Floor Statements

As my colleagues know, supporting the development and expansion of the nuclear industry is something that has been one of my top priorities since I came to the Senate. I have been working to shape nuclear policy in this country for the past 8 years as chairman or ranking member of the Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee. I wish to recognize my colleague, Senator Inhofe, for the leadership he provided before I became chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission committee.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I take pride in the fact that our committee has helped transform NRC into one of the best and most respected regulatory agencies in the world. We have worked very hard on placing the right people on the Commission and providing the Commission with the resources and tools necessary to do its job and holding them accountable to the results. In fact, we have held more than 20 hearings involving the NRC in the past 8 years. So it is no accident that we have seen a dramatic improvement in both the safety record and the reliability of the 104 operating nuclear reactors today over the past 8 years. Without the public confidence that these plants are safe and secure, there won't be any nuclear renaissance.

We have spent time and effort to make sure the NRC has the resources--particularly the human capital--it needs to make sure that our 104 nuclear plants are operating safely but also to ensure it can process multiple license renewal applications and combined license applications for the new plants coming on board. We wanted to make sure the NRC doesn't become the bottleneck.

In 2005, we introduced three pieces of legislation as part of the 2005 Energy Policy Act to provide flexibility in hiring and employee retention. As a result, the NRC was able to hire over 1,000 highly qualified engineers and scientists over the last 3 years to replace retiring workers and also bring on those new people who are going to be necessary to process the new applications coming in. I am also pleased to note that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been rated as the best place to work among Federal agencies for 2 years in a row. They have a great workforce, and they are a top-notch organization.

The good news is that the NRC now has 17 applications for 26 new power reactors under review. All indications are that NRC's review of the applications is progressing on schedule. I haven't heard a complaint from anybody who filed applications. We are expecting that these applications will be approved in late 2010 or in early 2011. Obviously, it is not a done deal, but we have every reason to believe we are on the right track. As a matter of fact, five utility companies today--Southern in Georgia, SCANA in South Carolina, NRG in Texas, Constellation in Maryland, and Progress in Florida--have signed engineering-procurement-construction contracts and are gearing up for construction pending NRC approval and loan guarantees from the DOE. In other words, we are starting to take off in terms of getting some air under our wings.

Mr. President, I have an opinion piece I wrote in the Nuclear News magazine last year, entitled ``Making the Nuclear Renaissance a Reality.'' This paper outlines the need to expand the use of nuclear energy in the carbon-constrained economy and provides a roadmap to overcome challenges faced by the nuclear industry.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to read this. Anybody interested can get it on my Web site, voinovich.senate.gov.

As I watch the climate change debate unfold in this Congress, I rise to raise the same concern I raised last year during the debate on the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill: We cannot get there from here without nuclear.

The Waxman-Markey bill that was reported out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee 2 weeks ago sets the greenhouse gas emission reduction cap at 80 percent by 2050, as did the Lieberman-Warner bill last year, but it continues to ignore the need for much wider use of emission-free nuclear energy in order to make this extremely aggressive goal.

I pointed out then that one of the glaring holes in the Lieberman- Warner bill was its deafening silence on nuclear, while studies conducted by EPA, EIA, and others pointed to an inconvenient truth for some people: More than doubling the number of nuclear plants would be required; that is, bringing online more than 100 new nuclear plants in the next 40 years, in order to meet the emission goals set in that legislation. Around the world, governments are reaching the same conclusion and are turning to nuclear energy as a safe, homegrown, cost-effective, and emission-free solution to increasing energy demand.

This is true in Europe especially, where the nuclear renaissance is in full swing. In France, for example, almost 80 percent of its electricity comes from nuclear power. In fact, France exports a good deal of its nuclear power-generated electricity to its neighboring countries, including Germany. President Sarkozy has announced plans to build five additional plants within the next 5 years, in addition to one currently under construction.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown recently signaled his intent to rebuild nuclear energy in the United Kingdom, saying:

Whether we like it or not, we will not meet the challenges

of climate change without the far wider use of nuclear power.

He went on to note that the International Energy Agency estimates that we are going to have to build 32 nuclear powerplants each year if we are going to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. That is more than 1,300 new reactors.

Italy, Finland, and Switzerland have all announced plans to build new reactors after spending the past 25 years trying to phase out nuclear power. These European countries have come full circle in reembracing nuclear after two decades of trying to solve their energy and environmental challenges with conservation and renewables alone. That is significant.

Unfortunately, many proponents of a cap-and-trade scheme, such as Lieberman-Warner or Waxman-Markey, seem to be stuck on fantasies that we can achieve the emission reduction goals with just conservation, efficiency, and renewables. Even those who believe nuclear has a role to play espouse policies that overwhelmingly favor renewables over nuclear.

A case in point: Nuclear energy was conspicuously missing from the $787 billion stimulus package, while approximately $40 billion in various tax credits went to energy efficiency, renewables, and transmission. I am not opposed to that, but why did they ignore nuclear?

So it was particularly discouraging when the Senate version of the legislative language providing an additional $50 billion in loan guarantee authority in the stimulus bill was stripped from the final package during conference. Who did it? Why? The same thing happened when the Senate version of the budget resolution was passed a few weeks ago. We had it in there. We know we have to increase the Loan Guarantee Program to at least $50 billion, and it got stripped out again. Instead, the majority added the taxpayer-paid $60 billion Loan Guarantee Program allocated solely for renewables--wind, solar, and geothermal--and electric transmission systems to support renewable generation.

If you can do a priority in spending big money, let's do the grid. The grid is not what it should be. It has to be improved so that we can use wind and solar and get energy out across this country.

Unfortunately, many of the supporters of green energy never mention that it is unrealistic to rely solely on wind and solar power. This is something that I think needs to be made clear to every person in the United States, particularly our children, who are being taught in school that windmills and solar power are the way to the future in terms of the energy needs of America, and there is something wrong, and coal is bad, nuclear is bad. I hear it constantly from people when I go back to Ohio. Right now, 50 percent of our electricity is generated by coal; 20 percent by nuclear; 19 percent by natural gas; 6 percent by hydro; 3 percent by wind, solar, and geothermal; and 2 percent by oil. Given this current makeup of U.S. energy use, I don't think these folks are leveling with the

American people about the reality of what is possible.

They continually tout the need to increase the renewable energies to solve our dependence on foreign sources of energy. They say we need to double our use of renewables. I tell you this: A doubling of the utilization of renewables will bring us to 6 percent, and it would likely take at least 10 years or more to accomplish. Further, it is unlikely that a doubling in renewables would lead to any significant decrease in the use of oil because oil only produces 2 percent of the electricity in the country today.

Particularly, I think it is incredible that some policymakers, such as the newly appointed Chairman of FERC, suggest we can get our energy needs strictly from renewable sources of energy. Give me a break. At only 3 percent of total U.S. electric generation, it is simply intellectually dishonest to suggest that these renewable sources can replace the 70 percent of the base-load electricity currently generated by coal and nuclear in this country.

Don't get me wrong, I do support expanding the use of renewables such as solar and wind, and we see that industry growing in my State. But to just say that is it and not to look at reality is intellectually dishonest. My point is that, realistically, we are not yet in a position to be able to rely upon them for base-load power generation. This is despite receiving government subsidies.

Here is another little statistic people are not aware of. Most Americans are not aware of the fact that, in 2007, nuclear energy only--this is according to the Energy Information Agency--received a $1.59-per-megawatt-hour subsidy while wind received $23.37 and solar received $24.34 per megawatt hour.

Today, there is a huge energy gap between renewable electricity and the reliable, low-cost electricity we must have. We need to look at the way to get the job done. If we want to generate carbon-free electricity, nuclear needs to be a big part of it--I am not saying the only part, but it has to be a big part.

The 104 nuclear powerplants we have operating today, which is 20 percent of the electricity generated, represent over 70 percent of the Nation's emission-free portfolio. In other words, the 20 percent coming from nuclear represents 70 percent of the emission-free electricity in this country.

That means we are avoiding 700 million tons of carbon dioxide each year because of nuclear--700 million tons.

What does that mean to the ordinary citizen? That means 13 million tons is avoided by wind and solar today. That is compared with 700 million in terms of nuclear power. To put this in perspective, 700 million tons of annual carbon emission that is being avoided by our nuclear plants is more than what Canada collectively emits each year. In other words, nuclear nonemitting into the air is the equivalent of all of Canada. In terms of something we may better understand, it is the equivalent of 130 million cars each year. That is what nuclear power is doing for us. In effect, it is the equivalent of reducing emissions of 130 million automobiles each year in this country.

Nuclear power is the best source we have available to meet our energy needs while also curbing emissions of greenhouse gases. People are recognizing the importance of nuclear energy because they understand the facts.

Public opinion widely supports utilizing nuclear energy. According to a recent Gallup poll, 59 percent of Americans support it. We are not going to be able to turn around our economy, meet our energy needs, and enact some of the environmental policies being discussed today without expanding the use of nuclear energy.

