Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Leigh Ann Ross, a fellow in the office of Senator Thad Cochran, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of Senate debate on the 2007 FDA reauthorization bill.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I understand we are in morning business, is that correct?

Madam President, I came to the floor today to express my surprise that any Member of this body could attempt to characterize the current political situation as one in which the administration is failing to work with Congress. Any realistic discussion of today's political climate must revolve around the fact that the current majority has refused to work in any meaningful way with the minority party. The most blatant example of this is in the use of cloture by the majority leader to avoid consensus on the consideration of legislation.

In the 110th Congress, the majority leader so far has filed 24 cloture motions. During the same timeframe in the first session of the 109th Congress, Republicans had only filed five cloture motions. In the 108th Congress, by this date Republicans had only filed five cloture motions.

Just as surprising were the circumstances that surrounded General Petraeus's briefing yesterday. What I found remarkable was the original instinct of the Speaker of the House and our Senate majority leader was to avoid meeting the general here on Capitol Hill. Can you imagine that? The most important issue of our day is Iraq and the man we unanimously approved to lead our efforts is not worth their time to hear from? The only explanation for this is that the disdain felt by the majority in working with the minority and the administration was also extended to working with our military.

Of course, once it was clear that there was public outcry in not meeting General Petraeus, they relented. But what was also evident is there was an effort to avoid actually believing anything the general had to say about the situation on the ground. General Petraeus is not giving us information that has been filtered through some political process. He is giving a factual and sobering account of what is happening, block by block, in Iraq.

Yet the other side of the aisle, with a few exceptions, wants to cover their ears and not listen to the facts. They would rather pretend they know what is going on in Iraq rather than hear it from the general again.

The situation in Iraq is a dynamic and ever-changing one, and after yesterday's briefing, it is more clear to me than ever that we must resist arbitrary deadlines to our fight in Iraq.

But my Democratic colleagues would rather play politics with our men and women in the field and score a few points for the far left wing of their party. They would rather play politics on the Senate floor than work to pass meaningful legislation.

I ask the majority leader and the other side of the aisle to put politics aside and do the right thing, work in a truly bipartisan manner to do what the American people expect us to do.

This obstruction and unwillingness to work in a truly bipartisan effort to provide funding to our troops who are even now in harm's way is outrageous and disappointing.

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

Mr. President, last night we had our first and only conference committee meeting where all the members from both Appropriations Committees who are on the conference committee, including members on the House side, had an opportunity to come together for their first gathering. I predict it will be the only gathering. Everything else in that supplemental has been worked out behind doors, and a lot of us were not privy to it until legislation was proposed in the conference committee yesterday.

I am very disappointed in that piece of legislation. There is a huge increase in the amount of dollars being spent to try to placate some of those who may otherwise oppose the legislation.

But my main concern with that legislation is it has timelines and benchmarks in it that are going to tend to micromanage the conflict in Iraq. I think that is a bad idea. In fact, I have indicated I am not willing to sign the conference report that is going to come out of that particular committee because of the language in there that does lay down timelines and benchmarks. That creates a problem for our commanders in the field in Iraq.

Mr. President, it was not very many months ago the Senate unanimously approved General Petraeus to head our efforts in Iraq. Many Members have extolled the virtues of the general--his education, his leadership, and his commitment to his soldiers.

Unfortunately, we are still confronted with the reality that some want to tie General Petraeus's hands. Confusingly enough, they want to reject the strategy General Petraeus has proposed in Iraq even before he has been given the full opportunity to perform his mission.

I ask again: Why would we support him and recognize his stellar career with a unanimous nomination vote but not give him the means to get the job done? For what reason did my colleagues agree to send him to Iraq as the commander of our forces? His strategy in Iraq was made very clear, both publicly and privately, and yet we are not willing to support it. It is vexing.

We need to avoid micromanaging the war from the floor of the Senate. Let our Commander in Chief perform his duties, and let our military leaders do their jobs. If we do not support them fully in the supplemental bill, then I must continue to vote against any legislation that sets arbitrary deadlines and thresholds in Iraq--and plead with my colleagues to do the same.

We cannot afford to set a deadline and walk away from Iraq. The cost of failure is too great to our future long-term national security. It is in America's security interests to have an Iraq that can sustain, govern, and defend itself. Too much is at stake to simply abandon Iraq at this point. The price of failure is simply too great.

Let me remind my colleagues that we have seen terrible results from political motives being placed above military necessities--the attempt at rescuing the American Embassy hostages from Tehran, or Beirut in the 1980s, and Somalia in the 1990s. Leaving Iraq in the current situation would be like the ending of our efforts in those areas as well. Our withdrawal from these countries embolden the terrorists. Bin Laden himself is on record after these withdrawals criticizing our lack of will and questioning our commitment to fighting these zealots. We have to learn from our mistakes in the past.

How have we gotten to this point? Well, many of my colleagues in the Senate continue to beat the drum of the Iraq Study Group Report. They continue to state that their withdrawal proposal follows the report's recommendations.

I would simply like to point out something to my colleagues. Unlike the supplemental bill that will soon be voted on--or what I would like to call our surrender document--the Iraq Study Group Report does not call for us to walk away from our mission. They do not call for us to walk away from our mission. In fact, the Iraq Study Group Cochair, James Baker, recently had this to say about artificial deadlines:

The [Iraq Study Group] report does not set timetables or

deadlines for the removal of troops, as contemplated by the

supplemental spending bills the House and Senate passed. In

fact, the report specifically opposes that approach. As many

military and political leaders told us, an arbitrary deadline

would allow the enemy to wait us out and would strengthen the

positions of extremists over moderates.

So here we are, a must-pass bill that flies in the face of what the Iraq Study Group has recommended. But the Democratic majority is well aware of what effect slowing down passage of the supplemental means to the Department of Defense as a whole. Particularly, the House of Representatives has dragged its feet in appointing conferees to the bill, knowing full well the President intends to veto this legislation. In fact, just yesterday, President Bush stated he would strongly object to any deadlines, stating that:

An artificial timetable of withdrawal would say to an

enemy, ``Just wait them out.'' It would say to the Iraqis,

``Don't do hard things necessary to achieve our objectives.''

