Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about a bill my colleague Senator Bingaman and I introduced today, the Health Care Partnership Act. For too many years, I have listened to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle talk about the rising cost of health care and the growing number of uninsured Americans. Yet, we have not been able to make much progress here at the Federal level to find a meaningful solution for the dilemma this Nation is facing regarding access to quality, affordable health care. Next to the economy, it is the greatest domestic challenge facing our Nation. In fact, the rising cost of health care is a major part of what is hurting our competitiveness in the global marketplace.

While surveys have indicated that health insurance premiums have stabilized--a 9.2 percent increase in 2006 and 2005 and compared with a 12.3 percent in 2004; 14.7 percent in 2003; and 15.2 percent in 2002-- health insurance costs continue to be a significant factor impacting American competitiveness. In addition, the share of costs that individuals have paid for employer sponsored insurance has risen roughly 2 percent each year, from 31.4 percent of health care costs in 2001 to 38.4 percent this year.

In fact, spending on health care in the United States reached $1.9 trillion in 2004--almost 16.5 percent of our GDP--the largest share ever.

Yet, despite all the increases in health care spending some 46 million Americans--15 percent of the population--had no health insurance at some point last year. This number has increased steadily. In 2000, that number was 39.8 million. In 2002 it was 43.6 million.

These statistics are startling and it is time that we do something about them. The bill Senator Bingaman and I are introducing today aims to break the log-jam here in Washington and

allow states the freedom to explore with health care reform options. This bill would support state-based efforts to reduce the uninsured and the cost of health care, improve quality, improve access to care, and expand information technology.

I have been in this situation before. As Governor of Ohio, I had to work creatively to expand coverage and deal with increasing health care costs for a growing number of uninsured Ohioans. I am happy to report that we were able to make some progress toward reducing the number of uninsured Ohioans during my time as the head of the state by negotiating with the state unions to move to managed care; by controlling Medicaid costs to the point where from 1995 to 1998, due to good stewardship and management, Ohio ended up under-spending on Medicaid without harming families; and implementing the S-CHIP program to provide coverage for uninsured children.

Like we did in Ohio, a number of states are already actively pursuing efforts to reduce the number of their residents who lack adequate health care coverage. The Health Care Partnership Act will build on what states like Massachusetts and others are doing, while providing a mechanism to analyze results and make recommendations for future action at the Federal level.

Under the Health Partnership Act, Congress would authorize grants to individual states, groups of states, and Indian tribes and local governments to carry out any of a broad range of strategies to improve our Nation's health care delivery. The bill creates a mechanism for states to apply for grants to a bipartisan ``State Health Innovation Commission'' housed at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). After reviewing the state proposals, the Commission would submit to Congress a list of recommended state applications. The Commission would also recommend the amount of Federal grant money each state should receive to carry out the actions described in their plan.

Most importantly, at the end of the five-year period, the Commission would be required to report to Congress whether the states are meeting the goals of the Act. The Commission would then recommend future action Congress should take concerning overall reform, including whether or not to extend the state program.

I believe it is important that we pass this legislation to provide a platform from which we can have a thoughtful conversation about health care reform here in Washington. Since I have been in the Senate, Congress has made some progress toward improving health care, most notably for our 43 million seniors who now have access to affordable prescription medication through the Medicare Modernization Act. We have also increased funding for community health centers and safety net hospitals that provide health care for the uninsured and under insured; increased the use of technology in our health care delivery system; and improved the safety of medical care by passing a medical errors reporting bill.

Yet, these incremental steps are not enough, and we have been at this too long here in Washington without comprehensive, meaningful results. I ask for my colleagues' support for this bipartisan bill that I hope will move us closer toward a solution to the uninsured.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about a bill my colleague Senator Bingaman and I introduced today, the Health Care Partnership Act. For too many years, I have listened to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle talk about the rising cost of health care and the growing number of uninsured Americans. Yet, we have not been able to make much progress here at the Federal level to find a meaningful solution for the dilemma this Nation is facing regarding access to quality, affordable health care. Next to the economy, it is the greatest domestic challenge facing our Nation. In fact, the rising cost of health care is a major part of what is hurting our competitiveness in the global marketplace.

While surveys have indicated that health insurance premiums have stabilized--a 9.2 percent increase in 2006 and 2005 and compared with a 12.3 percent in 2004; 14.7 percent in 2003; and 15.2 percent in 2002-- health insurance costs continue to be a significant factor impacting American competitiveness. In addition, the share of costs that individuals have paid for employer sponsored insurance has risen roughly 2 percent each year, from 31.4 percent of health care costs in 2001 to 38.4 percent this year.

In fact, spending on health care in the United States reached $1.9 trillion in 2004--almost 16.5 percent of our GDP--the largest share ever.

Yet, despite all the increases in health care spending some 46 million Americans--15 percent of the population--had no health insurance at some point last year. This number has increased steadily. In 2000, that number was 39.8 million. In 2002 it was 43.6 million.

These statistics are startling and it is time that we do something about them. The bill Senator Bingaman and I are introducing today aims to break the log-jam here in Washington and

allow states the freedom to explore with health care reform options. This bill would support state-based efforts to reduce the uninsured and the cost of health care, improve quality, improve access to care, and expand information technology.

I have been in this situation before. As Governor of Ohio, I had to work creatively to expand coverage and deal with increasing health care costs for a growing number of uninsured Ohioans. I am happy to report that we were able to make some progress toward reducing the number of uninsured Ohioans during my time as the head of the state by negotiating with the state unions to move to managed care; by controlling Medicaid costs to the point where from 1995 to 1998, due to good stewardship and management, Ohio ended up under-spending on Medicaid without harming families; and implementing the S-CHIP program to provide coverage for uninsured children.

Like we did in Ohio, a number of states are already actively pursuing efforts to reduce the number of their residents who lack adequate health care coverage. The Health Care Partnership Act will build on what states like Massachusetts and others are doing, while providing a mechanism to analyze results and make recommendations for future action at the Federal level.

Under the Health Partnership Act, Congress would authorize grants to individual states, groups of states, and Indian tribes and local governments to carry out any of a broad range of strategies to improve our Nation's health care delivery. The bill creates a mechanism for states to apply for grants to a bipartisan ``State Health Innovation Commission'' housed at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). After reviewing the state proposals, the Commission would submit to Congress a list of recommended state applications. The Commission would also recommend the amount of Federal grant money each state should receive to carry out the actions described in their plan.

Most importantly, at the end of the five-year period, the Commission would be required to report to Congress whether the states are meeting the goals of the Act. The Commission would then recommend future action Congress should take concerning overall reform, including whether or not to extend the state program.

I believe it is important that we pass this legislation to provide a platform from which we can have a thoughtful conversation about health care reform here in Washington. Since I have been in the Senate, Congress has made some progress toward improving health care, most notably for our 43 million seniors who now have access to affordable prescription medication through the Medicare Modernization Act. We have also increased funding for community health centers and safety net hospitals that provide health care for the uninsured and under insured; increased the use of technology in our health care delivery system; and improved the safety of medical care by passing a medical errors reporting bill.

Yet, these incremental steps are not enough, and we have been at this too long here in Washington without comprehensive, meaningful results. I ask for my colleagues' support for this bipartisan bill that I hope will move us closer toward a solution to the uninsured.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 471 which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution

be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, May 10. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to dare, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate proceed to a period of morning business for up to 60 minutes, with the first 30 minutes under the control of the majority leader or his designee and the final 30 minutes under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee; further, that the Senate then begin consideration of S. 1955, the small business health plans bill.

Mr. President, today cloture was invoked on the motion to proceed to the small business health plans bill by a vote of 96 to 2. Tomorrow morning, we will begin consideration of the bill. Chairman Enzi will be here and will be available to discuss relevant amendments that Senators may want to offer during tomorrow's session. Therefore, rollcall votes are possible during Wednesday's session on the small business health plans-related amendments.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. President, I rise to speak today about the dilemma this Nation is facing regarding access to quality, affordable health care. Next to the economy, it is the greatest domestic challenge facing our Nation. In fact, the rising cost of health care is a major part of what is hurting our competitiveness in the global marketplace.

