Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Highway Funding Equity Act of 2003. I am joined on a bipartisan basis by Senators Levin, Stabenow, Bayh, Lugar, Hutchison, Cornyn, Warner, Chambliss, Lott, Lindsey Graham, Bill Nelson, Alexander, DeWine, Dole, Cochran, Landrieu, Miller, Hollings, Breaux, and Bunning.

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century, TEA-21, authorized more than $218 billion for transportation programs and will expire in September 2003. TEA-21 requires certain States, known as Donor states, to transfer to other States a percentage of the revenue from Federal highway user fees. Several of these donor States transfer more than 10 percent of every Federal highway user fee dollar to other States. As a result, donor States receive a significantly lower rate- of-return on their transportation tax dollar being sent to Washington, Currently, over 25 States, including my State of Ohio, contribute more money to the Highway Trust Fund than they receive back.

My State of Ohio has the Nation's 10th largest highway network, the 5th highest volume of traffic, the 4th largest interstate highway network, and the 2nd largest inventory of bridges in the country. Ohio is a major manufacturing State and is within 600 miles of 50 percent of the population of North America. The interstate highways throughout Ohio and all the donor States provide a vital link to suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, and consumers.

Maintaining our Nation's highway infrastructure is essential to a robust economy and increasing Ohio's share of Federal highway dollars has been a longtime battle of mine. One of my goals when I became governor 12 years ago was to increase our rate-of-return from 79 percent to 87 percent in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, ISTEA. Then, in 1998, as Chairman of the National Governors Association, I lobbied Congress to increase the minimum rate-of-return to 90.5 percent. The goal of the Highway Funding Equity Act of 2003 is to increase the minimum guaranteed rate-of-return to 95 percent.

The Highway Funding Equity Act of 2003 has two components. First, the bill would increase the minimum guaranteed rate-of-return in TEA-21 from 90.5 percent of a State's share of contributions to the Highway Trust Fund to 95 percent. The Minimum Guarantee under TEA-21 includes all major Core highway programs: Interstate Maintenance, National Highway System, Bridge, Surface Transportation Program, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality, Metropolitan Planning, Recreational Trails, and any funds provided by the Minimum Guarantee itself.

Second, the bill uses the table of percentages now in Section 105 of Title 23 to guarantee States with a population density of less the 50 people per square mile a minimum rate-of-return that may exceed 95 percent of that State's share of Highway Account contributions. This provision is intended to ensure that every State is able to provide the quality of road systems needed for national mobility, economic prosperity, and national defense. Under the 2000 Census, this provision would benefit 15 states: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.

Increasing donor States' rate of return to 95 percent will send more than $60 million back to Ohio for road improvements we sorely need. The interstate system was built in the 1950s to serve the demands and traffic of the 1980s. Today, Ohio's infrastructure is functionally obsolete. Nearly every central urban interstate in Ohio is over capacity and plagued with accidents and congestion. Ohio's critical roadways are unable to meet today's traffic demands, much less future traffic which is expected to grow nearly 70 percent in the next 20 years. Like all the donor States, we need these funds in Ohio.

States can no longer afford to support others that are already self- sufficient. Each State has its own needs that far outweigh total available funding, especially in light of the so-called ``mega projects'' coming due in the next decade. For example, the Brent Spence Bridge that carries Interstates 71 and 75 across the Ohio River into Kentucky is in need of replacement within the next 10 years at a cost of about $500 million. With the inclusion of the approach work, the total project could cost close to $1 billion.

The goal of this legislation is to improve the rate-of-return on donor states' dollars to guarantee that federal highway program funding is more equitable for all states. Donor States seek only their fair share, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve highway funding equity during the upcoming surface transportation reauthorization process.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Highway Funding Equity Act of 2003. I am joined on a bipartisan basis by Senators Levin, Stabenow, Bayh, Lugar, Hutchison, Cornyn, Warner, Chambliss, Lott, Lindsey Graham, Bill Nelson, Alexander, DeWine, Dole, Cochran, Landrieu, Miller, Hollings, Breaux, and Bunning.

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century, TEA-21, authorized more than $218 billion for transportation programs and will expire in September 2003. TEA-21 requires certain States, known as Donor states, to transfer to other States a percentage of the revenue from Federal highway user fees. Several of these donor States transfer more than 10 percent of every Federal highway user fee dollar to other States. As a result, donor States receive a significantly lower rate- of-return on their transportation tax dollar being sent to Washington, Currently, over 25 States, including my State of Ohio, contribute more money to the Highway Trust Fund than they receive back.

My State of Ohio has the Nation's 10th largest highway network, the 5th highest volume of traffic, the 4th largest interstate highway network, and the 2nd largest inventory of bridges in the country. Ohio is a major manufacturing State and is within 600 miles of 50 percent of the population of North America. The interstate highways throughout Ohio and all the donor States provide a vital link to suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, and consumers.

Maintaining our Nation's highway infrastructure is essential to a robust economy and increasing Ohio's share of Federal highway dollars has been a longtime battle of mine. One of my goals when I became governor 12 years ago was to increase our rate-of-return from 79 percent to 87 percent in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, ISTEA. Then, in 1998, as Chairman of the National Governors Association, I lobbied Congress to increase the minimum rate-of-return to 90.5 percent. The goal of the Highway Funding Equity Act of 2003 is to increase the minimum guaranteed rate-of-return to 95 percent.

The Highway Funding Equity Act of 2003 has two components. First, the bill would increase the minimum guaranteed rate-of-return in TEA-21 from 90.5 percent of a State's share of contributions to the Highway Trust Fund to 95 percent. The Minimum Guarantee under TEA-21 includes all major Core highway programs: Interstate Maintenance, National Highway System, Bridge, Surface Transportation Program, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality, Metropolitan Planning, Recreational Trails, and any funds provided by the Minimum Guarantee itself.

Second, the bill uses the table of percentages now in Section 105 of Title 23 to guarantee States with a population density of less the 50 people per square mile a minimum rate-of-return that may exceed 95 percent of that State's share of Highway Account contributions. This provision is intended to ensure that every State is able to provide the quality of road systems needed for national mobility, economic prosperity, and national defense. Under the 2000 Census, this provision would benefit 15 states: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.

Increasing donor States' rate of return to 95 percent will send more than $60 million back to Ohio for road improvements we sorely need. The interstate system was built in the 1950s to serve the demands and traffic of the 1980s. Today, Ohio's infrastructure is functionally obsolete. Nearly every central urban interstate in Ohio is over capacity and plagued with accidents and congestion. Ohio's critical roadways are unable to meet today's traffic demands, much less future traffic which is expected to grow nearly 70 percent in the next 20 years. Like all the donor States, we need these funds in Ohio.

States can no longer afford to support others that are already self- sufficient. Each State has its own needs that far outweigh total available funding, especially in light of the so-called ``mega projects'' coming due in the next decade. For example, the Brent Spence Bridge that carries Interstates 71 and 75 across the Ohio River into Kentucky is in need of replacement within the next 10 years at a cost of about $500 million. With the inclusion of the approach work, the total project could cost close to $1 billion.

The goal of this legislation is to improve the rate-of-return on donor states' dollars to guarantee that federal highway program funding is more equitable for all states. Donor States seek only their fair share, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve highway funding equity during the upcoming surface transportation reauthorization process.

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

I have an amendment that has been modified. The modification has been agreed to. I send my amendment, with the modification, to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask that the amendment, as modified, be accepted by voice vote.

It changes the ratio of the membership and increases more representation by minority. It takes off the head of the IRS, and it is more evenly balanced and meets the problems that we talked about last night.

I am happy to yield my distinguished colleague 3 or 4 minutes prior to submitting my amendment.

Thank you, Madam President.

Amendment No. 592

Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Madam President, I rise today to commend Chairman Grassley for the outstanding job he has done to bring this reconciliation bill to the floor and to focus attention on our urgent need to address fundamental tax reform.

When the Senate enacted the budget resolution for fiscal year 2004, it presented Chairman Grassley with a very difficult challenge--to report to the Senate meaningful, stimulative tax deductions while keeping the overall growth in the deficit below $350 billion. Many observers, in and out of Congress, considered that task impossible. But I believe the Finance Committee has accomplished that goal.

The reconciliation bill before the Senate today contains $430 billion in tax cuts and $80 billion in offsets, for a net cost of $350 billion. Equally important, both the tax cuts and the offsets are real. The Joint Committee on Taxation, a highly respected, neutral scorekeeper, has analyzed this bill and certifies the revenue effects of both the tax cuts and the offsets.

