Floor Statements

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I rise to talk a little bit regretfully about the issue of immigration--regretfully, because the supplemental Defense bill that came out of the House of Representatives included the issue of immigration and therefore has opened it up for discussion here in the Senate.

Tonight I rise in support of the Craig amendment which will enact important reforms to the H-2A program that will help ensure Ohio's agricultural industry remains strong and vibrant. That has a lot to do with immigration.

Agribusiness is the largest industry in the State of Ohio, contributing $73 billion to our economy each year. I would like to keep it that way. My State ranks sixth nationally in the production of nursery and greenhouse crops, with a value of over a half billion dollars. We grow almost a quarter of a billion dollars worth of fruits and vegetables each year.

I want to stress how important these businesses are to Ohio and how vulnerable they are. These industries live and die in a very competitive marketplace, and having a stable and sufficient workforce is vital to their competitiveness in the global marketplace. Unfortunately, right now they have a major labor crisis. Without the guest workers who are essential to getting work done during peak seasons, agribusiness in Ohio as well as the rest of the country simply would not have the workforce necessary to do their work and their customers would have to look elsewhere, very likely to overseas businesses for agricultural products.

I am told in the early 1990s our Nation exported twice the value of nursery and greenhouse crops to Canada than we imported. In the last decade, Canada has overtaken us, and now the numbers have reversed, adding to our Nation's trade deficit. I would like to note that our neighbor, Ontario, has a very good guest worker program.

If we offshore our fruit, vegetable, nursery crops, and other production to Mexico and Canada, think of what we lose. We lose control of our food supply, and you know that is a national security issue. We lose jobs, and not just farmworker jobs. Agricultural economists tell us each farmworker job in these industries supports 3\1/2\ jobs in the surrounding economy: processing, packaging, transportation, equipment, supplies, lending, and insurance. They are good jobs, filled by Americans. We lose them if we do not do this the right way.

Work in these industries in Ohio is seasonal, demanding, and out in the weather. Many of our producers have tried to use the existing H-2A program. This is especially true of our nursery, sod, and Christmas tree growers. They represent 79 percent of the H-2A use in Ohio.

The program is expensive, bureaucratic, and a litigation nightmare-- that is the current program. The program is failing and it needs fixing. Many agricultural employers would like to use the program but do not because of the uncertainty associated with the program. Not having access to legal, timely workers hurts these businesses. Crops are lost because workers are not available for the harvest. I understand from my colleague Senator Craig that out in California lettuce is

rotting in the field because there are not workers there to pick it.

Many of my H-2A-user growers and producers have been closely involved in the negotiations of AgJOBS, the amendment before us. They know immigration and guest worker reform cannot be a partisan undertaking. They have been creative and determined in finding common ground and producing bipartisan legislation. Their survival depends on this Senate passing AgJOBS.

The toughest issue is what to do about the trained and trusted farm workforce, 70 percent or more working without proper documents. Their labor is critical to Ohio and America. These farmworkers are hard- working, law-abiding people. They are paying Federal and State taxes and Social Security. They are part of the fabric of our society already in so many ways.

AgJOBS allows them to come forward and rehabilitate their status over time through the time-honored values of hard work and good behavior. The failure of this country to create a practical agricultural guest worker program has forced most of the country's agribusiness to live between a rock and a hard place. It has been said our farmers have one foot in jail and the other in the bankruptcy court. Every day, each time my constituents open the door in the morning, they know this much, if and when the Government decides to get serious about Social Security mismatch letters, about enforcement, it is all over.

They tell me: We are following the law in our hiring. Yet we know if Immigration enforcement came in tomorrow, our business would be irreparably damaged. My constituents and yours could lose their workforce tomorrow.

Some of my colleagues are critical of this legislation because they claim it provides amnesty. I disagree. Amnesty is an unconditional pardon to a group of people who have committed an illegal act, and Webster's Dictionary agrees that is the definition. There is nothing unconditional about the path to rehabilitation provided in AgJOBS. To earn adjustment to legal status, a worker must have worked in U.S. agriculture before January 1, 2005. Accordingly, this legislation imposes conditions on obtaining adjustment to legal status, including, more importantly, a work history.

These are people who have worked in the United States, many of them for many years. A lot of them are not legal. What this legislation does is it provides an opportunity for them to become legal, after supporting certain conditions.

If you believe that any forgiveness at all constitutes amnesty, then every serious proposal that comes forward to solve this problem will be amnesty. But in the end, isn't the worst amnesty of all the status quo? Ignoring and tacitly condoning this problem will not provide a solution. It has been going on too long. Let us take a step forward now toward reconciling our laws with reality.

This legislation will help illegal immigrants working in agriculture to come clean and become part of our legal workforce, allowing this country to focus its efforts on more serious immigration problems. Furthermore, providing a means for such workers to obtain legal status provides a real incentive for them to participate in this program.

I read a portion of a letter Senator Craig and Congressman Cannon received from Grover Norquist, chairman of the Americans for Tax Reform. He said:

I'd like to take this opportunity to commend for you the

introduction of S. 1645 and H.R. 3142. The AgJOBS bill is a

great step in bringing fundamental reform to our Nation's

broken immigration system. AgJOBS would make America more

secure. Fifty to seventy-five percent of the agriculture

workforce in this country is underground due to the highly

impractical worker quota restrictions. Up to 500,000 workers

would be given approved worker status screened by the

Department of Homeland Security and accounted for while they

are here. Any future workers coming into America looking for

agriculture work would be screened at the border where

malcontents can most easily be turned back. The current H2-A

agriculture worker program only supplies about 2 to 3 percent

of the farm workforce.

It goes on to say:

Workers that are here to work in jobs Native Americans are

not willing to do must stay if food production is to remain

adequate. However, those already here and new workers from

overseas should have a screening system that works, both for

our States' safety and for their human rights. Your bill does

just that.

Mr. President, I would also like to point out that AgJOBS is endorsed by a historic bipartisan coalition of 500 and counting, national, State, and local organizations, including 200 agricultural organizations representing fruit and vegetable growers, dairy producers, nursery and landscape, ranching and others, as well as the National Association of the State Departments of Agriculture; that is, the national association of all of the 50 States' agriculture departments have come forward to support this. There is bipartisan support of this legislation by elected and appointed State directors of agriculture.

Yesterday I received a letter from Ambassador Clayton Yeutter. Clayton Yeutter has been a tireless advocate for American agriculture. You will remember that he served as Secretary of Agriculture under Ronald Reagan and as U.S. Trade Representative under George H.W. Bush. In his letter, he started out by saying:

History demonstrates that there are moments in time when

special opportunities arise for political action that

successfully addresses multiple challenges. Today is one of

those occasions.

I agree.