One of the biggest factors driving health care costs through the roof is medical lawsuit abuse. I have been concerned about this issue for quite some time--in fact, since my days as Governor of Ohio. I wish we had the outpouring of support for medical liability reform back then that I see now. In 1996, I essentially had to pull teeth in the Ohio Legislature to pass my tort reform bill.

I signed it into law in October 1996. Three years later, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional, and if that law had withstood the supreme court's scrutiny, Ohioans wouldn't be facing the medical access problems they are facing today.

While things are getting marginally better in some communities in Ohio thanks to the California MICRA-like reform initiatives that were passed in Ohio in 2002 and 2003, doctors are still leaving their practice, and in too many towns, patients are not able to receive the care they need. In fact, too many physicians in northeast Ohio are still feeling the strain of skyrocketing premiums. For example, thoracic surgeons in Ohio are paying as much as $181,000 annually, and OB/GYNs in the area are paying $200,000 annually for liability coverage.

The past 5 years have been especially tough on physicians.

Back in 2002, The Medical Liability Monitor ranked Ohio among the top five States for premium increases, and no one felt the impact of this increase more than the Schwieterman family in Ohio's rural west-central Mercer County. I have mentioned brothers, Doctors Jim and Tom Schwieterman, along with their father, retired Dr. Don Schwieterman, before here on the floor, but their story is worth repeating.

Together, these 3 doctors have delivered about 5,700 babies over the years. This family has a 113-year history of bringing babies into the world--their great-grandfather started their current medical practice in 1896. Most importantly, they have never been sued for a delivery.

Yet, as of September 27, 2004, this family gave up delivering babies because of escalating malpractice insurance costs. Their insurance rates rose from $25,000 annually to over $80,000 in just 4 years--a threefold increase. Dr. Jim Schwieterman has stated that he would continue to deliver babies if he could just break even; unfortunately, he can't.

This situation becomes even more devastating when you learn that Dr. Jim Schwieterman was one of only a handful of obstetricians providing obstetrical care in Mercer County. Now, pregnant mothers must travel, in many cases, outside of the county to get obstetrical care.

Women in Morrow County, OH, are faced with a similar situation. As of January 2003, the only remaining physician in the county still delivering babies, Dr. Bachedler, was forced to stop after his liability costs more than doubled in one year.

Sadly, obstetricians are not the only physicians in my State who are being forced out of practicing medicine. Dr. Romeo Diaz, an oncologist from my hometown of Cleveland, saw his liability premiums rise $60,000 annually. Despite his patients attempt to help him raise the money he needed to remain in practice, Dr. Diaz closed his doors in 2003.

The decision to limit or close their practice does not come easily to these physicians. Some time ago, a good friend of mine brought to my attention a letter from an OB/GYN in Dublin, OH, who had decided to retire from his practice. He wrote the following to his patients:

On June 17, 2003, I received my professional liability

insurance rate quote for the upcoming year, and it is 64

percent higher than last year's rate. I have seen my premiums

almost triple during the past two years, despite never having

had a single penny paid out on my behalf in twenty-seven

years as a physician. Even worse, during this time the

insurance company has reduced the amount of coverage that I

can purchase from $5 million to only $1 million, while jury

verdicts have skyrocketed, often exceeding $3-4 million. If I

were to purchase this policy, I would be putting all of my

family's personal assets at risk every time that I delivered

a baby or performed surgery. I refuse to do that. I have

therefore decided to retire from private practice on July 31,

2003, the final day of my current liability insurance policy.

This is not a decision that I take lightly, but unfortunately

it has become necessary. For many of you, I have been part of

your life for years. I have delivered your babies, and helped

you through some of life's most difficult challenges. It has

truly been an honor.

Like these doctors, in 2004, a survey by the Ohio State Medical Association, OSMA, indicated that 34 percent of Ohio physicians expect to close their

practices within the next 2 years without a reversal in medical liability rates. And whether they are ultimately forced to close their doors, a majority of physicians in Ohio agree that rising medical liability rates have directly impacted the way they practice medicine. Fifty-six percent of them believe they have increased the number of tests they have ordered for patients in order to protect themselves from potential lawsuits.

In fact, a March 3, 2003, report by the Department of Health and Human Services calculated the practice of defensive medicine costs the United States a total of between $70 and 126 billion a year and estimates that the cost for the Federal Government alone is between $35 and $56 billion. This is costing you and me real money.

Nevertheless, I am very hopeful when I now hear from physicians back home that thanks to the latest packages of tort reform measure that passed the Ohio State Legislature, medical liability rates are finally beginning to stabilize.

In fact, a January 2006 Ohio Department of Insurance report found that overall rate increases pursued by the five largest insurers were significantly less in 2005 than in previous years--6.7 percent in 2005, compared to 20 percent in 2004 and approximately 30 percent in 2003. For 2006, one insurer has even lowered its rates by 5 percent.

Good, balanced legislation can make all the difference. Just like we are beginning to see in Ohio, medical liability reform efforts in States like Texas are providing real results. We have been hearing a great deal about the good news coming out of Texas this week on the Senate floor, and it is for good reason. In 2003, the Texas Legislature enacted comprehensive sweeping medical liability reforms, with reasonable limits on noneconomic damages. Texas voters also understood the importance of this reform and approved proposition 12 amending the State constitution to specifically allow the legislature to enact the reasonable caps.

In just 3 short years, the results have been tremendous. It is hard to believe, but Texas physicians are once again able to competitively shop for medical liability coverage according to the Texas insurance commissioner.

While this is great news, in many places across the Nation, the situation is not the same, and the need for Federal medical liability reform is still very real.

Since the 107th Congress, I have been coming to the floor to speak in support of numerous medical liability bills: The HEALTH Act, the Patients First Act, The Healthy Mothers and Babies Access to Care Act, and the Pregnancy and Trauma Care Access Protection Act, and others. Unfortunately, none of these pieces of legislation garnered the 60 votes needed here in the Senate to achieve cloture.

Frustrated by this, several years ago, I spent countless hours along with the American Medical Association, AMA, going door to door to meet with my colleagues to examine other possible approaches for reform. I met with a number of my colleagues to explore those approaches and generate the kind of support needed to get to 60 votes.

The biggest complaint I heard from my colleagues is that the cap on noneconomic damages in these earlier bills was too low. For this reason, I am especially hopeful about the legislation before us today and proud to be a cosponsor of both the Medical Care Access Protection Act and the Healthy Mothers and Healthy Babies Access to Care Act.

These bills provide the Senate with a new approach to reforming our medical liability system. Like past bills, this legislation provides for unlimited payments on economic damages, but it would also mimic the State of Texas' approach to capping noneconomic damages. This legislation would limit noneconomic damage awards to $250,000 for each claimant, a healthcare provider, or each of two health care institutions. In total, this legislation creates a $750,000 cap on noneconomic damages.

I also heard concerns from my colleagues that past versions of medical liability reform bills would preempt State laws when some States already have laws that are working.

The bill before us preserves States' rights by keeping medical liability statutes in place and by allowing future State laws to supersede Federal limits on damages.

Further, the bill protects patients by placing reasonable limits on attorney fees, provides a review of expert witnesses to provide greater creditability to cases, and maximizes patients' recovery for damages by limiting the amount of payment attorneys are able to claim from awards.

I have been so passionate about the need for liability reform over my public service career because the issue is very personal to me. When I was young, I suffered from osteomyelitis, a disease in the bone marrow. During my 6-month hospital stay, I had two physicians who approached my parents with treatment options for me. One physician wanted to go with the ``gold standard'' treatment at the time, which would more than likely have saved my life but also had the potential to leave me without use of my right leg. The second physician, Dr. Holoway, offered my parents a more experimental option, one that was less invasive and posed less of a risk to my leg. I am thankful my parents chose the more experimental treatment, which left me with full mobility.

I wonder whether a physician in Dr. Holoway's shoes today would have taken the same approach with all the potential legal implications. I fear in today's environment that doctor would not.

