Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to speak about our senior Senator from Ohio, Mike DeWine. Let me begin by saying this is a speech I hoped I would never have to give. For many in this Chamber, winter came a little early this year. A blizzard of political change swept through the country and, unfortunately, many were unable to weather the storm; in my particular case, in our State, through no fault of their own.

Mike DeWine was one of the most effective legislators we have in the U.S. Senate. He was a victim of this storm. I am deeply saddened that our respective colleagues will not be joining us when we congregate again for the 110th Congress. Mike's tireless commitment to legislating, his willingness and ability to work with both parties, and his ingenuity will be sorely missed by everyone in the Senate and the State of Ohio.

Mike has served the people of Ohio for more than 30 years, beginning as an assistant county prosecutor in 1992. He served as Green County prosecutor for 4 years, State senator for 2 years, Congressman for 8 years, and he was my Lieutenant Governor for 4 years when I was Governor of Ohio. And, of course, he has served us for 12 years as our U.S. Senator. He is one of the most effective and least partisan Members in this body.

During campaign season, some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle kept asking me: How is Mike doing, how is he doing? Frankly, I think they were secretly hoping his poll numbers would be strong enough that he would not become a target. Unfortunately,

those numbers never got up to that place, and he ended up being a target.

Far too many Members see differences between Republicans and Democrats as an unsurpassable deep divide. Not Mike DeWine. Over and over again, Mike built bridges between our parties, and he got things done for America and for Ohio. Janet and I feel like Mike and his wonderful wife Fran are part of our family. After working with Mike for the past 16 years, I can tell you that there is something special about him. In fact, right from the start, I knew there was something refreshingly different about Mike DeWine.

The inception of our friendship came in 1990, when Mike and I were both running in the Republican primary for Governor of Ohio. It was a crowded field with Mike, Bob Taft, and I vying for the Governor's slot. It was then we really got to know each other. We talked about what would be the best for Ohio and for the Republican Party and, quite frankly, for our respective political futures. We decided to combine our efforts as running mates, and Mike agreed to run as my Lieutenant Governor.

I knew this was a very tough decision for Mike because he wanted to be Governor and was giving up a very safe congressional seat to run for State office. At that moment, I knew I had a first-rate partner, a man with great character and humility as well as unique political poise and promise. Both of us knew we had a long, tough race ahead of us with no guarantees. This was not a layup shot. There was a real question of whether we were going to be successful. He had given up a safe seat in the U.S. Congress, with a big family. But we had a great time running for State office. Mike had an opportunity to connect with the State as a whole. I remember when he and Fran packed the kids in the van and traveled every inch of Ohio, becoming intimate with the Appalachian east, its manufacturing north, and its interior farmland.

We went on to win the general election and, as I like to say, together we did it. Together we won the election, and together we charted a new course for Ohio.

As Lieutenant Governor, Mike took over the State's criminal justice agencies, where he led the fight against crime and illegal drugs. It was a relief to have Mike as my partner when we had the Lucasville riots which broke out on Easter Sunday in 1993. It was the largest prison disturbance in the history of the United States, generating a great deal of national tension. Mike's background in criminal justice and his close relationship with law enforcement helped us respond quickly and effectively. It could have been a tragedy, but fortunately, together, and with the help of the Holy Spirit, we made it through.

In 1992, when the Ohio Republican Party needed a challenger to run against the famous astronaut and giant in Ohio politics, John Glenn, Mike was the obvious choice. He and Fran worked tirelessly to win that seat. Unfortunately, victory was not in the cards that year but triumph was imminent. Two years later, Mike became a U.S. Senator and our party swept the State, just as the Democrats did this year in Ohio. Mike returned to Washington as a U.S. Senator with more perspective, more experience, and more insight into the challenges facing Ohio than when he left the Congress as a Member of the House of Representatives. Without a lot of fanfare, he quietly went to work.

Of course, Mike has been shaped by many things. It is impossible to talk about his achievements in public service without mentioning the terrible misfortune he and Fran experienced back in 1994. I will never forget the day Mike and Fran lost their daughter Becky. I am familiar with the tremendous pain they suffered. The day that changed their lives sticks in my memory, much like the day Janet and I lost our daughter Molly. Mike translated the love he and Fran had for Becky into his work in the Senate. He became a champion for our youth and for those who cannot represent themselves. That is why today I am hard pressed to think of anyone who has not been helped by Mike DeWine.

His legislative achievements, which span both domestic and foreign policy, reflect his effectual and compassionate nature. Mike has shown tremendous dedication toward improving the safety of our highway system. He not only amended the 2005 highway bill to make preferences for highways noted as being unsafe, but he also allocated more than $56 million of SAFETEA-LU, intended for improving highway safety.

He succeeded in getting further testing and approval of medications for children. He helped establish a national toll-free poison control hotline. He acted on behalf of the children of U.S. servicemembers to make sure they had access to affordable health care. And he has stood up for foster children to make sure they are protected and to help them find adoptive parents.

Time after time, Senator DeWine has protected Ohio. He was a critical voice in passing the Senate pension bill which helped ensure that workers' futures in Ohio are on better footing. He is a cosponsor of the Health Partnership Act because he understands how important health care reform is to Ohioans and to this country. He helped ensure that our fire departments are better equipped to fulfill their missions as first responders.

During the BRAC process, he worked to keep Federal facilities, such as Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton and the Defense Finance and Accounting Center in Cleveland and Columbus, open and operating. And he led a new mission for Ohio's NASA-Glenn in Cleveland. Today these facilities are thriving and contributing to Ohio's aerospace industry and national defense. I don't think there was a State in the country that benefited more from the BRAC process than Ohio, and it is attributable to the outstanding leadership Mike DeWine gave all of us in terms of that BRAC process.

Mike has also been a friend of the Jewish community and has made it a priority to help stamp out antisemitism and intolerance in America. He played a pivotal role in helping disclose previously classified documents about Nazi aggression, legislation that made those records available to the public through the National Archives and Records Administration. Today, thanks to Mike, doctors, nurses, and aid workers are more prepared to confront the global AIDS epidemic.

Mike has carried a heavy burden while he has been in the Senate. He sits on the Judiciary Committee, the HELP Committee, and the Intelligence Committee. He also sits on one the most prestigious committees in the Senate, Appropriations. In fact, Mike was the first Ohioan in 50 years to sit on Appropriations. His position of leadership--and the resources he has been able to bring back to Ohio-- has made a tremendous difference for our State and a tremendous difference in the lives of the people of our State. I used to joke with Mike that my job as the debt hawk was to make sure we didn't spend the money. But once we decided we were going to spend it, his job was to make sure Ohio got its fair share. And boy, did he do a good job.

These are just a handful of examples where my close friend and colleague Mike DeWine has made a difference. His legislative accomplishments and his legacy of principled public service have had a deep impact on all of our lives. The Senate will suffer a loss without Mike. But he will not slip out of the Senate. He will walk out these doors with his head held high because he can feel good about all he has given to the people of Ohio and to the United States of America. He has truly made a difference in their lives.

Married for more than 39 years, Mike and Fran are parents to 8 children and grandparents to 10. They have been blessed with much happiness and success, and they have carved out many meaningful paths during their life together.

While Mike will be missed, I am confident that he and Fran will begin something new in this next chapter of their lives. We have both been given so much. I believe that God does have a plan. Sometimes we are not sure about what it is, but God does have a plan.

I am reminded of one of my favorite verses from the Bible, Proverbs chapter 3, verses 5 and 6:

Trust in the Lord with all your heart; and learn not unto

your own understandings. In all your ways acknowledge Him,

and He will direct your path.

Mike will be missed. But I know the Holy Spirit will continue to inspire

Mike and Fran as they embark on a new journey together.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for S. 3709, the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act, of which I am a cosponsor. First, I congratulate Senators Lugar and Biden for their excellent bipartisan effort to produce a quality piece of legislation. We can all be very proud of this product.

