Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today to call attention to the disturbing rise in anti-Semitism that the world has witnessed during the last several years. I believe it is important that Senator Frist, Senator Santorum and others have come together to highlight the urgent need to take action to combat this serious problem.

As a public official and private citizen, I have had the opportunity to visit the State of Israel on six separate occasions. I will never forget the time that I spent at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem in 1980, and on several other visits. Nor will the images that I saw at the Diaspora Museum in Tel Aviv ever leave my mind. Those experiences truly brought home to me the horrors of the Holocaust, and the role that anti- Semitism played in leading to the Holocaust. I vowed that I would do everything in my power to prevent this from ever happening again. Quite frankly, as I have said before, this is something that I never thought I would see again in my lifetime.

In May 2002, following a disturbing number of anti-Semitic incidents in Europe, I joined members of the Helsinki Commission in a hearing to examine the rise of anti-Semitic violence in Europe. I was shocked by the reports that I heard. Today, the news is equally as disturbing. Even during the last month, we have seen numerous acts of anti- Semitism, which some of my colleagues will be referencing today. I will also name a few:

In Paris, France, on August 14, 2004, anti-Semitic graffiti, including a sign saying ``death to Jews'' and a swastika, was found scrawled on a wall on the grounds of Notre Dame Cathedral;

In Wellington, New Zealand, on August 6, 2004, a Jewish chapel was destroyed by fire and up to 90 Jewish headstones were pulled out of the ground and smashed at a cemetery, on the outskirts of the nation's capital;

In Calgary, Canada over the night of August 22, 2004, vandals sprayed swastikas and anti-Semitic messages on a condominium complex a block from the Calgary Jewish Center;

In the Czech Republic on August 10, 2004 more than 80 tombstones were overturned at a Jewish cemetery; and

In Birmingham, United Kingdom, during the night of August 22, 2004, sixty Jewish gravestones were destroyed in a local cemetery. Community officials reported that stickers with the logo of a Neo-Nazi group were found on some of the stones.

It is also important to stress that we are not exempt here in the United States. At the end of March, the Anti-Defamation League released a report on anti-Semitic incidents that took place in the United States in 2003. In total, ADL counted more than 1,500 acts of anti-Semitism here at home. According to their count, 25 of these incidents occurred in my own State.

Last month, I met with a group of individuals in my home state to discuss concern with growing anti-Semitism. There was general consensus that this is, in fact, a problem in our own communities. Our conversation underscored the need to do all that we can to make the fight against anti-Semitism a priority in the United States, just as we redouble our efforts to encourage other countries to take action.

We should recognize positive efforts underway to promote tolerance and understanding, both at home and abroad. I am encouraged by action that is taking place in Ohio to work toward this end. For instance, last year, community leaders in Cleveland came together to form an organization called ``Ishmael and Isaac.'' This program brings together members of Ohio's Jewish and Muslim communities in an effort to raise money for the medical needs of Israelis and Palestinians.

Other efforts to promote diversity and anti-bias education are critical if we are to succeed in creating more accepting and tolerant environments in cities and towns across the country. For instance, the Anti-Defamation League's ``A World of Difference Institute'' provides hands-on training and education programs that are used to promote tolerance and counter messages of hate in schools and universities, as well as corporations and law enforcement agencies in 29 cities in the United States and 14 other countries. Such programs should continue, and they deserve our full support.

We cannot be silent and stand on the sidelines as anti-Semitism festers at home and abroad. At sunset today, Jewish people across the world will begin the observance of Rosh Hashanah, marking the beginning of a New Year. It is my sincere hope that in this new year, the United States and members of the international community will make a renewed effort to stamp out anti-Semitism wherever it exists.

In recent months, the United States has taken significant steps in the fight against anti-Semitism. In April, Secretary of State Colin Powell traveled to Berlin for a conference of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe--OSCE--dedicated to the fight against anti-Semitism.

At that conference, 55 participating states of the OSCE pledged to take action. During the conference, a strong declaration was agreed to, which outlines steps that will be taken to address anti-Semitism. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Congressional Record.

As this document makes clear, the OSCE, through its Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights--ODIHR, will for the first time monitor and report on acts of anti-Semitism. Moreover, the OSCE will keep track of positive steps countries are taking to address the problem. This will be high on the agenda at the OSCE Ministerial this December, and, next spring, Spain will host a meeting to follow-up on the specific recommendations made at the Berlin Conference, and to exercise oversight of the progress ODIHR is making in complying with the Berlin Declaration.

I have encouraged Secretary Powell to ensure that the United States not only supports these efforts, but that we do all that we can to make certain that the OSCE has the resources necessary to effectively do the job that it has been called upon to do to monitor anti-Semitism. I have been assured by our Ambassador to the OSCE, Stephan Minikes, that the United States will in fact do all that it can to support the work of the OSCE in this regard. Ambassador Minikes has also assured me that the OSCE, with the help of the United States and other member countries, has the funding it needs to begin this crucial work. It is not enough to pass Declarations and to have tables. What we need to do is give the organization that is supposed to get the job done, the money and the resources.

While I had hoped to attend the Berlin Conference on anti-Semitism at the invitation of Secretary Powell, I was unable to be at this historic gathering due to pressing business here in the Senate. However, while the conference was underway, an article that I co-authored with a leading member in the fight against anti-Semitism in the German Bundestag, Professor Gert Weisskirchen, ran in the Washington Post.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article, entitled ``Halting the New Hatred,'' be printed in the Congressional Record.

As we wrote then:

We are not fighting anti-Semitism solely in order to

protect Jewish people, although the safety of any one group

is intrinsic to the safety of all. We are waging this battle

because we want to ensure that we do not again sink into

barbarity--and we will win this struggle. Democracy is

stronger than hate.

Today, I continue to repeat this message. We cannot become complacent in the fight against anti-Semitism. There is too much at stake.

I remain in close contact with the State Department to encourage our highest-ranking diplomats to make the fight against anti-Semitism a top priority in our bilateral relationships and interaction with international organizations such as the OSCE, the European Union and the United Nations.

At the end of last month, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Marc Grossman sent me a letter, in which he outlined some of the positive steps that our Government is taking to combat anti- Semitism. This includes our work with the OSCE, as well as efforts taken by United States Ambassadors and other officials in countries throughout the world. This is a priority, now, for our Ambassadors all over the world. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. President, the United States Government should be commended for the good work that is being done to raise awareness regarding growing anti-Semitism, both at home and abroad. However, our work is not done.

Earlier this year, I introduced Senate Bill 2292, the Global Anti- Semitism Review Act of 2004. This legislation requires the State Department to enhance its reporting on anti-Semitism worldwide. It requires the State Department to submit to Congress a report on anti- Semitism this November. This report must include detailed information for each country, including, first, a description of physical violence against or harassment of Jewish people or community institutions, such as schools, synagogues, or cemeteries, that occurred in that country, and, second, the response of the government of that country to such attacks;

What are they doing about that?

Third, actions by the government of that country to enact and enforce laws relating to the protection of the right to religious freedom with respect to Jewish people; and finally, the efforts by that government to promote anti-bias and tolerance education.

Following the report this November, my legislation requires enhanced reporting on anti-Semitism in two existing annual reports: the International Religious Freedom Report and the Human Rights Report.

The Senate passed this critical legislation with strong, bipartisan support on May 7, 2004. Twenty-four of my colleagues joined me as co- sponsors. This underscores the high priority that the United States Senate has given to the fight against anti-Semitism.

It is my sincere hope that the House of Representatives will soon pass this legislation, so that we can see the President sign the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act into law this year. We must do all that we can to move toward the goal of zero-tolerance of anti-Semitism in the world today. The United States must be the leader.

I want my colleagues to know that I made a vow back in 1982 that if the ugly head of anti-Semitism rose, I would do everything in my power to make sure that we cut it off.

I want my colleagues to know this is a passion with me, and I hope it becomes a passion with them. It is important to the world, and it is important to the United States of America.

Mr. President, with a sense of regret, I come to the Senate floor to speak in opposition to the legislation before us to implement the free-trade agreement negotiated by the administration with our good friend and ally, Australia.

One thing I have made clear throughout my career in Government is the fact that I believe in free trade. As Governor of Ohio, I supported NAFTA and the establishment of the WTO. As a Senator, I supported permanent normal trade relations for China, the Andean Trade Preference Expansion Act, and the so-called ``fast track'' trade negotiating authority. I also supported our FTAs with Jordan, Chile, and Singapore.

Until very recently, our economy has been bleeding jobs--23,000 manufacturing jobs lost in my State of Ohio between May of 2003 and May of 2004, which is over half of the total 41,000 jobs lost in all sectors.