For this reason, I urge my colleagues to support both the Medical Care Access Protection Act and the Healthy Mothers and Healthy Babies Access to Care Act. I am confident these bills strike a delicate balance between the rights of aggrieved parties to bring lawsuits and receive rapid and fair compensation and the rights of society to be protected against frivolous lawsuits and outrageous rewards for noneconomic damages--damages that are disproportionate to compensating the injured and made at the expense of society as a whole.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues and the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture for providing this colloquy. As my colleagues know, the Emerald Ash Borer poses an enormous threat, and I wish to be associated with their remarks. This is important for this Senator from Ohio because nearly 4 billion ash trees are threatened in my State alone. The Ohio Department of Agriculture and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources call the Emerald Ash Borer the most serious forest health issue facing Ohio's forests today. They remain highly concerned and vigilant, but we must provide them with sufficient resources to eradicate this problem. According to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, the potential economic impact of EAB to Ohio citizens over the next 10 years could possibly reach $3 billion. Again, I thank my friend from Michigan for his leadership on this issue, as well as the Senator from Utah, Senator Bennett, for his indulgence in entering into this colloquy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there now be a period for morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 35 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on our Nation's fiscal situation. Today, the Senate is considering about a $100 billion supplemental funding bill that our Federal Government requires to fulfill its domestic and foreign obligations. While I acknowledge this funding is needed in many areas at home and abroad, most notably with our commitments to fight the war on terror, rebuild after the devastations of Katrina and Rita and protecting our borders, the occasion of passing a $100 billion supplemental bill is an opportunity that I cannot pass up to remind the Senate of where our Nation's overall fiscal health lies.

In a nutshell, our fiscal health is in dire straits. In the most simple terms, the Federal Government continues to spend more than it takes in. I hope my colleagues agree that the running the charge cards for today's needs and leaving the bill for our children and grandchildren should not be the policy that this body pursues.

When I came to the Senate in 1999, the national debt stood at $5.6 trillion. Today, as the chart shows, the national debt stands at $8.4 trillion. Since I came to the Senate in 1999, we have had an increase in the national debt of about 50 percent. The chart shows the last 4 years how we have climbed the ladder, and the Treasury will be back asking us to raise the debt limit.

As a percentage of gross domestic product, our national debt has grown from being 58 percent of gross domestic production at the end of 2000 to an estimated 66.1 percent of gross domestic production by the end of 2006.

Undoubtedly, the United States has undergone unprecedented challenges that have spurred these fiscal issues. The tragedy of September 11 to fighting the war on terror at home and abroad, to hurricanes Katrina and Rita, to the rollout of the new Medicare prescription drug plan, the largest

expansion of Medicare Programs since its creation, our Nation has had to respond to challenges of tremendous magnitude. In responding to those challenges, the Federal Government has had the responsibility to provide the resources so that the country could confront these challenges head on.

The Federal Government rightly appropriated $20 billion to help New York, hundreds of billions to provide our war fighters with the necessary equipment to provide for our national security and now well over $100 billion to help rebuild the gulf coast. We are dealing with all of these expenses, but we are ignoring the 800-pound gorilla in the room, the impending tidal wave of entitlements coming due.

I was pleased this President in the State of the Union Address acknowledged that:

The retirement of the baby boom generation will put

unprecedented strains on the federal government. By 2030,

spending for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid alone

will be almost 60 percent of the entire federal budget. And

that will present future Congresses with impossible choices

staggering tax increases, immense deficits, or deep cuts in

every category of spending.

I am pleased the President decided to focus on what some call the demographic tsunami coming our way and the necessity to reform entitlement programs before it hits. The 77 million baby boomers coming into the Social Security and Medicare Program will put the Federal budget under unprecedented pressure. Chairman Gregg took the courageous steps to take on entitlement spending through the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. I supported his efforts.

However, this was just the tip of the iceberg. The truth is, we have not been serious about entitlement reform. The President called for a bipartisan commission to examine the full impact of baby boom retirements on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid in his State of the Union Address. It is imperative we move on this quickly. Unfortunately, we are still waiting for the commission to be appointed. Time is of the essence, and I hope that Secretary Snow and the administration will move quickly on creating that commission.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, make up a significant portion of mandatory spending and mandatory spending is crowding out other parts of the budget. This chart shows in the year 1965 mandatory spending was 27 percent of our budget. In 1985, now we see mandatory spending makes up 42 percent, 44 percent is discretionary, and 14 percent is the interest on our debt. Now, in the year 2005, from 1985 to 2005, mandatory spending has jumped from 42 percent to 53 percent, and defense is 20 percent, nondefense is 19 percent, interest is 7 percent, and we have been lucky in terms of the interest costs because of the fact that our interest rates are very low today.

If we ever see an uptake in interest costs, we can go back to what percentage went toward interest. When I came to the Senate in 1999, our interest costs were about 13 percent, so they have gone down, but the fact of the matter is we need to be realistic about the fact that they are not always going to be as low as they are today, and if they go up, they will just gobble up more of the Federal budget.

According to the reports from Medicare and Social Security trustees, the trust funds for these programs will be exhausted even earlier than previously thought. According to the trustees report that came back last week, the cost of Social Security and Medicare will grow from nearly 7.4 percent of the economy today to 12.7 percent by 2030, consuming approximately not just 60 percent as predicted by the administration but 70 percent of all Federal revenues, crowding out all other discretionary spending. No matter which way you look at it, if we leave reform of entitlement programs for future Congresses to solve, as well as a mountain of national debt to pay off, it will have devastating consequences on the economy and on our children and grandchildren.

Some Members believe that the solution is to grow the economy out of the problem, that by cutting taxes permanently the economy will eventually raise enough revenue to offset any current losses to the U.S. Treasury. I respectfully disagree with that assertion. I do not believe that in the current situation our country faces, we can continue to spend more than we take in.

By the General Accounting Office's own estimates, about 35 years from now, that is when my grandchildren have their own children to care for, balancing the budget would require actions as large as cutting total Federal spending by 60 percent or raising taxes 2.5 times what they are at today's level.

Our friends overseas and Europe are experiencing what we will experience if we do not get a hold of our finances.

In November 2005, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testified before the Joint Economic Committee and told Congress:

We should not be cutting taxes by borrowing. We do not have

the capability of having both productive tax cuts and large

expenditure increases, and presume that the deficit doesn't

matter.

That is exactly what we have been doing the last several years.

I have said many times on this floor that our major problem is we are unwilling to pay for or go without what we want to get done. We have been willing, time and time again, to put the cost of our current spending on the credit cards of our children and grandchildren. To be candid and fair, we had no choice in much of the spending since 9/11. The Federal Government had to rebuild after 9/11. We have made the decision to increase security for the homeland. We have to fund the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. And we have to rebuild after the devastation of dealing with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. In other words, our costs are something we have not been able to control because of the war abroad, securing our homeland, and these hurricanes which were unprecedented in our country's history.

While we have had to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on these events, the Senate has made the decision to squeeze the nondefense discretionary budget. In fact, the pendulum has swung from the Senate spending money like drunken sailors during the first years I was here to now cutting these nondefense discretionary accounts to the bone in the name of fiscal responsibility.

Unfortunately, fiscal responsibility cannot be defined solely by restraining and cutting nondefense discretionary spending. These accounts are only one-fifth of the budget and, frankly, with some of the cuts to these accounts, I believe we are eating our seed corn in the name of fiscal responsibility.

I would be the first to cut the excess out of the budgets. I only have to think back to my mayoral days and my Governor days. As mayor of Cleveland, we inherited the first major city in the United States to default on its loans since the Great Depression. By making tough choices, we turned the city around.

As Governor, we faced a no less daunting challenge. We came into office in a $1.5 billion hole. We scoured through line by line and went through four rounds of cuts in the State budget. After the fourth cut, the math still did not add up. We had to raise revenues to meet the responsibilities of the State--a solution that was not easy. But at the end of the day, it was necessary because--do you know what--we had to balance our State budget.

I had to balance my budgets when I was the mayor of the city of Cleveland. Unfortunately, we do not have to balance our budgets here in Washington. After getting back on even keel, we were able to reduce taxes in each of the last 3 years of my administration. But we had to get back on even keel.

