Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3402 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am going to propound what I hope will be two unanimous consent requests about one particular issue. The issue is on the anti-Semitic statements made by the President of Iran, Mr. Ahmadinejad, who said, among other things, that the state of Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth. We have been working cooperatively to try to get this resolution cleared, condemning those statements. We had some concerns raised with the resolution which I will discuss in more detail. We finally have a version cleared, and I will discuss in detail how we had to work through that. Suffice it to say

that it is good to see that we are going to finally get strong bipartisan support to condemn this conduct and call for Iran to be a constructive partner in the peace process in the Middle East.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 336, a resolution to condemn the recent destructive and anti-Semitic statements of the President of Iran which I submitted earlier today. I ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 337, a revised version of the same resolution.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon. I know he personally believes in the original resolution. Before I get into the disparities between the two resolutions and some of the difficulty we have had over the last several days in trying to pass this resolution, it is important to understand how reprehensible these statements are and how dangerous they are in light of not only the conflicts within the Middle East but the frightening perspective of Iran having nuclear capabilities.

We hear mixed reports. We have heard reports from the overseas press in the last few weeks about fears that Iran is actually within months, potentially, of having nuclear weapons capability. The idea that a country with a President who says that Israel should be wiped off the map and then amends the statement, if you can call it that, to say, Well, maybe they could move it to Europe, Germany or Austria, as Charles Krauthammer recently noted:

. . . perhaps near the site of an old concentration camp.

This is the kind of ridiculous statement one would expect out of a street merchant who is out there spewing anti-Semitic statements but not from the President of a country. It is unbelievable. As unbelievable as that statement is, it is almost equally unbelievable, the silence of response from the civilized world in condemning this statement and calling for actions on the part of the United Nations to condemn Iran, sanction Iran, and a whole host of other remedies available.

This condemnation we passed is a mild condemnation. We tried to make it a little stronger. We didn't achieve that. But what we need to recognize is that Iran, as the President has said, is a real threat. It is a real threat because there are people in that country, not the average Iranian but people at the leadership levels of that government who have explicit designs to not only disrupt the process of democracy building in the Middle East but also disrupt any attempt for peace and finally eliminate millions of Israelis from the face of the Earth.

That is something that the civilized world should not stand for. The United Nations should not stand for it, should not countenance the continuation of Iran sitting where they sit without having to undergo some sort of sanction or reprimand.

It is important to understand how destabilizing Iran is in our fight to create stable democracies in the Middle East, how they foment anti- Semitic, anti-Zionist, as well as anti-democratic sentiment in the Middle East, and how they sponsor terrorism.

One of the pieces of legislation I am most proud of in my time in the Senate was the Syrian Accountability Act. Throughout the years, Iranian influence in Lebanon and Syria has oppressed fellow Arabs. Well, Iranians are not Arabs but oppress fellow Muslims and obviously some Christians. But it is important for us, as a Senate, as a people, to understand the threat that Iran poses to everything we believe in and the larger picture of what we are trying to accomplish in Iraq and the Middle East.

We are trying to do something that for a long time people in this country and even some today believe is not possible. Some have suggested we can't win the mission we have engaged in. The mission we have engaged in is to create a stable democracy in the Middle East, in the Arab world. The mission we have engaged in, more fundamentally, is to provide increased national security to this country. That is the first mission.

The strategy is to ensure security for this country. The tactic is to establish democracies in an area of the world that threatened this country. Iran stands starkly opposed to that objective and, further, with statements such as this, destabilizes the entire region and foments and uses sort of the lowest base, primitive instincts of the haters in the Middle East to undermine our objective.

We are succeeding in Iraq in spite of the Iranians. We are succeeding in Afghanistan in spite of the Iranians. We

are moving democracy forward. But we dare not take our eye off what Iran is doing and is preparing. They are actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program under the nose of the rest of the world, with virtually no real attempt to limit that development.

When you see these statements combined with that, it is a flare that should be going up across the world of what we may be confronted with in the next months or years, with a nuclear bomb. This resolution is a statement that needed to be made. I am glad we passed this resolution. But we need to do more. I have authored a piece of legislation on Iran, which calls for the funding of pro-democracy groups within Iran. Others have offered ideas to provide increased sanctions on Iran.

If you look at people who study the country of Iran and tell you--we had a very good hearing that Senator Coburn chaired a few weeks ago. When you listened to the testimony at that hearing, which I had the opportunity to do for a little while, you hear that the Iranian street is one that is largely sympathetic to the United States and to the cause of freedom and democracy. They are oppressed people. Oppressed people generally do want and seek freedom. So we have, I believe, an opportunity, as we have had opportunities in the past, when we lent our ideas and our encouragement to help develop either exile movements or freedom movements within the countries that are a threat to the region and a threat to our country.

It is important for the Senate to speak out and say we stand with you--those of you who seek freedom, those of you who seek democracy, those of you who do not want to be threatening to your neighbors, or say, as the President of Iran has said, he wants to wipe Israel off the map. We have an obligation in the Senate, and I will be pressing very hard next year to pass my legislation on Iran.

I remember several years ago when Senator Boxer and I introduced legislation on Syria, and we did not get a lot of support in the committee and had trouble on the floor of the Senate. We had trouble at the White House. They were opposed to the bill. Eventually, the administration, the committee, and the Senate came along and we were able to pass the Syria Accountability Act. Literally, within a few months, we saw dramatic changes in Lebanon.

The Syria Accountability Act was a measure that called for Syria to get out of Lebanon and imposed sanctions on Syria for not doing so. The President, to my dismay, in some respects, didn't support it at first. Presidents don't often like Congress telling them what to do when it comes to foreign policy. But this President not only signed the Syria Accountability Act, he implemented the sanctions--a tough regime of sanctions--and it had a tremendous effect. I have had people come over from Lebanon and tell me of the importance of that particular legislation and the symbolism of America standing with the people of Lebanon against the evil dictator in Syria.

The symbolism of us passing this resolution today, and the more than the symbolism of passing the Iran Freedom and Support Act, is an important sign in a time now with these kinds of comments that Iran has popped its head up again--its rather unattractive head--in the area of influencing policy in the Middle East. We tried in this resolution to match the language of the Iranian bill I have introduced with the language, as I said, with this resolution, but unfortunately, we were not able to clear that language. I want to read the changes we had to make in the resolved section of the resolution that were struck as unacceptable for us to be able to pass it by unanimous consent. The portions we had to drop were two resolved sections. The three things that are in the final version that passed say:

Resolved, That the Senate

(1) condemns the recent statement by President Ahmadinejad

that denied the occurrence of the Holocaust and supported

moving the State of Israel to Europe;

(2) demands an official apology for these damaging, anti-

Semitic statements that ignore history, human suffering, and

the loss of life during the Holocaust;

(6) reaffirms the need for Iran to

(A) end its support for international terrorism;

(B) join other Middle Eastern countries in seeking a

successful outcome of the Middle East peace process.

What was struck were two sentences:

The Senate supports efforts by the people of Iran to

exercise self-determination over the form of government of

their country.

That was not acceptable to some here in the Senate. And second is:

The Senate supports a national referendum in Iran, with

oversight by international observers and monitors, to certify

the integrity and fairness of the referendum.

