George Voinovich

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I wish to remember the trials faced by the Ukrainian people and to pay tribute to their fortitude and love of freedom. At times in its history, Ukraine has been exploited and suffered greatly under repressive occupations. The Stalinist regime of the former Soviet Union sought to maintain control of the people and resources of the Ukraine through vicious oppression. The Ukrainian people have weathered many trials, but they have always fought for their freedom. It is my belief that as we embrace Ukraine's future, we must always remember the hardships of its past. The Ukrainian peasantry rebelled against the collectivization policies imposed on them by the Stalinist regime starting in 1925. It is documented that very few farmers voluntarily joined collectives until Soviet secret police and Bolshevik brigades were sent to crush the resistance. As agricultural production fell in 1932 due to drought and these Stalinist policies, the regime attempted to maintain its export level. To do this the regime brutally confiscated grain and foodstuffs from hunger-stricken villages. Trade and supplies of food and goods were banned from those villages which were considered to be ``underperforming,'' while families who resisted were banished to central Asia. The totalitarian regime meted out harsh sentences, even the death penalty, against those who stole even small amounts of grain. We can never forget that over 2,000 innocent people, including children as young as 12 years old, were executed under this law. In 1932, Stalin imposed barricades throughout the USSR to prevent peasants from fleeing those regions stricken by famine. It was a state- organized program of mass starvation against the nation of Ukraine as a whole and the revived Ukrainian nationalism. It had been inflicted on them deliberately to punish Ukraine and destroy the basis of its nationhood. The famine-genocide of the Holodomor resulted in the tragic and unforgettable loss of millions of Ukrainian lives. Nevertheless, the Stalinist regime denied reports of mass deaths and forbade travel to the area to deter foreign journalists from reporting on these terrible crimes. In fact, these horrible crimes remained largely unknown to the broader world for decades as a result of the denials and coverups of the Soviet authorities and their refusal of offers of international aid. Through its determination to remember the victims of the famine and Soviet oppression, the Ukrainian American community has helped to bring these events to light. Their efforts have helped to give a voice to the millions of people who suffered, starved, and died as a result of a flawed policy and authoritarian regime. On the 75th anniversary of the Ukrainian famine-genocide, we must continue the important work of the Ukrainian American community by remembering the cruel injustices suffered by the Ukrainian people during that part of history. By so doing, we are not only honoring the millions of victims of this oppression, but we are helping to prevent a tragedy like this from happening again in the future.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the Levin amendment on Iraq. As my colleagues know, I have long supported a greater level of oversight in the war in Iraq. Many of us feel we should have done a better job of force oversight at the beginning of the war. I was quite taken with a quote from Condoleezza Rice recently, who said, ``I wish we had known more about Iraq before we went in.'' While in Iraq in August, I witnessed a great deal of progress on the ground. That gave me encouragement. However, I was also convinced that it would not be possible to sustain the current level of troops and funding for Iraq over the long term without damaging our national security and long-term fiscal health. As stated before, I believe we need to implement a plan to reduce our military presence in Iraq and focus the remaining military presence on a more limited role. This is clearly the plan General Petraeus is implementing now, and it is the stated goal of the President, as mentioned in the Levin amendment, supported by Secretary Gates and others who are concerned about our force level, and that we need more troops in Afghanistan. I have been working with Senator Levin for several months now to come up with a piece of legislation that could secure bipartisan support in the Senate and send a message to the President and the world that the Congress intends to exercise oversight to ensure we are making progress toward this goal. I have been careful to avoid supporting any measure that I thought would hurt our troops in any way, tie the hands of our brave commanders in the field, or prevent the President from responding to the situation on the ground. In September, I introduced a bill with Senators Alexander, Coleman, and Dole to strive for a goal to reduce our military presence. We had bipartisan support for that, but Senator Levin and I had a problem with the date. Unfortunately, it fell by the wayside. I support the Levin amendment, and I am a cosponsor to this legislation because I believe it is a very simple piece of legislation that accomplished the goals we all share. It sends the message that we support the President's declared goal of reducing our presence in Iraq over time so we can play a more supportive role, bring our forces home, and reduce the burden on our military. It is a sense of Congress and will not bind the President in any way or tie the commanders' hands in the field. It is supported by the President's own declared goals and that of his commander, General Petraeus--who is doing, by the way, an incredible job. It provides a goal for limiting our role in Iraq, and that goal is to end at the end of next year. But, unlike other past legislation, this date is not legally binding and would allow the President to respond according to the security conditions on the ground. I believe this amendment will not hurt our aspirations in Iraq in any way but will actually help our President and General Petraeus, who are striving now to hand over more responsibility to the Iraqis. This week, it was announced that the Iraq Government is ready to take over local security groups, with our support. This is an important step, and it is a step in the right direction. We need to continue in this direction. We need to make it our goal. We need to let the Iraqis know that they must take more responsibility for their own security. We must make it clear to them that we spent over $550 billion, that we have lost almost 3,900 individuals, 26,000 people have been wounded over there, and half of them are going to be disabled for the rest of their lives. We have paid a tremendous price. It is time for them to step up to the table and start doing more for themselves. I support this amendment so Congress can send that message that we are not simply funding a never-ending conflict in Iraq, we have a goal of reducing our presence there, and we are working toward it. I hope my colleagues realize the sensibility behind this very simple piece of legislation and join me in supporting it today.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I rise in support of the Water Resources Development Act conference report. It has been 6 years since Congress last passed a water resources and development reauthorization bill. The time has come to finally pass this important legislation. I am very disappointed that the President has vetoed this bill. America's infrastructure and waterways system is the foundation of our economy. For too long, we have been ignoring our infrastructure, but Katrina was a wake-up call for all of us. In the wake of this disaster, we saw firsthand the devastating impact of a weak infrastructure on our people and our economy. The more we continue to fail to fund our water infrastructure, the more we are putting our Nation's competitiveness at risk in this global marketplace. Our physical infrastructure is a critical piece to making America more competitive. Our infinite needs are overwhelming and being squeezed. We should be rebuilding an infrastructure of competitiveness so that future generations have at least the same opportunity to enjoy our standard of living and quality of life. If we continue to ignore the upkeep--the deterioration of our locks and dams, flood control projects, and navigation channels--we risk disruptions in waterborne commerce, decreased protection against floods as we saw in Katrina and other environmental damage. Additionally, I am pleased that this bill includes many provisions that will benefit the Great Lakes. First, there is authority for the Corps to deal with a very serious threat facing the Great Lakes. Asian carp are just miles from the lakes, and the only thing standing in their way is a temporary dispersal barrier in the Chicago Ship & Sanitary Canal. This bill authorizes the Corps to complete construction of Barrier II which is the permanent barrier as well as to convert Barrier I into a permanent facility and to operate and maintain both dispersal barriers at full Federal cost. Under this authority, the Corps would study options for hydrologic separation of the canal and the Great Lakes while maintaining the movement of cargo and recreational vessels. This bill clarifies that any reconnaissance study under the Great Lakes Fishery & Ecosystem Restoration program is to be performed at full federal expense. The Great Lakes navigation system has been associated with impacts on Great Lakes fishery resources, and the purpose of the Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration program is for the Corps to cooperate with others to plan, implement, and evaluate projects supporting the restoration of the fishery, ecosystem, and beneficial uses of the Great Lakes. When Congress authorized this program initially, the intention was for the Corps to develop projects under this authority just like other programs. That means that the reconnaissance study is to be a fully federal expense, and cost-sharing is required for subsequent study, engineering, design, and construction. This bill reauthorizes the Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans and Sediment Remediation and the Great Lakes Tributary Models Program. These are two programs that allow the Corps to provide assistance for controlling the source of sediments and to identifying specific actions to resolve pollution problems. Also contained in this bill is authority directing the Corps to expedite the operation and maintenance, including dredging, of the navigation features of the Great Lakes and connecting channels for the purpose of supporting navigation. The Corps has a huge backlog of work, and that backlog includes the Great Lakes. Freighters are getting stuck in shipping channels, other ships are carrying reduced loads, and some shipments have simply ceased altogether. The Corps estimates a backlog of 16 million cubic yards of dredging at commercial Great Lakes harbors and channels, which the Army Corps expects will cost about $192 million to address. In order to help address this backlog, the Corps will be authorized to expedite this work. Lastly, this bill allows the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation to carry out much-needed repairs, including maintenance dredging, of the Eisenhower and Snell lock facilities and related navigational infrastructure for the St. Lawrence Seaway. Unfortunately, like many of our infrastructure projects, we have not done much upkeep of the St. Lawrence Seaway. This bill will allow for those improvements to be made at a total cost of $134,650,000. The passage of this WRDA conference report cannot be delayed any further. It is simply too important to our Nation in terms of its benefits to our economy and environment and for the speedy recovery for the areas affected by Hurricane Katrina. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to override the President's veto.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 30 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to comment on the sad state of the appropriations process, as well as our long-term fiscal health. The new fiscal year began 23 days ago, and we are debating appropriations bills that haven't even passed the Senate yet, as Government agencies operate on temporary, stopgap funding. When we Republicans were in the majority, we consistently failed to enact all of the appropriations bills before the end of the fiscal year. We enacted short-term continuing resolutions, or CRs, to keep agencies funded while we wrapped several of those bills into an end-of-the-year omnibus bill. After the Democrats won control of the Senate, I sincerely hoped they would fulfill their promises to manage the budget better. But while the party in power has changed, the results have stayed the same. In fact, the results, so far, have been even worse. Fiscal year 2008 has already started, and we have enacted exactly zero appropriation bills. Government-by-CR has consequences. Agencies cannot plan for the future. They cannot make hiring decisions. They cannot sign contracts. As a result, we get more waste and inefficiency from Government. 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. On September 23, the New York Times reported that our failures could have a devastating effect on cancer research because scientists are waiting around to hear if they will receive grants for their innovative research ideas. The same article quoted a transportation industry representative as saying our failure could have major implications for anyone who rides in cars, trucks, trains, buses, and subways. If you want more examples of how Congress's failure to do its job on time affects ordinary Americans, I invite you to visit my Web site, where I provide several additional examples. That is why a bipartisan group of Senators agree that we need to adopt biennial budgeting by the Federal Government, such as I had as Governor of Ohio, so Congress can get its work done on time while also conducting the oversight necessary to ensure that programs and agencies are functioning effectively. Senator Domenici has been a leader on biennial budgeting for years. We should adopt it during this Congress and name it the Pete Domenici Biennial Budgeting Act as part of Pete's legacy to this country. Putting aside our short-term failures and focusing on our long-term problems, in 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. I commend two of my colleagues, the Budget Committee chairman from North Dakota and the ranking member from New Hampshire, for recently introducing a bipartisan bill that would create a tax and entitlement reform task force very similar to my SAFE commission. In fact, I saw them on CNBC recently talking about it. The only major difference is that Senators Conrad and Gregg require every congressional appointee to be a sitting Member of Congress, whereas the SAFE commission would include outside experts. I have signed on as a cosponsor of the Conrad- Gregg proposal, and I am pleased to learn they intend to hold a hearing on the bill in the very near future. I look forward to working with them to get the bill passed. I also commend Democratic Congressman Jim Cooper of Tennessee and Republican Congressman Frank Wolf of Virginia who introduced a bipartisan SAFE commission bill in the House of Representatives. I have been working with Congressman Wolf for more than a year on this proposal, and I welcome Congressman Cooper's decision to join us. This bipartisan, bicameral group has support from corporate executives, religious leaders, and think tanks across the political spectrum, from the Heritage Foundation to the Brookings Institution, and former Members from both parties, such as former Senators Warren Rudman and Bob Kerrey, and former Congressmen Bill Frenzel and Leon Panetta. Our entitlement programs are creaking under the strain of an aging society and runaway health care costs. Our Tax Code is imploding from the hundreds of economic and social policies that Congress pursues through tax incentives and from the dozens of temporary tax provisions that wreak havoc on families and businesses trying to plan their affairs. Neither our major entitlement programs nor our Tax Code are sustainable in the current form. The appropriations bills that we are debating this week are shrinking as a share of the budget as entitlements crowd out domestic discretionary spending. We must come together and develop a bipartisan consensus to fix these systems so our children and grandchildren can enjoy prosperity and increasing standards of living. I want to share with my colleagues some extraordinary numbers that reveal our Nation's looming fiscal crisis. I speak out of concern not only for our generation but also for our children and our grandchildren. They are going to bear the burden of reckless fiscal policies. Sir Edmund Burke, the father of conservative thought, said: Society is . . . a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born. Unless we change course, we will break that partnership with those who are yet to be born. This grave situation can be addressed only through hard bipartisan work, and we must begin our work now, for every day we wait, the solutions become more painful. In the simplest of terms, the Federal Government continues to spend more than it brings in. Running up the credit card for today's needs and leaving the bill for future generations should not be the policy of this country, this Congress, or this administration. It represents a recklessness that threatens our economic security, our global competitiveness, and our future quality of life. The Federal Government has become the biggest violator of credit card abuse in the world. Comptroller 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 the private sector. We need to start focusing more on the future. We need to start recognizing the reality that we're on an imprudent and unsustainable fiscal path, and we need to get started now. Everyone in this great body should heed Comptroller Walker's warning. Our commitments to the war on terror, to securing our borders, to educating our workforce, and to investing in our Nation's infrastructure demand tremendous resources and require long-term financial commitments. At the same time, we cannot ignore the demographic tide that will soon overwhelm our resources. We need a system for raising the revenues necessary to fund these priorities that does as little damage to the economy as possible. In short, the need for tax reform and entitlement reform has never been greater. A historical perspective helps to highlight the gravity of our current situation. The fiscal year 2007 budget deficit was $163 billion, but that figure hides the true degree to which our fiscal situation has deteriorated, mainly because it uses 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. The Social Security surplus, however, must be reserved for future retirees. As far as I know, you cannot spend the same money twice, but Congress keeps pretending that it can. If you wall off the Social Security surplus so Congress cannot spend it on other programs, as I believe we should do, then the Government's operating deficit more than doubles to $344 billion, not $163 billion. And if you add back the money the Government is borrowing from other trust funds, such as Federal employee pensions, the deficit explodes to $441 billion, almost triple the reported deficit. In other words, we are hiding from the public how much we are borrowing because we don't tell them about the money we are borrowing from trust funds. As a result, they see these numbers, such as the $163 billion, and they think things are getting better, but we are hiding the fact that we are spending every dime of these trust funds to keep the Government going. 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. Remember, in 1992 when Ross Perot ran for President and he showed us those frightening fiscal charts? Well, I have my own charts, and I call these charts my Halloween charts. I call them that because, No. 1, the Government's new fiscal year starts in October and, No. 2, because the fiscal picture is terrifying. Fifteen years ago, when Ross Perot was sounding the alarm, the national debt was about $4 trillion. He showed a chart projecting that by 2007, the debt would increase to $8 trillion. Well, guess what. As of 2007, the national debt stands at almost $9 trillion. Ross Perot's doomsday predictions turned out to be too rosy. In the more than 200 years that have passed between the Declaration of Independence and Ross Perot's 1992 campaign, the U.S. Government accumulated $4 trillion in debt. We have now added even more than that in the last 15 years. This Congress has acknowledged that it will pass right by $9 trillion. A few weeks ago, Congress very quietly voted to allow the national debt to increase by another $800 billion, from about $9 trillion to $9.8 trillion. What does that mean, $9 trillion? How do we even fathom that number? For one thing, it represents two-thirds of our entire national economy, the worst number in 50 years. For another thing, it means that each man, woman, and child in the United States owes $30,000 of the Federal Government's debt. I want my colleagues to think about these young people, the pages here today. All of you, every one of you, owe $30,000 on the debt we have accumulated. That $30,000 only represents the debt racked up by the Government in the past. Because we continue borrowing more than we bring in, that number is increasing every single day. And those numbers pale in comparison with the budget problems looming in our future as the baby boom generation begins to retire just 69 days from now, on January 1, 2008. In fact, just last week, the first baby boomer applied for Social Security retirement benefits. Reality is setting in that this is not just a far-off prediction. It is a growing storm that threatens to overwhelm our economy if we do not act now. Perhaps even more concerning is that 55 percent of the privately owned debt is held by foreign creditors, mostly foreign central banks. That's up from 35 percent just 6 years ago. Foreign creditors provided more than 80 percent of the funds the United States has borrowed since 2001, according to the Wall Street Journal. And who are these foreign creditors? According to the Treasury Department, the three largest holders of U.S. debt are China, Japan, and the OPEC nations. Borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from China and OPEC puts not only our future economy, but also our national security, at risk. It is critical that we ensure that countries that control our debt do not control our future. If after hearing all this, one still thinks this is a problem that exists only in the distant future, consider recent projections by the major credit rating agency, Standard & Poor's. For decades, U.S. Treasuries have been considered the risk-free investment against which the risks of all other investments are judged. A good place to invest, our Treasuries. In fact, the global financial system is largely based on the notion of U.S. Treasuries as the only risk-free investment out there. But in just 5 years, that will cease to be true. According to Standard & Poor's, U.S. Treasuries will lose their triple-A credit rating in 2012 because of the Government's deteriorating long-term fiscal position. Don't think that the world markets aren't looking at what we are doing in the United States. What kind of global economic