I view the situation our Nation faces today in a very similar light. We are in a heck of a spot. Our Nation has faced extraordinary costs that could not be foreseen. And at the same time, we are talking about reducing revenues. We have cut nondefense discretionary spending, and I am sure there are those who believe we can cut more. I think we have come to the point where we need to face reality. These numbers just do not add up.

Now, I want to say that I am not against tax cuts. In other words, I have been for it. I supported tax cuts in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004. In 2001, we were facing a starkly different fiscal picture than we have today. I think it is really important to understand that. The fiscal picture today is entirely different than when we started the tax cuts in 2001. The surplus over 10 years was estimated to be $5.6 trillion--a lot of money. Congress, as I mentioned, spent

more money in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 than they should have. This led most of us to want to get that money off the table so it could not be spent. I supported this because of what I referred to as the three- legged stool: pay down the debt, fiscal responsibility, and tax cuts-- the three of them.

On June 7, 2001, the President signed the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. I voted for this bill which reduced the individual income tax rates that apply to taxable income, increased the child tax credit to $1,000, and extended it to smaller families, addressed the marriage penalty, phased out the Federal estate tax over the period 2002 to 2010, provided a temporary reduction in the alternative minimum tax, and provided some savings incentives and childcare credits.

After 9/11, I joined the Centrist Coalition to accelerate these cuts to provide a short-term stimulus to our economy. The House passed this bill, but it stalled in the Senate because of partisan politics.

In 2003, our country was still reeling from September 11, the war against terror, and corporate accounting scandals. We were in recession. We needed additional stimulative medicine. But I fought to ensure that the tax cuts were the right amount. I joined with Senators Olympia Snowe, John Breaux, and Max Baucus to get the $350 billion that we passed in 2003.

On May 28, 2003, the President signed the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act into law. We accelerated the cuts from the 2001 tax bill, such as the individual income tax cuts, the marginal rates, the child tax credit, the marriage penalty relief, extended the AMT again, and reduced the rate on both dividends and capital gains to 15 percent for higher tax brackets and 5 percent for those in the lower tax brackets for 2003 to 2008.

One of the reasons we said only $350 billion was that we were concerned about the cost of the war and homeland security. And we were right. Our national defense and homeland security costs have added up to $2.3 trillion since then.

Since 2003, when we decided to provide accelerated tax cuts, our national defense and homeland security costs have added up to $2.3 trillion.

Can you imagine where we would have been if the $1.57 trillion the administration initially proposed or even the $725 billion tax cut that was being considered at the time by the House of Representatives was actually passed? Just think what our deficit and national debt would be today. The negative consequences of such cuts adding to our national debt would have outweighed any positive stimulus effect.

I said that $350 billion in tax cuts would be enough to get the economy and the stock market moving then and now, and it worked. In other words, what we did is we front-end loaded that $350 billion tax cut to really give us some oomph so we would kick this economy into gear. And it worked. The economy and the stock market have moved.

I can still remember people saying: The market is never going to recover. I heard, several years ago: It is never going to get back to where it was. And the fact is, it has. The Nation's GDP grew by over 4 percent in both 2003 and 2004, and 3.5 percent in 2005, and unemployment has dropped since we enacted tax cuts from 6.6 percent to the current 4.7 percent. And we just announced that in the first quarter of this year, our GDP growth is over 4 percent and more Americans are working. Unfortunately, we are not seeing this in the State of Ohio. We are still under a great deal of duress because of the loss of our manufacturing jobs.

However, the world does not stand still, and we now face different challenges. While this tax cut stimulation worked, making these tax cuts permanent should be subject to pay-go, as Alan Greenspan said, or ``serious economic disruptions'' will result. We need to cut expenses or pay for them with other tax increases.

Now, let's look at the costs of some of the tax cuts we passed. These are all going to be under consideration, and we will have people saying: We have to extend all of them.

The credit for research and experimentation, that is $81.2 billion; deduction of State and local sales taxes is $41.5 billion; increased AMT exemption amount, $437.5 billion; hurricane relief--I will leave that one alone; subpart F for active financing income, $45.2 billion; reduced tax rate on repatriated dividends, $57 billion; section 179 expensing, $15.9 billion; reduced tax rates on capital gains, $63.4 billion; empowerment and renewal zones, $11.7 billion; child tax credit, $184.8 billion. Let's see. I won't hit them all. Estate and gift tax changes--estate and gift tax changes. Do you hear that? We are talking about killing the death tax? We are talking about $357 billion--$357 billion. And the income tax rates of 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent, if we keep those, will cost us $384.8 billion.

All I am saying is, if you add up all of the things that are going to come to us during the next couple of years, we are talking about--what is that--$2.353 trillion. Do you hear that? It is $2.353 trillion. It just does not make sense.

As we see on the chart, according to CBO, the dividend and capital gains tax cuts will result in roughly about $193.1 billion in revenue loss to the Treasury. If we were to permanently repeal the estate tax-- I have already mentioned that. Consider that the alternative minimum tax will cost us $511 billion. I support recent statements from the White House that AMT should be considered as part of tax reform, but until that happens, we are forced to confront this issue every year.

Everybody is complaining about the AMT. They want the AMT. They want the dividend tax reduction to continue, the capital gains. You name it. They want it all. And just these tax items on this chart--to repeat-- $2.35 trillion over 10 years. Are we willing to add to our deficit and debt to continue these cuts?

Let's list the numbers again, look at them again: unbalanced budgets since 2001 last year's deficit was $318 billion; a rising national debt of $8.4 trillion--and that has increased, as I have said, by 50 percent since 1999--the war on terror has cost us $450 billion, plus $160 billion on homeland security since 9/11.

One of the things people do not understand is that Homeland Security has 22 agencies, 180,000 employees. They have doubled the budget of those 22 agencies since 9/11. As a matter of fact, if you look at other money we spent on homeland security, they have actually tripled the budget since that time.

Katrina has cost us over $100 billion and continues to rise, and the Medicare Part D plan is now projected to cost over $1 trillion from 2006 to 2015.

With significant unmet domestic needs and the looming cost to the Treasury of the baby boomers' retirement programs--which by conservative estimates from the administration will consume 70 percent of the entire Federal budget by 2030--what kind of economy is lurking around the corner in 2011?

Instead of making the tax cuts permanent, we should be leveling with the American people about the fiscally shaky ground we are on. What we should be doing is spending our time on tax reform. We all know that fundamental tax reform is critical, and as we consider the tax provisions, such as the AMT, as I just mentioned, it becomes clearer and clearer we need to overhaul our Tax Code. So I simply cannot understand why some of my colleagues want to make so many provisions of the current Tax Code permanent or add new tax cuts when we very well may be eliminating precisely the same provisions as part of fundamental tax reform. No homeowner would remodel their kitchen and bathroom right before tearing down the house to build a newer and better one.

As the one who amended and pushed for the creation of the task force on tax reform in 2003 and 2004, I was delighted when the President, in his convention acceptance speech, said he would move forward with tax reform. In fact, 2 days after the convention--Ohio was sitting right in front of the President when he was giving his acceptance speech. He said: When I mentioned tax reform, I watched you, Voinovich. He said: You jumped out of your seat, and I thought you were going to run up and hug me because you were so happy we were going to do the tax reform.

I have to say that I am disappointed. I feel bad that the administration has backed away from tax reform as a priority, since simplifying the Code to make it more fair and honest could, by some estimates, save taxpayers over

$265 billion in costs associated with preparing their taxes. That would be a real tax reduction. And do you know what. It would not cost the Treasury one darn dime. It would be a tax cut that would guarantee that people are paying their fair share and would bring more money into the Federal Treasury.

According to the Tax Foundation, we lose about 22 cents of every dollar of income tax collected in compliance costs. It adds up to the combined budgets of the Departments of Education, Homeland Security, Justice, Treasury, Labor, Transportation, Veterans Affairs, Health and Human Services, and NASA.

In a recent conversation with Rob Portman, a longtime friend of mine, who is our new OMB Director, I communicated my call for Tax Code reformation. I said if the President wanted to leave a real lasting legacy, a real lasting legacy to the American people, something he could point back to and be very proud of, he would keep his promise to the American people to undertake tax reform.

