Jim Bunning

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, for too long America has ignored its energy security. Many of us can remember the energy crisis in the 1970s. We were held ransom by a monopolistic oil cartel and forced to endure shortages, gas lines, and high prices. In the early 1980s, just as America began to invest in alternative fuels, the oil-producing states of the world crashed prices to make new technology uncompetitive. During most of the last 25 years, we have enjoyed low prices and plentiful supplies. But we have had to pay a price. Today, we find that America is addicted to oil. September 11, 2001, and the hurricanes in the gulf region have shown the fragile state of our energy markets. Domestic disasters and terrorism can send energy prices spiraling out of control. Our energy resources are stretched to the limit and small supply disruptions ripple throughout the entire economy. I believe all Americans, as they see continued instability in the Middle East, China, and India, and sustained gasoline prices around $3.50, $4 a gallon, can see an energy crisis on the horizon. As you can see from the chart I have here, our production of energy has almost stayed completely flat and will stay completely flat until about 2025, unless we do something about it. On the other side, our consumption continues to escalate. So the difference between the two is the crisis at which we are now looking. This year alone, we will send about $250 billion to foreign countries--mostly in the Middle East--to buy oil, adding to the $7 trillion we have already spent in the last few decades. America has become complacent and overdependent on imported oil. No matter what energy prices are, we need to take responsibility for our reliance on imported energy and develop a secure, domestic fuel source. I believe part of that effort should be developing coal-to-liquid fuels. America happens to be blessed with significant coal reserves. Coal powers our homes and businesses. Fifty-two percent of our electricity is derived from coal. It has long been America's most abundant fuel resource and has driven our economic growth since the Industrial Revolution. Coal-to-liquid technology lets America capitalize on a domestic resource. Every dollar invested in coal-to- liquid production will stay in America, grow our economy, and create jobs. By displacing payments to foreign oil companies with domestic investment, we will actually increase the amount of funding available for other alternative fuels. It will lower energy prices for American families, improve the environment, create thousands of jobs, and bring billions of dollars in new investment to our local communities. Many of you may be asking one question right now: If this technology is so great and could replace expensive imports from the Middle East, why hasn't it been done already? The answer is simple: Costs and market uncertainty. A typical size coal-to-liquid plant costs between $3 billion and $5 billion to construct. With complicated plans and environmental permits, a new plant could take 5 to 8 years to build. This is a challenge for even the biggest risk takers on Wall Street. Raising the capital needed to develop a new technology is always difficult, but the multibillion dollar investment scale of a coal-to-liquid plant has made it nearly impossible. On top of this is the uncertainty of the price of oil. Yesterday, oil hit $69.09 cents a barrel--an all-time high. Soon we will be seeing $70 prices on a barrel of oil. We have seen this dramatic rise in the last few years. But investors are concerned that oil prices could drop to the low levels of the 1980s and make coal-to-liquid plants uncompetitive again. But even if oil prices were to drop that low in the next few decades, I believe CTL would more than pay for itself by insulating us from supply shocks and providing a secure domestic fuel source for our military, businesses such as airlines and trucking, and the average American car. The challenge for America is to leverage the private investment required for these large, expensive plants. U.S. investors remember the last time synthetic fuels were promoted in the 1970s, and remember the losses they took as oil prices collapsed in the 1980s. The scale of investment, uncertainty of oil prices, and a complicated environmental permitting process have prevented the industry from taking root in the United States. We need to take aggressive steps now to ensure that America does not continue to face high heating and gasoline costs and rely so heavily on unstable and dangerous parts of the world for our energy. I believe the answer is to provide Government support to get coal-to-liquid technology off the ground. At least it is one of the things we must consider. With modest initial investments, we can kick-start the industry and then the Government will get out of the way and let the marketplace take over. I would rather the Government not have any involvement in coal-to-liquids, but this industry needs assistance because of the threat of OPEC, oil tyrants like Hugo Chavez, and technology challenges. While these are legitimate challenges facing coal to liquid, another issue has become more and more prominent during this debate. In the last few weeks, the environmental rhetoric has been strongly against coal fuels. Unfortunately, too many people have repeated it without checking the facts. The picture opponents of coal paint is far from the truth about our fight for energy independence. It shows the same misinformed biases found in anti-coal advertisements and environmental newsletters. I want to tell you clearly and without reservation that coal-to- liquid fuel will be a clean part of our energy future. I want to show you another chart. While some may remember urban diesel pollution problems, coal to liquid will be significantly cleaner than existing fuels in terms of air pollutants such as sulfur, particulate matter, nitrogen, and aromatics. Air Force tests, laboratory tests, and environmental reports all show that coal-to- liquid fuels will reduce the air pollutants that pose a threat to human health. As you can see when you compare diesel and well-to-wheel urban emissions, compared to low-sulfur, petroleum-based diesels, you can see organic compounds, carbon monoxide, pollutants, particulate matter, and SOX, all decreasing in the coal-to-liquid area. But all of these improvements and the promise of energy security are wiped away by misleading claims that coal to liquid would produce twice as many carbon emissions as conventional fuel. That is not true. The production of coal-to-liquid fuels does release carbon twice-- once during gasification and another when burned like conventional fuels in engines. But that does not mean coal-to-liquid plants have to release twice as much carbon emissions. My amendment requires carbon capture--listen to this. I hope some people in their offices are listening to this. My amendment requires carbon capture, but recognizes that there are limits to this technology today. Carbon capture is only part of the emissions model. Nearly all of the developers we have worked with want to use biomass coal-blended feedstock to achieve emissions reductions. Believe me, I have studied coal to liquid extensively. Reports from the EPA, DOE, Princeton University, and the Idaho National Laboratories has shown the coal-to-liquids lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions rate will vary dramatically based on the technology, feedstocks, and process used. These researchers have shown that the coal-to-liquid process could one day produce a fuel that is carbon neutral. I will repeat that. These researchers have shown that the coal-to-liquid process could one day produce a fuel that is carbon neutral--no carbon emissions. This is not pie-in-the-sky research. Using some of the same ideas, a planned plant in Ohio--one that will need some Government support to get started--will produce coal-to-liquid diesel that has 46 percent less carbon emissions than diesel fuel made presently from oil--46 percent less. On chart 3, we show greenhouse gas emissions. This chart shows the life cycle of greenhouse gas emissions of different kinds of fuel based on the analysis of the Idaho National Lab. On the left, we have diesel fuel, coal-to-liquid fuels with no environmental technology, coal to liquid that uses carbon capture, and coal to liquid that uses carbon capture and biomass. As we can see by the chart, coal to liquid can be very clean. That is our goal. For comparison, I included gasoline and ethanol blends on the right. If we support coal to liquids and let the industry develop these carbon capture and biomass technologies, we will reduce emissions more than corn-based E85 and more than cellulosic E10. That is currently what everybody wants to do. E85 is the big savior. The new cellulosic ethanol, E10, is the big savior. As we can see by this chart, that is not true because the emissions at the end of the line with cellulosic E10 and corn E85 are all higher than the coal to liquids mixed with biomass. That is the truth. Those are facts. The sector should be given time, just as everyone else, to develop the best technology and not rely on Congress to pick it for them. That is why my coal-to-liquid fuel amendment sets the environmental standard for coal to liquids at the same aggressive 20-percent life cycle reduction that Chairman Bingaman requires for biofuels. The very same reduction that Chairman Bingaman in his Energy bill requires of biofuels is the one I have in this amendment. Every gallon of coal to liquids made with the help of my amendment would meet this standard and would be a gallon of oil we do not have to buy from the Middle East. While I have shown that limited Government support is necessary and coal-to-liquid fuels will be as clean as biofuels, another reason to support coal-to-liquid fuels is national security. I want my colleagues to look at this chart because this is the most important part of coal-to-liquid technology, and putting it on this Energy bill. The military is the largest single purchaser in this country, and the Air Force consumes 50 percent of this total. I have spoken many times with the Secretary of the Air Force, and I am proud to say he has taken the lead on developing this domestic resource. Last year, the Air Force spent nearly $7 billion--$7 billion--alone on aviation fuels, which was over budget by $1.6 billion. For every $1 change in the price of a barrel of oil, it costs the Air Force about $60 million a year. That dramatic impact is 10 times worse for our commercial airlines. As we can see, if we do it the right way, we can produce enough of our aviation fuel from this technology with a change in the way the Air Force buys their fuels. If we change it from 5 to 20 years in terms of the amount of time they can contract for, we can have this kind of dramatic impact for our military. With this in mind, last summer, the Air Force tested jet fuel with a 50-percent mix of Fischer-Tropsch fuel--that is the coal-to-liquid process--in a B-52 bomber. The results of these tests so far are nothing short of outstanding. We already knew these fuels are nearly zero in sulfur and very low in nitrogen oxide and particulate matter emissions, but we are learning very new benefits. During these tests, the Air Force demonstrated this fuel we are talking about burns significantly cleaner and burns significantly cooler than conventional jet fuel. These characteristics allow our jets to have a smaller radar profile and lower heat signature. And these advantages translate into better mileage, reducing both fuel costs, as well as greenhouse gas emissions. In light of this successful assessment, the Air Force plans to test this fuel in the C-17 cargo plane this year, and it is embracing the goal of certifying the entire fleet of aircraft by 2016. By that time, the Air Force intends to meet 50 percent of its annual fuel needs, more than 1.3 billion gallons, with Fischer-Tropsch fuel. Coal-to-liquid fuel will provide a safety net for our military to ensure a stable fuel supply regardless of the global politics of oil, but only if we build a domestic industry to make the fuel for them. Let me turn to the two amendments we will consider today. I am asking that my colleagues support the Bunning-Domenici amendment that I have offered with Senator Craig, Senator Enzi, Senator Martinez, and Senator Hatch. Our amendment is the only amendment that will help create a domestic coal-to-liquids industry, is a separate program that will not compete with biofuels in any way, requires coal to liquids meet the same 20 percent life cycle reduction of greenhouse gases that biofuels must meet--the rest of this bill requires that--requires coat-to-liquid facilities to capture carbon dioxide, and mandates only one-sixth as much fuel as the renewable fuel standard. I am also urging my colleagues to oppose the Tester-Bingaman amendment. This amendment is not--and I emphasize this--is not a coal- to-liquid amendment. It sets an irresponsible environmental standard and will just kick Government support for this fuel into the future. Their amendment is opposed by 23 members of the coal-to-liquid coalition, including industry, airlines, railroads, and others. It sets strict technology mandates for emissions that will stifle innovation and prevent nearly all domestic coal-to-liquid plants from moving forward. It limits the availability of the loan to 50 percent of the plant cost, making it less effective than the already existing DOE program that we passed in 2005. It will take years in DOE rulemaking before the first dollar is ever allocated for a plant. In the greatest deception of all, it does not require coal to be used in the coal-to-liquid process. Let me say that again so everybody understands. The biggest deception of all is that the Tester-Bingaman amendment does not even require coal to be used in the coal-to-liquid process. I am committed to the coal-to-liquid fuel as a secure domestic and environmentally sound fuel. The Tester amendment looks at coal to liquids as an afterthought. I think my proposal should be adopted for any one of a dozen arguments that we have made for coal-to-liquid fuels. It will create jobs, bring down the price of fuel, bring down the price of what we pay at the pump, fuel our military, but basically displace foreign oil, enhance our national security, add value to our coal resources, and improve our environment. But my final and perhaps most important point is that coal-to-liquid fuels deserve fair treatment. I ask that my colleagues look at what we have done for biofuels in America and the benefits we have given to our farmers. Communities throughout the Midwest are uniting to invest in ethanol and biomass. Money from Wall Street is flowing into our rural communities, developing infrastructure and creating jobs. In many parts of America, I have seen new hope in agriculture and new ways for farmers to realize greater values for their crops. It all started with the ethanol fuel mandate. My amendment will create the exact same mandate for coal-to-liquid fuel with the same environmental standards. I think our coal communities deserve the same support we gave our farm community. Will you tell the Governors of the Southern States, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, North Dakota, Colorado, Nevada, and Montana that you oppose their efforts to bring coal-to-liquid plants to their States? Will you tell the men and women who serve as coal miners, construction workers, truckdrivers, train conductors, and plant operators that they deserve less support than our farmers? Will you tell all Americans that you would rather keep buying oil from the Middle East instead of making fuel in America? Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, words cannot express how sad I am that my good friend Craig Thomas passed away last night. We will all truly miss his tenacious advocacy on issues, his incredible sense of humor, and his upstanding character and integrity. The Senate will not be the same without him. I have known Craig for almost 20 years. I first became friends with him when we both served in the House of Representatives. We continued our friendship in the Senate, where I had the great fortune of serving with him on both the Senate Finance and Senate Energy Committees. Craig was a tireless advocate for Wyoming issues. He was an effective leader in energy, public lands, tax, trade, health, and rural community issues. We stood side by side on many issues, and I always felt we could accomplish any project because I had Craig by my side. He and I worked closely on energy issues in both committees. Craig was skilled at keeping his eyes on the details that mattered to the people back home in Wyoming. Recently, we worked together on a small issue in the landmark Energy Policy Act of 2005 that he helped craft. We learned that western coals, because of their naturally low sulfur content, would be excluded from certain clean coal programs for failing to remove the high percentage mandated by the bill. This was one of those little things that slipped by many people but not Craig. We have already fixed the problem in the Tax Code and are now working to do the same in the Energy Committee. It was the little things he did for the people of Wyoming that made him such a great Senator for his State. Craig also pushed to make sure that both his State and the Nation had an effective energy policy. Just a couple of weeks ago, Craig and I sponsored an amendment during markup of the Energy Committee biofuels bill to attempt to push coal-to-liquids technology into reality. Thomas believed this would help both the people of Wyoming by providing more jobs and cheaper energy costs and would help the Nation by reducing our reliance on Middle East oil. And although this amendment failed in committee, his dogged determination showed through because he planned to continue fighting this issue on the Senate floor. My thoughts and prayers go out to his wife Susan and his children, Lexie, Greg, Patrick, and Peter. They have shown incredible courage and strength the past few months. I am honored to have known Senator Thomas. He impacted all of our lives and will be sorely missed.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I would like to honor a colleague and a good friend, Senator Ted Stevens, for becoming the longest serving Republican Member of the Senate. I am honored to serve in the Senate with this great Republican. Ted Stevens' career in public service began long before he became a U.S. Senator. He served in the U.S. Army Air Corps during WWII, practiced law in Alaska, worked in the Eisenhower administration, and served in the Alaska House of Representatives where he eventually became majority leader. He became U.S. Senator in 1968 and has served the State of Alaska in the Senate for over 39 years. His longstanding public service career truly demonstrates his devotion to this country. Just like his famous Hulk tie, Ted has a bullish tenacity that has made him one of the most effective Members in the Senate. He is a stalwart representative for his State of Alaska. Representing a State over 4,000 miles from the Nation's Capital, Senator Stevens has sacrificed time with his six children and wife to serve in the Senate. Coming from a large family myself, I appreciate the strength and commitment his family has displayed over the years. During my trips to Alaska, I always leave impressed by the spectacular landscape and Ted Stevens' hard work in his State. His work has helped many Alaskan towns receive clean running water and has enabled many children to receive a quality education. His persistence in the Senate also has provided Alaska with oil pipelines, which have brought tremendous revenue to Alaska and provided our Nation with a safe, domestic energy source. Ted Stevens' work as a Senator has also gone beyond the borders of Alaska. During his 35-year tenure on the Appropriations Committee, he has tirelessly persevered to keep America ready and prepared. He has ensured our troops have the good equipment, training, and pay they deserve. His efforts have also ensured funds for military research on some of our Nation's most pressing diseases. I thank Senator Ted Stevens for his leadership and contributions to public service for the people of Alaska and all Americans. I honor him not only for his length of service but more importantly, his quality of service. I wish him and his loved ones the best of health for many years to come, and I congratulate him on his outstanding achievement.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, today I congratulate Detective Steven Silfies of Hopkinsville, KY. Detective Silfies was recently recognized as the ``2006 Trooper of the Year'' by the Kentucky State Police. Detective Silfies is a 4-year veteran of the Kentucky State Police Force. He is assigned to Kentucky State Police Post 2 located in Madisonville, KY. Prior to joining the Kentucky State Police, Detective Silfies served more than two decades in the U.S. Army. This includes tours in both Afghanistan and Iraq. He also currently serves as de- facto liaison officer with personnel at Fort Campbell. Detective Silfies truly exemplifies what it means to serve and protect the citizens of Kentucky. During the past year, Detective Silfies has played an integral role in the investigation of six murders. His devotion has led to two arrests in those investigations. Silfies also has played a prominent role in the solving of several cold cases. These include an arrest in a 27-year-old case of an out-of-State resident. Detective Silfies took a leading role in another cold case involving an out-of-State resident. This was a 13-year-old case in which Silfies uncovered overlooked evidence. I congratulate Detective Silfies on this achievement. To be singled out among such a dedicated police force is truly an honor. He is an inspiration to the citizens of Kentucky and to dedicated police everywhere. I look forward to seeing all that he will accomplish in the future.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Absolutely.

