Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, may I ask, what is the business, what is the regular order?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for about 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes to talk about the vote we had earlier today on the Medicare noninterference provision, which prohibits the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services from getting involved in the negotiations between the private plans offering the Medicare drug benefit and the drug manufacturers.

I did not vote for cloture today because I support the Medicare prescription drug benefit. The benefit is working well. Seniors have access to drugs. They are saving money, and most beneficiaries are happy with the benefit. Removing the noninterference provisions, as the Democrats want to do in S. 3, would jeopardize the Medicare drug benefit and could force beneficiaries to rely on a one-size-fits-all big Government bureaucracy for their prescription drugs.

I was a strong supporter of the 2003 Medicare drug bill and worked very hard to get it passed. For too long, Medicare had not covered prescription drugs for seniors, even though many of these drugs are life sustaining and life enhancing. Since the drug bill was enacted, all Medicare beneficiaries have access to prescription drug coverage, and low-income beneficiaries receive substantial help in affording their prescription drugs.

One of the most important elements in the 2003 bill was allowing private plans to offer the prescription drug benefit. Under the bill, these plans negotiate with drug manufacturers for the prices on prescription drugs, and then market their benefits to beneficiaries.

Medicare beneficiaries have a choice of plans to select. In my State of Kentucky, there are 24 companies offering 54 plans. All of these plans are different, and each one of them offers a different formulary. Plans compete with each other by offering the best benefit, which may not mean the same thing to all 40 million Medicare beneficiaries. Some beneficiaries may not have many drug expenses each month, so they can go with a cheaper plan. Other beneficiaries may have more costly drug expenses and may need a plan that offers more coverage.

The point of having private companies offer the drug benefit was so seniors could pick the plan that works best for them. It is working, and seniors are saving a substantial amount of money. In fact, the average beneficiary is saving about $1,200. Ninety percent of Medicare- eligible beneficiaries have drug coverage, and 80 percent of them are satisfied with the program.

To me, this sounds like a success--a real success. Part of this success comes from the fact that we kept the Medicare bureaucrats out of the program. Traditionally, Medicare is a one-size-fits-all program that sets prices for doctors, hospitals, nursing homes, hospice care, ambulance providers--you name it.

Medicare beneficiaries should ask their doctors the next time they see them how fairly Medicare reimburses them. I suspect most doctors would say their reimbursements fall short of their actual costs, and they are constantly on the lookout for ways Medicare may try to change their reimbursement for the services they offer.

The drug benefit, however, is different. It allows the drug plans to negotiate directly with the manufacturers for prescription drugs. These plans, then, have to attract Medicare beneficiaries to join their program by offering the best possible benefit. A plan that does not offer a competitive benefit will not attract members. A plan that offers an attractive benefit will attract members to its rolls.

It is simple--really, it is--and it is working. The Democrats would have you believe Government negotiation is going to save money for Medicare and seniors. Unfortunately, they are wrong.

First of all, saying Medicare will ``negotiate'' is a fallacy. Medicare does not negotiate; it sets prices. Just ask your doctor how often the Medicare Program negotiates.

Second, the Democrats haven't said a word about how this new authority would actually work. There wasn't one word in S. 3 about what this negotiation would look like. Is Medicare going to negotiate for only a few drugs, as some Members have suggested? No one knows. Are they negotiating prices for all drugs? No one knows. Will the Secretary actually deny access to certain drugs if he doesn't get the price he wants? No one knows. It seems to me that before you undermine a successful, well-received program such as the Medicare prescription drug benefit, you better have the guts to tell people exactly how it is going to change.

Third, there is a real concern by experts in this area that Government price-setting for Medicare drugs could cause drug prices to increase for other payors, including Medicaid, the Veterans' Administration, and private purchasers. This hardly seems like a good plan.

Finally, the Congressional Budget Office has said repeatedly over the years that removing this provision has a negligible effect on Federal spending. In fact, CBO Directors under both Republican- and now Democratic-controlled Congresses have come to the same conclusion. Without Medicare creating a national formulary and limiting access to drugs, it is unlikely they would be able to get a significant discount on drugs.

I also wish to point out that this provision isn't new. In fact, prior to the passage of the 2003 Medicare drug bill, many Members of Congress had proposals to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. Many of these bills, including those by Democratic lawmakers, included a noninterference provision. For example, the former Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, in the Senate had a bill in 2000 that included such a provision. This bill was cosponsored by 26 Democratic Members still serving in Congress, including the current chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus. It is curious that this language was fine for Democratic bills but for some reason isn't fine presently for this bill.

The Medicare drug bill we passed in 2003 is working well. Beneficiaries have access to drugs, and people are saving money. Now is not the time to significantly alter the program and rip out the competition that is working so well.

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

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to honor the legacy and achievements of Jackie Robinson.

On Sunday, over 200 Major League players, manager, and coaches took to baseball fields across the Nation wearing Jackie Robinson's No. 42, which was retired throughout Major League Baseball in 1997. Sixty years ago, on April 15, 1947, Jackie Robinson became the first African- American to play in a Major League Baseball game.

The first athlete to letter in four sports in 1 year at the University of California at Los Angeles, Jackie Robinson seemed destined to make a name for himself. He began his baseball career in the Negro Leagues, playing shortstop for the Kansas City Monarchs. In 1946, Jackie Robinson played for the Montreal Royals, leading the International League in batting average with a .349 average, and fielding percentage with a .985 percent. He began his major league career at the age of 28 playing first base for the Brooklyn Dodgers-- the only position that was open.

That year, he was named Rookie of the Year. In 1948, he was moved to second base and went on to lead the Dodgers to six National League pennants in 10 years and a World Series championship. His inspiring career earned him recognition as the first African-American to win a batting title, lead the league in stolen bases, play in an All-Star game, play in the World Series, win a Most Valuable Player award, and be elected to baseball's Hall of Fame in 1962.

