Floor Statements

Madam President, first of all, I want to thank the Senator from Tennessee for the tremendous amount of time and effort he has put into this issue. We all got into this together last year when we saw the train moving very fast and we wanted to do what we could to slow it down. We were able to accomplish that. Since that time, the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Delaware have been working on a bipartisan basis to try to spend a great deal of time with the folks who have a different point of view, trying to reconcile the differences.

Unfortunately, those differences have not been reconciled. But it certainly is not based on a lack of trying. The Senator from Tennessee now has become the expert on this. Madam President, I wish you had been at a meeting I had with him last week, where he was teaching the teachers on this legislation. I thank him so very much for all of his hard work and dedication to this issue. I hope our colleagues will listen to us today and perhaps come up with another compromise that will allow us to spend more time to deal with this subject. This is a very complicated issue and we need to be careful how we proceed.

Today we are going to consider a motion to proceed on S. 150, the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act of 2003. When the Senate first considered this legislation last November, I argued the

debate on S. 150 was not about taxing e-mail or increasing taxes on Internet access. It was suggested by some members of this legislative body that we were in favor of taxing the Internet or e-mail. In fact, I stand here today in opposition to taxes on Internet access and firmly opposed to any and all taxes on e-mail by any level of government-- Federal, State, or local. But that is not what today's debate is about.

Rather, the debate on S. 150 is about federalism, unfunded mandates, and protecting the States' ability to collect revenue at a time when State and local governments are struggling to make ends meet.

As a former State representative, counter auditor, counter commissioner, Lieutenant Governor, mayor of Cleveland, and Governor of Ohio, I have seen firsthand how the relationship between the Federal Government and our State and local counterparts affect our citizens and the communities in which they live.

My experience has fueled my passion for federalism and the need to balance the Federal Government's power with the powers our Founding Fathers envisioned for the States. This very body was created in part to guarantee that States have adequate and equal means to assert their interests before the Federal Government, and I can assure you that if we Senators were still elected State legislators, this issue would not be before us today.

The relationship between the Federal Government and State and local governments should be one of partnership. However, that is not always the case. I am concerned about the tendency of the Federal Government to preempt the functions of State and local governments and force on them new responsibilities, particularly without also providing funding to pay for these new responsibilities. Madam President, that is why I fought for the passage of unfunded mandates reform.

As a matter of fact, I will never forget the first time in my life I set foot on the floor of the U.S. Senate was when the unfunded mandates reform legislation passed. Then, later at the Rose Garden, I was there representing State and local governments when President Clinton signed UMRA in 1995. As I said, I was representing State and local governments, and, Madam President, your husband a former Senator from Kansas, Mr. Dole, was representing the national interests. It is a day I will never forget. In fact, I have the pen that was used to sign the legislation proudly displayed in my office in the Senate.

As I will explain in a moment, S. 150 violates the principles of federalism. When S. 150 was pulled from the Senate floor last November, advocates on both sides of the issue agreed to resolve our differences. For the past 6 months, we have been engaged in meaningful dialog, but we just cannot reach an agreement. At this point in time, I am concerned that the philosophical differences between the two sides may be too deep to bridge.

Madam President, I have three problems with the definition of Internet access:

First, it is so broad that it prevents State and local governments from collecting taxes on all telecommunications services used to provide Internet access over the entire broad band network. We are talking about the entire network, last mile, middle mile, and backbone. States are currently collecting between $3 billion and $10 billion annually in telephone taxes. I am concerned that this tax base may erode as traditional phone service migrates to cutting edge technology called voice over Internet protocol, VOIP. In fact, the migration is happening at a rapid pace. For example, on April 9, 2004, Newsday reported that AT&T expects to add 1 million VOIP customers by the end of 2005 and there are many other companies rolling out this service as well. This will have a tremendous change in the way telephone service is provided in the United States.

As a part of our good-faith negotiations on S. 150, Senators Allen and Alexander were working on language to preserve the States' ability to collect taxes on VOIP, but they have not yet reached an agreement. In addition, the Federation of Tax Administrators noted that S. 150 would prohibit States from continuing to tax some transactions such as business-to-business transactions between Internet service providers and telephone companies, and they estimate this could cost State and local governments $500 million annually in lost revenues.

Second, S. 150 violates the spirit of the original moratorium by making a brand new definition of Internet access permanent. The original 1998 moratorium was 3 years in duration, and in 2001, Congress extended it for 2 more years. With technology changing so rapidly, we must be cautious when trying to define Internet access.

Third, according to the CBO, S. 150 imposes an intergovernmental mandate under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Let me repeat, CBO says it is an unfunded mandate. On page 6 of the September 29, 2003, Commerce Committee's report on S. 150, CBO said:

By extending and expanding the moratorium on certain types

of State and local taxes, S. 150 would impose an

intergovernmental mandate as defined in the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act. CBO estimates that the mandate would cause State

and local governments to lose revenue beginning in October

2006; those losses would exceed the threshold established in

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act . . . by 2007. While there

is some uncertainty as to the number of States affected, CBO

estimates that the direct costs to State and local

governments would probably total between $80 million and $120

million annually, beginning in 2007.

There is no question, this is an unfunded mandate.

Furthermore--and this is the part to which we really need to pay attention:

Depending on how the language altering the definition of

what telecommunications are taxable is interpreted, that

language also could result in substantial revenue losses for

States and local governments. It is possible that States

could lose revenue if services that are currently taxed are

redefined as Internet access under the definition of S. 150 .

. . However, CBO cannot estimate the magnitude of these

losses.

In other words, at this stage of the game, they have no idea how large these losses will be to State and local governments if the definition of Internet access in S. 150 is passed.

To follow up on CBO's assessment, I went to my own State and said: Can you examine the proposals and let me know what they would cost our state?

Under S. 150, as reported, it would cost the State of Ohio $350 million a year at a time when they are trying to balance their budget. They are making cuts in services right now to try to balance the State budget. The Allen-Wyden managers' amendment we discussed in November would cost about $150 million for 2 years, and the Alexander-Carper- Voinovich amendment would cost my State about $40 million a year. So any proposal under consideration would cost my State money.

Logic tells me that if CBO cannot calculate the potential loss in revenue to the States, and my State projects large revenue losses, why would we make dramatic and permanent changes to the Internet tax moratorium? Why would we do that to our friends in State and local government?

Last month, Senator Collins, chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, confirmed in a letter to me that the Allen-Wyden managers' amendment to S. 150 also contained unfunded mandates as defined by UMRA. The CBO says it and the Governmental Affairs Committee says it is an unfunded mandate.

Unlike Congress, by law States must balance their budgets. They do not have the option of printing money like we do. Therefore, if the Senate passes S. 150 or the managers' amendment, Congress will, in effect, force States to raise taxes or cut services in order to make up the difference, which is why each State and local government and organizations are opposed to this legislation with the exception of the

I have already listed them in my formal presentation on the floor. There are so many it is hard to remember.

But I did mention the fact that we all worked together as members of the National Governors Association. In fact, the Senator from Delaware was vice chairman of the National Governors Association when I was president of the National Governors Association, and we worked together and collaborated on a lot of issues.

I have been concerned about this issue since I was president of the National League of Cities back in 1985. As the Presiding Officer knows, one of the biggest issues we had in 1995 and 1996 was unfunded mandates. We went right across the country pointing out how devastating these mandates coming out of Washington were for State and local governments. We thought we had done something very significant about it.

But to answer the question of the Senator from Delaware, from my perspective, the passage of this bill would be the most egregious unfunded mandate we have seen since 1995, when the unfunded mandates relief legislation was passed. It seems to me we still have Members of this body who were around when unfunded mandates relief legislation was passed and there was great support for it. It seems to me those who supported it at that time should give some real consideration to the fact that we are about, if this were to pass, to have the biggest unfunded mandate, as I said, since that bill passed.

Mr. President, leveling the playing field for high school graduates in the District of Columbia continues to be a top priority of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia which I chair. Today I would like to highlight the tremendous impact the District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Program--D.C. TAG--has had on promoting higher education for high school graduates in the Nation's Capital and introduce legislation that would permanently authorize the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999.

In 1999, I worked with the House and fellow Senators Jeffords and Durbin to craft the District of Columbia College Access Act which was signed into law on November 12, 1999. Soon after, under the direction of Mayor Anthony Williams, the D.C. TAG Program was created to implement this important legislation. The first grants were awarded in 2000.

The aim of the Program was to afford D.C. high school graduates the same opportunity that high school seniors in each of the 50 States have, the ability to attend public universities and colleges at in- State tuition rates in all 50 States and participating private schools--Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) nationwide or private colleges or universities in Virginia or Maryland. The program has made it possible for D.C. residents to attend college who did not have access to similar State-supported systems.

The D.C. TAG scholarships are used by D.C. residents to pay the difference between in-State and out-of-State tuition, up to $10,000 per student per

school year with a cumulative cap of $50,000 per student. In addition, as of March 2002, D.C. residents attending participating private institutions started receiving tuition grants under the program of $2,500 per student per school year with a cumulative cap of $12,500 per student.

To date, D.C. TAG has dispersed more than $63 million to a total of 6,527 students, many of whom are the first in their family to attend college. All current high school students who are D.C. residents are eligible for these scholarships and participation is increasing.

The powerful impact of the program on high school graduates continuing on to college is hard to deny. Data from the Department of Education's Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System show that the number of D.C. high school graduates continuing on to college increased from 1,750 in 1998 to 2,230 in 2002. That's a 28 percent increase since the program was created. This is the highest level of college attendance of District students and exceeds the national average, over the same period, of a 5-percent increase.

Mayor Williams stated that `'No State in the Union can make that claim. This unprecedented figure is due in large part, if not almost exclusively, I believe, to D.C. TAG.''

According to a survey conducted by the D.C. TAG Office, the grants have become an essential part of higher education planning for D.C. residents. The majority of students who have received assistance through the program have indicated that the existence of the grants made a difference in their decision to attend college, and also played a role in deciding which college to attend.

It is important for my colleagues to know that thousands of D.C. students have taken advantage of this program. It can help to turn around years of economic and educational despair in the District.

We are now coming to the end of the 5-year authorization for the program which expires in November 2005. Because of this and the success of the program, Senators Durbin, Jeffords, Lieberman, and I are introducing this bill to permanently reauthorize the D.C. College Access Act.

In closing I would like to quote two D.C. Residents. La Rue Purry, currently a freshman at the University of Alabama states that ``This program gave me the opportunity to get the education I always wanted, the education my family couldn't have provided for me.''

Brian Ford, a former D.C. TAG recipient, who testified at the House committee on Government Reform Hearing on March 25, 2004, stated that ``The D.C. Tuition Assistance Program is a necessity for the city of Washington, DC, and for its residents. I urge Congress to please continue to provide financial support to the D.C. TAG program so one day students like myself can have a college diploma hanging on the wall for the world to see.''