And it would be discouraging to our troops.

He also stated he does not want ``Washington politicians trying to tell those who wear the uniform how to do their job.'' I agree with the President wholeheartedly.

By placing the President in the precarious position of vetoing this bill, even in the dire financial straits it places the Department of Defense, the other side of the aisle has chosen to play politics rather than fund a clean bill that gives our soldiers in the field the resources they need.

The question remains, if the other side truly believes the war is lost, then why not cut off funding for the war entirely? The power of the purse is in our constitutional authority as a Congress. If the majority party wants to dictate Iraq policy to the President, rather than put limitations on our military in Iraq, which would be a disaster, they should attempt to no longer fund our efforts.

But I doubt that will happen because they know they do not have the votes or the support for such a precipitous withdrawal. Instead, the ``slow bleed strategy'' will continue from our colleagues in the Senate and the House that will, in my opinion, leave our troops dejected and less safe than before. This ill-advised strategy will clearly hand Al Jazeera its propaganda message.

There is no doubt we face extremely difficult challenges in Iraq. We have not made enough progress. Citizens of Iraq must be willing to fight for their own freedom. The President recognizes this, and his new plan is the result of increased commitments from the Iraqi Prime Minister. The President has developed a new plan with new leadership. We should not jerk the rug out from under those we have put in charge in Iraq.

I ask my colleagues to reject this bill and let us craft a clean funding bill that will meet the priorities and needs of our men and women in Iraq.

Mr. President, that concludes my remarks.

Mr. President, my wife Joan and I were horrified at the violence and bloodshed at Virginia Tech on Monday.

I was already preparing to come to the floor today to speak on another tragedy. Today marks the eighth anniversary of the Columbine murders. Next Thursday, it will be 7 months since the shooting at Platte Canyon High School in Bailey, CO. April has become a month of awful memories, a month of terrible reminders of the presence of evil and the ability of lost souls to stray far into the darkness.

I stood on this floor in April 1999 to express my shock and dismay at what had happened in Littleton. I offered my condolences to all those who lost loved ones, and to those whose loved ones have been wounded, hurt, and terrified. Today I remember them again, but I also must add sympathy and support for those at Virginia Tech.

Words cannot adequately convey the deep sense of loss all of us are feeling over this tragedy. But words--these words, and the words of our prayers--are what we have to offer.

Yet again, America is in shock.

There are far too many of my colleagues who have had this experience--who have watched as news of school violence spread across our country. This week's tragedy was in Virginia, but it is obviously of nationwide concern.

Thirty-two lives, most of them young and from the best and brightest in our society, ended Monday by savage violence. Last year, one lost life in Bailey; thirteen lives lost in 1999 at Columbine in Littleton; and there are others lost around this Nation, and around the world, in similar tragedies: Dawson College in Montreal, Gutenberg School in Erfurt, Germany.

These are wounds, scars, that will not be removed, and for those who bear the worst of this burden my wife and I offer all our compassion, our sympathy and our prayers.

Our Nation continues to grieve with the families and friends of those killed and the injured students and teachers. Although we know exhaustive details of what happened at Columbine, and are learning more from Blacksburg, we are still attempting to understand why. People are trying to cope with the terror that keeps thrusting itself into our lives. It has become obvious at this point that there are no easy answers. We need to examine the problems facing our youth, but it is critical that we take time to carefully consider the solutions being offered.

In the coming months there will be time, and there will be a need, for us to commit ourselves to finding a way to attempt to prevent this from happening again. We must ask ourselves how this could happen, and what can be done to prevent it. There is, I am sure, no simple solution. But we must pledge ourselves to doing what we can. After Columbine, the Nation took a serious look at school safety. But Bailey--and the murders in Pennsylvania last year at Nickel Mines Amish School--showed us that it is not always troubled students. Virginia Tech showed us it is not just grade schools or high schools. We need to think about ways to provide a better, more secure future.

Watching the aftermath in Blacksburg, I am reminded of the healing Colorado undertook 8 Aprils ago. I remember the memorial service held the weekend after the Columbine murders. Tens of thousands of people attended the memorial service. Among those gathered in sorrow, Joan and I witnessed a strong belief in God. We prayed together and searched for answers. I hope the students, faculty and families of Virginia Tech can find their way to face this terrible time.

Again, I offer my deepest sympathy to those who are suffering. And I want to let my colleagues from Virginia, and their constituents, know the people of Colorado will be thinking of you today as we mark the eighth anniversary of Columbine.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to clarify my position on stem cell research. As a veterinarian I understand the need for research and scientific advancement. Current law does not prohibit any sort of stem cell research. In fact, all forms of stem cell research have flourished under current law.

I can not and will not support legislation that would drive abortion. Therefore I cannot support S. 5. This legislation would allow for Federal dollars to be used to incentivize the further destruction of human embryos for research purposes. I do not support this use of Federal funds. I will not oppose private industry from doing embryonic stem cell research, but it would be very irresponsible to use Federal taxpayer dollars to fund such a contentious issue.

Science is advancing. Over the past weeks and months research using adult stem cells has had many breakthroughs. The use of amniotic fluid and placental stem cells has much of the same potential that embryonic stem cells have, but they are not as controversial. S. 30 provides resources to further research in the area of adult stem cell research. Because of the emphasis on adult stem cell research, I support S. 30 and will vote in favor of S. 30 later today.

I not only understand the need for scientific advancement, but also for ethical boundaries. We should not be using Federal dollars to drive abortion, when there are alternative opportunities for scientific advancement that are not as contentious.

Mr. President, I wish today to commemorate the life of retired Marine Captain Raymond Gerald Murphy. Captain Murphy passed away on April 6, 2007, but left behind a legacy that will not soon be forgotten. His legacy of courage, valor, and commitment to his country will forever remain a part of the history and heart of the United States.