He went on to describe the substance and the partisanship of the AgJOBS bill.

He ended as follows:

As President Bush has stated, we can and must do better to

match a willing and hardworking immigrant worker with

producers who are in desperate need of a lawful workforce. It

is in our country's best interest to enact these reforms and

reap the harvest of political action at a special moment in

time.

That is what our President had to say.

Again, I agree.

I stand ready to take a first and most important step on this difficult issue that has plagued this Nation for too long.

As I stated, I would have preferred that immigration would not have been a part of this legislation that is before us. But as I mentioned, it came before us because of the fact that the House decided to make immigration a part of the emergency supplemental bill.

Those of us who have been concerned about immigration are taking this opportunity to clearly state what we think needs to be done. I am hopeful that tomorrow 59 of my colleagues will vote for cloture so we can get on and deal with this issue and bring the relief to thousands of people, thousands of businesses, and agribusiness in this country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, he was the son of poor Russian immigrants who grew up to be a citizen of the world. He was a skilled businessman who devoted much of his time to giving away millions of dollars to charity. He was a modest man with a low profile who was sought out by world leaders for his advice.

America has lost one of its finest citizens with the passing last month of Max Fisher.

A former Member of this body, Jacob Javits, called Max Fisher ``perhaps the single most important lay person in the American Jewish community.'' If for no other reason, his commitment to the Jewish people would have earned him the title, but the hundreds of millions of dollars he helped raise for Jewish charitable causes further demonstrated his devotion.

Presidents Nixon and Ford turned to him to serve as an unofficial emissary to Israel during times of crisis in the Middle East. His work was hailed by Henry Kissinger in his autobiography.

Though a resident of Michigan as an adult, Max Fisher was no Wolverine. He was a Buckeye through and through. Max grew up in Salem, OH and attended the Ohio State University on a football scholarship. In his time as an athlete the world got a glimpse of the competitive spirit that was to serve him so well in business. In one of his most famous plays as a Buckeye, Max sacrificed four of his teeth when he successfully blocked a punt with his face.

After his graduation from Ohio State in 1930, Max headed for Detroit and began his career as a pioneer in the oil refining business. Max saw that the automobile would transform the nation, and he had the vision to create the refinery capacity necessary to run those millions of new vehicles. He learned the business inside and out and became a legend when he built another oil company--Aurora Gasoline and its affiliate, Speedway '76--that, after a series of mergers, became Marathon Oil in 1962. Twenty years later, U.S. Steel bought Marathon and the sale of Max Fisher's 600,000 shares added another fortune to his fortune.

Never content to rest on his laurels, Max's business interests continued. He had successful ventures in food processing and real estate, including as a partner in the purchase of the 77,000 acre Irvine Ranch in Orange County, CA, which was the largest private real estate transaction in American history at the time.

One of the traits of Max Fisher that I admire most is that he never abandoned his friends in time of trouble. When others might have told him he had reason to do so, he remained loyal. After his friend Richard Nixon resigned the presidency and entered a long winter as a political pariah, Max reached out to him with encouraging words, writing that ``history will record the great contribution you have made to the world.'' He stuck by his friend Gerald Ford when Jimmy Carter narrowly defeated him in 1976.

Some say that after Ohio State, Detroit was Max's first love. When riots erupted in Detroit in the late 1960s, Max did everything in his power to try to bring people of all races and faiths together. At his funeral, a retired Federal judge told the story of how Max Fisher went down to City Hall to demand the release of African American citizens who were jailed for peaceful protests. Max never gave up on Detroit-- and nearly everyone will tell you that without Max, Detroit might not have survived as a viable urban core.

Max had the grace to see the innate value of people as children of God. I always felt good when I met with Max. His honesty was consuming and he made you feel like you were the only person he cared about. His example of giving generously and doing deeds of loving kindness inspired others to follow suit. No one will ever be able to calculate the money that would not have been given without Max's example.

I will never forget the wonderful program that was held to honor Max when we cut the ribbon to open the Max Fisher College of Business at the Ohio State University. I am sure it was a special moment for Max to think about what it meant for the son of an immigrant to have the College of Business named for him at one of the Nation's largest universities. And as an Ohio State alumnus and former football player, I'm sure it was special to know that just a stone's throw away was the Horseshoe where he played football as a student. It was a fitting tribute to a great American who made a difference for his fellow man and country.

Like the Ohio State University's College of Business, the Detroit Symphony Orchestra's performance hall also bears Max's name. These twin monuments to Max Fisher are a fitting tribute to a man who was a genius in business and every bit the passionate humanitarian.

Ours is a better Nation and world for him having been in it. Thank you, Max.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss last Wednesday's vote against tabling the Schumer amendment. The Schumer amendment would call on China to move toward a flexible rate or face corrective tariffs on their exports to the United States. Passing the amendment would be a responsible way for the Senate to address the significant problems caused by China fixing the exchange rate of its currency, known as the renminbi or yuan, to the United States dollar.

I have been concerned about China's trade policies for some time. I am particularly concerned about the undervaluation of the Chinese currency caused by China's currency peg. Presently, the yuan is undervalued between 15 and 40 percent. This systematic undervaluation of China's currency makes China's exports less expensive and puts United States workers at a severe disadvantage. As a result, the United States has lost thousands of manufacturing jobs due to the unfair competition with China's exports with prices that are artificially low on account of the undervaluation of the yuan. This is both unfair and it is unacceptable.

China's undervalued currency also harms China's economy. The Chinese people pay much higher prices for their imports and China is presently forced to keep its interest rates artificially low to support the currency peg, which is causing inefficient investment and excessive bank lending in China. Moreover, this undervaluation of the Chinese currency is fueling the dramatic rise of the United States trade deficit with China and distorting trade relationships around the globe.

Currently, we have a $162 billion trade deficit with China, the largest that we have with any country in the world. Accordingly, supporting efforts to get China to move forward toward a flexible exchange rate is consistent with supporting a more open and efficient global marketplace.

I was recently in China and had the opportunity to meet with Premier Wen Jiabao, member of the Politburo Standing Committee and the Chinese Communist Party's Central Committee. I made precisely these points to him: That it is in China's best interest to move toward a flexible exchange rate, and that the Chinese currency peg benefits neither China nor the United States. I urged him to support moving China toward a flexible exchange rate.

One of the primary arguments Chinese officials made to defend China's currency peg is the banking system is not sufficiently developed for a flexible exchange rate, an argument that Secretary of the Treasury John Snow makes on occasion when he gives reasons why he is not pushing them harder for them to stop fixing their currency.

I have an article from The Economist that helps explain in detail why exchange rate flexibility is in China's best interest, along with the best interest of the United States. The title of the article from March 19, 2005 is: ``China Ought to Allow More Flexibility in Exchange Rate, Sooner Rather Than Later.''