So we could not adopt tonight in the Senate the Senate saying to the people of Iran that we support efforts of self-determination and a national referendum that was free and fair. That is, in my mind, a rather unfortunate occurrence. But I found, from my perspective, that it was so important to condemn these actions that we agreed to strike those two sentences from the resolved clauses. I don't necessarily understand why anyone would oppose either of those sentences, those resolved clauses. They state that we are for freedom and democracy for all people, including the people of Iran. Maybe it is because we are pursuing that and it becomes such an issue of partisan controversy in the country of Iraq--or saying we support that same thing in Iran would somehow taint their criticism of the current mission in Iraq. I don't know. I am still groping for answers as to why those two clauses were not acceptable.

What was not acceptable were the comments and the actions of developing nuclear weapons by the terrorist regime in Iran.

I appreciate my colleagues for agreeing to pass this resolution. I thank all of the cosponsors. There were some 20 cosponsors of this resolution. The first Democrat was Senator Mikulski. I also thank my colleague in the chair for his patience and allowing me the opportunity to speak here tonight. He is also a cosponsor of the resolution. No one is a stronger advocate for peace and the mission we are trying to accomplish in the Middle East, and as well for the protection of the state of Israel, than the occupant of the chair. It is a pleasure to have the Senator from Minnesota in the chair while I am delivering these remarks. The Senator from Minnesota is truly one of the great leaders on the Foreign Relations Committee in this regard. I commend him for his efforts. I know he will be working with me on the Iran bill, on which he is a cosponsor, in trying to send a statement from the Senate that Iran is a threat--a real threat--and we need to do something other than simply stand back and jawbone international organizations--feckless international organizations-- in some respects, as the Senator from Minnesota knows, corrupt international organizations--to do something that they have shown no desire, willingness, or ability to accomplish, and that is to spread democracy, to lift people out of bondage into freedom.

We in the United States have to begin to take steps. The steps we are talking about in this resolution and the bill we hope to pass next year are not military steps. That is the last resort. But we need to start acting. Sitting silently by, doing nothing as a crazy man as president of a country, potentially developing nuclear weapons in the most sensitive area of the world is not acceptable for the Senate and is not acceptable for this country.

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

Mr. President, I regret that I was unable to vote this afternoon on the DeWine motion to instruct conferees with respect to S. 1932, the deficit reduction bill.

The DeWine motion to instruct conferees was crafted with the goal of preventing Senate conferees to S. 1932 from agreeing with the House provision that repeals the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA) during conference deliberations. Despite widespread support for this provision of law, the House companion bill repeals CDSOA. I have been a supporter of CDSOA since it was first crafted by Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio.

Mr. President, I ask that the Record reflect that, had I been here, I would have voted in favor of Senator DeWine's motion to instruct conferees to not repeal CDSOA during conference deliberations on S. 1932.

I ask unanimous consent that my letter of November 29, 2005, to the Honorable Charles Grassley, Chairman, Committee on Finance, on the need to maintain CDSOA, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I regret that I was unable to vote this afternoon on the Reed motion to instruct conferees with respect to S. 1932, the deficit reduction bill.

The LIHEAP program is of critical importance to Pennsylvania. My State routinely faces very harsh winters. Now that the cold weather is here and bills must be paid, I believe we must act to provide additional funding for this program. My record shows that I have been a consistent LIHEAP supporter, and I am hopeful that an increase will be promptly approved.

Mr. President, I ask that the Record reflect that, had I been here, I would have voted in favor of Senator Reed's motion to instruct.

Mr. President, today is a historic day for the people of Iraq as they go to the polls to freely elect a permanent 275- member Iraqi National Assembly. It is important to remember that these elections in Iraq would not have been possible without the bravery and sacrifice of the U.S. Armed Forces who have served and are currently serving in Iraq helping to provide the Iraqi people with the freedom and democracy that they deserve.

Our service members who are serving in Iraq are promoting democracy, restoring and repairing public services, working to prevent terror attack, and destroying the insurgency in a country that hasn't known freedom in decades.

As we focus on the meaning of Thursday's election in Iraq, it is important to realize the extraordinary bravery exhibited by our service members.

One unit in particular, the 4th Civil Affairs Group, CAG, U.S. Marine Corps Reserve, based in Washington, DC was deployed to Iraq during the January 30, 2005 elections of a temporary Iraqi National Assembly. These marines, many of whom are from my State of Pennsylvania, helped to promote democracy, restore and repair public services to the Iraqi people, and prevent terror attacks by insurgents. This particular unit played an active role in the election day operations in January by setting up polling locations and participating in security patrols to protect voters and voting sites and was an integral part in the United States' battle for Fallujah. Also during its deployment, the 4th CAG worked to install new electricity transformers in the Iraqi city of Ramadi, the capital city of the al Anbar Province, also known as one of the most dangerous cities in Iraq. And I would be remiss if I failed to mention that the deputy commander of this unit of brave marines was William Reynolds, now proudly serving as Senator Specter's chief of staff.

One marine in particular from that unit, CPL William Cahir, has written about his experiences in Iraq. Corporal Cahir, originally from State College PA, was a journalist before September 11, 2001. After seeing the horrific terrorist attacks that occurred in our country on that day, Bill Cahir felt compelled to serve our country and joined the Marine Corps. As part of the 4th CAG of the Marine Corps Reserve, Corporal Cahir was deployed to Iraq.

During his deployment to Iraq, Corporal Cahir, along with other members of the 4th CAG, helped to establish a

Civil Military Operations Center in Ramadi. On election day in January in Iraq, Corporal Cahir and the 4th CAG were responsible for protecting a polling site in Ramadi.

Having returned from his deployment to Iraq, Corporal Cahir has since returned to his civilian job. As a journalist, Bill Cahir covers a multitude of stories but has since focused many of those stories on his own personal experiences in Iraq and the experiences of other service members.

In one article he wrote for The Express-Times, a newspaper from Easton, PA, Mr. Cahir told the story of two service members--COL James T. Anthony, a marine reservist from Nazareth, PA, and LTC Stanley B. Smith, Jr., an Army officer with the Army's 98th Division, Institutional Training. Both service members were on their way to Camp Taji in Baghdad to begin their deployments to Iraq.

In his article, Bill Cahir documented the sentiments of these two service members during their deployments. Colonel Anthony had recounted his observations of the training of Iraqi soldiers, ``U.S. Marines, soldiers and sailors, along with their commanders, `did a fantastic job really pushing the ball forward when it comes to training Iraqi security forces, not just in terms of numbers but in terms of efficiency and effectiveness.'''

Lieutenant Colonel Smith also recounted his experiences in Iraq when he said, ``I am able to feel a sense of pride in accomplishment here in seeing real results in the form of construction that has been completed as planned and Iraqi units operating with installations that contribute to mission readiness.''

Mr. President, these stories from our soldiers are just a few more examples of the success in Iraq that our troops are contributing to. Each and every one of our service members has contributed to the promotion of democracy, the security, and the rebuilding of Iraq.

I applaud the marines of the 4th Civil Affairs Group and all of the service members who are serving or who have served our Nation in Iraq. The bravery that they have displayed and the progress they have made in Iraq is remarkable, and it needs to be told.