Captain Murphy was born and raised in Pueblo, CO. After graduating from Adams State College, he selflessly volunteered for the U.S. Marine Corps and was sent to officer training school. At only 23 years old, 2nd Lieutenant Murphy led a Marine platoon to perform an evacuation mission in the hills of South Korea after U.S. troops had sustained months of heavy mortar attack from enemy forces. Lieutenant Murphy bravely commanded a small group of men up the hill to survey the situation. Met by intense enemy fire, Lieutenant Murphy pressed on to rescue wounded and killed marines, while continuing to support combat platoons. Realizing that all platoon commanders had been either killed or severely wounded, Murphy found himself in charge of the attack and began reorganizing his men. Murphy ordered his men to carry the wounded back down the hill for medical attention, and carried many men on his own back.

Having sustained a wound to his left side, and shot through his right hand, Murphy refused medical help until all of his men were brought to safety. Wounded, he continued to go back up the hill, facing continued enemy fire, until every injured and fallen marine was carried back down. As the last man down the hill, Lieutenant Murphy left not a single man on that shattered hillside in South Korea.

On October 27, 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower bestowed upon Lieutenant Murphy the Medal of Honor, the highest award for his courage and heroic action during the Korean War. Lieutenant Murphy's Medal of Honor citation reads, ``His resolute and inspiring leadership, exceptional fortitude and great personal valor reflect the highest credit upon Second Lieutenant Murphy and enhance the finest traditions of the United States Naval Service.'' I believe this encapsulates the essence of his service and patriotism as a U.S. marine.

I am honored to stand before the Senate today to pay tribute to the life and service of CPT Raymond Murphy. I would like to offer my condolences to his wife Marry Ann and his four children. His family has lost a husband and a father, and this Nation has lost a truly noble man, but may his gallantry and heroism be memorialized forever in the freedoms of this great country.

Mr. President, today I wish to speak about an upstanding citizen of Colorado--Lewis Entz.

Former State Senator Entz will be receiving an honorary degree from Adams State College at their spring commencement on May 5, 2007. This honor will be bestowed upon him in recognition of the work he has done for the college and, more importantly, the San Luis Valley.

Lew Entz is the owner and operator of Entz Farms. He is a licensed pilot, a husband and father of four, and a Marine Corps veteran of the Korean war. Before spending nearly 20 years serving the people of region in the Colorado General Assembly, he was an Alamosa County commissioner for 14 years.

I served in the Colorado Legislature with then-Representative Entz for 8 years. We worked together on small airports, agriculture, and water. During all my time dealing with him, I learned enough to heartily agree with the board of trustees of Adams State College in their assessment of his value to his community, region, and State.

Lew's vast knowledge of Colorado's complex water laws was incredibly important to his district. Water is the most important aspect of existence in the San Luis Valley. Lew, as a farmer, has a full appreciation of this. Lew tirelessly worked for years to protect this resource for his constituents.

There is no one who has served the people of the San Luis Valley more vigorously or better than Lew Entz. I congratulate him on this honor from Adams State College, and want to thank him for his four decades of service to the people of the San Luis Valley and the State of Colorado.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for allowing me to speak and granting me the time right here in my schedule.

I rise today to reflect on the current emergency supplemental bill that is before us. I believe, as many do in this body, the current situation in Iraq is not sustainable but that it requires positive change, not defeatism. I think the worst thing we could do would be to give the terrorists of the world an opportunity to declare victory. In the long run, that would make it more difficult to assure Americans will be safe.

This bill includes conditions that do not support the commanders on the ground and sets artificial deadlines for troop withdrawal. I have consistently said we should give the President's plan time to work. There are signs it is.

I read today General McCaffrey's assessment. While not upbeat, he did find that ``the situation on the ground has clearly and measurably improved.'' He says we have ``little time left.'' I agree. But ``little time'' is not to set a deadline. Doing so changes the entire strategic picture. If you will forgive me some frivolity, it is the difference between the 2-minute warning and the ninth inning. We do not want to let the insurgents know they just have to let the clock run down. The insurgents might not be actually watching C-SPAN, but they do know what we do here, what we say here and can plan accordingly. This is not the time to micromanage the war from Washington and the Congress.

Outside this body, decisions have been made for a new direction in Iraq. The President has laid out his new strategy to the public. ADM William Fallon is in place as CENTCOM commander whose area of responsibility is Iraq. We have a new commander of our forces in Iraq, and that is GEN David Petraeus. Let me remind those who need to hear it that we sent him to Iraq by a vote of 81 to 0 to win, not to withdraw. Soon we will have a new diplomatic team on the ground in Baghdad as well.

This shift in strategies also includes something I believe is absolutely imperative to success: a real commitment from the Iraqi Prime Minister to get his Government to play a much stronger role in the destiny of Iraq. The President is confident we now have that commitment. I hope we can move on to more pressing issues in the Senate rather than repeating the same ones time and again.

One reason I do not support the withdrawal language is I believe it is based on an assumption that by leaving Iraq Americans will be safer. The terrorists have made it abundantly clear that Iraq is central to their war against the civilized world. They are committed to fighting there and will not stop unless we defeat them. If we have to fight, it is preferable not to fight on our own soil.

We are also facing a credible veto threat. This bill is going nowhere--at least nowhere beyond the President's desk, which means we are delaying the needed funds for our military. This is no surprise. The President has been very clear. When he has been this clear, he has not deviated from his described track that he will follow.

I hope we can get past this and move on to more pressing issues such as passing a bill that will provide our troops the money they need.

Finally, I will not support this bill because the last thing we need to do in Congress is hurt the morale or the mission of our men and women fighting in Iraq, especially when we have adopted the President's plan, which is a brandnew plan to succeed in Iraq. I believe it is the right course for our troops on the ground at this time.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the service and sacrifice of Officer Doug Byrne.

My wife Joan and I were deeply saddened to hear of the senseless death of Officer Doug Byrne while in the line of duty March 26, in Aurora, CO, responding to a man dying of a seizure.

It takes a person of great conviction and courage to become an officer of the law. It takes a commitment to community, hard work, and patience. Officer Doug Byrne possessed these very qualities. And unfortunately, Officer Doug Byrne paid the ultimate price.

Officer Doug Byrne was the 5th Aurora police officer to be killed in the line of duty. According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, more than 17,500 officers have been killed nationwide since 1792, including 236 in Colorado.

