Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of the bipartisan amendment proposed by Senators Hagel and Pryor to add a climate change title to the Energy bill. I commend them for their leadership on this very important issue.

Man's relationship with the world's climate has long been a focus of scientists and policymakers. Thirty years ago, there was great concern about global cooling, as evidenced by articles in Science Digest in February, 1973, entitled ``Brace Yourself for an Ice Age'' and Time Magazine in June, 1974, entitled ``Another Ice Age?''

Today, many are worried instead about global warming, with claims that urgent and dramatic actions are needed to avoid catastrophic impacts. As the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, I have spent a great deal of time studying this issue, as our committee has held numerous hearings on climate change.

The chairman of the committee, Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma, has spent countless hours personally examining climate change science. He has recently given several speeches on the Senate floor, pointing out serious flaws in the four principal beliefs underlying what some call a consensus on global warming. His work points out very clearly that we are far from a consensus and many questions remain.

I am hopeful today he will take the floor some time to go into more of the details on that, as he has in the past.

Despite the scientific debate, the issue of global warming and proposals to address this perceived threat have received a lot of attention lately in the Senate. On one side of this debate, there are proposals to create a mandatory domestic program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as the amendment that will be proposed by Senator McCain, to my understanding, and I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

It is my understanding that the amendment, according to Charles Rivers Associates, which analyzed its provisions, would cause the loss of 24,000 to 47,000 Ohio jobs, in 2010, and energy-intensive industries to shrink by 2.3 to 5.6 percent in 2020. We are talking about manufacturing industries, energy-intensive manufacturing and chemical and many others.

The McCain amendment will put coal out of business by forcing fuel switching to natural gas. This might even be why some organizations are pushing this amendment. Last year, I was shocked to read that a Sierra Legal Defense Fund staff lawyer said:

In general, our long-term objective is to make sure that

coal-fired plants get closed.

This is an unacceptable outcome for my State and our Nation. Nearly 90 percent of Ohio's electricity comes from coal. For the Nation, it is about 50 percent. Companies depend on this low-cost energy to compete in the global marketplace. We do not live in a cocoon. Companies are moving overseas because of increased health care costs, litigation costs, and energy costs are also a major factor.

According to a recent survey of industrial executives, the No. 1 barrier to U.S. manufacturing growth in the coming year is high energy prices. It becomes even more costly for companies to operate in this country when you consider the new air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter. States and localities have yet to fully understand how difficult and expensive it will be to come in compliance with the standards.

Over the last decade, the use of natural gas in electricity generation has risen significantly, while domestic supplies of natural gas have fallen.

That is why we are trying to do something about more natural gas in this Energy bill. The results are predictable: Tightening supplies of natural gas, higher natural gas prices, and higher electricity prices.

Because of this situation, U.S. natural gas prices are the highest in the developed world. Families that use natural gas to heat their homes, farmers that use it to make fertilizer, and the manufacturers who use it as a feed stock are getting hammered due to these higher costs.

The chemical industry's 8-decade run as a major exporter ended in 2003 with a $19 billion trade surplus in 1997 becoming a $9.6 billion deficit.

So we have lost the chemical industry for all intents and purposes because of the high cost of natural gas.

The President of one major pharmaceutical company that employs 22,000 people in the United States called me recently and said unless we do something about natural gas prices, his company will be forced to move many of its operations overseas.

The bottom line is, if you kill coal with a mandatory cap on carbon, you force more people to go to natural gas to produce electricity. We just add to the crisis that we already have.

The energy bill tries to address this crisis, but the amendment we are going

to be getting later on would reverse those efforts and cause an even worse situation than what exists today. The U.S. has a responsibility to develop a policy that harmonizes the needs of our economy and our environment. These are not competing needs. A sustainable environment is critical to a strong economy, and a sustainable economy is critical to providing the funding necessary to improve our environment.

If we kill the golden goose, we will not have the money for the technology to do the things that we need to do, to improve the environment. A carbon cap--and that is what we are going to be hearing more about--means fuel switching, the end of manufacturing in my State, enormous burdens on the least of our brethren, and moving jobs and production overseas.

It is already happening. We have a $162 billion trade deficit with China and almost all of it is in the manufacturing area. These are people who are moving out because of the high cost of producing here in the United States.

Ironically, a carbon cap, a cap on carbon, as I say, is going to have a dramatic negative impact on our manufacturing. A couple of years ago, when Senator Jeffords was promoting a bill that would put a cap on carbon, I said to him: Senator, those jobs that you are killing in Ohio are not going to Vermont. They are going to China, and they are going to go to India.

I have also discussed this issue twice with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has made climate change one of the focuses of the upcoming G8 meeting. I think he understands that Kyoto is not working, and we need to do something else.

Furthermore, many of the countries that did ratify the Kyoto treaty are not expected to meet their commitments. According to a Washington Times article of May 16 entitled ``Broken Promises, Hot Air,'' 12 of the 15 European Union countries are currently 20 to 70 percent above their emissions target levels.

I think the Senator from Idaho mentioned earlier in his remarks that the Italians have basically said they are not going to be able to meet their commitments that they made when they signed the Kyoto treaty.

So last week I became a cosponsor of three pieces of legislation that comprehensively address climate change by focusing on tax incentives, technology development, and international deployment.

The amendment that we have proposed today contains the domestic and international proposal. It does not include the tax incentives because the Energy bill now includes an amendment by the Finance Committee to add over $14 billion, over 10 years, in tax incentives.

I will only briefly explain the amendment since it has been explained by colleagues. It proposes the adoption of technologies that reduce greenhouse gas intensity by creating a Climate Coordinating Committee and Climate Credit Board to assess, approve, and fund projects. Addressing climate change must be accomplished through the development of new technologies, as there currently is no technology available to capture and control carbon dioxide emissions.

Many people today are promoting combined gas--integrated gas combined cycle technology, which will reduce NOx and SOx and deal with mercury. The fact of the matter is, in terms of greenhouse gases, it does not get the job done.

Second, the amendment focuses on the notion that all nations must be part of this effort. It directs the Department of State to work with the top 25 greenhouse gas-emitting developing countries to reduce their greenhouse gas intensity. It also promotes the export of greenhouse gas intensity reducing technologies.

I really think, if this amendment to the Energy bill is agreed to, it is something the President, when he goes to the G8 meeting, can refer to in terms of its importance, getting everybody at the table to start to do something realistic about the problem of greenhouse gases.

I am concerned that the very nature of this amendment is misleading; that is, that we are adding a climate title to the Energy bill, which means that maybe it does not address climate change. This is not true.

I commend Senators Domenici and Bingaman for putting together a bipartisan energy bill that deals with climate change in several ways. In other words, the underlying bill already deals with climate change.

First, the bill provides research and development funding for long- term zero- or low-emitting greenhouse technologies. These include fuel cells, hydrogen cells, coal gasification--with the greatest potential to capture and control carbon dioxide emissions.

Second, the bill includes extensive provisions to increase energy conservation.

Third, the bill promotes the use of nuclear power, which is emissions-free power. There is no greenhouse gas with nuclear power.

I restate this for my colleagues: The Energy bill already addresses climate change. For all those concerned about climate change, the underlying bill deals with it. The Hagel-Pryor amendment simply adds to these provisions. Let me restate this for my colleagues: This bill, without any amendments, including ours, addresses climate change.

Some might be further misled to think that our country is currently not doing anything because the Energy bill does all of this to address a climate change. However, this is far from the truth. In fact, our Nation is taking so many actions on this front that I am going to try to run through them very quickly. In other words, we are doing an enormous amount in our country in terms of greenhouse gases and dealing with this whole issue of carbon emissions.

The President established a climate change policy to reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of our economy by 18 percent over the next 10 years through voluntary measures. This is more than most of the countries involved in the Kyoto Protocol. Unlike the rest of the world, we are on target to meet our goal--not like the Europeans, 12 to 70 percent away from meeting their goals.

We have the Climate VISION Partnership which involves 12 major industrial sectors and the members of the Business Roundtable who have committed to work with Cabinet agencies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the next decade.

We have the climate leader's program, an EPA partnership encouraging individual companies to develop long-term comprehensive climate change strategy. Sixty-eight corporations are already participating in the program.

The administration's budget for 2006 is $5.5 billion for extensive climate change technology and science programs and energy tax incentives.

The United States is also taking a lead internationally--and again, we get no credit. There is $198 million included in the President's fiscal year 2006 budget for international climate change.

As I mentioned, we are taking a lead internationally. The United States is by far the largest funder of activities under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Also, despite complaints to the contrary, the United States remains fully engaged in multilateral negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Announced by EPA in July of 2004, along with 13 other countries, the Methane-to-Markets partnership is a new and innovative program to help promote energy security, improve environmental quality, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions throughout the world.

The United States hosted the first Ministerial Meeting of the International Partnership for Hydrogen Economy, the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum and Earth Observation Summit. We never hear anything about this. It is as if we are doing nothing.

Despite all that we are doing and all that is contained in the Energy bill, we can even do more by passing this amendment proposed today by Senators Hagel and Pryor. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against any amendments that contain mandatory

programs which work against the very purpose of the Energy bill and cause substantial harm to our economy, its workers, and our families. Instead, I urge the support of this bipartisan amendment which builds on all we are doing and will do under the Energy bill to address climate change responsibly and comprehensively.

I yield the floor.

Yes.

Yes.

Mr. President, I wish to make a brief statement before we vote on the Voinovich, Carper, Feinstein, Jeffords, Hutchison, Stevens, Clinton, Obama, Lautenberg, DeWine, Levin, and Alexander amendment. It is based on the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005, S. 1265. That bill is cosponsored by the Environment and Public Works Committee chairman, Jim Inhofe, Ranking Member Jeffords, Senators Tom Carper, Johnny Isakson, Hillary Clinton, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and Dianne Feinstein.

The bill was developed in close consultation with a strong and diverse group of environmental, industrial, and public officials. The groups range from the Environmental Defense, to the Union of Concerned Scientists, to the Associated General Contractors of America, to the Engine Manufacturers Association, to the Chamber of Commerce, to the National Conference of State Legislators.

The cosponsors and these groups do not agree on many issues, which is why this amendment is so special. It is focused on improving air quality and protecting public health. It establishes voluntary national and State level grant and loan programs to promote the reduction of diesel emissions. It authorizes $1 billion over 5 years, $200 million annually.

Onroad and nonroad diesel vehicles and engines account for roughly one-half of the nitrogen oxide and particulate matter mobile source emissions nationwide, and diesel retrofits have proven to be one of the most cost-effective emission reduction strategies. The

bill has a 13-to-1 cost-benefit ratio. Spectacular.

This would help bring counties into attainment with new air quality standards by encouraging the retrofitting and replacements of diesel engines.

The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005 enjoys broad bipartisan support and is needed desperately. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Mr. President, I would like to now yield the remainder of my time to my longstanding good friend, Senator Carper, and say it is wonderful to be on the floor of the Senate cosponsoring with him an amendment that has such broad support.

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

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I offer this amendment today as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety. This amendment is a bipartisan piece of legislation that was introduced last Thursday. It is called the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005, or S. 1265.

This bill is cosponsored by Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe and Ranking Member Jim Jeffords and Senators Tom Carper, Johnny Isakson, Hillary Clinton, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and Dianne Feinstein. Focused on improving air quality and protecting public health, it would establish voluntary National and State-level grant and loan programs to promote the reduction of diesel emissions. Additionally, the bill would help areas come into attainment for the new air quality standards.

Developed with environmental, industry, and public officials, the legislation complements Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, regulations now being implemented that address diesel fuel and new diesel engines. I am pleased to be joined by a strong and diverse group of organizations and officials: Environmental Defense, Clean Air Task Force, Union of Concerned Scientists, Ohio Environmental Council, Caterpillar Inc., Cummins Inc., Diesel Technology Forum, Emissions Control Technology Association, Associated General Contractors of America, State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators/ Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Regional Air Pollution Control Agency in Dayton, OH., and the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission.

The cosponsors and these groups do not agree on many issues, which is why this amendment is so special. I ask unanimous consent that letters of support from these organizations be printed in the Record.

The process for developing this legislation began last year when several of these organizations came in to meet with me. They informed me of the harmful public health impact of diesel emissions. On-road and non-road diesel vehicles and engines account for roughly one-half of the nitrogen oxide and particulate matter mobile source emissions nationwide.

I was pleased to hear that the administration had taken strong action with new diesel fuel and engine regulations, which were developed in a collaborative effort to substantially reduce diesel emissions. However, I was told that the full health benefit would not be realized until 2030 because these regulations address new engines and the estimated 11 million existing engines have a long life. Diesel engines have a very long life.

I was pleased that they had a constructive suggestion on how we could address this problem. They informed me of successful grant and loan programs at the State and local level throughout the Nation that are working on a voluntary basis to retrofit diesel engines.

I was also cognizant that the new ozone and particulate matter air quality standards were going into effect and that a voluntary program was needed to help the Nation's 495 and Ohio's 38 nonattainment counties--especially those that are in moderate nonattainment like Northeast Ohio.

Additionally, I have visited with University of Cincinnati Medical Center

doctors--as recently as earlier this month--to discuss their Cincinnati Childhood Allergy and Air Pollution Study. Some of the early results indicate disturbing impacts on the development of children living near highways because of emissions from diesel engines.

It became clear to me that a national program was needed. We then formed a strong, diverse coalition comprised of environmental, industry, and public officials. The culmination of this work was released last Thursday with the introduction of the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005.

The amendment that I am offering today is the same as this bill. It would establish voluntary national and State-level grant and loan programs to promote the reduction of diesel emissions. The amendment would authorize $1 billion over 5 years--$200 million annually. Some will claim that this is too much money and others will claim it is not enough--so probably it is the right number.

We should first recognize that the need far outpaces what is contained in the legislation. This funding is also fiscally responsible as diesel retrofits have proven to be one of the most cost-effective emissions reduction strategies. For example, let's compare the cost effectiveness of diesel retrofits versus current Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program projects.

We are talking about the per ton of Nitrogen Oxides reduced, cost on average. We are talking about 1 ton of nitrogen oxides and how much it costs to reduce them: $126,400 for alternative fuel buses; $66,700 for signal optimization; $19,500 for bike racks on buses; and $10,500 for vanpool programs.

This is compared to $5,390 to repower construction equipment and $5,000 to retrofit a transit bus.

The bottom line is that if we want to clean up our air to improve the environment and protect public health, diesel retrofits are one of the best uses of taxpayers' money.

Furthermore, as a former Governor, I know firsthand that the new air quality standards are an unfunded mandate on our States and localities--and they need the Federal Government's help. We are going to find that out. Many Americans are not aware, because of the ozone and particulate standards that many communities are going to have a difficult time complying with these new ambient air standards.

This legislation would help bring counties into attainment by encouraging the retrofitting or replacement of diesel engines, substantially reducing diesel emissions and the formation of ozone and particulate matter.

The amendment is efficient with the Federal Government's dollars in several ways. First, 70 percent of the program would be administered by the EPA. The remaining 20 percent of the funding would be distributed to States that establish voluntary diesel retrofit programs. Ten percent of the amendment's overall funding would be set aside as an incentive for state's to match the Federal dollars being provided.

The hope is this amendment leverages additional public and private funding with the creation of State level programs throughout this country. The amendment would expand on very successful programs that now exist in Texas and California.

Second, the program would focus on nonattainment areas where help is needed the most.

Third, it would require at least 50 percent of the Federal program to be used on public fleets since we are talking about using public dollars.

Fourth, it would place a high priority on the projects that are the most cost effective and affect the most people.

Lastly, the amendment includes provisions to help develop new technologies, encourage more action through nonfinancial incentives, and require EPA to reach out to stakeholders and report on the success of the program.

