George Voinovich

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I ask that the Voinovich-Carper amendment No. 1841 be called up.

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

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I thank Chairman Dorgan and Ranking Member Bennett for allowing me to bring this amendment to the floor. This bipartisan amendment renews authorization granted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the General Services Administration in the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus appropriations bill that allows GSA to acquire additional permanent office space near the Nuclear Regulatory Commission headquarters location in Rockville, MD. We need to renew this authorization in the fiscal year 2010 appropriations because the current lease negotiations will likely extend beyond September 30, the end of fiscal year 2009. This is a fairly straightforward and simple amendment, but I want to take this opportunity to underscore the importance of the original intent of the authorizing language. Having served as either the chair or ranking on the Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee for the past 8 years side by side with my good friend, the senior Senator from Delaware, I take great pride in the fact that the NRC has become one of the best regulatory agencies in the world. Senator Carper and I, together with other members on the Environment and Public Works Committee, have worked hard to provide the NRC with the necessary resources to do its job; that is, ensuring safe operation of the 104 operating nuclear powerplants while conducting licensing reviews of the 17 applications for construction and operation of 26 new reactors. That may sound like some new information, and it is. We have 17 applications filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for construction and operation of 26 new reactors. With three pieces of legislation included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, we were able to help NRC hire more than 1,000 new workers and rehire retirees in the last 4 years to meet the increasing demand. The rehiring was to train new people who are being brought on board. Now we need to follow through and provide NRC with adequate, colocated headquarters office space to ensure maximum efficiency and effectiveness. I must say that the subcommittee has looked at this over and over again, and we have concluded that it is very necessary to have them have space in the same vicinity so they can more adequately and more efficiently run the operation. Lately, we have been hearing a lot about how we need to increase the use of nuclear energy if we are to achieve our energy independence, reduce greenhouse gases, and create jobs. I would point out that the NRC is at the center of all of this in the midst of reviewing those 17 applications for 26 new reactors. Providing NRC with the tools necessary to achieve regulatory stability, efficiency, and effectiveness not only makes sense, it is the job of Congress. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

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

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, since there is no further debate on amendment No. 1841, I ask for its adoption.

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

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, today I would like to congratulate the members of the 1969 Class of Harvey S. Firestone High School in Akron, OH, on the 40th anniversary of their graduation. Graduates of Firestone's Class of '69 have gone on to become distinguished and accomplished educators, scientists, doctors, artists, entertainers, athletes, public officials, entrepreneurs, and moms and dads. This is a tribute not only to those students, but also to their teachers who gave lavishly of their time, attention and knowledge to ensure a sound foundation for almost 400 young men and women. The State of Ohio has been long recognized for its excellence in education, and the 1969 graduates of Firestone High continue to leave a legacy that is a testimony to that excellence. This weekend these graduates will travel from all parts of the country and beyond to reminisce, and rekindle friendships. I ask Members of the Senate to join me today in congratulating the Harvey S. Firestone Class of 1969.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Who is managing this side of the debate?

Mr. VOINOVICH. I ask unanimous consent that I take some of the time of Senator Bayh, who is supposed to be managing.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I rise today to speak in support of the competitive sourcing for the Joint Strike Fighter engines. Senator Bayh's compromise amendment continues our support for competition for the Joint Strike Fighter engines and restores the funding for the Marine Corps helicopters that I know a number of my colleagues are concerned about. From my understanding of what happened is that in the Armed Services Committee, Senator Bayh was concerned that the committee did not have money in the budget for competition for the Joint Strike Fighter. As a result of that, he moved to amend and took money away from the helicopters that Senator Lieberman is so concerned about. Today we are here because the Senator from Connecticut wants to restore that money for those helicopters, and at the same time, those of us who are concerned about competition would like to see the money included so we can continue competition for the Joint Strike Fighter. As most of you know, I am a former Governor and mayor who has been an ardent champion of fiscal responsibility and total quality management in government. I am not a Johnnie-come-lately to this whole business of efficiency in terms of our defense budget. Since 1990, the Department of Defense acquisition management has been under GAO's high risk list, and that is why, in my capacity as chair and now ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Government Management, I strongly supported reforms at the Defense Department that address contracting weaknesses and promote good business practices to support our men and women in uniform. I want everyone to understand, this is not the F-22. This is about competition, fiscal responsibility, and good government management. When I came to the Senate, I remember Dwight D. Eisenhower talked about the military-industrial complex. I must say, since I have been a Senator, he had it wrong. It is the military-industrial-congressional complex. If you watch how things are done on the floor of the Senate, a lot of it has got to do with protecting the business in our States, even though in some instances it is not in the best interests of our country. I am proud to say, in spite of the fact that in my State we lost about 500 jobs, I voted to eliminate the F-22. That is what we should see more of here. But too often, when we make our decisions, it has got more to do with the corporations in our respective States and the jobs than it has to do with what is in the best interests of the country or what is fiscally responsible. I think all of us should be concerned about it. I am going to leave here at the end of next year. But it seems to me if we do not start paying more attention to that, we are going to continue to be in trouble. In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee this past May, the Government Accountability Office stated that competition, competition for the Joint Strike Fighter engine will yield long-term cost savings for taxpayers. Does that mean it is not going to cost a little more at the front end because we are going to have more than one company competing for that engine? Of course it is going to cost a little bit more. But that testimony GAO gave cited an example of engine competition for the F-16. OK? We had competition for the F-16. Let's remember that this Joint Strike Fighter is going to be the fighter for all of the Federal agencies. It is going to be with us for the next 25 or 30 years. That testimony for the F-16 said: It reduced engine costs for the F- 16 by over 20 percent. In other words, by putting a little money up front and having competition between the companies that wanted to do the engines, we, over the contract, saved 20 percent. I commend to my colleagues the GAO testimony before the Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives. This is quite a report. For those who are really interested in the subject, I ask them to read this or have their staff look at it. It is entitled ``Joint Strike Fighter Strong Risk Management Essential as Program Enters Most Challenging Phase.'' It is interesting the way the company that was originally chosen to do this has had cost overruns even in the beginning--and the two companies that were competing with them have been on budget and on time for the Record. By the way, it is right here in this GAO report. All you have to do is read the report. It is there. Let me read what the report says: A competitive strategy has the potential for savings equal to or exceeding that amount across the life cycle of the engine. Prior experience indicates that it is reasonable to assume that competition on the Joint Strike Fighter engine program could yield savings. . . . As a result, we remain confident that competitive pressures could yield enough savings to offset the [upfront] costs of [development] over the JSF program's life. Let me repeat that: As a result, we remain confident that competitive pressures could yield enough savings to offset the [upfront] costs of [development] over the [Joint Strike Fighter] program's life. Most of us understand competition. We have laws against antitrust, trying to make sure that one