George Voinovich

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent then that I be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to comment on the need for fiscal responsibility and to call attention to our ever-increasing national debt. Building on a speech I gave in March, I hope to regularly provide my colleagues and the American people with updates on our growing national debt. I recently voted against the budget bill that would have allowed the national debt to increase to $11.8 trillion over the next couple of years. We need to be reminded of the fiscal realities in which we find ourselves. We cannot continue to live in the United States of Denial. Behind me is a chart that shows the accumulated national debt today. As of 2007, the national debt stood at almost $9 trillion. Today it is at $9.4 trillion, with each American owing some $31,000; that is, every man, woman, and child in the country owes $31,000. And the deficit for 2008 will be added to that number, including an average $273 billion a year in interest payments on that debt. If interest rates increase, the interest payments could be much more, eating up revenues that could be used for other purposes. In January, the Congressional Budget Office projected a $219 billion deficit for 2008, but they did not include the $152 billion economic stimulus package that President Bush later signed into law in February. With the addition of the economic stimulus bill and other recent changes in the baseline, CBO's updated deficit projection for 2008 is $357 billion. The Congressional Budget Office number also does not include borrowing from the Social Security trust fund and other trust funds to the tune of almost $200 billion. We only talk about the public debt, but we do not talk about the debt, the money that we are borrowing from our own Government. In addition to all of this, soon we are going to be considering a supplemental appropriations bill to the tune of $193 billion which, again, will be added to the national debt. So if we are really honest with the American people, the projected real debt for 2008 is $746 billion--$746 billion. That is more than three times the $219 billion deficit projected at the start of 2008. Now, to get an idea of how much that is, $746 billion is more than we spent on the war on terror, including Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere, during the last 5 years. And we borrowed every penny of it. The Treasury Department in April reported that the deficit through the first 6 months of the budget year to date was $311.4 billion, up 20 percent from the same period a year ago. That was the largest deficit for the first half of a budget year on record, surpassing the old 6- month mark of $302 billion that was set back in 2006. The Federal deficit through the first half of fiscal year 2008 is an all-time high, underscoring the pressure the budget is coming under as, overall, our economy slumps, spending is higher, tax revenues are lower. But the deficit only describes the annual difference between revenues and outlays. And that is not what is really threatening our future. We do not talk about it. It is the cumulative ongoing increase in our national debt that really matters, with too many people in Washington pretending this debt does not even exist. When was the last time you heard the President of the United States talk about the national debt? I cannot remember. And he happens to be a Republican. One of the reasons I am a Republican is that I have always believed in balancing budgets and paying down debt. But we do not even talk about it. It is not even there. It is like it has evaporated. When have we heard the Presidential candidates talk about the national debt and what they are going to be doing about it? Recently, USA Today reported that the Federal Government's accumulated long-term financial obligations grew by $2.5 trillion last year--$2.5 trillion--as a result of the increase in the cost of Medicare and Social Security benefits as more baby boomers retire. I think $2.5 trillion is about what we spend on everything in the Federal Government each year. Taxpayers are on the hook for a record $57 trillion in Federal liabilities to cover the lifetime benefits of everyone eligible for Medicare, Social Security, and other Government programs. If you figure it out by households, that is $500,000 per household in this country. When people come to me and ask me to spend money on a special program that they want me to spend money on, I explain our $9.4 trillion national debt and the fact that each of us owes $31,000. Then I ask them if what they want is important enough to borrow the money and put the cost, including interest, on the back of our children and grandchildren. It is an interesting question that I pose to people. And they think about it. After a moment, the smiles on their faces vanish, and their answer is no. Unfortunately, however, our political leaders in Washington hide the real budget numbers from the public and fail to even mention the rising national debt. Most Americans are clueless as to how fiscally irresponsible Congress and the administration have been. The U.S. Government is the biggest credit card abuser in the world. We talk to our kids and others: You have to watch credit. We are the worst example of a credit card abuser in the world. You know what. The rest of the world gets it, which is why they are covering their bets on the U.S. dollar. So why do we refuse to see the warning signs? A decade ago who would ever have imagined that the Canadian dollar would be worth just as much as the U.S. dollar? I remember when it was two to one. Now the dollar's value has fallen by half. A few years ago, one Euro was worth barely 80 cents; now it is worth more than $1.50. I think the President remembers when we were in Rome together that the dollar that we had bought 60 cents of a Euro. It is hard to believe. Then, to top it off, because of our deficits, we are forced to borrow money from other countries. As a matter of fact, 51 percent of the privately owned national debt is held by foreign creditors. It is supposed to be held by the United States; that is public debt. But they have come in and they have 51 percent of it. That is up from 37 percent 6 years ago. Foreign creditors provide more than 70 percent of the funds the United States has borrowed since 2001, according to the Department of Treasury. Think about it. And who are those foreign creditors? According to the Treasury Department, the three largest foreign holders of U.S. debt are China, Japan, and the oil-exporting countries known as OPEC. As you know, we are sending them a lot of money because of the high cost of gasoline. So we send them the money and then they come back and they are now buying our companies and they are buying more of our debt. If these foreign investors were to lose confidence and pull out of U.S. Treasurys, ``Katey, bar the door.'' Borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from China and OPEC puts not only our future economy but also our national economy at risk. It is critical that we ensure that the countries that control our debt, the countries that control our debt, do not control the future of this country. To try to avert this train wreck, I have introduced the Securing Americas Economic Future--it is a commission--legislation that would create a bipartisan commission to look at our Nation's tax and entitlement systems and recommend reforms to put us back on a fiscally sustainable course and ensure the solvency of entitlement programs for future generations. My colleague, Senator Isakson, has cosponsored that. Over in the House, Democratic Congressman Jim Copper of Tennessee and a Republican Congressman, Frank Wolf of Virginia, have introduced a bipartisan version of the same commission. In the House they have 93 cosponsors from both parties. This bicameral group has support from corporate executives, religious leaders, think tanks across the political spectrum from the Heritage Foundation to the Brookings Institution. Brookings is real liberal; Heritage is real conservative. They all agree we have to do something and we have to do it fast. Building on that legislation, two of my colleagues in the Senate, the Budget Committee chairman from North Dakota and the ranking member from New Hampshire, introduced a bipartisan bill that would create a tax and entitlement reform task force very similar to the same commission. We call it the Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action. There are 19 cosponsors of the Conrad-Gregg proposal. I have a commitment from Senator Gregg and Senator Conrad that they were going to bring this bill to the floor so we could get the commission created. It is a 16-member commission: 14 members made up of the House and Senate, and then two of the other members would be the Secretary of Treasury and also the head of the Office of Management and Budget. And the vision is that we would get that legislation passed this year. By the way, the way it works is that if 75 percent of the people make a suggestion as to tax reform, entitlement reform, it gets an expedited procedure here, and we have an up-or-down vote like the BRAC process. You can't have our colleagues spend a lot of time doing this hard work and not guarantee them that if most agree about it, they are going to get a vote and it is not going to get stalled like so much other stuff that we would like to see and never do. The thing that disappoints me--and I have greatest respect for the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad. We have worked together over the years on all kinds of things. He said he doesn't think we are going to get it out. He said that the Democratic, at that time, Presidential candidates, the last time I talked to him about it, decided that ``People don't want to do something extraordinary unless they are absolutely persuaded.'' I think we need to persuade our colleagues and the American people that entitlement and tax reform cannot be put off for another day. Wouldn't it be just great if we got this done? The new President comes in, puts in the head of the OPM and the Secretary-Treasurer, and they go to work. It would probably take them almost a year, but they would be able to come back and do something about tax reform. When I tell people, they are shocked: $240 billion we all pay to someone to do our taxes. It is unbelievable. I am a lawyer. I used to do my own return. I used to do returns for my clients. I wouldn't touch my tax return with a 10-foot pole. In fact, a couple weeks ago, my wife looked at our return and said: I don't understand it. I said: I don't understand it either. We have to go see our accountant and have him explain what this is about. She