I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation and I'm confident that it can be enacted this year. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, leveling the playing field for high school graduates in the District of Columbia continues to be a top priority of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia which I chair. Today I would like to highlight the tremendous impact the District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Program--D.C. TAG--has had on promoting higher education for high school graduates in the Nation's Capital and introduce legislation that would permanently authorize the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999.

In 1999, I worked with the House and fellow Senators Jeffords and Durbin to craft the District of Columbia College Access Act which was signed into law on November 12, 1999. Soon after, under the direction of Mayor Anthony Williams, the D.C. TAG Program was created to implement this important legislation. The first grants were awarded in 2000.

The aim of the Program was to afford D.C. high school graduates the same opportunity that high school seniors in each of the 50 States have, the ability to attend public universities and colleges at in- State tuition rates in all 50 States and participating private schools--Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) nationwide or private colleges or universities in Virginia or Maryland. The program has made it possible for D.C. residents to attend college who did not have access to similar State-supported systems.

The D.C. TAG scholarships are used by D.C. residents to pay the difference between in-State and out-of-State tuition, up to $10,000 per student per

school year with a cumulative cap of $50,000 per student. In addition, as of March 2002, D.C. residents attending participating private institutions started receiving tuition grants under the program of $2,500 per student per school year with a cumulative cap of $12,500 per student.

To date, D.C. TAG has dispersed more than $63 million to a total of 6,527 students, many of whom are the first in their family to attend college. All current high school students who are D.C. residents are eligible for these scholarships and participation is increasing.

The powerful impact of the program on high school graduates continuing on to college is hard to deny. Data from the Department of Education's Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System show that the number of D.C. high school graduates continuing on to college increased from 1,750 in 1998 to 2,230 in 2002. That's a 28 percent increase since the program was created. This is the highest level of college attendance of District students and exceeds the national average, over the same period, of a 5-percent increase.

Mayor Williams stated that `'No State in the Union can make that claim. This unprecedented figure is due in large part, if not almost exclusively, I believe, to D.C. TAG.''

According to a survey conducted by the D.C. TAG Office, the grants have become an essential part of higher education planning for D.C. residents. The majority of students who have received assistance through the program have indicated that the existence of the grants made a difference in their decision to attend college, and also played a role in deciding which college to attend.

It is important for my colleagues to know that thousands of D.C. students have taken advantage of this program. It can help to turn around years of economic and educational despair in the District.

We are now coming to the end of the 5-year authorization for the program which expires in November 2005. Because of this and the success of the program, Senators Durbin, Jeffords, Lieberman, and I are introducing this bill to permanently reauthorize the D.C. College Access Act.

In closing I would like to quote two D.C. Residents. La Rue Purry, currently a freshman at the University of Alabama states that ``This program gave me the opportunity to get the education I always wanted, the education my family couldn't have provided for me.''

Brian Ford, a former D.C. TAG recipient, who testified at the House committee on Government Reform Hearing on March 25, 2004, stated that ``The D.C. Tuition Assistance Program is a necessity for the city of Washington, DC, and for its residents. I urge Congress to please continue to provide financial support to the D.C. TAG program so one day students like myself can have a college diploma hanging on the wall for the world to see.''

I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation and I'm confident that it can be enacted this year. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I preface my remarks by saying my thoughts are with the victims of asbestos exposure, those families that have lost loved ones, and those that have to live with the debilitating illness caused by asbestos. They are at the forefront of my mind and in my heart as I discuss this issue of asbestos liability.

I want to be sure the legislation we pass today will ensure that those truly sick individuals are allowed fair and just compensation. Without the passage of this legislation, they will not be compensated. As hundreds of companies will cascade into bankruptcy, we will lose thousands of good-paying jobs and see the pensions of thousands of retirees evaporate.

Most people would agree that the issue of asbestos litigation and its aftermath is presenting a crisis in our country. With roughly 70 companies already in bankruptcy and a slew of bankruptcies soon to follow, the U.S. Supreme Court had it right when they called this an elephantine mess.

People need to understand this mess has far-reaching effects and ripples and they are being felt way beyond corporate boardrooms. They are being felt intensely by middle America, people from States such as Ohio, in the form of job loss. We have lost over 2.7 million manufacturing jobs in the United States. In my State alone, in July, there were 1 million manufacturing jobs in 2000, but by October 2003 that fell to 840,000, 17.6 percent of our State's manufacturing employment, a loss of more than 1 out of every 6 Ohio factory jobs. These numbers represent a crisis for Ohio's economy. Already, roughly 70 companies have been forced into bankruptcy with between 52,000 and 60,000 jobs lost as a result.

Shattered families and communities. The statistics are only the beginning as thousands of jobs were subsequently lost in industries dependent on those bankrupt firms. In fact, a recent study by Financial Institutions for Asbestos Reform and conducted by Navigant Consulting details the hidden cost of this crisis and shows how passage of Federal asbestos legislation would provide a tremendous boost to the economy and create jobs. Dr. William Kerr, author of the study, said the failure to enact legislation would reduce economic growth by $2.4 billion per year. Failure to enact legislation could reduce economic growth by $2.4 billion per year, costing more than 30,000 jobs annually. Extended over a 27-year frame, as contemplated, this means the loss of more than 800,000 jobs and $64 billion in economic growth.

Another study, entitled The Secondary Impacts of Asbestos Liabilities, conducted by NERA Economic Consulting for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, shows how asbestos lawsuits

can cause secondary harm to businesses, governments, communities, and individuals. The study found the ripple effects of plant closures and mass layoffs, such as causing local real estate values to fall, per capita income to decline, and tax coffers to dwindle. The study estimates the total cost to taxpayers of unemployment insurance benefits to displaced workers for asbestos-related bankruptcies at $80 million. The study put the indirect cost of the company closing due to asbestos liability at as much as $2.1 billion. If nothing is done to resolve what has been described as the elephantine mess of asbestos litigation, scores, if not hundreds, of additional businesses will be forced into bankruptcies and tens of thousands of additional workers will find themselves unemployed. Retiree and workers who spent decades working for retirement will see their life savings vanish.

This crisis can really be felt in my home State of Ohio. In fact, Ohio is the fifth biggest State in the country in terms of asbestos claims hanging around our court. In Cuyahoga County, more than 41,000 asbestos cases have swamped the court system. At least 20 large Ohio companies, representing more than 80,000 employees, are the targets of asbestos litigation. Of course, over the past few years the circle of liability has expanded to pull in more and more solvent companies, many of which never manufactured or installed asbestos.

There are numerous examples of Ohio companies negatively impacted by this crisis. Take the case of Federal Mogul, a company that employs over 1,200 in six cities through my State. Employees held 16 percent of the company stock. That stock lost 99 percent of its value. Current employees and also retirees feel the effects of the bankruptcies. Many retirees depend on company stock and dividends for income, and as this value heads south, retirees feel it immediately.

Another company which does a lot for the Toledo area is Owens Corning. As Governor, I worked hard to get Owens Corning to put the new corporate headquarters in downtown Toledo to help facilitate the city of Toledo renaissance. Owens Corning, unfortunately, went bankrupt in 2000. In the 2 years preceding this bankruptcy, the stock lost 97 percent of its value. Fourteen percent of the stock was owned by company employees.

Another Ohio company spoke with me off the record about its growing asbestos liability. When this company announced it had limited asbestos liability, the stock dropped by about 20 percent and its debt rating was lowered. This began a chain-reaction ripple effect that included the loss of over 100 jobs, the sale of assets, a 50-percent cut in capital investments, and a huge cut in the amount of contributions to the surrounding community.

As a former mayor, I know firsthand the impact of what happens when companies go bankrupt. Many of us forget that these companies make a significant contribution to the tax revenues of the cities in which they are located, including their philanthropic contributions, such as United Way, arts, education, health care, and many other forms of community involvement. As I have said before, companies such as this one make up the backbone of the Ohio economy. They do not want to shirk their responsibility to those victims who will become sick truly because of asbestos exposure; they want to know that they are not compensating those individuals who are unimpaired.

Ohio feels the crisis most acutely. It has so impacted my State of Ohio that the State legislature has decided to act where the Federal legislature has failed to do so. On December 11, 2003, the Ohio House of Representatives approved a bill to make Ohio the first in the Nation to block suits by people exposed to potentially deadly asbestos but who have yet to fall ill. The bill would adopt State medical standards for such litigation, allowing lawsuits to be filed by those who have yet to develop cancer or suffer measurable loss of lung function to be placed on hold until they do actually develop the symptoms.

I applaud the State of Ohio for recognizing the true magnitude of the threat to Ohio citizens and for not waiting for Washington to act. With the passage of this bill, Ohioans who are sick from asbestos exposure will go to the top of the court dockets where they belong. Finite resources will be available for those who need compensation most. The people who are now sick will be able to file claims.

Now, if we could only get something done here. I have been working on this issue since I was elected to the Senate, and I have been a cosponsor to several pieces of legislation, including the Asbestos Tax Fairness Act and both versions of the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act. I have testified twice before the Judiciary Committee on the need for this legislation. I have lobbied my colleagues in the administration on the need to see this bill passed.

If we want to get something done, we need to do it now. Now is the time. We passed the FAIR Act out of the Judiciary Committee last summer and have spent the time between then and now negotiating to try to find a solution that everyone can support. That is almost a year that we have been negotiating back and forth trying to figure out something we think will be fair to everyone. The time has come for action. We cannot afford any more delays. The ever rising tide of corporate bankruptcies affect victims' compensation so that the truly sick asbestos victims in too many cases and more and more frequently only receive pennies on the dollar. In addition, employees of bankrupt companies suffer as they watch their jobs disappear and their pensions in 401(k) plans decrease dramatically. Again, we have to do something now, not later. Passage of this legislation will get us well on our way. And we have never come closer to resolving the asbestos litigation crisis than this legislation.

This bill provides for a privately funded, no-fault, national asbestos victims compensation fund that will replace the broken tort system and ensure that individuals who are truly sick receive compensation quickly, fairly, and efficiently. It retains the bipartisan agreement on medical criteria that was approved unanimously by the Judiciary Committee. These criteria form the basis of a no-fault victims' compensation fund that will stop the flow of resources to the unimpaired and ensure that the truly ill will be paid quickly and fairly.

The bill contains many improvements made to its predecessor and reflects the product of the last several months of extensive negotiations by the stakeholders in this debate--all of the stakeholders.

I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture on this very important piece of legislation.

On a broader scale, the litigation crisis in this country is like a tornado ripping its way through our economy. The American Tort Reform Association published a study in 2002 on the impact of litigation in Ohio and found that it costs every Ohioan $636 per year--that is every Ohioan, all 11.5 million. That is $636 a head. A large part of it is due to the issue that we have before us today, asbestos. We need to move immediately on this issue.

In my opinion, passing responsible asbestos reform legislation to ensure that the truly injured receive fair and just compensation, and to prevent more companies from sliding into bankruptcy, will do far more for Ohio's economy than many other stimulus proposals we have been talking about on the floor of the Senate or in our respective committees.