I look at nuclear as a three-fer. Without it, we will not reach our goal of reducing carbon emissions. Without it, we are not going to be able to provide the baseload electricity we are going to need for our country. And without it, we are not going to be able to rebuild our manufacturing base in this country.

At a time when we are struggling to regain our economic footing, nuclear energy offers thousands of well-paying jobs in all stages of development and production. Each new nuclear plant will require an average of 2,000 workers during construction, with peak employment at 2,500 workers. If the industry were to construct 30 reactors that are currently planned, well over 60,000 workers would be required during construction. And once constructed, each plant will create 600 to 700 jobs to operate and maintain it.

That is not to mention the ripple effect this undertaking would make in other areas of the economy. Aris Candris, CEO of Westinghouse Electric, and Mike Rencheck, president of AREVA, recently told me that about 12,000 jobs will be created for each new nuclear plant if you include the manufacturing jobs.

This means that more than 200,000 manufacturing jobs will be created to supply the needed parts and components for the 30 nuclear reactors that are currently planned.

And that is not counting the jobs associated with export opportunities to Europe, China, and India.

Organized labor understands expanding nuclear power will create a lot of well-paying jobs. In fact, here is what John Sweeney said at a roundtable discussion on nuclear workforce issues I chaired last year:

This isn't a Republican issue. This isn't a Democratic

issue. It's an American issue.

I couldn't agree with him more.

I have met with Mark Ayers, Building and Construction Trades national president, a big union. He and his union members are actively supporting construction of new nuclear plants. They have also partnered with local community colleges and the nuclear industry in training workers. They are already training workers for the renaissance.

I have been working hard to get this message out in the past several years. Ohio and the surrounding Midwestern States have been the backbone of this Nation's nuclear manufacturing base. Ohio's small to medium-size enterprises are poised to lead the Nation's transition back into this market. In fact, hundreds of manufacturing jobs are already in existence in Ohio to support the nuclear industry, and more are to come in light of two announcements that are going to be coming up in the next couple of weeks that Ohioans will be very happy about that again will increase the number of people working in this industry.

I recently gave a speech at the Nuclear Manufacturing Infrastructure Council and had an opportunity to meet with several small manufacturing company executives. Their message was loud and clear: A clear policy statement from the administration and Congress is absolutely critical in acknowledging that nuclear power generation will be a growing part of our Nation's energy mix and investments in programs that will support the nuclear industry's near-term implementation needs are absolutely vital. The No. 1 thing is getting that $50 billion loan guarantee so we can get more of these people off the ground.

They all see the long-term potential growth in nuclear and they would like to invest in nuclear manufacturing, but they need a clear commitment from the government before they make those investments.

I think what these people are saying is we need Presidential leadership to acknowledge what most of us and the rest of the world already know: We cannot get there from here without nuclear.

I am convinced that nuclear power is the only real alternative we have today to produce enough low-cost, reliable, clean energy to remove harmful pollutants from the air, prevent the harmful effects of global climate change, and keep jobs from going overseas.

The biggest challenge remains the financing, particularly in nonregulated States. The deepening global economic crisis is putting additional pressure on the nuclear industry and on utilities.

As I mentioned, we have applications coming in, but right now DOE currently has 14 nuclear projects, representing a total project cost of $188 billion and loan guarantee requests of $122 billion. Basically what I am saying is that unless we can get this $50 billion loan guarantee taken care of, it is going to bring the progress we have been making to a halt.

A very important point that often gets lost in this discussion is the fact that the loan guarantee program authorized under the Energy Policy Act requires the borrowers to pay all the

required fees, including what is called a subsidy cost and, thus, there is no cost to the government. In other words, if they borrow $5 billion, they are going to have to come up with close to $1 billion to secure that loan so if things do not go well on the loan, we have something to turn to.

The subsidy cost is levied on each loan guarantee, similar to a downpayment on a mortgage, in case of a default. Any potential defaults are covered by fees paid by the applicants.

In my hand, I have a copy of a recent MIT study on the future of nuclear power. The authors of this study include former Clinton administration officials John Deutch and Ernest Moniz. The central premise of the MIT study on the future of nuclear power is that in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate global warming, we must reevaluate the role nuclear power has as part of this country's energy future.

I wish to share the conclusions of this report because I believe it fits rather nicely with this speech:

The current assistance program put into place by the 2005

Energy Policy Act has not been effective and needs to be

improved. The sober warning is that if more is not done,

nuclear power will diminish as a practical and timely option

for deployment at a scale that would constitute a material

contribution to climate change risk mitigation.

I commend to my colleagues this MIT report on the future of nuclear power.

Another issue that has plagued the nuclear industry for decades is the U.S. Government's failure to meet its commitment to assume responsibility for spent nuclear fuel. First, let's set the record straight. I have talked with many experts and policy people, including Secretary Chu and NRC Chairman Klein. They all assured me--it is important that everyone understands this--that the current spent nuclear that is being stored today in dry casks and pools are safe--are safe--and are secure for at least 100 years. That is very important because folks are saying you cannot go forward with this because we don't know what to do with the waste; we would like to do something more permanent than what we are doing.

But the fact is that with the dry casks we have, we are in good shape for at least 100 years. The lack of a repository at Yucca should not be something that inhibits us from licensing new reactors.

That being said, we must pursue a long-term solution now. If Yucca is not going to materialize, then we owe the American people a viable alternative. The 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act established a nuclear waste fund, a fee paid by utilities to create a fund to deal with nuclear waste. Since its beginning, it has collected $29 billion. So everyone understands this, since that act went into effect, we have collected $29 billion from ratepayers in this country. Unfortunately, the fund is on budget and only about $9 billion was used to deal with waste. The rest of the $20 billion amounts to little more than an IOU to U.S. ratepayers. Even if the administration decided to proceed with Yucca, we don't have the money to build a repository. We spent the money on other things. We will have to borrow over $20 billion to replenish the fund.

The Federal courts have ruled in favor of utilities. This is something else of which most people are not aware. And thus far we have paid utilities $550 million in damages because we have not come up with a permanent repository for nuclear waste. I am sure if we keep going the way we are, it is going to be in the billions.

I recently met with Secretary Chu, and he told me he would convene a blue ribbon panel to study Yucca. Unfortunately, I believe this is just kicking the can down the road for a couple of years. We have been studying this for more than four decades. We need to provide clear direction and certainty on this issue. The time for studying options is over, and the Federal Government must meet its legal obligations and start taking care of the spent fuel problem sooner rather than later.

If the administration is pulling the plug on Yucca without having a viable alternative long-term solution, then I think we owe it to the American people to refund their fees and stop levying fees.

I introduced the U.S. Nuclear Fuel Management Corporation Establishment Act of 2008 in the last Congress, together with Senators Domenici, Murkowski, Alexander, and Dole, to create an independent government corporation to manage the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. The bill will also take the nuclear waste fund off budget and give it directly to this corporation without the budget/appropriations process. I am planning to reintroduce that bill with Senators Murkowski, Alexander, and Burr, and I hope we can get additional cosponsors on the bill. It is about time we get serious about mapping out a future course for our Nation.

I firmly believe that utilizing nuclear energy as a key part of a mixed bag of energy sources offers us the best opportunity to truly harmonize our energy, the environment, and economic needs.

As I said before, nuclear energy offers thousands of well-paying jobs in all stages of development at a time when we are struggling to regain our economic footing. It is worth repeating--12,000 well-paying jobs will be created with each new nuclear powerplant. That is 360,000 jobs for the 30 nuclear reactors that are currently planned.

The American people get it, manufacturing gets it, the labor unions get it, and the international community--I have been to London, I have been to Paris, I have been to Austria. I have been around. All of them understand. In fact, I was on a climate change panel about a month ago that was sponsored by the German Marshall Fund when we met in Brussels. I was amazed at the number of people who said: Mr. Senator, we are never going to meet the Kyoto or Copenhagen goals for reducing our emissions without the use of nuclear power.

It is time President Obama and this Congress get it. We have to launch a nuclear renaissance in this country. We just cannot get there from here without nuclear.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that T.J. Kim, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for today.

Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend and partner on the Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee, Senator Akaka, to address the critical management challenges facing the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, by introducing the Effective Homeland Security Management Act of 2009. I am proud to have Senators Carper and Levin also joining us in this important effort.

This legislation would elevate the role and responsibilities of the current DHS Under Secretary for Management to a Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security for Management while preserving the authority of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of DHS as the first-and second-highest ranking DHS officials, respectively. Under the legislation, the individual appointed as the Deputy Secretary for Management would be the third highest ranking official at DHS and would serve a five year term in order to provide management continuity at DHS during times of leadership transition, such as following a presidential election like the one we just experienced.