said: No, you don't. He will charge us $200 an hour. I have to believe there are many Americans out there who have no idea what this is all about. We have had 15,000 changes in the code. It is overdue that we do this. Tax reform is a no-brainer. We have to do it. Even if we save half the $240 billion, think of the savings to Americans. By the way, that is a real tax reduction, and it doesn't cost the Treasury one nickel. I am hoping we can continue to push this with everything we have. Recently, David Walker, former Comptroller General, accepted a new challenge by joining Pete Peterson's new foundation to address the undeniable fiscal challenges our country must face. I have known Pete Peterson for a long time. He is head of the Blackstone Group. He stated, in creating the foundation, he ``cannot think of anything more important than trying in this way to preserve the possibilities of the American Dream for my children and grandchildren's generations and generations to come.'' I would like to say a few words about Pete Peterson and David Walker. Pete is chairman of the Peterson Foundation. He was President Nixon's Secretary of Commerce. He was born in Kearney, NE, to Greek immigrant parents, received an undergraduate degree from Northwestern, and graduated summa cum laude. He then received an MBA from the University of Chicago and is now senior chairman and cofounder of the Blackstone Group. He is also chairman emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, chairman of the council's international advisory board, founding chairman of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, and founding president of the Concord Coalition, which I have worked with for the last number of years. Here is the son of an immigrant who has made a pile of money, and he is so worried about his children and grandchildren. I suspect he has a little money over the years, and his grandchildren and children are probably going to be a little better off than mine, most Americans. But here is somebody who is worried about the rest of us and our families. The other is David Walker. David Walker is the president and CEO of Peterson. He is charged with leading the foundation's effort to enhance public understanding of the sustainability challenge that threatens America's future. If David Walker were here, he would have given a far more eloquent speech than I have to explain to my colleagues and to the American people where we are. The purpose of the foundation is to propose sensible and workable solutions to address these challenges and build public and political will to do something about them. Prior to joining the foundation, he served over 9 years as the seventh Comptroller General of the United States and head of the U.S. Government Accountability Office. Here is a man who had a job, a good job, a high-paying job, and he is leaving it with 6 years left because he is so concerned about where we are. Everywhere he goes, he talks about this. I have been with him on several occasions. Somehow, we keep banging away, banging away, banging away, trying to get people to pay attention. I have sent letters off to both the Presidential candidates. They are both Members of the Senate. Why don't they sign on to Kent Conrad and to Judd Gregg's legislation, sign on, talk about the debt. Let the American people know we have a problem out there and they are going to do something about it. When people hear both candidates talking about this program and that program and now they are counting up how much money they are going to cost, at the same time they are talking about the programs, they ought to be talking about the debt. What are you going to do about tax reform? We have to ask these questions. We are running out of time. I wish Pete Peterson and David Walker the best of luck in this endeavor. I look forward to working with them. The time to act is now. When you look at the numbers, it is self- evident that we must confront our swelling national debt. We must make a concerted bipartisan effort to reform our Tax Code. Nothing works here unless it is bipartisan. That ought to be the flag we fly under the rest of this year. Working together, like the Presiding Officer and I are working on a couple pieces of legislation, is the only way to get something done around here. It is a moral issue. When I first introduced the legislation that talked about it, I got a call from Frank Wolf, a terrific guy. He said: You know, George, I want to join you. I haven't paid much attention, but this is a moral obligation. It is a moral obligation to our children and grandchildren. I think most of us down here are worried about the legacy we are going to leave to the next generation. We have a lot to say about it. These are challenging times. I am confident that with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, maybe we will get it and get on with some of these things that are long overdue so that we can get back on our feet again financially. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I would like to comment on the kindness of the Senator from Oklahoma. I think that so often we forget the sacrifice that our American people have made so we could bring some stability to Afghanistan and to Iraq. Now, 2 weeks ago I attended a service actually on the front steps of the Ohio Capitol Building where we commemorated the lives of 23 individuals from the Lima Company that was extraordinarily hit in Iraq. Tears rolled out of my eyes and everyone else there as a mother of a man by the name of Hoffman talked about her son and the sacrifice that he made and why he made that sacrifice. I think that too many Americans are not aware of the fact that we have lost over 4,000 people in Iraq and that 30,000 of them have returned, and half of them are going to be disabled. I think it underscores that we need to be very responsible in our future activity in Iraq so that the parents of those young men and women do not feel that their lives were lost in vain. I am sure, Mr. President, you have mixed emotions, as I have, about where we should be going there. I heard Jim Dobbins today. Jim was at the State Department for many years. He was talking about our next moves in Iraq and how difficult it is because on one hand, we know that we have to move our troops out of there for the benefit of our volunteer Army. Because of the deployments, they are stretched, and they are not getting the re-ups that they need. At the same time, we want to make sure we do not move too fast so we end up with a civil war there. So it is a dilemma. But the people who get lost in all of that are the folks who have lost their loved ones. And it grieves me that we have spent almost $650 billion on that war, and we have never asked the American people to participate. The only ones who have participated are the families whose sons and daughters have come back in body bags, and that loss will be with them for the rest of their lives. So I think all of us ought to think about those families and pray for them and pray that those of us in responsible positions will be enlightened by the Holy Spirit to make the right decisions for them, their families, for our country, and for the world.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to address the impact the freight rail industry has on reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. According to a recent Department of Transportation study, freight traffic is expected to increase 67 percent by 2020--against a backdrop of concerns about global climate change, the stringency of clean air standards, increased traffic congestion, high energy prices, and the need for greater energy independence. Freight rail is the most energy efficient and environmentally friendly mode of land transportation. Today, freight rail can move a ton of freight 436 miles on a single gallon of diesel. U.S. freight railroads have significantly reduced their carbon intensity and fuel efficiency. In 1980, 1 gallon of diesel fuel moved 1 ton of freight by rail an average of 235 miles. In 2007, the same amount of fuel moved 1 ton of freight by rail an average of 436 miles roughly equivalent to the distance from Boston to Baltimore and an 80-percent increase over 1980. Depending upon the type of cargo being transported and the number of cars, a single freight train is capable of being as productive as 500 trucks. I am pleased that CSX is working with Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania on the National Gateway. The National Gateway is a plan to create a more efficient rail route linking Mid- Atlantic ports with midwestern markets, improving the flow of rail traffic between these regions by increasing the use of double-stack trains. This public-private partnership will upgrade tracks, equipment and facilities, and provide clearance allowing double-stack intermodal trains. The National Gateway proposes preparing three major rail corridors for double-stack clearance: I-95 corridor between North Carolina and Baltimore, MD, via Washington, DC; I-70/I-76 corridor between Washington, DC, and northwest Ohio via Pittsburgh, PA; and Carolina corridor between Wilmington, NC and Charlotte, NC. The result will be thousands of new jobs, improved railway reliability, and the diversion of heavy trucks from crowded highways leading to reduced emissions and highway maintenance costs and improved road safety. Since the I-70/I-76 corridor between Washington, DC, and northwest Ohio is a highly traveled route, it is well-located to become an efficient link between the east coast and midwestern markets. Expansion of rail infrastructure in Columbus, OH, and North Baltimore, OH, will help alleviate some of the freight congestion in the Chicago, Cincinnati and Cleveland areas. The National Gateway project would build a new rail terminal in North Baltimore, OH, and expand intermodal capacity in Columbus, creating thousands of new jobs. I look forward to working with the Virginia, North Carolina, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania delegations to make this partnership a reality.