Floor Statements

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.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of S. 2061, the Healthy Mothers and Healthy Babies Access to Care Act, and I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote for cloture on the motion to proceed on this very important legislation.

I would like to point out in the beginning of my remarks, in response to some of the statements that have been made on the floor this morning, that there has to be a reason the American College for Obstetrics and Gynecology, the American Medical Association, and just about every medical group in the United States of America is supportive of this legislation. We would not be talking about it unless they really believed the passage of this legislation would have a dramatic impact on the liability costs that OB/GYNs are experiencing, causing so many of them to leave their practices.

This is a personal issue for me. Last summer when my daughter-in-law was expecting her fourth child, she learned that after the delivery, her doctor would no longer deliver babies. At the time, her doctor was in a four-physician group, all of them obstetricians. They never had any lawsuits against them. Yet their insurance premiums had skyrocketed from $81,000 to over $381,000 in just 3 years. That is $75,000

per person over a period of 3 years. How could physicians be expected to afford rate hikes such as these?

We need to be doing something about it. This legislation is going to help. This legislation is so important because the effects of the medical liability crisis can be felt acutely by the obstetrics/ gynecology community. Data from the American Medical Association indicates that 19 States currently face a medical liability crisis and 25 States show problem signs. Women of childbearing age have been impacted the most because 1 out of 11 obstetricians nationwide has stopped delivering babies and, instead, has scaled back their practice to gynecology only or just gotten out of the practice. In addition, one in six has begun to refuse high-risk cases.

How does this affect a patient's access to care? As premiums increase, women's access to general health care, including regular screenings for reproductive cancers, high blood pressure, cholesterol, diabetes, and other serious health risks, will decrease. It leads to more uninsured women because of health care costs that have gone up as a result of the fact that malpractice costs have gone up so astronomically in the last couple of years.

In 2002, 11.7 million women of childbearing age were uninsured. Without medical liability reform, a greater number of women ages 19 to 44 will move into the ranks of the uninsured. With fewer health care providers offering full services, the workload has increased significantly for those who still do. Wait times increase, putting women at risk. A physician facing higher premiums is likely to practice defensively, ordering more tests than medically necessary, seeking more opinions, and giving more referrals.

Women receive less prenatal care in our current environment. Improved access to prenatal care has resulted in record low infant mortality rates, an advance now threatened as OB/GYNs drop obstetrics. As some of you may have read, for the first time since 1958, the U.S. infant mortality rate is up. According to preliminary data released this month by statisticians from the CDC, the Nation's infant mortality rate in 2002 was 7 per 1,000 births. That is up from 6.8 in 2001. Some experts are attributing this to poor access to prenatal care, that that is the cause of this problem. Women have less preventive care. Women's general health care is routinely provided by community clinics and OB/GYNs. Women receive fewer screenings for reproductive cancers, high blood pressure and cholesterol, diabetes, and other serious health risks as OB/GYNs and community clinics reduce care.

The ramifications of this medical liability crisis on women's health care are shocking, and we feel this crisis very strongly in Ohio. The Medical Liability Monitor ranked Ohio among the top five States for premium increases in 2002. The OHIC Insurance Company, among the largest medical liability insurers in the State, has reported that average premiums for Ohio doctors have doubled over the last 3 years.

I would like to point out that the argument that the insurance industry is ripping off doctors and raising rates to make up for investment losses, as some contended here on the floor of the Senate this morning, is preposterous.

I invite those Members who believe this to read an article from Brown Brothers Harriman Insurance Asset Management Group.

I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

The subject of the article is ``Did Investments Affect Medical Malpractice Premiums?'' It concluded:

. . . asset allocation and investment returns have had

little, if any, correlation to the development of the current

malpractice problem.

The article goes on to say:

The crisis is rather the result of a generally

unconstrained increase in losses and, over several years,

inadequate premium income to cover those losses.

The article also goes on to say:

We see that medical malpractice companies had returns

similar to the market as a whole. This indicates that they

maintained a diversified equity investment strategy. As

medical malpractice companies did not have an unusual amount

invested in equities and since they invested these moneys in

a reasonable market-like fashion, we conclude the decline in

equity valuations is not the cause of rising medical

malpractice premiums.

Finally, I will finish up with a summary:

The magnitude of these changes suggests that the eventual

solution to the current malpractice problem will be a blend

of premium increases and tort reform. Since the financial

shortfall compounds itself over time, it is imperative

that the solution set be developed as quickly as possible.

Without significant relief in fairly short order, the

country may find itself facing an accelerating loss of

available medical care.

And I contend that acceleration is well underway not only in OB/GYN but in other aspects of the medical profession.

According to a November 2000 study of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 59 percent of responding Ohio OB/GYNs have been forced to make changes to their practice such as quitting obstetrics, retiring, relocating, decreasing gynecological surgical procedures, no longer performing gynecologic surgery, decreasing the number of deliveries, and/or decreasing the amount of high-risk obstetric care because of unaffordable and unavailable medical liability insurance. Of the respondents, 86 percent no longer practice obstetrics, which forces a potential of some 14,000 pregnant Ohio women to find new OB/GYNs to provide their obstetric care.

This is not the statistics. I have received dozens of testimonials from doctors saying they are quitting their practice because of the rising cost of medical liability insurance. A friend of mine shared with me a letter from an OB/GYN in Dublin, OH, who decided to retire from his practice.

He wrote the following to his patients:

On June 17, 2003, I received my professional liability

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

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

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

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

physician. Even worse, during this time the insurance company

has reduced the amount of coverage that I can purchase from

$5 million to only $1 million, while jury verdicts have

skyrocketed, often exceeding $3-4 million. If I were to

purchase this policy, I would be putting all of my family's

personal assets at risk every time that I delivered a baby or

performed surgery. I refuse to do that.

I have therefore decided to retire from private practice on

July 31, 2003, the final day of my current liability

insurance policy. This is not a decision that I take lightly,

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

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

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

challenges. It has truly been an honor.

I received another letter from Dr. Ben Alvarez. He worked for Beachwood OB/GYN. He sent a letter informing his patients he was relocating to Minnesota this March. He says, in part:

The decision to leave Ohio is the direct result of the

medical malpractice crisis: with a clean record, my annual

premium will reach well over $100,000 this July. I cannot,

and will not, in good conscience play the insurance company's

game--it's just that simple. What's not simple is saying

good-bye to a town and people that have given me so much. Ob/

Gyn is so different from other medical specialties due to the

emotional and personal relationships that exist between us. I

have been blessed to have experienced with so many of you the

joy of a new baby's arrival; prayed about the outcome of

surgery; and also shared the painful moments.

I ask unanimous consent to have the complete letter printed in the Record.

After speaking at a physicians' rally in Ohio, I received a letter from a young doctor, Geoff Cly. Dr. Cly received a notice from the insurance carrier that the premiums would increase by 20 percent, $30,000, this plus the $20,000 increase from the year before, forcing him to make a difficult decision of uprooting his family and practice to go to another State. Doctor Cly was unable to make the insurance premiums and still take care of his student loan obligations and his family. He moved to Fort Wayne, IN. He said to me: Senator, I am going to Indiana. My liability insurance will be less there. But the practice has gotten so much different than what I anticipated it to be that I am seriously thinking, after I pay off my college loans, I am going to get out of medicine.

It is a tragedy what is happening today in my State and other States throughout this country. For those of my colleagues who think medical liability reform is a State issue, I ask them to read this letter and see how the medical liability crisis transcended State lines, particularly my friends from the neighboring State of West Virginia. Our Ohio physicians who practice along the border are feeling the effects of their proximity to West Virginia and its favorable plaintiffs' verdicts. They are feeling these effects in their increasing insurance premiums.

It is amazing the number of counties along the West Virginia border and eastern Ohio where they have no more OB/GYNs. They just left. These counties go bare, with no OB/GYN to provide services to protect women.

I could go on and give more and more examples of Ohio physicians who had to leave the practice of medicine. Dr. Komorowski of Bellevue stopped delivering babies after 20 years when he found out the day after Christmas last year that his liability insurance was tripling to more than--listen to this--$180,000. Dr. Komorowski, the only obstetrician in Bellevue, figured it would cost him nearly 11 months of his salary to pay the premium increase in addition to taxes and other expenses.

It is out of control. We need to do something now, not just for Ohio but

for the rest of the country as well. Obstetrics/gynecology is among the top three specialties in the cost of professional liability insurance premiums. Nationally, insurance premiums for OB/GYNs have increased dramatically. The median premium increased 167 percent between 1982 and 1998. The median rate rose 7 percent in 2000, 12\1/2\ in 2001, 15.3 in 2002, with increases as high as 69 percent according to a survey by the Medical Liability Monitor, a newsletter covering the liability insurance industry.

According to the Physicians Insurance Association of America, OB/GYNs were first among 28 specialty groups in the number of claims filed against them in 2000. OB/GYNs were the highest of all the specialty groups in the average cost of defending against a claim in 2000 at a cost of almost $35,000. In the 1990s they were first, along with family physicians, general practitioners, in the percentage of claims against them closed with a payment of 36 percent. They were second after neurologists in the average claim payment made during that same period.

Although the number of claims filed against all physicians climbed in recent decades, the phenomena do not reflect an increased rate of medical negligence. In fact, OB/GYNs win most of the claims filed against them. In 1999, an American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists survey of its membership found that over one-half, 54 percent of claims against OB/GYNs were dropped by plaintiff attorneys, dismissed or settled without payment; 54 percent of the cases that did proceed. OB/GYNs won 7 of 10 times. Enormous resources are spent to deal with these claims, only 10 percent of which are found to have merit.

The cost to defend these claims can be staggering and often mean that physicians invest less in new technologies that help patients. In 2000, the average cost to defend a claim against the OB/GYN was the highest of all physicians.

According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the typical OB/GYN is 47 years old, has been in practice for 15 years and can expect to be sued 2.53 times over his or her career. Over one- quarter of the residents have been sued for care provided during their residency. And that is another problem we are seeing in this country: Many residencies are going unfulfilled because of the medical malpractice lawsuit abuse growth in this country. Medical school enrollments have been impacted by what young people are seeing happening in the medical profession in this country.

In 1999, 76 percent of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists fellows reported they had been sued at least once so far in their career. The average claim takes over 4 years to resolve. I know from anyone who has been the subject of a lawsuit that 4 years is 4 years of stress as they worry about what is going to happen as a result of the outcome of that litigation.

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

Throughout my career in public service, health care has been one of my top legislative priorities. We all want access to quality, affordable health care. We do have a problem in this country in terms of access to quality health care. In my State, I have conducted eight listening sessions. The result from all those sessions, regardless of who was there, is that the system is broken, and we need to plow new ground.

When the quality is not there, when people die or are truly sick due to negligence or other medical error, they should be compensated. We want that. But when healthy plaintiffs file meaningless lawsuits 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.

The last time I spoke on this subject, I had the front and back cover of the white pages and the yellow pages of the Cleveland phonebook. The front cover and back cover of both of them were advertisements for personal injury lawyers giving specific examples of encouraging people to file suits based on the information they had in their advertisement.

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 have been concerned about this issue since my days as Governor of Ohio. In 1996, I essentially had to pull teeth in the Ohio Legislature to pass a tort reform bill. I signed it into law in October of 1996. Three years later, the supreme court ruled it unconstitutional. If that law had withstood supreme court scrutiny--and it should have; we now have what I call a balanced supreme court in Ohio--Ohioans would not be facing the medical access problems they face today: Doctors leaving their practice, patients unable to receive the care they need, and the cost of health insurance going through the roof.

During my time in the Senate, I have continued my work to alleviate the medical liability crisis. To this end, I have worked with the American Tort Reform Association to produce a study in August of 2002 that captured the impact of this crisis on Ohio's economy in order to share these findings with my constituents and colleagues. Guess what we found. What we have in this country today, in my opinion, not only in this area but in a lot of areas, is a litigation tornado that is ripping through the economy. We found in Ohio that the litigation crisis costs every Ohioan $636 per year and every Ohio family of four $2,544. These are alarming figures, and the numbers are from 2 years ago. Which family do you know that can pay $2,500 for the lawsuit abuse of a few individuals?

