George Voinovich

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my good friend and partner on the Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee, Senator Akaka, to address the critical management challenges facing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). I am pleased to have Senators Levin and McCaskill as original cosponsors of this measure. The legislation would elevate the role and responsibilities of the current Under Secretary for Management of the Department to a Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security for Management. The language preserves the authority of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of DHS as the first-and second-highest ranking Department officials, respectively. The individual appointed as the Deputy Secretary for Management would serve a five year term and be the third highest ranking official at the Department. A term would provide management continuity at the Department during times of leadership transition, such as following a presidential election. The role and responsibilities of the Deputy Secretary for Management would include serving as the Chief Management Officer and principal advisor to the Secretary on the management of the Department. The Deputy Secretary for Management would also be responsible for strategic and annual performance planning, identification and tracking of performance measures, as well as the integration and transformation process in support of homeland security operations and programs. The division of labor between the Deputy Secretary and the new Deputy Secretary for Management will be similar to the leadership structure at the Office of Management and Budget. The Deputy Secretary will continue to be the Secretary's first assistant on all policy matters, while the newly created Deputy Secretary for Management will be the Secretary's principal advisor on the development of sustained, long-term management strategies. I offer this legislation today because of my belief that the existing Under Secretary position lacks sufficient authority to direct the type of sustained leadership and overarching management integration and transformation strategy that is needed department-wide. There continue to be significant management challenges associated with integrating the Department of Homeland Security, whose creation represented the single largest restructuring of the Federal Government since the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947. In addition to its complex mission of securing the Nation from terrorism and natural hazards through protection, prevention, response, and recovery leadership of the Department of Homeland Security has the enormous task of unifying 180,000 employees from 22 disparate Federal agencies. Since 2003, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has included implementing and transforming the Department of Homeland Security on its high-risk list of programs susceptible to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. In announcing its 2007 high-risk list, Comptroller General Walker said that, ``The array of management and programmatic challenges continues to limit DHS's ability to carry out its roles under the National Homeland Security Strategy in an effective risk- based way.'' Similarly, in December 2005, the DHS Inspector General issued a report warning of major management challenges facing the Department of Homeland Security. The report noted that although progress has been made since the Department's inception, ``Integrating its many separate components in a single, effective, efficient, and economical Department remains one of DHS' biggest challenges.'' The Department's own Performance and Accountability Report, released in November 2006, states that it did not meet its strategic goal of ``providing comprehensive leadership and management to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Department,'' further underscoring the need for good management. The Homeland Security Advisory Council Culture Task Force Report, published in January 2007, detailed persisting organizational challenges within DHS, and prescribed leadership and management models designed to empower employees, foster collaboration, and encourage innovation. The third recommendation of the report is that the Department establish an operational leadership position. The report noted, ``Alignment and integration of the DHS component organizations is vital to the success of the DHS mission. The CTF believes there is a compelling need for the creation of a Deputy Secretary for Operations (DSO) who would report to the Secretary and be responsible for the high level Department-wide measures aimed at generating and sustaining seamless operational integration and alignment of the component organizations.'' The creation of the Deputy Secretary for Management will help address the concerns outlined by GAO, the DHS Inspector General, the Homeland Security Advisory Council, and the Department itself. As former Chairman and now Ranking Member of the Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee, improving the management structure at the Department has been one of my top priorities. The Subcommittee's Chairman, Senator Akaka, and I have been committed to ensuring that DHS has the proper tools to make continual improvements in its operations. It has become clear that the Department needs a stronger management focus to enable programmatic and operational success. Congress must act to strengthen the management function at DHS. During my long career in public service, including as a Mayor and Governor, I have repeatedly observed that the path to organizational success lies in adopting best practices in management, including strategic planning, performance and accountability measures, and effectively leveraging human capital. When instituting reforms as Mayor and Governor, individuals tasked with implementation would tell me, ``We don't have time for Total Quality Management; we are too busy putting out fires.'' I appreciate that DHS is also busy putting out fires. But the connection between good management practices and operational success should not be lost. With the four year anniversary of the Department only weeks away, we must be honest about the remaining management challenges it faces. The legislation I offer today provides the focused, high-level attention that will result in effective management reform. I believe this legislation is vital to the Department's success. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise to address my serious concern about our consideration of H.J. Res. 20, an Omnibus appropriations measure, rather than completing our work on the remaining 2007 appropriations bills. As my colleagues are well aware, fiscal year 2006 appropriations expired on September 30, 2006. And with the exception of the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, the Federal Government is currently operating on its third temporary continuing resolution set to expire next week. We are now considering a fourth continuing resolution, H.J. Res. 20, to fund the Government through the end of the fiscal year. Passage of a continuing appropriations resolution, as some have incorrectly labeled it, is not the solution to our outstanding appropriations obligations. This de facto Omnibus appropriations bill covers almost 50 percent of the Federal discretionary budget at a cost of $463.5 billion. Repeatedly managing by continuing resolution, as we have done for nearly half a year, is inherently wasteful and inefficient. It results in wasteful spending, disruption and chaos in the operations of Federal programs, and dramatic productivity slowdowns. So many of our agencies have been in limbo during the last several months. In recent years, many Federal departments have taken positive steps toward streamlining their budgets and tightening the reins of their daily operations, conduct that ought to be rewarded. Instead, when Congress failed to complete its appropriations work on time, these departments were forced to put critical projects on hold. Such a funding shortfall has particularly adverse effects on human- capital-intensive agencies, such as the Government Accountability Office where attracting and retaining good employees is critical to running a competitive and productive organization. Agencies such as the GAO have made it clear that without budget certainty, they risk losing top-quality personnel. They are unable to properly recognize and reward individuals for good service which often pushes employees to look for other nongovernment opportunities. For too long we have allowed a negative perception of Government workers to dominate our thinking, and we have not committed the necessary resources to funding and keeping capable, hard-working civil servants. This human capital problem contributes to a negative perception of the Federal Government, and it prevents important departments and agencies from providing their customers, our constituents, with the necessary goods and services they deserve. Just think of somebody who is thinking about coming to work for the Federal Government and they have heard that we haven't been able to pass a budget or appropriations around here for 5 months. What kind of an organization do they think we are? This added pressure on human capital is not limited to the GAO. In fact, there are lots of similar agencies, such as the SEC, the FBI, and the IRS, which experienced the same problem over these past 5 months. There are going to be horror stories all through this year as a result of the fact that we are going to pass a continuing resolution or an omnibus resolution. Additionally, long-term budget uncertainty caused many companies with Government contracts to lay off people. Our inability to complete the appropriations work prevented agencies and departments from adequately planning programs and ultimately interfered with the timely award of contracts. So for the past 5 months, contractors have been uncertain whether work would be available and were forced to put a freeze on hiring. I understand that. Two years ago, I had a nephew working for a company that had a contract with NASA. They said: They haven't passed the budget. They laid everybody off. And it wasn't until several months later that finally they could bring people back on. By that time, they had lost half their people. Sometimes programs are ineffective, and their budgets should be reduced or eliminated. For example, under the normal appropriations process, the House would have terminated 53 programs, for a savings of $4 billion. Well, an omnibus can reduce the budget, but it goes about it in entirely the wrong fashion. Instead of undergoing negotiations and discussions over the individual merit of specific programs, the omnibus indiscriminately cuts and appropriates funds. This is neither a thoughtful nor responsible approach to managing our budget. On the flip side, there are many programs and agencies in which we ought to be investing more resources. By failing to pass the outstanding appropriations bills and by passing an omnibus bill instead, we are ignoring America's infrastructure which is the foundation of our economy. Our physical infrastructure is a critical component of making America more competitive and maintaining our quality of life for future generations. But if we keep up this attitude toward our fiscal obligations, if we continue ignoring the upkeep of our infrastructure, we risk tremendous disruptions to our commerce and decrease protection against natural disasters. Hurricane Katrina was a wake-up call for all of us and makes the point. Had we completed our appropriations work on time and adequately funded the Army Corps of Engineers, we would have been attending to the needs of the country. For nearly half a year, we could have brought in more civil engineers, increased construction, designed stronger levees, and made real progress on improving water infrastructure. Instead, we are 5 months behind in the construction of our infrastructure and even further behind keeping our Nation competitive and safe. What about our dependence on foreign sources of energy. I still believe one of this Nation's most pressing challenges is reforming our national energy policy. Finding a way to harmonize our energy, economic, and environmental concerns is critical to keeping our Nation strong. I know my colleagues here today agree with me that we need a second declaration of independence and that we must invest in new, alternative forms of energy. This body failed to complete its appropriations work on time, and now we have uncertainty at a critical moment when we are trying to free ourselves from entanglements in the Middle East and increase our competitiveness in the global marketplace. If we had funded the appropriations in the routine manner 5 months ago, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission could have been preparing for the estimated eight applications it expects to receive this year from the nuclear energy industry for the construction of new nuclear reactors. Let me add the NRC anticipates receiving an additional 22 applications next year. They have been furiously working to prepare for this tidal wave of construction which requires hiring an additional 300 or more people. They haven't been able to do it because the budget hasn't been there because we have been fiddle-faddling around over here. Yet our failure to act has delayed this process. It has introduced uncertainty for both the NRC and the nuclear energy industry at a time when we cannot afford to be dependent on foreign sources of oil. Our inability to fulfill our fiscal responsibilities has put the NRC 5 months behind in preparation, and it has put the country behind on the road to energy independence. It is not just the Federal Government that suffers. States, counties, cities all depend on funding from Washington. I was a county commissioner. A part of our budget was the Federal budget. I was mayor of Cleveland. Part of our budget was Federal money coming into the city. All of these local governments, State governments right now have been in limbo trying to figure out when we are going to do our job. Maintaining and improving America's transportation system is also vital to our economy, the environment, and the welfare of the American people. The Interstate Highway System is one of the country's greatest public works projects but requires a Federal investment. States plan their highway construction programs for the coming year based on their anticipated Federal funding set by SAFETEA-LU. By failing to pass the 2007 Transportation appropriations bill, States could not plan for the future and were forced to delay construction projects for the upcoming year. I will get a report on that from around the country on all the projects that are going to be