Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we are working toward getting an agreement. For the edification of Members, if we can work that out, we will have two votes in approximately an hour, but that is not necessarily going to happen.

Mr. GREGG. If the Senator would yield so we could enter into a unanimous consent agreement. I believe we have reached an agreement where we can proceed to lock in the vote on the Senator's amendment and the amendment offered by Senator Akaka and Senator Clinton. Mr. President, the request is as follows: I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the Senator's remarks, Senator Lautenberg be recognized for 15 minutes, and that at the conclusion of his remarks, we would go to a vote on Senator Collins' amendment, with no second degrees being in order--and there would be 2 minutes equally divided prior to that vote--and that at the conclusion of the vote on Senator Collins' amendment, we would go to a vote on the amendment offered by Senator Akaka and Senator Clinton, with 2 minutes equally divided prior to that vote----

Mr. GREGG. With no second degrees and no points of order against either amendment.

Mr. GREGG. That would mean--how long will the Senator probably be speaking?

Mr. GREGG. So that would mean the votes would begin at around 6:15, one would presume.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, as I understand the time agreement, the Senator from Maine had no limitation on her time, but at the conclusion of her remarks, the Senator from New Jersey was to be recognized for 15 minutes. If her remarks are completed, the time will begin to run against the Senator from New Jersey. It will take a new unanimous consent request, I suspect, to yield to the Senator from Connecticut. How much time does the Senator from Connecticut wish?

Mr. GREGG. If there is no objection, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Connecticut be recognized for 5 minutes, then the Senator from New Jersey be recognized for 15 minutes, and then the vote occur 20 minutes from now.

Mr. GREGG. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I hereby submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report prepared by the Congressional Budget Office under section 308(b) and in aid of section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. This report meets the requirements for Senate scorekeeping of section 5 of S. Con. Res. 32, the first concurrent resolution on the budget for 1986. This report shows the effects of congressional action on the 2006 budget through June 30, 2006. The estimates of budget authority, outlays, and revenues are consistent with the technical and economic assumptions of the 2006 concurrent resolution on the budget, H. Con. Res. 95. Pursuant to section 402 of that resolution, provisions designated as emergency requirements are exempt from enforcement of the budget resolution. As a result, the attached report excludes these amounts. The estimates show that current level spending is under the budget resolution by $11.873 billion in budget authority and by $4.060 billion in outlays in 2006. Current level for revenues is $6.589 billion above the budget resolution in 2006. Since my last report dated May 19, 2006, Congress has cleared and the President has signed the following acts which have changed budget authority, outlays, or revenues: the Native American Technical Corrections Act of 2006, Public Law 109-221; the Heroes Earned Retirement Opportunities Act Public Law 109-227; the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Relief, 2006, Public Law 109-234; and the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006 Public Law 109-236. I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying letter and material be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. GREGG

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

Mr. GREGG

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

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, today we begin consideration of the Homeland Security appropriations bill. I begin by thanking the members of the Committee on Appropriations for helping bring the bill out of committee. It was brought out unanimously. I especially thank the ranking member of the committee and the senior Senator from the State of West Virginia, but also the senior Senator in the Senate, Senator Byrd, for his support and efforts as ranking member not only of this subcommittee but of the full committee, of course, and his role in authoring and designing this bill. It has been very constructive. Obviously, he does not agree with everything in it. That is inevitable, especially with the allocation we were equipped with, but his help has been significant in moving the bill forward. I also thank Senator Cochran who, once again, has been extremely tolerant of this subcommittee--not only tolerant but supportive. He was put in a very difficult position by the administration in the manner in which they sent up their budget in this area, in that they put in a plug number of about $1.4 billion, a number that everyone knew was not going anywhere. They knew it wasn't going anywhere when they sent it up here. It didn't go anywhere last year when they sent the same number up here, a number they claimed they could support by increasing the fees on airline travel, and then taking those moneys and putting them to the border. It was a concept which has been rejected by the Congress before. They knew it would be rejected this time. They used it basically as a stalking horse to claim expenditures which were not then supported by funding. The reason it is not supported is that it makes no sense to raise the fee on airline passengers for security purposes on airlines and then take that money and put it into the border activity. We have significant fees on airline passengers today. That money is used primarily for TSA and FAA in order to assist in making sure our air traffic is secure. It is an appropriate fee. An increase at this time, which is not related to airline traffic, makes little sense. Senator Cochran was confronted with a situation with this bill where he basically had to find about $1.4 billion in order to reach the President's level of funding, that the President asked for Homeland Security without any real way to do that except to take it from other accounts. He was very generous with this committee. He was not able to do the full amount, but he did a significant amount, and we very much appreciate his support. He used to be chairman of the subcommittee when it first started and he understands the needs. The issue of the Homeland Security Department is almost a Dickins story because it takes a lot of twists and turns. Some of it is not very pretty. Some of it is good. Some of it is not. The problem we have is that the Department was put together in haste. A lot of different agencies that had a lot of different cultures, some of which were doing their tasks very well--such as the Coast Guard and the Secret Service-- were put into the Department, and others which had always had a problem, a structural problem such as immigration, were put into the Department. Then new responsibility was put on the Department with a new focus. Every agency theoretically within the Department is primarily focused on the issue of national security and protecting us from an attack such as September 11, but within the agency, in order to have continuity of activity, there were departments put into it which did not have as their primary purpose Homeland Security. The most significant example of that, of course, is FEMA, which basically deals with disasters. Most of the disasters it deals with involve natural disasters, which obviously are not a function of terrorist activity, although it is, obviously, also a lead agency should we have a terrorist event such as occurred on September 11. FEMA played a major role there and did a very good job, by the way. FEMA's management of post-September 11 issues was handled with excellence. The Department has a lot of different functions within it. It has now been going for about 3\1/2\ years. I have had the good fortune to chair this committee for about 2 years. It is pretty obvious the Department has not yet shaken out all the problems it has. In fact, the problems keep coming at us relative to management. I asked my staff to take a look at the Department and all the reviews that have been done by outside groups which we basically sanction, such as the Inspector General and the GAO and other accounting agencies which go in and take a look at functions of the