Doug Byrne was the second Aurora officer to be killed in the past 6 months. Aurora Police Detective Mike Thomas made his ultimate sacrifice last September.

A native of Aurora at 37 years of age, Doug joined the Aurora Police Department in 2004, and was known for his dedication to his profession. He served as a field training officer for recruits new to the force. From 1998-2004, Doug served the City of Glendale, CO, Police Department. There he distinguished himself by receiving the medal of valor by rescuing distraught tenants in an apartment complex fire. Officer Doug Byrne is someone who knows what service to country is as well. Doug served his country as a U.S. Marine in the Persian Gulf War during the liberation of Kuwait. Doug was a graduate of Gateway High School in Aurora.

The City of Aurora will forever be grateful for Officer Doug Byrne's service and dedication to the safety and well-being of others, and his contributions will be remembered.

Officer Byrne is survived by his parents. Doug had many friends and will be deeply missed.

I extend my deepest sympathy to the family of Officer Doug Byrne. May his bravery and unwavering sense of duty serve as a role model for the future generation of law officers.

Thank you for your service, Officer Byrne. Rest in peace, Sir. End of watch: Monday, March 26, 2007.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 521 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, this is an amendment that puts in reconciliation language a 1-percent reduction in spending in the mandatory programs that have been identified as having fraud, waste, and abuse. It excludes Armed Services, Veterans, and Social Security.

The amendment comes about because of the 2004 budget resolution, where Congress directed the Comptroller General to submit a comprehensive report identifying instances in which the committees of jurisdiction may make legislative changes to improve the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of Federal programs in their jurisdiction.

In compliance with our request, the GAO submitted a 300-plus-page report full of specific examples of legislative changes with potential to yield budgetary savings. This will reduce the debt by $13 billion the first budget year and $71 billion over 5 years.

Mr. President, I ask that we waive the point of order, and I call for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, the budget spends $88 billion over 5 years on ineffective programs and raises taxes by $900 billion to do so. My amendment reduces spending by 25 percent on programs rated ineffective by OMB's program assessment rating tool. PART has evaluated almost 1,000 programs accounting for 96 percent of all Federal spending. Only 26 are rated ineffective in discretionary spending.

Chairman Conrad will say the budget resolution cannot tell appropriators how to implement the savings. My amendment simply allows the appropriators, with a great deal of flexibility, to find those savings that are proven to exist. It also tells agencies we expect results from programs we fund.

If my colleagues vote for this amendment, we will save the taxpayers $18 billion over 5 years and pay down the Federal debt by $18 billion. I believe if we cannot trim $4 billion out of a $2.9 trillion budget on ineffective programs, we cannot honestly tell taxpayers we are serious about fiscal responsibility.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah for yielding. I appreciate his work and the leadership he brings forward here in the Senate from the great State of Utah.

I am going to vote against the budget, and this is the main reason why: It raises taxes by $900 billion over 5 years and a projected $3.3 trillion over 10 years. That translates into a tax increase of $2,641 per household annually over the next decade.

It includes 22 reserve funds that could be used to raise taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars more. It increases discretionary spending by nearly 9 percent in fiscal year 2008, and does not terminate one single program. It completely ignores the impending tsunami of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid costs. It encourages rules that bias the budget toward tax increases.

I had an amendment earlier today that we voted on which looked at ineffective programs as described by the Office of Management and Budget. This was in response to legislation we passed over a decade ago, and we instructed the agencies to look at setting goals and objectives and then coming forward and seeing how they met these. OMB looked at these and said there were 26 out of over 1,000 programs where they didn't meet those goals. If you took these 26 programs, we were looking at $88 billion over a 5-year period of time.

I had an amendment that said: Let's give instructions to the appropriators to go into these various areas and see if we can't come up with $18 billion of reduced spending and programs that have been classified by OMB. These are civil servants working for the Federal Government. They don't have a political agenda, just strictly looking at the program objectively. I was disappointed the amendment did not pass.

Tomorrow I plan on introducing an amendment that is going to call for reconciliation for a 1-percent elimination of fraud, waste, and abuse in a number of mandated programs which does not include--does not include--armed services, veterans, and Social Security. The purpose is to improve the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of Federal programs and to reduce the Federal debt.

The other amendment, on the savings we voted on earlier this year, was money that was directed toward reducing the Federal debt. This amendment tomorrow will instruct the authorizing committees to reduce spending by 1 percent by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse. The amendment reduces waste, fraud, and abuse in mandatory programs by $13 billion in the first budget year, and $71 billion over 5 years. All of the savings will be used to reduce the debt.

This amendment carries across the finish line work that Congress started in 2003. In the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution, the Congress directed the Comptroller General to submit a comprehensive report identifying instances in which the committees of jurisdiction may make legislative changes to improve the economy, the efficiency, and effectiveness of Federal programs within their jurisdiction.

In compliance with our request, GAO--again staffed by professionals who do not carry a political agenda--submitted a 300-plus page report chock full of specific examples of legislative changes with the potential to yield budgetary savings. What have we done with that 300- page report that we requested? Nothing, absolutely nothing.

My amendment picks up where we left off and encourages the authorizing committees to improve the economy and the efficiency and effectiveness of programs under their jurisdiction. So in my effort to eliminate waste and to bring about good stewardship of taxpayer dollars, I ask the Members of this body to support it. It is not a partisan issue. Oversight is a key function of Congress, and when we set up these pieces of legislation to set up reasonable oversight as Members of the Senate, we need to be prepared to carry

those recommendations forward when they come to our attention. I hope this amendment will enjoy broad and bipartisan support. Both amendments were supported by Citizens Against Government Waste. I think it is one small step we can do to at least bring about an effort to reduce fraud, waste, and abuse, and these programs have been clearly identified by both this particular amendment, by GAO, and the previous amendment by

Mr. President, while I am getting set up, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending business. I have two amendments at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent to call them up en bloc and send them to the desk.

Yes. I plan on calling it up--I wish to call up both amendments so I have votes on them. The first amendment, and then the second amendment I plan on putting in the group of amendments we will vote on at the end, which we only allow a few minutes for debate. The first amendment I was going to call up--this will be the one we will debate and take up floor time.