delayed because we didn't do our work or that are not going to move forward. In my State of Ohio, for instance, construction costs and increased inflation forced our Department of Transportation to cancel and postpone nearly $450 million in highway projects. They didn't know what they were going to get. Democrats have a right to point fingers at Republicans for failing to complete their work on the outstanding appropriations before December. But let's be clear, Democrats behaved equally poorly when they lost the majority in 2002. At that time, Majority Leader Daschle was unable to pass a budget for 2003. Subsequently, Democrats did not complete their work on appropriations before going home for the winter recess. When we came back in January 2003, we took up the issue of appropriations within 3 days. We passed three continuing resolutions through February 20, at which point the Senate voted on an omnibus bill, much the same as we are doing today. The fact is, we both have dirty hands. This is not just a Democratic or Republican issue. Both parties have acted irresponsibly. Congress has the power of the purse, but we are not the best steward of the taxpayers' money if time and time again we blindly pass omnibus bills and fund programs without accounting for how those programs are performing. These are not isolated instances. Let me point out--and the public should know--in 25 of the past 30 years, Congress has failed to enact all the appropriations bills by the start of the fiscal year. In fact, the last time Congress enacted appropriations bills by the September 30 deadline was 1997. And for 17 of the past 30 years, Congress has had to combine two or more appropriations bills together in omnibus and minibus legislation. When are we planning to get it done on time? By failing to do our job, we are starving the executive branch of Government and preventing it from doing its job. This is irresponsible. One way around this annual appropriations problem is to convert the annual budget cycle into a biennial or 2-year cycle. This would save Congress valuable time eaten up every year debating appropriations matters. We spend most of our time on agency appropriations, on the budget, and no time on oversight. Under biennial budgeting, we would convert the annual budget, appropriations, and authorizing processes into a 2-year cycle. The first year would be reserved for the budget and appropriations process. The second year would be to conduct oversight and pass authorizing legislation. This would leave Congress more time to examine programs to determine which are wasteful, which should receive more funding and which should be terminated altogether. Congress would have more time to finish its business by the deadline the law imposes. A 2-year budget proposal is long overdue. We have been talking about this since I came to the Senate in 1999, Senator Domenici and I and many others. We ought to reintroduce that bill. In fact, I intend to reintroduce that bill with several of my colleagues to see if we can't go to a 2-year budget cycle. Operating without a budget impacts our effectiveness in fighting the war on terror. It affects our ability to maintain and improve our transportation infrastructure and enhance our education system. You will be hearing more about that from Senator Alexander. It further contributes to the public perception that Congress has no appreciation of the importance of management and the impact of our irresponsible conduct on the delivery of services to the people in the States--our constituents. It is incredible to me, as someone who has been a mayor and Governor, that the Senate has not completed its appropriations work. In Ohio, the law mandated that we complete our appropriations responsibilities by the end of the year. And it was the same way when I was mayor of the city of Cleveland. The city charter mandated that we do our work. If we had not completed our budget and appropriations work, we would have been reprimanded by the media roundly and recalled by the voters. Of course, we were also bound to balance our budget, which this body has been unable to do since 2000. We have been on the path of fiscal irresponsibility for too long. Given the facts, it is an indication to the American people that we are not doing our job, our work. Congress may hold the power of the purse, but we undermine our credibility by starving good managers and agencies of necessary resources and by turning a blind eye to failing programs. This is about more than allocating funds, it is about good management and good public policy. All of us, on a bipartisan basis, should pledge that we will not shirk our responsibilities by passing a de facto omnibus piece of legislation. As important, at this stage of the game, we should vow, all of us--the majority leader and our minority leader should come together on the floor of the Senate and pledge to the American people that we are going to pass our budget, and we are going to get our appropriations done by the deadline we are supposed to have it be done by, so next year we are not repeating the same thing we have this year. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce The Secure Travel and Counterterrorism Partnership Act of 2007, along with my good friends Senators Akaka, Lugar, and Mikulski. This legislation would expand the U.S. Visa Waiver Program in a way that would increase cooperation with key allies in the War on Terror while strengthening U.S. national security. The bill provides a way for us to expand and improve the Visa Waiver Program so that Americans are safer and our Nation is more prosperous for years to come. This legislation comes at a particularly important time in our Nation's history. We are currently facing multiple foreign policy challenges in the post-9/11 world. We need the cooperation of several allies to combat transnational threats. As such, we are asking our friends and allies to contribute more of their troops and resources to Iraq, Afghanistan, and other conflicts in the world, so that we can be successful. This legislation will help us to solidify key relationships and increase goodwill toward the U.S. for years to come, while also enhancing travel security standards and safety at home. My legislation would authorize the Department of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Department of State, to expand the Visa Waiver Program to countries that are true friends of America and are prepared to do more to help us keep terrorists and criminals out of our borders. For those that do not know about the Visa Waiver Program, it was established in 1986 to improve relations with U.S. allies and strengthen the U.S. economy. The program permitted nationals from the selected countries to enter the United States without a visa for up to 90 days for tourism or business purposes. Currently, 27 countries participate in the program, including the United Kingdom. No countries have been added to the Visa Waiver Program since 1999. But there are a number of newer allies who would also like to participate in the Visa Waiver Program and are willing to meet strict security requirements and cooperate on counterterrorism initiatives. Many of these countries were former members of the Soviet Union. They were victims of Soviet oppression for years, against their will, and despite their desire for freedom. These countries have a unique understanding of the struggle for democracy taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, many of these countries have had boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan and want to help the U.S. combat terrorism and promote democracy. Despite their commitments to the principles of freedom and democracy, these countries are still paying a price that other countries in the West do not pay. Citizens of Portugal, the UK, or Spain can travel easily to the U.S., while citizens of Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia are given second-class treatment. I recently learned of a story involving a young Czech officer who served in Iraq with Americans. This soldier wanted to come to America to visit the American friends he made during combat operations. But his application for a visa was refused. Why? Because his passport included a visit to Iraq, the very place he served with American soldiers. Many young people from places like Latvia, Estonia, and Bulgaria have a positive view of America and hope to visit our country. However, their expensive visa applications are frequently rejected, dampening their spirits and tainting their image of America. And this view is spreading every day. By limiting legitimate travel to the U.S., we are risking a loss of influence with the future leaders of our closest allies. I have been working for many months to develop legislation that will expand the Visa Waiver Program, without sacrificing U.S. security. I was pleased last November when I heard President Bush announce his intention to work with Congress on this issue. On the margins of the NATO Summit in Riga, he called on Congress to expand the Visa Waiver Program so that we can reward our closest allies for their help and friendship. I agree with the President--but I want to clarify that visa-free travel privileges are not simply a reward for our allies. The true reward is the knowledge that we are free and democratic countries working together to advance international security. The foremost goal of this legislation is to create mutually beneficial partnerships with clear national security advantages for the United States. By continuing on the current path, we risk marginalizing some of our closest allies in the War on Terror and losing the hearts and minds of their future leaders and citizens. We have an opportunity to change direction in a way that will promote our own national security interests and improve control of our borders. The Secure Travel and Counterterrorism Partnership Act of 2007 can achieve all of these objectives. The legislation would give the executive branch the necessary authority to expand visa-free travel privileges for up to five new countries, for a probationary period of three years. In order for a country to participate in the plan, the executive branch would first need to certify that the country is cooperative on counterterrorism and does not pose a security or law enforcement threat to the United States. Prospective countries would also be required to take a number of new steps to enhance our common security. Prior to participation, the countries would be required to conclude new agreements with the United States to further strengthen cooperation on counterterrorism and improve information-sharing about critical security issues. Some might say--if these countries are key allies, aren't they cooperating with us already? The answer is yes. They are very cooperative. But in today's heightened security environment, there is more that each country can do, such as sharing additional sensitive information that can help our intelligence community and law enforcement agencies investigate threats and combat terrorist activity. By negotiating new agreements on counterterrorism and information- sharing to permit participation in the Visa Waiver Program, we can reduce threats to the United States. Additionally, the legislation would require the countries to enact a number of significant security measures, which would limit illegal entry and unlawful presence in their countries and impede travel by terrorists and transnational criminals. Security standards required for participation in the program would include electronic passports with biometric information, as well as prompt reporting of lost, stolen, or fraudulent travel documents to the U.S. and Interpol. These new requirements would help make the U.S. more secure. Expanding the number of participating visa waiver countries would increase the number of states meeting common security standards. This would allow the United States to shift consular resources used to issue visas to other missions with more critical security needs. If at any time, participant countries are not complying with these requirements, their probationary status in the program could be revoked. Likewise, if the program is determined to be successful, it could be expanded to include additional countries. The last part of the legislation is aimed at enhancing security requirements for countries who are currently participating in the Visa Waiver Program. In this post-9/11 world, the U.S. Government has already required additional security measures of participating visa waiver countries, such as machine readable passports with biometric information. But we can and must do more. I was very pleased last November when Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff recommended several new measures to further enhance the efficiency and security of the Visa Waiver Program. His recommendations included an electronic travel authorization system, additional passenger information exchanges, common standards for airport security and baggage screening, cooperation in the air marshal program, and home country assistance in repatriation of any traveler who overstays the terms of their visa or violates U.S. law. As the Administration works to develop the details of its recommendations, my legislation would require that within one year, the executive branch provide a report to Congress on its plans for Visa Waiver Program improvements. In addition to the substantial benefits my legislation would create for U.S. foreign relations and homeland security, the bill would also advance U.S. economic competitiveness. Visa-free travel to the United States has been proven to significantly boost tourism and business, as well as airline revenues, and would generate substantial economic benefits to the United States well into the future. Additionally, it would improve attitudes toward the United States throughout the world, which would benefit the U.S. economy and national security for generations to come. As a member of both the Foreign Relations and the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committees, I have studied this issue from every angle. I believe the legislation I am introducing presents us with a real opportunity to strengthen diplomatic relationships, enhance our homeland security, and improve the Visa Waiver Program overall. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress and the President to move this legislation forward. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce legislation to reauthorize the District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Grant (D.C. TAG) program for an additional five years. This successful program, which began in 2000, has produced dramatic results in higher education in the District of Columbia by enabling District students to choose a college that best suits their educational needs. One of the most worthwhile things I have done during my time in the Senate was to sponsor the legislation that created the D.C. TAG program. The aim of this program is to assist District students who do not have access to State-supported education systems. Originally, the D.C. TAG program provided District residents with grant funding to pay the difference between in-State and out-of-State tuition at State universities nationwide. D.C. TAG participants are eligible for up to $l0,000 per student per school year, capped at $50,000. Since March 2002, District students attending private institutions in Maryland and Virginia, as well as Historically Black Colleges and Universities nationwide are eligible to receive tuition grants of $2,500 per student per school year, capped at $12,500. Since the programs inception, more than 26,000 grants have been dispersed to 9,769 District students, amounting to approximately $141 million. As a result, the District has seen a 50 percent increase in college attendance. Our States have benefited from having these talented students attending their universities. In Ohio, District students attend nine of our colleges and universities with grants valued at $500,000. Reauthorizing this successful program will ensure that D.C. TAG grants are available for future generations of deserving District high school students. As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia, I am committed to ensuring quality educational opportunities for District residents. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce The Secure Travel and Counterterrorism Partnership Act of 2007, along with my good friends Senators Akaka, Lugar, and Mikulski. This legislation would expand the U.S. Visa Waiver Program in a way that would increase cooperation with key allies in the War on Terror while strengthening U.S. national security. The bill provides a way for us to expand and improve the Visa Waiver Program so that Americans are safer and our Nation is more prosperous for years to come. This legislation comes at a particularly important time in our Nation's history. We are currently facing multiple foreign policy challenges in the post-9/11 world. We need the cooperation of several allies to combat transnational threats. As such, we are asking our friends and allies to contribute more of their troops and resources to Iraq, Afghanistan, and other conflicts in the world, so that we can be successful. This legislation will help us to solidify key relationships and increase goodwill toward the U.S. for years to come, while also enhancing travel security standards and safety at home. My legislation would authorize the Department of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Department of State, to expand the Visa Waiver Program to countries that are true friends of America and are prepared to do more to help us keep terrorists and criminals out of our borders. For those that do not know about the Visa Waiver Program, it was established in 1986 to improve relations with U.S. allies and strengthen the U.S. economy. The program permitted nationals from the selected countries to enter the United States without a visa for up to 90 days for tourism or business purposes. Currently, 27 countries participate in the program, including the United Kingdom. No countries have been added to the Visa Waiver Program since 1999. But there are a number of newer allies who would also like to participate in the Visa Waiver Program and are willing to meet strict security requirements and cooperate on counterterrorism initiatives. Many of these countries were former members of the Soviet Union. They were victims of Soviet oppression for years, against their will, and despite their desire for freedom. These countries have a unique understanding of the struggle for democracy taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, many of these countries have had boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan and want to help the U.S. combat terrorism and promote democracy. Despite their commitments to the principles of freedom and democracy, these countries are still paying a price that other countries in the West do not pay. Citizens of Portugal, the UK, or Spain can travel easily to the U.S., while citizens of Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia are given second-class treatment. I recently learned of a story involving a young Czech officer who served in Iraq with Americans. This soldier wanted to come to America to visit the American friends he made during combat operations. But his application for a visa was refused. Why? Because his passport included a visit to Iraq, the very place he served with American soldiers. Many young people from places like Latvia, Estonia, and Bulgaria have a positive view of America and hope to visit our country. However, their expensive visa applications are frequently rejected, dampening their spirits and tainting their image of America. And this view is spreading every day. By limiting legitimate travel to the U.S., we are risking a loss of influence with the future leaders of our closest allies. I have been working for many months to develop legislation that will expand the Visa Waiver Program, without sacrificing U.S. security. I was pleased last November when I heard President Bush announce his intention to work with Congress on this issue. On the margins of the NATO Summit in Riga, he called on Congress to expand the Visa Waiver Program so that we can reward our closest allies for their help and friendship. I agree with the President--but I want to clarify that visa-free travel privileges are not simply a reward for our allies. The true reward is the knowledge that we are free and democratic countries working together to advance international security. The foremost goal of this legislation is to create mutually beneficial partnerships with clear national security advantages for the United States. By continuing on the current path, we risk marginalizing some of our closest allies in the War on Terror and losing the hearts and minds of their future leaders and citizens. We have an opportunity to change direction in a way that will promote our own national security interests and improve control of our borders. The Secure Travel and Counterterrorism Partnership Act of 2007 can achieve all of these objectives. The legislation would give the executive branch the necessary authority to expand visa-free travel privileges for up to five new countries, for a probationary period of three years. In order for a country to participate in the plan, the executive branch would first need to certify that the country is cooperative on counterterrorism and does not pose a security or law enforcement threat to the United States. Prospective countries would also be required to take a number of new steps to enhance our common security. Prior to participation, the countries would be required to conclude new agreements with the United States to further strengthen cooperation on counterterrorism and improve information-sharing about critical security issues. Some might say--if these countries are key allies, aren't they cooperating with us already? The answer is yes. They are very cooperative. But in today's heightened security environment, there is more that each country can do, such as sharing additional sensitive information that can help our intelligence community and law enforcement agencies investigate threats and combat terrorist activity. By negotiating new agreements on counterterrorism and information- sharing to permit participation in the Visa Waiver Program, we can reduce threats to the United States. Additionally, the legislation would require the countries to enact a number of significant security measures, which would limit illegal entry and unlawful presence in their countries and impede travel by terrorists and transnational criminals. Security standards required for participation in the program would include electronic passports with biometric information, as well as prompt reporting of lost, stolen, or fraudulent travel documents to the U.S. and Interpol. These new requirements would help make the U.S. more secure. Expanding the number of participating visa waiver countries would increase the number of states meeting common security standards. This would allow the United States to shift consular resources used to issue visas to other missions with more critical security needs. If at any time, participant countries are not complying with these requirements, their probationary status in the program could be revoked. Likewise, if the program is determined to be successful, it could be expanded to include additional countries. The last part of the legislation is aimed at enhancing security requirements for countries who are currently participating in the Visa Waiver Program. In this post-9/11 world, the U.S. Government has already required additional security measures of participating visa waiver countries, such as machine readable passports with biometric information. But we can and must do more. I was very pleased last November when Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff recommended several new measures to further enhance the efficiency and security of the Visa Waiver Program. His recommendations included an electronic travel authorization system, additional passenger information exchanges, common standards for airport security and baggage screening, cooperation in the air marshal program, and home country assistance in repatriation of any traveler who overstays the terms of their visa or violates U.S. law. As the Administration works to develop the details of its recommendations, my legislation would require that within one year, the executive branch provide a report to Congress on its plans for Visa Waiver Program improvements. In addition to the substantial benefits my legislation would create for U.S. foreign relations and homeland security, the bill would also advance U.S. economic competitiveness. Visa-free travel to the United States has been proven to significantly boost tourism and business, as well as airline revenues, and would generate substantial economic benefits to the United States well into the future. Additionally, it would improve attitudes toward the United States throughout the world, which would benefit the U.S. economy and national security for generations to come. As a member of both the Foreign Relations and the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committees, I have studied this issue from every angle. I believe the legislation I am introducing presents us with a real opportunity to strengthen diplomatic relationships, enhance our homeland security, and improve the Visa Waiver Program overall. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress and the President to move this legislation forward. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce legislation to reauthorize the District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Grant (D.C. TAG) program for an additional five years. This successful program, which began in 2000, has produced dramatic results in higher education in the District of Columbia by enabling District students to choose a college that best suits their educational needs. One of the most worthwhile things I have done during my time in the Senate was to sponsor the legislation that created the D.C. TAG program. The aim of this program is to assist District students who do not have access to State-supported education systems. Originally, the D.C. TAG program provided District residents with grant funding to pay the difference between in-State and out-of-State tuition at State universities nationwide. D.C. TAG participants are eligible for up to $l0,000 per student per school year, capped at $50,000. Since March 2002, District students attending private institutions in Maryland and Virginia, as well as Historically Black Colleges and Universities nationwide are eligible to receive tuition grants of $2,500 per student per school year, capped at $12,500. Since the programs inception, more than 26,000 grants have been dispersed to 9,769 District students, amounting to approximately $141 million. As a result, the District has seen a 50 percent increase in college attendance. Our States have benefited from having these talented students attending their universities. In Ohio, District students attend nine of our colleges and universities with grants valued at $500,000. Reauthorizing this successful program will ensure that D.C. TAG grants are available for future generations of deserving District high school students. As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia, I am committed to ensuring quality educational opportunities for District residents. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a bill my colleague Senator Bingaman and I introduced today, the Health Care Partnership Act. For too many years, I have listened to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle talk about the rising cost of health care and the growing number of uninsured Americans. Yet, at the Federal level we have made little progress toward a solution for improving access to quality, affordable health care. I believe it is the greatest domestic challenge facing our Nation. In fact, the rising cost of health care is a major part of what is hurting our competitiveness in the global marketplace. While surveys have indicated that health insurance premiums have stabilized--a 9.2 percent increase in 2006 the same increase as in 2005 and compared with; 12.3 percent in 2004; 14.7 percent in 2003 and 15.2 percent in 2002--health insurance costs continue to be a significant factor impacting American competitiveness. In addition, the share of costs that individuals have paid for employer sponsored insurance has risen roughly 2 percent each year, from 31.4 percent of health care costs in 2001 to 38.4 percent this year. In fact, spending on health care in the United States reached $2 trillion in 2005--16 percent of our GDP--the largest share ever. Yet, despite all the spending some 45 million Americans--15 percent of the population--had no health insurance at some point last year. This number has increased steadily. In 2000, that number was 39.8 million. In 2002 it was 43.6 million. These statistics are startling, and it is beyond time that we do something about them. The bill Senator Bingaman and I are introducing today aims to break the log-jam here in Washington and allows States to experiment the way we did with welfare reform when I was Governor of Ohio. This bill would support State-based efforts to reduce the uninsured, reduce costs, improve quality, improve access to care, and expand information technology. I have been in this situation before. As Governor of Ohio, I had to work creatively to expand coverage and deal with increasing health care costs for a growing number of uninsured Ohioans. I am happy to report that we were able to make some progress toward reducing the number of uninsured during my time as the head of the State by negotiating with the State unions to move to managed care; by controlling Medicaid costs to the point where from 1995 to 1998, due to good stewardship and management, Ohio ended up under-spending on Medicaid without harming families; and implementing the S-CHIP program to provide coverage for uninsured children. In fact, I recently learned from the Cuyahoga Commissioners that in our county, 98 percent of eligible children are currently enrolled in this program. Like we did in Ohio, a number of States are already actively pursuing efforts to reduce the number of their residents who lack adequate health care coverage. This bill will build on the goals of States like Massachusetts, California and others, while providing a mechanism to analyze results and make recommendations for future action on the Federal level. Under the Health Partnership Act, Congress would authorize grants to individual States, groups of States, and Indian tribes and organizations to carry out any of a broad range of strategies to improve our Nation's health care delivery. The bill creates a mechanism for States to apply for grants to a bipartisan ``State Health Innovation Commission'' housed at the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS. After reviewing the State proposals, the Commission would submit to Congress a list of recommended State applications. The Commission would also recommend the amount of Federal grant money each State should receive to carry out the actions described in their plan. Most importantly, at the end of the 5-year period, the Commission would be required to report to Congress whether the States are meeting the goals of the act and recommend future action Congress should take concerning overall reform, including whether or not to extend the program. I believe it is important that we pass this legislation and provide a platform from which we can have a thoughtful conversation about health care reform at the Federal level. Since I have been in the Senate, Congress has made some progress toward improving health care, most notably for our 43 million seniors with the passage of the Medicare Modernization Act. Yet, we have been at this too long here in Washington without comprehensive, meaningful results. It is my hope that we will have bipartisan support for this very bipartisan comprehensive bill that I hope will move us closer toward a solution to the uninsured.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a bill my colleague Senator Bingaman and I introduced today, the Health Care Partnership Act. For too many years, I have listened to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle talk about the rising cost of health care and the growing number of uninsured Americans. Yet, at the Federal level we have made little progress toward a solution for improving access to quality, affordable health care. I believe it is the greatest domestic challenge facing our Nation. In fact, the rising cost of health care is a major part of what is hurting our competitiveness in the global marketplace. While surveys have indicated that health insurance premiums have stabilized--a 9.2 percent increase in 2006 the same increase as in 2005 and compared with; 12.3 percent in 2004; 14.7 percent in 2003 and 15.2 percent in 2002--health insurance costs continue to be a significant factor impacting American competitiveness. In addition, the share of costs that individuals have paid for employer sponsored insurance has risen roughly 2 percent each year, from 31.4 percent of health care costs in 2001 to 38.4 percent this year. In fact, spending on health care in the United States reached $2 trillion in 2005--16 percent of our GDP--the largest share ever. Yet, despite all the spending some 45 million Americans--15 percent of the population--had no health insurance at some point last year. This number has increased steadily. In 2000, that number was 39.8 million. In 2002 it was 43.6 million. These statistics are startling, and it is beyond time that we do something about them. The bill Senator Bingaman and I are introducing today aims to break the log-jam here in Washington and allows States to experiment the way we did with welfare reform when I was Governor of Ohio. This bill would support State-based efforts to reduce the uninsured, reduce costs, improve quality, improve access to care, and expand information technology. I have been in this situation before. As Governor of Ohio, I had to work creatively to expand coverage and deal with increasing health care costs for a growing number of uninsured Ohioans. I am happy to report that we were able to make some progress toward reducing the number of uninsured during my time as the head of the State by negotiating with the State unions to move to managed care; by controlling Medicaid costs to the point where from 1995 to 1998, due to good stewardship and management, Ohio ended up under-spending on Medicaid without harming families; and implementing the S-CHIP program to provide coverage for uninsured children. In fact, I recently learned from the Cuyahoga Commissioners that in our county, 98 percent of eligible children are currently enrolled in this program. Like we did in Ohio, a number of States are already actively pursuing efforts to reduce the number of their residents who lack adequate health care coverage. This bill will build on the goals of States like Massachusetts, California and others, while providing a mechanism to analyze results and make recommendations for future action on the Federal level. Under the Health Partnership Act, Congress would authorize grants to individual States, groups of States, and Indian tribes and organizations to carry out any of a broad range of strategies to improve our Nation's health care delivery. The bill creates a mechanism for States to apply for grants to a bipartisan ``State Health Innovation Commission'' housed at the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS. After reviewing the State proposals, the Commission would submit to Congress a list of recommended State applications. The Commission would also recommend the amount of Federal grant money each State should receive to carry out the actions described in their plan. Most importantly, at the end of the 5-year period, the Commission would be required to report to Congress whether the States are meeting the goals of the act and recommend future action Congress should take concerning overall reform, including whether or not to extend the program. I believe it is important that we pass this legislation and provide a platform from which we can have a thoughtful conversation about health care reform at the Federal level. Since I have been in the Senate, Congress has made some progress toward improving health care, most notably for our 43 million seniors with the passage of the Medicare Modernization Act. Yet, we have been at this too long here in Washington without comprehensive, meaningful results. It is my hope that we will have bipartisan support for this very bipartisan comprehensive bill that I hope will move us closer toward a solution to the uninsured.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, a fiscal crisis looms on the horizon. As the Nation's demographic tide begins to shift, a fiscal tidal wave threatens to overwhelm our economy if we do not act now. Our irresponsible fiscal policies have created a grave situation that more and more people--Republicans and Democrats--are coming to recognize. We can no longer sit back and hope things will work themselves out. A potential national disaster threatens to devastate our way of life, and we have a moral responsibility to do something about it. In the simplest of terms, the Federal Government continues to spend more than it brings in. But, running the credit card for today's needs and leaving the bill for future generations should not be the policy of this Congress. An historical perspective helps to highlight the gravity of our current situation. The Fiscal Year 2006 budget deficit was $248 billion--the seventh largest deficit in our Nation's history. However, if we don't include the money we're borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund, the Fiscal Year 2006 budget deficit was $434 billion. I arrived in Washington in 1999, and in the 8 short years since, our national debt has increased by over 50 percent from $5.6 trillion to a staggering $8.6 trillion. It represents 67 percent of the GDP--the worst number in 50 years. This means that each man, woman, and child in the United States owes $29,000 of the Federal Government's debt. And yet, these numbers pale in comparison with the budget problems looming in our future as the Baby Boom generation begins to retire less than a year from now, on January 1, 2008. Our long-term fiscal imbalance is $50 trillion. That's hard to even grasp, but it translates into $440,000 of future government debt for every American household-- up from a mere $175,000 per household just 6 years ago. If we do not sharply curb entitlement spending, the continual growth of these programs--especially in healthcare--will crowd out all our other spending obligations and collide with historic, long-term level of taxes. To put it in perspective, balancing the budget without reforming entitlement programs will require raising taxes to European levels. And, that would cripple our ingenuity and economy. So, what must be done? Congress must view our tax code, entitlement programs, and budget process as the three components--or pillars--of the nation's fiscal foundation, and not as separate entities. Each is intricately linked to the other two pillars. We must reform all three areas to raise the necessary revenue to ensure effective and responsible behavior by Congress and federal agencies, to keep our obligations to future generations, and to keep our nation strong. First, we need fundamental tax reform to help make the tax code simple, fair, transparent, and economically efficient. According to the President's tax panel and the Mack-Breaux report, only 13 percent of taxpayers file without the help of either a tax preparer or computer software program--a function of the complexity of the system. Since enacting the Tax Reform Act of 1986--legislation intended to simplify the filing process for taxpayers--15,000 additions have been made to the Internal Revenue Code. We cannot consider tax reform, however, without reforming our growing entitlement programs. Our already massive debt will spike yet higher as entitlements such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid witness a surge of beneficiaries in the form of retiring Baby Boomers. This mounting debt will soon become a burden our children cannot bear, dragging down our standard of living and our standing in the world. Finally, we must restore the third pillar of our fiscal foundation-- the budget process. Together we can streamline the system to help lock in long term tax and entitlement reforms. In the past, every major deficit reduction package has included a series of budget process reforms and enforcement mechanisms designed to prevent Congress from undoing tough choices in future years. By transforming the budget process, we can fight back against the all-too-common practice of gaming the system. While some of our colleagues claim we need tax reform, others claim we need entitlement reform. The bill I am introducing today, however, is the only bill that does it all--because you can't reform one without the other, or it's doomed to fail. The Securing America's Future Economy Commission Act establishes a national, bipartisan commission to examine these broken systems and to present solutions to place the nation on a fiscally sustainable course and ensure the solvency of entitlement programs for future generations. The Commission will be comprised of 16 voting members--an equal number of members from each party, with some seats reserved for sitting members of Congress. The Treasury Secretary and the OMB Director will be members, and the other 14 will be appointed by congressional leaders. The Commission will hold town hall meetings throughout the country to determine the scope of the problem and consider possible policy options. The Commission will present a report--and, if a three-fourths majority of the Commission agrees, they will present actual legislation to Congress. The administration and Congress will each have 90 days to review the proposal and develop an alternative package of reforms if they believe it's necessary. The most important point is that this legislation uses a fast-track procedure to guarantee a vote in Congress on the Commission's legislation and the congressional and presidential alternatives. Outside groups across the political spectrum have shown support for our efforts, as have business executives--who view our efforts as an economic necessity--and religious leaders--who view our efforts as a moral necessity. And, when you look at the numbers, it is clear why. We have a moral obligation to improve the fiscal health of our Nation. Otherwise, our children and grandchildren are going to celebrate America's past and the good old days, rather than the future and the good new days. Restoring our Nation's fiscal health will require hard, bipartisan work and tough decisions. That work, however, must begin immediately. We cannot afford to put it off any longer.