Mr. BUNNING. He used the figure 12.5 million.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I thank Senator Sessions and thank him for his input and insight into what has gone on for the last 8 weeks or 10 weeks. I thank the Senator for his explanation today on his perception of what is in this bill. I wish to add a few other comments, and I do have a couple charts that are on their way down to the Chamber. I rise to address some of the concerns I have about last week's so- called immigration compromise and the way it is being shoved--or trying to be shoved--through the Senate this week. Last week's so-called immigration agreement is not a compromise in the traditional sense of the word. The proposal was written in secret by a small group of Senators and our current administration. This bill may not be a compromise, but it is compromising to this country's economy, national security, and the very foundation as a democracy rooted in the rule of law. America is a democracy operating under the rule of law. Since the very beginning of the American experiment, people came from all over this world--many countries with corrupt governments--where the law only applied to some and could be bought by the highest bidder for others. They came to live where the Government respects the individual and where the individual respects the law. From our recent history, we have seen an alarming increase in immigration from people who don't think they have to wait in line or play by our rules. Instead of punishing these people, a few Senators and the administration have crafted a large-scale ``get out of jail free'' pass. No matter what you call it--X, Y, or Z visas--this bill will grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants all over this country. My wife and I, our 9 kids, and our 35 grandkids are all descendants of immigrants. Mary and I have taught our family to be grateful for our Nation's rich tradition of immigration. But more importantly, we have tried to instill in our family a deep respect of law. Appreciating the contributions the immigrant brings to our Nation does not mean we will surrender the right of our Nation and its citizens to decide who comes here. Like many people in the Commonwealth of Kentucky and all over this Nation, I have serious concerns about an immigration policy that rewards lawbreakers. Is granting amnesty to those who were lucky enough to be born or get to one of our border countries, and enter our country illegally, fair to those potential immigrants who have been waiting in other parts of the world? I wonder what message does rewarding those who willfully break the law send to our Nation's young people? What message does it send to the rest of the world? Doesn't it make everyone who is trying to play by the rules seem foolish? More practically, how many people do you think are going to come over our borders? Are you going to reward 5 million people for breaking the law or will it be 10 million or maybe 20 million? Isn't it a distinct possibility this bill will grant amnesty to those who came here only to do our Nation harm? These are questions I am willing to get serious about for the American people, but is anyone else? Today we are going to have a vote to move the process forward. Some things are clear. This bill will grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, period. It is true. It also creates a massive new guest worker program for low-skilled workers that does not truly limit costs to the system. What remains unclear is how much this great compromise will cost. If you look closely, the numbers are staggering. In 2004, there were about 4.5 million low-skill immigrant households in the United States--about 5 percent of our population. That number has only gone up. Let's look at this chart. Each of these households pays about $10,500 in taxes. That is less than almost every other American household. What is more alarming is how much they are receiving. Each of these households receives an average of $30,000 a year in immediate benefits. So they earn, or bring in, $10,000, and they get benefits of $30,000. That means each low-skilled amnesty household could cost the American taxpayer approximately $20,000 each year. Well, actually, $19,588, or twice what they are paying in. Let's go to the second chart. If we look at a breakdown in what they are receiving, that $30,000 a year in Social Security, Medicare, and transfer programs, cash, food, housing, social services, medical care, public education, and population-based services such as police and fire, $30,000 seems like a pretty hefty welcome basket just for crossing our borders. Here shows all the other benefits, and it all adds up to $30,160. These are the benefits I described. We will go now to chart 3. Most American families are taxpayers during their working years and tax-takers during their retirement years. Not so with the low-skilled amnesty family. The low-skilled amnesty household takes more from the Government than it pays in at every level. Therefore, claims that we save Social Security and other programs by importing young immigrant workers are simply a myth. You can see that households under 25 pay in $8,000 and take out $14,295; heads of household from 25 to 34, $10,000 paid in, benefits of $25,485; households whose head is 35 to 44, $12,000 paid in, $34,000 in benefits, all the way down to where the biggest burden is when that immigrant family and the head of that household becomes 65 or over, and they pay in $4,500 in taxes and other things, and receive $37,500 in benefits. The most expensive group, of course, is the 65 and older crowd. They cost the American taxpayers on an average of almost $32,000 every year. If we consider only the illegals given amnesty, those costs would add up to over--and this is shocking if you want to think about it--$2 trillion--that is trillion with a T--over the lifetime they are here, from very young when they come in at 25 to when they become 65. There are currently 8 million nonelderly immigrants in low-skilled households. Eight million. Can you imagine the strain on Social Security when these people reach retirement age? Right here, where they are receiving the $32,000 in benefits that they don't pay in--they don't match. At that moment the program will be going into crisis--that very moment--because if you add them now, the baby boomers, and they will reach the age of 65 about at the same time. Our Social Security system can't handle that now. What are we to do if we add 10, 15, 20 million more? The upcoming budget stifles the economy by levying the largest tax increase ever--ever--on American businesses and taxpayers, and what have we left our kids and grandkids? The biggest bill ever that they will not--I say will not--be able to pay. These may be hard numbers for some people to understand, but I wish to talk for a moment about who will be paying these bills. Look no further than your neighbor, families who have two mid-wage earners, now fall into the top 40 percent of our Nation's wealthy, according to the Internal Revenue Code--wealthy. My daughter Amy and her husband are now wealthy--with four children to raise. A recent study by the Tax Foundation found these working families, the middle class, are carrying the weight of the Nation's tax burden on their back. And let's not forget about our small business owners. Forty-three percent of the people in the top 20 percent of the tax bracket have business income, meaning they are creating jobs and wealth in our economy. Can you imagine the effect that continued tax increases, which will be inevitable to fund this kind of amnesty program, will have on our middle-class families and our economy? Is anyone willing to get serious about this for the American people? I don't know about my colleagues, but these numbers, over $2 trillion, are pretty hard for me to comprehend. What is even more unbelievable is no one is talking about them. In fact, the Senate is being asked to pass this incredibly expensive bill in less than 1 week--less than 1 week. How our Nation chooses to deal with immigration is one of the most serious questions Congress must address. Our immigration policy directly affects our economy, communities, and the rule of law. It requires a thorough, thoughtful, and serious debate. We should be debating each and every one of these issues I have put up here on the chart on the floor of the Senate--not rushing to get something through so that the President can sign it. But here we are about to vote to proceed to a bill that is not even in bill form. It is 326 written pages. By the time it goes into bill form, it will be close to 1,000 pages, and we don't even have a CBO estimate on the cost--not one CBO estimate. It didn't go through the committee process. At least last year we had a bill that went through the committee process. It was voted out. We spent 2 weeks on the floor of the Senate debating it. So at least last year we had a much more thorough discussion. The bill we dealt with and are dealing with this year has not even been considered in committee, and we are supposed to pass it by Memorial Day. That is a seriously flawed process. With the many questions that are currently being asked about this bill, we need to debate it thoroughly--each and every questionable paragraph--when they finally get it into bill form. We are going to have a substitute amendment shortly, after we pass a bill that means absolutely nothing. If they do pass cloture on last year's bill, then the majority leader will propose a substitute to this new bill. Wouldn't it be interesting if someone objected and made the clerk read every sentence in that bill? How long do you think that would take? Two days, maybe more. I know the clerk would be very tired by the time the reading of the bill would be over. I am sure everyone in the Senate would realize exactly the seriousness of this bill. So I am asking all my colleagues in the Senate, let's not rush to judgment on this so-called compromise immigration bill we have before us. Let's consider it like the Senate should consider it. If we are the most deliberative body in the whole world, we should deliberately look at all the nooks and crannies in this compromise bill. I ask my colleagues to do this. I yield the floor and thank the Senator from Alabama for the time.

Mr. BUNNING. I know how desperate some of my construction people are in Kentucky, my horse farmers, the general farm community, the service industry, and the motels and hotels, for workers to be here, but they have to be here in legal form. They cannot be here and cheating to get across the border. We have to have legal immigration to service those jobs. I don't think this bill gets us there. That is why I have serious doubts that it is the right vehicle to take care of those workers we want to make sure get here to service our economy.

