in public service, including as a Mayor and Governor, I have repeatedly observed that the path to organizational success lies in adopting best practices in management, including strategic planning, performance and accountability measures, and effectively leveraging human capital. When instituting reforms as Mayor and Governor, individuals tasked with implementation would tell me, ``We don't have time for Total Quality Management; we are too busy putting out fires.'' I appreciate that DHS is also busy putting out fires. But the connection between good management practices and operational success should not be lost.

With the four year anniversary of the Department only weeks away, we must be honest about the remaining management challenges it faces. The legislation I offer today provides the focused, high-level attention that will result in effective management reform. I believe this legislation is vital to the Department's success. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my good friend and partner on the Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee, Senator Akaka, to address the critical management challenges facing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). I am pleased to have Senators Levin and McCaskill as original cosponsors of this measure.

The legislation would elevate the role and responsibilities of the current Under Secretary for Management of the Department to a Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security for Management. The language preserves the authority of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of DHS as the first-and second-highest ranking Department officials, respectively. The individual appointed as the Deputy Secretary for Management would serve a five year term and be the third highest ranking official at the Department. A term would provide management continuity at the Department during times of leadership transition, such as following a presidential election.

The role and responsibilities of the Deputy Secretary for Management would include serving as the Chief Management Officer and principal advisor to the Secretary on the management of the Department. The Deputy Secretary for Management would also be responsible for strategic and annual performance planning, identification and tracking of performance measures, as well as the integration and transformation process in support of homeland security operations and programs.

The division of labor between the Deputy Secretary and the new Deputy Secretary for Management will be similar to the leadership structure at the Office of Management and Budget. The Deputy Secretary will continue to be the Secretary's first assistant on all policy matters, while the newly created Deputy Secretary for Management will be the Secretary's principal advisor on the development of sustained, long-term management strategies.

I offer this legislation today because of my belief that the existing Under Secretary position lacks sufficient authority to direct the type of sustained leadership and overarching management integration and transformation strategy that is needed department-wide.

There continue to be significant management challenges associated with integrating the Department of Homeland Security, whose creation represented the single largest restructuring of the Federal Government since the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947. In addition to its complex mission of securing the Nation from terrorism and natural hazards through protection, prevention, response, and recovery leadership of the Department of Homeland Security has the enormous task of unifying 180,000 employees from 22 disparate Federal agencies.

Since 2003, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has included implementing and transforming the Department of Homeland Security on its high-risk list of programs susceptible to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. In announcing its 2007 high-risk list, Comptroller General Walker said that, ``The array of management and programmatic challenges continues to limit DHS's ability to carry out its roles under the National Homeland Security Strategy in an effective risk- based way.''

Similarly, in December 2005, the DHS Inspector General issued a report warning of major management challenges facing the Department of Homeland

Security. The report noted that although progress has been made since the Department's inception, ``Integrating its many separate components in a single, effective, efficient, and economical Department remains one of DHS' biggest challenges.''

The Department's own Performance and Accountability Report, released in November 2006, states that it did not meet its strategic goal of ``providing comprehensive leadership and management to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Department,'' further underscoring the need for good management.

The Homeland Security Advisory Council Culture Task Force Report, published in January 2007, detailed persisting organizational challenges within DHS, and prescribed leadership and management models designed to empower employees, foster collaboration, and encourage innovation. The third recommendation of the report is that the Department establish an operational leadership position. The report noted, ``Alignment and integration of the DHS component organizations is vital to the success of the DHS mission. The CTF believes there is a compelling need for the creation of a Deputy Secretary for Operations (DSO) who would report to the Secretary and be responsible for the high level Department-wide measures aimed at generating and sustaining seamless operational integration and alignment of the component organizations.''

The creation of the Deputy Secretary for Management will help address the concerns outlined by GAO, the DHS Inspector General, the Homeland Security Advisory Council, and the Department itself.

As former Chairman and now Ranking Member of the Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee, improving the management structure at the Department has been one of my top priorities. The Subcommittee's Chairman, Senator Akaka, and I have been committed to ensuring that DHS has the proper tools to make continual improvements in its operations. It has become clear that the Department needs a stronger management focus to enable programmatic and operational success. Congress must act to strengthen the management function at DHS.

During my long career in public service, including as a Mayor and Governor, I have repeatedly observed that the path to organizational success lies in adopting best practices in management, including strategic planning, performance and accountability measures, and effectively leveraging human capital. When instituting reforms as Mayor and Governor, individuals tasked with implementation would tell me, ``We don't have time for Total Quality Management; we are too busy putting out fires.'' I appreciate that DHS is also busy putting out fires. But the connection between good management practices and operational success should not be lost.

With the four year anniversary of the Department only weeks away, we must be honest about the remaining management challenges it faces. The legislation I offer today provides the focused, high-level attention that will result in effective management reform. I believe this legislation is vital to the Department's success. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to address my serious concern about our consideration of H.J. Res. 20, an Omnibus appropriations measure, rather than completing our work on the remaining 2007 appropriations bills. As my colleagues are well aware, fiscal year 2006 appropriations expired on September 30, 2006. And with the exception of the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, the Federal Government is currently operating on its third temporary continuing resolution set to expire next week. We are now considering a fourth continuing resolution, H.J. Res. 20, to fund the Government through the end of the fiscal year.

Passage of a continuing appropriations resolution, as some have incorrectly labeled it, is not the solution to our outstanding appropriations obligations. This de facto Omnibus appropriations bill covers almost 50 percent of the Federal discretionary budget at a cost of $463.5 billion. Repeatedly managing by continuing resolution, as we have done for nearly half a year, is inherently wasteful and inefficient. It results in wasteful spending, disruption and chaos in the operations of Federal programs, and dramatic productivity slowdowns. So many of our agencies have been in limbo during the last several months.

In recent years, many Federal departments have taken positive steps toward streamlining their budgets and tightening the reins of their daily operations, conduct that ought to be rewarded. Instead, when Congress failed to complete its appropriations work on time, these departments were forced to put critical projects on hold.

Such a funding shortfall has particularly adverse effects on human- capital-intensive agencies, such as the Government Accountability Office where attracting and retaining good employees is critical to running a competitive and productive organization. Agencies such as the GAO have made it clear that without budget certainty, they risk losing top-quality personnel. They are unable to properly recognize and reward individuals for good service which often pushes employees to look for other nongovernment opportunities.

For too long we have allowed a negative perception of Government workers to dominate our thinking, and we have not committed the necessary resources to funding and keeping capable, hard-working civil servants. This human capital problem contributes to a negative perception of the Federal Government, and it prevents important departments and agencies from providing their customers, our constituents, with the necessary goods and services they deserve.

Just think of somebody who is thinking about coming to work for the Federal Government and they have heard that we haven't been able to pass a budget or appropriations around here for 5 months. What kind of an organization do they think we are?

This added pressure on human capital is not limited to the GAO. In fact, there are lots of similar agencies, such as the SEC, the FBI, and the IRS, which experienced the same problem over these past 5 months. There are going to be horror stories all through this year as a result of the fact that we are going to pass a continuing resolution or an omnibus resolution.

Additionally, long-term budget uncertainty caused many companies with Government contracts to lay off people. Our inability to complete the appropriations work prevented agencies and departments from adequately planning programs and ultimately interfered with the timely award of contracts. So for the past 5 months, contractors have been uncertain whether work would be available and were forced to put a freeze on hiring. I understand that.

Two years ago, I had a nephew working for a company that had a contract with NASA. They said: They haven't passed the budget. They laid everybody off. And it wasn't until several months later that finally they could bring people back on. By that time, they had lost half their people.

Sometimes programs are ineffective, and their budgets should be reduced or eliminated. For example, under the normal appropriations process, the House would have terminated 53 programs, for a savings of $4 billion. Well, an omnibus can reduce the budget, but it goes about it in entirely the wrong fashion. Instead of undergoing negotiations and discussions over the individual merit of specific programs, the omnibus indiscriminately cuts and appropriates funds. This is neither a thoughtful nor responsible approach to managing our budget.

