Floor Statements

I rise today to introduce an amendment that would require the State Department to include in its annual report on international religious freedom a section highlighting the issue of anti-Semitism abroad.

As many of my colleagues are aware, we have seen a disturbing trend in the increase of anti-Semitic violence abroad, with growing reports of incidents in countries that have traditionally been among Europe's strongest democracies, including France and Germany. I remain deeply concerned with these reports, and I believe it is absolutely essential that we do all that we can to take action to combat this problem, both at home and overseas.

Last month, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani led the U.S. Delegation to the first conference of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE, dedicated solely to the issue of anti- Semitism. The conference took place in Vienna, Austria, during the period of June 19-20, 2003, bringing together parliamentarians, officials, and private citizens from all 55 OSCE participating states.

As a member of the Helsinki Commission, I strongly encouraged the State Department to make this conference a priority of the U.S. government. Last October, a number of my colleagues joined me in a letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell urging him to call on the OSCE to schedule this meeting. With the support of Secretary Powell, Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman, and our Ambassador to the OSCE, Stephan Minikes, I was very pleased that the chair-in-office of the OSCE did in fact agree to put this meeting on the calendar. It is an important step in the right direction.

Work to highlight this alarming trend began in earnest last year. In May 2002, the Helsinki Commission conducted a hearing to examine reports of increased anti-Semitism. During that hearing, I called on the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE, to conduct a separate session on anti-Semitism during the annual meeting of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly in Berlin last July. I was pleased that this did, in fact, take place. Delegates to the meeting unanimously passed a resolution calling attention to the danger of anti-Semitism, which I cosponsored. The conference held last month was a product of much of the work done during the past year.

As we discuss the need to address this issue, I could not agree more with a statement made by Mayor Giuliani just before he left for the Vienna conference, in which he remarked, ``The conference represents a critical first step for Europeans, who have too frequently dismissed anti-Semitic violence as routine assaults and vandalism. Anti-Semitism is anything but routine. When people attack Jews, vandalize their graves, characterize them in inhumane ways, and make salacious statements in parliaments or to the press, they are attacking the defining values of our societies and our international institutions.''

While we are headed down the right path, it is critical that we take action to follow up on the successful beginning found at the conference in Vienna. This amendment aims to ensure that the U.S. Government pays close attention to the issue of anti-Semitism internationally, with the hope that it will encourage our friends, allies, and partners abroad to do the same. The amendment requires the inclusion of the following information on the subject of anti-Semitism for each foreign country: acts of anti-Semitic violence that occurred in that country; the response of the government of that country to such acts of violence; actions by the government of that country to enact and enforce laws relating to the protection of the right to religious freedom with respect to people of the Jewish faith; societal attitudes in that country toward people of the Jewish faith; and trends relating to such attitudes in that country.

The promotion of human rights worldwide is a central aspect of U.S. foreign policy, and consistent with this goal, the Senate has acted to condemn anti-Semitism abroad. I believe this amendment is a necessary step as we look to combat anti-Semitism at home and abroad.

I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of S. 11, the Patients First Act, of which I am an original cosponsor. 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. And when the quality is not there, when people die or are truly sick due to negligence or other medical error, they should be compensated. But when healthy plaintiffs file meaningless lawsuits to coerce settlements or to shake the money tree to get as much as they can get, there's a snowball effect and all of us pay the price.

For the system to work, we must strike a delicate balance between the rights of aggrieved parties to bring lawsuits and the rights of society to be protected against frivolous lawsuits and outrageous judgments that are disproportionate to compensating the injured and made at the expense of society as a whole.

I have been concerned about this issue since my days as Governor of Ohio. I wish we had the outpouring of support for medical liability reform 6 years ago that I see now. In 1996, I essentially had to pull teeth in the Ohio Legislature to pass my tort reform bill. I signed it into law in October 1996. Three years later, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional, and if that law had withstood the Supreme Court's scrutiny, Ohioans wouldn't be facing the medical access problems they are facing today: doctors leaving their practice, patients unable to receive the care they need and costs 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 worked with the American Tort Reform Association to produce a study 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? In Ohio, the litigation crisis costs every Ohioan $636 per year, and every Ohio family of four $2,544 per year. These are alarming numbers! In these economic times, families can not afford to pay $2,500 for the lawsuit abuse of a few individuals.

It is not just the individuals but the lawyers who bear some of the responsibility. I recently received my yellow and white pages. Look what I found on the front and back covers, advertisements for personal injuries. This is the yellow pages of the Cleveland phonebook and the white pages, advertisements on the front cover and on the back cover. One of them says: Medical malpractice. It talks about wrongful death, quadriplegic/paraplegic. They have pictures, birth injuries, nursing home negligence, Erb's palsy, cerebral palsy, heart attacks/late treatment, cancer late diagnosis, emergency room negligence.

It goes on to say, ``Our firm will advance expenses for our clients in most cases,'' and ``Clients do not have to repay expenses unless there is a successful outcome.'' This kind of stuff is in the yellow pages and on television every night.

When I got out of law school, solicitation was a violation of the canons of professional ethics of lawyers. That has all changed today. I think unfortunately so.

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, employers face spiraling costs, and those who have insurance face soaring premiums every year. The impact on

businesses is great. It affects their ability to offer health insurance to employees. Too many times, they pass on the added costs to their employees, whose family budgets are often already stretched razor thin. And then there are those who lose their jobs and can't afford COBRA, assuming their company is still in business and COBRA is available.

This issue is a personal one for me. My daughter-in-law, who is expecting her fourth child, recently learned from her obstetrician that after her delivery, she is no longer going to deliver any more babies. Her doctor is in a four-physician group, all of them obstetricians. They have never had any lawsuits against them, yet their insurance premiums have skyrocketed from $81,000 three years ago to over $381,000 today. That's $75,000 per person over a period of 3 years. How can physicians be expected to afford rate hikes like these? And how many babies do they have to deliver in order to pay for medical insurance. Think of somebody getting out of medical school that is an OB/GYN and being told: Before you open the door, you will have to pay a premium of $75,000 to $80,000 to practice medicine.

This crisis is out of control, and when you listen to the statistics, you will be astounded:

From 1994 to 2000, the median award for medical negligence in childbirth cases, $2.05 million, was the highest for all types of medical malpractice cases analyzed.

The median medical liability award jumped 43% in one year, from $700,000 in 1999 to $1 million in 2000; it has doubled since 1995.

Medical liability reform could produce $12.1 billion to $19.5 billion in annual savings for the Federal Government and increase the number of Americans with health insurance by up to 3.9 million people.

There are some who say the Federal Government doesn't have a dog in the fight. We certainly have, when medical liability reform could produce $12.1 billion to $19.5 billion in annual savings and increase the number of Americans covered by insurance.

Seventy-six percent of physicians in Ohio, surveyed by the Ohio State Medical Association, said rising professional liability premiums have impacted their willingness to perform high-risk procedures.

Over half said they are considering early retirement as a result of rising costs.

There has also been an immense jump in million-dollar verdicts. In 1995-97, a little over 36 percent of cases resulted in an award of $1 million or more. By 1998-99, the rate of million dollar awards reached 43 percent. By 2000-01, it was at 54 percent, with one quarter of all awards exceeding $2.7 million. It is going up like a rocketship.

These numbers are shocking, and they continue to grow. We feel this crisis very strongly in Ohio. Medical Liability Monitor ranked Ohio among the top five states for premium increases in 2002. OHIC Insurance Co., among the largest medical liability insurers in the State, reports that average premiums for Ohio doctors have doubled over the last 3 years. But don't listen only to the statistics. Let's talk about doctors--human beings who have practices and patients:

Dr. Perm Jawa, a Cleveland urologist, says that soaring liability premiums leave him in perpetual fear of career-ending lawsuits. ``I shy away from major cases now. Sometimes you know what the best thing is but you don't want to be doing it because there are potential complications with it,'' Jawa said. ``You're not as aggressive as you should be.''

In Columbus, Dr. David Stockwell has seen coverage for his two- physician OB-GYN practice climb to over $100,000 a year. And he expected his premiums to rise 20 to 25 percent in May.

Dr. Robert Norman, a geriatrician in Cuyahoga Falls, saw his annual medical liability premium jump $5,700 to $34,000 last year. He had been warned that it could reach $100,000 this year if he continued treating patients in nursing homes. But in May he received an unexpected ultimatum from his insurer and every other carrier he queried: agree to stop seeing nursing home patients or lose liability coverage altogether. As a result, 150 of Dr. Norman's patients had to find a new doctor.

Dr. Stephen Cochran lost his hospital privileges at Akron General Medical Center when his insurer's financial stability rating was downgraded recently. He is seeking another insurer, but meanwhile, he says, ``We receive daily phone calls from the patients: `Why aren't you here? Why aren't you seeing me? I want my doctor.' '' He says. ``It's been very stressful to a lot of the patients, particularly the geriatric patients . . . This [the malpractice crisis] has probably changed the nature of our practice more than anything that has happened in the last 10 to 20 years.''

After practicing for 15 years--their entire careers--in Cleveland, Dr. Christopher Magiera and his wife, surgeon Patricia Galloway, decided to leave Ohio to seek refuge from overwhelming liability premiums. Their insurance agent warned them that both would soon be paying $100,000 in annual premiums, up from $30,000 this year. Magiera and his wife decided to ``get out before the situation became hopeless,'' he said. They resettled in Wisconsin. Good for Wisconsin.

This is disgraceful. This crisis is forcing doctors to close their doors and greatly affecting patient access to care.

I want to commend the physicians' grassroots efforts--they are really starting to get attention for this issue. On May 3, 2003, I spoke in my home State of Ohio at the annual conference of the Ohio State Medical Association. I also participated in a physicians rally last October in Columbus, OH which was sponsored by the Ohio State Medical Association. I was impressed with all of the speakers, in particular, Dr. Evangeline Andarsio, an OB-GYN from Dayton, who described the changes in the profession and the effect of the litigation cloud:

The professional liability crisis is creating a barrier to

patients' access to good medical care, especially pregnant

women. . . . a paradigm shift needs to occur in our society.

Our laws must change to begin to reflect this paradigm shift.

After speaking at this rally, I received a letter from a young doctor, telling me that he was leaving Ohio because he couldn't afford his medical liability insurance premiums. Dr. Cly had received a notice from his insurance carrier that his premiums would be increased by $20,000-30,000. This, plus the $20,000 increase from last year, forced him to make the difficult decision of uprooting his family and his practice to another State. Dr. Cly was unable to make the insurance premiums and still take care of his student loan obligations and his family. Even though he has never had a malpractice claim or judgment against him during his residency training or his private practice years, his rates continued to skyrocket to the point where he could no longer afford them. His move to Fort Wayne, IN, will save him $50,000 per year in liability insurance.