EPA estimates this billion-dollar program would leverage an additional $500 million, leading to a net benefit of almost $20 billion with the reduction of 70,000 tons of particulate matter. This is a quite substantial 13-1 cost-benefit ratio.

The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005 enjoys broad bipartisan support and is needed desperately. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays, and I ask unanimous consent 10 minutes be set aside prior to the vote on the amendment for sponsors to speak on its behalf.

I withdraw the request for the 10 minutes until the ranking member has an opportunity to review the amendment, and we can discuss at that time how much time the Senator is willing to give.

Right. This is one of the most effective ways, actually, to reduce nitrogen oxide and also particulate matter. In my remarks I mentioned the study at the University of Cincinnati on children. The negative impact is amazing on children who live very close to freeways with this diesel fuel. Retrofitting would be the most cost-efficient way of dealing with that problem.

This program fundamentally is a voluntary program. It is a program in which we encourage all of the States to participate. If they did, each State would get 2 percent of the money. If they didn't, those States that participated would benefit from this on a per capita basis, 30 percent of the program allocated to them and 70 percent of it would be distributed by the Environmental Protection Agency based on submissions submitted and also on the basis of giving priority to public requests for this money.

I thank the Senator from Tennessee. The administration should be complimented. The new diesel regulations will go into effect next year. The fact is, 11 million on- and off-road vehicles will still be on the road for many years to come. As the Senator pointed out regarding retrofitting,

we had a bus retrofit. We are talking about 85 percent reduction. The diesel fuel is fine, but if you do not have the retrofit, it will not give you the desired emissions control.

Amendment No. 800

(Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1936 to provide energy

tax incentives, and for other purposes)

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Generating Opportunity by Forgiving Educational Debt for Service Act of 2005, 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. This legislation is a modestly expanded version of a bill I introduced in the 108th Congress.

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. Known as GOFEDS, this bill would amend the Federal tax code and allow the Federal Government's student loan repayment programs to be offered on a tax-free basis.

In recent years, many educational institutions have established programs that repay a portion of the student loan debt their graduates owe. These programs are designed to encourage students to seek jobs with government or non-profit organizations that cannot pay salaries commensurate with the private sector upon graduation. Under current law, the amounts these institutions offer their graduates as student loan repayment are not taxed as income, provided the recipients choose to work for the government or non-profit organizations.

Unfortunately, the Federal Tax Code does not treat the Federal Government's loan repayment programs in the same way, considering such loan repayment as taxable income to the employee. As a result, the net benefit of any such program is reduced by the amount of tax that the individual has to pay on the debt repaid. This bill would amend the tax code so that the Government does not continue to undermine its own loan repayment recruitment incentive. This change will help Federal agencies recruit and retain well-qualified graduates.

This Congress, I have expanded GOFEDS to our military because recent reports indicate that all four services missed their recruiting goals last year. Unfortunately, military recruiting levels are now at a 30- year low. Under GOFEDS, military education loan programs, like the Active-Duty Loan Repayment Program will be offered on a tax free basis.

With more than half of the Federal workforce eligible for retirement in the next 5 years and surveys showing that fewer Americans find government services attractive, the need for this legislation is even more necessary. I believe the cost of this bill is minimal, but its potential impact is great. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation and I am confident that it can be enacted this year.

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

Mr. President, I speak as Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety to introduce a landmark, bipartisan piece of legislation--the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005.

This bill is cosponsored by Environment and Public Works Committee Jim Inhofe and ranking member Jim Jeffords and Senators Tom Carper, Johnny Isakson, Hillary Clinton, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and Dianne Feinstein. Focused on improving air quality and protecting public health, it would establish voluntary national and state-level grant and loan programs to promote the reduction of diesel emissions. Additionally, the bill would help areas come into attainment for the new air quality standards.

Developed with environmental, industry, and public officials, the legislation complements Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, regulations now being implemented that address diesel fuel and new diesel engines. I am pleased to be joined by a strong and diverse group of organizations and officials: Environmental Defense; Clean Air Task Force; Union of Concerned Scientists; Ohio Environmental Council; Caterpillar Inc.; Cummins Inc.; Diesel Technology Forum; Emissions Control Technology Association; Associated General Contractors of America; State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators/ Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials; Ohio Environmental Protection Agency; Regional Air Pollution Control Agency in Dayton, Ohio; Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission.

The cosponsors of this legislation and these groups do not agree on many issues--which is why this bill is so special.

The process for developing this legislation began last year when several of these organizations came in to meet with me. They informed me of the harmful public health impact of diesel emissions. Onroad and nonroad diesel vehicles and engines account for roughly one-half of the nitrogen oxide and particulate matter mobile source emissions nationwide.

I was pleased to hear that the administration had taken strong action with new diesel fuel and engine regulations, which were developed in a collaborative effort to substantially reduce diesel emissions. However, I was told that the full health benefit would not be realized until 2030 because these regulations address new engines and the estimated 11 million existing engines have a long life.

I was pleased that they had a constructive suggestion on how we could address this problem. They informed me of successful grant and loan programs at the State and local level throughout the Nation that were working on a voluntary basis to retrofit diesel engines.

I was also cognizant that the new ozone and particulate matter air quality standards were going into effect and that a voluntary program was needed to help the nation's 495 and Ohio's 38 nonattainment counties--especially those that are in moderate nonattainment like Northeast Ohio.

Additionally, I have visited with University of Cincinnati Medical Center doctors--as recently as this month--to discuss their Cincinnati Childhood Allergy and Air Pollution Study. Some of the early results indicate disturbing impacts on the development of children living near highways.

It became clear to me that a national program was needed. We then formed a strong, diverse coalition comprised of environmental, industry, and public officials. The culmination of this work is being revealed today in the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005.

This legislation would establish voluntary national and State-level grant and loan programs to promote the reduction of diesel emissions. It would authorize $1 billion over 5 years--$200 million annually. Some will claim that this is too much money and others will claim it is not enough--which is probably why it is just right.

We should first recognize that the need far outpaces what is contained in the legislation. This funding is also fiscally responsible as diesel retrofits have proven to be one of the most cost-effective emissions reduction strategies. Furthermore, as a former Governor, I know firsthand that the new air quality standards are an unfunded mandate on our states and localities--and they need the Federal Government's help.

This legislation would help bring counties into attainment by encouraging the retrofitting or replacement of diesel engines, substantially reducing diesel emissions and the formation of ozone and particulate matter.

The bill is efficient with the Federal Government's dollars in several ways. First, 20 percent of the funding would be distributed to States that establish voluntary diesel retrofit programs. 10 percent of the bill's overall funding would be set aside as an incentive for States to match the Federal dollars being provided. The remaining 70 percent of the program would be administered by the EPA.

Second, the program would focus on nonattainment areas where help is needed the most. Third, it would require at least 50 percent of the Federal program to be used on public fleets since we are talking about public dollars. Fourth, it would place a high priority on the projects that are the most cost effective and affect the most people.

Lastly, the bill would include provisions to help develop new technologies, encourage more action through non-financial incentives, and require EPA to outreach to stakeholders and report on the success of the program.

EPA estimates that this billion dollar program would leverage an additional $500 million leading to a net benefit of almost $20 billion with a reduction of about 70,000 tons of particulate matter. This is a 13 to 1 benefit-cost ratio.

The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005 enjoys broad bipartisan support, and it is needed desperately. I plan to work with the bill's cosponsors and the coalition to use every avenue to get it signed into law as soon as possible.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Generating Opportunity by Forgiving Educational Debt for Service Act of 2005, 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. This legislation is a modestly expanded version of a bill I introduced in the 108th Congress.

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. Known as GOFEDS, this bill would amend the Federal tax code and allow the Federal Government's student loan repayment programs to be offered on a tax-free basis.

In recent years, many educational institutions have established programs that repay a portion of the student loan debt their graduates owe. These programs are designed to encourage students to seek jobs with government or non-profit organizations that cannot pay salaries commensurate with the private sector upon graduation. Under current law, the amounts these institutions offer their graduates as student loan repayment are not taxed as income, provided the recipients choose to work for the government or non-profit organizations.

Unfortunately, the Federal Tax Code does not treat the Federal Government's loan repayment programs in the same way, considering such loan repayment as taxable income to the employee. As a result, the net benefit of any such program is reduced by the amount of tax that the individual has to pay on the debt repaid. This bill would amend the tax code so that the Government does not continue to undermine its own loan repayment recruitment incentive. This change will help Federal agencies recruit and retain well-qualified graduates.

This Congress, I have expanded GOFEDS to our military because recent reports indicate that all four services missed their recruiting goals last year. Unfortunately, military recruiting levels are now at a 30- year low. Under GOFEDS, military education loan programs, like the Active-Duty Loan Repayment Program will be offered on a tax free basis.

With more than half of the Federal workforce eligible for retirement in the next 5 years and surveys showing that fewer Americans find government services attractive, the need for this legislation is even more necessary. I believe the cost of this bill is minimal, but its potential impact is great. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation and I am confident that it can be enacted this year.

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

Mr. President, I speak as Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety to introduce a landmark, bipartisan piece of legislation--the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005.

This bill is cosponsored by Environment and Public Works Committee Jim Inhofe and ranking member Jim Jeffords and Senators Tom Carper, Johnny Isakson, Hillary Clinton, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and Dianne Feinstein. Focused on improving air quality and protecting public health, it would establish voluntary national and state-level grant and loan programs to promote the reduction of diesel emissions. Additionally, the bill would help areas come into attainment for the new air quality standards.

Developed with environmental, industry, and public officials, the legislation complements Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, regulations now being implemented that address diesel fuel and new diesel engines. I am pleased to be joined by a strong and diverse group of organizations and officials: Environmental Defense; Clean Air Task Force; Union of Concerned Scientists; Ohio Environmental Council; Caterpillar Inc.; Cummins Inc.; Diesel Technology Forum; Emissions Control Technology Association; Associated General Contractors of America; State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators/ Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials; Ohio Environmental Protection Agency; Regional Air Pollution Control Agency in Dayton, Ohio; Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission.

The cosponsors of this legislation and these groups do not agree on many issues--which is why this bill is so special.

The process for developing this legislation began last year when several of these organizations came in to meet with me. They informed me of the harmful public health impact of diesel emissions. Onroad and nonroad diesel vehicles and engines account for roughly one-half of the nitrogen oxide and particulate matter mobile source emissions nationwide.

I was pleased to hear that the administration had taken strong action with new diesel fuel and engine regulations, which were developed in a collaborative effort to substantially reduce diesel emissions. However, I was told that the full health benefit would not be realized until 2030 because these regulations address new engines and the estimated 11 million existing engines have a long life.

I was pleased that they had a constructive suggestion on how we could address this problem. They informed me of successful grant and loan programs at the State and local level throughout the Nation that were working on a voluntary basis to retrofit diesel engines.

I was also cognizant that the new ozone and particulate matter air quality standards were going into effect and that a voluntary program was needed to help the nation's 495 and Ohio's 38 nonattainment counties--especially those that are in moderate nonattainment like Northeast Ohio.

Additionally, I have visited with University of Cincinnati Medical Center doctors--as recently as this month--to discuss their Cincinnati Childhood Allergy and Air Pollution Study. Some of the early results indicate disturbing impacts on the development of children living near highways.

It became clear to me that a national program was needed. We then formed a strong, diverse coalition comprised of environmental, industry, and public officials. The culmination of this work is being revealed today in the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005.

This legislation would establish voluntary national and State-level grant and loan programs to promote the reduction of diesel emissions. It would authorize $1 billion over 5 years--$200 million annually. Some will claim that this is too much money and others will claim it is not enough--which is probably why it is just right.

We should first recognize that the need far outpaces what is contained in the legislation. This funding is also fiscally responsible as diesel retrofits have proven to be one of the most cost-effective emissions reduction strategies. Furthermore, as a former Governor, I know firsthand that the new air quality standards are an unfunded mandate on our states and localities--and they need the Federal Government's help.

This legislation would help bring counties into attainment by encouraging the retrofitting or replacement of diesel engines, substantially reducing diesel emissions and the formation of ozone and particulate matter.

The bill is efficient with the Federal Government's dollars in several ways. First, 20 percent of the funding would be distributed to States that establish voluntary diesel retrofit programs. 10 percent of the bill's overall funding would be set aside as an incentive for States to match the Federal dollars being provided. The remaining 70 percent of the program would be administered by the EPA.

Second, the program would focus on nonattainment areas where help is needed the most. Third, it would require at least 50 percent of the Federal program to be used on public fleets since we are talking about public dollars. Fourth, it would place a high priority on the projects that are the most cost effective and affect the most people.

Lastly, the bill would include provisions to help develop new technologies, encourage more action through non-financial incentives, and require EPA to outreach to stakeholders and report on the success of the program.

EPA estimates that this billion dollar program would leverage an additional $500 million leading to a net benefit of almost $20 billion with a reduction of about 70,000 tons of particulate matter. This is a 13 to 1 benefit-cost ratio.

The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005 enjoys broad bipartisan support, and it is needed desperately. I plan to work with the bill's cosponsors and the coalition to use every avenue to get it signed into law as soon as possible.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise to celebrate the remarkable life of one of Ohio's most extraordinary women, Zoe Dell Nutter, a person whom my wife Janet and I count among our very dearest friends.

Professional dancer and model, successful businesswoman, renowned aviatrix, newspaper columnist and generous philanthropist, Zoe Dell Nutter has been each of these and so much more.

Today, she has one more entry to her long list of credits, awards, and achievements--her 90th birthday. Zoe Dell's life has taken her to so many places, called her into so many fascinating career pursuits, driven her to give so much back to her community, State, and Nation, and, lastly, rewarded her with so many accolades, honors along the way that I could never do her story justice on this floor.

I will spend a moment describing the wonderful friendship Janet and I have shared with Zoe Dell. It was truly a friendship at first sight when we all met on a long day back in 1979. Erv and Zoe Dell were the loves of one another's eyes, true life partners who shared the same dreams, interests, and passions through their marriage. Janet and I were always so impressed with how supportive they were of one another and how proud and respectful they were of each other's careers. They had a genuine concern for their family, extended family, and community. Above all else, they were a truly devoted couple. And I know that the bond Janet and I forged with them is, in part, a reflection of the devotion to each other we have treasured over the 42 years of our marriage.

I would ask each of you here today to reflect on your own lives, and on those special friendships that are so vital to your happiness. Sometimes I think our fellow citizens do not realize that the most significant friendships enjoyed by those of us in public service are usually with people who are far removed from politics and governing. So it has been with the Nutters and the Voinovichs.

Of all the remarkable things Zoe Dell has done in her life, perhaps nothing else quite compares with her love for flying and her accomplishments both as a gifted aviatrix and a tireless champion of aviation. She first took to the skies in the 1940s, when women were not exactly encouraged to be pilots. Zoe Dell persevered and excelled. And in so doing, she helped make it possible for little girls around the world to add ``aviation'' to the list of dreams that they might dream.

One of Zoe Dell's greatest contributions to aviation was a dream of her own--a vision that the industry should have its own hall of fame. Because of her, I became interested, as Governor, in helping to make her dream a reality in Ohio. And why not? Let me repeat the names of some of America's foremost aviation pioneers: the Wright Brothers, John Glenn, Neil Armstrong, and, yes, Zoe Dell Nutter--Ohioans, one and all.

Janet and I worked tirelessly with Zoe Dell and Erv on the hall of fame project, but it was always Zoe Dell who was the heartbeat of the initiative. We were successful in making it a true public-private partnership and today the Aviation Hall of Fame in Dayton is a sparkling jewel in the crown of Ohio's contributions to aviation. Thank you, Zoe Dell, one more time, for your vision, for your commitment, and for your own numerous contributions to aviation.