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I would like to say, first of all, that I share some of the great concerns of my colleague from Texas. Today, I rise to address the legislative proposal introduced by Senators Lieberman and Warner to address global climate change. Like many of my colleagues, I share the urgency to take proactive steps to address this challenge we have. That said, I have serious reservations about the proposal. I think it is overly aggressive, vastly outpacing what technology can provide and thus ensuring enormous economic pain on the country, and it is overly bureaucratic and cumbersome in its implementation, representing an unprecedented expansion of Government power and a massive bureaucratic intrusion into American lives that will have a profound effect on businesses, communities, and families. The EPA has stated in answer to a letter I sent them that this program will take between 300 and 400 people to implement, whereas the acid rain provision takes just under 30. The major failure of this legislation is it fails to harmonize our country's economic energy and environmental objectives, and the consequences to American interests could be devastating. The international aspect of this problem is particularly troublesome. The developing world is currently undertaking an intensive expansion of energy infrastructure and escalating industrial and commercial expansion to meet the demands of growing domestic and international markets. The developing nations' combined emissions shortly will exceed the developed nations' combined emissions. In 2007, ``[t]he International Energy Agency issued a . . . report projecting global energy demand would increase by more than one-half by 2030, and that `Developing countries . . . contribute 74 percent of the increase in global primary energy use . . . China and India alone account for 45 percent of that increase.' '' China puts on line two coal-fired plants every week--two coal-fired plants every week. In June, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency announced that China's 2006 CO2 emissions surpassed those of the United States by 8 percent. With this, China tops the list of CO2-emitting countries for the first time and, by the way, years ahead of the projections that were made a couple of years ago. Much like China, those countries with large domestic reserves of coal--and that includes the United States--will continue to use it. It is unrealistic to assume that the world would turn its back on this abundant resource. We must take this reality into account, and this can be done by jump-starting the technology that is needed to produce the energy we need in an environmentally sound manner. Recognizing the international dynamic of this problem, the Lieberman- Warner proposal attempts to impose a tariff-like requirement to hold carbon credits for goods entering the United States from countries that do not control their emissions. The U.S. Trade Representative has questioned the plan's efficacy, and China, Mexico, and Brazil have signaled that the policy could begin a trade war. Indeed, top officials from the European Union and the United Nations have also raised doubts about whether the U.S. trade penalties would harm the prospects of a new global warming agreement. But even if the provision is WTO compliant, it will not address the underlying competitiveness issues the United States would face from the higher fuel, feedstock, and electricity prices the bill would impose on U.S. manufacturers. A better approach is needed. Americans are already struggling with the increase in their cost of living due to higher prices for gasoline, home heating fuel, electricity, food, and health care, and this bill would only make things worse. I wish some of the sponsors would go back into their respective constituencies to hear the complaints from most people--middle-class people, poor, the retirees--whose standard of living is being reduced in the country today because of these costs. We cannot tolerate policies that harm our economy and drive businesses overseas. If those businesses locate in countries that do not share our environmental objectives, then we are worse off on two counts: Fewer jobs in the United States and no benefits at all to the environment. Over my strenuous objections, this bill was voted out of the Environment and Public Works Committee without an analysis of the economic impacts on the country from either the EPA or the Energy Information Office. Today, we have at least a dozen analyses of the bill from a wide variety of groups, and they are all about the same. EPA's analysis predicts that by 2030, annual losses in gross domestic product could be as high as $983 billion, and by 2050, those losses would grow to $2.8 trillion. To put this into perspective, CBO projects the Federal budget for this year will be $2.9 trillion. That means the potential impact losses from this legislation in 2050 would equal that spent on everything we intend to spend this year from Social Security to national defense. Think about it. In order to meet the caps of the bill, the analysis assumes aggressive growth in nuclear and other clean energy technologies at rates that are widely regarded as unachievable and, from my perspective, unbelievable. For example, they predict a 150-percent increase in nuclear power by 2050. Today, there are 104 operating plants, meaning that we have to build up to another 150 new plants by 2050. The Energy Information Office said, when they did the analysis, that we would have to build 220 of them by 2030 in order for these caps to be realistic. These assumptions are unrealistic and mask the true cost of implementing the bill. In regard to nuclear power, I recently published a paper in the Nuclear News on the steps we need to take to launch a nuclear renaissance. I am going to make certain that each Member receives a copy of this paper. But bringing vast amounts of new nuclear power on line will not be a layup shot. For example, there is only one company and one plant in the world that makes the vessels and forges for plants. Recently, we anticipated new plants would cost about $5 billion. The new cost is $7 billion per copy. Today, we have pending at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9 applications for 15 new plants that, if constructed, would not come on line until 2015, 2016, and 2017. Honestly, we are going to be lucky to have 30 new nuclear powerplants by 2030. In regard to what we call capture carbon and sequestration--the technology that is needed--no commercial experience or testing at scale has been done. DOE says it will take 10 years before the seven large- scale demonstration tests are complete to look at sequestration. DOE said that a more robust geological assessment will not be complete until 2015. Liability and critical infrastructure issues remain unanswered, and DOE says commercial CCS may not be available for 20 years. The connection between the costs of the program and the availability of clean energy technology is clear. As EIA points out: The . . . timing of the development, commercialization, and deployment of low-emissions electricity generating technologies such as nuclear power, coal with CCS, and dispatchable renewable power is a major detriment of the energy and economic impacts of 2191. I want to repeat that. The . . . timing of the development, commercialization, and deployment of low-emissions electricity generating technologies such as nuclear power, coal with [carbon capture sequestration], and dispatchable renewable power is a major detriment of the energy and economic impacts of 2191. The Cleveland Plain Dealer, which is the largest newspaper in the State of Ohio, this Sunday editorialized on this bill. The title is ``This carbon bill isn't the answer.'' It goes on to say: The bill, as conceived, will just bore new holes into an already battered economy. . . . Coal-dependent states with partially deregulated energy prices--Ohio, for instance--would take a double hit in economic dislocations and electricity price spikes, with barely any financial cushions to make the disruptions more palatable. The bill also lacks the kind of consumer fairness and flexibility necessary to avoid fuel-price shocks and damage to manufacturing nationwide. I ask unanimous consent to have this editorial printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the paper I have written on the nuclear renaissance.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, while coal and manufacturing States pay their neighbors and the Government to stay in business, the bill establishes trillions of dollars in new entitlements, earmarks-- earmarks--with money flowing to over 30 new Government spending programs, constituting, as the Wall Street Journal recently pointed out, one of the largest tax-and-spend bills in the Nation's history. Based on EPA's analysis, this bill would raise over $6 trillion from the allowance auction from owners and operators of utilities and factories that have to purchase allowances to stay in business. But the cost of purchasing these allowances would be passed on to consumers as higher prices, which will, as the CBO points out, amount to a regressive tax hitting low- and middle-income working families. In my State, they predict that by 2012, the cost of electricity will go up 50 percent, the cost of natural gas 80 percent, and the cost of gasoline will go up 30 percent. Some of my constituents say: How can the cost of gasoline go up? I point out to them that we have refineries that refine oil. With this bill, they are going to have to buy allowances, and those allowances will increase the cost of your gasoline 30 percent. Did you hear that? A 30-percent increase in gasoline costs as a result of this legislation. Give me a break. Despite the severe economic damage Lieberman-Warner would impose on the U.S. economy, the policy would do little to address global climate change. EPA's--this is not some conservative group out there--analysis indicates the policy will reduce global concentrations of CO2 less than 5 percent by 2095. Addressing climate change will require a technology revolution centered on the way we produce and use energy. The theory behind Lieberman-Warner is that the more painful it is on business, the faster CO2 reductions will occur. I believe the solution to this problem lies in our ability to increase access to clean energy. Instead of using the power of the Government to increase energy cost, we should use it to decrease barriers to investments and clean energy solutions. The United States took a lot of flak from countries for our not signing Kyoto, but I am pleased the Bush administration has been moving forward with some new initiatives. And while we didn't sign Kyoto, we do have a base of international activities to build on, and one of them could provide the basis for becoming a multinational effort, giving all countries a vested interest in technology advancement and deployment. The thing we have to remember is that, above all, the developing world desires sustained economic growth. Slowing down economic development to address climate change is not an option they are willing to pursue, and we cannot force it upon them. If we are going to be successful in addressing the challenge of climate change, we have to set a realistic vision for the developing world, using what Richard Armitage and Joseph Nye referred to as smart power. When they testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 24, 2008, they argued that the world: . . . looks to the U.S. to put forward better ideas rather than just walk away from the table. This was the perception after Kyoto, and it could be the perception again today if we do not find a way to engage the developing world. They go on to say: The United States needs to rediscover how to be a smart power, which matches vision with execution and accountability, and looks broadly at U.S. goals, strategies, and influence in a changing world. And they rightly conclude that our: . . . challenges can only be addressed with capable and willing allies and partners. Without willing partners in China and India, we cannot be successful in addressing climate change. Technologies development and promotion should drive our national climate policy. It is the only rational path forward. It is the only way to deal with emissions from rapidly expanding coal-based economies such as China and India, that readily admit they have no intention of accepting binding emission targets. The public interest and private sector communities agree that the crucial factor that will determine whether we have an effective climate policy is the extent that policy will encourage the development and deployment of needed technology. Regulation without sufficiently available technology will result in high cost for American consumers while offering little hope that developing nations will answer the call to reduce their emissions. In conclusion, I agree that we need to act quickly to address climate change, but we must be smart about how we proceed. I am hoping after this year's debate, we can come together--come together--on a bipartisan basis, to draft a bill that doesn't impose unilateral actions that hurt our economy and drive jobs overseas but rather jump- starts technology, engages our international partners through collaborative multinational efforts to develop and deploy the clean energy technologies that everyone recognizes are necessary to solve this global environmental problem. I appreciate the Chair giving me an extra minute.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I wish to honor John H. McConnell. On April 25, Ohio lost a dear friend and true statesman. Very few people cared as much about Ohio as John did, and his legacy will live on through his tremendous contributions in the state. Though he found great professional success in his life, John never swayed from his deep-rooted commitment to honesty and integrity in every facet of his life. With just a single load of steel, John founded Worthington Industries in 1955 out of his basement home in Columbus, OH. Since then, Worthington Industries has reached 10 countries, with 63 locations and 8,000 employees. With its main divisions in steel processing, metal framing and pressure cylinders, it generates approximately $3 billion of sales annually. Above all else, the Worthington philosophy has always been about practicing the Golden Rule. The commitment to good citizenship, civic involvement, and philanthropy is nowhere better represented within the Worthington organization than at the very top level--and that commitment lives on with John's legacy. Worthington Industries has also been recognized for its unfailing dedication to its employees and their families. In fact, it has been named one of the top 100 best places to work in America. John truly cared about his employees, and that attitude was reflected throughout the entire company. I worked closely with John when Worthington Industries opened a steel plant in Delta, OH. Honestly, I never worked with anyone more candid and fair than John. When he made a commitment, it was sure--you didn't need a contract with him. He championed public and private partnerships, and as former Governor of Ohio and now U.S. Senator, I found great comfort knowing John was at the head of one of the largest companies in Ohio. In 2000, Columbus got its first professional athletic team--the Columbus Blue Jackets hockey team. John led the group of investors that brought the team to Columbus, where he served as the team's majority owner. He also established the Columbus Blue Jackets Foundation, which uses the resources of its professional athletes, coaches, and staff to improve the quality of life throughout central Ohio. John and his wife Peggy were also committed to advancing the care and prevention of heart disease, contributing $7.5 million to develop the McConnell Heart Hospital at Riverside Hospital in Columbus. The hospital still provides exceptional care to those in need and is the leading heart care provider in the Midwest. John's outstanding leadership has certainly not gone unnoticed. He has been honored with Financial World Magazine's Outstanding Chief Executive Officer of the Year Award, the Horatio Alger Award, the Ohio Governor's Award, the National Football Foundation Gold Medal, the Industry Week award for Excellence in Management, and with a place in the National Junior Achievement Business Hall of Fame. John was married to his wife Peggy for 59 years, and sadly, they were separated when she passed away in 2005. Perhaps the greatest comfort John's loved ones can take is in knowing that John has been reunited in heaven with his beloved wife. Their enduring love is a model for us all. John will be missed. His family, including his son, John P., daughter, Margaret, and five grandchildren, are in our prayers.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the McConnell amendment which is based on legislation introduced by the senior Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, who was joined by several of us as cosponsors and which seeks a responsible comprehensive national energy policy. First, I would like to thank Senator Domenici for his continued leadership on this issue. For years, many of us have followed his lead in trying to guide us toward policies that would expand our domestic production and supply of energy. Quite frankly, if more of my colleagues had listened to him, we would likely not be here on the floor today decrying the high cost of energy, especially gasoline. There are three necessary components that we must address to move us toward an energy independent future: Supply, conservation, and alternative sources. I and many of my colleagues understand that conservation and alternative sources are critical pieces of this puzzle. We took some steps to address those issues in the 2000 energy bill with higher CAFE standards and incentives for technological innovation such as hybrids and fuel cells. This amendment before us deals with the third of the three necessary components--domestic supply--because none of the three are by themselves sufficient to achieve real energy security. The United States is in the midst of an energy crisis. The folks in my State know that all too well. Every day they are working harder and smarter to make ends meet as the prices of the most basic essentials, food and energy, continue to rise at record rates. Between 2000 and 2005, 208,000 manufacturing jobs in Ohio have been lost, and 3 million nationwide, in part because of high energy costs that have forced employers to find savings elsewhere such as payrolls. There is no question that because of the high cost of natural gas, we have gone from a country where we exported some $19 billion of chemical products to now importing chemical products. The reason for that is we didn't realize natural gas was part of the food stock we needed for the chemical industry. Energy costs have been skyrocketing in Ohio. Since 2000, gasoline costs have risen 175 percent. Natural gas is up 107 percent. Heating oil prices are up 130 percent. The nearly 350,000 Ohio families with annual incomes of less than $10,000 are now spending more than 47 percent of their aftertax income on energy costs. You wonder how people are able to handle these additional costs they are paying. I believe it is the result of a tail-wagging-the-dog environmental policy that has ignored our energy and economic needs. This policy prevents us from taking advantage of our domestic sources of energy and has helped put us in the current crisis. The chickens have come home to roost. Many of us predicted it 8 or 9 years ago. No one seemed to listen. We need to enact an energy policy that broadens our base of energy resources to create stability, maintain reasonable prices, and protect our Nation's security. It must be a policy that will keep energy affordable, and it must be a policy that would not cripple the engines of commerce that fund the research that will yield environmental protection technologies for the future. We need a ``second declaration of independence'' to move us away from foreign sources of energy in the near term and away from oil in the long term. While we may not become truly independent of foreign energy, we must make investments today that will help us achieve our goal tomorrow, including renewable fuels and alternative methods of powering our vehicles, such as hybrids, plug-ins, and fuel cells. I believe the country that becomes least dependent on oil is the country that is going to be prevailing in this century. Other countries are becoming addicted to oil, and we all have heard about why some of this is happening today. The Chinese are building automobiles every day and sucking up as much oil as they possibly can from whatever source they can get it. I believe this crisis was foreseeable. Since I entered the Senate in 1999, Congress has chosen not to design a comprehensive, long-term national energy policy. We have failed to harmonize our energy, environmental, and economic needs. Unless we do, we will experience a diminished standard of living in the future. I have been calling for increased domestic production for years. Before I came to the Senate, Congress and President Clinton had a chance to open ANWR to responsible oil exploration. In 1995, when oil was only $19 a barrel--did you hear that, $19 a barrel--President Clinton vetoed increased domestic production. In addition, many of us have been trying to open the Outer Continental Shelf to expanded exploration for years. Again, we have been blocked. Had we opened these domestic sources of oil and gas years ago, prices of gasoline, natural gas, and home heating oil would not be where they are today. As I said, the chickens have come home to roost. A few years ago, we finally made some limited progress when we passed the 2005 Energy bill. That bill should have been passed early on in this century. We debated it back in 2003 for 6 weeks, and then it got stopped because we could not get the Senate to agree to it. We finally, as I say, got it done in 2005. That bill took some good steps forward. It provides incentives for