Mr. President, I wish to send up----

I will be glad to get those to my colleagues. Here is the one on discretionary spending, the one we will be debating during this time period. Would the Senator like the second amendment before I send it up?

That is the one that was offered in committee dealing with discretionary spending. The second amendment deals with mandatory spending.

That would be fine.

I wish to make sure we get an opportunity to vote on the second amendment.

I thank the Senator very much.

Amendment No. 491

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

Mr. President, I wish to make a few comments about the PART program in general, which is a program that has been put in place by the Congress through a piece of legislation that was passed more than a decade ago. This program directs the agencies to set up measurable goals and objectives, and then we go in later on and those goals and objectives are evaluated to see if the agency is actually meeting those goals and objectives.

The piece of legislation, which was passed more than a decade ago, was called the Government Results and Procedures Act. So these agencies have had time to work with this program for some time under the Clinton administration as well as the Bush administration.

When making funding decisions, Members of Congress should consider what they are buying for the taxpayer. Funded programs should be effective and efficient. The Federal Government has completed comprehensive assessments of the performance of almost 1,000 programs, representing 96 percent of the total program funding using this Program Assessment Rating Tool, which is referred to as PART. These detailed program assessments and the evidence on which they are based are available for the public to view at www.expectmore.gov. It is a very good reference for the public to use--for, in fact, Members of Congress or any agencies to know exactly where they stand as far as where their performance standards are concerned.

These assessments represent the combined wisdom of career officials. This is not a political process, these are objective evaluations done by career officials at agencies and OMB--the Office of Management and Budget--and are based on evidence of that program's performance.

Programs assessed with the PART receive an overall rating. The best rating they can get is ``effective.'' Then it goes to ``moderately effective,'' ``adequate,'' ``results not demonstrated'' or ``ineffective.'' While a program's overall rating should not be the sole determinant of its funding, Congress should prioritize funding programs that perform well. Ineffective programs, in particular, should be scrutinized to determine if the resources they use could be better spent elsewhere and if their goals could be achieved through another means.

When determining where to invest resources, Members of Congress can look to the PART for important information. No. 1: Does the program address an existing problem, interest or need, and those that do not should not be funded.

The other question to be asked is: Does the program have performance goals that relate to the outcomes the American people want? Those that do not may not be worthwhile investments of taxpayer dollars. Do independent, rigorous evaluations demonstrate that the program is effective? If not, Congress may want to reconsider whether to fund the program.

If evaluations have not been conducted, Congress may want to consider investing some money in an evaluation to determine if the program is having its intended impact.

Is the program working to improve its performance is another question we ask. A program that does not have an improvement plan in place or is not working aggressively to improve may not be the best investment of resources.

The other question: If an increase in funding is requested for a program, has the program explained how the additional funding will impact its performance? Programs that cannot articulate how they will use their resources simply aren't the best candidates for investment.

So that is what the PART Program is all about. It is a good program, and it is being implemented more and more throughout the agencies.

Some of the PART findings are programs that have been ineffective. Let's look at a few of those.

PART found that actual additional natural gas reserves attributable to technology developed by the Natural Gas Technology Program have been relatively small. Moreover, as noted by the National Academy of Sciences:

It is difficult to separate the contributions made by the

Department of Energy and contributions made by industry and

others.

Another program rated ineffective by PART is the Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers Program, which may not concentrate enough on providing training and employment. Each year, more than 60 percent of the program's approximately 30,000 participants receive only supportive services, such as emergency cash assistance. They don't carry on with the goal and objective, which is training and employment. Although these services are important, they are not contributing significantly to helping participants gain stable, year-round employment. If we want to train them, we need to look at that program.

PART found the same thing with the Health Professions Program. One study found that only 1.5 percent of the physicians trained by institutions receiving the program's family medicine training grant provided health care in areas with a physician shortage, compared to 1.1 percent of physicians trained by other institutions. There is only a four-tenths of a percent performance difference. What is that program accomplishing?

PART found no evidence that the Radiation and Exposure Screening and Education Program reaches the maximum number of beneficiaries or the beneficiaries who are at the greatest risk. There is not even an estimate of the number of people potentially affected by uranium and nuclear testing activities and where they might live.

Another program rated ineffective by PART is the Juvenile Accountability Block Grants Program. It was found ineffective because it has no measurable impact on either juvenile crime or the juvenile justice system to date.

These are only a few of the programs that have been looked at by the PART Program. I think they provide the information Members of Congress need to evaluate whether programs are ineffective.

The amendment before us just addresses a portion of discretionary spending. The full PART Program evaluates mandatory programs and discretionary programs.

I put forward two amendments. The amendment before us is the discretionary program where we will get a considerable amount of debate. The mandatory amendment is one the chairman asked be reviewed, and he assured me I will have an opportunity to offer that amendment at a later time.

So I rise today asking Members to support this amendment where we deal with the discretionary spending as the PART Program is being applied. The overall purpose of the amendment is to pay down the Federal debt and eliminate Government waste by reducing spending on programs rated ``ineffective'' by the Office of Management and Budget's PART program. This is through the career professionals in the agency. This is not driven by any kind of political agenda. PART is a Government-wide assessment of the performance of almost 1,000 programs, again, representing 96 percent of total program funding.

If we look at programs in the discretionary spending area which are rated ineffective, it amounts, over the time period of this budget, which is 5 years, to $88 billion of program spending. My amendment says we will reduce 25 percent of the spending in this area, which is about $17 billion over the period of 5 years. We will say that those programs are ineffective and we need to reduce spending for those so that we motivate the agencies to redo their programs, so they truly are accomplishing what was laid out for the original purpose of the program.

What happens in our budget that is before us is we have $900 billion in increasing taxes by default because we don't do anything to extend those tax provisions which are expiring in 2010 and before. So my point is this: We are forcing the taxpayers to pay more into the Federal budget, and at the same time we are spending $88 billion on ineffective programs.