I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the Record.

I also urge my colleagues to read a paper by the staff of the International Monetary Fund entitled ``Putting the Cart Before the Horse: Capital Account Liberalization and Exchange Rate Flexibility in China.'' That is a January publication by the IMF. I would have asked it be printed in the Record, but it is 30 pages long and I do not want to burden the Congressional Record with 30 pages. If my colleagues are interested in getting a copy of that article, I would be more than happy to supply it.

These papers show how exchange rate flexibility will facilitate economic development in China and why China does not have to wait until its banking system is more fully developed to move toward a flexible exchange rate.

Moreover, they note that China does not need to immediately float its currency to remedy the problems caused by an undervalued currency. All China needs to do is take steps in that direction, such as adopting a wider exchange rate ban or pegging the exchange rate to a basket of currencies instead of the dollar alone, for example, a basket of currencies in the ASEAN countries, including Japan. Either of these policies would likely cause an upward revaluation of the yuan. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has refused meaningful action to get China to move toward a flexible exchange rate.

Last year--I remember it well--on September 8--that happens to be my wedding anniversary--four of our leaders in this country summarily said there is no problem in terms of the exchange rate and they refused to go forward with something called a 301 investigation. The 301 investigation is allowable under the WTO. That is the way you bring into question whether somebody is following the rules. They said, no, we are not going to do it. Imagine what kind of a message that sent to the leaders of the Chinese Government, that we were not even willing to look at a 301 investigation. That was a mistake.

The United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a bipartisan commission established by Congress to examine China's trade policies, has concluded that China's exchange rate policy violates both its International Monetary Fund and World Trade obligations. That was a bipartisan commission that came together and issued this report. The commission said China is intentionally manipulating its currency for trade advantage in violation of its trading agreements. Yet the administration refuses to act. Unless the United States exerts direct pressure on China, however, it is unlikely that China will address the undervaluation of its currency. When I asked the question of Premier Wen, he said, We know there is a problem, but we are not sure when we will do it.

I can say they will not do it unless we continue to put pressure on them to do it and convince them that, again, it is not only in our best interest but their best interest if they want to be a player in the global marketplace.

That is why Wednesday's vote was important. It showed the Senate is willing to take matters into its own hands and take effective steps to address the serious problem if the administration continues to refuse to do so. No one wants to see tariffs imposed on Chinese exports, but the United States needs to take action to address China's unfair exchange rate policy. I hope Wednesday's vote will motivate the administration to do more to get China to address the serious market distortions caused by the undervaluation of China's currency.

I believe in fair trade and improving our trading relationship with China. I was one of the leaders in the Senate to

approve normal trade relations with China. I wrote articles in Ohio magazines. In fact, I gave a copy of an article to Premier Wen to prove to him I am not a protectionist, I am a free trader.

But I also believe in fair trade. It represents a huge potential market for our exports. If we want to have trade with China, though, China must be a better trading partner, starting with its exchange rate policies. Furthermore, if we want to have a free and fair global trading system, China must take actions to move toward a flexible exchange rate. I, therefore, believe Wednesday's vote was a responsible step aimed at advancing global trade and, in particular, America's long-term trading relationship with China.

I say to the Presiding Officer, as you know, there was an agreement made that it would be pulled down from the foreign relations authorization bill, and this is going to be considered again. There is an agreement, in the form of a UC, that we will be bringing it up again. I hope before the Senate considers voting on that amendment with an up-or-down vote the administration will get the message that they have to do something to show a little bit of spirit and indicate to us that they understand and know that the Senate and the House of Representatives are serious about moving forward to deal with this problem.

I also think the vote on this particular amendment sends a strong signal, a signal to Premier Wen and to President Hu that we are concerned about this issue. I know they are concerned about jobs. We are concerned about jobs. They have to understand that. I am hoping instead of the administration looking at this as some kind of a negative action on the part of the Senate, that they will see that we are helping them communicate the message to the people over there that we are serious about a problem.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Highway Funding Equity Act of 2005. I am joined on a bipartisan basis by Senators Levin, DeWine, Stabenow, Cornyn, Alexander, DeMint, Dole, Vitter, Martinez, Isakson, Nelson of Florida, Lugar, Burr, Cochran, Lott, Hutchison, Chambliss, Bayh, Allen, and Landrieu.

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21 authorized more than $218 billion for transportation programs and expired in September 2003, but has been extended through May 2005. TEA-21 requires certain States, known as donor States, to transfer to other States a percentage of the revenue from federal highway user fees. Several of these donor States transfer more than 10 percent of every federal highway user fee dollar to other States. As a result, donor States receive a significantly lower rate-of-return on their transportation tax dollars being sent to Washington. Currently, over 25 States, including my State of Ohio, contribute more money to the Highway Trust Fund than they receive back.

My State of Ohio has the Nation's 10th largest highway network, the 5th highest volume of traffic, the 4th largest interstate highway network, and the 2nd largest inventory of bridges in the country. Ohio is a major manufacturing State and is within 600 miles of 50 percent of the population of North America. The interstate highways throughout Ohio and all the donor States provide a vital link to suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, and--consumers.

Maintaining our Nation's highway infrastructure is essential to a robust economy and increasing Ohio's share of federal highway dollars has been a longtime battle of mine. One of my goals when I became Governor 14 years ago was to increase our rate-of-return from 79 percent to 87 percent in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, ISTEA. Then, in 1998, as chairman of the National Governors Association, I lobbied Congress to increase the minimum rate-of-return to 90.5 percent. The goal of the Highway Funding Equity Act of 2005 is to increase the minimum guaranteed rate-of-return to 95 percent.

The Highway Funding Equity Act of 2005 has two components. First, the bill would increase the minimum guaranteed rate-of-return in TEA-21 from 90.5 percent of a State's share of contributions to the Highway Trust Fund to 95 percent. The Minimum Guarantee under TEA-21 includes all major Core highway programs: Interstate Maintenance, National Highway System, Bridge, Surface Transportation Program, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality, Metropolitan Planning, Recreational Trails, and any funds provided by the Minimum Guarantee itself.

Second, the bill uses the table of percentages now in Section 105 of Title 23 to guarantee States with a population density of less the 50 people per square mile a minimum rate-of-return that may exceed 95 percent of that State's share of Highway Account contributions. This provision is intended to ensure that every State is able to provide the quality of road systems needed for national mobility, economic prosperity, and national defense. Under the 2000 Census, this provision would benefit 15 States: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.