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, a fiscal crisis looms on the horizon. As the Nation's demographic tide begins to shift, a fiscal tidal wave threatens to overwhelm our economy if we do not act now. Our irresponsible fiscal policies have created a grave situation that more and more people--Republicans and Democrats--are coming to recognize. We can no longer sit back and hope things will work themselves out. A potential national disaster threatens to devastate our way of life, and we have a moral responsibility to do something about it. In the simplest of terms, the Federal Government continues to spend more than it brings in. But, running the credit card for today's needs and leaving the bill for future generations should not be the policy of this Congress. An historical perspective helps to highlight the gravity of our current situation. The Fiscal Year 2006 budget deficit was $248 billion--the seventh largest deficit in our Nation's history. However, if we don't include the money we're borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund, the Fiscal Year 2006 budget deficit was $434 billion. I arrived in Washington in 1999, and in the 8 short years since, our national debt has increased by over 50 percent from $5.6 trillion to a staggering $8.6 trillion. It represents 67 percent of the GDP--the worst number in 50 years. This means that each man, woman, and child in the United States owes $29,000 of the Federal Government's debt. And yet, these numbers pale in comparison with the budget problems looming in our future as the Baby Boom generation begins to retire less than a year from now, on January 1, 2008. Our long-term fiscal imbalance is $50 trillion. That's hard to even grasp, but it translates into $440,000 of future government debt for every American household-- up from a mere $175,000 per household just 6 years ago. If we do not sharply curb entitlement spending, the continual growth of these programs--especially in healthcare--will crowd out all our other spending obligations and collide with historic, long-term level of taxes. To put it in perspective, balancing the budget without reforming entitlement programs will require raising taxes to European levels. And, that would cripple our ingenuity and economy. So, what must be done? Congress must view our tax code, entitlement programs, and budget process as the three components--or pillars--of the nation's fiscal foundation, and not as separate entities. Each is intricately linked to the other two pillars. We must reform all three areas to raise the necessary revenue to ensure effective and responsible behavior by Congress and federal agencies, to keep our obligations to future generations, and to keep our nation strong. First, we need fundamental tax reform to help make the tax code simple, fair, transparent, and economically efficient. According to the President's tax panel and the Mack-Breaux report, only 13 percent of taxpayers file without the help of either a tax preparer or computer software program--a function of the complexity of the system. Since enacting the Tax Reform Act of 1986--legislation intended to simplify the filing process for taxpayers--15,000 additions have been made to the Internal Revenue Code. We cannot consider tax reform, however, without reforming our growing entitlement programs. Our already massive debt will spike yet higher as entitlements such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid witness a surge of beneficiaries in the form of retiring Baby Boomers. This mounting debt will soon become a burden our children cannot bear, dragging down our standard of living and our standing in the world. Finally, we must restore the third pillar of our fiscal foundation-- the budget process. Together we can streamline the system to help lock in long term tax and entitlement reforms. In the past, every major deficit reduction package has included a series of budget process reforms and enforcement mechanisms designed to prevent Congress from undoing tough choices in future years. By transforming the budget process, we can fight back against the all-too-common practice of gaming the system. While some of our colleagues claim we need tax reform, others claim we need entitlement reform. The bill I am introducing today, however, is the only bill that does it all--because you can't reform one without the other, or it's doomed to fail. The Securing America's Future Economy Commission Act establishes a national, bipartisan commission to examine these broken systems and to present solutions to place the nation on a fiscally sustainable course and ensure the solvency of entitlement programs for future generations. The Commission will be comprised of 16 voting members--an equal number of members from each party, with some seats reserved for sitting members of Congress. The Treasury Secretary and the OMB Director will be members, and the other 14 will be appointed by congressional leaders. The Commission will hold town hall meetings throughout the country to determine the scope of the problem and consider possible policy options. The Commission will present a report--and, if a three-fourths majority of the Commission agrees, they will present actual legislation to Congress. The administration and Congress will each have 90 days to review the proposal and develop an alternative package of reforms if they believe it's necessary. The most important point is that this legislation uses a fast-track procedure to guarantee a vote in Congress on the Commission's legislation and the congressional and presidential alternatives. Outside groups across the political spectrum have shown support for our efforts, as have business executives--who view our efforts as an economic necessity--and religious leaders--who view our efforts as a moral necessity. And, when you look at the numbers, it is clear why. We have a moral obligation to improve the fiscal health of our Nation. Otherwise, our children and grandchildren are going to celebrate America's past and the good old days, rather than the future and the good new days. Restoring our Nation's fiscal health will require hard, bipartisan work and tough decisions. That work, however, must begin immediately. We cannot afford to put it off any longer.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, last year after many years of effort, the Congress finally passed a bipartisan energy bill, the Energy Policy Act, which I was very pleased to work on and support. I believe, as I know many of my colleagues believe, that abundant, stable and affordable energy is one of the most fundamental challenges the United States faces in terms of job creation and our ability to compete in the global marketplace. In order to best meet these challenges, I believe we need to develop and nurture all forms of energy--including coal, oil, natural gas, renewables and clean, safe nuclear energy. In doing so, we need to promote energy diversity and conservation. I commend the Chairman Domenici and Ranking Member Bingaman of the Senate Energy Committee for their outstanding work on the bill. In particular, I applaud their work in promoting new nuclear generation, and in fact helping to launch a nuclear renaissance in the United States. According to the Energy Committee, the bill will have a dramatic effect: Because of the provisions in the energy bill, including the loan guarantee authority, the production tax credits, and the insurance protection against licensing delays and litigation, electricity generating companies and consortiums across the United States are preparing applications for permission to build up to 25 new nuclear power plants. The committee further states that if all 25 plants are built: they would generate between 20,000-25,000 megawatts of new electricity, enough to power 15 million households; they would create between 40,000 and 45,000 construction jobs; and they would create approximately 10,000 high paying, high-tech plant operation jobs. As my colleagues also know, one of our often stated but not yet achieved priorities is to foster energy independence. I must point out to my colleagues that at present our country is threatened not only by our current dependence on foreign oil, but also by a possible future dependence on Russian uranium needed to fuel U.S. nuclear reactors. Earlier this year, when President Bush traveled to Russia for the G8 summit, I was pleased to join in a letter led by Senators Domenici, Bingaman and DeWine that expressed our concern about further expansion of Russian uranium into the domestic marketplace. We wrote of our concern that any changes proposed in either the Highly Enriched Uranium, HEU, Agreement or the Suspension Agreement would have the potential of making the U.S. more dependent on foreign sources of nuclear fuel at a time when domestic sources are being developed. Further, the letter stated that additional Russian access to the U.S. market at this time is likely to result in market destabilization potentially jeopardizing resurgence of the nuclear-related industry. Frankly, I am concerned not only based on our goal being secure in our energy needs, but because of concerns regarding our national security. Russia is the largest single supplier of uranium enrichment services to U.S. utilities, providing 45 percent of the domestic market. Unfortunately, a recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has created a possible loophole in U.S. antidumping law that could further expose the U.S. to a greater reliance on Russian uranium. This decision is important because the United States government is currently engaged in negotiations with Russia over possible changes to the U.S.-Russian Suspension Agreement, with critical meetings to take place this month and in January. Unfortunately, this possible loophole may compromise the administration's negotiating position because Russia now believes it can simply terminate, rather than renegotiate, this agreement, and subsequently exploit this possible loophole to avoid any dumping liability on its low enrichment uranium exports. Under this decision, the Russians can designate their uranium fuel as a ``service'' and bypass the U.S. trade restrictions that are in place to regulate the import of ``goods''. I had planned to offer a narrow amendment expressing concern over possible Russian plans to export more uranium and to support maintaining the existing Suspension Agreement and HEU Agreement between the United States and Russia. In fact, I have a communication from the National Security Council that states the administration's support for language similar to the amendment I had drafted. The basis for my concerns for our national security is this: should the Russians back out of the Suspension Agreement in an effort to obtain direct access to the U.S. nuclear fuel market, this could undermine and disrupt the HEU Agreement. The bottom line is the Suspension Agreement and the HEU Agreement have a direct relationship. It is clear to this Senator that changes to the Suspension Agreement would have significant consequences to the HEU Agreement, and there is no doubt that ensuring uninterrupted execution of the HEU Agreement is absolutely in the U.S. national security and energy security interests. That being said, I understand there is concern with addressing the issue at this time, and I have decided to withhold further action. While I am disappointed that there is not enough time in this Congress to deal with this important issue, it is my hope that this situation can be quickly addressed in the 110th Congress.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce The Secure Travel and Counterterrorism Partnership Act of 2006, along with my good friends Senators Akaka, Lugar, Mikulski, and Santorum. This legislation would expand the U.S. Visa Waiver Program in a way that would increase cooperation with key allies in the war on terror while strengthening U.S. national security. The bill provides a way for us to expand and improve the visa waiver system so that Americans are safer and our Nation is more prosperous for years to come. This legislation comes at a particularly important time in our Nation's history. We are currently facing multiple foreign policy challenges in the post-9/11 world. We need the cooperation of several allies to combat transnational threats. As such, we are asking our friends and allies to contribute more of their troops and resources to Iraq, Afghanistan, and other conflicts in the world, so that we can be successful. This legislation will help us to solidify these relationships and increase goodwill toward the U.S. for years to come, while also enhancing travel security and safety at home. My legislation would authorize the Department of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Department of State, to expand the Visa Waiver Program to countries that are true friends of America and prepared to do more to help us keep terrorists and criminals out of our borders. For those that do not know about the Visa Waiver Program, it was established in 1986 to improve relations with U.S. allies and strengthen the U.S. economy. The program permitted nationals from the selected countries to enter the United States without a visa for up to 90 days for tourism or business. Currently, 27 countries participate in the program, including the United Kingdom. But there are a number of new allies who would also like to participate in the Visa Waiver Program and are willing to meet strict security requirements and cooperate on counterterrorism initiatives. Many of these countries were former members of the Soviet Union. They were victims of Soviet oppression for years, against their will, and despite their desire for freedom. Today, many of these countries have boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan and want to help us stop the terrorists and promote democracy. These countries are naturally suited to help other countries as they fight for freedom and democracy. Many of these countries are also actively engaged in Cuba, helping to promote democracy there. Likewise, they have a unique understanding of the struggle for democracy that is taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan. Despite their commitments to the principles of freedom and democracy, these countries are still paying a price that other countries in the West do not pay. Citizens of Portugal, the U.K., or Spain can travel easily to the U.S., while citizens of Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia are given second-class treatment. I would like to share a few examples to put a human face on this problem. I recently learned of a story involving a young Czech officer who served in Iraq with Americans. This soldier wanted to come to America to visit the American friends he made during combat operations. But his application for a visa was refused. Why? Because his passport included a visit to Iraq, the very place he served with American soldiers. Another example involves young students from places like Latvia, Estonia, or Bulgaria. These young people have a positive view of America and hope to visit our country. However, their expensive visa applications are frequently rejected, dampening their spirits and tainting their image of America. And this view is spreading every day. By limiting travel to the U.S., we are risking a loss of influence with the future leaders of our closest allies. I have been working for the last several months to develop a piece of legislation that will address these challenges, without sacrificing U.S. security. I was pleased when I heard President Bush announce his intention to focus on this issue in the coming year. On the margins of the NATO Summit in Riga, he called on Congress to expand the Visa Waiver Program so that we can reward our closest allies for their help and friendship. I agree with the President--but I want to clarify that this is not simply a reward for these countries. The true reward is the knowledge that we are free and democratic countries working together to advance international security. But the foremost goal of this legislation is to create mutually beneficial partnerships with