In the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Congress established the position of Under Secretary for Management to oversee the management and administration of DHS. However, management issues have persisted at DHS since its creation. In 2003, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, included implementing and transforming DHS on its high-risk list of programs susceptible to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. Similarly, in December 2005, the DHS Inspector General issued a report warning of major management challenges facing DHS. The report noted that although progress has been made since DHS' inception, ``[i]ntegrating its many separate components in a single, effective, efficient, and economical Department remains one of DHS's biggest challenges.'' Further, DHS's own Performance and Accountability Report, released in November 2006, states that it did not meet its strategic goal of ``providing comprehensive leadership and management to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Department,'' further underscoring the need for good management. In 2007, the Homeland Security Advisory Council Culture Task Force Report also detailed persisting organizational challenges within DHS and prescribed leadership and management models designed to empower employees, foster collaboration, and encourage innovation. The third recommendation of the report was that DHS establish an operational leadership position. The report noted, ``[a]lignment and integration of the DHS component organizations is vital to the success of the DHS mission. The [Culture Task Force] believes there is a compelling need for the creation of a Deputy Secretary for Operations, DSO, who would report to the Secretary and be responsible for the high level Department-wide measures aimed at generating and sustaining seamless operational integration and alignment of the component organizations.''

For these reasons, as part of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Congress clarified that the role and responsibilities of the Under Secretary for Management would include serving as the Chief Management Officer and principal advisor to the Secretary on the management of DHS. In that legislation Congress also provided that the Under Secretary for Management would be responsible for strategic management and annual performance planning, identification and tracking of performance measures, and the management integration and transformation process in support of DHS operations and programs. The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 also established managerial and leadership qualifications for the Under Secretary for Management and increased the pay scale for that Under Secretary.

However, there continue to be significant management challenges associated with integrating DHS, whose creation represented the single largest restructuring of the Federal Government since the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947. In addition to its complex mission of securing the Nation from terrorism and natural hazards through protection, prevention, response, and recovery, leadership of DHS has the enormous task of unifying 200,000 employees from 22 disparate Federal agencies. This January, GAO again included implementing and transforming DHS on its high-risk list, noting that ``[a]lthough DHS has made progress in transforming into a fully functioning department, this transformation remains high risk because DHS has not yet developed a comprehensive plan to address the transformation, integration, management and mission challenges GAO identified since 2003. . . DHS has developed an Integrated Strategy for High Risk Management that outlines the department's process for, among other things,

assessing risks and proposing initiatives to address challenges, but the strategy lacks details for the transformation of DHS and integration of its management functions. DHS has also developed corrective action plans to address management challenges that contain several of the key elements GAO has identified for a corrective action plan . . . However, the plans generally do not contain measures to gauge performance and progress, nor do they identify the resources needed to carry out the corrective actions identified.''

As former Chairman and now Ranking Member of the Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee, improving the management structure at DHS has been one of my top priorities. The Subcommittee's Chairman, Senator Akaka, and I have been committed to ensuring that DHS has the proper tools to make continual improvements in its operations. Because management challenges persist at DHS, I believe the existing Under Secretary for Management position at DHS's lacks sufficient authority to direct the type of sustained leadership and overarching management integration and transformation strategy that is needed department-wide, and Congress must elevate that Under Secretary's role. The legislation I offer today would do that and would provide the focused, high-level attention that will result in effective management reform. I believe this legislation is vital to DHS's success, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend and partner on the Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee, Senator Akaka, to address the critical management challenges facing the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, by introducing the Effective Homeland Security Management Act of 2009. I am proud to have Senators Carper and Levin also joining us in this important effort.

This legislation would elevate the role and responsibilities of the current DHS Under Secretary for Management to a Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security for Management while preserving the authority of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of DHS as the first-and second-highest ranking DHS officials, respectively. Under the legislation, the individual appointed as the Deputy Secretary for Management would be the third highest ranking official at DHS and would serve a five year term in order to provide management continuity at DHS during times of leadership transition, such as following a presidential election like the one we just experienced.

In the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Congress established the position of Under Secretary for Management to oversee the management and administration of DHS. However, management issues have persisted at DHS since its creation. In 2003, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, included implementing and transforming DHS on its high-risk list of programs susceptible to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. Similarly, in December 2005, the DHS Inspector General issued a report warning of major management challenges facing DHS. The report noted that although progress has been made since DHS' inception, ``[i]ntegrating its many separate components in a single, effective, efficient, and economical Department remains one of DHS's biggest challenges.'' Further, DHS's own Performance and Accountability Report, released in November 2006, states that it did not meet its strategic goal of ``providing comprehensive leadership and management to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Department,'' further underscoring the need for good management. In 2007, the Homeland Security Advisory Council Culture Task Force Report also detailed persisting organizational challenges within DHS and prescribed leadership and management models designed to empower employees, foster collaboration, and encourage innovation. The third recommendation of the report was that DHS establish an operational leadership position. The report noted, ``[a]lignment and integration of the DHS component organizations is vital to the success of the DHS mission. The [Culture Task Force] believes there is a compelling need for the creation of a Deputy Secretary for Operations, DSO, who would report to the Secretary and be responsible for the high level Department-wide measures aimed at generating and sustaining seamless operational integration and alignment of the component organizations.''

For these reasons, as part of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Congress clarified that the role and responsibilities of the Under Secretary for Management would include serving as the Chief Management Officer and principal advisor to the Secretary on the management of DHS. In that legislation Congress also provided that the Under Secretary for Management would be responsible for strategic management and annual performance planning, identification and tracking of performance measures, and the management integration and transformation process in support of DHS operations and programs. The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 also established managerial and leadership qualifications for the Under Secretary for Management and increased the pay scale for that Under Secretary.

However, there continue to be significant management challenges associated with integrating DHS, whose creation represented the single largest restructuring of the Federal Government since the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947. In addition to its complex mission of securing the Nation from terrorism and natural hazards through protection, prevention, response, and recovery, leadership of DHS has the enormous task of unifying 200,000 employees from 22 disparate Federal agencies. This January, GAO again included implementing and transforming DHS on its high-risk list, noting that ``[a]lthough DHS has made progress in transforming into a fully functioning department, this transformation remains high risk because DHS has not yet developed a comprehensive plan to address the transformation, integration, management and mission challenges GAO identified since 2003. . . DHS has developed an Integrated Strategy for High Risk Management that outlines the department's process for, among other things,

assessing risks and proposing initiatives to address challenges, but the strategy lacks details for the transformation of DHS and integration of its management functions. DHS has also developed corrective action plans to address management challenges that contain several of the key elements GAO has identified for a corrective action plan . . . However, the plans generally do not contain measures to gauge performance and progress, nor do they identify the resources needed to carry out the corrective actions identified.''

As former Chairman and now Ranking Member of the Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee, improving the management structure at DHS has been one of my top priorities. The Subcommittee's Chairman, Senator Akaka, and I have been committed to ensuring that DHS has the proper tools to make continual improvements in its operations. Because management challenges persist at DHS, I believe the existing Under Secretary for Management position at DHS's lacks sufficient authority to direct the type of sustained leadership and overarching management integration and transformation strategy that is needed department-wide, and Congress must elevate that Under Secretary's role. The legislation I offer today would do that and would provide the focused, high-level attention that will result in effective management reform. I believe this legislation is vital to DHS's success, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Akaka to introduce the Federal Executive Board Authorization Act of 2009 in order to provide for the establishment, administration and funding of Federal Executive Boards, FEBs.

As you may know, President Kennedy issued a ``Memorandum on the Need for Greater Coordination of Regional and Field Activities of the Government'' in 1961 that noted that more than 90 percent of Federal employees work outside of Washington, DC. President Kennedy wanted to strengthen the coordination of their activities, so he directed ``the establishment of a Board of Federal Executives'' to ``consider management matters and interdepartmental cooperation and establish liaison with State and local government officials in their regions.'' That Memorandum led to the creation of ten FEBs to ``increase the effectiveness and economy of Federal agencies.''

These FEBs proved their worth, because the number of FEBs across the Nation has increased to 28 FEBs total in Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Buffalo, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dallas-Fort Worth, Denver, Detroit, Honolulu, Houston, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Minnesota, Newark, New Mexico, New Orleans, New York City, Oklahoma, Oregon, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, San Antonio, San Francisco, Seattle, and South Florida. Those FEBs serve an important role in coordinating Federal activities. For example, earlier this year a proactive FEB executive director sent an e-mail to her FEB colleagues in an effort to coordinate stimulus spending.

However, a 2007 Government Accountability Office, GAO, report, ``Additional Steps Needed to Take Advantage of Federal Executive Boards' Ability to Contribute to Emergency Operations,'' noted that FEBs have no congressional charter and rely on voluntary contributions from their member agencies for funding. Because such voluntary contributions result in financial uncertainty on the part of FEBs, GAO recommended that the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, develop a proposal to address the uncertainty of funding sources for FEBs. Based on that recommendation, the Federal Executive Board Authorization Act of 2009 provides for the establishment, administration and funding of FEBs.