Federal Government and conclude whether those functions are being done well. Homeland Security probably leads the Government in the number of reviews that have been done because it is a new agency and because there are problems obviously. I asked my staff to put together a list of all the different reviews and tie those lists to the management chart of the Department so that we could see just how much the Department has and has not accomplished in the area of reviews. It became an overwhelming task. They put together the chart, but there were so many reviews that had occurred that essentially they had to just summarize by numbers the different reviews. This is the management chart of the Department of Homeland Security. For example, there have been seven reviews of the chief financial officer. All of them have concluded system failures. The Under Secretary for Management has had eight reviews that have concluded a lack of plan; six reviews, systems management failures; and one review that said there was a mismanagement of funds. Regarding the Chief Information Officer, the conclusion is that IT management has been lacking in 18 different reviews. On and on it goes. Of course, the grand prize winner, regrettably, is FEMA, which has had 180 major reviews by GAO or the inspector general or other sources of significant credibility--180 reviews have concluded the process has failed, and 7 reviews have concluded that management controls have failed. In fact, there is such a current problem of mismanagement and ineptness that this chart cannot be kept up to date, regrettably. Just today we have gotten our most recent review, again, by the Government Accounting Office. They conclude with the US VISIT Program: Contract management and oversight for the Visitor and Immigration Status Program needs to be strengthened. This is US VISIT, an absolutely critical program we have. We have had six reviews of US VISIT of this depth, and all of them have concluded there are significant concerns. To take an example of the depth of the problem with this Department, agency by agency, there was a review of Federal Protective Services which basically said they lacked strategic planning, that they had no structure for strategic planning in July of 2004, that they needed to enter into an immediate understanding with GSA as to what they should be doing relative to planning and how they should be resolving billing issues within that Department. On and on the report went, with very specific ideas as to how to improve the Department. As of today, virtually nothing has happened in the Federal Protective Services Agency to try to correct the problems enumerated in the 2004 GAO report. What is the result of that? The result is that the Federal Protective Services Agency has a $42 million structural deficit, which they do not have any idea how they will correct. That is just one slice of this overall pie which, regrettably, is the Department of Homeland Security. This is not to say that the Department does not have very conscientious, hard-working, dedicated public servants. It does. It has a panoply of them--those folks who are on the front lines on the border, whether they are immigration officers or border agents, the people in TSA who are working very hard to try to straighten out the lines in the airport and still provide security, the Secret Service, the Coast Guard, FEMA people trying to answer the problems of a small flood or issues with what happened in New Orleans. These people are all working very hard, but there is a systematic failure within this Department which is massive. It is, unfortunately, permeating the entire Department. It has to be of significant concern to us as a Congress. Just a recent report estimated that maybe as much as $18 billion-- that is a staggering number--$18 billion of the money we spent on Katrina has been misallocated, they believe fraudulently handled, but, clearly, it did not get the results they were supposed to get. Whether it was a trailer sitting in a field somewhere that never got used or whether it was debit cards used to buy bedding, the fact is that is potentially $18 billion. I cannot believe the number is that big. I think that has to be an overestimate. There is no way that size number could have been mismanaged. But say it is half; say it is $9 billion. Do you know what we could do with $9 billion in this country today? We could do a lot of good things. Just in this Department alone, if we had $9 billion focused on the Coast Guard and on Border Patrol and immigration, an infusion of that type of money--I had to pull teeth to get an extra $1.9 billion in the last supplemental. If we got $9 billion, we could make sure our borders were secure and no one could come into the country illegally. The number of people coming into the country illegally would dry up if we had those resources for the borders. It is a real issue with real implications. All the reports are not just paper documents. They all mean taxpayers' dollars are not being used effectively. Even though the people on the front lines are trying their hardest, there are issues that have to be addressed. The main thing we are saying to this agency, this Department--and I know they are trying hard, I know the Secretary is trying hard, everyone down there is trying hard--somehow we have to get ahold of this. We have to get some management structure so we do not get this constant flow of failure, of review. The way this committee has tried to do it is essentially to try to prioritize. We essentially said: There are some things we have to do right. Even in the context of all these problems we have, we have to do some things right. The first thing we have to do right is to address the threat. The threat, obviously, is weapons of mass destruction. The potential of a weapon of mass destruction being used in America is the single biggest threat we have as a nation today. It is real. It is regrettable that there are a number of people in the country, especially the press, who do not take it seriously, but it is a serious problem which we have as a nation because there are, unfortunately, people out there who are fundamentally evil who genuinely believe their way to a fuller life and a great existence is to essentially kill hundreds, potentially thousands, of Americans and try to destroy Western culture. That is their purpose. These people are sophisticated. They have the capacity, if given the wherewithal, to use a weapon that could do massive damage to our Nation. We cannot underestimate this threat simply because we have gotten through 4 years. Let me congratulate those who work on the front line. As I said, there are some hard-working, committed people. Four years of hard work have kept us free from an attack, and that, I guess, is the bottom line. So maybe my statement before was a bit harsh because you have to congratulate the success in the fact that we have not been attacked in the last 4 years. But the documentation is also real that we have real issues with this Department. But if we are to continue to be successful in thwarting a weapon of mass destruction attack, we must put resources in those areas. But they must be used effectively. We have the Science and Technology Directorate of this group. They have no plan, as far as we can tell. They want more money, and I would be happy to give them more money. I would be enthusiastic about putting more money into their operations if I felt there was some sort of coherent plan as to what they were going to do with those funds. In fact, it is just the opposite. You get just the opposite feeling from the Science and Technology Directorate. You have the NMDS, the nuclear detection group, which is working hard. They are up and running in Nevada. They are trying to develop systems. Well, they started from nothing. Basically, they wanted a lot of money to get started. We asked that they give us some directions as to how they were going to do that, and they have started to do that. So they are moving on the right path. But what we basically said is: We will give you the money as you produce the plan that produces the results. We have to be ready for a domestic nuclear event, and we have to try to stop it before it happens. But it also has to be done in a coherent and comprehensive way rather than an illogical way or in a way that appears to be haphazard. There is progress being made there. That is where we want to focus our dollars, quite honestly. We want to focus our dollars in this effort. I have been joined by Senator Byrd in trying to address the weapons of mass destruction