Many people claim this economic growth package is too small and they would like to see larger tax relief for small businesses and working families. So would I, but only if we can offset the additional cost. And some people claim the tax cuts are too large and will limit funds available to low-income support programs. I sympathize with their concern, but we must recognize that the most effective low-income support program is a job. And we can only provide jobs by jump-starting the economy.

Too many of our fellow Americans are out of work, too many of our fellow Americans are worried about whether they are going to have a job. Small business owners and investors in Ohio have told me this is a good plan that will help them create jobs in my State. We accelerate the reduction of tax rates, we end the marriage penalty, we accelerate small business depreciation, we increase the size of the child tax credit, and we begin to eliminate the double taxation of dividends.

Another area of contention is the nature of the offsets. It is in this area, more than any other, that Senator Grassley has been unjustly criticized. He was asked to produce offsets that would limit the total cost of tax reform to $350 billion, and he has done it.

Members of Congress who oppose some or all of the offsets because of their impact on special interest groups have had ample time to present their own alternatives and failed to do so. It is easy to criticize, but it is difficult to legislate. Let us acknowledge that regardless of our individual opinions regarding the offset package Chairman Grassley and a majority of his committee have chosen to legislate.

However, the current disagreements over the offset package inevitably begs the question: Why is the Tax Code so complicated? How did we get into this situation? And how can we return to a simple, fair, and honest Tax Code? What is stimulative to the economy? What isn't stimulative? What tax expenditures came in several years ago which are no longer relevant? All these issues need to be discussed. That is why I am offering this amendment.

Many of my colleagues have said: We need fundamental tax reform, but now is not the time. I have heard that over and over. I have heard that for years: Tax reform but now is not the time.

I think the debate over offsets demonstrates this is precisely the time to abandon piecemeal tinkering and embrace fundamental tax reform. This Congress--not the next or the one after that--should seize the opportunity to focus national attention on the need for comprehensive tax reform in the United States of America.

I am proposing the establishment of a commission to examine the Tax Code from top to bottom. And I recommend fundamental restructuring. The goal of any Government revenue program should be to raise sufficient funds to operate public programs with the minimum disruption of the economy. Tax structures should be simple, fair, effective, and honest. Our current Tax Code achieves none--none--of these objectives.

Proof of the complexity of our current Tax Code is demonstrated by a few, simple observations:

The Internal Revenue Code consists of approximately 1,395,000 words.

There are 693 sections of the Internal Revenue Code that are applicable to individual taxpayers; 1,501 sections applicable to businesses; 445 sections applicable to tax-exempt organizations, employee plans, and governments.

As of June 2000, the Treasury Department had issued almost 20,000 pages of regulations containing over 8 million words.

The current 1040A short form has doubled the number of lines that once appeared on the 1945 version of the standard 1040 tax return. It has an 85-page instruction booklet which now tops the long form 1040 instructions published just 7 years ago. This is the short form, 85 pages; and it is more than the instructions that we had 7 years ago on the long form.

The IRS prints at least 1,101 publications, forms, and instructions, containing 16,339 pages, up from 943 documents with 12,933 pages. That is 2 years ago.

Over 56 percent of the taxpayers in this country need professional people to help them prepare their tax return.

Americans toil for about--listen to this--6.4 billion hours on tax forms and recordkeeping, accounting for 84 percent of the Federal Government's paperwork burden in this country. And that is associated with the Internal Revenue Code. This only includes financial recordkeeping and tax preparation, and these estimates may be too low since they ignore the countless hours spent on tax minimization strategies. Everybody is working to figure out a way not to pay taxes.

Included among the items of needless complexity today are the following:

An alternative minimum tax that treats items such as dependent exemptions as tax shelters, thereby threatening to tax millions who never were meant to be affected; phaseout after phaseout of such allowances as itemized deductions, earned-income tax credits, personal exemptions, eligibility for IRAs, eligibility for other savings incentives, eligibility for educational tax breaks; and each of these is like an additional minimum tax system all of itself, forcing taxpayers to file multiple schedules for each form.

I have a very simple return. I do not have that much. But the schedules that are connected with my return are unbelievable. I am sure my colleagues who think about it think about all the time they spend on preparing their own individual tax returns.

Also, included among the many items of needless complexity today are:

Pension and saving incentives that add administrative costs and possibly even reduce net savings by providing different rules for withdrawals, penalties, Social Security tax treatment, allowable amounts of exclusion or deduction, and so on; a tax treatment of dependent children that needlessly causes millions of unnecessary tax returns to be filed; a capital gains law with at least seven different tax rates, and that requires taxpayers to fill out pages of forms even when they have only a few dollars of capital gains; complicated rules for charitable deductions and charities, including multiple limits on giving as a percent of income, and a perverse excise tax on foundations that actually discourages charitable giving; child credits and dependent exemptions that could easily be folded into one; and unnecessarily strict estimated tax rules that pick up very little extra revenue for all the complexity they introduce.

It is unbelievable.

One of the most disturbing aspects of this current Tax Code is the almost continual growth of so-called tax expenditures. Essentially, they increase the level of tax rates far beyond what is necessary, and then mitigate the impact with incentives to special interest groups. It is the Government equivalent of jacking up prices in the grocery store, and then accepting coupons at the checkout counter.

Private sector investment becomes distorted by tax provisions encouraging both individuals and corporations to allocate their funds to minimize their taxes rather than to maximize their income. Ultimately, most people end up paying more than they should for both their groceries and their taxes.

According to a recent article in the Washington Post, many leading tax reform advocates believe the only solution for this dilemma is to propose new and different tax cuts every year. Although I sympathize with their goal, it will not provide the most effective reforms that meet the ultimate test the American people demand: a Tax Code that is fair, simple, and honest. Tax reform, like surgery, is best done quickly. Do you hear that? Tax reform, like surgery, is best done quickly and infrequently rather than slowly and often.

That is why I am proposing a commission to propose comprehensive reform that can be enacted at once, implemented quickly, and establish a fair, simple, honest, and effective revenue structure for the next generation.

This commission will examine all aspects of the Federal revenues, including individual taxes, corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, excise taxes, user fees, taxes on dividends, tax deductions, tax credits, and tax complexity.

The commission will recommend fundamental reforms that can be enacted in a single reform package and implemented quickly. It will allow Congress and the Nation to focus on tax reform, devise a simple, fair, honest solution, and move on to other priorities.

The current debate clearly demonstrates the system is broken and now--not next year, or the year after--now is the time to fix the problem.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I will soon ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Second of all, the ranking member of the Finance Committee and I sat in on meetings together as part of the centrist coalition. The thing that impressed me, when we met with Alan Greenspan, was the fact--and he has said this publicly since the time we had our private meeting with him--that the most significant thing we could do to aid the economy was to eliminate double taxation, eliminate the tax on dividends, although it was a short-term benefit, he said, but something systemic needs to be done to better the Tax Code.

You can argue the dividend issue any way you want, but what I usually do is ask the people back in Ohio how they feel about it. No. 1, many of our businesses that have defined pension plans, because their stock is down, are going to be asked for an enormous amount of money to be deposited in those fine pension plans, which they don't have. Other corporations have told me that if their stock price gets a bump, they will issue stock and they will get cash that way so they won't have to borrow it the way they are now borrowing the money.

In addition, there are many people, such as my son George, who have retirement accounts, who have seen those retirement accounts go down in value. There are millions of Americans in that same position. Other Americans, who are in a better position, have seen a vast amount of wealth disappear in the stock market. Many of them say to me that eliminating the tax on dividends will give a bump to the market. Because the market will get a bump up, they are going to feel a little better about the future and, as a result of that, will be more likely to spend some money.

So you can argue this any way you want.

I have other people who say to me, if you do this, it is going to impact on municipal bonds, affect real estate trusts, and eliminate or have an impact on the low-income housing tax credit.

So that is the issue we are talking about here. We will talk about that today and tomorrow.

What we really need to do is put all of this on a table and not do it as part of this stimulus package, and have tax reform, so we can start to look at the wealth factor and look at whether it makes a difference in terms of our economy. We have tax loopholes and tax expenditures that are really no longer relevant. We can take that money and put it into something elsewhere. We can reduce taxes and provide something that would be really helpful to the economy. But we don't do that around here. We take things from day to day, week to week, year to year.

I say to the ranking member of the Finance Committee, my distinguished colleague, if the commission membership is not what it ought to be, I am glad to rewrite it so that it is entirely impartial, so it will get the job done. I want to get the job done. I would like to have a commission such as they had in 1983 when we looked at Social Security. They did a good job. I think we ought to do that again. I think a lot of people agree on that. But unless we get at it now, it will not happen, we will let it go, and it will be something else next year.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico for this opportunity to speak in favor of the ethanol amendment, No. 539.