Mr. President, H.R. 3402, the Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, includes ``technical changes'' to legislation known as ``Aimee's Law.'' I am dismayed that the Department of Justice has waited until now to take the adequate steps to implement this legislation. I sponsored this legislation in the Senate, which was signed into law by President Clinton in October 2000. The law was to be implemented in 2002. I believe that 3 years is more than adequate time to implement this critical protection for my constituents.

Aimee's Law is named after Aimee Willard, a college senior from suburban Philadelphia who was brutally raped and murdered by a convicted murderer who was released early in Nevada and crossed State lines to kill again in Pennsylvania. Aimee's mother, Gail, became a tireless advocate to prevent such unnecessary tragedies from happening to other families, culminating in the passage of Aimee's Law in the U.S. Senate by an 81-to-17 margin and its final inclusion in H.R. 3244, the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act conference report, which also included the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization, Pub. L. 106-386. Aimee's Law is narrowly tailored to address the heinous crimes of murder, rape, and child molestation.

The law is designed to protect the residents of one State from the negligence of another State. The law assists States which recognize that the primary responsibility of State and local governments is to maintain public safety. Sexual predators have the highest rate of recidivism of any category of violent crime. The law simply provides that States where a subsequent similar violent crime occurs because of an early release will be reimbursed for the prosecution and incarceration costs through a reduction of future Federal funds from the allocation of the State where the original violent crime and conviction occurred.

I wish to state for the record that I will not object to the ``technical changes'' of Aimee's Law in H.R. 3402 as the Department of Justice assures me that the law will be implemented within six months. While I think that it is unacceptable that it has taken this long to take the appropriate steps to implement this law, I am hopeful that Aimee's Law will finally and effectively be implemented in the very near future so other families do not suffer the same fate as the Williards.

Mr. President, I rise today to share with my colleagues another positive story from a member of the U.S. Armed Forces currently serving in Iraq. His story, once again, depicts the frustration that so many of our servicemembers have with the lack of public attention in the U.S. to the humanitarian and military successes of their work in Iraq.

I recently received a letter in the mail from Ms. Ann Sensenich of Boiling Springs, PA. Ms. Sensenich wrote to me:

Dear Mr. Santorum: Enclosed is a copy of a letter I

received from one of our soldiers serving our country in

Iraq. I am forwarding this to you as I feel this is a letter

that should not be viewed by only my eyes.

I have been sending packages to my employer's son in Iraq

and he forwards them on to his soldiers and this is one of

the responses I received.

Please share this letter with anyone you feel would

appreciate the service of this and all our U.S. soldiers

defending our country and keep in mind he indicated he would

go back seven times before he would let terrorists on our

soil.

Thank you for reading this and please share his words with

others.

Sincerely,

Ann B. Sensenich.

Attached to Ms. Sensenich's correspondence is the letter that a deployed servicemember wrote to her when her package was shared with fellow servicemembers. He wrote:

Dear Ann Sensenich, I am deployed with the 3/3 ACR. We

received your package, and I just wanted to take a little bit

of my time to say thanks.

Your package helped with the morale of a lot of soldiers.

Due to the negative feedback we get from the media and people

back home, it is nice to receive a package from someone who

supports us and what we do.

People like you are the reason why we fight this war. We

sit over here day to day risk getting shot at or having

mortar rounds dropped in on us so that the people back home

(like yourself) can keep on enjoying the freedoms that a lot

of people take for granted everyday. I, myself used to take

those things for granted also until I was deployed to fight

for our freedom. This is my second deployment, and this is

the first time that we have received a package from someone

in the states. So, thank you for your unselfishness, and

don't ever feel bad for the soldiers that are over here

fighting this war. This is our job! This is what we were

trained

to do. I would come back over here seven more times before I

let these terrorists on our soil. You can sleep safe in your

home tonight, enjoy every warm meal you have, enjoy your warm

shower tonight, and wake up to a free world tomorrow because

we are over here fighting for you and your family.

Once again--Thanks! I just wanted you to know that your

package that you sent did not go unnoticed.

Mr. President, these stories need to be told. Our soldiers are sacrificing their lives for us; they are putting themselves in harm's way each and every day over there, and missing valuable time with their families and loved ones. They need to know that we support them, and that their bravery and hard work is not going unnoticed.

We cannot allow critics here in the United States to influence the mentality of our troops. They need to know that we stand with them and that we support their invaluable mission.

Mr. President, our top U.S. trade negotiators traveled this week and last in Europe, Africa, and Asia. They are making a concerted effort to encourage certain influential countries among our 148 trading partners in the World Trade Organization to put meaningful agricultural offers on the table in Geneva. We are coming down to the wire in the most recent round of multilateral trade negotiations, referred to as the Doha Development Round. The offers that our trading partners put on the table in the next month or two are the starting point for agricultural negotiators. That deal in agriculture will be combined with the results of similar negotiations in the manufacturing and services sectors of the economy. Together, they constitute the outcome of the round that has been going on for the last 4 years. Without a deal in agriculture, however, the Doha Development Round will falter.

While bilateral trade agreements are beneficial to U.S. exporters, it is through multilateral negotiations that across-the-board tariff reductions can be achieved. That is why the Doha Development Round is so crucial.

The agricultural negotiations are significant to all of us representing states with agricultural constituencies. In the case of Pennsylvania, production agriculture generated $4 billion in cash receipts in 2003, according to USDA statistics. That's $4 billion for the producers of livestock and commodities in my State. Pennsylvania generates only 2 percent of agricultural cash receipts received by producers nationwide, so you can imagine how important agriculture is to the 31 States with larger agricultural economies. Then there is the added value to the Pennsylvania economy of further processing and manufacture of food products and their export. Virtually every State has a stake in these negotiations.

The producers of U.S. food and fiber no longer are producing for the U.S. market alone. Those days are gone forever. Our farmers are part of the global economy. In fact, because they are so efficient, they produce in excess of what the U.S. can consume and must gain access to global markets to expand sales opportunities.

Yet many markets overseas remain closed to U.S. producers because of high tariffs applied against U.S. exports. Particularly egregious are the tariffs imposed by the European Union and Japan among developed economies and by certain developing countries such as India and Brazil, where they continue to claim developing status despite making major advances in certain sectors of their economies.

These issues have been discussed at the WTO during the past 4 years of the current Doha Development Round, with little movement in agriculture. In an effort to move the round forward, the U.S. last month put forth in Geneva an aggressive proposal to jumpstart the stalled negotiations. Since U.S. tariffs already are low compared to our trading partners, there was little the U.S. could offer in market access to encourage comparable reductions. So the U.S. proposed to pull back its own domestic subsidies in exchange for significant cuts by our trading partners in the tariffs protecting their market access.

The rationale behind the offer is that U.S. producers are so efficient that they require minimal domestic subsidies, as long as they have unfettered access to expanding markets. Those markets increasingly are found overseas where the increased prosperity of growing middle classes demands the kind of dietary diversity and convenience we have long enjoyed. U.S. producers and food manufacturers can supply both that diversity and convenience and supply it year in and year out.