The legislation is based in large part on Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, where OPM has set forth regulations relating to the authority, location, and membership of FEBs. Similar to those provisions, this bill calls on the Director of OPM to determine where to establish FEBs and requires the Director to consult with agencies in making that determination. The bill also provides that FEBs shall consist of senior officials from appropriate agencies in those areas. Also similar to provisions in the Code of Federal Regulations, the bill authorizes the Director of OPM to establish staffing policies for FEBs, designate an agency to staff each FEB, establish communications policies, performance standards and accountability initiatives for FEBs, and administer FEB funding.

The Federal Executive Board Authorization Act of 2009 also requires each FEB to adopt bylaws or other rules for its internal governance, elect a chairman from among its members, provide a forum for the exchange of information, and develop coordinated approaches to the development and operation of programs that have common characteristics. Under the bill, FEBs would be required to communicate management initiatives and other concerns from Washington, DC to the field and develop relationships with State and local governments and private sector organizations to help coordinate emergency management and homeland security matters.

To address GAO's concern about the uncertainty of FEB funding, the legislation establishes a fund for FEB operations which would be administered by OPM. The fund would consist of contributions from OPM for administrative and oversight activities as well as contributions from each agency participating in FEBs for staffing and operations. Each agency's contribution would be determined by a formula established by the Director of OPM in consultation with agencies and the Office of Management and Budget, and that formula must take into account each agency's number of employees in areas served by FEBs.

President Kennedy showed great foresight when he called for the coordination of Federal agencies' activities in 1961, and FEBs have done a good job since then in coordinating their work. These FEBs need a congressional charter and a set source of funding, so I hope the Senate will act quickly to pass this legislation, which OPM and GAO were consulted in drafting.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Akaka to introduce the Federal Executive Board Authorization Act of 2009 in order to provide for the establishment, administration and funding of Federal Executive Boards, FEBs.

As you may know, President Kennedy issued a ``Memorandum on the Need for Greater Coordination of Regional and Field Activities of the Government'' in 1961 that noted that more than 90 percent of Federal employees work outside of Washington, DC. President Kennedy wanted to strengthen the coordination of their activities, so he directed ``the establishment of a Board of Federal Executives'' to ``consider management matters and interdepartmental cooperation and establish liaison with State and local government officials in their regions.'' That Memorandum led to the creation of ten FEBs to ``increase the effectiveness and economy of Federal agencies.''

These FEBs proved their worth, because the number of FEBs across the Nation has increased to 28 FEBs total in Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Buffalo, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dallas-Fort Worth, Denver, Detroit, Honolulu, Houston, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Minnesota, Newark, New Mexico, New Orleans, New York City, Oklahoma, Oregon, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, San Antonio, San Francisco, Seattle, and South Florida. Those FEBs serve an important role in coordinating Federal activities. For example, earlier this year a proactive FEB executive director sent an e-mail to her FEB colleagues in an effort to coordinate stimulus spending.

However, a 2007 Government Accountability Office, GAO, report, ``Additional Steps Needed to Take Advantage of Federal Executive Boards' Ability to Contribute to Emergency Operations,'' noted that FEBs have no congressional charter and rely on voluntary contributions from their member agencies for funding. Because such voluntary contributions result in financial uncertainty on the part of FEBs, GAO recommended that the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, develop a proposal to address the uncertainty of funding sources for FEBs. Based on that recommendation, the Federal Executive Board Authorization Act of 2009 provides for the establishment, administration and funding of FEBs.

The legislation is based in large part on Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, where OPM has set forth regulations relating to the authority, location, and membership of FEBs. Similar to those provisions, this bill calls on the Director of OPM to determine where to establish FEBs and requires the Director to consult with agencies in making that determination. The bill also provides that FEBs shall consist of senior officials from appropriate agencies in those areas. Also similar to provisions in the Code of Federal Regulations, the bill authorizes the Director of OPM to establish staffing policies for FEBs, designate an agency to staff each FEB, establish communications policies, performance standards and accountability initiatives for FEBs, and administer FEB funding.

The Federal Executive Board Authorization Act of 2009 also requires each FEB to adopt bylaws or other rules for its internal governance, elect a chairman from among its members, provide a forum for the exchange of information, and develop coordinated approaches to the development and operation of programs that have common characteristics. Under the bill, FEBs would be required to communicate management initiatives and other concerns from Washington, DC to the field and develop relationships with State and local governments and private sector organizations to help coordinate emergency management and homeland security matters.

To address GAO's concern about the uncertainty of FEB funding, the legislation establishes a fund for FEB operations which would be administered by OPM. The fund would consist of contributions from OPM for administrative and oversight activities as well as contributions from each agency participating in FEBs for staffing and operations. Each agency's contribution would be determined by a formula established by the Director of OPM in consultation with agencies and the Office of Management and Budget, and that formula must take into account each agency's number of employees in areas served by FEBs.

President Kennedy showed great foresight when he called for the coordination of Federal agencies' activities in 1961, and FEBs have done a good job since then in coordinating their work. These FEBs need a congressional charter and a set source of funding, so I hope the Senate will act quickly to pass this legislation, which OPM and GAO were consulted in drafting.

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

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

Madam President, I rise to support Senator Gregg's amendment to create a deficit-neutral reserve fund for the creation of a task force to address tax entitlement reform and reduce our Nation's long-term fiscal gap.

The amendment would fund a vehicle to examine our tax and entitlement systems and present long-term solutions to place the Senate on a fiscally sustainable course and ensure the solvency of our entitlement programs for future generations.

Senator Lieberman and I have introduced a very similar amendment, and I understand that Senator Lieberman is going to be willing to support this amendment. I am not going to go into detail. The chairman and the ranking member of the Budget Committee have laid out in very frightening terms where we are in terms of our deficits and our national debt.

Frankly, I have been talking about this since I have come to the Senate in 1999. I said we have to do something about this growing debt that is blossoming. Now we are talking about the possibility of it doubling in the next 5 years. So we have to get at entitlements and tax reform.

The thing that is encouraging to me is, there is legislation I am introducing in the Senate that has been introduced in the House. It is called the SAFE Commission. It is sponsored by 52 House Members, 26 Republicans, 26 Democrats. It has the support of the Business Roundtable, the Heritage Foundation, the Concord Coalition, the Peterson Foundation. They have all voiced support.

What we are trying to do with this amendment to the budget is to have an acknowledgement of the fact that money is set aside to fund a commission that will be set up.

I am hoping my colleagues don't get involved in one of these, ``Well, I don't like the language of this,'' because we haven't gotten to the language yet. I am saying to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and on my side that we have to negotiate the kind of vehicle we are going to use. Two years ago, the vehicle we had had more Republicans than Democrats because we controlled the Presidency, the House, and the Senate. The new legislation coming out, that I will support, will have more Democrats because the Democrats have the Presidency and the Senate and the House. It does provide that in order to get something, it be fast-tracked. They spend, say, 6 months looking at it and come up with tax and entitlement reform. They send it on an expedited procedure to the House and Senate. Before they do that, they have to have 75 percent of the people supporting it, and you have to have at least two Republicans. That does bring in minority participation.

What I am afraid of is that I have heard Senator Conrad say: I don't like the idea that it has to be even-steven. The main thing is, I would like the Senate to go on record that we will create a fund that will fund a commission that will finally get to the entitlement problem we have had now for a long time. The bottom line is, we have this avalanche that has hit us. We are in trouble. But at the same time, underlying that, we have the problem of this long-term national debt. Everybody is aware of the challenge.

Recently, Premier Wen pointed out that he is concerned about what we are doing. Europe is concerned about what we are doing. Canada is worried about it. They are saying: You folks haven't been willing to take on your entitlement and tax reform. What bothers me is that if we don't deal with this and our neighbors start to get leery of what we are doing, we could see interest rates skyrocket because everybody acknowledges that as long as we are getting money from China, Japan, and the OPEC nations, we will be able to borrow money at a cheap rate. But if they lose confidence that we have not been willing to stand and do what we are supposed to, that could change dramatically.

I urge my colleagues to look at this not as we are drafting the legislation. What we are saying is, we acknowledge there is a problem that needs to be dealt with. Peter Orszag understands there is a problem. He was with this effort 2 years ago. Now he has been ``I am not sure how we want to do this.'' All I would like to do is to come in with a bipartisan commission that says: We are willing to tackle this. Give it to the administration and say: If you don't like it, what is better than what we have?

We have to get going on this. We cannot keep putting it under the rug. We need to deal with it.

I have a lot of other words to speak today, but I hope I get the message across to everyone that all we are basically doing is setting aside money to pay for a commission, the complexity of which and the rules of which are something we will have to try and come up with a compromise on. We have an amendment, Senator Lieberman and I, that is less restrictive than Senator Gregg's. Apparently, that language bothers Senator Conrad. All I know is, I would like us to go on record that we know there is a problem. We know we can't get it done in the regular order doing tax reform and entitlement reform. We need a commission to take it on as we did with Social Security. They took it on. We got together, came back with a recommendation, and got it done.