This amendment has been offered by the distinguished majority leader and the distinguished minority leader. As I have often stated, it is about time this Nation had an energy policy. I have said that, I think, 3 years in a row. Last year, we worked very hard to come up with what we considered to be a decent package. Unfortunately, that package did not come out of conference committee and we are here today, this week, to see if we cannot resurrect part of that and enhance it with some of the improvements that were done in the Energy Committee under the chairmanship of Senator Domenici.

When the President released his national energy policy in May of 2001, he noted that America was too dependent upon foreign oil; that we needed to increase our use of renewable fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel; and that we needed to protect the environment while producing the energy that drives our economy. President Bush was right about that 2 years ago and, quite frankly, the urgency is greater today than it was then.

The United States has a responsibility to develop a policy that harmonizes the needs of our economy and our environment. These are not competing needs and too often are looked upon as if they are. A sustainable environment is critical to a strong economy. A sustainable economy is critical to providing the funding necessary to improve our environment.

We need a policy that broadens our base of energy resources to create stability, guarantee reasonable prices, and protect America's security. It has to be a policy that will keep energy affordable. Finally, it has to be a policy that won't cripple the engines of commerce that fund the research that will yield environmental protection technologies for the future.

I believe that increasing our use of alternative and renewable fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, is a key element in our effort to construct a viable energy policy.

During the last Congress, I worked with a number of my colleagues, including Senators Hagel, Daschle, Jeffords, Inhofe, Grassley, Bond, and Bingaman, to develop an ethanol package that would not only increase the use of renewable fuels in America but would provide other tangible benefits for the American people. That package was included in the comprehensive energy bill passed by the Senate in an overwhelming bipartisan vote.

This year, thanks to the leadership of Chairman Inhofe, we were able to vote language out of the Environment and Public Works Committee that reflects that bipartisan agreement we reached last year on a bipartisan basis. Thanks to the leadership of our distinguished majority and minority leaders, as well as a large number of Senators, we again have the opportunity to pass legislation that contains a renewable fuels package.

Mr. President, passage of an ethanol bill will protect our national security, economy, and our environment. Amendment No. 539 contains the language in S. 791, the Renewable Fuels Act of 2003, which was introduced and shepherded through the EPW Committee by Chairman Inhofe. 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 a 4-year period.

This language has strong, bipartisan support and is the result of long negotiation 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, and the American Lung Association.

It is hard to get all those people together on any piece of legislation. I think it is wonderful.

I happen to come from a State that is an oil State. We have Ashland Marathon Oil in Ohio. I also come from a State that has a large number of people who belong to the Corn Growers Association. I think we are fifth or sixth in the Nation in producing corn.

I recall a couple of years ago them coming to me and asking me to take their cause on this particular issue. I suggested to them, rather than do that, I wanted them to go into a room and start to negotiate and start talking to each other.

I will never forget it. We were in the LBJ Room. I saw a bunch of people on stage at a big news conference. A year before, if anyone had said those people would stand on the same stage together, they had to say they had something wrong with their head.

My colleagues in the Senate should realize this is an unusual situation for all of these people to get together, and that is why it is so important that we do not allow any amendments to this very carefully put together compromise by all of these various organizations and groups.

In fact, I suggest we ought to be looking to do that in so many more instances around here where people just talk past each other instead of talking to each other.

It is with no small irony we are discussing issues affecting our gasoline supply so shortly after our troops were engaged in a war in the Middle East. As we know, they are still engaged and will be for a long time.

While our purpose in Iraq was to end a regime that sought to become the arsenal of terrorism and liberate the Iraqi people from oppression and violence, our mere presence in that part of the world highlights the fact that we are entirely too dependent on the oil we import from the Middle East.

The amendment the majority leader has offered, 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.

It is no secret we currently import over 58 percent of the oil we use. Last year, we imported an average of 4,558,000 barrels per day from OPEC countries and 442,000 barrels per day from Iraq. It is interesting; all during the last several years while we were bombing Iraq occasionally and maintaining the no-fly zone, we were getting an enormous amount of oil from Iraq. In some instances, almost 5 percent of our oil for this country was coming from Iraq.

Again, last year we imported nearly a half million barrels from Iraq. This dependence is not getting better. The Energy Information Administration estimates that our dependency on imported oil could grow to nearly 70 percent by 2020.

Although our troops were successful in the liberation of Iraq, our greatest energy challenge remains the need to reduce our reliance on foreign sources and to meet our energy needs.

President Bush has stated repeatedly that energy security is a cornerstone for national security, and 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, and ethanol is an excellent domestic source. It is a clean-burning, home-grown 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 not only good for our Nation's 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 new

jobs. It will expand household income by an additional $51.7 billion. It will save taxpayers $2 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 sixth in the Nation in terms of corn production and is among the highest in the Nation in putting ethanol into its gas tanks. Over 40 percent of all gasoline in Ohio sold contains ethanol.

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

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 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 clean air requirements. And no new refineries, as you know, Mr. President, have been built in the last 25 years.

The effects of various State responses to the threat of MTBE contamination, including bans and phaseouts on different schedules, will add a significant burden to existing refineries. That is why we have to get this bill done this year. States are banning it, and refiners are trying to figure out how they are going to deal with this new marketplace.

We went through this a couple of years ago when we had a shutdown of one of the oil supplies from Michigan and then from Texas. They were reformulating gas, and we saw the price of gasoline skyrocket at that time.

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. That is very important.

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 particulate by 40 percent. Use of ethanol reformulated gas helped move Chicago into attainment of the Federal ozone standard, the only RFG area to see such an improvement.

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

It is my hope and expectation that the Senate will adopt this fuels package. These issues have been in front of us for far too long, and now that we have everybody in the same room at the same time agreeing to the same legislation, we need to move it. We need to get this amendment done. I urge my colleagues to support amendment No. 539.

I will be happy to.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico.

I respectfully disagree with some of the information that was provided to us by the distinguished Senator from California. First, I would like to say this second-degree amendment would create more balkanization of the fuel supply. We need a national fuel policy. This amendment, in my opinion, would further constrain the fuel supply in this country.

The bipartisan agreement that was negotiated last year between various organizations was not done behind closed doors. It was relatively transparent. In spite of some of the comments made about the environmental threat of ethanol, that agreement was supported by the American Lung Association. I am sure if they had any concern that this was going to harm the environment, they certainly would not have signed on to the agreement that was entered into last year.

The fuels agreement passed by the Senate last year includes the establishment of a renewable fuels standard. The RFS would provide for greater refinery flexibility in the fuels marketplace and the existing clean air oxygenate requirement, particularly as MTBE is phased out of gasoline. It does not require that a single gallon of renewable fuels be used in any particular State or region. Rather, the requirement is on refiners.

The RFS will allow much greater flexibility in the use of oxygenates, which should reduce the chances that localized supply disruptions of gasoline or oxygenates will result in retail supply shortages and price spikes.

The additional flexibility provided by the RFS credit trading provisions in the House and Senate bills would result in much lower costs to refiners and thus to consumers. The credit trading system will ensure that renewable fuels are used when and where it is most cost effective to do so.

In California, according to the information I have, nearly all of the refiners have voluntarily switched from MTBE to ethanol in advance of the State's MTBE phaseout deadline of January 1, 2004. 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.

In fact, according to an April 2003 California Energy Commission report, the transition to ethanol, which began in January of 2003, is progressing without any major problems. Today, approximately 65 percent of all California gasoline is blended with ethanol, and it is estimated that 80 percent of the fuel will contain ethanol by the summer.

As a result, while only about 100 million gallons of ethanol were used in the State last year, California refiners will use between 600 and 700 million gallons in 2003. Thus, efforts to carve out California from the RFS, while unjustified, are also completely unnecessary.

I would also like to make the point that any State may petition EPA for a waiver of the renewable fuels requirement for any year. If EPA, in consultation with the Departments of Energy and Agriculture, finds that there would be substantial harm to the economy or environment of a State, region, or the United States, or that there would be an inadequate domestic supply for distribution capacity to meet the requirement, EPA may reduce the volume of renewable fuel required in whole or in part. Such a waiver would be good for 1 year but could be renewed. Under this circumstance, the overall renewable fuel volume requirement would be reduced nationwide.

In addition, I would like to point out that the use of ethanol significantly reduces the tailpipe emissions of carbon monoxide, an ozone precursor, and VOCs and fine particulates that pose a health threat to children, seniors, and those with respiratory ailments. Perhaps that is one of the reasons the American Lung Association is supporting this compromise.

Importantly, renewable fuels help to reduce greenhouse gases emitted from vehicles, including carbon dioxide, methane, and other gases that contribute to global warming--another answer to the problem of carbons.