I have long believed the United States and India should expand its excellent friendship and embark upon a deeper, more strategic relationship. We now have that opportunity, and I urge my fellow Members of the Senate to pass S. 3709, a bill that will enable us to transform our relationship with India and initiate a solid partnership with great security, economic, and environmental returns for U.S. national interests.

As President Bush said when he met with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in New Delhi last spring:

India in the 21st century is a natural partner of the

United States because we are brothers in the cause of human

liberty.

By expanding civil nuclear cooperation with India, the United States has an opportunity to bring India into an arms control regime that will guarantee greater oversight and inspection rights and which will allow us to make India's preexisting nuclear program safer and more transparent. At a time when we are facing many other nuclear power challenges, we should welcome this as a positive step in the world of nonproliferation.

It is not just the United States that supports civil nuclear cooperation with India. I was in Vienna in May, where I met with the International Atomic Energy Agency. During our meetings--we

were talking primarily about Iran and what they were doing in terms of Iran's violation of the nuclear nonproliferation agreement. We also talked about India and how they felt about the proposal that was being entered into between the United States and India. And I was told, at that time, that India has been a more active and responsible partner, in terms of their cooperation with the IAEA, than many of the signatories to the nuclear nonproliferation agreement.

As was just pointed out by the Senator from Texas, later on Director General Mohamed ElBaradei called the idea that is contained in this agreement ``a milestone'' and ``timely for ongoing efforts to consolidate the non-proliferation regime, combat nuclear terrorism and strengthen nuclear safety.''

Furthermore, this agreement will allow us to form a critical strategic relationship with India. And from a point of view, it is long overdue. The geostrategic facts are that China and India are two rising powers in the industrialized world. As China expands its economic power and military strength, U.S. nuclear cooperation with India can help to even the international keel.

I am also referring to the fact that China, could pose a threat to U.S. national security in the future. We are working very carefully to make sure that does not happen, but it is something we should think about. But I am also thinking about the fact that India and China also have a good relationship. So the fact that we are entering into a new relationship with India, I think, also would be well received by the Chinese and other Asian countries and helpful to alleviating any tensions that exist.

For the past 30 years, we let differences in our domestic policies and our international intentions keep us from working together. But India is a unique democracy, a new shining city upon a hill, and we need this more than ever before. We need models such as this, where people of different faiths and ethnicities live together and where the Government is open and accountable for its actions. It is the largest democracy that we have in the world today.

Following the end of the Cold War, new economic opportunities have created room for cooperation between the United States and India in agriculture, health care, commerce, defense, technology, and education. It is amazing to me the number of businesses I have in Ohio that have joint ventures in India and Indian investment in the State of Ohio.

In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, India has been a leader in fighting terrorism and rooting out extremists from its society. It has a long record of responsible behavior on nonproliferation matters, and it is time we embrace India as part of that nonproliferation community.

I strongly encourage the Senate to pass S. 3907 and take the next step in bolstering our relationship with India. A democratic, economically sound, internationally integrated India will serve as a ballast in a region experiencing rapid, sweeping change.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with my good friends, Senator Pryor, Senator Domenici, and Senator Warner. To my colleagues, it is my understanding that a question as to the intent of the chemical facility security provision has arisen. Senator Pryor, in your view, what is the meaning of section 550 with respect to its effect on State laws or rules?

I thank Senator Pryor for his statement because I agree with it. I know my good friend from Virginia, Senator Warner, also has views on this. Senator Warner, in your view, what is the meaning of section 550 with respect to its effect on State laws or rules.

I thank Senator Warner for his statement. I strongly agree with the assessment that Congress and the Federal Government have the duty to provide for the security of our States and our people. Further, the importance of a single, integrated set of comprehensive national standards is vital to the security of this sector. I see my good friend from New Mexico here as well. I ask the Senator from New Mexico if he has further views on the meaning of section 550 with respect to its effect on State laws or rules.

I thank my good friend from New Mexico for his comments, and I strongly agree with his assessment. It is the Federal Government's preeminent role when it comes to matters of national security to set a uniform set of rules with which the regulated community must comply. I feel strongly that this provision sets that uniform set of rules and in so doing, impliedly preempts further regulation by State rules or laws.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 4962.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer the Disaster Area Health and Environmental Monitoring Act, an amendment to the port security bill.

This legislation is vital because it provides for the monitoring of the health and safety of individuals exposed to harmful substances as a result of a presidentially declared disaster. The Senate passed this bill by unanimous consent in the 108th Congress, but jurisdictional disagreements between committees in the House caused it not to be passed in the House.

This issue first came to my attention during a series of Environment and Public Works Committee hearings in 2002 when we learned of the severe health problems facing thousands of workers and volunteers who heroically responded to the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center. Perhaps some of my colleagues saw the ``60 Minutes'' segment this last Sunday that examined the problem in depth.

I will never forget Joe Allbaugh, 3 months after September 11, before the committee. I asked him: What have you found out about what folks were exposed to, those who were first responders?

And he said: I can't get the information.

This bill would give the President the right to immediately go in and do the investigation to determine what these folks were exposed to.

One of the things that we also did was discover that these first responders did not have the opportunity to have a screening. We were able to get $14 million set aside to do screening of first responders.

In the case of Ohio--we had one of the first responding units there-- we found a variety of health problems, including respiratory illness, pneumonia, asthma, and many faced the possibility of long-term health issues.

I am deeply saddened to note the recent passing of New York City Police Detective James Zadroga, a rescue worker at the World Trade Center, whose tragic death was directly caused by his exposure to toxic fumes and dust at Ground Zero.

Currently, the Federal Emergency Management Agency does not hold the authority to conduct the necessary long-term monitoring of health impacts following environmental exposures in the wake of a disaster.

In 2003, Federal funding helped establish the World Trade Center Worker and Volunteer Medical Screening Program at Mount Sinai Hospital and the University of Cincinnati. I have already referred to that. At least way afterwards we started doing the screening to let the folks know what they were subjected to. According to the findings, almost 70 percent of the World Trade Center responders had a substantially worse respiratory system following their work at the World Trade Center. Among the responders who were asymptomatic before September 11, 61 percent developed respiratory symptoms while working at the World Trade Center.

In addition to that assistance at Ground Zero, OTF responded to the needs of communities around the country faced with the aftermath of natural disasters. OTF sent responders to Florida following Hurricane Dennis in July of 2005 and to Louisiana and Mississippi following Hurricane Katrina in August of 2005.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the need for public health monitoring became clear. The CDC and EPA have identified 13 environmental health issues confronting first responders, including drinking water, wastewater, solid waste, debris and soil contamination from toxic chemicals. It is vital this legislation is enacted to address any health care needs that arise for the thousands of first responders who are active on the gulf coast. S. 1741 authorizes the President, if he determines that substances of concern have been released in a federally declared disaster area, to activate a program in a Federal partnership with appropriate medical institutions for the protection, assessment, monitoring, and study of the health and safety of individuals.

The act also would direct Federal agencies to enter into a contract with the National Academies of Sciences to study and report on disaster area health protection and monitoring.

It is extremely important we take care of these individuals because, as I stated in past hearings, whether people volunteer to be first responders depends on how we treat the first responders at the World Trade Center, the gulf coast, and other disaster areas. If they are not going to be able to find out immediately what they have been exposed to, and the President has the authority to get in there and find out what it is, we will have more and more people reluctant to come to the help in other disasters in the country.

I therefore urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill which is cosponsored by 16 of our Senate colleagues. It is strongly supported by the first responder community.

I thank the Senator from Maine for this opportunity to share why it is important we get it passed.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about a bill my colleague Senator Carper and I introduced today, the Electronic Personal Health Records Act. The purpose of this legislation is to provide for the establishment and maintenance of electronic personal health records for individuals and family members enrolled in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan, FEHBP.

The widespread adoption of health information technology, such as electronic health record, (EHR), will revolutionize the health care profession. In fact, the Institute of Medicine, the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics, and other expert panels have identified information technology as one of the most powerful tools in reducing medical errors and improving the quality of care. Unfortunately, our country's health care industry lags far behind other sectors of the economy in its investment in IT.