I urge colleagues to look at the big picture and not get tied in with this is a Republican thing or a Democratic thing. It is a problem for America. It is a Republican and Democratic problem. It is America's problem. We have to do something about it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend and partner in Federal workforce issues, Senator Daniel K. Akaka, to introduce the Federal Hiring Process Improvement Act of 2009.

When we discuss hiring, we discuss a process that affects every individual employed by the government today. Making the right hiring decisions affects the current workforce's ability to continue doing their jobs. It also is the same process these employees must go through when pursuing new opportunities within the Government, including promotions.

Additionally, we need to convey to the thousands of men and women at all stages of their career that the Federal Government is more than just an employer, but a place where Americans can utilize and grow their skills in service to their Nation.

As the old cliche goes, ``You never get a second chance to make a first impression.'' We need to convey to these Americans that the Federal Government wants them. If we do not, someone else will.

The Baby Boomers are retiring at a time when needs and demands on Government continue to grow. The Office of Personnel Management has identified certain areas of critical hiring importance: air traffic controllers, border patrol officers, engineers, food inspectors, human resources specialists, nurses, visa examiners, patent examiners, scientists, veterinarians, accountants, and acquisition professionals. In addition, the Partnership for Public Service has estimated the Federal Government will lose approximately 530,000 employees over the next 5 years, including many mission critical jobs.

We know the challenges confronting the Federal Government. Now we must make sure our processes result in hiring the right person, at the right place, at the right time, to get the job done.

Over and over, we hear of the problems in the Federal hiring process. It takes too long; it is too burdensome, and so forth. The quality of technology has improved, but our processes have not. This does nothing to dispel any preconceived notions that the Federal Government is nothing but a bureaucratic system.

Accordingly, Senator Akaka and I are introducing legislation to streamline the hiring process. The Federal Hiring Process Improvement Act brings together commonsense solutions to a government-wide management challenge. Our legislation would require job announcements to be written in plain language; guarantee agencies provide feedback to applicants at a minimum of four key points during the process; and ensure individual hiring decisions are made within 80 days or less. In addition, our legislation would require agencies to improve their workforce planning and make hiring projections available to the public.

Too often, we have heard that processes exist for what I believe to be unacceptable reasons, such as, that is how it always has been done. But to be an employer of choice, the government must understand what the competition is doing and adapt to the changing environment. This legislation is an important first step in meeting that goal.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend and partner in Federal workforce issues, Senator Daniel K. Akaka, to introduce the Federal Hiring Process Improvement Act of 2009.

When we discuss hiring, we discuss a process that affects every individual employed by the government today. Making the right hiring decisions affects the current workforce's ability to continue doing their jobs. It also is the same process these employees must go through when pursuing new opportunities within the Government, including promotions.

Additionally, we need to convey to the thousands of men and women at all stages of their career that the Federal Government is more than just an employer, but a place where Americans can utilize and grow their skills in service to their Nation.

As the old cliche goes, ``You never get a second chance to make a first impression.'' We need to convey to these Americans that the Federal Government wants them. If we do not, someone else will.

The Baby Boomers are retiring at a time when needs and demands on Government continue to grow. The Office of Personnel Management has identified certain areas of critical hiring importance: air traffic controllers, border patrol officers, engineers, food inspectors, human resources specialists, nurses, visa examiners, patent examiners, scientists, veterinarians, accountants, and acquisition professionals. In addition, the Partnership for Public Service has estimated the Federal Government will lose approximately 530,000 employees over the next 5 years, including many mission critical jobs.

We know the challenges confronting the Federal Government. Now we must make sure our processes result in hiring the right person, at the right place, at the right time, to get the job done.

Over and over, we hear of the problems in the Federal hiring process. It takes too long; it is too burdensome, and so forth. The quality of technology has improved, but our processes have not. This does nothing to dispel any preconceived notions that the Federal Government is nothing but a bureaucratic system.

Accordingly, Senator Akaka and I are introducing legislation to streamline the hiring process. The Federal Hiring Process Improvement Act brings together commonsense solutions to a government-wide management challenge. Our legislation would require job announcements to be written in plain language; guarantee agencies provide feedback to applicants at a minimum of four key points during the process; and ensure individual hiring decisions are made within 80 days or less. In addition, our legislation would require agencies to improve their workforce planning and make hiring projections available to the public.

Too often, we have heard that processes exist for what I believe to be unacceptable reasons, such as, that is how it always has been done. But to be an employer of choice, the government must understand what the competition is doing and adapt to the changing environment. This legislation is an important first step in meeting that goal.

I thank the Senator from New Mexico. Since my election to the Senate, I have made improving the Federal workforce a priority. I know from 18 years of experience as both a mayor and a Governor that you simply cannot have effective government without the right people to get the job done.

The Oversight of Government Management and the Federal Workforce Subcommittee, which I chaired and of which I am now the ranking member, has held dozens of hearings on issues related to attracting and retaining talented people in government service. Roughly one-third of government's top scientists, engineers, physicians, mathematicians, economists, and other highly specialized professionals will be leaving government service in the next 5 years. The labor needs of government are becoming more professional and specialized than ever before. Unfortunately, the same is true of the overall U.S. labor market and an insufficient number of citizens are pursuing study in high need areas. We need programs like Roosevelt Scholars to help address this shortage of skilled talent.

I am pleased to join the Senator as a cosponsor of the Roosevelt Scholars proposal so more of our talented young people who answer the call to service will have government service as an option.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend and partner on human capital issues, Senator Daniel K. Akaka, in introducing the Telework Enhancement Act of 2009.

One of my top priorities as a Senator has been to transform the culture of the Federal workforce, something I conscientiously undertook with the city and State workforces as Mayor of Cleveland and Governor of Ohio. I know that investing in our workforce pays off.

We have an aging workforce that has difficulty attracting young people to public service careers. The image of the public sector can be bureaucratic--an impression that too often discourages young, creative college graduates. We must be able to recruit the best candidates, provide training and professional development opportunities, and reward good performance.

To compete as an employer of choice in the fast-paced 21st century knowledge economy and improve our competitiveness, we need to create an environment that supports those with the desire and commitment to serve. Just as other aspects of their lives have been informed by technology, we need to acknowledge that this next generation will have different expectations of what it means to go to work. The growth of Web 2.0 hand held devices makes it far more likely that working anytime from most anywhere will be the new norm.

As I stated in my 2000 report to the President on the Crisis in Human Capital, Federal agencies should enable as many employees as possible to telecommute or participate in other types of flexible workplace programs. Not only would this make Federal service more attractive to many employees, especially parents of young children, it has the potential to reduce traffic congestion and pollution in large metropolitan areas. According to the Telework Exchange, the average round trip commute is 50 miles, and commuters spend an average of 264 hours per year commuting. Looking at the Federal Government, if all Federal employees who are eligible to telework full time were to do so, the Federal workforce could realize $13.9 billion savings in commuting costs annually and eliminate 21.5 billion pounds of pollutants out of the environment each year. Though more difficult to quantify, but equally important, is the improved work/life balance which has a positive effect on employee morale. An additional reason that was made plain on September 11, 2001, is the need for a workforce that can be dispersed and decentralized so that essential functions can continue during an emergency.

The legislation we introduce today helps ensure that executive agencies better integrate telework into their human capital planning, establishes a level playing field for employees who voluntarily elect to telework, and improves program accountability.

According to the most recent OPM survey on Federal human capital, only 22 percent of employees when asked about work/life and family friendly benefits said that they were satisfied with current telework/ telecommuting opportunities. Another 37 percent responded that they had no basis to judge. Even though teleworking has increased since OPM began reporting in 2001, participation is far short of what it should be and what the Federal workforce needs if our government is to remain an employer of choice. While most Federal agencies have made progress, the overall number of teleworkers decreased by approximately 15,000 employees between 2006 and 2007, according to the Office of Personnel Management. In addition, less than 8 percent of eligible Federal employees telework regularly.

I urge my colleagues to join Senator Akaka and me in ensuring the Federal Government better integrates telework into its operational plans.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend and partner on human capital issues, Senator Daniel K. Akaka, in introducing the Telework Enhancement Act of 2009.

One of my top priorities as a Senator has been to transform the culture of the Federal workforce, something I conscientiously undertook with the city and State workforces as Mayor of Cleveland and Governor of Ohio. I know that investing in our workforce pays off.

We have an aging workforce that has difficulty attracting young people to public service careers. The image of the public sector can be bureaucratic--an impression that too often discourages young, creative college graduates. We must be able to recruit the best candidates, provide training and professional development opportunities, and reward good performance.

To compete as an employer of choice in the fast-paced 21st century knowledge economy and improve our competitiveness, we need to create an environment that supports those with the desire and commitment to serve. Just as other aspects of their lives have been informed by technology, we need to acknowledge that this next generation will have different expectations of what it means to go to work. The growth of Web 2.0 hand held devices makes it far more likely that working anytime from most anywhere will be the new norm.