But not all agriculture is as efficient as that in the U.S. Rather than improve efficiency, some countries protect producers excessively with high tariff barriers to market access. And they are not forthcoming with offers of significance to begin the process of reducing those barriers. Frankly, there isn't much time left. The round ends at the end of 2006, and the initial offers for negotiation should be on the table this December at the Hong Kong ministerial meeting so negotiators are able to assemble the final package of tariff reductions and subsidy cuts in the next year. They will need every minute to do so.

After last week in Europe, the Secretary of Agriculture and the U.S. Trade Representative were far from optimistic that the Hong Kong ministerial meeting would grapple with the type of formulas to be used in cutting tariffs or with the number of ``sensitive'' products that countries could declare protected behind a high tariff.

And what happens if there is no agreement or a face saving agreement with minimal substance? That's what worries me and should worry American farmers. U.S. production agriculture has been a partner in the international effort of our trade negotiators to gain market access. But how long can the partnership last if the round fails? Where do farmers and ranchers put their efforts if the latest round of negotiations fails to live up to its promise?

The European Union, for example, insists that dairy is sensitive and deserves special protection. How can the dairy farmers of the U.S. be convinced that overseas market access is the key to increased profitability if the European market remains unavailable behind high tariff walls? I am concerned that agriculture will lose patience with the trade negotiation process and return to familiar domestic farm programs to augment its income because the world market could not. What do responsible Members of Congress do then, facing the kind of fiscal constraints we do in 2006, just as existing farm programs expire?

There is real potential under those circumstances for backlash. Testimony by commodity groups earlier this month in the House has telegraphed that already. Wheat, corn, and soy producers all expressed reservations at the degree of ambition and commitment to trade liberalization shown by U.S. trading partners, particularly the European Union and the G-20 group of developing nations, as evidenced by their counter proposals to the U.S. proposal in the WTO. U.S. producers are savvy. They see the inadequacy of those offers by our trading partners and have no intention of venturing too far in the direction of liberalized trade alone without a very strong safety net. The weaker the commitment to reform among our trading partners, as evidenced by the degree of success in the Doha Development Round, the more expensive will be the net required by our producers. That's bad news for those in Congress wishing to lead their agricultural producers toward a more productive and profitable model based on increased markets overseas, where 95 percent of the world's consumers live.

A recent study by Australia, a leading member of the Cairns Group of trade-liberalizing nations within the WTO, underscores the potential loss if the more robust proposal of the U.S. in the WTO is not realized. Australia's agricultural economics bureau, ABARE, estimates the U.S. proposal would deliver an extra $17.5 billion in gross income per year to U.S. farmers from increased exports. Much of that increase would flow to producers of meat and fruit and vegetables, who would benefit from increased market access. In fact, the U.S. proposal would benefit all efficient producers in the world, according to ABARE.

This is not the time to accept less than the U.S. proposal in the negotiations. ABARE estimates the European Union proposal would yield only about $3 billion, barely enough to account for

assumption variables in the study, and it would continue to protect a number of its product lines where the U.S. stands to gain the most from market access. The proposal of the G-20 group would yield an extra $7.5 billion per year, a bare minimum.

Moreover, the benefit to U.S. production agriculture from increased earnings under the U.S. proposal would provide latitude for writers of the next farm bill to adjust domestic programs to accommodate two important realities. Some of our domestic programs have been ruled trade-distorting under the WTO. Ultimately we will have to reform these programs. Either we change our farm programs now by negotiation in the WTO where we can get something in return for them, or we will be forced to change them by litigation by which we don't get anything for them. Here is the perfect opportunity, where we can gain market access and income to offset changes made domestically.

The second reality is the cost of farm programs. That cost may not seem like much in years of little budget competition. But today we are in a budgetary climate where any policy that depends on government financing is subject for review. There is strong competition for public outlays, and an effort to reduce the deficit places new scrutiny on all programs.

We all have just experienced the budget reconciliation process in Congress. In agriculture, we were obligated to find $3 billion worth of savings to accommodate budget targets. That is just the beginning, and we are well advised to know the alternatives available to us to make adjustments in important programs in advance of the need. This WTO negotiation provides the U.S. with the opportunity to convert its aggressive proposal for reform into real income for farmers and agribusiness. For instance, if the U.S. program crops like wheat, corn, rice, and soybeans continue to be under pressure in the WTO for the portions of their domestic subsidy programs that ``distort'' trade, the advent of the next farm bill provides us a chance to convert supports for those crops into a format that conforms to WTO guidelines. In return, we gain the market access from our trading partners to sell them U.S. fruit and vegetables, meat and dairy products, and other specialty crops not previously allowed into their markets in sufficient quantity.

If we don't succeed in opening those opportunities for U.S. agriculture, we will have nothing with which to persuade our producers to give up the expensive domestic subsidies to which they have become accustomed. Another expensive, non-innovative, and divisive farm bill might unfortunately be the result. Mr. President, a great deal is riding on the success of the Doha Round.

Mr. President, I first want to start out by thanking the chairman for all the hard work he has put in on this package. The work we have done together has been at times a challenging process, but I certainly appreciate working together, particularly on a section of the bill which I will talk about more in detail and that has not been talked about on the floor, and that is the section of the bill dealing with charitable giving, part of an effort that I have been working on, and many have been working on, to try to help those in need in our society by helping those important mediating institutions of our society who are out there every day on the frontlines serving the needs of those who, in many cases, are left behind by society.

I am pleased overall that we are going to be able to pass this package, hopefully soon, that will stop tax increases from going into effect. I call this bill the ``Tax Increase Prevention Act'' because but for this bill, hundreds of thousands of taxpayers in my State alone and millions across America would have their taxes go up starting in January of next year.

In Pennsylvania, almost 350,000 families would see their taxes go up, some dramatically, because of the alternative minimum tax.

Mr. President, 268,000 taxpayers will benefit from the low-income savers credit, which would go away but for this bill; 150,000 families and students would continue to be able to deduct college tuition, another important provision in this bill, and 142,000 teachers in Pennsylvania will be able to deduct expenses that they have in the classroom helping their students.

One of the most important things about this tax bill is that it will in fact provide more certainty for Americans in providing a Tax Code and will continue the policies that have created the economic growth and the vitality that this economy has had after some of the tough blows that were dealt in the early part of this century.

But the focus I wanted to talk about on this bill tonight are some things that I have been working on along in particular on the other side of the aisle with Senator Joe Lieberman. It has been a long road for us on what is called the CARE Act, Charitable Aid and Recovery Empowerment Act. It is an important piece of legislation that does a lot to incentivize people across America to give.

There are several provisions in the bill I want to highlight that are vitally important in encouraging charitable giving. If we look at that in America, what we see is not necessarily a rosy story. Yes, we have seen increases in giving around events such as Katrina and the events of 9/11, but what we have seen after the publicity and after all the attention attracted by those disasters and those horrific instances, actually charitable giving pretty much flat over the past 25 years.

About 25 or 30 years ago we gave almost 2.5 percent of GDP in charitable giving--2.5 percent we were generous enough to give to charitable organizations to help those in need in our society. Today, we are at around 1 percent. That is something that, candidly, I think we need to work on. There are a lot of reasons why that may happen. Some of it may be we have seen an increase in Government over the last 25 or 30 years and, as a result, we have seen some squeezing out of some of the charitable organizations that existed in the past. But the bottom line is that America is strong when our civic and community organizations are strong, and they can only be strong if they have the resources to be out there in the community to meet the needs that are so prevalent.