The fuels agreement included protects against any backsliding on air quality. First, the agreement tightens the toxic requirements of reformulated gasoline by moving the baseline that refiners must meet to 1999-2000. Secondly, refiners have agreed to meet southern-tier RFG standards for VOC emissions.

Other adjustments to the existing mobile source air toxics rule will ensure additional environmental protections. The agreement allows States and the Ozone Transport Assessment Group--I have been dealing with that group for many years and have had some large disagreements with them, but the agreement allows them to opt into RFG whether the State is in attainment for ozone or not.

Finally, the bill allows EPA, as I mentioned before, to waive a State's volatility to tolerance for ethanol-blended fuels, if necessary, for air quality. In other words, if there is a problem with ethanol in a period of time, the State can waive out of the requirement during that period of time.

I could say many other things, but I think most of the issues raised can be answered very easily. The last thing I would like to point out deals with the issue of cost. The Department of Agriculture has concluded that the ethanol tax incentive program actually--actually-- saves the Government money by reducing farm program costs and stimulating rural economies. This is a big deal for rural economies in the United States of America.

I will also say that there was some statement about Archer Daniels Midland being the big supplier. In my State, the farmers and cooperatives are in the process of going forward with building processing plants for ethanol. You are going to have a lot more people in the marketplace when this legislation passes.

The USDA has stated that the net impact of the tax incentive on farm programs is a net savings of more than $3 billion annually. I point out, just as I mentioned before, there are 11 new ethanol facilities or under construction in the United States. Twenty or more ethanol facilities are in the planning stages.

Last but not least, the concern that has been raised regarding the Federal ethanol tax incentive's impact on the highway trust fund has been addressed in legislation introduced by Senators Grassley and Baucus. It is supported by a broad coalition of transportation, local government, business, and agricultural people. The proposal returns full funding to the highway trust fund while restructuring and preserving the Federal tax incentives for ethanol.

So on all of these points, this amendment that we have offered, that is being sponsored by the majority leader and the minority leader, and so many Members of the Senate, is good for America, is good for our economy, is good for our security, and is good for the environment. And the amendment from the Senator from California, I think, would certainly make it less effective, if it were agreed to by the Senate. I urge its defeat.

Mr. President, I am so proud to stand on the floor of the Senate today as we consider the candidacy of seven new European democracies--Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia--for membership in the NATO Alliance.

The question of NATO enlargement is one that has long been close to my heart. As Mayor of Cleveland and Governor of the State of Ohio, I worked closely with constituents in my State with ties to countries that were once subject to life behind the Iron Curtain.

It is amazing to me to see how far many of these countries have come in such a short time, rising to embrace democratic reforms after so many years under communist rule. The fact that seven countries that were once part of the former Soviet Union, the Warsaw Pact or Tito's Yugoslavia have been invited to join the NATO alliance is testament to how much has been achieved since the collapse of the Soviet Empire more than a decade ago.

We owe so much to Pope John Paul II, President Reagan, President George H.W. Bush, and now President George W. Bush. As I said to the President in a letter prior to his trip to Poland in June 2001, when he clearly articulated his support for enlargement of the Alliance:

During my entire life I have supported the Captive Nations

and yearned that someday they would have freedom, but I

doubted that would happen during my lifetime. However, it did

happen because of your dad and President Reagan, who said

``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.''

I also said:

You, Mr. President, have the opportunity to guarantee the

freedom and security of those once subjected to life under

Communist control by making it clear that you will support

the expansion of NATO to include former territories of the

Soviet Union, Tito's Yugoslavia and the Warsaw Pact

regardless of Russia's opposition.

And he did it.

President Bush outlined his vision for enlargement in a landmark speech to the students and faculty at the University of Warsaw on June 15, 2001, when he remarked that as we approach the NATO Summit in Prague:

We should not calculate how little we can get away with,

but how much we can do to advance the cause of freedom.

That speech was very strategic because at the time there were many people who were wondering whether or not the President would move away from the expansion of NATO in consideration of compromising with at that time President Putin in regard to the ABM Treaty--the ABM Treaty at the time looking like it would stand in the way of moving forward with the President's National Missile Defense Initiative.

The President was true to his word, and it was extremely gratifying to see this vision begin to turn to reality when President Bush joined other NATO heads of state in Prague last November. I remain grateful to the President for inviting me to join him as a member of the Congressional delegation to the NATO Summit, along with Senator Bill Frist, Congressman Tom Lantos, Congressman Elton Gallegly and Congressman Doug Bereuter. The thrill of being in the room when NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson announced the decision to invite the three Baltic nations, as well as Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia, to join the Alliance, is something that I will always remember.

On that historic day, I listened as heads of state from our allied nations including the Czech Republic, France, Spain, Great Britain, Poland, Canada, Turkey, and many others praised the work done by the seven candidate countries and expressed their strong support for enlargement to include these new European democracies.

While there are disagreements within NATO that must be addressed, there is general consensus among the current members of the Alliance on the question of enlargement. It is acknowledged that in addition to shared values, the seven candidate countries bring defense capabilities that will enhance the overall security and stability of the NATO Alliance. President Bush, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and the highest-ranking member of the U.S. military, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers, have all expressed this view. America's top leaders believe that in addition to niche military capabilities, these seven countries bring energy, freshness and enthusiasm to the Alliance.

As Secretary Powell remarked in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week, enlargement of the NATO Alliance to include Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia is in the national security interest of the United States. It will, he said:

Help to strengthen NATO's partnerships to promote

democracy, the rule of law, free markets and peace throughout

Eurasia. Moreover, it will better equip the Alliance to

respond collectively to the new dangers we face.

NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson, after working with the NATO aspirant countries on comprehensive domestic reforms in preparation for membership in the Alliance, has also concluded that this round of enlargement will enhance the strength and vitality of NATO a view which he expressed at the Prague Summit and reiterated earlier this week during a meeting with members of the Foreign Relations Committee.

I share this view, and I believe it is appropriate and timely that we now consider these candidates for membership in NATO. They have provided crucial support in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks against our country on 9/11, and continue to make significant contributions to the ongoing campaign against international terrorism. They have shown their solidarity in our efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein and liberate the Iraqi people, and have pledged to work with the international community to promote security and reconstruction in Iraq following the end of military action.

The candidate countries have also moved forward with democratic reforms to promote the rule of law and respect for human rights. I am strongly concerned about the disturbing rise in anti-Semitic violence in Europe and other parts of the world. Several of the candidate countries, including Latvia, Bulgaria, and Romania, have joined with the United States, Poland and other countries to actively encourage the chair-in-office of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe--OSCE--to mount a serious and credible OSCE conference on anti- Semitism. Due in part to their efforts, the OSCE has agreed to conduct such a conference, and it is scheduled to take place in June. This is just one example, but it is indicative of important action that is taking place.

As was highlighted during a series of hearings on NATO enlargement conducted by the Foreign Relations Committee, the seven candidate countries bring nearly 200,000 new troops to the alliance. They have also pledged to commit significant resources to national defense, with Bulgaria, Romania, Estonia, and Lithuania all at or above 2 percent of the gross domestic product mark in 2002. Slovakia and Latvia were just under 2 percent, and Slovenia at 1.6 percent in 2002, and they have pledged and committed to reach the 2-percent mark by 2008.

The average defense spending among candidate countries was 2.1 percent for 2002, which is equal to the average spent by the current NATO members for the same period. It is interesting to note that 11 of the 19 members of the alliance did not reach the 2-percent mark for defense spending in 2002, which we should all be concerned about. Clearly, there is room for improvement in this regard for current members of the alliance.

On March 27, 2003, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Marc Grossman testified before the Armed Services Committee regarding the future of NATO. When asked about the benefits of enlargement, he said:

I believe, Senators, that the accession of these countries

are about the future of NATO, and will be good and directly

benefit U.S. interests. Why? They're strong Atlanticists.

They're allies in the war on terror. They've already

contributed to Operation Enduring Freedom and the

International Security Assistance Force in Kabul.

The list goes on. I agree with Secretary Grossman's assessment. These countries already make significant contributions that strengthen the transatlantic relationship.

They have acted as de facto Allies. In fact, they have acted as better Allies than some of the members that are currently in NATO. And I believe they will make important contributions, as members, to the NATO alliance.

While much has been achieved, there is still work to be done as the candidate countries continue to work on their membership action plans. As was said in Prague, Prague should be viewed as the starting line, not the finishing line. There is still a lot more that has to be done on those maps.