If we keep going the way we are, his legacy may be a big tax increase in 2009 or 2010 or 2011, one like his father was forced to make in 1991. I believe--and I have the greatest respect for the President and his father--his father was a profile in courage. He bit the bullet and did what was right for the country and, in the process, probably lost an election.

If we are going to provide the American people a clear picture of the shape of our fiscal house, we should be honest about the long-term problems underneath the facade of our fiscal house. Currently, we are distorting our Federal financial statements by borrowing from hundreds of Federal trust funds. In addition to the $1.6 trillion we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, we have borrowed over $660 billion from the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund, $177 billion from the military retirement fund, and smaller amounts from almost 130 Federal trust funds. In all, we have borrowed almost $3.3 trillion of funds intended for other purposes. All of this has added to our $8.4 trillion national debt.

I believe we should keep the shrinking Social Security surplus separate. It is important to set these funds so that the Federal Government will have real assets that can be used to redeem existing special issue Treasury bills when Social Security stops generating surpluses in 2017. When we were looking at Social Security reform, it occurred to some of us that it would be useless to reform the program if the surplus money still went to general revenues. If we shore up the system without keeping the funding for it separate, the benefit of Social Security reform could simply be spent on other related programs. In other words, if we bite the bullet, reform Social Security, take in more money and don't put it aside so we can't touch it, we will just use it. We will be back where we were before. So we have to figure out, if we are going to do this, how we put the money aside.

One of the things I have worked on--and I have introduced a bill with Senator Conrad--is that we would stop the raid on Government trust funds. It not only holds revenues designated for Social Security programs separate from general revenues, it also would make Federal financing more transparent. People would know what the public debt is. In other words, we would fundamentally borrow from the public the money that we have been taking from the trust funds, and we would know that the money in the trust funds would be there because it would not be in Federal investments.

At this time we need reliable financial and performance information to make sound policy decisions. If we were in business, we would be in subchapter 11, absolutely. We need to bring transparency to our budget so that all the American people have a better understanding of the hard choices we have to make.

Typically the American people have not tolerated a tax level of any more than 20 percent of GDP. We reached that level of almost 21 percent when the tax cuts we enacted made revenues decrease quickly. The real danger is the divide between our revenue and spending once the baby boomers start to retire. This dotted line is going to rise to levels not given on this chart. In other words, this dotted line is going to go way up in terms of dealing with our outlays. The revenues, as you can see, they were up pretty high. This is 1980. They went up. Then we got over here when we were flush, and they went up to here. Now the revenues are down here and then coming here. This line of spending is going to go right off the chart, as I mentioned before, because of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

The American people should understand what this is about. We are really in trouble. The question is, if we don't have enough revenue to pay our current bills, how in the world are we going to prepare to cover much larger future promises? How are we going to take care of this? In the big picture of where the United States stands, it is clear to me that the economic framework of our Nation needs to be refurbished. There are certain investments and responsibilities that this Senator believes we can no longer ignore and must address.

We should be rebuilding an infrastructure of competitiveness so that future generations at least have the same opportunity that we had for the standard of living and quality of life we have. We need to build what I referred to earlier. We are in a competitive global marketplace. What we have to understand is, if we don't build the infrastructure of competitiveness to compete in that marketplace, our children's standard of living is going to be less than what ours is today.

One of the things I also think we need to understand is the fact that our infrastructure has been ignored for too long. It is a critical piece to making America more competitive. I have introduced the National Infrastructure Improvement Act with Senators Clinton and Cochran. The bill establishes the National Commission on the Infrastructure of the United States which would study infrastructure throughout the Nation, including surface transportation facilities such as roads, bridges, mass transit facilities, freight and passenger rail, airports, wastewater collection, and treatment facilities, waterways and levees. I was a cosponsor of the highway bill, but I thought the legislation was modest given the need.

Frankly, it falls far short of the level that would improve or even maintain our Nation's highway system. According to the Federal Highway Administration, $107 billion is needed annually to maintain and improve our highways and bridges. The enacted highway bill provides $70.4 billion below what is needed to improve and $38.8 billion below what is needed to maintain our highway system. We also desperately need to provide increased funding for the Army Corps of Engineers, including funding for levees and funding for additional civil engineers. This Nation has an aging national water resources infrastructure. We saw it with Katrina. If we continue to ignore the upkeep, the deterioration of our locks and dams, flood control projects and navigation channels, we risk destruction of waterborne commerce, decreased protection against floods, as we saw in Katrina, and other environmental damage.

I have been concerned about the backlog of unfunded Corps projects since I was chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure in 1999. When I arrived in the Senate in 1999, I was chairman of that committee. The backlog of unfunded corps projects for operation and maintenance was $250 million. Today the backlog is $1.2 billion. In 2001, there was $38 billion in active water resource projects waiting for Federal funding. Today it is $41 billion in active construction and general projects that need Federal funding. This budget is only going to increase this backlog. Our budget proposes a 33-percent cut in the Corps construction budget. Can you imagine? After Katrina and what we saw in New Orleans in terms of not spending the money to maintain the levees and build them the right way, we are cutting the construction budget 33 percent, and a 42-percent cut in the Corps investigations budget.

Currently, the Corps is able to function only at 50 percent capacity at the rate of funding proposed by the budget. Can you believe this? It is incredible. We also cannot remain competitive without a workforce full of educated and motivated young Americans.

As a Nation, we have to invest in our children and enable them to fully develop their God-given talents in order

to compete in a knowledge-based global economy. We have to have knowledge-based jobs if our people are going to work. This means we have to place more emphasis on careers in science, engineering, and math. 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, down from third place several decades ago. In fact, the percentage of 24- year-olds with science or engineering degrees is now higher in many industrialized nations. Countries such as England, South Korea, Germany, Australia, Singapore, Japan, and Canada all produce a higher percentage of science and engineering graduates than we.

The National Academy of Sciences released a report this fall, entitled ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' that recommends action the Federal Government should take to enhance our ability to compete in a global marketplace. The recommendations range from those that will improve our Nation's math and science course work and establish a workforce of qualified teachers who will prepare our students for futures in highly innovative careers to the critical need for energy independence and investment in research. It is hard for me to believe the statistics that came out of the report. Half the teachers who teach math and science today are not qualified to teach the subjects.

I did a survey of our State universities to find out how many people graduated to teach physics. Thirteen was the number. How in the world can we keep going with that kind of record?

I am encouraged that the President recognized that America needs to wake up and build a new infrastructure for competitiveness, and I applaud his American competitiveness agenda. Also, I joined a number of my colleagues as an original cosponsor of the Protecting America's Competitive Edge Act, or PACE. This legislation is aimed at improving our Nation's competitiveness through advancement and emphasis on math and science education. Like the President's initiative, this legislation is comprehensive and it is aimed to increase our Nation's research capacities and emphasize strong science and math education. However, it will require a larger national commitment to reengage our Nation's youth in science and math, similar to our response in the late 1950s to Russia's launch of Sputnik and the ensuing space race.

Here the President's budget falls far short of what is necessary to fulfill the recommendations of the report. In other words, if we are going to really do something about this crisis that we have in terms of math and science, we are going to have to fund the recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences. The only thing that is being funded right now in the President's competitiveness agenda is retraining of teachers in high school, making the research and development credit permanent, and doing some work in research that will help us deal with our energy crisis. The portion of the report that talks about scholarships from the Department of Energy is not funded. The report calls for 25,000 scholarships out of the Department of Energy at $20,000 a year to encourage people to study engineering.

It also provides out of the Department of Education $20,000 a year for students to take math, science, information technology, and education courses. And they commit that after 5 years they will teach for 5 years. In other words, they will get their undergraduate degree and teach for 5 years. During those 5 years, the National Science Foundation will pay them $10,000 more than what the local school district pays them. So it is a real comprehensive effort to deal with the crisis that we have today in terms of providing the scientists we need to get the job done.

The bottom line is, we don't need less revenue; we need more revenue. As a Wall Street Journal article states:

Federal taxes amounted to 17.5 percent of gross domestic

product, up from a modern low of 16.3 percent in 2004.