threat. That is the No. 1 thing. The second thing we want to focus on and we have tried to focus on is the issue of border security because you really have to know who is coming into the country if you are going to be able to claim you have addressed the issue of threat. Because, sure, there are homegrown terrorists in America, unfortunately. There is no question about it. But we also know there are an awful lot of people out there--and we saw it again just this week--primarily coming out of the Mideast but also out of Southeast Asia, who want to do us harm and whose purpose is to do us harm--and they are open about it--- who have put out epistles to their followers that their cause should be to attack America and Americans within and outside of our country. So we really need to know who is coming across our borders. And then, of course, we have the secondary issue, which is we have a large number of people coming into our country illegally who wish us no harm. In fact, it is just the opposite. They wish to take advantage of the American dream, to get a job and support their families. They come here to get work--and especially across the southern border--but they are coming here illegally, and that is not appropriate. So we need to get control over our borders. So about 2 years ago, when I took over this job, of being in charge of this committee, we started to ramp up significantly our commitment to border security. With this bill, should this bill be successful and be passed, we will have increased the number of border agents by 40 percent; we will have increased the number of detention beds by about 30 percent; we will have dramatically increased our commitment to the Coast Guard; we will have dramatically increased our commitment to ICE; and we will have put in place and started up the US-VISIT Program, which I still have reservations about as to how effective it is going to be, but it seems to be moving in the right direction and people are working hard on it. Our purpose has been to retool the borders so we can be sure within a few years we can control the borders. Now, I happen to be of the belief that we should put this on the fast track. It should not be 5 years from now, it should be next year. But that has not happened, primarily because of resources. However, we have made dramatic strides in this area. Now, there has been a disagreement here between ourselves and the administration on this point. In fact, when we brought our first budget forward, which significantly increased the number of border agents by about 1,000--actually 1,500 when you coupled the supplemental with the bill--we were strongly resisted by the administration because we took money out of other accounts--primarily State and local first responder funds--and moved it over to Border Patrol. We did the same thing to add the detention beds. That was done with the support of the Senate and, in the end, with the support of the House. That was a success. It was such a success, in fact, that now the administration claims it was their idea, even though at the time they opposed it. Now, we have tried to move forward. This year, we put $1.9 billion into the supplemental to try to address the capital needs of the border issue, such as the aircraft, the fact that our aircraft we are flying down there are 40 years over their useful life, the helicopters are 20 years over their useful life; the fact that the Coast Guard is on a program of building coastal security capability, but it is on a program that won't build out until 2023, and we think that should be accelerated to 2015; the fact that we only had one unmanned vehicle on the southern border--or anywhere on the borders, for that matter--and that one unmanned vehicle crashed, and we need to replace it and add more. And we have a lot of technology needs and also just plain old- fashioned cars and desks and training capability, things we felt we needed on the capital side. Well, as to that idea, although the Congress thought it made sense, the administration did not. They took the number and converted it. We are happy to have the money. Initially, the Department was not even happy to have the money, but they took the money, and they converted it to operational needs, adding another 1,000 agents, adding another 4,000 beds, adding operational costs, and also some capital needs. I think the helicopters were covered. The planes were not upgraded. There were unmanned vehicles that would be purchased. So that was a point of disagreement, but at least we were on the right track. But the practical effect of that bill was we created what is known as a fiscal tail, which meant that as you added operational costs in the supplemental, you had to add additional money in the main bill in order to pay for the operational needs which would be ongoing, which meant that the basic bill was stressed, first because it did not have full funding because of the $1.4 billion hold that was put in it by the setting up of a fee system, which everybody knew was not going to work, and secondly because of the tail that came out of this supplemental, which meant we had to pick up about $600 million of cost we had not planned to pick up in this bill in order to maintain the costs which had been put in the supplemental, which we felt should have, instead, been capital costs rather than operational costs. So the practical effect of that gets us to this bill we have today, which is a bill which continues the movement toward securing the borders but does not do it in as robust a way as I would like. I am not going to be disingenuous about it. I am not going to come to the floor and say this is the greatest thing since sliced bread. It is not. It is a step in the right direction. And because of Senator Cochran's and Senator Byrd's support in getting a bigger allocation in this bill than it might have appropriately gotten in light of what was sent up by the administration, it is a fairly significant step. It adds an additional 1,000 agents. It adds an additional 1,000 detention beds. But that means we are still short of where we need to be. Even though we have increased agents by 40 percent and detention beds by 30 percent, we are still way short of where we need to be to be able to say, with confidence, we are going to be able to stop the people who are coming across our borders, especially our southern border, in the near term, detain them, and make sure the bad ones are sent back and the other folks are put through some system that works. That brings us to another issue involving border security, which is this whole question of immigration reform. There is no question in my mind that you cannot get substantive long-term border control unless you have immigration reform, which means some sort of guest worker program for people who want to come here and work. People who are getting paid $5 a day in Mexico and can make $50 a day in the United States, who have a family to feed, are going to come to the United States. That is just human nature. That is what they are going to do. That is what they have to do in order to survive and take care of their families. We have to come up with a way where those people can come across our borders and we will know who they are, why they are here, where they are going, and where they are working. Now, the Senate has passed an immigration bill, which I voted for, and the House has passed an immigration bill. But the conference process does not seem to be going forward very well. Well, the bill here, ironically, sets out some parameters which might help move this whole thing along, if we want to do a comprehensive immigration bill. I think there is general consensus developing around here to a concept which was put forward by Senator Isakson of Georgia during the immigration debate that we should have a trigger mechanism, basically, which would essentially say: When you accomplish these goals in the area of border security, then you can move to the next step in the area of bringing along a guest worker program. What this bill does is basically give us some pretty specific ideas as to what those goals should be. What should be the ascertainable standards which we should set that need to be accomplished and, if and when accomplished, should kick in a guest worker program? And there are a couple of ideas of how you approach the guest worker program, but the ascertainable standards are really pretty obvious. They first should be definite. They cannot be vague. They cannot be standards which are gameable. But if you look at what we need on the border, you do not need vagueness. You