Increasing donor States' rate of return to 95 percent will send more than $60 million back to Ohio for road improvements we sorely need. The interstate system was built in the 1950s to serve the demands and traffic of the 1980s. Today, Ohio's infrastructure is functionally obsolete. Nearly every central urban interstate in Ohio is over capacity and plagued with accidents and congestion. Ohio's critical roadways are unable to meet today's traffic demands, much less future traffic which is expected to grow nearly 70

percent in the next 20 years. Like all the donor states, we need these funds in Ohio.

States can no longer afford to support others that are already self- sufficient. Each State has its own needs that far outweigh total available funding, especially in light of the so called ``mega projects'' coming due in the next decade. For example, the Brent Spence Bridge that carries Interstates 71 and 75 across the Ohio River into Kentucky is in need of replacement within the next 10 years at a cost of about $500 million. With the inclusion of the approach work, the total project could cost close to $1 billion.

The goal of this legislation is to improve the rate-of-return on donor States' dollars to guarantee that Federal highway program funding is more equitable for all States. Donor States seek only their fair share, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve highway funding equity during the upcoming surface transportation reauthorization process. I am pleased with the strong bipartisan support this legislation has received. In addition, I am hopeful that the highway bill will be brought to the Senate floor quickly, so that we can move to a conference. It is vital that our Nation's highway infrastructure needs be properly addressed to ensure continued economic growth.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Highway Funding Equity Act of 2005. I am joined on a bipartisan basis by Senators Levin, DeWine, Stabenow, Cornyn, Alexander, DeMint, Dole, Vitter, Martinez, Isakson, Nelson of Florida, Lugar, Burr, Cochran, Lott, Hutchison, Chambliss, Bayh, Allen, and Landrieu.

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21 authorized more than $218 billion for transportation programs and expired in September 2003, but has been extended through May 2005. TEA-21 requires certain States, known as donor States, to transfer to other States a percentage of the revenue from federal highway user fees. Several of these donor States transfer more than 10 percent of every federal highway user fee dollar to other States. As a result, donor States receive a significantly lower rate-of-return on their transportation tax dollars being sent to Washington. Currently, over 25 States, including my State of Ohio, contribute more money to the Highway Trust Fund than they receive back.

My State of Ohio has the Nation's 10th largest highway network, the 5th highest volume of traffic, the 4th largest interstate highway network, and the 2nd largest inventory of bridges in the country. Ohio is a major manufacturing State and is within 600 miles of 50 percent of the population of North America. The interstate highways throughout Ohio and all the donor States provide a vital link to suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, and--consumers.

Maintaining our Nation's highway infrastructure is essential to a robust economy and increasing Ohio's share of federal highway dollars has been a longtime battle of mine. One of my goals when I became Governor 14 years ago was to increase our rate-of-return from 79 percent to 87 percent in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, ISTEA. Then, in 1998, as chairman of the National Governors Association, I lobbied Congress to increase the minimum rate-of-return to 90.5 percent. The goal of the Highway Funding Equity Act of 2005 is to increase the minimum guaranteed rate-of-return to 95 percent.

The Highway Funding Equity Act of 2005 has two components. First, the bill would increase the minimum guaranteed rate-of-return in TEA-21 from 90.5 percent of a State's share of contributions to the Highway Trust Fund to 95 percent. The Minimum Guarantee under TEA-21 includes all major Core highway programs: Interstate Maintenance, National Highway System, Bridge, Surface Transportation Program, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality, Metropolitan Planning, Recreational Trails, and any funds provided by the Minimum Guarantee itself.

Second, the bill uses the table of percentages now in Section 105 of Title 23 to guarantee States with a population density of less the 50 people per square mile a minimum rate-of-return that may exceed 95 percent of that State's share of Highway Account contributions. This provision is intended to ensure that every State is able to provide the quality of road systems needed for national mobility, economic prosperity, and national defense. Under the 2000 Census, this provision would benefit 15 States: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.

Increasing donor States' rate of return to 95 percent will send more than $60 million back to Ohio for road improvements we sorely need. The interstate system was built in the 1950s to serve the demands and traffic of the 1980s. Today, Ohio's infrastructure is functionally obsolete. Nearly every central urban interstate in Ohio is over capacity and plagued with accidents and congestion. Ohio's critical roadways are unable to meet today's traffic demands, much less future traffic which is expected to grow nearly 70

percent in the next 20 years. Like all the donor states, we need these funds in Ohio.

States can no longer afford to support others that are already self- sufficient. Each State has its own needs that far outweigh total available funding, especially in light of the so called ``mega projects'' coming due in the next decade. For example, the Brent Spence Bridge that carries Interstates 71 and 75 across the Ohio River into Kentucky is in need of replacement within the next 10 years at a cost of about $500 million. With the inclusion of the approach work, the total project could cost close to $1 billion.

The goal of this legislation is to improve the rate-of-return on donor States' dollars to guarantee that Federal highway program funding is more equitable for all States. Donor States seek only their fair share, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve highway funding equity during the upcoming surface transportation reauthorization process. I am pleased with the strong bipartisan support this legislation has received. In addition, I am hopeful that the highway bill will be brought to the Senate floor quickly, so that we can move to a conference. It is vital that our Nation's highway infrastructure needs be properly addressed to ensure continued economic growth.

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

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Voinovich- Feingold amendment to restore integrity to our current pay-go process.

These are not ordinary times and it is not a time for business as usual. The United States is the largest debtor Nation in the world, and our trade deficit is the worst it has ever been. The U.S. dollar is weak, and too much of our debt is in the hands of other nations.

Just 2 weeks ago it was rumored that the Japanese central bank was pulling their money out of dollars which sent a shiver of panic in the markets. Alan Greenspan and David Walker have served as modern-day Paul Reveres alerting us to the need to do something now before it is too late.

I recommend to my colleagues the pamphlet issued by the GAO entitled ``21st Century Challenges, Reexamining the Base of the Federal Government.'' It is well worth reading.

This is the beginning of my second term in the Senate. One of the reasons Ohio sent me back here is because they know I am committed to doing something about balancing the budget and paying down debt, fundamental, sound Republican principles to which I have been committed throughout my career.

At this stage in my life, I am more worried than ever about the legacy that our country will leave our children and grandchildren. God has blessed my wife Janet and me with three living children and six grandchildren. My daughter Betsy is expecting her third child. What kind of world will they live in?

One thing I know is that it will be more competitive than ever before, and they will have to work harder and be smarter to maintain the standard of living to which Americans have become accustomed.

I am sure you are asking: What does this have to do with pay-go? It has everything to do with pay-go because pay-go is a tool which Congress can use to enforce fiscal responsibility. Without fiscal responsibility, without responsible stewardship of the public's money, the gathering storm clouds of deficit and debt will darken more.

That is why I encourage my colleagues to do the right thing and support the amendment offered by Senator

Feingold and me to restore integrity to the current pay-go process. According to CBO estimates, the national debt increased by $600 billion between 2003 and 2004 and will increase by at least the same amount before October 2005. This is a $1.2 trillion increase in Federal debt in just 2 years.