That is one of the reasons the debt has gone up so much, like a rocket. It is because in 2004, we were only taking in 16.3 percent of our GDP in revenue. But it was well below the high of 21 percent that we had in 2000. That was too much.

Continuing from the Wall Street Journal:

Keeping the tax burden low is going to be difficult. Last

year, the federal government's spending exceeded its tax take

by about $318 billion. And the retirement of the baby-boom

generation starting in 2011 could cause spending on big-

ticket federal retirement programs to jump.

That is the quote from the Wall Street Journal. The only thing that bothers me about the quote is that they reported the debt last year of $318 billion. That is what they reported. The fact is, from an accrual basis--it comes out of the Department of the Treasury--we increased the debt by $740 billion. But we only report to the American people $318 billion. Several weeks ago, we were talking about the fact that the Treasury announced that on an accrual basis we increased our debt by that amount of money. Someone said, why don't we keep our books on the accrual basis? Somebody said, for goodness sakes, we cannot do that because they will find out how much in debt we are and how much our budgets are not balanced.

So I think that with the baby boom generation starting to retire in 2011, we will have some real problems. The simple fact is we cannot have it all. We need to set priorities and make hard choices; otherwise, our children will end up paying for it. Our forefathers recognized the inequity of passing on debt to future generations. George Washington in his Farewell Address stated:

[Avoid] the accumulation of debt, not only by shutting

occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of

peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have

occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the

burden which we ourselves ought to bear.

Again, he said ``not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.''

I have to say this, and I know it is controversial, but if you look at the extraordinary costs that we had with the war and homeland security and Katrina, the logical thing that one would think about is to ask for a temporary tax increase to pay for them. Did you hear that? Ask for a temporary tax to pay for it, instead of saying we will let our kids take care of it; we will let our grandchildren take care of it. No, we are not doing it. The people who are sacrificing today in this country are the ones who have lost men and women in our wars. The people who have sacrificed today are the ones who have come back without their arms and legs--thousands of them. They are making the sacrifice.

The question I ask is, what sacrifice are we making?

Anyone in the know who is watching us has to wonder about our character, our intellectual honesty, our concern about our national security, our Nation's competitiveness in the global marketplace now and in the future and, last but not least, our don't-give-a-darn attitude about the standard of living and quality of life of our children and grandchildren.

The question is, are we willing to be honest with ourselves and the American people and make these tough decisions? My two models when I was mayor and Governor were ``together we can do it,'' and our State motto, ``With God All Things Are Possible.''

I am prayerful that the Holy Spirit will inspire us to make those tough decisions and do what is right for our country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote to confirm Michael R. Barrett, whom the President has nominated to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

Mr. Barrett has a distinguished and impressive record as a prosecutor, a defense attorney, and a community leader, and he has deep roots in southwest Ohio.

Mr. Barrett is a graduate of the University of Cincinnati, where he obtained his bachelor of arts in 1974, and his law degree in 1977. After graduating from law school, Mr. Barrett served as an administrative hearing officer for the State of Ohio and then joined the Hamilton County prosecutor's office as an assistant prosecuting attorney. When he joined the prosecutor's office, Mr. Barrett was assigned to the Felony Trial Division, where he participated in investigations, grand jury proceedings, and felony trials. In 1983, Mr. Barrett was promoted to be a chief assistant of the Felony Trial Division.

In 1984, Mr. Barrett joined Graydon, Head & Ritchey, where he worked on both criminal and civil matters, initially as an associate before being promoted to partner. In 1995, he joined his current firm, Barrett & Weber, where he has continued to practice in the same areas of law.

Mr. Barrett's law practice includes criminal defense work covering the spectrum of the Criminal Code. In addition, Mr. Barrett maintains an active civil litigation practice including recent securities law matters in which he has represented individual plaintiffs as well as the attorney general's office for the State of Ohio. His practice has earned him several listings in ``Best Lawyers in America'' and ``Ohio Super Lawyers.'' In addition, Mr. Barrett has received the Outstanding Service Award as a Mediator from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. In sum, Mr. Barrett has the broad courtroom experience that will serve him well as a federal judge.

Mr. Barrett has also served on the Supreme Court of Ohio's Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, which evidences the high esteem in which members of the Ohio bar hold him and is testimony of his excellent character.

As a result of Mr. Barrett's fine academic and professional achievements, I am not surprised that the American Bar Association found Mr. Barrett qualified to serve as a Federal district court judge.

Mr. Barrett's legal credentials are not the only reasons I support his nomination. In an age where I believe too many people do not take the time to become active members of their communities, Mr. Barrett has been a community leader. Some of Mr. Barrett's community activities include his current service on the board of trustees of Talbert House, a Cincinnati-area social service organization; his current service as a director of Boys Hope/Girls Hope of Cincinnati, an organization designed to provide an array of services for at-risk children; and his past service as a trustee of Children's Services of Hamilton County. When I was Governor of Ohio, I was pleased to appoint Mr. Barrett to the board of trustees of the University of Cincinnati. He served 9 years on the board of trustees, including a period as chairman.

Involvement in one's community is important. We need judges who not only have exceptional legal skills but who also recognize how the law impacts individuals and communities. I believe Mr. Barrett has this understanding because he is out in his community every day.

In reviewing Mr. Barrett's academic and professional record, it is clear that he is well qualified to serve as a Federal district court judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, and I urge my colleagues to support his nomination.

Mr. President, I rise today to commend and congratulate Dr. Carol Cartwright who, after 15 outstanding years, is set to retire as president of Kent State University in Kent, OH.

Kent State was originally founded in 1910 as a teacher-training school. It has a proud history of meeting the evolving needs of northeast Ohio and the Nation, and throughout her time on campus, President Cartwright worked hard to ensure that this commitment to history was preserved.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate President Cartwright on successfully overseeing one of the Nation's largest university systems with an annual budget of more than $416.1 million and eight campuses serving about 34,000 students from throughout Ohio and the Nation, and from more than 90 countries.

Dr. Cartwright has earned many distinctions in her tenure at Kent State University--she was the first female president of a State university in Ohio when she took the helm in 1991 as the university's 10th president. Her presidency has been marked by innovations that have fostered economic growth on the campus and in the community. I am especially thankful for her work to train students for careers in underpopulated fields, and focus on unique courses of study to accommodate all students.

As a member of the Greater Akron Chamber and the Northeast Ohio Council on Higher Education; a cochair of the Ohio Technology in Education Committee; the Governor's Commission on Higher Education and the Economy; and the Ohio Business Development Coalition, President Cartwright worked to ensure that a cooperative relationship between students and industry was strong on her campus. In fact, she welcomed the Northeast Ohio Trade & Economic Consortium, NEOTEC, an economic development partnership that promotes trade, business, and economic opportunities for northeast Ohio to Kent State University's campus to further students' connection to future employment opportunities.

In 2004, the Kent Campus also became the site for NEOTEC's new regional International Trade Assistance Center, providing free information, resources, referrals, and counseling to small businesses, and expanded services such as market research. Also, in 2004, a new, market-driven Division of Regional Development was created to allow Kent State to serve a much wider constituency, develop mutually beneficial partnerships, and do an even better job of matching faculty and staff expertise with northeast Ohio's educational and economic needs. Further, working with the local Small Business Development Center, headquartered in Kent State's College of Business Administration,

students are now exposed to real-world experiences while providing business and industry with essential new ideas and out-of-the-box thinking.

These kinds of partnerships and innovations will carry Ohio into the next era of progress and development, and Kent State will be an important part of that success. Already, 10 start-up companies have been created in the last 6 years to capitalize on Kent State faculty research and add to the economic growth in the region. This is real- world research that benefits society, consumers, and the university.

Under Carol Cartwright's leadership, Kent State was named by the Association of University Technology Managers as fourth in the Nation for the number of start-up companies formed per $10 million in research spending. Kent State also plays an important leadership role in JumpStart Inc., a new organization to help advance technology commercialization and foster economic development in Ohio.