On the flip side, there are many programs and agencies in which we ought to be investing more resources. By failing to pass the outstanding appropriations bills and by passing an omnibus bill instead, we are ignoring America's infrastructure which is the foundation of our economy. Our physical infrastructure is a critical component of making America more competitive and maintaining our quality of life for future generations. But if we keep up this attitude toward our fiscal obligations, if we continue ignoring the upkeep of our infrastructure, we risk tremendous disruptions to our commerce and decrease protection against natural disasters. Hurricane Katrina was a wake-up call for all of us and makes the point. Had we completed our appropriations work on time and adequately funded the Army Corps of Engineers, we would have been attending to the needs of the country. For nearly half a year, we could have brought in more civil engineers, increased construction, designed stronger levees, and made real progress on improving water infrastructure. Instead, we are 5 months behind in the construction of our infrastructure and even further behind keeping our Nation competitive and safe.

What about our dependence on foreign sources of energy. I still believe one of this Nation's most pressing challenges is reforming our national energy policy. Finding a way to harmonize our energy, economic, and environmental concerns is critical to keeping our Nation strong. I know my colleagues here today agree with me that we need a second declaration of independence and that we must invest in new, alternative forms of energy. This body failed to complete its appropriations work on time, and now we have uncertainty at a critical moment when we are trying to free ourselves from entanglements in the Middle East and increase our competitiveness in the global marketplace.

If we had funded the appropriations in the routine manner 5 months ago, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission could have been preparing for the estimated eight applications it expects to receive this year from the nuclear energy industry for the construction of new nuclear reactors. Let me add the NRC anticipates receiving an additional 22 applications next year. They have been furiously working to prepare for this tidal wave of construction which requires hiring an additional 300 or more people. They haven't been able to do it because the budget hasn't been there because we have been fiddle-faddling around over here.

Yet our failure to act has delayed this process. It has introduced uncertainty for both the NRC and the nuclear energy industry at a time when we cannot afford to be dependent on foreign sources of oil. Our inability to fulfill our fiscal responsibilities has put the NRC 5 months behind in preparation, and it has put the country behind on the road to energy independence.

It is not just the Federal Government that suffers. States, counties, cities all depend on funding from Washington. I was a county commissioner. A part of our budget was the Federal budget. I was mayor of Cleveland. Part of our budget was Federal money coming into the city. All of these local governments, State governments right now have been in limbo trying to figure out when we are going to do our job.

Maintaining and improving America's transportation system is also vital to our economy, the environment, and the welfare of the American people. The Interstate Highway System is one of the country's greatest public works projects but requires a Federal investment. States plan their highway construction programs for the coming year based on their anticipated Federal funding set by SAFETEA-LU. By failing to pass the 2007 Transportation appropriations bill, States could not plan for the future and were forced to delay construction projects for the upcoming year.

I will get a report on that from around the country on all the projects that are going to be delayed because we didn't do our work or that are not going to move forward.

In my State of Ohio, for instance, construction costs and increased inflation forced our Department of Transportation to cancel and postpone nearly $450 million in highway projects. They didn't know what they were going to get.

Democrats have a right to point fingers at Republicans for failing to complete their work on the outstanding appropriations before December. But let's be clear, Democrats behaved equally poorly when they lost the majority in 2002. At that time, Majority Leader Daschle was unable to pass a budget for 2003. Subsequently, Democrats did not complete their work on appropriations before going home for the winter recess. When we came back in January 2003, we took up the issue of appropriations within 3 days. We passed three continuing resolutions through February 20, at which point the Senate voted on an omnibus bill, much the same as we are doing today.

The fact is, we both have dirty hands. This is not just a Democratic or Republican issue. Both parties have acted irresponsibly. Congress has the power of the purse, but we are not the best steward of the taxpayers' money if time and time again we blindly pass omnibus bills and fund programs without accounting for how those programs are performing.

These are not isolated instances. Let me point out--and the public should know--in 25 of the past 30 years, Congress has failed to enact all the appropriations bills by the start of the fiscal year. In fact, the last time Congress enacted appropriations bills by the September 30 deadline was 1997. And for 17 of the past 30 years, Congress has had to combine two or more appropriations bills together in omnibus and minibus legislation. When are we planning to get it done on time? By failing to do our job, we are starving the executive branch of Government and preventing it from doing its job. This is irresponsible.

One way around this annual appropriations problem is to convert the annual budget cycle into a biennial or 2-year cycle. This would save Congress valuable time eaten up every year debating appropriations matters. We spend most of our time on agency appropriations, on the budget, and no time on oversight. Under biennial budgeting, we would convert the annual budget, appropriations, and authorizing processes into a 2-year cycle. The first year would be reserved for the budget and appropriations process. The second year would be to conduct oversight and pass authorizing legislation. This would leave Congress more time to examine programs to determine which are wasteful, which should receive more funding and which should be terminated altogether. Congress would have more time to finish its business by the deadline the law imposes.

A 2-year budget proposal is long overdue. We have been talking about this since I came to the Senate in 1999, Senator Domenici and I and many others. We ought to reintroduce that bill. In fact, I intend to reintroduce that bill with several of my colleagues to see if we can't go to a 2-year budget cycle.

Operating without a budget impacts our effectiveness in fighting the war on terror. It affects our ability to maintain and improve our transportation infrastructure and enhance our education system. You will be hearing more about that from Senator Alexander. It further contributes to the public perception that Congress has no appreciation of the importance of management and the impact of our irresponsible conduct on the delivery of services to the people in the States--our constituents. It is incredible to me, as someone who has been a mayor and Governor, that the Senate has not completed its appropriations work.

In Ohio, the law mandated that we complete our appropriations responsibilities by the end of the year. And it was the same way when I was mayor of the city of Cleveland. The city charter mandated that we do our work. If we had not completed our budget and appropriations work, we would have been reprimanded by the media roundly and recalled by the voters. Of course, we were also bound to balance our budget, which this body has been unable to do since 2000.

We have been on the path of fiscal irresponsibility for too long. Given the facts, it is an indication to the American people that we are not doing our job, our work. Congress may hold the power of the purse, but we undermine our credibility by starving good managers and agencies of necessary resources and by turning a blind eye to failing programs. This is about more than allocating funds, it is about good management and good public policy.

All of us, on a bipartisan basis, should pledge that we will not shirk our responsibilities by passing a de facto omnibus piece of legislation. As important, at this stage of the game, we should vow, all of us--the majority leader and our minority leader should come together on the floor of the Senate and pledge to the American people that we are going to pass our budget, and we are going to get our appropriations done by the deadline we are supposed to have it be done by, so next year we are not repeating the same thing we have this year.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce The Secure Travel and Counterterrorism Partnership Act of 2007, along with my good friends Senators Akaka, Lugar, and Mikulski.

This legislation would expand the U.S. Visa Waiver Program in a way that would increase cooperation with key allies in the War on Terror while strengthening U.S. national security.

The bill provides a way for us to expand and improve the Visa Waiver Program so that Americans are safer and our Nation is more prosperous for years to come.

This legislation comes at a particularly important time in our Nation's history. We are currently facing multiple foreign policy challenges in the post-9/11 world. We need the cooperation of several allies to combat transnational threats. As such, we are asking our friends and allies to contribute more of their troops and resources to Iraq, Afghanistan, and other conflicts in the world, so that we can be successful. This legislation will help us to solidify key relationships and increase goodwill toward the U.S. for years to come, while also enhancing travel security standards and safety at home.

My legislation would authorize the Department of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Department of State, to expand the Visa Waiver Program to countries that are true friends of America and are prepared to do more to help us keep terrorists and criminals out of our borders.

For those that do not know about the Visa Waiver Program, it was established in 1986 to improve relations with U.S. allies and strengthen the U.S. economy. The program permitted nationals from the selected countries to enter the United States without a visa for up to 90 days for tourism or business purposes.

Currently, 27 countries participate in the program, including the United Kingdom. No countries have been added to the Visa Waiver Program since 1999. But there are a number of newer allies who would also like to participate in the Visa Waiver Program and are willing to meet strict security requirements and cooperate on counterterrorism initiatives.

Many of these countries were former members of the Soviet Union. They were victims of Soviet oppression for years, against their will, and despite their desire for freedom. These countries have a unique understanding of the struggle for democracy taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, many of these countries have had boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan

and want to help the U.S. combat terrorism and promote democracy.

Despite their commitments to the principles of freedom and democracy, these countries are still paying a price that other countries in the West do not pay. Citizens of Portugal, the UK, or Spain can travel easily to the U.S., while citizens of Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia are given second-class treatment.

I recently learned of a story involving a young Czech officer who served in Iraq with Americans. This soldier wanted to come to America to visit the American friends he made during combat operations. But his application for a visa was refused. Why? Because his passport included a visit to Iraq, the very place he served with American soldiers.