more oil and gas production. It increases the use of clean coal technologies, nuclear power, and renewable sources of electricity and fuel, and it encourages conservation. We need to do more, however, if we are to continue to remain competitive in the global economy. We need a plan for a future of tight energy supplies in the near term and plan accordingly so we have a stable bridge to the future that does not set us at a disadvantage against other countries. In the short term, we need to wake up to the fact that our Nation will continue to rely on more traditional forms of energy, such as oil, coal, and natural gas, to fuel our vibrant economy, as no viable alternatives are yet available to take their place. This is important not just for the economy but for our national security and our environment. In this era when the United States is engaged in the war on terror, energy independence is even more critical. So many of the world's energy exporters are also breeding grounds for the terrorists and anti-American regimes, such as Venezuela, that want to destroy America. Being dependent on these regimes for our energy supply increases the danger to our way of life. American people should also understand that more and more countries are nationalizing their oil. As a result, they are driving out companies that could invest in exploration, as has been the case in Venezuela, and the same way in Russia. So we are seeing a situation-- and I have heard the arguments that we have to get the Commerce Department and other Federal agencies involved, but some of the problem we have is as they nationalize the oil, what they do not do is the exploration that is needed to produce the oil that should be coming on the marketplace. Increasing domestic energy production, renewable sources, and alternatives to oil would help smooth this country's transition to a carbon-constrained world. But we are on the cusp of another gathering storm--a storm that could deal a destructive blow to my State of Ohio's already struggling economy and our quality of life. In its wake, we could see the loss of hundreds of good-paying jobs, shocking increases in natural gas, electricity, and gasoline prices, and pocket-numbing decreases in household incomes. I know Americans right now are up against it. But I can tell you, we ain't seen nothing yet if this legislation that is now pending in Congress is passed. This storm comes in the form of current legislative efforts in Washington to mandate massive reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The debate is not about whether these reductions are necessary. I think I make that very clear; these reductions are necessary. Most of us agree to that. And we must act quickly to address climate change. The debate is about whether to invest the time and effort necessary to do it in a responsible, comprehensive, and progrowth fashion as opposed to rushing through an irresponsible, piecemeal plan that will raise energy costs on already hurting families, send jobs overseas, and fail to help the environment as intended. As ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety, I am at the center of the debate, and I believe Ohioans should pay close attention. The decisions made could result in the most massive bureaucratic intrusion into the lives of Americans since the creation of the Internal Revenue Service. As I mentioned, I have long championed harmonizing our economic, energy, and environmental needs. I did so as mayor of Cleveland, as Governor of Ohio, and we had great success in bringing both sides to the table for the betterment of our State and Nation. That is why I am so committed to educating my colleagues and Ohioans about the unprecedented opportunity we have before us when it comes to crafting a comprehensive solution to climate change. We must be smart and measured in our steps forward, always keeping in mind what is best for working families, seniors, and those trying to make ends meet on fixed incomes. The smart way to go about addressing this problem is not through unilateral actions that would hurt our economy and drive jobs overseas. The policy proposal now under consideration in the Senate--the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act--would do exactly that. A recent analysis of the bill by the Environmental Protection Agency provided a devastating critique of their policy proposal, estimating that passage could result in annual losses in gross domestic product as high as $2.5 trillion by 2030. By 2050, annual losses in the GDP could be as high as $5 trillion, with electricity rates doubling over the same period of time. The impact of this legislation will be disproportionately felt in States such as Ohio that depend on coal for much of their energy needs. Duke Energy, a major electricity provider in Ohio, has released data indicating that if the policy becomes effective in 2012, customers in their service area could suffer a 53-percent increase in their electricity bills. According to a recent study by the American Council for Capital Formation, Ohio would lose 139,000 jobs by 2020. By 2050, net job losses could grow as high as 487,000. And with Ohio consumers paying as much as 29 percent more for gasoline, 50 percent more for natural gas, and 80 percent more for electricity, disposable household income would be reduced by about $2,000 per year by 2020 and $3,500 per year by 2050. Additionally, the Lieberman-Warner bill completely disregards the international dimension of the problem. Countries such as China and India refuse to slow their economic development in order to address climate change. China--and listen to this one--puts two new coal-fired powerplants in service every week and now uses more coal than the United States, the European Union, and Japan combined. India is in the process of building the largest coal mine in the world. With facts like these, America could totally shut down all of our emissions-producing activities and we would not make a dent in CO2 emissions. Americans should not suffer for symbolism while countries such as China and India emit increasingly large quantities of greenhouse gases without consequences. Ohioans are already struggling with the cost of living due to higher prices for gasoline, home heating fuel, electricity, food, and health care. Lieberman-Warner will only make things worse. We cannot tolerate policies that harm our economy and drive businesses overseas to countries that do not recognize their environmental responsibilities or just do not have the political will to act. If we do, we will be worse off on two counts: fewer jobs and an environment that is not any cleaner than when we started. That is why I am spearheading the development of an alternative solution to climate change which is less intrusive, less costly, and will more quickly achieve greater environmental benefits than the one option now before us. The smart way to address this problem is through collaborative, multinational efforts to develop and deploy the clean energy technologies that everyone recognizes as necessary to solve this global environmental problem. I am pleased, with the support of our President, that consideration is being given to a clean energy technology fund--of some $2 billion we would participate in--an international clean energy technology fund. I know from reading a paper by Dr. Lin Jiang that China is giving serious thought to working with us. In a paper called ``The Nexus of Energy, Global Warming, and Environmental Concerns: Opportunities for U.S.- China Cooperation,'' Dr. Lin wrote: It is clear that greater investment is urgently needed to help China develop cost-effective methods to use coal more cleanly, through, for example, gasification and carbon capture and storage (CCS)2. Collaboration between the U.S. and China in accelerating the adoption of such technologies could be mutually beneficial, since the U.S. is equally abundant in coal reserve as well. The Asian Pacific Partnership, which resulted from the passage of the Hagel-Pryor-Voinovich, et al. bill, is in its infancy in sharing technological breakthroughs on controlling carbon emissions. It is already happening through the Asian Pacific Partnership. For those who are really interested, you can go to www.asianpacificpartnership.org for more information on what is happening. Recently, Richard Armitage and Dr. Joe testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and submitted for the record a paper called ``Implementing Smart Power: Setting an Agenda for National Security Reform.'' In this paper, Dr. Nye suggested that: The next administration and Congress should establish and fund a joint technology development center. International collaboration helps reduce costs and accelerate the pace of innovation. The U.S. Department of Energy in partnership with major global energy companies should establish a 10-year endowment for funding energy and technology related research. This could be administered by an international consortium of the National Science Foundation and equivalents and disburse grants through a peer review process to researchers to provide venture capital to develop and deploy next generation energy technologies, such as biofuels. Also, the paper suggests that the next President should ``seek to identify areas of mutual interest between the United States and China on which the two powers can work together on a smart power agenda. ``Work together.'' Energy security and environmental stewardship top that list, along with other transnational issues such as public health and non-proliferation. Global leadership does not have to be a zero-sum game. The point I am making is, we are on the edge. We are seeing the result now in terms of the high cost of gasoline, the high cost of natural gas, the high cost of heating oil because of the fact that we did not put together a comprehensive plan some years ago, realizing we are in a global economy, the world is expanding, demand for these resources is growing every day, and in order for us to survive in this century, we have to become a whole lot more independent in terms of energy--as I said, the ``second declaration of independence.'' The only way that is going to happen is to develop a comprehensive plan. My colleague, Senator Alexander from Tennessee, did a very good job earlier this evening in laying out a comprehensive plan we should put in place. It is not going to happen overnight. It is going to take time for it to take place. The reason I am bringing up the issue of the legislation dealing with climate change is, again, how do we handle that issue? Do we just go ahead and say: ``Well, we are going to go forward with it. Cap in trade. This is going to solve the problem,'' when most of us know the technology is not