Efforts have continued since the Prague summit. I was very pleased to learn that the people of Slovenia--who have been engaged in a discussion about NATO membership for many years now--voted overwhelmingly in support of Slovenia's membership in NATO during a national referendum on March 23, with roughly two-thirds of the voters favoring accession to the alliance. This was a crucial step for the country that was the birthplace of my maternal grandparents. Hooray for Slovenia. I am glad they understood.

It is imperative that the candidates continue to address the outstanding issues that require attention, including military reform, respect for human rights, and efforts to combat organized crime and corruption. It is this last piece, perhaps, that concerns me the most. These problems have the potential to undermine democratic reforms, respect for the rule of law, and other core NATO values, and I believe they could be very dangerous if left unchecked.

I was glad to hear from Secretary Powell, during his testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee last week, that there are, in fact-- this is wonderful--significant steps that have taken place on behalf of the NATO aspirants to combat corruption and organized crime. With regard to Bulgaria, for example, the Secretary of State remarked that the Bulgarian Government recently created an interagency anticorruption commission to be led by the Minister of Justice. The Bulgarian Parliament also passed anticorruption legislation and antibribery legislation.

Secretary Powell noted that the Romanian Government is now working on legislation to reform its judiciary, civil service, and political party financing activities. I am also hopeful that Romania will move forward with steps to ensure progress on outstanding property restitution issues, including those of significance to Hungarian and other minority groups in Romania.

So while I still think there is work to be done, I am satisfied that things are moving in the right direction.

After meeting with leaders from these seven countries and spending time in each country that has been invited to join NATO--I have been in all of them and have met with all of their leaders--I am confident that reforms will continue. I sincerely believe reforms will be swifter and more complete as these countries are brought into the alliance rather than left out. History tells us this has been the case with other countries that have been part of the alliance. NATO has a way of asserting pressure and, as General Lord Robertson said during our meeting Monday, squeezing those who need to shape up.

As we consider enlargement today, it is clear that the world is a different place than it was when Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic were brought into NATO. The world's democracies and multilateral institutions, including the NATO alliance, face new threats to freedom, marked not by Communist aggression but, instead, by the dangerous nexus between weapons of mass destruction, rogue nations, and terrorists who have shown their willingness to use chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons against those who value freedom and democracy, if given the chance.

NATO's decision to invoke article 5 in the aftermath of the tragic events of September 11 signifies that an attack on one is an attack on all, and that sent a strong message of solidarity to the people of the United States and the world at large. I suspect that when the resolution was put together in regard to article 5, we were very careful to make sure we did not get ourselves in entangling alliances. Never did we ever believe we would be calling on the other nations in NATO to come to our assistance as they did.

NATO's mission to transform to meet these growing threats does not make the alliance irrelevant; rather, it means we need the shared commitment to freedom, democracy, and security embodied by the NATO alliance now more than ever before. A NATO alliance enlarged to include seven new democracies that have embraced these values will enhance our ability to meet new challenges for peace in the world.

At the Prague summit, NATO heads of state embarked upon a course to identify the capabilities needed to confront new challenges to international security. They agreed that new challenges would require the alliance to operate beyond Europe's borders. The Prague Declaration noted:

In order to carry out the full range of its missions, NATO

must be able to field forces that can move quickly to

wherever they are needed, upon decision by the North Atlantic

Council, to sustain operations over distance and time,

including in an environment where they might be faced with

nuclear, biological and chemical threats, and to achieve

their objectives.

As Secretary General Lord Robertson has said, NATO must either go out of area, or go out of business.

This will become crucial as NATO prepares to assume new responsibilities in Afghanistan this August, moving forward on the North Atlantic Council's decision on April 16 to provide enhanced support to the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul. NATO's new ISAF role is perhaps indicative of the types of missions the alliance could take on in years to come. As Secretary Powell indicated last week, this is the largest step to date that the alliance has taken outside its traditional area of responsibility. And, as you know, Mr. President, they are now talking about the possibility of NATO being involved in security forces in Iraq.

As the alliance prepares for its role in Afghanistan, it does so at a time when current members of NATO and other countries in Europe have considerable experience working together, due to operations in Kosovo, Bosnia, and Macedonia. As former Supreme Allied Commander Joe Ralston noted in remarks before the Atlantic Council on Monday evening, this is in stark contrast to the past, when members of the alliance depended on annual training exercises.

I think that is really something we should emphasize, that these nations have been working militarily together since Bosnia. They are in Kosovo today. They will be in Afghanistan. It is amazing how well the NATO command has worked in Kosovo. And I am confident it will work as well in Afghanistan.

But new missions will demand that NATO step up efforts to improve its military capabilities. This was a major theme at the Prague summit last November, where NATO heads of state approved the creation of a NATO response force, which is envisioned to consist of approximately 25,000 troops who are ready and able to deploy anywhere in the world within 30 days. The goal is to have the force operational by 2006. While work has been ongoing to flesh out the details of the NATO response force, this is still a paper concept, and we look forward to learning more about efforts to turn this into a viable force at the June ministerial meeting in Madrid.

The NATO response force goes hand in glove with the Prague Capabilities Commitment, which replaces the Defense Capabilities Initiative, or DCI, that was initiated at the 1999 Washington summit. As many of us know, very little progress was made on that 1999 Defense Capabilities Initiative.

The Prague Capabilities Commitment, though, calls on Allies to improve and develop military capabilities, focusing on defense against weapons of mass destruction, intelligence, command, control and communications, and strategic air and sea lift, among other things.

This initiative focuses on pooling resources and identifying niche capabilities that certain countries can bring to the table in order to strengthen NATO's military reach. I have been pleased to hear from Secretary Powell, Lord Robertson, and General Ralston that the alliance has begun to identify niche contributions that the seven candidates can make to future operations.

They are willing and able. They have, in fact, already demonstrated their willingness to use them in NATO operations in the Balkans as well as military efforts to combat international terrorism.

For example, Bulgaria contributes troops to NATO operations in the Balkans, with military personnel in both Bosnia and Kosovo. Bulgaria has also contributed to Operation Enduring Freedom, allowing for coalition aircraft to refuel at Burgas, and sending a nuclear, biological and chemical decontamination unit to Afghanistan. Bulgaria has also deployed a NBC unit to the Iraqi theater of operations at the request of U.S. Central Command.

Estonia also supports NATO missions in southeast Europe, and has approved the deployment of troops to assist in the reconstruction of Iraq.

Latvia has deployed medical teams to Afghanistan, and in April the Latvian Parliament approved the deployment of troops to Iraq for peace enforcement and humanitarian operations.

Lithuania has deployed a medical team and a Special Operations Unit to Afghanistan. Lithuania has also deployed troops to support Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Romania sent a military police platoon to support the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. Romania has also provided an NBC unit in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Slovakia has deployed an engineering unit to Afghanistan, and was the first NATO candidate country to deploy troops--an NBC unit--in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Slovenia provides troops and equipment to NATO operations in the Balkans, and has also provided crucial assistance in de-mining and mine victims assistance, running the International Trust Fund for De-mining. Additionally, Slovenia has provided humanitarian and de-mining assistance to Afghanistan.

They are all doing a job right now and will do more once they are brought into NATO formally.

While there is still work to be done, these contributions are encouraging. If NATO is to meet future challenges, it is imperative that the capabilities gap between the U.S. and our European allies be addressed. The Prague Capabilities Commitment highlights critical needs within the alliance. This is a good place to start, and I am hopeful that it will succeed in producing tangible results. Without adequate capabilities, NATO's ability to respond to future security challenges will be seriously undermined.

As NATO looks to the future, there will be other challenges. Bringing in seven members will, I believe, strengthen the alliance; at the same time, there will be adjustments as NATO adapts to membership at 26 rather than the current 19. I share the sentiments expressed by Secretary of State Colin Powell and NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson that the alliance will adapt, as it always have.

I disagree with some of my colleagues, who may argue that significant changes should be made to the NATO decision-making process. The alliance has always been based on consensus, protecting the view of each member. As Secretary Powell remarked in testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee last week, NATO is not a committee or a council. It is an Alliance that has traditionally--and successfully-- been based on the rule of consensus.

I was interested when Lord Robinson spoke to us on Monday. We were talking about this issue. He said somehow we worked it out. We had the problem with Turkey, and there was a question of how that would all be worked out. The alliance had the flexibility to move forward and take care of that problem.

He specifically said that they need the flexibility, that somehow they will work it out. If we come in with some specific way of how we will do this, it will tie their hands and won't give them the flexibility to do what they have to do when the time comes. I am confident they will do that.

It is my sincere belief that the European democracies of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia will, as they have already demonstrated, contribute to NATO's proud tradition and serve to strengthen the alliance. I strongly support enlargement of the alliance to include these countries, and look forward to further expansion in the future to those countries who have demonstrated the ability to accept the responsibilities that come with membership in the NATO alliance. I never thought I would be here today on the Senate floor able to recommend this to my colleagues. It is a wonderful day.