Mr. BUNNING. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, I would like to talk today about the House-Senate budget resolution, S. Con. Res. 21, and the many reasons I oppose it. Overall, the budget resolution contemplates a staggering amount of spending: $15.5 trillion of total budget authority from fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2012. In fiscal year 2008 alone, the resolution provides for nearly $3 trillion in spending, yet a significant part of that spending is unfunded, or it comes from the Social Security surplus. On its face, the budget resolution increases the gross debt by $2.5 trillion over 5 years, but this figure understates the true impact of this misguided decision on our economy. In order to fund $2.5 trillion in additional national debt, the Treasury Department will have to sell Government bonds. Its demand for credit will drive up interest rates, making homes more expensive and curtailing economic activity that creates jobs. There is no restraint. The resolution calls for $205 billion more in discretionary spending than called for in the President's fiscal year 2008 budget. Not content to ``tax'' Americans with the higher interest rates that will result from deficit spending, the authors of this resolution are endorsing real tax increases as well. The budget resolution's failure to provide for extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts will result in an enormous $736 billion tax hike on families, seniors, and businesses. True, the resolution provides for the extension of certain popular tax cuts that Congress enacted, such as the child tax credit, but it also places a substantial new obstacle in the way of enacting even these cuts. This is the so-called trigger mechanism that Chairman Gregg and others have discussed in detail. Finally, even with the higher interest rates, tax increases, and procedural barriers to tax cuts this resolution contains, it still relies on raiding the Social Security surplus to achieve the appearance of budget balance at the end of the day. I tried to stop this by including language in the Senate passed version of this resolution, but unfortunately, the conferees took this provision out of the final bill. Get ready, America. Your taxes are about to go up.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, I was precluded from speaking prior to the vote taken on the Iraq supplemental. I am going to speak for about 15 minutes at this time and voice my strong opposition, as Senator Shelby, to the conference report that just passed this body. This bill is a highly irresponsible bill showing both a disregard for taxpayer money and our American service people. It is probably the most dangerous bill I have seen in over 20 years of service in the Congress of the United States. I don't say that lightly. Last month I came to the floor to voice my opposition to the emergency supplemental spending bill. I wanted a clean bill that the President could sign into law. Instead, today we passed a bill that ties troop funding to arbitrary withdrawal deadlines and billions and billions of dollars in unrelated spending. Now, 3 weeks later, we find ourselves with essentially the same piece of legislation. It is an insult to the men and women who serve in our armed services. Funding our troops is not a political game. We are a nation at war. There are unexpected costs and needs that must be continued to promote our freedoms and troops at home and help them succeed in Iraq. That is why we have emergency supplemental legislation. It is used to meet the immediate needs of the men and women in the Armed Forces on our frontlines. The extra spending goes beyond emergency needs and, instead, adds additional nondefense funds that are not necessary right now. There is a lot of fat in this bill that the Senate should consider under the regular appropriations process. That is what appropriations bills are all about. The hurricanes of 2005 were truly devastating. I have supported the Government's rebuilding efforts in the region. But the bill before us today includes billions of dollars in unrequested and unnecessary funding for the Corps of Engineers. These provisions are inappropriate for a wartime supplemental. Another area of extra spending relates to agriculture. I have been a strong supporter of America's farmers, but the programs in this bill do not belong in a supplemental wartime bill. I cannot justify $20 million for dairy farmers and $60 million for salmon fisheries in the Pacific Northwest. This bill is about our troops, not our farmers. There are even more glaring examples in this conference report: $18 million for drought assistance in the upper Midwest; $25 million for NASA facilities in the gulf region; $10 million for historic preservation funds. This bill doubles the 20 million I opposed for asbestos abatement at the Capitol powerplant. The list goes on. I am ashamed that this Congress believes it can solve its own budgetary problems on the backs of our fighting men and women. Finally, instead of helping our troops, this supplemental bill only ends up offending them. We ought to be sending a clear message of support for our men and women in harm's way. It should be clear that this Congress and this country will make sure that the men and women of our Armed Forces have the necessary supplies and resources to carry out their missions. Unfortunately, this legislation only serves to undermine our military missions. It pulls the rug right out from under our troops, just as we are at a point of seeing some signs of increased security in Baghdad. To me, this bill is a strategy for defeat. It sends a detrimental message to our troops and only serves to embolden our enemies. It tells the terrorists: Mark your calendars with our date for withdrawal from Iraq; sit and wait for us to get out. Like many of my colleagues, I had the opportunity to hear firsthand from my good friend, David Petraeus, yesterday about the current situation in Iraq. I am sorry it was a very highly classified briefing or I would share those things with the Senate. But I want to give the mood of his report. He was very frank in his report. The situation in Iraq is not any closer to being resolved than it was 2 months ago when his mission started. The country still suffers from violent sectarian strife and is at war with a cluster of enemies, including primarily al- Qaida, Osama bin Laden, Sunni insurgents, and Shia radicals. The other side of the aisle has already said the war is lost. But we haven't even given the President's plan a chance to work. We still have a long way to go in Iraq, but sectarian killings have dropped dramatically since January. There is greater cooperation between the U.S. forces and the Iraqi Army, and we are beginning to see the Iraqi people work toward complete sovereignty. We should not dictate arbitrary guidelines for the future. The Iraqi Government is still in a critical development stage. It must be given the time and room to grow with our guidance. The same Senators and Congressmen calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq or setting an arbitrary withdrawal date do not discuss the ramifications of such an action. It may be because they know that immediate withdrawal from Iraq would be disastrous to the Middle East and threaten international stability and our national defense. Withdrawal is not a viable option. If we leave Iraq prematurely, we lose. Peace-loving people in Iraq lose, and Islamic radicals and al-Qaida win. That is the situation we are in today. We need to be honest about it as we proceed forward. I have voted against past withdrawal language and voted against it again today. Setting a withdrawal deadline will have grave consequences for the United States. It will put our national security at risk. After the President vetoes this bill--and we sustain his veto--we need to refocus our attention and our productive manner on how to best help our commanders on the ground to achieve success in Iraq. No arbitrary timetable, no billions of dollars in unrelated pork--we need a clean bill that funds our men and women in uniform and gives them a chance for success. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, on behalf of the Republican side, I object.