George Voinovich

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the state of unemployment in our country and what we need to do to finally create sustainable jobs and grow our economy. The unemployment rate currently stands at 9.5 percent nationally and in my State 10.7 percent. Clearly, something has to be done about this. It appears that the new Senator we are expecting from the State of West Virginia may be the deciding factor when we vote later this month to begin addressing this problem. First, I think we need to understand that we need to instill certainty into the economy by providing relief to the segment of our fellow citizens who cannot find work. Because of the downturn in the economy, I have already voted multiple times to extend unemployment insurance from the standard 26 weeks to 99 weeks, amounting to tens of billions of dollars. But this emergency extension has now expired, leaving many without the benefits they need to stay afloat. So let's extend unemployment insurance once again. Resuming this emergency program through November 30 will cost about $33 billion, and I believe we should pay for at least half of it from the stimulus funds. Just before the recess, I supported an unemployment insurance extension that was fully paid for, but my Democratic colleagues blocked that amendment offered by Senator John Thune, preferring instead to continually borrow money on the credit card of our children and grandchildren. Last year, we borrowed $1.4 trillion. That means we borrowed 41 cents of every dollar we spent last year. Over half of this debt is held by foreign investors. By the end of this year, our national debt will be a staggering $13.8 trillion. That is an almost $2 trillion increase in 1 year. As the book of Proverbs tells us in chapter 7, verse 22, ``The rich rule over the poor and the borrower is the servant of the lender.'' America must address its debt and stop borrowing money from countries such as China and others that don't have our best interests at heart. We just can't keep kicking the can down the road. Our national debt is one of the most important problems we face, and our failure to begin to address the fiscal crisis will damage our economy, our national security, and the kind of future we leave to our children and grandchildren. Still, I know Ohioans are hurting, so I approached the majority leader and told him I would provide the vote he needed to extend unemployment insurance if the Democrats were willing to use some of the estimated $40 billion unspent stimulus money to help offset at least half of the stand-alone unemployment insurance extension. He rejected my offer but remained at the table on what I considered to be a fair and simple bill: Extend the unemployment benefits and pay for half of it. So I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, let's get it done. Let's extend UI benefits in a bipartisan manner and pay for at least half with stimulus funds. I am confident we could get 60 votes for that tomorrow. Second, I know most people in America would rather have a job than collect unemployment insurance. They would rather have a job than collect unemployment insurance. But my concern is that not enough is being done by this administration--or by Congress, for that matter--to put people back to work or create an environment where businesses have enough confidence in the future to unleash a corporate, private sector stimulus. I wish to quote from a current Newsweek article by Fareed Zakaria entitled ``Obama's CEO Problem. He needs business on his side now.'' I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed in the Record following my statement.

Mr. VOINOVICH

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

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to explain my opposition to the Restoring American Financial Stability Act. When the Senate first passed the bill in May, I opposed it and explained my reasons for doing so. At that time I hoped the House and Senate would make some changes to the bill during the conference committee to address the root causes of the financial crisis as well as scale back the overreaching powers granted to the new consumer protection bureau. Unfortunately, neither of these changes occurred, and I still believe the bill largely ignores the glaring, fundamental problems that led to our current fiscal catastrophe while increasing regulatory burdens on business when the economy is still struggling to recover. In addition, as Fareed Zakaria recently noted, the uncertainty created by this and other expansive legislation, such as health care reform and potentially cap and trade, is causing many businesses to refrain from new investments until they can understand the full implications of these measures. As for this legislation, it is now clear that over the past decade or so, specific factors played a critical role in leading our Nation into the financial crisis that first arrested the credit markets in 2007, leading to the collapse of some of our largest financial services firms and a stock market crash in late 2008. The resulting events produced a widespread foreclosure crisis and a devastating recession with massive job loss and sustained record unemployment, all of which continue to be felt by families throughout Ohio and the Nation. In response, Congress has taken up legislation that purports to correct what went wrong