clear national security advantages for the United States. By continuing on the current path, we risk marginalizing some of our closest allies in the war on terror and losing the hearts and minds of their future leaders and citizens. We have an opportunity to change direction in a way that will promote our own national security interests and improve control of our borders. The Secure Travel and Counterterrorism Partnership Act can achieve all of these objectives. What would this bill do? The legislation would expand visa-free travel privileges for up to five new countries, for a probationary period of 3 years. In order for a country to participate in the plan, the executive branch would first need to certify that the country is cooperative on counterterrorism and does not pose a security or law enforcement threat to the United States. However, the country would also be required to take a number of new steps to enhance our common security. Prior to participation, the countries would be required to conclude new agreements with the United States to further strengthen cooperation on counterterrorism and improve information-sharing about critical security issues. Some might say--if these countries are key allies, aren't they cooperating with us already? The answer is yes. They are very cooperative. But in today's heightened security environment, there is more that each country can do, such as sharing additional sensitive information that can help our intelligence community and law enforcement agencies investigate threats and combat terrorist activity. By negotiating new agreements on counterterrorism and information- sharing to permit participation in the Visa Waiver Program, we can reduce threats to the United States. Additionally, the legislation would require the countries to enact a number of significant security measures, which would limit illegal entry and unlawful presence in their countries and impede travel by terrorists and transnational criminals. Security standards required for participation in the program would include electronic passports with biometric information, as well as prompt reporting of lost, stolen, or fraudulent travel documents to the U.S. and Interpol. These new requirements would help make the U.S. more secure. Expanding the number of participating countries would increase the number of states meeting common security standards. This would allow the United States to shift consular resources used to issue visas to other missions with more critical security needs. If at any time, participant countries are not complying with these requirements, their probationary status in the program could be revoked. Likewise, if the program is determined to be successful, it could be expanded to include additional countries. The last part of the legislation is aimed at enhancing security requirements for countries who are currently participating in the Visa Waiver Program. In this post 9/11 world, the U.S. Government has already required additional security measures of participating visa waiver countries, such as machine-readable passports with biometric information. But we can and must do more. I was very pleased that last week, Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff recommended several new measures to further enhance the efficiency and security of the Visa Waiver Program. His recommendations included an electronic travel authorization system, additional passenger information exchanges, common standards for airport security and baggage screening, cooperation in the air marshal program, and home country assistance in repatriation for any traveler who overstays the terms of their visa or violates U.S. law. As the administration works to develop the details of these recommendations, my legislation would require that within one year, the executive branch provide a report to Congress on its plans for the Visa Waiver Program improvements. In addition to the benefits to foreign relations and homeland security, this bill would do a great deal to advance U.S. competitiveness. Visa-free travel to the United States has been proven to significantly boost tourism and business, as well as airline revenues, and would generate substantial economic benefits to the United States well into the future. Additionally, it would improve attitudes toward the United States throughout the world, which would benefit the U.S. economy and national security for generations to come. As a member of both the Foreign Relations and the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committees, I believe that we have a real opportunity to improve our foreign relations, our homeland defense, and the visa waiver system overall. Therefore, I call on my colleagues in the Senate and the House to examine this legislation with a serious eye, refraining from the knee- jerk reaction that an expanded program is bad for national security. When you look at the facts involved and the opportunities ahead, you can see that we have a chance to improve security cooperation and strengthen the bonds of friendship with our allies in the war on terror. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress and the President to move this legislation forward. As the administration works to develop the details of these recommendations, my legislation would require that within one year, the executive branch provide a report to Congress on its plans for Visa Waiver Program improvements. In addition to the benefits to foreign relations and homeland security, this bill would do a great deal to advance U.S. competitiveness. Visa-free travel to the United States has been proven to significantly boost tourism and business, as well as airline revenues, and would generate substantial economic benefits to the United States well into the future. Additionally, it would improve attitudes toward the United States throughout the world, which would benefit the U.S. economy and national security for generations to come. As a member of both the Foreign Relations and the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committees, I believe that we have a real opportunity to improve our foreign relations, our homeland defense, and the visa waiver system overall. Therefore, I call on my colleagues in the Senate and the House to examine this legislation with a serious eye, refraining from the knee- jerk reaction that an expanded program is bad for national security. When you look at the facts involved and the opportunities ahead, you can see that we have a chance to improve security cooperation and strengthen the bonds of friendship with our allies in the war on terror. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress and the President to move this legislation forward. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise to speak about our senior Senator from Ohio, Mike DeWine. Let me begin by saying this is a speech I hoped I would never have to give. For many in this Chamber, winter came a little early this year. A blizzard of political change swept through the country and, unfortunately, many were unable to weather the storm; in my particular case, in our State, through no fault of their own. Mike DeWine was one of the most effective legislators we have in the U.S. Senate. He was a victim of this storm. I am deeply saddened that our respective colleagues will not be joining us when we congregate again for the 110th Congress. Mike's tireless commitment to legislating, his willingness and ability to work with both parties, and his ingenuity will be sorely missed by everyone in the Senate and the State of Ohio. Mike has served the people of Ohio for more than 30 years, beginning as an assistant county prosecutor in 1992. He served as Green County prosecutor for 4 years, State senator for 2 years, Congressman for 8 years, and he was my Lieutenant Governor for 4 years when I was Governor of Ohio. And, of course, he has served us for 12 years as our U.S. Senator. He is one of the most effective and least partisan Members in this body. During campaign season, some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle kept asking me: How is Mike doing, how is he doing? Frankly, I think they were secretly hoping his poll numbers would be strong enough that he would not become a target. Unfortunately, those numbers never got up to that place, and he ended up being a target. Far too many Members see differences between Republicans and Democrats as an unsurpassable deep divide. Not Mike DeWine. Over and over again, Mike built bridges between our parties, and he got things done for America and for Ohio. Janet and I feel like Mike and his wonderful wife Fran are part of our family. After working with Mike for the past 16 years, I can tell you that there is something special about him. In fact, right from the start, I knew there was something refreshingly different about Mike DeWine. The inception of our friendship came in 1990, when Mike and I were both running in the Republican primary for Governor of Ohio. It was a crowded field with Mike, Bob Taft, and I vying for the Governor's slot. It was then we really got to know each other. We talked about what would be the best for Ohio and for the Republican Party and, quite frankly, for our respective political futures. We decided to combine our efforts as running mates, and Mike agreed to run as my Lieutenant Governor. I knew this was a very tough decision for Mike because he wanted to be Governor and was giving up a very safe congressional seat to run for State office. At that moment, I knew I had a first-rate partner, a man with great character and humility as well as unique political poise and promise. Both of us knew we had a long, tough race ahead of us with no guarantees. This was not a layup shot. There was a real question of whether we were going to be successful. He had given up a safe seat in the U.S. Congress, with a big family. But we had a great time running for State office. Mike had an opportunity to connect with the State as a whole. I remember when he and Fran packed the kids in the van and traveled every inch of Ohio, becoming intimate with the Appalachian east, its manufacturing north, and its interior farmland. We went on to win the general election and, as I like to say, together we did it. Together we won the election, and together we charted a new course for Ohio. As Lieutenant Governor, Mike took over the State's criminal justice agencies, where he led the fight against crime and illegal drugs. It was a relief to have Mike as my partner when we had the Lucasville riots which broke out on Easter Sunday in 1993. It was the largest prison disturbance in the history of the United States, generating a great deal of national tension. Mike's background in criminal justice and his close relationship with law enforcement helped us respond quickly and effectively. It could have been a tragedy, but fortunately, together, and with the help of the Holy Spirit, we made it through. In 1992, when the Ohio Republican Party needed a challenger to run against the famous astronaut and giant in Ohio politics, John Glenn, Mike was the obvious choice. He and Fran worked tirelessly to win that seat. Unfortunately, victory was not in the cards that year but triumph was imminent. Two years later, Mike became a U.S. Senator and our party swept the State, just as the Democrats did this year in Ohio. Mike returned to Washington as a U.S. Senator with more perspective, more experience, and more insight into the challenges facing Ohio than when he left the Congress as a Member of the House of Representatives. Without a lot of fanfare, he quietly went to work. Of course, Mike has been shaped by many things. It is impossible to talk about his achievements in public service without mentioning the terrible misfortune he and Fran experienced back in 1994. I will never forget the day Mike and Fran lost their daughter Becky. I am familiar with the tremendous pain they suffered. The day that changed their lives sticks in my memory, much like the day Janet and I lost our daughter Molly. Mike translated the love he and Fran had for Becky into his work in the Senate. He became a champion for our youth and for those who cannot represent themselves. That is why today I am hard pressed to think of anyone who has not been helped by Mike DeWine. His legislative achievements, which span both domestic and foreign policy, reflect his effectual and compassionate nature. Mike has shown tremendous dedication toward improving the safety of our highway system. He not only amended the 2005 highway bill to make preferences for highways noted as being unsafe, but he also allocated more than $56 million of SAFETEA-LU, intended for improving highway safety. He succeeded in getting further testing and approval of medications for children. He helped establish a national toll-free poison control hotline. He acted on behalf of the children of U.S. servicemembers to make sure they had access to affordable health care. And he has stood up for foster children to make sure they are protected and to help them find adoptive parents. Time after time, Senator DeWine has protected Ohio. He was a critical voice in passing the Senate pension bill which helped ensure that workers' futures in Ohio are on better footing. He is a cosponsor of the Health Partnership Act because he understands how important health care reform is to Ohioans and to this country. He helped ensure that our fire departments are better equipped to fulfill their missions as first responders. During the BRAC process, he worked to keep Federal facilities, such as Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton and the Defense Finance and Accounting Center in Cleveland and Columbus, open and operating. And he led a new mission for Ohio's NASA-Glenn in Cleveland. Today these facilities are thriving and contributing to Ohio's aerospace industry and national defense. I don't think there was a State in the country that benefited more from the BRAC process than Ohio, and it is attributable to the outstanding leadership Mike DeWine gave all of us in terms of that BRAC process. Mike has also been a friend of the Jewish community and has made it a priority to help stamp out antisemitism and intolerance in America. He played a pivotal role in helping disclose previously classified documents about Nazi aggression, legislation that made those records available to the public through the National Archives and Records Administration. Today, thanks to Mike, doctors, nurses, and aid workers are more prepared to confront the global AIDS epidemic. Mike has carried a heavy burden while he has been in the Senate. He sits on the Judiciary Committee, the HELP Committee, and the Intelligence Committee. He also sits on one the most prestigious committees in the Senate, Appropriations. In fact, Mike was the first Ohioan in 50 years to sit on Appropriations. His position of leadership--and the resources he has been able to bring back to Ohio-- has made a tremendous difference for our State and a tremendous difference in the lives of the people of our State. I used to joke with Mike that my job as the debt hawk was to make sure we didn't spend the money. But once we decided we were going to spend it, his job was to make sure Ohio got its fair share. And boy, did he do a good job. These are just a handful of examples where my close friend and colleague Mike DeWine has made a difference. His legislative accomplishments and his legacy of principled public service have had a deep impact on all of our lives. The Senate will suffer a loss without Mike. But he will not slip out of the Senate. He will walk out these doors with his head held high because he can feel good about all he has given to the people of Ohio and to the United States of America. He has truly made a difference in their lives. Married for more than 39 years, Mike and Fran are parents to 8 children and grandparents to 10. They have been blessed with much happiness and success, and they have carved out many meaningful paths during their life together. While Mike will be missed, I am confident that he and Fran will begin something new in this next chapter of their lives. We have both been given so much. I believe that God does have a plan. Sometimes we are not sure about what it is, but God does have a plan. I am reminded of one of my favorite verses from the Bible, Proverbs chapter 3, verses 5 and 6: Trust in the Lord with all your heart; and learn not unto your own understandings. In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will direct your path. Mike will be missed. But I know the Holy Spirit will continue to inspire Mike and Fran as they embark on a new journey together.