can be pretty precise. In fact, you can get right down to the numbers. If we had 20,000 border agents, we know we would have the necessary border agents. If we had about 40,000 detention beds--that doesn't mean firm beds. There are lots of ways to do detention beds. You could use old military bases. You could use present military bases. But if you had the capacity to hold up to 40,000 people who come across our borders illegally, that would give you the necessary numbers to do the process. If you had about five to nine UAVs, depending on whether you were going to use UAVs on the northern border, that would be a number that was ascertainable. If you had a Coast Guard build-out which said it would be completed by the year 2015, that would be a number that would be ascertainable. Those are numbers you could put in. If you had a US-VISIT Program that met certain standards, so that when a person comes across the border they get fingerprinted in a way that would allow the FBI database to be actually activated in real time, that would be an ascertainable standard. And if you had a readable employment card that had biometrics as its base, that would be an ascertainable standard. If you just did those items as your ascertainable standards, you would have in place what is necessary to put forward an effective border security commitment. And you could follow that, when those had been reached--and they could be reached in a very short time if you wanted to put the resources in it; this is not years, this could be reached very quickly--you could put forward a guest worker program which could follow on rather quickly. I have ideas as to how the guest worker program should work, and other people do, but there certainly is a way to do it that makes sense and is fair to people who want to come into this country and work for a living, even those who are already here illegally, without creating amnesty. So this bill sets out, basically, parameters for accomplishing that. It gives a path that could be followed to accomplish that goal, and I hope it will be supported for that reason. As I have said, the bill is not everything we need, and the Department is not clearly where we need to have it. But in the context of the resources which were available to us, this bill is very much a step in the right direction. It will add significantly to the number of border agents. It will add significantly to the number of detention beds. When you combine it with the supplemental, there will be 2,000 new border agents and 5,000 new beds. It puts in place some of the mechanisms to try to make sure the technology is appropriately addressed. The place where it is most lacking, to be fair in disclosure, is with the Coast Guard because the Coast Guard buildout remains a 2023 exercise under this bill versus what should have been a 2015 buildout exercise. That is unfortunate. Had we gotten what we needed in the supplemental, we could have changed that. We didn't. So we will come back to that issue. I wouldn't be surprised if there are other supplementals floating through here and the Coast Guard has a fair and legitimate claim on funds for national defense in those supplementals; if not, in the next appropriations rounds. So that is where we stand today. It is a bill on the right track. It doesn't solve all the problems. It deals with an agency which is trying hard, with good people, committed to the purpose of protecting us but an agency which has very significant issues of management and systems controls. I appreciate the courtesy of the Senate in listening to me for this length of time. I especially appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from West Virginia for his constructive efforts and his help in bringing the legislation this far. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I appreciate the kind comments of the Senator from West Virginia. I especially appreciate his very insightful review of the issues here, most of which I agree with, some of which I may have some disagreement with, but mostly I am in total agreement. He used the analogy of a hill. I sometimes feel that he and I are like Sisyphus on this hill. I am not sure we are going to make it to the top, because they keep pushing the stone back down on us. In any event, the effort is being made. We are trying to secure our borders and make sure that we are safer from weapons of mass destruction. And the Department, as he said--and I think it is important to stress this--is filled with people conscientious and committed to protecting America, and the issues which are raised are ones of resources and systems and support. Those can be resolved when you have good people working, and I think we can resolve them. I look forward to hearing more from the Senator as he brings forward his amendments. I ask unanimous consent that the committee substitute to H.R. 5441 be considered and agreed to; provided that no points of order are waived thereon and that the measure, as amended, be considered original text for purpose of further amendment.

Mr. GREGG. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I will take the first 10 minutes to speak about the recent Supreme Court decision on the treatment of terrorists we are holding and their rights relative to trial. This is a classic example of a court that has seen the trees but has failed to see the forest. We are confronted with a situation where individuals, whose purpose it is to kill Americans and destroy our Nation, are being held by our country in order to protect our country. These are individuals who don't function as part of an organized nation. There is no Nation to which they are accountable or which would be accountable to us should we be functioning in a state of war that was formal, such as occurred during World War II when the Nazi government and Germany and the German soldiers that were captured were held under the rules of the Geneva Convention and the people who were in that government were tried under the rules of Nuremberg. There is no such government. These individuals function separately from any formal structure that could be called governance. And there is no right to the Geneva Convention because the Geneva Convention presumes certain statuses of combat and that there are certain engagements, even though it is in war, that have rules relative to what can and should be done in a war that is appropriate. None of these people are signatories to the Geneva Convention; they have no rights under the Geneva Convention; and they disavow the purposes of the Geneva Convention. Their purpose is to kill for the reason that they believe their life will be improved and their afterlife, as they see it in their perverse view of Islam--which is a great religion but is being perverted by these fundamentalists. Their purpose is to kill Americans and destroy Western culture. To ascribe to them certain rights, as if they were citizens of our Nation or citizens of some other nation that we were at war with, or as if they were participants in a group that was signatory to the Geneva Convention, is to undermine, first, the legitimacy of nations and what nations stand for; and, secondly, the legitimacy of treaties and what treaties stand for because you are essentially ascribing to these people rights and values which they reject and which they are fighting against. Their purpose is to not support the Constitution or be governed by the Constitution of America. Their purpose is to destroy America and the Constitution. Their purpose is not to support the government of whatever Islamic nation they come from. Their purpose is, in most instances, to take that government over and to establish a religiously fundamentalist state which isn't governed at all by rules of Western or traditional civil societies. And their purpose certainly isn't to subscribe to the Geneva Convention. So when the Supreme Court made this decision, they found themselves focusing on the trees but not on the forest. We have to ask ourselves why. Why would the Court make this decision? Well, maybe their purpose was to force us, as a Congress, to clarify the role of the President, and if that is the case, then we should do it. We should act in a way that gives the President the authority to hold these individuals because, what is the option? What is the option, to not hold them? That is not an option. If you release these individuals, you basically assure yourself that you are releasing people whose purpose it is to come back and do dramatic harm to our Nation and to Americans. What President--what President--who is sworn to uphold the Constitution and to protect this country, could possibly release these individuals in the context of what their purpose is? It would totally--totally--affront the responsibility of the Presidency to do that. The Court has made a decision which makes no sense from the standpoint of reality, although it may make sense from the standpoint of theory. I believe the Congress needs to act, and act quickly, so that this type of error can be corrected. It is, after all, a branch of Government that is not infallible--the Supreme Court. They have made egregious mistakes in the past such as in the Dred Scott case. And so we need to correct that and correct it promptly. We are an equal branch of Government. We have the capacity in this instance to correct it, it appears, at least from the dictum, if not from the actual core of the opinion. So we should do that. I would hope that the Congress would act promptly. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Appropriations Committee staff members and members of my personal staff and interns and fellows be granted the privilege of the floor during the consideration of the fiscal year 2007 Homeland Security appropriations bill and any votes that may occur in relation thereto: Nancy Perkins, Shannon O'Keefe, Carol Cribbs, Mark Van De Water, Christa Crawford, Christopher Gahan, Peter Chaloner, and Adam Morrison.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a package of initiatives which were reported out of the Budget Committee, the purpose of which is to put some order into our financial house and to try to make the Government of the United States an affordable event for its citizens, especially for younger people who will be working to support the next generation as it retires. This package has been grossly misrepresented by the other side of the aisle, especially by the leader on the other side of the aisle and by the assistant leader and by other Members who have come to the floor. They have taken out the bloody shirt of Social Security and waved it at this package in a totally irresponsible manner. Therefore, I think it is appropriate to come to the floor and point out what the facts are versus what they believe the politics should be. The facts are rather startling, regrettably, as we head into the retirement of the baby boom generation, which is the largest generation in our history. The cost of supporting that generation, which will have to be paid by our children and our children's children, is astronomical. There is now pending on the books of the Government $65 trillion-- that is with a ``T''--of unfunded liability. What does that mean? That means we have programmatic obligations on the books of the Government-- obligations to retired people, primarily--which will cost $65 trillion more than what we know will come into the Government under the present projections. In other words, we do not have the money to pay for it. We do not know where the money is going to come from. But we do know we have these obligations on the books. To try to put a trillion dollars in perspective, or this number into perspective, since the beginning of the Nation, since the beginning of our country, we have only collected $40 trillion in taxes--only. We have collected $40 trillion in taxes: a lot of money. The total net worth of America and Americans--if you take all our cars, all our houses, all our stock, all our businesses--is $51 trillion. So we have on the books an obligation which exceeds our net worth as a nation. We have to figure out how we are going to afford to pay for that, especially how our children are going to afford to pay for it because they are the ones who are going to bear the burden. To try to put this in even more precise perspective, three programs-- three retirement program, specifically; Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--will cost the American taxpayer more, as we head into the year 2025, than what the total Government cost the American taxpayer today as a percent of gross national product. Traditionally, the Government of the United States has spent about 20 percent of the gross national product of America. These three programs alone, as a result of the retirement of the baby boom generation--which is the largest generation in the history of our country, by a factor of two--will cost the American taxpayer everything that we presently pay into the Government by the year 2025. So that means, at that point, to pay for those three programs, you would be unable--if you were going to maintain the historical spending of the Government--you would be unable to pay for national defense, for education, for environmental cleanup, for all the other things the Government does. And that is only the start. Because as that baby boom generation gets into fuller retirement, the cost of those programs continues to go up. What does that mean in practical terms? It means our children and our children's children, in order to support the retired generation, would have to pay a dramatic increase in taxes under the present scheme. Basically, it would mean our children would be unable to afford a better lifestyle. They probably could not send their kids to college, buy a house or purchase a car the way our generation has been able to do because they would be sending so much of their money to the Federal Government to support these basic programs which are mandatory. It is not a tolerable proposal for our country. We cannot say, as one generation, that we are going to put on the books obligations that make the next generation pay so much in taxes that they essentially would not be able to live the quality of life we have. We would undermine their quality of life, and it is not fair to them. What we did in the Budget Committee was try to address this, not by policy changes but by putting in place processes which will force us to face up to fiscal discipline, which will force us as public policymakers, the Senate and the House and the executive branch, to look at these numbers, these facts which exist. And they will not change unless we do something because the generation that is going to cost all this money is already alive. It is my generation, the baby boom generation. We are this huge generation. We are going to cost our children these types of dollars. It is not going to change unless we do something. It will force us, as public policymakers, to face up to this reality, these proposals which came out of the Budget Committee. The major point is, we have a huge problem coming at us as a Government, as citizens, and as parents. You can't tax your way out of it. You cannot possibly raise taxes enough to pick up the cost of these programs and still give earning Americans an opportunity to live well. So what is the reaction from the other side of the aisle? They want to immediately attack any proposal, even though this one has no policy attached to it--it simply has processes which force a policy to occur, no specific policy to occur--attack any proposal as an attack on Social Security. How grossly irresponsible is that? How incredibly inappropriate is that? Does the other side of the aisle believe that our children should be faced with a burden which they cannot possibly afford? That seems to be the case. They have walked off the playing field of responsible public policy, waving the bloody shirt of Social Security for the purposes of political gain. It is inexcusable on their part. What is the proposal we brought forward, this outrageous proposal which, according to the other side, is so outrageous? It is pretty simple. It is very responsible. It is an attempt to get at the essence of the problem we have today. It has eight parts. The first part puts back in place an idea which the other side of the aisle offered 2 years ago. Yet now they claim it is horrific, the statutory caps, which says on discretionary spending, that when we put caps in place, they will be enforceable. Today we put caps in place, but they get waived around here like buying peanuts. This goes back to the old Gramm-Rudman approach, where you have enforceable statutory caps. That means we set a number. We agree, as a Congress, this is how much money we are going to spend. Then we say: You actually can't spend more than that, unless you have a cut somewhere else. That is totally irresponsible, according to the other side. We did it a few years ago. It worked. In fact, Chairman Greenspan said it was the most significant budgetary reform that has occurred around here in a long time. We are suggesting we put it back in place. It affects discretionary spending, which is every