Many young people from places like Latvia, Estonia, and Bulgaria have a positive view of America and hope to visit our country. However, their expensive visa applications are frequently rejected, dampening their spirits and tainting their image of America. And this view is spreading every day.

By limiting legitimate travel to the U.S., we are risking a loss of influence with the future leaders of our closest allies.

I have been working for many months to develop legislation that will expand the Visa Waiver Program, without sacrificing U.S. security. I was pleased last November when I heard President Bush announce his intention to work with Congress on this issue. On the margins of the NATO Summit in Riga, he called on Congress to expand the Visa Waiver Program so that we can reward our closest allies for their help and friendship.

I agree with the President--but I want to clarify that visa-free travel privileges are not simply a reward for our allies. The true reward is the knowledge that we are free and democratic countries working together to advance international security. The foremost goal of this legislation is to create mutually beneficial partnerships with clear national security advantages for the United States.

By continuing on the current path, we risk marginalizing some of our closest allies in the War on Terror and losing the hearts and minds of their future leaders and citizens. We have an opportunity to change direction in a way that will promote our own national security interests and improve control of our borders. The Secure Travel and Counterterrorism Partnership Act of 2007 can achieve all of these objectives.

The legislation would give the executive branch the necessary authority to expand visa-free travel privileges for up to five new countries, for a probationary period of three years.

In order for a country to participate in the plan, the executive branch would first need to certify that the country is cooperative on counterterrorism and does not pose a security or law enforcement threat to the United States. Prospective countries would also be required to take a number of new steps to enhance our common security.

Prior to participation, the countries would be required to conclude new agreements with the United States to further strengthen cooperation on counterterrorism and improve information-sharing about critical security issues.

Some might say--if these countries are key allies, aren't they cooperating with us already? The answer is yes. They are very cooperative. But in today's heightened security environment, there is more that each country can do, such as sharing additional sensitive information that can help our intelligence community and law enforcement agencies investigate threats and combat terrorist activity. By negotiating new agreements on counterterrorism and information- sharing to permit participation in the Visa Waiver Program, we can reduce threats to the United States. Additionally, the legislation would require the countries to enact a number of significant security measures, which would limit illegal entry and unlawful presence in their countries and impede travel by terrorists and transnational criminals. Security standards required for participation in the program would include electronic passports with biometric information, as well as prompt reporting of lost, stolen, or fraudulent travel documents to the U.S. and Interpol.

These new requirements would help make the U.S. more secure. Expanding the number of participating visa waiver countries would increase the number of states meeting common security standards. This would allow the United States to shift consular resources used to issue visas to other missions with more critical security needs.

If at any time, participant countries are not complying with these requirements, their probationary status in the program could be revoked.

Likewise, if the program is determined to be successful, it could be expanded to include additional countries.

The last part of the legislation is aimed at enhancing security requirements for countries who are currently participating in the Visa Waiver Program. In this post-9/11 world, the U.S. Government has already required additional security measures of participating visa waiver countries, such as machine readable passports with biometric information. But we can and must do more.

I was very pleased last November when Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff recommended several new measures to further enhance the efficiency and security of the Visa Waiver Program. His recommendations included an electronic travel authorization system, additional passenger information exchanges, common standards for airport security and baggage screening, cooperation in the air marshal program, and home country assistance in repatriation of any traveler who overstays the terms of their visa or violates U.S. law.

As the Administration works to develop the details of its recommendations, my legislation would require that within one year, the executive branch provide a report to Congress on its plans for Visa Waiver Program improvements.

In addition to the substantial benefits my legislation would create for U.S. foreign relations and homeland security, the bill would also advance U.S. economic competitiveness. Visa-free travel to the United States has been proven to significantly boost tourism and business, as well as airline revenues, and would generate substantial economic benefits to the United States well into the future. Additionally, it would improve attitudes toward the United States throughout the world, which would benefit the U.S. economy and national security for generations to come.

As a member of both the Foreign Relations and the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committees, I have studied this issue from every angle. I believe the legislation I am introducing presents us with a real opportunity to strengthen diplomatic relationships, enhance our homeland security, and improve the Visa Waiver Program overall.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress and the President to move this legislation forward.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce legislation to reauthorize the District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Grant (D.C. TAG) program for an additional five years. This successful program, which began in 2000, has produced dramatic results in higher education in the District of Columbia by enabling District students to choose a college that best suits their educational needs.

One of the most worthwhile things I have done during my time in the Senate was to sponsor the legislation that created the D.C. TAG program. The aim of this program is to assist District students who do not have access to State-supported education systems. Originally, the D.C. TAG program provided District residents with grant funding to pay the difference between in-State and out-of-State tuition at State universities nationwide. D.C. TAG participants are eligible for up to $l0,000 per student per school year, capped at $50,000. Since March 2002, District students attending private institutions in Maryland and Virginia, as well as Historically Black Colleges and Universities nationwide are eligible to receive tuition grants of $2,500 per student per school year, capped at $12,500.

Since the programs inception, more than 26,000 grants have been dispersed to 9,769 District students, amounting to approximately $141 million. As a result, the District has seen a 50 percent increase in college attendance. Our States have benefited from having these talented students attending their universities. In Ohio, District students attend nine of our colleges and universities with grants valued at $500,000. Reauthorizing this successful program will ensure that D.C. TAG grants are available for future generations of deserving District high school students.

As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia, I am committed to ensuring quality educational opportunities for District residents. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce The Secure Travel and Counterterrorism Partnership Act of 2007, along with my good friends Senators Akaka, Lugar, and Mikulski.

This legislation would expand the U.S. Visa Waiver Program in a way that would increase cooperation with key allies in the War on Terror while strengthening U.S. national security.

The bill provides a way for us to expand and improve the Visa Waiver Program so that Americans are safer and our Nation is more prosperous for years to come.

This legislation comes at a particularly important time in our Nation's history. We are currently facing multiple foreign policy challenges in the post-9/11 world. We need the cooperation of several allies to combat transnational threats. As such, we are asking our friends and allies to contribute more of their troops and resources to Iraq, Afghanistan, and other conflicts in the world, so that we can be successful. This legislation will help us to solidify key relationships and increase goodwill toward the U.S. for years to come, while also enhancing travel security standards and safety at home.

My legislation would authorize the Department of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Department of State, to expand the Visa Waiver Program to countries that are true friends of America and are prepared to do more to help us keep terrorists and criminals out of our borders.

For those that do not know about the Visa Waiver Program, it was established in 1986 to improve relations with U.S. allies and strengthen the U.S. economy. The program permitted nationals from the selected countries to enter the United States without a visa for up to 90 days for tourism or business purposes.

Currently, 27 countries participate in the program, including the United Kingdom. No countries have been added to the Visa Waiver Program since 1999. But there are a number of newer allies who would also like to participate in the Visa Waiver Program and are willing to meet strict security requirements and cooperate on counterterrorism initiatives.

Many of these countries were former members of the Soviet Union. They were victims of Soviet oppression for years, against their will, and despite their desire for freedom. These countries have a unique understanding of the struggle for democracy taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, many of these countries have had boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan

and want to help the U.S. combat terrorism and promote democracy.

Despite their commitments to the principles of freedom and democracy, these countries are still paying a price that other countries in the West do not pay. Citizens of Portugal, the UK, or Spain can travel easily to the U.S., while citizens of Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia are given second-class treatment.

I recently learned of a story involving a young Czech officer who served in Iraq with Americans. This soldier wanted to come to America to visit the American friends he made during combat operations. But his application for a visa was refused. Why? Because his passport included a visit to Iraq, the very place he served with American soldiers.

Many young people from places like Latvia, Estonia, and Bulgaria have a positive view of America and hope to visit our country. However, their expensive visa applications are frequently rejected, dampening their spirits and tainting their image of America. And this view is spreading every day.

By limiting legitimate travel to the U.S., we are risking a loss of influence with the future leaders of our closest allies.

I have been working for many months to develop legislation that will expand the Visa Waiver Program, without sacrificing U.S. security. I was pleased last November when I heard President Bush announce his intention to work with Congress on this issue. On the margins of the NATO Summit in Riga, he called on Congress to expand the Visa Waiver Program so that we can reward our closest allies for their help and friendship.