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, as you know, the Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service, APHIS, issued an emergency order on October 24, 2006 which prohibited the importation of 37 species of live fish from two Canadian provinces and the interstate movement within the eight Great Lakes States. APHIS issued this order with the intention of stopping the spread of viral hemorrhagic septicemia, VHS, within the Great Lakes States which has been linked to fish kills. On November 14, 2006 APHIS modified their emergency order to allow the interstate movement of live fish within and from the Great Lakes States provided the fish have tested negative to VHS. I appreciate the concerns APHIS has about the spread of this virus and their concern about protecting the Great Lakes from this virus. I share the goal in restoring and protecting our Great Lakes. I too am deeply concerned about the negative effects associated with the spread of this virus within the Great Lakes and its potential impact on our fishing and aquaculture industry. It is very important that we take responsible steps forward in limiting the spread of this virus which could impact the region. The commercial and sport fishing industry in the Great Lakes is a $4 billion industry and is a source of pride in our region. I am concerned, however, that this emergency order does not adequately take into consideration the economic concerns of the region. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources and the aquaculture industry in the region have all expressed that this order will adversely affect businesses and the State's ability to stock Lake Erie. The Ohio Department of Agriculture has indicated to me they are not equipped to test for this disease at this time and that the cost could be approximately $200,000 to update their labs to meet the demands of the APHIS order. It is critical that we be able to provide the Great Lakes States the ability to begin testing in order to comply with the APHIS order in a timely manner. Funding will be needed to meet these demands. Without this assistance, the aquaculture industry will suffer. Because I believe this issue can be resolved in conference, I have introduced, but will not offer, an amendment to provide funding for the Great Lakes States to help them set up facilities to test fish for VHS. The chairman and ranking member are aware of this important issue and share my concerns about the problem facing the Great Lakes States today. It is my hope that we can work together during conference negotiations on the FY2007 Agriculture Appropriations bill to find relief for the Great Lakes States in this matter.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank the chairman and ranking member and look forward to working on this effort during conference negotiations.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise to address my serious concern about our movement toward a decision to adjourn the 109th Congress without completing our work on the remaining 2007 appropriations bills and to recognize, also, my friend and senior Senator from the State of Ohio, Mr. Mike DeWine. As my colleagues are well aware, the fiscal year 2006 appropriations expired on September 30, 2006. And with the exception of the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, the Federal Government is currently operating on its second temporary continuing resolution, set to expire on December 8, 2006. We now intend to enact a third continuing resolution to fund the Government into February 2007. Passage of a long-term continuing resolution, as some have advocated, means the Federal Government will work without a budget for at least 5 months into the current fiscal year, without knowing what spending levels will be approved for discretionary programs. Federal Departments and agencies will be forced to oversee programs and manage employees without knowing whether they are overspending their fiscal year 2007 budgets. This approach toward managing our Nation's checkbook is indicative of Congress's attitude toward fiscal discipline and is a serious problem. Other Senators have spoken about how serious the problems are. And Senator Byrd did a very good job of outlining the serious impact that our not passing our appropriations on time is going to have on some of our Departments in the Federal Government. And earlier, Senator Specter did the same thing. We are aware of the problems it is going to create for the management of our Government. Operating without a budget impacts our effectiveness in fighting the war on terror. It affects our ability to maintain and improve our transportation infrastructure and enhance our educational system. And it further contributes to the public perception that Congress has no appreciation of the importance of good management and the importance of hiring the right people with the right knowledge and skills at the right time and at the right place. This is not a good record for either side of the aisle. And with due respect to the senior Senator from West Virginia, I think it cannot be laid at the feet of the Republicans; it should be laid at the feet of both Republicans and Democrats. This is not a partisan issue. Congress has the power of the purse, but we are not the best stewards of the taxpayers' money if time after time we pass omnibus bills without even knowing what is in them, and if, again and again, we fund programs without knowing how these programs are performing. Managing by continuing resolution is inherently wasteful and inefficient. It results in spending disruptions and chaos in the operations of Federal programs and dramatic productivity slowdowns. We have no appreciation of what not having a budget for 5 months has on the various Federal agencies that are supposed to be providing services to the people of our country. In recent years, many Federal Departments have taken positive steps toward streamlining their budgets and tightening the reins on their daily operations--conduct that ought to be rewarded. Instead, Departments are forced to thin their staffs and put critical projects on hold when Congress fails to pass appropriations bills on time, placing an unnecessary strain on the relationship between Congress and the administrative branch of Government. Such a funding shortfall is expected to have particularly adverse effects on human capital-intensive agencies, such as the Government Accountability Office, where attracting and retaining good employees is critical to running a competitive and productive organization. Agencies such as the GAO have made it very clear that without a budget, they risk losing top-quality personnel. They are unable to properly recognize and reward individuals for good service--a problem that threatens the efficiency of their day-to-day activities and hampers the image of the Federal Government. As an employer, we want to get people to come on board, and we cannot pass our appropriations. This added pressure on human capital is not limited to the GAO. In fact, there are lots of similar agencies, such as the SEC, the FBI, and the IRS, which experience the same problem. According to a report in Congress Daily, the Social Security Administration maintains it will have to furlough every employee if its regular appropriations are not signed into law. I think that may be a big exaggeration, but it has a real impact on the operations of that agency. Many companies with Government contracts are laying people off because they are not sure that the contracts will be renewed because of the budget process. And I know this from a member of my family who was laid off a year ago. Because we did not pass the budget on time, the company said: We don't know whether we are going to have the contracts. Seventy people lost their jobs while they waited around to find out whether the appropriations were going to be passed and how it impacted on the operations of NASA Glenn in Cleveland. Sometimes programs are ineffective, and their budgets should be reduced or eliminated. By resorting to a continuing resolution, ineffective programs continue to operate, despite poor performance results. For example, the House would have terminated 53 programs, for a savings of $4 billion. But under a continuing resolution, we cannot even discuss whether these programs deserve to be terminated. Literally, dozens of unauthorized programs continue to be funded. On the flip side, the appropriations process has expanded beyond the budget domain to include shaping and authorizing policy. This is especially the case with Foreign Operations programs. It then becomes even more important to enact the Foreign Operations appropriations bill because it is the way we modify foreign aid and foreign policy initiatives. One such instance is the Transformational Diplomacy Program at the State Department, which would allow for the repositioning of American diplomats to essential locations and for the movement of public diplomacy centers to smaller posts outside of foreign capitals. But it is not just the Federal Government that suffers. States, counties, and cities all depend on funding from Washington. If you are a county commissioner or you are a mayor and you have Federal programs and you are not sure what you are going to be getting, that causes a major problem for your respective agency. When Congress fails to enact appropriations on time, highways, emergency preparedness, and economic development programs are all neglected, and Congress creates a new burden for Governors, mayors, and local officials. Maintaining and improving America's transportation is vital to our economy, the environment, and the welfare of the American people. The Interstate Highway System is one of the country's greatest public works projects, but it requires Federal investment. States plan their highway construction programs for the coming year based on anticipated Federal funding set by SAFETEA legislation. If Congress fails to pass the 2007 Transportation appropriations bill on time, States will have reduced Federal funding and are going to be forced to delay construction projects for the upcoming year. In my home State of Ohio, for instance, construction cost increases in inflation have already forced the Ohio Department of Transportation to cancel and postpone nearly $450 million in new highway projects. Adding a continuing resolution to this current slowdown will simply exacerbate the problem and result in further delay and further construction problems, if we don't pay any attention to that. That is going to impact the contracts they would like to let. That is why our States and workers cannot afford for us to ignore our budget responsibilities. It is incredible to me, as someone who has been a mayor and Governor, that the U.S. Senate has not completed its appropriations work. As a mayor and Governor, the law mandated that we get our appropriations done by the end of the fiscal year. I am sure the Presiding Officer, when he was a member in the State of Georgia Legislature, saw that they got their appropriations done on time. In Ohio, once in a while we had to put a cloth over the clock for a couple of days. The fact is, we got it done. I know I am not alone in my frustration. In fact, Thad Cochran, chairman, calls it irresponsible. He is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. It is irresponsible; I second that. It is absolutely irresponsible. Let's look at our record on the path of fiscal irresponsibility. In fact, in 25 of the past 30 years, Congress has failed to enact all the appropriations bills by the start of the fiscal year, which is a major responsibility, to get the budget passed and get the appropriations bills done on time. The last time Congress enacted all appropriations bills by September 30 was 1997. And for 17 of the past years, Congress has had to combine two or more appropriations bills together in an omnibus or minibus legislation. Given the facts, it is an indication to the American people that we are not doing our job. We are not being responsible. We send a signal to those in the Federal Government that we don't give a darn about how, when we don't do our jobs, they can't do theirs. Congress may hold the power of the purse, but we undermine our credibility by starving good managers and agencies of necessary resources and by turning a blind eye to failing programs. This is about more than allocating funds. It is about good management, and it is about good public policy. All of us on a bipartisan basis should pledge that we are going to get the appropriations bills done for 2008 on time and that next year we are not going to have a repeat performance of what we are experiencing this week in the Senate. I think if you talk about the frustration of the American people in terms of Congress and our responsibility to them, you can only conclude one thing if you were out there watching this. Folks are saying: They can't even get their appropriations bills done on time. That is a sad commentary. Let's start out next year on a new leaf. Let's all pledge to do this, both Republicans and Democrats. Let's say we are going to get this job done. I know some people have a problem with the process and some of the porkbarrel and the rest of it, but let's start out and say we are going to get it done, bring it to the floor, debate it, and get it done on time.