In his letter to me, which I would like to submit for the record, Dr. Cly writes:

I represent young physicians in Ohio. Most young physicians

I speak with are all considering relocating to a place where

the ability to practice medicine is better and the liability

situation is more stable. I do not want to leave. I have

developed close relationships with many patients, families,

nurses, physicians, and staff here in Dayton, Ohio. I always

planned to retire here and raise my children here. It saddens

me greatly to have to make this decision. I feel as if I am

giving up and ``throwing in the towel'' by leaving, but I

believe my decision is the right one for my family.

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

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 transcends 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 plaintiff's verdicts. They are feeling these effects in their increasing insurance premiums.

This is a nationwide crisis. And it's not only doctors crossing State borders to find better insurance rates--it's patients as well. Citizens living along the thousands of miles of State borders very often obtain their medical care across that line. Federal action is appropriate and critically necessary. Even more so because this crisis affects Federal health care programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, and costs the Federal Government billions of dollars every year.

In fact, the cost of this crisis to the economy is quite staggering. With over 41 million Americans without health insurance, including an estimated 1.25 million Ohioans at some time in 2001, we have to look at a new system--because this crisis is not only bad for doctors and patients, it also affects our competitiveness in the global marketplace. Many of our company's insurance costs have skyrocketed because of medical lawsuit abuse costs that their competitors just do not have.

The Nation's medical schools and students feel the effects of the medical liability crisis. According to the National Resident Matching Program, a private, nonprofit corporation, the number of American medical students applying to general surgery residency programs declined by 30 percent from 1992 to 2002. If this trend continues, less than 5 percent of medical school graduates will choose a career in surgery by 2005, and only 75 percent of general surgery residency positions will be filled by graduates of medical schools in the United States.

Thank God we have foreign doctors who have come to the United States of America. In Ohio, one out of six doctors is an Asian Indian.

And, in its 2003 biennial survey of medical residents in their final year of training, the firm of Merritt, Hawkins & Associates, MHA, noticed a disturbing trend. When asked if they would study medicine or select another field if they had their education to begin again, one quarter of all residents surveyed indicated they would select another field--this compared with only 5 percent in 2001. It is sweeping across the country and everybody is getting hit. It is going to have a disastrous effect--it already is--and we have to do something about it. When asked to identify what factors caused them a significant level of concern, sixty-two percent of residents indicated that malpractice is a significant area--compared to just 15 percent of residents surveyed 2 years ago.

Specific medical specialties feel the crisis more than others. A September 25, 2002 report by the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, Congress of Neurological Surgeons, and Council of State Neurological Societies, entitled ``Neurosurgery in a State of Crisis'' found that professional liability costs among Ohio neurosurgeons have skyrocketed since 2000. For a $5 to $7 million coverage policy, in 2000, a physician would have paid $75,000. By 2002, this number had jumped to $168,000.

Not only in Ohio, but across the nation, between 2000 and 2002, the average premium increase was 63 percent. As a result, of those neurosurgeons polled: 14 percent said they plan to, or are considering moving; 25 percent said they either plan to, or are considering, retiring; 34 percent said they already do, or are considering, restricting their practices.

In my hometown of Cleveland, OH, at one of our hospitals, the neurosurgeons just left. There was no one there to take care of emergency patients, although just recently because of something the Cleveland Clinic did, they agreed to step in, but there were four neurosurgeons serving about 15 hospitals, and they just decided they were getting out. Who is going to pick that up for them? What is going to happen to those patients?

Patients cannot get emergency medical treatment because fewer neurosurgeons are covering ERs, and trauma hospitals are shutting their doors and diverting patients with serious head and spinal cord injuries to other locations.

Patients cannot find a neurosurgeon close to home because neurosurgeons are moving to States where insurance costs are relatively stable.

Further exacerbating this problem is the high retirement rate. According to the American Board of Neurological Surgery, in 2001 alone, over 300 neurosurgeons retired. This is 10 percent of our Nation's neurosurgical workforce. And for the first time in over a decade, there are now fewer than 3,000 board certified neurosurgeons practicing in the U.S.

Earlier this year, I participated in a press conference with my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum, and my distinguished colleague from Nevada, Senator Ensign. During this conference, I met a doctor from Florida who had rushed his son to the hospital with his head hemorrhaging, only to find that there were no pediatric neurosurgeons there. He asked if a regular neurosurgeon could help, but they could not because pediatric neurosurgeons require special liability insurance. Due to the exorbitant costs of insurance for pediatric neurosurgeons, only seven were practicing in the State of Florida and the nearest one was 150 miles away. Fortunately, the boy survived, but this type of scenario does not need to happen.

I was recently speaking with some doctors in Cleveland who told me that the nephrologists practicing there will not even look at a baby facing kidney problems, because adding pediatric work to their existing practices will cause their premiums to skyrocket.

The effects of the medical liability crisis can also be felt by the obstetrics-gynecologists community. In fact, 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, 12.5 percent in 2001, and 15.3 percent in 2002 with increases as high as 69 percent, according to a survey by Medical Liability Monitor, a newsletter covering the liability insurance industry.

According to 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 specialty groups in the average cost of defending against a claim in 2000, at a cost of $34,308. In the 1990s, they were first--along with family physicians- general practitioners--in the percentage of claims against them closed with a payout of 36 percent. They were second, after neurologists, in the average claim payment made during that period.

Although the number of claims filed against all physicians climbed in recent decades, the phenomenon does not reflect an increased rate of medical negligence.

That is something we should point out. It does not reflect an increased rate in negligence.

In fact, OB-GYNS win most of the claims filed against them. A 1999 American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology survey of its membership found that over one-half of claims against OB-GYNS were dropped by plaintiffs' attorneys, dismissed or settled without a payment. Of cases that did proceed, OB-GYNS won seven out of ten times. Enormous resources are spent to deal with these claims, only 10 percent of which are found to have merit. The costs 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 an OB-GYN was the highest of all physician specialties: $35,000.

According to an ACOG survey of its members, the typical OB-GYN is 47 years old, has been in practice for over 15 years, and can expect to be sued 2.53 times over his or her career. Over one-fourth of ACOG fellows have even been sued for care provided during their residency. In 1999, 76.5 percent of ACOG fellows reported they had been sued at least once so far in their career. The average claim takes over 4 years to resolve.

Practicing medicine and having lawsuits hanging over your head, and only 10 percent are well taken, can you imagine, Mr. President, how it is to practice medicine under those conditions?

How does all of this affect patients' access to care?

As premiums increase, women's access to general health care-- including regular screenings for reproductive cancers, high blood pressure and cholesterol, diabetes, and other serious health risks-- will decrease. OB/GYNs are disappearing.

It leads to more uninsured women. Last year, 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.

The legislation we are debating today gets us on our way to enacting meaningful medical liability reform.

There are going to be a lot of excuses. We are going to hear from some colleagues as to why this is not a good thing, and they are going to get into specific caps and so forth.

The fact is, this legislation 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 those with legitimate grievances have recourse to the courts.

That is what we want to do. We want to make sure those who are legitimately harmed have recourse to the courts and are compensated.

The bill sets sensible limits on noneconomic damages to help restrain medical liability premium increases, while ensuring unlimited economic compensation for patients injured by negligence.

In other words, there is no cap on economic compensation. All of those issues that can be documented, you can be reimbursed for. It limits attorney's fees so the money awarded in the court goes to the injured parties, who are the people who really need it. It mandates that relevant medical experts testify in malpractice trials, as opposed to highly paid ``expert witnesses'' who are often used to influence juries and foster abuses in the legal system. It also allows physicians to pay any large judgments against them over a period of time in order to avoid bankruptcy, and requires all parties to participate in alternative dispute resolution proceedings, such as mediation or arbitration, before going to court.

It is a sensible way of handling a problem in our country and, at the same time, looking at the societal costs that are being paid today by all Americans.

Providing this commonsense approach to our medical liability premiums is a win-win situation. Patients would 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 that are truly justified, doctors and hospitals will not be held liable for harms they did not cause, and physicians can focus on doing what they do best: practicing medicine and providing health care.

I end with the words of Dr. Andarsio, whom I quoted earlier:

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.

In my own particular case--and it may be why I am probably more fired up about this than some people in the Senate--when I was about 2 years old, I contracted osteomyelitis.

It is a disease in the marrow of the bone. There was a lot of controversy among a couple of doctors on how I should be treated for that osteomyelitis. There was one physician who had the courage to try some new things. His name was Dr. Holloway. Dr. Holloway saved my life. I will not ever forget going to his funeral.

There are a lot of other people around this country like George Voinovich who are in need of access to orthopedic surgeons and other types of medical care. I want them to have the same opportunity I had, to have a life. That is what this is about.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of a bill considered by the Senate, H.R. 985, to designate a post office in Bowling Green, OH, as the Delbert L. Latta Post Office Building. I strongly support this bill honoring a long-time member of the Ohio congressional delegation. Naming this post office after Del Latta is a fitting way to honor him. The building that houses this post office also served as a district office for Mr. Latta during his 30 years of service in Congress.

Delbert Latta is a native and lifelong resident of Ohio. Born in the small northwestern town of Weston, OH, Mr. Latta attended Findlay College and Ohio Northern University Law School.

Mr. Latta began his service to our Nation as a member of the Ohio National Guard. During World War II, Mr. Latta served with the U.S. Marine Corps Reserves.

After his military service, Mr. Latta practiced law in Bowling Green, but in 1953, he again answered the call to public service by running for the State legislature. Mr. Latta was elected to the Ohio State Senate. After serving three terms, Mr. Latta was elected by the people of Ohio's fifth congressional district to the U.S. House of Representatives. During his long and distinguished career in Congress, Mr. Latta fought hard against wasteful government spending and to balance the Federal budget, a passion that I share.

During his 30 years in Congress, Mr. Latta earned prominent committee assignments in the House, including serving as the ranking member of the Budget Committee, and as a member of the powerful Rules Committee, and the Agriculture Committee.

Naming this post office the Delbert L. Latta Post Office Building is a wonderful tribute to a man who served Ohio and our Nation with distinction throughout his life.

I thank my colleagues for their consideration of this matter.

Mr. President, I rise today to ask my colleagues' support for legislation I have introduced creating the new position of Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing in the Department of Commerce.

In America we are blessed with ingenuity, gumption, and a can-do spirit that is recognized around the world. At the turn of the last century we helped lead the world into the Industrial age. American inventors gave electricity and air travel to the world.