Zoe Dell hung up her pilot's wings a number of years back. But I can guarantee you, she is wearing another set of wings that will be with her all the days of her life--angel's wings.

Janet and I treasure our friendship with Zoe Dell. And I am humbled to place this tribute into the Congressional Record, acknowledging the venerable milestones Zoe Dell Nutter has reached on this day, and, more importantly, a life so fully lived.

May she enjoy many more years of good health and God's blessing.

Mr. President, first, I thank the Senator from South Carolina for his kind remarks about this Senator early today and this afternoon.

What we are doing here today is what the Senate should be doing; that is, to have a robust debate about a nominee by the President of the United States to the United Nations.

I have deep concerns about the nomination of John Bolton. We face an important decision today. We are at a crossroads in foreign policy, at a time when there has been a drastic shift in the attitude of our friends and allies. If we do have a vote today, I urge my colleagues in the Senate to let their consciences and their commitment to our Nation's best interests guide them.

I would plead with them to consider the decision and its consequences carefully, to read the pertinent information, and to ask themselves several important questions:

Is John Bolton the best person to serve as the lead diplomat to the United Nations?

Will he be able to pursue the needed reforms at the U.N. despite his damaged credibility?

Will he share information with the right individuals, and will he solicit information from the right individuals, including his subordinates, so he can make the most informed decisions?

Is he capable of advancing the President's and the Secretary of State's efforts to advance our public diplomacy?

Does he have the character, leadership, interpersonal skills, self- discipline, common decency, and understanding of the chain of command to lead a team to victory?

Will he recognize and seize opportunities to repair and strengthen relationships, promote peace, and uphold democracy with our fellow nations?

I also came to the floor today to respond to some of the statements that have been made regarding the nomination of Mr. Bolton.

It has been argued by my colleagues that Mr. Bolton is the right man for the job because he has ``sharp elbows,'' can give a dose of needed ``strong medicine,'' and because he will not be an ``appeaser'' to the horrors that have been committed by the U.N. peacekeepers.

The question is not whether we want to achieve U.N. reforms. We will support U.N. reforms. And I particularly want U.N. reforms. We need to pursue its transformation aggressively, sending a strong message that corruption will not be tolerated. The corruption that occurred under the Oil-for-Food Program made it possible for Saddam's

Iraq to discredit the U.N. and undermine the goal of all of its members. This must never happen again. This is an ideal time for reform of the United Nations. Those reforms are needed to strengthen the organization or there will not be an organization.

And, yes, I believe it will be necessary to take a firm position so it can succeed. But it is going to take a special individual to succeed in this endeavor, and I have great concerns with the current nominee and his ability to get the job done. How successful will he be on reform if the message is lost because of baggage surrounding the messenger? I worry that Mr. Bolton will become the issue and the message will be lost.

I understand the arguments just made by my colleague from South Carolina in regard to the conservative movement here in the United States that is very concerned about the U.N. and feels comfortable that if John Bolton goes to the U.N., with his ``sharp elbows,'' something is going to happen.

I would like to point out that Mr. Bolton will be going to the U.N. to do more than just push forward U.N. reforms with his ``sharp elbows.'' He is there to be the U.S. representative to the world.

Do we want the supreme quality for our next U.S. representative to the world to be ``sharp elbows''? Don't we need a man who has superior interpersonal skills, who can bring people together, form coalitions, and inspire other countries to agree with his point of view?

To the conservatives who are concerned about reform of the United Nations, do we want the messenger to become the issue so we never get to the message? And the message is: reform.

I agree the next Ambassador needs to be a strong presence, firm in his beliefs, persistent in his drive, and determined in the face of a monolithic bureaucracy and many obstructionist countries. It is not going to be easy. But even more than this, he will need the interpersonal and diplomatic skills required to inspire and lead.

If you think about John Danforth, our last ambassador to the United Nations--or let's talk about John Negroponte. Let's put John Negroponte and John Bolton in the same room together, colleagues. Put them in the same room together. John Negroponte went to the U.N. and did an outstanding job. John Negroponte was taken from the U.N. The President needed somebody in Iraq, so he sent John Negroponte to Iraq. Then he needed to call on someone to be the Director of the National Intelligence area. Now, John Negroponte--that is the quality of the individual who we need to be sending to the United Nations today.

One of my colleagues stated earlier today that we should not reject Mr. Bolton because of his management techniques because ``management is not a criterion for rejecting a nominee and if it were, a lot of nominees would have been rejected.''

In the case of Mr. Bolton, his poor management techniques intimidated intelligence officers and have called U.S. credibility into question, at a time when we cannot afford any further damage to our credibility. That is one of the problems we have today--the WMD and Iraq, some of the recent stories about the WMD. There are a lot of people who are questioning this Nation's credibility.

Further, his management and interpersonal failures reflect on his diplomatic skills, which are an undeniable requirement for the ambassador to the United Nations.

Colin Powell's chief of staff, COL Lawrence Wilkerson, testified before the committee that Mr. Bolton would make ``an abysmal ambassador'' because of his management flaws.

I would like to read from Mr. Wilkerson's testimony.

Mr. Wilkinson:

I would like to make just one statement. I don't have a

large problem with Under Secretary Bolton serving our

country. My objections to what we've been talking about

here--that is, him being our ambassador at the United

Nations--stem from two basic things. One, I think he's a

lousy leader. And there are 100 to 150 people up there that

have to be led; they have to be led well, and they have to be

led properly. And I think, in that capacity, if he goes up

there, you'll see the proof of the pudding in a year.

It has been argued during our floor debate that many of the people who oppose Mr. Bolton's nomination originally supported Mr. Bolton and voted for him several times before they heard about these new allegations against him.

The statement seems to argue that many allegations about John Bolton are not relevant to our decision on whether he is the right man for the job and should be confirmed as the next ambassador to the United Nations.

The allegations about Mr. Bolton are very relevant to our decision. The allegations speak to Mr. Bolton's character, his temperament, his credibility, his management style, his skills, and his performance over the last 4 years.

The testimony of our witnesses has certainly had an impact on my opinion.

I expect that the allegations have had an incredible impact on the world's opinion of Mr. Bolton. I believe that the allegations have caused great damage to Mr. Bolton's credibility and that the allegations will impair our influence with the United Nations. If Mr. Bolton is confirmed for the position, he goes to the U.N. with a tremendous amount of baggage that he is going to have to overcome. Again, I want to repeat to the people who feel he is just the right ticket to get the job done, I am very concerned that he will become the issue and the reform of the United Nations that we all would like to see is not going to happen.

It has also been stated today that none of the incidents involving intelligence resulted in misuse. This is all of the testimony about speeches that Mr. Bolton gave. I guess my colleagues believe that the misuse of intelligence would have only occurred if Mr. Bolton would have been successful in clearing the language that he originally insisted upon. In other words, he would have these ideas about the world and about intelligence and said: This is what I want to say. And the intelligence folks came back and said: No, you can't say that because that doesn't reflect the reality. And everyone says that is not a problem because ultimately he didn't say what he wanted to say because he got the better information from the intelligence officers.

The misuse of intelligence occurs as a process. It begins with intimidation and pressure on analysts, and it ends with analysts producing reports that meet the political needs of top leadership. Mr. Bolton contributed to this process with his actions. He created an atmosphere of intimidation within the ranks of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research and at the CIA. The people in these agencies were made to understand that if they disagreed with him, there would be consequences. His actions sent the message that if you don't seek to meet his particular request for specific language, they may be sidelined from future opportunities to provide him intelligence, and they may even be pulled off of the account and moved to another bureau.

The Presiding Officer was there for some of the hearings. There was no question that the message was, if you disagree with him, you might get moved to some other place. Some have argued that you would be fired. But it wasn't in this language; it was like ``moved to somewhere else.'' It is the same signal, same message: Don't fool with John because, if you do, he is going to put pressure on to move you to some other place.

His behavior put pressure on the intelligence officers, and it begins the very dangerous path to misusing intelligence and damaging U.S. credibility. The point Senator Kerry made earlier this afternoon is well taken. We all know there is a real problem with Iran. We know that the International Atomic Energy Agency is very concerned about what is going on in Iran today. We are hopeful that the EU-3 will be able to work out the problem and deal with the proliferation problem in Iran. But they may not be successful. If they are not, you know where they are going. They are going to the U.N. Security Council. Can you imagine if the spokesman for the United States at the U.N. Security Council about intelligence and the impact of whether Iran has this or that, if the spokesman is going to be John Bolton? Can you imagine how much influence he is going to have with his past record? It is a serious issue, one we hope doesn't happen, but it could very well happen. And there will be other instances that come before the United Nations where

the credibility of the individual representing us is going to make an enormous amount of difference if we are to be successful.

I agree with Mr. Bolton's policies. I believe in U.N. reform. I believe in nonproliferation. I believe in working to secure Article 98 agreements to protect U.S. forces against trial by the International Criminal Court, although I do not agree with his decision to hold up important military education in order to achieve that goal. I believe in removing the anti-Israel prejudices in the United Nations. I believe in reforming the anticorruption and enforcement mechanisms of the United Nations. I believe in preventing abuses and crimes by U.N. peacekeepers. I believe in making the United Nations a strong institution that fulfills its mission to preserve and protect human rights and democracy. I know that I agree with Mr. Bolton's policy because I sat down with him to discuss his policies. I still just believe we can do much better than Mr. Bolton at the United Nations.

Many people have come today to defend Mr. Bolton. In some cases, they argue that the allegations are false. In some cases, they argue that even though Mr. Bolton behaved badly, his rough edges are what the United States needs to be successful at the U.N., so we should overlook his record of behavior. But nobody has disputed the argument that I made yesterday before the Senate that Mr. Bolton will contradict our efforts to improve public diplomacy at this critical time.

Public diplomacy has been the No. 1 priority of Secretary Rice since becoming Secretary of State. She is running all over the world putting her best foot forward, saying: We are the team. We all have to work together. It is a clear priority of the President, who has done everything in his power to improve the image and understanding of the United States, including getting the First Lady to get out there and start doing public diplomacy and then naming Karen Hughes, his confidant for so many years, to lead public diplomacy at the Department of State.

In the spirit of the President's objectives, we cannot ignore the damage that John Bolton could have on U.S. public diplomacy. We also cannot ignore the warning signs of so many loyal servants of our Government who testified before our committee. These witnesses who came before the Foreign Relations Committee came voluntarily. We didn't go out and solicit them to come. They came in voluntarily. Most of them are Republicans. Most of them are proud they are conservatives.

I ask my colleagues to consider these questions: When was the last time so many individuals have come out in opposition to a nomination? Think about it. When was the last time that 102 diplomats have opposed the appointment of a new ambassador? I should check the Congressional Record. It hasn't happened since I have been here, and I am in my seventh year. When was the last time so many witnesses have emerged from an administration to send warning signals to the Congress about an individual? When was the last time a Secretary of State did not sign the letter of recommendation for a nominee? It would have been a lay-up shot for Secretary Powell to join that letter recommending Mr. Bolton to be our ambassador to the United Nations, but his name was absent from the letter. And who best to understand whether he is the kind of individual we should send to the U.N. to be our ambassador?

It is rare, and it should serve as a warning to all of us. We owe it to the United States, our children and grandchildren, to heed this warning and to ask our President: Mr. President, please, find a better candidate to send to the United Nations.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I recently sent my colleagues a letter regarding the nomination of John Bolton. I realize that they are all busy and likely they have not had an opportunity to read the letter. I will begin my remarks today by reading the letter to my colleagues so that it will be a part of the Record.

Dear colleague: Throughout my time in the Senate, I have

been hesitant to push my views on my colleagues. However, I

feel compelled to share my deep concerns with the nomination

of John Bolton to be Ambassador to the United Nations. I

strongly feel that the importance of this nomination to our

foreign policy requires us to set aside our partisan agenda

and let our consciences and our shared commitment to our

nation's best interests guide us. At a time when the United

States strives to fight terrorism globally, to build a stable

and free Iraq, to find a peaceful resolution to the nuclear

ambitions of Iran and North Korea, to spread democracy in the

place of oppressive regimes, and to enact needed reforms at

the United Nations, it is imperative that we have the support

of our friends and allies internationally. These strong

international relationships must be built upon robust and

effective public diplomacy.

I applaud our President for understanding this and for his

leadership on U.S. public diplomacy. He and Secretary Rice

have taken important steps to reach out to the international

community and strengthen relationships.

Additionally, I applaud the President's decision to appoint

Karen Hughes to enhance U.S. public diplomacy at the State

Department and recently to get even the First Lady involved

in these important efforts to promote public diplomacy [and

improve the world's opinion of the United States of America].

However, it is my concern that John Bolton's nomination

sends a negative message to the world community and

contradicts the President's efforts. In these dangerous

times, we cannot afford to put at risk our nation's ability

to successfully wage and win the war on terror with a

controversial and ineffective Ambassador to the United

Nations. I worry that Mr. Bolton could make it more difficult

for us to achieve the important U.N. reforms needed to

restore the strength of the institution. I strongly believe

that we need to reform the U.N., make it a viable institution

for world security, and remove its anti-Israel bias. However,

I question John Bolton's ability to get this job done.

I know that you are very busy, but I would appreciate it if

you would review my edited statement before the Foreign

Relations Committee as to why I think we can do much better

than John Bolton . . .

In my closing words I stated this:

Mr. Chairman, I am not so arrogant to think that I should

impose my judgment and perspective of the U.S. position in

the world community on the rest of my colleagues. We owe

it to the President to give Mr. Bolton an up or down vote

on the floor of the U.S. Senate. My hope is that, on a

bipartisan basis, we send Mr. Bolton's nomination to the

floor without recommendation and let the Senate work its

will.

I plead with my colleagues in the Senate that if this

nomination gets to the floor--

And we are here today--

to consider this decision and its consequences carefully, to

read all the pertinent material, and to ask themselves

several pertinent questions: Is John Bolton the best possible

person to serve as the lead diplomat to the United Nations?

Will he be able to pursue the needed reforms at the U.N.,

despite his damaged credibility? Will he share information

with the right individuals, and will he solicit information

from the right individuals, including his subordinates, so

that he can make the most informed decisions? Is he capable

of advancing the President's and the Secretary of State's

efforts to advance our public diplomacy? Does he have the

character, leadership, interpersonal skills, self discipline,

common decency, and understanding of the chain of command to

lead his team to victory? Will he recognize and seize

opportunities to repair and strengthen relationships, promote

peace and uphold democracy--as a team--with our fellow

nations?

I mentioned in my letter the Senate faces today a very important decision, whether to send John Bolton to New York to be the next U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. I believe we can do better, and we owe it to the United States of America, the U.S. State Department, our soldiers overseas, our children, and our grandchildren to do better than Mr. Bolton. This is not my opinion alone. The overwhelming opinion of the colleagues I have talked to about John Bolton is that he is not an ideal nominee; that they are less than enthusiastic about him and many were surprised at the decision. Many of my colleagues have said that the only reason they are going to vote for him is because he is the President's nominee. I agree with my colleague, Senator Biden. I think if we had a secret vote on John Bolton, he would not get 50 votes from the Senate.

I want to explain to my colleagues here today why it is I think Mr. Bolton should not be confirmed. One of my deepest concerns about this nomination involves the big picture of U.S. public diplomacy and the President's acknowledged need to improve it. It was not too long ago when America's love of freedom was a force of inspiration to the rest of the world, and America was admired for its democracy, generosity, and willingness to help others in need of protection. Today, the United States is criticized for what the world calls arrogance, unilateralism, for failure to listen and seek support of its friends and allies. There has been a drastic change in the attitude of our friends and allies in such organizations such as NATO and the countries' leaders whom we need to rely upon for help.