and restore safety, soundness, and stability to our financial markets to foster recovery and fortify the foundation for a strong economy. Why, then, do I oppose the passage of this legislation? Simply put, because it does not get the job done. This legislation fails to address the causes of the financial crisis, while overreaching in its expanded regulation of businesses, large and small, throughout the economy. I voted to bring the bill to the Senate floor because I believed the American people wanted us to debate the issues that caused the financial collapse and bring forth legislation that would work to minimize the possibility of a future collapse, but this bill fails in too many respects. First, the bill fails to address two primary causes of the financial meltdown, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose push to acquire subprime mortgages--spurred by Congress--helped produce a real estate bubble that burst and sent shockwaves across global financial markets, forcing the U.S. economy and other global economies into a tailspin. These now- government-owned institutions, which failed in the midst of the financial crisis, continue to drain taxpayers for billions of dollars. In May, Fannie and Freddie requested an additional $19 billion of taxpayer moneys to fund operations, bringing the total government assistance to roughly $145 billion, or an average of $7.6 billion per month. Moreover, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that over the next decade, Fannie and Freddie could cost taxpayers almost $400 billion. Yet these two giant, systemically risky institutions--whose bailouts far outsize any of those given to other financial institutions--are ignored in this legislation. Second, at the heart of this financial crisis were residential home loans written to borrowers who did not have the ability to pay their mortgages. When these borrowers defaulted on a massive scale, widespread investment securities based on their mortgages lost significant value, sending investors panicking and retreating while portfolios collapsed and credit froze. These loans were made in large part because of poor underwriting standards and a failure by many lenders and brokers to ensure that buyers had the means to repay their loans. During the Senate debate on this legislation, my colleague, Senator Bob Corker, offered a commonsense amendment to establish sound underwriting standards, including a minimum down payment, full documentation, and proof of income and ability of the borrower to pay the mortgage. Amazingly, my colleagues rejected this amendment, and thus virtually nothing in this legislation addresses this problem. Third, the new consumer protection bureau created by this bill is too wide in its regulatory scope, and I believe it will saddle businesses with new, often unnecessary burdens. The bureau is granted authority to reach its tentacles like an octopus into various sectors of the economy, and pull businesses that were not part of the problem-- including retailers, medical providers such as dentists, lawyers, advertising agencies, and even nonprofits--under new government regulation. Attempts by some of my colleagues to curtail the largely unchecked reach of this new regulator were mostly rejected. Finally, new regulations related to over-the-counter derivatives fail to adequately protect businesses across Ohio and other States that use these risk management tools. I have heard from many businesses concerned that they could be forced to divert capital away from job- creating investments as a result of new clearing procedures in the legislation. They also complain that they may now be forced to use less customized derivative products, which would result in more--rather than less--risk. As businesses sideline more capital, they become less liquid; as they face more risk, they become less creditworthy, and in turn have less access to credit. I am fearful that these new regulatory burdens will serve primarily to slow any eventual economic recovery rather than address the underlying causes of the financial collapse. For example, uncertainty over these potential effects has created widespread concern among farmers in particular, who had nothing to do with the financial meltdown but could face consequences under the legislation. In sum, the Restoring American Financial Stability Act fails to address the root causes of the problem and overreaches in its regulation. I am disappointed these concerns were not resolved during the conference committee, and thus I will not support the bill.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Despite the fragile state of the economy and the futility of the effort in environmental terms, this administration presses forward. In the final analysis, the Clean Air Act does not recognize the international nature of climate change and is not suited to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The administration's attempt to use it to force Congress to adopt economically damaging climate policy is a reckless stunt, especially when one considers the very real challenges America faces today. I am hoping that the Senate supports S.J. Res. 26, removes the gun from its head and gets on with the business of debating a sound energy policy. I suggest that the best way we can start to do this is by looking at the bipartisan bill--the Bingaman bill--which came out of the Energy Committee. That is where we should start if we want to be constructive in dealing with greenhouse gas emissions. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 more minute.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the bipartisan resolution to disapprove EPA's endangerment finding, S.J. Res. 26. First of all, I am not here as a climate skeptic. I believe we should reduce emissions, but the steps we take must balance our Nation's energy and economic needs. Climate change is a global environmental issue that cannot be solved by America acting alone. EPA's own data shows us that unless the rapidly expanding economies of China and India reduce emissions, U.S. action will have no impact on global temperatures. It is widely acknowledged that regulations that flow from EPA's endangerment finding will jeopardize job creation, our economic recovery, and American competitiveness. That has been made very clear by those who have spoken before me. This was openly acknowledged by the Obama administration last year when the White House Office of Management and Budget cautioned: Making the decision to regulate CO2 under the [Clean Air Act] for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities. This is far from incidental. The endangerment finding is the centerpiece of a coercive strategy designed to force Congress into passing cap-and-trade legislation. This was confirmed by a senior White House economic official late last year who was quoted as saying: If you don't pass this legislation, then . . . [EPA] is going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty. Time magazine likened this approach to ``putting a gun to Congress' head.'' But this is a false dichotomy. Senators have before them a number of policy options to address climate change, including the power to remove the threat of EPA regulation. That the Senate has not yet embraced a bill speaks more to the flaws contained in those policies than to this body's willingness to act. In fact, economic analysis of every major piece of climate change legislation shows they would result in net job losses and retard economic growth with little or no impact on global temperatures. Why would the Senate choose to enact economically damaging legislation in order to stave off economically damaging regulations? This Senator certainly will not. In their efforts to gain leverage over the legislative branch, administrative officials claim the resolution to disapprove EPA's endangerment findings would prevent fuel efficiency in vehicles through new EPA regulations. More recently, claims have been made that the resolution is a way to protect big oil in the wake of the gulf disaster. These claims are disingenuous on their face. First, EPA's endangerment finding does nothing to clean up the Gulf of Mexico or prevent future spills. To suggest otherwise is an opportunistic bait and switch and an insult to the people of the gulf, the intelligence of the American people, and the Senate. Second, EPA's endangerment finding has nothing to do with fuel savings. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has had authority to increase corporate average fuel economy--CAFE--standards for over 30 years. Indeed, NHTSA was required by law to raise light- duty vehicle standards to at least 35 miles per gallon when Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act in 2007. In a February 19 letter, NHTSA's general counsel stated: The Murkowski resolution does not directly impact NHTSA's statutory authority to set fuel economy standards. Indeed, in its own rule, EPA confirms that ``the CAFE standards address most, but not all, of the real world CO2 emissions'' from automobiles. In reality, EPA's rules are the ``camel's nose'' under the regulatory tent. In spite of the Supreme Court's ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, only the most tortured--tortured--reading of the act allows one to conclude that the Clean Air Act was intended to address global climate change. The act contains no express authorization to regulate, and there are no provisions recognizing the international dimension of the issue. I know this for a fact. I have been on the Environment and Public Works Committee for almost 12 years, and during those 12 years attempts have been made every 2 years to amend the Clean Air Act to include CO2. In every instance, it has been turned down. As a matter of fact, this issue has been dealt with over and over by the Senate. In fact, starting back in 1997, the Senate spoke directly to this issue where, by a vote of 95 to 0, it passed the Byrd-Hagel resolution. The resolution specifically stated that the United States should not commit itself to limits or reduce greenhouse gas emissions unless developing countries embrace specific commitments to reduce greenhouse gases. The overarching concern was the serious harm that would be inflicted on the U.S. economy by unilateral action. In other words, for us to go ahead and let the EPA regulate this and do it on our own, in effect what we are doing is we are unilaterally disarming the U.S. economy for absolutely no environmental gain. Copenhagen showed us that the developing world will continue to resist binding reduction targets, and while China continues to build two coal-powered plants a week--in other words, while China puts up two coal-fired plants a week, the Sierra Club and other environmental groups in this country are shutting down any opportunity for us to use coal in terms of generating energy.