While I still firmly believe in free trade, I cannot stand idly by while our trade laws are ignored by other countries and go unenforced by our own. I will no longer allow the illegal trade practices of other countries that put good, hard-working Americans in the unemployment lines to be disregarded, because that is exactly what is happening.

When it comes to trade, China is the elephant in the room that everyone is afraid to acknowledge because they fear it will rear its ugly head. It seems as if we want to waltz with the Chinese and, for some reason, we are afraid to step on their toes for fear they might get mad.

As I and many of my colleagues see it, the two most prevalent trade issues we face are the manipulation of China's currency and their resistance to reform and enforcement of their intellectual property rights laws as required by their WTO accession agreement.

My good friend and colleague from South Carolina, Senator Lindsay Graham, and I held a press conference last month to highlight a finding in a report by the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a Commission we in Congress created to suggest changes to current U.S. policies with regard to China.

The report issued by the Commission was quite alarming, and I suggest that every Member of both this and the other body read the trade sections of that report.

The Commission reinforces what I have been hearing from Ohio businesses and what I have been saying for years: China is not trading fairly and is hurting Ohio workers and American workers. As we know, since the early 1990s--this is the early 1990s--China has pegged its currency at 8.28 yuan per dollar, which is believed to be anywhere between 15 and 40 percent lower than it should.

This action has the effect of making U.S. products more expensive than items produced domestically. It also makes the retail prices paid here in the United States for Chinese goods artificially low, generating less demand for our domestic products. If demand is lowered both here and overseas of U.S.-manufactured goods, companies will lose money and lay off workers. They already have.

The Commission's report states that if China were to end its currency manipulation, it is believed other East Asian countries, such as Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea that have also manipulated their currencies in order to remain competitive with China, would also follow suit and end their manipulation.

The Commission has arrived at a unique solution to China's currency manipulation. They do not believe China's currency should be floated, as are most developed countries' currencies, because China's banking system and financial markets are simply not prepared. Instead, they recommend that it be pegged to a ``market basket'' of several trade- weighted currencies to avoid fluctuation of any one country. That is exactly the kind of ``outside the box'' thinking Congress had in mind when we created the Commission as part of the fiscal year 2001 Defense authorization bill.

The Commission recommends that the administration take strong action to thwart China's exchange rate practices, something I have repeatedly urged the administration to do myself.

Last fall, I introduced the Currency Harmonization Initiative through Neutralizing Action, CHINA, of 2003. This legislation requires the Secretary of the Treasury to analyze and report to Congress within 60 days whether China is manipulating its currency to achieve an advantage in trade. The CHINA Act also expresses the sense of Congress that the administration should pursue all means available to remedy China's currency manipulation.

The other pressing trade issue is China's lack of enforcement of intellectual property rights laws. This issue at least is getting some traction in the Senate. Unfortunately, not enough of my colleagues are aware of how bad this situation is or of how long the situation has persisted.

In April 1991, China was named a priority foreign country by the USTR under section 301. After further investigation, the U.S. threatened to impose $1.5 billion in trade sanctions if an IPR agreement was not reached by January

1992. While that deadline was met, by 1994, the USTR again listed China as a priority foreign country because they failed to properly enforce their laws. New talks failed for almost a year before a new agreement regarding Chinese IPR laws was reached.

As part of their new commitment, China agreed to take immediate steps within 3 months, establish mechanisms for long-term, effective enforcement, and provide greater market access for U.S. products. In 1996, USTR again listed China as a priority foreign country for not fully complying with the latest agreement. Talks stalled until China was threatened with $2 billion in sanctions when they reportedly satisfied U.S. demands.

However, the problem remains as estimates show the piracy rate for IPR-related products in China to be around 90 percent. Chinese law enforcement officials often lack the resources or the will needed to vigorously enforce IPR laws. Under the terms of the Chinese accession to the WTO, they were to immediately bring their IPR laws into compliance with the WTO Agreement on Trade Related Aspect of Intellectual Property Rights.

This also has not happened as promised. U.S. firms are still losing billions of dollars per year in China alone, and all we have to show for it is a string of broken promises that started in 1991.

I remember being in China in 1995 with a trade mission and speaking to the Chinese Government about the importance of enforcing their intellectual property rights. They said: Yes, we are going to do it. Here we are, 2004, and they have not continued to do the job they are supposed to be doing.

Regardless of China's staggering piracy and counterfeiting operations, they are far from being the only problem area in the world. The U.S. Trade Representative lists 18 countries as ones with which we have ``significant concerns'' with respect to their IPR laws and enforcement. In my opinion, this is far too many countries flouting their international obligations.

In the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee which I chair, I held a hearing on April 20, 2004, that focused on intellectual property violations in the manufacturing sector of the economy, and another on December 9, 2003, which examined the ability of the Department of Commerce and the U.S. Trade Representative to negotiate, monitor, and enforce our complex trade laws in a rapidly shifting global trade environment.

Also, just last month, I participated in a hearing held by Chairman Lugar in the Foreign Relations Committee which focused on China's inability to enforce intellectual property rights when it comes to music, films, and software. To quote the testimony of Jack Valenti, the head of the Motion Picture Association of America:

Piracy problems are only becoming more severe. In 2002, the

piracy rate in China for American films, home videos, and

television programs was about 91 percent. In 2003, the

pirates captured at least 95 percent of that market. The

current level of piracy is worse than it has been at any time

since 1995 when it was 100 percent.

But these industries are only the beginning of those suffering from China's disregard for international standards.

Perhaps the greatest problem to overcome is to change the perception in many countries that intellectual property rights do not exist. For U.S. manufacturers, artists, filmmakers, and others, the protection of intellectual property is not an abstract concept because at stake are their livelihoods and those of the people who work with them and for them.

We must make it clear we will not tolerate these trade violations. If the United States were to, in some way, violate a trade pact, the whole world would be beating down our door demanding we change our ways and pay for damages. But when we ask that countries follow the trade pacts to which they already agreed, we are denounced as bullies. Well, I say, let's be bullies.

My concern is that we may not be able to be bullies because, as I learned in my hearings, we do not have the mechanism in place to enforce our trade laws. In other words, we do not know who we should bully around because we do not know who is breaking what agreement. Moreover, testimony indicated that our Government is not doing anything to help the companies that are having their intellectual property stolen.

The state of enforcement is nothing short of abysmal. Amazingly, USTR only employs a grand total of 225 people. It has become painfully obvious that this is an insufficient number of employees to negotiate, monitor, and enforce our trade deals.

Given the impact of changing global economic forces, it is important for our trade agencies to have the right people with the right skills and knowledge to effectively monitor and enforce our complex trade agreements.

It was clear from the testimony delivered at the hearing that our Department of Commerce, the Customs and Border Protection Agency at the Department of Homeland Security, the USTR, and the rest of the 17 or more Federal agencies responsible for monitoring and enforcement of our trade agreements cannot do so effectively.

This could accurately be described as a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. In my days of service in government as a Senator, Governor, and mayor, I have never seen such a hodgepodge of agencies and departments struggle with a relatively simple mission to enforce our trade laws.

Following my April hearing, I visited the Web site given as an example of what the Federal Government was going to do to help manufacturers that had become victims of counterfeiting. On that Web site was a telephone number, which I called. However, the person on the other end of the line had no idea that anyone but those with problems relating to immigration would ever be calling that number.

So I called later and I told them who I was, George Voinovich, U.S. Senator, and that I wanted to know what resources were available to victims of counterfeiting, and eventually I was connected to the correct person. Small business owners should not have to deal with such nonsense when asking their Government for assistance.

I am pleased to say that those answering the line are now aware of this other function. But the way it works is, if I am an Ohioan who has an IPR problem, I call this number and then they give me the number of my local Customs office and ask me to call them to begin my complaint. That is ridiculous. It is absolutely no help whatsoever to smaller manufacturers in this country.

I have been pressuring this administration at the highest levels to address the many issues we have with China. In March of this year, along with Senators Lindsey Graham, Schumer, and Durbin, I sent a letter to President Bush requesting an emergency meeting with the President, Treasury Secretary Snow, and Ambassador Zoellick to discuss concrete action regarding continuing illegal undervaluation of China's currency. That was 5 months after I wrote to Ambassador Zoellick, Secretary Snow, and Commerce Secretary Evans urging them to initiate a 301 investigation into China's practice of currency manipulation.

The response we received from the administration? None. Nothing was known about the stance of this administration until April 28 of this year when Secretaries Snow, Chao, Evans, and Ambassador Zoellick held a press conference to announce they would reject a yet-to-be-filed 301 petition requesting an investigation into China's currency manipulation. Needless to say, I was extremely disappointed that the administration would announce such a position before even receiving the petition documents.