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for S. 3709, the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act, of which I am a cosponsor. First, I congratulate Senators Lugar and Biden for their excellent bipartisan effort to produce a quality piece of legislation. We can all be very proud of this product. I have long believed the United States and India should expand its excellent friendship and embark upon a deeper, more strategic relationship. We now have that opportunity, and I urge my fellow Members of the Senate to pass S. 3709, a bill that will enable us to transform our relationship with India and initiate a solid partnership with great security, economic, and environmental returns for U.S. national interests. As President Bush said when he met with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in New Delhi last spring: India in the 21st century is a natural partner of the United States because we are brothers in the cause of human liberty. By expanding civil nuclear cooperation with India, the United States has an opportunity to bring India into an arms control regime that will guarantee greater oversight and inspection rights and which will allow us to make India's preexisting nuclear program safer and more transparent. At a time when we are facing many other nuclear power challenges, we should welcome this as a positive step in the world of nonproliferation. It is not just the United States that supports civil nuclear cooperation with India. I was in Vienna in May, where I met with the International Atomic Energy Agency. During our meetings--we were talking primarily about Iran and what they were doing in terms of Iran's violation of the nuclear nonproliferation agreement. We also talked about India and how they felt about the proposal that was being entered into between the United States and India. And I was told, at that time, that India has been a more active and responsible partner, in terms of their cooperation with the IAEA, than many of the signatories to the nuclear nonproliferation agreement. As was just pointed out by the Senator from Texas, later on Director General Mohamed ElBaradei called the idea that is contained in this agreement ``a milestone'' and ``timely for ongoing efforts to consolidate the non-proliferation regime, combat nuclear terrorism and strengthen nuclear safety.'' Furthermore, this agreement will allow us to form a critical strategic relationship with India. And from a point of view, it is long overdue. The geostrategic facts are that China and India are two rising powers in the industrialized world. As China expands its economic power and military strength, U.S. nuclear cooperation with India can help to even the international keel. I am also referring to the fact that China, could pose a threat to U.S. national security in the future. We are working very carefully to make sure that does not happen, but it is something we should think about. But I am also thinking about the fact that India and China also have a good relationship. So the fact that we are entering into a new relationship with India, I think, also would be well received by the Chinese and other Asian countries and helpful to alleviating any tensions that exist. For the past 30 years, we let differences in our domestic policies and our international intentions keep us from working together. But India is a unique democracy, a new shining city upon a hill, and we need this more than ever before. We need models such as this, where people of different faiths and ethnicities live together and where the Government is open and accountable for its actions. It is the largest democracy that we have in the world today. Following the end of the Cold War, new economic opportunities have created room for cooperation between the United States and India in agriculture, health care, commerce, defense, technology, and education. It is amazing to me the number of businesses I have in Ohio that have joint ventures in India and Indian investment in the State of Ohio. In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, India has been a leader in fighting terrorism and rooting out extremists from its society. It has a long record of responsible behavior on nonproliferation matters, and it is time we embrace India as part of that nonproliferation community. I strongly encourage the Senate to pass S. 3907 and take the next step in bolstering our relationship with India. A democratic, economically sound, internationally integrated India will serve as a ballast in a region experiencing rapid, sweeping change. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with my good friends, Senator Pryor, Senator Domenici, and Senator Warner. To my colleagues, it is my understanding that a question as to the intent of the chemical facility security provision has arisen. Senator Pryor, in your view, what is the meaning of section 550 with respect to its effect on State laws or rules?

Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank Senator Pryor for his statement because I agree with it. I know my good friend from Virginia, Senator Warner, also has views on this. Senator Warner, in your view, what is the meaning of section 550 with respect to its effect on State laws or rules.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank Senator Warner for his statement. I strongly agree with the assessment that Congress and the Federal Government have the duty to provide for the security of our States and our people. Further, the importance of a single, integrated set of comprehensive national standards is vital to the security of this sector. I see my good friend from New Mexico here as well. I ask the Senator from New Mexico if he has further views on the meaning of section 550 with respect to its effect on State laws or rules.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank my good friend from New Mexico for his comments, and I strongly agree with his assessment. It is the Federal Government's preeminent role when it comes to matters of national security to set a uniform set of rules with which the regulated community must comply. I feel strongly that this provision sets that uniform set of rules and in so doing, impliedly preempts further regulation by State rules or laws.

Mr. VOINOVICH

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

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to offer the Disaster Area Health and Environmental Monitoring Act, an amendment to the port security bill. This legislation is vital because it provides for the monitoring of the health and safety of individuals exposed to harmful substances as a result of a presidentially declared disaster. The Senate passed this bill by unanimous consent in the 108th Congress, but jurisdictional disagreements between committees in the House caused it not to be passed in the House. This issue first came to my attention during a series of Environment and Public Works Committee hearings in 2002 when we learned of the severe health problems facing thousands of workers and volunteers who heroically responded to the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center. Perhaps some of my colleagues saw the ``60 Minutes'' segment this last Sunday that examined the problem in depth. I will never forget Joe Allbaugh, 3 months after September 11, before the committee. I asked him: What have you found out about what folks were exposed to, those who were first responders? And he said: I can't get the information. This bill would give the President the right to immediately go in and do the investigation to determine what these folks were exposed to. One of the things that we also did was discover that these first responders did not have the opportunity to have a screening. We were able to get $14 million set aside to do screening of first responders. In the case of Ohio--we had one of the first responding units there-- we found a variety of health problems, including respiratory illness, pneumonia, asthma, and many faced the possibility of long-term health issues. I am deeply saddened to note the recent passing of New York City Police Detective James Zadroga, a rescue worker at the World Trade Center, whose tragic death was directly caused by his exposure to toxic fumes and dust at Ground Zero. Currently, the Federal Emergency Management Agency does not hold the authority to conduct the necessary long-term monitoring of health impacts following environmental exposures in the wake of a disaster. In 2003, Federal funding helped establish the World Trade Center Worker and Volunteer Medical Screening Program at Mount Sinai Hospital and the University of Cincinnati. I have already referred to that. At least way afterwards we started doing the screening to let the folks know what they were subjected to. According to the findings, almost 70 percent of the World Trade Center responders had a substantially worse respiratory system following their work at the World Trade Center. Among the responders who were asymptomatic before September 11, 61 percent developed respiratory symptoms while working at the World Trade Center. In addition to that assistance at Ground Zero, OTF responded to the needs of communities around the country faced with the aftermath of natural disasters. OTF sent responders to Florida following Hurricane Dennis in July of 2005 and to Louisiana and Mississippi following Hurricane Katrina in August of 2005. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the need for public health monitoring became clear. The CDC and EPA have identified 13 environmental health issues confronting first responders, including drinking water, wastewater, solid waste, debris and soil contamination from toxic chemicals. It is vital this legislation is enacted to address any health care needs that arise for the thousands of first responders who are active on the gulf coast. S. 1741 authorizes the President, if he determines that substances of concern have been released in a federally declared disaster area, to activate a program in a Federal partnership with appropriate medical institutions for the protection, assessment, monitoring, and study of the health and safety of individuals. The act also would direct Federal agencies to enter into a contract with the National Academies of Sciences to study and report on disaster area health protection and monitoring. It is extremely important we take care of these individuals because, as I stated in past hearings, whether people volunteer to be first responders depends on how we treat the first responders at the World Trade Center, the gulf coast, and other disaster areas. If they are not going to be able to find out immediately what they have been exposed to, and the President has the authority to get in there and find out what it is, we will have more and more people reluctant to come to the help in other disasters in the country. I therefore urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill which is cosponsored by 16 of our Senate colleagues. It is strongly supported by the first responder community. I thank the Senator from Maine for this opportunity to share why it is important we get it passed. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 4962.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a bill my colleague Senator Carper and I introduced today, the Electronic Personal Health Records Act. The purpose of this legislation is to provide for the establishment and maintenance of electronic personal health records for individuals and family members enrolled in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan, FEHBP. The widespread adoption of health information technology, such as electronic health record, (EHR), will revolutionize the health care profession. In fact, the Institute of Medicine, the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics, and other expert panels have identified information technology as one of the most powerful tools in reducing medical errors and improving the quality of care. Unfortunately, our country's health care industry lags far behind other sectors of the economy in its investment in IT. The Institute of Medicine estimates that there are nearly 98,000 deaths each year resulting from medical errors. Many of these deaths can be directly attributed to the inherent imperfections of our current paper-based health care system. This statistic is startling and one that I hope will motivate my colleagues to take a close look at the goals of our legislation. The voluntary EHRs that would be established through the Electronic Personal Health Records Act will provide clinicians with real-time access to their patient's health history. Each EHR would contain claims data, contact information for providers of health care services, and other useful information for diagnosis and treatment. The records will be available cost-free to FEHBP participants and will maintain strict adherence to HIPAA. Under the bill, the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, would be required to ensure that all carriers who participate in FEHBP educate their members about the implementation of the EHR, as well as give timely notice of the establishment of the record and an opportunity for each individual to elect not to participate in the program. OPM, through their carriers, would also have to ensure that all records would be available for electronic access through Internet, fax, or printed method for the use of the individual, and that to the extent possible, records could be transferred from one plan to another. The bill would require EHRs to be made available two years after the passage of the legislation or earlier at the discretion of OPM in consultation with the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology within HHS. Not only can EHRs save lives and improve the quality of health care, they also have the potential to reduce the cost of the delivery of health care. According to Rand Corporation, the health care delivery system in the United States could save approximately $160 billion annually with the widespread use of electronic medical records. As a result, the private market is already moving toward implementing electronic medical records. This bill, simply encourages the health care industry to continue in that direction and take their use of technology in the delivery of care to the next step. I urge my colleagues to consider not only the benefit it will provide to the eight million individuals who receive their health care through the FEHBP, but also to our Nation's overall health care system.