I discovered this personally during a trip I took to London, Serbia, Montenegro, and Italy last year, where I met with several individuals from various international backgrounds and attended the NATO parliamentary meeting in Venice. In London I met with several individuals from the Atlantic Partnership, chaired by Lord Powell, who told me that the United States needed to do something to improve its public diplomacy with countries where leaders are under a great amount of pressure. They mentioned Tony Blair, who has put his neck on the line to support the United States and needed the United States to improve its public diplomacy to meet the concerns of his constituency.

We all know that Tony Blair lost a significant number of parliamentary seats because of these concerns. The group emphasized that we needed to do more in public diplomacy to reach out to our friends and allies so that we could work together to accomplish the daunting tasks before us.

In Venice I attended the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. I could not believe some of the comments that were being made about the United States--from our allies. It was a stark contrast to the parliamentary meetings I attended in Budapest in 2000, when our allies voiced the concern: What about this Bush who is running for President? Is he an isolationist?

In Venice I heard their concerns that the United States is very much involved in international affairs but acts unilaterally, without any concern by the United States of its allies and friends.

I have traveled a great deal in my career, and I have met with leaders and academics in the international community during previous wars. There has never been as drastic a shift in the international community's perception as there has been during the last 2 or 3 years. The countries that previously admired the United States for its values and principles of democracy and freedom, encouraging other nations to develop their own democracies and speak out against injustices, now criticize the United States for its failure to respect their views and opinions.

It troubles me deeply that the United States is perceived this way in the world community. I am troubled because the United States will face a deeper challenge in achieving its objectives without their support. We will face more difficulties in conducting the war on terrorism, promoting peace and stability worldwide, and building democracies, without help from our friends to share the responsibilities, leadership, and costs.

Even as recently as last night, the former President of the Czech Republic and champion of democracy, Vaclav Havel, told me over dinner that the United States needs to improve its public diplomacy, that we have become isolated in too many instances.

If the United States wants to win the war on terrorism, win the peace in Iraq, promote freedom globally, and prevent new conflicts, we need to have the help of our friends. In order to have the help of our friends we need to have robust public diplomacy. For if we cannot win over the hearts and minds of the world community, we are not going to be able to create the team that we need and our goals will be more difficult to achieve.

Additionally, we will be unable to reduce the burdens on our own resources, the most important of which is the lives of the men and women in our Armed Forces who are leaving their families every day to serve this country overseas.

Now, 1,700 U.S. men and women--over that--have given their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan; over 12,000 have been wounded.

Nothing can compare to the cost of human lives, but the financial costs of the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan are also placing a tremendous human resources burden on our country. Weeks ago we passed the $82 billion supplemental bill for our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. I understand that we will need at least $50 billion next year. The costs of this war are not going down anytime soon.

We need the help of other countries to share the financial burden that is adding to our national debt, and the human resource burden that our Armed Forces, National Guardsmen, contractors, and their families are bearing so heavily now. The key is public diplomacy.

As I say, I applaud the President and the Secretary of State for understanding that public diplomacy is an important objective and beginning this new term with an emphasis on repairing relationships. I applaud the President and Secretary Rice for reaching out to our friends in the world community and articulating that the United States does respect international law and protocol.

The President's recent visits to Latvia, the Netherlands, Moscow, and Georgia, underscore the priority he places on strengthening U.S. public diplomacy. The way that he embraced the Russian people will serve the country well as we negotiate with President Putin to improve nuclear security cooperation and support U.S. positions on Iran and North Korea.

The President has also enlisted the added value of the First Lady in pursuing an agenda to improve U.S. public diplomacy in the Middle East, an important initiative. I also applaud the President's decision to appoint Karen Hughes to help lead the public diplomacy effort at the State Department.

Let's send Karen Hughes to be the next ambassador to the United Nations. There is someone who would

really make a difference for us, and deal with the challenge that we have in public diplomacy.

The President clearly understands the importance of renewing our relationships and making clear that we want to work with our friends to achieve our many foreign policy goals. It is important to send a message that, though the United States may have differences with our friends at times, and though we may need to be firm about our positions, we are willing to sit down, talk about them, discuss our reasoning, and work for a solution.

It is my strong belief in the need to improve U.S. public diplomacy and in the efforts of the President that has caused me to pause and reflect so deeply on the nomination of Mr. Bolton because, I asked myself, what message are we sending to the world community? In the same breath we are considering a nominee for ambassador to the United Nations who has been accused of being arrogant, of not listening to his friends, of acting unilaterally, and of bullying those who do not have the ability to properly defend themselves. These are the very characteristics we are trying to dispel in the court of world opinion.

We must understand, next to the President, Vice President, and Secretary of State, the most prominent public diplomat is our ambassador to the United Nations. It is my concern that the confirmation of John Bolton would send a contradictory and negative message to the world community about U.S. intentions. I am afraid that his confirmation will tell the world we are not dedicated to repairing our relationships or working as a team but that we believe only someone with sharp elbows can deal effectively with the international community.

I want to make it clear that I do believe that the U.N. needs to be reformed if it is to be relevant in the 21st century. We need to pursue its transformation aggressively, sending the strong message that corruption will not be tolerated. The corruption that occurred under the Oil for Food Program made it possible for Saddam's Iraq to discredit the U.N. and undermine the goals of its members. This must never happen again, and severe reforms are needed to strengthen the organization. And, yes, I believe it will be necessary to take a firm position so that we can succeed. But it will take a special individual to succeed in this endeavor, and I have great concerns with the current nominee and his ability to get the job done.

To those who say a vote against John Bolton is a vote against reform of the United Nations, I say nonsense. Frankly, I am concerned that Mr. Bolton would make it more difficult for us to achieve the badly needed reforms to this outdated institution. I believe there could be even more obstacles to reform if Mr. Bolton were sent to the U.N. than if it were another candidate. Those in the international community who do not want to see the U.N. reformed will act as a roadblock, and I fear Mr. Bolton's reputation will make it easier for them to succeed.

I believe that some member nations in the U.N. will use Mr. Bolton as part of their agenda to further question the credibility and integrity of the United States of America and to reinforce their negative U.S. propaganda.

If we send Mr. Bolton to the United Nations, the message will be lost because our enemies will do everything they can to use Mr. Bolton's baggage to drown his words. The issue will be the messenger--the messenger and not the message.

Another reason I believe Mr. Bolton is not the best candidate for the job is his tendency to act without regard to the views of others and without respect to chains of command. We have heard Mr. Bolton has a reputation for straying off message. He is reported to have strayed off message more often than anyone else holding a responsible position at the State Department during Secretary Powell's years as Secretary of State.

U.S. Ambassador to South Korea Thomas Hubbard testified that Bolton rejected his request to soften the tone of a July 2003 speech on North Korea policy and stated that the speech hurt, rather than helped, efforts to achieve the President's objectives.

Here is the question from a committee staffer:

And what was your impression of the speech when you first

read it, the day before it was going to be delivered? Did you

suggest changes in it?

We are talking now of the question to Ambassador Hubbard.

I think our most important comment was that we thought the

tone was way too strong, that he used derogatory terms about

Kim Jung Il . . . throughout the speech, in virtually every

sentence. And I and my staff argued that was

counterproductive to our interest in getting the North

Koreans back into the talks [on their reducing their nuclear

threat.]

Committee staffer:

And was Mr. Bolton aware of the South Korean request to

avoid inflammatory language that might complicate the Six-

Party process?

Ambassador Hubbard:

Yes.

Committee staffer:

Did he make all the changes [in the July 2000 speech] that

had been suggested?

Ambassador Hubbard:

No, I don't believe so. You know, I think that--to be very

clear, we didn't go through the speech, scratching out the

word ``dictator'' every time we saw it--you know, that--we

made an overall comment . . . that we felt that was

counterproductive and overblown.

Committee staffer:

Did you believe the speech advanced the President's

objective of achieving a peaceful denuclearization of the

Korean Peninsula through negotiations? Or, if not, why not?

Ambassador Hubbard:

No, I don't think it advanced the process . . . In my view,

the invective . . . gave the North Koreans another excuse or

pretext not to come back to the committee.

Committee staffer:

Did Bolton advance President Bush's North Korea policy?

Ambassador Hubbard:

My belief is that his actions hurt.

According to reliable sources at the State Department, it was after that speech that it was made clear to Mr. Bolton he would have to clear any future speeches through the Secretary or Deputy Secretary and that he would be put on a very short leash. This was just one of the many times he was called on the carpet.

In fairness to Mr. Bolton, the sources have said to me, once reprimanded, Bolton got back on track but that he needed to be kept on a short leash.

Who is to say that Bolton will not continue to stray off message as ambassador to the U.N.? Who is to say he will not hurt, rather than help, United States relations with the international community and our desire to reform the United Nations?

When discussing all of these concerns with Secretary Rice--John Bolton's propensity to get off message, his lack of interpersonal skills, his tendency to abuse others who disagree with him--I was informed by the Secretary of State she understood all these things and in spite of them still feels John Bolton is the best choice. She assured me she would be in frequent communication with him and that he would be supervised very closely.

My private thought, and I should have shared this with the Secretary of State, is why in the world would you want to send someone to the United Nations who requires such supervision?

I am also concerned about Mr. Bolton's interpersonal skills. I understand there will be several vacant senior posts on the staff when Mr. Bolton arrives in his new position. As a matter of fact, I understand all the top people are leaving. I understand one of the most respected and qualified people at the U.N., Anne Patterson, will be leaving her post, and others will be departing, as I mentioned.

As such, Mr. Bolton will face a challenge of inspiring, leading, and managing a new team, a staff of roughly 150 individuals, perhaps more, whom he is going to need to rely upon to get the job done. As we know, all of us are only as good as the team we have surrounding us. We are all aware of the testimony and observations related to Mr. Bolton's interpersonal and management skills.

With that record in mind, I have concern about Mr. Bolton's ability to inspire and lead a team so he can be as effective as possible in completing the important tasks before him. And I am not the only one. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee received letters from 102 U.S. diplomats who served under administrations for both sides of the aisle saying Mr. Bolton is the wrong man for the job.

Colin Powell's chief of staff, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, testified before the committee that Mr. Bolton would make ``an abysmal ambassador,'' and that ``he is incapable of listening to people and taking into account their views.''

I would like to read some of Mr. Wilkerson's testimony.

Mr. Wilkerson:

I would like to make just one statement. I don't have a

large problem with Under Secretary Bolton serving our

country. My objections to what we've been talking about

here--that is, him being our ambassador at the United

Nations--stem from two basic things. One, I think he's a

lousy leader. And there are 100 to 150 people up there that

have to be led; they have to be led well, and they have to be

led properly. And I think, in that capacity, if he goes up

there, you'll see the proof of the pudding in a year.

I would also like to highlight the words of another person I myself respect and who worked closely with Mr. Bolton. He told me if Bolton were confirmed, he would be ok for a short while, but within 6 months his poor interpersonal skills and lack of self-discipline would cause major problems. He told me Mr. Bolton is unable to control his temper.

I would like to read some quotes from the testimony of Christian Westermann, the analyst from the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, and Tom Fingar, Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research, about Mr. Bolton's patterns of losing his temper and getting angry.

Mr. Westermann:

He was quite upset that I had objected and he wanted to

know what right I had trying to change an Under Secretary's

language.

This was in a speech and Mr. Westermann had to send that speech over to the CIA and then it came back from the CIA.

And what he would say, or not say or something like that.

And I tried to explain a little bit of the same things about

the process of how we clear language. And I guess I wasn't

really in a mood to listen and he was quite angry and

basically told me I had no right to do that.

By the way, Mr. Westermann did not work in Mr. Bolton's section of the State Department. He worked in INR, another department, another department, not under his direct supervision.

And he [Mr. Bolton] got very red in the face, shaking his

finger at me and explaining to me I was acting way beyond my

position, and for someone who worked for him. I told him I

didn't work for him.

Staffer:

And when [Bolton] threw you out of the office, how did he

do that?

Committee staffer:

He just told me to get out and get Tom Fingar, he was

yelling and screaming and red in the face, and wagging his

finger. I'll never forget the wagging of the finger.

Committee staffer:

Could you characterize your meeting with Bolton? Was he

calm?

Mr. Tom Fingar:

No, he was angry.

Additionally, I want to note my concern that former Secretary of State Colin Powell, the person to whom Mr. Bolton answered over the last 4 years, was conspicuously absent from a letter signed by former Secretaries of State recommending Mr. Bolton's confirmation. Of all the people who worked with Mr. Bolton, Powell is the most qualified person to judge the man and his ability to serve as the Secretary's ambassador to the U.N. and he did not sign the letter.

In fact, I have learned that several well-respected leaders in our foreign policy community were shocked by Mr. Bolton's nomination because he is the last person thought to be appropriate for the job.

There are several interesting theories on how Mr. Bolton got the nomination. I am not going to go into them in the Senate. If anyone would like to talk to me about that, I am happy to discuss it with them; otherwise, I urge you to get in touch with senior members of the Foreign Relations Committee and ask them.

We are facing an era of foreign relations in which the choice of our ambassador to the United Nations should be one of the most thoughtful decisions we make. The candidate needs to be both a diplomat and a manager. He must have the ability to persuade and inspire our friends, to communicate and convince, to listen, to absorb the ideas of others. Without such virtues, we will face more efforts in our war on terrorism, to spread democracy and to foster stability globally.

The question is, is John Bolton the best person for the job? The administration says they believe he is the right man. They say despite his interpersonal shortcomings, he knows the U.N., he can reform the organization and make it more powerful and more relevant to the world.

There is no doubt John Bolton should be commended and thanked for his service and his particular achievements.

He has accomplished some important objectives against great odds. As the sponsor of legislation that established an office on global anti- Semitism in the State Department, I am particularly impressed by his work to repeal the U.N. legislation equating Zionism with racism. I wholeheartedly agree with Bolton that we must work with the U.N. to change its anti-Israel bias, and I applaud his work on this issue.

In 2003, I sent a letter to Secretary General Kofi Annan of the United Nations to express my profound concern about the appalling developments in the U.N. and the Palestinian Observer's equation of Zionism with Nazism and ask that the United Nations condemn the remarks and maintain a commitment to human rights.

Further, I am impressed by Mr. Bolton's achievements in the area of arms control, specifically on the Moscow Treaty, the G8 ``10-Plus-10- Over-10'' Global Partnership Fund, and the President's Proliferation Security Initiative.

Now, it has been suggested that we should vote for Mr. Bolton because of his achievements and qualifications despite his reputation as a ``bully'' and his poor interpersonal skills.

I agree that Mr. Bolton has had some achievements, but I am dubious that Mr. Bolton's record of performance has been so overwhelmingly successful that we should ignore his negative pattern of behavior and credibility problems with the international community.

For the last 4 years, Mr. Bolton served as the top arms control and nonproliferation official for the State Department. The most pressing nonproliferation issues affecting U.S. national security today involve the threat of Iran's nuclear ambitions, the threat of North Korea's nuclear ambitions, and the need to expand and accelerate our cooperation with the Russian Federation to secure and dismantle Russia's nuclear and WMD infrastructure to keep it out of the hands of would-be terrorists or proliferant nations.

The United States has not had significant success on these issues in the last 4 years. In the case of North Korea, they have withdrawn from the Nonproliferation Treaty and the situation has become more critical during Bolton's watch. Our U.S. Ambassador to South Korea, Thomas Hubbard, stated that Mr. Bolton's approach on North Korea was damaging to U.S. interests. With regard to our cooperation with Russia to secure its WMD infrastructure and fissile material, I have read several reports that Mr. Bolton also hurt efforts to move beyond the legal holdup of ``liability'' that has stymied our programs.

