George Voinovich

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.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, all of us in the Senate will miss Craig Thomas. I got to know Craig when we both served on the Senate Ethics Committee. During that time, I came to admire him as a wonderful human being, a man of character and integrity, and someone who spoke plainly on how he felt about things. I also admired Craig for speaking up in policy lunch and at the steering committee on so many occasions. He always got to the nub of the problem and never failed to tell it just as he saw it. On many occasions, I sensed he had a great frustration with the system, but he stayed in there and was an encouragement to many. When he got sick, Janet and I put him on our prayer list. I also looked at some health care alternatives for him in Cleveland, but he felt he had great care at the Bethesda Naval Hospital. The last time I saw him, he looked like the old Craig, full of vim and vigor. We were shocked when we heard of his passing. It is said that it is not the number of years one lives that counts but what one does with those years that matters. We will all miss Craig but know that he is in heaven with our father eternally happy.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I yield 50 seconds of my time to Senator DeMint.

Mr. VOINOVICH. That is fine.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I understand Senator Salazar is waiting here. I will not be long. I appreciate his patience. First, I associate myself with the words of the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander. I thought he did a fantastic job of outlining why this proposed renewable portfolio standard is not in the best interests of the United States of America. I strongly oppose it because it has not taken into consideration the adverse effects on States that depend heavily on coal, such as my home State of Ohio. I also mention that we have looked at wind power for our utilities. If they could use wind power they would be using it, because not only would it be something that would be better taken by the citizens of Ohio, but it also would associate them with being more green. They are interested in doing that. But the fact is we do not have the environment for that to occur. So I think even though this proposal is well intentioned, and I share his concern about reducing greenhouse gases, I believe his proposal will cause great economic distress for minimal benefit. What we need to do when we are looking at these things is ask, what benefit are we going to get out of it, and what are the costs? Figure it out. A one-size-fits-all Federal RPS mandate ignores the different economic needs and resources of the individual States. There are significant regional differences in availability, despite renewable energy resources. Even among the States that have an RPS, all have chosen to add technologies that are not usually included in a Federal RPS. Because many of the utilities will not be able to meet an RPS requirement through their own generation, they will be required to purchase renewable energy credits from some other company. Thus, a nationwide RPS mandate will mean a massive wealth transfer from electric consumers to States with little or no renewable resources, such as Ohio, to the Federal Government or to States where renewables happen to be more abundant. In my State of Ohio, we rely on coal. Eighty-eight percent of our electric generation comes from coal. It is estimated that the proposal would increase retail electricity prices by 4.3 percent, a total of a $12.8 billion cost to consumers by 2030. The 4.3 percent may not seem like a high increase to many, but to a family of four on a fixed income, this is a huge increase. These families may have to make a decision between paying their winter heating bills or putting food on the table for their families. I recall a couple of years ago, before the Environment and Public Works Committee, Tom Mullen of Cleveland Catholic Charities described the direct impacts of significant increases in energy prices on those who were less fortunate. This is a quote. He said: In Cleveland, over one-fourth of all children live in poverty and are in a family of a single family head of household. These children will suffer further loss of basic needs as their moms are forced to make choices of whether to pay the rent or live in a shelter; pay the heating bill or see their child freeze; buy food or risk the availability of a hunger center. These are not choices that any senior citizen, child, or for that matter, person in America should make. So, in effect, if we pass this renewable portfolio, for people who live in my State--and maybe I am being a little bit selfish about the people I represent, but the fact is this is going to increase their energy bills. For those who are poor, for those who are elderly and on a fixed income, this is significant. Another aspect which I think we forget about is Ohio is a manufacturing State. We are on the economic fault line. I wish our economy were as good as the rest of the States in this country. We have the same problem Michigan has. Energy costs are a huge concern of our manufacturers, who use 34 percent of the energy consumed in our economy. Due in large part to increased energy prices, the United States has lost more than 3.1 million manufacturing jobs since 2000, and my State has lost nearly 220,000 jobs. I will never forget in 2001 when we had the big spike in gas prices. I believe that was the beginning of the recession in the State of Ohio. Many of those small companies never recovered because, for example, in my city, natural gas costs have gone up over 300 percent since 2000. Think about that, the impact that has. Then you add another burden on top of that. Rather than enacting an artificial RPS, which will increase costs to our utilities and consumers, we need to be spending this money on the development of technology to reduce our greenhouse gases. The cost of the RPS to utilities and ratepayers will be better spent on funding the programs we authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, such as carbon sequestration and IGCC technology, which, as most of us know, are not receiving the appropriate funding today. It is clear we must get serious about partnerships and strategies that maximize Federal funding. We have got to look at how much money we are going to raise and where can we get the biggest return on our dollars. I do not think RPS does that. It is critical that policymakers work in conjunction with the scientific community to develop policy solutions that are in the best interests of our State and Nation. For instance, one area requires further research to capture greenhouse gases and sequester carbon dioxide so we can continue to rely on coal for energy. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. We have 250 years of that supply. For the past few years I have called for a ``Second Declaration of Independence,'' independence from foreign sources of energy, for our Nation to take real action toward stemming our exorbitantly high oil and natural gas prices. Instead of considering them separately, we must harmonize our energy, environment, and economic needs. This is an absolute must as we consider any additional solutions to address global warming and other environmental problems. I have been here, this is my ninth year. I have been on the Environment and Public Works Committee for 9 years. The problem in the Senate and in the House is that the environmental, the energy, and the economic people don't get together and put each other's shoes on and figure out how we can work together to not only do a better job of cleaning up the environment but utilizing the scarce dollars that are available to make a difference. This is an idea of the costs for Ohio. For example, American Electric Power which, while I was Governor, put on a $650 million scrubber to reduce their NOx and SOx, it is going to cost them $3 billion between 2010 and 2030; First Energy, $3.18 billion to $4.6 billion; Duke--this is also another provider of energy--$1.6 billion. Let's take the Timken Company, the heart and soul of Camden, OH. Their incremental cost of electricity under a 15-percent RPS will exceed $20 million per year. They say: We would not expect to recoup most of this increased cost through price increases due to the global competition that we face. Adoption of a mandatory RPS would clearly place The Timken Company at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis our foreign competitors, further eroding already slim profit margins, and placing increasingly more jobs at risk. We really ought to think about what we are doing here today. I don't think what we want to do is advantage one area of the country by having a cost increase in another part of the country and see a massive shifting of resources. What we should do is look at the big picture and figure out, as Senator Alexander pointed out, where do we put our money where we can get the greatest return on our investment. I sincerely believe this isn't the way to do it. Why would we want to do something that will take a State such as Ohio, that is 80 percent reliant on coal, and basically tell our utilities: Folks, you are going to have to buy renewable energy from somebody else, pay the money out, and then increase your rates, increase the rates to the folks in our inner cities, when they could be taking that same money and putting more of it into, for example, ISGC, the integrated gas-combined cycle. AEP is going to build a 1,000-megawatt plant that is going to cost an enormous amount of money. That is where they should be putting their money. They should be putting their money into technology so that we can capture carbon and sequester it. Those are the things that would really make a difference. We are fooling ourselves to say we are going to pass this legislation, and it is going to make a big difference. I argue that it is going to make little difference, and we could spend our money on things that are going to make more of a difference in terms of cleaning up the environment and dealing with some of the problems we all know this country faces. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I wish to speak about a bill my colleague Senator Carper and I introduced today, the Electronic Personal Health Records Act. The purpose of this legislation is to provide for the establishment and maintenance of electronic personal health records for individuals and family members enrolled in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan, FEHBP. The widespread adoption of health information technology, such as electronic health records, EHR, will revolutionize the health care profession. In fact, the Institute of Medicine, the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics, and other expert panels have identified information technology as one of the most powerful tools in reducing medical errors and improving the quality of care. Unfortunately, our country's health care industry lags far behind other sectors of the economy in its investment in IT. The Institute of Medicine estimates that there are nearly 98,000 deaths each year resulting from medical errors. Many of these deaths can be directly attributed to the inherent imperfections of our current paper-based health care system. This statistic is startling and one that I hope will motivate my colleagues to take a close look at the goals of our legislation. The voluntary EHRs that would be established through the Electronic Personal Health Records Act will provide clinicians with real-time access to their patient's health history. Each EHR would contain claims data, contact information for providers of health care services, and other useful information for diagnosis and treatment. The records will be available cost-free to FEHBP participants and will maintain strict adherence to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, HIPAA. Under the bill, the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, would be required to ensure that all carriers who participate in FEHBP educate their members about the implementation of the EHR, as well as give timely notice of the establishment of the record and an opportunity for each individual to elect not to participate in the program. OPM, through their carriers, would also have to ensure that all records would be available for electronic access through Internet, fax, or printed method for the use of the individual, and that to the extent possible, records could be transferred from one plan to another. The bill would require EHRs to be made available 2 years after the passage of the legislation or earlier at the discretion of OPM in consultation with the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology within HHS. Not only can EHRs save lives and improve the quality of health care, they also have the potential to reduce the cost of the delivery of health care. According to Rand Corporation, the health care delivery system in the United States could save approximately $160 billion annually with the widespread use of electronic medical records. As a result, the private market is already moving toward implementing electronic medical records. This bill, simply encourages the health care industry to continue in that direction and take their use of technology in the delivery of care to the next step. I urge my colleagues to consider not only the benefit it will provide to the 8 million individuals who receive their health care through the FEHBP, but also to our Nation's overall health care system.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I wish to speak about a bill my colleague Senator Carper and I introduced today, the Electronic Personal Health Records Act. The purpose of this legislation is to provide for the establishment and maintenance of electronic personal health records for individuals and family members enrolled in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan, FEHBP. The widespread adoption of health information technology, such as electronic health records, EHR, will revolutionize the health care profession. In fact, the Institute of Medicine, the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics, and other expert panels have identified information technology as one of the most powerful tools in reducing medical errors and improving the quality of care. Unfortunately, our country's health care industry lags far behind other sectors of the economy in its investment in IT. The Institute of Medicine estimates that there are nearly 98,000 deaths each year resulting from medical errors. Many of these deaths can be directly attributed to the inherent imperfections of our current paper-based health care system. This statistic is startling and one that I hope will motivate my colleagues to take a close look at the goals of our legislation. The voluntary EHRs that would be established through the Electronic Personal Health Records Act will provide clinicians with real-time access to their patient's health history. Each EHR would contain claims data, contact information for providers of health care services, and other useful information for diagnosis and treatment. The records will be available cost-free to FEHBP participants and will maintain strict adherence to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, HIPAA. Under the bill, the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, would be required to ensure that all carriers who participate in FEHBP educate their members about the implementation of the EHR, as well as give timely notice of the establishment of the record and an opportunity for each individual to elect not to participate in the program. OPM, through their carriers, would also have to ensure that all records would be available for electronic access through Internet, fax, or printed method for the use of the individual, and that to the extent possible, records could be transferred from one plan to another. The bill would require EHRs to be made available 2 years after the passage of the legislation or earlier at the discretion of OPM in consultation with the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology within HHS. Not only can EHRs save lives and improve the quality of health care, they also have the potential to reduce the cost of the delivery of health care. According to Rand Corporation, the health care delivery system in the United States could save approximately $160 billion annually with the widespread use of electronic medical records. As a result, the private market is already moving toward implementing electronic medical records. This bill, simply encourages the health care industry to continue in that direction and take their use of technology in the delivery of care to the next step. I urge my colleagues to consider not only the benefit it will provide to the 8 million individuals who receive their health care through the FEHBP, but also to our Nation's overall health care system.