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes to talk about the vote we had earlier today on the Medicare noninterference provision, which prohibits the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services from getting involved in the negotiations between the private plans offering the Medicare drug benefit and the drug manufacturers. I did not vote for cloture today because I support the Medicare prescription drug benefit. The benefit is working well. Seniors have access to drugs. They are saving money, and most beneficiaries are happy with the benefit. Removing the noninterference provisions, as the Democrats want to do in S. 3, would jeopardize the Medicare drug benefit and could force beneficiaries to rely on a one-size-fits-all big Government bureaucracy for their prescription drugs. I was a strong supporter of the 2003 Medicare drug bill and worked very hard to get it passed. For too long, Medicare had not covered prescription drugs for seniors, even though many of these drugs are life sustaining and life enhancing. Since the drug bill was enacted, all Medicare beneficiaries have access to prescription drug coverage, and low-income beneficiaries receive substantial help in affording their prescription drugs. One of the most important elements in the 2003 bill was allowing private plans to offer the prescription drug benefit. Under the bill, these plans negotiate with drug manufacturers for the prices on prescription drugs, and then market their benefits to beneficiaries. Medicare beneficiaries have a choice of plans to select. In my State of Kentucky, there are 24 companies offering 54 plans. All of these plans are different, and each one of them offers a different formulary. Plans compete with each other by offering the best benefit, which may not mean the same thing to all 40 million Medicare beneficiaries. Some beneficiaries may not have many drug expenses each month, so they can go with a cheaper plan. Other beneficiaries may have more costly drug expenses and may need a plan that offers more coverage. The point of having private companies offer the drug benefit was so seniors could pick the plan that works best for them. It is working, and seniors are saving a substantial amount of money. In fact, the average beneficiary is saving about $1,200. Ninety percent of Medicare- eligible beneficiaries have drug coverage, and 80 percent of them are satisfied with the program. To me, this sounds like a success--a real success. Part of this success comes from the fact that we kept the Medicare bureaucrats out of the program. Traditionally, Medicare is a one-size-fits-all program that sets prices for doctors, hospitals, nursing homes, hospice care, ambulance providers--you name it. Medicare beneficiaries should ask their doctors the next time they see them how fairly Medicare reimburses them. I suspect most doctors would say their reimbursements fall short of their actual costs, and they are constantly on the lookout for ways Medicare may try to change their reimbursement for the services they offer. The drug benefit, however, is different. It allows the drug plans to negotiate directly with the manufacturers for prescription drugs. These plans, then, have to attract Medicare beneficiaries to join their program by offering the best possible benefit. A plan that does not offer a competitive benefit will not attract members. A plan that offers an attractive benefit will attract members to its rolls. It is simple--really, it is--and it is working. The Democrats would have you believe Government negotiation is going to save money for Medicare and seniors. Unfortunately, they are wrong. First of all, saying Medicare will ``negotiate'' is a fallacy. Medicare does not negotiate; it sets prices. Just ask your doctor how often the Medicare Program negotiates. Second, the Democrats haven't said a word about how this new authority would actually work. There wasn't one word in S. 3 about what this negotiation would look like. Is Medicare going to negotiate for only a few drugs, as some Members have suggested? No one knows. Are they negotiating prices for all drugs? No one knows. Will the Secretary actually deny access to certain drugs if he doesn't get the price he wants? No one knows. It seems to me that before you undermine a successful, well-received program such as the Medicare prescription drug benefit, you better have the guts to tell people exactly how it is going to change. Third, there is a real concern by experts in this area that Government price-setting for Medicare drugs could cause drug prices to increase for other payors, including Medicaid, the Veterans' Administration, and private purchasers. This hardly seems like a good plan. Finally, the Congressional Budget Office has said repeatedly over the years that removing this provision has a negligible effect on Federal spending. In fact, CBO Directors under both Republican- and now Democratic-controlled Congresses have come to the same conclusion. Without Medicare creating a national formulary and limiting access to drugs, it is unlikely they would be able to get a significant discount on drugs. I also wish to point out that this provision isn't new. In fact, prior to the passage of the 2003 Medicare drug bill, many Members of Congress had proposals to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. Many of these bills, including those by Democratic lawmakers, included a noninterference provision. For example, the former Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, in the Senate had a bill in 2000 that included such a provision. This bill was cosponsored by 26 Democratic Members still serving in Congress, including the current chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus. It is curious that this language was fine for Democratic bills but for some reason isn't fine presently for this bill. The Medicare drug bill we passed in 2003 is working well. Beneficiaries have access to drugs, and people are saving money. Now is not the time to significantly alter the program and rip out the competition that is working so well. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

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

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to honor the legacy and achievements of Jackie Robinson. On Sunday, over 200 Major League players, manager, and coaches took to baseball fields across the Nation wearing Jackie Robinson's No. 42, which was retired throughout Major League Baseball in 1997. Sixty years ago, on April 15, 1947, Jackie Robinson became the first African- American to play in a Major League Baseball game. The first athlete to letter in four sports in 1 year at the University of California at Los Angeles, Jackie Robinson seemed destined to make a name for himself. He began his baseball career in the Negro Leagues, playing shortstop for the Kansas City Monarchs. In 1946, Jackie Robinson played for the Montreal Royals, leading the International League in batting average with a .349 average, and fielding percentage with a .985 percent. He began his major league career at the age of 28 playing first base for the Brooklyn Dodgers-- the only position that was open. That year, he was named Rookie of the Year. In 1948, he was moved to second base and went on to lead the Dodgers to six National League pennants in 10 years and a World Series championship. His inspiring career earned him recognition as the first African-American to win a batting title, lead the league in stolen bases, play in an All-Star game, play in the World Series, win a Most Valuable Player award, and be elected to baseball's Hall of Fame in 1962. Off the baseball diamond, Jackie Robinson lived a life of achievement through his work in the civil rights movement. In the business world, he actively promoted Black enterprises in New York's Harlem neighborhood. In March 1984, President Ronald Reagan posthumously awarded Jackie Robinson the Presidential Medal of Freedom. On October 29, 2003, Congress posthumously awarded Jackie Robinson the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest award Congress can bestow. His mission to expand opportunity for others continues today through the Jackie Robinson Foundation that has provided over $14.5 million in scholarships to students who might not otherwise be able to afford college tuition. Jackie Robinson was a good friend of mine, and it is with great reverence that I introduce, today, a resolution with Senators Mark Pryor and Mitch McConnell to honor and celebrate his achievements, recognize his sacrifices, and remember his contributions to the Nation. His courage and dignity taught the Nation about the strength of the human spirit when confronted with seemingly immovable obstacles. We can best honor him by reflecting on the epigraph Robinson wrote for his own tombstone, ``The value of a life is measured by its impact on other lives.''