turmoil awaits us 5 years from now when the U.S. Government is considered as risky as a typical corporation? What happens if the foreign banks decide they are going to move their money out of the United States and send it somewhere else? And what economic catastrophe awaits our children and grandchildren in 2025 when Standard & Poor's projects that U.S. Treasuries will be classified as junk bonds? Why do we refuse to see the warning signs? A decade ago, who ever would have imagined that the Canadian dollar would be worth just as much as a U.S. dollar? A few years ago, the Euro was worth 83 cents. Now it is worth $1.42. Meanwhile, our trade deficit has gone through the roof as we Americans are forced to borrow the money we need to buy foreign products. What is driving this train wreck? Certainly additional revenues have to be part of the solution. But this is not a problem that will be solved simply by reaching deeper into the American people's pockets. Many colleagues are familiar with Pete Peterson, former Commerce Secretary. He made it clear that ``The minute you start looking at a tax increase as the primary solution, you're confronted with tax increases that are clearly beyond anything anyone can imagine.'' Even the Democratic chairman of the Budget Committee has acknowledged that most of the heavy lifting will have to be done on the spending side. Revenues will be on the table for sure, but the coming storm will require significant changes to entitlement programs. Here are some numbers tho help put this situation in perspective. Forty years ago in 1967, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid made up only 3 percent of the GDP. In 2007, their cost has tripled as a share of the economy to 9 percent. The Congressional Budget Office projects that over the next 40 years, this number could double again to 18 percent, a frightening thought when we consider that in 2006 total federal revenues accounted for only 18 percent of GDP. It reminds me of when I was Governor of Ohio. I called Medicaid the Pac-Man in Ohio. Well, today I would refer to entitlements as the Pac-Man in terms of our national finances. If entitlement spending continues on this path, we will be required to use every cent of our Federal revenue to fulfill these entitlement obligations. Our grandchildren will have no money for national defense, energy security, education, the environment, or our infrastructure. And, they'll look back at our generation and ask how we could be so reckless with their futures. Our Nation faces one of the most competitive environments in its history, and the question is, in this new world of global competitiveness, will future generations be able to enjoy the same standard of living we are experiencing? Will my kids, will my grandchildren be able to enjoy the same standard of living I have enjoyed? Will they have the opportunity for the same quality of life? With the largest national debt in 50 years, will we be able to remain competitive with foreign economies? Congress must view our Tax Code, entitlement system, and the budget process as three components or pillars of the Nation's fiscal foundation, and not as separate problems. Each is linked to the other two pillars, and we must reform all three to raise the necessary revenue to fund the Government in an economically efficient manner, to keep our obligations to future generations, and to keep the size of Government to a manageable level. We must enact fundamental tax reform to help make the Tax Code simple, fair, transparent, and economically efficient. According to the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform, headed by former Senators Connie Mack and John Breaux, only 13 percent--think of this, only 13 percent-- of taxpayers file without the help of either a tax preparer or computer software. Since enacting the Tax Reform Act of 1986, over 15,000 provisions have been added to the Internal Revenue Code. It is not just a matter of saving taxpayers' time and effort. This is about saving real money. The Tax Foundation estimates that comprehensive tax reform could save Americans as much as $265 billion a year in compliance costs associated with preparing their returns. Now, that would be a real tax reduction that wouldn't cost the Treasury one dime. Mr. President, I have been working on tax reform for years. In 2003, I attached an amendment to the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act that would have created a blue ribbon commission to study fundamental tax reform. The amendment was adopted by voice vote but later removed in conference. Then, in the autumn of 2004, I offered my tax reform commission amendment again, this time to the American Jobs Creation Act. The Senate again adopted my amendment. During conference negotiations, the White House contacted me and requested I withdraw my amendment because the President was preparing to take a leadership role by appointing his own tax reform panel. I enthusiastically agreed to defer to his leadership, and I withdrew my amendment. It seemed to me that the tax reform bandwagon was finally starting to roll. In January 2005, President Bush announced the creation of the all- star panel headed up by former Senators Connie Mack and John Breaux, and that panel spent most of the year engaging the American public to develop proposals to make our Tax Code simpler, fairer, and more conducive to economic growth. In November of 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 would 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. Tinkering with the current Tax Code won't get it done. Tinkering is what has got us in this mess in the first place. It's time to rip the Tax Code out by its roots and replace it with something that works. The President's panel had a number of great ideas that we should incorporate into tax reform legislation. For example, we should simplify the code by repealing the complex, unfair, and antigrowth alternative minimum tax. We should consolidate all the various tax- preferred savings plans into just two or three plans that average workers and families can understand and utilize. We should scale back the tax subsidies that we use to pursue social engineering and dictate economic policy, forcing Americans who fail to qualify for tax breaks to pay higher rates to make up the lost revenue. We must create a tax system that is conducive to job creation and economic growth. We should start by addressing one of the biggest problems with the current code, and that is it rewards moving production overseas. We are taxing our exports heavily and taxing our imports lightly. Such a system sounds absolutely perverse, but that's what we have in the United States. In fact, a constituent of mine, Tom Secor, from Norwalk, OH, who owns his own small business, came to my office and told a story about a business trip he made to China. He said he saw an editorial in a Chinese newspaper that was discussing the concerns of Americans about Chinese competition. The conclusion of the editorial was that Americans could solve most of their problems with Chinese competition if they would just reform their own Tax Code. Imagine that, even Communist China knows the United States needs tax reform to stay competitive. But for some reason we refuse to learn that lesson ourselves. We must also understand that unless we do tax reform, the lower marginal rates, the lower capital gains taxes, the lower taxes on dividends will evaporate and we will have gained nothing in regard to fundamental tax reform and entitlement reform. And I think such reform, folks, must take into account our failure to pay for the Iraq war. This administration will have to explain why they are leaving us holding the bag and why they did not keep their promise for tax reform. They promised us. I know there is bipartisan support in this chamber to move forward on fundamental tax reform. Some of our colleagues have already taken steps towards developing legislation that would represent a huge improvement over our current system. As I already mentioned, we have Senator Gregg and we have Senator Kent Conrad who want to get going, so we should endorse the approach they want to take and submit legislation that Congress could consider under fast-track procedures. The proposal basically is to appoint eight Democrats and eight Republicans, including two top administration officials, and it would require a three-fourths vote for submitting a proposal to Congress. In other words, they do their work, and if three-fourths have said this is what we want to do for tax reform and entitlement reform, we have to vote on it up or down. That is really important because you can't ask some of our colleagues to spend that kind of time on tax reform and entitlement reform and not guarantee them that if they agree on something, they will get a vote on it. Some say to me: George, it is too late to do something. Well, it is not. And I think of Bill Bradley. Bill Bradley, in 1982, came up with a tax reform program. It took 4 years, but it was adopted in 1986. In other words, Ronald Reagan, working with Congress, reformed the Tax Code in 1986, and President Reagan is still fondly remembered as the leader who set the stage for years of prosperity at the end of the 20th century. He worked on a bipartisan basis. I think this President really has an opportunity to do something in regard to this. I think the President and the administration should say to Congress: Everything is on the table. No holds barred. I will sit down with you, and I will work on it. And you know what. Maybe we will not get it done, but at least we will start it. We will let the American people know that we understand that tax reform and entitlement reform is fundamental to the future of our country. What a nice legacy for our President, to at least say he got into the game and did something about it and didn't say you guys worry about it; it is your problem. Mr. President, the time to act is now. When you look at the numbers, it is self-evident we must confront our swelling national debt; that we must make a concerted bipartisan effort to reform our tax system, slow the growth of entitlement spending, and halt this freight train that is threatening to crush our children and grandchildren's future. Right now, in my lifetime, where I am at this stage, what I am worried about is the kids of America. I am worried about my grandchildren and other people's grandchildren. What is the legacy that we are going to leave those children and grandchildren? I don't know about my colleagues, but I am worried. I am really worried. I am worried about whether we are going to develop the infrastructure of competitiveness so those kids can compete in that global marketplace. It is in our hands. Folks back home sent us here to take on the tough problems and make the tough decisions and do what is right for our country. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in support of the Children's Hospital Graduate Medical Education Program, known by many as CHGME. Medicare is the only provider of graduate medical education funding, but because children's hospitals care for the young not the elderly, they are unable to access funding provided by Medicare. To correct the disparity of Federal support between adult teaching hospitals and freestanding children's teaching hospitals, Congress created the Children's Hospitals Graduate Medical Education Program in 1999. CHGME allows our Nation's independent children's hospitals to train many of the pediatricians American children visit each day as well as almost all of the pediatric sub-specialists who care for our Nation's most fragile children. And through stabilizing pediatric education, CHGME has also advanced the patient care and research missions of some of the Nation's most trusted hospitals for children. Without this Federal assistance, these hospitals might be forced to sacrifice a part of their critical missions. In the current fiscal year, the program is funded at $297 million. I am proud to say that that over $30 million of those funds--more than 10 percent of the total--has supported the training of pediatricians and pediatric specialists at six outstanding children's hospitals in Ohio. But more must be done, and I urge my colleagues to provide $307 million for this program in fiscal year 2008. In our country today there is a shortage in virtually every subspecialty of pediatrics. So it is noteworthy that the CHGME has led to the creation of fellowship programs to train pediatric specialists in areas of need such as pediatric endocrinology, surgical critical care, pediatric neurology, and child abuse and neglect--to name just a few. The CHGME Program needs to be maintained as a sustainable and reliable source of funding for children's hospitals across the Nation.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, yesterday, Senator Lieberman and Senator Warner released language for a legislative approach to address global climate change. The committee also has announced a subcommittee hearing on this legislation for October 24. I understand that the subcommittee intends to mark up this legislation on October 31 and move it to the full committee soon thereafter. I acknowledge the commitment Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Warner, both of whom I hold in the highest regard, have shown to this issue. However, I am concerned about the aggressive committee agenda for the consideration and markup of this legislation. I would hope that the legislation would proceed under regular order--which for complex environmental legislation establishing new emission control regimes typically includes multiple hearings on the legislative language and ample time for Members to review legislative language. For example, when the committee was considering multipollutant emission reduction legislation under the Clear Skies Act, the committee held three legislative hearings over a period of 2 months before proceeding to a markup. That process allowed the committee to hear from the Environmental Protection Agency, State and local officials, union representatives, public interest groups, various trade associations, and representatives from financial institutions. This approach provided Members with the input and time necessary for meaningful participation in the committee markup process. The Subcommittee on Environmental Protection followed a similar process during consideration of the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act. From September 1989 to the final markup in December 1989, the subcommittee held three legislative hearings, which provided Members with the valuable opportunity to question a wide variety of witnesses on the implications of specific provisions in the legislation. I also note that, on environmental legislation of significant importance, the committee has a history of expending the time and consideration necessary to achieve broad, bipartisan support before reporting legislation out of committee. In the past, this has ensured that, when moving from full committee to the Senate floor, the legislation has matured sufficiently for consideration by the full Senate body. I believe this front-end work on consensus is even more important given the current demands on floor time and the underlying legislative atmosphere in general. But this process is also important because we cannot afford to get this wrong. I believe that rushing legislation through committee will not affect a reasonable solution to the problem. We must find a way to harmonize policies that address our Nation's energy, economic, and environmental needs. And the only way we can do this is by taking a detailed look at what has been proposed. Unfortunately, what we have had in this Nation for many years is a ``tail wagging the dog environmental policy'' that is hurting our Nation's international competitiveness. Here is an example that we are all familiar with: Coal-fired power plants have become increasingly clean, yet they face a daunting number of new air quality requirements. These requirements are duplicative, inefficient, and create considerable uncertainty for an industry that is providing the nation with one of its most critical resources: safe, economic, and reliable power generation. These policies have resulted in a sharp increase in the use of natural gas for electric power generation--accounting for almost 94 percent of the increase in domestic demand for natural gas since 1992. The demand for natural gas is sending ripple effects throughout the economy because of its use as both a fuel and a feedstock for the production of everything from fertilizer to plastics to heating homes. This has contributed to loss of over 200,000 manufacturing jobs in Ohio alone. And these sharp price increases continue to impair the competitive position of U.S. manufacturing companies in domestic and world markets. That our Nation's environmental policies have this type of effect on our economy is not a new revelation. But one thing has become clear-- there is a faction of groups that have made it their priority to kill coal. Those that support this objective have illustrated to me that this dialogue is being driven by ideological extremes. This is unfortunate and does nothing to foster an environment where rational policy choices may be made about the serious issue we face. I recognize that we need to address climate change. But any reasonable climate change policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would also: Promote economic stability--reductions should not cause fuel switching, sharp electricity rate increases or economic dislocation; promote technology development--legislation must provide incentives to advance the pace of technology; provide for reductions from developing countries--we cannot send jobs overseas to countries that don't share our environmental objectives. These goals are to keep the Nation's economy, and that of Ohio, on a sure footing while decreasing emissions. Coal is the Nation's most abundant, cheap and accessible energy resource. Its strategic value from a national security and economic perspective should not be underestimated. It is simply nonsensical to put a policy in place that would jeopardize this resource. Climate change requires a long term solution whose strategy is fully capable of accommodating the time necessary to get the technology in place that will ensure coal's continued viability. An analysis released this summer of the Lieberman-McCain climate change bill--a predecessor to this legislation--which capped greenhouse gas emissions at 60 percent below 1990 emissions levels by 2050--is illustrative of my concerns. It concluded: Reductions in real GDP over the lifetime of the bill could be in the order of several trillion dollars. The analysis predicted that in 2050 average household annual consumption would be about $1,900 lower; gasoline prices would increase approximately $0.70 per gallon; and electricity prices are projected to be about 25 percent higher. But EPA points out that the impacts may be underestimated. This is because the analysis assumes: One, that carbon capture and storage technologies are widely available at a reasonable cost; and two, a 150-percent increase in nuclear power generation will occur. These assumptions are absurd. Needless to say, this legislation would cause drastic reductions in the use of coal. Some activists would applaud this, but it could result in the elimination of over 50,000 coal industry jobs. Not exactly a recipe for economic recovery. If enacting these restrictions would save the world from environmental collapse, as many would have us believe, it might be worth the economic pain. But the proposals, as demonstrated in a more recent EPA analysis requested by Senators Bingaman and Specter, will have little or no effect on global temperatures. In fact, this study concluded that even the most stringent of the policy proposals under consideration would have a net effect on global atmospheric concentrations of CO2 of a mere 25 parts per million. The point of all this is that we need to take the time to fully understand the costs and benefits of the policies that are being advanced to address the problem of climate change. Yes this is a problem that we need to address, but recklessly moving forward may result in disastrous economic repercussions, with little or no benefit to the environment. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, yes, I do. I wish to be recognized for 10 minutes as part of morning business.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Yes, Mr. President, I do. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, the Underground Railroad is an educational cultural program that we have as a grant from the Department of Education for the purpose of making known to children all over America the history of the Underground Railroad and of the Civil War. It also is a program that is aimed at diversity training that is so necessary. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to name the Post Office in Tiffin, Ohio, after the late U.S. Representative Paul E. Gillmor. It is my honor to introduce this bill because of my close relationship with Congressman Gillmor, and the utmost respect I have for him and his service to the people of Ohio. I would like to thank Senator Brown for his cosponsorship. Paul and I met four decades ago in 1967 when we began our careers together, Paul as a State senator and I as a member of the Ohio House. Paul was immensely successful and well-respected because he treated others with dignity and respect. During his tenure as president of the Ohio Senate, he was able to put partisan politics aside and work together with Governor Celeste for the best interests of the state. Paul had a wonderful knack for being able to work with people to get things done. He led by example, and his enthusiasm and ability always made you want to be on his team. He left an indelible mark on the people he worked with which is a part of his wonderful, lasting legacy. When I came to the Senate I knew I had a real friend in Paul Gillmor. My only regret is that I did not have more time to spend with him. Because of Paul's diligent and devoted service to his country, it is fitting that the post office in Tiffin, Ohio, should soon bear his name. Not far from his small home town of Old Fort, Ohio; Tiffin was chosen in concurrence with the wishes of his wife, Karen Gillmor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to name the Post Office in Tiffin, Ohio, after the late U.S. Representative Paul E. Gillmor. It is my honor to introduce this bill because of my close relationship with Congressman Gillmor, and the utmost respect I have for him and his service to the people of Ohio. I would like to thank Senator Brown for his cosponsorship. Paul and I met four decades ago in 1967 when we began our careers together, Paul as a State senator and I as a member of the Ohio House. Paul was immensely successful and well-respected because he treated others with dignity and respect. During his tenure as president of the Ohio Senate, he was able to put partisan politics aside and work together with Governor Celeste for the best interests of the state. Paul had a wonderful knack for being able to work with people to get things done. He led by example, and his enthusiasm and ability always made you want to be on his team. He left an indelible mark on the people he worked with which is a part of his wonderful, lasting legacy. When I came to the Senate I knew I had a real friend in