Off the baseball diamond, Jackie Robinson lived a life of achievement through his work in the civil rights movement. In the business world, he actively promoted Black enterprises in New York's Harlem neighborhood.

In March 1984, President Ronald Reagan posthumously awarded Jackie Robinson the Presidential Medal of Freedom. On October 29, 2003, Congress posthumously awarded Jackie Robinson the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest award Congress can bestow. His mission to expand opportunity for others continues today through the Jackie Robinson Foundation that has provided over $14.5 million in scholarships to students who might not otherwise be able to afford college tuition.

Jackie Robinson was a good friend of mine, and it is with great reverence that I introduce, today, a resolution with Senators Mark Pryor and Mitch McConnell to honor and celebrate his achievements, recognize his sacrifices, and remember his contributions to the Nation. His courage and dignity taught the Nation about the strength of the human spirit when confronted with seemingly immovable obstacles. We can best honor him by reflecting on the epigraph Robinson wrote for his own tombstone, ``The value of a life is measured by its impact on other lives.''

Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to talk about the two bills before us today dealing with stem cell research.

One of these bills is wrong, while the other offers us a chance to advance scientific research using stem cells while still protecting the sanctity of life.

Stem cell research remains a controversial issue in the medical, scientific and religious communities as well as in Congress. In fact, just last July, we were debating this very topic, and here we are again today.

I am not opposed to stem cell research. I believe that many forms of stem cell research offer great hope to millions of Americans suffering from various diseases, including research using adult and umbilical cord stem cells. We are already seeing medical advances in this type of research. In fact, adult stem cells have proven effective in combating several serious conditions, such as diabetes and spinal cord injury.

Also, just recently in the papers, scientists announced that amniotic fluid may be a promising source of stem cells. This shows we have a lot to learn about stem cells.

I am 100 percent opposed to embryonic stem cell research, however. This is why I will be voting against S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007.

This bill would remove all current protections against the destructive use of embryos for harvesting embryos for stem cells. I believe it is morally wrong to take embryos in the early stages of life and destroy them, even for research purposes. We should protect human life--not destroy it.

Back in 2001, the Bush administration began allowing Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research on a limited number of stem cell lines that were already in existence. As an opponent of the destruction of human embryos, I opposed the Bush administration decision to allow some embryonic stem cell lines to be used for Federal research.

However, S. 5 goes even further than the current policy by removing the current limitations set by the President on federally funded embryonic stem cell research. The bill allows Federal funds to be used for this type of research on embryos created for fertility treatments.

This is the wrong direction for us to go. It is immoral for us to conduct medical research on these budding lives, and American taxpayers should not be forced to pay for this type of research. Some people have argued that these embryos are ``excess'' and will be destroyed anyway. I firmly believe that we cannot create a human life and then destroy it in order to save a life. Ethically, it is unjustifiable.

In fact, it is important to remember that embryonic stem cell research is not illegal. There are just limitations on the Federal funding for it. Anyone can conduct embryonic stem cell research. They just have to live by the federal regulations or rely on other sources of money.

The other bill we are considering today, S. 30, the Hope Offered Through Principled and Ethical Stem Cell Research Act, offers us an opportunity to

further stem cell research in an morally defensible manner. The bill would allow stem cells to be derived from embryos that die naturally, and reinforces the current policy that federally funded research should not involve destroying or discarding embryos.

This bill provides access to embryonic stem cells, but protects human life and avoids the ethical pitfalls of S. 5. It seems to me that we should all be able to support this bill. It places reasonable restrictions on additional embryonic stem cell research, while also protecting human life. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

No one likes to see people with medical conditions suffer, and like many Americans my family and friends have certainly been stricken with terrible diseases over the years. However, we are at an ethical crossroads with this issue, and we must stay true to our values of respecting life.

It seems foolish to barrel ahead with Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research as S. 5 does, when other alternatives are available that offer real hope to patients and promise in research.

In closing, I firmly believe that we cannot create life and then destroy it, even if to save another life. I urge my colleagues to vote against S. 5, and vote for S. 30.

Mr. President, may we have a clarification of what is going on?

Wait a minute. Would you continue? If this language is germane and a point of order has been lodged against it, is that----

How does the Parliamentarian rule?

In other words, the Parliamentarian is throwing it back to the Senate to vote whether it is germane?

OK.

Madam President, I rise today to voice my strong opposition to the emergency supplemental bill. The supplemental bill on the floor today is irresponsible. Since coming to the Congress 20-plus years ago, I have pushed for accountability and fiscal responsibility. When the Democrats took a page from the Republican playbook and said they would be responsible with the taxpayers' money, I wanted to believe them. I can see now that all the Democratic promises to the American people last fall were only empty words.

This bill is an insult to our men and women in uniform and every single American taxpayer. To me, this is not a political game. I came to the floor last year to oppose additional spending in the emergency supplemental bill. It had nondefense spending like $20 million for oyster fishermen in New England and $4 million for erosion control projects in California and Michigan, and that draft was put together by a Republican Congress.

The extra funds I opposed last year pale in comparison to what the Democrats have done this year. Unfortunately, it has become routine to see emergency spending bills on the Senate floor. I understand the pressing need for this legislation to defend America from terrorism and support our ongoing efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The purpose of the President's request is to protect and pay the men and women serving in our Armed Forces.

It also provides the funding needed to restore damaged military equipment and to purchase new state-of-the-art technology. This emergency supplemental is important to provide for American armed services the additional funds they need right now. However, this legislation goes far beyond necessary emergency defense spending. The majority is using budgetary gimmicks to pay for political handouts and entitlements on the backs of our fighting men and women. Mixed in the defense spending is a complicated list of earmark legislative language and program expansions.