The consequences of inaction are grave. As previously mentioned, a large swath of corporate America is at risk, jeopardizing the jobs of thousands of employees, impoverishing retirees, and shattering families and communities. America's clear national interest lies in making sure asbestos funds are available for those who become sick and lifting an ominous cloud of litigation from our troubled economy.

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

Madam President, I want to comment on the remarks of the Senator from Minnesota this evening before the Senate and indicate many of us who voted against the Harkin amendment were also as concerned about some of the things the Senator of Minnesota talked about, in terms of the benefits that accrued to working men and women in the United States of America.

I made it clear at that time, when I voted against the Harkin amendment, I felt the Department of Labor should be able to move forward with their recommendations on a law that hasn't been changed since 1978, and that if what my colleagues on the other aisle have indicated is true, many of us would join them in having those rules overturned by the Members of the Senate.

I am pleased to say those rules have been finished by the Department of Labor and they are now at OIRA, which is in the Office of Management and Budget, being reviewed by John Graham. I am hopeful they will be back to the Department of Labor within the next 30 days, so we will know specifically what it is those rules are going to recommend in terms of changes in the law. Hopefully, they are not going to reflect what I have heard on the floor of the Senate over the last couple of months about eliminating overtime for 8 million workers.

The other thing I want to point out is there are many of us on this side of the aisle who are very much in favor of extending unemployment benefits, and I joined with many colleagues to try to get cloture on that amendment several weeks ago. I hope in the next couple of weeks we will be able to get that passed on the Senate floor. There are hundreds of workers in my State--and I am sure also in Minnesota--anxiously waiting for those benefits. In my State, we have too many people who are unemployed. Quite frankly, too many people in my State are worried about whether they are going to have a job. So some of the things the Senator talked about, I hope, will be dealt with during the next couple of weeks.

Madam President, I also share the Senator's enthusiasm about the ethanol guarantee in the Energy bill. There are many other provisions in that bill many of us are concerned about. I think it represents the first real energy policy this country has had. Again, hopefully, we can work it out so that can get done along with the other provisions. He is right; that bill has some real job-creation aspects to it, particularly in the area of ethanol. We have several companies now that are thinking about building ethanol plants in Ohio, and I think one of the things the American public doesn't understand is it is going to provide less reliance on foreign oil and, in addition, it will limit some of the environmental problems we have from gasoline, with some other very good and important aspects to all of our brothers and sisters.

I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, during the last several years, I have been deeply concerned with the rise of antisemitism in countries throughout the world, including countries that have traditionally been among the world's strongest democracies.

Today, as Jewish people across the world celebrate Passover, a festival of freedom and redemption, I rise to again call attention to growing antisemitism and to urge a renewed effort to combat this serious problem, both at home and abroad.

Although some of my colleagues might not be aware, I have had the opportunity to visit the State of Israel seven times, as mayor of Cleveland, Governor of Ohio, and as a Member of the Senate. I will always remember visiting Yad Vashem on my first visit in 1980, and again on several other visits, and the Diaspora Museum in Tel Aviv in 1982. That experience truly brought home to me the horrors of the Holocaust and the role antisemitism played in leading to the Holocaust.

I vowed I would do everything in my power to make sure it would not happen again. Frankly, I never thought during my lifetime I would have to try to keep that vow. Unfortunately, antisemitism's deadly, ugly head is rising again. Working with other groups, I am determined to do everything I can do to stop it. There must be zero tolerance of antisemitism.

In May of 2002, following a disturbing number of antisemitic incidents in Europe, I joined members of the Helsinki Commission in a hearing to examine the rise of antisemitic violence in Europe. I was shocked by the reports I heard. Now, nearly 2 years later, the news is not much better. The first 3 months of 2004 have seen numerous acts of antisemitism abroad.

For example, in Toulon, France, on March 23, 2004, a Jewish synagogue and community center were set on fire. In St. Petersburg, Russia, on February 15, 2004, vandals desecrated approximately 50 gravestones in a Jewish cemetery, painting them with swastikas and antisemitic graffiti.

Antisemitic incidents are not unique to Europe. In Australia, on January 5 of this year, antisemitic slogans and symbols were burned into the lawns of Tasmania's Parliament House.

In Toronto, Canada, over the weekend of March 19, 2004, vandals attacked a Jewish school, cemetery, and area synagogues, painting swastikas and antisemitic slogans on the walls of the synagogue and on residential property in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood nearby.

This alarming trend has not gone unnoticed. The high number of antisemitic incidents in Europe and other parts of the world has caused the United States, working with our allies and international organizations such as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, to take action.

Efforts to highlight growing antisemitism began in earnest following the Helsinki Commission hearing in May 2002, to which I have just referred. During that hearing, I called on the

OSCE to conduct a separate session on antisemitism during the annual meeting of the OSCE parliamentary assembly in Berlin in July 2002. I was pleased this did in fact take place. Delegates to this meeting also unanimously passed a resolution calling attention to the dangers of antisemitism, which I cosponsored. I was honored to be in Berlin for the meeting, joining Representative Chris Smith, who serves as chairman of the Helsinki Commission and continues to be a great leader on this issue. We are very fortunate to have Chris Smith heading the Helsinki Commission in the House of Representatives. He is doing a wonderful job. Work continued upon our return with letters to the President and Secretary of State, underscoring the importance of a strong U.S. commitment to the fight against global antisemitism.

Last June, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani led the U.S. delegation to the first conference of the OSCE dedicated solely to the issue of antisemitism.

The conference took place in Vienna, bringing together parliamentarians, officials, and private citizens from all 55 OSCE participating states. This conference was the product of much hard work and would not have been a reality without the strong support of Secretary of State Colin Powell, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Mark Grossman, and our Ambassador to the OSCE, Stephan Minikes. Stephan Minikes, by the way, I think is the most outstanding ambassador the United States has sent to the OSCE in a very long time.

The Vienna conference was a step in the right direction. I believe Mayor Giuliani best captured the significance of the event when he remarked:

The conference represents a critical first step for

Europeans who have too frequently dismissed anti-Semitic

violence as routine assaults and vandalism. Antisemitism is

anything but routine. When people attack Jews, vandalize

their graves, characterize them in inhumane ways, and make

salacious statements in parliaments or to the press, they are

attacking the defining values of our societies and our

international institutions.

While the Vienna conference provided a solid foundation, followup to the meeting is absolutely essential. As such, the OSCE will convene a second conference on antisemitism in Berlin later this month. I believe this meeting is urgently needed, and I am pleased Secretary Powell has asked me to serve as a member of the U.S. delegation to this critical gathering.

Again, this meeting in Vienna would not have happened without the strong support of our Secretary of State and his team at the State Department.

In Berlin, our goal is to ensure we move beyond rhetoric and move forward to institutionalize the fight against antisemitism in the OSCE. We hope to put in place an action plan to formalize a process to identify, monitor, and measure efforts to combat antisemitism in each of the 55 OSCE participating states, including the United States.

Too often, as the Presiding Officer knows, there is a lot of talk at these meetings but no action. If we are to be successful in our effort, we must establish a commitment to action--action that can be monitored. This is the message I have continued to stress.

Last July, I wrote to those individuals who joined Mayor Giuliani as members of the U.S. delegation to the Vienna conference, including Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, Mike Levin of the National Conference on Soviet Jewry, David Harris of the American Jewish Committee, and Dave Mariaschin of B'nai B'rith, asking them for recommendations for action, things that can be done to encourage tangible steps rather than just dialog. They came back to me with recommendations for the Berlin conference which I then sent to Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my letter to Secretary Powell, including the proposed agenda for the Berlin conference, be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I am pleased the State Department has taken these suggestions into consideration in working to prepare the agenda for the Berlin conference. There has been a great deal of effort to ensure this conference meets my expectations and others', and it is my sincere hope this meeting will help move toward the goal of zero tolerance for antisemitism in the world today. While I believe we must do all we can to encourage our allies and partners abroad, as well as our international organizations, such as the OSCE, the United Nations, and the EU to combat antisemitism, it is important we redouble our efforts at home to call attention to this problem.

Tomorrow the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will conduct a hearing to examine antisemitism in Europe. This continues discussion on the issue following a hearing that took place last October. While this is significant, we can and we ought to do more.

Today I introduce legislation calling attention to the growing problem of antisemitism abroad. This bill, called the Global Antisemitism Review Act of 2004, urges the United States to continue to strongly support efforts to highlight antisemitism through bilateral relationships and interaction with international organizations, such as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

Further, the legislation requires the Secretary of State to submit to Congress an annual report on acts of antisemitism worldwide. The report will include a description of the following for each foreign country; in other words, we are going to have a report on each one of the 55 members of the OSCE.

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; second, the response of the government of that country to such attacks; third, actions by the government of that country to enact and enforce laws relating to the protection of the rights to religious freedom with respect to Jewish people; and finally, the efforts made by that government to promote antibias and tolerance education.

The last point I think is so important. If we are truly to be successful, it is imperative we work to promote tolerance and bring about a change in the hearts and minds of those people responsible for acts of antisemitism and other hate crimes. We can do something about their mouths, their hands, and their feet, but the real challenge for us is to change their minds and their hearts.

Last year, both the Senate and the House of Representatives passed resolutions calling on the State Department to thoroughly document acts of antisemitism worldwide. This bill would take it one step further. I believe it is essential, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting swift passage of this legislation which will underscore the high priority Congress and the U.S. Government have given to zero tolerance of global antisemitism.

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

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. 2207, the Pregnancy and Trauma Care Protection Act of 2004. I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote for this very important legislation.

This is the third time in the 108th Congress that I have come to the floor to argue for medical liability reform. It should not be this difficult to pass a piece of legislation that will improve access of all Americans to timely and efficient medical care, reduce the cost of hospitalization insurance and health insurance, and do something about the enormous cost of defensive medicine being practiced today by physicians throughout the country, which is contributing also to the high cost of health insurance premiums.

I start off today by telling a story of the Schweiterman family in Ohio's rural west-central Mercer County. Doctors Jim and Tom Schweiterman are brothers who, along with their father, who is retired, have delivered about 5,700 babies over the years. The family has a 113- year history of bringing babies into the world. Their great-grandfather started the current medical practice in 1896. They have never been sued for a delivery.

Yet this family is giving up delivering babies because of escalating malpractice insurance costs. Their insurance rates rose from $32,000 6 years ago to this year's quote of $78,000. Dr. Jim Schweiterman stated he would continue to deliver babies if he could just break even, but unfortunately, because of insurance costs, he cannot. Their last delivery will take place this September.

This is happening all over the United States. This legislation is a must. It is important because the effects of medical liability crises can be felt most acutely by obstetricians/gynecologists and emergency room physicians.

Data from the American Medical Association indicates that 19 States currently face a medical liability ``crisis'' and 25 States show ``problem signs.'' That is 44 States out of our 50. The doctors in these 44 States will either leave the practice of medicine entirely or move their practice to a neighboring State with better malpractice insurance rates. This phenomenon cries for national legislation.