Paul Gillmor. My only regret is that I did not have more time to spend with him. Because of Paul's diligent and devoted service to his country, it is fitting that the post office in Tiffin, Ohio, should soon bear his name. Not far from his small home town of Old Fort, Ohio; Tiffin was chosen in concurrence with the wishes of his wife, Karen Gillmor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, as a senior member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I rise today to speak in opposition to the Graham amendment to provide an additional $3 billion in emergency spending for the Department of Homeland Security. I want to make clear that I agree with my colleagues that we must secure our borders and provide the resources to do it. Let me remind my colleagues that the Department's overall budget has grown more than 150 percent since its creation. Of that total, border security and immigration enforcement represents approximately one-third of the Department's annual spending. In 2007, Congress provided $12.1 billion in funding for border security. For 2008, the President budget requested $13.5 billion for border security, a 12-percent increase over the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2007. The $13.5 billion that Secretary Chertoff requested from Congress was what he felt was needed to continue the Department's efforts to secure our borders. The Senate Homeland Security Appropriations Committee provided a total of $14.9 billion for border security in its mark of the fiscal year 2008 Homeland Security appropriations bill, a 23-percent increase over the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2007 and a 10-percent increase over the President's budget request for fiscal year 2008. Earlier this year, the Senate voted in favor of a similar amendment to the fiscal year 2008 Homeland Security appropriations bill. The Senate provided a total of $17.9 billion in funding for border security and immigration enforcement, a 48-percent increase over the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2007. Because Congress failed to complete action on any of the appropriations bills, this funding remains in limbo. The Federal Government continues to spend more than it brings in and this amendment continues that practice. If we decide we absolutely need to spend $3 billion on something--and I support adequately funding border security--then we need to either raise more revenue or cut other spending to pay for it. Thus, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Graham amendment.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I wish to honor and congratulate an outstanding community and business leader from my hometown of Cleveland, OH. Virgil E. Brown, Sr., has become a well-recognized name in Cleveland after serving our community and great State of Ohio for nearly three decades. On August 12, 2007, Virgil celebrated his 90th birthday. Also this year, his lovely wife Lurtissia celebrated her 87th birthday, and together they celebrated an amazing 68 years of marriage. What an accomplishment. Virgil grew up in humble beginnings. He was born in Louisville, KY, to George and Sarah Brown. He is the eldest of six children. He moved to Cleveland with his parents and siblings when he was 12 years old. He graduated from Central High School in Cleveland in 1937 and attended Fenn College, now Cleveland State University. Throughout Virgil's long and distinguished career of public service, he has made history and opened many doors through a number of ``firsts'' he attained. He served as the first African-American to be the director of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections; the first African-American to be elected as a Cuyahoga County commissioner; and the first African-American to serve as director of the Ohio Lottery Commission. His political career started in 1966 with an unsuccessful bid for a State representative position. He rebounded quickly, however, and in 1967 he won a seat on the Cleveland City Council, where he served for three terms. In 1972, when there was a breakdown in the countywide election system and the position of director of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections became available, Virgil resigned his city council seat to accept an appointment as director of the Board of Elections. He served nearly 7 years in this position, and during his tenure he restored the integrity and efficiency of the election process. When I left the position of Cuyahoga County commissioner to serve as Lieutenant Governor of Ohio in 1979, Virgil was appointed as my replacement. He was reelected and served three additional terms. While in his last term as commissioner, I was serving as Governor, and I asked Virgil if he would serve as the director of the Ohio State Lottery. Virgil graciously accepted, even though he was planning to retire. I appointed him in 1991, and he remained as director until 1995, when he officially retired at the age of 74. Virgil has had many notable achievements throughout his life. In 1976, he delivered the nominating speech for President Gerald Ford at the Republican National Convention. He was honored by the Cuyahoga County Board of Commissioners when they named their human services building the Virgil E. Brown Center. In 2002, he was inducted by the Cuyahoga County Republicans into the inaugural class of the James A. Garfield Hall of Fame. He was also inducted into the Glenville Hall of Fame, the Senior Citizens Hall of Fame, and the National Forum for Black Public Administrators'--Cleveland chapter--Hall of Fame. He is also a past president of the National Bowling Association. Virgil has served the greater Cleveland community and the State of Ohio with distinction. Whether it was through his political career, his mentorship of numerous young adults, his tenure on the board of directors for various community based organizations and commissions, through his home church, Bethany Baptist Church, or through his successful insurance company, Virgil Brown has touched and improved the lives of many. Throughout all of his accomplishments, his loving and supportive wife Lurtissia has been by his side. Without a doubt, she has been his greatest blessing. Together they have two children, Veretta Garrison, who is a businesswoman in Connecticut, and Virgil, Jr., who is an attorney in Cleveland and also a member of the State Board of Education. Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to thank Virgil E. Brown, Sr., for his exceptional leadership and for serving as a stellar role model. Congratulations, Virgil, on all you have and will continue to achieve. Our lives are better as a result of having been touched by you. May God continue to bless you and your family.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, today the Senate considers, as my good friend, Senator Akaka, has mentioned, H.R. 1124 that will reauthorize the District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Grant Program. Senator Akaka and I have been working on this legislation for quite some time and both believe it is one of the most significant efforts the Congress has made to help students of the District of Columbia. I thank both the majority leader and the minority leader for allowing us to move this bill forward today. This bill passed the House in May by a vote of 268 to 100. Earlier this year, we introduced the Senate companion bill sponsored by Senator Akaka, Senator Brownback, Senator Landrieu, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Warner offering this needed reauthorization. I thank the Senator from Hawaii for his cosponsorship of this legislation. I understand the special relationship between the Federal Government and the District. Congress shares the responsibility of making certain that the Nation's Capital remains a socially, economically, and culturally vibrant city. As a former mayor and Governor, I also believe that education is one of the most important factors in ensuring this Nation's future. Thus, one can imagine my dismay when I came to Washington, the shining city on the Hill, and learned that only 43 percent of students entering the ninth grade graduated from high school and even fewer go on to college. One would have thought that our Nation's Capital, the most powerful city in the world, would be the home for a first-class education system. I am very concerned about the dropout rate in our Nation. America cannot afford to have urban schoolchildren drop out of school and become wards of society. Unless this situation changes, we are planting the seeds for social unrest. As the United Negro College Fund says, a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Concerned with the future of the District's children, Representative Tom Davis and I crafted the District of Columbia College Access Act which created the DCTAG Program, tuition assistance program. I consider the creation of the DCTAG Program to be one of the most worthwhile efforts I have done since my time in the Senate. The aim of the DCTAG Program is to level the playing field for high school graduates in the District of Columbia who do not have access to a comprehensive, State-supported education system by assisting them in attending college. Before the DCTAG Program, DC students were the only students in the United States--the only ones in the United States--with a limited State higher education system. As a result, few District graduates went on to attend college. Beginning in 2000, DCTAG scholarships have been used by District students to cover the difference between instate and out-of-State tuition at State universities. Senator Akaka has already explained the limitations on the program, but it provides up to $10,000 per year for out-of-State tuition, with a cap of $50,000, and $2,500 for private schools, with a cap of $12,500. Again, the way this has worked out is the District has seen an unprecedented increase, a 60-percent increase in college attendance. No other State in the Union can make this claim. Think about that: a 60- percent increase in college attendance. More than 1,500 DCTAG recipients have graduated from college. In my State of Ohio, there are currently 74 District students attending 11 universities, including Ohio State, Kent State, and Bowling Green State University. I truly believe the majority of the students would not be attending colleges and universities in Ohio without the DCTAG Program. I am particularly proud of the fact that many DCTAG recipients are the first in their family to attend college. In a survey of students attending the District's H.D. Woodson High School, 75 percent of the respondents felt DCTAG made a difference in their decision and ability to continue their education beyond high school. I know how important this is because in my own situation, my father was raised by foster parents. It didn't look as if he would have a chance to go on to college. His principal and social studies teacher came out to see the man who was the foster parent, who wanted my dad to quit school at 16 and be a laborer. The principal and social studies teacher said: No, keep your George in school. They found him a job at night. Then they also helped him obtain a scholarship from Kroger. He went on to Carnegie Tech to become an architect. I don't know what would have happened if it had not been for those teachers intervening and for that Kroger scholarship. His life would have been quite different. Sixty-five percent of the kids indicated that the existence of the program enabled them to choose a college that would best suit their needs. Erica, who attends Virginia State University and is supported by her grandparents living on a fixed income, said: Without the help of DCTAG, I would not be able to attend college. And Randa, a