The Institute of Medicine estimates that there are nearly 98,000 deaths each year resulting from medical errors. Many of these deaths can be directly attributed to the inherent imperfections of our current paper-based health care system. This statistic is startling and one that I hope will motivate my colleagues to take a close look at the goals of our legislation.

The voluntary EHRs that would be established through the Electronic Personal Health Records Act will provide clinicians with real-time access to their patient's health history. Each EHR would contain claims data, contact information for providers of health care services, and other useful information for diagnosis and treatment. The records will be available cost-free to FEHBP participants and will maintain strict adherence to HIPAA.

Under the bill, the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, would be required to ensure that all carriers who participate in FEHBP educate their members about the implementation of the EHR, as well as give timely notice of the establishment of the record and an opportunity for each individual to elect not to participate in the program.

OPM, through their carriers, would also have to ensure that all records would be available for electronic access through Internet, fax, or printed method for the use of the individual, and that to the extent possible, records could be transferred from one plan to another. The bill would require EHRs to be made available two years after the passage of the legislation or earlier at the discretion of OPM in consultation with the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology within HHS.

Not only can EHRs save lives and improve the quality of health care, they also have the potential to reduce the cost of the delivery of health care. According to Rand Corporation, the health care delivery system in the United States could save approximately $160 billion annually with the widespread use of electronic medical records. As a result, the private market is already moving toward implementing electronic medical records.

This bill, simply encourages the health care industry to continue in that direction and take their use of technology in the delivery of care to the next step. I urge my colleagues to consider not only the benefit it will provide to the eight million individuals who receive their health care through the FEHBP, but also to our Nation's overall health care system.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about a bill my colleague Senator Carper and I introduced today, the Electronic Personal Health Records Act. The purpose of this legislation is to provide for the establishment and maintenance of electronic personal health records for individuals and family members enrolled in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan, FEHBP.

The widespread adoption of health information technology, such as electronic health record, (EHR), will revolutionize the health care profession. In fact, the Institute of Medicine, the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics, and other expert panels have identified information technology as one of the most powerful tools in reducing medical errors and improving the quality of care. Unfortunately, our country's health care industry lags far behind other sectors of the economy in its investment in IT.

The Institute of Medicine estimates that there are nearly 98,000 deaths each year resulting from medical errors. Many of these deaths can be directly attributed to the inherent imperfections of our current paper-based health care system. This statistic is startling and one that I hope will motivate my colleagues to take a close look at the goals of our legislation.

The voluntary EHRs that would be established through the Electronic Personal Health Records Act will provide clinicians with real-time access to their patient's health history. Each EHR would contain claims data, contact information for providers of health care services, and other useful information for diagnosis and treatment. The records will be available cost-free to FEHBP participants and will maintain strict adherence to HIPAA.

Under the bill, the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, would be required to ensure that all carriers who participate in FEHBP educate their members about the implementation of the EHR, as well as give timely notice of the establishment of the record and an opportunity for each individual to elect not to participate in the program.

OPM, through their carriers, would also have to ensure that all records would be available for electronic access through Internet, fax, or printed method for the use of the individual, and that to the extent possible, records could be transferred from one plan to another. The bill would require EHRs to be made available two years after the passage of the legislation or earlier at the discretion of OPM in consultation with the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology within HHS.

Not only can EHRs save lives and improve the quality of health care, they also have the potential to reduce the cost of the delivery of health care. According to Rand Corporation, the health care delivery system in the United States could save approximately $160 billion annually with the widespread use of electronic medical records. As a result, the private market is already moving toward implementing electronic medical records.

This bill, simply encourages the health care industry to continue in that direction and take their use of technology in the delivery of care to the next step. I urge my colleagues to consider not only the benefit it will provide to the eight million individuals who receive their health care through the FEHBP, but also to our Nation's overall health care system.

I certainly endorse the comments of the Senator from Texas. The airline industry is very competitive with thin profit margins. The costs of labor and benefits are two of the few variables that affect a company's bottom line. The bill that came over to the Senate from the House, and which we are unable to amend today, puts several of the airlines at a severe competitive disadvantage because it does not apply the same rules to each airline's pension fund. Recognizing the importance of the other reform measures in this legislation, I understand the need to pass it and send it to the President for his signature. But before we do that, I would like to hear from the majority leader if he believes that he will be in a position before the year ends to revisit this question and help us reach a more equitable resolution.

Mr. President, I would like to second the remarks of Senator Inhofe about Senator Jeffords. I have had an opportunity to work with Senator Jeffords now for 8 years. We have had our good days and bad days, but we never had good days and bad days between us. I consider him to be an outstanding Senator and a gentleman. I appreciate the courtesies which he has extended me over the years of his distinguished career.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Water Resources Development Act of 2006.

I commend Senators Inhofe, Jeffords, and Bond--and their staffs--for their hard work and strong leadership in putting together a bipartisan bill. As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I am pleased to have been a part of this effort. But I want to make it clear that Senator Inhofe is the driving force and Senator Bond kept pushing us. If it wasn't for their unbelievable commitment to this, we wouldn't be here today.

It has been 6 years since the Congress last passed a Water Resources and Development reauthorization bill. I remember it because I was chairman of the subcommittee that handled the bill. The time has come to finally pass this legislation.

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

It has a new dimension to it because if we are going to compete in the global marketplace, we need to build the infrastructure for competitiveness, and we have had our heads in the sand in terms of the condition of that infrastructure. It is a critical piece of America's competitiveness.

Our infinite needs are overwhelming and being squeezed. We should be rebuilding an infrastructure so that the new generation has at least the same opportunity to enjoy our standard of living and quality of life.

Right now, our infrastructure is collapsing due to insufficient funding. Congress desperately needs to provide increased funding for the Army Corps of Engineers, including funding for levees and funding for additional engineers.

I have been concerned about the backlog of unfunded Corps projects since I was chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure in 1999. When I arrived in the Senate in 1999, the backlog of unfunded Corps operation and maintenance projects was $250 million. Today, it is $1.2 billion. At that time, there was a backlog of $38 billion active water resource projects waiting for Federal funding. I want to emphasize that.

Today, according to the administration, there are about $50 billion in Army Corps construction projects that are in need of Federal funding.

Despite these needs, the Corps is currently able to function only at 50-percent capacity at the rate of funding proposed by the budget. It is hard to believe when you consider what we have had with Katrina.

Annual appropriations for the Corps' construction accounts has fallen from a $4 billion average in the mid-1960s to a $1.5 billion average for 1996 through 2005.

The stark reality is at the current levels of construction appropriations, the Corps' water resource projects, we already have more water resource projects authorized for construction than we can complete. At the current low levels of construction, it would take 25 years to complete the active projects in the backlog without even considering additional project authorizations that are in this bill.

That is why I am supporting the prioritization amendment offered by Senator McCain and Senator Feingold.

I tried to get this kind of amendment back 5 or 6 years ago, but it was rebuffed. We don't want to do that. We don't want to prioritize anything. It might be someone's special project, and it may not get on the list where they would like it to be. So let's not do that.

Unfortunately, appropriations for the Corps program have not been adequate to meet the needs that have been identified in our Nation. We have also been asking the Corps to do more with less. I am all for trimming fat from the Federal budget and practicing fiscal discipline, but the Corps of Engineers budget is not fat--it is the bread and butter of our economy and our infrastructure.

I believe this amendment will reduce this backlog. This amendment would allow the Water Resources Coordinating Committee, an interagency task force that has been established in the underlying bill, to establish transparent, project-specific national priority criteria, classify projects either currently under construction or authorized into a tier system based on that criteria, and then issue a nonbinding prioritization report to the authorizing and appropriations committees.

I will bet you that a lot of what they have against this is because they do not want anyone to tinker with what they do. The fact is, I think we owe it to them to make sure they have some priority list as to the importance of these projects as well as the Office of Management and Budget to help guild them in their funding decisions. This report would also be made available to the public.

I believe this report would ensure that the most critical projects in the Nation are receiving adequate funding. Katrina showed us the importance of prioritization.