Raising the debt limit has become an annual ritual. This chart shows where we are. It is interesting that some of the charts I have seen from some of my colleagues on my side of the aisle, all they show is that over the next 5 years we are going to bring the deficit down. But they never talk about the fact that our national debt is escalating up like a rocket. We are in trouble. Where is it going to end?

I am in favor of controlling spending. My votes in the Senate reflect that. This is a very tight budget when it comes to spending, and I support that. In fact, I commend Senator Gregg for producing the most fiscally responsible and honest budget resolution I have seen in 7 years in the Senate. I would like to point out, with all due fairness to my colleague from Wisconsin, that the fact is, in that budget are provisions that were in the Truth in Budgeting Act that Senator Feingold and I introduced a week ago: Three-year discretionary spending caps; a new 60-vote point of order against legislation that would cost more than $5 billion in any 10-year period between 2015 and 2055; a 60- vote point of order against unfunded mandates--I particularly appreciate this provision because I worked very hard to get unfunded mandate relief passed when I was Governor of Ohio and active in the National Governors Association--a 60-vote point of order against legislating exceeding appropriations spending limits; a $23.4 billion cap on advance appropriations; limits on the use of emergency designations. All of these provisions were in the Voinovich-Feingold Truth in Budgeting Act. So we have those in the budget.

I only wish the budget resolution also forced us to make equally difficult choices about tax policy. None of us like to take tough votes on programs we believe in, but most of us are willing to cast the difficult vote if that is what it takes to get Federal spending under control.

I say to my colleagues, how can I or any of us stick to this tough budget that we have and at the same time say to people who are complaining: Senator, you are saying you want to do something about the deficit, but at the same time you voted to extend tax reductions. How do you justify these two positions?

I was interested to hear the chairman of the Finance Committee indicate that we are going to deal with AMT. I would like to remind my colleagues that that is not in the budget. AMT will be on the floor of the Senate before the end of this year. And the allegation that the Feingold-Voinovich amendment is going to prevent us doing anything about AMT is poppycock. What it will require is that a budget point of order would be made against it. We would debate it, and if there are 60 votes to waive the point of order, that would go into effect.

Another issue that I know is going to be on the floor of the Senate where we are going to have to borrow money is in dealing with Medicare reimbursement. We all know that today Medicare reimbursement, if we don't do anything, will be reduced by 5 percent. None of us want that to happen. Again, that will be brought to the floor of the Senate.

This amendment does not prevent that from happening. It says: Pay for it or, in the alternative, debate it on the floor and get 60 votes.

Last but not least, this budget sets out $50 billion for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, doing things in Afghanistan. In my opinion, if you are realistic, it is not going to be enough money. We don't still know what the cost of this war is going to be to the American people.

One other aspect I have to point out is that this is against a backdrop in which most experts agree that by 2030, spending for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid alone will consume 18 percent of our GDP, about the same amount of money we are spending today for all operations of Government combined. That is why folks should read David Walker's pamphlet. It lays it out for us.

What does pay-go do? Pay-go forces us to stop and think before proposing legislation or amendments that will increase the deficit. Pay-go demonstrates the Senate is serious about reducing the deficit. Pay-go will provide a chance to stop and more carefully consider all alternatives before increasing spending or cutting taxes. Pay-go ensures that programs that will impose additional debt on our children and grandchildren must gain an overwhelming level of support.

Some of my colleagues wanted to ensure increased spending now or cut taxes now and hope that somehow the economy will save us or Congress will simply fix the problem. This would be a major mistake. Depending on the economy to save us from the impact of fiscal irresponsibility is like hoping that a hurricane misses your house.

Over the past 10 years, we have gone from having deficits to having surpluses and back to having deficits.

This is what has happened on this chart. During this period of time, we were running surpluses. We came here and then in 2003 we started to come down. Here is where we are now. The predictions are that they could go that way or that way.

I think all of us who are conservative would have to say that we have to prepare for this hurricane that may hit us and not take the rosy picture that everything is going to be all right; just keep reducing taxes, everything is going to be fine. We are going to grow our way out of this problem. I remember that during the 1980s when we saw the deficit climb substantially, which required in 1991 and 1993 the fact that we had to raise taxes. Borrowing money to run the Government is the equivalent of a future tax increase for the American people.

I urge my colleagues to look at this from a fairness point of view, to eliminate from the budget resolution the $70 billion that we have put in there to extend some of the taxes that are now in place. Let's pay for them. Alan Greenspan, David Walker, and Pete Peterson have all said the reduction on capital gains, on dividends, has helped the economy. But they all say pay for it. If you cannot pay for it, let's debate it on the floor of the Senate, as we did last year when we debated whether we were going to continue the marriage penalty relief, the lower marginal rates, the refundable child tax credit. But why sneak it into the budget resolution where we are only going to need 51 votes to get the job done? I think it is not fair.

I appeal to the common sense of my colleagues in the Senate. Here is where we are. We are putting this money in our budget resolution, instructions to the Finance Committee, to say $70 billion, and you can extend these tax reductions. At the same time we are doing that, we are telling the American people that we are going to have a flat-funded budget.

My feeling is, let's just clean it out of there. Take these extensions that everyone thinks are wonderful for the country and let's debate them. See if we can get 60 votes. If they are so good, they will get 60 votes. If they are not, we will pay for them. I just don't understand how we can continue to go this way. I think we are living in a dream world. This deficit continues to grow. We are the highest debtor Nation in the world. Our trade deficit is one of the worst we have ever seen. Unless we start to understand the seriousness of the situation we have, we are in deep trouble.

Mr. President, I think we all care about our families. We have to think about our legacy. I am 68 years old and I am running out of time. I think this country is running out of time. It is up to our generation to leave a better legacy than what it appears we are going to be leaving. There has to be some Republican who says: George, I agree with you. Let's do it.

If they vote for this amendment, they are simply saying we are not going to put the money in the budget resolution to give the instructions to the Finance Committee to go ahead and extend taxes up to $70 billion. What it will say is, Hey, guys, we are not going to do that. If we want to extend these, let's bring them up and debate them and let's either pay for them or waive the budget resolution and do it that way.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I will correct the impression that my good friend, the Senator from Mississippi, shared with us. The fact is that this amendment would subject tax continuation to the same 60-vote point of order we have for spending. In other words, why should we not subject continuing tax reductions, two of which are not going to even be up until 2008, to a lesser vote than we do when we are talking about spending more money than what the budget provides?