China continues to tolerate rampant piracy of copyrighted U.S. material, with rates of piracy running above 90 percent across all copyright industries for 2003.

This year, piracy is estimated to cost U.S. industries $2.6 billion. Technology has made it much easier to copy or steal the engineering, packaging, and so forth of a product than in the past.

I was talking with a shareholder in a golf club manufacturing outfit 6 months ago. He said that within 3 days after they put a golf club out on the market they were already counterfeiting it in China and sending it to the United States.

Another example, in my own State, Gorman-Rupp Company of Mansfield, which testified at my April hearing,

since 1933 has designed and manufactured pumps used for many applications, including water, wastewater, petroleum, government uses, and agriculture. A Chinese company has not only copied and exploited Gorman-Rupp product manuals and performance specifications, but the Gorman-Rupp logo is still displayed on the products in the Chinese company's literature. In other words, this is a case where they copied the machine, the pump, to a ``T,'' then they used the same promotional material that Gorman-Rupp uses for their material. They copied it line and verse and are using it to promote their pirated product.

Unfortunately, patents do not protect American manufacturers.

America's competitive edge is derived from innovation and the resulting steady influx of new products and services. Intellectual property rights protect and promote this innovative spirit. In too many cases with too many foreign countries, our intellectual property is the last edge we have because of a fundamentally unbalanced playing field.

Many of our competitors do not have to consider environmental standards, labor laws, employee safety, litigation costs--and this Congress has to do something about litigation costs in this country. It is a tornado cutting through the economy and we just sit here and do nothing--health care costs. Losing our intellectual property is the last edge we have.

The United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission believes the administration should file a WTO dispute on the matter of China's failure to protect IPR and to promulgate and enforce WTO- required laws. To quote the report:

Follow through and action have been limited. . . . The

Commission believes that immediate U.S. action is warranted.

I hope my colleagues read the report. The Commission believes that immediate U.S. action is warranted on this issue. There is a sense of urgency. We are just going to Tweedledee Tweedledum? We have done nothing since 1991 on IPR and it is now 2004 and we are still doing nothing?

As I said, I believe in a fair playing field in which competitive and comparative advantage wins the day. We cannot continue to let countries walk all over us. The one country that everyone seems to be afraid to call on the carpet for flagrant violations of their international agreements is China. I do agree with some of my colleagues that maybe the reason we are not doing it is because of foreign policy decisions, but we have to put a stop to China's illegal and unethical trade practices.

There are people who come into my office and literally shed tears, people who have been in business for years, and they are going out of business because of competition from China because of the fact they have taken their patents. So we need to do something. We have to do something now.

Despite these overwhelming problems facing our Nation's manufacturers, I must say I have yet to see any significant action on behalf of the administration to respond. Now I have talked to some people and they say, oh, yes, George, we are working on this; we are talking to people; we are negotiating and we are doing this.

Well, it is time to bring it to the surface. Let the American people know what they are doing instead of hiding out. Make it an issue. Let the Chinese know we are serious about this thing. Let them know the U.S. Congress is serious about it. Let them know the administration is serious about it. So we can get some action.

Last month I made it known that I would not support any new trade agreements until there was a movement on these two fronts, and that makes me feel very bad. I am a free trader. I believe in free trade. But we do not have fair trade. Maybe the only way this Senator from Ohio, who has a lot of people who are on the edge of losing their businesses, can maybe get someone's attention in the administration to get out and start talking about this the way they should be so the American people, and particularly the voters in Ohio and the manufacturers and the people losing their jobs, is to say to them I will not support any other trade agreement on the Senate floor until they do something about the currency manipulation in China and the enforcement of intellectual property rights.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to speak on behalf of the Class Action Fairness Act, a bill to stop unfair and abusive class action lawsuits that ignore the best interest of injured plaintiffs. This legislation is sorely needed to help people understand their rights in class action lawsuits and protect them from unfair settlements. It is needed to reform the class action process which has been so manipulated in recent years that U.S. companies are being driven into bankruptcy to escape the rising tide of frivolous lawsuits that have resulted in the loss of thousands of jobs, especially in the manufacturing sector.

Unfortunately, not enough Americans realize we are in a global marketplace and businesses now have choices as to where they manufacture their products. Many of our businesses are leaving our country because of the litigation tornado that is cutting through the economy and destroying their competitiveness. The Senate must start taking into consideration the impact of its decisions on this Nation's competitive decisions in the global marketplace. Too often, we think about things in the United States for Americans and forget the fact that we are in a global marketplace. Today, manufacturers and consumers worldwide have many choices about where to do business.

I believe for the system to work we must strike a delicate balance between the rights of aggrieved parties to bring lawsuits and the rights of society to be protected against frivolous lawsuits and outrageous judgments that are disproportionate to compensating the injured and made at the expense of society as a whole. I believe this is what this legislation does. I am proud to be a cosponsor of it.

Since my days as Governor of Ohio, I have been very concerned with what I refer to as a ``litigation tornado'' that has been sweeping through the economy of Ohio, as well as the Nation. The Ohio civil justice system is in a state of crisis. Ohio doctors are leaving the State and too many have stopped delivering babies because they cannot afford the liability insurance.

From 2001 to 2002, Ohio physicians faced medical liability insurance increases ranging from 28 to 60 percent. Ohio ranked among the top five States for premium increases. General surgeons pay as much as $75,000 and OB/GYNs pay as much as $152,000. Comparatively, Indiana general surgeons pay between $14,000 and $30,000 and OB/GYNs pay between $20,000 and $40,000.

Further, Ohio businesses are going bankrupt as a result of runaway asbestos litigation. Today, one of my fellow Ohioans can be a plaintiff in a class action lawsuit that she does not know about, taking place in a State that she has never even visited.

In 1996, as Governor of Ohio, I was proud to sign H.B. 350, strong tort reform legislation into law--for a while. It might have helped today's liability crisis but it never got a chance. In 1999, the Supreme Court of Ohio in a politically motivated 4-to-3 decision struck down the Ohio civil justice reform law, even though the only plaintiff in the case was the Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers, the personal injury bar's trade group.

Their reason for challenging the law--this is incredible--they claimed their association would lose members and lose money due to the civil justice reform laws that were enacted.

The bias of the case was so great that one of the dissenters, Justice J. Lundberg Stratton, had this to say:

This case should never have been accepted for review on the

merits. The majority's acceptance of this case means that we

have created a whole new arena of jurisdiction--``advisory

opinions on the constitutionality of the statute challenged

by a special interest group.''

From this, it is obvious to me the way we currently administer class actions is just not working.

While we were frustrated at the State level, I am proud to have continued our fight in the Senate, a fight for fair, strong, civil justice.

To this end, I worked with the American Tort Reform Association to produce a study entitled ``Lawsuit Abuse and Ohio'' that captured the impact of this rampant litigation on Ohio's economy, with the goal of educating the public on this issue and sparking change.

Can you imagine what this study found? In 2002 in Ohio, the litigation crisis cost every Ohioan $636 per year. For every Ohio family of four, the cost was $2,544. These are alarming numbers. This study was released August 8, 2002. Imagine how high these numbers have risen since that time.

In tough economic times, families cannot afford to pay over $2,500 to cover other people's litigation costs. Something needs to be done. Passage of this bill will help.

This legislation is intended to amend the Federal judicial code to streamline and curb abuse of class action lawsuits, a procedural device through which people with identical claims are permitted to merge them and be heard at one time in court.

In particular, this legislation contains safeguards that provide for judicial scrutiny of the terms of the class action settlements in order to eliminate unfair and discriminatory distribution of awards for damages and prevent class members from suffering a net loss as a result of a court victory.

The bill is designed to improve the handling of massive U.S. class action lawsuits while preserving the rights of citizens to bring such actions. Class action lawsuits have spiraled out of control, with the threat of large, overreaching verdicts holding corporations hostage for years and years.

In total, America's civil justice system had a direct cost to taxpayers in 2002 of $233.4 billion. That is 2.23 percent of our gross domestic product. That is $809 per citizen and equivalent to a 5- percent wage tax. That is a 13.3-percent jump from the year before--a year when we experienced a 14.4-percent increase, which was the largest percentage increase since 1986. These lawsuits cost billions of dollars and are putting a crimp in the budgets of every American.