company doesn't get an advantage over another. I think most of my colleagues understand competition brings out the best and the lowest price. The GAO testimony goes on to address the impact competition has on quality of product and incentives to perform: Our prior work, along with studies by the [Department of Defense] and others, indicate there are a number of nonfinancial benefits that may result from competition, including better performance, increased reliability, and improved contractor responsiveness. I heard the Senator from Arizona speak eloquently about all of the overruns and expenses and everything else about it. If he were here, I would say to him: Hey, what we want to do is have some competition on this engine so we get the best price, the best quality, the most responsiveness. We don't need the GAO to confirm common sense. We all know that competition leads to lower cost, improved performance, increased reliability, and helps to keep our contractors honest. Without a competitive engine, over 90 percent of our fighter aircraft will be powered by one engine by 2030. Think about that. One company will have that contract. Giving an extraordinarily large contract to a single vendor without competition is reckless and irresponsible. Our government has an obligation to keep our contractors honest, and the surest way to achieve that honesty is through competition. I urge colleagues to support the Bayh compromise amendment that preserves competitive sourcing for the Joint Strike Fighter engine. We have an opportunity. I can understand the Senator from Connecticut was upset because we took money out of the helicopters to maintain the competition. What Senator Bayh is trying to do is come up with an amendment that will restore the money so we can buy the helicopters and, at the same time, maintain competition on the Joint Strike Fighter. I urge my colleagues to study this issue. Please, if they have a chance, they or their staffs ought to look at this report by the GAO. It substantiates the reasons why we are so ardent in terms of our support for competition for the Joint Strike Fighter. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member for their leadership and courtesy regarding my amendment to provide budget authority for the National Guard--State Partnership Program. I understand that this amendment as accepted would provide the program with budget authority for fiscal year 2010. I urge the committee to consult with the Department of Defense, our combatant commanders in the field, and our State adjutant generals regarding the efficacy of permanent authority for the program as the committee prepares next year's defense bill.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I do not think there is a Senator in this body who has talked more about deficits or our national debt than the senior Senator from Ohio. Senator Lieberman and I have a bill in to create a commission to deal with tax reform and entitlements. I have had a bill in called the SAFE Commission for the last 4 years: Saving America's Future Economy. There is no one more aware of where we are. We will have a deficit this year, I believe, of over $2 trillion when you take into consideration the amount of money we are borrowing from our governmental trust funds. That being said, I respectfully oppose the amendment offered by my good friend, the Senator from Arizona. This amendment seeks to strike the requirement in the bill for $39.7 million for the Advanced Training Center. This Advanced Training Center is designed to serve the specialized needs of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. It officially opened in August of 2005. There may be some people who object to the fact that it is in West Virginia, but the fact is it is in West Virginia. This year alone, the Center will provide advanced training to over 3,200 U.S. Customs and Border Protection employees. We have already mentioned we have increased the number of these employees substantially to do what most people want us to do; that is, to protect the border and to go after those individuals who are illegal immigrants. There is no question about that. But I also know from my work on the Governmental Affairs Committee and my Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, in the Federal workforce, the people we hire have to be trained. You just cannot bring them on. You have to train them. So this is a critical training facility for frontline employees. In fact, the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Management and Budget have endorsed the expansion of this facility as well when they approved and sent forward to Congress their 5-year master facility plan. This is not a boondoggle. This is not a waste of money. This is something to support a facility that is there and needs to be expanded because we have decided we want to hire a lot more employees. When you hire employees, you have to provide them the training. And that is exactly what this is doing. Again, I wish to emphasize, if we are going to secure the border, it is going to cost a lot of money, including training the people we are going to hire. So we should oppose this amendment.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I would be remiss if I didn't thank, first of all, the chairman of our subcommittee, Robert Byrd, for the cooperation he has shown me and his staff. I particularly thank Senator Murray. I think this is my first opportunity to do one of these bills on the floor of the Senate, and it has been an interesting experience for me. I also particularly thank Chuck for his work, and my great staff here, because without them, we wouldn't have been able to get this job done. I thank all of you for your cooperation in making this all happen.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, we oppose this amendment. The amendment would force the Department of Homeland Security to construct hundreds of additional miles of pedestrian fencing beyond that which is determined as necessary. The Department of Homeland Security has studied and analyzed the tactical infrastructure needs, including pedestrian fencing or vehicle fencing along that border. It has built or is in the process of constructing the miles of pedestrian fencing that are needed or that they believe is necessary. The fact is, this body, when we changed the law not to be prospective, we did not detail the location and type of fencing. Instead, we left it to the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security. Not only is this amendment wrong because it overturns the U.S. Customs and Border Service determination of tactical infrastructure needs along the border, it would be incredibly costly. It would outstrip the funds provided for this purpose by requiring additional fencing. Some miles of fencing have an average cost of $5 billion per mile. I urge we vote no on this amendment.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam. President, I thank Senator Durbin. I would like to acknowledge the cooperation we received from Senator Byrd and his staff. We are pleased Senator Byrd is out of the hospital and recuperating at home. I appreciate the fact that the Senator from Illinois has stepped in to pinch-hit for him this morning. I think the Senator from Illinois has done an outstanding job of covering the details of the bill. I would like to concentrate on some of the highlights I think need to be underscored. The bill recommends a total of $44.3 billion in appropriations to support programs and activities of the Department of Homeland Security. Of this amount, $42.7 billion is for discretionary spending. This is roughly $145 million less than the President's total discretionary request and is consistent with the subcommittee's spending allocation. In addition, $1.4 billion is provided for Coast Guard retired pay-- the only mandatory funding in the bill--and $241.5 million is provided for Coast Guard overseas contingency operations, the same amount as requested by the President in the Department of Defense budget to be transferred to the Coast Guard and instead of being appropriated in the Defense Appropriations bill is being appropriated here. The bill includes significant resources: for border security and enforcement of our immigration laws, for continued improvements in security at our Nation's airports and modes of surface transportation, for the Coast Guard's operations and Deepwater Program recapitalization efforts, for helping our citizens prepare for and recover from natural disasters, and for equipping and training our Nation's first responders. As Senator Durbin has indicated, there is much in this bill to recommend. I am pleased the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security understands we have done our best to fund her priorities. I will not list all the bill's funding recommendations, but I do want to note some. Full funding is provided for border security, including the funds to support 20,063 border patrol agents; 21,12 customs and border protection officers; 33,400 detention beds; and $800 million for continued work on the virtual border fence and improved radio communications. Starting in fiscal year 2005, significant increases have been provided for border security and immigration enforcement. This bill alone provides an increase of $880 million from the fiscal year 2009 level, excluding emergency appropriations. Progress has been made with these investments. Fewer people are illegally crossing our borders. This can be seen in the decrease in apprehensions of aliens along our borders--from 1,198,075 in fiscal year 2005 to 723,825 in fiscal year 2008. In other words, we have made it more difficult for 474,250 illegal aliens to cross our