On May 16, a Newsweek article reported that for several years, the disposal of Russia's 134-ton hoard of plutonium has been stymied by an obscure legal issue in which Washington has sought to free U.S. contractors from any iability for nuclear contamination during cleanup. It says that: Bolton bore a very heavy responsibility for festering the plutonium issue. It reports that a former State Department official said: In 2004, Bolton quashed a compromise plan by his own nonproliferation bureau, even after other agencies had approved it.

I must say I am unimpressed by Mr. Bolton's failure to secure a compromise during his 4 years that would enable us to move forward to secure this material from terrorists.

The situation in Iran is also very concerning and has only worsened in the last 4 years.

Among our accomplishments in nonproliferation, there is no doubt that Libya's decision to dismantle its WMD infrastructure was one of the largest successes of the last 4 years.

We really rejoiced over that. However, there is credible reporting that Mr. Bolton was sidelined from the negotiations by the White House and that some believed he might hurt their chances of succeeding with Libya. Additional reports indicate that Mr.

Bolton was sidelined at the request of British officials working on the issue, because they felt he was a liability during the negotiations.

Mr. Bolton has also been given a great deal of credit for his work on getting Article 98 agreements with several countries and important military partners. Article 98 agreements secure U.S. military officers from prosecution under the International Criminal Court while conducting operations or military exercises in a foreign country.

I support the efforts to secure Article 98 agreements and protect U.S. Forces against what could be a politically driven trial in a foreign country. However, I understand that Mr. Bolton worked to secure these agreements by putting a hold on all U.S. military education and training assistance to these countries--understanding that the last seven countries we brought into the United Nations never signed that Article 98 treaty.

This assistance that we provide to these countries provides education to military officials about U.S. and Western military doctrine, the importance of a civilian-run military, civil-military relations, and respect for human rights. It provides basic leadership training and other important training that enables foreign troops to interoperate with U.S. forces and international forces--such as English language training and general combat training. This is very important assistance at a time when we are fighting with a coalition in Afghanistan and a coalition in Iraq. But at the very same time that we were seeking additional supporters in Iraq, some military officials arriving at U.S. airports to receive the military education training were turned away because of Mr. Bolton's strong-arming tactics.

As I understand it, several different State Department officials asked Mr. Bolton to remove the holds because of the negative impact they were having on our allies, and he refused to listen to their views.

I ran into this when I was in Croatia a couple weeks ago. I talked to the new Prime Minister of Croatia, Ivo Sanader, and he was saying: I have to sign Article 98. If I don't get it, then we get no help whatsoever in terms of advice about how we civilianize our Army and so forth. And there are people in the Defense Department who think it is a good idea. And I think it is a good idea because we have to be concerned, in some of those countries that have gone democratic, that if things get bad, we do not want to see a coup d'etat come from the military part of their operation. So we should be doing everything we can to civilianize it. But, no, can't do it. Mr. Bolton doesn't want to do it.

Mr. President, how are we supposed to persuade our friends and allies to join us in Iraq and Afghanistan when we are cutting off the English- language training and other military training that would enable them to send troops to serve with us?

In fact, the policy is contradictory to U.S. public diplomacy efforts as well as efforts to secure support in Iraq and Afghanistan, but Mr. Bolton did not listen to the views of his staff who told him that the policy was damaging our bigger picture interests.

For this reason, I question the suggestion that Mr. Bolton's qualifications and his record of performance is so outstanding that we should vote for him, despite his negative pattern of behavior.

But this is another issue that is deeply concerning to me. We cannot deny that Mr. Bolton's record shows a pattern of behavior that is contradictory to that of an effective Ambassador.

I would like to read to you a quote by Mr. Carl Ford, who headed the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, INR, in the State Department from 2001 to 2003. He testified that Mr. Bolton is a ``kiss up and kick down'' leader who does not tolerate those who disagree with him and goes out of his way to retaliate for their disagreement.

Here is what Mr. Ford said:

Unfortunately, my judgment, my opinion, he's a

quintessential ``kiss-up, kick-down'' sort of guy . . . I'm

sure you've met them. But the fact is that he stands out,

that he's got a bigger kick and it gets bigger and stronger

the further down the bureaucracy he's kicking.

Others who have worked closely with Mr. Bolton have stated that he is an ideologue and that he fosters an atmosphere of intimidation and does not tolerate disagreement, does not tolerate dissent, and that he bullies those who disagree with him.

I would like to read some excerpts from the testimony of the Ambassador to South Korea, Thomas Hubbard, and Mr. John Wolf, Assistant Secretary of the Nonproliferation Bureau, who worked directly under Mr. Bolton.

Committee staffer. There have been press reports--one in

December of 2003, in USA Today, that--I'll just read you the

quote from that story. Quote, ``In private, Bolton's

colleagues can be scathing. One high-level coworker calls

Bolton `an anti-diplomat who tries to intimidate those who

disagree with his views.' Another diplomat says, `No one in

the Department dares to criticize Bolton on the record,

because he has support at the highest levels of the

Administration. Despite his often blunt public

pronouncements, he's never publicly chastised or

contradicted,' the diplomat says.'' Does that sound like the

John Bolton you know?

Ambassador Hubbard. It sounds, in general, like what I

experienced.

Committee staffer. Did that--did Mr. Bolton prevent those

views of debate [on policy issues from the Nonproliferation

Bureau] from getting up to the Deputy Secretary?

Mr. Wolf, [Assistant Secretary of Nonproliferation]: There

were long and arduous discussions about issues before they

got to the Secretary.

Committee staffer. And, in those discussions, how would you

characterize Mr. Bolton's demeanor and professionalism in

listening to alternative points of views or listening to

those who disagreed with his point of view? Did he have an

open mind?

Mr. Wolf. He tended to hold on to his own views strongly,

and he tended not to be--he tended not to be enthusiastic

about alternative views.

Mr. Wolf. He did not--he did not--he did not encourage

differing views. And he tended to have a fairly blunt manner

of expressing himself.

Committee staffer. Would you go so far as to say that he

discouraged alternative views through his demeanor and

through his response when people presented alternative views

to him?

Mr. Wolf. He did not encourage us to provide our views to

the Secretary . . . our alternative views.

Colin Powell's chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson testified that Mr. Bolton tended to focus on accomplishing his own goals as a matter of ``bean-counting'' and refused to consider the repercussions of his methods on the greater policy objectives of the United States.

I would like to quote from Colonel Wilkerson's testimony:

Second, I differ from a lot of people in Washington, both

friend and foe of Under Secretary Bolton, as to his, quote,

``brilliance,'' unquote. I didn't see it. I saw a man who

counted beans, who said ``98 today, 99 tomorrow, 100 the next

day,'' and had no willingness--in many cases, no capacity--to

understand the other things that were happening around those

beans. And that is just a recipe for problems at the United

Nations. And that's the only reason that I said anything.

Mr. Wilkerson again:

My prejudice and my bias will come out here, because I

think one of the number-one problems facing the country right

now--and, you know, I'm here because of my country--

This is Wilkerson. He volunteered. We didn't go out and get him. He volunteered.

--not because of anybody else--is North Korea . . . So when

people ignore diplomacy that is aimed at dealing with that

problem in order to push their pet rocks in other areas, it

bothers me, as a diplomat, and as a citizen of this country.

And I have citations on all of this in the testimony.

Wilkerson again:

It was the same thing with nonproliferation. The statistic

I mentioned before, which I think Under Secretary Bolton

mentioned in his speech in Tokyo on February the 7th, if I

remember right--I still keep up with this stuff, Northeast

Asia--and he said the Clinton Administration, in eight years,

had sanctioned China eight times, and the Bush

Administration, in four years, had sanctioned China 62 times.

As I used to say, what's the measurement of effectiveness

here? What's it done? Is the sanctioning of 62 times an

indication that China is proliferating more? Or is it an

indication that we're cracking down? I'd love to see the

statistic for the next four years, if Bolton were to remain

Under Secretary. It would be 120 or 140. And what is the

effectiveness of this? Are we actually stopping proliferation

that was dangerous to our interest? Or are we doing it, and

ignoring other problems that cry out for cures, diplomatic?

And no one sits and says, you know, ``Okay, that's correct,

that's correct, this is correct, this is what's effective,

this isn't effective.'' The one time I had a conversation

with John about this, I asked him, ``How do you go beyond

sanctions, John? War?'' [Bolton's implied answer was:] ``Not

my business.'' [In other words, that was not his problem.]

Former Assistant Secretary of the Intelligence and Research Bureau Carl Ford testified he had never seen anyone behave as badly in all his days at

the State Department and that he would not have even testified before the Committee if John Bolton had simply followed protocol and simple rules of management.

Mr. Ford. I can guarantee you . . . that if Secretary

Bolton had chosen to come to see me, or in my absence, my

Principal Deputy, Secretary Tom Fingar, I wouldn't be here

today. He could have approached me in the same tone, and in

the same attitude--shaking his finger, red in the face, high

tone in his voice--and I wouldn't be here today. If he had

gone to Secretary Powell, or Secretary Armitage, and

complained loudly about the poor service that he was

receiving from INR and the terrible treatment that he had

been stabbed in the back by one of INR's analysts, I wouldn't

be here today. The fact is, it is appropriate, if someone is

unhappy with the service they're getting from one of the

services or organizations in a bureaucracy, that they should

complain. They should yell as loud as they want to. But,

instead of doing any of those three things, Secretary Bolton

chose to reach five or six levels down below him in the

bureaucracy--

By the way, a bureaucracy he was not in charge of

--bring an analyst into his office, and give him a tongue

lashing, and I frankly don't care whether he sang scat for

five minutes, the attitude, the volume of his tone, and what

I understand to be the substance of the conversation--he was

so far over the line . . . That is, I've never seen anybody

quite like Secretary Bolton . . . I don't have a second and a

third or fourth, in terms of the way he abuses his power and

authority with little people . . . There are a lot of

screamers that work in government, but you don't pull

somebody so low down in the bureaucracy that they're

completely defenseless. It's an 800 pound gorilla devouring a

banana. The analyst was required simply to stand there and

take it, and Secretary Bolton knew when he had the tirade

that, in fact, that was the case.

I want to note that in Mr. Bolton's testimony, he justifies his anger and retaliatory actions against Mr. Westermann by citing an apologetic e-mail from Mr. Tom Fingar, Assistant Secretary of the Intelligence Bureau. And when I met privately with Mr. Bolton, he said: Right after it happened, I received this apologetic e-mail from Mr. Fingar. So we asked Mr. Fingar and Mr. Ford about the e-mail.

Committee staffer. You said . . . that what Mr. Westermann

did was entirely within the procedure, he was never

disciplined, it was perfectly normal, that the only failure

of his was lack of prudence. And then here [in the e-mail to

Bolton] you say it's ``entirely inappropriate,'' and ``we

screwed up, it won't happen again.'' That seems like a rather

different assessment.

Mr. Fingar. Well, I knew I was dealing with somebody who

was very upset, I was trying to get the incident closed,

which I didn't regard as a big deal. I know John [Bolton] was

mad. I assumed, when people are mad, they get over it. So,

did I lean over in the direction of ``Sure, we'll take

responsibility?'' He thanked me for it, at least as far as

I'm concerned, in my dealings with Bolton, that closed it.

So basically it was, somebody is mad. You send them back an e-mail and say our guy didn't do what he was supposed to do. You hope they will get off your butt and it will be over with. But it wasn't over. He kept going after him. We have to move this guy. We have to bring somebody else in here. I can't deal with him. That is the way he acts.

Mr. Ford:

. . . knowing him [Fingar] well, I'm assuming it simply was,

as you said, this guy [Bolton] was furious, he could

potentially do great damage to the bureau, and he [Fingar]

was just trying to put him back in the box and keep him from

doing any more harm. And I can't fault him for that.

I also want to point out that Carl Ford, Lawrence Wilkerson, and almost all of the witnesses who came before our committee are appointees of the Bush administration. These are loyal Republicans who say: I am a conservative Republican. I am loyal to the President, that they could not abide Mr. Bolton's nomination because of their concern for his conduct and his erratic, often unprofessional, behavior.

That is what this is about.

I have to say that after pouring over the hundreds of pages of testimony and speaking with many individuals, I believe John Bolton would have been fired if he had worked for a major corporation. That is not the behavior of a true leader who upholds the kind of democracy President Bush is seeking to promote globally. This is not the behavior that should be endorsed as the face of the United States to the world community at the United Nations.

It, rather, is my opinion that John Bolton is the poster child of what the diplomatic corps should not be. I worry about the signal we are sending to the thousands of individuals under the State Department who are serving their country in foreign service and civil service, living in posts across the world and in some cases risking their lives, all so they can represent our country, promote diplomacy, and contribute to the safety of Americans everywhere.

What are we saying to these people? And I care about human capital. I have been working on it now for over 6 years. When we say to these people that we look to confirm an individual with this record to one of the highest positions in the State Department, what are we saying to these people? I was in Croatia. I was in Slovenia. They can't believe it.

I want to emphasize that I have weighed Bolton's strengths carefully. I have weighed the fact that this is the President's nominee. All things being equal, it is my proclivity to support the President's nominee, as most of us. However, in this case, all things are not equal. It is a different world today than it was 4 years ago. Our enemies are Muslim extremists and religious fanatics who have hijacked the Koran and have convinced people that the way to get to Heaven is through Jihad and against the world, particularly the United States. We must recognize that to be successful in this war, one of our most important tools is public diplomacy, more than ever before-- intelligence and public diplomacy. After hours of deliberation, telephone calls, personal conversations, reading hundreds of pages of transcripts, and asking for guidance from above, I have come to the determination that the United States can do better than John Bolton. We need an ambassador who understands the wisdom of Teddy Roosevelt's policy to walk softly and carry a big stick. The U.S. needs an ambassador who is interested in encouraging other people's points of view and discouraging any atmosphere of intimidation. The world needs an American ambassador to the U.N. who will show that the United States has respect for other countries and intermediary organizations, that we are team players and consensus builders and promoters of symbiotic relationships.

In moving forward with the international community, we should remember the words of the Scot poet Bobbie Burns who said:

Oh, that some great power would give me the wisdom to see

myself as other people see me.

And when thinking of John Bolton earlier today, I thought of one--I don't know whether it is a fairy tale, or whatever, called ``The Emperor Has No Clothes.'' We are going to vote tomorrow, and I am afraid that when we go to the well, too many of my colleagues are not going to understand that this appointment is very important to our country. At a strategic time when we need friends all over the world, we need somebody who is going to be able to get the job done. Some of my friends say: Let it go, George. It is going to work out.

I don't want to take the risk. I came back here and ran for a second term because I am worried about my kids and my grandchildren. I just hope my colleagues will take the time before they get to this well and do some serious thinking about whether we should send John Bolton to the United Nations.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 25, 2005, at 10 a.m. in SR-328A, Russell Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing will be to review the United States Grain Standards Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 25, 2005, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the nomination of Mr. Ben S. Bernanke, of New Jersey, to be a member of the Council of Economic Advisers; and Mr. Brian D. Montgomery, of Texas, to be Assistant Secretary of Housing/ Federal Housing Commissioner, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, May 25, 2005, at 10 a.m. on S. 360, Coastal Zone Management Reauthorization Act of 2005.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 25, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. to consider comprehensive energy legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Wednesday, May 25, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct an oversight hearing to review Permitting of Energy Projects. The hearing will be held in SD 406.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Wednesday, May 25, 2005, at 10 a.m., to hear testimony on ``Social Security: Achieving Sustainable Solvency.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 25, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a hearing on nominations.