Let me walk you through part of the bill. The hurricanes of 2005 were truly devastating, and I have supported the Government's rebuilding efforts in the region. But this bill before us today includes $1.45 billion in unrequested and unnecessary funding for the Corps of Engineers. It also eliminates a 10-percent local matching requirement for FEMA funds and eliminates the prohibition on forgiving community disaster loans.

These are two provisions Congress has supported in the past to ensure responsible spending. These provisions are not only inappropriate for a wartime supplemental, but they are also bad policy.

Another area of extra spending relates to agriculture. I have been a strong supporter of America's farms, but the programs in this bill are routinely funded through the regular process. I cannot justify supporting $3 million for Hawaiian sugar cane co-ops or $20 million for insect damage in Nevada on a wartime supplemental bill. This bill is about our troops, not our farmers.

There are even more glaring examples in this bill. There is $3.5 million for Capital Guide Services to provide service for tourism in this very building. It adds $100 million for dairy production losses; $13 million for a lamb replacement and retention program; $40 million for the tree assistance program; $6 million for flooded croplands in North Dakota; $25 million for asbestos abatement at the Capitol powerplant; $23 million for geothermal energy research. The list goes on and on.

I cannot support requests like these on the backs of our fighting men and

women. I will support every effort to strip all the nondefense funding out of this bill. It is time to show fiscal restraint and use emergency wartime spending legislation for precisely that purpose--to pay for the war and not for domestic pork projects.

Finally, I want to address the single most important issue in the supplemental, the shortsighted and political call for troop withdrawal. This bill includes similar language to that which was rejected by the Senate 2 weeks ago. It calls for the withdrawal of troops starting 120 days after passage of the bill and sets an arbitrary goal of full withdrawal from Iraq by March 31, 2008. I voted against this language 2 weeks ago, I voted against it yesterday, and I will continue to vote against it. As I have stated repeatedly, I do not support micromanaging the war. It is counterproductive and sends a detrimental message to our troops and emboldens our enemies.

I want my colleagues to understand that without the U.S. military, Iraq would become a vacuum that would threaten the stability of the entire Middle East. I share the desire to have the Iraqis defend themselves, and our military is providing them with important training. But that cannot happen based on an arbitrary deadline.

I want to warn the other side of the aisle, if you try to force the American military out of Iraq, you will be responsible for the chaos that will ensue. Without the United States, Iraq would emerge as a training ground for all al-Qaida and terrorist organizations. I believe the power vacuum would lead to genocide and murdering far worse than the terrorist attacks that are now occurring in Iraq.

Without the United States, there would be greater threat to Israel, and Iran would become the dominant country in the Middle East.

I want my colleagues to think about the path this troop withdrawal language takes us down. I stand for the men and women serving in Iraq by supporting their mission, but this bill does the opposite. It undermines the military's ability to act.

We need to listen to the commanders on the ground instead of pulling the rug out from under them. This supplemental is not a strategy for success. It is a recipe for defeat. Now is precisely the wrong time to send this message. I believe we may be turning the corner in Iraq. We may already see some success, based on recent reports from General Petraeus. Sectarian killing has been lowered in Baghdad over the last several weeks, and many Iraqi families have been returning to their homes. Some of my colleagues would rather ignore these small signs and the opportunities to succeed in Iraq by pursuing a partisan political agenda.

This bill should be a commitment to General Petraeus and our soldiers. It should be a mandate for them to secure democracy in Iraq and protect America from terrorism. I rise to ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill. This may be the most important legislation we address all year. It is an opportunity to tell General Petraeus and our fighting men and women in uniform that we support them. It is an opportunity to tell the people of Iraq that we will not cut and run and will not give in to political pressure, allowing us to affect our decisions on the floor of the Senate. It is an opportunity to defend America from terrorism.

This bill is a mistake that we cannot afford, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that amendment No. 621 at the desk be called up for immediate consideration. I have sent a copy of the amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, my amendment would repeal an unfair tax that affects 15 million seniors. I have brought this issue before the Chamber before, so it should be familiar to many of my colleagues.

When the Social Security Program was created, benefits were not taxed. In 1983, Congress decided that 50 percent of the benefits to seniors should be subject to tax. In 1993, we raised the amount to 85 percent of Social Security benefits. This tax affects supposedly wealthy seniors with incomes of $34,000 for single seniors and $44,000 for a couple.

My amendment is fairly simple. It creates a deficit-neutral reserve fund to allow Congress to drop the tax back to its pre-1993 levels. This means that 85 percent of the tax would be eliminated.

Absolutely.

Can we have order, please.

I object.

Mr. President, I send a modification of amendment No. 594 to the desk. I add as cosponsors Senator Grassley and Senator McConnell.

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

My amendment is very simple. It gives Members a chance to go on record about supporting States' flexibility in Medicaid which Congress provided under the Deficit Reduction Act. My State and several others have already used this flexibility to improve their Medicaid programs. A vote for my amendment supports allowing States to designate benefits that fit the specific needs of their State and population. A vote against it is support of a one-size-fits-all model for Medicaid.

Some people have tried to say this amendment tries to undercut the mandatory child care benefits under Medicaid. That is not true and could not be further from the truth. In fact, the amendment we are voting on clarifies that legislation could not alter Medicaid's mandatory coverage benefits for children.

Mr. President, I wish to speak today as a member of the Senate Budget Committee.

I had hoped that the budget that was presented before the Committee last week was going to be fiscally responsible. Chairman Conrad had said earlier this year that he was prepared to get savings out of long- term entitlement programs. He had made similar statements in the past. So I had some hope that this budget would take a serious look at what we could do to address the issue of out-of-control entitlement growth.

Unfortunately, I was not able to support this budget in Committee and I will not be able to support it here on the Senate floor.