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to explain my opposition to the Restoring America's Financial Stability Act, which the Senate passed last week. It is now clear that over the past decade or so, certain factors played a critical role in leading our Nation into the financial crisis that first reached critical mass and arrested the credit markets in 2007, subsequently leading to the collapse of some of our largest financial services firms, and culminated with a crash of the stock market in late 2008 and again in early 2009. These underlying factors and resulting events produced a widespread crisis and a devastating recession with massive job loss and sustained record unemployment, all of which continue to be felt by families throughout Ohio and States across America. In response, we in Congress have taken up legislation that supposedly aims to correct what went wrong and restore safety, soundness, and stability to our financial markets to foster recovery and fortify the foundation for a strong economy. Why, then, have I opposed the passage of this legislation? Simply put, because it does not get the job done. This legislation fails to address the root causes of our current crisis, while severely overreaching in its expanded regulation of businesses large and small throughout the economy. While I was disappointed that a bill this large, technical, and consequential was not properly and carefully vetted through the committee process, and was then subject to political abuse by the majority, I voted to bring the bill to the Senate floor because I believe the American people wanted us to debate the issues surrounding the financial collapse and bring forth legislation that would work to minimize the possibility of a future collapse caused by the same weaknesses. Although I was pleased with the debate process on the Senate floor--Senators were allotted time to offer amendments, debate was substantial, and amendments were germane--this reform legislation ignores the root causes of the collapse and ultimately fails to repair and strengthen our financial system. First, the bill fails to address the main catalysts of the financial meltdown, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose push to acquire subprime mortgages--spurred by Congress--helped produce a bubble that burst and sent shockwaves across global financial markets, sending the U.S. and global economies into a tailspin. These now-government-owned institutions, which failed in the midst of the financial crisis, continue to drain taxpayers for billions of dollars. Just this month, Fannie and Freddie requested an additional $19 billion of taxpayer moneys to fund operations, bringing the total government assistance to roughly $145 billion, or an average of $7.6 billion per month. Moreover, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that over the next decade, Fannie and Freddie could cost taxpayers almost $400 billion. Yet these two giant, systemically risky institutions, whose bailouts far outsize any of those given to other financial institutions, are ignored in this bill. Second, at the heart of this crisis were residential home loans written to borrowers who did not have the ability to pay their mortgages. When these borrowers defaulted on a massive scale, widespread investment securities based on their mortgages lost significant value, sending investors panicking and retreating while portfolios collapsed and credit froze. These loans were made in large part because of poor underwriting standards and a failure by many lenders and brokers to ensure that buyers had the means to repay their loans. During the debate on this bill, my colleague Senator Bob Corker offered a commonsense amendment to establish sound underwriting standards, including a minimum down payment, full documentation, and proof of income and ability to pay back the mortgage. Amazingly, my colleagues rejected this amendment, and thus virtually nothing in this bill addresses this problem. Third, the new consumer protection bureau created by this bill is too wide in its regulatory scope and I believe it will saddle businesses with new and often unnecessary burdens. It is granted authority to reach its tentacles like an octopus into various sectors of the economy and pull businesses that were not part of the problem under new government regulation. Attempts by some of my colleagues to curtail the largely unchecked reach of this new regulator were rejected. Finally, new regulations related to over-the-counter derivatives fail to adequately protect businesses across Ohio and other States that use these risk management tools. Some of these businesses could be forced to divert capital away from investments and job creation and instead post margins with the clearinghouses that will oversee these contracts. I have also heard many of these companies complain that they will now be forced to use less customized derivative products, which would result in more--rather than less--risk to these companies. As businesses sideline more capital, they become less liquid; as they face more risk, they become less creditworthy, and in turn have less access to credit. I am fearful that these new burdens on businesses will do little or nothing to prevent future collapses, and serve only to slow any