Mr. President, I as unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 25, 2005, at 9:50 a.m., in SD-430.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, May 25, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., for a hearing titled, ``How Counterfeit Goods Provide Easy Cash for Criminals and Terrorists.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, May 25, 2005, at 2:30 p.m., to consider the nomination of Linda M. Combs to be Controller, Office of Federal Financial Management, Office of Management and Budget.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, May 25, 2005, at 10 a.m., in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on S.J. Res. 15, a joint resolution to acknowledge a long history of official depredations and ill-conceived policies by the United States Government regarding Indian tribes and offer an apology to all Native peoples on behalf of the United States.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Wednesday, May 25, 2005 at 9:30 a.m., in Senate Dirksen Office Building, room 226. Currently, S. 852, the asbestos legislation, is the only item on the agenda.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, pursuant to rule 26.5(a) of the Standing Rules of the Senate that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet after conclusion of the first 2 hours after the meeting of the Senate commences on May 25, 2005.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Piracy of Intellectual Property'' on Wednesday, May 2005, at 2:30 p.m., in Dirksen 226. The witness list is attached.

Panel I: Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights and Associate Librarian for Copyright Services, United States Copyright Office, Washington, DC; Stephen M. Pinkos, Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA; and James E. Mendenhall, Acting General Counsel, Office of the United States Trade Representative.

Panel II: Eric Smith, President, International Intellectual Property Alliance, Washington, DC; Taylor Hackford, Board Member, Directors Guild of America, Los Angeles, CA; and Robert W. Holleyman II, President and Chief Executive Officer, Business Software Alliance, Washington, DC.

The PRESIDENT OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I rise to support the nomination of Priscilla Owen to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

I believe it is important that the Senate take its responsibility to advise and consent with respect to nominations very seriously. The people who are appointed to the judiciary, as well as to the executive branch of Government, can have an enormous impact on how our Government operates. In many cases, an appointee can make the difference on whether a particular policy or program is effective.

I also believe the Senate should seek to work in a bipartisan manner, particularly with respect to judges. Since I came to the Senate 6 years ago, I have always been open to listen to any concerns that my colleagues across the aisle may have about a nominee.

There has been a great deal said about Priscilla Owen and her nomination to the Fifth Circuit. I have heard the concerns about Justice Owen, but, frankly, I do not see any basis for them. If Justice Owen is not acceptable as a nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals, we are going to have a hard time filling the vacancies in the court of appeals.

Let's review Justice Owen's record. Justice Owen has a very distinguished and impressive record as a lawyer, community leader, and most recently as a justice on the Texas Supreme Court.

Justice Owen graduated cum laude from Baylor University and cum laude from Baylor Law School in 1977. She was on the Baylor Law Review and earned the highest score on the Texas bar exam in December of 1977.

Justice Owen joined the well-regarded firm of Andrews & Kurth and rose to be a partner by the remarkably young age of 30. Any lawyer in this body has to be impressed with the fact that someone such as Justice Owen could become a partner at the age of 30. She practiced commercial litigation for 17 years.

In 1994, Justice Owen was elected to the Texas Supreme Court, and, in 2000, as has already been noted, she won a second term to the Texas Supreme Court with a vote of 84 percent.

This is a very impressive record.

I am not surprised that the American Bar Association unanimously rated Justice Owen as ``well qualified.'' That is the highest rating the American Bar Association can give to someone seeking a judgeship.

But Justice Owen's legal credentials are not the only reasons I support her

nomination. In an age where I believe too many people do not take the time to become active members of their communities, Justice Owen has been a real leader in her community.

She is a member of the board of the Texas Hearing & Service Dogs, and a member of the St. Barnabas Episcopal Mission, where she teaches Sunday school. She helped organize Family Law 2000, which seeks to lessen the adversarial nature of divorce proceedings in her State.

She has been honored as Baylor Young Lawyer of the Year and as a Baylor University Outstanding Young Alumna. She also has been active in helping the poor obtain legal services, as well as other pro bono legal activities.

I think her involvement in her community is important. We need judges who not only have exceptional legal skills, which Justice Owen certainly has, but also who have a perspective about how the law impacts upon individuals and communities.

I have reviewed the letters of support she has received, and I am pleased that she has such broad support from the people who know her best and have worked with her.

I also would like to note that even her opponents in the Senate have said they believe her to be a very good person. Accordingly, I do not see any issues that could raise any questions about whether she should be confirmed. Rather, she is exactly the type of serious, hard-working, and well-respected person who should be nominated to the court of appeals.

Some have said that Justice Owen is an extremist who will be a judicial activist. Again, I see no reason for such conclusions. Reviewing her record, I see a judge who vigorously but carefully sets forth her reasoning in her decisions and is willing to stand up for what she thinks is the correct decision. She is not an activist. She is an excellent judge.

Any good nominee who has been active in thinking and writing about issues is going to have statements in their writings that, if taken out of context, can be made to appear extreme. This is what has happened to Justice Owen. Her opponents--mainly partisan interest groups--have scrutinized her writings, looking for anything that they could make into a sound bite to distort her record. But an examination of her record as a whole reveals that claims that she is extremist are baseless. Justice Owen is a good judge and would and will make a great circuit court judge.

There is no need to filibuster this nominee. Justice Owen deserves an up-or-down vote. The filibustering of Justice Owen reveals just why the constitutional option may be necessary. The filibuster is being abused. If the minority is going to abuse its power to filibuster nominees such as Justice Owen, then the nomination process will break down completely. It is already too long and demanding on nominees and their families and deters excellent candidates from choosing to serve. We have no idea of what a chill this is sending throughout the country to people who we would like to serve on the bench but who say: I don't want to go through that process. It is a shame that such an exceptionally qualified nominee such as Miguel Estrada finally asked that his nomination be withdrawn after being filibustered for 2 years. As I look at what a clearly qualified nominee such as Miguel Estrada and Justice Owen must go through to serve our country, I wonder that the judiciary is not going to be able to attract the talent it needs.

If every nominee must get 60 votes, it is clear that many posts simply will not be filled. In addition, if we require 60 votes to confirm nominees, we are only going to see nominees who have no paper trails or records of achievement, who have done little, if any, scholarly work, and who avoid public or judicial controversies. I don't want extremists on the bench, but I also don't want bland nominees who have never had to make difficult decisions.

Comparing the Senate now to the Senate prior to the 108th Congress when filibustering of judicial nominations first occurred, I have to say that I think the old system was a lot better than what we saw in the 108th Congress. Under that system, a nominee who had the support of a majority of Senators, who was reported out of the Judiciary Committee, would get an up-or-down vote after review of the nominee's record and a robust debate. That was the fair way to proceed. It has been that way many times. It has been that way, as a matter of fact, for 214 years. No judicial nominee sent to the Senate floor who had the support of a majority of Senators was denied an up-or-down vote. There were no judicial filibusters. Thus, I do not consider the constitutional option as a change in the rules but a restoration of a Senate tradition, the tradition that filibusters do not apply to judicial nominees.

My colleagues on this side of the aisle, including myself, had many opportunities to filibuster judicial nominees during the Clinton years as well as during the decades it spent in the minority. Just think about how long the Republican Party was in the minority--from 1954 to 1980. All during that time, they never used a filibuster to stop a judge who was nominated. They insisted that there be an up-or-down vote. This was the courtesy that was extended to the other party. It helped make sure that the judicial nomination process worked smoothly and fairly. I wish the present minority would extend the same courtesy now.

I also believe the ongoing abuse of the filibuster is preventing the Senate from addressing other, often more pressing business, such as passing an energy bill, addressing asbestos litigation, and other issues. I can recall in the 108th Congress hour after hour after hour after hour, staying here late at night, working on these judicial nominees when, in my opinion, we should have been doing the other work of the Senate that was important to the people of our country.

The minority has repeatedly claimed that President Bush has had 95 percent or so of his nominees confirmed. Yet we all know this statistic is a smokescreen. The real issue here is the appointment of circuit court judges, and the minority has successfully prevented the confirmation of about a third of President Bush's nominations. President Bush has the lowest confirmation rate of circuit court judges of any President going back as far as President Roosevelt. I think the statistics show that the real issue here is not that any of these judges is extreme but that there is an active campaign to use the filibuster to prevent President Bush from appointing circuit court judges.

It is the President's job to nominate judges, and it is the Senate's job to advise and consent. It is time the Senate started doing its job and voted on these nominees. If a Senator doesn't like the nominee, that Senator should vote against the nominee. If someone doesn't like Justice Owen, vote against her, don't filibuster her and deny your colleagues an up-or-down vote. I want to vote on these nominees.

There have been nominees in the past and some currently and some from my own party who I did not support. But I never filibustered them, even during the Clinton years. I can remember in our conference meetings talking about judges and some of my colleagues getting up and saying at those meetings: Let's filibuster this judge. We can't allow that judge to go forward. That judge is going to be bad for the district court to which they are being nominated. I can remember Orrin Hatch saying: We can't do that because if we start to do this, God only knows where we are going.

Last time around, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle started a new tradition. It is not a good tradition for the Senate. It is not a good tradition for the people of the United States of America. I believe both the President and my fellow Senators, as well as this country, deserve the courtesy of an up-or-down vote on nominees.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Economic Development Act of 2005 to authorize States to provide tax incentives for economic development purposes.

This legislation is crucial to preserve tax incentives as an important tool for State and local governments to promote economic development in the wake of last year's decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cuno v. DaimlerChrysler.

In its decision in Cuno, the Sixth Circuit struck down Ohio's manufacturing machinery and equipment tax credit, which I helped enact while I was Governor of Ohio, on grounds that it violated the ``dormant'' Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The court ruled that the tax incentive violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution because it granted preferential tax treatment to companies that invest within the State rather than in other States.

The Cuno decision has had severe repercussions across the country. The decision immediately cast doubt on the constitutionality of tax incentives presently offered by all fifty States. As

a result, States and businesses have been reluctant to go forward with new projects that depend on the availability of tax incentives out of concern that the Cuno decision may be used to invalidate those incentives. This legal uncertainty has worsened an already challenging economic environment. Furthermore, the decision threatens to undermine federalism by dramatically restricting the ability of States to craft their tax codes to promote economic development in the manner they determine is best. If left standing, this decision will handcuff the States in the Sixth Circuit, as well as States in other circuits where the court chooses to follow Cuno, in their efforts to promote economic growth and create jobs. Additionally, it will cripple their ability to compete internationally. In today's competitive economic environment, we can not afford to unilaterally discard the use of tax incentive to attract business to this country. As a former Governor who had to compete against Japan, Canada, China and Europe for new business projects, I know just how important a role tax incentives can play in attracting new businesses. I can assure you that our competitors are certainly not going to stop using tax incentives. Neither should we.

Fortunately, the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to determine which State actions violate the Commerce Clause. The purpose of the Economic Development Act of 2005 is therefore to have Congress override the decision in Cuno by authorizing States to provide tax incentives for economic development purposes. The legislation would remove the legal uncertainty surrounding tax incentives created by the Cuno decision and preserve the States' power to design their tax codes to promote economic development.

The history of the tax incentive struck down in Cuno demonstrates the important role tax incentives can play in promoting economic development. When I was Governor of Ohio, at my request and as part of my jobs incentive package, the Ohio Legislature enacted the manufacturing machinery and equipment tax incentive to encourage businesses to expand their operations in Ohio and to help draw new businesses to Ohio. It worked. Between 1993 and 1997, Ohio was ranked number one in the Nation by Site Selection and Industrial Development magazine three times for highest number of new facilities, expanded facilities, and new manufacturing plants. Since the program's inception, businesses have been eligible to claim a total of $2 billion in credits toward $34 billion in new equipment investments.

Currently, this incentive is part of an incentive package being offered to automobile manufacturer DaimlerChrysler in support of its plans for a $200 million expansion of their Jeep plant. The ruling by the Sixth Circuit in Cuno, however, puts that expansion in jeopardy and threatens to undermine Ohio's competitiveness in attracting new businesses.

In the Cuno decision, the Sixth Circuit ruled that the manufacturing machinery and equipment tax incentive, given by Ohio to DaimlerChrysler as part of its incentive package, violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution because it discriminated against interstate commerce by granting preferential tax treatment to companies that expanded within the State rather than in other States.

The Cuno decision is troubling for several reasons. First, I believe the Sixth Circuit failed to appreciate the need for States to condition the availability of certain tax incentives on the undertaking of the specified economic activity within a State. In the case of the manufacturing machinery and equipment tax incentive, Ohio needed to limit the availability of the tax incentive to the investments undertaken in the State. Otherwise, Ohio would have been giving companies a tax incentive for activity that did not benefit the State. In other words, Ohio would have been effectively subsidizing investment in other States. We all know that in economics there is no free lunch and States should not be forced to provide a free lunch when they choose to give tax incentives. If Ohio or any other State is willing to forego tax revenue, it should be allowed to receive something in return, namely investment or other economic activity in the State. Accordingly, Ohio's tax incentive did not discriminate against interstate commerce. It merely required companies, if they chose to take advantage of the incentive, to undertake the investment in Ohio, the same State that would be foregoing tax revenue to provide the incentive.

There is also a little legal fiction present in the Cuno decision. The court states that Ohio could have provided a direct subsidy to companies that undertook investment in the State. Because Ohio decided to structure the program as a tax credit, however, the court said that it ran afoul of the Commerce Clause. I do not see how a direct subsidy does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause, but a tax credit does. They are economically the same.

If left standing, the Cuno decision will have a particularly detrimental effect on the U.S. manufacturing sector. From rising energy and health care costs to frivolous lawsuits and unfair international trade practices, the U.S. manufacturing sector and the hard working men and women who drive it are getting squeezed from all sides. Despite all they are up against, it's a testament to their ability and determination that they are still the most productive manufacturers in the world. This Sixth Circuit decision, however, is a new roadblock that threatens to take away one of the most effective and efficient means for assisting manufacturers who want to create new jobs here in America. The Economic Development Act of 2005 will make sure that manufacturers don't lose key tax incentives just when such incentives are needed the most.

The Cuno decision also sets a bad precedent that, if not checked, could upset our carefully balanced federal system. One of the most ingenious aspects of the U.S. Constitution is that it leaves a great deal of power with the States. It gives the States flexibility to devise their own solutions and, in the process, fosters innovation in government. Thus, the States are the laboratories of our democracy and an innovation they have developed to help create jobs and prosperity are programs that encourage new growth through tax incentives for training, job creation, and investment in new plants and equipment. The availability of tax incentives was critical to our success in Ohio and in being number one in new plant construction and expansion. Because Ohio had the ability to devise tax incentives that fit its economic development needs, we were able to create thousands of new jobs. My legislation will guarantee that the States remain our engines of innovation.

This legislation is something that Congress should have done a long time ago. The courts are not well-suited to making the often complex policy decisions regarding whether a tax incentive truly discriminates against interstate commerce and hinders the creation of a national market, or whether a tax incentive actually fosters innovation and job growth. Such decisions necessarily involve a careful weighing of competing and often mutually exclusive interests, and therefore should be made by Congress. Moreover, judicial decisions often fail to provide bright lines on which incentives run afoul of the dormant Commerce Clause, injecting uncertainty about the validity of certain tax incentives that makes businesses weary of relying on them and reduce their effectiveness. Indeed, the Supreme Court itself has called its dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence a ``quagmire.'' Hence, it is time that Congress provide some clear rules on the treatment of tax incentives under the Commerce Clause.

As Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter stated nearly a half- century ago:

At best, this Court can only act negatively; it can

determine whether a specific state tax is imposed in

violation of the Commerce Clause. Such decisions must

necessarily depend on the application of rough and ready

legal concepts. We cannot make a detailed inquiry into the

incidence of diverse economic burdens in order to

determine the extent to which such burdens conflict with

the necessities of national economic life. Neither can we

devise appropriate standards for dividing up national

revenue on the basis of more or less abstract principles

of constitutional law, which cannot be responsive to the

subtleties of the interrelated economies of Nation and

State.

The problem calls for solution by devising a congressional

policy. Congress alone can provide for a full and thorough

canvassing of the multitudinous and intricate factors which

compose the problem of the taxing

freedom of the States and the needed limits on such state

taxing power. Congressional committees can make studies and

give the claims of the individual States adequate hearing

before the ultimate legislative formulation of policy is made

by the representatives of all the States. . . . Congress

alone can formulate policies founded upon economic realities.

. . .

The Economic Development Act of 2005 is a good first step toward providing the prudent and carefully considered legislation that Justice Frankfurter urged the Congress to pass nearly a half century ago.

At its core, the Economic Development Act of 2005 recognizes that decisions should be made, if possible, at the State and local level. States make and should make decisions about the programs and services they want to provide with their tax dollars, not the least of which are economic development programs. Highway funding, education funding, welfare funding, and funding for seniors programs all vary from state to state because State legislatures, acting on behalf of their citizens, make choices and set priorities. This has allowed government policy to reflect the diversity of interests in our great republic and results in better and more responsive government. Accordingly, states should be allowed to prioritize economic development in an effort to create jobs and prosperity for their citizens, and, yes, attract business from outside their State. If States choose to use tax incentives to promote economic development, then that is not a violation of the interstate commerce clause, that's simply their choice. It is called federalism, and it should not be thwarted by the courts.

There are a couple of points about this legislation that I would like to discuss. First, this legislation is carefully crafted to protect the most common and benign forms of tax incentives, but not to authorize those tax incentives that truly discriminate against interstate commerce. I believe this bill strikes the right balance between protecting States' tax rights and preserving long-established protections against truly discriminatory State tax practices. Second, this legislation does not invalidate any tax incentives. It only authorizes tax incentives. Any tax incentive not covered by the legislation's authorization is simply subject to the traditional dormant Commerce Clause review by the courts. Third, this legislation does not require any state to provide tax incentives. Although I had success using tax incentives to foster economic growth in Ohio while I was Governor, I recognize that some states have concerns about whether and how to offer tax incentives and therefore believe it should be left to the states to resolve these concerns.

I am pleased that this legislation is being co-sponsored by all of the Senators representing States in the Sixth Circuit. We all realize that the right of states to make their own decisions about the programs and services they offer within their boundaries is their own and should not be taken away. Moreover, if the Supreme Court fails to review the Cuno decision, then our States, the States in the Sixth Circuit, will be at a competitive disadvantage in attracting businesses against other states which are not affected by the Cuno decision and can offer tax incentives.

The bill has also been endorsed by Governor Bob Taft of Ohio, the National Governors Association, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the National Conference of Mayors and the Federation of Tax Administrators, as well as by broad-based business coalitions and the Teamsters.

I am hopeful that the seriousness of this issue, and the severity of the ruling's possible ramifications, will allow us to see quick and positive consideration of my bill. The States are in a crisis mode because of this ruling. In Ohio, as I'm sure is the case across the country, many important projects have been put on hold as we await the court's further action.

The challenges that manufacturers and workers face today are daunting but surmountable. The last thing we need, however, is an artificial legal hurdle that threatens to trip us up. I urge my colleagues to support the Economic Development Act of 2005 so that we can preserve the ability of the States to foster economic development and help put our economy, and especially our manufacturing industries, back on the road to recovery and prosperity.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Economic Development Act of 2005 to authorize States to provide tax incentives for economic development purposes.

This legislation is crucial to preserve tax incentives as an important tool for State and local governments to promote economic development in the wake of last year's decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cuno v. DaimlerChrysler.

In its decision in Cuno, the Sixth Circuit struck down Ohio's manufacturing machinery and equipment tax credit, which I helped enact while I was Governor of Ohio, on grounds that it violated the ``dormant'' Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The court ruled that the tax incentive violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution because it granted preferential tax treatment to companies that invest within the State rather than in other States.

The Cuno decision has had severe repercussions across the country. The decision immediately cast doubt on the constitutionality of tax incentives presently offered by all fifty States. As

a result, States and businesses have been reluctant to go forward with new projects that depend on the availability of tax incentives out of concern that the Cuno decision may be used to invalidate those incentives. This legal uncertainty has worsened an already challenging economic environment. Furthermore, the decision threatens to undermine federalism by dramatically restricting the ability of States to craft their tax codes to promote economic development in the manner they determine is best. If left standing, this decision will handcuff the States in the Sixth Circuit, as well as States in other circuits where the court chooses to follow Cuno, in their efforts to promote economic growth and create jobs. Additionally, it will cripple their ability to compete internationally. In today's competitive economic environment, we can not afford to unilaterally discard the use of tax incentive to attract business to this country. As a former Governor who had to compete against Japan, Canada, China and Europe for new business projects, I know just how important a role tax incentives can play in attracting new businesses. I can assure you that our competitors are certainly not going to stop using tax incentives. Neither should we.

Fortunately, the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to determine which State actions violate the Commerce Clause. The purpose of the Economic Development Act of 2005 is therefore to have Congress override the decision in Cuno by authorizing States to provide tax incentives for economic development purposes. The legislation would remove the legal uncertainty surrounding tax incentives created by the Cuno decision and preserve the States' power to design their tax codes to promote economic development.

The history of the tax incentive struck down in Cuno demonstrates the important role tax incentives can play in promoting economic development. When I was Governor of Ohio, at my request and as part of my jobs incentive package, the Ohio Legislature enacted the manufacturing machinery and equipment tax incentive to encourage businesses to expand their operations in Ohio and to help draw new businesses to Ohio. It worked. Between 1993 and 1997, Ohio was ranked number one in the Nation by Site Selection and Industrial Development magazine three times for highest number of new facilities, expanded facilities, and new manufacturing plants. Since the program's inception, businesses have been eligible to claim a total of $2 billion in credits toward $34 billion in new equipment investments.

Currently, this incentive is part of an incentive package being offered to automobile manufacturer DaimlerChrysler in support of its plans for a $200 million expansion of their Jeep plant. The ruling by the Sixth Circuit in Cuno, however, puts that expansion in jeopardy and threatens to undermine Ohio's competitiveness in attracting new businesses.

In the Cuno decision, the Sixth Circuit ruled that the manufacturing machinery and equipment tax incentive, given by Ohio to DaimlerChrysler as part of its incentive package, violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution because it discriminated against interstate commerce by granting preferential tax treatment to companies that expanded within the State rather than in other States.

The Cuno decision is troubling for several reasons. First, I believe the Sixth Circuit failed to appreciate the need for States to condition the availability of certain tax incentives on the undertaking of the specified economic activity within a State. In the case of the manufacturing machinery and equipment tax incentive, Ohio needed to limit the availability of the tax incentive to the investments undertaken in the State. Otherwise, Ohio would have been giving companies a tax incentive for activity that did not benefit the State. In other words, Ohio would have been effectively subsidizing investment in other States. We all know that in economics there is no free lunch and States should not be forced to provide a free lunch when they choose to give tax incentives. If Ohio or any other State is willing to forego tax revenue, it should be allowed to receive something in return, namely investment or other economic activity in the State. Accordingly, Ohio's tax incentive did not discriminate against interstate commerce. It merely required companies, if they chose to take advantage of the incentive, to undertake the investment in Ohio, the same State that would be foregoing tax revenue to provide the incentive.

There is also a little legal fiction present in the Cuno decision. The court states that Ohio could have provided a direct subsidy to companies that undertook investment in the State. Because Ohio decided to structure the program as a tax credit, however, the court said that it ran afoul of the Commerce Clause. I do not see how a direct subsidy does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause, but a tax credit does. They are economically the same.

If left standing, the Cuno decision will have a particularly detrimental effect on the U.S. manufacturing sector. From rising energy and health care costs to frivolous lawsuits and unfair international trade practices, the U.S. manufacturing sector and the hard working men and women who drive it are getting squeezed from all sides. Despite all they are up against, it's a testament to their ability and determination that they are still the most productive manufacturers in the world. This Sixth Circuit decision, however, is a new roadblock that threatens to take away one of the most effective and efficient means for assisting manufacturers who want to create new jobs here in America. The Economic Development Act of 2005 will make sure that manufacturers don't lose key tax incentives just when such incentives are needed the most.

The Cuno decision also sets a bad precedent that, if not checked, could upset our carefully balanced federal system. One of the most ingenious aspects of the U.S. Constitution is that it leaves a great deal of power with the States. It gives the States flexibility to devise their own solutions and, in the process, fosters innovation in government. Thus, the States are the laboratories of our democracy and an innovation they have developed to help create jobs and prosperity are programs that encourage new growth through tax incentives for training, job creation, and investment in new plants and equipment. The availability of tax incentives was critical to our success in Ohio and in being number one in new plant construction and expansion. Because Ohio had the ability to devise tax incentives that fit its economic development needs, we were able to create thousands of new jobs. My legislation will guarantee that the States remain our engines of innovation.

This legislation is something that Congress should have done a long time ago. The courts are not well-suited to making the often complex policy decisions regarding whether a tax incentive truly discriminates against interstate commerce and hinders the creation of a national market, or whether a tax incentive actually fosters innovation and job growth. Such decisions necessarily involve a careful weighing of competing and often mutually exclusive interests, and therefore should be made by Congress. Moreover, judicial decisions often fail to provide bright lines on which incentives run afoul of the dormant Commerce Clause, injecting uncertainty about the validity of certain tax incentives that makes businesses weary of relying on them and reduce their effectiveness. Indeed, the Supreme Court itself has called its dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence a ``quagmire.'' Hence, it is time that Congress provide some clear rules on the treatment of tax incentives under the Commerce Clause.

As Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter stated nearly a half- century ago:

At best, this Court can only act negatively; it can

determine whether a specific state tax is imposed in

violation of the Commerce Clause. Such decisions must

necessarily depend on the application of rough and ready

legal concepts. We cannot make a detailed inquiry into the

incidence of diverse economic burdens in order to

determine the extent to which such burdens conflict with

the necessities of national economic life. Neither can we

devise appropriate standards for dividing up national

revenue on the basis of more or less abstract principles

of constitutional law, which cannot be responsive to the

subtleties of the interrelated economies of Nation and

State.

The problem calls for solution by devising a congressional

policy. Congress alone can provide for a full and thorough

canvassing of the multitudinous and intricate factors which

compose the problem of the taxing

freedom of the States and the needed limits on such state

taxing power. Congressional committees can make studies and

give the claims of the individual States adequate hearing

before the ultimate legislative formulation of policy is made

by the representatives of all the States. . . . Congress

alone can formulate policies founded upon economic realities.

. . .

The Economic Development Act of 2005 is a good first step toward providing the prudent and carefully considered legislation that Justice Frankfurter urged the Congress to pass nearly a half century ago.

At its core, the Economic Development Act of 2005 recognizes that decisions should be made, if possible, at the State and local level. States make and should make decisions about the programs and services they want to provide with their tax dollars, not the least of which are economic development programs. Highway funding, education funding, welfare funding, and funding for seniors programs all vary from state to state because State legislatures, acting on behalf of their citizens, make choices and set priorities. This has allowed government policy to reflect the diversity of interests in our great republic and results in better and more responsive government. Accordingly, states should be allowed to prioritize economic development in an effort to create jobs and prosperity for their citizens, and, yes, attract business from outside their State. If States choose to use tax incentives to promote economic development, then that is not a violation of the interstate commerce clause, that's simply their choice. It is called federalism, and it should not be thwarted by the courts.

There are a couple of points about this legislation that I would like to discuss. First, this legislation is carefully crafted to protect the most common and benign forms of tax incentives, but not to authorize those tax incentives that truly discriminate against interstate commerce. I believe this bill strikes the right balance between protecting States' tax rights and preserving long-established protections against truly discriminatory State tax practices. Second, this legislation does not invalidate any tax incentives. It only authorizes tax incentives. Any tax incentive not covered by the legislation's authorization is simply subject to the traditional dormant Commerce Clause review by the courts. Third, this legislation does not require any state to provide tax incentives. Although I had success using tax incentives to foster economic growth in Ohio while I was Governor, I recognize that some states have concerns about whether and how to offer tax incentives and therefore believe it should be left to the states to resolve these concerns.

I am pleased that this legislation is being co-sponsored by all of the Senators representing States in the Sixth Circuit. We all realize that the right of states to make their own decisions about the programs and services they offer within their boundaries is their own and should not be taken away. Moreover, if the Supreme Court fails to review the Cuno decision, then our States, the States in the Sixth Circuit, will be at a competitive disadvantage in attracting businesses against other states which are not affected by the Cuno decision and can offer tax incentives.

The bill has also been endorsed by Governor Bob Taft of Ohio, the National Governors Association, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the National Conference of Mayors and the Federation of Tax Administrators, as well as by broad-based business coalitions and the Teamsters.

I am hopeful that the seriousness of this issue, and the severity of the ruling's possible ramifications, will allow us to see quick and positive consideration of my bill. The States are in a crisis mode because of this ruling. In Ohio, as I'm sure is the case across the country, many important projects have been put on hold as we await the court's further action.

The challenges that manufacturers and workers face today are daunting but surmountable. The last thing we need, however, is an artificial legal hurdle that threatens to trip us up. I urge my colleagues to support the Economic Development Act of 2005 so that we can preserve the ability of the States to foster economic development and help put our economy, and especially our manufacturing industries, back on the road to recovery and prosperity.

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

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Safe Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Act of 2005 and the cloture motion that was filed this evening.

First, I commend Senators Inhofe, Jeffords, Bond, Baucus, Grassley, Shelby, Sarbanes, Stevens and Inouye and their staffs for their hard work and strong leadership in putting together a bipartisan bill. As a member of the Environmental and Public Works Committee, I am pleased to have been a part of this effort.

In the last Congress, I was a conferee for the bill and we worked in a bipartisan fashion, but we were unable to get the bill across the finish line. To expedite the process this year, this bill is essentially the same language that the Senate passed the last time around with the support of 76 Senators. The only difference is the numbers have been adjusted to reflect a lower spending level.

I call on the President and my colleagues in both the House and the Senate to work expeditiously to get this bill enacted into law as soon as possible.

We have serious needs to our aging infrastructure. The deterioration of our Nation's transportation system is impacting our economy, the environment, and the welfare of the American people. Passage of a transportation bill cannot be delayed any further due to these needs and the numerous jobs it creates. It is simply too important to our Nation in terms of its benefits to our economy and environment and to a safe and equitable transportation system.

A new substitute amendment was added to this bill yesterday which increases the total guaranteed Federal investment in highway and transit funds to $251 billion, about an $11 billion increase. I am pleased that the Finance Committee, under the leadership of Senators Grassley and Baucus, was able to fully offset this increase so as not to increase the debt, as Senator Grassley spoke so eloquently about it earlier today.

It is my understanding the bill remains budget neutral. I think it is important that everyone understand that. It is budget neutral because many of these offsets were included in the Senate-passed version of the JOBS bill last year. They passed the Senate but were taken out in the conference committee on the JOBS bill, so they are available to us as offsets in this bill.

Second, offsets are included in the bill which go after the proliferation of abusive tax shelters used by individuals and corporations and include increased criminal fines and penalties for those committing those abuses.

Additionally, these offsets include efforts to target fuel tax evasion schemes to ensure that additional money is available to properly fund the highway bill.