One category of patients impacted greatly by this crisis and who we are trying to help with this legislation is women of childbearing age. One out of every 11 obstetricians nationwide has stopped delivering babies and, instead, scaled back their practices to gynecology only. In addition, one in six has begun to refuse high-risk cases. Most alarming is recent data showing that for a third year in a row, the number of obstetrics/gynecology residency training slots filled by U.S. medical students declined by 65.1 percent--the lowest level ever. People are not going into residencies in OB/GYN and in ER.

How does this affect a woman's access to care? As premiums increase, a woman's access to general care, including regular screenings for reproductive cancers, high blood pressure, cholesterol, diabetes, and other serious health risks, will decrease.

With fewer health care providers offering full services, the workload has increased significantly for those who still do. Wait time increases, putting women at risk.

Women receive less prenatal care in our current environment. Improved access to prenatal care has resulted in low infant mortality rates, an advance now threatened as OB/GYNs drop obstetrics. As you may have read, for the first time since 1958, the U.S. infant mortality rate is up. According to the preliminary data released this month by the statisticians for the CDC, the Nation's infant mortality rate in 2002 was 7 per 1,000 births. That is up from 6.8 in 2001, and some experts are attributing that to poor access to quality prenatal care.

Another group of physicians that has been significantly affected by the medical liability crisis, and that we are trying to help out with this legislation, is emergency room physicians. When patients rush to the ER, they assume the hospital will be open and doctors will be there to treat them. However, to secure affordable medical liability insurance, or to minimize their risks of lawsuits, many physicians, including neurosurgeons, orthopedic surgeons, cardiothoracic surgeons, obstetricians, and cardiologists, are no longer able to serve on-call to hospital emergency departments. In extreme cases--for example, Nevada, Florida, and Pennsylvania--emergency departments and trauma centers have been forced to shut down completely because the physicians have been unable to secure medical liability insurance at any price. It is not available.

In fact, in the past 10 years, hundreds of emergency departments have closed in the United States in such States including Arizona, Florida, Maryland, Mississippi, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and West Virginia. Over the same period, the number of visits in the Nation's emergency departments climbed over 20 percent. While more Americans are seeking emergency medical care, emergency departments continue to lose staff and resources and are almost at the breaking point.

In addition, three in four of emergency departments diverted ambulances in the last 12 months. I will repeat that. Three of four emergency departments diverted ambulances in the last 12 months in part because no specialists were available.

Of these, one-third diverted patients six or more times a month, and an additional 28 percent diverted patients three to five times a month.

This is devastating, especially in light of the volume of patients treated by emergency room physicians. Each year there are 110 million visits to emergency rooms in the United States. Over 3.5 million ER visits are related to bone fractures. Of these, some 885,000 people have such severe fractures which can cut off or reduce blood flow to a limb or lead to shock. Patients cannot afford delays in treatment which can lead to death, amputation of a limb, loss of use of a limb, or permanent disability.

Each year, over 1 million Americans suffer a heart attack. Approximately 20 percent of heart attack victims will die. Cardiologists and cardiovascular surgeons can perform lifesaving treatments and, in some cases, can even reverse heart damage if the patients are treated promptly. Stroke patients treated within 90 minutes of the onset of their symptoms show the most improvements.

We need this legislation to keep these ERs open and fully staffed and to make sure there are no delays in treatment that can result in death or permanent injury.

How does this affect a person's access to care in the emergency room or the trauma care center? Today, in many hospitals, there is no neurosurgeon available to treat patients with major head trauma or no orthopedic surgeon to care for patients with open fractures.

According to a recent study, over 70 percent of the Nation's hospitals, again, were forced to divert patients in the past month. That is a startling statistic. According to a recent study, over 70 percent of this Nation's hospitals were forced to divert patients in this past month, in part because of lack of specialists on call.

Neurosurgeon Thomas Hawk of Columbus stopped providing trauma and emergency care in an effort to reduce his liability premiums. He also writes to me:

I see lots of patients each week from West Virginia who

cannot find neurosurgical care and are coming all the way to

Columbus, OH, to get care.

This is another problem, the transferring of patients. Because of the growing scarcity of oncall specialists, patients now wait longer for care in emergency departments. As I mentioned, many are being transferred to other facilities. This can be deadly for elderly patients experiencing heart attacks or strokes which require immediate medical attention.

In fact, the emergency physicians at Akron's two level I trauma centers--Akron is fortunate; they have two

trauma centers, Akron General Medical and Akron City Hospital--often treat patients from other areas of the State, including Youngstown and Cleveland. Youngstown is, I think, an hour away, and Cleveland is 45 minutes away. I do not see how my colleagues can claim we are not in the middle of a crisis.

When I have given speeches in the past, I have given testimonials from dozens upon dozens of physicians in Ohio who have been affected by this crisis. Every week I see many of them. But this time instead I would like to talk about some other States to show that this crisis does not just affect my home State of Ohio or States such as Nevada or Pennsylvania, but it is widespread throughout the country and should cause many of my colleagues from other States to support this legislation or explain why they cannot.

In Illinois, according to the American College of Emergency Physicians, fewer inpatient beds and staffing shortages are contributing to severe overcrowding and ambulance diversion. A 2003 report from the Metropolitan Chicago Health Care Council indicated the city's hospitals are unprepared to meet the future health care needs of their patients. According to the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, more than 15 percent of Illinois neurosurgeons have left the State in the past 2 years.

In addition, since January of 2003, 59 doctors have left the St. Clair-Madison County area. Just since October 2003, as premium renewals are considered at the end of the year, over 10 physicians have left, including 3 orthopedic surgeons.

Also in Illinois, according to a November 2002 survey, 63.5 percent of responding Illinois OB/GYNs have been forced to make changes in their practice, such as quitting obstetrics, retiring, relocating, decreasing gynecologic procedures, and no longer performing major surgery. Almost 50 Illinois OBs stopped practicing obstetrics recently, forcing 7,776 pregnant Illinois women to find new OB/GYNs to provide obstetrics care.

I don't know how we can take this situation. I have six grandchildren, and I cannot think of a worst situation than if one of them had a problem pregnancy and were told by their OB/GYN: I am sorry, I can't handle it because if I do, my insurance premiums are going to skyrocket. And yet in Illinois, 50 stopped practicing.

An orthopedic surgeon in Oakbrook Terrace, IL, told the story of a 5- year-old child who was struck by a car and sustained a fracture of the femur and small skull fracture with minimal underlying brain contusion. He stated:

Such injuries would typically be treated by . . . an

orthopaedic surgeon and then a neurosurgeon. . . . In this

case, the neurosurgeon on call would not see any patient

under 18. A pediatric orthopaedic surgeon was in attendance .

. . but without a neurosurgeon . . . a transfer to Loyola had

to be arranged. At Loyola, no pediatric orthopaedic surgeon

was available, so the adult orthopaedic trauma surgeon had

the child's leg placed in traction, inserting a pin just

above the knee in order to hang the weights which pulled on

the leg. The plan was to keep the child in traction for a few

weeks, and then place the child in a cast. The family, after

2 days at Loyola, desired transfer of care back to their home

town. The liability crisis has created a situation where this

patient had to endure two useless ambulance rides with a

broken femur, several extra days of hospitalization, and

insertion and removal of a traction pin. This waste of

resources and interference with medical care is repeated

endlessly across the nation.

In New Jersey, according to the State Hospital Association, hospital liability premiums jumped 50 percent on average in 2003, and the average annual hospital premium increased to $1.4 million.

In addition, a survey of more than 1,000 obstetricians found 23 percent had left their practices last year because they could not afford liability coverage, and only one pediatric surgeon is left in each of Ocean and Monmouth Counties, according to the State medical society. Some hospitals do not even have obstetricians on call.

Also in New Jersey, in January of 2002, there were 85 practicing neurosurgeons in the State. A little more than a year later, an estimated 20 have been forced to stop practicing. Warren County residents, including its 200-bed hospital, saw its only two neurosurgeons leave in September 2002. The closest neurosurgery center is now more than 1 hour away from these residents.

In North Carolina, the average size of liability claims increased by approximately 80 percent over 10 years. Some physicians are going out of business, leaving the State or substantially increasing prices as they pass on costs to their patients. The Senator from North Carolina, who was a Presidential candidate, should be very familiar with those statistics. The problem is especially acute for obstetricians, neurosurgeons, and emergency physicians.

In fact, in nine counties in the rural southern region, there has been a 3-percent decrease in specialty physicians, despite a nearly 8- percent increase in population between 1999 and 2002. At the same time, specialty physicians in all rural counties have increased only 1 percent, while the general population in those counties grew by 7 percent.

Neurosurgeons have been particularly affected by the medical liability crisis and many are stopping or limiting their trauma and emergency care in an effort to obtain affordable liability insurance. As a result, many hospitals, including Moore Regional Hospital in Pinehurst, NC, no longer have 24-hour neurosurgery coverage. Patients who suffer injuries during the wrong time are transferred to Chapel Hill sometimes after waiting for hours.

What about Florida? In Florida, liability premiums increased 75 percent in 2002. The average premium per physician was 55 percent higher than the national average. Emergency departments across the State are transferring patients to other hospitals because of shortages of cardiologists.

Between 1998 and 2002, 30 professional liability insurers left Florida. That is, the insurance companies have just left Florida because of the multiplicity of medical lawsuits that have been filed. Thirty-four percent of Florida physicians have stopped or reduced their emergency care coverage.

At Orlando Regional Medical Center, where Disney World is located, is one of only six level I trauma centers in the State. Think about this. This is the State of Florida, one of the fastest growing States in the United States. They have six level I trauma centers in the State. For those people who travel to Florida, I am sure that one of these days they are going to start taking that into consideration about going to the State of Florida because of the fact they do not have the trauma centers they need to take care of the people who come down from all over the country.

All of the neurosurgeons on staff at the Orlando Regional Medical Center, which is one of the six level I, have what they call ``gone bare'' and no longer have any professional liability insurance. So what has the hospital done to take care of the situation? Listen to this. The hospital has resorted to paying the doctors $4,000 per day to cover the call schedule and enable them to keep their door open to traumas.

In addition, Orlando Regional Sand Lake Hospital has had to eliminate both of its on-call orthopedics and urology coverage in its emergency department due to a lack of physician availability.

The stories from Florida are particularly egregious, so much so that I cannot understand how my colleagues from that State are not supportive of this legislation. I cannot figure it out. With what is going on in Florida, I cannot understand why the two Senators from that State cannot be supportive of this legislation.

Dr. Richard Foltz from Fort Lauderdale, FL, writes:

There are no neurosurgeons in Palm Beach to do brain

surgeries or take ER call. They try to transfer patients

across county lines all the time. I have no insurance and

have gone bare. My last premium notice was over $400,000 a

year.

According to neurosurgeon Troy Tippett, there are no longer any neurosurgeons in the Pensacola, FL, area who treat pediatric patients who are often considered high risk in liability terms. Children suffering from head and spinal injuries are airlifted more than 200 miles away. Think about that, airlifted 200 miles away to get treatment they ought to be able to get in their own community.