I rise today in strong support of the Resolution on Ratification before us today, which will extend U.S. support to make NATO membership a reality for these new European democracies.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I am very pleased today to speak on behalf of Deborah Cook, an exceptional lawyer and a longtime friend from the State of Ohio. The President nominated her to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on May 9, 2001, 2 years ago. In fact, I was at the White House when President Bush nominated Deb, and I remember how enthusiastic he was about her record, not only as a distinguished judge but as a dedicated volunteer and role model in her community.

Now, 2 years later, we are finally voting on her nomination. I am extremely disappointed at the length of time it has taken for this highly qualified nominee to reach the floor but am grateful that this day has come.

I have had the privilege of knowing Deborah Cook for over 25 years. She is not only a brilliant lawyer but a wonderful person. She graduated from the University of Akron School of Law in 1978 and immediately went to work for the law firm of Roderick, Myers & Linton, Akron's oldest law firm. She was the first female lawyer to be hired by this firm, and 5 years later, in 1983, she became its first female partner.

Deborah remained at Roderick Myers until 1991 when she was elected to Ohio's Ninth District Court of Appeals. She remained on this bench until 1995 when she successfully won election to the Ohio Supreme Court, an office she continues to hold.

Deb has always devoted her life to her family, community and profession. Married to Robert Linton, Deborah has always acted on her belief that a member of the bar and judiciary has responsibilities to the community. In this regard, she has given generously of her time to the Akron Women's Network, Akron Volunteer Center, the University of Akron School of Law Intellectual Property Advisory Council, Summit County United Way, and the Akron Art Museum, to name just a few.

In 1999, Deb and her husband established a foundation, Collegescholars, Inc., with their own private funds to foster the education of underserved public school students and encourage them to seek higher education. Students were selected upon finishing third grade based on teacher recommendations, financial need and family support of the program. This group of students is promised a 4-year tuition scholarship to any public university in Ohio. The students, called ``scholars,'' remain eligible for the scholarship by maintaining good grades and conduct and participating with the other college scholars in activities organized for their benefit, including a one- hour, instructed mentor meeting weekly during the school year.

Deb has always recognized that she has a responsibility to help strengthen the legal profession and honors this responsibility through her work with the Ohio and American Bar Associations. She chaired the Commission on Public Legal Education, was a member of the Ohio Courts Futures Commission, and the Ohio Commission on Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management. She is a past president of the Akron Bar Association Foundation, a fellow of the American Bar Foundation, and was a member of the Akron Bar Association disciplinary committee from 1981 to 1993.

Throughout these past 25 years, I have found Deborah Cook to be a woman of exceptional character and integrity. Her professional demeanor and thorough knowledge of the law make her truly an excellent candidate for an appointment to the Sixth Circuit. Deb has served with distinction on Ohio's Supreme Court since her election in 1994 and reelection in 2000.

My only regret is that with her confirmation to the Sixth Circuit, we will lose an outstanding justice on the Supreme Court of Ohio. However, she will be a tremendous asset to the Federal bench.

With 10 years of combined appellate judicial experience on the Ohio Court of Appeals and the Ohio Supreme Court, Deborah Cook also possesses a keen intellect, a record of legal scholarship and consistency in her opinions. She is a strong advocate of applying the law without fear or favor and of not making policy towards a particular constituency. Deborah Cook is committed to upholding the highest standards of her profession and she is a trusted leader. It is my pleasure to give her my highest recommendation for this nomination.

When it was announced that Deb was nominated by the President, the response from the major newspapers in our State was wonderful and amazing. Newspapers from all over Ohio have echoed my sentiments.

In January 6, 2003, the Columbus Dispatch stated that:

Since 1996, she has served on the Ohio Supreme Court, where

she has distinguished herself as a careful jurist with a

profound respect for judicial restraint and the separation of

powers between the three branches of government.

On December 29, 2002, the Cleveland Plain Dealer stated that:

Cook is a thoughtful, mature jurist--perahaps the brightest

on the state's highest court.

In a May 11, 2000 editorial the Beacon Journal newspaper stated that what distinguishes Deborah Cook's work:

has been a careful reading of the law, buttressed by closely

argued opinions and sharp legal reasoning.

In addition to newspapers, Deb Cook has a bevy of other supporters.

John W. Reece, retired Ohio jurist, stated:

Judge Cook and I served on the Ninth Judicial District

Court of Appeals in Ohio from 1991 to 1995. I believe we

became friends as well as colleagues, working closely

together although she was a Republican and I a Democrat. I

became impressed with Judge Cook's work ethic and legal mind.

She quickly became a talented Appellate Judge. In fact, in a

rather brief period of time she became a leader on the Court.

Later, when she was elected to the Ohio Supreme Court, I was

privileged to sit by assignment with her on the Court a few

times. She has exhibited an ability and willingness to be

an independent thinker and member of that Court.

William Harsha, Judge on the Ohio Court of Appeals, Fourth District, stated:

Always courteous and seldom impatient, she is the

antithesis of the ill-tempered despot that comes to mind when

one thinks of `black robe fever.' ''

Many of us have seen people change once they get on the Federal bench. J. Dean Carro, Director of the Legal Clinic at the University of Akron remarked:

I feel comfortable with expressing an opinion on the

qualities I like to see in judges. These qualities are

independence, intelligence, and integrity. Justice Cook

scores high in all three categories.

This Senator would like to add the characteristic of humility.

With the confirmation of Jeff Sutton last week and Deb Cook today, the Sixth Circuit can begin to breathe a little easier. From 1998 up until September, 2002, the number of vacant

judgeship months in the Sixth Circuit has increased from 13.7 to 91, the highest in the Nation. In addition, during this same time period, the median time from the filing of a notice of appeal to disposition of the case in the Sixth Circuit was 16 months, well above the 10.7 months national average, and the longest in the Nation.

Clearly, the Sixth Circuit is in crisis, and today's confirmation of Deborah Cook will go a long way toward restoring the court's efficiency and ability to deal with cases.

I am sure you will agree that Deborah Cook is exactly what we need on the Federal bench.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate and pay tribute to the E.E. Ward Moving and Storage Company LLC of Columbus, OH, for 122 years of service to the great State of Ohio. Recently, the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Congressional Black Caucus recognized the E.E. Ward Company as the oldest African-American- owned business in America.

The Ward family has longstanding roots in Ohio dating back before the Civil War. From 1842 to 1858, John T. Ward was a conductor on the Underground Railroad which ran through Columbus, and the Ward home was a well-known stop. During the Civil War, John T. Ward received government contracts to haul munitions, supplies, and equipment for the U.S. Army.

After the Civil War, John's son, William Ward, began working for his father, and then he went to work for the Union Transfer and Storage Company. At Union Transfer, he moved up through the ranks serving as teamster, work supervisor, foreman, and rate clerk. In 1881, William Ward rejoined his father John T. Ward and together they founded the Ward Transfer Line, a wagon transportation business in downtown Columbus.

Since 1881 the company has evolved and changed with the times. In 1889, the company changed its name to E.E. Ward Transfer and Storage Company, when the youngest son, Edgar Earl Ward, assumed management of the company. He was 18 years old. Twenty-five years later, in 1914, the company began its shift to motorized moving and retired its last horse in 1921.

Over the years, E.E. Ward has performed moves for schools, museums, libraries, business, and homes. In the 1950s, the E.E. Ward Company was awarded two notable contracts in Columbus--from the Steinway Piano Company and the Franklin County Board of Elections. During the course of those contracts, it is estimated that the company moved over 900,000 pianos and hundreds of voting machines to various precincts in Columbus.

The Company's Chairman Emeritus is Eldon W. Ward, the grandson of William Ward. He joined the company in 1945 and retired 51 years later in 1996. Mr. Eldon Ward has been recognized as an accomplished business leader and is admired by many. He was inducted into the Ohio Corporate Hall of Fame in 1991 and the Central Ohio Business Hall of Fame in 1992. Under his leadership, the E.E. Ward Company received the National Torch Award of Marketplace Ethics from the Better Business Bureau.

As a community leader, Eldon Ward served on the boards of over 40 community organizations, including the local chapter of the American Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and the Chamber of Commerce. He served as board president of the Columbus Foundation, the Franklin County United Way, and the Central Ohio YMCA, which was renamed the Eldon W. Ward YMCA in 1991.

Today, E.E. Ward Moving & Storage Company is an agent of Bekins Van Lines and provides local and interstate household goods relocation services and a variety of logistics services to residential, government and corporate customers. The company focuses primarily on residential and business moves and storage.