year spending, not mandatory spending. The second idea--I will skip down so we can go in order--is to put in place a BRAC Commission. We had a BRAC Commission for defense spending, and it worked. We did it five times. This is a BRAC Commission for the whole Government, same idea, same philosophy. It says, take a look at the programs and then have the Commission send the ideas to the Senate and then the Senate has to vote for them or against them. It is a reasonable approach to trying to do something which we have not been able to do on a one-by-one basis. It is a broader approach. It also has the President's proposal for a line-item veto or expedited rescission. It is a better proposal than what the President actually sent us because it is more balanced relative to the legislative branch and the executive branch. In fact, it is an idea that passed the Congress. In 1996, we voted for a much stronger line- item veto than this. It gives the President the ability, when we send him these omnibus bills that have billions of dollars of spending in them, rather than veto the whole bill and shut down the Government, for example, he can now put together a package of specific programs in those bills that he doesn't think make sense, send them up here, and Congress has to vote on them in an expedited process, for or against them. Obviously, he will have to send up a package which has majority support or else it will not get passed. And we put in language which says that to the extent there is a rescission as a result of this, the savings have to go to the deficit. That is a very strong idea, in my opinion. We also have biennial budgeting, an idea which people think will be a more effective way for us to address budgeting. We are now effectively in a biennial process anyway since every year there is an election, we can't pass a budget around here; at least we haven't in the last three election cycles, both under Democrats and Republicans. And then there is reconciliation reform. The essence of the package is the mandatory reform effort, the effort to try to address this chart where Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid are essentially going to bankrupt our children, unless we do something intelligent about it. This is where the other side of the aisle has been so grossly irresponsible--first, in characterizing it, because they have been factually inaccurate, and then abandoning the field of debating the issue and coming up with other processes, if they believe they are better ideas. The first approach is something that passed this Congress already. It basically says that if Medicare for 2 years in a row is found to take more than 45 percent of its support out of the general fund--Medicare is supposed to be a hospital insurance program, not supposed to be supported by the general fund--if for 2 years in a row it is supported by general taxation by more than 45 percent of its costs, then a point of order is put in place, which can be waived by 60 votes, so it can be waived against any new entitlement spending. It is a reasonable approach. It is actually not that strong an approach, but it is something that basically highlights the problem. Then we get to the more substantive policy driving events. An Entitlement Commission is put in place. This is where the other side has grossly misrepresented the facts and then taken out the bloody shirt and attacked the facts which they grossly misrepresent. And that's a great idea. First, you make up what the position is, and then you attack that position. And then you take absolutely no responsible position on your own part, which is exactly what the other side has done. Obstruction has become the only thing which the other side of the aisle appears to be able to do, obstruction for the purpose of obstruction for the purpose of obtaining power around here. When are they going to face up to the fact that we are supposed to be doing policy which addresses the needs of our children especially and the affordability of the Government specifically? What is the Entitlement Commission? It is a group of people who are put together. They are chosen by the leadership of both sides of the aisle. There will be eight Republicans and seven Democrats, if it were to be put in place today. Eight and seven, that is not an overwhelming majority for our side of the aisle. And it takes 10 members of the commission to put together a report to be sent under expedited procedures. The leader on the other side of the aisle says: This is an outrage. It is a Republican steamroller. Tell me what is the steamroller. Eight to seven representation, takes ten people to put out a report? And then the other side of the aisle goes so far as to say: And they can't consider taxes. That is a total misrepresentation also. They can consider taxes under the Entitlement Commission. And then they say: 51 votes are going to pass it. That is a total misrepresentation again. The proposal takes 60 votes to pass. In response to the issues raised by the Senator from North Dakota in the markup of this bill and because I accepted the fact that maybe it wasn't structured correctly the first time around, we responded to that concern. The other side of the aisle, the leadership of the other side of the aisle not only doesn't give us credit for responding to the concerns of the Senator from North Dakota because we changed it so that it became a balanced commission--we changed it so that it takes a supermajority to report from it and then it takes a supermajority to pass it--they not only don't acknowledge the changes, they would say that we didn't make the changes and then attack the proposal and put forward absolutely no policy of their own.

Mr. GREGG. No, I won't yield. I think I have heard a significant amount from the other side of the aisle that has been irrelevant, inaccurate, and incorrect. And yielding at this time would limit my time. The third item in this is the ability of the Congress to reduce the deficit as a percentage of gross national product. We know that if we don't get the deficit down, our children are going to get all these debts. So what we put in a place as a mechanism that says essentially the deficit, as a percentage of gross national product, shall be reduced as a percentage of gross national product every year until we get to a balanced budget, essentially a balanced budget by the year 2012, and if we don't hit those deficit targets--and they are fairly reasonable because actually the next 2-year targets we have already hit or we will hit under present projections, so this doesn't even kick in, and it doesn't look like it is going to kick in because it looks like we will get to a balanced budget--should we not continue on that path, then what will happen is there will be a reconciliation instruction because we know that 60 percent of all spending around here goes to mandatory accounts. We will say to the mandatory account committees: Reconcile your accounts so that they can be brought into line with these projections for the deficit to head to zero. What does that mean? That means that there will be policy changes which will allow savings to occur. I presume those policy changes, to the extent they affect entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, will tie into the Entitlement Commission report. Should those two mechanisms which force policy to be addressed not be accomplished, then you go to a sequester on entitlement mandatory spending, something that has never happened around here. And I don't expect it would ever happen because one presumes responsible people would want to make the policy changes to get to the targets rather than allow it to happen automatically. So where is the irresponsibility here? Well, the irresponsibility is on the other side of the aisle, which has buried its head in the sand of obstructionism because it wants to take power around here. It feels that if it doesn't do anything, if nothing is done around here, then outrage will occur and people will vote them into power. How cynical is that approach to governance? I have said I am willing to adjust this. In fact, on the Commission, the Senator from North Dakota suggested that we change the makeup and make it all Members of Congress versus outside individuals. I am amenable to that. If he wants to bring that amendment forward, fine. The Senator from North Dakota at the markup said: It doesn't consider tax increases. Actually, the Commission can consider tax increases. But I said: Let's take it to the floor and discuss the issue of pay-go or tax-go, as I would call it, which is the only