This budget does not take seriously the out-of-control entitlement spending looming on the horizon. This budget resolution fails to show that Congress is willing to make the difficult choices necessary to ensure that the Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid programs will continue into the future.

This country faces $67 trillion in unfunded liabilities over the next 75 years. Thirty two trillion dollars of that is in the Medicare program, $20 trillion is in the Medicaid program and the remaining $15 trillion is in the Social Security program and other liabilities.

As Senator Gregg pointed out yesterday, $67 trillion represents more than the entire amount of revenues received by the Federal Government since the beginning of the republic.

How are our children supposed to pay for that?

We don't have to wait 75 years for the problem to blow up in our faces. In about 2032--almost 25 years from now--the cost of just Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, if left unchecked, will exceed the 18.2 percent of GDP that is the historic level of our Federal revenues. So every single penny of what should be received by the Federal Government in revenue will be spent on just three programs.

Where is the money for defense to come from? Where is money for education to come from? LIHEAP? NASA? Worker training? Border enforcement? Name any program that you support and tell me just where the money is to come from? This is the future we face.

And yet this budget resolution doesn't move a toe toward fixing it. It includes not one penny in net entitlement reform.

President Bush presented Congress with a budget that makes strides in this direction by attempting to slow the rate of growth in these programs. I'm not talking about wholesale reform here--although I feel that such reform is needed. Just implementing incremental changes can make a huge difference simply because of the enormous amounts of money that we are dealing with here.

For example, in Medicare the President proposed reducing the growth in the program from 6.5 percent to 5.6 percent over 5 years. This change, just a 1 percent reduction from how Medicare would otherwise grow over the same time period, is estimated to reduce Medicare's 75- year unfunded liability by 25 percent--or $8 trillion. For Medicaid, the President proposed reducing the growth rate from 7.3 percent to 7.1 percent.

Keep in mind that this means we will still have spending increases in these programs--pretty substantial increases in fact. However, these increases just won't be as big as originally projected.

The President's budget calls for some commonsense reforms to both Medicare and Medicaid to reduce spending. In Medicare, for example, the President's budget makes several suggestions to ensure that the program is adequately paying providers for the cost of care without overpaying.

In Medicaid, the President has proposed ensuring Medicaid prescription drugs are reimbursed fairly and by improving the financial integrity of the program.

As a member of the Finance Committee, I would obviously need to take a close look at these reforms before any are implemented. However, it is vitally important that the American taxpayer does Not overpay for health care services or products.

The President's budget also requires wealthy seniors to pay more for Medicare by reducing the Federal subsidy for Medicare Part D premiums for these seniors. This means that seniors who have incomes over $80,000 for an individual or $160,000 for a couple would be required to pay more for their Medicare drug benefit.

To me, this just makes sense. Today's working middle-class American taxpayers should not be subsidizing the health care of Bill Gates' father. Also, we already do this for Medicare Part B. Such a change would only affect about 5 percent of seniors.

These are the types of changes that we need to be making. Yet this budget resolution before us today makes no net changes to entitlement programs. This, despite the fact that the Big 3 entitlement programs currently account for over 41 percent of the Federal budget, and that number will grow to almost 57 percent in 10 years.

A budget that does not seriously address entitlement spending is not responsible. This budget is not responsible.

Again, I am not asking for wholesale reforms here. I am very supportive of looking at comprehensive reforms and I support the efforts of Chairman Conrad and Senator Gregg to set up a bipartisan group to take a look at recommending them.

But that is not what I am asking for in this budget before us today. We should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Maybe we don't have a perfect way to fix our entitlement challenge right now. But we could have made a good start this year and started on some incremental changes. However, the authors of this budget chose not to do that.

We face a demographic tidal wave in this country. As the baby-boom generation grows older, the number of people

in the United States ages 65 and over is expected to roughly double by 2030. But instead of saving for a rainy day, we continue to spend, spend, spend.

Hard choices have to be made. Spending has to be controlled. Entitlements have to be reigned in.

We are saddling our children and grandchildren with an unfair burden.

The President's budget started us in the right direction. Unfortunately, the Democratic budget has dropped the ball, and pushed off the inevitable hard decisions until another day.

I am profoundly disappointed with the budget I see before us today, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. President, what is the pending business?

I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside.

I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, this amendment is almost identical to the language that was included in the fiscal year 2003 budget resolution that Chairman Conrad authored. This amendment provides that, starting with the fiscal year 2009 budget, if

CBO's budget and economic outlook reports projections that the Social Security surplus will be spent for non-Social Security programs during any year covered by its projections, then the budget resolution must present a plan to protect Social Security by reducing those deficits.

As you can see by this chart, in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012, these are the Social Security dollars that are being used in this current budget that has been proposed for other purposes. From $423 billion up to $1.027 trillion. If the budget resolution fails to put the budget on a glidepath to protecting the Social Security surplus within 5 years, it will be subject to a point of order in the Senate. There is an exception for times of war and low economic growth, and it can be waived by a vote of three-fifths of the Senators.

The purpose of this circuit breaker is to put the budget on a path to balance without spending the Social Security money that is needed for the baby boomers' retirements. It ensures that Social Security trust funds will be used for their intended purpose and that is for retirement of the baby boomers and all after.

We all know the challenges the Social Security system faces as the first of the baby boomers start to retire very shortly. The effects of this demographic tidal wave will begin to grow rapidly as the years progress. Chairman Conrad will point to a provision in this budget that he calls the ``save Social Security first'' point of order. However, this point of order does not--I say emphatically does--not protect the Social Security surplus the way my amendment will do it. In fact, the budget resolution before us spends, as I showed you, over $1 trillion additional of the Social Security surplus. My amendment says that just because we have been spending the Social Security surplus for decades doesn't mean we should continue. We have dug ourselves into a big ditch. The budget before us keeps digging.