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I join the senior Senator from Michigan in sponsoring this amendment because the Great Lakes shipping infrastructure is in peril. Commercial freighters working in the Great Lakes cannot carry full loads, making for very inefficient water transport, and leading to very real economic consequences, not only for the Great Lakes region, but also for the Nation. The Great Lakes are the waterways that carry the steel for our cars, the coal for our electricity, and the limestone for the construction industry. Light- loading vessels increases the prices of these goods and in turn the goods produced from them. It has been reported that in Toledo, what was once a 150-meter-wide channel is now a 30-meter channel. We need to correct the way the corps budgets for these Great Lakes harbors--the backbone of our Nation's manufacturing economy--so they are not faced with the very real possibility of having to shut down altogether. This amendment would require the corps to use all available economic data in making its budget decisions, something that I think all of us should support.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Yes, that is correct. That is what they are doing. A harbor handling less than 1 million tons, even if it has a large economic impact on the community, would have a lower budget priority specified by the corps because it only handles 940,000 tons. The amendment that we have filed would help address this inequity by requiring the corps to use all data regarding economic impacts and not just tonnage.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to the late Gregory Clark Stevens--an incredible political strategist, loyal Republican, wonderful husband and father and a terrific friend to me and my wife Janet. Last month, our Lord took Greg from us after 58 years on Earth. Greg's last days weren't easy on him or his family as he suffered from brain cancer. But he was able to find an inner peace that I know helped him in his final days. Looking back, Greg had a full and accomplished career--a career that led to many people, including myself, getting elected and doing immense good for our Nation. After graduating from the University of Maine in 1971, he spent half a decade as a reporter in New Jersey, and was then hired as President Gerald Ford's reelection campaign press secretary. He was hired by former New Jersey assemblyman turned campaign manager for Ford, Thomas Kean. Kean later returned to New Jersey and, after a defeat running for the same office, he was later elected Governor and hired Greg to be his communications director. When Kean was reelected in 1981 he made Greg his chief of staff. A fellow Ohioan, Roger Ailes, hired Greg in 1988 to work on Vice President George H.W. Bush's campaign for the Presidency. Then, 2 years later, Greg ran my successful campaign to be Governor of the great State of Ohio. A few years later Greg opened his own consulting business in the Washington suburbs and had many clients. I remained one of them, with Greg running my multimedia campaign in 1994 for my second term as Governor, then in 1998 and 2004 for my current Senate seat. He did a marvelous job and we became good friends. And it meant a great deal to Janet and me that we had someone working with us who cared so much about us personally. We always said hiring Greg was the best decision we ever made. But it was his genuine caring for me and my family that translated into his incredible television ads that helped get and keep me elected. Greg always ``got us,'' we used to say, and got our values. And he communicated those values through his commercials in a way that no one else could. Over the years Greg has worked for many famous people and been involved in numerous historic and epic political battles. But that is not how I really remember him. I remember Greg as a fine man and good friend. As time goes on and we get older, and our families seem to grow and grow, our free time seems to shrink more and more. So there wasn't a lot of time for me to make it up to Maine to see my friend Greg. But I did take the time to send him a letter right before he passed. In that letter I reminded him of the good work he did on behalf of me and the Nation, and about how I cherished our friendship and fighting the good fight together, but also about how worried I am about our kids and grandkids and what kind of opportunities they will have in the future. I told him I would love to talk to him about these things again soon but, unfortunately, time ran out. Greg Stevens meant a lot to a lot of people. And he did so much good while he was with us here on Earth. A minister's son, I know Greg found comfort knowing this life was not all there was. I concluded my letter to Greg with this: ``I'm sure you are comforted by the thought that you will be with our Father, eternally happy, and that one day we all will be together again.'' I look forward to seeing my good friend Greg once again.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, today I honor the musical genius of fellow Ohioan Vincenzo Antonio Manno, a renowned opera singer and devoted professor of music. Mr. Manno was born and raised in my great hometown of Cleveland, OH. In fact, he grew up right down the street from my family in the Collinwood neighborhood--the same neighborhood I live in still today. But his musical gift eventually took him far beyond Collinwood to some of the finest music institutions in Europe. Cleveland's rich cultural environment and outstanding music tradition prepared Mr. Manno for his world-renowned career. Before completing his studies at Oberlin College under the tutelage of Professor Richard Mill, Mr. Manno was trained at the Cleveland Music School Settlement under Burton Garlinghouse and John Shurtleff; at summer sessions in Chautauqua, NY, under Josephine Antoine; and at the Cleveland Institute of Music under Eleonor Steber. After receiving his degree from Oberlin, Mr. Manno continued his studies on a Fulbright Fellowship in Italy at Santa Ceclia in Rome with Ettore Campogalliani. His private studies in Milan continued with Dr. Otto Mueller, who was affiliated for years with the Metropolitan Opera House of New York. After Dr. Mueller's death, Mr. Manno was accepted into the prestigious private singing school directed by Professor Dennis Hall in Bern, Switzerland. As a result of his studies with Professor Hall, Mr. Manno was encouraged to open a voice studio in Milan, which has become a mecca for singers from around the world. Mr. Manno's singing career embraces a wide repertory--from the baroque to the modern--and he has sung with opera companies around the world. His radio performances within Europe have been admired by the public and critics alike. And, he is currently a permanent member of the Teatro alla Scala in Milan, Italy. Not all accomplished musicians make good teachers, but Mr. Manno's teaching career has taken great strides in the past 10 years. He has been recognized for teaching and helping emerging singers on many continents. He also holds seminars and master classes on singing style. Mr. Manno is regularly invited to teach singing technique at the world-renowned Accademia dei Giovani Cantanti--Academy of Young Singers--under the artistic direction of Leyla Gencer, affiliated with the Teotro alla Scala and the Accademia Internazionale della Musica-- International Music Academy--in Milan. The students of Vincenzo Manno can be heard regularly around the world in opera houses, recording studios, concerts halls, and radio and television stations. Mr. Manno also lends his expertise in pop music, broadway and operetta. He has guided many Italian pop singers through recording sessions and is regularly contacted by Italian television to help arrange songs for singers and give advice on new compositions. For all he has accomplished, Mr. Manno has received several awards. He received the ``Grand Prix du Disque'' for baroque music recorded with the great Swiss conductor Edwin Loehrer, and the ``Best Recording of the Year'' from Gramophone Magazine for his second CD solo recording of tenor music of the 17th century, ``Strana Armonia d'Amore'' with Roberto Gini. Mr. President, on the 40th anniversary of his career, it is my pleasure to honor Vincenzo Antonio Manno for his great success and significant contributions to the world of music.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I wish to honor and congratulate an outstanding spiritual and community leader from my hometown of Cleveland, OH. This year, the Reverend Dr. Marvin A. McMickle is celebrating 20 years of service as pastor of Antioch Baptist Church, located in the heart of Cleveland's Fairfax neighborhood. Founded in 1893, Antioch was the second African-American Baptist church established in Cleveland, and for more than a century it has sought to fulfill its mission ``to teach the word, provide outreach ministries, worship god, evangelize, and build strong church relationships.'' Since its inception, this historical landmark has nurtured leaders who have championed civil rights and equality for the poor, and it has worked to increase awareness on issues of poverty, health care, employment, education, and human rights. Today, under McMickle's leadership, Antioch offers over 70 programs and services to the community, including the Loaves and Fish Program, which serves 220 hot meals weekly, the Fellowship Fund, which provides emergency financial aid for rent, utilities, and food, the Antioch Credit Union, which has assets in excess of $2.5 million, and a Head Start program, which offers early childhood preschool. In 2002, McMickle and Antioch established the Antioch Development Corporation to expand community outreach. The corporation now operates two signature programs to help expand community outreach, through programs like Agape, which offers HIV/AIDS counseling and testing services, and Project RESPECT, a job training and placement program. Reverend McMickle is an accomplished author and orator. He has written and delivered countless sermons and has applied his gift for speaking as a professor of homiletics at the Ashland Theological Seminary in Ohio. McMickle has also been a visiting instructor at universities in New York, New Jersey, and Ohio, including Ashland Theological Seminary in Ashland, OH, Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, and Cleveland State University. He has authored nine books and dozens of articles that regularly appear in professional journals and magazines. He is a contributing editor for The Living Pulpit and a featured writer for the National Baptist Voice, the quarterly journal of the National Baptist Convention USA, Inc. His sermons and essays regularly appear in Preaching magazine and The African American Pulpit. As a leader in the civil rights movement, Reverend McMickle has served as president of both the Cleveland NAACP and Urban League. And McMickle has also been a leader of numerous government and civic organizations, including the Shaker Heights Board of Education and the Karamu Performing Arts Center. Over the years, I have worked with Reverend McMickle on various initiatives and issues of concern to our community. He has been particularly instrumental in supporting my efforts as Mayor, Governor, and U.S. Senator to prevent casino gambling from taking root in Ohio, and I thank him for his support on this issue. Throughout all of his accomplishments, his loving and supportive wife Peggy, has stood by his side. And everyone who knows them would agree that their union is a loving partnership to be admired. Reverend McMickle and Peggy have been married for 31 years and have one son, Aaron, who is a middle school teacher in New York City. Mr. President. I want to take this opportunity to thank Reverend McMickle for his exceptional community and spiritual leadership. He has done God's work, and our lives are better as a result of having been touched by him. I extend my congratulations to him on 20 years as pastor of Antioch Baptist Church. May God continue to bless him and his family. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to join a number of my colleagues in support of the America COMPETES Act, of which I am an original cosponsor. Prior to the completion of the National Academy of Sciences' ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' report more than a year ago, I joined my colleagues, Senators Alexander and Bingaman, in a meeting with Norm Augustine, the lead author of the report and the former CEO of Lockheed Martin. It became clear to me then that Congress had to make the report's recommendations a top priority in order to maintain our Nation's competitive edge. I am proud to come to the floor today to say that we are on our way toward meeting their challenge. In the big picture of where the United States stands, it is clear that the economic framework of our Nation needs to be renewed. I happen to believe that our Nation's health care system places our businesses at a disadvantage globally, and that we must build regimes globally to enforce intellectual property rights, which will be the currency from which our economies will grow. Most importantly, the time is now right for a national commitment toward becoming more energy independent. I call it a Second Declaration of Independence--this time from foreign sources of energy. However, reaching these goals will be impossible without a workforce full of educated and motivated young Americans. This means we must place more emphasis on careers based in the fields of science, engineering and mathematics. Right now, we are not getting the job done. Globally, the United States ranks 17th in the proportion of the college-age population earning science and engineering degrees, falling from third place several decades ago. Countries including England, South Korea, Germany, Australia, Singapore, Japan and Canada all produce a higher percentage of science and engineering graduates than the United States. The America COMPETES Act will help us reverse these trends. The COMPETES Act would strengthen mathematics, science and engineering education and expand opportunities for students; it also would improve our science infrastructure and increase our investment in critical research. Since the release of the NAS report, I have traveled throughout Ohio to discuss the recommendations with scientists from our State's top research institutions, elementary and secondary school teachers who are preparing tomorrow's workforce, business leaders and others. At Youngstown State University, I visited with local math and science teachers in grades 5-10 who had partnered with the University and the Department of Education to improve their skills and gain the tools necessary to pique students' interests in the math and science fields. I also traveled to The Ohio State University in Columbus and spent time at the Future Engineers Summer Camp with Ohio eighth graders, and was briefed on the collaboration among the University of Akron, Akron City Schools and the National Inventors Hall of Fame for a middle school focused on math and science. These are the types of programs that will strengthen our nation's competitiveness and these are exactly the types of programs that the COMPETES Act aims to expand. Again, I am encouraged that so many of my colleagues in Congress have recognized the need to focus on these goals by sponsoring the bipartisan COMPETES Act. While this bill isn't perfect, it is certainly a step in the right direction and a great example of what my colleagues and I can do by working together. Too often around here we get caught up in driving our own train and are too busy to realize that we don't have any passengers. I am happy to be a passenger on this particular ``train'' and am confident our action in the Senate this week on the COMPETES Act is a step in the right direction for our country and our position in today's global economy.