As we enter the 21st century, American manufacturing has as much potential as it has ever had at any time in our Nation's history. Accomplishments in the high-tech industry have been rapidly integrated into manufacturing to make our factories and our workers more productive, reduce costs, and save time.

At the same time, substantial new trade, training, energy, labor, and foreign competition challenges have arisen. Helping our manufacturing interests deal with these challenges is something that private sector organizations such as the National Association Manufacturers have done well for years. It only stands to reason that we focus resources in the Government sector in support of manufacturing as well.

I am concerned about the slow economic recovery and our Nation's declining position in the global marketplace, particularly for manufacturing, which is the backbone of our economy, both in Ohio and the Nation. There is a genuine panic by the manufacturing community over their future and the jobs created from manufacturing. They feel they are under siege from environmental regulations, rising health care costs, litigation, escalating natural gas costs, and the prospect of dramatically higher electricity costs if energy reform legislation is not passed.

First, health care costs continue to rise. Nationwide, we have seen double-digit increases in health care premiums over the last 2 years alone. In

Ohio, the business community tells me they are seeing 20 to 50 percent increases in their health care costs. These increases raise labor costs, decreasing capital that otherwise would be available to make investments, and, ultimately, negatively impact our global competitiveness. In addition, these costs are being passed on to employees, limiting their take-home pay and increasing the number of uninsured.

Second, high natural gas prices are also having a detrimental effect on industry in Ohio and across the Nation. Many industries cannot compete internationally because of these high prices. Over the last 10 years, the average price for natural gas has been less than $3.00 per million cubic feet (Mcf). This year, companies in Ohio have been paying almost $10.00 per Mcf, more than a threefold increase. These price spikes are felt the hardest by Ohio's agriculture, chemical, and manufacturing industries. In order to be competitive, we cannot afford to hamper American companies in this manner.

Additionally, I have heard from companies in both the manufacturing and the chemical sectors that they cannot survive with these high prices. In particular, two chemical companies in Ohio have informed me that they are considering moving their operations not only out of Ohio, but outside of the United States because of these high costs. At the same time, suppliers of these companies are considering temporary shutdowns because they cannot afford to operate. Ohio's companies have not been able to budget and plan sufficiently because these prices have been so unpredictable this year.

As natural gas prices continue to rise, the President's National Energy Policy Task Force projects that over 1,300 new power plants will need to be built to satisfy America's energy needs over the next 20 years. As a result of the emissions limits and regulatory uncertainty triggered by the Clean Air Act, the Department of Energy currently predicts that over 90 percent of these new plants will be powered by natural gas. Further, analysis by EIA and the EPA shows that a large percentage of coal-fired plants are likely to be replaced by natural gas-fired plants in the near future.

Third, manufacturers need reliable transportation infrastructure to bring in supplies and ship out their products. We are a ``just in time'' economy and we are falling behind in our national investment in highways and bridges. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, for each $1 billion of Federal spending on highway construction, 47,500 jobs are created annually. Furthermore, the Department estimates that every dollar invested in our highways yields $5.70 in economic benefits due to reduced delays, improved safety and reduced vehicle operating cost. Clearly, transportation investment in needed ``ready-to-go'' projects could go a long way in getting the economy back on track.

Finally, manufacturing companies are distressed by the surge in foreign competition, particularly from China. As a matter of fact, if a vote were taken today among Ohio manufacturers, many would oppose normal trade relations with China.

These are only a few of the challenges facing American manufacturers. Their profitability and survivability is impacted by virtually every policy and/or agency within the Federal Government. Moreover, the fact that there has been limited coordination of Government policies and agencies that impact manufacturing has contributed to a prolonged, steady decline of what I believe is the most critical sector of our economy.

According to USA Today, U.S. manufacturers laid off 95,000 workers in April--the 33rd consecutive month of decline and the largest drop in 15 months. Since July 2000, manufacturing has lost 2.6 million jobs. My own State of Ohio has lost 154,500 manufacturing jobs, over a 15- percent decline. New orders for manufactured goods in April decreased by $9.4 billion, or 2.9 percent, to $320 billion. This was the largest percent decline since November 2001. Shipments decreased by $7.1 billion or 2.2 percent to $320.6 billion. This was the largest percent decline since February 2002.

According to the National Association of Manufacturers, ``If the U.S. manufacturing base continues to shrink at its present rate and the critical mass is lost, the manufacturing innovation process will shift to other global centers. Once that happens, a decline in U.S. living standards in the future is virtually assured.''

Unfortunately, up to now, there has been no senior level policymaker responsible for examining prospective and existing Government policies to determine their potential impact on manufacturing. This is more than an unfortunate oversight; it is a potential economic disaster. Government policies are often developed without regard to their impact on manufacturing. Too many Government decisionmakers view manufacturing as a ``dying sector'' that is better transferred overseas so Americans can focus on the more profitable service sector. What these people fail to realize is that manufacturing is the foundation of the service sector.

There is no retail industry without manufactured products to sell. There is no transportation industry without manufactured products to transport. There is no repair industry without manufactured products to repair. Even services such as accounting, financial management, banking, and information technology sell their services to manufacturers and could not remain profitable without a vibrant manufacturing sector.

Manufacturing growth spawns more additional economic activity and jobs than any other economic sector. Every $1 of final demand for manufactured goods generates an additional 67 cents in other manufactured products, and 76 cents in products and services from nonmanufacturing sectors.

In fact, manufacturers are responsible for almost two-thirds of all private sector Research & Development--$127 billion in 2002. In addition, spillovers from R&D benefit other manufacturing and nonmanufacturing firms.

Manufacturing productivity gains are historically higher than those of any other economic sector. For example, over the past two decades, manufacturing averaged twice the annual productivity gains of the rest of the private sector. These gains enable Americans to do more with less, increase our ability to compete, and facilitate higher wages for all employees.

Manufacturing salaries and benefits average $54,000, which is higher than the average for the total private sector. Two factors in particular attract workers to manufacturing: one, higher pay and benefits, and, two, opportunities for advanced education and training.

Manufacturing has been an important contributor to regional economic growth and tax receipts at all levels of government. During the 1990s, manufacturing corporations paid 30 to 34 percent of all corporate taxes collected by State and local governments, as well as Social Security and payroll taxes, excise taxes, import and tariff duties, environmental taxes and license taxes.

Furthermore, manufacturing is a secure foundation for future economic prosperity. Capital investments in factories and equipment tend to anchor businesses more securely to a community, a State or a nation. When a corporation owns property in a community, they are more likely to be an active participant in helping improve the quality of life, stability, and economic vitality of that community.

Our competitors recognize this and are moving rapidly to claim the manufacturing preeminence that once characterized the U.S. economy. While America's industrial leadership is being squeezed by rising health care costs, runaway litigation, excessive regulation and some of the highest taxes on investment in the industrialized world, our foreign competitors are taking a larger market share with less expensive products that make it difficult to raise prices. The result is a dramatic decline in manufacturing cashflow that forces firms to cut back on R&D and capital investment, and to reduce employment. The U.S. manufacturing base is receding--and with it the all-important innovation that is the seedbed of our industrial strength and competitive edge.

Unfortunately, while many countries support their manufacturing sector with favorable government policies, tax incentives, and even financial subsidies, the United States does not even coordinate government initiatives that

might impact our own manufacturers. Within the U.S. Government, however, we do have Cabinet level Departments to represent the interests of agriculture, transportation, and energy. These three sectors combined do not generate as much economic activity, nor employ as many individuals as manufacturing. Nevertheless, there is no senior level policymaker anywhere in the Federal Government whose sole responsibility is the health and growth of manufacturing. Is it any wonder we are losing market share to foreign competition?

The bill I am introducing today will help rectify this unfortunate situation. It will establish an Assistant Secretary in the Commerce Department who will: one, represent and advocate for the interests of the manufacturing sector; two, aid in the development of policies that promote the expansion of the manufacturing sector; three, review policies that may adversely impact the manufacturing sector; and, four, assist the manufacturing sector in other ways as the Secretary of Commerce shall prescribe.

The new Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Manufacturing will also submit to Congress an annual report that contains: one, an overview of the state of the manufacturing sector in the United States; two, forecast of the future state of the manufacturing sector in the United States; and, three, an analysis of current and significant laws, regulations, and policies that adversely impact the manufacturing sector in the United States.

It is a small step forward but an important one. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, the Finance Committee has laid before the Senate a bipartisan bill that will finally provide every senior access to affordable prescription drugs. Passing this long-awaited legislation is one of the best things we can do right away to help solve the health care crisis in this country.

I applaud the efforts of the committee and specifically commend the leadership of the chairman and ranking member, Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus, in developing this critical legislation.

The bill reported out of the Finance Committee, S. 1, is the culmination of years of hard work in the Senate to bridge the gap between the Medicare of 1965 and the Medicare for today and the future.

Currently, seniors are paying too much for their needed prescription drugs out-of-pocket. 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. We need to provide an environment where America's seniors don't have to go to Canada.

The bill reported out of the Finance Committee accomplishes that.

This bill not only provides every senior access to affordable prescription drugs, but it will also provide seniors access to benefits that a modern health plan should have, such as preventive care and disease management--options that Medicare does not currently provide. Moreover, these additional benefits are provided by giving seniors a choice and control over their prescription drug plans and health care providers.

These changes will only improve and strengthen Medicare. As my colleagues know, when Medicare was enacted in 1965, Congress made a commitment to our Nation's seniors and disabled to provide for their health security. Unfortunately, that security is on shaky ground because Medicare has not kept up with the evolving nature of health care.

The delivery of health care has vaulted ahead so dramatically 38 years after the inception of Medicare, that this system which was once sufficient is now antiquated and ineffective.

For example, conditions that used to require surgery or in-patient care can now be treated on an out-patient basis with prescription drugs. But more than the progress that has evolved from the utilization of prescription drugs, medicine has too evolved to the extent that preventive care can now eliminate the need for extensive reliance on the health care system. It is time for Medicare to reflect the realities of today's health care delivery system.

My colleagues from the Finance Committee have found a solution that is a good compromise and is a result that can be agreed to by both Democrats and Republicans. Is this bill a panacea for seniors' health? No. But it is a quantum leap forward from a system that has been stuck in a time when the Ed Sullivan Show and the Dick Van Dyke Show were seen as original programming in America's living rooms.

While the Senate has finally begun its debate on 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 deserves great credit in providing in his budget substantial funding to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. The amount the President allocated, $400 billion, illustrates his commitment to our nation's seniors. Time and again, the President has called for strengthening and improving Medicare.