Next to the economy and jobs, the most important issue facing our country today is health care. In fact, it is a major part of what is wrong with the economy. We have too many uninsured, and those who have insurance face soaring premiums every year, making it less likely they can continue to pay them. In addition, employers are facing spiraling costs and in some cases don't even provide insurance.

I have talked to one employer after another. They say: I want to provide health insurance for my workers, but I cannot afford to do it at $10,000 for a family of four. I am asking my employees to pay more of the premiums. In many instances my employees cannot afford to pay the premiums so they are going without health insurance.

We have a real problem. Medical malpractice lawsuit abuse reform is having a dramatic impact on the cost of health insurance, in spite of what some of my colleagues have said. Providing the sort of commonsense approach found in the Healthy Mothers and Healthy Babies Access to Care Act is a win-win situation. The bill will help decrease the rising cost of health care. It will give patients access to care and it will curtail the rising cost of medical liability insurance for those physicians who provide prenatal delivery and postpartum care to mothers and babies.

Patients will not have to give away large portions of their judgments 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 will not be held liable for harms they did not cause and physicians can focus on what they do best--practicing medicine and providing health care.

I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture so we can debate this issue and have an up-or-down vote on this legislation impacting on our most important patients: Pregnant women and their newborn babies.

There was some mention made of the General Accounting Office study of the medical liability crisis and access to care. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the response of the American Medical Association to that General Accounting Office report. It is very important.

I will summarize quickly some of the conclusions. It says: The GAO August report fails to accurately reflect the severity of the current crisis. Numerous changes in the GAO methodology would strengthen the basic findings. Among the data sources, measures, analytical methods that could be improved: Examine all crisis States. To date, the AMA, in conjunction with its federation of State medical associations, has identified 19 States that have a medical liability crisis.

They also suggest recognizing the increased impact on rural areas, which GAO did not do; approximately measure physician mobility. Physician accounts were based on State licensure data which do not accurately reflect the number of physicians practicing in a given location. Actual physician practice location information must be used instead.

They should accurately count physicians by specialties and local markets and use multi-payor data to accurately measure access to health care services that Medicare data alone do not capture.

I can tell you I have not completely read the GAO report, but I have read portions of it. Its connection to reality in my State is not there. I have talked to David Walker about it. I have talked to the people who did the report and encouraged them to look at some of the suggestions the AMA made and perhaps do another study that would accurately reflect what is really going on today in this country in terms of medical malpractice increases and what it is doing to access to health care.

I would like to end my remarks with the words of Dr. Evangeline Andarsio. Dr. Andarsio is an OB/GYN from Dayton, OH. I met Dr. Andarsio at a physicians rally in Ohio. I will never forget that day. It was October of 2002. It was very cold. I was freezing. In fact, when I got up, my teeth were chattering. But prior to my getting up, Dr. Andarsio started to speak. I thought to myself, this doctor is just going to go on and on and on. And I was cold. But as she started, as I listened intently to what she was saying, I was moved by her remarks. This was truly a dedicated physician who loved her patients, loved what she was doing, and who was unable to practice medicine the way she wanted to because of this malpractice lawsuit abuse problem she is confronted with in our State.

I would like to close with a quote from her speech:

Help us to maintain an ability to have a practice that

offers patients excellent access to care--to continue one of

the most important relationships in our lives--the doctor-

patient relationship--thus maintaining individualized and

compassionate care.

That is what much of this debate is about. It is about physicians being able to practice medicine and do it in a way they did back when my wife Janet and I were having our four children. There is a special relationship between an OB/GYN and a family. It breaks my heart to see so many of them leaving the practice of medicine because of these malpractice costs with which they are confronted.

We do have a crisis. This Senate is going to have to face up to it. I am hoping that we will have 60 votes today on cloture on the motion to proceed. I think we need to debate this issue. This issue has to be debated and the American people who are not aware of the crisis need to be made aware of it.

I yield the floor.

This language serves an important function: it builds in an incentive for project sponsors to incorporate environmentally protective measures into a project from the beginning in order to support a finding of de minimis impact.

Obviously, there will be projects whose impacts will exceed the de minimis threshold even when mitigation measures are taken into account. For those projects the traditional Section 4(f) requirements will apply. But there also are many projects that could meet the de minimis impact standard if the project sponsor commits to take specific actions to reduce or offset the project's impacts on Section 4(f) resources. This amendment will make it possible for a finding of de minimis impact to be made in those situations.

Revenue provisions

This amendment does not alter or weaken the Overton Park standards for determining what constitutes prudent and feasible alternatives. In authorizing this rulemaking, it is our clear intention that Overton Park will continue to serve as the lodestar--the fundamental legal standard--for defining and evaluating feasible and prudent alternatives. Under this standard, an alternative is considered ``not prudent'' if it would result in cost or community disruption of extraordinary magnitude, and is considered ``not feasible'' if it cannot

be constructed as a matter of sound engineering. This amendment would not change those long-standing definitions of ``prudence'' and ``feasibility.''

The basic problem we face today is the gradual accumulation of different interpretations of the Overton Park standards over the past 30 years. In particular, the lower Federal courts' interpretations of the Overton Park standards have resulted in considerable confusion and uncertainty about how to determine the ``prudence'' of alternatives. The net result is that Section 4(f) is sometimes viewed as an inflexible prohibition--an ``avoid at all costs'' requirement. That mistaken interpretation of Section 4(f) leads to many of the so-called horror stories that we hear so much about.

With this amendment, we are directing the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations clarifying the application of the ``prudent and feasible'' test in a variety of circumstances. For example, it is only common sense to recognize that the ``prudence'' of an avoidance alternative depends in part on what you're avoiding, and how hard it is to avoid it. Are we dealing with a major part of great significance to the community--such as the famous Overton Park in Memphis, Tennessee? Or are we dealing with an easily replaceable ball field in an area where a replacement can be located without detriment to the interests of the affected users? Both of these parks receive a substantial degree of protection under Section 4(f). But what's prudent in one situation is different from what's prudent in the other, depending on a range of factors, including the degree of harm and the consequences to other resources from avoiding it. Those are the kinds of distinctions that need to be clarified in the regulations.

In short, the sole purpose of this amendment is to require the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations that provide more detailed guidance on applying the Overton Park standards on a case-by- case basis. The result will be greater consistency in the application of the standard throughout the country.

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

Mr. President, I understand that if I ask that the amendments be set aside so I can send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration, there is an objection to that; is that correct?

I did not hear the Chair.

Mr. President, it is unfortunate that we have an objection to further amendments so that we can't set aside some of those that have been here and we are not making the kind of progress I think we should be making on this bill and that some in this body will not allow us to make progress and consider a germane amendment that has broad support. What I am going to do is file the amendment and hopefully get to it in due course.

Two days ago, I came to the floor to express my support for this bill. I praised the managers for their work in putting this compromise together. I said that the bipartisan spirit of this bill led me to believe we could actually get something accomplished, which is contrary to the predictions of many people for this session of Congress. I even borrowed from one of my models when I was Governor: Together we can do it. And together we can. We can get this bill passed if we have enough folks who are willing to compromise and understand there is an enormous need to deal with the infrastructure problems and challenges of our country and also understand the need for the jobs this bill will create in our respective States.

Today and yesterday we have seen, however, that some do not want to work in a bipartisan manner and pass this bill which will put hard- working Americans back to work and jump-start our sluggish economy, particularly in States such as Ohio. This is the case even though 75 Members voted to invoke cloture and proceed to the bill. Sadly, until this logjam is broken, we can't even make progress on issues of broad agreement.

Regardless of these difficulties, I am pleased to announce that this amendment represents an agreement reached by the transportation community and the historic preservation community. I greatly appreciate the work of the many groups that worked on this amendment, including the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Action, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. I commend the Ohio Department of Transportation, especially Gordon Proctor, Tim Hill, and Michelle Holdgreve, for their tireless effort. They have worked very hard with us on this amendment. The hard work by all these interested groups have led to this carefully crafted compromise amendment that I believe will go a long way in expediting the time and decreasing the cost of transportation construction projects.

This amendment addresses section 4(f). Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 prohibits the Department of Transportation from approving any highway project that uses publicly owned land or a historic site of national, State, or local significance, unless, one, there is no prudent and feasible alternative that avoids such resources or causes less harm to them, and, two, the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to those resources.

If publicly owned land or a historic site is chosen for use in the project, an evaluation must demonstrate that the use of other alternatives would have resulted in unique problems. ``Unique problems'' are present when there are truly unusual factors, or when the costs to the community's disruption reach ``extraordinary magnitude.'' This test was introduced in Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, referred to as the ``Overton Park criteria.''

Section 4(f) was developed in the late 1960s to address a real problem. Construction of the Interstate Highway System was at its peak, and these projects took the path of least resistance, which, in many cases, was parkland because it was easy to acquire and cheap to build through.

The passage of section 4(f) was intended to protect parks and historic sites that could be adversely impacted by construction of the Interstate System. We all understand that. That makes sense.

Today, however, highway projects are more likely to involve maintenance and modernization of the current system. The problem is that section 4(f), which basically prohibits all use of protected resources, is difficult to apply to projects that would have some, but not significant, impact on a protected resource. Yet this law has never been amended since its creation almost 40 years ago. We need to address our attention to that.

When highway projects have resulted in litigation, section 4(f) has been a frequent cause. Moreover, inconsistent interpretation of the Overton criteria has been identified as one need for changes in section 4(f) to allow for a more balanced interpretation of its requirements. One of the reasons for this litigation is the subjective terms used in the law: ``prudent and feasible,'' ``all possible planning to minimize harm,'' ``unique problems,'' and ``extraordinary magnitude.''

I will tell you, these provisions are a lawyer's dream and a nightmare for the courts that have to interpret it and the States and U.S. Department of Transportation, which has to enforce the law. The result has been needless confusion, significant delays, and high cost for issues that defy common sense. What we are talking about here is common sense.

In my State of Ohio, for example, a privately owned barn was considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. It was in the path of a needed road improvement. Let me clarify that the barn was eligible because it was more than 50 years old. Soon, we won't be able to do any improvements because sidewalks will be 50 years old in this country. After considerable delay, needless studies, and significantly increased costs, a decision was made to avoid the barn. The road improvement was rerouted and the barn protected. This is the barn in this photo that we were protecting because it was over 50 years old. Look at that.

The cost to reroute this was $100,000 and 4 months of delay. Anybody who knows about highway projects knows that for every day of delay, it costs money. Time is money. However, the barn fell down due to owner neglect a few years later.

The point is that, while transportation planners have to do all they can to protect something that is ``eligible'' for the register, the private owner of the place, or even another Federal agency, can destroy it without sanction. That just doesn't make any sense.

Section 4(f) was enacted in 1966, 37 years ago. It only applies to the U.S. Department of Transportation, not any other Federal agencies. It is an extremely stringent law that has been interpreted by the courts, as they say, in vastly different ways.

While it was created with good intentions and at a time when the law was arguably needed, U.S. DOT and State departments of transportation have become good stewards of the environment.

One of the things that happens in Washington is we give no credit at all to State organizations or local organizations, in terms of their concern about the environment. So often, we think we are the only ones who really care about the environment.

Section 4(f) requirements have been identified by State departments of transportation as a significant deterrent to timely environmental reviews of transportation projects. The requirements to avoid section 4(f) resources applies in all cases, even when the impact is minor, resulting in situations in which a minor historic property is protected at the expense of other more sensitive environmental resources or communities.

In April of 2003, the General Accounting Office reported the transportation stakeholders consider section 4(f) reviews as burdensome and inflexible and that alternative approaches could protect historic properties and take less time to reach resolution.

In that report, a large majority of the stakeholders indicated that historic property protections under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 offered a more flexible mediation process. This law requires that Federal agencies consider the effect of properties either in or eligible to be in the National Register of Historic Places. It brings all parties into the discussion and allows for better outcomes that preserve the goals of the transportation project, while protecting historic properties. This concept is included in this compromise amendment.