We have done a couple things in this bill that are important. One that I am very proud of is that we have taken the opportunity, for the first time in a long time in the Tax Code, to give nonitemizers the opportunity to deduct charitable contributions. Heretofore, if you were one of the two-thirds of Americans who filled out a tax form, using the short form, and you could give 10 percent of your income--and in fact many in our society do tithe, give 10 percent of their income--but if you are a low-income person and you do not have any other reason to take other than the standard deduction, you would be denied the opportunity to take those deductions and get some support for your supporting of charitable organizations.

Under this bill, you will now be able to have an opportunity, on the front of the 1040 form, to deduct your charitable contributions similar to those who itemize the deduction.

That is an important incentive because there is a floor on this. For a couple filing jointly, you would have to contribute $420, and that might be changed. We are working on an amendment to maybe lower that floor a little bit. But it will be around $400 before you can claim a deduction on your tax form.

So the charities we have talked to, everybody from the United Way to the Salvation Army and others, they are very excited because they do believe this will incentivize more generous giving instead of giving the deduction for giving that would otherwise have occurred without this incentive. So we think it incentivizes more generous giving both for those who do not itemize, as well as, if we also put a floor on itemizers, we will incentivize itemizers to give more and be more generous through this.

A couple other aspects we have worked on. One is an IRA rollover provision. We have literally billions of dollars stored up in IRAs with some people who candidly have done well enough that they don't need the IRAs to maintain the quality of life they have. But that money is locked up for folks who want to contribute that IRA to charitable organizations. It has been estimated that literally $2 to $3 billion of charitable contributions could occur if we stop what is current law, which is the penalties and interest that would be charged to those who would donate their IRAs to philanthropic organizations. So we remove penalties and interest which I think will unlock literally billions of dollars in money for, particularly in this case, educational institutions, which I think would do more than others to receive these kinds of funds.

We have a food donation provision. According to America's Second Harvest, this provision which focuses on farmers and ranchers and restaurateurs, this provision, I am told by America's Second Harvest, will encourage up to $2 billion over the next 10 years in donations of food and will feed 878 million people with meals. This is a very important provision as we try to attack hunger in America.

We have a provision that the Senator from Montana has been involved in with respect to book donations, which is important to again help educational institutions, libraries, and others.

So there are a variety of different provisions in this bill which are essential for us who want to see our fellow man reach into their pockets and to reach out their hands to help those in need in our society but need more wherewithal to do so.

This package of bills we have put together in this legislation will help charities do just that.

Now, on the other side of the coin, as many of the charities have been following this debate, there was a concern, candidly, about some ``charitable reforms'' that have been the subject of a lot of conversation in the philanthropic world that I have been working on with the chairman, to try to address some of the abuses that the Finance Committee, through several hearings that the chairman has had, that have been documented about some charitable organizations using money for, in some cases, personal gain or for transferring money to members of their family. Some of these concerns are legitimate, but one of the things that I was adamant about is that we did not want to have a series of reforms in place that were going to jeopardize the vast majority of nonprofit organizations that do incredibly good work, most of them volunteers, most of them with very little staff, certainly very little paid staff, and are the heart and soul of so many communities across America. So it has been a balancing act for the Chairman and myself as we have worked through this. We didn't quite get it right, in my opinion, in the committee mark, although the chairman went a long way in scaling back some of the more ambitious changes that he had proposed, but we have worked together, and from the mark to the amendment that will be offered by the chairman later, I think we have accomplished about 90 percent of the concerns and certainly the major concerns that not only I have had but those charitable organizations, particularly the small charitable organizations that are concerned about, if you will, more of a Sarbanes-Oxley approach to dealing with some charitable organizations that would have made it almost impossible for these charities to continue to function, particularly in smalltown America.

We have now been able to come up with compromises that I think will, at least according to all of the feedback we have been getting--and I want to congratulate Melanie Looney in my office. She has done an outstanding job in making sure that the interests of the mom-and-pop charities, if you will, across America have been represented here and that we are not doing anything while, on the one hand, giving incentives for people to contribute to charitable organizations and, on the other hand, shutting these charitable organizations down because they can't survive under the burden of new regulations they would be placed under.

I think we have done a great job in balancing those interests. There are still a couple of things we would like to adjust, but there is always conference and the ability to work together with the House to get that done.

I thank the chairman. We have been discussing this and working on this and, in some respects, battling on this for quite some time, but I believe now that we have reached the point where we have some responsible and proper reforms that the vast majority of the charitable world embraces and understands they need to increase the professionalization in a lot of respects. That has been accomplished as a result of the reforms that we have put forward today. I look forward to working with the Chairman and ranking member and members of the Ways and Means Committee to get a bill that all in the charitable community can embrace that is responsible in improving governance, as well as a great incentive for these organizations to go out and meet the needs that are so pressing our communities across America.

With that, Mr. President, I thank the chairman and ranking member for his time.

I yield the floor.

I introduced a bill last month, S. 1816, that is vitally important to manufacturing businesses and the workers they employ in Puerto Rico. My bill extends the benefits of the manufacturing deduction, enacted last year with the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, to apply to manufacturing operations that are conducted in Puerto Rico and are subject to full U.S. tax.

The new manufacturing deduction means that U.S. businesses operating in any of the 50 States will pay tax on their manufacturing income at 32 percent. Without the manufacturing deduction, U.S. businesses operating a branch in Puerto Rico will pay tax on their manufacturing income at 35 percent. This difference in tax treatment creates a disincentive for U.S. companies to conduct manufacturing operations in Puerto Rico, distorting manufacturing location choices and putting Puerto Rico at a disadvantage in terms of attracting and retaining investment.

My bill makes sure that manufacturing in the 50 States and manufacturing in Puerto Rico will be taxed at the same 32 percent rate. This will level the playing field for operations in Puerto Rico and operations in the States. I have a number of constituent corporations that operate in my State and have operations in Puerto Rico, and this provision is important to them.

I realize the proposal cannot be added to the budget reconciliation tax bill at this time but am hopeful it will be considered and enacted this year.

I want to applaud Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas for introducing H.R. 4323, which includes this extension of the manufacturing deduction to Puerto Rico. I look forward to working with Chairman Thomas to get this important provision enacted.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge an important event that is taking place today in Philadelphia, PA and across the Nation--the 29th Annual American Cancer Society Great American Smokeout.

We are all aware that cancer is one of the greatest healthcare risks facing Americans today. For years, this disease has taken the lives of our families, our friends, and our neighbors. As a member of the bipartisan Senate Cancer Coalition, I certainly understand that there are few things that would have a greater impact on the quality of life, for millions throughout the world, than the eradication of this terrible disease.

Unfortunately, we are also all aware of the fact that we have not yet found a cure. And while scientists and researchers around the world work feverishly towards this lofty aspiration, the most important action we can take is the promotion of cancer prevention. The Great American Smokeout is a wonderful example of a successful program aimed at assisting those at great risk of developing cancer to change their ways. This annual event has, undoubtedly, saved lives.