We need a comprehensive prioriti- zation system to ensure that Congress has the information it needs to direct limited Federal resources to the most urgent projects.

When I was Governor of the State of Ohio, the State had hundreds of highway projects that every preceding Governor had promised each municipality would be built. It is whatever you want, you got it. The list was unbelievable. The projects would have cost the State of Ohio between $5 billion and $6 billion to build, whereas the State typically only received between $100 million and $300 million a year. At the time, it would have taken decades to build all the projects my constituents asked for, even if another new project was not added to the list for years.

In order to deal with the imbalance between demand and available revenue, I created an objective, criteria-driven project selection process called the Transportation Review Advisory Council, or TRAC. This process gives paramount consideration to effective management of the backlog to assure that it only includes needed projects that

are economically justified, environmentally acceptable, and supported by willing and financially capable, nonfederal sponsors. The State is required to balance this project list with the State's revenue projections.

The TRAC also is required to issue a 4-year fiscal forecast after Congress passes each highway bill to get an idea of how much money we are going to get. It made no sense for the State of Ohio to continue project development on projects worth millions of dollars that had no realistic hope of ever being built. I think my constituents are much better served by this system because the State is investing its resources in projects that will become a reality in the near future.

I am sure the President would understand this. When you have a highway bill, a lot of the Congressmen would put in earmarks on projects. And today when they are earmarking, they earmark it for projects that are on that list because they know that the money will be spent for the project.

We need to take similar steps in the Senate in addressing our water resource needs. It is long overdue with the limited resources that we have. Hopefully, one day we will face up to those limited resources in terms of our infrastructure. We need a prioritization.

I think Senator McCain and Senator Feingold have put together a very good amendment.

Again, I know it may be controversial for some of the authorizers, but it is time that we do this.

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

I call on President Bush and my colleagues in both the House and the Senate to work expeditiously to get this bill enacted into law as soon as possible.

Really from the bottom of my heart, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and this amendment.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Amendment No. 4683

Mr. President, I rise today in support of legislation to expand the Federal investment in adult and umbilical cord blood stem cell research, as well as scientific ways to create embryonic stem cell lines without destroying human embryos.

It is important to point out that there are two very important categories of stem cells. I know that my colleagues are going to have a little difficulty with this because I have had difficulty with this. This is medical terminology.

The first, embryonic stem cells, as their name suggests, are derived from human embryos developed from eggs that have been fertilized in an in vitro fertilization clinic. Removing stem cells from these embryos destroys their potential life, making their use very controversial and something I cannot morally support.

On the other hand, adult stem cells are undifferentiated cells found among

differentiated cells in tissues or organs. Adult stem cells can renew themselves and will eventually differentiate into a special cell. However, before this occurs, the undifferentiated stem cells can be gathered by scientists without any harm to the individual.

Also included in this ethical category of stem cells are those from umbilical cord blood derived from the placenta of a newborn baby. With the birth of my seventh grandchild last summer, I learned a great deal about the benefits of preserving cord blood stem cells. Once considered medical waste and discarded after birth, science has determined that cord blood has the potential to save thousands of lives.

And that is exactly why I came to the floor today, to explain these differences and to highlight the unmatched value of adult and cord blood stem cells.

By the way, when I found out about the umbilical cord blood coming from the placenta, we are now freezing that umbilical cord, and each year we will pay some money to maintain it. But that umbilical cord can be used to help my seventh grandchild or, for that matter, the whole family. It is something more people should find out about.

I am concerned that the vast majority of Americans are unaware that some of the most promising advances in medical research and treatment today are not attributed to embryonic stem cells; rather, they are the result of noncontroversial, nonlife-ending use of adult and umbilical blood cord cells.

Unfortunately, many of the individuals who support embryonic stem cell research have been kept in the dark about the advances of umbilical and adult stem cell treatments and have been oversold on embryonic stem cell research, which is still in its infancy.

While embryonic cells have never been successfully used to treat even one disease--not used to treat one disease to date--adult stem cells have been used to treat 72 diseases, such as breast cancer, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, sickle cell anemia, spinal cord injuries, and many others. I have read reports that adult stem cells from a young girl's own fat cells were used to repair or regenerate a 19-square-inch section of her skull. I have also learned of a Parkinson's patient who has been without the vast majority of the disease's symptoms for 6 years after being treated with his own adult stem cells.

Even more encouraging, the potential use of adult and umbilical cord therapies continues to expand. In fact, there is a real possibility that these types of stem cells will be able to yield the same results as embryonic, or what they call pluripotent stem cells, without the need to destroy human life.

The American Journal of Pathology recently reported that a group of scientists have isolated a novel population of multipotent adult stem cells from human hair follicles--think of that, human hair follicles-- which, like embryonic stem cells, express neural crest and neuron stem cell markers, as well as the embryonic stem cell transcription factors.

In other words, what we are saying is that they produce the same thing we would get if we were using the embryos that so many are anxious to use.

I was introduced to the promise of adult and umbilical stem cell research by experts at the National Center of Regenerative Medicine in my hometown of Cleveland, OH. The individual institutions involved in this partnership--Case Western Reserve University, University Hospital, and the Cleveland Clinic--each bring an expertise to the center that is leading the Nation in the use of nonembryonic stem cells to regenerate new tissue and diseased organs rather than using drugs or devices to improve the function of the organ.

The National Center for Regenerative Medicine team has told me that they are interested in the rapid translation of adult and umbilical cord stem cell technology into patients that is not possible today with embryonic stem cells.

Since 1976, investigators at the center have studied nonembryonic stem cells and performed their first stem cell transplant as early as 1980. That is back in 1980. Investigators at the center are now able to cure leukemias and lymphomas with nonembryonic stem cell transplantation, as well as to fix unstable bone fractures and treat genetic disorders.

In the next several years, investigators at the center believe they will be able to address cancer, bone, heart, and neurological disorders with nonembryonic stem cell treatments. They are hopeful that the new advances will lead to treatment of degenerative arthritis, will decrease the severity of graft versus host disease after stem cell transplantation, and allow physicians to use a patient's own stem cells to repair heart damage following congestive heart failure, as well as use their own neural stem cells to improve function after spinal cord damage. All of the things that folks are talking about because we have to have these embryonic stem cells because this is what we have to do-- we are already on our way. We are making progress with adult and with umbilical cord stem cells.

The center has 10 ongoing or planned clinical trials to further explore the use of stem cell therapies to reduce the risks of chemotherapy, treat certain heart conditions, and improve umbilical stem cell treatment for leukemia. I recently had the privilege to personally hear two young Ohioans discuss the successful adult stem cell treatment received at the center for an aggressive form of leukemia and a severely broken bone that would not heal with traditional treatment.

I will never forget this young woman who was there. It was a meeting at the regenerative center. She talked about the fact that she was in this terrible motorcycle accident. She was a mountain climber, she was a skier, she was a runner. She was told by all of her doctors that she wouldn't be able to run again, that she would have to hobble around. She went to the Cleveland Clinic, to the regenerative center, and as a result of using her stem cells, they were able to repair the problem that she had in her leg.

Today she is running. I am getting goosebumps right now. I will never forget it. She started to cry. She hugged her doctor. We all started to cry. It was a miraculous thing using adult stem cells.

As a result, I support the legislation introduced by my colleagues from Pennsylvania, the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act. The bill would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop techniques for the isolation, derivation, protection or testing of stem cells not derived from a human embryo.

The bill would also require the Secretary to prioritize stem cell research that will reap near-term clinical benefits. It is my hope that this type of progress will help eliminate the controversy surrounding embryonic stem cell research without any compromise of scientific advancement.

I have the greatest sympathy for patients and their families who continue to struggle with a wide range of painful, life-ending diseases. Further, I understand what it is like to watch a loved one suffer and the tragedy of losing a member of your family, even a young child, to a life-ending disease. I personally lost my father to diabetes and my nephew C.T. to bone cancer. I have been a witness to the devastating effects of Alzheimer's, arthritis, and many other diseases.