We are using something with which people are familiar. It worked in other places and it can work in terms of highway construction.

Currently, section 4(f) does not provide exceptions for impacts with no adverse affect or even a beneficial effect. For example, in Ohio, a new highway project adjacent to a publicly owned golf course was being constructed, and the golf course asked if work could be performed to alleviate persistent flooding. However, the work would have required a section 4(f) study. As a result, the work wasn't performed and the golf course still floods to this day just because of this 4(f).

In more extreme cases, projects with very minor impacts on protected sites have had to be realigned at high social, environmental, and economic costs. The peculiarities of the law led to well-documented, unintended consequences.

The confusion over existing law and problems with delays has led to several attempts at remedies. AASHTO, the organization that represents all 50 State transportation departments, voted unanimously to reform section 4(f).

Section 4(f) is also one of the highest priorities of our own U.S. Department of Transportation, which proposed changes to section 4(f) in its surface transportation reauthorization proposal, SAFETEA, which is what we worked off when this bill was being put together.

This amendment remedies many of the problems with section 4(f). While many groups would have preferred greater reform, the final text is a compromise that satisfies major stakeholders in this debate. Again, this was a compromise between a lot of groups, including transportation, environmental, and historic preservation groups.

Specifically, the amendment states that section 4(f) requirements are satisfied if the Secretary makes a finding of de minimis impact to a protected site. For historic sites, such a finding occurs if the project has no adverse effect on a historic site and there is written concurrence from the State or tribal historic preservation officer.

So we go through this process, and it is looked at as de minimis and has to be signed off by the people who care.

For parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges, such a finding only occurs if the project will not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes of the resource, and there is written concurrence from the officials with jurisdiction over the resource. The amendment also requires public notice--the public knows all about this; there is nothing under the table--and public comment on the process. So we vet this decision so everybody knows what is going on.

What is good about this amendment is it allows for better community outcomes. This amendment would require the Secretary, when making a finding of de minimis impact, to consider all ``avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and enhancement measures'' that have been incorporated into the project. The language serves an important function: It builds in an incentive for projects' sponsors to incorporate environmentally protective measures into a project from the beginning, in order to support a finding of de minimis impact. Otherwise, the resource would be avoided and the project would move forward without providing any of the associated benefits to the community.

In addition, the amendment requires the Secretary to promulgate new regulations to determine standards to define whether avoiding a protected resource is prudent and feasible.

The purpose of this amendment is to achieve greater clarity and consistency with regard to the application of the Overton Park standard in a variety of circumstances. Let me provide some examples of problems with the section 4(f). I have already done one. Let's look at others.

In Pennsylvania, the State department of transportation had to make a highway improvement. This project required that one of two farms near each other be sacrificed. One of them was an inactive farm eligible for the registry that was barely maintained and its owner lived out of State. The second was a working farm owned by a man and his two sons who were actively working the land.

The owner of the second farm intended to pass the land down to the family to continue the farming operation. Section 4(f) forced the State department of transportation to demolish the nonhistoric farm, even though it was actively being farmed and planned to be part of the family's livelihood for years to come. In the end, the historic farm was bought and developed.

This is ridiculous. Section 4(f) led to the destruction of both farms. It forced the officials to go against a hard-working family for a rundown farm that happened to be 50 years old. And then this law couldn't even protect it from being developed.

This amendment would at least have allowed the State preservation officer to make a balanced decision considering all of the information and alternatives.

Another good example comes from our neighboring State of Kentucky. A farmhouse and a farm was deemed historic. As a result of the project development process, the best alignment for a four-lane highway was found to be through the property and would separate the historic house from the rest of the farmstead. However, through coordination with historic preservation groups, the highway was realigned so that it would cross in front of the house, impacting only a small strip of land at the front edge of the property.

Everyone involved thought it was great. Then came section 4(f). Section 4(f) required total avoidance of this historic farmhouse. The result was less desirable, more costly, and required the acquisition and removal of a home that was not historic.

In the end, the family whose home was to be relocated bought the historic house from the contractor, tore down the old house, and relocated their modern house where the historic house had stood.

Let's think about this. This is a picture of the historic house. What happened was, they wanted to take a little piece of this property, but oh, no, under section 4(f), you can't do that. Oh, no. So they went across the street to a house more modern and said: We are going to take your property. These people had to relocate their house. They relocated their house. Do you know where they relocated it? They tore the old house down and relocated the modern house to where the old house was located.

That is the kind of result we get from section 4(f). It is understandable that this needs to be changed.

This is a compromise amendment that has broad support and will correct a problem that has plagued State and local officials for nearly 40 years. It is time for this inflexible and outdated law to be fixed.

I congratulate all involved on this work. Again, historic preservation groups came together and said: This is crazy; let's see if we can work something out. And they did it.

I think it is unfortunate this amendment will not be considered today. As I said, it has broad support.

I wish to say one other thing about the highway bill. There is no question that there is an overwhelming need for this legislation. In fact, if you look at the needs that have been projected by the Department of Transportation, the amount of money we are spending doesn't meet the need, but it is a reasonable compromise to start to address forthrightly some of the problems I have in Ohio, you may have in Texas, Mr. President, or the chief sponsor may have in Oklahoma, and around this country.

It also provides needed jobs for people in our respective States. To my knowledge, this is going to be the only jobs bill to come out of this Congress at this time. Those jobs are needed.

I was talking with some of my colleagues the other day and they said: It is not needed and there are no projects out there ready to go. I would like to say that in my State we have $164 million of work that, if the money were

there, could start tomorrow. It could start tomorrow.

The economy in my State is not doing too well. We are getting killed because of manufacturing. We need this bill. There was a great conservative President of the United States named Ronald Reagan. He is on the altar and worshipped by conservatives all across America. He was a real conservative, a real fiscal conservative. In 1983, unemployment was up. I remember because I was mayor of the city of Cleveland. People needed work. Ronald Reagan, in his wisdom, saw a need out in the country. He went to Congress and asked for the emergency jobs bill. That bill extended unemployment benefits. That bill provided moneys to cities and counties.

When I was mayor, we were really hurting. It provided us $12 million for public works so I could put people to work. It provided $6 million to Cuyahoga County. That was Ronald Reagan, a fiscal conservative, a man of compassion. He reached out, saw these people on the unemployment line, saw that jobs were needed. He also understood that we had some real infrastructure needs in this country, and on April 1 of 1983, Ronald Reagan said: I don't want to borrow the money; I don't want to borrow the money to provide more money for highways, and suggested and got the Congress to agree to increase the gas tax by 5 cents.

It seems to me that some of my colleagues--and I consider myself a conservative--ought to look at the reality of all of this. I suggest to our administration, our President, who is compassionate, and his advisers, that they ought to also look at the needs we have.

I went along with a grant to Iraq because I wanted to rebuild their infrastructure, and we are borrowing that money. We are borrowing a lot of money for a lot of purposes. I think Senator Grassley and the Finance Committee have tried to come up with some reasonable ways of paying for this bill and some offsets. Some people may nitpick it, but the fact is, they did genuinely try to do something about it.

Everyone who is concerned about it ought to look at this realistically. This is a very modest, responsible proposal that deals with great infrastructure needs in this country.

I come from a just-in-time State, and our roads and bridges are in bad shape. I come from a State where we have thousands of people who lose their lives because our roads are not what we want them to be-- route 24, particularly. So we have these needs. This is not porkbarrel. We have real needs.

On top of that, the frosting on the cake is we need the jobs. I am hoping that the Holy Spirit will enlighten our President and his advisers and Members on my side of the aisle and on the other side of the aisle to do something good for America and get on with this bill, get it passed, and get the money on the street so we can put some people to work and get on with our infrastructure needs.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to support S. 1072, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003.

First, I congratulate Senators Inhofe, Bond, Jeffords, and Reid, and their staffs on the impressive work they have done to put together a bipartisan bill. The fact this is a bipartisan product means we can actually get something done. It is a process of which I am glad to be a part as a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee.

Lately, all I have heard in the media and even from some of my colleagues is this is going to be a very difficult year to get anything done. I hope this bill and bipartisan spirit is an indication of the progress we can make this year for the American people. To borrow from one of my mottos as Governor: Together we can do it. And the other motto is the Ohio motto: With God, all things are possible.

This is one of the most important pieces of legislation Congress will consider this year. Although recent economic reports indicate positive job growth in the Nation as a whole, manufacturing jobs, including in Ohio, continue to experience slow growth and prolonged unemployment.

In recent months, I have met with workers, small business owners and manufacturers throughout Ohio. They all have the same thing to say: Good, high-paying manufacturing jobs are leaving Ohio. Many of these displaced workers would be productively employed on construction projects.

We have an opportunity with the highway bill not only to improve and repair our crumbling highways and bridges but to create and to let folks know that we know they are hurting. I will never forget when I was mayor of the city of Cleveland back in 1983. President Reagan and Congress realized the pain the people in this country were experiencing and Congress passed the emergency jobs bill, including an increase in the gas tax which stimulated tremendous highway construction jobs during 1983 and into 1984.

According to the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, ARTBA, employment in the transportation construction industry was down in July of 2003, during the peak of the construction season, compared to July 2002. Specifically, there were 12,100 fewer workers on project sites over the last year, a decrease of 3.7 percent.

In Ohio, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, heavy construction jobs were up slightly from last year. However, there were still on average 3,500 fewer jobs in 2003 than in 2000 when they were at their peak. Investing in our Nation's transportation infrastructure through a 6-year reauthorization bill will create hundreds of thousands of jobs and move our sluggish economy down the road to recovery.

The transportation construction industry generates more than $200 billion in economic activity and helps sustain 2.5 million jobs in the United States each year. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, every $1 billion invested in highway construction creates 47,500 jobs and generates more than $2 billion in economic activity. It is also estimated that every dollar invested in the Nation's highway system generates $5.70 in economic benefits, including reduced delays, improved safety and reduced vehicle operating costs. This is a 6-to-1 return on investment. This has to be one of the best investments that the Federal Government can make.

We also need to ensure that we are investing adequate resources into our transportation infrastructure. According to the Federal Highway Administration's 2002 Conditions and Performance Report, the average annual investment level needed to make improvements to highways and bridges is projected to be $106.9 billion through 2020. This amount is 65 percent higher than the $64 billion of total capital investments spent by all levels of government in 2000. There is just no question that the need is there.

The average annual investment level necessary to maintain the current condition and performance of highways and bridges is projected to be $75.9 billion to 2020. This amount is 17.5 percent higher than capital spending in 2000. Nationwide, 162,000 bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, and 160,000 miles of highway pavement are in poor or mediocre condition. Americans pay approximately $49 billion a year in extra vehicle repairs and operating costs due to road conditions. That is $255 a driver in this country. In addition, the average urban rush hour driver spends almost 62 additional hours a year stuck in traffic. Congestion is responsible for 5.7 billion gallons of wasted gasoline each year. Wasted fuel and low productivity due to traffic congestion costs the U.S. economy nearly $70 billion annually. In other words, this legislation will help reduce our reliance on oil, improve our environment, and relieve the stress and road rage that we see so often throughout our country.

Nearly 43,000 people were killed on America's roads in 2002. Poor road conditions were a factor in one-third of those fatalities. The Federal Government predicts highway fatalities will grow to nearly 52,000 by 2009, absent any new Federal investment in highway safety. Studies report that every $1 billion invested in road improvements since 1950 has helped prevent 1,400 premature deaths and nearly 50,000 injuries, as well as help save over $2 billion in health care, insurance, lost wages, and productivity costs.

If we continue to ignore the upkeep and allow the deterioration of our infrastructure, we risk disruptions in commerce and reduced protection for public safety, health, and the environment. In my view, it is the responsibility of Congress to ensure that funding levels are adequate and efficiently allocated to the Nation's priority needs.