The longevity of the E.E. Ward Company is the result of its commitment to excellent service. The current owners, Brian A. Brooks, president and godson of Eldon Ward, and Otto Beatty III, co-owner, recently purchased the company. Both are in their early thirties. They have chosen to carry on the entrepreneurial torch of their parents and grandparents and are wonderful examples to other young business owners. In fact, the company was recently awarded the 2002 Super Service Award from Angie's List, a consumer and household rating company.

Brian Brooks and Otto Beatty are privy to a wealth of experience and wisdom from family members and community members. Like their forebears, they focus on providing excellent service to their customers and giving generously to their community. Their dedication and commitment is a shining example of good corporate citizenship, something we need more of throughout America.

I am pleased that this year the King Arts Complex in Columbus will be the recipient of a beautiful painting by famed Columbus Artist Aminah Lynn Robinson that illustrates the history of the company and the Ward family's role in the Underground Railroad. We shall all pay tribute to people like the John T. Ward family who helped America's enslaved citizens gain freedom. That is why in my first year in the United States Senate, I co-sponsored the bill to provide Federal funding to the Underground Railroad Freedom Center in Cincinnati, the only national center of its kind in the country. I hope the painting about the Ward Family will inspire people of all ages to learn more about the significant role of the Underground Railroad in our history.

Recently, on the occasion of Ohio's bicentennial, I reminded a joint session of the Ohio General Assembly in Chillicothe that our forefathers delivered for us and now the future of our great State is in our hands. Throughout Ohio's history, the Ward family has made major contributions to the quality of life by creating jobs and opportunities for countless Americans and we should all be grateful for their hard work and dedication.

I believe Brian Brooks's and Otto Beatty's ancestors would be very proud of their work today. With the two of them at the helm of the E.E. Ward Moving and Storage Company, I think its future will be bright for many years to come.

I wish the E.E. Ward Moving and Storage Company the best of luck in all of its endeavors and I look forward to congratulating them on many successes in the future.

Mr. President, thank you for allowing me to speak on behalf of Jeff Sutton, a star in the Ohio bar. I am here to express my strongest recommendation for Jeff, whom the President nominated to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on May 9, 2001. Can you believe that? On May 9, I was at the White House when President Bush nominated Jeff, and here we are, almost 2 years later, finally voting on his nomination.

I am extremely disappointed at the length of time it has taken for this most qualified nominee to reach the floor of the Senate. Much of my disappointment stems from the fact that anyone who knows Jeff knows him to be a man of unquestioned integrity, intelligence, and qualifications, with vast experience in commercial, constitutional, and appellate litigation. Jeff will bring a special quality to the bench.

His first career was as a teacher. He was a 7th grade geography and 10th grade history teacher, as well as a soccer and baseball coach before heading off to law school.

Jeff graduated first in his law school class from the Ohio State University

College of Law, followed by a clerkship with the Honorable Thomas Meskill of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and a clerkship for Justices Powell and Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court.

From 1995 to 1998, Jeff left his Jones, Day law firm behind and answered the call to public service as the State solicitor general of Ohio. It was during this time that the National Association of Attorneys General awarded Jeff a Best Brief Award for practice before the U.S. Supreme Court 4 years in a row. After his tenure as State solicitor, Jeff returned to Jones, Day to practice law, where he works today. Because he was the State solicitor of Ohio when I was Governor, I worked with him extensively when he represented the Governor's office, and, in my judgment, he never exhibited any predisposition with regard to any issue and had great interpersonal skills.

Jeffrey Sutton has exactly what the Federal bench needs: a fresh, objective perspective. In spite of being a brilliant lawyer, he has never exhibited anything but humility. In fact, Professor John Jeffries of the University of Virginia agrees with me on this point, calling Jeff ``compassionate, humane and modest.'' He goes on to say that Jeff ``does not rush to judgment, nor is he burdened by the kind of unwarranted confidence in his own opinion that closes the mind to concerns of others.'' Let me repeat that: He is not ``burdened by the kind of unwarranted confidence in his own opinion that closes the mind to concerns of others.''

Jeff Sutton's qualifications for this judgeship are best evidenced through his experience. He has argued 12 cases and filed over 50 merits and amicus curiae briefs before the U.S. Supreme Court, both as a private attorney and as Solicitor for the State of Ohio. In addition to the U.S. Supreme Court, Jeff has also argued 13 cases in State supreme courts, 8 cases before the Federal Court of Appeals, and dozens more cases in State and Federal trial courts.

I want to share a story with you that reflects how good a lawyer Jeff really is. I visited the Supreme Court last year to move the admission of some of my fellow Ohio State Law School alumni. We were having our 40th class reunion here in Washington. While giving us a tour of the Supreme Court, Bill Suter, the Clerk of the Court, upon realizing that we were Ohioans, went way out of his way to commend Jeff's abilities as an appellate lawyer. I cannot think of higher praise than the Clerk of the Supreme Court, who witnesses so many arguments and sees so many lawyers every year, remembering Jeff and having nothing but praise for him.

In fact, Jeff has earned such a vaulted reputation among the Supreme Court Judges that they regularly seek him out to participate in proceedings before the High Court. These cases include that of Becker v. Montgomery, where the Supreme Court appointed Sutton to represent an inmate in a prisoner's rights lawsuit against his jailors. The Court unanimously agreed with his position, and Justice Ginsburg even went so far as to remark in the opinion that ``[Jeff's] able representation . . . permit[s] us to decide this case, satisfied that the relevant issues have been fully aired.''

It is also worthy to note that the lawyer for the State of Ohio in this case, Stewart Baker, said of Jeff:

[T]he Becker case illustrates the fallacy of claims that

Mr. Sutton's judicial philosophy can be gleaned from the

positions he has advocated in court. . . .While the Becker

case may or may not tell us something about his personal

views, Mr. Sutton's willingness to take the case without

compensation does tell us a lot about his compassion and

commitment to justice.

In Westside Mothers v. Haveman, the Supreme Court again invited Jeff's participation in a Medicaid case as amicus curiae after it found the parties' briefing to be ``less than satisfactory.'' And again, the Court responded with thanks and praise, stating:

Particularly noteworthy for its quality and helpfulness is

the amicus participation at the court's request of the

[Michigan Municipal] League and its pro bono counsel, Mr.

Jeffrey Sutton.

In addition to his appellate practice and family responsibilities, Jeff has exhibited an appreciation that one has a responsibility to contribute to the legal profession. He has been an adjunct professor of law at Ohio State, teaching seminars in constitutional law. He also teaches continuing legal education seminars on the U.S. Supreme Court and Ohio Supreme Court to Ohio State court judges and develops curricula for appellate judges on behalf of the Ohio State Judicial College.

While his unwillingness to shy away from challenging or controversial cases has, in some instances, led critics to allege he has a predisposition toward certain cases, I believe such comments are not accurate--for instance, the allegation that Jeff is biased against people with disabilities.

I disagree strongly with my colleague, the Senator from Iowa, on this point. Anyone who really knows this man knows these allegations are just untrue and that Jeff should not be judged on a handful of cases where he did his job by vigorously advocating on behalf of his clients.

I believe it is patently unfair for groups to take the position that, based upon his advocacy in this handful of cases, this man wants to curtail the civil rights of persons with disabilities. Nothing-- nothing--could be further from the truth.

First, I would like to point out that it is a well-established principle in the legal profession that lawyers should not be held responsible for the positions of their clients. By serving as a lawyer to certain groups or individuals, Jeff does not necessarily adopt their viewpoints as his own; he just does his job, as he is supposed to, by subordinating his own interests to those of the client and doing everything possible within the bounds of the law to win.

In fact, the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct state:

A lawyer's representation of a client, including

representation by appointment, does not constitute an

endorsement of the client's political, economic, social or

moral views or activities.

Second, instead of focusing on a handful of cases, Jeff's detractors should review his history of representing a very diverse group of clients who advocate every conceivable point on the political spectrum. This includes Cheryl Fischer, a blind woman refused entry to an Ohio medical school, whom Jeff represented when he was the Ohio State solicitor. Ms. Fischer wrote a letter of support on Jeff's behalf stating:

I recall with much pride just how committed Jeff was to my

cause. He believed in my position. He cared and listened and

he wanted . . . to win for me.

Jeff represented the National Coalition of Students with Disabilities where he successfully argued that Ohio State-run universities were violating the motor voter law by failing to provide their disabled students with voter registration materials. This is very important. In that particular case, Benson Wolman, a former law school classmate of mine, who would smile with great pleasure if described as a liberal civil rights advocate, and a former director of the ACLU in Ohio, asked Sutton to help out in this motor voter case. He supports his nomination, stating:

[Mr. Sutton's] commitment to individual rights, civility as

an opposing counsel, his sense of fairness, his devotion to

civic responsibility, and his keen and demonstrated intellect

all reflect the best that is to be found in the legal

profession.