there in order to cap carbon and sequester carbon, when most of us know the Chinese and the Indians and other growing economies are sending these greenhouse gases into the air. Instead of just saying: Well, we will do it on our own, I think it is time for us to get together and realize we are part of this global economy. By working together, not only could the United States be a leader in dealing with climate change and greenhouse gases, but it would also be one of the most fantastic things our country could do in terms of public diplomacy. We have been banged over the head over the years because we have not got on into Kyoto. That was voted on here on the floor of the Senate and it went down overwhelmingly ``no.'' Then, 2 years ago, we passed the Pryor-Hagel bill. The reason it passed is because it had an international dimension to it. I think where we are today is we have to say: Here we are and here is where we want to be, and how do we get there. Wouldn't it be wonderful, as I have said, if the United States could be a leader in doing this and bringing other countries together in saying we are going to do this together. I have a motto: Together we can do it. I think that is the approach we should take. If we don't do that, if we go ahead with this cap-and-trade legislation and say: Well, it is going to take care of the problem, we are going to be having the same problem we are having today, only it will be compounded: a 55-percent increase in electric costs by 2012, an 80-percent increase in natural gas costs, and a 30- percent increase in gas costs. We can't handle that. We have to worry about the standard of living of our people. So we have to balance this. I think if we work on a bipartisan basis, we can come up with something that is spectacular. It is overdue. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, the time for a honest, national discussion of fundamental tax reform is long overdue. Each year, April 15 looms on the calendar as a day of reckoning for American taxpayers facing a laborious and needlessly stressful process. Since enacting the Tax Reform Act of 1986--legislation intended to simplify the filing process for taxpayers--more than 15,000 provisions have been added to the Internal Revenue Code. The irony of our complex Tax Code is that in order to take advantage of all the benefits and deductions for which they qualify, Americans have to spend a significant amount of money to pay someone or something to do their taxes for them--thus decreasing the value of their return. According to the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform, only 13 percent of taxpayers are able to file without the help of either a tax preparer or computer software. The Tax Foundation estimates that in 2005, individuals, businesses, and nonprofits spent an estimated 6 billion hours complying with the Federal income tax code, with an estimated compliance cost of more than $265 billion. This amounts to imposing a 22-cent tax compliance surcharge for every dollar the income tax system collects. Tinkering with the current Tax Code won't get the job done. Tinkering is what got us into this mess in the first place. We must enact fundamental tax reform--a complete overhaul of the system that would make the Tax Code simple, fair, transparent, and conducive to economic growth and private savings. Tax reform is not just a matter of simply saving taxpayers time and effort. This is about saving taxpayers real money. Comprehensive tax reform could save Americans the $265 billion in compliance costs. Now, that would be a real tax reduction that wouldn't cost the Treasury one dime. A new tax system is also vitally important to job creation and economic growth. In addition to simplification for average families, we must address one of the biggest problems with the current code: it rewards moving production activity--and the good-paying jobs that accompany such activity-- overseas. It taxes domestically produced goods heavily and taxes foreign-made goods lightly. We have the second highest corporate tax rate in the developed world, but we are near the bottom in corporate tax collections as a share of the economy. Such a system sounds absolutely perverse, but that is what we have in the United States. Some of my colleagues will suggest that we can just increase marginal rates to raise the revenue we need. But in a competitive global economy, I can't understand why we would choose such a self-defeating approach. Higher marginal rates on an already-broken tax system would only discourage economic ingenuity and reduce U.S. competitiveness. Recent economic research concludes that in a global economy workers bear the brunt of higher corporate tax rates, through lower wages and fewer jobs. The bottom line is Congress needs to take tax reform seriously. I am actively evaluating proposals that would simplify the Tax Code, save taxpayers billions of dollars, expand the economy, and most importantly, protect American jobs. I have already discussed the need for such legislation with many of my colleagues, and I know there is bipartisan support in the Chamber for comprehensive and timely action. We can start the process by enacting legislation to create a bipartisan commission to propose tax and entitlement reform legislation that Congress must vote on under fast-track procedures, such as my SAFE Commission Act or the Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action that has been proposed by Senate Budget Committee chairman Kent Conrad and ranking Republican Judd Gregg. With or without such a commission, Congress and the next President must move forward on comprehensive tax reform that simplifies the code and creates jobs in the United States.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment, and I now send the modification to the desk.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, the chairman of the Finance Committee has voiced concern about the original revenue loss associated with our amendment, which is bipartisan, with several members of the Finance Committee as sponsors. Senator Stabenow and I have worked very hard with Finance Committee staff and the Joint Committee on Taxation to bring the revenue estimate down. We managed to cut it by two-thirds to about $1.3 billion over 10 years. I am pleased Senator Baucus finds it acceptable and now supports my amendment. I would now like to turn the floor over to Senator Stabenow.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana for those words of support. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, along with my colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, we have worked to craft an amendment to help struggling companies and their employees during this time of economic downturn. The two of us have been joined by a bipartisan group of cosponsors, including Senators Hatch, Smith, Vitter, Levin, Cantwell, and Rockefeller. Without a job and financial security, it is extremely difficult to keep paying your mortgage and keep your home out of foreclosure. A job is the first step in ensuring that Americans can achieve the dream of home ownership. My hometown of Cleveland is the epicenter of the foreclosure crisis, and with Ohio ranked No. 1 in foreclosures nationwide, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association, addressing this issue is of critical importance to me and all of my constituents in the great State of Ohio. The reason Ohio is experiencing a foreclosure crisis has nothing to do with speculators. It has to do with a bubble of rapidly rising prices. Ohio has a foreclosure crisis despite the fact that house prices never did increase there as they did in other parts of the country. Ohio families have been losing their homes because Ohio manufacturing workers have been losing their jobs. It is the same story next door in Michigan. Our amendment is one step in the plan to turn things around for workers in these and other manufacturing States so families have the income to stay in their homes. Our amendment will help unprofitable companies--many of which are in Ohio--to use existing AMT and R&D credits in 2008 to stimulate their businesses, turn profits, and create new jobs. The amendment would allow companies operating in the red to use the AMT and R&D credits already on their books instead of bonus depreciation deductions, as long as the money is used to expand operations in the United States. Bonus depreciation has already been included in the economic stimulus package, but it left out companies that don't have income against which to deduct their expenses because they are not making any money. This is an important thing. Ironically, these are the companies that are most in need of relief during a strained economy, but they are not receiving it. My colleagues should also note that this amendment is fiscally responsible because it simply allows for the speedier use of tax credits that would be used anyway in the future. In other words--and I wasn't aware of this--companies that are not making money pay an AMT corporate tax, and what happens is when they do start making money, they deduct the corporate AMT from the taxes, so in effect they get credit for that corporate AMT. We are basically saying let's let those companies--because they cannot use the bonus depreciation--use that AMT credit so they can create jobs and keep people working. So this basically lets them use these credits speedier than they would ordinarily be used if we waited over a longer period of time. I want everybody to know we will continue to work with the Joint Committee on Taxation to get a fiscally responsible revenue estimate. We have every reason to believe it is going to be very small during this 10-year period. As a matter of fact, if you take into consideration that these companies, down the road, would use the R&D or their corporate AMT, it could end up being a wash. This bipartisan amendment has wide-ranging support from the biotech industry, to the American auto industry, to the coal industry. All of these industries are hurting and need a boost to get back on track. This amendment would give them that boost to make investments now and create jobs so Americans can keep their homes. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and work to protect their constituents' jobs and homes. I yield the floor to the Senator from Michigan, whom I appreciate joining me on this amendment. It is something the two of us have been working on for quite some time. I am glad we have a bipartisan group that understands how important it is to our respective States and to this country.

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

Mr. VOINOVICH. Yes.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I send amendment No. 4406 to the desk.