In 1998, Congress recognized the importance of the Nation's transportation system through the enactment of TEA-21, a 6-year bill that increased Federal investment in highways and transit by nearly 40 percent to $218 billion. Under TEA-21, my State received a 23 percent increase in transportation funding. Ohio's share of highway funding also increased under TEA-21 to 90.5 percent of its share of contributions to the trust fund. When I took office as Governor in 1991, Ohio's share was less than 80 percent. ISTEA took us to 85 and TEA-21 to 90.5.

As chairman of the National Governors Association, I was involved in negotiating TEA-21 and lobbied Congress and worked with Bud Shuster to ensure that all highway trust fund revenues were spent on transportation.

TEA-21 dedicated nearly all highway gas taxes to transportation funding and guarantees that States will receive at least 90.5 percent of their share of contributions to the fund.

I also fought to even out highway funding fluctuations and assure a predictable flow of funding to eliminate the peaks and valleys that we experienced on the State and local level under ISTEA. TEA-21 achieved this role with record guaranteed levels of funding, and I am glad to be in the Senate at this time to work on reauthorizing this important legislation.

The administration's 6-year surface transportation reauthorization proposal, the Safe, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act, would provide $247 billion, including $201 billion for highway and safety programs and $46 billion to transit programs. On November 12, 2003, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved $255 billion in contract authority for highways over the next 6 years, or an average of $42.5 billion annually.

Again, one of my top priorities for reauthorization is to increase the minimum rate of return for donor States from 90.5 percent to at least 95 percent. In May 2003, Senator Carl Levin and I, along with House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Congressman Baron Hill, introduced legislation, the Highway Funding Equity Act of 2003, to increase donor States' minimum rate of return to 95 percent.

Currently, there are 144 sponsors of this bill in the House and 22 cosponsors in the Senate. It has been a pleasure to lead this effort on behalf of the SHARE, States' Highway Alliance for Real Equity, coalition in the Senate. SHARE believes all States have highway infrastructure needs that surpass available resources. For this reason, each donor State seeks to get back as much of the taxes paid by its motorists as possible. SHARE's objectives are to increase the size of the guarantee to 95 percent and to apply the scope of the guarantee to all dollars being distributed to the States.

I commend Chairman Inhofe, Senator Bond, Senator Jeffords, and others not only for their hard work in writing this bill but also for increasing the guaranteed share of all donor States to 95 percent by 2009, while balancing limited resources and the needs of the States. It is a very difficult job, but if one really looks at what has been done, it was a Solomon-like job and they should be congratulated for it. I hope other Members of the Senate are respectful of the fact that it was an intellectually honest effort on our part to try to remedy a problem that we have had for too long around this country.

Specifically, my State is going to receive $2.2 billion, which is a 38 percent increase over the 6-year period, compared to the last 6 years under TEA-21. We lost billions of dollars compared to other States, because we are a donor State--over the last number of years. The total amount of funding Ohio will receive over the next 6 years is more than $8 billion. Much of this additional funding is due to Ohio's increased share of the highway trust fund dollars.

Another of my priorities for increasing highway funding and improving equity is to no longer penalize States that consume ethanol-blended fuel to help reduce our national dependence on imported oil. Last year, I cosponsored language written by Senator Grassley and reported out of the Finance Committee that would transfer 2.5 cents of the Federal tax on ethanol-blended fuel from the general fund of the Treasury to the highway account of the highway trust fund and replace the 5.2-cents- per-gallon reduced tax rate for ethanol-blended fuel with a tax credit. This was also in the Senate-passed energy bill.

As a result, the same Federal tax will be collected and deposited into the highway trust fund, regardless of whether a gallon of fuel contains ethanol. The Ohio Department of Transportation estimates that enactment of this legislation will restore up to $170 million annually to the State of Ohio.

I congratulate the Finance Committee for coming up with the revenue offsets to reach the outlays of $231 billion to pay for highways over the next 6 years. I urge the Senate to support the committee's recommendations.

This morning I congratulated Senator Grassley, the chairman of the Finance Committee, for getting in there and finding the dollars and the offsets so we can talk to our colleagues about supporting this legislation as something fiscally responsible.

When gasohol contributions are included, Ohio's highway funding over the next 6 years will increase more than $3.1 billion, 54.2 percent over TEA-21 for a total of $8.9 billion. The surface transportation reauthorization bill is extremely important to Ohio, which has one of the largest surface transportation networks in the country. Ohio has the 10th largest highway network, the 5th largest volume of traffic, the 4th largest interstate highway network, and the 2nd largest inventory of bridges in the country.

There are also 62 public transit systems serving 59 of Ohio's 88 counties. In 2002, these systems made approximately 138.6 million trips. Ohio has the Nation's 4th largest rural transportation program, the 5th largest bus fleet, the 9th most transit vehicle miles traveled, and the 10th overall highest ridership in the country.

This bill, if enacted, will meet the essential needs of the entire surface transportation system of my State. It will also create thousands of jobs and provide a significant boost to Ohio's economy. I am very proud that Ohio approved a motor fuel tax increase in 2003 that will ensure an annual $250 million new construction program for the next 10 years, while maintaining bridge and highway conditions. With additional Federal funds, the Ohio Department of Transportation has set a goal of having a $5 billion, 10-year Ohio construction program entitled Jobs and Progress Plan, dedicated to addressing Ohio's most pressing congestion, safety, and rural access needs.

The plan is predicated on Congress enacting legislation to correct the ethanol penalty which reduces Ohio's transportation revenue and increases donor States' minimum rate of return to 95 percent, and provides an increased level of investment in the Nation's highways and bridges. This highway bill achieves all of those goals. It is a bill that is very important to my State and its economy.

As a result, a half billion dollar a year new construction program in our State would employ approximately 4,000 construction workers directly and create another almost 10,000 indirect highway jobs.

Ohio's Jobs and Progress Plan would help finance several major projects throughout the State, including a $350 million project to rebuild I-75 in Dayton, a $400 million project to begin rebuilding the Central Viaduct, or as we call it in Cleveland, the Dead Man's Curve, and a $600 million project to improve I-70 and I-71 in Columbus. The plan also calls for $60 million annual investment to address high-crash locations, as well as funding to address freight corridors such as U.S. 24 and U.S. 30 in northwest Ohio. Too many people have died on these highways.

This is a jobs bill. In addition, the Ohio Department of Transportation has $164.3 million worth of projects that are ready to go. These are projects ready to go if the money were there. The 128 projects on the shelf include major reconstruction, resurfacing, bridge replacement and repair, traffic signals, signs, culvert construction, guardrail rebuilding, pavement marking, and preventive maintenance. If this funding were made available, approximately 1,300 direct and some almost 3,500 indirect jobs would be created in the State.

Finally, I have several comments about the environmental, planning, and project delivery provisions of the bill. As chairman of the Clean Air Subcommittee and the past chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee, I understand full well the importance and significance of the overlap between highway planning and air quality.

When I began my term as Governor, 28 Ohio counties were in nonattainment for ozone. I spent considerable effort to get them into attainment. In addition to working with utilities to reduce their emissions, I implemented an automobile emissions testing program called E-check to help bring Ohio's counties into compliance. At that time, Ohio was one of only a few States to have an enhanced auto emissions test in its urban areas.

That all came about because we were trying to comply with the Clean Air Act. This program was a success. According to the 1997 EPA report, volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides, which are a major component in

the formation of ozone and are emitted by cars and trucks, have been dramatically reduced from 1970 to 1996. Emissions of VOCs were reduced by 49 percent, NOX by 26 percent. Additionally, air toxins in Ohio were reduced from approximately 381 million pounds in 1987 to 144 million pounds in 1996.

Due to these reductions, all 88 counties have met the national air quality standards. But this has not been an easy battle. The E-Check program has been criticized because it required vehicle owners in smoggy areas to pay for annual emissions testing and to make the necessary repairs. Due to its unpopularity, Ohio's General Assembly passed a bill revoking the program. However, I stood up for the program and vetoed the bill because I believed it was an important and necessary step to cleaning up Ohio's air. That veto, by the way, was not overridden.

I believe hard choices such as these are important. The conformity program has helped encourage cleaner air, and transportation planning has benefited from coordination with the air quality planners. As requested by Federal, State, and local officials, this bill makes important improvements in the conformity process by synchronizing planning and conformity timelines and requirements. So I congratulate the chief sponsors again.

I am also pleased that this bill modifies the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, called CMAQ, to include the nonattainment areas for the fine particulate matter standard--PM2.5-- and the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA will make designations for both these standards this year, and these areas will need all the help they can get to attain the new standards.

While these are two areas in which I believe we have made progress, I am a little disappointed with the metropolitan and statewide planning and transportation project delivery process in this bill. I don't think these provisions will do much to expedite the project delivery process and, quite frankly, actually create a more burdensome process than under current law.

As a former Governor, I was frustrated at how long it took to do a highway project from beginning to end. As Senator, I have wanted to do something meaningful on this issue, since I was chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure and, in fact, we held a number of oversight hearings on the implementation of the streamlining provisions included in TEA-21. One of my top priorities for this reauthorization is to enact efficient transportation project delivery that will actually expedite the project delivery process.

Regulations implementing these provisions were disappointing and later scrapped. I regret that we have wasted an opportunity to realize the benefits of the expedited process that was envisioned 6 years ago, the 1309 process. In other words, we talked 6 years ago, in the TEA-21, that we were going to streamline the process and put a provision in the law that said we should do it. After 6 years, fundamentally nothing has happened--after 6 years.

The transportation project delivery process provisions in this bill that we are going to consider, as I say, are disappointing because I think they are going to do little to expedite the project delivery process, given that the bill requires State and local planning agencies to meet process burdens that are even more burdensome than in the current law.

Do you hear me? They are more burdensome than in the current law, which we were trying to change and improve during the last 6 years.

I hope we can fix these provisions on the floor with the support of AASHTO, ARTBA, AGC, and the American Highway Users, and many State and local government organizations.

Furthermore, one more thing I am concerned about is one of the most significant elements of environmental streamlining missing from this bill, and that is to reform the process known as section 4(f). This process causes more delay in my State than any other planning or environment review requirement. I will bring that situation to the attention of my colleagues during debate on this bill.

This is a good bill. I urge my colleagues to support S. 1072. The current surface transportation authorization expires at the end of this month. People are waiting. They want it passed. They want to see the jobs. The time to act is now.

Nationwide, this bill would create 2.8 million new jobs, including 106,000 new jobs in Ohio. This is important jobs-creation legislation that will put hard-working Americans back to work and jump-start our sluggish economy, especially States like Ohio, where our economy is still struggling.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an issue that I have been known to have some thoughts on from time to time and that is our Nation's fiscal situation and this body's approach to its budget responsibilities.

First, I would like to congratulate my colleagues for passing the Omnibus Appropriations bill. In this bill, we funded all of the President's priority items requested in the fiscal year 2004 budget and still restricted discretionary spending to $876 billion.

I recognize that many people were dissatisfied with this legislation. Some people believe Congress spends too little and last year my colleagues on the other side of the aisle offered amendments that would have added over $87 billion to total spending in fiscal year 2004. Other people believe Congress spends too much and asked President Bush to veto the Omnibus Appropriations bill because it contains too much ``pork''. It seems that neither extreme was pleased by the fiscal result, which may be the best indication we did the right thing. I will not claim the fiscal year omnibus is perfect. Nevertheless, this bill represents the best possible compromise between true fiscal discipline and Congress' desire to spend.

Unfortunately, this is our eighth consecutive year of compromising fiscal discipline and the American people are beginning to wonder when we will ever get our act together. The last time discretionary outlays authorized by Congress were lower than spending requested by the President was in 1996. According to the Cato Institute, real discretionary spending increases in fiscal years 2002, 2003 and 2004 are three of the 10 largest annual increases in the last 40 years. Also, the Congressional Budget Office reports that if current appropriations maintain the same rate of growth we have given them since 1999, we will increase discretionary spending by $2.7 trillion over 10 years and every penny of added spending will be reflected in the Federal deficit and debt.

Some people may take comfort in CBO's baseline projections that show the budget reaching surplus in 2013. Let me tell my colleagues these projections should not lull us into a false sense of complacency.