Let us apply the same standard to tax extensions that we do to trying to spend more money on the Senate floor. It is not a tax increase. It absolutely is not. All it does is say that 51 votes can extend it. All we are saying is this: If we want to do that, then subject it to the same test that all of us are going to have to adhere to when someone tries to spend more money than what the budget provides. Fair is fair.

Mr. President, the Senate is once again working late hours to enact a budget resolution totaling more than $2 trillion and setting major policy guidelines through the reconciliation process. So begins our annual budget process.

From now until September 30, Congress will conduct dozens of hearings and hold countless meetings, while Members of both Houses deliver innumerable speeches and spend long hours of debate over every subtle nuance of the Federal budget process.

Over the next 8 months, Congress will consider a budget resolution, a budget reconciliation package, and as many as 13 separate appropriations bills--the latter only if we do not combine those appropriations bills into one massive spending bill, as has been the practice in recent years.

By the time Congress adjourns--hopefully in early October but more likely in mid November--a majority of votes taken in the Senate will relate to the budget process.

Indeed, as my colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, has pointed out, 73 percent of the Senate's votes in 1996 were budget related, 65 percent in 1997, and 51 percent in 1998. It is no wonder each year it is quite common for the same subject to be voted upon three or four times during the course of the entire budget process. It is a heck of a way to run a railroad, but what is really unbelievable is this whole process is repeated each year.

I say enough is enough. It is time to bring rationality to our Nation's budget process.

It is a fact that Congress spends too large a portion of its time debating and voting on items related to the Federal budget. Meanwhile, most other congressional functions are not given proper attention. CBO reports that last year Congress appropriated over $170 billion for 167 programs whose authorizations had expired. This is not the fault of the appropriators. No one expects them to not fund veterans health care or other critical programs due to an expired authorization. It is the fault of a process that simply does not leave us enough time to adequately review and reauthorize important Government programs.

We need to reestablish our priorities so we may effectively do the work of the people, make sure that the Federal Government is running at peak efficiency and deliver value, which is quality service for the least amount of money.

I believe we have an excellent opportunity to do that this year.

One of the first bills I cosponsored when I became a Senator was a measure introduced by Senator Pete Domenici that would establish a 2- year budget--just like we have in about 20 States, including the State of Ohio. I believe enactment of this bill would have provided an important tool in the efficient use of Federal funds while strengthening Congress's proper oversight role. Unfortunately, we were unable to pass that legislation and the issue has lain idle over the past several years. Now is the time to take it up again.

Because Congress produces annual budgets, Congress does not spend nearly as much time as it should on oversight of the various Federal departments and agencies due to the time and energy consumed by the budget resolution, budget reconciliation, and appropriations process.

Not only is this a problem for Congress, but each executive branch agency and department must spend a significant amount of its time on each annual budget cycle.

Again, as my colleague, Senator Domenici pointed out in 2000, the executive branch spends 1 year putting together a Federal budget, 1 year explaining that Federal budget before Congress, and 1 year implementing the budget eventually passed by Congress.

Even the most diligent Cabinet Secretary cannot keep track of all the oversight he or she is supposed to accomplish if they are trapped in this endless budget cycle.

A biennial budget will help Congress and the executive branch avoid this lengthy process. Since each particular Congress lasts only 2 years, a biennial budget would allow us to consider a 2-year funding proposal during 1 year, while reserving the second year for Government oversight.

As chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management and Restructuring in the Governmental Affairs Committee, I have noted that even though the General Accounting Office conducts numerous reports documenting Government inefficiencies that need to be corrected, most GAO reports sit on the shelf because there is no time to conduct detailed hearings.

When oversight hearings are held, nearly everyone in the executive branch knows--from career bureaucrats to Cabinet Secretaries--that they need only weather the immediate storm when they are asked to come to the Hill to testify.

That is because once they answer the criticisms that have been leveled in these GAO reports, and explain how they are going to improve the situation, it is over; the worst has passed. Rarely do they have to worry about followup hearings to make sure they have implemented the proper remedies because they know Congress just will not have the time to conduct future hearings.

A 2 year budget cycle gives Congress time to do that legislative oversight and makes it harder for agencies to avoid giving answers.

Two-year budgeting also gives Congress and agencies time to plan for the future instead of always reacting to the past. Federal agencies are required to have 5-year strategic plans but they need longer term budgets to match their funding to their planning.

For my colleagues who are tired of the seemingly endless budget and appropriations cycles and are frustrated at the inability to devote enough time to the oversight duties of their committees, I urge them to join in cosponsoring this legislation. I also urge my House colleagues to review the merits of the biennial budget process and act upon legislation as expeditiously as possible for the good of America.

The point I am making is this. It is time for this Congress to adopt a 2-year budget cycle instead of the one we have had for too many years. It will help us do a better job in terms of budgeting; it will allow Congress and the agencies time to plan more effectively and certainly get us to do the oversight that is so badly needed by this Congress.

I sincerely wish we were about to vote on a biennial budgeting bill instead of merely a sense-of-the-Senate-resolution. Nevertheless, we can at least send a message to our colleagues telling them the Senate does not intend to let this issue simply fade away. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this resolution. I ask that the text of my amendment No. 175 be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to express my concerns about certain practices of the credit card industry. I am especially concerned about the disclosures credit card companies make to their customers. While I am pleased that the bankruptcy reform bill includes new disclosure obligations for credit card companies, I would like to see the Banking Committee examine the credit card industry and consider the need for further reform of the regulations governing the credit card industry.

Mr. President, I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Banking Committee for their acknowledgment of my concerns. I also appreciate their interest in this matter and believe that these are serious issues that merit further attention. I look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member in examining these issues associated with practices in the credit card industry.

Mr. President, I understand we are in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise to tell my colleagues that our Nation's fiscal situation is bad and likely to get worse. On an apples- to-apples basis, today's projected 10-year deficit is $500 billion deeper than CBO's September 2004 report.

When plausible assumptions about the path of current tax and spending policies are used, the official baseline deficit of $855 billion balloons to a deficit of $5.8 trillion. Even with a strong economy, annual deficits are likely to hover between $400 and $500 billion for the next 5 years. After that, the combination of tax cut extensions and growing entitlement costs threatens an upward spiral of deficits and debt that cannot be sustained.

But even this sobering assessment of Federal finances may be overly optimistic. Assuming continued, but declining, spending for the global war on terrorism increases the 10-year deficit by $418 billion--we read yesterday where the Secretary of Defense and General Myers said there is no real prediction about how long we are going to have to spend money in Iraq--assuming that discretionary spending keeps pace with economic growth (rather than inflation) increases the 10-year deficit by $1.4 trillion; even assuming that expiring tax cuts are only extended for 5 years increases the deficit by $306 billion; assuming continuation of recent adjustments in the alternative minimum tax (AMT) increases the deficit by $642 billion, freezing appropriations, including defense, the war on terrorism and homeland security, would save $1.3 trillion. However, if combined with the extension of tax cuts and continued AMT relief, the budget would still remain in deficit every year, totaling $2.2 trillion over the next decade.