I agree with the President--but I want to clarify that visa-free travel privileges are not simply a reward for our allies. The true reward is the knowledge that we are free and democratic countries working together to advance international security. The foremost goal of this legislation is to create mutually beneficial partnerships with clear national security advantages for the United States.

By continuing on the current path, we risk marginalizing some of our closest allies in the War on Terror and losing the hearts and minds of their future leaders and citizens. We have an opportunity to change direction in a way that will promote our own national security interests and improve control of our borders. The Secure Travel and Counterterrorism Partnership Act of 2007 can achieve all of these objectives.

The legislation would give the executive branch the necessary authority to expand visa-free travel privileges for up to five new countries, for a probationary period of three years.

In order for a country to participate in the plan, the executive branch would first need to certify that the country is cooperative on counterterrorism and does not pose a security or law enforcement threat to the United States. Prospective countries would also be required to take a number of new steps to enhance our common security.

Prior to participation, the countries would be required to conclude new agreements with the United States to further strengthen cooperation on counterterrorism and improve information-sharing about critical security issues.

Some might say--if these countries are key allies, aren't they cooperating with us already? The answer is yes. They are very cooperative. But in today's heightened security environment, there is more that each country can do, such as sharing additional sensitive information that can help our intelligence community and law enforcement agencies investigate threats and combat terrorist activity. By negotiating new agreements on counterterrorism and information- sharing to permit participation in the Visa Waiver Program, we can reduce threats to the United States. Additionally, the legislation would require the countries to enact a number of significant security measures, which would limit illegal entry and unlawful presence in their countries and impede travel by terrorists and transnational criminals. Security standards required for participation in the program would include electronic passports with biometric information, as well as prompt reporting of lost, stolen, or fraudulent travel documents to the U.S. and Interpol.

These new requirements would help make the U.S. more secure. Expanding the number of participating visa waiver countries would increase the number of states meeting common security standards. This would allow the United States to shift consular resources used to issue visas to other missions with more critical security needs.

If at any time, participant countries are not complying with these requirements, their probationary status in the program could be revoked.

Likewise, if the program is determined to be successful, it could be expanded to include additional countries.

The last part of the legislation is aimed at enhancing security requirements for countries who are currently participating in the Visa Waiver Program. In this post-9/11 world, the U.S. Government has already required additional security measures of participating visa waiver countries, such as machine readable passports with biometric information. But we can and must do more.

I was very pleased last November when Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff recommended several new measures to further enhance the efficiency and security of the Visa Waiver Program. His recommendations included an electronic travel authorization system, additional passenger information exchanges, common standards for airport security and baggage screening, cooperation in the air marshal program, and home country assistance in repatriation of any traveler who overstays the terms of their visa or violates U.S. law.

As the Administration works to develop the details of its recommendations, my legislation would require that within one year, the executive branch provide a report to Congress on its plans for Visa Waiver Program improvements.

In addition to the substantial benefits my legislation would create for U.S. foreign relations and homeland security, the bill would also advance U.S. economic competitiveness. Visa-free travel to the United States has been proven to significantly boost tourism and business, as well as airline revenues, and would generate substantial economic benefits to the United States well into the future. Additionally, it would improve attitudes toward the United States throughout the world, which would benefit the U.S. economy and national security for generations to come.

As a member of both the Foreign Relations and the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committees, I have studied this issue from every angle. I believe the legislation I am introducing presents us with a real opportunity to strengthen diplomatic relationships, enhance our homeland security, and improve the Visa Waiver Program overall.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress and the President to move this legislation forward.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce legislation to reauthorize the District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Grant (D.C. TAG) program for an additional five years. This successful program, which began in 2000, has produced dramatic results in higher education in the District of Columbia by enabling District students to choose a college that best suits their educational needs.

One of the most worthwhile things I have done during my time in the Senate was to sponsor the legislation that created the D.C. TAG program. The aim of this program is to assist District students who do not have access to State-supported education systems. Originally, the D.C. TAG program provided District residents with grant funding to pay the difference between in-State and out-of-State tuition at State universities nationwide. D.C. TAG participants are eligible for up to $l0,000 per student per school year, capped at $50,000. Since March 2002, District students attending private institutions in Maryland and Virginia, as well as Historically Black Colleges and Universities nationwide are eligible to receive tuition grants of $2,500 per student per school year, capped at $12,500.

Since the programs inception, more than 26,000 grants have been dispersed to 9,769 District students, amounting to approximately $141 million. As a result, the District has seen a 50 percent increase in college attendance. Our States have benefited from having these talented students attending their universities. In Ohio, District students attend nine of our colleges and universities with grants valued at $500,000. Reauthorizing this successful program will ensure that D.C. TAG grants are available for future generations of deserving District high school students.

As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia, I am committed to ensuring quality educational opportunities for District residents. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about a bill my colleague Senator Bingaman and I introduced today, the Health Care Partnership Act. For too many years, I have listened to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle talk about the rising cost of health care and the growing number of uninsured Americans. Yet, at the Federal level we have made little progress toward a solution for improving access to quality, affordable health care. I believe it is the greatest domestic challenge facing our Nation. In fact, the rising cost of health care is a major part of what is hurting our competitiveness in the global marketplace.

While surveys have indicated that health insurance premiums have stabilized--a 9.2 percent increase in 2006 the same increase as in 2005 and compared with; 12.3 percent in 2004; 14.7 percent in 2003 and 15.2 percent in 2002--health insurance costs continue to be a significant factor impacting American competitiveness. In addition, the share of costs that individuals have paid for employer sponsored insurance has risen roughly 2 percent each year, from 31.4 percent of health care costs in 2001 to 38.4 percent this year.

In fact, spending on health care in the United States reached $2 trillion in 2005--16 percent of our GDP--the largest share ever.

Yet, despite all the spending some 45 million Americans--15 percent of the population--had no health insurance at some point last year. This number has increased steadily. In 2000, that number was 39.8 million. In 2002 it was 43.6 million.

These statistics are startling, and it is beyond time that we do something about them.

The bill Senator Bingaman and I are introducing today aims to break the log-jam here in Washington and allows States to experiment the way we did with welfare reform when I was Governor of Ohio. This bill would support State-based efforts to reduce the uninsured, reduce costs, improve quality, improve access to care, and expand information technology.

I have been in this situation before. As Governor of Ohio, I had to work creatively to expand coverage and deal with increasing health care costs for a growing number of uninsured Ohioans. I am happy to report that we were able to make some progress toward reducing the number of uninsured during my time as the head of the State by negotiating with the State unions to move to managed care; by controlling Medicaid costs to the point where from 1995 to 1998, due to good stewardship and management, Ohio ended up under-spending on Medicaid without harming families; and implementing the S-CHIP program to provide coverage for uninsured children. In fact, I recently learned from the Cuyahoga Commissioners that in our county, 98 percent of eligible children are currently enrolled in this program.

Like we did in Ohio, a number of States are already actively pursuing efforts to reduce the number of their residents who lack adequate health care coverage. This bill will build on the goals of States like Massachusetts, California and others, while providing a mechanism to analyze results and make recommendations for future action on the Federal level.

Under the Health Partnership Act, Congress would authorize grants to individual States, groups of States, and Indian tribes and organizations to carry out any of a broad range of strategies to improve our Nation's health

care delivery. The bill creates a mechanism for States to apply for grants to a bipartisan ``State Health Innovation Commission'' housed at the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS. After reviewing the State proposals, the Commission would submit to Congress a list of recommended State applications. The Commission would also recommend the amount of Federal grant money each State should receive to carry out the actions described in their plan.

Most importantly, at the end of the 5-year period, the Commission would be required to report to Congress whether the States are meeting the goals of the act and recommend future action Congress should take concerning overall reform, including whether or not to extend the program.

I believe it is important that we pass this legislation and provide a platform from which we can have a thoughtful conversation about health care reform at the Federal level.

Since I have been in the Senate, Congress has made some progress toward improving health care, most notably for our 43 million seniors with the passage of the Medicare Modernization Act.

Yet, we have been at this too long here in Washington without comprehensive, meaningful results. It is my hope that we will have bipartisan support for this very bipartisan comprehensive bill that I hope will move us closer toward a solution to the uninsured.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about a bill my colleague Senator Bingaman and I introduced today, the Health Care Partnership Act. For too many years, I have listened to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle talk about the rising cost of health care and the growing number of uninsured Americans. Yet, at the Federal level we have made little progress toward a solution for improving access to quality, affordable health care. I believe it is the greatest domestic challenge facing our Nation. In fact, the rising cost of health care is a major part of what is hurting our competitiveness in the global marketplace.