First, CBO itself explains the baseline projections must estimate the future paths of Federal revenues and spending under current laws and policies. The baseline is therefore not intended to be a prediction of future budgetary outcomes. Simply put, the CBO baseline projection assumes Congress will restrict the growth of spending to the rate of inflation, less than 3 percent a year and less than half its current rate of 7 percent. CBO also estimates that Congress will allow Federal revenues as a percentage of GDP to increase from 15.9 percent to 20.1 percent, almost a one-third increase.

Does anyone seriously believe Congress will restrict spending or increase taxes by the amounts required to meet the CBO projections? I wish I could say that I believed these projections but I outgrew fairy tales a long time ago.

Second, if we are honest with ourselves, many people just do not think deficits are important anymore. the commonly heard refrain from some of my colleagues is that Ronald Reagan proved deficits don't matter. Meanwhile, some people only seem to care about deficits when they get in the way of increased spending.

In 1995, the first year Republicans controlled Congress, spending grew by $25 billion. In 2004, with Republicans still in control of Congress, spending will increase by $224 billion. Essentially, the amount we increase spending each year has grown tenfold in just 9 years.

Well, I am here to tell you deficits are important. After 10 years as Mayor of Cleveland and 8 years as Governor of Ohio, I can tell you exactly why deficits are important. When a local or State government allows its finances to become dangerously unbalanced, creditors demand higher and higher premiums on municipal bonds until interest rates become unsustainable. Contractors withhold goods and services or demand strict payment terms as a condition of doing business. Taxes are often raised, which has a serious impact on businesses and families. Finally, government leaders are forced to make draconian cuts in public services.

Families and businesses often seek better opportunities elsewhere, because their local government leaders cannot solve the problems or provide government services such as school maintenance, fire and police protection and hospital services.

This downward spiral is not limited to state or local governments. Entire nations in South America, Eastern Europe, Southeastern Asia and elsewhere around the globe have followed this well worn path to fiscal demise. As much as we may like to think our Nation enjoys special protection from the laws of economics, the fact is that sooner or later our own fiscal irresponsibility and indebtedness will catch up to us. No government is immune to the consequences of deficit spending. Every government, State, local or national, that steadily increases spending with no means to pay the bill sooner or later pays a terrible penalty.

I know full well the penalty governments pay for fiscal foolishness. I took over as Mayor of Cleveland just after the city had gone into default and it took us 7 years to dig out of that hole. The, when I became Governor of Ohio, I inherited a $1.5 billion debt and had to immediately make over 700 emergency spending cuts by executive order and cut spending four more times during my administration.

I am here to tell my colleagues that for the United States, that time is close at hand. Our Federal budget is in dire condition. We face a sea of red ink as far as the eye can see. And perhaps the worst thing about it is that few people in this body appear to recognize how bad our predicament is.

Since I came to the Senate in 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. Just 3 years ago, we enjoyed a Federal surplus and we now will suffer from major deficits for at least the next 5 years.

From the time I first arrived in Washington, I have worked hard to return the Federal Government to a balanced budget. For a short time, after hand-to-hand combat, we met our goal and for 2 years, fiscal years 1999-2000, we balanced the budget without raiding the Social Security surplus. Unfortunately, our success in balancing the budget was short-lived. In the blink of an eye we returned to spending the Social Security surplus and running large budget deficits. Today, instead of reducing our $6 trillion national debt, we are expanding it.

In 2003, this past fiscal year, we suffered a budget deficit of $375 billion. This means that we spent the entire $161 billion Social Security surplus, and on top of that we had to issue $375 billion in new debt. And, if we are honest about the numbers, next year, and the next decade, look even worse.

Thankfully, in the omnibus bill, we avoided adopting many of the irresponsible spending amendments offered by some members of this body. So many of my friends on the other side of the aisle keep talking about how bad the deficits are, while at the same time, they keep supporting proposals to spend more money which would require borrowing even more next year. Since I joined the Senate in January 1999, there have been 190 attempts to waive the Budget Act, 67 last year alone. It defies logic for any group of Senators to complain about the deficit when they are making 67 attempts to waive the budget act and increase spending. I shutter to think what our deficit would look like if all 67 attempts had been successful. I find it troubling that many of my friends on the other side of the aisle cry crocodile tears about the size of the deficit while making 67 attempts to waive the budget act.

The proposals we did not pass total $87 billion for fiscal year 2004 alone and would have cost over $494 billion over the next 10 years, all of which would have added to the deficit. In other words, if these amendments had been approved, next year's deficit would be $564 billion instead of $477 billion. Even at today's very low interest rates of less than 5 percent, these amendments would have added $1.7 billion in additional annual interest payments every year. Apparently some people see very little difference between paying $200 billion a year in interest and $202 billion; but where does it end? How much of our children's future and even our own secure retirement can we mortgage away?

Nevertheless, there is an optimistic message in these numbers. There may have been 67 efforts to waive the Budget Act in 2003 but only three were successful. For all its well publicized problems, the budget process is working. The super majority points of order, established to exert at least a small level of fiscal discipline, effectively prevented 64 of 67 efforts to increase spending.

I believe it is time to make the Budget Act even more effective. Therefore I will be working to include new points of order in the upcoming fiscal year 2005 budget resolution. These points of order will help end one of the most dishonest budget practices in Washington: the use of Social Security Trust Fund revenues to finance general government expenses.

One of the biggest problems here in Washington when it comes to the budget is getting the facts straight. For example, it is commonly thought--and reported in the media--that we only suffered a $375 billion budget deficit last year. However, this figure ignores the fact that we borrowed and spent $161 billion from Social Security surplus on top of the $375 billion we had to borrow from the private markets.

We spend the Social Security surplus and leave the so-called Social Security trust fund full of government IOUs. Then, we pretend the money just dropped from the sky, and ignore the fact that we borrowed more money--not from the private markets, but from future Social Security beneficiaries. Like most Americans, I think it is wrong to use this money to fund the day-to-day operations of the government. This is no way to manage the finances of our Nation. We must adopt budget process mechanisms that encourage fiscal responsibility, highlight the future consequences of our current decisions and limit the potential for bookkeeping chicanery that would make an Enron accountant blush.

But I am not under any illusions that simply tinkering with the budget rules will restore fiscal discipline. Congress has made an art form out of skirting the budget rules it sets for itself, and I have no doubt that we could come up with a number of creative ways to avoid these rules as well.

Instead, we need to give the American people the full picture about the budget outlook so that the political pressure will be created for Congress to play by the rules and restore fiscal discipline. Last year I worked closely with Chairman Nickles and we were able to restore several important budget enforcement mechanisms such as: extension of supermajority enforcement of budget points of order; extension of discretionary spending limits in the Senate; extension of restriction on advance appropriations in the Senate; tighter restrictions on emergency spending legislation; and restoration of pay-as-you-go point of order in the Senate.

Also, as many of you know, last year I offered an amendment to the budget resolution requesting the CBO prepare a report describing the long term unfunded liabilities of the U.S. government. This amendment was approved by unanimous consent and CBO will shortly be providing us with this valuable information. I look forward to sharing this information with my colleagues. This year, I will go further and work to include a provision in the budget resolution directing CBO to include interest costs in its cost estimates for legislation. Many Members are surprised to learn that CBO does not factor in additional interest expense when it reports the cost of proposed legislation. It is as if we went to buy a house or car and completely ignored the financing costs and amortization schedule.

Today, our national debt stands at $6.8 trillion. If our new CBO figures come to fruition, we will add a cumulative deficit of $6.1 trillion from fiscal years 2004-2014, which would bring our debt up to a whopping $12.9 trillion. At this level, the interest payments on the national debt would exceed $600 billion, which is nearly twice as much as we currently spend on non-defense discretionary spending.

And who is going to end up paying for this debt? It won't be members of this body--no, instead it will land squarely in the lap of our children and grandchildren. I don't know any parents or grandparents who would think it was a good idea to run up huge personal debts

that their children or grandchildren would have to pay at the time of their death, but that is exactly what we are doing with out Federal budget.

It is immoral to bequeath nearly $13 trillion of debt to our children and grandchildren. And most of the American people agree with me. I know this, because when people come into my office asking for money for a particular project, I always ask them the same question. That question is: is this particular priority worth putting your children and grandchildren further into debt? And it's remarkable, their attitudes immediately change, and many of them reconsider.

So the problem isn't that the American people aren't willing to sacrifice and make hard choices. The problem is that Congress hasn't had the guts to tell the truth about what we can and can't afford. We in Congress don't want to say no to anything. We want to have it all.

Over the past 10 years, Congress has increased spending at rates that would stagger the average family. Between 1995 and 2004 the growth in median income for wage earners in our Nation was 6 percent. There is not a single department in the entire Federal government that has been asked to restrict its growth in spending to less than 10 percent. The most frugal department, the Treasury, increased its spending by 10 percent or more than 1.5 times the level enjoyed by median income earners. The Department of Labor, guardian of the interests of the average workers, grew its spending by more than 99 percent or 16 times the increase earned by the workers it represents.

Those are the facts. Congress needs to wake up and smell the coffee. Unless we change course, start prioritizing, making hard choices, and stop spending like drunken sailors, we are going to saddle our children and grandchildren with a debt so large it boggles the mind.

I have no illusions about the enormity of the task at hand to restore fiscal discipline. It's a big job, but it is nothing short of a moral imperative. In order to avoid a total breakdown of the budget and appropriations process, President Bush will need to work very closely with Congress. Given the competing priorities in this body, it could be very difficult to increase Defense and Homeland Security by 9 percent while limiting the growth in domestic spending to only 1 percent. I am prayerful the Budget Committee will recognize the reality of these numbers and allocate sufficient funding to domestic budget function areas to gain the support of an overwhelming majority of Senators. To fail to do so would invite considerably more than 67 attempts to waive the budget act and if the budget is enacted with an arrow margin, I am not sure we will have the votes to defeat all of them.

And on top of all the pressure we face to increase spending, many of my colleagues would like to permanently extend the temporary tax reforms enacted last year, which would mean even less revenue than CBO has assumed in its most recent budget projections. So if we make these tax reforms permanent, we will need to either cut most of the spending in the discretionary portion of the budget or dig ourselves into an even deeper deficit hole.

Nor has anyone in the administration or in Congress seriously address the need to control mandatory spending. More than 55 percent of Federal spending consists of so called ``off budget'' mandatory entitlements. These mandatory programs may be off budget when we vote on appropriations bill but their costs weigh heavily on the budgets of future generations.

We have to recognize that everything we do this year will be measured against the backdrop of ever increasing deficits. It is time to take them seriously and begin to make the difficult choices needed to restore fiscal responsibility.

This will not be politically easy and I understand that. There is no shortage of important things the Federal Government could be doing across the Nation. And, I support many of those spending ideas.

But the simple, undeniable fact is that we can't have it all. We have to make hard choices.

Mr. President, during the past several days, there has been a great deal of discussion regarding comments made by David Kay, who until just recently led our search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

There are some who have said that statements made by Mr. Kay indicate that there was no reason to take military action to address the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. I believe this is, at best, a misunderstanding of his statements. Mr. Kay clearly believes that removing Saddam Hussein from power was the right thing to do.

It is in this context that I would like to take this opportunity to share with my colleagues an interview that Mr. Kay gave yesterday morning, in which he outlines his thoughts on the dangers presented by Saddam Hussein.

When asked whether it was prudent to go to war, Mr. Kay responded:

I think it was absolutely prudent. In fact, I think at the

end of the inspection process we'll paint a picture of Iraq

that was far more dangerous than even we thought it was

before the war. It was of a system collapsing. It was a

country that had the capability in weapons of mass

destruction areas and in which terrorists, like ants to

honey, were going after it.

I believe it is helpful to review his comments in their entirety, and as such, I ask unanimous consent that the following interview be printed in the Record.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise before the Senate in support of the conference report accompanying the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act. While the conference report before the Senate is not a perfect bill, it is a good bill that will finally provide 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 that is before the Senate now, which has the full support of the AARP, will finally provide 40 million Medicare beneficiaries nationwide, 1.6 million in Ohio, access to affordable prescription drugs.