Now, some of my colleagues have argued that this bill sends most State class actions into Federal court and deprives State courts of the power to adjudicate cases involving their own laws. They argue that the bill, therefore, infringes upon a States' sovereignty. However, there is no evidence for this assertion, and, in fact, it is the present system that infringes upon State sovereignty rights by promoting a ``false federalism'' whereby some State courts are able to impose their decisions on citizens of other States regardless of their own laws.

Another argument against the bill is that it will unduly expand Federal diversity jurisdiction at a time when courts are overcrowded. However, State courts have experienced a much more dramatic increase in class action filings and have not proven to be any more efficient in processing complex cases. In addition, Federal courts have greater resources to handle most complex interstate class action litigation and are insulated from the local prejudice problems so prevalent under current rules.

We all know that so many of these class action lawsuits are filed in jurisdictions--two or three of them--because they know the results of those cases if they file them in certain jurisdictions. We have a certain jurisdiction in Illinois. We have another in Mississippi. As a result, there is no fairness to the defendants.

I emphasize to my colleagues that this is not a bill to end all class action lawsuits. We will have plenty more class action lawsuits. Rather, it is a bill to identify those lawsuits with merit--with merit--and to ensure that the plaintiffs in legitimate lawsuits are treated fairly throughout the litigation process. It is a bill to protect class members from settlements that give their lawyers millions while they see only pennies. It is a bill to rectify the fact that over the past decade, State court class action filings increased over 1,000 percent. It is a bill to fix a broken judicial system.

Madam President, I am a strong supporter of this bill and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I hope that the Holy Spirit enlightens us so we can have a vote on this legislation which is so important to the future of America's economy.

Madam President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senators Bunning and Bingaman and the other supporters of this legislation, to support this very important amendment. This amendment will improve an existing program which provides financial and medical compensation to workers who were made ill as a result of their employment at the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons facilities.

Since the end of World War II, at facilities all across America, tens of thousands of dedicated men and women in our civilian Federal and contract workforce helped keep our military fully supplied and our Nation fully prepared to face any threat from our adversaries around the world by developing and building our Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile. The success of these workers in meeting this challenge is measured in part with the end of the cold war and the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, for many of these workers, their success came at a very high price. They sacrificed their health and even their lives, in many instances without knowing the risks they were facing, to preserve our liberty. I will not go into the details, but I saw the memoranda and all the other items they should have had available to them but which were kept from them. What happened to these workers was worse than what happened to the workers in the movie ``Erin Brockovich'' that many of us saw.

I believe these men and women have paid a high price for our freedom, and in their time of need this Nation has a moral obligation to provide some financial and medical assistance to these cold-war veterans. That is what they are--cold-war veterans.

To meet that goal, I worked with a bipartisan group of my colleagues 4 years ago to create a program that would provide financial compensation to Department of Energy contract workers whose impaired health has been caused by exposure to beryllium, radiation, or other hazardous substances. I have been pleased to be involved with this program from the beginning. In fact, the passage and creation of this legislation in 2000 was one of my proudest moments as a Member of the Senate. It took monumental efforts by a bipartisan group of my colleagues, many of whom cosponsored this amendment we are debating today. I said at that time the Holy Spirit was working because, without divine help, this would never ever have gotten done.

Under the current program, the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program, workers suffering from beryllium disease, silicosis, or cancer due to radiation exposure because of their work in our national security programs are eligible for Federal compensation. The Department of Labor was assigned primary responsibility for administration and adjudicating these claims under part B of this act.

Under part D, the Department of Energy would assist claimants filing for compensation through State workers' compensation programs if a physicians panel found an occupational illness caused by chemical or other toxic exposure at a DOE site. Claims were not to be contested by contractors, and any compensation was to be paid by the Department of Energy.

This compromise package that was ultimately agreed to by Congress and signed into law was not what I originally supported in 2000. I introduced a bill which called for a Federal program administered entirely by the Department of Labor, but during congressional negotiations on the language authorizing the program, I agreed to this multiagency concept in order to reach a compromise creating the program. The fact is, if we did not agree to that, we would not have gotten a bill out of conference. So I agreed to it.

I have been pleased with the excellent program the Labor Department is running. Over 3 years after enactment, we have seen over 13,000 claimants receive compensation from DOL. On the other hand, I am becoming extremely frustrated with DOE's administration of part D of the program. More important than my frustration, however, is the fact that claimants who deserve answers and compensation are experiencing endless delays. I visited with some of those people. They cannot understand why this bureaucracy in Washington does not work.

While over 24,000 claims have been received by the Department, only 646 final decisions have been sent to claimants. Think about that: Out of 24,000, only 646 have been sent to claimants.

Even more shocking is that only four claimants have any compensation at all from the DOE portion of this program. I have always been skeptical of the capability of the Department of Energy to administer this because of their lack of experience in administering workers' compensation programs. I could have told them that when we started out, but no one would have listened.

Additionally, I was concerned about the role of State workers' compensation programs outlined in part D. As a former Governor, I was doubtful that a Federal program such as this would be able to work in each of the individual State programs.

There are two inherent problems within the existing program: continued delays and slowness in processing claims, and the so-called willing payer issue.

This amendment addresses both of those issues. In order to speed up claims handling and processing, this amendment moves administration of part D from the DOE to the DOL. I believe DOL is better suited to administering this program because they have significant experience in administering workers' compensation programs, including part B of the program.

This amendment also addresses the willing payer issue, another very important aspect. Under the current program, I understand it will be difficult for DOE to fulfill congressional intent in Ohio because there is not a contractor in place at the sites that can be compelled to pay the claims. They are no longer there. Many other workers nationwide are facing the same shortcomings in this program. In fact, the Ohio Bureau of Works' Compensation has tried unsuccessfully to work with DOE to ensure that this program works in Ohio.

The current administrator of the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation is probably the best public administrator I have met in my life. He started with me when I was Lieutenant Governor, worked with me when I was mayor, and came to work with me as Governor of the State of Ohio. I would like to just quote from his letter to me and Senator DeWine. He stated:

I understand DOL's and DOE's concern with this amendment,

but BWC must ultimately look at what is best for the

customer, in this case, the injured workers; consequently, we

feel the changes proposed by the amendment will result in

positive developments. Since the program's inception, DOE has

failed (for whatever reasons, some of which may not be the

department's fault) to process its claims in a timely

fashion. A recent General Accounting Office report stated

that DOE had only processed 6 percent of the 23,000 received

claims. Clearly, the current system is not working. We

believe throwing more money into a system that does not work

will only compound the problem.

The amendment we are considering today enjoys broad bipartisan support in the Senate. It is also supported by many State compensation systems and local labor organizations, including the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation, the PACE locals at Mound and Portsmouth, and the Fernald Atomic Trades and Labor Council in my home State of Ohio.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment. It simply fulfills the promise that we made to these veterans of the cold war. We have kept them waiting too long.

I ask unanimous consent to have this letter from Administrator Conrad printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the State of Ohio is home to Ohio University, the first public institution of higher learning in the old Northwest Territory. This institution, my alma mater, celebrates the 200th anniversary of its founding this year.

On March 1, 1803, Ohio became the Nation's 17th State. Less than a year later, on February 18, 1804, the Ohio General Assembly approved Ohio University's charter.

Ohio University is the realization of the Jeffersonian ideals of educating broadly and cultivating minds and ideas so that people can reason out their differences. Officially established in 1804, the university opened in 1808 with three students. In 1815, Ohio University award its first two bachelor's

degrees. By the end of the Civil War, the university had graduated a total of 145 students. By 1920, the student population was 1,072, but it was not until after World War II that the university began to approach its present size.

In the 1950s, the student population grew from 4,600 to 8,000, and the 1960s saw enrollment burgeon from about 10,000 to some 18,000 students on the Athens campus. Today, the Athens campus is comprised of more than 200 buildings on 1,800 acres, including state-of-the-art facilities featuring the latest in educational technology. Reinforcing the university's ongoing commitment to diversity, the Athens campus serves approximately 20,000 students hailing from all 50 States and about 100 nations. The university's service as a major educational and cultural institution in southeastern Ohio includes regional campuses in Chillicothe, Ironton, Lancaster, St. Clairsville, and Zanesville. These regional campuses collectively enroll about 8,500 students, making the full-time, part-time, and continuing education enrollment for Ohio University nearly 29,000.

The university offers more than 270 undergraduate areas of study and a 20 to 1 undergraduate student-to-faculty ratio. On the graduate level, the institution grants master's degrees in nearly all of its major academic divisions, and doctoral degrees in selected departments. Ohio University is fully accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools and has been designated a Doctoral/Research University-Extensive, the highest classification, by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Throughout its life of change and growth, Ohio University and the town it calls home, Athens, has still successfully balanced all the advantages of a major university with the appeal of a caring and personal atmosphere. If there ever was a college town, Athens is it. The university's intellectual and cultural environment blends well with Athens' lively and quirky small-town atmosphere to create a setting where students, faculty and town residents live together in a community whose quality of life is difficult to match.