We must also remember that current Medicare payment increases for doctors and hospital expire at the end of 2005. The American Medical Association, AMA, reports that physicians would see a 31 percent decrease in payments from 2006-2013. If we do not act, senior citizens will face serious problems obtaining health care; but it will cost tens of billions to continue reimbursing doctors and hospitals at the current rate.

The fiscal policy decisions we make in the 109th Congress will largely determine whether the U.S. economy and the Federal Government will generate the financial resources to meet these challenges or whether we will force our children to choose between massive tax increases or draconian cuts in public services.

I am not exaggerating when I use the term ``draconian cuts in public services.'' President Bush submitted a budget that proposes to substantially reduce or eliminate more than 150 government programs. In its annual ``Budget Options'' report, the Congressional Budget Office identifies 285 government programs that may need to be reduced, eliminated or substantially modified in order to control future spending. Federal budget analysts are already warning that current trends in Federal spending for health care, education, income security and even national defense simply cannot be sustained for much longer.

I will never forget meeting with Dan Crippen before he left CBO, and him telling me that by 2030, almost all of the GDP we are now spending at this time will be used to pay for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, leaving no money for anything else but that.

I recognize that some of my colleagues consider any government program wasteful spending and would willingly enact all the proposals suggested by both President Bush and the CBO.

Nevertheless, back on planet Earth, mayors, county commissioners, governors and yes, even Senators, are expected to provide at least basic public services, as well as maintain a social safety net, enhance economic development, promote civic improvements and even support cultural enrichment.

Realistically, we are not going to eliminate economic development programs such as Community Development Block Grants as President Bush has proposed. Nor are we going to seriously consider CBO's suggestion to narrow the eligibility for VA disability compensation to only pay for disabilities related to military service. Everyone in this body knows that very few of these proposals are new. Some of them were first suggested by President Reagan 25 years ago. Congress has had ample opportunity to consider all of them and has never shown a willingness to enact any of them.

The bitter truth is that regardless of which party is in control, Congress has never shown an appetite for fiscal restraint. We are always much more likely to spend like drunken sailors than to save our constituents' money the way we would save our own.

I believe the reason we have never been able to control our appetite for spending is that most Members of Congress and the public simply do not understand the long term implications of short term spending decisions. Our constituents consistently ask for increased spending on existing programs as well as money for new programs. Congress almost always says yes to these requests because the true cost of these is so well hidden, they seem like minor investments for major public benefits. Unfortunately, the truth is that long after any public benefit has faded, our

children and grandchildren will still be paying the bills for our generosity.

It is time to recognize that we are in a fiscal hole and to stop digging. The sooner we get started, the better. Prompt action will reduce the need for drastic steps and give individuals more time to adjust to any changes. It will also allow the miracle of compounding to start working for us rather than against us. Perhaps most important, prompt action will help us to avoid a dangerous upward spiral of debt and inflation that would ultimately harm every American.

We can begin by insisting on truth and transparency in government financial reporting. More than 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson wrote to his Secretary of the Treasury, ``We might hope to see the finances of the Union as clear and intelligible as a merchant's books so that every member of Congress, and every man of any mind in the Union, should be able to comprehend them, to investigate abuses, and consequently to control them.'' Today, consistent and accurate financial information can seem as elusive as it was in Jefferson's time. But these fiscal risks can be managed only if they are properly accounted for and publicly disclosed.

That is why I have introduced the ``Truth in Budgeting Act.'' This bill has three simple goals.

First, it will help guarantee that Congress, the President and the American people have the information necessary to make intelligent decisions regarding our long term financial commitments.

Second, it will force Congress to focus more attention on the long term obligations instead of short term cash flows.

Finally, it will provide Congress the time to make fiscal policy with due deliberation rather than unseemly haste.

In order to guarantee that Congress, the President and the American people fully understand out long term liabilities, this legislation will require the Federal Government to gradually shift to accrual accounting for insurance programs; require CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation to compute and report the change in Federal interest expense associated with any legislative action, and require the President to submit an annual report to Congress on the fiscal exposure the Federal Government faces including debt, financial liabilities, financial commitments, financial contingencies and other exposures. GAO would then be required to report to Congress on the extent and quality of the liability exposures presented by the administration.

I sincerely believe this knowledge will fundamentally change attitudes about Government spending. When my constituents come to me asking for this or that new spending program, I always tell them how much we will have to borrow to pay for the program they want and as ``Is this really worth imposing that kind of debt on our grandchildren?'' In almost every instance, their answer is ``NO.'' The American people do not want to saddle their children and grandchildren with unsustainable bills; but they do not always clearly recognize the long term costs of some very attractive programs. When we fully explain these costs, our constituents will usually choose fiscal prudence.

My legislation will force Congress to focus more attention on long term obligations rather than short term cash flows by extending discretionary spending caps and the PAYGO rules for five years; creating a new Budget Act point of order requiring supermajority roll call votes to put Congress on record when it circumvents discretionary spending caps or PAYGO rules; putting more teeth in the annual budget resolution by directing the Budget Committee to set 302(b) levels and make efforts to exceed 302(b) levels subject to a 60-vote point of order--that will be a difficult one to get through with our appropriators, I am sure--and requiring CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation to assess whether the budgetary consequences of legislation beyond the existing 10-year budget window are significantly greater than the cost inside the window. In other words, we pass things, and then we do not talk about what exposure we are going to have 10 years down the road. In the event that CBO or the Joint Committee on Taxation concludes the costs in real terms of legislation in the second decade after enactment would be more than 50 percent greater than in the first decade, it would be required to note this fact in cost estimates, and a point of order would lie against legislation causing these changes in outlays or revenues. This would mean Senators would have to acknowledge with a recorded vote the fact that they have been informed about outyear effects of their spending decisions.

I recognize these provisions are no substitute for genuine commitment to fiscal discipline. Discretionary spending caps and pay-go rules were in place between 1997 and 2002, but Congress still managed to spend money, as I referred to earlier, like drunken sailors. Nevertheless, it is important to require rollcall votes when we attempt to bust the budget and, under the right circumstances, they can be very effective.

Over the past 2 years, there have been 79 attempts to waive the Congressional Budget Act and increase spending. All but two of them were defeated. If these attempts at fiscal irresponsibility had been successful, Federal spending over the next 10 years could have increased by more than $1.5 trillion.

Also, my bill will give Congress the time it needs to properly deliberate financial decisions by moving the Federal Government to a biennial budget process. There are 21 States, including my own, that use biennial budgeting. In Ohio, we supplemented the biennial budget with a second annual budget review. The biennial process provides time for deliberation and, more importantly, effective oversight.