My amendment says stop digging. It forces Congress to make a plan to protect the Social Security surplus. I urge my colleagues to think about the future of Social Security retirees and support this amendment. We have this amendment before us. It is almost exactly like the amendment the now chairman of the Budget Committee put in the 2003 budget resolution, and his rationale for knocking out the point of order in the budget markup was: ``Well, we have been doing it for years.''

Yes, we have been doing it for years, and it is time to stop. Stop spending the Social Security surplus for other purposes--other purposes being any other functions for which the Federal Government might need money. What does that do to my grandchildren and the grandchildren of everybody else in this body and those listening? It says to your grandchildren: You have to fend for yourself. We are going to leave you with this pile of debt, such that in 2017 we are not going to have enough money in the trust funds to pay off your Social Security benefits--in 2017, when we start spending this money out of the trust funds--with the interest we are supposed to be getting from it. By 2040, we will have spent down all the trust funds and all the interest. What does that mean? That means in 2041 those benefits in Social Security will be 74 percent of what we promised our recipients. That is the money that will be coming in, in Social Security taxes at that time. We will only be able to pay out 74 percent of the benefits because we have prespent the trust funds for other purposes.

My amendment says: Stop. Think about what you are doing, Members of the Senate, Members of the Congress. Stop digging the hole. We are going to bury our future generations in a massive debt situation where their benefits will not be able to be paid.

I ask support for this amendment when it comes up for the vote.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, two wrongs do not make a right. The fact is that the President's budget includes it, every President's budget has included it since Ronald Reagan. That includes Bush 1, Bill Clinton's budget for 8 years, and now George W. Bush's budget. They have included spending the Social Security trust funds that are in surplus in every budget for over 15 years that I know of.

Now that my good friends from the Democratic Party are in the majority, they are doing the same thing. They are spending our trust funds that the Social Security system must buy bonds with. That is the law. We do not have another law that says you can take the Social Security trust funds and you can put it in this little box and you must keep it. No. The law says--and I was on the Ways and Means Committee with the current chairman of the Senate when we tried to wall off Social Security trust funds. It did not pass over in the House at that time. So we have been spending them ever since. That does not make it right. It is still wrong to spend it.

The other side said they are going to fix the surplus problem. Well, they are not. I hope they do. This amendment gives some teeth to that promise because it holds the majority--whoever is the majority-- accountable.

Now that they are in the majority, they do not want to hold themselves responsible for the Social Security trust funds. They say: Oh, because we have been doing this all this time, it is too late to stop. We can save $1.027 trillion if we stop now and do not include this in our 5-year projections.

I hate to tell you, if we moved this out to 10 years, what it would look like. I am not going to do that because the budget is a 5-year budget. But $1 trillion, to my grandkids and their retirement or Senator Conrad's grandkids or anybody's kids, is a lot of money, and the more we can save for their retirement, the less we are going to have to borrow down the road.

So, please, when you are considering this amendment, consider the consequences of what we are doing here. We are doing more of the same. It is time we stopped doing it.

I ask for your support. This is a very important amendment. It is not a feel-good amendment; it is a substantive amendment that we actually are doing things to stop spending the Social Security trust funds.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, this amendment is almost identical to the language that was included in the fiscal year 2003 budget resolution Chairman Conrad authored. There are many reasons for this amendment, but basically the amendment says that just

because we have been spending the Social Security surplus for decades does not mean we should continue to do so. That is why we have made a budget point of order against continued spending of it.

We have dug ourselves into a big ditch. The budget before us just keeps on digging. My amendment says: Stop digging. It forces Congress to make a plan to protect the Social Security surplus.

I urge my colleagues to think about the future Social Security retirees and support this amendment.

Mr. President, I would like to congratulate and honor two young Kentucky students who have achieved national recognition for exemplary volunteer service in their communities. Glenn Means III of Mount Sterling and Rebecca Schwager of Louisville have just been named the top two honorees in Kentucky by the 2007 Prudential Spirit of Community Awards program, an annual honor conferred on the most impressive student volunteers in each State and the District of Columbia. This award was created by Prudential Financial in partnership with the National Association of Secondary Principals.

Mr. Means, a senior at Montgomery County High School, is being recognized for starting ``Helping Older People Smile, HOPS.'' This youth-senior friendship club is a program that pairs young volunteers with nursing home patients for weekly visits. Mr. Means has paired more than 120 residents with middle and high school students since its founding.

Miss Schwager, an eighth-grader at St. Francis of Assisi Catholic School, is being recognized for helping to raise thousands of dollars to benefit genocide victims in Darfur, Sudan as the co-chair of her school's Committee on Conscience. She also volunteers as a tutor and mentor for immigrant and refugee children at Arcadia Community Center.

In light of numerous statistics that indicate Americans today are less involved in their communities than they once were, it is vital that we encourage and support the kind of selfless contribution these young citizens have made. Young volunteers like Mr. Means and Miss Schwager are inspiring examples to all of us, and are among our brightest hopes for a better tomorrow.

Mr. Means and Miss Schwager should be extremely proud to have been singled out from such a large group of dedicated volunteers. I heartily applaud Mr. Means and Miss Schwager for their initiative in seeking to make their communities a better place to live, and for the positive impact they have had on the lives of others.

All of these young people have demonstrated a level of commitment and accomplishment that is truly extraordinary in today's world, and deserve our sincere admiration and respect. They serve as an example to the Commonwealth and show the best of community service that Kentucky has to offer.

Madan President, I rise today to discuss the S.J. Res. 9 dealing with troop withdrawals from Iraq.

While this nonbinding resolution is different from the resolution we debated last month, its purpose is still the same. It will micromanage the war and send a detrimental message to both our troops and our enemies.