eventual economic recovery. In addition, under the Senate bill, banks that commonly provide these financial products for businesses would be prohibited from doing so any longer, and I am concerned that the unintended consequence of this ban could be that businesses will seek these products from foreign financial firms, which operate beyond the scope of U.S. regulation. In sum, not only does the Restoring America's Financial Stability Act fail to address the root causes of the problem, it also overreaches in its regulation, which will cost Ohioans jobs, hurt businesses that are not connected with the meltdown, and harm credit at a time when job recovery is still just inching forward. I am disappointed that many of the amendments offered by my colleagues that would have addressed these issues, as well as my other concerns with the bill, were not adopted. I hope that this Senate bill will be improved in the conference committee before it is returned to the Senate.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, every 4 to 8 years our country achieves a feat that is very much the exception to the rule when placed in the context of the long roll of history: through universal suffrage the people select a new president, and the president-elect assumes power in a peaceful manner. It is a testament to the dedication and professionalism of past presidents, presidents-elect, civil servants and private citizens that this latter task, the presidential transition, is now seen by many Americans as routine; a new president is selected in November, and in January, he or she swaps places with the incumbent president. Life goes on as normal. Of course, the task of transferring command of an organization with more than 5 million employees and a $3.7 trillion annual budget is a bit more complex than our recent successful track record may suggest. Domestic and international threats further complicate this process. Perhaps more than any of its counterparts, the Bush-Obama transition was dealt the longest odds for attaining the uneventful standard our country has come to expect from transfers of power. As my colleagues well know, the Bush-Obama transition was the first of the modern era to occur during wartime, and the first to follow a general election in which the incumbent president or vice-president did not vie for the presidency. The Bush-Obama transition was also the first to occur in the post-September 11th world, and the first since the largest reorganization of government in over 6 decades. As the candidates entered the last week of the campaign season, the second worst month in the history for the Standard & Poor's 500 was drawing to a close after that index had plunged 27 percent in 4 weeks' time. These challenges would be more than enough for any well-disciplined transition effort to confront. Yet in January 2010, shortly before the anniversary of President Obama's inauguration, the American public learned through press accounts of still another threat confronted by the outgoing and incoming administrations. In the days preceding the Presidential Inauguration, intelligence reports surfaced that al-Shabaab, a Somali terrorist organization with ties to al-Qaeda, was planning an attack on the crowds that would gather to witness the administration of the oath of office to the 44th President of the U.S. The threat was taken so seriously that the Secretary of Defense did not attend the inaugural ceremonies in order to ensure continuity of the Nation's national security apparatus. Fortunately this plot did not materialize. But threats like these emphasize the importance of a new president being ready to govern from day one. Despite the challenges faced by the Bush-Obama transition, this most recent transfer of power most closely approached our transition ideal. Both the President and President-elect understood the gravity of the tasks before them, and undertook early and robust planning efforts. President Bush began preparing his administration for the transition earlier than any other presidency when he directed then White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten in late 2007 to ensure ``that the transition is as effective as possible, especially in the national security area.'' For his part, President-elect Obama established the largest transition organization to date. At its peak, the Obama-Biden Transition Project's staff numbered 450, with a total budget of more than $12 million, $7 million of which came from private contributions. In many ways, this most recent transition effort was the best case scenario. The transition succeeded because of the character and values of those tasked with leading the effort, individuals like Gail Lovelace, Joshua Bolten, Clay Johnson, John Podesta, and Christopher Lu. But for critical events like a presidential transition, we cannot always be assured that such productive organizations and working relationships will develop. One need look no further than the acrimonious relationship between the outgoing Clinton administration and the incoming Bush administration, or the internal dissension in President-elect Carter's transition team, to find examples of dysfunctional transitions. Of course, presidential personalities and uncontrollable circumstances will always be a driving factor in the success of future presidential transitions. But we in Congress can contribute to future successes by