I would like to applaud the work of our Leader, Senator Frist; our Finance Committee Chairman, Senator Grassley; and the Finance Committee Ranking Member, Senator Baucus. Through their leadership, the Senate is poised to finally move past politics and provide seniors with a real prescription drug benefit.

Unfortunately, we have fiddled around with the issue of Medicare reform for far too long in Washington. The truth is, even if the Senate passes the bill before us today, its full implementation will not occur until 2006. For those of my colleagues who have said that we are moving too quickly in adding a prescription drug benefit, the fact of the matter is that the Senate has not moved quickly enough.

As with the rest of the Nation, currently, Ohio's seniors are paying too

much out-of-pocket for their prescription drugs. The cost of these life-saving drugs is increasingly becoming a large burden for seniors, with some even traveling to Canada to find cheaper drugs. Seniors should not have to go to a foreign country to receive the drugs that their doctors prescribe. It is time seniors receive access to affordable prescription drugs in the United States.

This legislation will finally provide Medicare beneficiaries with a voluntary prescription drug benefit. This is especially important to the 400,232 Medicare beneficiaries in Ohio that currently have no public or private prescription drug coverage.

For those beneficiaries that already have coverage through another source, such as through a former employer, and would like to keep that coverage, this legislation supports that choice as well.

As my colleagues know, approximately 12 million of the 40 million Medicare beneficiaries currently have prescription drug coverage through former employer-based retiree health plans.

Many Ohioans that I have spoke to have concerns that the creation of a new Medicare drug benefit may cause many of them to lose their retiree coverage. However, the bipartisan conference report encourages employers to continue to provide coverage to their retirees by providing assistance for retirees' health care costs, including their prescription drugs costs.

In fact, the conference report provides $86 billion in subsidies to assist employers who continue to provide their retirees with health care coverage. This is critical because scores of retirees have lost their health care benefits over the past several years. The bottom line is that this bill will help employers to continue to provide their retirees with health care security.

Not only will seniors have access to affordable prescription drugs with this bill, they will have access to benefits that a modern health plan should have, such as preventive care and disease management-- options that Medicare currently does not provide.

Moreover, these additional benefits are provided by giving seniors a choice and control over their prescription drug plans and health care providers.

While the Senate is on the brink of finally strengthening and modernizing Medicare, I would be remiss if I did not take a step back and point out the roadmap that has lead us to this point.

The President has led the way to providing seniors with access to affordable prescription drugs. If my colleagues recall, at the beginning of the year, the President provided in his budget $400 billion for Medicare reform, which included adding a prescription drug benefit. This substantial amount illustrated his commitment to our nation's seniors. That was the first step.

Following the President was the action taken by Congress to lay out a blueprint for Medicare. During the prescription drug debate in 2002, the Senate operated without a budget resolution--the first time the Senate has not done so since 1974. However, this year Congress operated under a budget resolution.

Through these efforts, and those of the Finance Committee, a bill stands before the Senate that strikes a balance between providing seniors and the disabled access to needed prescription drugs today and doing so in a fiscally sensible way that will allow benefits to extend to future generations.

And while opponents of the bill claim that the benefits provided are not large enough, $400 billion does buy an awful lot.

Beginning in 2004, seniors will receive a prescription drug discount card that will provide immediate savings of 10 to 25 percent on most prescription drug purchases. On top of these discounts, the Federal Government would annually purchase the first $600 in prescription drug costs for those seniors below 135 percent of poverty.

The implementation of the full program, which will include a new Medicare Part D and a Medicare Advantage program, will begin in January 2006. All Medicare beneficiaries will receive substantial subsidies through these new benefits. However, low-income seniors will receive additional assistance on top of these subsidies. In Ohio, this means 624,416 seniors will receive additional assistance.

For the 152,470 neediest seniors in my State of Ohio, those who qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid, under this bill they would pay: nothing in premiums; nothing in deductibles; and a nominal cost-share of no more than $1 for a generic drug and no more than $3 for a name- brand drug.

For the 492,872 seniors in my State of Ohio with incomes below 135 percent of poverty, and assets of no more than $6,000 per individual and $9,000 per couple, under this bill they would pay: nothing in premiums; nothing in deductibles; and A nominal cost-share of $2 for a generic drug and $5 for a name-brand drug.

For those 131,544 seniors in my State of Ohio with incomes between 135 and 150 percent of poverty, and assets of no more than $10,000 per individual and $20,000 per couple, under this bill they would pay: premiums based on a sliding scale but NO MORE than $35 per month; $50 annual deductible; and 15 percent co-payments up to $3,600 after $3,600, seniors would pay a nominal cost-share of $2 for a generic drug and $5 for a name-brand drug.

For seniors over 150 percent of poverty, the standard subsidized benefit would include: $250 annual deductible; $35 average monthly premium; the government would pick up 75 percent of beneficiary out-of- pocket costs for drug expenses up to $2,250; between $2,251 and $3,600, beneficiaries cover all drug expenses out-of-pocket; and the government would pick up 95 percent of beneficiary out-of-pocket costs for drug expenses above $3,600.

In addition to the stand-alone benefit under traditional Medicare, the conference report would establish the Medicare Advantage program. All Medicare Advantage plans will be required to offer at least the standard drug benefit established in H.R. 1 and would be encouraged to offer beneficiaries enhanced access to the latest in health care technology through disease management, chronic care, and quality improvement programs.

These plans have the opportunity to provide seniors with better coverage at affordable prices. To help ensure participation in rural and urban areas equally, Medicare Advantage plans would submit bids to the Centers on Medicare and Medicaid Services on a regional basis. The Federal Government will share the risk with insurance companies and these plans.

It should also be noted that while the thrust of this bill is to provide seniors with access to affordable prescription drugs, the bill also ensures that seniors will continue to have access to current Medicare benefits as well.

For instance, while the relationship between a senior and their physician is paramount, last year, Medicare was scheduled to cut physician payments by 4.4 percent, which threatening seniors' access to their doctors. Physicians had already received a 5.4 percent cut in 2002.

Congress temporarily fixed the formula in 2003 and doctors received a modest increase of 1.6 percent instead of a cut. For 2004, physicians were again scheduled to take a 4.5 percent cut. However, to ensure that seniors have access to their physician of choice, this bill includes modest increase in payments of 1.5 percent for both 2004 and 2005.

Additionally, physicians and their staffs have become increasingly inundated with regulations and paperwork from Medicare. Provisions are included in the bill to streamline some of this paperwork so that doctors can spend more time with their patients rather than filling out reams and reams of Government forms.

Seniors in rural areas will also be assured of continual access to Medicare benefits. One of the most important aspects of the bill is the rural provider provisions. Through the bill, providers in rural areas will be placed on an equal footing to that of their urban counterparts. Some of the specific rural provisions include: equalization of the urban and rural payments for inpatient hospital services under Medicare; revision of the labor-related share of the wage index used in Medicare's payment system. Rural hospitals, because their local wage levels are lower than urban areas, are adversely affected by a high labor-related share; increase in payments to home health agencies by five percent for services furnished in rural areas; and increase in payment for physicians that serve

beneficiaries in counties where there are a scarcity of physicians.

The House of Representatives has already acted and the President is waiting to sign the bill into law. It is time that the Senate act and pass the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act.

Mr. President, I rise to express my support for extending the Temporary Unemployment Compensation Program.

As we approach the holiday season, many unemployed workers are approaching the end of their eligibility for unemployment insurance. Unemployed workers who exhaust their benefits between now and the end of the year will be eligible for 13 weeks of extended benefits but those who exhaust their eligibility after December 31 will be out of luck. The program will have terminated and they will not be eligible for extended benefits.

According to the most recent reports from the Department of Labor, there are 337,000 people unemployed in Ohio, an increase of 39 percent from November 1999. In Michigan, 379,000 are unemployed, up 105 percent from November 1999. Another 177,000 are looking for work in Wisconsin, an increase of 90 percent. To put these numbers in perspective, during the last recession from November 1987 to November 1992, unemployment in Ohio increased by 21 percent, Michigan unemployment increased by 17 percent and in Wisconsin unemployment actually fell by 7 percent.

Even these numbers do not fully describe the challenges facing low and semi-skilled workers in the midwest. Although the Labor Department's household survey indicates more than 337,000 individuals are unemployed in Ohio, our state Department of Jobs and Family Services report that only about 130,000 are collecting unemployment insurance benefits. The remaining 200,000 workers have either exhausted their benefits or never qualified for them in the first place because they have been existing on a series of part time and temporary jobs that do not count toward unemployment compensation. DJFS reports also indicate that 2,000 to 2,500 individuals per week exhaust their state level unemployment benefits and apply for TEUC benefits. The number of individuals receiving TEUC benefits--about 25,000--has remained almost unchanged since July of 2002, indicating that as one cadre of individual leaves the system, another group takes their place.

Although the recent employment numbers from the Department of Labor appear hopeful, they may promise more than they deliver. Over the past 4 years, summer and fall employment gains in Ohio have been followed by winter and spring job losses. This cycle has remained consistent for the past 4 years. Equally important, the data appear to indicate that even if weekly unemployment claims are leveling out, they are doing so at twice the level of comparable times of the year in 1999. Consequently, unless we extend the TEUC program, many individuals will exhaust their state unemployment benefits during the most difficult period of the year to find employment but have no eligibility for TEUC benefits to tide them over until hiring picks up in the summer.

The dead of winter is a particularly difficult time to be out of work in Ohio. Jobs are more difficult to locate and heating bills drive up household expenses. This is not the time to be making life more difficult for the low- and semi-skilled workers who are having the most difficult time readjusting to the realities of the new economy. Although I hope and pray the improving economy will generate new jobs for Ohio workers, we continue to have about 130,000 individuals collecting unemployment insurance each week. Unless we extend the TEUC program, many individuals will exhaust their state unemployment benefits just when they need them the most. We need to address this issue before Congress adjourns to ensure that people receive the help they need.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the conference report accompanying the Energy bill. As I have often stated, we sorely need to develop a long overdue comprehensive energy policy for our Nation. The United States has a responsibility to develop a policy that harmonizes the needs of our economy and our environment.

These are not competing needs. A sustainable environment is critical to a strong economy and a sustainable economy is critical to providing the funding necessary to improve our environment. We need to enact a policy that broadens our base of energy resources to create stability, guarantee reasonable prices, and protect America's security. It has to be a policy that will keep energy affordable. Finally, it has to be a policy that will not cripple the engines of commerce that fund the research that will yield environmental protection technologies for the future.

The legislation we are discussing today is the key element in our effort to construct a viable energy policy. It will provide a tremendous boost to our economy, protect our environment, and create hundreds of thousands of jobs. Let me say this again. Passage of this bill will provide a tremendous boost to our economy, protect our environment, and create hundreds of thousands of jobs.

There are four huge reasons that my constituents in Ohio need this bill: Ethanol, natural gas, electricity and jobs.

The fuel title in this bill will triple the use of renewable fuels over the next decade, up to 5 billion gallons by 2012. It will also reduce our national trade deficit by more than $34 billion, increase the U.S. gross domestic product by $156 billion by 2012, create more than 214,000 new jobs, expand household incomes by an additional $51.7 billion, and save taxpayers $2 billion annually in reduced Government subsidies due to the creation of new markets for corn. In other words, we will not have to use the subsidies to farms to the tune of $2 billion with this 5 billion gallons of ethanol.

The benefits to the farm economy are even more pronounced. Ohio is sixth in the Nation in terms of corn production and is among the highest in the Nation in putting ethanol into gas tanks. Over 40 percent of all gasoline sold in Ohio contains ethanol.

An increase in the use of ethanol across the Nation means an economic boost to thousands of farm families across my State.

Currently, ethanol production provides 192,000 jobs and $4.5 billion to net farm income nationwide. Passage of this bill will increase net farm income by nearly $6 billion. Passage of this bill will create $5.3 billion of new private sector investment in renewable fuel production capacity, and expanding the use of ethanol will also protect our environment by reducing auto emissions which will mean cleaner air and improved public health.