Additionally, this year we are operating under a budget resolution. Last year, the Senate operated without one because we never voted on the fiscal year 2003 budget resolution--the first time the Senate has not done so since 1974.

The Senate got the job done this year. Through the leadership of Chairman Nickles of the Budget Committee, the Senate laid out a blueprint for future spending that has brought us to where we are today.

The Senate is standing at the brink of providing seniors access to affordable prescription drugs. This is long overdue, and we cannot delay any further.

Over the past year, I have traveled throughout Ohio holding health care roundtables to hear what the citizens in my State are saying. These roundtables have included seniors that inevitably tell me it is past time that Congress added a prescription drug benefit to Medicare.

I believe this is the year Congress will deliver on its longstanding promises.

I am ready to go to my constituents in Ohio and say we were finally able to move past partisanship and provide real security for their health.

While it is vital that we pass a prescription drug benefit this year, it is also vital that we pass one that is fiscally responsible. Ideally, seniors would receive the assistance they need to have access to every medicine prescribed by their doctor. Unfortunately, we live in the real world and are subject to limited resources.

I would like to take a few moments to shed some light on our Government's current fiscal condition. As recently as fiscal year 2000, the Federal Government had a combined surplus of more than $100 billion. Every penny of payroll tax was retained in the Social Security trust fund and the General fund was generating enough revenue to fully fund its contribution to Medicare and still pay down the National Debt.

As my colleagues know, this rosy budgetary picture is long gone.

According to the Congressional Budget Office's latest monthly budget estimate, May 2003, the unified deficit for fiscal year 2003 will exceed $400 billion even after borrowing every penny of this year's Social Security trust fund surplus.

With this in mind, it is imperative that we act not only to provide Medicare benefits for today's beneficiaries, but also for the baby boomers that will arrive in 2011.

The Finance Committee bill strikes a balance between providing seniors and the disabled access to needed prescription drugs today and doing so in a fiscally sensible way that would allow benefits to extend to future generations.

Senator Grassley and the Finance Committee have put before the Senate a bill that will cost $400 billion as scored by CGO.

The natural question that I think the American people would like to know is what does $400 billion buy? In my opinion, $400 billion provides a real prescription drug benefit that is affordable to both the beneficiaries and the Federal Government.

First of all, seniors would get assistance immediately through the prescription drug card. And our neediest seniors would receive an additional $600 on top of the discounts Medicare will provide through this card.

When the prescription drug program begins in 2006, under the Finance Committee bill, premiums would average $35 a month.

After a $275 deductible, the government would cover half of all prescription drug costs up to $4,500.

Now, critics of this approach will claim that the so-called ``doughnut hole'' after $4,500 will be the financial ruin of every senior. The truth is that the vast majority of seniors--80 percent-- would never even hit the hole.

As a matter of fact, for 2003, the Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that the average Medicare beneficiary will consume approximately $2,300 in pharmaceuticals. And should seniors consume over $5,800 in prescription drugs, the Federal Government would pick up 90 percent of drug costs.

While this benefit will greatly help seniors throughout the Nation, there are still some seniors for whom the $35 per month premium and additional cost-sharing is too high. For those individuals, the bipartisan Finance Committee bill provides protections that will allow access to prescription drugs.

For those seniors under 135 percent of poverty, $12,123 for an individual and $16,362 or a couple, the Finance Committee bill would provide a full subsidy for monthly premiums. In addition, the government would cover 95 percent of their prescription drug costs to the initial benefit limit and 97.5 percent above the stop-loss limit.

And for those seniors between 135 and 160 percent of the poverty level, S. 1 would provide assistance with their monthly premiums on a sliding scale. In addition, these individuals would pay no more than 50 percent of their drug costs once the $250 deductible has been reached.

When we talk about dollars being spent, we should also point out to seniors that they will receive more bang for their buck under the Finance Committee bill through Medicare Advantage.

Under Medicare Advantage, seniors will not just receive direct assistance from the government to cover their prescription drug bills. Rather, private health plans will have to compete for beneficiaries and will attempt to attract seniors by providing the best health care plan--including prescription drugs and possibly preventive care, disease management, vision and dental services.

To the advantage of both Medicare beneficiaries and the Federal Government, this competition will decrease the price of prescription drugs and permit all parties to stretch their dollars further.

This body has been playing this political posturing game with senior's health care for too long.

I am tired of explaining partisanship as the excuse for the Senate's failure to pass a prescription drug benefit, which has forced the least of our brothers and sisters to choose between food and prescription drugs.

I am pleased that the Senate will have the opportunity to show the American people, especially our nation's seniors and disabled that we are serious about enacting legislation to provide a prescription drug benefit this year.

The bill before us seems to have broad support from both sides of the aisle. The President is ready and willing to sign a bill into law this year. It is time to get the job done.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Disaster Area and Health and Environmental Monitoring Act of 2003 be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Disaster Area and Health and Environmental Monitoring Act of 2003 be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate and pay tribute to Mr. Nirmal K. Sinha of Worthington, OH, as a 2003 Ellis Island Medal of Honor recipient.

The prestigious Ellis Island Medal of Honor award is presented annually to ``remarkable Americans who exemplify outstanding qualities in both their personal and professional lives,'' and ``who have distinguished themselves as citizens of the United States, while continuing to preserve the richness of their particular heritage.''

Nirmal Sinha is such an American. In addition to creating a business in Ohio and being active in numerous civic organizations. Nirmal and his wife Tripta have maintained strong ties to the Asian Indian American community. I have often said, ``show me someone who is proud of their ethnic heritage and I'll show you a great American!''

I am proud to say I have worked with Nirmal Sinha for many years. In 1992, as Governor of Ohio, I appointed him to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission. I reappointed him in 1997, and I am gratified that Mr. Sinha served two 5-year terms, helping to enforce State laws prohibiting discrimination in housing, employment, credit, and higher education. He has worked with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to develop outreach programs, particularly to Hispanic and Asian Americans.

As mayor of Cleveland and as Governor of Ohio, I was close to the Asian Indian American community and knew of Nirmal's distinguished record as a business leader and someone who was active in a variety of civic organizations. Some of those organizations include the Asian Indian American Business Group, AIABG, of Columbus, founding member of the Global Organization of People of Indian Origin, GOPIO, the Asian Indian Alliance of Ohio, and the Asian Indian Forum for Political Education.

Mr. Sinha also has served as a member of the Ameritech Consumer Advisory Board, Columbus International Program, and Main Street Business Association, member of the advisory board to the Ohio State University's Department of Communications, and a director of the Central Ohio March of Dimes and the International Center in Columbus.

Nirmal Sinha is an accomplished professional who always makes time to give to others. Mr. Sinha is active in

both the National Association of Human Rights Workers, NAHRW, and the International Association of Official Human Rights Agencies, IAOHRA.

In 1998, the Columbus Dispatch awarded Mr. Sinha the Outstanding Community Service Award. In 1989, he received the Outstanding Community Service Award from the mayor of Columbus.

Mr. Sinha's record in human rights is exceptional. In 1998, he initiated the first ever ``Asian Roundtable'' discussion on Civil Rights with joint efforts involving the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Ohio Rights Commission. Also in 1998, Mr. Sinha received the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Award for Community Service to the State of Ohio.

In his profession, Mr. Sinha is an accomplished mechanical engineer and has been involved in the design and construction of large electric power plants. He holds a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering from Jadavapur University in Calcutta, India, and a master's degree from the Polytechnic University of New York. He also studied management at the Ohio State University and computer science at Franklin University. Currently, he is president of Marketing USA Group, a consulting firm he founded which advises clients on energy, telecommunications, technology, and global business.

As a humanitarian, Mr. Sinha is known for his quiet leadership. He has been called ``a humble man with a compassion for human and civil rights.'' Throughout his career, Nirmal Sinha has exemplified the highest American values, including good citizenship, and responsibility to his fellow man.

Nirmal Sinha is very deserving of the Ellis Island Medal of Honor. America is a nation of immigrants, and I believe our cultural and ethnic diversity helps make us strong.

When I was Governor of Ohio, one of the goals that I set for my administration was to celebrate the cultural diversity of our State by seeking out individuals from nontraditional ethnic groups and giving them an opportunity to serve. I am proud that I appointed a number of Asian Indian Americans, such as Nirmal Sinha, to various boards and commissions, particularly in such fields, as medicine, manufacturing, and higher education.

Mr. Sinha is in good company as a recipient of the Ellis Island Medal of Honor. Former recipients include four Presidents, several Senators and Congressmen, and Nobel Prize winners.

As someone who has had the pleasure of knowing and working with Mr. Sinha, I can guarantee that his significant contributions to his community and to the State of Ohio will not stop, but will continue to grow. I also know that he does not seek recognition for his humanitarian service. Instead, he lives in accordance with his strong faith, and his commitment to education, his family, and his community.

Nirmal Sinha is someone all of us would do well to emulate and I am pleased and proud to salute him and his wife Tripti and their two daughters.

I congratulate Nirmal Sinha as a 2003 Ellis Island Medal of Honor winner. He is an outstanding American whose dedicated service to others helps improve the quality of life for his fellow Americans every day.

Mr. President, I rise in support of nuclear energy and in support of the provisions in S. 14 that promote the use of this vital component of our energy portfolio.

Nuclear energy accounts for 20 percent of our electricity generation--one in five American homes and businesses are powered by nuclear energy. It is an important energy source now, and will

become even more important in the future--as we strive to meet growing energy demands while protecting our environment.

As many of my colleagues know, nuclear energy provides emissions-free electricity--no emission of airborne pollutants, no emission of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases. In fact, nuclear energy provides three-fourths of the emissions-free electricity generated in the United States--more than hydro, wind, solar and geothermal energy combined.

President Bush has said many times that energy security is a cornerstone of national security. He is right--and nuclear energy is a vital component of our energy supply.

Uranium--the fuel for our nuclear fleet--is mined domestically and by many of our allies.

Unlike oil, nuclear energy is not subject to foreign manipulation.

Unlike natural gas, nuclear energy does not have domestic shortages and importation problems.

Unlike wind, solar and geothermal energy, nuclear energy provides highly affordable and reliable power.

Production costs of nuclear energy were 1.76 cents per kilowatt-hour versus 1.79 cents for coal and 5.69 cents for natural gas in 2000.

Plant capacity utilization exceeded 90 percent in 2002--the fourth year in a row that the industry set a record for output without building any new plants.

Nuclear energy is safe. Our nuclear plants are the most hardened of any commercial structures in the country and have a superb safety record and few, if any, industries have oversight comparable to that provided by the NRC for nuclear plants.