A Winter Park OB/GYN dropped his obstetric practice after his premiums rose from $48,000 to $100,000. At that rate, he would have to work 6 months

of the year just to pay his liability premiums. Instead he, along with four other obstetricians, gave up obstetrics altogether.

I could go on and on with one story after another about the fact we are losing surgeons and we are losing obstetricians all over this country. We are just talking about two of the specialties right now. We are concentrating on these two right now because we know they are the most in need and the shortage is most acute.

The legislation we are debating today gets us on our way to turning these statistics around. It provides a commonsense approach to our litigation problems that will keep consumers from bearing the costs of costly and unnecessary litigation while making sure those with legitimate grievances have recourse through the courts.

I would like to point out the argument that the insurance industry is ripping off doctors--and we hear that all the time on this floor--and raising rates to make up for investment losses is preposterous. I would again invite those Members who believe this to read the article I submitted for the Record during our last debate in February entitled ``Did Investments Affect Medical Malpractice Premiums,'' where it is concluded that asset allocation and investments returns have had little, if any, correlation to the development of the current malpractice problem.

I am not going to bore my colleagues today with statistic after statistic about what has happened to medical malpractice insurance companies in this country, but most of them are out of business. Most of them are limiting what they make available to doctors based on the type of medicine the doctor practices.

I would also like to point out testimony given to the Ohio Medical Malpractice Commission by a man by the name of James Hurley of the American Academy of Actuaries. In his testimony, Mr. Hurley tried to debunk a few misconceptions about the insurance industry and medical malpractice, one of which is the idea that insurers are increasing rates because of investment losses, particularly their losses in the stock market.

In response to this, Mr. Hurley states unequivocally, that in establishing rates insurers do not recoup investment losses.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter of March 26, 2004, from James Hurley be printed in the Record.

Throughout my career in public service, health care has been one of my top legislative priorities and certainly was a high priority while I was Governor of the State of Ohio and mayor of the city of Cleveland. All of us want access to quality, affordable health care. When the quality is not there, when people die or are truly sick due to negligence or other medical error, they should be compensated.

When healthy plaintiffs file meaningless lawsuits to coerce settlements or to shake the money tree to get as much as they can get, there is a snowball effect and all of us pay the price. 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 repeat that again. For the system to work, we must strike a delicate balance between the rights of the 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 have been concerned about this issue since my days as Governor, as I mentioned. In 1996, I essentially had to pull teeth in the Ohio legislature to pass my tort reform bill which would have placed caps on noneconomic and punitive damages, established proportional liability, and created a rebuttable presumption that a hospital was not negligent regarding negligent credentialing, among other provisions.

I signed the bill into law in October of 1996. Three years later, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. Had that law withstood the supreme court scrutiny--and I think today it would because we have a different supreme court--Ohioans would not be facing the medical access problems they are facing today--doctors leaving their practice, patients unable to receive the care they need, and cost of health insurance going through the roof.

Next to the economy and jobs, the most important issue facing America today is health care. In fact, it is a part of the reason why our economy is in trouble. We have too many uninsured, and those who have insurance face soaring premiums every year, making it less likely they can continue to pay for them.

In addition, employers face spiraling costs and in some cases do not even provide insurance, and those that do have been forced to increase their premiums and pass on the added costs to their employees, whose family budgets are often already stretched razor thin.

In other words, I see people in business every day who say, Senator, I want to provide health care for my employees but the cost of it has gone up to the point where I cannot afford to provide it for them. Or, in the alternative, Senator, I am going to provide it for them, but I am going to ask them to pay for more of their premiums. And, Senator, in so many instances my employees cannot pay the additional premiums, and because they cannot pay the additional premiums, they lose their health insurance.

I believe that providing the sort of commonsense approach found in the Pregnancy and Trauma Care Access Protection Act of 2004 is one way to deal with this escalating cost of health insurance in the United States. The bill will give patients greater access to care. It will provide medical liability for those physicians who provide prenatal delivery and postpartum care to mothers and babies. Patients would not have to give away large portions of their judgment to their attorneys. Truly injured parties can recover 100 percent of their economic damages. Punitive damages are reserved for those cases where they are truly justified. Doctors and hospitals would not be held liable for harm they do not cause and physicians can focus on doing what they do best, practicing medicine and providing health care.

I, again, urge my colleagues to vote for cloture so we can debate this issue and have an up-or-down vote on this legislation. We owe it to the people of this country to have a robust debate of this on the Senate floor.

I close my remarks this afternoon by reading a letter from Laurence E. Stempel, an MD from Columbus, OH. This is from the letter he sent to his patients on June 23, 2003:

On June 17, 2003, I received my professional liability

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

percent higher than last year. I have seen my premiums almost

triple during the past 2 years, despite never having had a

single penny paid out on my behalf in 27 years as a

physician. Even worse, during this time the insurance company

has reduced the amount of coverage that I can purchase from

$5 million to only $1 million . . .

In other words, his insurance has gone up astronomically and he is getting about 80 percent less coverage than he had before. He said:

while jury verdicts have skyrocketed, often exceeding $3.4

million. If I were to purchase this policy, I would be

putting all of my family's personal assets at risk every time

that I delivered a baby, or performed surgery. I refuse to do

that.

I have therefore decided to retire from private practice. .

. .[T]he final day of my current liability insurance policy

[is when that will happen.]

This is not a decision I have taken lightly, but

unfortunately it has become necessary. For many of you, I

have been part of your life for years. I have delivered your

babies and helped you through some of life's most difficult

challenges. It has truly been an honor.

We have to stop this from happening in this country. We have the power to do something about it on the floor of the Senate, and it is about time we faced up to our responsibility and did something about it.

I ask unanimous consent that the entire letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, as many of my colleagues are aware, I continue to pay close attention to developments in Southeast Europe. During my time as a member of the Senate, I have been deeply concerned with the situation in Kosovo--particularly the situation for Kosovo's ethnic minorities.

I have traveled to Kosovo three times since the end of the military campaign in 1999, most recently in May 2002. At that time, I met with Kosovo Albanian leaders, including President Rugova and Prime Minister Rexhepi, as well as leaders of the Kosovo Serb community. In my conversations with all political leaders, I stressed the importance of moving forward with efforts to promote the rule of law and refugee return, as well as work to provide for the protection of human rights and freedom of movement for all people in Kosovo.

At that time, I reiterated a plea that I made during a trip to Pristina in February 2000, urging Kosovo's leaders to start a new paradigm of peace and stability for all people in Kosovo. I continue to believe it is essential that minorities in Kosovo, including Serbs, Roma, Egyptians, Bosniaks, Croats, Turks, Ashkalia, and others, are able to move about as they wish and live lives free from fear.

I could not agree more with a statement made in the Ninth Assessment of the Situation of Ethnic Minorities in Kosovo, a joint report released in May 2002 by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE, and the U.N. High Commission on Refugees, UNHCR. The report concludes, ``Only when Kosovo's minorities feel confident in their long-term future and when all of Kosovo's displaced persons are able to exercise the choice to return to their homes, feeling assured of their safety and confident in their ability to access institutions and participate in social, economic and political life in Kosovo on a non-discriminatory basis, will it be possible to say that the situation of minorities in Kosovo is acceptable.''

The latest round of ethnic violence in Kosovo, which erupted on March 17, 2004, resulted in the deaths of 20 people, including 8 Kosovo Serbs, 8 Kosovo Albanians, and 4 unidentified victims. It displaced more than 4,000 people, including Kosovo Serbs, Ashkalia, and others, and led to the destruction of more than 500 homes and more than 30 churches or monasteries belonging to the Serbian Orthodox Church-- adding to the more than 100 churches that had already been destroyed during the last 5 years.

This is a tragic and urgent reminder of the work that remains to be done in Kosovo. I believe we must redouble our efforts and do all that we can to prevent continued violence in Kosovo. While the violence appears to be calming, the situation on the ground remains tense. There is a long road ahead as we look to work with the people of Kosovo not only to rebuild what has been destroyed, but also to secure an environment where respect for human rights and the rule of law are protected. Continued U.S. leadership is critical in this regard.

Today, I submit a resolution condemning the recent ethnic violence in Kosovo and calling for a renewed effort to promote long-term peace and stability there. I am joined by a number of my colleagues, including Senator Joe Biden, Senator Dick Lugar, Senator Joe Lieberman, and Senator Sam Brownback.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting swift passage of this important measure, which reminds us of unfinished business in this part of the world.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. I firmly believe that we need this legislation to correct the loophole in federal law that currently does nothing to criminalize violent acts against unborn children. Sadly, we live in a violent world where unborn babies are the victims, intended or otherwise, of violent acts. I find this horrifying, and believe that all children, born or unborn, are a precious gift and responsibility.

This is something we have already recognized in Ohio. I am proud to say that we got this done on my watch when I was Governor of Ohio. In June 1996, I signed legislation making it a crime to injure or kill a prenatal child who could survive on his or her own outside the mother's womb. We passed this legislation in record time due to public outcry over a case in Indian Hill, a suburb of Cincinnati in 1995. Joseph Daly's wife and her unborn baby were killed in a car accident when a drunk driver hit her car. People were outraged that action could be brought on behalf of Mrs. Daly, but not their unborn daughter, who was 2 weeks away from being born. And people will be outraged.

Under current Federal law, an individual who commits a Federal crime of violence and kills or injures an unborn child cannot be prosecuted separately for those violent acts against the unborn child because Federal criminal law does not recognize the unborn child as a crime victim. Can you imagine? A baby that could be viable outside of its mother's womb would not be considered a crime victim? This bill will close that gap.

Under this bill, if an unborn child is injured or killed during the commission of a Federal crime of violence, the assailant could be charged with a separate offense on behalf of the unborn child. In 29 States, including Ohio, if a person commits a crime of violence against a pregnant woman under State law and kills or injures her unborn child, that person can be punished for the violence against both the mother and the unborn child. But if a person commits a Federal crime of violence against a pregnant woman and injures or kills her unborn baby, the death or injury of the unborn child would not be punished as a crime.

This bill extends the protections currently available in 29 States to the unborn victims of violent acts committed in violation of Federal law. Thus, where a Federal crime of violence has been committed and the injury or death of an unborn child results, the perpetrator will be held to account for the crime of violence against the unborn child.

I know some of my colleagues will want to paint this as an abortion issue. But, it is important to note that this bill has been drafted narrowly to apply only where the death or injury to the unborn baby occurs as a result of an existing Federal crime. The bill expressly excludes any death or injury to an unborn baby caused by abortion, any medical treatment of the mother, or an act of the mother herself.

As I stated before, we live in a violent world where unborn babies are the victims, intended or otherwise, of violent acts. And these babies, the smallest and most helpless victims, deserve justice, too. We must pass this legislation and take a stand against crimes committed against women and children. I therefore ask my colleagues to support this very important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my friend and colleague, Senator Carper, which will strengthen the use of science at the Environmental Protection Agency. By improving science at the Agency, we will be improving the framework of our regulatory decisions. It is important that these regulations be effective, not onerous and inefficient. To make government regulations efficient, they must be based on a solid foundation of scientific understanding and data.