A university of people, not a place or buildings, and the people of Ohio University--its students, staff, faculty, and alumni--have made their world a richer place. I am proud to be a Bobcat and proud of the accomplishments that so many alumni have made.

Congratulations to Ohio University on 200 years of history, rich in providing excellence in higher education.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Allan Ramsay, Jr., assistant regional chief administrative law judge and Cleveland Hearing Office chief administrative law judge, who passed away on may 18, 2004.

I have always been a strong advocate of public service, and a staunch supporter of those who put service before self. Serving the citizens of the great State of Ohio for over 22 years, Judge Ramsay was one of those individuals. His dedication to his profession and to helping others reflected his compassion and devotion to his fellow citizens.

Appointed to the Cleveland Hearing Office of the Social Security Administration as an administrative law judge in 1982, Judge Ramsay worked tirelessly to improve the lives of more than 15,000 people who turned to the Social Security Administration in their times of need. From 1992 to 1997, he served as the chief administrative law judge in the Social Security Hearing Office in Columbus, OH. In 1997, he returned to Cleveland as the chief judge of that office, and in 1999 he became the assistant regional chief administrative law judge, while maintaining his leadership position in the Cleveland Hearing Office.

Throughout his distinguished career, Judge Ramsay touched the lives of countless individuals. His career is a shining example of public service of which the people of Ohio and the rest of the Nation should be proud.

Judge Ramsay held himself to a high standard and his service to our Nation reflects that. Judge Ramsay is survived by his wife, Beatrice, and his two children. In this time of great loss, my condolences go out to the entire Ramsay family. I can only hope that they will find solace in the thoughts and prayers of loved one, friends, and all those whose lives were bettered through his work.

May God bless Judge Allan Ramsay and his entire family.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to Senate amendment No. 3158, which intends to delay for 2 years the process of base realignments and closures that is set to begin in 2005.

Nearly 3 years ago, the Senate passed legislation calling for a round of base closures in 2005. I strongly supported that legislation, and I continue to believe it is important that we move forward with plans to realign and eliminate excess military infrastructure.

In March, the Defense Department estimated that we support a defense infrastructure that is in excess of 24 percent. Rather than continuing to pay for unneeded or duplicative facilities, our limited defense dollars can and should be better spent to meet the most pressing needs of our Armed Forces.

United States military forces remain engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. An American military presence remains important in Asia, including Korea, and U.S. soldiers are deployed to support peacekeeping operations in Southeast Europe and other parts of the world. With such demands on our men and women in uniform, it is imperative that our military resources are directed to meet our most critical defense needs.

I agree with the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner and Senator Levin, that we must move forward with implementation of the BRAC legislation that was passed during consideration of the fiscal year 2002 Defense Authorization Act.

Two years ago, the Armed Services Committee concluded:

The committee believes that the arguments for allowing the

closure of additional facilities are clear and compelling.

The department has excess facilities. Closing bases saves

money, and the military services have higher priority uses

that could be funded with those savings.

This remains true today. The fact that we remain engaged in efforts to fight the global war on terrorism and promote peace and stability in Iraq, Afghanistan and other parts of the world,

does not mean that we should put the BRAC process on hold. To the contrary, it makes action even more important. Now, more than ever, we need the resources that are spent to maintain excess infrastructure to meet more pressing defense needs.

Our highest-ranking military official, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers, agrees with this assessment. In a letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member of both the Senate and House Armed Services Committees dated May 18, 2004, General Myers and the Joint Chiefs concluded:

A delay of the BRAC round, or a modification of the

legislation that limits the Department's flexibility to

execute it, will seriously undermine our ability to

fundamentally reconfigure our infrastructure to best support

the transformation of our forces to meet the security

challenges we face now and will continue to face for the

foreseeable future.

Our highest-ranking men and women in uniform are requesting this authority so that we can best transform our military, moving beyond the cold war and preparing for current and future threats to U.S. national security interests at home and abroad.

Last week, I joined four of my Senate colleagues for a breakfast meeting with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. During the meeting, Secretary Rumsfeld shared with us his vision for our global footprint. In an effort to better meet challenges to national security, the United States is changing its deployment of forces overseas. As the Secretary of Defense confirmed at that meeting, the realignment and closure of military installations, both at home and abroad, is critical as we look to continue that process.

As a result of prior rounds of base realignments and closures, through fiscal year 2001, the Department of Defense had accumulated net savings of approximately $17 billion. Savings continue annually, freeing up nearly $7 billion each year. These resources have been reinvested to meet urgent defense needs.

Given the fact that we still have a military infrastructure that is in excess of 24 percent, we can continue to generate even more savings with an additional round of base closures. The Defense Department estimates that an additional round of base closures could save more than $3 billion, with savings of $5 billion annually thereafter. Given these savings, there should be little doubt that additional rounds of closures will help to redirect expenditures where we need them the most.

As I have long advocated during my time in public office, I believe we should work harder and smarter and do more with less. That is what we are being asked to do. By maintaining excess and unneeded military installations, we are keeping scarce and critical resources from more important defense priorities. It just doesn't make sense.

Given the looming budget deficit, ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and other spending needs here at home, it does not make sense to spend billions of dollars each year on defense infrastructure that is not needed. We simply cannot afford it.

While I strongly support the BRAC process, I believe that every facility in Ohio can justify its existence on the merits, and I will work hard as a partner with local communities and my colleagues in Ohio's congressional delegation to support Ohio's defense installations.

I believe that base closures are essential to allowing our men and women in uniform to best serve the strategic and national security interests of the United States, and I strongly oppose any amendment that would delay the base realignments and closures process, or attempt to stop the process in its entirety.

Mr. President, I rise today in honor of Mr. William B. Schatz, General Counsel of the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District, NEORSD, in Cleveland, OH. Mr. Schatz currently serves as the District's representative to the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, AMSA, and on May 24, 2004, will become president of this organization. Mr. Schatz was elected AMSA president based on his exemplary commitment and dedication to the clean water community in Ohio and throughout our Nation.

AMSA's mission is to effectively maintain a strong leadership role in the development and implementation of scientifically sound, cost- effective, and environmentally friendly policies for the protection of public health and the environment. This month, AMSA celebrates 34 years of dedicated service to improving water quality nationwide.

Mr. Schatz has served with distinction at NEORSD since 1979 and for over 20 years has been a leader in the water quality arena, working on many projects on behalf of NEORSD and AMSA. He has served as the ad hoc legal advisor to the Association of Ohio Metropolitan Wastewater Agencies, a member of the Advisory Board of the National Enforcement Training Institute, and a member of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Quality Review Committee on Grant Audits. At AMSA, Mr. Schatz has served as chairman of both the Legal Affairs Committee and Joint AMSA-Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies Insurance Committee, a leader of the Wastewater Infrastructure Funding Task Force, and as a member of AMSA's Board of Directors.

Mr. Schatz was instrumental in establishing NEORSD as a leading agency in the wastewater industry and in helping to guide its capital programs. Mr. Schatz was also an influential leader in convincing Congress to fund the conversion of NEORSD's physical chemical Westerly Plant in Cleveland, Ohio, to a conventional biological process. Throughout his career, Mr. Schatz has played an important role in helping to shape critical national policy issues on infrastructure funding, enforcement, and construction grant audit appeals.

Mr. Schatz has been of great assistance to me in my efforts in the United States Senate to bring attention to our Nation's vital water infrastructure needs. He is a well-known leader and someone who, day in and day out, goes above and beyond the call of duty. William B. Schatz has made a significant contribution to improving water infrastructure programs across America.

On behalf of the people of Ohio, I am pleased to commend William B. Schatz for his extraordinary efforts to improve public health and the environment and I congratulate him on being elected president of the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies.

Mr. President, this morning, at Arlington National Cemetery, I was honored to join Congressman Steve LaTourette, LTG Richard A. Cody, Superintendent of Arlington Cemetery John Metzler and students and faculty from Painesville High School for the dedication of the Pyramid of Remembrance, a living memorial paying tribute to American soldiers who have lost their lives during peacekeeping operations, humanitarian efforts, training, terrorist attacks, or covert operations.