In 1998, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, was enacted, increasing the Federal investment in highways and transit by nearly 40 percent. This bill increases funding over TEA-21 by about 35 percent. Now, people will hear those numbers, and they will think: Wow, that is an enormous increase in spending. But listen to some of these facts.

While the total funding is still well below what I and several of my colleagues think is appropriate and necessary, I support this bill because it represents a compromise between the Senate-passed bill last Congress and the level the President has requested. I commend the managers of the bill for their hard work in finding this middle ground.

As I mentioned, this legislation is modest, given the need. It falls far short of the level that would improve and even maintain our Nation's highway system. Frankly, the bill that passed last Congress was not enough, either.

According to the Federal Highway Administration's 2002 Conditions and Performance Report, $106.9 billion is needed every year through 2020. It is needed to maintain and improve our highways and bridges. And just to maintain the system, $75.9 billion is needed annually through 2020.

This bill contains $199 billion in guaranteed funding for highways for 5 years. This is only an average of about $36.5 billion annually, which is $70.4 billion below what is needed to improve and $38.8 billion below what is needed to maintain the system. So this is not some gigantic porkbarrel ripoff legislation. It is a modest attempt to meet the needs we have in our country.

Additionally--and I will go into this more later--I would have liked donor States to get back more of each dollar they put in the highway trust fund. However, the inadequate funding pales in comparison to the need to pass a bill now. TEA-21 expired on September 30, 2003. That was 19 months ago, and we are still trying to get a bill done. This program has been operating under a total of six short-term extensions, and the next extension expires at the end of this month.

Our States and our workers cannot afford for us to simply pass another extension. We cannot pass another extension. State contract awards for the 2005 spring and summer construction season are going out to bid. If we fail to enact a bill by the end of this month, States will not know what to expect in Federal funding, potentially delaying many projects.

According to a survey conducted by the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, another extension could mean the loss of over 90,000 jobs and $2.1 billion in project delays.

This is the most significant jobs bill we will pass this Congress. We have an opportunity with this bill not only to improve and repair our crumbling highways and bridges but to create good-paying jobs at the same time.

The transportation construction industry generates more than $200 billion in economic activity and helps sustain 2.5 million jobs in the United States each year. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, every $1 billion invested in highway construction creates 47,500 jobs and generates more than $2 billion in economic activity. This economic activity includes $500 million in new orders for the manufacturing sector that is so desperately needed in my State.

AASHTO estimates that over the next 5 years, the highway portion of this bill would create about 518,000 jobs nationally and 23,000 jobs in the State of Ohio. Perhaps even more importantly, let me reiterate that the failure to pass this bill could cause the loss of 90,000 jobs across the country.

It is also estimated that every dollar invested in the Nation's highway system generates $5.70 in economic benefits, including reduced delays, improved safety, and reduced vehicle operating costs. This is a 6-to-1 return on investment. It has a synergistic effect on so many parts of our economy.

Ohio's ``just in time'' economy cannot afford any further delays in passing this bill, as transportation congestion seriously threatens our competitiveness. Our aging infrastructure is also impacting people in their pocketbooks. Nationwide, 162,000 bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, and 160,000 miles of highway pavement are in poor or mediocre condition. Americans pay $49 billion a year in extra vehicle repairs and operating costs due to road conditions. This is an average of $255 per driver in the United States of America.

Americans also pay due to increased congestion and poor road conditions. The average urban rush-hour driver spends almost 62 additional hours a year stuck in traffic--62 additional hours a year stuck in traffic. Vehicles caught in stop-and-go traffic emit far more emissions than they do without frequent acceleration and breaking. Traffic congestion is also responsible for 5.7 billion gallons of wasted gasoline every year. Wasted fuel and lost productivity due to traffic congestion costs the U.S. economy nearly $70 billion annually. So this issue of highway construction, repair, and maintenance has a dramatic impact on the quality of life of our fellow Americans.

It not only costs our economy and environment, but also lives. Nearly 43,000 people were killed on America's roads in 2003. Poor road conditions were a factor in one-third of those fatalities. In Ohio, 1,277 people were killed on roads in 2003, and the number increased to 1,285 in 2004. The Federal Government predicts highway fatalities will grow to nearly 52,000 by 2009, absent any new Federal investment in highway safety. Studies report that every $1 billion invested in road improvements since 1950 has helped prevent 1,400 premature deaths and nearly 50,000 injuries, as well as helped save over $2 billion in health care, insurance, lost wages, and productivity costs.

If we continue to ignore the upkeep and allow the deterioration of our infrastructure, we risk disruptions in commerce and reduced protection for public safety, health, and the environment.

This bill is extremely important to my State, which has one of the largest surface transportation networks in the country. There are 60 public transit systems serving 58 of Ohio's 88 counties. This is a statistic that I am sure my fellow Ohioans are not aware of. In 2003, these systems made approximately 135 million trips. Ohio has the Nation's fourth largest rural transportation program, the fifth largest bus fleet, the ninth most transit vehicle miles traveled, and the tenth highest overall ridership in the Nation.

The American Public Transportation Association estimates that for every $10 million spent, 310 jobs are created, and $30 million in business sales is generated. For transit, Ohio will receive $884 million, which is about $220 million more, or a 33-percent increase over TEA-21.

In terms of highways, Ohio has the Nation's seventh largest highway network, fifth highest volume of traffic, fourth largest interstate highway network, and the second largest inventory of bridges in the country.

Under TEA-21, Ohio received a 23-percent increase in highway funding. This bill will provide Ohio with $7.7 billion, which is about $1.91 billion more, or a 33-percent increase over TEA-21.

Throughout my career, I have been working to ensure that Ohio receives its fair share of highway funding. Through the 1990s, we moved from receiving less than 80 percent of our contributions to the highway trust fund to 90.5 percent under TEA-21.

This is, again, one of my top priorities for reauthorization.

Early this year, along with 19 cosponsors, Senator Carl Levin and I introduced legislation, the Highway Funding Equity Act of 2005, to increase donor States' minimum rate of return to 95 percent. It has been a pleasure to lead this effort on behalf of the SHARE--States' Highway Alliance for Real Equity--coalition in the Senate. This bill increases the guaranteed share for all donor States to 92 percent by 2009. While it is not the 95 percent we sought, I recognize that it is a compromise, and the Ohio Department of Transportation has told me it is sufficient.

First and foremost, ODOT has made it clear they need a bill with an increased level of investment signed into law as soon as possible. I hope all of my colleagues have the same kind of pressure being put on them by their respective DOT directors. The bill increases funding by 35 percent over TEA-21. In order to get it enacted before the extension at the end of the month expires, the bill must be passed this week.

Second, Ohio needs to no longer be penalized for consuming ethanol- blended fuel. That is one of the issues we worked on during the last several years. Because we are a high ethanol user and because of the fact that money didn't go into the highway trust fund, we were losing about $140 million a year. I cosponsored language last Congress, written by Senator Grassley, to transfer 2.5 cents of the Federal tax on ethanol-blended fuel from the general fund of the Treasury to the highway account of the highway trust fund and to replace the 5.2 cents per gallon reduced tax rate for ethanol-blended fuel with a tax credit.

Fortunately, we were able to make these changes last Congress in the JOBS bill which means $400 million in increased funding for Ohio over the life of this bill.

Our Department of Transportation has informed me they need a 91- percent rate of return to meet Ohio's transportation goals over the life of this bill. Again, this bill takes us to 92 percent. Because of this, our Ohio Department of Transportation will be able to move forward with their Jobs and Progress Plan, a $5 billion, 10-year Ohio construction program dedicated to Ohio's most pressing congestion, safety, and rural access needs. This plan is possible because Ohio approved a State motor vehicle fuel tax increase in 2003 to provide half of the funding. This new construction program in Ohio will employ approximately 3,950 construction workers directly and another 9,850 indirect highway jobs. The citizens of Ohio should be proud of the fact that they reached into their pockets to increase their gas tax so Ohio will be a leader in this country in responding to its highway needs.

The Ohio Jobs in Progress Plan is going to help finance several major projects throughout the State, including a $350 million project to rebuild I-75 in Dayton, a $400 million project to begin rebuilding the central viaduct or, as we in Cleveland call it, ``dead man's curve,'' and a $600 million project to improve the I-70/I-71 split in Columbus. It also includes investments in high crash locations and the freight corridors such as U.S. 24 and U.S. 30 in northwest Ohio.

In addition, the bill provides funding for $202 million worth of projects that ODOT has ready to go but no funding. The 128 projects on the shelf range from major reconstruction to traffic signals.

Finally, I have a few comments about the environmental planning and project delivery provisions of this bill. As chairman of the Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, and the past chairman of

the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee, I understand full well the importance and significance of the overlap between highway planning and air quality.

As requested by Federal, State, and local officials, this bill makes important improvements to the conformity process by synchronizing planning and conformity timelines and requirements. It also modifies the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, called CMAQ, to include nonattainment areas for the new ozone and particulate matter standards. EPA has designated about 500 counties in this Nation as in nonattainment, including 33 counties in Ohio. These areas will need all the help they can get to attain the new standards, and the CMAQ Program will help to pay for those things that need to be done.

While these are two areas in which I believe we made progress, I believe we could have done more with the metropolitan and statewide planning and transportation project delivery provisions in this bill. As a former Governor, I was frustrated at how long it took to do a highway project from the beginning to the end. As Senator, I have wanted to do something meaningful on this issue since I was chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure. While I was chairman, I held a number of oversight hearings on the implementation of the streamlining provisions included in TEA-21. Although I have not introduced any amendments on this matter, I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on this issue as this bill moves forward. It takes too long to build a highway in the United States.

I do want to mention an area where I think we have made good progress. This is with the section 4(f) provisions of the bill. Last Congress, I proposed an amendment on this after working with a bipartisan and diverse group to develop a compromise such as the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. I am pleased these provisions are included in this bill as the process has caused more delay in my State than any other planning or environmental review requirement. This is a requirement of Federal law in terms of where you can put a highway, in terms of areas that involve historical places or parks and so forth. As a result of that, it has slowed down our ability to move forward with highway construction.

As I mentioned, the 4(f) reforms are a true compromise--not far enough for some and perhaps too far for others. I have numerous examples of this cumbersome process. I will not go into them tonight.

I urge my colleagues who have concerns with these provisions to contact me so I can discuss the problem and how we reach a balanced solution.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill and the cloture motion filed on it. The current surface transportation authorization expires at the end of the month. We have to get this bill out of the Senate now. I urge my colleagues to work to achieve that, get it into conference, get it done, get it passed, get the President to sign it, and let's make sure that what APTA predicts doesn't happen, and that is, if we don't get this bill passed, we are going to lose 90,000 jobs.

Mr. President, I rise to express my opposition to this conference report and explain why I will vote against it.

This is the beginning of my second term in the Senate and one of the reasons Ohio sent me back here is because they know that I am committed to doing something about balancing the budget and paying down the debt-- fundamentally sound fiscal principles to which I have been committed throughout my career.

I must say that I have carefully examined this conference report and had hoped to be able to vote in favor of it. And I found a great deal to like in this conference report. This is a very tight budget when it comes to spending and I support that. In fact, I have to commend Senator Gregg and Congressman Nussle for producing the one of most fiscally responsible and honest budget resolutions I have seen in 7 years in the Senate. It sets ambitious targets and forces the Congress to make hard choices about our spending priorities. This conference report fully supports the efforts of President Bush to restrain the growth of discretionary spending while defending the nation. Let there be no mistake, this conference report reflects the difficult,

even painful, spending policy decisions we have avoided for far too long.

Unfortunately, spending policy is only one half of a budget and I sincerely wish the budget resolution also forced us to make equally difficult choices about tax policy. This conference report contains reconciliation instructions for $70 billion in tax cuts we do not need and cannot afford.

Many of my colleagues insist on these reconciliation instructions because they would like to extend until 2010 all or some of the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003. Moreover, they propose to extend these tax cuts without offsetting the revenues lost to the Federal Government. This is unacceptable.

First let me explain why we cannot afford to cut taxes this year.

According to CBO estimates the national debt increased by $600 billion between October 2003 and October 2004 and will increase by at least the same amount before October 2005. That is a $1.2 trillion increase in Federal debt in just 2 years. And this conference report instructs the Finance Committee to raise the debt ceiling yet again by over $700 billion.

Raising the debt limit has become an annual ritual. And why do we keep raising the debt limit every year. It's because we keep borrowing more and more money for spending instead of restricting the growth in federal programs and/or raising the revenues to pay for those programs.

This is against a backdrop in which most experts agree that by 2030, spending for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid alone will consume 18 percent or more of GDP, about the same amount we are spending today for all operations of Government combined.

Let me be very clear, borrowing for tax cuts now guarantees larger taxes increases later.

Next, let me explain why we do not need to do any tax cuts at all this year.

In January President Bush established a bipartisan panel to advise on options to reform the tax code to make it simpler, fairer, and more pro-growth to benefit all Americans. In July the Advisory Panel will submit to the Secretary of the Treasury a report containing options for reforming the Federal Internal Revenue Code. These options will help Congress: simplify Federal tax laws to reduce the costs and administrative burdens of compliance with such laws; share the burdens and benefits of the Federal tax structure in an appropriately progressive manner while recognizing the importance of homeownership and charity in American society; and promote long-run economic growth and job creation, and better encourage work effort, saving, and investment, so as to strengthen the competitiveness of the United States in the global marketplace.

Essentially, we will be fundamentally reforming the entire tax code next year, so there is absolutely no reason to tinker with it this year. It would be like remodeling your kitchen the year before you tear down and replace your house.

If for some reason, we do not act on the advisory panel's report, we will still have plenty of time to reconsider extending existing tax cuts. Most of the current tax cut provisions do not expire until 2010 and even the reduced rates on dividends and capital gains do not expire until 2008.

I supported tax cuts in 2001, 2003 and 2004. Nevertheless, we face a different situation today and I will not longer support tax cuts unless they are fully offset. We have to take into consideration that even our current sobering assessment of federal finances may be overly optimistic.

Assuming continued, but declining, spending for the global war on terrorism increases the 10-year deficit by $418 billion.

Assuming that discretionary spending keeps pace with economic growth, rather than inflation, increases the 10-year deficit by $1.4 trillion.

Even assuming that expiring tax cuts are only extended for 5 years increases the deficit by $306 billion.

Assuming continuation of recent adjustments in the alternative minimum tax, AMT, increases the deficit by $642 billion.

Freezing appropriations, including defense, the war on terrorism and homeland security, would save $1.3 trillion. However, if combined with the extension of tax cuts and continued AMT relief, the budget would still remain in deficit every year, totaling $2.2 trillion over the next decade.

We must also remember that current Medicare payment increases for doctors and hospitals expire at the end of 2005. The American Medical Association, AMA, reports that physicians would see a 31 percent decrease in payments from 2006-2013. If we do not act, senior citizens will face serious problems obtaining health care; but it will cost tens of billions to continue reimbursing doctors and hospitals at the current rate.

I have consulted with experts like Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Comptroller General David Walker and financial expert Pete Peterson who share my concern about the federal budget and agree the economy no longer needs the stimulative effect of extended tax cuts. The nations gross domestic product grew by 4 percent in both 2003 and 2004. Unemployment has dropped from 6.6 percent to 5.2 percent and new jobs have been created every month for the last 21 months. The tax cut medicine worked and it is time to stop before we overdose on too much of a good thing.

My basic yardstick for government spending, including tax cuts, has always been ``is it necessary and is it affordable''. My colleagues who want to cut taxes or increase spending should find the offsets to make their priorities affordable. If they cannot find such offsets, than let them demonstrate the necessity of their initiatives by gaining 60 votes.

I hope this statement explains my reluctant opposition this conference report.

pension