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the emotional, divisive, and often confusing issue of stem cell research. Let me start by expressing why I believe we should focus our scarce resources on adult and umbilical cord stem cells rather than on embryonic stem cells. Given the tremendous results that have come from adult and umbilical cord stem cell therapy in the areas of oncology and orthopedics--and, more recently, in cardiology and neurology--I am further encouraged by the possibilities these noncontroversial, adult stem cells have to offer. In this tight budgetary environment, in which there is a choke hold on our domestic discretionary spending, we must be vigilant in the way we appropriate taxpayer dollars and concentrate our resources on those lines of medical research that hold the greatest potential. Furthermore, in recent years, scientists have made tremendous strides in designing methods to obtain fully pluripotent stem cells that have the flexibility of embryonic stem cells, while avoiding the destruction of human embryos. The potential to extract these versatile stem cells in an ethically sound manner, coupled with my interest in seeing further research in the area of adult and umbilical cord stem cells, is why I rise to support S. 30, the HOPE Act. Before I delve into a discussion of the two bills this body is considering, let me clarify that there are two different categories of stem cells--and, thus, of stem cell research. The first, embryonic stem cells--as their name suggests--are derived from human embryos developed from eggs that have been fertilized at an in vitro fertilization clinic. Alternatively, adult stem cells are undifferentiated cells found among differentiated cells in tissues or organs. These cells can renew themselves and eventually develop into a specific cell in the body. What is notable, however, is that these undifferentiated adult stem cells can be gathered by scientists without any harm to the individual donor. Umbilical cord blood derived from a mother's placenta following the birth of a newborn baby is now also included in this category of adult stem cells. In fact, with the arrival of my seventh grandchild, I learned a great deal about the benefits of preserving cord blood stem cells. What at one time was considered medical waste and discarded after birth is now recognized as a rich supply of stem cells and has been used to treat a number of blood and immune-system diseases, cancers, and other physical disorders. I was introduced to the promise of adult and umbilical stem cell research by experts at the National Center for Regenerative Medicine in my hometown of Cleveland, OH. Several institutions make up the center, including Case Western Reserve University, the Cleveland Clinic, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Athersys, Inc., and the Ohio State University. Together they have created an outstanding medical facility that is leading the Nation in the use of nonembryonic stem cells to regenerate new tissues in diseased organs rather than using drugs or devices to improve the function of the organs. Since 1976, researchers at the center have been studying nonembryonic stem cells, and they performed their first stem cell transplant as early as 1980. Today, the center is capable of conducting clinical trials with cord blood stem cells for gene therapy and for heart and blood vessel repair. Investigators at the center are now able to cure leukemia and lymphomas with nonembryonic stem cell transplantation, as well as repair unstable bone fractures and treat genetic disorders. I have had the chance to meet several patients whose lives have been transformed by this new medicine. Elisabeth, who was a patient at the National Center, was in a motorcycle accident and had compound fractures in her right femur and right tibia. Even though she was rushed into emergency surgery after the accident, her bones did not heal properly, and she was told she would never walk again. Elisabeth sought out a second opinion from a doctor at the National Center who operated a second time, using some of his adult stem cell gel. This gel takes on the characteristics of the surrounding bone cells and helps with the healing of broken bones. I am happy to report, Elisabeth is now walking, living a healthy life, and pursuing a future in physical therapy at the Ohio State University. Elisabeth is not alone. I recently visited the National Center for Regenerative Medicine, and I had the chance to meet Ashley. Ashley is 8 years old and was successfully treated for her leukemia at Rainbow Babies and Children's Hospital of University Hospitals Case Medical Center. She was first diagnosed with acute lymphatic leukemia, ALL, in January 2006, and she underwent a stem cell transplant from an unrelated donor in June 2006. But since her transplant, Ashley has done wonderfully. Even more encouraging is the potential for scientists to leverage all this great medicine into new fields, including cardiology and neuroscience. Researchers at the National Center for Regenerative Medicine are hopeful that in the not so distant future they will make inroads in the treatment of degenerative arthritis, will decrease the severity of graft versus host disease after stem cell transplantation, and will allow physicians to use a patient's own stem cells to repair heart damage following congestive heart failure, as well as use their own neural stem cells to improve function after spinal cord damage. I am concerned, however, that not enough Americans are aware that some of the most advanced medicine today can be attributed to adult-- and not embryonic--stem cells. What I find even more disturbing is that many supporters of embryonic stem cell research have been kept in the dark about the advances of umbilical and adult stem cell treatments and have been over-sold on embryonic stem cell research, which is still in its infancy. I want to remind my colleagues who support the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act that embryonic cells have not been successfully used to treat even one disease yet I have had the opportunity to meet numerous people whose lives have been saved by adult stem cell therapy. In fact, adult stem cells have been used to treat 72 diseases, including breast cancer, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, sickle cell anemia, spinal cord injuries, and others. That is why I continue to be encouraged by the possibilities adult stem cells have to offer. In recent years, medical research has made tremendous strides, and it is now widely believed that new technology can lead to methods of obtaining fully pluripotent stem cells that have the flexibility of embryonic stem cells without destroying potential life. That is why I rise today to support S. 30, the HOPE Act. Despite all this progress, scientists around the world agree that there is still a great deal that remains unknown about the potential for stem cell therapy. That is why I support this legislation introduced by my colleagues from Minnesota and Georgia that can help us tap even more potential cures and therapies. The HOPE Act would continue to encourage Federal research on adult and umbilical cord stem cell therapies that are already proving successful, while requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop techniques to identify and derive pluripotent stem cells that have the flexibility of embryonic stem cells without destroying a human embryo. There is evidence that these alternative methods may make it easier for scientists to genetically match patients with therapies and could reduce the complications, like tumor formation, that have been seen with embryonic stem cells. The HOPE Act would also require the Secretary to prioritize stem cell research that will reap near-term clinical benefit and take into account the findings of the President's Council on Bioethics along with other appropriate techniques and research. It is my hope that this type of progress will help eliminate the controversy surrounding embryonic stem cell research without any compromise of scientific advancement. This legislation paves a path forward for Federal scientists, while respecting the principles and morals of millions of taxpayers. I believe it is my moral responsibility to direct the Federal Government's dollars toward research that has the greatest near-term potential to help the largest number of Americans. Over the past several years, Congress has increased total NIH funding for medical research--including increasing the amount of money available for stem cell research--from $15.1 billion in fiscal year 1999 to $28.9 billion in 2007. However, in recent years the cost of fighting the war in Iraq, defending our homeland, and protecting against natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina has left very few resources for domestic discretionary spending. In fact, today, the Federal Government spends only one-sixth of its annual budget on nondefense discretionary spending, and I am afraid that exploding entitlement spending threatens to soak up every Federal dollar, leaving no revenue for things like scientific research. There is a tremendous need to pursue treatments for many diseases, but we face a reality of limited funding. We have to be smart about spending our money. In the current budget environment, I have concerns that increasing funding for research on embryonic stem cells will take away opportunities for research in areas like adult and umbilical research that has proven its ability to save human lives--or even for new techniques to help us remove pluripotent stem cells without destroying human embryos. I have the greatest sympathy for patients and their families who continue to struggle with a wide range of fatal diseases. I understand what it is like to watch a loved one suffer and the tragedy of losing a member of your family--especially a young child. I lost my father to diabetes and my young nephew C.T.--who was only 14--to bone cancer. Like many here today, I have been a witness to the devastating effects of Alzheimer's, arthritis, and many other debilitating diseases. That is why I am sympathetic with my colleagues' efforts to seek out a panacea. But I fear that too often proponents of embryonic stem cell research make exaggerated claims about this line of research and offer false promises when the evidence is just not there. I read a great op-ed in The Washington Post by Charles Krauthammer-- who has long supported legal abortions and doesn't believe that life begins at conception--in which he issued a stern warning against pursuing embryonic stem cell research. As he said, he has a very healthy respect for ``the human capacity for doing evil in pursuit of good.'' And, that is exactly what I see happening in this Chamber today. Too many of my colleagues are focused exclusively on embryonic stem cell research, and they are missing potential that is right under their noses. I am reminded of Aesop's fable, ``The Stag at the Pool,'' in which a stag stops at a spring to drink some water. He looks down at his shadow reflected in the water and greatly admires the size and shape of his beautiful horns, all the while thinking that his feet are too slender and too weak. Just as he is looking at his reflection, a lion appears at the pond. The stag sees the lion in the water and runs as fast as he can to safety. As he enters the woods, though, his horns get tangled in the tree branches, and the lion catches up to him. Finally, at that moment, the stag realizes that it was his feet that could have saved him and his antlers that led to his demise. The moral of the story is: What is most truly valuable is often underrated. I think the same is true on the subject of stem cell research. We have been so focused on what we perceive to be the future of medical research that we have been willing to overlook successful treatments and therapies that are already taking place right under our noses. In light of all the advances and results science has provided with adult and umbilical cord stem cells, I urge my colleagues to direct Federal funding toward research that will have the greatest near-term impact on human life.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce three important pieces of legislation that I believe will improve the ability of the Federal Government to recruit and retain a world class workforce: the Federal Workforce Performance Appraisal and Management Improvement Act, the Senior Professional Performance Act, and the Generating Opportunity by Forgiving Educational Debt for Service Act. As my colleagues know, my interest in the Federal workforce developed after working with the Federal Government for 18 years, for 10 years as mayor of Cleveland and 8 years as Governor of Ohio. Through my work on the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia, I continue to observe that investing in personnel and workforce management, and management in general, struggles to be a priority in the Federal Government. My own experience as county auditor, county commissioner, mayor, and Governor has taught me that, of all the things in which government can invest, resources dedicated to human capital bring the greatest return. Effective performance management is fundamental to building a results-oriented culture. In fact, the Merit Systems Protection Board just published a report entitled, ``Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005.'' In that report, the MSPB found that, ``Nonsupervisory employees feel uninformed about performance evaluation, organizational changes, and other issues at times.'' The Federal Workforce Performance Appraisal and Management Improvement Act that I am introducing today will help address that problem. By requiring supervisors and employees to have regular conversations about expectations and job performance, every employee will understand how their job performance is perceived by their boss and, more importantly, how individual work contributes to the agency's mission. In addition, this legislation would prohibit an employee who receives an unacceptable performance evaluation from receiving an annual salary adjustment. Mr. President, I know that Federal employees are dedicated and talented individuals. I know some may view this as a critique on the contributions of our civil servants; however, that could not be further from the truth. This bill recognizes their daily contributions. As I said last year when I first introduced this legislation, employees should receive annually a rigorous evaluation. Pay should be determined by an individual's performance. I agree with the observation of Comptroller General David Walker that the passage of time should not be the single most important factor in determining an employee's pay. Instead, it should be determined by the productivity, effectiveness, and the contributions of an employee. Today I also am pleased to introduce the Senior Professional Performance Act. In 2003, Congress enacted legislation to reform the pay and performance management systems for the Senior Executive Service. The legislation I introduce today would authorize agencies to develop and implement similar pay and performance management systems for senior level and scientific and professional personnel in order to keep these talented and capable employees on equal footing. Finally, today I am introducing Generating Opportunity by Forgiving Educational Debt for Service Act, or GOFEDS, a bill that will help Federal agencies and the Armed Forces recruit talented individuals to serve in all areas of the Federal Government and the military. Current law--authorizes Federal agencies to pay student loans up to $10,000 a year with a cumulative cap of $60,000, but the incentive is taxed. The Active-Duty Educational Loan Repayment Program allows the Services to repay certain federally guaranteed educational loans for enlistments in military specialties designated by the Service Secretary. GOFEDS would amend the Federal tax code to allow the Federal Government's student loan repayment programs to be offered on a tax-free basis. The potential impact of this bill far outweighs its minimal cost. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce three important pieces of legislation that I believe will improve the ability of the Federal Government to recruit and retain a world class workforce: the Federal Workforce Performance Appraisal and Management Improvement Act, the Senior Professional Performance Act, and the Generating Opportunity by Forgiving Educational Debt for Service Act. As my colleagues know, my interest in the Federal workforce developed after working with the Federal Government for 18 years, for 10 years as mayor of Cleveland and 8 years as Governor of Ohio. Through my work on the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia, I continue to observe that investing in personnel and workforce management, and management in general, struggles to be a priority in the Federal Government. My own experience as county auditor, county commissioner, mayor, and Governor has taught me that, of all the things in which government can invest, resources dedicated to human capital bring the greatest return. Effective performance management is fundamental to building a results-oriented culture. In fact, the Merit Systems Protection Board just published a report entitled, ``Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005.'' In that report, the MSPB found that, ``Nonsupervisory employees feel uninformed about performance evaluation, organizational changes, and other issues at times.'' The Federal Workforce Performance Appraisal and Management Improvement Act that I am introducing today will help address that problem. By requiring supervisors and employees to have regular conversations about expectations and job performance, every employee will understand how their job performance is perceived by their boss and, more importantly, how individual work contributes to the agency's mission. In addition, this legislation would prohibit an employee who receives an unacceptable performance evaluation from receiving an annual salary adjustment. Mr. President, I know that Federal employees are dedicated and talented individuals. I know some may view this as a critique on the contributions of our civil servants; however, that could not be further from the truth. This bill recognizes their daily contributions. As I said last year when I first introduced this legislation, employees should receive annually a rigorous evaluation. Pay should be determined by an individual's performance. I agree with the observation of Comptroller General David Walker that the passage of time should not be the single most important factor in determining an employee's pay. Instead, it should be determined by the productivity, effectiveness, and the contributions of an employee. Today I also am pleased to introduce the Senior Professional Performance Act. In 2003, Congress enacted legislation to reform the pay and performance management systems for the Senior Executive Service. The legislation I introduce today would authorize agencies to develop and implement similar pay and performance management systems for senior level and scientific and professional personnel in order to keep these talented and capable employees on equal footing. Finally, today I am introducing Generating Opportunity by Forgiving Educational Debt for Service Act, or GOFEDS, a bill that will help Federal agencies and the Armed Forces recruit talented individuals to serve in all areas of the Federal Government and the military. Current law--authorizes Federal agencies to pay student loans up to $10,000 a year with a cumulative cap of $60,000, but the incentive is taxed. The Active-Duty Educational Loan Repayment Program allows the Services to repay certain federally guaranteed educational loans for enlistments in military specialties designated by the Service Secretary. GOFEDS would amend the Federal tax code to allow the Federal Government's student loan repayment programs to be offered on a tax-free basis. The potential impact of this bill far outweighs its minimal cost. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up Voinovich amendment No. 762.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I understand. Therefore, I would like to speak on behalf of the amendment. This amendment would strike section 1502 from the underlying bill. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Inhofe, Warner, Hutchison, Enzi, Craig, and Coburn in offering the amendment. Section 1502 would allow State and local governments to trump the Federal Government in matters of national security involving privately owned chemical plants. Concerns have been raised by many about the security of chemical facilities since the tragic events of 9/11. After 5 years of negotiation and several unsuccessful attempts to pass meaningful legislation, a carefully crafted compromise was included in the fiscal year 2007 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act. This act authorized the Department of Homeland Security for the first time to establish and implement risk-based performance standards at our Nation's high-risk chemical facilities. In order to meet its statutory deadline, the Department of Homeland Security has begun the process of implementing that language and will publish its final interim regulation within the next 2 weeks. Effectively changing recently passed legislation giving DHS the long-sought authority to regulate chemical facilities is premature at best. In other words, what this amendment would do is strike some language that is going to try to amend this piece of legislation which we passed less than 6 months ago and which was signed by the President 6 months ago. It hasn't even really been implemented thus far. My colleagues do not want to further delay the process of securing our Nation's chemical facilities from future attack. The legislation we passed less than 6 months ago to protect our chemical facilities from attack anticipated the need for flexibility in setting standards to protect our chemical facilities. The law specifically states that the Secretary ``may approve alternative security programs established by private sector entities, Federal, State, or local authorities, or other applicable laws if the Secretary determines that the requirements of such programs meet the requirements of this section and the interim regulations.'' Basically what that means is that if a State or other local jurisdiction would come to the Department of Homeland Security and ask that they be able to enforce other rules and regulations, this legislation says they have an entree to the Department of Homeland Security, at which time they would be able to discuss what they would like to do. Along those lines, the draft regulations issued by the Department of Homeland Security in December 2006 invite Federal consultation with any States or localities that want to enact their own chemical facility requirements. For example, the State of New Jersey has some very robust chemical security regulations. I heard the woman that runs that department talk about them. I would suspect that under those circumstances, the Department of Homeland Security would grant the State of New Jersey the right to regulate what they have been regulating for the last couple of years. Specifically, the regulations state that it would ``permit State or local governments and/or covered facilities to seek opinions on preemption from the Department.'' This process fosters collaboration among parties and prevents unnecessary or unforeseen Federal preemption from occurring. I would argue that this flexibility alleviates the concerns expressed--I repeat--by the Senator from New Jersey on this issue. I believe Federal preemption is necessary to give the chemical industry a single set of comprehensive national standards that are uniformly applied. Without the Department determining the applicability of Federal preemption, we would end up with a confusing situation. Somebody has to decide whether--if this legislation is passed in the respective States, if they do it--it fits in and is consistent so we do not end up with an inconsistent patchwork of security regulations. I understand the National Governors Association has sent a letter arguing against preemption. I think many of my colleagues know that as a former mayor and Governor, I do not advocate lightly Federal preemption of State and local action. I usually am a staunch advocate of States rights and have opposed legislation, such as No Child Left Behind, because I believed it was an intrusion by the Federal Government in policy areas that have been traditionally left to the States. But the security of our Nation from foreign attack is not an arena traditionally left to the States. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution clearly states that Congress is delegated the power to provide for the common defense. We in the Congress have the duty to provide for the security of our States and our people. If there were ever a case for the Federal Government determining the applicability of preemption under the Constitution, the defense of the homeland certainly is the best example of that. There is ample precedent for Federal preemption in regulatory matters dealing with security of industry. I think some of my colleagues are not aware of this. When Congress developed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the interest of national security, it gave the Federal Government exclusive regulatory authority. The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act explicitly preempts State action and authorizes a waiver only if the State regulation is ``not an unreasonable burden on commerce.'' The preamble to the final rule implementing the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002--another act we put in place to protect our ports--explicitly states that it preempts State regulations relating to the security of facilities if such regulations would ``conflict or would frustrate an overriding federal need for uniformity.'' I would say to my colleagues, the chemical security legislation provides the Secretary with greater flexibility than the three examples I have just discussed. In other words, the ability to grant preemption is a lot more liberal in the Department's regulations dealing with the issue of chemical security in this country than in the cases that dealt with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Maritime Transportation Security Act, and the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, where one of them specifically preempts only if the State regulation is ``not an unreasonable burden on commerce.'' So the fact is, granting State and local governments authority to supplant Federal chemical manufacturing law is not just a minor carve- out. This preemption language in the bill before us overhauls 30 years of settled law regarding the Federal-State relationship on industrial chemical manufacturing laws as established under section 18 of the Toxic Substances Control Act. The Toxic Substances Control Act gives EPA the ability to track the 75,000 industrial chemicals currently produced or imported into the United States. I want to ask my colleagues: Does it make sense to undermine the critical work of Congress last fall to enhance our Nation's security by eliminating our ability to set and enforce a single national standard for chemical security? Really, fundamentally, what this is about is to give the Department of Homeland Security the option of determining whether a State or locality that comes in and says: We want to regulate chemical security--it gives them the final say as to whether preemption will occur. As to the language that is inserted in the supplemental, what it does is leaves it in the hands of the court to determine. For goodness' sake, the last thing we want right now--after 5 years of negotiation and several unsuccessful attempts to pass legislation, is to hinder the implementation of the regulations governing chemical security in the country. Why would we want to throw it up in the air and cause a lot of controversy and court action? I want to read the words of Section 1502, which was put in the supplemental bill, in regards to the Chemical Security language that was included in the Fiscal 2007 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, which came out of the conference committee less than 6 months ago. It says: This section shall not preclude or deny any right of any State or political subdivision thereof to adopt or enforce any regulation, requirement, or standard of performance with respect to chemical facility security that is more stringent than a regulation, requirement, or standard of performance issued under this section. . . . Now, the issue is, who determines whether it is more stringent? Let's say I am the Governor of a State and I come in and say: My State laws are more stringent than Federal laws. Then Homeland Security comes back and says: We don't agree with you. Who decides? The Federal court. Section 1502 goes on to say: . . . or otherwise impair any right or jurisdiction of any State with respect to chemical facilities within a State, unless there is an actual conflict between this section and the law of that State. Again, it just throws the issue about who determines whether a State is going to be allowed to do what they want to do into a court's hands rather than letting the director of Homeland Security make that determination. I think what we are arguing for today is sensible. I would also like to quote from Section 550 of the Homeland Security Appropriations Act, which gives direction to the Department of Homeland Security on how the regulations are to be implemented. The law says: No later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall issue interim final regulations establishing risk-based performance standards for security of chemical facilities and requiring vulnerability assessments and the development and implementation of the site security plans for chemical facilities. That basically talks about how they go about developing the regulations. Then the law goes on to say: The Secretary may approve-- Very important: ``The Secretary may approve''-- alternative security programs established by private sector entities, Federal, State or local authorities, or other applicable laws if the Secretary determines that the requirements of such programs meet the requirements of this section and the interim regulations. In other words, there is room for the Department to sit down with other people and say: Let's hear what you want to do, and if we think it makes sense, go ahead and do it. Additionally, in the regulations issued to implement Section 550 it says: To meet this need, the proposed regulations at section 27.405, would permit State or local governments, and/or covered facilities to seek opinions on preemption from the Department. Such a process has been used by Congress in other contexts. They make reference to other sections of the code: In most cases, the Department would utilize the process to address quickly a specific conflict between a particular application of State law or local law with an approved site security plan or other elements of the section 550 program. Note the Department has the authority to make preemption determinations as it administers the chemical security program under section 550. So I think the Department, through the regulations, is carrying out the legislation that was passed last October. We should let the law go into effect and not tinker with it today, particularly in the supplemental bill, which, quite frankly, has not a single thing to do with chemical security. It does not make sense to have this into the supplemental bill because Congress has already acted on chemical security. I suspect that this discussion may become moot because we are going to pass this bill, it will go to conference, the conference will do their thing, they will send it back here, it will be voted on in both Houses, it will go to the President, he will veto it, and then--in basketball parlance--it will be a jump ball in determining what we are going to do at that stage of the game. I wanted to come to the floor and share my concern about the language which was inserted in the supplemental. Again, it should not have been put in the supplemental. I have spent hours of my time in the Senate on chemical security in the United States. We worked this through the committee and thought we had it taken care of it, and here we are again. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise to share with the Senate my concerns and frustrations with S. Con. Res. 21, the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution, and to discuss two amendments I will offer tomorrow to try to improve the resolution. Frankly, the resolution before this body ignores the dire state of our financial future and uses smoke and mirrors to mask our long-term fiscal challenges. I have come to the Senate floor numerous times over the past 8 years to express my concern that the Federal Government continues to spend more money than it brings in and that this Congress is running a credit card for today's needs and shamelessly leaving the bill for future generations. We all know this recklessness threatens our economic stability, our competitiveness in the global marketplace, and our future way of life. Since I arrived in the Senate, the national debt has increased from $5.6 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is an increase of more than 50 percent in 8 years. This amounts to $29,000 of debt for every American. Can my colleagues believe that? What is of even more concern, however, is that 55 percent of the privately owned national debt is held by foreign creditors, including the Chinese Government. That is up from 35 percent only 6 years ago. Yet these numbers, which represent our past behavior, pale in comparison with the budget problems looming in our future as the baby boom generation begins to retire over 9 months from now. Forty years ago, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid accounted for 3 percent of our GDP. Today, they are up to 9 percent. In another 40 years, they will be up to 18 percent, equal to total Federal revenues and crowding out all other spending. In other words, all of the money the Federal Government spends currently will be used up for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. There won't be any money for anything else. Looking forward, we face a long-term fiscal imbalance of $55 trillion. That is hard to even grasp, but it translates into $440,000 of future Government debt for every American household, up from a mere $175,000 only 6 years ago. This is all documented. If we listen to David Walker, who is the Comptroller General, he is going all over the country--he was in my State in Cincinnati for a fiscal wake-up--working with the Concord Coalition to let Americans know. He is like the Paul Revere out there telling Americans we better be concerned about this. I remember Ross Perot, who ran for the President of the United States, and all of his charts. His charts looked like nothing compared to the charts we would use to show how bad things are. Imposing a crushing debt burden such as this on future generations at the same time they are going to have to compete with rising powers such as China and India is unacceptable. All of us have a responsibility to try to guarantee that they enjoy the same standard of living and quality of life we have enjoyed, if not better. This young page here in front of me--I am worried about him. What kind of a life is he going to have? What kind of an opportunity is he going to have in terms of his standard of living and quality of life? We are concerned about him. What kind of a legacy are we going to leave him? What about my seven grandchildren? What kind of a world are they going to live in? That is why the chairman of the Budget Committee and I have spoken over the past few years about the growing debt and the impact it will have on future generations. Yet we are here today with the majority's budget resolution that increases the national debt by $2.4 trillion over the next 5 years. That is assuming Congress doesn't take advantage of all of the loopholes that are in the budget. We are back at square one. Neither Republicans nor Democrats have offered a budget that even comes close to reestablishing our fiscal sanity. The administration's budget is unrealistic, and the Democratic budget is even worse. I am going to vote against the Democratic budget. If this were the Republican budget, I would vote against that budget, too. Both of them. Once again, we have pulled the wool over our own eyes. That is what is going on. Some of my colleagues, especially my new colleagues, may wonder why I take such offense at the budget. Unfortunately I am a product of my experiences. The Bible says the Lord never gives you a challenge you cannot overcome. Well, he has tested me before, and he is testing all of us right now. As mayor of Cleveland, I inherited the first city in the country to go bankrupt since the Great Depression. We made cuts, we raised taxes, and we righted the ship. When I took the helm as Governor of Ohio, I inherited a $1.5 billion budget shortfall that can only be described as a financial crisis. During the first biennial budget, we had to make four rounds of cuts. These were dire economic times which required honesty, leadership, and management. I was forced to make a lot of hard choices. We had to reform our tax policy, scale back spending, and target our resources to the people who needed them the most. We worked harder and smarter, and we succeeded at doing more with less. In fact, my years as Governor represent the lowest rate of growth in State spending in 30 years. Here in Washington, it seems as if no one is willing to make the tough choices. I cannot understand it. Too many Members won't do anything if it doesn't bolster their side politically or fit into a 10- second sound bite. Instead, both parties are using gimmicks to cover up the state of our Nation's long-term fiscal health. Let me offer some examples. The administration released its fiscal 2008 budget request in early February and projected a deficit of $239 billion. This number is the deficit left over after spending every dollar of Social Security surplus. But the Social Security surplus must be reserved for future retirees. As far as I know, you can't spend the money twice, but Congress keeps pretending that it can. If you remove the Social Security surplus from the equation, that $239 billion deficit they are talking about almost doubles to $451 billion. If you use the accrual way of figuring it, it is about $640 billion. The administration goes further to achieve its surplus by assuming nonsecurity discretionary spending will peak in 2007 and go down every year after that. So we are reducing our deficit by eating our seed corn. That is a real problem today. What we have to understand is that only one-sixth of the budget is nondefense discretionary. All of the hits are being made against that one-sixth to try to balance the budget. We are ignoring so many things this country ought to be doing. Furthermore, the administration calculates the security-related discretionary spending will peak in 2008, and that supplemental spending for military operations will end after 2009. Give me a break. We are going to end that in 2009? We are going to be over in Iraq and Afghanistan for a long period of time. But the President just increased the number of troops going to Iraq by more than 21,000. These estimates are not based on reality. Why don't we tell the American people the truth? Let's tell them the truth. Meanwhile, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are using tricks that even are more egregious. The majority's budget allows for a dramatic increase in entitlement spending through the use of more than 20 reserve funds. They are not included in the overall budget totals. They simply conceal what they intend to spend and it gives the appearance of a more responsible budget. The majority's budget hides increases in discretionary spending through the use of seven cap adjustments. Appropriations for seven favored programs and agencies will not count toward the budget limit. Just like that, poof, and they are gone. Furthermore, the majority's budget allows for unlimited emergency spending. I think we all understand that on occasion we have natural disasters or unanticipated crises, such as Hurricane Katrina, that require emergency resources. For this reason, we cannot estimate all of our emergency spending in the budget. But a great deal of the spending that is currently designated as ``emergency'' is actually quite regular and predictable. For example, every year we spend emergency funds on drought relief. This is difficult for me to understand: If we spend it every year, why can't we account for it in our budget? This is why we ought to have a rainy day fund such as I had when I was Governor that set aside designated funds for legitimate natural disasters so the ``emergency'' label is not abused for otherwise anticipated events. My friend from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, created a rainy day fund with a fixed dollar limit in last year's budget resolution, and I thought: That is a great idea. But the new majority has already eliminated that fund from the budget and has created an open-ended source of emergency spending that is not subject to any financial limitations. There is one trick after another in this budget resolution. We are already raiding the Social Security trust fund and a bunch of smaller trust funds to make our bottom line look rosier than it is. This budget exacerbates a problem the Budget Committee chairman himself and I have spoken out against for a great many years. I have a great deal of respect for the Democratic chairman of the Budget Committee. I think he is one of the most responsible guys, but he has also got to do his thing in terms of the politics of this Senate. In fact, in the last Congress, the Budget Committee chairman and I introduced legislation that would invest the Social Security surplus in non-Federal bonds to prevent the surplus from being used to fund other Government spending. We plan to reintroduce this bill again. In other words, what we are saying is we are going to take the money that is now being used to fund the budget and instead of borrowing it from trust funds--Social Security--we are going to take the Social Security funds and put them in a non-U.S. account--municipal bonds--so they will accrue interest; and when the time comes that we will need to use that money, there will be something there besides an IOU from the Federal Government that says: We are going to take care of it. The bill would require the Government issue more Treasuries to the public in order to pay for other spending instead of borrowing from Social Security. What we basically are going to say to the American public is: We are borrowing all these funds from Social Security, all the other trust funds, and we are going to put that aside, and we are going to borrow that money from the public so you know how much borrowing is going on. We are not going to mask this thing, as we have done for so many years. We thought, finally our children and grandchildren will have a clear picture of how fiscally irresponsible we are. But today the Budget Committee chairman is relying on the very same gimmick--borrowing from the Social Security trust fund--to claim a balance in 2012. What about taxes? The majority's budget claims that $400 billion in revenue will be collected from ``closing the `tax gap' ''--in other words, collecting more of the taxes that are currently owed but not paid. Yet the President's proposal to collect just 2 percent of this $400 billion caused small businesses to howl in protest that the new administrative and compliance burdens would overwhelm them. In other words, it is easy to talk about closing the tax gap, but from a political point of view, it is not going to be very easy. We should do that. There is no question about it. I talked to Charles Rossotti, who was the former head of the Internal Revenue Service. He said with more filings and more people in the Internal Revenue Service, we should be able to pick up another $50 billion. That is a realistic way of looking at it. But just to say: $400 billion; we are going to come up with it somehow; close the tax gap, and it is all going to be there--voila. In fact, the Greater Cleveland Partnership and the Council of Smaller Enterprises, which represent small business in northeast Ohio, describe the administration's tax gap proposals--by the way, this is not a Democratic proposal; this is the administration's tax gap proposals--as ``an unreasonable tracking and reporting burden for small business.'' And that is just for 2 percent of the revenue the majority claims it can raise by going after small businesses. We should try to collect money that is owed, but if it were that easy--as my friend from Iowa Senator Grassley suggests--we would have found the money to fix the AMT years ago. But, sadly, these gimmicks are not the worst part of the budget. What is more disturbing about this resolution is what is not included. The majority did not designate one dime in Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid savings to help slow the impending entitlement tidal wave heading our way--not one dime. Entitlement spending threatens to flood our budget and soak up every Federal dollar, as I mentioned earlier, leaving no revenue for education, the environment, infrastructure, or scientific research. The majority's budget ignores this problem. In fact, this budget does worse than ignore the problem. It will pile billions of dollars in new entitlement spending on top of the existing problem. It is so obvious that this budget resolution simply satisfies a political agenda. It is a public relations campaign that the majority is using to avoid telling the American people the truth. I am accusing them of that, and I have to say the same thing for my side of the aisle. We are both guilty. All of our hands are dirty. To add to insult, since Republicans switched to 5-year budgets a few years ago, Democrats have repeatedly called for 10-year budgets because 5-year budgets hide our long-term problems. In other words, the other side of the aisle kept complaining: You are using 5-year budgets because if you use 10, the American people are going to find out how much money you are spending. So we went to the 5-year budget. We want to hide that figure about the next 5 years. If the Democrats wanted to do it this time, I would have said: Do the 10-year budget. Let the American people know what the truth is about how much money this budget is going to cost. For example, the CBO currently projects that total outlays for Medicare and Medicaid will more than double--more than double--by 2017, increasing by 124 percent. This is roughly two times as much as the economy is expected to grow during the same period. A 5-year forecast hides this explosion in entitlement liabilities. Tell the truth-- transparency. Let the American people know what the score is. Yet, here we are, with Democrats in control of both Chambers, and they are trying to pass a 5-year budget that continues to cover up the gathering fiscal storm looming on our horizon. Shame on us. Shame on them. They are playing the game we played starting in 2004, after promising to do better. I take our Nation's fiscal health very seriously. I am concerned there is a lack of transparency in this budget. There are gaping loopholes the majority can exploit to cause spending and deficits to rise much higher than the budget resolution claims. In an attempt to close some