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

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to correct what I perceive to be an anomaly in the law. I am grateful to be joined in my efforts by my good friend and partner in human capital reform, Senator Akaka. The enabling statute of the Department of Homeland Security requires the Chief Human Capital Officer, or CHCO, to be appointed by the President. This differs from all other departments and agencies where the head of the agency designates the CHCO. Using that authority, agency heads have varied in appointing Chief Human Capital Officers who are political appointees as well as career employees. This bill would strike the provision of statute that requires the Chief Human Capital Officer to be appointed by the President. Therefore, the Department would be covered by section 1401 of title 5, which directs the head of each agency to appoint the CHCO. Of the 23 agencies that make up the Chief Human Capital Officers Council, 11 are career employees. As the Department prepares for its first transition between administrations, it is imperative that there are able and capable individuals in place to continue its important mission and all related functions. Key to a successful Department of Homeland Security is a well trained workforce. I believe central to this smooth transition would be a career Chief Human Capital Officer. While I have no intention of mandating that position be a career position, I believe the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security should have the flexibility and authority to hire a career employee to that position, just as all other agency heads do, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to correct what I perceive to be an anomaly in the law. I am grateful to be joined in my efforts by my good friend and partner in human capital reform, Senator Akaka. The enabling statute of the Department of Homeland Security requires the Chief Human Capital Officer, or CHCO, to be appointed by the President. This differs from all other departments and agencies where the head of the agency designates the CHCO. Using that authority, agency heads have varied in appointing Chief Human Capital Officers who are political appointees as well as career employees. This bill would strike the provision of statute that requires the Chief Human Capital Officer to be appointed by the President. Therefore, the Department would be covered by section 1401 of title 5, which directs the head of each agency to appoint the CHCO. Of the 23 agencies that make up the Chief Human Capital Officers Council, 11 are career employees. As the Department prepares for its first transition between administrations, it is imperative that there are able and capable individuals in place to continue its important mission and all related functions. Key to a successful Department of Homeland Security is a well trained workforce. I believe central to this smooth transition would be a career Chief Human Capital Officer. While I have no intention of mandating that position be a career position, I believe the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security should have the flexibility and authority to hire a career employee to that position, just as all other agency heads do, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to one of the giants in Ohio history, Senator Howard Metzenbaum. On March 12, Ohio and our Nation lost a public servant who dedicated 19 years of his life to this institution and to defending and advocating the principles and ideals he held so passionately. Though our political views differed, I admired and respected Howard's tenacious work for those things he felt would make a difference for Ohio and our country. One always knew where he stood. Much has been said about how Howard was a self-made man. He epitomized the nose-to-the-grindstone, Midwestern work ethic. As a fellow Clevelander, he grew up poor. But that did not prevent Howard from seizing opportunities as they presented themselves. And he seized those opportunities even as a young boy. Howard graduated from the Ohio State University College of Law, working the entire time to put himself through school. As public servants for Ohio, Howard and I were brought together on many issues and occasions. Many times we did not see eye to eye. However, there were also times when we worked together. While I was Governor of Ohio, then-Senator Metzenbaum, Representative Marcy Kaptur and I worked together in a bipartisan fashion to plant the seed for the Veteran's Glass City Skyway bridge in Toledo, Ohio. Through his leadership, we were able to dedicate the bridge this past summer. Some of my colleagues today were here for parts of Howard's 19 years in the Senate. Those who were here and were on the opposite side of an issue quickly found out what a formidable challenge and powerhouse he could be. Howard did not go along to get along. Howard did what he thought was right and what he thought was in the best interests for the people he represented. It was with respect for his service and convictions that Howard was honored in 2005 by renaming the renovated United States Courthouse in Cleveland the Howard M. Metzenbaum Courthouse--a fitting tribute to a man who, when he perceived an injustice, fought so hard to make a wrong right. Howard Metzenbaum made a difference. Howard will be missed. His family, including his wife Shirley and his four daughters, Shelly, Amy, Susan and Barbara, are in our prayers.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, amendment 4238, which I will call up at the appropriate time, but for now I would like to explain to my colleagues what this amendment is about. This amendment is very similar to a provision Senator Gregg included in the Fiscal Year 2007 Budget resolution. It would stop Congress's addiction to emergency spending. It would create a point of order against any spending over a designated amount set aside for emergencies--called an ``emergency reserve fund.'' By now Congress knows that we will have emergencies every year. We should, therefore, set aside a designated amount for true emergencies to meet that obligation and try to stick to it, rather than continuing on with an unlimited emergency designation that just invites abuse and irresponsible budgeting. When I was Governor of Ohio I had a rainy day fund, or a savings account, for those economic downturns or unforeseen events beyond the control of even the best money managers. Soon after I arrived at the statehouse, I discovered that Ohio's rainy day fund was at 14 cents, but by the end of my eight years as Governor, I had increased the rainy day fund balance to $906.9 million. Again and again, the United States Congress has abused the emergency designation to skirt around budget limits and pay-go. We all understand that on occasion we face natural disasters or unanticipated crises such as Hurricane Katrina and 9/11 that require emergency resources. For this reason, we cannot estimate all of our emergency spending in the budget each year. But I am extremely concerned that Congress has abused the emergency designation in recent years to spend large sums of money outside the budget for purposes that are not true emergencies. Congress doesn't even count the money as spending. If spending is designated as ``emergency,'' it is exempted from budget controls and spending limits. Congress doesn't even count the money on spending. An example of the sort of abuse of emergency spending that concerns me is the designation of funding for the 2000 Census as an emergency, even though the U.S. Constitution has required a census be conducted every 10 years since 1790. The definition of ``emergency'' uses words like ``sudden'' and ``unforeseen.'' But in 2000 we had known about the census for 210 years. This is absurd. As part of my effort to reign in wasteful spending and conduct meaningful oversight of government programs, I asked the GAO to review trends in so-called ``emergency'' and ``supplemental'' spending over the decade stretching from 1997 through 2006, as well as propose reforms to ensure that emergency funding truly is for real emergencies and not simply a way to camouflage spending that is driving up the national debt. GAO found that $31 billion over a 10-year period did not fit the definition of an ``emergency,'' 35 spending accounts received emergency funding in at least six out of 10 years, and over one-third of emergency spending has no time limit on when agencies can spend the money. My amendment would state that the fiscal year 2009 emergency designation can only be used for $65 billion worth of spending- reserving $50 billion for the global war on terror and leaving another 15 billion for any legitimate emergencies. Of course, this $50 billion would be in addition to the $70 billion already in the Budget for Iraq and Afghanistan-and so my amendment would allow $120 billion total for the global war on terror outside the discretionary spending limits. This point of order could be raised against any spending over the designated amount set aside for emergencies and would make clear that this increase in spending would have to bust through the regular budget. Of course, the Senate could still bust the budget with 60 votes, but at least someone would be throwing a penalty flag so that we are being honest about it, instead of using the emergency label to claim we are staying within the budget when we are not. Mr. President, $50 billion is based on the 5-year average for emergency defense spending and $15 billion is based on the 10-year average for certain other types of emergencies, as estimated by the GAO. These levels are based on a recent study conducted at my request by the Government Accountability Office evaluating recent trends in emergency spending. I hope that my amendment can find broad bipartisan support, and that we can begin to eliminate some of the outright abuses of the emergency designation. It is time for us to be honest with the American people about the true state of our nation's fiscal health and stop relying on smoke and mirrors. The longer Congress waits before it gets serious about fiscal responsibility, the heavier the burden will be for our kids and grandkids. And it all starts with honest and transparent budgeting. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

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

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

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, as we prepare to consider the budget resolution next week, I rise today to comment on the need for fiscal responsibility and reform of the very financial pillars that support our Government's foundation. Building on a speech I gave last October, and in the tradition of another Member of this body, Senator Fritz Hollings, I hope to regularly provide my colleagues and the American people with updates on our growing national debt. We need to be reminded of the fiscal reality which we find ourselves in. We cannot continue to live in a state of denial. The Congressional Budget Office projects a $219 billion budget deficit for 2008--that is the fiscal year we are in right now--which does not include the $152 billion economic stimulus package President Bush recently signed into law. With the addition of the economic stimulus bill, the 2008 projected deficit can be assumed to be $371 billion in 2008. But even that figure hides the true degree to which our official situation has deteriorated, mainly because it uses every dime of the Social Security surplus. I think it is important for our colleagues to understand we are using every dime of the Social Security surplus, as well as surpluses in other trust funds, to hide the true size of the Government's operating deficit. If you wall off the Social Security surplus so that Congress can't spend it on other programs, as I believe we should, then the Government's operating deficit amounts to $566 billion, over 50 percent more than the reported deficit of $371 billion. In other words, what we do is we hide from the American people the fact that we are borrowing money from ourselves to run our Government, and the only thing we report to them is the public debt, but we don't report to them the Government debt. So when we make these figures available, we will say, oh, the deficit is $371 billion, but