Since the inaugural Great American Smokeout took place in 1976, this initiative has provided a powerful platform for the American Cancer Society to encourage Americans to stop smoking. This event, which urges Americans who take the unnecessary health risks associated with the use of tobacco products to band together and make a lifestyle change, is one of the most recognized awareness initiatives in the history of the American Cancer Society--and rightfully so. Rarely does any organization touch so many with its message in a single day as the American Cancer Society during the smokeout. And rarely is the intention of the message as important as reducing the number of Americans who use tobacco products.

I am also pleased that the American Cancer Society has chosen my home State to host this year's smokeout. Pennsylvania has a long history of working with the American Cancer Society, and in 2002, together with the Pennsylvania Department of Health, they established the Pennsylvania Free Quitline. This toll-free service, available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, provides advice and counseling to those attempting to quit smoking. Studies have shown that smokers who take advantage of such services are twice as likely to successfully quit smoking. By choosing Pennsylvania as the host for one of their most important events, the society is reaffirming its commitment to decreasing the prevalence of tobacco use in my state--and, in turn, improving the health of all Pennsylvanians.

Mr. President, these types of efforts have helped the American Cancer Society develop a reputation as one of the most influential and effective participants in the fight to better the health of every American. The Great American Smokeout is a vital event put on by a truly impressive organization, and I thank the American Cancer Society for its leadership.

Madam President, I thank the chairman of the HELP Committee, as well as the ranking member, for the excellent work they have done on this legislation and for the tremendous cooperation they have shown me, as well as Senator Baucus, and my chairman Senator Grassley, on the issue of multiemployer pensions, which has been my area of focus on this legislation. It is a very important issue--and I will lay out here--it is critically important that we make sure these plans survive. Because unlike the single-employer plans, the backstop, the insurance for a plan that gets dumped into the PBGC is actually less than one-third of what a single-employer plan would be. It is even more important for us to have healthy multiemployer plans from the standpoint of the beneficiary than it is to have healthy single- employer plans.

Again, I thank the chairmen and ranking members of both committees. They have made the case--I have listened to some of the debate--that the need for reform in both these areas is clear. I come from the State of Pennsylvania, which unfortunately has seen its share of plans being dissolved and thrown into the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. We have a lot of steel companies. We have an airline that has done that. We have, unfortunately, tens of thousands of retirees who are now receiving their benefits through the PBGC and who were promised more generous benefits under their contracts with the steel companies and the airline, who are now living, in many cases, very much hand to mouth. We need to do a better job for future workers and retirees. We need to address this problem in a climate where increasingly we are seeing concern about not only the dumping of these plans onto the PBGC, and the transfer of defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans, we are increasingly seeing that trend in a lot of industries. I believe there is a place for defined benefit plans and that we need to have a structure in place to make sure they are adequately funded and safe for pensioners to rely upon as they enter into their retirement years.

Again, I don't want to repeat all that has been said about the state of play of how bad the system is as far as the deficits and the problems with the single-employer plans. I want to focus on the multiemployer plans because that is an area on which I have been active in trying to make sure it was included in this bill and that many of the reforms I put in place in the legislation I introduced with Senator Stabenow a few weeks ago were included in the mark. Again, I thank the chairmen of both committees and the ranking members for working with us to see that happen.

The importance of making sure multiemployer plans are safe is because the maximum guarantee for a multiemployer participant with 30 years of service is less than $13,000 a year. That means if you worked for the IBEW and you were a tradesman, an electrician, and you built some of the greatest buildings in Philadelphia, for example, if the IBEW pension plan goes belly up, the maximum benefit you would receive would be less than $13,000 a year. That is a horrific end for many people from the standpoint of what they would otherwise have been promised under their plan. Contrast that with a retiree covered by a single employer plan with the same record. They are

looking at about $45,000 and in some cases up over $100,000. So the fallback, if these plans should fail, is substantially lower in the multiemployer world. That is why it is vitally important that we have remedies and things to improve the overall picture. There are plans that are in bad shape. We have plans that are funded as low as 50 percent. One plan is $20 billion underfunded. We have problems out there. The consequences if a single-employer plan failing pale in comparison to the devastation to pensioners if multiemployer plans fail.

I have worked hard with a coalition to try to put together a piece of legislation that I mentioned before, S. 1825. Senator Stabenow has worked hard on this issue. Many of the reforms we put in place are included in this mark. We worked together with a coalition of management and labor and met over a period of months to come up with a bipartisan and cooperative agreement between those who are on opposite sides of the bargaining table. We have had everybody here--from the building trades, the Teamsters, the food and commercial workers union, the IAM, to the grocery manufacturers, a whole host of grocery chains, as well as freight companies, UPS, contractors, et cetera--and have worked together over a period of months to come up with a bill that, as Chairman Enzi mentioned, has strong bipartisan support because we were able to negotiate. We haven't gotten everything, candidly, we wanted in this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the list of folks supporting this multiemployer bill.

I have worked with my constituents. I have had I don't know how many meetings with members of labor unions across Pennsylvania to talk about this issue and get their input as to how we can deal with the problem of multiemployer plans to make sure we improve their solvency and increase the reliability of those plans for our pensioners. It was an unprecedented effort. I thank Jen Vesey from my staff for the work she has done. I thank in particular the folks from the Pennsylvania building trades and Teamsters who have been terrific in trying to work through some of these very tough issues to get a consensus bill that I am hopeful we can not only pass here in the Senate, obviously in the next hour or two, but also to get something passed permanently by the end of the year.

One of the key concepts folks were concerned about was the concept of an early warning system for multiemployer plans. Under current law, too often we don't know about economic conditions of these plans until they are facing extreme financial pressure. As we have said, sometimes the remedies are too late to solve the problem, and we end up with the situation of people not having sufficient retirement. In this bill, we do address this problem. However, I have heard from labor and management representatives of the multiemployer plans. They have expressed concerns about the approach to this taken in S. 1783.

It is important that we keep in mind in a multiemployer world, these pension plans typically operate in tandem with health plans. There is a concern the dollars that otherwise could go to maintain important health benefits may be unnecessarily diverted to pensions because of overly stringent performance benchmarks. I have heard about those benchmarks. I have heard about those concerns. We will continue to work on this. It is important that we continue to work toward a solution that imposes discipline, which is what this legislation does, without imposing undue burdens on the plans, particularly how they might affect health benefits.

I am pleased my colleagues have accepted most of the changes we proposed and certainly remain committed to working on these important issues to strengthen multiemployer pensions to protect these folks.

This is an important piece of legislation. This is a great victory for working men and women across the country that the Senate is about to act on. As we head into the holidays, where you want to feel good about your financial security, if we are able to get this accomplished by the end of this year, we will provide a whole host of people across America a better feeling about not just their holiday plans but the security of future holidays after they have finished their working years.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 40 minutes as in morning business and that the time be equally divided between myself and the Senator from South Carolina, and that we may be permitted to engage in a colloquy during that time.

Mr. President, Senator DeMint and I are here tonight to talk about an issue that has drifted to the back burner of American political discourse. It is unfortunate that it has. It is an issue that both the Senator and I, and I know many others on this side of the aisle, have worked to accomplish diligently now for many years, for me since 1995, trying to grapple with the shifting demographics and the changes that are coming to this country when it comes to the issue of entitlement programs.