As I stated in my 2000 report to the President on the Crisis in Human Capital, Federal agencies should enable as many employees as possible to telecommute or participate in other types of flexible workplace programs. Not only would this make Federal service more attractive to many employees, especially parents of young children, it has the potential to reduce traffic congestion and pollution in large metropolitan areas. According to the Telework Exchange, the average round trip commute is 50 miles, and commuters spend an average of 264 hours per year commuting. Looking at the Federal Government, if all Federal employees who are eligible to telework full time were to do so, the Federal workforce could realize $13.9 billion savings in commuting costs annually and eliminate 21.5 billion pounds of pollutants out of the environment each year. Though more difficult to quantify, but equally important, is the improved work/life balance which has a positive effect on employee morale. An additional reason that was made plain on September 11, 2001, is the need for a workforce that can be dispersed and decentralized so that essential functions can continue during an emergency.

The legislation we introduce today helps ensure that executive agencies better integrate telework into their human capital planning, establishes a level playing field for employees who voluntarily elect to telework, and improves program accountability.

According to the most recent OPM survey on Federal human capital, only 22 percent of employees when asked about work/life and family friendly benefits said that they were satisfied with current telework/ telecommuting opportunities. Another 37 percent responded that they had no basis to judge. Even though teleworking has increased since OPM began reporting in 2001, participation is far short of what it should be and what the Federal workforce needs if our government is to remain an employer of choice. While most Federal agencies have made progress, the overall number of teleworkers decreased by approximately 15,000 employees between 2006 and 2007, according to the Office of Personnel Management. In addition, less than 8 percent of eligible Federal employees telework regularly.

I urge my colleagues to join Senator Akaka and me in ensuring the Federal Government better integrates telework into its operational plans.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 30 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise today to call attention to what I refer to as the irresponsible and reckless fiscal path we find ourselves on as a nation and to urge my colleagues to act now to take the first step toward meaningful, comprehensive tax and entitlement reform.

On Tuesday night, we gathered here to cast our votes on the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009. I could not vote for this bill because it ignores the fiscal realities we find ourselves in today. This omnibus bill, which includes $408 billion in nonemergency spending, is 8 percent larger than it should be. Some agencies in the bill are set to get a 40-percent increase in funding. From my experience as a former Governor of Ohio and the mayor of the city of Cleveland, I do not believe those agencies have the capacity to spend that kind of money. This adds to the $787 billion stimulus bill that was passed last month. It increases the already staggering $10.9 trillion national debt and continues to expand the size of the Government at what has become an alarming rate.

As you can see from this chart, Federal spending as a percentage of GDP averaged just under 20 percent under President Bush. This year, under President Obama, it will reach almost 28 percent, and his administration projects that it will average out to over 23 percent across two terms. In other words, I came to the Senate in 1999, and this is what we were spending, totally, on Medicare, Medicaid, all the other appropriations. Then, as you see, it started to go up. We have to be honest, that is where we started to borrow money because we were not taking in enough money to pay for it, so we started to have deficits. Then, under Bush, it started to go up some more.

Here we are in 2009. You can see that the size of the Government is up to 27.7 percent. That is what we are spending on everything. We have gone from 8 percent to 27.7 percent. That is going to start to slide down. In 2012, the President says to us, don't worry, we are going to reduce the deficit spending by 50 percent. Look at this, it continues to spend out at this point, and by 2016--I have not shown it on the chart, but it just keeps going. We just cannot keep going that way. That is over half a trillion dollars a year we are borrowing to run the Government.

To complete what I call the triple whammy to our national debt, the administration adds to the stimulus and omnibus a new 10-year budget where the lowest deficit for a single year is larger than any annual deficit from the end of World War II.

In fact, President Obama's smallest deficit is larger than President Bush's largest deficit. And that is true despite proposing the largest tax increase in American history, including a new energy tax that will expose the false claim that we will not raise taxes on the middle class. This $646 billion tax increases will affect rich, poor and middle class alike. Yet future generations will still be burdened with higher debt. So we have gone from--and I am not proud of some Republican years, what we did. As I used to say, the Democrats tax and spend; the Republicans spent and borrowed. Now we have gone to spend, borrow, and tax.

In spite of all of that, we are going to have these gigantic deficits as far as we can see in this country. Simply put, our spending is out of control. We are spending and funding more money at a time when we should be finding ways to work harder and smarter and do more with less. I know a little bit about this, because I took over Cleveland, the first city to go into default in the depression of 1979. We were in deep trouble. I took over the State of Ohio. We were $1.5 billion in debt at that time. We had to cut the budget four times, and ultimately had to increase taxes in the margin. I know what this is about.

But nobody is talking about ``working harder and smarter'' or ``doing more with less.'' If you look at the stimulus, we spent $787 billion, and now some congressional leaders are talking about putting together a second package. I cannot believe it. We cannot continue down this path.

It is our responsibility to make budgeting decisions based on our Nation's fiscal situation and to take into consideration the impact it is having on others but, more importantly, on our children and grandchildren. Over the past year, we have been hit by an economic avalanche that started in housing, quickly spread to the financial and credit markets, then continued onward to every corner of the economy and across the world.

We have taken steps over the past months to dig out of the avalanche. But we have not reinforced our tax and entitlement system's crumbling foundation. In other words,--I have been

talking about this for 8 years--we need to have tax reform and entitlement reform. Now all of this other stuff has hit us, but the fact of the matter is, that is still there. We need tax reform. We need entitlement reform. And that is why, despite the enormity of the legislation passed over the past month, there is still a sense of great anxiety on Main Street and my street. I still live in the house that Janet and I bought in 1972. I am with real people every day. They are very concerned about the future. They get it.

The stimulus and omnibus has caused everyone who paid attention to say: My God, we have to do something to get back on firm fiscal footing. They know that unless we fix our tax and entitlement system we might as well be flying a kamikaze plane.

When I arrived in the Senate in 1999, gross Federal debt stood at $5.6 trillion or 16 percent of GDP. The Obama administration recently projected the national debt to more than double, to $12.7 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2009. That would amount to a 126-percent increase compared with only a 56-percent increases in the gross domestic product during the same 10-year period.

From 2008 to 2009 alone, the Federal debt would increase 27 percent, boosting the country's debt-to-income ratio or national debt as a percentage of our gross domestic product from 74 percent last year to 89 percent this year.

The Pacman. Here it was in 1999. Federal debt. And it is up to 70. We are now up to 89 percent. I think there are still some people who understand Pacman. When I was Governor of Ohio, I used to say that Medicaid--I am sure the Presiding Officer understands that Medicaid is the Pacman that kept eating up the budgets in your State.

Under the Obama budget, though, at 2017, for the first time since 1947 when we were paying down our World War II debt, the national debt will be larger than the size of the entire American economy.

At that point, we will be too fat and out of shape to escape from our creditors around the world. That is what it is going to look like. In 2017, it is more than 100 percent of our gross domestic product. Think of that. Today, if we are candid with the American people, when you consider the TARP, the stimulus package, and the money we continuously borrow from the Social Security trust fund, we are facing a projected budget deficit of $1.9 trillion, which is more than four times the reported 2008 deficit of $455 billion as a share of the economy.

The 2009 deficit will become the largest recorded deficit since World War II. Last June when I spoke here on the floor of this fiscal crisis, I pointed out that our national debt was $9.4 trillion, and the per capita debt, each American's share of the national debt was $31,000, up from $20,000 in 1999.

This year, that figure will reach $41,000. Let's put that into perspective. In 2009, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median income for an Ohio family in 2007 for one earner was $40,000. That means each person's share of the national debt is more than many hard-working Ohioans make in an entire year.

Alarmingly, these figures did not even count our accumulated long- term financial obligations: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, which grew $2.5 trillion last year as a result of the increases in the costs of Medicare and Social Security benefits.

The baby boomers are here. They are coming on. If we include those numbers, taxpayers are on the hook for a record $57 trillion in Federal liabilities to cover the lifetime benefits of everyone eligible for Medicare, Social Security, and other Government programs. That is nearly $500,000 per household.

Now, it does not take an economist to realize that of course we cannot keep going. As our former Comptroller General and head of the Government Accountability Office said, we are facing a fiscal timebomb. We must come to terms with the fact that the U.S. Government is the worst credit card abuser in the world, and it is time that we came to terms with the fiscal realities of 2009.

We cannot continue to heap debt on the backs of our children and grandchildren without a second thought. Lip service from Congress and the administration is not going to get the job done. Recently, the Office of Management and Budget Director, Peter Orszag, spoke to a group of bipartisan Senators who have breakfast regularly to talk about some of the problems.

He pointed out that as we are confronted with the economic tsunami hitting our country, we are lucky our interest rates are very low, because many investors in America and around the world are parking their money in Treasury bills.

Mr. Orszag continued on to say, we cannot expect that rate of borrowing to last, and it is imperative we take advantage of this phenomena now before foreign markets and our people demand more interest for their investment in the U.S. debt.