proposal from the other side of the aisle, to raise taxes. But no, the response is: This is going to savage Social Security. This is going to undermine Social Security. This is going to privatize Social Security--all the words the pollsters have told them to use to try to get reelected. I will tell you what is going to savage Social Security. It is going to be my generation retiring and demanding the benefits that they have been paying for all of our working life and having our children have to pay for those benefits. Our children are going to get up in arms and say: We would like to buy a house. We would like to send our kids to college. We would like to have the good life you had, and we can't afford it because you put this huge tax burden on us. Because you, during your term of office, were unwilling to be responsible and address these issues. We have tried to be responsible. We have tried to bring forward a package which should be debated and which should be effectively moved forward in order to try to reverse the direction which we are inevitably going toward, which means if we stay on this course, we will eliminate the capacity of our children to look forward to the Government. So we brought forward this package which we call stop overspending. It may not have all the elements it needs. It clearly needs some tweaking here and there. I don't limit that. But it should not be attacked in the way that it has been attacked through the demagoguery of Social Security's bloody shirt being waved at it. That is not responsible. That is not governance. That is simply obstructionism for the sake of political gain. At this point, I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to U.S. Army SGT Daniel R. Gionet, a brave young American who gave his last full measure in service to our Nation while deployed with the U.S. Army to Iraq, a land far overseas from his Pelham, NH, roots. Daniel was a 2001 graduate of Pelham High School where he was a three-season athlete competing on the school's football, baseball, and wrestling teams, winning the sportsmanship award his senior year. Friends say he was a team player and the type of guy who, no matter where you went or what you did, could have fun and make you laugh. Daniel Webster, speaking of early American leaders said, ``While others doubted, they were resolved; where others hesitated they pressed forward.'' In this spirit, Daniel joined the U.S. Army when he turned 18 and left for basic training after graduating from high school. He was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 6th Field Artillery Regiment, Fort Drum in upstate New York and served at Kandahar Air Field, Afghanistan, from July 2003 to May 2004 in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. Believing in what he was doing and wanting to make the world a safer place, he reenlisted in the U.S. Army to become a medic after his original tour ended in May 2004. After training at Fort Sam Houston in Texas, he was assigned as a health care specialist in the 1st Battalion, 66th Armored Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, TX. In December 2005, Daniel deployed with his unit to Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Tragically, on June 4, 2006, this brave soldier, and a comrade from his unit, died of injuries sustained while on patrol in Baghdad, Iraq, when an improvised explosive device detonated near their M1A2 tank during combat operations. Sergeant Gionet's awards and decorations include the Bronze Star, Purple Heart, Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal, Army Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Iraq Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon 2, Combat Medical Badge, and Expert Weapons Qualification Badge. Patriots from the State of New Hampshire have served our Nation with honor and distinction from Bunker Hill to Baghdad--and U.S. Army SGT Daniel Gionet served in that fine tradition. Honor, humor, and huge hugs, according to family and friends, were among the qualities Daniel shared with others. They remember him as a true patriot, who had a love for his school, his town, and his country. He was dedicated to serving his Nation during these chaotic and violent times because, in his heart, he felt it was his duty. My heartfelt sympathy, condolences, and prayers go out to Daniel's wife Katrina, to whom he was married in November 2005, as well as to Daniel's parents, Daniel and Denise, brother Darren, sister Alycia, and other family members and many friends who have suffered this grievous loss. The death of Daniel, only 23 years old, on a battlefield far from New Hampshire is also a great loss for our State, our benevolent Nation, and the world. He will be sorely missed by all; however, his family and friends may sense some comfort in knowing that because of his devotion, sense of duty, and selfless dedication, the safety and liberty of each and every American is more secure. In the words of Daniel Webster--may his remembrance be as long lasting as the land he honored. God bless Daniel R. Gionet. Private First Class Justin King

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the winner of the Daughters of the American Revolution Medal of Honor Award, Mr. John Gonsalves of Taunton, MA. Mr. Gonsalves was nominated by the members of the Molly Stark Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution, DAR, in Manchester, NH, to receive this national award. In the wake of September 11, Mr. Gonsalves was left, like many Americans, with the insatiable desire to do something to help those intimately affected by the tragedy. He was particularly struck by those who have made extraordinary sacrifices on the front lines in the military operations that have followed the September 11 attacks, our wounded soldiers. Upon seeing these injured soldiers in news reports, Mr. Gonsalves was determined to use his lifelong trade to help these wounded heroes. Having worked extensively in the construction field throughout the last 20 years, he gained expertise in all phases of the construction process, business management, and OSHA safety standards. He started Homes For Our Troops--a nonprofit organization that builds and refits homes across the country for veterans wounded while serving in the Middle East. Mr. Gonsalves has pledged to build these specially adapted residences for our wounded soldiers so long as the need exists at no cost to them. The brave men and women who put their lives at risk every day to protect our country need to know that their fellow citizens appreciate their sacrifices and will support them long after they return home from the front lines. Mr. Gonsalves' work promotes an extremely noble cause which ensures that our wounded troops, who have worked extraordinarily hard to protect our Nation, have the opportunity to find suitable housing when they return home. Mr. Gonsalves has shown tremendous qualities of leadership, service, and patriotism by selflessly dedicating himself to a cause that serves a greater purpose and aids those who have sacrificed for our country, and he is certainly deserving of the DAR Medal of Honor Award. I congratulate him on his recognition and commend him for his service to the military community and the positive effects his organization has for our country and especially on our wounded soldiers.