Overall, President Cartwright's presidency has been marked by a commitment to developing students who are leaders and experts in innovation and service. Kent State has launched degree programs in high-demand and emerging fields, including an interdisciplinary undergraduate program in biotechnology that is unique in the State of Ohio; an interdisciplinary bachelor's program in American Sign Language; a baccalaureate program in paralegal studies; and the first graduate programs in Russian and Japanese at a public university in northeast Ohio. The revolutionary joint doctoral program in biomedicine with the Cleveland Clinic Foundation matches some of America's best and brightest students with world-class medical training opportunities, and Kent State is a partner in the Nation's only joint, 4-year doctoral program in audiology.

Her commitment to preparing students for the future and working with regional economic growth initiatives should be a model for colleges and universities across the country to emulate.

I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing and commending President Cartwright on an excellent job of leading Kent State through an age of innovation and extraordinary achievement during her tenure. I wish her well on her upcoming retirement.

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

Mr. President, I rise to, first, commend Senators Lott and Collins for bringing the underlying bill to the floor of the Senate. I know both worked extremely hard to pass their respective pieces from the Rules Committee and the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Second, I want to make one thing clear: I strongly support lobbying reforms that protect the integrity of our legislative process, close loopholes, promote moral/ethical behavior, and enforce our Senate rules. Any reforms that make sense that are not cosmetic should be given the strongest consideration by this body. I am particularly pleased that this bill requires the completion of an ethics training program conducted by the Ethics Committee within 120 days of enactment for current Members of the Senate and staff as well as requiring training for incoming Members and staff. It is not mandatory today. It is voluntary. This makes it mandatory, which is an improvement.

The Senate Ethics Committee professional nonpartisan staff already conduct numerous ethics lectures and seminars for the Senate community. The Ethics Committee staff also regularly conducts training for individual Member's offices upon request. In addition, the Ethics Committee staff receives and responds to over 200 calls per week asking specific questions about rules compliance. While I applaud the many positive aspects of the proposed lobbying reform bill, this amendment to create an Office of Public Integrity is off target and unnecessary. As a member of the Ethics Committee for 8 years and chairman for the past 3, I oppose the proposed OPI because it will harm the Senate ethics process rather than improve it.

If adopted, the OPI will introduce partisan politics into a process that has been bipartisan. It is interesting to note that none of the sponsors of this OPI has served on the Ethics Committee, and all Members of the Ethics Committee currently, and others, are opposed to it. By its very design, the OPI will simply replicate the tasks the Ethics Committee does every day, including receiving complaints against Members and staff and investigating allegations of misconduct. Given all the other duties of the Ethics Committee staff and the need for the Ethics Committee to have its own counsel when reviewing the Director's recommendation, there would not be any reduction in the staff of the Ethics Committee. More importantly, the OPI would add a duplicate investigative stage because the Ethics Committee will need to conduct its own investigation to verify the merits of any complaint it receives from the Director of the OPI; otherwise, the Ethics Committee would be acting irresponsibly.

Some proponents of the OPI have argued that the Ethics Committee cannot or does not get the job done. They believe that a third party must be appointed to ensure that nefarious acts are not committed within these walls. The fact that the Ethics Committee has an excellent track record of enforcement seems to have been forgotten by those who have taken this position, although I must say that the Senator from Maine has been very complimentary to the chairman of the Ethics Committee and the work we are doing. I am appreciative of that.

Other OPI proponents argue that despite the great work of the Ethics Committee, the appearance of Senators enforcing our rules on other Senators is a problem that OPI will fix. Some of this criticism appears to be based on the fact that Members of the Ethics Committee and its staff are obligated to keep matters confidential. We can't talk to people about things. It is easy for critics to point and sneer when the committee and its members are obliged to confidentiality and are prohibited from responding to questions and criticism. Frankly, I believe it is the Ethics Committee's commitment to keep matters confidential that causes some to question the effectiveness and values of the Ethics Committee. However, it is this confidentiality that provides due process protection for Members and staff and keeps partisan politics out of the ethics process. These confidentiality provisions provide due process protection for Members while keeping partisan politics out of the ethics process.

Nevertheless, if a colleague acts in a way that is contrary to the rules of conduct of the Senate, the Ethics Committee has the ability and the duty to investigate the allegation, and it does

so. Right now we have a right to initiate investigations without a complaint. In terms of reading something in the newspaper, something brought to our attention and it seems like it casts a bad reflection upon the Members of the Senate, we have often sent letters off to Senators saying: We have seen this. We want you to respond to it.

Frankly, that is why the proposed OPI is somewhat offensive. It suggests that Members lack the moral conviction to make difficult decisions when a fellow Member has acted in violation of the Senate rules.

While sitting in judgment of one's peers is never easy, the Ethics Committee conducts itself with a sense that the reputation of the Senate is above any individual Member. In my opinion--I hope my colleagues will agree with me after considering this amendment--the OPI and its independent counsel is more cosmetic and, frankly, problematic. It seems as if proponents of the measure understand that as well. In fact, proponents of the OPI offered a much more robust proposal during the markup of the lobbying reform bill in the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The proposal was soundly defeated in a bipartisan manner. Recognizing all of the other flaws in the earlier proposal, this amendment strips away all of the other elements of the earlier proposal to offer nothing more than the creation of an independent counsel within the Senate.

Frankly, I am confused. On the one hand, one would believe that in offering this amendment, faith in the Senate Ethics Committee would be low. However, the scaled-back version of the OPI suggests that the proponents recognize the Senate Ethics Committee is doing its job but still want to force this independent counsel on the Senate for no reason than to appease the media, frankly, and some of the watchdog groups. I keep hearing the public doesn't have any confidence in the process. There have been complaints about what has happened over in the other House. But the fact is, to my knowledge, we have not had complaints about the work of the Senate Ethics Committee. Certainly, I haven't heard any complaints from any of my constituents about this work, and I am chairman of the committee.

Despite the misunderstandings and commentary by various groups, the Ethics Committee is already a vigorous enforcer of Senate rules. The Ethics Committee and its 11 professional, nonpartisan staff, including 5 nonpartisan attorneys with many years of prosecutorial and investigative experience, are there to initiate investigations based on complaints from Members and staff, outside individuals and groups, as well as on its own initiative. What I am saying is, if this stuff comes to the attention of the staff, they go out and do the investigation. They look into the matter. They bring it to us and ask us: Do you think we should go forward. It is not as though we are controlling what they can do. That is one of the things the proposal for the independent counsel doesn't recognize. They are already in a position to do that. We are proposing to do what we are already doing.

With the assistance of this professional nonpartisan staff, the Senate Ethics Committee is doing exactly what our colleagues and the American people should expect of us--protecting the integrity of the Senate and vigorously pursuing and sanctioning Senators and staff who violate the rules of the Senate. I have not heard any evidence to the contrary.

The tradition of the Ethics Committee doing its job is a long one. For over 40 years, the Ethics Committee has operated in a way to meet the constitutional mandate that each body establish rules, investigate its Members for disorderly behavior, and hand out appropriate punishment. The Ethics Committee continues to meet this mandate today, and it does so in a bipartisan manner. In fact, published accounts reveal that the Ethics Committee has considered allegations involving some 35 Senators, all but 3 of which occurred after 1977.

While these Members include only public allegations, frankly, this reveals that the Senate Ethics Committee has not had the problem of partisan gridlock that has affected the House ethics process. If we create a Senate OPI, however, I can almost guarantee the Ethics Committee will become partisan and gridlocked, especially in the present political environment.

This is also why all six members of the Ethics Committee, three Republicans and three Democrats, oppose creation of the OPI. Over the years, the Ethics Committee has benefited from a bipartisan working relationship. This positive working relationship could be quickly lost under this new independent counsel. Moreover, the OPI appears designed to result in conflict and disagreement between the Ethics Committee and the Director of the OPI.

First, Members should understand the three-stage process that has been proposed under the OPI and understand why this proposal would ruin the bipartisan nature of the system as well as creating an adversarial relationship between the Ethics Committee and the Director.