I could not agree more. We cannot rely on luck and foreign investors. When I met with Larry Summers, Martin Feldstein, and Larry Lindsay, they say our current fiscal path is only sustainable--listen to this-- as long as the Japanese, the Chinese, and the OPEC and others have confidence that we are going to pay back our debt. And, boy, are they watching whether we are going to do anything about tax reform and entitlement reform.

Now, this has serious implications. Foreign creditors have provided more than 70 percent of the funds that the United States has borrowed since 2001--70 percent.

Today 50 percent, 51 percent of the privately owned national debt is held by foreigners. That is up from 37 percent just 6 years ago. If these foreign investors lose confidence and pull out of U.S. Treasurys, Katey bar the door. Borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from China and OPEC nations not only puts our economy but our national security at risk. We have to make sure other countries do not control our debt.

One of the things I pointed out--and the Presiding Officer understands this--is that we have to become more oil independent. We have a situation today where somebody else controls the supply, the cost, and they are buying our debt. If I control the supply and the cost and then I am paying for your debt, I put you out of business. That is just a fact of life. We have to wake up to the fact that we cannot rely on these other countries to take care of this debt. We cannot continue to live in the United States of denial.

In 2006, I sent a letter to President Bush urging him to take on comprehensive tax and entitlement reform. I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the Record.

Sadly, no action was taken. We missed a gigantic opportunity to make meaningful reform while times were relatively good. We are more or less lucking out now, but we cannot count on that luck to last forever. We have to tackle tax and entitlement reform to maintain credibility, to turn around our economy, and to regain our global respectability--not a year from now, not 2 years from now, but now, now, now.

Our Tax Code, for example, is imploding from the hundreds of economic and social policies Congress pursues through tax incentives and dozens of temporary tax provisions. It is a nightmare. Just ask the millions of Americans right now who are filing their tax returns. I have said this on the floor before: When we got our tax return back last year, my wife and I looked at it. My wife said: Do you understand it?

I said: No, I don't understand it.

I said: Why don't we call our accountant; maybe he will explain it.

She said: Don't you dare. He will charge us $500.

It is out of control. For anybody who understands what is going on, it is a nightmare.

Tinkering with the Tax Code won't work. The argument I made to President Bush several times was that we know the reduction in marginal rates is going to evaporate. We know the capital gains reduction is going to evaporate in 2010. We know the reduction in taxes on dividends is going to evaporate in 2010. Why don't we take this opportunity to look at tax reform and look at those things that are going to encourage people to save and keep the economy going?

Frankly, those three things might be wonderful in that regard. But you can't have it unless you make it up with some other taxes that are the least hurtful to savings and the economy.

Since the last major tax reform in 1986, we have added over 15,000 new provisions in the Internal Revenue Code. Last year alone, we passed 500 changes in the Tax Code. It is no wonder why only 13 percent of Americans file their taxes without the help of either a tax preparer or computer software. Clearly, we have waited too long to act. This is not just a matter of saving taxpayers' time and effort, it is also about saving real money.

The Tax Foundation calculates conservatively that we all spend about $265 billion a year to keep track of our records and pay people to pay our taxes. If we could streamline it and make it simple and understandable, if we could only cut that in half, that would be a gigantic tax reduction for the American people and not cost us one dime.

We must enact fundamental tax reform to help make the Tax Code simpler, fairer, transparent, and economically efficient.

Thankfully, there have been some encouraging signs of new developments. Earlier this month, I attended a bipartisan press conference along with Senator Conrad, Representatives Cooper and Wolf, and former U.S. Comptroller General Walker who now heads up the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. David Walker and the rest of us urged Congress to take action to restore fiscal discipline. In other words, we all said: This has to be done. We agreed it is time to begin to enact the first pillar of meaningful comprehensive tax and entitlement reform. That is why I am disappointed that President Obama did not mention a vehicle to enact tax and entitlement reform in his address to Congress, just as I was very disappointed that the Bush administration never once mentioned reducing our national debt after 2001.

I am a Republican. He was a Republican President. Our President never, ever mentioned the national debt all the time he was President. It was like it didn't exist. Yet the debt kept going up, up, up, and up. I have been calling for the creation of a commission to facilitate tax and entitlement reform for some time. In fact, back in 2006, I introduced the Securing America's Future Economy or SAFE Commission Act, which I reintroduced in the Senate in the 109th and 110th Congresses.

Congressman Jim Cooper of Tennessee and Congressman Frank Wolf of Virginia introduced a version in the House that enlisted 93 cosponsors from both parties. This bipartisan, bicameral group had the support from

corporate executives, religious leaders, and think tanks across the political spectrum--the conservative Heritage Foundation and the liberal Brookings Institute. All of these people realize where we are.

Building on the SAFE Commission, two of my colleagues, the Budget Committee chairman from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, and ranking member from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, introduced a bipartisan bill that would create a tax and entitlement reform task force very similar to the SAFE Commission called the Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action. I signed on as 1 of 19 cosponsors. We will never, ever take the necessary steps toward fiscal responsibility unless we create this BRAC-like, bipartisan commission.

The commission would take on the tough issues of Social Security, health care, and tax reform, and create recommendations that would be fast-tracked through a special process and brought to the floor of both Chambers for a vote. In other words, to do it the traditional way we do things around here it will never, ever get done. If you think we would have been able to close airbases and other bases around the country by doing it through legislation without the BRAC process, you are not in the real world.

If we really want to tackle this stuff, we have to get a group together. We have to work on it and come up with a compromise. If three quarters agree, it is the thing to do. We put it through an expedited procedure. The Senate gets it; the House gets it. They have to vote up or down.

It is important that that happen because it will have legislators on it. I know if somebody asked you to spend a year and a half of your life putting something together and then said: Well, once it is done, it will go through the regular procedure, you would say: Goodbye. I don't have time for that.

But if you knew you put the time in and that if you had three quarters who agreed on it and the thing was going to get some action, then you would have some incentive to say: I will stay at the table, work on this, and we will get the job done.

The workload would be heavy, and the commission could certainly benefit by taking a look at previous work that has been done to study these issues by foundations and others. It also could start by considering some of the previous proposals that have been introduced by some of our former colleagues, Senators Mack and Breaux, cochairs of the commission created by the Bush administration to reform our Tax Code.

I worked like the dickens to say: Let's have this commission to study the Tax Code. I will never forget talking to Karl Rove.

I said: I want it to be legislated. That is the way we had it in the appropriations bill.

He said: No, we will do it with something else. We will put Breaux and Mack in charge. I think he said at that time he was afraid that Pelosi and Steny Hoyer might kill it in the beginning.

I said: If they are going to kill it in the beginning, let's find out. He said: No, we want the other direction. So Connie Mack and John Breaux worked their tails off for over a year. They came back with a very good report. It wasn't perfect, but I expected President Bush to take that and tweak it and send it over here.

I will never forget the story John Breaux told me. He went to visit with President Bush. He walked in the Oval Office and he started looking around. The President said to him: John, what are you doing?

And he said: Mr. President, I am looking for the report that we did.

On the shelf, gathering dust.

That is why I was pleased to hear President Obama mention the national debt in his address to Congress. But I was disappointed that when he mentioned the ``crushing cost'' we face and the reform we can no longer afford to put on hold, he only talked about health care. Although health care costs are a big part of our entitlement problem, addressing health care reform alone will not get the job done.

It is not the time for dodging and ducking. This is the time for the cold hard truth. Everyone knows we need tax and entitlement reform. I know it, the Obama administration knows it, and the American people know it. And I know for sure Peter Orszag does because a couple years ago, he was as enthusiastic about dealing with this problem as anybody in this country.

The American people elected President Obama to make the tough decisions to put this country back on the right track. As President Obama said himself so eloquently:

We must take responsibility for our future, and for

posterity.

I love that. I love that part of his speech. I thought it was just great. He cares about me. He cares about my children. He cares about my grandchildren. ``We must take responsibility for our future, and for posterity.'' Sadly, so far he is missing in action on tax and entitlement reform. In fact, in a February 27 column in the Washington Post, Michael Gerson called the President's stance on tax and entitlement reform in his joint address to Congress ``timid'' and ``hardly courageous.''

Now, in fairness to our President, he and his administration have been busy putting out fires. This President has more on his plate than maybe any President we have ever had, maybe since Franklin Delano Roosevelt. But if he ignores comprehensive tax and entitlement reform, we could see an economic holocaust.

That is why I would suggest to my fellow colleagues who have voiced similar calls for reform that we should gather our staffs, on a bipartisan and bicameral basis, to agree on the language of a vehicle commission that can get the job done--in other words, getting Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate, to get the language of what this commission should look like. We will work on that. If the administration does not like our proposals, then they would be free to weigh in with their own ideas. But doing nothing simply is not an option. I have talked to Senator Gregg about this, Senator Conrad. And I said it is our duty to position this Nation so we have the greatest opportunity for success for the future.