That is why I voted against cloture on the motion to proceed to the resolution and why I will vote no on its final passage. I believe that we must give the President's new strategy for Iraq a chance to work before we begin criticizing it.

At this time, we ought to be sending a clear message of support for our troops and for ensuring that they have the necessary supplies and resources to carry out their mission. Unfortunately, we cannot seem to see beyond our political differences to do this and instead want to attack the President's Iraq plan no matter what the consequences of our actions would be.

Jut a few weeks ago on January 26, the Senate unanimously-- unanimously--confirmed GEN David Petraeus to be commander of the multinational forces in Iraq. General Petraeus supports the President's new strategy in Iraq and has embarked on a mission that both the President and the Senate selected him to do.

I would like to point out to my colleagues the irony, as well as the inconsistency, in the choice this resolution is presenting to this body. With the newest Iraq resolution, we are once again being asked to disapprove of the very mission we unanimously confirmed General Petraeus to execute. This resolution asks Senators and not General Petraeus to direct the activites in Iraq. But Congress is not the commander in chief, and we should not be dictating military strategy.

The resolution sets a specific date for the beginning of the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. This withdrawal would occur even if there is progress on the ground in Iraq or our allies believe our presence is still necessary. This resolution allows politics to be the deciding factor of how we manage a war.

Passage of this resolution would show to the world that our will can easily be stripped by terrorists if they just wait it out.

If General Petraeus, who is a friend of mine, comes back to Congress and tells us that the President's new strategy is not working, then I am prepared to change our course. But we need to give it a chance to work.

We have already begun to see some successes based on recent events and reports from General Petraeus. Sectarian killings have been lower in Baghdad over the past several weeks than in the previous months. There is less sectarian displacement in Baghdad neighborhoods allowing families to return home and Sunni insurgent leaders have renewed talks with top U.S. officials about political accommodation.

I realize these successes are small and it is too early to tell whether they will lead to significant changes in the future, but we now have proof that this strategy could work if given the chance.

We have also begun to see a positive response from the Iraqi people. Just 2 weeks ago, the Iraqi council approved the foundation of a hydrocarbon bill which is a oil revenue-sharing measure with the Iraqi people and the provinces of Iraq. The legislation is soon going to the assembly. For the first time in the history of their country, the people of Iraq are on the doorstep of having equity in oil distribution.

Despite these successes and unanimously confirming our new commander in Iraq, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to declare failure. They would like to tie General Petraeus's hands in a way that would make achieving his mission impossible. I do not believe that pulling the rug out from underneath our top commander in Iraq is a plan for success. Rather, I believe that we should focus the current debate on what we can do to support General Petraeus and the brave young men and women in Iraq to accomplish this critical mission. I will continue to do whatever I can to ensure that our troops and mission succeeds.

Failure in Iraq is not an option. It would not only jeopardize our own national security but that of the region as a whole.

When this motion to micromanage the war in Iraq comes to vote, I urge my colleagues to oppose it. Remember, we have only one commander in chief, not 535 generals who make war plans from the floor of the Congress.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Access to Competitive Power Act of 2007 with my friend and colleague, Senator Mitch McConnell.

I have spent years negotiating and working with the Tennessee Valley Authority. I have long believed we could work together to address the problems facing my customers in Kentucky. But every time I think I see the light at the end of the tunnel, representatives of TVA change their offer or make up a new rule.

I was optimistic that the expanded Board of Directors of the TVA Congress authorized last session would be able to change the problems of the past. But after many meetings and negotiations, I am convinced that TVA believes it has monopoly status and does not answer to anyone.

Today, I am telling TVA that the people of Kentucky deserve better.

For too long the TVA has acted against the best interests of the people of Kentucky. Five electric distributors, Paducah, Princeton, Warren County, Glasgow and Monticello, gave their notice to TVA to leave the system when they realized they could get cheaper electricity on the open market--and save their customers millions of dollars.

During the past few years, they have negotiated in good faith for basic services that are considered routine in the utility industry. But unfortunately, the electric customers of Kentucky are stuck on the TVA island. We forced them onto that island 75 years when we created the Tennessee Valley Authority. Their options are limited and they

are wholly reliant on TVA for generation and transmission service. TVA knows this--and that is why they have continued to stall on providing reasonable services.

But the distributors who still intend to leave will now build hundreds of miles of new high voltage power lines to get access to the national electric grid. One may even need to run the city on diesel generators. Despite these costs, the numbers show that their customers will still save money.

The legislation I am introducing today, with Senator Mitch McConnell, will give FERC full jurisdiction in relation to the Tennessee Valley Authority--the same jurisdiction that FERC has over utilities throughout the country.

Let me be clear--this legislation does not mandate contract language. It simply requires TVA to negotiate these services in good faith.

It defines the rights of two classes of TVA distributors--those who provided notice of termination prior to calendar year 2007 and those who did not provide notice.

For distributors in Kentucky and Tennessee who have previously given notice that they would like to leave TVA service, this legislation would put their rights into law.

Specifically, it would allow them to negotiate partial requirements services--making sure that TVA is not an all or nothing deal. For some customers it may make sense to get some power from TVA and some power from another generator.

It also requires TVA to provide transmission service for these customers. Because of Federal law, TVA is their only access point to the national electric grid. As such, they should provide reasonable transmission service.

It prevents TVA from charging these customers for stranded costs or imposing a reintegration fee and provides the customers the right to rescind their notice of termination if they ultimately decide they would like to stay with TVA.

And lastly, it allows everyone who enjoys the benefits of cheap, Federal power from the Power Marketing Administrations to retain a right to that power regardless of whether or not they choose to be a customer of TVA.

For all those customers who would like to stay in TVA, this legislation would give them the right to get partial requirements service from outside of TVA in an amount equal to TVA load growth.