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to talk about the two bills before us today dealing with stem cell research. One of these bills is wrong, while the other offers us a chance to advance scientific research using stem cells while still protecting the sanctity of life. Stem cell research remains a controversial issue in the medical, scientific and religious communities as well as in Congress. In fact, just last July, we were debating this very topic, and here we are again today. I am not opposed to stem cell research. I believe that many forms of stem cell research offer great hope to millions of Americans suffering from various diseases, including research using adult and umbilical cord stem cells. We are already seeing medical advances in this type of research. In fact, adult stem cells have proven effective in combating several serious conditions, such as diabetes and spinal cord injury. Also, just recently in the papers, scientists announced that amniotic fluid may be a promising source of stem cells. This shows we have a lot to learn about stem cells. I am 100 percent opposed to embryonic stem cell research, however. This is why I will be voting against S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. This bill would remove all current protections against the destructive use of embryos for harvesting embryos for stem cells. I believe it is morally wrong to take embryos in the early stages of life and destroy them, even for research purposes. We should protect human life--not destroy it. Back in 2001, the Bush administration began allowing Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research on a limited number of stem cell lines that were already in existence. As an opponent of the destruction of human embryos, I opposed the Bush administration decision to allow some embryonic stem cell lines to be used for Federal research. However, S. 5 goes even further than the current policy by removing the current limitations set by the President on federally funded embryonic stem cell research. The bill allows Federal funds to be used for this type of research on embryos created for fertility treatments. This is the wrong direction for us to go. It is immoral for us to conduct medical research on these budding lives, and American taxpayers should not be forced to pay for this type of research. Some people have argued that these embryos are ``excess'' and will be destroyed anyway. I firmly believe that we cannot create a human life and then destroy it in order to save a life. Ethically, it is unjustifiable. In fact, it is important to remember that embryonic stem cell research is not illegal. There are just limitations on the Federal funding for it. Anyone can conduct embryonic stem cell research. They just have to live by the federal regulations or rely on other sources of money. The other bill we are considering today, S. 30, the Hope Offered Through Principled and Ethical Stem Cell Research Act, offers us an opportunity to further stem cell research in an morally defensible manner. The bill would allow stem cells to be derived from embryos that die naturally, and reinforces the current policy that federally funded research should not involve destroying or discarding embryos. This bill provides access to embryonic stem cells, but protects human life and avoids the ethical pitfalls of S. 5. It seems to me that we should all be able to support this bill. It places reasonable restrictions on additional embryonic stem cell research, while also protecting human life. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. No one likes to see people with medical conditions suffer, and like many Americans my family and friends have certainly been stricken with terrible diseases over the years. However, we are at an ethical crossroads with this issue, and we must stay true to our values of respecting life. It seems foolish to barrel ahead with Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research as S. 5 does, when other alternatives are available that offer real hope to patients and promise in research. In closing, I firmly believe that we cannot create life and then destroy it, even if to save another life. I urge my colleagues to vote against S. 5, and vote for S. 30.

Mr. BUNNING

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

Mr. BUNNING. OK.

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

Mr. BUNNING. How does the Parliamentarian rule?

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

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, I rise today to voice my strong opposition to the emergency supplemental bill. The supplemental bill on the floor today is irresponsible. Since coming to the Congress 20-plus years ago, I have pushed for accountability and fiscal responsibility. When the Democrats took a page from the Republican playbook and said they would be responsible with the taxpayers' money, I wanted to believe them. I can see now that all the Democratic promises to the American people last fall were only empty words. This bill is an insult to our men and women in uniform and every single American taxpayer. To me, this is not a political game. I came to the floor last year to oppose additional spending in the emergency supplemental bill. It had nondefense spending like $20 million for oyster fishermen in New England and $4 million for erosion control projects in California and Michigan, and that draft was put together by a Republican Congress. The extra funds I opposed last year pale in comparison to what the Democrats have done this year. Unfortunately, it has become routine to see emergency spending bills on the Senate floor. I understand the pressing need for this legislation to defend America from terrorism and support our ongoing efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The purpose of the President's request is to protect and pay the men and women serving in our Armed Forces. It also provides the funding needed to restore damaged military equipment and to purchase new state-of-the-art technology. This emergency supplemental is important to provide for American armed services the additional funds they need right now. However, this legislation goes far beyond necessary emergency defense spending. The majority is using budgetary gimmicks to pay for political handouts and entitlements on the backs of our fighting men and women. Mixed in the defense spending is a complicated list of earmark legislative language and program expansions. Let me walk you through part of the bill. The hurricanes of 2005 were truly devastating, and I have supported the Government's rebuilding efforts in the region. But this bill before us today includes $1.45 billion in unrequested and unnecessary funding for the Corps of Engineers. It also eliminates a 10-percent local matching requirement for FEMA funds and eliminates the prohibition on forgiving community disaster loans. These are two provisions Congress has supported in the past to ensure responsible spending. These provisions are not only inappropriate for a wartime supplemental, but they are also bad policy. Another area of extra spending relates to agriculture. I have been a strong supporter of America's farms, but the programs in this bill are routinely funded through the regular process. I cannot justify supporting $3 million for Hawaiian sugar cane co-ops or $20 million for insect damage in Nevada on a wartime supplemental bill. This bill is about our troops, not our farmers. There are even more glaring examples in this bill. There is $3.5 million for Capital Guide Services to provide service for tourism in this very building. It adds $100 million for dairy production losses; $13 million for a lamb replacement and retention program; $40 million for the tree assistance program; $6 million for flooded croplands in North Dakota; $25 million for asbestos abatement at the Capitol powerplant; $23 million for geothermal energy research. The list goes on and on. I cannot support requests like these on the backs of our fighting men and women. I will support every effort to strip all the nondefense funding out of this bill. It is time to show fiscal restraint and use emergency wartime spending legislation for precisely that purpose--to pay for the war and not for domestic pork projects. Finally, I want to address the single most important issue in the supplemental, the shortsighted and political call for troop withdrawal. This bill includes similar language to that which was rejected by the Senate 2 weeks ago. It calls for the withdrawal of troops starting 120 days after passage of the bill and sets an arbitrary goal of full withdrawal from Iraq by March 31, 2008. I voted against this language 2 weeks ago, I voted against it yesterday, and I will continue to vote against it. As I have