The use of ethanol reduces emissions of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons by 20 percent. The use of ethanol also reduces emissions of particulates by 40 percent. The use of ethanol helped move Chicago into attainment of their Federal ozone standard, the only RFG area to see such an improvement.

In 2002, ethanol use in the United States reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 4.3 million tons. That is the equivalent of removing more than 630,000 vehicles from the roads.

Simply stated, this legislation is critical to our farm economy, especially in agricultural States such as Ohio. We need to get this bill finished.

We are in the midst of a natural gas crisis in the United States. Over the last decade, use of natural gas in electricity generation has risen significantly while domestic supplies of natural gas have fallen. The result is predictable: tightening supplies of natural gas, higher natural gas prices, and higher electricity prices.

Home heating prices are up dramatically, forcing folks on low incomes to choose between heating their homes and paying for other necessities such as food or medicine.

Donald Mason, a commissioner of the Ohio Public Utilities Commission, testified earlier here in Congress:

In real terms, the home heating cost this winter will

increase by at least $220 per household. That might sound not

significant, but during the winter season of 2002 to 2001,

one gas company in Ohio saw residential nonpayments jump from

$10 million a year to $26 million a year.

As a result of these heating cost increases, 50 percent more residential customers were disconnected from gas service last year than in 2001.

I have personally seen my own natural gas costs go from $4 an mcf to over $8 an mcf. Projections indicate that this winter could be devastating on the elderly and low-income families who are already struggling to survive.

At a hearing last year, Thomas Mullen of Catholic Charities and Health and Human Services of Cleveland, OH, described the impact of significant increases of energy prices on those who are less fortunate.

He said:

In Cleveland, over one-fourth of all children live in

poverty and are in a family of a single female head of

household. These children suffer further loss of basic needs

as their moms are forced to make a choice of whether to pay

the rent, or live in a shelter; pay the heating bill, or see

their child freeze; buy food, or risk the availability of a

hunger center. These are not choices that any senior citizen,

child, or for that matter, person in America should make.

Manufacturers that use natural gas as a feedstock are getting hammered due to the doubling and even tripling of their natural gas costs and are either leaving the country or closing their doors.

Lubrizol, a chemical company located in Wickliffe, OH, which was at a manufacturers' listening session that I conducted a couple of weeks ago, is moving part of its workforce to France due to the tripling of natural gas prices in Ohio.

The president of Zaclon, Inc., a chemical manufacturer based in Cleveland, testified earlier this year that increased natural gas costs have resulted in loss of sales revenues and increased total energy costs.

The president of one major international pharmaceutical company stopped by my office--a company that has 22,000 employees in the U.S.-- and basically said: Unless you do something about natural gas prices, we are moving most of these jobs to Europe.

Due to the natural gas crisis, the Dow Chemical Company, which is headquartered in Michigan, will be forced to shut down several plants, and they are going to eliminate 3,000 to 4,000 jobs.

The American Iron Steel Institute reported that an integrated steel mill could pay as much as $73 million for natural gas this year, up from $37 million last year.

An east Texas poultry producer reported that his poultry house heating bill jumped from $3,900 to $12,000 in 1 month, forcing him to decide between paying the bank or the gas company.

High natural gas prices have resulted in the permanent closure of almost 20 percent of the U.S. nitrogen fertilizer production capacity and the idling of an additional 25 percent.

The Potash Corporation, one of the world's largest fertilizer producers, has announced layoffs at its Louisiana and Tennessee plants due to high natural gas prices.

The company spends $2 million per day on natural gas.

I could go on and on and on about the natural gas prices. This bill is going to provide more opportunity to increase the supply of natural gas and help limit the exacerbating needs for natural gas in this country because of the fuel switching that is going on. The end result is a drag on our economy.

Don't take my word for it. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has testified before the Senate Energy Committee, the House Energy Committee, the Commerce Committee, and the Congressional Joint Economic Committee on the supply and price of natural gas. He did it this year. He stated:

I am quite surprised at how little attention the natural

gas problem has been getting because it is a very serious

problem.

This Energy bill includes several provisions to increase domestic production of natural gas and to ensure that we have a healthy, vital fuel mix for electric generation.

It is vitally important for us to finish this debate and pass this bill in order to relieve the pressure on our natural gas supply.

This bill helps provide money for clean coal technology and use a 250-year supply of coal. There are some people in this country who want to shut down coal and force our utilities to use more natural gas. This bill will increase the use of coal using clean coal technology and take the pressure off of energy companies fuel switching to natural gas.

Electricity is another issue for the people of Ohio. There has been a lot of conversation here on the floor over the last couple of days about the electricity title of the bill. Several of my colleagues have talked about the need to prevent blackouts such as the one we experienced in August. Let me say that as a Senator from Ohio where the blackout was triggered, I know about the need to prevent more blackouts. In fact, I held a hearing on this exact topic this morning in the Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee. The electricity title in this bill explicitly provides the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with the authority to establish and enforce with penalties new national reliability standards that will be critical in helping to prevent future blackouts.

For my colleagues who are having a problem with this bill, I remind them that this title is so needed if we are going to prevent future blackouts.

It also provides the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with new authority to site transmission lines, encourages utilities to invest in increased transmission capacity, and encourages utilities to invest in new clean coal technologies that will allow more electricity to be put into the grid without increasing the pollution put into the air.

At the oversight hearing that I held this morning, I asked the panel of electricity experts from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Department of Energy, and the North American Electric Reliability Council what we need in order to prevent future blackouts. Their response was overwhelming: Enact the provisions in the Energy bill, especially the reliability standards.

Finally, I want to talk about jobs created by this legislation. The Energy bill saves jobs. It will create nearly 1 million new jobs. The Energy bill will prevent the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, like the jobs lost in the manufacturing sector in the past 3 years, in part due to high energy costs, which I have discussed, and the devastating impact it has in my State, particularly manufacturing jobs, but jobs in all sectors, including manufacturing, construction, and technology.

Where are these other jobs going to come from? Natural gas and coal, more than 400,000 direct and indirect new jobs will be created through the construction of the Alaska national gas pipeline, while at the same time bringing an affordable energy supply to the lower 48 States. America's substantial investment in clean coal technology creates 62,000 jobs and ensures Americans new electricity that is abundant, reliable, affordable, and cleaner than ever before; 40,000 new construction jobs created by the construction of approximately 27 large clean coal plants; 12,000 full time permit jobs related to plant operation; 10,000 research jobs in the fields of math, engineering, physics, and science, with an estimated annual salary of $125,000. A lot of the research jobs will be created right in my State of Ohio.

The renewable fuel standard in the bill will create more than 214,000 new jobs and expand household income by an additional $51.7 billion over the next decade.

Building a first of its kind nuclear reactor to cogenerate hydrogen will create 3,000 construction jobs and 500 long-term high-paying, high-tech jobs.

A nuclear production tax credit will spur the construction of approximately four light-water nuclear reactors for a total of 6,000 megawatts of clean and affordable energy. This construction will create between 8,000 and 12,000 jobs. Running the plants will create 6,000 high-paying, high-tech jobs. The Price-Anderson renewal in this bill will protect 61,800 jobs and 103 plants nationwide.

Again, renewables, incentives for geothermal energy will bring between 300 and 500 megawatts of clean and renewable geothermal energy on line over the next 3 years that will create between 750 and 1,000 direct jobs and between 7,500 and 10,000 indirect jobs.

The fact is, this is a jobs bill. It will also do something else: It will prevent the loss of jobs. Mississippi Chemical and Yazoo City, MS, filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in May due to financial losses attributed to the combination of depression in the agricultural sector and extreme volatility in the domestic natural gas area. In other words, plants are shutting down because of the high cost of natural gas. This will produce more natural gas in this country and take the heat off the rising cost of electricity in our country.

I have heard a number of my colleagues during the debate savage this bill, claiming it will devastate the environment, that it gives oil companies a free pass for MTBE contamination, and that it contains porkbarrel funding for energy companies. Unfortunately, this rhetoric is just another example of the old adage, you cannot let the facts get in the way of good judgment or a good argument. I will address a few of those most outrageous claims we have heard.

The first complaint raised by many of my friends is that the bill is bad for the environment. What are the facts? Here are the environmental benefits to this bill. By promoting greater efficiency and cleaner energy technology, the Energy bill will improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gasses, protect our natural resources, and provide a cleaner, healthier environment for the American people. The Energy bill will reduce environmental impacts by improving energy efficiency, conserving energy, and improving air quality to renew energy efficiency standards for energy-efficient products such as consumer electronics and commercial appliances.

It will provide tax incentives for energy-efficient appliances, hybrid and fuel cell vehicles, and combine heat and power products. It will authorize $1.2 billion over the next 3 years for weatherization assistance programs to help low-income families to make their homes more energy efficient and permanently reduce their energy bills. And it will increase dramatically the LIHEAP money that we will need during the next couple of years for the poor and the elderly so that they are not literally out in the cold.

It expands the use of renewable energy, requiring the Federal Government to purchase up to 5 percent of its electricity from renewable sources and encouraging the installation of solar panels on public buildings. It increases production of renewable energy resources, such as geothermal on Federal and tribal lands. It provides tax incentives for production of electricity from renewable energy such as wind, solar, biomass, and landfill.

Under this bill, the tax credits include $5.6 billion of tax incentives for thermal and for solar energy. We are going to see, as many of my colleagues have asked for the last couple of years, a lot more windmills and a lot more solar panels built as a result of this legislation.

It reduces the use of oil for transportation. It authorizes over $2.1 billion for the President's Freedom Car and hydrogen fuel initiatives to help reduce the use of oil for transportation needs. This is a big issue in this piece of legislation. I have heard some of my colleagues say it will not do anything to

reduce their reliance on oil. I have already talked about the contribution of reducing reliance on oil in terms of renewable fuels such as ethanol, but what it also does is invests substantial money in fuel cells that need to be moved along in this country.

As a Senator and as cochairman of the auto caucus, I have been in automobiles powered by hydrogen and that use fuel cells. This bill will start us on the way to a situation where my children, and for sure my grandchildren, will not be using oil to power their motor vehicles. We have to get on with it and get serious.

It creates new markets for renewable fuels for transportation such as ethanol and biodiesel to reduce the dependence on foreign oil. Expanding use of cleaner energy technologies is another issue in this bill, and modernizing our electricity grid with policies that promote the use of efficient distribution generation combined with heat and power and renewable energy technology. It authorizes a 10-year clean coal power initiative to enable the use of plentiful domestic coal resources with fewer environmental impacts.

It also improves the hydroelectric relicensing process to help maintain this nonemitting source of energy while preserving environmental goals.

The second complaint we have heard about is it contains provisions that give MTBE a free pass from any liability. Now, what are the facts? First of all, Congress has considered liability protections in a variety of settings, including medical care and educational institutions. This provision recognizes that when Congress mandates the use of fuel components and when those components have been studied and approved by the EPA, it is reasonable to disallow a case where the mere presence of a removable system fuel makes it a defective product. The safe harbor provision is intended to offer some protection to refiners that have been required to use oxygenated fuels under the Clean Air Act. They are being required to do it. We told them to do it. The safe harbor provision will not affect cleanup costs; it will not affect claims based on the wrongful release of renewable fuel into the environment such as a spill.

The suggestion is with the spills that are going on, we will not be able to sue those people responsible. Anyone harmed by a wrongful release would retain all rights under current law and would be able to recover cleanup costs just as they do now. Those responsible for releasing oxygenated fuels will be responsible for cleaning them up.

Federal and State environmental statutes such as underground storage tank laws will still apply if gasoline is released and gets into a well or contaminates a drinking water supply.

Critics have charged that this bill will throw all MTBE lawsuits out of court. They could not be more wrong. The safe harbor only applies to product liability claims and does not affect any claims that have been filed prior to September 5, 2003. In fact, at a hearing that I chaired on this topic in March of this year, we spent a significant amount of time discussing current litigation going on in Santa Monica, CA. The facts in this case are pretty clear. MTBE has contaminated the city's water, and the city has had to undergo costly remediation to clean up the contamination.