While surveys have indicated that health insurance premiums have stabilized--a 9.2 percent increase in 2006 the same increase as in 2005 and compared with; 12.3 percent in 2004; 14.7 percent in 2003 and 15.2 percent in 2002--health insurance costs continue to be a significant factor impacting American competitiveness. In addition, the share of costs that individuals have paid for employer sponsored insurance has risen roughly 2 percent each year, from 31.4 percent of health care costs in 2001 to 38.4 percent this year.

In fact, spending on health care in the United States reached $2 trillion in 2005--16 percent of our GDP--the largest share ever.

Yet, despite all the spending some 45 million Americans--15 percent of the population--had no health insurance at some point last year. This number has increased steadily. In 2000, that number was 39.8 million. In 2002 it was 43.6 million.

These statistics are startling, and it is beyond time that we do something about them.

The bill Senator Bingaman and I are introducing today aims to break the log-jam here in Washington and allows States to experiment the way we did with welfare reform when I was Governor of Ohio. This bill would support State-based efforts to reduce the uninsured, reduce costs, improve quality, improve access to care, and expand information technology.

I have been in this situation before. As Governor of Ohio, I had to work creatively to expand coverage and deal with increasing health care costs for a growing number of uninsured Ohioans. I am happy to report that we were able to make some progress toward reducing the number of uninsured during my time as the head of the State by negotiating with the State unions to move to managed care; by controlling Medicaid costs to the point where from 1995 to 1998, due to good stewardship and management, Ohio ended up under-spending on Medicaid without harming families; and implementing the S-CHIP program to provide coverage for uninsured children. In fact, I recently learned from the Cuyahoga Commissioners that in our county, 98 percent of eligible children are currently enrolled in this program.

Like we did in Ohio, a number of States are already actively pursuing efforts to reduce the number of their residents who lack adequate health care coverage. This bill will build on the goals of States like Massachusetts, California and others, while providing a mechanism to analyze results and make recommendations for future action on the Federal level.

Under the Health Partnership Act, Congress would authorize grants to individual States, groups of States, and Indian tribes and organizations to carry out any of a broad range of strategies to improve our Nation's health

care delivery. The bill creates a mechanism for States to apply for grants to a bipartisan ``State Health Innovation Commission'' housed at the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS. After reviewing the State proposals, the Commission would submit to Congress a list of recommended State applications. The Commission would also recommend the amount of Federal grant money each State should receive to carry out the actions described in their plan.

Most importantly, at the end of the 5-year period, the Commission would be required to report to Congress whether the States are meeting the goals of the act and recommend future action Congress should take concerning overall reform, including whether or not to extend the program.

I believe it is important that we pass this legislation and provide a platform from which we can have a thoughtful conversation about health care reform at the Federal level.

Since I have been in the Senate, Congress has made some progress toward improving health care, most notably for our 43 million seniors with the passage of the Medicare Modernization Act.

Yet, we have been at this too long here in Washington without comprehensive, meaningful results. It is my hope that we will have bipartisan support for this very bipartisan comprehensive bill that I hope will move us closer toward a solution to the uninsured.

Mr. President, a fiscal crisis looms on the horizon. As the Nation's demographic tide begins to shift, a fiscal tidal wave threatens to overwhelm our economy if we do not act now. Our irresponsible fiscal policies have created a grave situation that more and more people--Republicans and Democrats--are coming to recognize. We can no longer sit back and hope things will work themselves out. A potential national disaster threatens to devastate our way of life, and we have a moral responsibility to do something about it.

In the simplest of terms, the Federal Government continues to spend more than it brings in. But, running the credit card for today's needs and leaving the bill for future generations should not be the policy of this Congress.

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

The Fiscal Year 2006 budget deficit was $248 billion--the seventh largest deficit in our Nation's history. However, if we don't include the money we're borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund, the Fiscal Year 2006 budget deficit was $434 billion.

I arrived in Washington in 1999, and in the 8 short years since, our national debt has increased by over 50 percent from $5.6 trillion to a staggering $8.6 trillion. It represents 67 percent of the GDP--the worst number in 50 years. This means that each man, woman, and child in the United States owes $29,000 of the Federal Government's debt.

And yet, these numbers pale in comparison with the budget problems looming in our future as the Baby Boom generation begins to retire less than a year from now, on January 1, 2008. Our long-term fiscal imbalance is $50 trillion. That's hard to even grasp, but it translates into $440,000 of future government debt for every American household-- up from a mere $175,000 per household just 6 years ago.

If we do not sharply curb entitlement spending, the continual growth of these programs--especially in healthcare--will crowd out all our other spending obligations and collide with historic, long-term level of taxes. To put it in perspective, balancing the budget without reforming entitlement programs will require raising taxes to European levels. And, that would cripple our ingenuity and economy.

So, what must be done?

Congress must view our tax code, entitlement programs, and budget process as the three components--or pillars--of the nation's fiscal foundation, and not as separate entities. Each is intricately linked to the other two pillars. We must reform all three areas to raise the necessary revenue to ensure effective and responsible behavior by Congress and federal agencies, to keep our obligations to future generations, and to keep our nation strong.

First, we need fundamental tax reform to help make the tax code simple, fair, transparent, and economically efficient. According to the President's tax panel and the Mack-Breaux report, only 13 percent of taxpayers file without the help of either a tax preparer or computer software program--a function of the complexity of the system. Since enacting the Tax Reform Act of 1986--legislation intended to simplify the filing process for taxpayers--15,000 additions have been made to the Internal Revenue Code.

We cannot consider tax reform, however, without reforming our growing entitlement programs. Our already massive debt will spike yet higher as entitlements such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid witness a surge of beneficiaries in the form of retiring Baby Boomers. This mounting debt will soon become a burden our children cannot bear, dragging down our standard of living and our standing in the world.

Finally, we must restore the third pillar of our fiscal foundation-- the budget process. Together we can streamline the system to help lock in long term tax and entitlement reforms. In the past, every major deficit reduction package has included a series of budget process reforms and enforcement mechanisms designed to prevent Congress from undoing tough choices in future years. By transforming the budget process, we can fight back against the all-too-common practice of gaming the system.

While some of our colleagues claim we need tax reform, others claim we need entitlement reform. The bill I am introducing today, however, is the only bill that does it all--because you can't reform one without the other, or it's doomed to fail.

The Securing America's Future Economy Commission Act establishes a national, bipartisan commission to examine these broken systems and to present solutions to place the nation on a fiscally sustainable course and ensure the solvency of entitlement programs for future generations.

The Commission will be comprised of 16 voting members--an equal number of members from each party, with some seats reserved for sitting members of Congress. The Treasury Secretary and the OMB Director will be members, and the other 14 will be appointed by congressional leaders.

The Commission will hold town hall meetings throughout the country to determine the scope of the problem and consider possible policy options. The Commission will present a report--and, if a three-fourths majority of the Commission agrees, they will present actual legislation to Congress.

The administration and Congress will each have 90 days to review the proposal and develop an alternative package of reforms if they believe it's necessary. The most important point is that this legislation uses a fast-track procedure to guarantee a vote in Congress on the Commission's legislation and the congressional and presidential alternatives.

Outside groups across the political spectrum have shown support for our efforts, as have business executives--who view our efforts as an economic necessity--and religious leaders--who view our efforts as a moral necessity. And, when you look at the numbers, it is clear why. We have a moral obligation to improve the fiscal health of our Nation. Otherwise, our children and grandchildren are going to celebrate America's past and the good old days, rather than the future and the good new days.

Restoring our Nation's fiscal health will require hard, bipartisan work and tough decisions. That work, however, must begin immediately. We cannot afford to put it off any longer.

Mr. President, a fiscal crisis looms on the horizon. As the Nation's demographic tide begins to shift, a fiscal tidal wave threatens to overwhelm our economy if we do not act now. Our irresponsible fiscal policies have created a grave situation that more and more people--Republicans and Democrats--are coming to recognize. We can no longer sit back and hope things will work themselves out. A potential national disaster threatens to devastate our way of life, and we have a moral responsibility to do something about it.

In the simplest of terms, the Federal Government continues to spend more than it brings in. But, running the credit card for today's needs and leaving the bill for future generations should not be the policy of this Congress.