Our nuclear Navy is a great example of the safety of nuclear energy--

The U.S. Navy has safely traveled over 126 million miles without a single reactor incident and with no measurable impact on the world's environment.

Sailors on a nuclear submarine, working within yards of a reactor, receive less radiation while on active duty than they would at home from natural radiation background.

However, we must act now if we want to preserve the benefits of nuclear energy.

The last license for a domestic reactor was issued in 1978--and the technologies used to power our nuclear plants are over 30 years old.

Our industry has developed advanced nuclear technologies--and the NRC has licensed them--but new plants have only been built overseas, not in America.

Our nuclear plants were built in a highly regulated market--where returns on these investments were guaranteed--not in today's highly competitive energy markets.

Nuclear plants present unusual risks to the financial community due to the significant up-front capital investments that are required years before they generate any returns--as opposed to natural gas generators that are relatively inexpensive and easy to build.

Without new interest in nuclear power, our pool of qualified nuclear workers is drying up.

From 1990-95, the number of students in nuclear engineering dropped by 30 percent.

In 1975, there were 76 research reactors on American college campuses--today there are 32.

Current estimates project that domestic energy demand will increase by almost 50 percent by 2030. Without a significant effort to increase our nuclear capacity--which must include construction of new nuclear facilities--we will have no other choice than reliance on natural gas to meet that demand, which will drive up the costs for both electricity and natural gas through the roof.

The nuclear energy provisions in S. 14 are essential to assure that nuclear energy continues to thrive and provide its benefits to our Nation:

Price-Anderson reauthorization: The bill permanently reauthorizes the Price-Anderson liability protection that is so crucial to all nuclear facilities.

Advanced reactor construction: The bill will authorize construction of a new advanced reactor as a research test-bed using the very latest ideas developed in the Generation IV reactor program.

Advanced fuel cycle initiative: Authorizes funding for development of technologies to reduce the volume and toxicity of final waste projects, simplify siting for future repositories and recover fuel from spent fuel.

Federal loan guarantees: The bill provides loan guarantees for new plant construction in order to offset the problems with new development that I mentioned earlier.

I want to spend just a minute on the Federal loan guarantees that are the subject of an amendment by Senator Wyden and Senator Sununu.

These loan guarantees are necessary to jumpstart construction on new nuclear plants. In order to begin construction of a new facility, the nuclear industry needs to move into uncharted waters--they need to go to investment bankers and say ``I know that this is a huge capital outlay, and that we haven't built one of these facilities in 30 years, but we need to do this.'' These loan guarantees will ensure that private-sector financing will be available for utilities that make the decision to move forward.

My distinguished colleague from Oregon has stated that we are throwing away good money on these ``subsidies.'' I must respectfully disagree. As Chairman Domenici pointed out earlier, this is not a handout program.

These are loan guarantees--for up to 50 percent of the construction costs for a new facility--which means that the utilities will have to make payments on the loans, and that there will likely be no expenses to the Government.

I applaud the work that Chairman Domenici has done on these provisions--all of these provisions--and I will oppose any efforts to strip them from the energy bill.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the Wyden-Sununu amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senate amendment 850, an amendment to add a renewable fuels package to the energy bill.

This language establishes a nationwide renewable fuels standard of 5 billion gallons by 2012, repeals the Clean Air Act's oxygenate requirement for reformulated gasoline and phases down the use of MTBE over 4 years.

This language has strong bipartisan support and is the result of long negotiations between the Renewable Fuels Association, the National Corn Growers Association, the Farm Bureau Federation, the American Petroleum Institute, the Northeast states for Coordinated Air Use Management, NESCAUM, and the American Lung Association.

Passage of this ethanol language will protect our national security, economy, and environment.

The amendment that the majority leader has introduced--a compromise that will triple the amount of domestically-produced ethanol used in America--is one essential tool in reducing our dependence on imported oil.

President Bush has stated repeatedly that energy security is a cornerstone for national security. I agree. It is crucial that we become less dependent on foreign sources of oil and look more to domestic sources to meet our energy needs. Ethanol is an excellent domestic source--it is a clean burning, homegrown renewable fuel that we can rely on for generations to come.

Ethanol is also good for our Nation's economy. Tripling the use of renewable fuels over the next decade will:

Reduce our National Trade Deficit by more than $34 billion;

Increase U.S. GDP by $156 billion by 2012;

Create more than 214,000 new jobs;

Expand household income by an additional $51.7 billion;

Save taxpayers $3 billion annually in reduced government subsidies due to the creation of new markets for corn.

The benefits for the farm economy are even more pronounced. Ohio is 6th 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 amendment will increase net farm income by nearly $6 billion annually;

Passage of this amendment will create $5.3 billion of new investment in renewable fuel production capacity.

Phasing out MTBE on a national basis will be good for our fuel supply. Because refiners are under tremendous strain from having to make several different gasoline blends to meet various State clean air requirements--and no new refineries have been built in the last 25 years--the effects of various State responses to the threat of MTBE contamination--including bans and phase-outs on different schedules-- will add a significant burden to existing refineries. The MTBE phase- out provisions in this package will ensure that refiners will have less stress on their system and that gasoline will be more fungible nationwide.

Expanding the use of ethanol will also protect our environment by reducing auto emissions, which will mean cleaner air and improved public health.

Use of ethanol reduces emissions of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons by 20 percent;

Ethanol also reduces emissions of particulates by 40 percent;

Use of ethanol RFG helped move Chicago into attainment of the federal ozone standard, the only RFG area to see such improvement;

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

Our farmers can meet the ethanol standard. For 2003, the ethanol industry is on pace to produce more than 2.7 billion gallons. The amount of ethanol required under the FRS begins at 2.6 billion gallons in 2005. Adequate ethanol supply is simply not an issue.

Currently, 73 ethanol plants nationwide have the capacity to produce over 2.9 billion gallons annually. Further, there are ten ethanol plants under construction, which when completed will bring the total capacity to more than 3.3 billion gallons.

California has been cited as a major problem area; however, all but two small refiners have already transitioned from MTBE into ethanol. California will use close to 700 million gallons of ethanol in 2003 after consuming roughly 100 million gallons last year. The California Energy Commission has concluded the transition to ethanol ``is progressing without any major problems.'' The U.S. Energy Information Administration found the transition went ``remarkably well.''

Individual States are banning the use of MTBE, but they cannot change the federal RFG oxygen content requirement. The collision of these two elements under current law will likely lead to higher costs.

Under current law, California's required ethanol use in 2005 would be 895 million gallons. Under this amendment, fuel providers supplying California will be required to use far less ethanol in 2005--291 million gallons. And more importantly, they will benefit from the bill's credit banking and trading provisions.

With the State MTBE ban set for January 2004, New York faces a similar situation. Under the status quo, fuel providers will be required to use 197 million gallons of ethanol in New York in 2005. However, if this amendment is enacted, refiners, blenders and importers would be required to use or purchase credits for even less--111 million gallons of ethanol in 2005.

A study conducted by Mathpro, a prominent economic analysis firm, found that, compared to a situation where States are banning MTBE and the federal RFG oxygen content requirement is left in place, this amendment will lower the average gasoline production cost: by about two-tenths of a cent per gallon.

In addition, this language provide safeguards. In the event that the RFS would severely harm the economy or the environment or would lead to potential supply and distribution problems, the RFS requirement could be reduced or eliminated.

Ethanol is already blended from Alaska to Florida and from California to New York. Ethanol is already transported via barge, railcar, and oceangoing vessel to markets throughout the country. The U.S. Department of Energy studied the feasibility of a 5 billion gallon per year national ethanol market and found that ``no major infrastructure barriers exist'' and that needed investments on an amortized, per- gallon basis are ``modest'' and ``present no major obstacle.''

Both the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Congressional Budget Office have recognized the benefit of the investment of the ethanol program on the overall health to the nation's economy. Recently, the USDA stated the ethanol program would decrease farm program payments by $3 billion per year. In its analysis of this amendment, CBO stated the provision would reduce direct spending by $2 billion during 2005-2013.

The RFS agreement includes strong anti-backsliding provisions that prohibit refiners from producing gasoline that increases emissions once the oxygenate requirement is removed. A Governor can also petition EPA for a waiver of the ethanol requirement based on supporting documentation that the ethanol waiver will increase emissions that contribute to air pollution in any area of the state.

The fuels agreement would benefit the environment in a number of ways:

reduces tailpipe emissions of carbon monoxide, VOCs, and fine particulates,

phases down MTBE over 4 years to address groundwater contamination, and since ethanol biodegrades quickly, it will not have the same problem,

provides for one grade of summertime Federal RFG, which is more stringent,

increases the benefits from the Federal RFG program on air toxic reductions,

provides states in the Ozone Transport Region and enhanced opportunity to participate in the RFG program because of unique air quality problems,

includes provisions that require EPA to conduct a study on the effects on public health, air quality, and water resources of increased use of potential MTBE substitutes, including ethanol.

The use of ethanol-blended fuels also reduces so-called greenhouse gas emissions by 12-19 percent compared with conventional gasoline, according to Argonne National Laboratory. In fact, Argonne states ethanol use last year in the U.S. reduced the so-called greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 4.3 million tons, equivalent to removing the annual emissions of more than 636,000 cars.

I also want to point out that the California Environmental Policy Council recently gave ethanol a clean bill of health and approved its use as a replacement for MTBE in California gasoline.

A similar provision has already passed the House of Representatives this year. Virtually the same agreement passed the Senate in April 2002 with 69 votes.

The fuels agreement is supported by the American Petroleum Institute; the

Renewable Fuels Association; the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM); U.S. Chamber of Commerce; US Action; the Union of Concerned Scientists; the Environmental and Energy Studies Institute; the Governor's Ethanol Coalition; General Motors; the Governors of California and New York; and all of the major agricultural organizations in the United States.

It is time to pass an ethanol bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote yes for America's farmers and this amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor Alfred Lerner. Al, as he was called by those who knew him best, was a man of great success and wealth but also great compassion and charity.

Al was born in New York City, graduated from Columbia College and proudly served in the Marine Corps as an officer and pilot from 1955 through 1957. The son of Russian immigrants, Al Lerner had an amazing sense of patriotism and was so proud to accept the Ellis Island Medal in honor of his immigrant heritage and individual achievements in 2002.