In 2000, the Nation Research Council released a report, ``Strengthening Science at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Research Management and Peer Review Practices'' which outlined current practices at the EPA and made recommendations for improving science within the agency. The bill we are introducing today, the ``Environmental Research Enhancement Act,'' builds on the NRC report.

When the Environmental Protection Agency was created in 1970 by President Nixon, its mission was set to protect human health and safeguard the environment. In the 1960s, it had become increasingly clear that ``we needed to know more about the total environment--land, water, and air.'' The EPA was part of President Nixon's reorganizational efforts to effectively ensure the protection, development and enhancement of the total environment.

For the EPA to reach this mission, establishing rules and priorities for clean land, air and water require a fundamental understanding of the science behind the real and potential threats to public health and the environment. Unfortunately, many institutions, citizens and groups believe that science has not always played a significant role in the decision-making process at the EPA.

In NRC's 2002 report, it was concluded that, while the use of sound science is one of the Environmental Protection Agency's goals, the EPA needs to change its current structure to allow science to play a more significant role in decisions made by the Administrator.

The legislation we are introducing today looks to address those shortcomings at the EPA by implementing portions of the report that require congressional authorization.

Under our bill, a new position, Deputy Administrator for Science and Technology will be established at the EPA. This individual will oversee the Office of Research and Development; the Environmental Information Agency; the Science Advisory board; the Science Policy Council; and the scientific and technical activities in the regulatory program at the EPA. This new position is equal in rank to the current Deputy Administrator and would report directly to the Administrator. The new Deputy would be responsible for coordinating scientific research and application between the scientific and regulatory arms of the Agency. This will ensure that sound science is the basis for regulatory decisions. The new Deputy's focus on science could also change how environmental decisions are made.

Assistant Administrator for Research and Development, currently the top science job at the EPA, will be appointed for 6 years versus the current 4 years political appointment. Historically, this position is recognized to be one of the EPA's weakest and most transient administrator positions according to NRC's report, even though in my view, the position addresses some of the Agency's more important topics. By lengthening the term of this Assistant Administrator position and removing it from the realm of politics, I believe there will be more continuity in the scientific work of the Agency across administrations and allow the Assistant Administrator to focus on science conducted at the Agency.

In 1997, we learned the problems that can arise when sound science is not used in making regulatory decisions. Following EPA's ozone and particulate matter regulations there was great uncertainty on the scientific side.

When intitally releasing the Ozone/PM regulations, the EPA greatly over estimated the impacts for both ozone and PM, and they had to publicly change their figures later on. Additionally, they selectively applied some study results while ignoring others in their calculations. For example, the majority of the health benefits for ozone are based on one PM study by a Dr. Moogarkar, even though the Agency ignored the PM results of that study because it contradicted their position on PM.

The legislation that Senator Carper and I are introducing will ensure that science no longer takes a ``back seat'' at the Environmental Protection Agency in terms of policy making. I call on my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my friend and colleague, Senator Carper, which will strengthen the use of science at the Environmental Protection Agency. By improving science at the Agency, we will be improving the framework of our regulatory decisions. It is important that these regulations be effective, not onerous and inefficient. To make government regulations efficient, they must be based on a solid foundation of scientific understanding and data.

In 2000, the Nation Research Council released a report, ``Strengthening Science at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Research Management and Peer Review Practices'' which outlined current practices at the EPA and made recommendations for improving science within the agency. The bill we are introducing today, the ``Environmental Research Enhancement Act,'' builds on the NRC report.

When the Environmental Protection Agency was created in 1970 by President Nixon, its mission was set to protect human health and safeguard the environment. In the 1960s, it had become increasingly clear that ``we needed to know more about the total environment--land, water, and air.'' The EPA was part of President Nixon's reorganizational efforts to effectively ensure the protection, development and enhancement of the total environment.

For the EPA to reach this mission, establishing rules and priorities for clean land, air and water require a fundamental understanding of the science behind the real and potential threats to public health and the environment. Unfortunately, many institutions, citizens and groups believe that science has not always played a significant role in the decision-making process at the EPA.

In NRC's 2002 report, it was concluded that, while the use of sound science is one of the Environmental Protection Agency's goals, the EPA needs to change its current structure to allow science to play a more significant role in decisions made by the Administrator.

The legislation we are introducing today looks to address those shortcomings at the EPA by implementing portions of the report that require congressional authorization.

Under our bill, a new position, Deputy Administrator for Science and Technology will be established at the EPA. This individual will oversee the Office of Research and Development; the Environmental Information Agency; the Science Advisory board; the Science Policy Council; and the scientific and technical activities in the regulatory program at the EPA. This new position is equal in rank to the current Deputy Administrator and would report directly to the Administrator. The new Deputy would be responsible for coordinating scientific research and application between the scientific and regulatory arms of the Agency. This will ensure that sound science is the basis for regulatory decisions. The new Deputy's focus on science could also change how environmental decisions are made.

Assistant Administrator for Research and Development, currently the top science job at the EPA, will be appointed for 6 years versus the current 4 years political appointment. Historically, this position is recognized to be one of the EPA's weakest and most transient administrator positions according to NRC's report, even though in my view, the position addresses some of the Agency's more important topics. By lengthening the term of this Assistant Administrator position and removing it from the realm of politics, I believe there will be more continuity in the scientific work of the Agency across administrations and allow the Assistant Administrator to focus on science conducted at the Agency.

In 1997, we learned the problems that can arise when sound science is not used in making regulatory decisions. Following EPA's ozone and particulate matter regulations there was great uncertainty on the scientific side.

When intitally releasing the Ozone/PM regulations, the EPA greatly over estimated the impacts for both ozone and PM, and they had to publicly change their figures later on. Additionally, they selectively applied some study results while ignoring others in their calculations. For example, the majority of the health benefits for ozone are based on one PM study by a Dr. Moogarkar, even though the Agency ignored the PM results of that study because it contradicted their position on PM.

The legislation that Senator Carper and I are introducing will ensure that science no longer takes a ``back seat'' at the Environmental Protection Agency in terms of policy making. I call on my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this bill.

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

Mr. President, I think I need 25 minutes, but it may be 20. I think I need 25 minutes.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2705 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, before I speak in regard to this amendment, I would like to comment on the discussion that was going on with regard to Medicaid. There is no question that as a former Governor I observed my colleagues around the country gaming the system, and I was very upset about it. I made it very clear as chairman of the National Governors Association that this was an understanding we had with the Federal Government and that we ought not to game the system.

I will never forget while I was Governor there was a management company, which is no longer in business, that went out to the school districts and showed them how they could use the money they were spending for

health care and use it to game the Medicaid system. They would charge a percentage of the money they were able to bring into the school district. When I found out about it, I went beserk, to put it as nicely as I can, and that stopped. But I do think it is not a sacred cow that ought not be looked at. Just like a lot of mandatory spending we have, it should be reviewed to see if there are ways we can save some money.

Mr. President, I support this budget resolution, and I applaud Senator Nickles for his diligence and fiscal responsibility. The budget resolution we are considering builds on the success of the resolution Senator Nickles crafted last year. The fiscal year 2004 budget resolution reestablished fiscal discipline and provided reconciliation instructions for a stimulus package that generated 4-percent economic growth in 2003.

The fiscal year 2004 budget resolution also balanced fiscal discipline with a very real need to stimulate the economy. Although the economy started to grow after the 2001 tax reforms, the growth was very sluggish and did not create many jobs. Real growth in GDP was 2.9 percent in 2001 and 2.8 percent in 2002.

Consequently, the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution included reconciliation instructions for a modest, highly targeted economic stimulus package that Congress adopted in May of last year--a $350 billion stimulus package. By the end of the year, economic growth reached 4.4 percent, and unemployment had finally fallen below 6 percent. Most experts expect the economy to grow by more than 4 percent this year and for unemployment to continue to fall.

Unfortunately, my own State of Ohio has not participated as fully in the recovery as some of the other States. We need to continue the stimulus measures to make sure Ohio's economy takes off. We have too many people out of work in my State. We have too many people who are concerned about whether or not they are going to have a job. I agree with the President that we should not rest until every American who wants a job has one.

Congress also provided direct assistance to working families last year when we accelerated the phase-in of the child tax credit, eliminated the marriage penalty, and expanded the number of families paying income taxes at the lowest rate of 10 percent. I supported these tax reform provisions when they were enacted last year and even joined with Senator Snowe and Senator Lincoln to encourage the Finance Committee to expand refundability of the child tax credit for families with incomes between $10,500 and $25,000 per year.

For many families in Ohio, these tax reform provisions meant they could buy presents for Christmas as well as food. For some, it meant they could pay the heating bill. All families benefited from these reforms, and I am proud we supported them.

Fortunately, Senator Nickles has again crafted a budget resolution that balances fiscal discipline with the need to continue assisting low-income families. The Budget Committee makes hard decisions by assuming a freeze for most spending programs at 2004 spending levels, with increases for high-priority programs and reductions for low- priority, one-time, or expired programs. Nevertheless, the committee recognizes fiscal reality and provides a contingency fund of up to $30 billion for 2005 to fund ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, at long last, the Budget Committee addresses runaway increases in mandatory spending and proposes a $4.6 billion net reduction in mandatory spending programs over 5 years.

The fiscal year 2005 budget resolution also assumes Congress will act to close tax loopholes identified by the President and by the tax- writing committees. The committee builds upon the budget discipline included in last year's budget resolution by establishing enforceable caps on discretionary spending for 2005 and 2006.

The spending caps are set at levels consistent with the discretionary spending assumptions and are enforced with a 60-vote point of order. The Budget Committee continues a 60-vote point of order against advanced appropriations that exceed current levels.

These budget enforcements proved very important last year. There were 67 attempts to increase spending by waiving the Budget Act, and we successfully fought back 64 of them and saved this country billions of dollars of additional spending.

Finally, the budget resolution assumes continued budget enforcement under existing mechanisms for nondefense emergency spending and pay-as- you-go. In other words, if you want to spend the money, you find offsets or you find revenues that you can increase to pay for them.

Equally important, the resolution before us today includes tax policy assumptions focused on preventing economically damaging tax increases on working families.

The budget resolution proposes to extend the personal tax relief currently scheduled to expire at the end of 2004, including the $1,000- per-child tax credit, the 10-percent income tax bracket expansion, and marriage penalty relief. The budget resolution assumes a revenue loss of $80.6 billion from 2005 to 2009 for these proposals and directs the Senate Finance Committee to produce a reconciliation bill to facilitate their enactment.

Let's put that $80.6 billion in context. I remind my colleagues that in one fell swoop, we spent $87 billion to provide funding for the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. That just gives us a figure. That is $87 billion in 1 year, and we are talking about $80.6 billion over a 5-year period.