My amendment says we are going to take a portion of the $88 billion-- about $18 billion--out of here for a strong signal from the Congress that we want to support effective programs and we want the taxpayer dollars spent in a responsible way. My amendment doesn't take all of the $88 billion, realizing there may be points in time when another program is not meeting its goals and needs more money. So that flexibility is allowed in this particular amendment. It doesn't target any specific program. Those programs which I

recounted to you are just representative of some of the efforts that happen under the PART Program. It is a wonderful way for the Members of Congress to begin to evaluate whether a program is effective, and then not just leave it there but say, through the budget, to those agencies: You have to get your act together; we don't tolerate using taxpayer dollars--particularly when we are increasing your taxes--to allow those programs to go on in an ineffective manner.

Almost worse than being rated ineffective, we have programs out there that have made absolutely no effort at all to measure their results. I believe these are the worst offenders. In the following years, I hope Congress will look at those programs. They have absolutely refused to do anything to create accountability so that the Members of Congress can evaluate what is going on in those programs.

So that is what my amendment is all about. It is about saving taxpayer dollars in a responsible way; it is about forcing managers of these programs to put in effective goals and objectives so that they accomplish what the legislation intended. The budget authority is about $4.3 billion in each year, from 2008 to 2012. That comes close to about $18 billion or so, which is used to pay down the Federal debt.

I ask my colleagues in the Senate to join me in trying to bring forward more accountability in the programs we have passed. I think this is a wonderful tool we have for whatever administration is in control. This is a direct message to the agencies to get their act in order, because we are concerned about how taxpayer dollars are being spent. This is not an onerous amendment. It is trying to bring accountability to Government programs that we pass.

I reserve the remainder of my time, Mr. President.

Mr. President, let me summarize my comments and respond. I think if we look at our budget process, we hopefully--maybe not this year but next year--will be able to put in some instructions to the committees. I understand we cannot specifically tell them but, as budgeteers, we have an opportunity to put in instructions to the various committees to participate.

I hope this passes, and maybe we can deal with this in conference. If not, maybe the chairman would look at it either in conference committee or in future years and we can put in some kind of instructions and say: Look at those programs under your jurisdiction and look at the ones classified as ineffective and begin to demand more accountability on those particular programs.

I hope we can get a ``yea'' vote on both of these amendments to send a message, if nothing else, to the conference committee to get it passed. If it doesn't work out this year, maybe we can work it out in future years.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Citizens Against Government Waste in support of both of my amendments be printed in the Record.

I yield back my time.

I have a question, if the Senator will recognize me for a question, if the Senator will allow me to ask a question of Senator Baucus. I think the Senator from New Hampshire has the time.

I have a question.

In effect, this adds to the debt?

In effect, this amendment adds to the total debt?

I had $194 billion, but $195 billion. That seemed to me it did increase the debt. Maybe we can check that out.

Madam President, I have been listening to this debate from my office. I tell you, I have to agree with the chairman of the Budget Committee. I joined him in voting against this budget. But generally this is what this budget does: we are back to the old spend- and-tax ways and increases in the debt.

This budget has an increase, over a $900 billion tax increase. We have a nondefense increase in spending of $146 billion. The President has already come in with his budget with a 50-percent increase in spending. Now on top of this, this budget provides $146 billion.

Then we look at the debt figures. We see that the debt is increasing by $2.2 trillion. This is unimaginable. If the tax increase goes into place--and that happens because there is no provision in here to make the tax cuts that were passed in the Republican Congress in 2001 and 2003 to make them permanent--by default these taxes are going to increase over $900 billion. That is going to be the largest tax increase in the history of this country.

I want to look at the $146 billion. I think we need to pull up a spendometer and talk a little bit about how much spending there is, if you are already starting at $146 billion--because you are $146 billion above what the President's budget proposal is--based on a $50 billion increase.

So in addition to that, we are seeing a tremendous growth in the deficit, increasing by $440 billion. We see mandatory spending growing unchecked by $411 billion, fiscal years 2008-2012. We spend more than $1 trillion of the Social Security surplus. Ultimately, what we end up with is a growth in the debt of over $2.2 trillion.

Now, we have heard those who are supporting this budget and justify it because they are going to tax the rich. I think we ought to take a look at who pays taxes in this country. You know the top 1 percent of the wealthy pay 37 percent of the taxes. The top 5 percent pay 57 percent of the taxes. So if you are going to raise taxes, the only place you can go is there.

If we look to the top 10 percent, there is another 10 on top of that. You have got 31 percent plus 37. We have 68 percent of the taxes that are paid by the top 11 percent of the taxpayers of this country. So we have a very progressive tax system.

The tax cuts that we put in place in 2003 really stimulated this economy. As a result of those tax cuts, there is more money available for local governments to help pay for their programs. There is more money available for the Federal Government. That is why it was so easy for the majority party to put together this budget--because of the large amount of revenues coming into the Federal Government.

I attribute that to the fact that we cut taxes for the working men and women of this country, primarily those who own their small business, by the way, who put in more than 40 hours a week. Many times they work 7 days a week to keep those small businesses operating, supporting their communities. That is where we really generate the revenue.

We are going to start talking about how we are going to tax them now so that they do not keep as much in their own pocket. The reality of that is going to be that we are going to depress our economic growth. We are talking about increasing taxes on corporations that do business all over the world. Well, they are in a competitive environment. They have to compete with other countries. We cannot constrict our economy to strictly American borders. We have to extend beyond that. If we really want to get our economy going, we are going to have to talk about trade. We are going to have to talk about doing business all over the world.

We cannot expect it to grow and constrict it to the borders of this country. That is what we are doing, in the tax policy that we have heard from the other side of the aisle.

The question always comes back to all the spending that we have in this bill, some $146 billion above the $50 billion increase that the President already put in place. Where are we going to get the money to do that? The only way that happens is when we do not act on putting those tax cuts in place that have served us so well to grow this economy. They talk about closing the tax gap.

We had testimony in committee, and they thought that the reasonable amount was $35 billion in collections as a reasonable expectation over 5 years. Yet on the other side, they insist it is going to be much more, regardless of what the IRS--the ones who would know--said in our Budget Committee hearings.