There is no more important entitlement program that we have to preserve and protect and save than the Social Security system. It is the bedrock upon which our seniors have the security to meet the needs they have in their later years in life.

We understand this demographic timebomb of the baby boom generation, people living longer, lower birth rates, all of those things come together to create a demographic perfect storm that causes the Social Security not to be able to pay for the benefits promised to future retirees. We have tried to put forward solutions. I put forward solutions. Senator DeMint has put forward more than one solution. Other people on this side of the aisle have done so. The House has done so. The President has put forward ideas on how to address this problem. We have done so because we believe it is important for us to step up to the plate and be serious about addressing this serious concern that millions of Americans who are retired, near retirement, and even younger Americans have about their ability to collect their Social Security check.

We fought hard to bring this debate to a head on the floor of the Senate. Unfortunately, we have not succeeded. We have not succeeded because we have been met with a partisan obstructionism that is as rock solid as the marble before me on the rostrum.

The fact is, we have seen no cooperation at all from the other side of the aisle. Unfortunately, we have not seen any attempt to come to the table and try to solve the problems of Social Security that all sides of the spectrum admit is looming for future generations of retirees. That is unfortunate. It is unfortunate because we have had an opportunity this year to address an important issue before the crisis strikes.

One of the great complaints that Americans have about Congress is that we wait until the problem is almost overwhelming us before we do anything to react to it and therefore end up with less-than-optimal solutions.

We have an opportunity now, as the crisis looms but far enough away, to be able to address it in a way that can spread out the burden and create better opportunities for future generations of retirees, and just as importantly, future generations of taxpayers and American families trying to keep the quality of life and, in fact, improve the quality of life that we have in America. But we did not get that accomplished.

What Senator DeMint and I have decided to do, in cooperation with our leadership in the Senate, is to try to take a first step. Using football analogies, which I know the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Allen, loves to use, we tried to throw the long ball and march down the field, but we are going to try to run off tackle here and see if we can pick up a yard or two to move the ball down the field to get to the goal of providing retirement security for future generations and saving and strengthening the Social Security system.

The first play in trying to accomplish that is legislation that I have introduced called the Social Security Guarantee Act of 2005. As I mentioned before, Americans work very hard and pay a lot of money. It is the biggest tax that most Americans pay. The overwhelming majority of Americans, the biggest tax they pay is the Social Security tax. From the tax they pay, they expect that benefit to be there when they retire.

The point is, for those who are at or near retirement, the answer is that it will be there. In fact, in looking at the long-term problems of dealing with Social Security, there is nothing this Congress should do to affect the near-term retirees and those who are retired today. We have said over and over again, those of us who have been advocates for strengthening the system, whether it is the President or Senator DeMint or Senator Frist or others, that we do not want to do anything to impact those who are near-term retirees and those who are already in the system.

The reason is twofold. No. 1 is we do not have to. The system is solvent. In other words, there is more money coming in than we need to pay out over the next 15-plus years. Therefore, we do not need to have any kind of fixes for those in the short term. The problem is out in the long term.

The second reason is a matter of fairness and equity. To change the game literally before someone crosses the finish line, to move the finish line--or even the people who have already crossed that finish line and have ended up in Social Security, to move it back would simply be inequitable. People would not have the opportunity to plan for that, and it could be very disruptive to their retirement.

So what Senator DeMint and I have suggested in the Social Security Guarantee Act is that we put in writing in the statute what everyone has sort of agreed to in casual conversation and even beyond casual conversation. If we can put that chart up, the Senate recently, March 15 of this year, all 100

Senators, including every Senate Democrat, in a rollcall vote, voted for the Graham-Santorum amendment to the budget resolution. If we look at the language, I will point to the part A. It says that Social Security reform ``must protect current and near term retirees from any changes to Social Security benefits.''

So what the Social Security Guarantee Act does, which I am proposing, is to actually make it a Federal law, not just a resolution, something that we all think is a good idea, which is what a resolution is, but actually put legislative language in place, put something in law that says that your benefits are guaranteed, your cost-of-living increases are guaranteed in the Federal law which, contrary to what most seniors believe, is not the case. There is a Supreme Court case from 1960 which says that there is, in fact, no legal right that you have.

Obviously, there are claims that can be made in the political process to those rights, but as far as legal rights in the statute, there is no guarantee to that cost of living.

It would be vitally important for us, as we head into hopefully a longer term and more complete look at the Social Security system and saving that system, that we start from the ground that we are not going to affect anyone who was born before 1950. That is basically people 55 and older in our society today, we are going to say, If you were born before 1950, you are off the table; we are not going to discuss it. We are not going to play politics with you. We are not going to scare you. We are not going to threaten you. We are going to take these benefits and we are going to enshrine them in the law to protect them from anyone playing politics with them or even trying to include them in any kind of reform down the road.

This is a first step. It is a small step, but it is an important one for our Nation's seniors. I am hopeful we will be able to get that done maybe even this evening.

I yield the floor to the Senator from South Carolina.

I would be happy to yield. I will yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Montana, the ranking member of the Finance Committee.

Mr. President, while I was trying to be courteous in yielding to my colleague, I want to make a couple of comments about what the Senator from Montana said. I would hope he would go back and read the Social Security Guarantee Act of 2005 because it does not do anything the Senator from Montana spoke of. What this bill simply does is guarantee benefits in the law for people who were born before 1950. It does not set up any kind of personal account system. It does not do all of the things that the Senator from Montana said.

The Senator from South Carolina will talk about his Stop the Raid bill, which simply takes money out of the surplus and puts it into accounts for holders to make sure that that money is spent on Social Security benefits but no administrative costs. All the things the Senator from Montana talked about do not apply to either one of our bills.

I understand there may be an objection, but I would caution the Senator from Montana that the objection cannot be under those terms because the objections that the Senator from Montana cited are not in either one of the bills. I yield to the Senator from South Carolina.

I ask the Senator from South Carolina, one of the things I hear, and I think you were alluding to this, is that some people believe that they actually have an account at Social Security where this money they contribute is sort of there--that is maybe what Congressman Rangel was alluding to--for them to sort of pay their benefits out. Is that the fact, first and foremost? Then I will ask my followup.

The Senator got into something that is a rather complex concept, but it is really important for understanding the difference between what he wants to accomplish and what goes on in the current system. That is, what your bill does is it creates an explicit debt. How is that different? What is the difference to the average person, that they have a specific account with that money as opposed to just sort of the general money that is owed to the Social Security trust fund? What is the difference?

What is the impact? Let's take it a step further. Let's assume we were successful tonight in getting the Stop the Raid bill passed and every American would have their own personal retirement account with the money from the Stop the Raid bill, and 15 years go by and that money has built up. What is the practical effect on the average citizen of what your bill does versus the current system?

I would just ask the Senator from South Carolina, this bill has something to do with something else I hear a lot about, which is honest accounting. One of the things I hear a lot of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about is that the deficit is really much bigger than the deficits reported because the Social Security surplus hides the deficit.

Will your bill cure that problem?

Would it cure the problem of hiding the deficit?

And lowers the deficit as a result, correct?