borders. More fencing, roads, and personnel have allowed the border patrol to increase the number of miles over which it has effective control--from 241 miles in October 2005 to 625 miles in October 2008. Additional agents and detention beds have allowed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to increase total removals of aliens--from 246,431 removals in fiscal year 2005 to 347,184 in fiscal year 2008. We are making progress but we still have a long way to go and at great expense. In particular, I am pleased that the bill includes funds above the request to implement a biometric air exit capability. As the chief Senate sponsor of the Secure Travel and Counterterrorism Partnership Act of 2007, expanding and improving the Visa Waiver Program is one of my top priorities. The Visa Waiver Program has become an important national security tool because under that law, countries who participate in the program are required to share information on terrorists and criminals, report lost and stolen passports, and maintain high counterterrorism and document security practices. Since enactment of this law, 8 new countries have been accepted into the program and we are seeing improvements in the security practices of the 27 countries that were already participating. I have just returned from Lithuania and Latvia, where I was joined by several other Members of the Senate, including Senator Durbin. Lithuania and Latvia are two countries that were recently admitted into the visa waiver program. From a public diplomacy point of view, it has been a home run and has been well received by government officials and citizens alike. I was up in Latvia. They pointed out to me that General Mullen was in Latvia, which should have been the biggest thing in the newspaper the next day, that he was there. The thing that blew him away was the fact that Latvia was approved for visa waiver status. It was so well received by the people of Latvia. I must note however the two areas which continue to be of concern to me. One is the way this administration has budgeted for disasters. The President's fiscal year 2010 request for disaster relief is only $2 billion. We know now from FEMA estimates that this is not enough to pay for the declared disasters already on the books. Based on current needs, an appropriation of $5.8 billion is required. I understand we cannot afford that within the discretionary spending limits for this bill, but I am hopeful this is addressed in future budgets. This administration has worked hard to break the cycle of requesting emergency funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet no one has suggested fixing the way we budget for natural disasters. Last year alone, $11.757 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations were provided for disaster relief. We cannot continue to ``kick the can down the road,'' relying on supplemental emergency appropriations to pay for known costs. Hurricane Katrina was a catastrophic event. Exceptions were made to regulations and policies to speed assistance to those struggling to recover from the enormity of the losses. But now these are becoming the standard rather than an ``exception to the rule,'' and the Federal taxpayers are picking up an ever increasing share of disaster recovery costs. It is kind of interesting that at the time of Katrina I commented we were doing some things we ordinarily do not do in a FEMA environment and predicted that what we were doing at Katrina would become the role model for other disasters that have been experienced by States. The fact is, more and more States are now asking for more and more FEMA money, saying: You did it in Katrina, why can't you do it in Texas? Why can't you do it wherever else we have a disaster? This has to change if we are going to handle Federal spending and do something about the deficit. In addition, this bill provides almost $16 billion for border and immigration enforcement. That does not even include Coast Guard funding to protect our maritime borders. This is a 99.6-percent increase for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and US-VISIT from fiscal year 2004 levels in the first Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act. It is a significant increase. I think the citizens of our country should know that. They have been saying, for a long time, that we have not been doing the job in enforcing the security of our borders. I must tell them we are doing a much better job than ever before because we are allocating the resources to get the job done. As we have increased the resources for border I have often wondered if there was another way we can secure our borders and deal with 11 or so million illegal immigrants other than by drastically increasing the resources for border and immigration enforcement. In fiscal year 2008, the Federal Government removed 347,184 individuals. In fiscal year 2009, $5.6 billion is available to locate, detain, and remove unauthorized aliens. At the current pace of removals, it could require a further investment of $272 billion and 31 years to locate and remove the estimated 11 million unauthorized aliens in the United States. We must ask whether we are willing or can afford to make that kind of investment in enforcement rather than investing time in comprehensive immigration reform. I appreciate very much the courtesies of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia and his staff and all members of the Appropriations Committee during our preparation of this bill. I believe it reflects our careful consideration of the President's budget request for the Department and our best effort to address the Department's resource requirements of the Department for the coming fiscal year. I look forward to considering amendments which Senators may suggest to the bill and to work throughout the appropriations process to ensure the Department has the funds to carry out its duties and responsibilities. In closing, I would point out that the President's budget was received on May 7 and the Appropriations Committee is working diligently to move forward on the passage of our 12 appropriations bills. Two of the 12 fiscal year 2010 appropriations bills were reported by the committee on June 18--including this Homeland Security bill--and 2 more were reported on June 25. Another five of the appropriations bills are scheduled to be considered and reported by the committee this week--two this afternoon and another three on Thursday. The House considered and adopted its version of the fiscal year 2010 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill on June 24. It is unfortunate that Senate consideration of this bill could not have occurred that same week, which would have put us in a position now to go to conference with the House. Expeditious consideration of the fiscal year 2010 appropriations bills by the Senate is required if the Congress is to complete its work on all twelve of the appropriations bills by the October 1 start of the fiscal year. I have long been concerned about our failure to complete our appropriations work on time and the consequences of inaction, and I intend to speak at greater length on that during our consideration of this bill. But, I do want to note here that a letter, dated March 24, 2009, to the majority leader, which included the signatures of all Republican Members, asked that the legislative schedule for this session: . . . allocate an appropriate amount of time for the Senate to consider, vote and initiate the conference process on each of the 12 appropriations bills independently through a deliberative and transparent process on the Senate floor. The letter goes on to point out that: For a variety of reasons, over the past several years, the Senate has failed to debate, amend and pass each of the bills separately prior to the end of the fiscal year. Far too often this has resulted in the creation of omnibus appropriations bills that have been brought to floor so late in the fiscal year that Senators have been forced to either pass a continuing resolution, shut down government or consider an omnibus bill. These omnibus bills have not allowed for adequate public review and have clouded what should otherwise be a transparent process. The letter further points out that President Obama, on March 11, 2009, said that he expects future spending bills to be . . . debated and voted on in an orderly way and sent to [his] desk without delay or obstruction so that we don't face another massive, last minute omnibus bill like this one. So let us proceed with this bill and debate and dispose of amendments Senators may wish to offer to it without unnecessary delay to allow us to complete our appropriations work this session. And, I would like to add that it is incumbent on our side of the aisle to make sure our amendments are relevant and germane. I recommend this bill to my colleagues for their consideration and support, and I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, it is time for Congress to join forces and unite in a bipartisan way to help the President deal with the unbelievable challenges he has domestically and internationally. One easy way to help our Nation is by passing our appropriations bills by September 30. Our getting it done this year is urgent because of the state of our economy and the impact Federal spending has on that economy. Our reliance on continuing resolutions to fund the Federal Government continues to plague Congress and has a cascading effect on government agencies and the citizens they serve. In recent decades, it has become common for appropriations bills to be enacted after the start of the fiscal year, during the last quarter of the calendar year, or even in the next session of Congress, as was the case this year. Repeatedly managing by continuing resolution is inefficient. It results in wasteful spending, disruption and chaos in the operations of Federal programs, and dramatic productivity slowdowns. This is not a good record for either party and is an irresponsible approach to managing our limited resources. It has to stop. Last year, because the Senate did not do its job, agencies were rushed to spend their budgets before the end of the fiscal year and used overtime to ensure requests were processed before midnight on September 30, making it ripe for overspending as agencies stockpiled to try to meet future needs. This also means fewer dollars being returned to the Treasury to help reduce our growing budget deficit. We need to get back to basics to solve it. This is one problem the Congress can solve, and we need to do it this year. 