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize and commend an outstanding teacher from New Hampshire, Kathleen Mirabile, winner of the Daughters of the American Revolution, DAR, Outstanding Teacher of American History Award. Mrs. Mirabile has dedicated the past 45 years to teaching Social Studies and U.S. History in two public high schools in Manchester, NH. She continues to share her in-depth understanding of the democratic system of government in our country with students every year. Throughout her 45 years in the Manchester school system, she has come to intimately understand and personify the concept of living history as she has opened students' minds to endless possibilities. She subscribes to the theory that in order to be loyal to our country today, one must be keenly aware of the history that has shaped the extraordinary foundation upon which our country and our government were built. She has made it her goal to ensure students understand the impact that history has on them today and, conversely, the impact that today will have on history. Entrenched in her belief that every citizen ought to be a student of U.S. history, Mrs. Mirabile has remained a student throughout her entire teaching career--completing graduate studies at the University of New Hampshire and Boston College, as well as participating in countless educational conferences, institutes, and fellowship programs ranging from the National Endowment for the Humanities to Harvard University, allowing her to further her own education as a student while simultaneously enriching her teaching knowledge. Mrs. Mirabile has taken her passion for history outside of the classroom and required school hours. Beyond her role as a teacher in the high school classroom, Mrs. Mirabile has shared her time and her life with members of the Granite State community by participating and assuming important leadership and advisory roles in numerous educational societies, extracurricular activities, and professional organizations, furthering her own development and gaining the respect and friendship of her students and peers alike. Teachers like Mrs. Mirabile exemplify the greatest asset in the educational system in our country--dedicated and devoted teachers who take tremendous pride in preparing generations of students to participate in the American dream. Her commitment to her students and the entire community serves as a great role model for everyone around her, and she certainly is deserving of the DAR Outstanding Teacher of American History Award. I congratulate her on this recognition and commend her for her excellence in teaching and the overwhelmingly positive effect she has had on her students and her community.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator for his proposal which I think is a very thoughtful and effective way of addressing many issues, which especially single women in the workplace, especially single moms in the workplace have today. These are issues which are not addressed by the Kennedy amendment. Whether it is $1.10 or $2.05, that is an important debate because it will have an important effect on how many jobs are created, and the impact on job creation and jobs is what we are talking about here. If you start losing jobs because you raise the minimum wage too quickly, so fast that small employers can't afford it, that is going to have an effect on people's opportunity to work. I think the Senator from Wyoming has put forth a much more balanced approach as to what number the minimum wage should be raised by, but that is not what is going to make the workplace a more tolerable event and a more acceptable event for the single mother who has kids at home. What would help a lot in this area is additional language in the Enzi proposal which is called ``family time.'' It is resisted aggressively by the other side of the aisle, and I don't understand it. We just heard an impassioned plea from the Senator from Connecticut about working moms, single mothers--especially single mothers in low- paying jobs who have a very difficult time maintaining the quality of their household and taking care of their kids. Yet they resist a proposal which all Federal employees have had the right to since 1978, which is called ``family time.'' They stiff-arm the working mother in this country. This may have been acceptable because the unions demanded that they do this back in the 1950s and 1960s, when there were not that many single mothers working in the workplace. But today there is a huge participation in the workplace from single mothers. Back in 1940, only 28 percent of the workplace were women. Today, 60 percent of the workplace are women. You have almost 7.3 million single mothers in the workplace, raising a family and trying to take care of their kids' needs at home. The Enzi proposal says to those mothers, if you want to, you can work out an agreement with an employer--the employer can't demand that you do it, it is entirely up to you to sign on to that agreement; it is at your discretion; you can't be compelled to participate in this--where 1 week you can work up to 10 extra hours and the next week you work 10 less hours. Why is that important, especially to a single mother? Because they may have a child who is going to have to have some sort of operation, they may have a child who has some sporting event that goes on for a period of days, or has a rehearsal, or just a period in their life where that child needs their mother at home for a greater period of time. This doesn't just apply to single mothers, it applies to working families, husbands and wives, but it is a really important right a single mother should have in the workplace. It is so important, in fact, that we gave it to Federal employees back in 1978. Yet year in and year out the concept of family time has been resisted by the other side of the aisle. They come forward with these statements of compassion, which are very compelling and which are well delivered--especially by the Senator from Connecticut for whom I have great regard--but if they truly believed in that they would have incorporated in their bill the flextime proposal which Senator Enzi has put in his proposal. That is where real compassion is. That is going to affect a lot of people. Literally millions of working parents will be positively impacted if the Enzi bill passes. Sure, the minimum wage is important. But there are a lot more people who are going to be affected by the family time language in this bill and improve their quality of life and their ability to raise their children well than by the increase in the minimum wage. The family time will apply to everybody who works in the workplace, especially--well, everybody who works on a fixed, 40-hour week. If you want to look at the essence of what will really help an American family, and especially an American family with a single breadwinner in it--not a single breadwinner but a single person working, single mother specifically--if you want to look at what will really help that family, you have to look at the Enzi bill and the family time language. Let me again explain what it does. It says, over a 2-week period, at the discretion of the working mother or the working father--or if they are both working, if they are together and they are both working--they can reach an agreement with their employer which says, 1 week I can work an extra 10 hours and, in exchange, the next week--or up to an extra 10 hours--I can work less 10 hours. The impact of that is just huge on a family. It is not necessary they do it. They can continue their 40-hour week if they wish. But there are a lot of events that occur in the raising of children where you do need those extra hours to be at home, where you do need those extra hours to take your child on something that is really important to them--a trip or an event that maybe involves a number of days, a 3-day basketball tournament or a 3-day recital event, or maybe just a situation where you need that extra day to be at home and make sure your children have you there. This opportunity, this benefit which we make available to all Federal employees, should clearly be available to people who are not in the Federal Government. Senator Enzi has, in a very reasonable way, put this language in his bill. I actually think this is much more important than the issue of this fight between the $1.10 and the $2 or $2.05 or whatever, because it is going to impact so many more people. Just on this issue alone you should vote for the Enzi bill because if you really want to improve the quality of the workplace, especially for the single mother, this bill will do it through the family time language he has put in here. I congratulate the Senator from Wyoming for bringing this package forward. I think this package, just because this language is in there, is dramatically better, dramatically more compassionate. We hear a lot of language about compassion. It is dramatically more attentive to the needs of children in this country and proper parenting of children in this country than the package that has been brought forward from the other side. Why don't we include this on the other side? We know why they don't: Because labor unions are against it. It is a knee-jerk reaction on the part of organized big labor to this language. But we should not allow that sort of knee-jerk reaction to control our ability to give working mothers and families the opportunity to have this sort of benefit, which will clearly improve the ability of those people to take care of their children and to raise their children and to be good parents and do what they want to do, in order to make sure they are available when their kids need them. I congratulate the Senator from Wyoming. I think he has put together an excellent package. I hope everyone will support it. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Wyoming.