full-time single working mother, said: The support I received is unmatched. DC-TAG made my future come true. Before hearing of the grants that existed, I had no intention of pursuing higher education, let alone attending a private school that ranks in the top 10 across the Nation. This contribution to my life has inspired me to help others as I have been so richly blessed. These stories and many other successes of the TAG Program have resulted--and this is really important, Mr. President--in the private sector taking a vested interest in improving opportunities for the kids in the District. A public-private partnership modeled after the Cleveland Scholarship Program, called the District of Columbia Access Program, or DC-CAP, was established in 1999 by Don Graham of the Washington Post and other Washington area corporations and foundations to assist the District high school students with their enrollment in and graduation from college. DC-CAP is privately funded, a nonprofit organization. It provides full-time counseling and financial assistance, available throughout their college career, to students who otherwise might never have the opportunity to go on to college. To date, DC-CAP has disbursed more than $10 million, funded 5,300 students, and provided counseling services to 71,000 people. Similar to the population served by the DCTAG Program, the majority of students served are from low-income, minority, single-parent households, with many the first in their family to attend college. It is important to understand that without the DCTAG Program, we would not have the DC-CAP program. They were so impressed with the fact that we were willing to step up and do something and give these kids an opportunity for higher education that they said the private sector ought to step in, and they created the public-private partnership. Building on the success of the DCTAG and the public-private CAP program, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation announced this year a $122 million grant program aimed at improving urban education in the District. The program, known as the DC Achievers Program, represents one of the foundation's largest investments to date in education, with the intention of becoming a model for other communities throughout the United States. They chose the District because of the fact that we had DCTAG and the CAP program. The scholarships are designed to jump-start the low high school and college graduation rates among students living in certain DC neighborhoods. They are going to concentrate their attention in two regions of the District where there is a 66-percent dropout rate. Think of that. I am hopeful that with these programs continuing, we are going to really make a big difference in the District. In addition to the programs I have just mentioned, we have America's first federally funded scholarship program that was created as part of the DC Choice Incentive Act of 2003. Under this program, each District scholarship student receives up to $7,500 per year for tuition, transportation, and fees so they may attend a nonpublic school. Last year, more than 1,800 kids participated in this program at 66 nonpublic schools in the District, and a number of these students have used the DCTAG tuition grants to help their dream of a higher education become a reality. And it was available to them. In 1996, we created the charter schools in the District. Today, over 13,000 students are attending 34 charter schools in the District. In other words, we are really starting to make some progress. Supporting the Charter Schools Program is the Federal City Council, a nonprofit organization composed of and funded by approximately 200 local businesses and educational leaders. It is chaired by former Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating. Members of the President's Cabinet and a number of key Federal officials serve as trustees. That council has spearheaded the business community's support for reforming the District's public school system. In other words, we are bringing together tremendous resources today where we are going to try to make a difference in an urban district in this country--there are about 65,000 kids today in the District--make a difference in their lives so that maybe in the next several years, we can start talking about an urban education system that actually works. That is why this reauthorization is so very important not only to the District, but it could be the model for the rest of the United States of America. We have to break this dropout rate we are having in urban school districts or this country is in deep trouble. So I say that it is successful because we have brought together the public and private sectors to make a difference. That is what it is. In other words, we realized that the District's school system is just one thread in this community, and if it is going to be successful, it is going to take their Federal partner and it is going to take their private partner working together to make a real difference for the kids in this community. The Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Akaka, mentioned the fact that we brought on Michelle Rhee, who, by the way--I tell you, if it wasn't for DCTAG, if it wasn't for CAP, if it wasn't for the Gates Foundation, if it wasn't for some of the other efforts, I do not think we would have been able to land her. She is terrific. She sees this potential--this young woman, dynamic as all get out--she sees the potential. I yield the floor, Mr. President. The Senator from Oklahoma has an amendment.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Yes, and I am sure the people in the District of Columbia are paying higher income taxes to the United States of America.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, the Senator from Hawaii and I have accepted the amendment that limits the participation of people in this program to those who earn less than $1 million, but the fact is what we tried to do when we put this program together was to mimic what we were doing in States today around the country. In my State, we have a very robust higher education system, but we do not have an income level that establishes who can participate and who can't. I suspect there are people in Ohio who have kids at Ohio State University who are subsidized and who may make over $1 million or make $350,000. But our State has chosen not to have an earnings limit as a matter of public policy. I suspect if you go around the country, you will find that is the case just about everywhere you go.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Let me finish, and then I will yield for a question. Second, in terms of the private colleges, we looked at what we do around the country, and if you are in the State of Ohio and you are a resident of Ohio, we have a special program that says if you go to a private school, you don't get the full subsidy you would get if you go to a public school, but we provide the private schools up to $2,500 so you can attend a private school. When we put this program together, we had a limitation saying, as we have in the State--and we took certain areas of Virginia and Maryland and brought them in as part of a State-- and we said if you go to the University of Maryland, if you go to the University of Virginia, then you can participate in this program. But what we realized at the time was that the number of people trying to get into Maryland and Virginia was so large it wouldn't give these kids the chance they needed to have so they could get into school, and so we opened it up to public colleges all over the United States of America. As Senator Akaka says, there are people in Hawaii, I am sure we have people in Pennsylvania and all over America, in Oklahoma, and we are trying to do what a State would do. The other thing we did, which was unusual, is that because we have historical Black colleges around the country, we provided a special program that at those private colleges, even though they are outside of the region of the District of Columbia, the children would be able to receive up to $2,500, and that lays out why this whole program came together. What the Senator from Oklahoma is making mention of is that he wants everybody to get the same amount of money. If we provide equal funding for private and public colleges, as proposed by the amendment, we would be limiting the reach of what is, by all accounts, a very successful program. The current level of funding of the DCTAG is about $33.2 million. If we expanded that to allow District schools to receive grants of up to $10,000, funding would have to be increased significantly to serve the existing population served by the DCTAG. As mentioned earlier in the debate, the average grant amount per student is $6,500. They do not get the $10,000, they get the average of $6,500, and the difference of $3,500 would have to be made up somewhere. Of the 6,400 students enrolled in the DCTAG today, 886 are attending private colleges. These students are receiving about $2 million. If this amendment were to pass, funding would have to increase by over $5 million to cover these students, or the District would have to reduce the number of students attending public universities by 875 students. So it is a matter of money and dividing it. My guess is that would result in fewer students attending college because the pool of available money would shrink. I would hope none of my colleagues is willing to ask 875 students not to attend college. This program has been an unprecedented success since the first grants were handed out in 2000. There is an old saying, and I have believed in it my entire years in Government--over 40 years--``If it ain't broken, don't fix it.'' This program is not broken. This program is one of the most successful programs in the United States of America to reduce dropout rates and increase the attendance of youngsters to get a college education. I hope my colleagues who are listening and paying attention right now will vote against this amendment because I don't think it is going to add one iota to this program except to take away from it.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I am glad to yield.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I would like to say--and I am pleased the junior Senator from Oklahoma is talking about a Federal program where he wants to see more money spent. I think that is terrific. The fact is, he does agree this is a very special program. I would like to point out so do the appropriators, because year after year, they have provided more money for this program. Initially, it started out at about $17 million. They are up to about $33.3. In their consideration of the importance of this program, they have, in fact, provided more money for it because it is a very worthwhile, successful program. The fact of the matter is we all believe that if we evened it out across-the-board, fewer of our youngsters, the socially deprived kids in the District, would be able to take advantage of the program. Again, I wish to emphasize we tried to copy what we do in States such as Ohio, where we say to the private schools: You are here. God bless you. And we give them, not the total subsidy, $6,500--they get up to $2,500 for those students. If you are thinking about kids who need help, I know in my State if you have a youngster who has some potential--by the way, these youngsters who have the potential are taking advantage of the college assistance program the private sector set up here, set up by Don Graham over at the Washington Post. So they come in with this little extra money for them. We also have the Pell Grant Programs available to these individuals. I can tell you this. If we had a bright kid in the District who was qualified to go to Georgetown--we mentioned a young lady who is at one of the top universities. They have special programs that reach out and say here is a youngster--such as my dad--who is bright, hard-working, and we are going to give them some extra, such as dad got at Carnegie Tech so he could go on to get his architectural degree. I think we are talking about reality here. We are talking about a program that is making a difference. I respectfully say I think the proposal doesn't help the program but rather takes away from it.