One can hardly take issue with these individual efforts to seek out a potential cure, but too often, I fear, proponents of embryonic stem cell research provide patients with false promises from unproven, unexplored embryonic stem cells, while ignoring the real substantial progress that has been made with adult and blood cord treatments.

I am gravely concerned about the possible implication of spending taxpayers' dollars on an issue such as embryonic stem cell research that divides Americans on moral and ethical grounds, and I believe it is my moral responsibility to direct the Federal Government's dollars toward the areas of research that have the greatest near-term potential to help the largest number of Americans.

Since I have been a Member of the Senate, we have doubled the funding for the National Institutes of Health, NIH, and greatly increased the amount of medical research the Federal Government is able to fund, including increasing the amount of money available for research on all stem cells from $226 million in 1999 to $568 million this year.

However, as you know, Mr. President, in recent years with the cost of the war, the need to protect our homeland, and natural disasters such as Katrina, the amount the Federal budget has available for these priorities is getting smaller and smaller. We are seeing that now with the appropriations bills in the Senate.

I meet with groups all the time, and they ask me for increases in funding for research for diseases that personally impact on their families. I am sure they visit your office, Mr. President, every couple of weeks: We want more money for NIH to take care of this, to take care of that. Just within my own family, I met recently with my former brother-in-law in support of childhood cancer, and through my son I have heard a very emotional presentation by a group of my constituents on behalf of juvenile diabetes research. Again, if everyone in the Senate had been at that meeting, I think they would have said: Look, we have to do more, spend more money on juvenile diabetes.

There is a tremendous need to pursue treatments for these and many other diseases, but we face a reality of limited funding. That is the real world.

We have to be smart about spending our money, and in the current budget environment, I have concerns that increasing funding for research on embryonic stem cell will take away opportunities for research in areas such as adult and umbilical cord blood research, or even research for treatment of specific diseases such as cancer, juvenile diabetes, and others that have proven their usefulness.

Consequently, and in light of all the advances and results science has provided with adult and umbilical blood cord stem cells, I urge my colleagues to continue to direct Federal funding toward the noncontroversial areas of adult and umbilical cord blood stem cell research. I urge my colleagues to do that.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on amendment No. 4594 to the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007. I thank Senator Gregg and Senator Byrd for accepting this amendment by unanimous consent. Before I describe this amendment, I would like to acknowledge the hard work and leadership of Senator Gregg and Senator Byrd, and thank them for their diligence in coming to a consensus on this crucial piece of legislation. The balance between enhanced security and strong stewardship of the taxpayers' hard-earned dollar is a fine one. I applaud your attention to both, and I support this legislation.

The Emergency Management Performance Grant, EMPG, program is designed to provide State and local emergency management agencies with the necessary funds to expand the development, maintenance, and improvement of their programs. It is the only source of Federal assistance that provides vital emergency management, coordination, and planning support to State and local governments and first responders. It funds personnel, training, and exercises. The program requires that States match 50 percent of the Federal contribution. According to the Department of Homeland Security, EMPG funds are spent rapidly compared to other programs; in other words, if Congress appropriates additional EMPG funding, it will be used expeditiously, efficiently, and effectively.

Last year the EMPG program was funded at $185 million. In an effort to increase the sound management of homeland security funds, earlier this year I asked the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security to increase funding for the EMPG program. I am pleased that 41 Senators joined me on this request. The Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007 funds the program at $205 million.

While I am heartened by and thankful for the $20 million increase in funding over last year's level, I feel strongly that the program should be further increased. Accordingly, this amendment would increase the funding of the EMPG program by an additional $15 million. I am joined on this amendment by Senators Baucus, Biden, Burns, Cantwell, Collins, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Lieberman, Murray, Pryor, Roberts, Snowe, Stabenow, and Warner. I thank them all for their support. It is my strong belief that an additional $15 million for the EMPG program will enhance the effectiveness of every disaster relief fund dollar directed toward response and recovery.

Since 9/11, the responsibilities of our first responders have increased. They must now be prepared to respond to natural disasters, man-made disasters, and malicious acts of terrorism. We must support them. With the enhanced responsibilities, and the tight budget constraints currently faced by State and local governments, the flexibility provided by the EMPG program is vital.

I would like to describe some of the ways that EMPG funds help State and local governments. In Ohio and across the Nation, the emergency preparedness requirements have increased significantly since 9/11. For example, according to a 2003 study conducted by the Emergency Management Association of Ohio, approximately 10 percent of all emergency management employee time was spent on antiterrorism and homeland security activities prior to September 11, 2001. By 2003, that figure had shot up to 50 percent.

In addition, State and local emergency management agencies now are responsible for the coordination and implementation of national initiatives, such as integration of the National Response Plan into existing emergency operations plans and implementing the National Incident Management System. The EMPG funds the extra manpower and management support to help State and local governments meet these increased responsibilities.

Furthermore, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, many States have identified the requirement to be to carry out mass evacuations in the event of catastrophic disasters. Increased EMPG funding will help State and local governments prepare these contingency plans.

According to the National Emergency Management Association, EMPG funds are used for a wide variety of purposes which vary State by State. In Alabama, EMPG funds play a critical role in helping the State develop its plans to respond to natural disasters, particularly hurricanes; grants are used for contingency planning, including evacuation plans, debris removal plans, and plans for postdisaster distribution of critical assistance to those affected by the storms. In Oregon, EMPG funds are used to upgrade key emergency operations centers for counties that face large hazards such as wild land fires, annual flooding, and earthquakes.

Increasing the funding for EMPG would help some States do even more. In Alaska, additional resources would be used to increase levels of emergency management personnel, which for some communities are currently only part-time positions. In New Hampshire, increased EMPG funds would be used to address the areas identified in the National Plan Review as either ``insufficient'' or ``partially sufficient.'' This would include statewide evacuation planning, surge planning and capability, as well as further development of the State emergency operations plan.

In response to Hurricane Katrina, the EMPG program more than proved its worth. In a statement submitted to the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Bruce Baughman, the president of the National Emergency Management Agency, gave the following description of the mutual assistance provided by the Emergency Management Assistance Compact, EMAC, which is funded by the EMPG:

EMAC enabled 48 states, the District of Columbia, the

Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico to provide assistance in the

form of more than 2,100 missions of human, military and

equipment assets and over 65,000 civilian and military

personnel and equipment assets to support the impacted

states. The nature of the nation's mutual aid system vividly

shows the need for all states to have appropriate

capabilities for all disasters and EMPG allows states and

local governments to build this capability both for their own

use and to share in through EMAC.

The Appropriations Committee conference report for 2006 concurred with

this assessment, noting that ``EMPGs are vital to state and local emergency management agencies.''

This year, the Senate Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee report concluded that ``EMPG is an essential source of funding for state and local emergency management,'' and that ``state and local governments currently have productive relationships with the Federal Emergency Management Agency's regional emergency managers that are critical to maintain an all-hazards response capability,'' and that the committee ``expects these relationships to continue.'' The subcommittee further noted that:

Additional federal funding is necessary to properly support

state and local responsibilities and coordinate with federal

emergency management during national disasters.

In closing, Mr. President, State and local governments must be prepared. The EMPG program is a proven method of accomplishing this goal. This amendment is both fiscally responsible and strategically sound.

I thank Senator Gregg for working with me to identify an appropriate offset for this increased funding. Once again, I applaud the efforts of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, especially in light of the tight fiscal environment.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Federal Workforce Performance Appraisal and Management Improvement Act. Before I describe for my colleagues the details of this legislation, I would like to provide background on why I believe it is important for Congress to consider legislation reforming the performance appraisal processes of the government.

My interest in the federal workforce began after working with the Federal Government for 18 years as an outside force, 10 years as mayor of Cleveland and 8 years as Governor of Ohio. Through my work as chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia, I continue to observe that investing in personnel and workforce management; in fact, management in general, struggles to be a priority in the Federal Government. My own experience as county auditor, county commissioner, mayor, and governor has taught me that, of all the things in which government can invest, resources dedicated to human capital bring the greatest return.