The unveiling of this historic memorial today came as a result of the dedication and hard work of motivated young people at Riverside High School in Painesville, OH and their teacher, Dr. Mary Porter. More than one decade ago, in October 1993, these high school students watched in horror as a U.S. soldier in Somalia was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. The students--concerned that there was not a memorial in our Nation's Capital to honor members of the Armed Forces who lost their lives during peacekeeping missions such as the one in Somalia--felt compelled to take action.

These students spearheaded a campaign to establish a Pyramid of Remembrance in Washington, DC. The students not only proposed the memorial, they also created a private non-profit foundation to raise the money to construct the memorial. The community in Painesville pulled together, providing legal counsel for the students and private donations to help fund the project. Due in part to the strong support of this Ohio community, the proposed national Pyramid of Remembrance has been erected at no cost to U.S. taxpayers.

There has been considerable discussion regarding the Pyramid of Remembrance since it was first proposed by the students of Riverside High School and introduced in the House of Representatives in 1996.

On October 17, 2002, Senator Mike DeWine jonied me in introducing legislation in the Senate for the first time to authorize the creation of the Pyramid of Remembrance. We re-introduced this legislation on January 30, 2003, taking into account recommendations made by the National Park Service, and the Senate Subcommittee on National Parks conducted a hearing to examine the legislation on June 3, 2003.

In addition to consideration in the United States Congress, the National Capital Memorial Commission which is charged with overseeing monument construction in Washington, DC, conducted hearings about the proposed Pyramid of Remembrance in April 2001. The Commission recommended that the memorial be constructed on Defense Department land, possibly at Fort McNair. The commissioners also noted that such a memorial would indeed fill a void in our Nation's military monuments.

I agree with the commissioners' findings. I, too, believe that this memorial is a fitting addition to our Nation's Capital to honor those who have lost their lives while serving in the United States military, and I am proud that it has now come to fruition.

On May 6, 1999, I spoke on the Senate floor in honor of two brave American soldiers--CWO Kevin L. Reichert and CWO David A. Gibbs--who lost their lives when their Apache helicopter crashed into the Albanian mountains during a training exercise on May 5, 1999, as U.S. troops joined with our NATO allies in a military campaign against Slobodan Milosevic. As I remarked at the time, the United States owes Kevin, David and so many other service members a debt of gratitude that we will never be able to repay, for they have paid the ultimate sacrifice. As the Bible says in John, chapter 15:13:

Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his

own life for his friends.

The Pyramid of Remembrance honors individuals such as David Gibbs and Kevin Reichert. It also honors the memory of the 17 service members who lost their lives when the USS Cole was attacked on October 12, 2000, and the American soldiers who lost their lives during the terrorist attacks against the Pentagon and the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

This memorial is dedicated to the brave men and women who have given their lives so that we may know freedom. I was deeply moved by words spoken this morning by Dr. Mary Porter, the teacher at Painesville High School who inspired these students to take action. She said:

And so this memorial is for you, SSG William Cleveland.

They dragged your body through the streets of Mogadishu, but

they could not destroy your spirit . . . for you and for all

those who have lost their lives in places like Somalia,

Bosnia and Iraq and in training accidents and acts of

terrorism: we celebrate your spirit. We recognize your

sacrifice. We honor your effort to establish peace. This

monument represents our eternal gratitude for your sacrifice,

but it also represents hope for a future where human beings

on this planet can live in peace and without fear.

The patriotism, dedication, and vision of the students at Riverside High School are commendable. Their action shows maturity, leadership and passion for their country that Americans of all ages should emulate. I support and applaud the work these students have done to establish the Pyramid of Remembrance, as well as the efforts of community members who have provided ongoing guidance and support to help the students turn their vision into reality.

I believe it is our duty to honor American men and women in uniform who have lost their lives while serving their country, whether in peacetime or during war, and this memorial, which will remain and grow at Arlington National Cemetery, will ensure that the sacrifice made by so many is always remembered by our grateful Nation.

Mr. President, the State of Ohio has had a good friend in Ohio University President Robert Glidden for many years. Higher education in particular, in Ohio and elsewhere, has had a good friend in Dr. Glidden for a lifetime.

As he prepares to retire next month from the presidency of Ohio University, my alma mater, I think it is important to recognize Dr. Glidden's commitment, dedication and hard work. Most of all, though, I would like to applaud his stance that education is the best means through which to raise up the individual, the State of Ohio and our great Nation, and his zeal in conveying that philosophy.

On July 1, 1994, Dr. Glidden became the 19th president of Ohio University, the first public institution of higher learning in the old Northwest Territory. He previously had served Ohio as dean of the Bowling Green State University College of Musical Arts from 1975 to 1979 and assistant professor of music at Wright State University from 1966 to 1967. His other posts have included professor, music school dean, provost and vice president for academic affairs at Florida State University and music professor at Indiana University and the University of Oklahoma.

Dr. Glidden can be proud of his service to higher education. In the past decade, he has taken Ohio University to a new level of excellence by emphasizing the university's academic and research missions. He has also made it an Ohio University priority to reach out to Southeast Ohio through the university's strong regional campus system, the Voinovich Center for Leadership and Public Affairs, and a multitude of other offerings. He has moved the university forward--by way of improvements in undergraduate education, technological advancements and campus improvements--during some of the toughest economic times we have faced in recent memory.

This has taken considerable creativity, focus and foresight, and often it has meant making difficult decisions. It also has required a commitment to seeking out new opportunities and revenue steams. Under Dr. Glidden's watch, external funding for Ohio University faculty research has climbed to $54.3 million, up from just $34.4 million six years earlier. The university also is about to surpass the $200 million goal of its Bientennial Campaign.

These are accomplishments on the grand scale, but there is a personal side to Dr. Glidden that students of Ohio University have come to know and appreciate. Above all, he respects them. He wants them to appreciate learning for learning's sake and gain knowledge and skills that will last them a lifetime, especially because the focus of their careers is likely to change several times as the years go by. He also has emphasized civility and character, attributes that--as we see every day--are more important now than ever.

Likewise, Dr. Glidden has nurtured Ohio University's relationship with its alumni. These individuals, now some 170,000 strong, are making important advancements and contributions around the globe. He takes pride in their accomplishments, and he encourages their continued involvement with and support for their university and education in general.

My wife Janet and I have enjoyed being able to get to know Bob and his wife, Renee. Renee's contributions to the university community are noteworthy in their own right. Not only did she oversee the renovation of the President's residence--painstakingly stripping and refinishing the home's main staircase herself--she has also made valuable contributions as a career volunteer. She has served on the Board of Trustees of the Dairy Barn/Southeastern Ohio Cultural Arts Center, the Stuart Opera House, Community Design Inc., the Percent for Art Committee, and the Ohio Arts Council.

In addition to his distinguished service to Ohio University, Dr. Glidden has taken a leadership role in higher education in Ohio and around the country through his involvement with Ohio's Inter-University Council and service as founding chair of the Council on Higher

Education Accreditation. Such activities have helped raise the bar for educational institutions around the country and earned him the respect of his peers nationwide. In the words of Miami University President James Garland, whose school has long enjoyed a healthy rivalry with Ohio University: ``When it comes to defending budgets and advancing policies in the interest of higher education, Bob has been a leader in the state . . . I have as much respect for him as a university president as anyone I've ever met.''

I am grateful, as I know others throughout southeast Ohio are that Dr. Glidden has expressed an interest in continuing his service to Ohio University, albeit in a more modest fashion, during retirement. His passion for education and the doors it opens make him a most valuable ally for the students of today and the leaders of tomorrow. Thank you, Bob, for your service. Go Bobcats.

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

Mr. President, I am rising this evening in support of

Mr. President, perhaps I have been in local and State government too long. I really do care about my brothers and sisters in State government and in local government.

I was not going to speak on the Feinstein amendment, but I have some statistics about the fiscal stress on the States that would lose the DSL after they sunset the exemption in the next 2 years. I am here to urge my colleagues to support the 4-year extension for those States that have used DSL.

The reason for it is this: The States are under one of the worst fiscal constraints they have been in since the Second World War. Alabama, projected deficit next year, $620 million; Alaska, $475 million; Arizona, the State of the Senator McCain, sponsor of the underlying compromise, $1.1 billion; California, $15 billion; Connecticut, $200 million; Illinois, $2 billion; Indiana, $595 million; Kentucky, $200 million; Louisiana $500 million; Minnesota, $185 million; Mississippi, $709 million--a small State, lots of money; Missouri, $600 million; New Jersey, $5 billion; New York, $5.1 billion; North Carolina, $400 million; Rhode Island, $188 million; South Carolina, $300 million.

The States are in trouble. If we give them an extra 2 years so they can make the adjustment in terms of losing these dollars, I think it will help them segue into a situation where they can get themselves back on track.