of these loopholes, tomorrow I am going to offer two amendments. First, we need to reform our Nation's entitlement programs. I have been begging on my knees trying to get the White House to take on the responsibility of reforming our Tax Code--we need it; it is overdue--to take on entitlements, to reach out to Republicans and Democrats and say: The time has come. Let's put everything on the table. Let's reform our Tax Code. Let's do something about entitlements. The fact is, silence--silence. I have to tell you, if we do not do this, then our children and grandchildren are going to drown--they are going to drown--in a sea of debt. I am concerned, however, that if we reform entitlements and save billions of dollars, Congress might grab those savings and spend some of them on other programs instead of paying down the debt. So what I am saying is, I am hoping--and I know the chairman of the Budget Committee, the Senator from North Dakota, has said he wants entitlement spending reform--I am hoping we get it. All this amendment says is: If we do get entitlement spending reform, it is going to be used to pay down the debt and not fund other entitlements. I previously introduced legislation called the SAFE Commission Act that would guarantee a fast-track, comprehensive approach to reforming our Nation's tax, entitlement, and budget systems. If the 110th Congress enacts entitlement reform, either by way of legislation or as a result of another bipartisan effort, we must use those savings to reduce the deficit and, as I say, pay down the debt and not on entitlement spending. Specifically, my first amendment would require any savings from legislation that slows the growth of entitlement spending by $5 billion or more be dedicated to deficit reduction. Some of my colleagues are asking: George, why are you worrying about this? Well, I hope we have this problem where we have to decide what to do with these entitlement savings we have enacted. Because, as I said earlier, the majority has not included even one dime's worth of savings in this budget resolution. We do nothing--not one thing--in this budget about entitlement spending. Second, every time we enact new entitlement spending or tax cuts, which are financed through additional borrowing, we increase the level of interest payments the Government has to make on its debt. I have talked about this debt and the interest costs. These new interest costs represent additional Government spending. Yet, CBO cost estimates ignore the effect of these interest payments on spending and the national debt. In other words, we are spending money on reducing taxes--and we are paying for it by borrowing--or we are spending money on new programs-- and we are borrowing the money--because we keep ratcheting up the debt and we do not calculate the interest costs that are involved in either tax reductions or the spending for these new programs. These ballooning interest costs add up to $370 billion in 2008. Think about this: That interest cost will be 13 percent of the budget. The public needs to know that in addition to spending additional money on new programs, we are paying interest on that money. I am concerned about these growing interest costs because they are part of our mounting national debt. Frankly, our interest rates are low right now, but they could skyrocket. The first couple years I was mayor of Cleveland, interest rates at the time were 13 percent. Some Americans remember savings passbooks that were paying 14 and 16 percent. I will never forget it because I had the money for my children's college education in mutual funds. I sold the mutual funds and put them in the passbook savings because we were getting--can you imagine--we were getting 16 percent-- 16 percent--on a passbook investment. I think we need to wake up to the fact that if we get a change in the international marketplace--as I mentioned earlier, 55 percent of our budget is with foreign investors--if those central banks get a little bit nervous about the United States of America--and I have talked to Alan Greenspan about this; we could see interest rates skyrocket to 12 percent, 13 percent--that would suck up an enormous amount of money. So the fact is, we ought to pay attention to letting people know when we either reduce taxes, and borrow the money, or we spend money above the budget, somebody has to pay some interest on that cost. We must stop this charade once and for all. Both sides of the aisle have a clear, moral obligation to improve the fiscal health of our Nation. It starts with formulating a fair and honest budget. Yet we are being dishonest and masking the long-term challenges that confront our Nation. We must deal with these problems head on and work on a bipartisan basis to reform our tax system, control the growth of entitlement spending, and slow this freight train that is threatening to crush our children and grandchildren's futures. Experts say the most important step you can take is to first admit you have a problem. I will never forget when I was mayor of Cleveland and came in, the easiest thing sometimes in life was just to keep the problems in a drawer and not look at them and hope they would go away. I found a long time ago that if you take those problems and pull them out and deal with them, you are so much better off than if you just let them lay around and get worse. The question today is, Do we have the moral courage to fix it? Do we have the moral courage? Can we do that? It is a moral issue. I will never forget Frank Wolf. I gave a speech last year and Frank called me and he said: I am going to put a bill in, and we are going to set up a commission that is going to do something about tax reform and entitlement. He said: I have--I think he said 11 or 12 grandchildren. He said: I thought about it. I am a fiscal conservative. He said: But you know something. We have a moral obligation to our children. We just can't let this thing keep going. The fact is, do we have that moral conviction to fix it or are we too darn interested in protecting our political hides--our political hides--to do anything? Do we have the courage to do it? Do we have the courage? I am 70 years old. I have seven grandchildren. I care and worry about them. My concern is what legacy am I going to leave my children and my grandchildren. I was fortunate. We were fortunate. We had others before us who were responsible--others, for example, who were willing to pay for the wars that we were in. Today, in this country, let's see, it is up to $510 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan, and if we pass the supplemental, it is going to be $610 billion. The only sacrifice that is being made today in this country is by the families that have the body bags returned to them. Twenty-six thousand of our men and women who have been injured, half of them disabled for the rest of their life, and we are not doing anything. We are not doing anything. Last year, I said if we can't get tax reform to raise the money that we need to take care of things, then we ought to have a temporary tax increase to pay for our war. We should. It is the right thing to do. But, no, we will let it go and let somebody else worry about it the next time around--the new President. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, thank you for allowing me to speak on behalf of a very deserving person from the State of Ohio, as the Senate considers her nomination to the Federal bench. I am here to express my strong support for Judge Sara Lioi, who the President has nominated to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Judge Lioi has a distinguished and impressive record as an attorney in private practice, as an Ohio Court of Common Pleas Judge, and as a community leader in Stark County, Ohio, where she has deep roots. A native of Stark County, Judge Lioi graduated from GlenOak High School and from Bowling Green State University, where she graduated summa cum laude and earned the distinction of Phi Beta Kappa. Later, Judge Lioi went on to attend my law school alma mater, the Moritz College of Law at the Ohio State University, receiving her law degree in 1987. After graduating from law school, Judge Lioi joined the law firm of Day, Ketterer, the oldest law firm in Stark County, Ohio, as an associate. Judge Lioi was later recognized by her colleagues when they elected her to the firm's partnership in 1993. As an attorney, she represented individuals, schools, and other institutions of higher learning, cities, small businesses, and multinational corporations. While in private practice, she represented clients at both the trial and appellate levels. In November 1997, when I was Governor, I appointed Judge Lioi to fill a vacancy on the Stark County Common Pleas Court. Since then, Stark County voters have twice reelected her. Since ascending to the bench, Judge Lioi has disposed of over 9,500 cases and conducted over 350 trials, over 335 of which were jury trials. In sum, she has broad courtroom experience, both on and off the bench. This extensive experience will serve her well as a Federal trial court judge. Judge Lioi has also earned the respect of her colleagues and fellow attorneys. During her time as a practicing attorney, she served on the Supreme Court of Ohio Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, and for over 10 years, Judge Lioi has served on the Supreme Court of Ohio Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness, including the last 5 as the Chair of this Commission. I believe her service on these important commissions evidences the high esteem in which members of the Ohio bar hold her, and is testimony of her excellent character. Judge Lioi's legal credentials are not the only reasons I support her nomination. Today, too many people do not take the time to become involved in their communities; however, Judge Lioi remains involved in a number of civic organizations. A graduate of Leadership Stark County, she has remained active with that program, as well as other not-for- profit community agencies, including Community Services of Stark County, Stark County Humane Society, Walsh University Advisory Board, and the Plain Local Schools Foundation. We need judges who not only have exceptional legal skills, but who also recognize how the law impacts individuals and communities, and involvement in one's community facilitates this understanding. Judge Lioi has this understanding because she is participating in her community every day. As a result of Judge Lioi's fine academic and professional achievements, I am not surprised that the American Bar Association unanimously found her well-qualified to serve as a Federal district court judge. In reviewing Judge Lioi's academic and professional record, it is clear that she is well-qualified to serve as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, and I urge my colleagues to vote to approve her nomination to the Federal bench. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I agree that we can have a voice vote.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for amendment 342. I am proud to join my good friend, the Senator from Maine, the ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, in cosponsoring this amendment. For the past several days, this body has been debating various amendments regarding the workforce authorities for the Transportation Security Administration. I would ask my colleagues to stop for a moment and consider the situation before us. The establishment of the Department of Homeland Security is one of the largest undertakings this Government has initiated since the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947. It includes a merger of 22 agencies and approximately 180,000 employees. This merger is so complicated that the Government Accountability Office has identified the implementation and transformation of the Department as one of the 27 areas designated as high risk, subject to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. Many of my colleagues will recall the debate the Senate engaged in during the creation of the TSA. The Senate debated basic questions such as whether the screening function should be federalized. There was a lot of debate that it ought not to be federalized; that we should let the private sector do it. In the end, screeners were federalized, and TSA was charged with hiring approximately 55,000 screeners, or transportation security officers, in 1 year. I cannot think of a greater Government undertaking than creating an agency overnight to secure the safety and security of our airports and the traveling public in order to guarantee we never have another 9/11. I am absolutely convinced that if Congress did not provide TSA with the workforce flexibilities it did, TSA would never have met its statutory mandate to stand up in 1 year. Think about that. We got that done in 1 year. My colleagues know I have not been the biggest fan of the Department of Homeland Security. I am still upset that the only high-risk area identified by GAO that does not have a strategic plan in place is DHS. That is why I am so pleased the underlying bill contains an amendment I offered in committee to establish a chief management officer for the Department. This 5-year term appointment is crucial to leading the transformation of the Department so it does not hobble along from one administration to another, struggling to complete its merger and its mission. I hope my colleagues have had the opportunity to meet with Assistant Secretary Kip Hawley, the TSA Administrator, who I think is one of the finest public administrators whom I have met so far in this administration. Mr. Hawley was confirmed in this position in July of 2005. This is the second position at TSA he has held. In October 2001, Mr. Hawley was the senior adviser for the project team that worked to stand up the Agency. While TSA is by no means perfect, it is one of the more successful operating components of DHS. I wish others were as good. There is no question our enemies want to do harm to us through our airline and transportation systems. This threat is unrelenting, and TSA must be flexible, nimble, and innovative in order to respond to the 24- hour, 7-day-a-week threat we have. The threat is out there constantly. It is not akin to something that happens every so often. It is there 24 hours a day. Granted, as in all organizations, human capital at TSA is not perfect, but I have not seen any evidence that we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater; in other words, get rid of the system in place now and go to something else. There is no evidence to support this dismantling of TSA's personnel system and beginning anew, as the Senator from Connecticut has suggested. To my knowledge, the Senate has had one hearing on the TSA workforce, and that hearing was held this Monday in the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, of which I am the ranking member. This hearing was conducted after the committee adopted the amendment by the Senator from Connecticut. One can only conclude that the amendment was offered in response to labor's unhappiness. Labor was unhappy several years ago that the title V provisions were waived for TSA. In other words, we gave them a separate personnel system because we wanted to see it get up and go and have the flexibility to get the job done. On the other hand, based on the information presented at the hearing on Monday, I believe some reforms to TSA's personnel authority are necessary at this time. This is this compromise. That is why I am happy to join with my colleagues, including the Senator from Maine, the senior Senator from Alaska, and the senior Senator from Virginia, in offering this amendment. While TSA has moved and continues to move in the right direction in providing safeguards for its employees, there is more we in Congress can do. After hearing testimony during Monday's hearing, I think it appropriate for the TSOs to be included in some basic workforce protections. While the Office of Special Counsel did not have statutory authority to investigate whistleblower claims at TSA, TSA and the Office of Special Counsel worked together to develop and implement