This is the former head of the Ohio Civil Liberties Union saying Mr. Sutton's commitment to individual rights, his civility as an opposing counsel, his sense of fairness, his devotion to civic responsibilities, and his keen and demonstrated intellect all reflect the best that is to be found in the legal profession.

Wolman's endorsement of Jeff is very important. It should give comfort and alleviate the fears of my colleagues who believe Jeff may be too conservative and not sensitive to liberal causes and civil rights.

Third, Jeff's service on the board of the Equal Justice Foundation, a public interest organization that provides pro bono legal services on behalf of disadvantaged individuals, including people with disabilities, is evidence of his interest to advance the interests of the disabled. During his tenure, the foundation tackled a variety of cases which advanced these interests: One, for example, suing three Ohio cities to force them to build curb cuts to make their sidewalks wheelchair accessible; two, suing an amusement park company that had a blanket policy banning the

disabled from their rides; and, three, representing a girl with tubular sclerosis in a case alleging that her school was not providing her with an adequate education plan--to name a few.

Last, anyone who knows of Jeff's work when he was younger at his father's school for children with cerebral palsy knows this is not a man who wants to curtail the rights of the disabled. Think about that. His father ran a school for children with cerebral palsy. Can you think that someone who had that experience in his family would want to curtail the rights of the disabled? In fact, you only need to read the letters of support from those who work in the disabled community to see the number of people who support Jeff.

These include Francis Beytagh, legal director of the National Center for Law and the Handicapped, who wrote:

I believe Jeff Sutton would make an excellent federal

appellate judge. He is a very bright, articulate and

personable individual who values fairness highly. . . . I do

not regard him as a predictable ideologue. . . . I recommend

and support his confirmation without reservation.

And James Leonard, codirector of the University of Alabama's Disability Law Institute, who wrote:

In my opinion, Jeffrey Sutton is well-qualified to sit on

the Sixth Circuit Court and should be confirmed. . . . I see

no ``agenda'' on Mr. Sutton's part to target disabled

citizens--

That is something that is going to be advocated on the floor of the Senate for the next day and a half.

He says:

In my opinion, Jeffrey Sutton is well-qualified to sit on

the Sixth Circuit Court and should be confirmed. . . . I see

no ``agenda'' on Mr. Sutton's part to target disabled

citizens. . . .

Seth Waxman, President Clinton's Solicitor General and Jeff's opposing counsel in University of Alabama v. Garrett, stated:

I know that some have questioned whether the position Mr.

Sutton advocated last Term . . . reflected antipathy on his

part toward the Americans with Disabilities Act. I argued

that case against Mr. Sutton, and I discerned no such

personal antipathy. Mr. Sutton vigorously advanced the

constitutional position of his client in the case, the State

of Alabama; doing so was entirely consistent with the finest

traditions of the adversarial system.

Jeff Sutton should not be criticized on assumptions that past legal positions reflect his personal views. Instead, he should be lauded for always zealously advocating his client's interest, no matter the issue.

While I could continue praising Jeff as a lawyer, what I am most impressed by is that I could spend equally as much time praising Jeff, the man. There is no question that Jeffrey Sutton is one of this Nation's premier appellate lawyers and could remain at his law firm and literally make millions of dollars. He has chosen, however, to turn his back on that opportunity because he is deeply committed to public and community service and believes he can do more for his fellow men and their quality of life and the legal system by serving on the appellate bench. His motives, in my opinion, are fundamental to one who seeks a lifetime appointment to a Federal circuit court of appeals.

Jeffrey Sutton wants his job for the right reasons. He does not need it for his ego or the financial well-being of having a permanent job. He has a wonderful wife and three children, whom I have met and talked to, who are willing to make the financial sacrifice so that Jeff can serve.

Jeff is an elder and deacon in the Presbyterian Church, as well as a Sunday school teacher. He also participates in the I Know I Can program, which provides college scholarships to inner-city children; ProMusica, a chamber music organization; and coaches youth soccer and basketball teams.

I have met some exceptional people during my 35 years in government, and Jeff is one of the most exceptional. I have worked closely with Jeff and know that he will make an exemplary addition to the Sixth Circuit, which is in crisis because of the vacancies now on it. I respectfully urge the Senate to confirm Jeff Sutton's nomination as quickly as possible.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Federal Employee Student Loan Assistance Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Federal Employee Student Loan Assistance Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I wish to speak on behalf of a man, Victor Baird, who, until recently, had probably one of the most thankless jobs in the Senate--Staff Director and Chief Counsel of the Senate Ethics Committee. In this position, Victor was charged with preserving the integrity of the Senate by policing the conduct of its Members and ensuring that the Senators and their staffs adhered to the Senate's high ethical standards.

The nature of the Ethics Committee is that the work we do remains confidential, except in the most egregious circumstances. Victor faced some of these circumstances and his guidance in steering the committee, the Senate, through them was invaluable. In general, though, most people didn't hear that much about Victor or the work he did in his 16 years on the committee, but to those of who sit on the committee or who have ever sat on the committee, we know that a lack of public exposure for the committee means that Victor was doing his job, and doing it well.

As I mentioned before, Victor was a 16 year veteran of the Senate Ethics Committee. He was first appointed to the committee by Senator Heflin in March 1987. He was acting Staff Director and Chief Counsel from October 1992 until March 1993 and became Staff Director and Chief Counsel from April 1993 until this January.

Before arriving in the Senate, Victor served in the United States Air Force and had a distinguished legal career in Georgia that included serving as an Assistant Attorney General in Georgia, as an Administrative Law Judge for the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, and on the Consumers' Utility Council of Georgia.

Victor's legal acumen, good nature, keen attention to detail, nonpartisan nature, and most of all, his integrity, all contributed to his success in the Senate. He will be missed by many. I thank him for his service to the United States Senate and to his country, and wish him God speed in all his journeys ahead.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to offer special recognition to a great Ohio company, LexisNexis, on the auspicious occasion of the Thirtieth Anniversary of online legal research.

Thirty years ago today in a Dayton, OH office building, a team of employees and consultants developed the world's first full-text commercial search engine to use for legal research. LexisNexis thus launched the first online legal research system, an innovation that revolutionized the way legal and business professionals, government officials, and academics conduct online legal and business research.

This special milestone offers a unique opportunity to reflect on the company's tradition of innovation and to look with optimism to the future. Today, LexisNexis is a global leader in legal, news and business information services, a distinction supported by product lines that date back more than a century.

With more than 3,000 employees in Ohio and over 13,000 employees worldwide, LexisNexis has enhanced the quality of life within the communities where it employees live and work, and it is truly deserving of high praise. I am certain that as this worthy enterprise maintains its commitment to deliver superior services and solutions to its customers, it will continue to grow and prosper and will follow in the tradition of innovation which has long been the hallmark of the company.

Thus, with sincere pleasure, I congratulate LexisNexis on this Thirtieth Anniversary and extend best wishes for the future.

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, I thank the majority leader for the hospitality he extended to Rev. Glen W. Warner. I have had the pleasure of knowing Reverend Warner for many years. He is a remarkable person who has a distinguished record of service to his community in northeast Ohio in two vocations--as a spiritual leader of the Second Congregational Church and a leader in his family's business, the Molded Fiber Glass Companies, which is one of the area's leading employers.

I have been very impressed over the years that he has been so successful in both of these very different careers. He has ministered to people's spiritual and temporal needs and he has made a real difference in the community.

Reverend Warner has volunteered for several community organizations including serving on the board of the Ashtabula Foundation.

His church is the one in which Reverend Warner and his wife, Nancy, who joins him today were married. In his business career, Reverend Warner travels throughout North America and Europe to develop new markets and new products for the company which was founded by his father-in-law, Robert S. Morrison.

Reverend Glen Warner is a wonderful role model for anyone, and his unique, dual-career underscores the fact that one can be successful in business and in serving the Lord. That one can exercise his spiritual purpose in the realm of his secular responsibility in the great tradition of the English parliamentarian and leader, William Wilburforce.

I am so happy that his wife, Nancy, and his granddaughter Tyra Miller and her friend Keisha Gilbert joined Reverend Warner in the Chamber today as he led the opening prayer at today's session of the United States Senate.

Reverend Glen Warner is a good friend and I am proud to have him here as the guest Chaplain. I encourage Members of the Senate, as they come to the Chamber, if they get a chance, to meet Reverend Warner. He is truly an inspiration.