I also believe that it is time the Government looks closely at the Tennessee Valley Authority. That is why my legislation asks for two important G.A.O. studies. First, it commissions a comprehensive study on the privatization the Tennessee Valley Authority. Second, it requests an analysis of the debt level of the Tennessee Valley Authority.

All Kentuckians deserve to choose where they receive their power. This bill will not only give them that choice, but it will also create a more competitive environment among Kentucky distributors and allow our businesses and residential consumers to keep more money in their pockets.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Access to Competitive Power Act of 2007 with my friend and colleague, Senator Mitch McConnell.

I have spent years negotiating and working with the Tennessee Valley Authority. I have long believed we could work together to address the problems facing my customers in Kentucky. But every time I think I see the light at the end of the tunnel, representatives of TVA change their offer or make up a new rule.

I was optimistic that the expanded Board of Directors of the TVA Congress authorized last session would be able to change the problems of the past. But after many meetings and negotiations, I am convinced that TVA believes it has monopoly status and does not answer to anyone.

Today, I am telling TVA that the people of Kentucky deserve better.

For too long the TVA has acted against the best interests of the people of Kentucky. Five electric distributors, Paducah, Princeton, Warren County, Glasgow and Monticello, gave their notice to TVA to leave the system when they realized they could get cheaper electricity on the open market--and save their customers millions of dollars.

During the past few years, they have negotiated in good faith for basic services that are considered routine in the utility industry. But unfortunately, the electric customers of Kentucky are stuck on the TVA island. We forced them onto that island 75 years when we created the Tennessee Valley Authority. Their options are limited and they

are wholly reliant on TVA for generation and transmission service. TVA knows this--and that is why they have continued to stall on providing reasonable services.

But the distributors who still intend to leave will now build hundreds of miles of new high voltage power lines to get access to the national electric grid. One may even need to run the city on diesel generators. Despite these costs, the numbers show that their customers will still save money.

The legislation I am introducing today, with Senator Mitch McConnell, will give FERC full jurisdiction in relation to the Tennessee Valley Authority--the same jurisdiction that FERC has over utilities throughout the country.

Let me be clear--this legislation does not mandate contract language. It simply requires TVA to negotiate these services in good faith.

It defines the rights of two classes of TVA distributors--those who provided notice of termination prior to calendar year 2007 and those who did not provide notice.

For distributors in Kentucky and Tennessee who have previously given notice that they would like to leave TVA service, this legislation would put their rights into law.

Specifically, it would allow them to negotiate partial requirements services--making sure that TVA is not an all or nothing deal. For some customers it may make sense to get some power from TVA and some power from another generator.

It also requires TVA to provide transmission service for these customers. Because of Federal law, TVA is their only access point to the national electric grid. As such, they should provide reasonable transmission service.

It prevents TVA from charging these customers for stranded costs or imposing a reintegration fee and provides the customers the right to rescind their notice of termination if they ultimately decide they would like to stay with TVA.

And lastly, it allows everyone who enjoys the benefits of cheap, Federal power from the Power Marketing Administrations to retain a right to that power regardless of whether or not they choose to be a customer of TVA.

For all those customers who would like to stay in TVA, this legislation would give them the right to get partial requirements service from outside of TVA in an amount equal to TVA load growth.

I also believe that it is time the Government looks closely at the Tennessee Valley Authority. That is why my legislation asks for two important G.A.O. studies. First, it commissions a comprehensive study on the privatization the Tennessee Valley Authority. Second, it requests an analysis of the debt level of the Tennessee Valley Authority.

All Kentuckians deserve to choose where they receive their power. This bill will not only give them that choice, but it will also create a more competitive environment among Kentucky distributors and allow our businesses and residential consumers to keep more money in their pockets.

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

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

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 334 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, this amendment makes changes in the implementation of the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program, commonly referred to as the Armed Pilot Program, to require the Department of Homeland Security to implement the package and program as Congress originally intended.

Four years after Congress created this program, the Department of Homeland Security continues to drag its heels on providing flight deck officers, commonly known as FFDOs, or armed pilots, with the necessary tools to prevent another September 11-type attack.

My amendment will ensure that all armed pilots can truly act as a real defense against hijacking on commercial flights.

This amendment would end the ridiculous practice of forcing armed pilots to carry their guns in lockboxes and would allow them to carry the guns on their body where the gun is easily reachable and more discrete to carry.

No other Federal law enforcement officer is forced to carry a firearm in a lockbox, and Federal law enforcement officials agree that carriage on the body of an officer is the best way for law enforcement officials to carry a firearm to ensure that the threat can be stopped in the safest way possible.

In addition to putting more armed pilots in the skies, this amendment would also put armed pilots on international flights.

The current law for the Armed Pilot Program allows pilots on these flights, but so far the State Department has been slow on entering into negotiations

with other countries to allow this to occur.

My amendment requires the State Department to negotiate agreements with other governments to get armed pilots on international flights. Over the last few years, many international flights have been canceled because of terrorist threats.

This amendment will also allow armed pilots to protect the flights of U.S. airlines and free up air marshals so they can be put on targeted foreign flights that we know terrorists are targeting.

This amendment also provides for the issuance of a metal badge for armed pilots so they can easily be identified in a crisis situation.

It is important to make sure that these pilots have a means to identify themselves so that air marshals and other passengers know who they are and that they are lawfully carrying a firearm.

It also requires TSA to give armed pilots the same screening protocols other Federal law enforcement officers have so that the terrorists cannot easily identify them at security checkpoints.

Under current TSA requirements, all armed pilots must be screened publicly in plain view of everyone at the security checkpoint, as opposed to Federal law enforcement officers who are screened behind closed doors.

Finally, this amendment would give pilots basic due process. It requires the Department of Homeland Security to establish procedures to give notice and appeal rights when making any decision against the pilots. Currently, the pilots have no recourse.