I continue to applaud the current administration for its systematic approach to improving and scrutinizing the management practices of the Federal Government through the President's Management Agenda and its related scorecard. Each year, the administration raises the bar as to what earns an agency a green, or successful, rating. One of the criteria used to evaluate a department or agency for strategic management of human capital this year is demonstrating a strong performance appraisal system for the Senior Executive Service, agency managers, and 60 percent of the workforce.

I believe that an effective performance management system is fundamental to building a results-oriented organization. By developing a system where employees have regular discussions with their supervisors about expectations for their performance, both employees and supervisors will be more effective in achieving their agency's mission. The primary goal of the Federal Workforce Performance Appraisal and Management Improvement Act of 2006 is to build and maintain this environment.

This legislation would strengthen and improve the employee performance appraisal system, which now is vague in its requirements. While some organizations have taken steps to modernize their performance management systems and tools such as the President's Management Agenda have moved agencies in that direction, there is no comprehensive governmentwide mandate to do so. This legislation would begin the reform process by layering a modern performance management system over the existing General Schedule system.

This legislation would require that every Federal employee receive annually a written performance appraisal. That appraisal must align with the agency's strategic goals, be developed with the employee, make meaningful distinctions among employee performance, and use the results in making decisions for training, rewarding, promoting, reassigning, and removing employees.

This legislation would require the Office of Personnel Management to provide technical assistance to agencies and approve the system. The government must utilize the Office of Personnel Management's institutional expertise.

This legislation would require that managers receive the appropriate training to judge the performance of their subordinates, make expectations clear to employees, and give constructive feedback.

This legislation would stipulate that if an employee does not achieve a successful rating under the new appraisal system, then that employee would be ineligible for the annual pay increase or a within grade increase.

This legislation would provide individuals hired as senior level or senior technical to access level II of the Executive Schedule with an OPM certified performance appraisal system, consistent with statute for the Senior Executive Service.

I am introducing this legislation because I believe that employees should receive a rigorous evaluation each year and that their pay should be determined based upon their performance. I agree with the observation that has been made repeatedly by Comptroller General David Walker, that the passage of time should not be the single most important factor in determining an employee's pay. Instead, it should be determined by productivity, effectiveness, and contributions of that employee.

I have implemented pay for performance before, and it can work. However,

it requires a significant commitment on behalf of managers and leaders. Instead of taking one giant bite at the apple, I believe it will be easier for Federal agencies to implement enhanced employee appraisals first. By instituting a more rigorous performance management standard on top of the current general schedule, I am optimistic this will create less anxiety among Federal employees.

I also would like to stress that I intend this effort to be completely bipartisan. The proposal I have outlined here today is not set in stone, and I imagine that it will undergo many changes.

I would like to transform the culture of the Federal workforce into a high-performing, continually improving organization that focuses on achieving results for the American people. The Federal workforce must be as agile, nimble, and intellectually energetic as the leading nongovernmental organizations or dot-com companies, capable of addressing the wide ranging challenges facing the U.S., from national security to global economic competitiveness to providing vital social services.

We must discuss the challenges before us and ask if the rules and culture of today's Federal workforce get the job done. We must engage in a dialogue about the future of the public service and ask the difficult questions about what we want it to achieve and how do we make it happen. This conversation will make many people uncomfortable, but it must take place. For as all of us who work on Federal workforce issues know, there is great disagreement about the types of reforms and changes that should be made going forward. We must ask, what should the Federal workforce be doing for America to meet the challenges of the 21st century? Once we have answered that question, we can begin to discuss how we build that workforce.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the life and achievements of Howard E. LeFevre, entrepreneur, philanthropist, and the founder of The Works: Ohio Center for History Art & Technology in Newark, Ohio.

Founded in 1996, The Works is a remarkable center of discovery that helped introduce an appreciation for industry, innovation, and the creative process for students and learners of all ages, including the 45,000 who visited the facilities last year alone. Through a unique blend of traditional museum programs, computer labs, art galleries, craft demonstration areas, and interactive classrooms, The Works strives to stimulate analytical thinking and enhance the quality life in Licking County and beyond.

Through Mr. LeFevre's leadership, The Works has been a catalyst for restoration of downtown Newark, rescuing

in its first decade four historic buildings that formed the heart of Newark's oldest manufacturing area. The Works has been an invaluable resource for students of Licking County and the community as a whole.

Mr. LeFevre has been an exemplary leader in his community. He is a past president of Newark Area and Licking County Chamber of Commerce, past president of the Newark Rotary Club, past chairman of the United Way Annual Campaign, and past president of the board of directors of the Licking County United Way. Mr. LeFevre is trustee emeritus of and past chairman of Governing Committee of Licking County Foundation. He is director of the Ohio Chamber of Commerce and a former member of the Ohio State Development Advisory Council.

He was honored by a Distinguished Service Award at the Ohio State university in 1976 for his efforts in connection with establishing the Newark campus of the university. He was also honored by Licking Memorial Hospital with their Lifetime Achievement Award in 1990. In 2002, Mr. LeFevre was awarded the ``Man of the Century'' by the city of Newark during its 2002-2003 bicentennial summer festivities.

Mr. President, thanks to LeFevre's dedication, The Works will celebrate its 10th anniversary on June 17, 2006.

I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing and commending Howard E. LeFevre on his lifetime of commitment to the residents of Licking County as well as people all over the State of Ohio.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Securing America's Future Economy Commission Act, which I am introducing today. I ask unanimous consent that my statement and bill be printed in the Record.

This legislation stems from the need to address our Nation's current and future fiscal health. The fact is, we are in dire straits. In the simplest terms, the Federal Government continues to spend more than it takes in. In case anyone has forgotten, the deficit for fiscal year 2005 was $318 billion--the third largest deficit in our Nation's history. If we were to take out the Social Security surplus, the deficit would be nearly $500 billion. And if we were to use accrual accounting, the accounting method used by American businesses, the deficit would be approximately $760 billion.

These deficits only continue to add to our national debt. When I came to the Senate in 1999, the national debt stood at $5.6 trillion. Since then, it has increased 50 percent to $8.4 trillion. As a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, GDP, our national debt has grown from being 58 percent of GDP at the end of 2000 to an estimated 66.1 percent of GDP by the end of 2006.

In fact, the debt continues to grow so quickly that the House of Representative's fiscal year 2007 budget resolution raises the Federal debt ceiling to nearly $10 trillion. This is only a few months after Congress was forced to raise the debt ceiling.

These ongoing deficits, coupled with the expected tidal wave of entitlement spending, will soon put our Nation in a very unenviable position if thoughtful action is not taken. Moreover, the trust funds for Medicare and Social Security will be exhausted even earlier than previously thought. According to the most recent trustees' report, the cost of Social Security and Medicare will grow from nearly 7.4 percent of the economy today to 12.7 percent by 2030, consuming approximately 70 percent of all Federal revenues, crowding out all other discretionary spending and some other mandatory programs.

While entitlements are a major component of our Nation's future fiscal health, it is not the only portion. Just as we must look at how we must reform our entitlement programs to maintain our nation's competitiveness, we must also review our arcane Tax Code.

What we should be doing is spending our time on tax reform. We all know that fundamental tax reform is critical. Just as we know the entitlement tidal wave is coming, we know that more and more middle class American families are being swept up in the AMT. So I simply cannot understand why some of my colleagues want to make so many provisions of the current Tax Code permanent or add new tax cuts when we very well may be eliminating precisely the same provisions as part of fundamental tax reform. No homeowner would remodel their kitchen and bathroom right before tearing down the house to build a newer and better one.

Simplifying the code to make it more fair and honest could, by some estimates, save taxpayers over $265 billion in costs associated with preparing their taxes. That would be a real tax reduction, and it would not cost the Treasury one dime. It would be a tax cut that would guarantee that people are paying their fair share and would bring more money into the Federal Treasury.