the truth of the matter is, when you add in the Social Security surplus, it is $566 billion. But the annual difference between revenues and outlays is not what is truly threatening our future. It is the cumulative ongoing increase in our national debt that matters. Unfortunately, many in Washington pretend that the debt doesn't even exist. How often do you hear anybody talk about the national debt? They don't. I think we all remember that in 1992 Ross Perot was out running around America talking about our fiscal irresponsibility and the national debt. At that time, Ross Perot--and this is 1992--predicted that by 2007, the national debt would be $8 trillion. Well, the fact is, he was wrong. It is $1 trillion more. It is $9 trillion. Now, the interesting thing is that from the beginning of our country to 1992, it is something like 200 years. We have since 1992 increased the debt--doubled it--from what it was. In other words, in the last 15 years, we have increased the debt more than what it was for the first 200 years. Think about that--200 years. And the tragedy of it is that each and every American--man, woman, and child--owes $30,000. That is what we all owe today. Here are some additional facts: 47\1/2\ percent of that privately owned national debt is held by foreign creditors, mostly foreign central banks. That is up from 13.3 percent only 5 years ago. And who are the foreign creditors? The three largest creditors are Japan, China, and the oil exporting countries, or the OPEC nations. Can you imagine how high our interest rates would soar if these countries moved out their investment to somewhere else? In other words, if they would get shaky about where we are in terms of our U.S. economy. According to the S&P and Moody's, U.S. treasuries will lose their triple-A credit in 2012. In other words, by 2012, our treasuries are going to lose their triple-A rating. That is the best rating you can get. In dollar purchases, I think most of us remember when we could take the American dollar and buy more Canadian dollars. Today, a dollar buys 98 cents of a Canadian dollar. In Europe, it takes $1.52 to buy one Euro. I have traveled overseas in the last several years, and at one time everybody wanted the American dollar. They called them Reagans. I want a Reagan. Well, the fact is, today they do not want Reagans, they wanted Euros. Our long-term fiscal situation makes short-term responsible budgeting today even more important. The adoption of a biennial budget for the Federal Government, as I had as Governor of Ohio, would ensure Congress can get its work done on time while also conducting the oversight necessary to ensure that programs and agencies are functioning effectively. I am hoping we can convince the chairman of the House Budget Committee that this is something that would be great for this country because it is a systemic change that would make a real difference. I have long championed this issue. I have been a cosponsor of Senator Domenici's Biennial Budgeting Act since I came to the Senate in 1999. I have been advocating for its passage nearly 10 years. In 25 of the last 30 years, Congress has failed to enact all of the appropriations bills by the start of the fiscal year, instead passing omnibus bills and continuing resolutions. Government-by-CR has consequences: Agencies cannot plan for the future, they cannot make hiring decisions, and they cannot sign contracts. In the next several weeks, I am going to give another speech on the floor of the Senate to remind people about the disruption our not being able to pass budgets on time and the effect continuing resolutions have on inefficient Government and our inability to do the job the taxpayers want us to do. As I said, we get more waste and inefficiency from the Government by what we are doing. We get lower quality services provided to the people. At the end of the day, we get higher spending and less accountability and oversight of the taxpayers' money. This is irresponsible management, and it has to stop. Biennial budgeting will ensure Congress does its job and actually looks back to see if the money we have spent is doing what it is supposed to do. While biennial budgeting can restore order to the appropriations process, it will not solve our long-term entitlement problems or reform our Tax Code. We must enact fundamental tax reform to help make the Tax Code simple, fair, transparent, and economically efficient. Tax reform is not just a matter of saving taxpayers time and effort; this is about saving taxpayers real money. The Tax Foundation estimates that comprehensive tax reform could save us much as $265 billion in compliance costs associated with preparing our returns. People come to my office every day, and I ask them: How many of you do your own tax returns? And the answer is most of them--the hands go up. I am an attorney. I used to make out my own return. I used to do them for my clients. I would not touch my tax return today with a 10- foot pole. Now, if we can straighten this out through good tax reform, fair, easy to understand, even if we did it halfway, it would save almost $160 billion for all of the taxpayers of this country. That is a real tax reduction, and it is something that would not cost the Treasury one dime. In January 2005, President Bush announced the creation of an all-star panel led by former Senators Mack and Breaux, and that panel spent most of the year engaging the American public to develop proposals to make our Tax Code simpler, more fair, and more conducive to economic growth. In November 2005, the panel issued its final report. While not perfect in everyone's mind, the panel's two plans provided a starting point for developing tax reform legislation that will represent a huge improvement over the current system. The panel's proposals belong as a key part of the national discussion on fundamental tax reform. Last January, I introduced the Securing America's Future Economy--or SAFE--Commission Act, legislation that would create a bipartisan commission to look at our Nation's tax and entitlement systems and recommend reforms to put us back on a fiscally sustainable course and ensure the solvency of entitlement programs for future generations. My colleague, Senator Isakson, has joined me as a cosponsor. Democratic Congressman Jim Cooper of Tennessee and Republican Frank Wolf of Virginia introduced a bipartisan version of the SAFE Commission in the House, where they have 73 cosponsors from both parties. This bipartisan, bicameral group has support from corporate executives, religious leaders, think tanks across the political spectrum, from the Heritage Foundation to the Brookings Institution, and former members from both parties. On the heels of this, two of my colleagues, the Budget Committee chairman from North Dakota and the ranking member from New Hampshire, recently introduced a bipartisan bill that would create a tax and entitlement reform commission entitled the ``Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action.'' I signed on as a cosponsor of the Conrad- Gregg proposal. I look forward to working with them to restore fiscal sanity to the U.S. Government. I would like to comment on the efforts of Divided We Fail, a coalition comprised of the AARP, Business Roundtable, Service Employees Union, and the National Federation of Independent Businesses, for encouraging bipartisan congressional action on this legislation. I want to repeat that. Here is a group. They call themselves Divided We Fail. It is made up of the AARP, the Business Roundtable, and the National Federation of Independent Businesses, which are supporting this. What an interesting array of individuals who think it is time for us to do entitlement and tax reform. I am encouraged that the Senate Budget Committee is planning to mark up the Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action, and I urge my colleagues to pass this critical legislation before the close of 2008. The next President, whoever that may be, should be ready in January 2009 to work with the task force in addressing these critical reform issues. What we are doing now is not working for us. We know that oversight is an important part of our job. But oversight takes time. We must identify programs that are mired in waste, fraud, and abuse. Another piece of legislation I have introduced, along with Senator Cornyn, is the United States Authorization and Sunset Commission Act. This legislation would create a bipartisan commission to make recommendations to Congress on whether to reauthorize, reorganize, or terminate Federal programs. It would establish a systemic process to review unauthorized programs and agencies and, if applicable, programs that are rated as ``ineffective'' or ``results not demonstrated'' under the program assessment rating tool, which is called PART. Hopefully, the next administration will adopt the criteria the Bush administration has set for PART. Now, this legislation does not take away from our obligations to make difficult decisions about which programs to continue and those that we can no longer afford to support. What it does is provide an opportunity to work harder and smarter and do more with less. I believe by establishing this commission to do a thorough examination of programs and agencies using the established criteria, and a transparent reporting process, we can carry out our oversight responsibility more efficiently and effectively. The legislation will help us distinguish between worthwhile programs and those that have outlived their purpose, are poorly targeted, operate inefficiently, or simply are not producing results taxpayers expect. I used such a commission as Governor of Ohio, and it has helped us work harder and smarter and do more with less. As we near the end of the Presidential primary season and move into the nominating conventions, the Presidential candidates of both parties should address the critical issue of tax reform, entitlement spending, and budget process reform. All of the leading Presidential candidates are Members of the Senate. The American electorate should demand that they take a stand on the SAFE Commission and on the Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action. Voters should demand that Congress pass this bill this year and insist Presidential candidates pledge that upon being elected, they will guarantee that one of their first actions they take as President is to make their appointments to this task force. The Presidential candidates should have recommendations on tax reform, entitlement reform, and biennial budgeting. But I am afraid that the candidates, whether Democratic or Republican, will avoid these topics, because these challenges require tough choices. Where is Ross Perot? Where is Ross Perot? Voters must ask candidates if they are willing to discuss our country's financial future. If a candidate avoids this topic of responsibility in the campaign, how can voters trust them to be forthright after they are elected? The former Comptroller General, David Walker, has said: The greatest threat to our future is our fiscal irresponsibility. He added: America suffers from a serious case of myopia, or nearsightedness, both in the public sector and in the private sector. We need to start focusing more on the future. We need to start recognizing the realities that we are on an imprudent and unsustainable fiscal path and we need to get started now. I have three children and seven grandchildren. My wife Janet and I are wondering whether they are going to have the same opportunities we have had, as well as the same standard of living or our quality of life. I question what kind of legacy we are going to leave them as a nation. The time to act is now. When you look at the numbers, it is self- evident that we must confront our swelling national debt, and we must make a considered bipartisan effort to reform our tax system, slow the growth of entitlement spending, and halt this freight train that is threatening to crush our kids' and grandkids' future. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to take care of it now. All of us--all of us--should think about them. We have a moral responsibility to the future of this country, our children and our grandchildren, to make sure our legacy is one that we can be proud of, that they will have the same opportunities we had during our lifetime.