My personal relationship with Al developed because of the fondness we shared for the city of Cleveland, and Cleveland is a better place because of Al Lerner. His generosity was seen in well known ways such as his contributions to Rainbow Babies and Children's Hospital, where the Lerner Research Institute was founded, and to the Cleveland Clinic. In fact, Al Lerner's $100,000,000 contribution to the Cleveland Clinic was one of the largest donations to academic medicine in the history of the United States. Al gave so much of himself to these institutions, serving as president and trustee of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation and establishing the Lerner Research Institute at the Clinic to conduct research of new treatments for cancer, coronary artery disease and

Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senate amendment No. 539, the renewable fuels package to the Energy bill, and to oppose the opt-in and waiver amendments of the Senator from California.

First, I will talk a little bit about the renewable fuels package and its benefit to the people of this country. The amendment contains language which was voted out of the EPW Committee, of which I am a member, earlier this year. The language establishes a nationwide renewable fuels standard of 5 billion gallons by 2012, repeals the oxygenate requirement for reformulated gasoline under the Clean Air Act, and also phases down the use of MTBE over 4 years. The language in this amendment has strong bipartisan support and is the result of long negotiation between the Renewable Fuels Association, the National Corn Growers Association, the Farm Bureau, the American Petroleum Institute, the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, and the American Lung Association.

I am very familiar with the amount of work that went into drafting the compromise legislation. It was lengthy, it was open, and I was very pleased all of these various groups could get together and work out that big compromise, particularly the Senator from Ohio, who has Ashland-Marathon Oil and also represents the sixth largest State in corn production.

I emphasize that the passage of the ethanol bill will protect our national security, help our economy, and protect our environment. The amendment the majority and minority leaders have introduced is a compromise that will triple the amount of domestically produced ethanol used in America. It is an essential tool to reducing our dependence on imported oil. I think we all know over 58 percent of the oil we use in this country is imported. Last year, we imported an average of 4,558,000 barrels per day from OPEC countries and 442,000 barrels a day from Iraq. Let me say that again. Last year, we imported nearly a half million barrels of oil from Iraq, and this dependence is not getting any better.

The Energy Information Administration estimates our dependency on imported oil could grow to nearly 70 percent by the year 2020, and our President has stated repeatedly that energy security is a cornerstone for national security. I agree. It is crucial we become less dependent on foreign sources of oil and look to domestic sources to meet our energy needs.

Ethanol is an excellent domestic source. It is clean burning. It is a homegrown renewable fuel that we can rely on for generations to come. The renewable fuels standard in this language will displace 1.6 billion barrels of oil. Ethanol is also good for our Nation's economy. Tripling the use of renewable fuels over the next decade will reduce our national trade deficit by more than $34 billion. By 2012, it will increase the U.S. gross domestic product by $156 billion. It will create 214,000 new jobs, expand household income by an additional $51.7 billion, and save taxpayers $3 billion annually in reduced Government subsidies due to the creation of new markets for corn. All of us who were concerned about the farm bill that passed last year are concerned about these subsidies. The passage of this ethanol amendment will help reduce the subsidy by $3 billion.

The benefits for the farm economy are even more pronounced. As I mentioned, Ohio is the sixth in the Nation in terms of corn production and is among the highest in the Nation in terms of putting ethanol into our gas tanks. Forty percent of the gasoline in Ohio is ethanol blend.

An increase in the use of ethanol across the Nation means an economic boost to thousands of farm families across my State. Currently, the ethanol production provides 192,000 jobs and $4.5 billion in net farm income nationwide. The passage of this amendment will increase the net farm income by nearly $6 billion annually, which is significant. Passage of this amendment will create $5.3 billion of new investment in renewable fuels production capacity.

Phasing out MTBE on a national basis will be good for our fuel supply because refiners are under tremendous strain from having to make several different gasoline blends to meet various State clean air requirements. And no new refineries--I want to underscore--no new refineries in this country have been built in the last 25 years. The effects of the various State responses to the threat of MTBE contamination, including bans and phaseouts on different schedules, will add a significant burden to existing refineries.

The MTBE phaseout provisions in this package will ensure that refiners will have less stress on their system and that gasoline will be more fungible nationwide. Expanding the use of ethanol will also protect our environment by reducing auto emissions, which will mean cleaner air and improved public health.

Use of ethanol reduces emissions of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons by 20 percent. Ethanol also reduces emissions of particulates, which are a real problem in this country today, by 40 percent. Use of ethanol RFG helped move Chicago into attainment of the Federal ozone standard, the only RFG area to see such an improvement. It was done in the Chicago area by using ethanol.

In 2002, ethanol use in the United States reduced greenhouse gas emissions, something we have talked about a great deal on the Senate floor, by 4.3 million tons. Listen to this: The equivalent of removing more than 630,000 vehicles from the road. Think of that.

Over the course of the debate on this amendment, several arguments against the renewable fuels package have been raised by our colleagues from California and New York, ranging from concerns that a renewable fuels standard cannot be met and will raise gasoline prices to claims that ethanol is bad for the environment and allegations that this package will benefit a select number of producers without helping our farmers. These arguments remind me of the adage that you cannot let the facts get in the way of a good argument.

The concerns raised by opponents of the renewable fuels standard concerning the impact of RFS, the fuel supply, and gasoline prices, while understandable, I believe are completely unfounded. The fact is, our farmers will be able to meet the ethanol standard, and the combination of the MTBE phaseout and oxygenate waiver in this package will significantly improve our fuel supply system and lower costs for consumers.

Our farmers can meet the ethanol standard. For 2003, the ethanol industry is on pace to produce more than 2.7 billion gallons. The amount of ethanol required under the RFS begins at 2.6 billion in 2005. Adequate ethanol supply is simply not an issue.

Currently, 73 ethanol plants nationwide have the capacity to produce over 2.9 billion gallons annually. Further, there are 10 ethanol plants now under construction which when completed will bring the total capacity to more than 3.3 billion gallons. That is today. We are talking about 5 billion by the year 2012. There is no problem with achieving that goal.

California has been cited as a major problem area. However, all but two small refineries have already transitioned from MTBE into ethanol. California will use close to 700 million gallons of ethanol in 2003 after consuming roughly 100 million gallons last year. Think of that: From 100 million last year to 700 million this year.

The California Energy Commission has concluded the transition to ethanol ``is progressing without any major problems.'' The U.S. Energy Information Administration found the transition went ``remarkably well.'' The Energy Information Administration studied the RFS without accounting for the impact of banking and trading credits. This means they analyzed the effective cost of ethanol being blended at every single refinery and concluded the impact on refiner costs would be one- half of 1 percent per gallon. However, it was noted with credit trading ethanol will not need to be blended at every refinery. Forget about the fact we built into this the credit trading provision. This would reduce the impact because refiners will have the flexibility to use ethanol where it makes the most sense economically. Look around the country and they can trade, use it where it makes most sense economically.

In the absence of Federal legislation, consumers will likely be subject to the costs of uncoordinated State action, individual States adding the MTBE but cannot change the Federal RFG oxygen content requirement. This bill does that; it gets rid of that requirement.

The coalition of these two elements will likely lead to higher costs unless this bill is passed. For instance, California will ban MTBE in 2004 and the Federal RFG oxygenate requirement will be left in place if this does not pass. Therefore, California's required ethanol use in 2005 would be 895 million gallons. However, if the fuels provision of this amendment is enacted, fuel providers in California would be required to use far less ethanol in 2005, 291 million gallons, which could be even less with the bill's credit banking and trading provisions.

There is a lot of flexibility for States to do what is in their best interest. With a State MTBE ban set for January 2004, New York faces a similar situation. Under the status quo, fuel providers would be required to use 197 million gallons of ethanol in New York in 2005. However, if the amendment is passed, refiners, blenders, and importers would be required to use or purchase credits for even less--100 million gallons of ethanol in 2005.

A study concluded by Mathpro, a prominent economic analysis firm, found that compared with the situation where States are banning MTBE and the Federal RFG oxygen content requirement is left in place, the fuels provisions would decrease the average gasoline production cost by 2 cents per gallon. In addition, the fuels provisions provide safeguards in the event that RFS would severely harm the economy or the environment or would leave a potential supply and distribution problem, the RFS requirement could be reduced or eliminated.

The status quo situation creates transportation and infrastructure problems. It is individual State bans, as in California and New York, which will require the transport of large amounts of ethanol to States far from where it is produced. In contrast, a critical element of this fuels package is a national RFS with, as I mentioned, a credit banking and trading program to ensure that renewable fuels will not have to be in every gallon of gasoline. This will allow refineries to use ethanol where it makes the most sense.

Furthermore, ethanol is already blended from Alaska to Florida and from California to New York. Ethanol is already transported via barge, railcar, and ocean-going vessels from markets throughout the country. The U.S. Department of Energy studied the feasibility of a 5 billion gallon per year national market for ethanol and found no major infrastructure barriers exist and needed investments on an amortized per-gallon basis are modest and prevent no major obstacle.

Let's talk about our farmers and how it helps them. Some of my colleagues have used the supplier ADM, Archer Daniels Midland, as an argument that the market is dangerously concentrated. Contrary to the charts presented by the Senator from California, with the current industry expansion, ADM, according to the information I have, is at 32 percent of total capacity. By comparison, farmer-owned ethanol plants have increased their percentage of total production capacity from 20 percent in 1999 to 38 percent today. I know in my own State when I met recently with our farm community, there is talk of our farmer community investing in two new plants that will be owned by the farmers in the State of Ohio.

Furthermore, when ADM purchased another ethanol producer last year, the Department of Justice investigated the impact this would have on competition. They found that ``the acquisition did not warrant challenge in terms of its potential effect in the ethanol market.''

Contrary to claims of entry into the marketplace problems, the industry has grown by leaps and bounds over the past 3 years with 30 new facilities built since 2001. According to the Federal Trade Commission merger guidelines, entry time of less than 2 years is not considered a barrier to entry. The average entry time of the new ethanol facility is from 15 to 20 months. If the industry continues to add 8 to 10 facilities a year through 2012, we will have an additional 70 new facilities across this Nation to take care of any market control that anyone might want.

Both the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Congressional Budget Office have recognized the benefit of the investment of the ethanol program on the overall health of the Nation's economy. Recently, the USDA stated that the ethanol program would decrease farm program payments by $3 billion. In its analysis of this amendment, CBO stated the provision would reduce direct spending by $2 billion during 2005 to 2013.

Let's talk about the impact on the economy. Tripling the use of renewable fuels over the next decade will also reduce our national trade deficit by more than $34 billion. A lot of our trade deficit has to do with importing oil. It will increase the U.S. gross domestic product by $156 billion by 2012. It will create more than 214,000 jobs. It will expand household income by an additional $51.7 billion. As I said, it will save taxpayers a lot of money because of reduced Government subsidies to the agricultural community.