In that litigation it is worth noting that the oil companies have paid millions and millions of dollars for the cost of remediation and to bring in uncontaminated water to that community. I understand Santa Monica litigation is moving forward. Most importantly, this legislation will not change any aspect of that case. It will not cause any claims to be kicked out and will most certainly not cause the case to be dismissed.

Let me state this again: The safe harbor does not apply in cases such as this. It does not let the oil companies off the hook. It does not throw any litigation out of court. And it does not give anyone a free pass.

Now, a number of my colleagues have come to the floor during this debate and announced they will vote no on this bill because this safe harbor provision is contained in the fuels title. These Members are announcing they oppose the ethanol package purely for this reason. Cynically, I would like to say that, in my opinion, such an announcement is a statement that some of these Members have picked trial lawyers over farmers.

The third complaint that critics of this bill have lodged against it is that it contains unreasonable handouts for big energy and oil companies. What were the facts?

The authorizations and tax incentives contained in the bill are geared to promote the kinds of energy that our friends across the aisle and on this side of the aisle are calling for.

The bill includes incentives for renewable energy--$5.6 billion worth--such as wind energy, solar energy, and the use of biomass. As I mentioned, over 26 percent of all the tax incentives in this bill go to renewable energy.

The bill includes incentives for clean-burning natural gas production.

The bill includes incentives for clean coal technologies. These are the technologies that will allow utilities to continue to use coal without continuing to emit pollution into the air.

The bill includes incentives for increased energy efficiency and conservation.

I would like to read a letter that was sent to Senator Domenici. It is from the American Wind Energy Association, the Geothermal Energy Association, the National Hydropower Association, and the Solar Industries Association:

Dear Senator, on behalf of the leading renewable energy

trade associations, we are writing to urge your support for

passage of H.R. 6. H.R. 6 contains several important

provisions vital to the future of our industries. Its passage

will help expand renewable energy production and spur job

growth in the United States in the immediate future. We ask

that you support the bill and vote in favor of any cloture

motion filed on the conference report.

What is the downside of promoting clean-burning and renewable energy? Aren't these the same things that many have been attacking us for not including in the bill? This criticism is one more example of overheated rhetoric that, frankly, does not stand up to scrutiny.

If we do not pass this legislation, we will continue to see the hemorrhaging of jobs in America, especially in States such as mine, and we will lose all of the potential jobs that I have just outlined.

This is the largest jobs bill we have seen on the Senate floor in decades. It is my hope and expectation that the Senate will pass it. These issues have been in front of us for far too long--far too long.

Last year, when this was brought up, I spent 6 weeks on the floor of the Senate debating the Energy bill. We finally passed it in the Senate, and it died.

This year, we started out for 2 or 3 weeks and finally were able to enter into a compromise with the other side of the aisle and pass the bill that we passed last year so it could go into conference.

We have worked very hard on this piece of legislation. It is not perfect. There are people who have problems with it. But, overall, it is a very good piece of legislation. The result of not passing it--God only knows what would happen.

For example, this morning, when I had the hearing with the folks who are trying to do something about the blackout problem in this country, they indicated the only salvation for them is this Energy bill. They said: Please pass it, we need it now.

If we do not pass it now, then when are we going to get to mandatory renewable standards, with penalties, and get on with making sure we do not have more blackouts in the United States of America?

As I said, these issues have been in front of us for too long. Now that we are so close to the finish line, I ask my colleagues to vote for cloture on this bill, prevent a filibuster that will hurt our economy, cost us jobs, and hurt our environment. Most importantly--most importantly--we have never had an energy policy in this country. It is long overdue. It is long overdue. We need to move on with this for the future of our economy, for our environment, and for our national security.

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

Mr. SCHUMER addressed the Chair.

How much time remains?

Mr. President, today I rise to talk about this body's treatment of President Bush's judicial nominations. This is not the first time I have been forced to come to the floor to protest this treatment, but I hope it will be the last.

Over the past few years we have seen highly qualified nominees wait sometimes two years before their nomination reaches the floor of the Senate, only to see their records and reputations vilified for political purposes in the interim or to watch as cloture vote after cloture vote fails.

And where has this filibustering and posturing gotten us?

I want to underscore that one might question spending 30 hours on the issue of the Democrats using the filibuster to frustrate the Senate's right to advice and consent on presidential nominees, but we would not be here today if my colleagues across the aisle had not created a constitutional crisis with their use of the filibuster--and have

now driven us--in order to protect the Constitution to consider changing the cloture rules of the Senate.

Beyond the constitutional crisis, there is a diminishing of the third branch of Government, the Judiciary, at the hands of the legislative branch that has serious implications for the people of the United States.

We have 12 judicial emergencies on the circuit courts of appeal. The President has done his job, nominating new judges for 11 of the 12 appellate court vacancies. But the Senate has not done its job in confirming these judges.

And there is a cost associated with these vacancies. The American taxpayers spend $5.1 billion for the federal judiciary every year. The American people are paying for fully staffed courts--not for political games. When courts are vacant and cases take longer than they otherwise could, lives are disrupted; businesses can be crippled, and financial resources are drained from the productive economy.

My circuit in particular, the Sixth Circuit, is getting slower and slower as the obstruction continues. It has been plagued by political game-playing by my friends, the Senators from Michigan, who want to control who President Bush appoints to the circuit court vacancies that currently happen to exist in Michigan.

Over the last 2 years, court delays in the already-slow Sixth Circuit have increased by nearly 2 months.

In 2001, it took 28.9 months, that's over 2 years, in the Sixth Circuit for a case to go from original filing in district court to final decision on appeal.

By June, 2003, it took 30.8 months. This 2-month increase difference may seem small, but there are more than 2,000 cases in the Sixth Circuit affected by this growing delay. With 2,000 plus cases being delayed nearly 60 days, more than 120,000 extra days have been spent by both parties waiting for a decision. What a waste of resources.

I would like to draw your attention to a nominee who has faced the harshest of criticism from this body: Charles Pickering. I preface my comments on Judge Pickering, with a brief review of my civil rights record. The utility of this will be important in a few minutes.

I have always been very proud of my record on civil rights. When I was Mayor of Cleveland, we created the first Minority Business Development Center operated by a city. As a result, minority participation in city contracts rose from 1.5 percent to 28 percent in the first 2 years.

As Mayor, we also increased the amount of business the city did with minority and female businesses from less than $1 million per year to more than $90 million/year by 1989.

We recruited and promoted more minority firefighters than any other administration in the city's history. We increased minority hiring on the police force by 63 percent in 5 years.

We successfully defended our fire and police hiring program in a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that established that prospective race-conscious relief for past discrimination is constitutional.

I also lobbied Congress on behalf of establishing a Martin Luther King Day and made sure, as President of the National League of Cities, that it was properly celebrated across America. I was one of only 2 invited to the inauguration of Martin Luther King Holiday in Atlanta.

As Governor, we established the Governors Challenge Conference, to discuss positive human relations. We established the Disadvantaged Black Male Commission, which helped achieve a 200 percent funding hike for the Commission on African American Males; the Urban Schools Initiative, to improve accountability and performance in Ohio's urban school districts; and the Cleveland Scholarship Program, recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, to give scholarships for low-income families and allow them to send their kids to the school of their choice.

These are just a few of the civil rights initiatives I worked on before coming to the Senate. And yes, I broke ranks with my colleagues on this side of the aisle to support hate crimes legislation, and I have been working with one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle on racial profiling legislation.

I mention all of this now so that people know that I would not support a nominee such as Charles Pickering if I thought for one minute that he would undo any of the progress we have made in the civil rights area, or if I thought he would treat individuals differently because of the color of their skin.

Judge Pickering has been a leader for equal rights, integration, inclusion and reconciliation in his community, church, political party, and state.

As a county attorney in the 1960's, he worked with the FBI to dismantle, disrupt and prosecute violent members of the Ku Klux Klan. In 1967, he testified against the Imperial Wizard of the KKK for a fire bombing of a civil rights activist in Mississippi. That was not easy in 1967.

In 1976, he hired the first African-American staffer for the Mississippi Republican Party.

In 1981, he successfully represented a black man falsely accused of robbing a 16-year-old white girl.

In 1985, as President of the Mississippi Baptists he presided over the first Convention session addressed by an African-American pastor and the first African-American congregation to join and integrate the Convention.

In 1988, he chaired a race relations committee for Jones County, Mississippi.

In 1991, he worked with his son and son-in-law to integrate his former fraternity at the University of Mississippi. He helped establish and still serves on the Board of the Institute of Racial Reconciliation at the University of Mississippi.

In 2000, he helped establish a group to work with at-risk African- American youth in Laurel, Mississippi.

Mr. President, in examining Judge Pickering's fitness for this judgeship, it is important to not only look at his record, but also his broad base of support from individuals of varying backgrounds and political affiliations.

Judge Pickering has been endorsed by the current president and 17 past presidents of the Mississippi State Bar. He has been endorsed by all major newspapers in Mississippi. He has been endorsed by all statewide elected Democrats and the chairman of the Mississippi Legislative Black Caucus.

James Charles Evers, brother of slain civil rights leader Medgar Evers has said of Judge Pickering:

As someone who has spent all my adult life fighting for

equal treatment of African-Americans, I can tell you with

certainty that Charles Pickering has an admirable record on

civil rights issues.

Rev. Nathan Jordan, Pastor, St. John United Methodist Church and former President of the Forrest County NAACP:

Without hesitation, I can truthfully say that Judge

Pickering is an extremely fair judge who serves all our

citizens. . . . It seemed to me that he pushed very hard to

insure the fair treatment of minorities.

Ruben V. Anderson, the first African American Supreme Court Justice in Mississippi and former associate counsel for the NAACP stated:

I have known Judge Pickering for at least a quarter of a

century. At all times I have found him to be an honorable

man. . . . Judge Pickering would be an asset to the Fifth

Circuit Court of Appeals and I recommend him without

reservation.

There is no reason--no reason--as one looks at the qualifications of hundreds of people that this Senate has already confirmed over the years that Charles Pickering should not be sitting on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The reason he is not is because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, for all intents and purposes, have modified the Constitution by filibustering his nomination and denying this man an up or down vote on the floor of the Senate.

It is an outright violation of the advise and consent provision of the Constitution, and all Americans--Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives--should demand that it stops now so that the judicial branch of Government can go about doing the job envisioned for it by the Constitution, and this body can get on with the other business of the people.

This has to end--it has to end--and I prayerfully and respectfully ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to cease and desist their obstructionist tactics for the benefit of our Constitution and the people of the United States of America.

They do not include those four judges who are being obstructed.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak to an amendment S. 150, the Internet Tax Non-Discrimination Act of 2003.

Over the past few weeks some have mischaracterized my position concerning the Internet tax moratorium and suggested that I supported taxing the Internet or, even more inaccurately, that I supported taxing e-mail.

Nothing could be further from the truth, and I welcome the opportunity to set the record straight on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I have never and will never support taxing e-mail. That's patently ridiculous.

On October 31, 2003, the Cincinnati Enquirer correctly reported my opposition on this very important issue:

Senator George Voinovich of Ohio has been boiled in a

witches' cauldron this week by critics angered that he helped

block an expanded ban of taxes on Internet services. The

current Internet Tax Moratorium, which he supports, expires

Saturday. Anti-tax groups making Voinovich out to be the

devil incarnate are roasting the wrong guy. Voinovich favors

keeping the tax moratorium on Internet access. He helped

negotiate the Internet Tax Freedom Act of 1998, supported its

renewal in 2001 and opposes new taxes on telecommunications

services. And yes, he strongly opposes a tax on e-mail.

This newspaper and others like it in Ohio have captured the essence of my argument. The debate on S. 150 is not about taxing e-mail. This debate is about federalism, unfunded mandates, and protecting the States' rights to govern their own affairs.

To clarify my position, I will offer an amendment that expresses the sense of the Senate that e-mail should not now, nor in the future, be taxed by Federal, State, or local governments.

I object.