These provisions directly impact almost 90 million taxpayers nationwide, and about 4 million of them in my State. If they are not extended, a low-income family of four making $40,000 a year will go from receiving a small refund of $30 to paying the IRS an additional $800. Frankly, these families simply do not have the extra $800 to send to Washington at this time. So it is critical that we continue assisting them until the job market catches up with the growth in the economy.

I fought very hard for the refundable child tax credit in the 2001 tax reform, addressing the marriage penalty problem that discouraged many people from getting married because they paid higher taxes if they got married, and moving the people in the 15-percent bracket down to 10 percent.

When we enacted tax reforms to provide assistance to working families, I fully supported the sunset provisions that would allow those provisions to expire when they were no longer needed.

Unfortunately, while the economic situation has improved, we are not out of the woods yet. In Ohio, over 96,000 initial claims for unemployment compensation were filed in January. That is why I voted to extend unemployment benefits and that is why I think this Senate should vote in the next several weeks to extend unemployment benefits.

Although this number is more than 5 percent lower than last year, it still represents real families who have lost their principal source of income. Also, many families and individuals who regained employment over the past 6 months must still pay off loans to make up late payments they missed while they were unemployed.

It is time for Congress and the Nation to acknowledge the size of the problem we face. The Federal Government has a serious debt of almost $7 trillion, annual unified deficits of $477 billion, and net interest payments that consume 7.5 percent of the Federal budget.

If we see interest rates start to go up in the next couple of years, that 7.5 percent number could go up to 13 or 14 percent because that is what it was in 1999 when I came to the Senate.

Under current policy assumptions outlined in OMB's budget projections, the Federal debt will exceed $9.3 trillion by 2008 and net interest payments will claim 9.5 percent of our budget. If the private sector corporations ever issued similar financial projections, their stock value would plummet. Their credit rating would be discounted to below junk bond status and no bank on the planet would lend them additional money. During the savings and loan crisis, the Resolution Trust Corporation liquidated companies with healthier balance sheets than the Federal Government can produce today.

Whatever we may desire, until we restore some sort of fiscal discipline to Federal spending we may not be able to

afford any new initiatives, no matter how badly they are needed.

More importantly, we are rapidly approaching the time when much of the debt comes due and we must carefully consider how we will meet this obligation. Currently, we borrow $160 billion to $175 billion each year from the Social Security trust fund. As the baby boom generation retires, this source of borrowing will no longer be available, and starting in 2017 Social Security will start cashing in the bonds which make up its assets. If we exercise fiscal discipline now, the Federal Treasury will be able to redeem those bonds with little or no negative impact on the rest of the budget or the economy as a whole.

However, if we dig ourselves into deeper debt, we will only be able to pay our Social Security obligations by raising taxes or with draconian cuts in other Federal programs.

For almost two decades starting in 1980, fiscal conservatives have worked hard to return the Federal Government to a balanced budget. For a short time, after hand-to-hand combat--and I was here for that hand- to-hand combat--we met our goal for 2 years. In 1999, for the first time in 30 years, we had a balanced budget, about $1 billion; in 2000, we had an $87 billion budget surplus. That means we did not use Social Security to balance our budget.

However, our success in balancing the budget was short-lived. In the blink of an eye we returned to spending the Social Security surplus running large budget deficits. Today, instead of reducing our $7 trillion national debt, we are expanding it. Unfortunately, as soon as we achieved success we reversed course in 1998 and have been increasing spending ever since. Do we really want to lose 20 years of hard work? Is it not time we went back to what we were trying to do in 1999 and 2000?

Since 1999, this body has increased Federal spending an average of 7 percent per year. If we maintain this pace, Federal spending will double every 10 years. Instead of doubling spending, we should be cutting it. We have consistently skirted the truth about how much we increase spending and the size of the debt we are incurring.

Advance appropriations and other accounting gimmicks have become commonplace in our budget process. Thank God these last two budgets have gotten rid of most of the gimmicks we have had, but most of the American public does not realize we are spending the Social Security surplus. So although people may be going around Washington saying next year's deficit will only be $477 billion, it will really be $639 billion. According to the new CBO projections, we will spend all of the $162 billion of the Social Security surplus and issue new debt.

Our budget system is broken. Its obvious failure to perform is having serious consequences on our economy and, by extension, future Federal revenues, deficits, and debt. That is why I am here to talk about our Social Security lockbox amendment.

My amendment is simple. It caps the on-budget deficit at the level projected by CBO for fiscal year 2004, $639 billion, and reduces it by 10 percent each year thereafter. We are going to reduce it over 10 years so at the end of a 10-year period, we will no longer be spending the Social Security surplus. That means we will really have an on- budget surplus.

This is a very conservative proposal. It has been 5 years since we have had an on-budget surplus. This proposal proposes it will be 15 years from 1999-2000 until we get back to where we were at that period of time.

This proposal has a nice, natural glide. We will go from $639 billion in 2004 to $575 billion to $511 billion to $447 billion, to $383 billion to $319 billion. For my colleagues' information, the numbers I have for the next couple of years, 2005 and 2006, are a little bit above the on-budget numbers the Budget Committee is projecting.

Once we get to the fourth and fifth year, it is lower than the Budget Committee has projected for that 5-year budget, and then we keep going down to zero.

I recognize it would be unrealistic to eliminate the ongoing budget deficit in a single year or even within 5 years. The attempt would require either draconian spending cuts or job-destroying tax increases. It contains waivers to recognize national emergencies or a prolonged recession.

I understand the need for waivers in case of emergencies. This is hard to believe, but Senator Miller and I drafted a Social Security lockbox that gained the support of the White House. We worked with them for 6 months. We were going to announce it 2 days after 9/11. In other words, we were all set to do it, have a nice press conference, and 9/11 happened. Of course, that changed everything.

Nevertheless, Congress and the President can act now to prevent the on-budget deficit from getting any larger and initiate a 10-year glidepath to reduce the on-budget deficit to zero, thereby limiting transfers from the Social Security trust fund and at the end of the 10 years placing the entire Social Security trust fund in the lockbox.

We need to get this bill passed because today our national debt stands at $6.2 trillion and until we restore some sort of fiscal discipline to Congress's spending habits, this number is only going to keep going up.

It is immoral--it is immoral--to bequeath trillions of dollars in debt to our children and grandchildren. One of the reasons I came to this Congress was because I was concerned about my children and my grandchildren; that we were going to balance the budget, that we were going to reduce the debt--good, solid Republican principles. We were there in 1999 and 2000, and then we know what happened. We have to return to those days.

I know when people come into the office asking for money for particular projects, I always ask them the same question, and that question is: Is this particular priority worth putting your children and grandchildren further into debt? I have done that with several veterans organizations during the last couple of days. They want mandatory spending for veterans health care. I pointed out to them how bad off we are, that we have a war going on and we have to be concerned about our children and grandchildren, and if we do not do it there will not be anything around in 10 or 12 years for anyone.

It is remarkable. Their attitudes change. Most of them look at me, talk about it, and they say, I understand.

The problem today in America is people do not know how bad our debt is. They still think there is some kind of spigot we can turn on in Washington and take care of all the problems. It is our obligation to do something about that. It is our obligation to make sure people understand how far in debt we are and the tough decisions we are going to have to make.

I applaud the chairman of the Budget Committee for giving instructions to the Finance Committee and saying to them, let's find some reductions in mandatory spending because that is where all the money is going. The discretionary part of the budget is minuscule compared to the mandatory spending.

The amendment I offer today is a good start on the difficult path we must take in order to ensure our economic freedom and security for the future. I urge my colleagues to consider not only what we propose today but also to seriously consider what will happen to our Nation's economy tomorrow if we do nothing.

I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment, and I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I think perhaps the Senator is misinterpreting the amendment. Fundamentally what this says is we are going to use these numbers to get down, in 10 years, to an on-budget surplus like we had in 1999 and 2000. You are right, the amount of reduction in this amendment allows for a higher debt, but the fact is, all this says is you can raise a point of order if it exceeds this amount. I am not suggesting we reach this amount. All I am saying is, understanding the way things work around this Senate as I have observed during the last 5 years, we just go straight down and we have this opportunity to raise a point of order if the amount of money exceeds the numbers we have in our proposed amendment.

It is a very simple way of achieving what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have talked about for a great period of time. The purpose of it is to allow us to raise a point of order. It takes 60 votes to waive that point of order in terms of spending.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I wonder if he had a chance to see the numbers I used in this amendment?

I think there is no question that in the first 3 years the number is a little higher than what you projected, assuming this $86 billion hit we had last year. But the fact is, if you look at the numbers for 2008 and 2009, the last 2 years of the 5-year budget resolution, our numbers are below the numbers projected by the Budget Committee. In effect, in the first 3 years it may be a little higher. That doesn't mean we are necessarily going to spend that money. But when we get to the fourth and fifth year, our numbers are below the numbers projected in the budget.

Mr. President, if we look at the practicality, I just used these numbers because it was 10 percent a year. But the fact is a budget point of order will lie against the numbers that you are projecting in the budget that came out of the Budget Committee. In other words, if we exceed your numbers, you are saying this number I am proposing is going to provide we can spend up to that amount of money.

I am saying the number coming out of the Budget Committee creates a point of order you can't go beyond.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, the Senator from North Dakota has been here longer than I have. He is the ranking member of the Budget Committee. I have been interested in this budget for a long time, as he knows. I would like to ask him if we could achieve this in 10 years through a real on-budget surplus. Most people would say it would be miraculous. But the point I am making is you could argue about this number. You can make a big deal out of it in terms of we know we are going to do this and you are going to raise these issues. But the real issue is to try to get down to where we were 5 years ago. I can assure you, for this Congress to achieve this will be something very significant and cause a great deal of discipline in terms of extending tax reductions, and so forth.

In effect, in order to get here we are going to have to have some pay-go restrictions in order to make that happen.

All I am saying is, say what you want about these first couple of years, down the road the Senate could achieve what I have on this chart. It would be a wonderful gift to the American people because we could guarantee to them that

we are going to have a true on-budget surplus.

I can't understand that because the numbers provide for the budget point of order. How can you say, if you have the number, that you have a budget point of order, that you are not going to achieve these numbers?

Mr. President, I would like to reiterate if we were able to achieve what this graph shows, it would be the greatest gift we could give to our children and grandchildren because it would mean that we have been fiscally responsible. The way we are trying to achieve it is to say we are not going to use the Social Security surplus. When we were able to get that on-budget surplus in 1999 and 2000, I remember how we always had to wrestle in order to not use the Social Security surplus. It was a way that we were able to control spending. That is exactly what we are trying to do with this amendment.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

I would be more than happy to take my amendment and put the numbers of the Senator from North Dakota in for the first 3 years so that it will take care of the problem the Senator made reference to and handle it that way so it eliminates any allegations that somehow this amendment is going to allow for increased spending. I would be more than happy to do that.

Mr. President, I understand from talking to the desk in order to amend my amendment to reflect the numbers that were in the budget that came out of the Budget Committee, I need consent from my colleagues. I would like to move to amend and insert the numbers that were in the budget resolution to eliminate the problem Senator Conrad has brought to our attention so the numbers would reflect his numbers. And, I might point out the number in the third and fourth year is below the number the Senator from North Dakota has in his budget numbers.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw amendment No. 2705.