providing sufficient assistance and formal avenues to more robust transition planning, and by working to address the stigma that has unfortunately been associated with so-called ``presumptuous'' transition planning before the general election. As my colleagues know, the formal mechanisms used by the federal government to transfer power were established in March 1964 with enactment of the Presidential Transition Act, PTA. The Presidential Transition Act of 1963 extends certain government services to the president-elect, including staff salaries, travel expenses, office space, postal reimbursement, and communications equipment. With the exception of substantive amendments in 2000 to provide for a transition directory and activities designed to ``acquaint key prospective Presidential appointees with the types of problems and challenges that most typically confront new political appointees,'' and a provision of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 to provide for expedited security clearances for transition team members and prospective presidential appointees, the architecture our country uses to achieve a successful transition remains largely the same almost a half-century on. So I am pleased to today join the distinguished junior Senator from Delaware, Senator Edward Kaufman, in introducing legislation to contribute to the future success of presidential transitions. Prior to returning to the U.S. Senate as a Member, Senator Kaufman served as one of the Obama-Biden Transition Project's twelve board members, where he gained first-hand experience in the challenges associated with transitioning the Federal Government. I am happy to also be joined by two of the U.S. Senate's most ardent champions of good governance: the Chairman and of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Senator Joseph Lieberman, and my longtime friend and colleague on the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, Senator Daniel Akaka. The Pre-Election Presidential Transition Act of 2010 would extend to the major party candidates and certain third-party candidates a select list of the services currently provided to the president-elect under the PTA. These benefits include office space, communications services, printing and binding expenses, and briefings and workshops designed to acquaint key potential administration staff with the problems and challenges they are likely to face. The bill would also provide candidates with assistance from the General Services Administration in designing systems architecture compatible with federal systems. To encourage more deliberate transition preparation in the executive branch, the Pre-Election Presidential Transition Act also authorizes funding for the establishment of a transition coordinating council and an agency transition directors council modeled on the coordinating bodies that functioned so successfully during the Bush-Obama transition. The assistance extended to the candidates by these authorized functions would be provided on the same terms as those employed during the last transition, on an equal basis and without regard to a candidate's political affiliation. The bill would also require the President, or the President's designee, to report to Congress in presidential election years on the preparations being made to ensure a smooth transition. We in Congress cannot, and should not, dictate the roles and decision-making processes employed by the outgoing and incoming administrations; as a former mayor and governor, I know how fluid and dynamic transfers of power can be. So I am especially pleased that Senator Kaufman's bill is not prescriptive. Rather, the Pre-Election Presidential Transition Act provides assistance that candidates can reject or accept at their discretion, and the authorized activities included in the bill for coordinating bodies in the executive branch respect separation of powers issues by allowing, but not requiring, the use of these best practices. Perhaps most importantly, the Pre-Election Presidential Transition Act provides valuable transition assistance to candidates at an earlier time than ever before. Regardless of the various unique obstacles a president-elect faces, each transition since the Nixon administration has been provided formal assistance for a very short period of time--76 days during the most recent transition. Of course, candidates can begin preparing for the transition before the general election. But in the home stretch of a presidential election, every spare dollar and body are employed to help the candidate win, and preparing to govern often falls by the wayside. Senator Kaufman's bill will contribute to earlier, more robust transition planning by providing candidates with the means, the architecture, and the sanction associated with an equitable and impartial assistance mechanism to combat unfortunate dispersions of the transition planning process, like the comments directed at then Senator Obama's transition activities during the campaign. Candidates taking deliberate steps to ensure a smooth transition should not be criticized as presumptuously ``measuring the White House drapes'' before the election; they should be encouraged and supported. The Pre-Election Presidential Transition Act seeks to achieve that goal. I urge my colleagues to join in supporting the Pre-Election Presidential Transition Act.