The last thing I would say is that the way this is going, I think it could end up being the largest unfunded mandate on the States. We should at least give these States a break.

I urge my colleagues to include passing the Feinstein amendment.

Mr. President, I am kind of surprised that the Corn Growers Association of America is supporting the Allen-Wyden legislation. I am sure that if they really understood the ramifications of this legislation, they would not be supportive of it because they would understand that if that legislation passes, their real estate taxes or other taxes they are paying would increase.

I am going to make a point of getting in touch with them. I received the President's Award last year from the Corn Growers, from Fred Yoder, who was their president, and worked very hard, several years ago, to get the petroleum people and the Corn Growers together to come up with the ethanol compromise that is now in the Energy bill.

I am glad the Senator from Virginia has pointed out they are supporting this legislation. I am going to get in touch with them right away and share with them some information they might not have had at the time they came out to support this legislation.

This afternoon the Senator from Arizona quoted from a policy paper of the National Governors Association and mentioned the criteria that the National Governors Association said

should be in any bill that deals with this question of Internet taxation. I would like to go through that policy paper and share that with my colleagues in the Senate.

First: NGA supports, as I do and as the Presiding Officer does, reasonable extension of the Internet Tax Freedom Act.

In this policy paper that was quoted from:

The NGA calls upon Congress to adopt S. 2084, the

``Internet Tax Ban Extension and Improvement Act.'' This

compromise bill, sponsored by Senators Alexander and Carper--

and, by the way, Senator Voinovich--

offers a reasonable extension of the moratorium while

addressing industry concerns for technological neutrality

without unduly burdening state and local governments.

I am not going to go into all these, but I ask unanimous consent that this policy paper be printed in the Record.

First, they talk about: ``DO NO HARM. Any extension of the moratorium should preserve existing state and local revenues.''

The next point they make is: ``BE CLEAR. Definitions matter.''

By the way, in the area of ``DO NO HARM,'' they mention the fact:

With state and local governments collecting over $18

billion in telecommunications taxes annually, any significant

change in the taxability of telecommunications could cost

states billions [billions] of dollars. At a time when state

and local governments are facing large increases in mandatory

spending and stagnant revenue growth, Congress should not

exacerbate state fiscal problems by interfering with the

collection of existing taxes.

In terms of the definitions, they believe that:

The original moratorium split the definition of Internet

access into two parts: a broad and inclusive description of

Internet access and an absolute exclusion of

telecommunications services from the moratorium. The

definition read:

``Internet access means a service that enables users to

access content, information, electronic mail, or other

services offered over the Internet, and may also include

access to proprietary content, information, and other

services as part of a package of services offered to users.

Such term does not include telecommunications services.''

The exclusion of telecommunications services protected

states by clarifying that Internet access was a separate,

distinct and limited service.

They go on to say, under definitions:

[The House bill] and S. 150 would also intensify a long-

standing problem with the original definition: the unlimited

ability to bundle together content and ``other services''

into a single offering of tax-free Internet access. Services

such as VOIP--

That is being able to use your computer to make telephone calls--

highlight the risk states face from this broad definition.

Unlike traditional telecommunications services, VOIP uses the

Internet to transmit voice communications between computers,

phones and other communications devices. Industry observers

expect 40 percent of all telephone calls in the United States

to be Internet based within five years. If VOIP is allowed to

be bundled with Internet access into a single tax-free

offering, and telecommunications used to deliver that

offering are also tax free, states could quickly see their

telecommunications tax base erode to nothing [nothing].

Language in S. 150 as amended and S. 2084 that requires

service providers to unbundle taxable services from non-

taxable Internet access is helpful, but only if the universe

of what constitutes Internet access is actually limited.

It also goes on and talks about ``STAY FLEXIBLE. A temporary solution is better than permanent confusion.'' Did you hear that? ``A temporary solution is better than permanent confusion.''

Rapid pace innovation in the Internet and

telecommunications industries makes it difficult to define

accurately these complex and ever-changing services. The

original moratorium was made temporary in part for

this reason--to provide Congress, industry and state and

local governments with the ability to revisit the issue

and make adjustments where necessary to accommodate new

technologies and market realities. The fact that the

courts, the Federal Communications Commission and Congress

are all in the process of examining and redefining the

core elements of what constitutes telecommunications and

Internet access underscores the need for caution.

We are in an era right now of unbelievable change.

With so much uncertainty, a temporary extension of the

moratorium is the best way to avoid unintended consequences

from a permanent moratorium.

Their final conclusion--and I am sure the Presiding Officer is very happy about this--is:

NGA supports S. 2084 because it best reflects a balance

between state sovereignty and federal support for the

Internet. First, it protects states by drawing a line in the

sand to prohibit new taxes on Internet without interfering

with existing state taxes. Second, by making the connection

from a consumer to their Internet access provider tax free,

the Alexander-Carper bill actually levels the playing field

for competing technologies without overreaching.

That is a point that the Presiding Officer has made several times on the floor of the Senate.

Continuing:

Third, it gives Congress, industry and states a chance to

revisit the Act by making the moratorium expire after two

years. For these reasons NGA supports S. 2084 as a true

compromise that is fair to industry, respectful of states,

and good for consumers.

Now, I contacted the National Governors Association earlier today.

I asked them if they could opine on the McCain amendment that was so eloquently spoken to by Senator McCain. They worked very quickly and came back with a letter to Senator Frist, majority leader, and Senator Daschle, Democratic leader. It is signed by Governor Brad Henry, Oklahoma, Chair, Committee on Economic Development and Commerce, and Governor Michael Rounds, South Dakota, Vice Chairman, Committee on Economic Development and Commerce.

I would like to read from that letter.

Dear Senator Frist and Senator Daschle:

The National Governors Association . . . supports an

Internet access tax moratorium that benefits consumers, is

fair to industry, and does no harm to states. As the Senate

once again considers the moratorium, we urge you to oppose

efforts that would deprive states of existing tax revenues

and to support the compromise proposal to be offered by

Senator Alexander and Senator Carper and embodied in S. 2084,

the ``Internet Tax Ban Extension and Improvement Act.''

NGA supports the Alexander/Carper compromise because it

best reflects the appropriate balance between state

sovereignty and federal support for the Internet. First, it

protects states by prohibiting new taxes on Internet access

without interfering with existing state revenues. Second, by

making the connection from a consumer to their Internet

access provider tax free, the compromise language encourages

broadband deployment by leveling the playing field for all

technologies.

That is what we are trying to do. The amendment we tried to get in last year and which will be offered by the Senator from Tennessee tries to level the playing field for all of the providers of this access.

Third, because it is temporary, it gives Congress,

industry, consumers, and states a chance to revisit the issue

and make adjustments where necessary to accommodate new

technologies and market realities.

Here is the paragraph that I think gets to the heart of the matter:

The recent proposal by Senator McCain, while an improvement

on the bill sponsored by Senator Allen and Senator Wyden . .

. does not go far enough to protect states. By adopting the

broad definition of tax-free Internet access used in S. 150--

That is the same definition that is in the Wyden-Allen bill; the same definition is in the amendment proposed by Senator McCain--

and terminating the grandfather protections before the end of

the moratorium, the McCain proposal would still deprive state

and local governments of existing tax revenues and violate

the principle of ``do no harm.''

The nation's governors call on the U.S. Senate to oppose

the McCain amendment and support Senator Alexander and

Senator Carper in their efforts to strike a reasonable

compromise to extend the Internet access tax moratorium.

The Senator from Tennessee, Senator Alexander, Senator Carper, and Senator Voinovich, who is the third sponsor of S. 2084, should be very happy

with the support we are getting from the National Governors Association. I hope our colleagues take that into consideration.

In addition to the letter from the National Governors Association, I would like to share a letter I recently received from the Ohio Department of Taxation. In fact, I have never seen a letter from the Department of Taxation of the State of Ohio turned around so quickly in my life. We faxed them the McCain proposal. We asked them to give us their opinion of the McCain amendment. I suggest to my colleagues that before they vote on this legislation, they take it upon themselves--as a matter of fact, I think it is an obligation for them--to get in contact with their State departments of taxation to get a read from them about what impact this amendment would have on their respective States. Some of my colleagues, frankly, are supporting this and may not want to hear the impact it is having on their State. But I think it is incumbent upon them at least to find out what their States think about this proposed legislation and the impact it would have on their respective States.