I think this is a budget that is going to create problems for us down the line. It is going to begin to create problems as soon as it is passed. It is going to create spending problems. It is going to create tax increases by default. We are going to see the debt continue to increase by $2.2 trillion.

Let's look and see how individuals are going to be impacted by this tax increase that will happen in this budget by default because we do not do anything to keep them from expiring in the outyears of this budget.

A family of four, earning $40,000 a year--that is if the husband and wife are both working and making $20,000 each--will face a tax increase of $2,052. And we have 113 million taxpayers who will see their taxes go up an average of $2,216.

Now, when we look at this a little further, we see that over 5 million individuals and families who have seen their income tax liabilities completely eliminated will now have to pay taxes. That is the new tax bracket that we have created to provide tax relief for many of those working families. So that is going to expire. When that expires, that is going to impact 5 million individuals and families who will again have to pay taxes that they were allowed to get by without paying so they could pay for their educational costs for their kids, so they could pay for health care, and so they could pay for the needs of the family--food and shelter.

We are not talking about individuals who are making a lot of money in this case. Forty-five million families with children will face an average increased tax of $2,864; that is the marriage penalty. Fifteen million elderly individuals will pay an average tax increase of $2,934. These are the people who are on retirement. Twenty-seven million small business owners will pay an average tax increase higher than any of the groups that I mentioned of $4,712. That is where our economic growth is generated.

If you want to see your economy grow like we did, you target the small business sector. Well, that is true in Colorado; that is true nationally. I think one of the things that stimulated growth of the small business economy more than anything else was the expense provisions that we put in place so that small business owners could write off over $100,000 a year, expense them out in one year. They took that money and they invested it. They invested it in equipment they needed. If they were a contractor, they went and bought a Bobcat and a pickup and got to work. If they were a farmer, they bought a new harvester and got to work. If they were a physician, they got an x ray and had more work to do. If they were a veterinarian, maybe they bought some lab equipment and had more work to do. So by targeting the small business sector, we generated all these jobs. It churned the economy.

I had an opportunity to visit with Dr. Greenspan, former chairman of the Fed. I said: One of the things that has not been talked about much is how the small businesses generated this economy. I think the expensing provisions we put in there had a lot to do with that. He said: I agree with you. I don't think that people really appreciate what has happened because of the tax cuts that were directed toward small business.

There are many important items that are not to be found in this particular legislation. There is no long-term entitlement reform. There is no permanent AMT relief, no permanent tax relief at all with the tax cuts that were put in place to stimulate the economy. There is no funding for ongoing war costs between 2009, no proposals on reducing mandatory spending or the debt.

People of Colorado have asked me: How is this likely to affect me? Let me talk a little bit about how this could affect taxpayers of the State of Colorado. In Colorado, the impact of repealing the Republican tax relief would be felt widely. For example, more than 1.6 million taxpayers Statewide who are benefiting from a new lower 10-percent bracket would now see their tax rates go up; 590,000 married couples would face higher tax rates because of an increase in the marriage penalty; 432,000 families with children would pay more taxes because the child tax credit would expire; 310,000 investors, including seniors, would pay more because of an increase in the tax rate on capital gains and dividends. Remember, seniors who have retired have a lot at stake when we talk about capital gains taxes and dividends because they have put their money many times in the stock market. They have put it in investments. As retired individuals, they are finding that they are beginning to pull that out. The consequences are that without that tax break, they would not have been able to save as much money toward their retirement.

To wrap this up, I wish to remind people I will be keeping a spending barometer here. We are at $146 billion already over what the President proposed. We are not off to a very good start on this budget. We are going to see it increase considerably before this week is over.

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

Mr. President, I would like to have permission to alternate between Republicans and Democrats. If I could be lined up to speak after--who was the first Democrat after Senator Bunning? Senator Schumer. If I may be allowed to speak next, I would appreciate it. I was lined up to speak at 2 o'clock originally, but we had the vote at 2 o'clock and, obviously, that has been slid out now. If the Senator from Connecticut can move me in there, I would appreciate it. We have always alternated between Republicans and Democrats.

All right. I was set up to speak at 2 o'clock, and then we had the vote at 2 o'clock.

Mr. President, 10 minutes. Senator Cornyn and I want to engage in a colloquy, and then I have a few comments. We just need 10 minutes.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of my amendment No. 272 to the Improving America's Security Act, and I believe it will do that, improve America's security.

We have a rampant problem of identity theft in this country. Identity theft not only affects innocent victims, it poses a security threat to our country. As the 9/11 Commission put it: ``Fraud in identification documents is no longer just a problem of theft.''

We have long been aware that failure to protect the integrity of the SSN has enormous financial consequences for the Government, the people, and the business community. We now know that shortcomings in the SSN issuance process can have far graver consequences than previously imagined. The difficult lessons of September 11, 2001 have taught us that SSA can no longer afford to operate from a ``business as usual'' perspective. Whatever the cost, whatever the sacrifice, we must protect the number that has become our national identifier; the number that is the key to social, legal, and financial assimilation in this country.

We recognize SSA alone cannot resolve the monumental issues surrounding homeland security. Efforts to make our Nation safer will involve new or expanded initiatives by almost every segment of our population, including State and local governments, private industry, nongovernmental organizations, and citizens. However, we also recognize that, in endeavoring to protect our homeland, no Government system or policy should be ignored. As such, SSA, as a Federal agency and public servant, must resolve to review its systems and processes for opportunities to prevent the possibility that anyone might commit or camouflage criminal activities against the United States. We believe SSN integrity is a link in our homeland security goal that must be strengthened.

The 9/11 Commission went on to note: `` . . . all but one of the 9/11 hijackers acquired some form of U.S. identification document, some by fraud.''

I have here an inspector general's report, inspector general for the Social Security Administration, and he is talking about the integrity of the Social Security number. He says an important link in homeland security is the Social Security number. To specifically quote him, he says:

The difficult lessons of September 11, 2001, has taught us

that the Social Security Administration can no longer afford

to operate from a business-as-usual perspective. Whatever the

cost, whatever the sacrifice, we must protect the number that

has become our national identifier, the number that is the

key to social, legal, and financial assimilation in this

country.