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

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I had the same problem the other Members had. If I were here, I would have voted no.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee for giving me this opportunity. Yesterday, when I heard the Senate was considering passing an additional $3 billion in emergency spending to secure the border, I looked into the situation very carefully and calculated that, with the funding level the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee recommended, we are already going to be increasing budget authority for border protection and enforcement by roughly 23 percent over fiscal year 2007. The President's budget had recommended $13.5 billion, an 11 percent increase in border protection budget authority over fiscal year 2007. The Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee, in their wisdom, decided to increase it by another $1.4 billion, which takes it to a 23 percent increase over fiscal year 2007. If the Graham amendment passes, we will have increased budget authority for this priority by almost 47 percent over what we appropriated last year. I let the majority leader know that I objected to having this amendment for $3 billion in emergency spending considered by unanimous consent. I thank him for the opportunity to object to it on the basis of a unanimous consent, and I am pleased this will be scheduled for a rollcall vote, I believe at 11:30. Mr. President, as a senior member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and former chairman and now ranking member of its Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia for the last 8 years, I rise today to speak against the proposal to allocate an additional $3 billion in emergency spending for the Department of Homeland Security. First, I want to make clear that I agree with my colleagues that we must secure our border and provide the resources to do it. Had it not been for the fact that the previous administration and former Congresses failed to provide the money needed for border security, we would not have the illegal immigration problem now facing our country. That being said, this administration has religion and in the past several years has taken seriously the need to secure our borders. The President has recommended the funding necessary to get the job done. Let me remind my colleagues that the Department's overall budget has grown more than 150 percent since the Department's creation merging 22 disparate agencies; while total homeland security spending has more than tripled since 2001. Of that total, border security and immigration enforcement represents approximately one-third of the Department's annual spending. Since 2001, Congress has more than doubled funding for border security, from $4.6 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $10.4 billion in fiscal year 2007. Including the $14.9 billion recommended by the Appropriations Committee, this figure would jump to a more than 220- percent increase in border security spending since 2001. Through the Secure Border Initiative, a comprehensive and multi-year strategic plan funded by Congress, the Department of Homeland Security is making substantial progress. I would like to take a moment to share with you the achievements to date. The number of border patrol agents has already been increased by nearly 40 percent, from about 9,700 in 2001 to 13,360 today. Congress has appropriated funds to hire a total of 2,500 new agents this year, bringing the anticipated fiscal year 2007 year-end total to 14,819 agents. The fiscal year 2008 budget we are considering would provide funds for an additional 3,000 border patrol agents, bringing the fiscal year 2008 year-end total to nearly 18,000 border patrol agents. By the end of fiscal year 2008, we will have doubled the size of the border patrol since 2001. As we continue to ramp up the number of border patrol agents, 6,000 National Guard personnel have been deployed to the Southwest border as part of Operation Jumpstart. These personnel continue to assist Customs and Border Protection's efforts to secure the border. The Department of Homeland Security has already gained effective control of 380 miles on the southwest border, plans to achieve effective control of 642 miles by the end of calendar year 2008; and has a strategic plan in place to gain control over the entire southwest border by 2013. The Federal Government has effectively ended the practice of ``catch and release'' through a combination of tough enforcement and increased detention capacity. We have more than doubled the number of immigration investigators. The Federal Government has increased detention bed space by 46 percent. We would all like to see these efforts move more quickly, but the reality is that it takes time to build fences, it takes time to build radar towers, and it takes time to hire and train quality border patrol agents. The executive branch has made clear that border security is a high priority and has developed a strategic plan to accomplish these goals as quickly as realistically possible. Today, while the Senate engages in debate, Customs and Border protectorate agents will apprehend roughly 2,617 people crossing illegally into the United States. Immigration and Customs enforcement personnel will house approximately 19,729 aliens in ICE detention facilities. The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center will train more than 3,500 Federal officers and agents. These daily statistics are further evidence that progress is being made. I recall the February 2007 hearing before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee when Secretary Chertoff presented his budget request for fiscal year 2008. The Secretary asked for $13 billion to strengthen border security and immigration enforcement. In justifying the administration's request, I can assure you that Secretary Chertoff was quite clear that he took very seriously his responsibility to secure the border. His testimony detailed the progress he had made, while outlining the Department's multiyear strategic plan for continued improvements. In recognition of the challenge, the Secretary acknowledged that we still had a long way to go to objectively say to the American people that the border is secure. The amount recommended by the Senate Appropriations Committee in the base bill ensures these goals will be met. The Appropriations Committee reviewed the Department's budget request and in its wisdom decided that the President may not have provided ample resources to the Department of Homeland Security. As a result, the Appropriations Committee recommended $1.4 billion above the President's request for border security and enforcement, at a total of $14.9 billion, which is a 23 percent increase over fiscal year 2007. If you include 3 billion more it will amount to a 47 percent increase. I am confident that in addition to believing more money was needed for the Department, the Appropriations Committee wanted to send a signal to the American people that we have heard their cry to secure the border. The Department of Homeland Security requested $35.5 billion for fiscal year 2008, but this bill provides $37.6 billion, more than $2.2 billion above what the Department says it needs. But now, the Senate is proposing to increase that amount by yet another $3 billion, so that the total budget authority would surpass $40 billion. Some Senators claim that this is OK because that $3 billion has been designated ``emergency spending,'' as if using the emergency label is like waving a magic wand so that it doesn't actually cost us anything. That is not true. At the end of the day, this amendment will increase the national debt by $3 billion, regardless of what label you put on it. I might add that the President said he would veto this bill because it includes an ``irresponsible and excessive level of spending.'' Irresponsible and excessive--words we in Congress disregard too often. Obviously from his perspective, the $35.5 billion in net budget authority for fiscal year 2008 that Secretary Chertoff requested from Congress was what he felt was needed to fund the Department of Homeland Security and continue the efforts to secure the border. I know the President wants to assure the American people that he has moved with urgency to secure the border before he leaves office. Border security will indeed be part of this President's legacy. In the simplest of terms, the Federal Government continues to spend more than it brings in, and both the amendment and the underlying bill continue that practice. Over my 8 years in the U.S. Senate, I have watched the national debt skyrocket 60 percent--from $5.6 trillion in 1999 to $9 trillion today. No one talks about the national debt anymore. But running the credit card for today's needs and leaving the bill for future generations should not be the policy of the U.S. Congress. It represents a recklessness that threatens our economic security, our competitiveness in the global marketplace, and our future quality of life. If we decide we absolutely need to spend $3 billion on something--and I support adequately funding border security--then we need to either raise more revenue or cut other spending to pay for it. Simply adding it to the national debt makes our country less secure in the long run. How does continuing to borrow and spend make us less secure? Today, 55 percent of the privately owned national debt is held by foreign creditors--mostly foreign central banks. That is up from 35 percent just 5 years ago. Foreign creditors provided more than 80 percent of the funds the United States has borrowed since 2001, according to the Wall Street Journal. And who are these foreign creditors? According to the Treasury Department, the largest foreign holders of U.S. debt are Japan, China, and the oil-exporting countries known as OPEC. Borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from China and OPEC puts not only our future economy, but also our national security, at risk. It is critical that we ensure that countries that hold our debt do not control our future. Why are we taking the fiscally irresponsible act that will add to our unbalanced budget and national debt? I am glad that the administration and Congress have placed the needed focus on this important priority, but I want to ensure that we do not go too far in simply throwing money at this problem; money that cannot be effectively spent in fiscal year 2008--which begins in October. This money is not needed in light of the money the Appropriations Committee has recommended, including the $2.2 billion in additional spending over which the President has threatened a veto. The Department is already spending one-third of its budget on border security and immigration enforcement--a clear reflection of its priorities. Next year, the Senate will review the President's budget request and the Appropriations Committee will recommend funding levels. If next year, we determine that more needs to be spent to continue to improve border security and enforcement, fine. But let's not simply toss an additional $3 billion out the window for fiscal year 2008. I have the deepest respect for my colleagues, but I respectfully