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. I can assure you, as a county commissioner, mayor, and Governor, if the appropriations were not done on time we would have been run out of town for not doing our job. Inaction causes chaos in the operations of our Federal Government. Continuing resolutions do exactly what their name implies: they continue funding at prior year levels, without regard to whether changes in funding are necessary or appropriate. As a result, agency program managers are now in the untenable position of having to manage on the prior year's budget, which often results in a loss of productivity and a waste of taxpayer dollars. Imagine if these same program managers could spend their time instead on our current economic situation, ensuring that the stimulus funds are being spent wisely and appropriately. Programs which cannot justify the level of funding they used to have, and ought to be cut, will continue to get the level of funding they were getting. Likewise, programs for which increased need has been demonstrated, and which therefore should get increased funding, will continue to be funded at the prior year's level, leaving the increased need unaddressed. Since 1990, the Government Accountability Office has issued its biennial high-risk report, which examines the challenges faced by Federal programs and operations and recommends ways to improve their performance and accountability. Many of the programs on the GAO high- risk list are dysfunctional and fail to deliver the intended services to the taxpayer. In other instances, the Federal Government is wasting taxpayer dollars that could be better used for higher priority programs or cutting the deficit. Imagine if we were able to dedicate 1 week--or even 1 day--per month as a body debating solutions to the challenges identified by GAO instead of debating whether and when to proceed on appropriations bills or throwing together a continuing resolution to ensure we avoid the embarrassment of a government shutdown. This is not a case of benign neglect. We have become overly reliant on past practice and refuse to make the end-to-end budget process a priority. Continuing appropriations acts have become commonplace and, unfortunately, fully integrated into the process. The end result is funding uncertainty--not because the money is not there but because Congress cannot join in a bipartisan manner and hammer out an agreement on how money should be spent. No business would manage its affairs in this manner, and neither should the Federal Government. As I said, the Federal Government is the only level of government that gets away with it. I think few in the Senate recognize the adverse impact continuing resolutions have on agencies where budgets rely heavily on personnel. Hiring freezes, cuts in training budgets have lasting effects. It is irresponsible for us not to provide appropriations on time to those we have asked to provide services to the American people and give them gigantic excuses to not perform. Our inaction also has an impact on program management. Federal public servants spend countless hours preparing detailed budget justifications for our review. We reward their hard work by asking them to spend their time figuring out how to manage under last year's budget. Imagine if these people could spend their time managing programs instead of figuring out how to operate under a continuing resolution, including completion of reprogramming requests. Managing by continuing resolution has the effect of delaying construction, reducing overall efficiency, wasting time and paper resources, and disallowing any new starts in procurement. Fortune 100 companies do not walk away from difficult budget choices by taking a pass to the next fiscal year. Neither does Main Street USA. Regardless of whether you subscribe to the belief that CRs save money, this is no way to run an organization. It is part of our obligation to the American people to ensure our scarce resources are given to projects that produce results. I want to share a few examples of the true impact of continuing resolutions, taken from a memo prepared by the Congressional Research Service and hearings before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Let's take the Department of Education. The Impact Aid Program is an elementary and secondary education program that does not receive forward funding or advance appropriations and, therefore, is more easily affected by an interim continuing resolution. Payments for children with disabilities are delayed when the Department of Education is operating under a continuing resolution. USAID: The delay of funding of the President's Malaria Initiative, which was enacted in order to reduce deaths due to malaria by 50 percent, lasted until February 15, 2007, 5 months or 138 days into fiscal year 2007. Doing the math, this delay in funding relates to the loss of, say, 198,000 lives unnecessarily. In other words, by delaying it, the money was not there. We did not get the job done, and this resulted in the deaths of individuals. NASA: On June 8, 2009, the Federal Times reported the following from NASA Administrator Michael Griffin: Any time Congress passes a continuing resolution that holds agencies to their current spending levels at a time when the economy is experiencing inflation translates into a budget cut. And so we will be cutting the budget at NASA and the only question is how much. . . . And then the second question, after how much is decided, is will the continuing resolution be broadly applied and left to the discretion of agency heads to implement or will special programs be targeted to be either favored or disfavored. FEMA: In fiscal year 2008, the Emergency Food and Shelter Program, which ``provides emergency food and shelter to needy individuals,'' did not receive funds under the CR. Thus, the program did not have funds available for communities and their respective homeless provider agencies during what many view as critical winter months until February 26, 2008, or 149 days into fiscal year 2008. The judiciary: The judiciary has had to resort to hiring freezes or furloughing employees under continuing resolutions. In fiscal year 2004, the judiciary reduced 1,350 positions, with probation and pretrial services receiving significant cuts. HUD: During fiscal year--I am just giving you examples that have been pointed out by CRS. During fiscal year 2004, the Department of Housing and Urban Development had to temporarily suspend the General Insurance and Special Risk Insurance Fund of the Federal Housing Administration because the continuing resolution did not provide a sufficient credit subsidy to continue with the programs. During the suspension, HUD was unable to meet the needs of the borrowers who would ordinarily be served by the respective programs, which created uncertainty among the lenders and potential borrowers. Mr. President, I think most of us have seen what happens when we have uncertainty in our mortgage system. The Treasury Department: Continuing resolutions in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008 limited and delayed the IRS's ability to implement improvements in the taxpayer service. Also, these continuing resolutions prevented the agency from making job offers to highly qualified candidates until enactment of a full year's appropriation. Just jerk them around. Research and development: Most research and development programs continue to receive funding at the prior year's level when operating under a continuing resolution. However, this funding mechanism can only support existing R&D priorities rather than shifting to new ones because only existing programs retain funding. New and emerging technologies must be funded in real time. The Social Security Administration: Operating under a continuing resolution for fiscal year 2010 will hamper efforts to reduce backlogs in the agency's disability program, which would result in decreased efficiency. Also, in previous years continuing resolutions caused the agency to implement a hiring freeze that contributed to service delivery problems. While Commissioner Astrue has gone to great lengths to send additional resources, for example, to my home State, Ohio still has people waiting more than 500 days for a decision on their Social Security disability claim. I was very critical of SSA. I started looking back on the continuing resolutions that were passed. It was a chaotic situation. They were not able to keep the people they had. They were not able to hire more people, and we have a 500-day wait now. I am sure the Presiding Officer gets the same complaints from his people that they cannot get their disability appeals heard. DHS: In testimony before the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Management, the Department of Homeland Security's Deputy Procurement Officer, Richard Gunderson, spoke to the impact continuing resolutions have on the key homeland security programs. Gunderson testified: A CR would stop those programs in their tracks and we would not be able to grow the way that everybody is saying that we need to grow. Mr. President, there are a lot more examples of what I am talking about. I think this has to be the year we do our job. The Senator from Nevada, our leader, and the Senator from Kentucky, our minority leader, have both publicly stated that we need to do our job on time. As I mentioned earlier, the need for it is more urgent than ever before. If I were the President of the United States today, I would probably look at what the Congress is doing, and I think I would say: One of the greatest gifts you can give me, one of the greatest gifts you can give our country, is to do your work on time so we do not have this chaotic situation we have had for so many years. None of our hands are clean. None of our hands are clean. I have been here when we have deliberately not passed appropriations with the idea that maybe our guy is going to get elected President or we are going to get the majority in the Senate or the Congress and so then we can tweak it the way we want to because a majority is no longer in the majority. This game has been played for too long around here, and it is about time we recognized it and did something about it. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. I ask unanimous consent that Carol Cribbs on the Appropriations Committee staff be granted the privilege of the floor during the consideration of the fiscal year 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations bill and any votes in relation thereto.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to speak as in morning business for 20 minutes.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I rise today to again call attention to the irresponsible and reckless fiscal path we find ourselves on as a nation and to urge my colleagues to act now to take the first step toward meaningful, comprehensive tax and entitlement reform through the enactment of the Securing America's Future Economy Commission Act, which I introduced with Senator Joe Lieberman. I urge my colleagues to take the time to read a recent letter from Senator Lieberman and I urging their support of this legislation. The SAFE Commission has broad bipartisan support outside of Congress, including the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, the Business Roundtable, the Concord Coalition, the National Federation of Independent Business, the Brookings Institution and the Heritage Foundation--I think if you get the Concord Coalition and the Heritage Foundation to support a piece of legislation, it has to be pretty bipartisan and fair--and also the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. All of these organizations back the SAFE Commission concept as the way to tackle tax reform and our entitlement crisis. I say to the Presiding Officer, as you may know, recently Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao publicly voiced his concern about the security of the ``huge amount of money'' China has invested in the United States, saying, ``To be honest, I am definitely a little worried.'' He then went on to call on the United States to ``maintain its good credit, to honor its promises and to guarantee the safety of China's assets.'' I hope this frightens you as much as it frightens me. China is the largest foreign creditor of the United States, holding an estimated $1 trillion in U.S. Government debt. Though it may be unlikely due to the complex interdependent relationship we have with China, if China were to call in that debt, sell off its holdings, or direct its foreign investments away from the United States, the impact on our economy and our national security would be devastating. I have been saying for years that we cannot allow countries that control our debt to control our future. The fact is foreign creditors have provided 70 percent of the funds the United States has borrowed since 2001. As a result, 51 percent of the privately owned national debt is held by foreign creditors--mostly foreign central banks. That is going to be increased significantly because of all the borrowing we are doing. These lenders are starting to express significant concerns about the status of our fiscal situation. To be frank, they should be concerned. Our spending is out of control. As a result, our debt is skyrocketing. When I arrived in the Senate in 1999, gross national debt stood at $5.6 trillion, or 61 percent of our GDP. The Obama administration recently projected the national debt to more than double to $12.7 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2009. From 2008 to 2009 alone, the Federal debt will increase 27 percent, boosting the country's debt-to-income ratio--or national debt as a percentage of GDP--from 70 percent last year to 89 percent this year. As shown on this chart, here is where we were back when I came to the Senate in 1999. In 2008, last year, the national debt as a percentage of GDP was 70 percent. Today, it is at 89 percent. You can see we are going to be very close to 100 percent of our GDP on our national debt. I call this the Pac Man that is eating up our revenue--particularly the interest. We are going to pay money that could be used for other things. Alarmingly, the figures I just mentioned do not count our accumulated, long-term financial obligations. The Peterson Foundation recently pointed out that the Federal Government has accumulated $56.4 trillion in total liabilities and unfunded promises for Medicare and Social Security as of September 30, 2008. That works out--listen to this--to $483,000 per American household or $184,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country to pay for these unfunded obligations. In other words, we have $56.4 trillion in total liabilities and unfunded promises for Medicare and Social Security. It is an unfunded liability. If you look at it per household, it is $483,000 per household, and if you look at it per individual, for every man, woman, and child in the United States, it is $184,000. To be completely fair to President Obama, our annual deficit and growing national debt have been problems for some time now. And, folks, I have come to the floor of the Senate time and time again to talk about paying down debt, balancing our budget, and so forth. To my knowledge, President Bush never once mentioned the debt in any one of his State of the Union Addresses to Congress. But under the Obama administration, we have exacerbated the problem with an Omnibus appropriations bill that includes $408 billion in nonemergency funding, a $787 billion stimulus bill, and a 10-year proposed budget where the lowest deficit for a single year is larger than any annual deficit from the end of World War II to President Obama's inauguration. I know we are going through some tough times. Over the past year, we have been hit by an economic avalanche that started in housing, spread to the financial and credit markets, and then continued onward to every corner of our economy. I know it well. I am a Senator from Ohio. We are spending money to get out of this economic mess, but we cannot allow that to be an excuse to continue our reckless fiscal path. We have to start finding ways to work harder and smarter to do more with less. It does not take an economist to realize our course is unsustainable. I know it, the Obama administration knows it, the American people know it. The Obama administration knows we can no longer ignore this crisis. Peter Orszag, whom I consider a friend, the Obama administration's OMB Director, has even said: I don't want to sound like the boy crying wolf, but it is a fact that, given the path that we are on, two things: One is we will ultimately wind up with a financial crisis that is substantially more severe than even what we are facing today if we don't alter the path of Federal spending; and secondly, that if we were on that path in the future and something like we are experiencing today occurred, we would have much less maneuvering room to fight those fires, because we will have already depleted the fire truck. And I am disappointed that as OMB Director he has forgotten his commitment to entitlement and tax reform he so boldly and loudly called for when he was CBO Director. You would think a change in title would not cause such a memory loss on as important an issue as the financial health of our country. To me, it can only mean one thing: that Peter Orszag's boss, President Obama, must not be serious about addressing the growing national debt or, worse, does not understand our fiscal crisis or, even worse than that, that he just does not care. Just last Friday, the Washington Post ran an opinion piece taking the administration to task for lacking a plan on just how we start to dig our country out of this financial crisis. The article details Treasury Secretary Geithner's trip to Beijing 2 weeks ago, where he went to reassure China--the world's largest holder of our Treasury debt, as I mentioned--that lending money to the U.S. Government is still a wise thing to do. Mr. Geithner insisted that: In the United States, we are putting in place the foundations for restoring fiscal sustainability. In a moment that all Americans should consider a wake-up call, Mr. Geithner was met with laughter--laughter--when he told a group of Chinese students that their country's assets were very safe in Washington. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this Washington Post article. The title of it is ``No Laughing Matter, Why the U.S. needs to get serious now about long-term budget deficits.''