I am going to read a portion of this letter. It reads:

Dear Senator Voinovich:

We reviewed the text of the McCain language that you FAXed

to us this morning. Our preliminary impression is that this

bill is very similar to the version of S. 150 containing the

``managers amendment'' and has roughly the same negative

revenue impact on Ohio. Specifically, we think that the bill

would cause a state and local revenue loss of about $72

million per year. The amount would become larger as more

telecommunications services are provided through Internet

technology and/or bundled with Internet access, and as

broadband Internet access is used by more households.

Specifically, the $72 million estimate does not account for

state and local revenues lost as more phone services are

replaced by VOIP, which we believe the McCain bill will still

prohibit the states from taxing (as long as VOIP is bundled

with Internet access).

That is the way they do it. They bundle it together and under their definition this would be exempt from taxation.

As you know, the states objected to S. 150 on several

grounds. One of the most important was the language ``the

term `Internet access' does not include telecommunications

services, except to the extent such services are purchased,

used, or sold by a provider of Internet access to provide

Internet access.''

This ``Allen-Wyden'' definition of Internet access is so

broad that it essentially can be used to exempt what we have

seen referred to as the ``Internet backbone''

telecommunications services, the ``middle mile''

telecommunications services, and the ``last mile''

telecommunications services. This is in contrast to S2084,

which you cosponsored, and which would have provided a much

more limited exemption for last mile telecommunications

services that are used to connect an end-user (e.g.

household) to an Internet service provider such as AOL or

Earthlink or Comcast.

That is the thing we don't want. We want people to have to plug into that mile, but the thing we are concerned about is they want to go beyond that. They want to take in the whole watermelon.

In Ohio, the impact of the S. 150 moratorium on state and

local taxation of all these telecommunications services may

not be as damaging as in some other states because Ohio

already has a broad exemption for the purchase of property

used in providing telecommunications services. Even so, we

still estimate that the annual full-year loss to Ohio from

the provision would be about $72 million.

Another notable provision of the McCain bill is the

exception of VOIP services from the tax moratorium. To the

extent that such service mimics traditional telephone

service, we believe that this means that State and local

governments would be allowed to tax VOIP services insofar as

they mimic traditional telephone services. The so-called VOIP

exception to the moratorium actually does nothing for the

states' ability to tax that or similar services that may

migrate to the Internet. Current Ohio law allows state and

local governments to tax VOIP as a telecommunications

service, as long as there is no federal preemption.

The McCain ``exception'' to the federal preemption does not

apply to services that are defined as Internet access. This

means that the exemption will not apply to voice services

that are bundled with Internet access, and since that is how

VOIP services are currently sold and probably will continue

to be sold, the exception in the McCain bill will in fact

provide no protection against states losing revenues as phone

services migrate to VOIP.

The Senator from Tennessee, the Presiding Officer, has made it very clear if there was an amendment to that bill that made it very clear that could continue to be taxed, that might remedy this whole issue.

The letter goes on to say:

We do not know exactly how much revenues will be lost in

the future due to the migration of currently taxable phone

service to exempt VOIP service, but it could end up being

most of Ohio's telecommunications tax revenues.

I'll read that again:

We do not know exactly how much revenue will be lost in the

future due to the migration of current taxable phone service

to exempt VOIP service, but it could end up being most of

Ohio's telecommunications tax revenues.

You know if that happens, the State is either going to reduce services or they are going to find something else to tax. That is the way this thing operates.

The letter concludes:

To put the estimated $72 million loss in context, in fiscal

year 2003, Ohio collected about $250 million in sales tax and

use tax from telecommunications service providers. The most

recent biennial budget bill switched local telephone

providers from the old gross receipts tax to the sales tax

and use tax, so that now the forecasted full year sales and

use tax revenue from all telecommunications providers is

about $370 million. This is at a 5 percent state tax rate--we

are ignoring the current 6 percent tax rate because it is set

to expire. . . .Thus, the estimated revenue loss from the

McCain bill (excluding the VOIP loss) is slightly less than

20 percent of total estimated Ohio telecommunications sales

tax revenues.

The fact is the McCain amendment is going to have a devastating impact on the revenues of our States and goes far beyond the moratorium I helped negotiate when I was chairman of the National Governors Association, and is something we should all be concerned about.

I also want to make another couple of points, if I may. I have heard so much today already and in the past about the fact that if we don't get this done, everything is going to stop and it is going to be a terrible thing for farmers and all Americans, and so on. The fact is, Internet technology has grown unbelievably over the past year. According to a study released by the Pew Internet and American Life Project last week, 55 percent of American Internet users have access to broadband, either at home or in the workplace. As a matter of fact, it is going to keep growing because I think the Senator from Tennessee pointed out this afternoon there are some communities that have their own electric companies that are giving it away.

This thing is moving. We don't see anything slowing down. We are moving fast. The report also noted home broadband usage is up 60 percent since March 2003, with half of the growth since November 2003.

You will recall back when we were debating this last year, the allegation was, gee, if we don't get this done, everything is going to be taxed, things are going to end up in the mud, slowed down, and we are in trouble. Since the moratorium ended, half of this growth occurred. So this thing is moving. This moratorium--the fact we didn't extend it has not really impacted this one iota. DSL technology now has a 42-percent share of the home market, which is up 28 percent since March 2003.

Most of the growth I outlined occurred after the Internet tax moratorium expired last November, which refutes the argument S. 150 was necessary to help the expansion of broadband services. In addition, April 21--a couple days ago--a major telecommunications company released their 2004 first quarter earnings. I want to read the first two sentences from the company's press release because it illustrates how fast this technology is growing. This is from SBC Communications:

SBC Communications, Inc., today reported first quarter 2004

earnings of $1.9 billion, as it delivered strong progress in

key growth products. In the quarter SBC added 446,000 DSL

lines, the best ever by a U.S. telecom provider.

Some of these people who are supporting the Wyden-Allen amendment and now McCain amendment are companies like this. They are doing well. They are moving. They are bragging, ``We are moving ahead.'' We all know the Federal Government today subsidizes this telecommunications industry. If I remember correctly from a speech the Presiding Officer gave this afternoon, it is a $4 billion subsidy from the Federal Government, and the States--all of them--have been doing

everything they can to encourage this industry.

I don't know of any industry that has been treated better than this industry. For the life of me, I cannot understand why it is they insist on having us whack out all of the taxes they are paying. I cannot understand it.

I think if this Senate does the right thing, what we are going to tell this industry, which does a pretty good job of lobbying around here and in the States--I knew it when I was Governor--we will tell them: You know what. You are not going to get a complete release of all the taxes you pay. It is time for you to sit down, like I did with the petroleum industry and the Corn Growers--they came to me and wanted me with them on ethanol, and the oil industry--and the Senator from Oklahoma knows them well--said you have to be with us. I said, you know something, I had Ashland Marathon Oil in Ohio, and I had my Corn Growers and I love you both. You ought to get in the room and sit down and talk to each other and see if you cannot work something out. Lo and behold, after 6 months, they had a big news conference. About 20 Senators were there, and on that stage were people who, if you talked to them 6 months before and said you are going to be on the stage together in a compromise, would have said you are crazy. They were on that stage and they put a compromise together.

The problem we have today in the Senate is the fact that the telecommunications industry thinks this thing is going to go through and they don't have to sit down and talk to State and local government officials, or with the Commerce Committee, and work something out. I know it can be done. I am prayerful our colleagues today understand that and that they will come together and say we have not been able to do this, and we will have a continuation of a moratorium. But let's sit down and work it out. Probably the best way to do that under the circumstances, with the time limitation we have, would probably be to pass a 14-or 15-month extension of the current moratorium, while we can take it back to the Commerce Committee, where we can get the telecommunications industry in, get the Governors and other local government officials in, and the FCC, and start to make some sense out of this.

I thank the Senator from Tennessee, Senator Alexander, for the great leadership he has provided on this issue. We got together last year, and the train was moving and we got in the way of it and caught a lot of criticism because they were accusing us of being for taxing e-mail and the Internet and all the rest of it. That wasn't it at all. All we wanted to do was continue a moratorium but do no harm to our States. We probably understand that more than some Members because we are former Governors. In my case, I am a former mayor and county commissioner, and we also appreciate it because we all worked together for legislation in 1995--the unfunded mandates relief legislation I worked my heart out to get passed. As a matter of fact, the pen President Clinton used to sign that legislation is on the wall in my Senate office in the Hart Building. The first time I set foot on the floor of the Senate was the day the Senate passed the unfunded mandates relief legislation.

I don't like unfunded mandates. I don't think it is fair. We have done it to the States for so many years. We finally got that legislation passed. The American people should know this is a big unfunded mandate, the way it is put together. We can change it and make it fair so they are not going to see the taxes on telecommunications disappear and then see taxes increased in some other area.

Thank you, Mr. President.