He went on to say in his report:

We believe the Social Security number integrity is a link

in our homeland security goal that must be strengthened.

For every case of identity theft, there is a thief. We have to ask ourselves: Why would someone want to steal somebody else's identity? After all, every person has an identity of their own. Why would somebody be so dissatisfied with their own identity that they deem it necessary to steal from another? The answer to that question is simple: They have something to hide. For many, the fact they are trying to hide is that they are in this country illegally. Whether someone is here illegally in pursuit of work or to carry out the work of an international terrorist organization remains anyone's guess.

What we do know, however, is that there are clear signs of when an identity has been stolen. One obvious sign is when multiple people are using the same Social Security number. By law, every Social Security number has only one true owner. It follows, if 10 people are using the same Social Security number, 9 of them are thieves: 9 of them have something to hide.

One common use of Social Security numbers is for reporting earnings. And where are earnings reported? Earnings are reported to the Social Security Administration. That means that when multiple people are reporting to the Social Security Administration using the same Social Security number, the Social Security Administration has information in its possession relating to the crime of identity theft.

What does the Social Security Administration do? Absolutely nothing. It is prohibited from sharing their information with others in our own Federal Government, such as the Secretary of Homeland Security.

I believe it is an example of what the 9/11 Commission described as, and I quote from the Commission:

The pervasive problem of managing and sharing information

across a large and unwieldy government that had been built in

a different era to confront different dangers.

In January of this year, a bipartisan group of Senators and I met with Secretary Chertoff on this very issue. Secretary Chertoff explained that, under current law, Government agencies are prevented from sharing information with one another that, if shared, could expose cases of identity theft.

My amendment tears down the wall that prevents the sharing of existing information among Government agencies and permits the Commissioner of Social Security to share information with the Secretary of Homeland Security where such information is likely to assist in discovering identity theft, Social Security number misuse or violations of immigration law.

Specifically, it requires the Commissioner to inform the Secretary of Homeland Security upon discovery of a Social Security account number being used with multiple names or where an individual has more than one person reporting earnings for him or her during a single tax year.

It seems logical that we would already be doing this, but we are not. In the meantime, we are effectively enabling thieves to continue to perpetrate the crime of identity theft.

In addition to the national security implications, for every case of identity theft there is an innocent victim.

Innocent victims like Connecticut resident John Harrison who had his active duty military ID and Social Security number stolen. The thief ran up an over $260,000 debt and opened 61 credit or bank accounts in the victim's name. Meanwhile the victim lost his job and the military decreased his retirement

pay because Phillips had run up a debt owed to the U.S. Government.

Connecticut resident John Harrison is not alone, In fact, for the seventh year in a row, with nearly 250,000 complaints, identity theft is the No. 1 complaint received by the FTC from Connecticut residents. Likewise, for the State of Maine, 2006 marked the seventh year in a row that identity theft complaints topped the Federal Trade Commission's Annual ``List of Top Consumer Complaints.''

Even my home State of Colorado is no stranger to identity theft. With 4,535 victims in 2005, we are ranked 5th in identity theft--behind only Arizona, Nevada, California, and Texas.

For instance, an 84-year-old Grand Junction woman was deemed ineligible for Federal housing assistance because her Social Security number was being used at a variety of jobs in Denver, making her income too high to qualify.

Unfortunately, for the victims of identity theft, by the time the identity theft is discovered, the damage has already been done. Yet when the Social Security Administration has reason to believe that a Social Security number is being used fraudulently, they are prevented from sharing it with the Department of Homeland Security. Withholding this information effectively enables thieves to continue to perpetrate the crime of identity theft against innocent victims.

By simply sharing information related to the fraudulent use of Social Security numbers among Government agencies, cases of identity theft could be discovered much sooner. Victims of identity theft deserve to have this existing information acted on, and my amendment allows this.

Senator Cornyn, who is on the floor with me, was at the meeting where Secretary Chertoff explained the problems with the Social Security numbers and DHS not being notified so that they could take law enforcement actions against such acts as a terrorist threat.

I wonder if Senator Cornyn would give me his impression.

I will be glad to yield.

A large portion of the population that is affected by the Social Security theft identification is the older population, those individuals on Social Security. The impact it is going to have on them is immediate in some cases because they are qualifying for a certain amount of Social Security based on the income that may be coming. If somebody else is using their Social Security number, that exceeds, perhaps, what allowances they may have to qualify for the Social Security benefits. If an individual has a job, then the effect is felt much later on.

The retired individuals of this country are most dramatically affected in this regard.

I thank the Senator from Texas for his question, and, yes, I am very much aware of that. Those States are disproportionately affected because of the overpopulation they have within their boundaries.

That is one of the problems we are facing today and one of the problems that Secretary Chertoff of Homeland Security pointed out. It is vital that we be able to identify duplicate uses of Social Security numbers because a number of the terrorists that were here on 9/11, attacking this country, were here under fraudulent IDs. It is an important aspect of law enforcement, and particularly homeland security, to be able to carry on their responsibilities.

Well, it is the very thing the 9/11 Commission was pointing out that is a problem with protecting the citizens of this country, the stovepiping of information among the various agencies and where there is no passing of information back and forth.

This is a classic example where one agency, in this case the Social Security Administration, has a number, and they know it is being used more than once throughout the country, yet nobody gets notified; it stays within the Social Security Administration. Even those law enforcement agencies within Homeland Security cannot get that information to act on it.

Secretary Chertoff said an important part of being able to carry out our function to ensure the security of this country is to get that information. Yet right now, the law explicitly prohibits the Social Security Administration from sharing that information with Homeland Security.

I think it is a problem that needs to be corrected, and the sooner we can correct that, the better.

Mr. President, let me summarize my comments by saying I think it is important, in ensuring the security of this country, that we pass this amendment. Without the sharing of that information between the various agencies, it is going to be possible for anybody who comes into this country illegally, terrorists especially, to stay within this country and operate in a way where they are not discovered. We want to have law enforcement become aware of the presence of somebody here illegally, particularly if they are a terrorist. If their intention is to either destroy a building or to lay a bomb out somewhere, they are a real threat to this country.

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