stated repeatedly, I do not support micromanaging the war. It is counterproductive and sends a detrimental message to our troops and emboldens our enemies. I want my colleagues to understand that without the U.S. military, Iraq would become a vacuum that would threaten the stability of the entire Middle East. I share the desire to have the Iraqis defend themselves, and our military is providing them with important training. But that cannot happen based on an arbitrary deadline. I want to warn the other side of the aisle, if you try to force the American military out of Iraq, you will be responsible for the chaos that will ensue. Without the United States, Iraq would emerge as a training ground for all al-Qaida and terrorist organizations. I believe the power vacuum would lead to genocide and murdering far worse than the terrorist attacks that are now occurring in Iraq. Without the United States, there would be greater threat to Israel, and Iran would become the dominant country in the Middle East. I want my colleagues to think about the path this troop withdrawal language takes us down. I stand for the men and women serving in Iraq by supporting their mission, but this bill does the opposite. It undermines the military's ability to act. We need to listen to the commanders on the ground instead of pulling the rug out from under them. This supplemental is not a strategy for success. It is a recipe for defeat. Now is precisely the wrong time to send this message. I believe we may be turning the corner in Iraq. We may already see some success, based on recent reports from General Petraeus. Sectarian killing has been lowered in Baghdad over the last several weeks, and many Iraqi families have been returning to their homes. Some of my colleagues would rather ignore these small signs and the opportunities to succeed in Iraq by pursuing a partisan political agenda. This bill should be a commitment to General Petraeus and our soldiers. It should be a mandate for them to secure democracy in Iraq and protect America from terrorism. I rise to ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill. This may be the most important legislation we address all year. It is an opportunity to tell General Petraeus and our fighting men and women in uniform that we support them. It is an opportunity to tell the people of Iraq that we will not cut and run and will not give in to political pressure, allowing us to affect our decisions on the floor of the Senate. It is an opportunity to defend America from terrorism. This bill is a mistake that we cannot afford, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I wish to speak today as a member of the Senate Budget Committee. I had hoped that the budget that was presented before the Committee last week was going to be fiscally responsible. Chairman Conrad had said earlier this year that he was prepared to get savings out of long- term entitlement programs. He had made similar statements in the past. So I had some hope that this budget would take a serious look at what we could do to address the issue of out-of-control entitlement growth. Unfortunately, I was not able to support this budget in Committee and I will not be able to support it here on the Senate floor. This budget does not take seriously the out-of-control entitlement spending looming on the horizon. This budget resolution fails to show that Congress is willing to make the difficult choices necessary to ensure that the Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid programs will continue into the future. This country faces $67 trillion in unfunded liabilities over the next 75 years. Thirty two trillion dollars of that is in the Medicare program, $20 trillion is in the Medicaid program and the remaining $15 trillion is in the Social Security program and other liabilities. As Senator Gregg pointed out yesterday, $67 trillion represents more than the entire amount of revenues received by the Federal Government since the beginning of the republic. How are our children supposed to pay for that? We don't have to wait 75 years for the problem to blow up in our faces. In about 2032--almost 25 years from now--the cost of just Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, if left unchecked, will exceed the 18.2 percent of GDP that is the historic level of our Federal revenues. So every single penny of what should be received by the Federal Government in revenue will be spent on just three programs. Where is the money for defense to come from? Where is money for education to come from? LIHEAP? NASA? Worker training? Border enforcement? Name any program that you support and tell me just where the money is to come from? This is the future we face. And yet this budget resolution doesn't move a toe toward fixing it. It includes not one penny in net entitlement reform. President Bush presented Congress with a budget that makes strides in this direction by attempting to slow the rate of growth in these programs. I'm not talking about wholesale reform here--although I feel that such reform is needed. Just implementing incremental changes can make a huge difference simply because of the enormous amounts of money that we are dealing with here. For example, in Medicare the President proposed reducing the growth in the program from 6.5 percent to 5.6 percent over 5 years. This change, just a 1 percent reduction from how Medicare would otherwise grow over the same time period, is estimated to reduce Medicare's 75- year unfunded liability by 25 percent--or $8 trillion. For Medicaid, the President proposed reducing the growth rate from 7.3 percent to 7.1 percent. Keep in mind that this means we will still have spending increases in these programs--pretty substantial increases in fact. However, these increases just won't be as big as originally projected. The President's budget calls for some commonsense reforms to both Medicare and Medicaid to reduce spending. In Medicare, for example, the President's budget makes several suggestions to ensure that the program is adequately paying providers for the cost of care without overpaying. In Medicaid, the President has proposed ensuring Medicaid prescription drugs are reimbursed fairly and by improving the financial integrity of the program. As a member of the Finance Committee, I would obviously need to take a close look at these reforms before any are implemented. However, it is vitally important that the American taxpayer does Not overpay for health care services or products. The President's budget also requires wealthy seniors to pay more for Medicare by reducing the Federal subsidy for Medicare Part D premiums for these seniors. This means that seniors who have incomes over $80,000 for an individual or $160,000 for a couple would be required to pay more for their Medicare drug benefit. To me, this just makes sense. Today's working middle-class American taxpayers should not be subsidizing the health care of Bill Gates' father. Also, we already do this for Medicare Part B. Such a change would only affect about 5 percent of seniors. These are the types of changes that we need to be making. Yet this budget resolution before us today makes no net changes to entitlement programs. This, despite the fact that the Big 3 entitlement programs currently account for over 41 percent of the Federal budget, and that number will grow to almost 57 percent in 10 years. A budget that does not seriously address entitlement spending is not responsible. This budget is not responsible. Again, I am not asking for wholesale reforms here. I am very supportive of looking at comprehensive reforms and I support the efforts of Chairman Conrad and Senator Gregg to set up a bipartisan group to take a look at recommending them. But that is not what I am asking for in this budget before us today. We should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Maybe we don't have a perfect way to fix our entitlement challenge right now. But we could have made a good start this year and started on some incremental changes. However, the authors of this budget chose not to do that. We face a demographic tidal wave in this country. As the baby-boom generation grows older, the number of people in the United States ages 65 and over is expected to roughly double by 2030. But instead of saving for a rainy day, we continue to spend, spend, spend. Hard choices have to be made. Spending has to be controlled. Entitlements have to be reigned in. We are saddling our children and grandchildren with an unfair burden. The President's budget started us in the right direction. Unfortunately, the Democratic budget has dropped the ball, and pushed off the inevitable hard decisions until another day. I am profoundly disappointed with the budget I see before us today, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.