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, this week, as you know, President Obama announced a plan to reenact statutory pay-as-you-go, pay-go. Now, what is ``pay-go''? Pay-go basically is this: If you want to spend more money, you either have to find other spending you are going to reduce or, in the alternative, you are going to have to raise taxes to pay for it. Unfortunately, the President's plan exempts things like the 2001-2003 tax cuts, patching the alternative minimum tax, updating physicians' payments in Medicare--and last but not least, modifying the estate tax. These expenses would be exempt from pay-go. Folks, I believe this is intellectually dishonest. This does not reflect the high standards the President has set for his administration. In my opinion, it is more like the smoke and mirrors of the past that got us into the mess we find ourselves in today. Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, puts it like this: It is like quitting drinking-- She was referring to the President's pay-go announcement. Here is what she says-- It is like quitting drinking, but making an exception for beer and hard liquor. Exempting these measures from pay-go would increase the 10-year deficit by over $2.5 trillion. That's not fiscal responsibility. Today, I am reiterating my call for President Obama and Congress to enact the first pillar of meaningful tax and entitlement reform through the enactment of the SAFE Commission Act. I am asking my colleagues and their staffs to step up and look at this legislation and read the ``Dear Colleague'' letter Senator Lieberman and I sent this last week with materials from the Peterson Foundation. Those materials, for a Senator or for staff members, lay out what I am talking about today. In addition, there is a DVD that is called IOUSA that was put together by the Peterson Foundation. I think it takes about an hour to look at it, but I don't know of anything that is out there today that depicts our financial crisis as well as that DVD does. The SAFE Commission we are talking about would create a vehicle, much like we do for the BRAC process, to take on the tough issues of Social Security, tax reform, and creating, by a vote of 13 out of 20 members-- there would be 20 members on the Commission; 2 of them would be from the administration, but it would take 13 out of 20--and if you have 13 out of 20, the recommendations would be fast-tracked through a special process and brought to the floor of both Chambers. In other words, we would give it expedited procedure and then we would have to either vote up or down, just as we do on the BRAC process. It would break the logjam in Washington and show the American people and the world that we are serious about getting this Nation back on track. For the life of me, I cannot understand why President Obama doesn't support this concept. I know he is getting a hard time from Speaker Pelosi and from several other Members in the House of Representatives, although Steny Hoyer is in favor of the commission approach to solving our entitlement and tax reform crisis. We all know we can't get this done through the regular order of business. We know it. We would not be able to get it done. The proof of it is we haven't been able to do it thus far, so we are going to need the Commission. Everybody understands we are going to need it. I know the President wants to move on climate change. But he has to know that from a substantive point of view and a political point of view, he is going to have to do something about this long-term financial crisis in which we found ourselves. It would seem to me he could go forward with climate change, he could go forward with health care reform, and get the Commission formed. It will take the Commission at least a year to finish its business. Think of this: If the Commission is able to get 13 out of 20 members to come back with a bipartisan solution to dealing with tax reform and entitlement reform, that would be wonderful. It would take that issue off the President's plate. In other words, sooner or later, our President and his party are going to have to face up to the fact that the people of America are really worried--and so are the people of the world--about us doing something about tax reform and entitlement reform. Wouldn't it be great--I mean, if I were the Governor, as I was for 8 years in Ohio, and somebody said: Governor, you know what. You have a real problem. And what we are going to do is, we are going to put a commission together on a bipartisan basis, and we are going to come back with recommendations to get the job done--I would kiss them and say: Wonderful. I could kind of forget about it, except for the two people in the administration who were working on it. If they came back with a bipartisan solution, wow. Get it through Congress and we deal with the substantive problem and we get a big political problem off our plate just before going into the next Presidential election. So I just hope there is some more thought being given by the administration, more thought given by the Congress. We all say: Oh, yes, we are concerned about the national debt. We have to do something about it. But when you go home, what are you going to point to for the people, your constituents? What are you going to point to and say: I am sincere about this; I want to do something about it. Then they are going to ask you: Well, what did you do? One of the things you can do is say: I supported a bipartisan commission. They are going to go to work during the next year. They are going to come back with recommendations, and this is the way we can deal with the problem that is going to be such a burden on the future of our country. I came here in 1999, and one of the reasons I came here was to deal with our deficits and with reducing our national debt. I am going to be leaving this place at the end of next year. I have three children, and I have seven grandchildren. I happen to believe that just like the pages who are here today in this room, they are going to have to work a lot harder, work a lot harder than I do in order to maintain the standard of living that I have been able to have because the competition in the world today is a lot keener than it was 15 or 20 years ago. They are just going to have to work harder than they have ever had to work before to maintain the kind of standard of living that we would like to have for them and for my children and grandchildren. But if you think about it, if we don't deal with this problem I am talking about today, we are going to lay on their backs taxes that will break the bank. So we put them in a position where they are going to have to work harder to maintain a decent standard of living. Then, what we are saying to them is, we are going to let you pay for those things that we weren't willing to do without or pay for on our own. To me, that is absolutely immoral. It is absolutely immoral. One of the things I would hope is--and I feel like a broken record, but I would hope that the Holy Spirit would somehow enlighten us to face up to this very serious responsibility, one that if we don't face up to, will have a devastating impact on the future of our country and our children and grandchildren. I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Yes, I will.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that T.J. Kim, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for today.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. As my colleagues know, supporting the development and expansion of the nuclear industry is something that has been one of my top priorities since I came to the Senate. I have been working to shape nuclear policy in this country for the past 8 years as chairman or ranking member of the Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee. I wish to recognize my colleague, Senator Inhofe, for the leadership he provided before I became chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission committee.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I take pride in the fact that our committee has helped transform NRC into one of the best and most respected regulatory agencies in the world. We have worked very hard on placing the right people on the Commission and providing the Commission with the resources and tools necessary to do its job and holding them accountable to the results. In fact, we have held more than 20 hearings involving the NRC in the past 8 years. So it is no accident that we have seen a dramatic improvement in both the safety record and the reliability of the 104 operating nuclear reactors today over the past 8 years. Without the public confidence that these plants are safe and secure, there won't be any nuclear renaissance. We have spent time and effort to make sure the NRC has the resources--particularly the human capital--it needs to make sure that our 104 nuclear plants are operating safely but also to ensure it can process multiple license renewal applications and combined license applications for the new plants coming on board. We wanted to make sure the NRC doesn't become the bottleneck. In 2005, we introduced three pieces of legislation as part of the 2005 Energy Policy Act to provide flexibility in hiring and employee retention. As a result, the NRC was able to hire over 1,000 highly qualified engineers and scientists over the last 3 years to replace retiring workers and also bring on those new people who are going to be necessary to process the new applications coming in. I am also pleased to note that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been rated as the best place to work among Federal agencies for 2 years in a row. They have a great workforce, and they are a top-notch organization. The good news is that the NRC now has 17 applications for 26 new power reactors under review. All indications are that NRC's review of the applications is progressing on schedule. I haven't heard a complaint from anybody who filed applications. We are expecting that these applications will be approved in late 2010 or in early 2011. Obviously, it is not a done deal, but we have every reason to believe we are on the right track. As a matter of fact, five utility companies today--Southern in Georgia, SCANA in South Carolina, NRG in Texas, Constellation in Maryland, and Progress in Florida--have signed engineering-procurement-construction contracts and are gearing up for construction pending NRC approval and loan guarantees from the DOE. In other words, we are starting to take off in terms of getting some air under our wings. Mr. President, I have an opinion piece I wrote in the Nuclear News magazine last year, entitled ``Making the Nuclear Renaissance a Reality.'' This paper outlines the need to expand the use of nuclear energy in the carbon-constrained economy and provides a roadmap to overcome challenges faced by the nuclear industry. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to read this. Anybody interested can get it on my Web site, voinovich.senate.gov. As I watch the climate change debate unfold in this Congress, I rise to raise the same concern I raised last year during the debate on the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill: We cannot get there from here without nuclear. The Waxman-Markey bill that was reported out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee 2 weeks ago sets the greenhouse gas emission reduction cap at 80 percent by 2050, as did the Lieberman-Warner bill last year, but it continues to ignore the need for much wider use of emission-free nuclear energy in order to make this extremely aggressive goal. I pointed out then that one of the glaring holes in the Lieberman- Warner bill was its deafening silence on nuclear, while studies conducted by EPA, EIA, and others pointed to an inconvenient truth for some people: More than doubling the number of nuclear plants would be required; that is, bringing online more than 100 new nuclear plants in the next 40 years, in order to meet the emission goals set in that legislation. Around the world, governments are reaching the same conclusion and are turning to nuclear energy as a safe, homegrown, cost-effective, and emission-free solution to increasing energy demand. This is true in Europe especially, where the nuclear renaissance is in full swing. In France, for example, almost 80 percent of its electricity comes from nuclear power. In fact, France exports a good deal of its nuclear power-generated electricity to its neighboring countries, including Germany. President Sarkozy has announced plans to build five additional plants within the next 5 years, in addition to one currently under construction. Prime Minister Gordon Brown recently signaled his intent to rebuild nuclear energy in the United Kingdom, saying: Whether we like it or not, we will not meet the challenges of climate change without the far wider use of nuclear power. He went on to note that the International Energy Agency estimates that we are going to have to build 32 nuclear powerplants each year if we are going to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. That is more than 1,300 new reactors. Italy, Finland, and Switzerland have all announced plans to build new reactors after spending the past 25 years trying to phase out nuclear power. These European countries have come full circle in reembracing nuclear after two decades of trying to solve their energy and environmental challenges with conservation and renewables alone. That is significant. Unfortunately, many proponents of a cap-and-trade scheme, such as Lieberman-Warner or Waxman-Markey, seem to be stuck on fantasies that we can achieve the emission reduction goals with just conservation, efficiency, and renewables. Even those who believe nuclear has a role to play espouse policies that overwhelmingly favor renewables over nuclear. A case in point: Nuclear energy was conspicuously missing from the $787 billion stimulus package, while approximately $40 billion in various tax credits went to energy efficiency, renewables, and transmission. I am not opposed to that, but why did they ignore nuclear? So it was particularly discouraging when the Senate version of the legislative language providing an additional $50 billion in loan guarantee authority in the stimulus bill was stripped from the final package during conference. Who did it? Why? The same thing happened when the Senate version of the budget resolution was passed a few weeks ago. We had it in there. We know we have to increase the Loan Guarantee Program to at least $50 billion, and it got stripped out again. Instead, the majority added the taxpayer-paid $60 billion Loan Guarantee Program allocated solely for renewables--wind, solar, and geothermal--and electric transmission systems to support renewable generation. If you can do a priority in spending big money, let's do the grid. The grid is not what it should be. It has to be improved so that we can use wind and solar and get energy out across this country. Unfortunately, many of the supporters of green energy never mention that it is unrealistic to rely solely on wind and solar power. This is something that I think needs to be made clear to every person in the United States, particularly our children, who are being taught in school that windmills and solar power are the way to the future in terms of the energy needs of America, and there is something wrong, and coal is bad, nuclear is bad. I hear it constantly from people when I go back to Ohio. Right now, 50 percent of our electricity is generated by coal; 20 percent by nuclear; 19 percent by natural gas; 6 percent by hydro; 3 percent by wind, solar, and geothermal; and 2 percent by oil. Given this current makeup of U.S. energy use, I don't think these folks are leveling with the American people about the reality of what is possible. They continually tout the need to increase the renewable energies to solve our dependence on foreign sources of energy. They say we need to double our use of renewables. I tell you this: A doubling of the utilization of renewables will bring us to 6 percent, and it would likely take at least 10 years or more to accomplish. Further, it is unlikely that a doubling in renewables would lead to any significant decrease in the use of oil because oil only produces 2 percent of the electricity in the country today. Particularly, I think it is incredible that some policymakers, such as the newly appointed Chairman of FERC, suggest we can get our energy needs strictly from renewable sources of energy. Give me a break. At only 3 percent of total U.S. electric generation, it is simply intellectually dishonest to suggest that these renewable sources can replace the 70 percent of the base-load electricity currently generated by coal and nuclear in this country. Don't get me wrong, I do support expanding the use of renewables such as solar and wind, and we see that industry growing in my State. But to just say that is it and not to look at reality is intellectually dishonest. My point is that, realistically, we are not yet in a position to be able to rely upon them for base-load power generation. This is despite receiving government subsidies. Here is another little statistic people are not aware of. Most Americans are not aware of the fact that, in 2007, nuclear energy only--this is according to the Energy Information Agency--received a $1.59-per-megawatt-hour subsidy while wind received $23.37 and solar received $24.34 per megawatt hour. Today, there is a huge energy gap between renewable electricity and the reliable, low-cost electricity we must have. We need to look at the way to get the job done. If we want to generate carbon-free electricity, nuclear needs to be a big part of it--I am not saying the only part, but it has to be a big part. The 104 nuclear powerplants we have operating today, which is 20 percent of the electricity generated, represent over 70 percent of the Nation's emission-free portfolio. In other words, the 20 percent coming from nuclear represents 70 percent of the emission-free electricity in this country. That means we are avoiding 700 million tons of carbon dioxide each year because of nuclear--700 million tons. What does that mean to the ordinary citizen? That means 13 million tons is avoided by wind and solar today. That is compared with 700 million in terms of nuclear power. To put this in perspective, 700 million tons of annual carbon emission that is being avoided by our nuclear plants is more than what Canada collectively emits each year. In other words, nuclear nonemitting into the air is the equivalent of all of Canada. In terms of something we may better understand, it is the equivalent of 130 million cars each year. That is what nuclear power is doing for us. In effect, it is the equivalent of reducing emissions of 130 million automobiles each year in this country. Nuclear power is the best source we have available to meet our energy needs while also curbing emissions of greenhouse gases. People are recognizing the importance of nuclear energy because they understand the facts. Public opinion widely supports utilizing nuclear energy. According to a recent Gallup poll, 59 percent of Americans support it. We are not going to be able to turn around our economy, meet our energy needs, and enact some of the environmental policies being discussed today without expanding the use of nuclear energy. I look at nuclear as a three-fer. Without it, we will not reach our goal of reducing carbon emissions. Without it, we are not going to be able to provide the baseload electricity we are going to need for our country. And without it, we are not going to be able to rebuild our manufacturing base in this country. At a time when we are struggling to regain our economic footing, nuclear energy offers thousands of well-paying jobs in all stages of development and production. Each new nuclear plant will require an average of 2,000 workers during construction, with peak employment at 2,500 workers. If the industry were to construct 30 reactors that are currently planned, well over 60,000 