Mr. President, 3 weeks ago President Bush nominated Mark McClellan to be Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS. I rise today to express my deep concern over the news that some of my colleagues have threatened to delay his confirmation.

This is happening at a time when CMS has more on its plate than it has had in 39 years--since the creation of the Medicare and Medicaid programs in 1965. Last November, I proudly joined my colleagues in support of a bill to finally provide over 40 million seniors a voluntary prescription drug benefit through Medicare. After years of having to carry the burden of high prescription drug costs without any assistance from Medicare, the bill we passed will provide 1.6 million seniors in my State with access to affordable prescription drugs. This is long overdue.

At CMS, steps are already being taken to implement the provisions in this bill. In fact, 2 months from now, in May 2004, seniors across the Nation will have the opportunity to enroll in a Medicare-endorsed drug discount card that is expected to yield an average 10 to 25 percent savings on all prescription drug purchases. On top of these discounts, the Federal Government will annually purchase the first $600 in prescription drug costs for those seniors below 135 percent of the poverty level.

Five weeks ago, on February 5th, CMS announced that over 100 separate entities had submitted applications to offer Medicare-approved cards to beneficiaries, a response they called a ``robust level of interest'' from potential card sponsors. While this is encouraging, this level of interest places greater demand on CMS staff as they continue to review applications and move forward in announcing their card endorsements within the next month.

Furthermore, former CMS administrators have been quick to point out that if the new drug benefit is to commence on time in January 2006, rules must be written and finalized no later than October or November of 2005. Vital decisions must be made about the administration of the benefit in the development stage, which is now--decisions that require strong leadership and expertise. Unfortunately, CMS has been without a leader since January, when Tom Scully resigned.

I assure you that the success of Medicare and the prescription drug benefit rests with a capable CMS workforce under strong leadership. CMS already faces an enormous challenge. Approximately one quarter of its workforce will be eligible to retire in the coming years. In fiscal year 2003, 30 percent of individuals serving in career Senior Executive Service positions at CMS were eligible for retirement. In addition, 20 percent of CMS's workforce was eligible to retire. The leadership to move this vital agency forward is lacking without a confirmed administrator.

Gail Wilensky, administrator of CMS's predecessor, the Health Care Financing Administration from 1990 to 1992, describes the task ahead as ``the largest challenge an administrator has had.'' Similarly, her successor, Nancy Ann Min DeParle, who had the demanding task of implementing the Balanced Budget Act throughout her tenure from 1997 to 2000, has correctly stated that implementing the new drug benefit will be even more taxing than previous initiatives and will require the agency to design a ``new delivery system that does not now exist even in the commercial market.''

I could not agree more. I have concerns about the arduous task ahead for CMS and as a result, will be holding a hearing at my Government Affairs Subcommittee in the coming weeks to examine CMS' capacity to do this job. I expect Dr. McClellan to be at this hearing to discuss his plans for leading CMS in this pursuit.

I cannot think of a more qualified leader for CMS at this critical time than Dr. Mark McClellan. His work at the helm of the FDA over the past 2 years brought innovation and creativity to the agency, which many believe has dismantled bureaucratic barriers and led to quicker reviews of drug and other product applications to speed generic drugs to the marketplace. I am most appreciative of his work in this area, as a few years ago, I was able to secure $400,000 for the FDA to educate our nation's seniors about the safety and cost-effectiveness of generic drugs.

Dr. McClellan earned a medical degree from the Harvard University- Massachusetts Institute of Technology Program in Health Sciences and Technology and a doctorate in economics from MIT. He served under President Clinton between 1998 and 1999 as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury and served as health policy coordinator and a member of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers before joining the FDA.

In fact, Dr. McClellan has always enjoyed broad support across party lines, and it was no surprise that just last week, Senator Edward Kennedy described Dr. McClellan as a superb choice for CMS administrator who ``brings to the job a powerful intellect, a deep knowledge of the programs and a commitment to public service.''

What did come as a surprise was the announcement by several Senators that, despite Dr. McClellan's outstanding qualifications, they are threatening to block his nomination to gain leverage on the issue in Congress of re-importing pharmaceuticals from outside of the United States.

As Chairman of the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Oversight and Management and the Federal Workforce, I am gravely concerned. Delaying this appointment at a time when CMS desperately needs leadership will affect the agency's ability to effectively implement the prescription drug benefit and even more urgently, the drug discount card program.

This is not fair to the 5,000 dedicated CMS employees who are working tirelessly to implement the congressionally mandated prescription drug benefit.

This is not fair to our Nation's seniors. Every American, and particularly every senior citizen, should be outraged.

Now is not the time to play political games. We must make sure that CMS has the leadership it needs at this juncture to handle the task at hand. I urge my colleagues to reconsider their decision to delay the nomination of Dr. Mark McClellan and confirm his appointment to this important position.

Mr. President, on Thursday, February 26, 2004, President Boris Trajkovski of Macedonia, whom I have known for many years, was tragically killed when a plane carrying him and eight others crashed in southern

Bosnia. His death is a tragic loss not only for his family and those who knew him well, but for the people of Macedonia, the broader region of Southeast Europe, and, I believe the world at large.

I rise today to express my condolences and deep sympathy to the people of Macedonia, the family of President Trajkovski, and the families of the eight others who were killed. I submit a resolution, cosponsored by Senator Lugar and Senator biden, which honors the memory of President Boris Trajkovski and recognizes the significant contributions he made as President of Macedonia.

President Trajkovski was a principled man, a courageous leader, and someone that I have come to call a friend since I first met him during a visit to Stankovic refugee camp in Macedonia in 1999. His leadership was instrumental following the crisis in Kosovo in 1999, as Macedonia worked with the international community to meet the needs of thousands of refugees fleeing the neighboring province. President Trajkovski's deep respect for human rights and commitment to the rule of law played a significant role in the signing of the Ohrid Framework Agreement in 2001, which successfully secured peace in the country following an outbreak of violence earlier that year. Following the signing of the peace accord, he remained committed to the implementation of the agreement--a process that continues today.

I have had the privilege of visiting with President Trajkovski regularly during the last several years, when I traveled to Macedonia in May 1999, February 2000, and again in May 2002, and on several occasions when he traveled to Washington, DC--often in conjunction with the National Prayer Breakfast. An ordained minister in the Methodist Church, President Trajkovski was a man of faith, principle, and character, and his leadership will be greatly missed as Macedonia continues to move toward membership in Europe's democratic institutions.

I extend my heartfelt condolences to President Trajkovski's wife, Vilma, his children, Sara and Stefan, and the people of Macedonia. While Boris Trajkovski will be sorely missed, he leaves a legacy of courageous and principled leadership, progress, and commitment to democratic reform that put Macedonia on a path toward membership in NATO and the European Union. That legacy lives on.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution, which honors the life of a man deeply committed to working toward a peaceful and prosperous future for the people of Macedonia and Southeast Europe.

Mr. President, today, Senator Breaux and I introduced a bill entitled the ``Uniting Neighborhoods and Individuals to Eliminate Racial Profiling Act of 2004'' (UNITE) that I believe will put us on the road to preventing problems caused by racial profiling and help begin reconciliation in communities torn apart by racial unrest.

Rooted in the belief that education and dialogue are the most effective tools for bridging racial divides, our bill bans racial profiling by Federal, State and local law enforcement officers. Our bill also provides important new tools to help law enforcement leaders train their officers in eliminating the practice, including the creation of a National Task Force on Racial Profiling within the U.S. Department of Justice, a Racial Profiling Education and Awareness Program, a nondiscriminatory State-based administrative complaint procedure that allows individuals to file complaints with the State, and a grant program to assist State and local law enforcement agencies in developing programs to eliminate racial profiling.

I am personally aware of this issue because of the time I spent as Mayor of Cleveland. I worked for 10 years to promote understanding and positive race relations, and my work there has spurred me to continue on this path at the national level. We've heard all too often of situations in cities and towns across the country in which poor race relations are creating serious divisions between communities and law enforcement agencies. Despite the shared interest we all have in fighting crime and making neighborhoods safer, mistrust and wariness often stands in the way of cooperation.

To name just a few examples: A January 21, 2004 state study of racial profiling in Massachusetts has found that minority drivers are disproportionately ticketed and searched by police officers in dozens of communities, including Boston. According to a joint study completed by the Council on Crime and Justice (CCJ) and the Institute on Race & Poverty (IRP) at the University of Minnesota Law School and released on September 24, 2003, African-American, Latino and to a lesser extent American-Indian motorists are stopped and their cars searched at rates significantly greater than white motorists. The study found that racial profiling is widespread throughout Minnesota and cuts across urban, suburban and rural police boundaries. In February, 2004, a study was released by the Steward Research Group analyzing data from 413 Texas law enforcement agencies. The study found that based on racial disparities in stop and search rates, there is a pattern of racial profiling by law enforcement agencies across Texas.

While studies such as these are not widespread among the States, I do believe these results, along with many other cases clearly indicate that we have a nationwide problem. And while the overwhelming number of police officers discharge their duties professionally and without bias, I think we need to address those that do not.

As I mentioned before, my experience as Mayor of Cleveland and Governor of Ohio has taught me that reaching the hearts and minds of people is the most effective means of dealing with intolerance and the problems that result.

As mayor of Cleveland I established the city's first urban coalition, the Cleveland Roundtable, to bring together representatives of the City's various racial, religious and economic groups to create a common agenda. When we found that members of the police department weren't receiving proper diversity training, we completely revised the police academy program, establishing sensitivity training for all Cleveland police officers and creating six police district community relations committees to open lines of communication between police officers and community members. We eventually put all City employees through this diversity training, and you know what? It worked.

As governor, in my first State of the State Address I said, ``We must never forget that the infrastructure of good race relations and human understanding is more important than any roads or bridges we might build.'' We launched efforts to increase community outreach by law enforcement in order to foster a cooperative, rather than adversarial, relationship between citizens and law enforcement. Through our biannual ``Governor's Challenge,'' conferences I worked to bring members of local communities together with law enforcement officials and members of the business community in order to educate and break down barriers that lead to intolerance. We recognized and shared ``best practices'' procedures so that communities could benefit from the success of others--all with an emphasis on rewarding those that are doing a good job. We made wonderful progress and outstanding communities were recognized for their efforts.

As I said earlier, the overwhelming majority of state and local law enforcement agents throughout the nation discharge their duties professionally and justly. I salute them for their dedication efforts in what is one of America's toughest jobs. It is unfortunate that the misdeeds of a minute few have such a corrosive effect on the police- community relationship. Based on my experiences in Ohio--10 years as Mayor of Cleveland and 8 years as Governor of Ohio, I know what works. Through education and dialogue we can help turn situations around so that groups who

once thought they had little in common can realize how much they actually have to gain by working together to make our communities safer places to live.