Anyone in the know who is watching us has got to wonder about our character, our intellectual honesty, our concern about our national security, our Nation's competitiveness in the global marketplace now and in the future, and last but not least, our ``don't-give-a-dam'' attitude about the standard of living and quality of life of our children and grandchildren. We know the long-term fiscal challenges that are facing our nation. We know that if we continue to move forward blindly, we will walk off a cliff.

The simple fact is that we can't have it all--we need to set priorities and make hard choices--otherwise our children will end up paying for it. Last week I voted against the repeal of the estate tax and called on Congress to heed Americans' demand for fundamental tax and entitlement reform. The SAFE Act shows that I am serious about making this a priority for Congress.

The legislation will establish a commission comprised of 15 voting members, 3 of which will be appointed by the President, 3 by the Senate majority leader, 3 by the Senate minority leader, 3 by the Speaker of the House and 3 by the House minority leader. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office and the Comptroller General of the United States will be appointed as nonvoting ex-officio members of the Commission to lend their expertise.

The Commission will bring together the best minds associated with budget and economic policies to examine the long-term fiscal challenges facing the United States and recommend reforms. A minimum of six public town hall meetings will be held throughout the country within year to determine the scope of the problem and consider solutions.

At the conclusion of the town meetings, the Commission will present a report to Congress detailing the fiscal problems facing future generations as well as a framework of long-term solutions. Within 60 days of the presentation of their report to Congress, the Commission will transmit to Congress a legislative proposal designed to: address the imbalance between long-term Federal spending commitments and projected revenues; increase net national savings to spur domestic investment and economic growth; and improve the budget process to place greater emphasis on long-term fiscal issues.

The administration and Congress will each have 120 days to review the proposal and develop equivalent proposals if they deem necessary. Congress would then be required to vote on the proposals.

America's fiscal situation is dire. Nothing is off the table when it comes to ensuring our longterm prosperity and increasing our competitiveness in the global marketplace. The task is daunting, but now is the time to act. I am thinking not only about the present, but about our children and grandchildren and the legacy--or burden--we will leave them.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Securing America's Future Economy Commission Act, which I am introducing today. I ask unanimous consent that my statement and bill be printed in the Record.

This legislation stems from the need to address our Nation's current and future fiscal health. The fact is, we are in dire straits. In the simplest terms, the Federal Government continues to spend more than it takes in. In case anyone has forgotten, the deficit for fiscal year 2005 was $318 billion--the third largest deficit in our Nation's history. If we were to take out the Social Security surplus, the deficit would be nearly $500 billion. And if we were to use accrual accounting, the accounting method used by American businesses, the deficit would be approximately $760 billion.

These deficits only continue to add to our national debt. When I came to the Senate in 1999, the national debt stood at $5.6 trillion. Since then, it has increased 50 percent to $8.4 trillion. As a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, GDP, our national debt has grown from being 58 percent of GDP at the end of 2000 to an estimated 66.1 percent of GDP by the end of 2006.

In fact, the debt continues to grow so quickly that the House of Representative's fiscal year 2007 budget resolution raises the Federal debt ceiling to nearly $10 trillion. This is only a few months after Congress was forced to raise the debt ceiling.

These ongoing deficits, coupled with the expected tidal wave of entitlement spending, will soon put our Nation in a very unenviable position if thoughtful action is not taken. Moreover, the trust funds for Medicare and Social Security will be exhausted even earlier than previously thought. According to the most recent trustees' report, the cost of Social Security and Medicare will grow from nearly 7.4 percent of the economy today to 12.7 percent by 2030, consuming approximately 70 percent of all Federal revenues, crowding out all other discretionary spending and some other mandatory programs.

While entitlements are a major component of our Nation's future fiscal health, it is not the only portion. Just as we must look at how we must reform our entitlement programs to maintain our nation's competitiveness, we must also review our arcane Tax Code.

What we should be doing is spending our time on tax reform. We all know that fundamental tax reform is critical. Just as we know the entitlement tidal wave is coming, we know that more and more middle class American families are being swept up in the AMT. So I simply cannot understand why some of my colleagues want to make so many provisions of the current Tax Code permanent or add new tax cuts when we very well may be eliminating precisely the same provisions as part of fundamental tax reform. No homeowner would remodel their kitchen and bathroom right before tearing down the house to build a newer and better one.

Simplifying the code to make it more fair and honest could, by some estimates, save taxpayers over $265 billion in costs associated with preparing their taxes. That would be a real tax reduction, and it would not cost the Treasury one dime. It would be a tax cut that would guarantee that people are paying their fair share and would bring more money into the Federal Treasury.

Anyone in the know who is watching us has got to wonder about our character, our intellectual honesty, our concern about our national security, our Nation's competitiveness in the global marketplace now and in the future, and last but not least, our ``don't-give-a-dam'' attitude about the standard of living and quality of life of our children and grandchildren. We know the long-term fiscal challenges that are facing our nation. We know that if we continue to move forward blindly, we will walk off a cliff.

The simple fact is that we can't have it all--we need to set priorities and make hard choices--otherwise our children will end up paying for it. Last week I voted against the repeal of the estate tax and called on Congress to heed Americans' demand for fundamental tax and entitlement reform. The SAFE Act shows that I am serious about making this a priority for Congress.

The legislation will establish a commission comprised of 15 voting members, 3 of which will be appointed by the President, 3 by the Senate majority leader, 3 by the Senate minority leader, 3 by the Speaker of the House and 3 by the House minority leader. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office and the Comptroller General of the United States will be appointed as nonvoting ex-officio members of the Commission to lend their expertise.

The Commission will bring together the best minds associated with budget and economic policies to examine the long-term fiscal challenges facing the United States and recommend reforms. A minimum of six public town hall meetings will be held throughout the country within year to determine the scope of the problem and consider solutions.

At the conclusion of the town meetings, the Commission will present a report to Congress detailing the fiscal problems facing future generations as well as a framework of long-term solutions. Within 60 days of the presentation of their report to Congress, the Commission will transmit to Congress a legislative proposal designed to: address the imbalance between long-term Federal spending commitments and projected revenues; increase net national savings to spur domestic investment and economic growth; and improve the budget process to place greater emphasis on long-term fiscal issues.

The administration and Congress will each have 120 days to review the proposal and develop equivalent proposals if they deem necessary. Congress would then be required to vote on the proposals.

America's fiscal situation is dire. Nothing is off the table when it comes to ensuring our longterm prosperity and increasing our competitiveness in the global marketplace. The task is daunting, but now is the time to act. I am thinking not only about the present, but about our children and grandchildren and the legacy--or burden--we will leave them.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the reconciliation bill that is before the Senate.

There are three reasons we should oppose the tax cuts that are currently before the Senate, as well as tax cuts that may come before the Senate in the near future:

No. 1, we do not need these tax cuts; No. 2, we cannot afford these tax cuts; and

No. 3, we should be working on tax reform rather than enacting tax cuts in a piece-meal fashion.

Mr. President, we do not need these tax cuts now. In short, the economy is already growing. The Nation's gross domestic product grew by over 4 percent in both 2003 and 2004 and 3.5 percent in 2005. In the first quarter of 2006, it was reported that the economy grew

at 4.8 percent. Additionally, unemployment has dropped from 6.6 percent to the current 4.7 percent.

The stock markets have regained their strength over time. In fact, proponents of tax cuts point to the stock market as an indicator of the Nation's economic growth and have stated that if tax cuts are not made permanent, we threaten to send our stock market, and consequently the economy, into a tailspin. The growth in the stock market may have coincided with the enactment of certain tax cuts, but as the Wall Street Journal reported, ``A group of Federal Reserve Board economists concludes that the tax cut, which slashed the dividend-income tax on stocks to 15 percent from about 30-38 percent, was a dud when it came to boosting the stock market when it was announced and passed in 2003.''

Moreover, I would argue there are other factors, arguably much larger in scope and importance, which played into the market's, as well as the Nation's economic growth. A rational individual would conclude that the historic lows in interest rates played a large role not only in providing cheap capital for business expansion but also to spur the housing market. As former-Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan indicated, there are factors outside the control of the Federal Government that have led to long-term growth, including the boon in productivity fueled by technology as well as the relative strength of the world economy.