I believe these changes that update the law governing the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program are vital and are needed to ensure that this voluntary program runs as it was intended to run and would encourage more pilots to enter into it.

I have spoken many times in the past on the merits of this program and the need for it. It has saddened me that I must once again be forced to ask TSA to start implementing this program as it was originally intended. Once again, we must be forcing TSA's hand to get enough pilots armed to actually create a strong defense against terrorists in the air. We currently have the opportunity to speed this program up and force TSA to do what Congress intended by adopting my amendment.

I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this amendment.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. President, on February 16, the Commonwealth of Kentucky lost a favorite son. Marian ``Gene'' Snyder was born on January 26, 1928 in Louisville, KY, to a working-class family. He would often say he was ``a poor boy from the other side of the tracks in a cold-water flat.'' His upbringing during the Great Depression and the work ethic taught to him by his mother and father would serve Gene well in future years.

Gene worked his way through college and law school and earned a law degree from the University of Louisville at the ripe young age of 26. He was appointed to his first political post as Jeffersontown city attorney.

In 1962, Louisville Republican leaders saw they had a great young candidate and backed him for his first race for Congress. Gene won that race and represented the people of Kentucky's third congressional district for the next 2 years. Gene unfortunately lost reelection in 1964, but as he did all of his life, he bounced back and in 1966 he won the fourth congressional seat. He would serve and hold that seat with distinction for the next 20 years.

Gene was instrumental in bringing a number of important infrastructure projects back to Kentucky while serving on the Public Works Committee. One of his greatest achievements is a freeway that bears his name in Louisville, KY.

Gene Snyder worked hard to make sure Kentucky got its fair share from the Federal Government. But I think the most important thing he did was to validate conservatism in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Back in the early 1960s, you couldn't count on one hand the number of Republicans in Kentucky. Gene Snyder was the first brick in the foundation of what the Republican Party is today in Kentucky.

Gene had something lacking in today's world of weekly polls and political consultants. Gene had conservative principles and never wavered from those principles. Gene Snyder actually stood for something. That is why I consider Gene Snyder one of my political mentors. I would not be standing here in the well of this great Senate if it were not for Gene Snyder.

My wife Mary and I extend our thoughts and prayers to Pat, Gene's beloved wife, and the entire Snyder family. Gene was a true patriot and a great American who loved the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the citizens he represented.

Madam President, I rise today to speak again on the mishandling of the debate over the Iraq war resolutions. This debate has ramifications which will damage the institution of the Senate and lower the morale of our troops.

Here is the truth the American people need to know: Republicans in the Senate have not prevented any debate over the war in Iraq. We are debating the war again today. We have debated the war in the past. And we will continue to debate the war in the future. What we have prevented is the majority leader dictating to the minority exactly which resolutions we will vote on. My friends on the other side of the aisle have misled the American people about this debate.

Our Republican leader, my colleague and close friend from Kentucky, has tried to negotiate for more--I repeat--more debate on additional resolutions expressing a broad range of viewpoints. This is the U.S. Senate. The majority cannot tell the minority we are going to have one vote--take it or leave it.

And let me be clear: I am not running from a vote on any of these resolutions. I don't know one of my Republican colleagues who is afraid to cast a vote on any of the proposed resolutions relating to Iraq. I have said repeatedly and I will say it here again today: Nonbinding resolutions that question military strategy are not in the best interests of our Nation. They are not in the best interests of the Senate. They don't have the effect of law. They only affect our soldiers by sending them mixed signals. But if we must go down that path, let's vote. However, the majority leader cannot dictate the terms of the vote. If he could, this would be the House of Representatives. But it is not. This is the U.S. Senate. This is a body with rules that encourage opposing viewpoints, not stifling debate by the majority leader hand-selecting one resolution and forcing the other 99 of us to vote on it.

But here we are. Americans are watching this discussion right now. And it is not just a debate about Senate floor procedures; this is about how we as Senators should conduct debate when we have troops in harm's way. Many Americans oppose our efforts in Iraq. That is their right. I respect their convictions. Yet they are misguided, because I believe the cost of failure in Iraq is too high to leave now. I do not want to have to send American soldiers back to Iraq in a few years to deal with an even tougher situation. I do not want to leave a breeding ground of terror. But I understand there are many Americans who want this war to end, regardless of the consequences of leaving soon. And no doubt there are some in this body and in the House of Representatives who share that same view.

We as a Congress can end this war, but we cannot end it by nonbinding resolutions such as the one that passed the House of Representatives this week that the majority leader now wants us to be forced to vote on in the Senate. We can end this war through the appropriations process by cutting off funds for this war. This is why I am so frustrated by this debate. This is why I am frustrated by many of my friends and colleagues in this great body.

Many want to vote on a nonbinding resolution that opposes our strategy in Iraq to show their constituents they oppose the war, yet not make the tougher decision through the appropriations process. I know many of my colleagues who want to vote on this misguided House resolution will not--I repeat--not vote to cut off the funding for this war. They just want to have it both ways: they want to support a nonbinding measure opposing the war but not actually to stop the war by exercising their constitutional right to cut off its funding.

We should not vote to cut off the funding of this war. And that is the basic theme of the Gregg resolution on which the majority leader will not allow us to vote. The majority leader will not allow this vote because he knows it will pass the Senate overwhelmingly. This does not make sense to me or many of my colleagues, and I do not think it makes sense to many Americans who have actually followed this debate closely.

That is why I will vote again today against moving to the misguided House-passed resolution without the commitment that we Republicans be allowed to offer our own resolution of our own choosing. Our resolution, the Gregg resolution, gives support to our troops. Unlike the resolution before us today, it does not send contradictory signals to the troops by telling them that on one hand we oppose their mission but on the other hand we support them as soldiers. That is not the message we need to be sending to our troops at this critical time.