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

The Fiscal Year 2006 budget deficit was $248 billion--the seventh largest deficit in our Nation's history. However, if we don't include the money we're borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund, the Fiscal Year 2006 budget deficit was $434 billion.

I arrived in Washington in 1999, and in the 8 short years since, our national debt has increased by over 50 percent from $5.6 trillion to a staggering $8.6 trillion. It represents 67 percent of the GDP--the worst number in 50 years. This means that each man, woman, and child in the United States owes $29,000 of the Federal Government's debt.

And yet, these numbers pale in comparison with the budget problems looming in our future as the Baby Boom generation begins to retire less than a year from now, on January 1, 2008. Our long-term fiscal imbalance is $50 trillion. That's hard to even grasp, but it translates into $440,000 of future government debt for every American household-- up from a mere $175,000 per household just 6 years ago.

If we do not sharply curb entitlement spending, the continual growth of these programs--especially in healthcare--will crowd out all our other spending obligations and collide with historic, long-term level of taxes. To put it in perspective, balancing the budget without reforming entitlement programs will require raising taxes to European levels. And, that would cripple our ingenuity and economy.

So, what must be done?

Congress must view our tax code, entitlement programs, and budget process as the three components--or pillars--of the nation's fiscal foundation, and not as separate entities. Each is intricately linked to the other two pillars. We must reform all three areas to raise the necessary revenue to ensure effective and responsible behavior by Congress and federal agencies, to keep our obligations to future generations, and to keep our nation strong.

First, we need fundamental tax reform to help make the tax code simple, fair, transparent, and economically efficient. According to the President's tax panel and the Mack-Breaux report, only 13 percent of taxpayers file without the help of either a tax preparer or computer software program--a function of the complexity of the system. Since enacting the Tax Reform Act of 1986--legislation intended to simplify the filing process for taxpayers--15,000 additions have been made to the Internal Revenue Code.

We cannot consider tax reform, however, without reforming our growing entitlement programs. Our already massive debt will spike yet higher as entitlements such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid witness a surge of beneficiaries in the form of retiring Baby Boomers. This mounting debt will soon become a burden our children cannot bear, dragging down our standard of living and our standing in the world.

Finally, we must restore the third pillar of our fiscal foundation-- the budget process. Together we can streamline the system to help lock in long term tax and entitlement reforms. In the past, every major deficit reduction package has included a series of budget process reforms and enforcement mechanisms designed to prevent Congress from undoing tough choices in future years. By transforming the budget process, we can fight back against the all-too-common practice of gaming the system.

While some of our colleagues claim we need tax reform, others claim we need entitlement reform. The bill I am introducing today, however, is the only bill that does it all--because you can't reform one without the other, or it's doomed to fail.

The Securing America's Future Economy Commission Act establishes a national, bipartisan commission to examine these broken systems and to present solutions to place the nation on a fiscally sustainable course and ensure the solvency of entitlement programs for future generations.

The Commission will be comprised of 16 voting members--an equal number of members from each party, with some seats reserved for sitting members of Congress. The Treasury Secretary and the OMB Director will be members, and the other 14 will be appointed by congressional leaders.

The Commission will hold town hall meetings throughout the country to determine the scope of the problem and consider possible policy options. The Commission will present a report--and, if a three-fourths majority of the Commission agrees, they will present actual legislation to Congress.

The administration and Congress will each have 90 days to review the proposal and develop an alternative package of reforms if they believe it's necessary. The most important point is that this legislation uses a fast-track procedure to guarantee a vote in Congress on the Commission's legislation and the congressional and presidential alternatives.

Outside groups across the political spectrum have shown support for our efforts, as have business executives--who view our efforts as an economic necessity--and religious leaders--who view our efforts as a moral necessity. And, when you look at the numbers, it is clear why. We have a moral obligation to improve the fiscal health of our Nation. Otherwise, our children and grandchildren are going to celebrate America's past and the good old days, rather than the future and the good new days.

Restoring our Nation's fiscal health will require hard, bipartisan work and tough decisions. That work, however, must begin immediately. We cannot afford to put it off any longer.

Mr. President, last year after many years of effort, the Congress finally passed a bipartisan energy bill, the Energy Policy Act, which I was very pleased to work on and support. I believe, as I know many of my colleagues believe, that abundant, stable and affordable energy is one of the most fundamental challenges the United States faces in terms of job creation and our ability to compete in the global marketplace.

In order to best meet these challenges, I believe we need to develop and nurture all forms of energy--including

coal, oil, natural gas, renewables and clean, safe nuclear energy. In doing so, we need to promote energy diversity and conservation.

I commend the Chairman Domenici and Ranking Member Bingaman of the Senate Energy Committee for their outstanding work on the bill. In particular, I applaud their work in promoting new nuclear generation, and in fact helping to launch a nuclear renaissance in the United States.

According to the Energy Committee, the bill will have a dramatic effect:

Because of the provisions in the energy bill, including the

loan guarantee authority, the production tax credits, and the

insurance protection against licensing delays and litigation,

electricity generating companies and consortiums across the

United States are preparing applications for permission to

build up to 25 new nuclear power plants.

The committee further states that if all 25 plants are built: they would generate between 20,000-25,000 megawatts of new electricity, enough to power 15 million households; they would create between 40,000 and 45,000 construction jobs; and they would create approximately 10,000 high paying, high-tech plant operation jobs.

As my colleagues also know, one of our often stated but not yet achieved priorities is to foster energy independence. I must point out to my colleagues that at present our country is threatened not only by our current dependence on foreign oil, but also by a possible future dependence on Russian uranium needed to fuel U.S. nuclear reactors.

Earlier this year, when President Bush traveled to Russia for the G8 summit, I was pleased to join in a letter led by Senators Domenici, Bingaman and DeWine that expressed our concern about further expansion of Russian uranium into the domestic marketplace. We wrote of our concern that any changes proposed in either the Highly Enriched Uranium, HEU, Agreement or the Suspension Agreement would have the potential of making the U.S. more dependent on foreign sources of nuclear fuel at a time when domestic sources are being developed. Further, the letter stated that additional Russian access to the U.S. market at this time is likely to result in market destabilization potentially jeopardizing resurgence of the nuclear-related industry.

Frankly, I am concerned not only based on our goal being secure in our energy needs, but because of concerns regarding our national security. Russia is the largest single supplier of uranium enrichment services to U.S. utilities, providing 45 percent of the domestic market.

Unfortunately, a recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has created a possible loophole in U.S. antidumping law that could further expose the U.S. to a greater reliance on Russian uranium. This decision is important because the United States government is currently engaged in negotiations with Russia over possible changes to the U.S.-Russian Suspension Agreement, with critical meetings to take place this month and in January.

Unfortunately, this possible loophole may compromise the administration's negotiating position because Russia now believes it can simply terminate, rather than renegotiate, this agreement, and subsequently exploit this possible loophole to avoid any dumping liability on its low enrichment uranium exports. Under this decision, the Russians can designate their uranium fuel as a ``service'' and bypass the U.S. trade restrictions that are in place to regulate the import of ``goods''.

I had planned to offer a narrow amendment expressing concern over possible Russian plans to export more uranium and to support maintaining the existing Suspension Agreement and HEU Agreement between the United States and Russia. In fact, I have a communication from the National Security Council that states the administration's support for language similar to the amendment I had drafted.

The basis for my concerns for our national security is this: should the Russians back out of the Suspension Agreement in an effort to obtain direct access to the U.S. nuclear fuel market, this could undermine and disrupt the HEU Agreement. The bottom line is the Suspension Agreement and the HEU Agreement have a direct relationship. It is clear to this Senator that changes to the Suspension Agreement would have significant consequences to the HEU Agreement, and there is no doubt that ensuring uninterrupted execution of the HEU Agreement is absolutely in the U.S. national security and energy security interests.

That being said, I understand there is concern with addressing the issue at this time, and I have decided to withhold further action. While I am disappointed that there is not enough time in this Congress to deal with this important issue, it is my hope that this situation can be quickly addressed in the 110th Congress.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce The Secure Travel and Counterterrorism Partnership Act of 2006, along with my good friends Senators Akaka, Lugar, Mikulski, and Santorum.

This legislation would expand the U.S. Visa Waiver Program in a way that would increase cooperation with key allies in the war on terror while strengthening U.S. national security.

The bill provides a way for us to expand and improve the visa waiver system so that Americans are safer and our Nation is more prosperous for years to come.