So this is not just a Stop the Raid bill. This is a truth in accounting bill? This basically says: Here is how much money we are taking in. Here is the obligations that the Federal Government has with this money we are taking in. In fact, we are taking that obligation and realizing it, in other words putting it into an account that actually could pay that obligation. Is that correct?

I thank the Senator from South Carolina for, not just the work he has done on the Stop the Raid bill, but I want to thank him for the other ideas he has put forward. He is one of three Senators on this side of the aisle who have put forward comprehensive bills, along with Senator Sununu and Senator Hagel. They have put forth ideas to try to move the ball forward, down the field substantially. I will not speak for the Senator from South Carolina, but I think what he has realized is that the opportunity for us to do that this session of Congress is probably dramatically diminished. So we are both looking at trying to move the ball forward, trying to take a vital first step, or first two steps, in assuring the American public that those who are the most vulnerable, their benefits are safe; and for those concerned about the resources being there to be able to pay benefits in the future, we are going to make sure that money is set specifically aside and given to them to make sure that money is there and promised by the Federal Government to pay in the future.

By the way, the Senator from South Carolina is not the only one who has introduced comprehensive legislation. Over in the House, Congressman Kolbe, Congressman Johnson, Congressman Shaw, and Congressman McCrery on our side of the aisle have put forward comprehensive proposals on dealing with the long-term issues.

So we have made the case. We have worked hard to try to move this issue before the American public but have met a stonewall here on the other side. I suspect, unfortunately, tonight we will probably continue to see that stonewall appear when we ask for unanimous consent to move forward on this legislation. I will certainly make my commitment that this is an issue I feel very passionate about. This is a issue that is important to my State. We have the second largest percentage of seniors in our population. We have a little over 16 percent of our population who are people over the age of 65. That is second only to the State of Florida.

It is important for my State to have the peace of mind for my seniors. I always say we may have fewer as a percentage of our population, we may have fewer seniors than the State of Florida, but my seniors need Social Security more than those in the State of Florida because all my rich seniors moved to Florida. The folks who are still in Pennsylvania are getting through those tough winters, in some cases they need and rely on their Social Security benefits.

So as a Senator from Pennsylvania I will tell you that this is a high priority for me, to make sure that not only this generation of seniors gets the benefits they deserve but future generations of seniors get those benefits as well. I think this one-two of the Social Security Guarantee Act and the Stop the Raid bill will go a long way in helping create the atmosphere to get real long-term responsible reform of the Social Security system for future generations in place so they will have a strong and solvent system going forward.

I yield for the close to the Senator from South Carolina.

I thank the Senator from South Carolina for taking the time to have this important debate. I appreciate the indulgence of the Democrat leader for his time.

What this unanimous consent will do, as the Senator from South Carolina has just stated--it will not be to pass the bill tonight. This is not an idea and we are just going to have unanimous consent and pass the bill. What we want to do is engage in a real debate about these two very important issues. So we are going to ask consent, at the time to be determined by the leader, to have a full debate. I am suggesting in this unanimous consent request that we have 10 hours of debate on both of these bills before we move forward and pass them, and obviously here in the next few weeks the chances of finding time to do that is going to be pretty limited. We will be happy to schedule it in January or February of next year so there is plenty of time for the American public to participate in this debate and to have a real discussion about whether we want to protect the benefits that are promised to those who are born before 1950 and whether we want to create the opportunity for honest accounting and for stopping the raid on the Social Security system, to make sure that money stays in the Social Security system and is there to pay benefits for the people who pay money into the system.

That is what this bill does. It stops the raid, it stops that money being used and taken by the Federal Government to pay for other programs and keeps that money--it is vitally important to understand-- keeps the money in the system but creates an explicit debt of the Federal Government that

must be paid. It is a public debt. It is not one of these privately held little debt transfers from one pocket to another but an explicit debt that is owed to an individual. That is about as explicit as you can get. It is a debt that has your name on the assets--Treasury bills. It is vitally important to have that ownership because it guarantees a legal right to a benefit for those taxes that are being paid in excess of what we need to pay for the Social Security system.

I see the Democrat leader is here. I will propound the unanimous consent.

Unanimous Consent Request

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader after consultation with the Democratic leader, the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1750, the Social Security Guarantee Act of 2000; provided further that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration and there be 10 hours for debate equally divided in the usual form, no amendments or motions be in order, and that following the use or yielding back of time, the bill be read a third time, and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill, with no intervening action or debate.

I further ask unanimous consent that following that vote, the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1302, the Stop the Raid on Social Security Act of 2005, and the Senate then proceed to its consideration; provided further that there be 10 hours of debate equally divided in the usual form, no amendments or motions be in order, and that following the use or yielding back of time, the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, if I may address just briefly the comments made by the Democrat leader before I propound one final unanimous consent request, the Senator from Nevada suggested that there is a legal right to Social Security benefits in the law. The fact is that a Supreme Court decision--Nestor v. Fleming, 1960--said that ``Americans have no legal right to their Social Security benefits.''

While the Senator from Nevada can say those rights are guaranteed, there may be, certainly, a claim on those benefits, and the claim is a political one for anyone in Washington, DC, who would try to change those benefits. But there is no legal right in the law to payment of those benefits. There is no guarantee in the law to the payments of those benefits. The Supreme Court has said so. This would change that.

This particular group of retirees that is being frightened that somehow or another any change in Social Security will mean their benefits are going to be reduced--even for those who are in retirement at this point--we want to take that tactic as well as the fear that goes with it off the table for our seniors and near-term seniors.

With respect to the Stop the Raid bill, the characterization that that bill somehow is taking money out of the Social Security system, I think I made it very clear in the discussion, the fact that the bill is crystal clear with respect to the money that is going into these personal accounts is invested in Treasury bills. They are obligations of the Federal Government and will be used to pay benefits to the extent that is humanly possible. This money is legally bound to the individual who put the money there, and they have their name on this account. They own the Treasury bills that are in that account. That is about as rock-solid a commitment to pay benefits--more rock-solid commitment than promises by future generations of politicians who do not pay them.

When you have an obligation of the Federal Government with your name on it, that is a pretty good obligation and it would require a default of the Federal Government not to have it paid, as opposed to Social Security benefits in a Social Security trust fund, which is a promise to pay by future generations of politicians. I suggest that this idea that somehow or another this would cut benefits--in fact, you could make the argument that the benefit created by these accounts is the only real guaranteed benefit that an individual has going forward in the system. Nevertheless, the Democrat leader objected, and I certainly respect that.

I will make one last attempt to see if we can get an agreement on just one bill.

I remind Members here that earlier this year, in March, we passed the resolution that every Member of the Senate--Democrats and Republicans, all 100 voted for--which said that Social Security reform must protect full-term and near-term retirees--I will underscore that, italicize it--from any changes to Social Security benefits. This bill accomplishes what we voted for.

I assume we voted for it because we thought we needed to communicate a message--that it was important that we wanted to communicate a message--to the American public that we meant this, that we actually believed we should not do this. And the way to accomplish that, contrary to what the Senator from Nevada said, is to put a guarantee in law.

Mr. President, I renew my request just for S. 1750, the Social Security Guarantee Act. I can ask unanimous consent, but it is identical to the request which I read earlier.