a memorandum of understanding allowing the OSC to investigate retaliation claims. In other words, they got involved through a memorandum. This was signed in 2002, and since that time OSC has received 124 whistleblower complaints. While I applaud TSA for taking this step and signing the MOU, I believe it is important for Congress to extend through statute the full authority of OSC and the Federal courts to investigate and hear cases of whistleblower retaliation. Let's change the law. Let's give them that right. After Monday's hearing, I also believe it is important to extend to TSO the ability to file a complaint with the Merit Systems Protection Board for an adverse action. This would include removal, suspension for more than 14 days, demotion, reduction in pay, or furlough. While I applaud TSA for developing and implementing a robust internal process, including an Ombudsman Office, Disciplinary Review Board, and Peer Review Board--they put all that in place--I believe the value of independent review of the MSPB that could follow the internal process is important to build further confidence in TSA's system and reassure those being hired and on the job. So you are going to have that available to you under the Collins amendment. In the unfortunate circumstances when claims are filed with OSC, or should the Collins amendment be adopted, with MSP, TSOs also have the right to union representation during these proceedings. A lot of people are not aware of this fact, that we have members of 13 unions of the 42,000 TSOs. Some people got the idea that because we gave them the flexibility, they couldn't join a union. The fact is, they have joined. Many of them have joined a union, and the unions can represent them in the various appeals they may have in terms of personnel matters. However, something I learned during Monday's hearing is that the provision in the underlying bill would have a much broader implication on the workforce than reforming the personnel system. Using the authority in the Aviation Transportation and Security Act, TSA has been able to develop and implement the most extensive pay-for-performance system in the Federal Government. Did you hear that? Pay for performance in the Federal Government. That is a big deal. That is something which some of us have been working on--I have--for the last 8 years. TSA has not developed this system in a vacuum. It received input from approximately 4,000 TSOs through 25 focus groups, and after the initial design, performance, accountability, and standards system--they call it PAF; that is their pay for performance--it was reviewed subsequently by focus groups and online surveys for additional feedback from the workforce. Perhaps more than any Member of this Senate, I have devoted extensive time, as chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee on the oversight of Government and the Federal workforce, to understand and develop ways to recruit, retain, and reward people who work in the Federal Government. I have partnered successfully with my colleagues to enact legislation to provide agencies with even greater flexibility to meet their workforce needs. We know that in order to be successful, we must have the right people with the right skills, with the right knowledge at the right place and at the right time. I do not believe it is appropriate for Congress to roll back any reform or flexibility without due consideration. Again, I remind my colleagues, the only hearing on this issue was held this week. As I mentioned, I am a strong supporter of pay for performance. Here in TSA, the Federal Government has the largest group of employees under this system. The Government-wide Senior Executive Service covers only 6,000 employees, and the Department of Defense has made decisions for only 11,000 employees--in other words, 11,000 people in the Defense Department under pay for performance, 6,000 in the Senior Executive Service, and we have almost 55,000 in the TSA who are in pay for performance. Time and time again, Federal unions argue against pay for performance. This is a big deal. My colleagues ought to understand what this is about. Monday, the president of the National Federation of Government Employees reasserted his union's opposition to pay for performance. He doesn't want pay for performance. If you ask the American people, they will tell you they would like to see pay for performance. At a hearing of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management and the Federal Workforce that I chaired last year, unions testified against legislation I introduced that would have required at least a three- tiered rating system and prevented an employee whose job performance was unsatisfactory from receiving an annual pay increase. I am concerned that changing the personnel system and potentially making it subject to collective bargaining would set back the progress TSA has made. My colleagues must remember that TSA has existed for just over 4 years and its performance and standards system is just a year old. GAO noted that it takes about 4 or 5 years to properly assess a performance management system. We are not yet in a position to judge how the TSA system is working. The TSA's authority has allowed it to develop and implement innovative approaches through its strategic human capital management. TSA would lose that authority if the underlying provision of S. 4 were to be enacted into law. For example--this is really something unique-- TSA has initiated a pilot program to provide health care benefits to part-time screeners. They know they need full time and part time. But most of the time, part-time people do not get health insurance. They are doing that right now. So if you look at some of the really neat things they are doing over there, it just does not make sense for us to pull the plug. TSA recognizes the negative impact every screener who leaves TSA has on its ability to secure our transportation system. They know it costs $12,000 to hire and train a new screener. TSA knows it is in their best interests to retain every member of its dedicated workforce. They care about their employees. They want to motivate them; they want to reward them; they want to retain them, they want to reward them. Another key provision of the Collins amendment is the reports providing assessment of employee matters by GAO and TSA within a year. A year from now, let's look at what is going on over there. Congress must use this opportunity to fulfill its oversight objective and understand the strengths and shortfalls of the TSA system to make improvements. It is not appropriate for Congress to summarily dismiss all the work TSA has invested in its workforce just because a large Government employees union doesn't like it. The main consideration we should have as Members of the Senate is the security of the people in the United States of America. Yes, we want to protect the rights of the people who work in the Federal Government. But if we have a system that is really working and making some real improvement and making sure we are not going to have another 9/11 from an airborne attack, we ought to let them continue to do the job they are doing and should not just snap our fingers and say: These people are unhappy about what is going on there. They think we ought to get rid of that system. I don't think we should do that. I think every Member of this Senate should think about it. This is real serious business. I know people on the other side of the aisle are under a lot of pressure. So am I. I know the president of both of the major unions here, and I have worked with them and tried in all these changes we have made in the human capital laws of the United States of America to take their concerns into consideration. But on this one, I am really begging my friends on the other side of the aisle to really look at where we are today and what this is all about and not throw the baby out with the bath water. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I wish to honor a celebrated American pioneer, a legendary entrepreneur, a devotee, an integral cultivator of uniquely American music, and a great benefactor both to my home State of Ohio and my hometown of Cleveland, the late music executive Ahmet Ertegun. The son of a Turkish Ambassador to the United States, Ertegun arrived in this county in 1935 as a young boy destined for diplomatic service. Yet at an early age he developed a profound love for music, especially jazz and blues, that blossomed into a lifelong, remarkable career. At the age of 24, he cofounded the independent Atlantic Records label, mounting a historic and formidable challenge to contemporary industry giants by his keen ability to scout and develop talent. In other words, he knew a winner when he met one. John Coltrane, Ray Charles, and the Rolling Stones are among those in his repertoire. An exemplary immigrant, Ahmet was well known for his ``culturally triangular'' relationships: He was a Turkish Muslim; many of his fellow executives were Jewish, and many of the artists they produced were African-American Christians. David Geffen, the acclaimed entertainment mogul whom Ertegun introduced to the record business, noted that fewer people have had a greater impact on the music industry and that no one loved music more than he did. Ahmet's deep appreciation and respect for musical roots and history prompted him to establish a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. The Hall of Fame Foundation was created in 1983, and soon after, its board of trustees began searching for a suitable home for the museum. At that time, about the midpoint of my decade as mayor of Cleveland, a regional renaissance was in full bloom, and Cleveland was making a comeback. The city had a clear vision of our new destiny and knew where we were headed. The great people of my city had a dream: to land that Hall of Fame at home, in the heart of rock 'n' roll, right where it belonged. Moved by the undaunted initiative of Greater Cleveland civic and business leaders, I joined their determined effort, boarded on a plane to New York, and pitched the idea to Ahmet and his board of trustees. Our team's stunning case suddenly made Cleveland a top contender. The news of our heavy impression galvanized the city and evoked a flood of public spirit and support that greeted Ahmet and his board upon their subsequent visit to scout the town. Well, Ahmet never lost his ability to recognize a winner, and when he stepped off the plane in Cleveland, he met one. I had the honor of presenting him with a key to our city and leading him on a local tour, showcasing what we had to offer. A few months later, Ahmet and his board reached a decision, and in their good judgment, they selected Cleveland, where the term ``rock 'n' roll'' had been coined. We in Cleveland were both proud and humbled. I am pleased to report, for more than a decade, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland has been a popular global destination and a success for my hometown, for the State of Ohio, and for America. I am fortunate that for a time, my duties in public services dovetailed with Ahmet's vision for the future of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. He has been recognized many times throughout his life. In 1987, he was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. In 2000, our own U.S. Library of Congress honored him as a living legend. And today, just a few weeks after his death, I recognize him for his indelible contribution to the fabric of our great Nation.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I must say I am disappointed the Democratic leadership continues to preclude the Senate from debating and amending the insufficient resolution sent over from the House of Representatives. This denies the Senate from robustly debating other alternatives, including the bipartisan Warner resolution. The strategy is to avoid controversial procedures that split the Democratic caucus regarding cutting off funding for the troops and capping the deployment of troops in Iraq. We have the same kind of split to a degree in the Republican caucus. The Warner resolution represents a negotiated agreement that reflects a bipartisan approach to the war and deserves to be debated and voted upon. This is the second piece of legislation this week that Democratic leaders have brought to the Senate floor straight from the House with no amendments for debate allowed, and I think this is setting a dangerous precedent and frustrates the role the Constitution envisions for the Senate. I will continue to back the minority's right to bring up amendments and participate in real debate, even if I don't agree with those ideas. I tried to support that when we were in the majority. The American people want Congress to play a role in the way this war is being handled. The first step is to demand a better plan, and we owe the people more than 10 lines in the House Resolution. You can't even begin to address a real solution to a complex situation in 10 lines. I wish to emphasize to my colleagues that there are 15 cosponsors of the Warner resolution, 6 of whom are Republicans and 9 are Democrats. The resolution has the support of the Democratic chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Joseph Biden, who has been here for many years--a very wise individual. It has the support of the Democratic chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin. It also has the support of the No. 2 ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Chuck Hagel. I mention this because I wish to stress that the Warner resolution is believed to be a fair and reasonable resolution that is broadly supported by both Republicans and Democrats. I believe, if given the opportunity, that resolution will attract over 60 votes of the Senate. That is why tonight I wish to share some of my thoughts about our current situation in Iraq. I wish to stress that had we received better, more comprehensive prewar intelligence and done our homework about what would be needed after the military offensive, we could have entered Iraq adequately prepared to win the war and secure the peace. We would have been more adequately prepared. Both the administration and Congress should have recognized that by removing Saddam Hussein from office, we would shift the balance of power within the country from Sunni to Shiite and change the contour of the region. Our intelligence errors, our lack of troop preparation, and the bungling of the initial efforts on the ground, specifically disbanding the Army and isolating former Baathists--in spite of advice from people such as GEN Jake Garner and others--is unacceptable. And today, we are paying the price for that, which means all of us have to pay a lot more attention to every decision and plan we endorse from here on out. I cannot support the proposed troop surge. In spite of meetings at the White House, two with the President, private-session briefings as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and a meeting with General Petraeus for over 40 minutes, I am not convinced the additional troops who are proposed is the best means toward success in Baghdad. That is why I have decided to support the Warner resolution. A military solution is not sufficient to win the peace in Iraq. As I will get into it, Iraq faces political problems, a power struggle, and primal hate between the fighting sects. More troops alone cannot solve these problems. That being said, I continue to have the highest praise for the generals and, more importantly, for their troops who have remained steadfast in their efforts to secure Iraq. I am grateful to those who have served and continue to serve our Nation in a time of need. I am especially indebted to those who made the ultimate sacrifice and whose families have suffered and who will grieve and those whose lives have been changed forever, as well as some 25,000 men and women who have been wounded over there, 13,000 of them not able to go back into the service. Winning this war, securing peace in Iraq and stability in the region requires a comprehensive approach and the use of different tools, the most important of which is the will