At each stage of the OPI process, if the Director, prosecutor, independent counsel, or whatever you want to call him or her, determines that he or she believes there are sufficient grounds to conduct or proceed with an investigation, then the Director would notify the Ethics Committee. The Ethics Committee then has the opportunity to overrule the determination by a two-thirds vote. But if the Ethics Committee disagrees with the Director and votes to overrule, the Ethics Committee is required to issue a public report which would include a record of how each Member voted. While this OPI amendment does not specify what should be included in these public reports, as a practical matter, these public reports will include the Member's name, facts about the alleged misconduct, and the rationale for rejecting the Director's recommendations. By requiring the public report, a Member's name will be disclosed even if the Ethics Committee determines there is no violation of the rules.

I think this new public reporting process will turn the existing Senate ethics process into a political public relations battle rather than a determination on the merits of each matter. What's more, the Director is not likely to be happy that the Ethics Committee disagreed with his or her conclusions.

If you bring it in, talk about it, and then if you disagree with independent counsel and you have a vote, this will go back and forth. Then Members will start worrying about how they are voting in terms of the fact that they disagreed with the independent counsel's decision. Then we get into the issue of your votes in terms of various Members who are before the committee and having Members in your own caucus coming up to you and saying: Why did you vote that way or why didn't you vote this way? These considerations are not part of our decisionmaking today. This is a nuance that I think many people don't understand. That is how we keep this.

People ask me about cases, and I say ``no comment.'' The media asks, and I say ``no comment.'' Once the name is out there, Katey, bar the door--especially today, unfortunately, in this partisan, political environment.

I want to take a second to point out something that is obvious but may be overlooked in this debate. Issuing a subpoena to a Member of the Senate is a very serious matter, and Members know it. The heart of the subpoena power is a big stick that the Ethics Committee must occasionally use to enforce information requests during an investigation. The subpoena power is used judiciously. This power should not be delegated lightly as the OPI proposes to do.

Proponents of the OPI also suggest that the Director of the OPI will be responsible and answerable to the Ethics Committee throughout the process. In fact, this Director would not be answerable and responsible throughout the process. After the Ethics Committee approves the Director's initial decision to begin an investigation, the Director would have the unchecked power to investigate. These investigations may go on as long as the Director, in his or her sole discretion, sees fit.

We all know that independent of any power to sanction, the power to investigate is itself an awesome power and may itself impose on the subject of the investigation a heavy burden to his or her resources, to his or her reputation, to his or her ability to represent and serve constituents fully and effectively. The OPI amendment would resurrect the independent counsel in the

institution of the Senate. This would serve neither the interests of this institution nor the public.

Finally, inherent conflict between the Ethics Committee and the Director, as I mentioned, is built into the way this determination is made.

Advocates of the OPI state that the process would remove politics from the ethics process. I can guarantee you that by creating this independent counsel, politics would not only play a part in the ethics process but would be a decisive factor to every inquiry. Members of the Ethics Committee would have to explain why they voted the way they did to the media, their colleagues, and party members. Partisan considerations will transform a now bipartisan decisionmaking process into another partisan battle. The Senate has had enough of some of these partisan problems.

I also find it troubling that Members believe it is better policy to turn over the investigative process to an unelected and unaccountable individual rather than leaving such an important responsibility with Members who respect the Senate as an institution and are accountable to the voters every 6 years.

I also want to take a step back and discuss another reason proponents of the OPI claim it is necessary. Throughout the entirety of the recent scandals, reports appear that cast doubts upon the integrity of everybody on Capitol Hill. There is a belief that the Senate Ethics Committee was asleep at the wheel--or even worse, indifferent to the allegations in the Abramoff-related matter. As detailed in the committee response to Democracy 21, which is posted on the Ethics Committee Web site, the committee voted to follow its general practice of not initiating an investigation that might interfere with an ongoing Department of Justice criminal investigation. We keep hearing complaints from Democracy 21 and others that ``you guys should be involved in the Abramoff case.'' We discussed it and decided to follow the procedure we followed in the past. The Justice Department said: Keep your nose out of this. Let us do our work. When we are done, we will come to you.

We had the same case in terms of Senator Torricelli. He was under investigation--this is public knowledge--by the Justice Department and, for some reason, they decided not to prosecute him. They sent the stuff to us after they did their investigation. By the way, it was helpful to us because we had the Justice Department investigation before us. As a result of that, we censured as a public admonition of Senator Torricelli. He decided not to seek reelection to the Senate. So I just want you to know that the opposition to this is a bipartisan opposition. People who have been around here and have been through the process understand that we are getting the job done.

One other thing that I think will help is annual reports. As you know, right now we don't have to report what we do. People at home come up to me and say: What are you doing?

I say: I am chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee.

They say: What about it?

I cannot talk about it.

What do you do?

I cannot talk about it. There is no record on this, and I put out an annual report every year and cannot talk about what we have accomplished.

We have an amendment that we got in the committee, when it was marked up, that says we will report each year everything that we do. Members' names will not be mentioned, but at least the public will know that we are doing our work and we are not just sitting there letting everything pass us by. I am not sure that is going to satisfy some of the public interest groups, or that it will satisfy some of the media who have taken shots at me editorially because they think we are trying to hide something.

But the fact is, we are trying to get the job done. We must preserve the reputation of this Senate. So I want to say that I think the creation of the OPI is not a positive step forward and, in fact, it would diminish the job that is being done in the Senate to enforce our ethics laws and rules.

Mr. President, I reserve my time.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from South Dakota.

I yield up to 5 minutes to Senator Stevens.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

How much time does the Senator need?

I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. President, I yield time to the Senator from Utah. How much time do I have remaining?

I yield 7 minutes.

Again, the time remaining, Mr. President?

I yield the Senator from Arkansas up to 10 minutes.

How much time do I have?

Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. President, first, I again compliment the chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee for the good job she and the committee have done in proposing legislation that will make a difference in the Senate and in the Congress. I respect everything the Senator has done. Some of the amendments making mandatory some of the things we are doing voluntarily I welcome. I thank the Senator.

One thing I have tried to do is to inform Members about what the rules are so they do not get in trouble. I point out that even though the amendment is well motivated and meant to help the Ethics Committee, all six members of the Ethics Committee on a bipartisan basis oppose it. The Ethics Committee is the investigative arm of the Senate. It is a nonpartisan investigator of all matters brought before the Ethics Committee and, something some Members are not happy about, matters that are not brought before us, on the complaint of some, that we recognize, through the media, there is a problem with one of the Members, and we get involved in it. We do not have to wait for someone to file a complaint. We are the watchdog of the Senate. We want to protect the Senate's reputation. We admonish, we censor and, in some cases, eject Members of this Senate for not upholding the high standards all Members are expected to uphold after being elected to this Senate.

I do not believe this is going to mend the problem in terms of public confidence. As I have mentioned, except for recently some criticisms, we did not get involved in the Abramoff investigation. Overall, in terms of the public, the Senate Ethics Committee has been doing the job they are supposed to do under the Constitution. Again, I underscore in terms of Abramoff, we did not get involved because of the fact that the Justice Department asked us not to get involved. They thought it would interfere with their investigation. I assure Members of the Senate and I assure the public and other groups that are looking in on us, once that investigation is finished and the information is sent here, if one of our Members or several Members are involved, we will fully investigate that. If those individuals have violated the rules of the Senate, they will be properly dealt with by the Ethics Committee.

In terms of the specific parts of this legislation, I bring up something that has a problem, and that is that every time the Ethics Committee disagrees with the Office of Public Integrity, we have to have a published vote of the committee. As a result of that, what will happen, in my opinion, is that after a while, where the Ethics Committee does not agree with the Office of Public Integrity, you will build up an adversarial type of relationship. Members, in terms of how they vote, will start taking into consideration, gee, it is going to be public that we disagreed with this guy and people will ask, why did you disagree with that, and we get into that whole area of questioning people's motivation.

It also gets us involved in partisanship, Members asking, why did you vote that particular way? You had a chance maybe to harm some other Member because of political reasons. Or why did you pick on one of our Members?

This job is a very tough job. It is not a job that makes one popular with his

colleagues in this Senate. I believe rather than helping the situation, in spite of the fine motivation of the people sponsoring this amendment, rather than helping, it is going to hurt the situation and also make it very difficult in the future to have Members being willing to serve as a member of the Senate Ethics Committee.