I do not doubt that tax cuts have some effect on the economy. In fact, some may point out that I supported two of the largest tax cuts to be enacted in American history, the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. In both of these instances I looked at the facts that were before me and came to the conclusion that supporting these tax cuts was the right policy decision. But they were the right policy decision for two distinctly different reasons.

In 2001, our Nation was facing a starkly different fiscal picture than what we have today. At that time, the 10-year surplus was estimated to be $5.6 trillion. There was a surplus on the table, and Congress was faced with two choices: spend the money or give it back to the taxpayer. I chose to get that money off the table and out of Washington so it could not be spent, but I made this decision based on the premise of using the surplus as a three-legged stool: providing tax cuts, paying down the debt, and controlling spending.

On June 7, 2001, the President signed the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. I voted for this bill, which reduced the individual income tax rates that apply to taxable income, increased the child tax credit to $1,000 and extended it to smaller families, addressed the ``marriage penalty,'' phased out the Federal estate tax over the period 2002-2010, provided a temporary reduction in the alternative minimum tax, and provided some savings incentives and child care credits.

In 2003, our Nation faced a very different scenario. The country was still reeling from September 11, fighting the war against terror and trying to rebound from corporate accounting scandals. We needed stimulative medicine to ensure that the economy did not sink further into the doldrums. While I supported these tax cuts, I fought to ensure that the amount was the right balance between needed stimulus and taking the deficit into consideration. I joined Senators Olympia Snowe, John Breau, and Max Baucus to get the $350 billion that was eventually enacted.

On May 28, 2003, the President signed the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act into law. We accelerated the cuts from the 2001 tax bill such as the individual income tax cuts, the child tax credit and the marriage penalty relief. We also extended the alternative minimum tax, AMT, again and reduce the rate on both dividends and capital gains to 15 percent for higher tax brackets and 5 percent for those in the lower tax brackets.

Mr. President, the world has changed again. Just as the decisions I made in 2001 and 2003 were not made in a static environment, I now look at the economic outlook facing our Nation, as well as the ongoing needs I know this government will have to fund.

The second reason we should not move forward on tax cuts is that we cannot afford them. Our fiscal health is in dire straits. In the simplest terms, the Federal Government continues to spend more than it takes in. In case anyone has forgotten, the deficit for Fiscal Year 2005 was $318 billion. This was the third highest deficit in our Nation's history. The first and second largest deficits occurred Fiscal Year 2003 and Fiscal Year 2004.

When I came to the Senate in 1999, the national debt stood at $5.6 trillion. The national debt now stands at $8.4 trillion, an increase of about 50 percent. As a percentage of gross domestic product, GDP, our national debt has grown from being 58 percent of GDP at the end of 2000 to an estimated 66.1 percent of GDP by the end of 2006.

In fact, the debt continues to grow so quickly that the House of Representative's Fiscal Year 2007 budget resolution is reported to contain a provision that would raise the Federal debt ceiling to nearly $10 trillion. This is less than 2 months after Congress was forced to raise the debt ceiling from the previous ceiling.

According to the reports from Medicare and Social Security trustees, the trust funds for these programs will be exhausted even earlier than previously thought. According to the most recent trustees' report, the cost of Social Security and Medicare will grow from nearly 7.4 percent of the economy today to 12.7 percent by 2030, consuming approximately not just 60 percent as predicted by the administration but 70 percent of all Federal revenues, crowding out all other discretionary spending and some other mandatory programs.

I am for entitlement reform. Senator Gregg took the first step last year with the deficit reduction bill of 2005. I voted for that bill. We need to do more to reform entitlements. No matter which way you look at it, entitlement programs coupled with an ever increasing national debt are staring down on our children and grandchildren.

Some Members believe that the solution is to grow the economy out of the problem, that by cutting taxes permanently the economy will eventually raise enough revenue to offset any current losses to the U.S. Treasury. I respectfully disagree with that assertion. I do not believe that in the current situation our country faces, we can continue to spend more than we take in.

In November 2005, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testified before the Joint Economic Committee and told Congress:

We should not be cutting taxes by borrowing. We do not have

the capability of having both productive tax cuts, and large

expenditure increases, and presume that the deficit doesn't

matter.

That is exactly what we have been doing the last several years.

I have said many times on this floor that our major problem is we are unwilling to pay for or go without what we want to get done. We have been willing, time and time again, to put the cost of our current spending on the credit cards of our children and grandchildren. To be candid and fair, we have had no choice in much of the spending since September 11. The Federal Government had to rebuild after September 11. We have made the decision to increase security for the homeland. We have to fund the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. And we have to rebuild after the devastation of dealing with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

What we should be doing is spending our time on tax reform. The Tax Code has nearly universal disapproval for its complexity and magnitude. As the one who amended and pushed for the creation of the task force on tax reform in 2003 and 2004, I was delighted when the President said, in his 2004 convention acceptance speech, he would move forward with tax reform. We all know that fundamental tax reform is critical, and as we consider these and future tax provisions, it becomes more and more clear we need to overhaul our tax code.

I simply cannot understand why some of my colleagues want to make so many provisions of the current tax code permanent or add new tax cuts when we very well may be eliminating precisely the same provisions as part of fundamental tax reform. No homeowner would remodel their kitchen and bathroom right before tearing down the house to build a newer and better one.

Frankly, one of the measures in the reconciliation bill I do have sympathy

for and that is the patch for the AMT. Like the Sword of Damocles, it hangs over Congress's head nearly annually as it threatens to swallow more middle-class taxpayers. We do need to fix the AMT. Unfortunately, every year we move forward with a piece-meal tax policy, we delay action on permanently fixing the AMT, which will cost over $500 billion. When will we wake up and face the music on AMT?

Additionally, simplifying the code to make it more fair and honest could, by some estimates, save taxpayers over $265 billion in costs associated with preparing their taxes. That would be a real tax reduction, and it would not cost the Treasury one darn dime. It would be a tax cut that would guarantee that people are paying their fair share and would bring more money into the Federal Treasury.

According to the Tax Foundation, we lose about 22 cents of every dollar of income tax collected in compliance costs. That amount adds up to the combined budgets of the Departments of Education, Homeland Security, Justice, Treasury, Labor, Transportation, Veterans Affairs, Health and Human Services, and NASA.

Mr. President, the bottom line is we do not need less revenue, we need more revenue. As a recent Wall Street Journal article states, ``federal taxes amounted to 17.5 percent of gross domestic product, up from a modern low of 16.3 percent in 2004, but well below the high of nearly 21 percent in 2000 . . . keeping the tax burden low will be difficult. Last year, the federal government's spending exceeded its tax take by about $318 billion. And the retirement of the baby-boom generation starting in 2011 could cause spending on big-ticket federal retirement programs to jump.'' I could not have stated it better myself except I would utilize the on-budget deficit. In other words, if you exclude the Social Security surplus, money that I believe should be utilized for its intended purpose rather than funding the government, the deficit was actually almost $492 billion. This number is even worse if we took the Department of Treasury's accrual number for FY2005, which was a deficit of $760 billion.

I know this is controversial to state, but if you look at the extraordinary and unexpected costs that we have with the war on terror, homeland security costs, and rebuilding after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the logical thing that one would think about is to ask for a temporary tax increase to pay for them today. Instead, we are saying we will let our children and grandchildren take care of these costs.

The people who are sacrificing today in this country are those who have lost men and women in the war against terror. The people who have sacrificed today are the ones who have come back without their arms and legs, thousands of them. They are making the sacrifice. The question I ask is, what sacrifice are we making?

The simple fact is that we can not have it all--we need to set priorities and make hard choices--otherwise our children will end up paying for it. Anyone in the know who is watching us has got to wonder about our character, our intellectual honesty, our concern about our national security, our Nation's competitiveness in the global marketplace now and in the future, and last but not least, our ``don't- give-a-darn'' attitude about the standard of living and quality of life of our children and grandchildren.

The simple fact is we cannot have it all. We need to set priorities and make hard choices; otherwise, our children will end up paying for it.