of the Iraqis. At this point, I am afraid we have focused disproportionately on the military component of this war, and we have not adequately stressed the nonmilitary arm of our strategy. Moving forward in Iraq, we must focus on strengthening our nonmilitary or political tactics. That is why now, more than ever before, I am concerned about Iraq's willingness to bring an end to the violence. As the Warner resolution states: The responsibility for Iraq's internal security in halting sectarian violence must rest primarily with the government of Iraq and Iraq security forces. I recently met with a young man from Ohio out of Bethesda who had completed three tours of duty in Iraq and who was wounded by an IED. I asked him what he did. He said: My main goal, Senator, every day was to keep my men alive and keep peace in the neighborhood. We have to ask ourselves: How long can we continue to do this? Even if the surge is successful, how long will we have to stay before the Iraqis can handle the situation themselves? Even when I talked with General Petraeus, he did a good job in Mosul--they secured the neighborhoods--but when the Iraqis came in and they left, they lost it. How many American lives will be lost in what is best described as a civil war between Sunni and Shiite that has 1,400 years of Sunni domination over Shiite at its root? More of our Members of the Senate should read about the history of Iraq and the people who are there. After many closed-session briefings with the National Security Council, four meetings at the White House, including two with the President, and as I mentioned, 40 minutes with General Petraeus, and after hearing hours of witnesses testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I can feel confident saying it is time for the Iraqi people and their leadership to stand up to the sectarian violence between Sunni and Shiite. They need to recognize that all Iraqis and the future of the Nation of Iraq is threatened by this constant bloodshed, and their future is in their hands, not our hands. U.S. Central Commander GEN John Abizaid, who the President relied upon to lead the ground campaign in Iraq, testified to Congress on November 15: I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the Corps commander and General Dempsey. We all talked together. And I said, ``In your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq?'' They all said no. The reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future. That is General Abizaid. If we don't follow the advice of our generals and other military people I have talked to, we run the risk of helping one side at the expense of another, and the Sunnis could interpret our offensive as part of a larger effort to do the dirty work of the Shiite. And don't you think the Sunnis would not spin it that way. The reality we face today is that an overwhelming majority of the Muslim population in Iraq, be they Shiite or Sunni, look upon us as infidels and occupiers. They do. And our presence there is exploited every day by our enemies. In fact, one poll claimed 60 percent of the people in Iraq said it is OK to kill Americans. While we cannot even begin to capture what is happening in the hearts and minds of the Iraqis with one poll, it sends a striking message about what additional troops might face there. We have to consider the reliable information we have that suggests the surge could ignite an even more aggressive countersurge, in which every martyr--every martyr--in the country is drawn to Baghdad to defeat the infidels, as the Sunnis were drawn to Mecca on Ramadan. We could see a terrible situation there, and I don't want--I wish to make clear I am not analogizing the Sunnis going to Mecca on Ramadan. I am saying it would bring lots of people into Baghdad. The fact of the matter is we cannot stop the sectarian violence with combat brigades and more forces alone. Implementing martial law in Iraq would be impossible because of the sheer number of Iraqi citizens and our commitments elsewhere around the globe. At this point, we wouldn't begin to have enough forces. Mr. President, the only way to bring stability to Iraq is by addressing a number of serious political problems that lie at the root of this violence. Before the war, Iraq was united by Saddam's reign of terror, as Slobadan Milosevic kept everybody under his control or, before him, Marshal Tito in Yugoslavia. When he was removed from office, the major power struggle ensued, and it is not surprising. In fact, it should have been expected. In fact, as we later found out, many academics and intelligence officers did predict this. In the aftermath of Saddam's regime, many different sects and local leaders realized a power shift was taking place, and they wanted to come out on top. They knew the greatest source of potential power is in oil. That is why the critical component of the political solution must be to reach a decision on how the oil can be distributed to all sects and communities in Iraq. It is absolutely critical that Prime Minister Maliki moves quickly--tomorrow--to pass the legislation that guarantees that all Iraqis will benefit from oil. If he can do this, it will show the sects how the power in Iraq will be dispersed in the future. Recently, I met with the Foreign Minister, Deputy Prime Minister of Turkey. The Foreign Minister agreed that the oil situation is the most important issue today and the one that will have profound impact on the long-term stability of Iraq. This must be a component of the overall national reconciliation plan to unite Iraqis and give them confidence in their Government. A second key political priority must be the reintegration of the Sunni Baathists into society. When we went into Iraq, we cut the Baathists out of the military and security forces. The result of the policy was they had nowhere to go. They were frightened about their futures. They could not feed their families. They were angry. They were resentful. So they went to the streets. Before long, they became part of the problem, joining with militias and other fighters to resist the Shia government. So a major political priority must be to develop a plan to reintegrate the former Baathists and it needs to happen now. It is essential that the Iraqi Government work toward provincial elections so there is more equal representation of the different sects. The third vital component of our nonmilitary strategy must be greater regional diplomacy. We must work to encourage Iraq's neighbors to get involved in containing the violence. Specifically, these neighboring countries have the ability to put pressure on the different sects and local leaders to help unite the Iraqi Government. They have the ability to pass debt relief, participate in border control, and help avoid a potential refugee problem. I don't think people realize that there have been over 3.5 million refugees who have come out of Iraq. In December 2006, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group issued their recommendations for a successful United States strategy in Iraq. A core component of their proposal was that the United States act immediately to undertake a ``diplomatic offensive'' consisting of ``new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region.'' The recommendation called on the administration to engage the international community, the Arab League, traditional United States allies in the Middle East, and all Iraq's bordering neighbors in order to address regional conflicts and jointly bring stability to Iraq. They advised the administration to work quickly to convene a regional conference--it has not happened--which would complement the Iraq Compact undertaken by the United Nations. We need to embrace the study group's recommendations on this issue and act now to increase diplomatic engagement with the international community. Without a broad political strategy, our military objectives, no matter what the tactic, will be pursued in vain. These political elements must be the focus of our plan in Iraq. And that said, I agree there is a military component here, as well. I want to be very clear that I do not support a military withdrawal from Iraq nor do I support disengagement from the Middle East. As we debate this issue, we must consider our broader national security interests in the Middle East. We are only focusing on Iraq. We have to start thinking about the whole greater Middle East area. Despite one's views about the current situation in Iraq, it is in our country's vital security interest to pursue a strategy of diplomacy and military action in the region. To put it simply, the stakes are too high for us to sit on the sidelines. We must remain active players in the Middle East to maintain regional stability, to protect vital energy supplies, and to guarantee peace and security at home. We have had long-standing economic and military interests in the Middle East and we were involved in the region long before we decided to challenge Saddam Hussein for his defiance of the U.N. Security Council. But today, with conflicts brewing in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, between Israel and the Palestinian territories, it is even more critical we remain steadfast in our commitment. Despite what one might believe about the President's strategy in Iraq, we cannot confuse debate over tactics with the nonnegotiable need to remain engaged in the Middle East. Currently, the greatest threat to the stability in the Middle East is the possibility of failure in Iraq which threatens to destabilize the region and poses a critical national security risk to the United States. A premature withdrawal from Iraq will signify in essence that we are abandoning the region in its entirety. Our departure could greatly damage, if not sever, relationships with key allies, resulting in dire political and social consequences throughout the world. The long-term security interests of the United States will be best served by a peaceful Iraq that can sustain, govern, and defend itself. That is why we must figure a way forward and why we cannot withdraw from Iraq. The National Intelligence Estimate which was just released underscores the danger of withdrawal, stating succinctly: If coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to the Iraq government, and have adverse consequences for national reconciliation. They conclude that the immediate withdrawal of United States troops likely would lead the Iraq security forces to unravel, encourage neighboring countries to engage openly in the conflict, and lead to massive civilian casualties and population displacement. It is also very likely, were the United States to pull out of Iraq prematurely, al-Qaida would use Iraq as a training ground to plan future attacks, and this escalation of violence could ultimately prompt Turkey to launch a military incursion of its own. These are outcomes we cannot afford to risk. I will refer to a few of the experts whom I have met or who have testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in recent weeks. Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger testified that ``withdrawal is not an option'' and continued that: An abrupt American departure would greatly complicate efforts to stem the terrorist tide far beyond Iraq: Fragile governments from Lebanon to the Persian Gulf would be tempted into preemptive concessions. It might drive the sectarian conflict in Iraq to genocidal dimensions, beyond levels that impelled U.S. interventions in the Balkans. Think of that. It might drive sectarian conflict in Iraq to genocidal dimensions beyond levels that impelled United States intervention in the Balkans. The new Ambassador from Jordan sat next to me at the prayer breakfast, and we started talking about Iraq and the Middle East. He told me that if you do not handle this right, we could see a schism between the Sunni and Shiite that extends from Malaysia to Indonesia. Another reason I back the Warner resolution is it does not in any way threaten to reduce or jeopardize critical funding for United States troops serving in Iraq. In fact, the resolution states explicitly: Congress should not take any action that will endanger the United States military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field, as such an action with respect to funding will undermine their safety or their effectiveness in pursuing their assigned missions. A decision to cut funding would be a serious, irreversible mistake. Last month, this Senate confirmed General Petraeus as the commanding general of the multinational force in Iraq without a dissenting vote. He is carrying out the orders of the President. It is critical that General Petraeus get the resources and equipment he believes are necessary to complete the mission and keep his forces safe in the field. I spoke to General Petraeus and I told him to make sure to ask for what he needs to be successful. He is concerned about receiving the equipment and other nonmilitary resources he will need to be successful, such as contributions of the State Department and other agencies. We cannot send our forces into the field without the necessary equipment. We did this at the beginning of the war. Our soldiers were underequipped. It was despicable. It cannot happen again. We have the resources in this country to ensure that our men and women have everything they need in combat. We also must provide the funding to reset the equipment when it comes home and to keep the Armed Forces from breaking under the strain of the war. We must ensure that soldiers have the proper training before they leave and we must fund the mobilization centers and other military facilities at home so we can undergo the necessary training. In my State of Ohio, I met this week with the head of the Ohio National Guard who is now being told he is going to have to train the troops in Ohio because they do not want to send them someplace else because they want them trained fast so they can get them to Iraq and Afghanistan. The fact is, he said: I don't have the additional funds or equipment to do this. We have lost 150 Ohioans, 150 in Iraq. In terms of the States, we are probably two or three in the United States in the number of members lost. We lost two because humvees rolled over and they were not trained to drive those humvees. Now they are much heavier than they were before. The Warner resolution makes it clear that we must guarantee the troops what they need when they need it. And the Gregg amendment underscores the point further. The best exit strategy for United States troops is a multifaceted and comprehensive strategy focused on creating an Iraq for the Iraqis. We must focus on training the Iraqi security forces so the Iraqis can defend and protect themselves. The Iraqi people must understand they will be given the full responsibility of defending and rebuilding their country. We must remove any ambiguity in the minds of Iraqis about our intention and desire to lead and make it clear we do not want to be there. In fact, they need to understand we want to bring our troops home and we want to help them develop the political and military tools necessary to carry on this mission without us. Bringing stability to Iraq will require our best minds, our resources, and our bipartisan cooperation. We need a massive improvement in interagency coordination, better communication, better reporting to Congress, and the help of our allies and friends throughout the region. This is my responsibility as a Member of Congress, to exercise oversight and to contribute to our national security. That is why I support the bipartisan Warner resolution. Again, I am confident that given the opportunity, over 60 Members of this Senate will support it. Last but not least, all of us who represent the people of this country should get down on our knees and ask the Holy Spirit to enlighten the President and us in our decisionmaking because the impact of Iraq will not only affect Iraq, the Middle East, and world peace, but it will impact dramatically the national security of the United States of America. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

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