The benefits for the farming community are even more pronounced. An increase in the use of ethanol across the Nation means an economic boost to thousands of farm families across the

States through this country. Currently, ethanol production provides 192,000 jobs and 4.5 billion in net farm income nationwide. Passage of this amendment will increase net farm income by $6 billion annually. As I said before, it will create 5.3 billion in new investment and renewable fuels production capacity.

Now, the environment. It has been brought up that ethanol is bad for the environment, that there have been problems and red flags thrown about the use of ethanol.

The Clean Air Act's reformulated gasoline program requires the same smog-reducing characteristics for gasoline whether blended with MTBE or ethanol. In other words, if you use ethanol you still must comply with the Act.

The RFS agreement includes strong anti-backsliding provisions that prohibit refiners from producing gasoline that increases emissions once the oxygenate requirement is removed. A Governor can also petition EPA for a waiver of the ethanol requirement based on supporting documentation that the ethanol waiver will increase emissions that contribute to air pollution in any area of the State. So if there is a period during one year where there may be a problem, a Governor can ask for a waiver from one provision.

The fuels agreement would benefit the environment in a number of ways:

It reduces tailpipe emissions of carbon monoxide, VOCs, and fine particulates.

It phases down MTBE over 4 years to address groundwater contamination, and since ethanol biodegrades quickly, it will not have the same problem.

It provides for one grade of summertime Federal RFG, which is more stringent.

It increases the benefits from the Federal RFG program on air toxic reductions.

It provides States in the ozone transport region an enhanced opportunity to participate in the RFG program because of unique air quality problems.

It includes provisions that require EPA to conduct a study on the effects on public health, air quality, and water resources of increased use of potential MTBE substitutes, including ethanol.

The use of ethanol-blended fuels also reduces so-called greenhouse gas emissions by 12 to 19 percent compared with conventional gasoline, according to Argonne National Laboratory. In fact, Argonne states ethanol use last year in the U.S. reduced the so-called greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 4.3 million tons, equivalent to removing the annual emissions of more than 636,000 cars. Additionally, a new report from the Pew Center on Global Climate Change concluded that:

During the next 15 years, replacement fuels offer the

greatest promise for reducing transportation sector

[greenhouse gas] emissions.

Regarding benzene, there have been no conclusive studies showing ethanol-blended gasoline, leaked into an existing benzene plume would result in further benzene spread--blending ethanol usually equates to less benzene in gasoline.

According to the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management:

We are satisfied to have reached an agreement that

substantially broadens the ability of the U.S. EPA and our

Nation's Governors to protect, and in some cases improve, air

quality, and public health as we undertake major changes in

the Nation's fuel supply.

Also, after an environmental impact analysis, the California Environmental Policy Council gave ethanol a clean bill of health and approved its use as a replacement for MTBE in California gasoline.

The fuels agreement is supported by the American Petroleum Institute; the Renewable Fuels Association; the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management--NESCAUM; the American Lung Association; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; US Action; the Union of Concerned Scientists; the Environmental and Energy Studies Institute; the Governor's Ethanol Coalition.

We have heard so much talk about letting Governors opt into this program. I want to make it clear the Governors' Ethanol Coalition is supporting this ethanol agreement and this amendment. General Motors and, as Senator Daschle mentioned earlier today in his response to the Senator from California, the Governors of California and New York also support this amendment, plus all of the major, of course, agricultural organizations in the United States.

Again, I want to state for my colleagues particularly, there were many public and well-attended stakeholder meetings leading to this historic RFS fuels agreement.

So many times there are issues that come before the Senate where we have groups that have differences of opinion. So often, these groups never get together and talk to each other; they talk past each other. As one who has been so involved in this whole issue of ethanol, beginning frankly when I was Governor of the State of Ohio, I was always concerned that somehow we just could not get the folks from the oil industry and the corn growers and other groups together to talk about how we could come up with something that would make sense, that would satisfy their respective needs, to underscore the importance of the fact that they had a symbiotic relationship with each other; if they got together, they could come up with something that would achieve their respective goals.

That happened. It doesn't happen very often around here, but it did happen. I will never forget the press conference that was held in the LBJ Room. On that stage were representatives from a dozen or so organizations in this country, organizations that, if someone had said they would be on the stage together supporting this ethanol compromise, people would have said: No way. No way.

It happened. So I am saying to my colleagues, this has been vetted. It has been discussed. We have a good compromise. Let's not diminish it with the amendments that are going to be submitted to this very important amendment, this amendment that is so important for our country.

By the way, this bill has to get done this year. If we do not get this amendment done and deal with the oxygenate program and the MTBE, we are going to have chaos--chaos. If the people in California and New York think the gasoline price is high now, if this is not passed, it will go sky high.

I am saying to everyone, please, let's support this amendment and vote against any of the amendments to this amendment that are being submitted by some of my colleagues.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the ethanol amendment and to comment upon several of the remarks that were made by my colleagues.

One of the items that was mentioned by the junior Senator from Arizona was the issue of subsidy. I think it is important we clarify the fact that, yes, ethanol has been subsidized over the years, but the Federal ethanol program was established following the OPEC oil embargoes of the 1970s.

I am old enough to remember the long lines in 1973. At that stage of the game, we were only about 34 percent reliant on foreign oil. Of course, we all know today we are 58 percent reliant on foreign oil.

So when the ethanol subsidy came in place and the program was established, we had a dangerous dependence on imported oil. That was one of the reasons they did it. As an alternative to petroleum, ethanol directly displaces imported oil and reduces tailpipe emissions while helping to bolster the domestic economy. Yet today, as I just said, we import more petroleum than ever before with rising crude oil prices and increasing international instability.

Incentives for production and use of domestic ethanol are critical; that is, we can rely upon ethanol. We cannot rely upon imported oil.

I think it is really important for all of us to recognize the fact that we have subsidized the oil industry substantially since the early 1900s. Some may not believe this, but the oil industry started out in the State of Ohio. It was called Standard Oil. Today we continue to subsidize the oil industry. In fact, according to the General Accounting Office, in an October 2000 report, the oil industry has received over $130 billion in tax incentives just in the past 30 years, dwarfing the roughly $11 billion provided for renewable fuels.

Here is an interesting fact: During this time, the U.S. oil production has plummeted while annual U.S. ethanol production has grown by over 2 billion gallons. The point is, when we got into the issue of subsidizing ethanol, we were in very bad shape in terms of our reliance on foreign oil. Since that time, we have made substantial progress.

During the same period of time, if you want to pit one industry over the other, we have seen our dependence on foreign oil grow despite the subsidy we have provided to the oil industry.

There is also the suggestion that the ethanol mandate will largely benefit producers, not farmers. According to

the U.S. Department of Agriculture, ethanol production raises the price of corn by 30 to 50 percent nationwide. This is an average of 5 to 10 cents additional premium in the areas that supply ethanol plants. Both of these numbers apply to all corn, not just corn sold to ethanol plants. Given a billion bushel corn crop, it adds between $3 and $5 billion to farm income every year. There is no question, ethanol is good for our farmers. Additionally, farmers own nearly 40 percent of the ethanol industry, and that is growing. These farmer owners realize value-added benefits from their investments.

A chart was referenced by the Senator from California about the fact we are relying on Archer Daniels Midland for 46 percent of our ethanol. The fact is it is now down to 32 percent. The real growth in producing ethanol is from ethanol plants financed by the agricultural community in the United States.

Finally, every major farm organization supports the fuels agreement, including, but not limited to, the following: American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Farmers Union, National Corn Growers Association, American Corn Growers, National Grain Sorghum Producers and American Soybean Association.

Now, we have some concern about what impact does this industry have on the National Treasury, our general fund. Both the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Congressional Budget Office have recognized the benefit of the investment in the ethanol program on the overall health of the Nation's economy. Recently, the USDA stated the ethanol program would decrease farm program payments by $3 billion per year. In its analysis of this amendment, CBO stated the provision would reduce direct spending by $2 billion during 2005 to 2013, certainly a partial offset to any subsidy given to the ethanol industry.

Tripling the use of renewable fuels over the next decade will reduce our national trade deficit by $34 billion. Our trade deficit is at an all-time high. A lot of that trade deficit has to do with importing oil. It will increase the U.S. gross domestic product by $156 billion by 2012 and create more than 214,000 new jobs. It will expand household income by an additional $51.7 billion, and it will save taxpayers $2 billion annually in reduced government subsidies due to the creation of new markets for corn.

We see a tremendous economic benefit to this ethanol industry in our country. That is why we are working so hard to have this amendment included in the Energy bill.

In addition to its importance in becoming more self-reliant in terms of imported oil, also in terms of our economy, ethanol helps our environment. This bill provides strong antibacksliding provisions that prohibit refiners from producing gasoline that increases emissions. Once the oxygenate requirements are removed, a Governor can also petition EPA for a waiver of the ethanol requirement based on supporting documentation that the ethanol waiver will increase emissions that contribute to air pollution in an area of the State. This is something that was not mentioned by the junior Senator from Arizona in his presentation. The fact is, if ethanol is such a big environmental problem in the State of Arizona, the Governor of Arizona can petition that they be exempt from the mandate provision. That is included in our amendment.

Last year, the ethanol industry also worked with EPA on the discovery and containment of the emissions from ethanol facilities. Consent decrees have been filed by the Justice Department in record time, and compliance by the ethanol industry has been cited as a model.

The fuels agreement we are asking Members to support will benefit the environment in a number of ways. It reduces tailpipe emission of carbon monoxide, VOCs, and fine particulates, and phases down MTBE over 4 years to address our ground water contamination problem. It provides for one grade of summertime Federal RFG, which is more stringent. It increases the benefits from the Federal RFG program on air toxin reduction. It provides States in the ozone transport region enhanced opportunity to participate in the RFG program. And it includes provisions that require EPA to conduct a study of the effects on public health, air quality, and water resources of increased use of MTBEs. We have tried to cover everything in this amendment.

The amendments to opt out of this program are unnecessary and unwarranted.

The fuels agreement contained in this amendment that passed the Senate last year includes the establishment of a renewable fuel standard and will provide for greater refinery flexibility in the fuels marketplace than the existing Clean Air Act oxygenate requirement. It does not require that a single gallon of renewable fuels be used in any particular State or region; rather, the requirement is on the refiners. The RFS will allow much greater flexibility in the work of oxygenates, which should reduce the chances that localized supply disruption of gasoline or oxygenates will result in retail supply shortages.