I am saying, if the President does not want to do this, let's us get together and help him. OK. Let's get together. Let's help him and then say: Here, Mr. President, here is something agreed to on a bipartisan basis. We would like to go with it. If you have a better idea on how to get it done, amen and hallelujah, but we have to get going.

Each and every one of us should be able to look into the eyes of our children and grandchildren and know in our hearts we have done all we can to make sure that at least they have the same opportunity we have had for our standard of living and quality of life.

If I had to name one of the primary contributing factors to our worsening economic situation, it would have to be the loss of faith we seem to have experienced in ourselves. In many ways, today America is mired in a crisis of confidence.

I do not share the despair many experts hold concerning the future of our country. When I first became mayor of Cleveland in 1979, the city was in default on its bonds. Unemployment for the first couple of years continued to grow to more than 18 percent. Think of that: 18 percent. Cynics at the time joked, saying: Will the last person leaving Cleveland turn out the lights.

We decided that no one was going to come to Cleveland and solve our problems for us. We had the courage to be more self-reliant and make tough decisions. Through the public-private partnerships we created, we were able to unite everyone behind common goals. We empowered the community, and it worked. In fact, at that time, Cleveland was known as the ``comeback city.''

I say to the Presiding Officer, I know you could identify with this. Cleveland was named an All America City three times in a 5-year period. It never happened before, and I suspect it will never happen again. It was that public-private partnership, everybody coming together. Our motto was: Together we can do it.

Similarly, when I became Governor of Ohio in 1991, we faced a $1\1/2\ billion budget shortfall, and we were a no-growth State. We made some tough decisions. As I mentioned earlier, I had to cut the budget four times and raise taxes. But, as a result, we were able to turn the tide, create 540,000 new jobs--in fact, manufacturing grew for the first time in 25 years--and the State's

rainy-day fund grew from 14 cents to over $1 billion. And we put $200 million aside to take care of any Medicaid problem we would have.

Mr. President, I know we can turn things around again. We really can. But we need to stop the spending spree and start making tough decisions on this tax and entitlement reform. Why don't we work together to get America back on track? Let's work together to systemically deal with each of the problems, challenges, and opportunities we have in America, so we are filled with the same hope and optimism of Ronald Reagan. I got to know Ronald Reagan. He was quite a guy, quite a President. He always had a positive attitude, and he said:

I know that for America, there will always be a bright dawn

ahead.

Mr. President, the glass is not half empty, the glass is half full. If all of us work together, we can turn this thing around.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I rise in support of the amendment by Senator Ensign to continue funding for the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, which has given thousands of children in the District of Columbia a chance to escape failing schools. Unfortunately, the underlying bill contains language which would have a devastating impact on low-income families in the District of Columbia by prematurely ending the program.

Many of us are outraged that a Member of the Senate has included a provision to kill the program. The provision has not gone unnoticed. On March 6 The Washington Post asked why ``anyone would want to force children out of schools where they are happy, safe and satisfied'' and on March 9, Newsweek asked why lawmakers would consider stopping a $14 million program which is a ``rounding error'' on the General Motors bailout figure. Finally, The Wall Street Journal calls it what it is: ``perhaps the most odious of double standards in American life today: the way some of our loudest champions of public education vote to keep other people's children--mostly inner-city blacks and Latinos--trapped in schools where they'd never let their own kids set foot.'' Whoever is responsible should be ashamed and admit who put them up to it. I think I know who is behind efforts to end this program.

The program provides 1,700 children with scholarships of up to $7,500 each to attend the school of their choice. To qualify, students must live in the District and have a household income of no more than 18 percent of the poverty line. For 2008-2009, the average income for families using the program was just over $23,000 a year.

Since 2004 when the program began, approximately 7,200 families have applied for spots in the program--nearly four applicants for each available scholarship. It is a program that has repeatedly shown improved family satisfaction and increase parental involvement.

The students themselves are perhaps the best testimonials. Tiffany Dunston, valedictorian of Archbishop Carroll High School's class of 2008, who was a four year scholarship recipient, is now studying biochemistry at Syracuse University. Tiffany's thoughts on the program underscore why this program must continue: ``I am determined to build a better life and want others in my community to have that chance as well.'' Another scholarship student, Ronald Holassie, was recently sworn in as deputy youth mayor for the District. Ronald says he ``wouldn't be where he is today'' without his scholarship.

It is premature to add conditions to this important program. This spring, Congress will have the results of the comprehensive analysis of the program. Chairman Lieberman has committed to holding a hearing to review the program and discuss proposals for improvement in advance of the Senate's debate on reauthorization. I appreciate the majority leader's commitment to a fair debate on long-term reauthorization.

My colleagues know that I have been through this fight before. As Governor I supported opportunity scholarships for Cleveland in 1992. With hard work and dedication, we managed to get the bill through in 1995 and within 3 years, over 3,600 children were attending the school of their choice. Just last year, there were over 6,000 students participating!

It wasn't easy. After we stood-up the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program, the American Federation of Teachers, National Education Association, and others filed a lawsuit and for nearly a decade Ohioans fought for the program. All along I had advocated that the program was constitutional. I will never forget the day when the U.S. Supreme Court agreed the program was constitutional in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639, on June 27, 2002. The program continues to thrive and expand because of its success. I consider it one of the major contributions to our country's educational system. It is a morsel on our smorgasbord of educational opportunities.

And the benefits go far beyond the academic. A study by the Buckeye Institute found that students involved in

the Cleveland program are gaining access to a more integrated school experience. Here in Washington, a Georgetown University study found that with their children in safer schools, parents were free to focus on their child's academic development and the school's curriculum.

Now, after so much progress and money invested, some Members of Congress wish to establish premature roadblocks for the program. What is lost in the underlying language is the need for the children of the District of Columbia to have every opportunity to receive a high- quality education. How offensive for Members of Congress, many with the means to send their children to any school, to limit the ability of District students to do the same.

Just last week, one of my esteemed colleagues came to the floor and discussed how he had sent his children to private Catholic School. He said that it was a family decision and that they made the ``extra sacrifice'' to pay for it. What my colleague fails to realize is that many of the parochial schools that participate in the program do so because they are giving witness to the Second Great Commandment.

During the State of the Union, President Obama said that ``good education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity--it is a prerequisite . . . to ensure that every child has access to a complete and competitive education--from the day they are born to the day they begin a career.'' The DC Opportunity Scholarship Program provides District students the pathway to meet the President's goal. Shame on the President for not getting involved and telling his friends in the Senate how embarrassed he is about what they are attempting to do to the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program in this bill.

Two weeks ago, the Senate voted by supermajority to give voting rights to the District of Columbia--which I was proud to cosponsor. I am sure if we were to let parents in the District vote on this amendment--let the parents tell Congress what they want for their children--their answer would be to continue funding the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program.

The language in the base bill takes away the opportunity for parents of limited means to choose the best education available for their children. The Omnibus appropriations bill provides $410 billion to fund Federal programs through the end of the fiscal year. Surely my colleagues would be willing to continue to spend $14 million on a program that continues to give quality education to thousands of deserving children.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I wanted to briefly comment on the remarks by the senior Senator from New York in opposition to Ensign amendment 615 to H.R. 1105. The Senator emphasized the importance of local support for educational programs. My colleagues may be interested to know that the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program had the support of the District of Columbia government when it was created.

On June 24, 2003, in testimony before the House Committee on Government Reform, then District of Columbia Mayor Anthony Williams testified, ``I support the President's desire to create a scholarship program in the District. I believe, if done effectively, such a program could truly expand choice to low-income families, who currently do not have the same freedom of choice enjoyed by more affluent families.''

Mr. President, I am very pleased with the commitments of the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water to fix these flaws in the pending legislation. All of these energy projects are very important to the future of our country as we work towards achieving energy independence and cleaner environment.

USEC's American Centrifuge Plant project is not only very important to Ohio, it is particularly important to the Nation.

The ACP project is shovel-ready and is estimated to create over 3,000 jobs in Ohio where it is located, and another 3,000 or more jobs in 11 other States around the country through manufacturing and engineering contracts.

The ACP project will have the capacity to provide domestically enriched uranium to fuel over one-half of the 104 domestic nuclear powerplants that provide nearly all of our emission-free base-load electricity.

Once built, the ACP project will be the only U.S.-owned source of nuclear fuel that is critically important for various national security reasons.

I would like to observe that the Governors of Ohio, Maryland, Tennessee and Kentucky strongly support USEC's ACP project.

Mr. President, I will ask unanimous consent that the letter from the Governors of Ohio, Maryland, Tennessee and Kentucky be printed in the Record following my statement.

I would also like to observe that President Obama, during his campaign visits to Ohio last summer, expressed his support for USEC's ACP project, as articulated in his letter to Governor Strickland of Ohio dated September 2, 2008, and I will ask unanimous consent that that letter also be printed in the Record following my statement.

I thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 2 letters to which I referred be printed in the Record.