CBO reports that last year, Congress appropriated over $170 billion for 167 programs that had expired authorizations. Do you hear me: 167 programs, $170 billion, and the authorizations had expired. This is not the fault of the appropriators. No one expects them not to fund veterans health care or other critical programs due to expired authorization. It is the fault of a process that simply does not leave us enough time to adequately review and reauthorize important Government programs. We need to give ourselves time to do the job right, and biennial budgeting will help get us there.

According to the best information I have, our agencies today in the Federal Government spend about 60 percent of their time every year on the budget and appropriations. There is no time for congressional oversight because of the fact that we have these annual budget marathons we go through. I am hoping--working with Senator Domenici and other Members of this body--that we can bring the 2-year budget issue to the floor of the Senate and once and for all put it into law.

The Truth in Budgeting Act I have introduced will provide Congress and the American people important financial management tools. Like any other set of tools, they are only as useful as the skill and dedication of the craftsman using them. However, just as a carpenter or auto mechanic is more productive when working with quality equipment, Congress can be more effective if we provide ourselves with better quality information.

Finally, before I close, I want to share my concerns regarding Federal revenues. Many of my colleagues would like to extend until 2010 all or some of the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003. Moreover, they propose to extend these tax cuts without offsetting the revenues lost to the Federal Government. The various proposals could increase the 5- year deficit by at least $90 billion and possibly as much as $306 billion. This is unacceptable.

Personally, I do not see a need to extend these tax cuts at this time. Now is the time for patience, not haste.

Most of the current tax provisions do not expire until 2010, and even the reduced rates on dividends and capital gains do not expire until 2008. I have consulted with experts such as Alan Greenspan and Pete Peterson who agree the stimulative effect of these cuts helped the economic recovery but also agreed we should pay for extending them with offsets. It is time to pay for them with offsets.

We do not know yet the impact of Federal revenues if we do Social Security reform. We still do not know the full cost of the prescription drug benefits we approved in the 108th Congress. Nevertheless, all of us must concede that most experts agree that if we keep going the way we are, spending for

Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will greatly exceed 18 percent of GDP, as I mentioned, by the year 2030.

We still do not know the full cost of the ongoing war on terror at home and particularly overseas. I predict we will be committed not just to Iraq and Afghanistan but to Kosovo and Bosnia for a long time, which will increase our national security costs dramatically.

I have spent time with our reservists who have returned home, and many of them say their equipment is in bad shape because of the war. There are so many uncertainties in dealing with our national security that we ought to be careful about reducing our revenues.

We will not know the strength of the duration of the current economic recovery for at least another year, but I will say this: We recently learned that last year we had GDP growth of 4.4 percent. That is the best we have had since 1999. There is no question that we are back on track. And the real issue is, do we need to continue to stimulate the economy with the tax reductions we passed in 2001 and 2003, particularly 2003 when we felt we needed to give the economy a front- end loaded stimulus that would make sure we would see an upturn.

We will not know until 2008 or 2009 how Federal revenues will be impacted by baby boomers becoming eligible for early retirement. Most experts expect slower economic growth and slower growth in Federal revenues. It is a real question, with the retirement of our baby boomers: Will we have the workforce we need to keep economic growth moving forward?

Finally, and perhaps more important, the President's Commission on fundamental tax reform will not complete its work until July. Once they send their report to Treasury Secretary Snow, he may very well recommend sweeping tax reform proposals for us to consider in 2006. It makes little sense to me to rush into making current tax policy permanent only to redo all our work in less than 18 months.

Under these circumstances, it seems more prudent to wait until next year before extending tax cuts enacted in the 2001 or 2003 tax reform bills. However, if my colleagues absolutely insist on extending these tax cuts, then we should at least offset their costs by reducing spending or increasing revenues elsewhere in the budget. In other words, the budget resolution is going to be calling for something like $70 billion or $80 billion of tax cuts that will be handled in reconciliation, which basically says they can be passed by the Senate with 51 votes.

My suggestion is, just eliminate them from the budget resolution. If extending the lower tax on dividends or extending the lower tax on capital gains is something in the best interest of the American people, then let's require 60 votes to get that done, just as we did last year when we did not have the continuation of three tax cuts for marriage penalty, lower marginal rates, and for the child tax credit. We did not have a budget. We did not have reconciliation language, but we extended those three because it was the feeling of this body and the House that they were needed to continue to respond to the needs of the American people.

My basic yardstick for Government spending, including tax cuts, has always been is it necessary and is it affordable? I believe the tax cuts in 2001, 2003, and 2004 were both. Nevertheless, we face a different situation today, and I will no longer support tax cuts until they are fully offset. The Nation's gross domestic product grew by over 4 percent in 2003 and 2004. Unemployment has dropped from 6.6 percent to 5.2 percent, and new jobs have been created every month for the last 21 months. Even Alan Greenspan at the Federal Reserve has noticed the turnaround and started to raise interest rates. The tax cut medicine worked, and it is time to stop before we overdose on too much of a good thing. I know some people want to make our recent tax cuts permanent, but I cannot support doing so at this time.

Any additional tinkering with the Tax Code should only be done as part of a comprehensive reform package designed to return Federal revenues to their 60-year average of 18 percent of the economy.

In closing, I tell my colleagues and constituents that I valued my status last year, while I was running for reelection, as a deficit hawk. I have always placed fiscal responsibility at the top of my agenda and never supported spending or tax cuts unless I thought they were necessary and affordable.

The legislation I have introduced will help us more effectively determine what fiscal policies really are necessary and affordable. I encourage Senators to support this legislation. I also encourage them to show patience regarding making the tax cuts permanent. With all the uncertainties facing us, it does not make sense to deal with the issue now.

I will finish with these words: One of the requirements I have used during my political career to decide whether we should do something is the issue of fairness. How in the world can we ask the American people to flat fund domestic discretionary spending, deal with the problem of Medicaid and many of these other issues, and at the same time say to them, and by the way, we are going to extend these tax cuts we have had? It does not make sense. It is not fair. It is not right. It is not acceptable.

I am hoping that my colleagues understand that to put ourselves in the position where we are going to have probably one of the most stingy budgets we have had since I have been in the Senate, at the same time we cannot continue these tax cuts and extend them or, for that matter, make them permanent.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2 p.m. today the Senate proceed to votes in relation to the next two amendments; provided further that all votes after the first be limited to 10 minutes each. The amendments are Leahy amendment No. 83 and Durbin amendment No. 112.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, in accordance with rule XXVI.2 of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Rules of Procedure of the Select Committee on Ethics, which were adopted February 23, 1978, and revised November 1999, be printed in the Congressional Record for the 109th Congress.