The additional flexibility provided by the RFS credit trading provisions will be a lower cost to refiners and, thus, consumers. The credit trading system will ensure that renewable fuels are used when and where most cost effective, which is why we have the credit and trading provisions. In California, we need to emphasize this.

By the way, California is the area where the junior Senator from Arizona says they are going to have to rely upon getting their ethanol blend gasoline. Nearly all the refiners, the people who provide the gasoline to the State of Arizona, have switched from MTBE to ethanol in advance of the State's MTBE phaseout deadline of January 1. The results can only be described as seamless. There have been no ethanol shortages, transportation delays, or logistical problems associated with the increased use of ethanol in the State of California. In fact, according to an April 2003 California Energy Commission report, the transition to ethanol which began in January 2003 ``is progressing without any major problems.''

We need to emphasize that. This is not going to discombobulate delivery of the gasoline in California or New York or other places that people say it will cause a problem. The Energy Commission of California says it is progressing without any major problems. Today, approximately 65 percent of all California gasoline is blended with ethanol. It is estimated that 80 percent of the fuel will contain ethanol by this summer. They are moving ahead. Only 100 million gallons of ethanol were used in the State last year. California refiners will use between 600 and 700 million gallons of ethanol in 2003. There is not any reason to opt out because of the fact that blended gasoline will not be available to these States.

This legislation is the result of a great deal of work and compromise on the part of many Members of the Senate working with a variety of organizations.

I would like to remind my colleagues of the organizations that support this. It is unusual, in terms of the diverse groups represented. It is supported by the American Petroleum Institute. There has been some talk that the oil industry does not support it. The fact is, the American Petroleum Institute is supportive; of course, the Renewable Fuels Association; the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management. Again, there is an area of the country that could be affected by it, and they like the compromise that has been put together.

We are talking about environmental concerns. The American Lung Association is supportive of this ethanol amendment. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is certainly concerned about the impact this would have on the economy of the United States. The Union of Concerned Scientists, again, a very forthright, outspoken environmental organization that, on many occasions, is very critical of legislation being promoted in the Senate, says: We like this agreement that has been entered into.

The Environmental and Energy Studies Institute; the Governors' Ethanol Coalition; General Motors. Here is one that I think is really important for some of my colleagues who cannot make up their mind with regard to some of the amendments we are going to get to this ethanol amendment, and that is that the Governors of both California and New York support this compromise, and, of course, all the major agricultural organizations in the United States.

I urge my colleagues to support this ethanol amendment and defeat some of

the amendments that they are going to have an opportunity to vote on later on this afternoon.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my disappointment that the Senate is not able to act on my amendment to the Defense Authorization bill: the NASA Workforce Flexibility Act. NASA and DoD have a long history of collaboration on numerous programs that are central to the success of each agency and the expertise NASA provides DoD is critical to our national security.

For over a year, NASA has been discussing with us the impending crisis within their workforce. In March, my Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management and the Federal Workforce held a hearing on this very issue. Of great concern to me is the fact that 15 percent of NASA's workforce currently is eligible to retire; that number climbs to 25 percent in just five short years. Also disconcerting is the fact that scientists and engineers over age 60 outnumber those under age 30 by nearly three to one.

With so many experienced people eligible to retire in the next few years, who knows how much institutional knowledge and expertise is going to walk out the door? This creates substantial risk to NASA and our national security.

During the war in Iraq, we saw some of the tremendous benefit our advanced technology provides to our troops. Many people may not be aware that NASA and DoD collaboration is central to providing for our national security.

We have many examples in my own State of Ohio. As the former Mayor of Cleveland and Governor of Ohio, I have seen firsthand the collaboration between the NASA Glenn Research Center in Cleveland and Wright- Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton.

In Ohio alone, NASA and DoD work together on projects that include: Joint fuel cell research to be used in space applications, Army use of Glenn Research Center expertise in testing helicopter rotor engines, and Navy use of Glenn Research Center expertise in missile propulsion program.

These joint efforts are not limited to Ohio; this collaboration exists nationwide. At other Centers throughout the Nation DoD depends on NASA facilities, such as its wind tunnels, for development and testing of all military aircraft, including the Joint Strike Fighter; DoD relies on NASA for technical assistance in investigating and correcting DoD flight problems; the National Aerospace Initiative, formed at the direction of the Presidential Commission on the Future of Aerospace, is a joint DoD-NASA project to develop the future of aerospace technology that is critical to national defense.

The American Helicopter Society awarded the 2002 Howard Hughes Award to NASA's Langley Research Center. Established in 1977, the Howard Hughes award is given in recognition of accomplishments in the helicopter industry. NASA partnered with the Army, and working in conjunction with academia and the private sector, developed what it calls ``Tilt Rotor Aeroacoustics Code.'' This is the technology to reduce the noise generated by helicopter rotors.

My amendment addresses NASA's current and future workforce needs. It would direct NASA to work with OPM and its employees to develop an agency-wide workforce plan.

In the highly competitive science and engineering fields, my amendment would authorize NASA to offer enhanced recruitment and relocation bonuses to attract and retain top talent. It also would allow NASA to offer a mid-career individual in the private sector a vacation package competitive with the private sector and comparable to career federal employees. In addition, my amendment would establish a competitive scholarship program for students in return for employment at NASA.

Mr. President, this body took remarkable action last year when it included in the creation of the Department of Homeland Security the first major governmentwide reforms to the civil service in 25 years, since 1978. That was a good first step, but we have much more work to do. I am concerned that human capital remains on GAO's high-risk list for 2003 throughout the federal government.

In such a critical area as national security, it is clear that the Department of Defense needs NASA. And NASA needs workforce reform.

Mr. President, in this important debate on the Fiscal Year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act, I am deeply disappointed that the Parliamentarian has ruled irrelevant the amendment which Senator Collins and I planned to offer. Our amendment would establish the National Security Personnel System for the more than 700,000 civilian employees of the Department of Defense. The impact of the parliamentarian's ruling is that the Senate will be silent on one of the most substantial modifications to civil service law in the last 25 years. This is most unfortunate.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this amendment should be considered by the Senate--if for no other reason than the House of Representatives has already acted on a similar measure. Both the House Government Reform Committee and the House Armed Services Committee approved a version of the National Security Personnel System, and it will be included in the Defense Authorization Act that the House sends to Conference.

I remind my colleagues that a new human resources management system for the Department of Defense will emerge from Conference. It will be one in which the Senate as a whole has had no voice, and the first time this chamber votes on it will be during the final passage of the Defense Authorization Act later this year. This is regrettable.

I have worked on Federal Government personnel issues generally, and Department of Defense personnel issues specifically, since I arrived in the Senate 4 years ago.

In March 2001, the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management held a hearing entitled, ``National Security Implications of the Human Capital Crisis.'' This hearing is just one of 13 that have been held by my Subcommittee on the Federal Government's human capital challenges.

Among our panel of distinguished witnesses that day was former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, a member of the U.S. Commission on National Security in the 21st Century. Secretary Schlesinger discussed a comprehensive evaluation on national security strategy and structure that was undertaken by the Commission. Regarding human capital, the Commission's final report concluded:

As it enters the 21st century, the United States finds

itself on the brink of an unprecedented crisis of competence

in government. The maintenance of American power in the world

depends on the quality of U.S. government personnel, civil

and military, at all levels. We must take immediate action in

the personnel area to ensure that the United States can meet

future challenges.

Secretary Schlesinger added further:

. . . it is the Commission's view that fixing the personnel

problem is a precondition for fixing virtually everything

else that needs repair in the institutional edifice of U.S.

national security policy.

Just last week, my Subcommittee held a field hearing in Ohio entitled, ``An Overlooked Asset: the Defense Civilian Workforce.'' During this hearing, I heard testimony on the National Security Personnel System from Dr. David Chu, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, and the head of the U.S. General Accounting Office, Comptroller General David Walker.

Dr. Chu testified that, ``the rigidities of the title 5 system of personnel management make it difficult for our civilians to support the military.'' He stated that the Defense Department's top three priorities were hiring flexibilities, reform of the compensation system, and bargaining at the national level with the Department's unions.

Mr. Walker stated that ``We strongly support the concept of modernizing Federal human capital policies within DOD and the Federal Government at large,'' and ``the Federal personnel system is clearly broken in critical respects.'' However, he also noted that the ``senior civilian and military leaders have devoted `far less' attention to civilian personnel challenges than the challenges of maintaining an effective military,'' and that the Department needs to further develop and integrate its departmentwide human capital strategies.

But even before these hearings in which the national security establishment's personnel needs were outlined so clearly, I have been working to improve the management of the Defense civilian workforce. Many of the acute challenges confronting the Defense civilian workforce were brought to my attention several years ago through conversations with senior managers, both military and civilian, at Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio.

When the Senate was considering the 2001 National Defense Authorization Act in June 2000, Senator DeWine and I offered an amendment that would provide the Defense Department the ability to reshape its workforce through the use of early retirement and voluntary separation incentives.

Securing passage of that relatively simple amendment was not easy. I worked closely with the distinguished Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator John Warner, the distinguished Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Carl Levin, and my distinguished colleague on the Armed Services Committee, Senator James Inhofe, to ensure the adoption of that modest reform.

I wish the Senate had built on this earlier reform and the broader reforms that were included in the Homeland Security Act last year.

I would like to outline briefly what should be included in the National Security Personnel System.

First, the system should feature the broad flexibilities that were provided to the Department of Homeland Security. I believe that the labor-management collaboration process that was mandated for that new Department, and which would be replicated for the Defense Department, is proving effective in ensuring employee participation in the establishment of a new human resources system.

The Defense Department should use its flexibility to design and implement a modern pay-banding and pay-for-performance system which emphasizes accountability, as opposed to the current system in which seniority and pay increases are based primarily on the passage of time.

In addition, the new National Security Personnel System must include substantial hiring flexibility, broad workforce reshaping authorities, and must grant the Department of Defense the ability to bargain with its unions at the national level.

The new system also should provide the Secretary of Defense additional flexibility in hiring personnel outside of the United States on short notice, as well as additional benefits for certain Defense personnel serving abroad.

I support retaining the Director of the Office of Personnel Management as a strategic partner with the Secretary of Defense in the establishment of this new personnel system, and I do not believe that the Secretary should have ``sole, unreviewable'' authority over this new system.

The provisions I just described will give the Defense Department the authority to create a modern personnel system to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

Despite the documented need for further significant reform of the civil service, and the Defense Department's concerted and diligent efforts in this area that culminated in the proposed National Security Personnel System, the Senate apparently will take no action. Mr. President, in this regard, the United States Senate has abrogated its responsibility to the civilian employees of the Department of Defense.