This legislation comes at a particularly important time in our Nation's history. We are currently facing multiple foreign policy challenges in the post-9/11 world. We need the cooperation of several allies to combat transnational threats. As such, we are asking our friends and allies to contribute more of their troops and resources to Iraq, Afghanistan, and other conflicts in the world, so that we can be successful. This legislation will help us to solidify these relationships and increase goodwill toward the U.S. for years to come, while also enhancing travel security and safety at home.

My legislation would authorize the Department of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Department of State, to expand the Visa Waiver Program to countries that are true friends of America and prepared to do more to help us keep terrorists and criminals out of our borders.

For those that do not know about the Visa Waiver Program, it was established in 1986 to improve relations with U.S. allies and strengthen the U.S. economy. The program permitted nationals from the selected countries to enter the United States without a visa for up to 90 days for tourism or business.

Currently, 27 countries participate in the program, including the United Kingdom. But there are a number of new allies who would also like to participate in the Visa Waiver Program and are willing to meet strict security requirements and cooperate on counterterrorism initiatives.

Many of these countries were former members of the Soviet Union. They were victims of Soviet oppression for years, against their will, and despite their desire for freedom.

Today, many of these countries have boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan and want to help us stop the terrorists and promote democracy. These countries are naturally suited to help other countries as they fight for freedom and democracy. Many of these countries are also actively engaged in Cuba, helping to promote democracy there. Likewise, they have a unique understanding of the struggle for democracy that is taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Despite their commitments to the principles of freedom and democracy, these countries are still paying a price that other countries in the West do not pay. Citizens of Portugal, the U.K., or Spain can travel easily to the U.S., while citizens of Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia are given second-class treatment.

I would like to share a few examples to put a human face on this problem.

I recently learned of a story involving a young Czech officer who served in Iraq with Americans. This soldier wanted to come to America to visit the American friends he made during combat operations. But his application for a visa was refused. Why? Because his passport included a visit to Iraq, the very place he served with American soldiers.

Another example involves young students from places like Latvia, Estonia, or Bulgaria. These young people have a positive view of America and hope to visit our country. However, their expensive visa applications are frequently rejected, dampening their spirits and tainting their image of America. And this view is spreading every day.

By limiting travel to the U.S., we are risking a loss of influence with the future leaders of our closest allies.

I have been working for the last several months to develop a piece of legislation that will address these challenges, without sacrificing U.S. security. I was pleased when I heard President Bush announce his intention to focus on this issue in the coming year. On the margins of the NATO Summit in Riga, he called on Congress to expand the Visa Waiver Program so that we can reward our closest allies for their help and friendship.

I agree with the President--but I want to clarify that this is not simply a reward for these countries. The true reward is the knowledge that we are free and democratic countries working together to advance international security. But the foremost goal of this legislation is to create mutually beneficial partnerships with clear national security advantages for the United States.

By continuing on the current path, we risk marginalizing some of our closest allies in the war on terror and losing the hearts and minds of their future leaders and citizens. We have an opportunity to change direction in a way that will promote our own national security interests and improve control of our borders. The Secure Travel and Counterterrorism Partnership Act can achieve all of these objectives.

What would this bill do?

The legislation would expand visa-free travel privileges for up to five new countries, for a probationary period of 3 years.

In order for a country to participate in the plan, the executive branch would first need to certify that the country is cooperative on counterterrorism and does not pose a security or law enforcement threat to the United States. However, the country would also be required to take a number of new steps to enhance our common security.

Prior to participation, the countries would be required to conclude new agreements with the United States to further strengthen cooperation on counterterrorism and improve information-sharing about critical security issues.

Some might say--if these countries are key allies, aren't they cooperating with us already? The answer is yes. They are very cooperative. But in today's heightened security environment, there is more that each country can do, such as sharing additional sensitive information that can help our intelligence community and law enforcement agencies investigate threats and combat terrorist activity. By negotiating new agreements on counterterrorism and information- sharing to permit participation in the Visa Waiver Program, we can reduce threats to the United States.

Additionally, the legislation would require the countries to enact a number of significant security measures, which would limit illegal entry and unlawful presence in their countries and impede travel by terrorists and transnational criminals. Security standards required for participation in the program would include electronic passports with biometric information, as well as prompt reporting of lost, stolen, or fraudulent travel documents to the U.S. and Interpol.

These new requirements would help make the U.S. more secure. Expanding the number of participating countries would increase the number of states meeting common security standards. This would allow the United States to shift consular resources used to issue visas to other missions with more critical security needs.

If at any time, participant countries are not complying with these requirements, their probationary status in the program could be revoked. Likewise, if the program is determined to be successful, it could be expanded to include additional countries.

The last part of the legislation is aimed at enhancing security requirements for countries who are currently participating in the Visa Waiver Program. In this post 9/11 world, the U.S. Government has already required additional security measures of participating visa waiver countries, such as machine-readable passports with biometric information. But we can and must do more.

I was very pleased that last week, Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff recommended several new measures to further enhance the efficiency and security of the Visa Waiver Program. His

recommendations included an electronic travel authorization system, additional passenger information exchanges, common standards for airport security and baggage screening, cooperation in the air marshal program, and home country assistance in repatriation for any traveler who overstays the terms of their visa or violates U.S. law.

As the administration works to develop the details of these recommendations, my legislation would require that within one year, the executive branch provide a report to Congress on its plans for the Visa Waiver Program improvements.

In addition to the benefits to foreign relations and homeland security, this bill would do a great deal to advance U.S. competitiveness. Visa-free travel to the United States has been proven to significantly boost tourism and business, as well as airline revenues, and would generate substantial economic benefits to the United States well into the future. Additionally, it would improve attitudes toward the United States throughout the world, which would benefit the U.S. economy and national security for generations to come.

As a member of both the Foreign Relations and the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committees, I believe that we have a real opportunity to improve our foreign relations, our homeland defense, and the visa waiver system overall.

Therefore, I call on my colleagues in the Senate and the House to examine this legislation with a serious eye, refraining from the knee- jerk reaction that an expanded program is bad for national security. When you look at the facts involved and the opportunities ahead, you can see that we have a chance to improve security cooperation and strengthen the bonds of friendship with our allies in the war on terror.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress and the President to move this legislation forward.

As the administration works to develop the details of these recommendations, my legislation would require that within one year, the executive branch provide a report to Congress on its plans for Visa Waiver Program improvements.

In addition to the benefits to foreign relations and homeland security, this bill would do a great deal to advance U.S. competitiveness. Visa-free travel to the United States has been proven to significantly boost tourism and business, as well as airline revenues, and would generate substantial economic benefits to the United States well into the future. Additionally, it would improve attitudes toward the United States throughout the world, which would benefit the U.S. economy and national security for generations to come.

As a member of both the Foreign Relations and the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committees, I believe that we have a real opportunity to improve our foreign relations, our homeland defense, and the visa waiver system overall.

Therefore, I call on my colleagues in the Senate and the House to examine this legislation with a serious eye, refraining from the knee- jerk reaction that an expanded program is bad for national security. When you look at the facts involved and the opportunities ahead, you can see that we have a chance to improve security cooperation and strengthen the bonds of friendship with our allies in the war on terror.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress and the President to move this legislation forward.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, as you know, the Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service, APHIS, issued an emergency order on October 24, 2006 which prohibited the importation of 37 species of live fish from two Canadian provinces and the interstate movement within the eight Great Lakes States. APHIS issued this order with the intention of stopping the spread of viral hemorrhagic septicemia, VHS, within the Great Lakes States which has been linked to fish kills. On November 14, 2006 APHIS modified their emergency order to allow the interstate movement of live fish within and from the Great Lakes States provided the fish have tested negative to VHS. I appreciate the concerns APHIS has about the spread of this virus and their concern about protecting the Great Lakes from this virus. I share the goal in restoring and protecting our Great Lakes. I too am deeply concerned about the negative effects associated with the spread of this virus within the Great Lakes and its potential impact on our fishing and aquaculture industry. It is very important that we take responsible steps forward in limiting the spread of this virus which could impact the region. The commercial and sport fishing industry in the Great Lakes is a $4 billion industry and is a source of pride in our region.