disagree on appropriating an additional $3 billion in emergency spending. They know and I know that the sole reason for appropriating these funds would be to convince the American people that Congress cares about securing the border--even though we know this additional spending exceeds what can possibly be spent in the 2008 fiscal year. The question I ask is: How dumb do they think the American people are? Don't they realize that the American people will see through this charade and realize we are pulling a fast one on them? How cynical can we be? The American people want us to work harder and smarter and do more with less and will be very angry that we are simply throwing money at a problem in a manner designed to make them feel good in the short term. This is the type of game playing that has caused our approval ratings to slump to all-time lows. When something comes along that we decide we must spend more money on--and border security could very well be one of those things--then we need to be prepared to pay for that additional spending by either bringing in more revenues or cutting other spending. I ask my colleagues not to support this fiscally irresponsible act that will surely diminish our credibility with the American people. I thank the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security for this opportunity. I hope some of my colleagues have an opportunity to understand why I think what we are doing here today is absolutely fiscally irresponsible. I am extremely pleased that this administration and this Congress is taking border security seriously. This attention is long overdue. I know all of us are trying to convey to the public that we are finally acting to secure the border. There is no one more ardent about that than I am. But let me remind my colleagues that the Department of Homeland Security has presented this Congress with a multiyear strategic plan for improving border security and enforcement, called the Secure Border Initiative. The Appropriations Subcommittee recommendations have fully funded the Department's request for what they believe they can accomplish in fiscal year 2008. I have been on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee since I came to the Senate. I was part of creating the Department of Homeland Security. I have spent many hours with Secretary Chertoff and other Department officials. I really believe the money that has been recommended by the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee is adequate to get the job done during fiscal year 2008, in line with the Department's multiyear strategic plan. And we will reevaluate this situation for fiscal year 2009, and fiscal year 2010, and so on. But I do not think we should go through the charade of making the American people believe we are really sincere about securing the border by spending another $3 billion of emergency spending when the substantial funding that has already been recommended for fiscal year 2008 will get the job done. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I wish to honor and congratulate my friend and long-time civil rights activist, the Reverend Dr. Otis Moss, Jr. The church which he currently pastors recently celebrated 75 years of service to the Cleveland community. In July 2007, Reverend Moss will celebrate 32 years of pastoral service to the Olivet congregation. Reverend Moss pastors the Olivet Institutional Baptist Church in the Fairfax neighborhood of my hometown of Cleveland, OH. Since 1931, Olivet has been more than a place of worship and Christian fellowship in the African-American community. It has been dedicated to preaching, teaching, and practicing the unconditional love of Jesus Christ. And as a centerpiece of the community, it has nurtured leaders who have championed civil rights and equality for the poor, and it has worked to increase awareness about poverty, health care, employment, education, and human rights. A native of Georgia, Otis Moss, Jr., was born on February 26, 1935, to Otis and Magnolia Moss. He earned his bachelor's degree from Morehouse College in 1956 and his master of divinity degree from the Morehouse School of Religion/Inter-denominational Theological Center in 1959. He also completed special studies at the Inter-denominational Theological Center from 1960 to 1961 and earned his doctorate in ministry from the United Theological Seminary in 1990. Reverend Moss's tenure as pastor began in 1954 in LaGrange, GA at Mount Olive Baptist Church. While leading Mount Olive, Moss also served as pastor of Atlanta's Providence Baptist Church from 1956 to 1959. He then headed to Ohio, where he was the pastor for Mount Zion Baptist Church in Lockland. In 1971, Reverend Moss served as copastor with the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Sr., at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta. Olivet Institutional Baptist Church extended the invitation to Reverend Moss to be their pastor in December 1974. He was installed as pastor in 1975. Reverend Moss has been involved in advocating civil and human rights and social justice issues for most of his adult life. Having been a staff member for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., he formerly served as a national board member and trustee for the Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Non-Violent Social Change. His work in the international community has taken him around the world to Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, and Israel. Moss is the recipient of numerous awards, including the Role Model of the Year Award from the National Institute for Responsible Fatherhood and Family Development in 1992, the Leadership Award from the Cleveland chapter of the American Jewish Committee in 1996, and, most recently, he was inducted into the 2007 Class of the International Civil Rights Walk of Fame located at the Martin Luther King Jr. National Historic Site in Atlanta. He also holds six honorary degrees from colleges and universities in Ohio, Georgia, and Arkansas. His political and civic engagement runs deep. Moss has served as chairman of the board of trustees at Morehouse College and as a member of the board of trustees at the United Theological Seminary in Dayton, OH. He was an advisor to former President Jimmy Carter at Camp David and was the special guest of President Bill Clinton at a peace treaty signing between Israel and Jordan in 1994. Former Ohio Governor Richard Celeste awarded Moss the 1983 Governor's Award in Civil Rights, and I had the honor of presenting Reverend Moss with the 1993 Governor's Award in Civil Rights. His service to Ohio and the Nation has also been recognized by the Ohio House of Representatives, Ebony Magazine, Cleveland Press, the Black Professional Association of Cleveland, the American Red Cross of Greater Cleveland, Project Love: Remember the Children Foundation, The Cleveland Jewish Committee, and Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. He is a life member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored Peoples, NAACP, Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc., and Sigma Pi Phi, Boule, to name a few. University Hospitals Health System honored Reverend Moss with a special medical center partnership bearing his name. In 1997, the Otis Moss Jr.-University Hospitals Medical Center was established in conjunction with the Olivet Institutional Baptist Church. The center offers a wide range of primary and specialty care medical services and features an on-site laboratory. Reverend Moss and I share a passion for helping our children reach their full potential and lead our Nation and world into the next century and beyond. In 2003, I had the privilege of touring and visiting with Moss and his staff at the Medical Center to see how a program called ``Reach Out and Read'' is administered. Reverend Moss enjoyed an abiding friendship with the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. In fact, Dr. King visited the pulpit of Olivet Institutional Baptist Church on several occasions and performed the wedding ceremony for Reverend and Mrs. Moss. Perhaps the greatest connection I share with Reverend Moss is the love and appreciation we both have for our wives. Reverend Moss is married to the former Edwina Hudson Smith, who is accomplished in her own right and is the recipient of numerous awards and recognitions. She is recognized for her outstanding commitment to service as a member of the National Board of the American Red Cross. Their love is a model for us all. Sadly, Reverend Moss and I also share in the loss of a young child. As someone who has had the pleasure of knowing and working with Reverend Dr. Otis Moss, Jr., I have seen how far his works have reached and benefited others. He has made significant contributions to his community, the State of Ohio, our Nation, and our world. Reverend Moss has shown that he lives in accordance with his strong faith in God. He is someone all of us would do well to emulate, and I am pleased and proud to salute him, his wife, their children, and grandchildren. Thank you, Reverend Moss, for your outstanding commitment and exceptional leadership to our community. Our lives are better as a result of having been touched by you. Congratulations again to you and your Olivet family for your devotion and commitment to the Cleveland community.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend and colleague Senator Cornyn in introducing the United States Authorization and Sunset Commission Act of 2007. 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 systematic 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, PART. The Comptroller General and the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, would serve as ex- officio members, bringing their knowledge and experience and that of their organizations to the process. Earlier this year, as it does every year, the CBO reported on programs that at one time had an explicit authorization that has either expired or will expire during the current session. This is always a lengthy report that runs 75 pages or more. In recent years, the total amount of unauthorized programs receiving appropriations reported by CBO has ranged between $160 billion and $170 billion annually. I make this point, not to criticize or to imply that all unauthorized programs should be eliminated. Instead, it is to point out that 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. How do we explain to our constituents that we do not have the time to distinguish between worthwhile programs and those that have outlived their purpose, are poorly targeted, operate inefficiently, or simply are not producing results? As a sponsor of The Stop Over-Spending Act of 2007, ``S.O.S.,'' legislation, which includes several provisions from bills I introduced earlier this year, I want to work with my colleagues to pass legislation that allows us to convert some of the time spent on the annual budget cycle into time spent on oversight. A biennial budget cycle plus commissions such as this one and others that I have proposed to examine entitlement programs and increase program accountability all have a similar goal--to provide the time and the tools to reinvigorate congressional oversight. This legislation does not take away our obligation to make difficult decisions about what programs to continue and those that we can no longer afford to support. What it does do is provide an opportunity to work smarter. I believe by establishing this Commission to do a thorough examination of programs and agencies, using established criteria, and a transparent reporting process, that we can carry out our responsibilities more efficiently and effectively. I urge my colleagues to support The United States Authorization and Sunset Commission Act of 2007.