workers would be required during construction. And once constructed, each plant will create 600 to 700 jobs to operate and maintain it. That is not to mention the ripple effect this undertaking would make in other areas of the economy. Aris Candris, CEO of Westinghouse Electric, and Mike Rencheck, president of AREVA, recently told me that about 12,000 jobs will be created for each new nuclear plant if you include the manufacturing jobs. This means that more than 200,000 manufacturing jobs will be created to supply the needed parts and components for the 30 nuclear reactors that are currently planned. And that is not counting the jobs associated with export opportunities to Europe, China, and India. Organized labor understands expanding nuclear power will create a lot of well-paying jobs. In fact, here is what John Sweeney said at a roundtable discussion on nuclear workforce issues I chaired last year: This isn't a Republican issue. This isn't a Democratic issue. It's an American issue. I couldn't agree with him more. I have met with Mark Ayers, Building and Construction Trades national president, a big union. He and his union members are actively supporting construction of new nuclear plants. They have also partnered with local community colleges and the nuclear industry in training workers. They are already training workers for the renaissance. I have been working hard to get this message out in the past several years. Ohio and the surrounding Midwestern States have been the backbone of this Nation's nuclear manufacturing base. Ohio's small to medium-size enterprises are poised to lead the Nation's transition back into this market. In fact, hundreds of manufacturing jobs are already in existence in Ohio to support the nuclear industry, and more are to come in light of two announcements that are going to be coming up in the next couple of weeks that Ohioans will be very happy about that again will increase the number of people working in this industry. I recently gave a speech at the Nuclear Manufacturing Infrastructure Council and had an opportunity to meet with several small manufacturing company executives. Their message was loud and clear: A clear policy statement from the administration and Congress is absolutely critical in acknowledging that nuclear power generation will be a growing part of our Nation's energy mix and investments in programs that will support the nuclear industry's near-term implementation needs are absolutely vital. The No. 1 thing is getting that $50 billion loan guarantee so we can get more of these people off the ground. They all see the long-term potential growth in nuclear and they would like to invest in nuclear manufacturing, but they need a clear commitment from the government before they make those investments. I think what these people are saying is we need Presidential leadership to acknowledge what most of us and the rest of the world already know: We cannot get there from here without nuclear. I am convinced that nuclear power is the only real alternative we have today to produce enough low-cost, reliable, clean energy to remove harmful pollutants from the air, prevent the harmful effects of global climate change, and keep jobs from going overseas. The biggest challenge remains the financing, particularly in nonregulated States. The deepening global economic crisis is putting additional pressure on the nuclear industry and on utilities. As I mentioned, we have applications coming in, but right now DOE currently has 14 nuclear projects, representing a total project cost of $188 billion and loan guarantee requests of $122 billion. Basically what I am saying is that unless we can get this $50 billion loan guarantee taken care of, it is going to bring the progress we have been making to a halt. A very important point that often gets lost in this discussion is the fact that the loan guarantee program authorized under the Energy Policy Act requires the borrowers to pay all the required fees, including what is called a subsidy cost and, thus, there is no cost to the government. In other words, if they borrow $5 billion, they are going to have to come up with close to $1 billion to secure that loan so if things do not go well on the loan, we have something to turn to. The subsidy cost is levied on each loan guarantee, similar to a downpayment on a mortgage, in case of a default. Any potential defaults are covered by fees paid by the applicants. In my hand, I have a copy of a recent MIT study on the future of nuclear power. The authors of this study include former Clinton administration officials John Deutch and Ernest Moniz. The central premise of the MIT study on the future of nuclear power is that in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate global warming, we must reevaluate the role nuclear power has as part of this country's energy future. I wish to share the conclusions of this report because I believe it fits rather nicely with this speech: The current assistance program put into place by the 2005 Energy Policy Act has not been effective and needs to be improved. The sober warning is that if more is not done, nuclear power will diminish as a practical and timely option for deployment at a scale that would constitute a material contribution to climate change risk mitigation. I commend to my colleagues this MIT report on the future of nuclear power. Another issue that has plagued the nuclear industry for decades is the U.S. Government's failure to meet its commitment to assume responsibility for spent nuclear fuel. First, let's set the record straight. I have talked with many experts and policy people, including Secretary Chu and NRC Chairman Klein. They all assured me--it is important that everyone understands this--that the current spent nuclear that is being stored today in dry casks and pools are safe--are safe--and are secure for at least 100 years. That is very important because folks are saying you cannot go forward with this because we don't know what to do with the waste; we would like to do something more permanent than what we are doing. But the fact is that with the dry casks we have, we are in good shape for at least 100 years. The lack of a repository at Yucca should not be something that inhibits us from licensing new reactors. That being said, we must pursue a long-term solution now. If Yucca is not going to materialize, then we owe the American people a viable alternative. The 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act established a nuclear waste fund, a fee paid by utilities to create a fund to deal with nuclear waste. Since its beginning, it has collected $29 billion. So everyone understands this, since that act went into effect, we have collected $29 billion from ratepayers in this country. Unfortunately, the fund is on budget and only about $9 billion was used to deal with waste. The rest of the $20 billion amounts to little more than an IOU to U.S. ratepayers. Even if the administration decided to proceed with Yucca, we don't have the money to build a repository. We spent the money on other things. We will have to borrow over $20 billion to replenish the fund. The Federal courts have ruled in favor of utilities. This is something else of which most people are not aware. And thus far we have paid utilities $550 million in damages because we have not come up with a permanent repository for nuclear waste. I am sure if we keep going the way we are, it is going to be in the billions. I recently met with Secretary Chu, and he told me he would convene a blue ribbon panel to study Yucca. Unfortunately, I believe this is just kicking the can down the road for a couple of years. We have been studying this for more than four decades. We need to provide clear direction and certainty on this issue. The time for studying options is over, and the Federal Government must meet its legal obligations and start taking care of the spent fuel problem sooner rather than later. If the administration is pulling the plug on Yucca without having a viable alternative long-term solution, then I think we owe it to the American people to refund their fees and stop levying fees. I introduced the U.S. Nuclear Fuel Management Corporation Establishment Act of 2008 in the last Congress, together with Senators Domenici, Murkowski, Alexander, and Dole, to create an independent government corporation to manage the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. The bill will also take the nuclear waste fund off budget and give it directly to this corporation without the budget/appropriations process. I am planning to reintroduce that bill with Senators Murkowski, Alexander, and Burr, and I hope we can get additional cosponsors on the bill. It is about time we get serious about mapping out a future course for our Nation. I firmly believe that utilizing nuclear energy as a key part of a mixed bag of energy sources offers us the best opportunity to truly harmonize our energy, the environment, and economic needs. As I said before, nuclear energy offers thousands of well-paying jobs in all stages of development at a time when we are struggling to regain our economic footing. It is worth repeating--12,000 well-paying jobs will be created with each new nuclear powerplant. That is 360,000 jobs for the 30 nuclear reactors that are currently planned. The American people get it, manufacturing gets it, the labor unions get it, and the international community--I have been to London, I have been to Paris, I have been to Austria. I have been around. All of them understand. In fact, I was on a climate change panel about a month ago that was sponsored by the German Marshall Fund when we met in Brussels. I was amazed at the number of people who said: Mr. Senator, we are never going to meet the Kyoto or Copenhagen goals for reducing our emissions without the use of nuclear power. It is time President Obama and this Congress get it. We have to launch a nuclear renaissance in this country. We just cannot get there from here without nuclear. Mr. President, I yield the floor.