I am concerned, however, that this emergency order does not adequately take into consideration the economic concerns of the region. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources and the aquaculture industry in the region have all expressed that this order will adversely affect businesses and the State's ability to stock Lake Erie. The Ohio Department of Agriculture has indicated to me they are not equipped to test for this disease at this time and that the cost could be approximately $200,000 to update their labs to meet the demands of the APHIS order. It is critical that we be able to provide the Great Lakes States the ability to begin testing in order to comply with the APHIS order in a timely manner. Funding will be needed to meet these demands. Without this assistance, the aquaculture industry will suffer. Because I believe this issue can be resolved in conference, I have introduced, but will not offer, an amendment to provide funding for the Great Lakes States to help them set up facilities to test fish for VHS. The chairman and ranking member are aware of this important issue and share my concerns about the problem facing the Great Lakes States today. It is my hope that we can work together during conference negotiations on the FY2007 Agriculture Appropriations bill to find relief for the Great Lakes States in this matter.

I thank the chairman and ranking member and look forward to working on this effort during conference negotiations.

Mr. President, I rise to address my serious concern about our movement toward a decision to adjourn the 109th Congress without completing our work on the remaining 2007 appropriations bills and to recognize, also, my friend and senior Senator from the State of Ohio, Mr. Mike DeWine.

As my colleagues are well aware, the fiscal year 2006 appropriations expired on September 30, 2006. And with the exception of the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, the Federal Government is currently operating on its second temporary continuing resolution, set to expire on December 8, 2006. We now intend to enact a third continuing resolution to fund the Government into February 2007.

Passage of a long-term continuing resolution, as some have advocated, means the Federal Government will work without a budget for at least 5 months into the current fiscal year, without knowing what spending levels will be approved for discretionary programs. Federal Departments and agencies will be forced to oversee programs and manage employees without knowing whether they are overspending their fiscal year 2007 budgets.

This approach toward managing our Nation's checkbook is indicative of Congress's attitude toward fiscal discipline and is a serious problem. Other Senators have spoken about how serious the problems are. And Senator Byrd did a very good job of outlining the serious impact that our not passing our appropriations on time is going to have on some of our Departments in the Federal Government. And earlier, Senator Specter did the same thing. We are aware of the problems it is going to create for the management of our Government.

Operating without a budget impacts our effectiveness in fighting the war on terror. It affects our ability to maintain and improve our transportation infrastructure and enhance our educational system. And it further contributes to the public perception that Congress has no appreciation of the importance of good management and the importance of hiring the right people with the right knowledge and skills at the right time and at the right place.

This is not a good record for either side of the aisle. And with due respect to the senior Senator from West Virginia, I think it cannot be laid at the feet of the Republicans; it should be laid at the feet of both Republicans and Democrats. This is not a partisan issue. Congress has the power of the purse, but we are not the best stewards of the taxpayers' money if time after time we pass omnibus bills without even knowing what is in them, and if, again and again, we fund programs without knowing how these programs are performing.

Managing by continuing resolution is inherently wasteful and inefficient. It results in spending disruptions and chaos in the operations of Federal programs and dramatic productivity slowdowns. We have no appreciation of what not having a budget for 5 months has on the various Federal agencies that are supposed to be providing services to the people of our country.

In recent years, many Federal Departments have taken positive steps toward streamlining their budgets and tightening the reins on their daily operations--conduct that ought to be rewarded. Instead, Departments are forced to thin their staffs and put critical projects on hold when Congress fails to pass appropriations bills on time, placing an unnecessary strain on the relationship between Congress and the administrative branch of Government.

Such a funding shortfall is expected to have particularly adverse effects on human capital-intensive agencies, such as the Government Accountability Office, where attracting and retaining good employees is critical to running a competitive and productive organization.

Agencies such as the GAO have made it very clear that without a budget,

they risk losing top-quality personnel. They are unable to properly recognize and reward individuals for good service--a problem that threatens the efficiency of their day-to-day activities and hampers the image of the Federal Government. As an employer, we want to get people to come on board, and we cannot pass our appropriations.

This added pressure on human capital is not limited to the GAO. In fact, there are lots of similar agencies, such as the SEC, the FBI, and the IRS, which experience the same problem. According to a report in Congress Daily, the Social Security Administration maintains it will have to furlough every employee if its regular appropriations are not signed into law. I think that may be a big exaggeration, but it has a real impact on the operations of that agency.

Many companies with Government contracts are laying people off because they are not sure that the contracts will be renewed because of the budget process. And I know this from a member of my family who was laid off a year ago. Because we did not pass the budget on time, the company said: We don't know whether we are going to have the contracts. Seventy people lost their jobs while they waited around to find out whether the appropriations were going to be passed and how it impacted on the operations of NASA Glenn in Cleveland.

Sometimes programs are ineffective, and their budgets should be reduced or eliminated. By resorting to a continuing resolution, ineffective programs continue to operate, despite poor performance results. For example, the House would have terminated 53 programs, for a savings of $4 billion. But under a continuing resolution, we cannot even discuss whether these programs deserve to be terminated. Literally, dozens of unauthorized programs continue to be funded.

On the flip side, the appropriations process has expanded beyond the budget domain to include shaping and authorizing policy. This is especially the case with Foreign Operations programs. It then becomes even more important to enact the Foreign Operations appropriations bill because it is the way we modify foreign aid and foreign policy initiatives.

One such instance is the Transformational Diplomacy Program at the State Department, which would allow for the repositioning of American diplomats to essential locations and for the movement of public diplomacy centers to smaller posts outside of foreign capitals.

But it is not just the Federal Government that suffers. States, counties, and cities all depend on funding from Washington. If you are a county commissioner or you are a mayor and you have Federal programs and you are not sure what you are going to be getting, that causes a major problem for your respective agency.

When Congress fails to enact appropriations on time, highways, emergency preparedness, and economic development programs are all neglected, and Congress creates a new burden for Governors, mayors, and local officials. Maintaining and improving America's transportation is vital to our economy, the environment, and the welfare of the American people.

The Interstate Highway System is one of the country's greatest public works projects, but it requires Federal investment. States plan their highway construction programs for the coming year based on anticipated Federal funding set by SAFETEA legislation. If Congress fails to pass the 2007 Transportation appropriations bill on time, States will have reduced Federal funding and are going to be forced to delay construction projects for the upcoming year.

In my home State of Ohio, for instance, construction cost increases in inflation have already forced the Ohio Department of Transportation to cancel and postpone nearly $450 million in new highway projects. Adding a continuing resolution to this current slowdown will simply exacerbate the problem and result in further delay and further construction problems, if we don't pay any attention to that. That is going to impact the contracts they would like to let. That is why our States and workers cannot afford for us to ignore our budget responsibilities.

It is incredible to me, as someone who has been a mayor and Governor, that the U.S. Senate has not completed its appropriations work. As a mayor and Governor, the law mandated that we get our appropriations done by the end of the fiscal year. I am sure the Presiding Officer, when he was a member in the State of Georgia Legislature, saw that they got their appropriations done on time. In Ohio, once in a while we had to put a cloth over the clock for a couple of days. The fact is, we got it done.

I know I am not alone in my frustration. In fact, Thad Cochran, chairman, calls it irresponsible. He is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. It is irresponsible; I second that. It is absolutely irresponsible.

Let's look at our record on the path of fiscal irresponsibility. In fact, in 25 of the past 30 years, Congress has failed to enact all the appropriations bills by the start of the fiscal year, which is a major responsibility, to get the budget passed and get the appropriations bills done on time. The last time Congress enacted all appropriations bills by September 30 was 1997. And for 17 of the past years, Congress has had to combine two or more appropriations bills together in an omnibus or minibus legislation. Given the facts, it is an indication to the American people that we are not doing our job. We are not being responsible.

We send a signal to those in the Federal Government that we don't give a darn about how, when we don't do our jobs, they can't do theirs. Congress may hold the power of the purse, but we undermine our credibility by starving good managers and agencies of necessary resources and by turning a blind eye to failing programs. This is about more than allocating funds. It is about good management, and it is about good public policy. All of us on a bipartisan basis should pledge that we are going to get the appropriations bills done for 2008 on time and that next year we are not going to have a repeat performance of what we are experiencing this week in the Senate.

I think if you talk about the frustration of the American people in terms of Congress and our responsibility to them, you can only conclude one thing if you were out there watching this. Folks are saying: They can't even get their appropriations bills done on time. That is a sad commentary. Let's start out next year on a new leaf. Let's all pledge to do this, both Republicans and Democrats. Let's say we are going to get this job done. I know some people have a problem with the process and some of the porkbarrel and the rest of it, but let's start out and say we are going to get it done, bring it to the floor, debate it, and get it done on time.