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, every 4 to 8 years our country achieves a feat that is very much the exception to the rule when placed in the context of the long roll of history: through universal suffrage the people select a new president, and the president-elect assumes power in a peaceful manner. It is a testament to the dedication and professionalism of past presidents, presidents-elect, civil servants and private citizens that this latter task, the presidential transition, is now seen by many Americans as routine; a new president is selected in November, and in January, he or she swaps places with the incumbent president. Life goes on as normal. Of course, the task of transferring command of an organization with more than 5 million employees and a $3.7 trillion annual budget is a bit more complex than our recent successful track record may suggest. Domestic and international threats further complicate this process. Perhaps more than any of its counterparts, the Bush-Obama transition was dealt the longest odds for attaining the uneventful standard our country has come to expect from transfers of power. As my colleagues well know, the Bush-Obama transition was the first of the modern era to occur during wartime, and the first to follow a general election in which the incumbent president or vice-president did not vie for the presidency. The Bush-Obama transition was also the first to occur in the post-September 11th world, and the first since the largest reorganization of government in over 6 decades. As the candidates entered the last week of the campaign season, the second worst month in the history for the Standard & Poor's 500 was drawing to a close after that index had plunged 27 percent in 4 weeks' time. These challenges would be more than enough for any well-disciplined transition effort to confront. Yet in January 2010, shortly before the anniversary of President Obama's inauguration, the American public learned through press accounts of still another threat confronted by the outgoing and incoming administrations. In the days preceding the Presidential Inauguration, intelligence reports surfaced that al-Shabaab, a Somali terrorist organization with ties to al-Qaeda, was planning an attack on the crowds that would gather to witness the administration of the oath of office to the 44th President of the U.S. The threat was taken so seriously that the Secretary of Defense did not attend the inaugural ceremonies in order to ensure continuity of the Nation's national security apparatus. Fortunately this plot did not materialize. But threats like these emphasize the importance of a new president being ready to govern from day one. Despite the challenges faced by the Bush-Obama transition, this most recent transfer of power most closely approached our transition ideal. Both the President and President-elect understood the gravity of the tasks before them, and undertook early and robust planning efforts. President Bush began preparing his administration for the transition earlier than any other presidency when he directed then White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten in late 2007 to ensure ``that the transition is as effective as possible, especially in the national security area.'' For his part, President-elect Obama established the largest transition organization to date. At its peak, the Obama-Biden Transition Project's staff numbered 450, with a total budget of more than $12 million, $7 million of which came from private contributions. In many ways, this most recent transition effort was the best case scenario. The transition succeeded because of the character and values of those tasked with leading the effort, individuals like Gail Lovelace, Joshua Bolten, Clay Johnson, John Podesta, and Christopher Lu. But for critical events like a presidential transition, we cannot always be assured that such productive organizations and working relationships will develop. One need look no further than the acrimonious relationship between the outgoing Clinton administration and the incoming Bush administration, or the internal dissension in President-elect Carter's transition team, to find examples of dysfunctional transitions. Of course, presidential personalities and uncontrollable circumstances will always be a driving factor in the success of future presidential transitions. But we in Congress can contribute to future successes by providing sufficient assistance and formal avenues to more robust transition planning, and by working to address the stigma that has unfortunately been associated with so-called ``presumptuous'' transition planning before the general election. As my colleagues know, the formal mechanisms used by the federal government to transfer power were established in March 1964 with enactment of the Presidential Transition Act, PTA. The Presidential Transition Act of 1963 extends certain government services to the president-elect, including staff salaries, travel expenses, office space, postal reimbursement, and communications equipment. With the exception of substantive amendments in 2000 to provide for a transition directory and activities designed to ``acquaint key prospective Presidential appointees with the types of problems and challenges that most typically confront new political appointees,'' and a provision of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 to provide for expedited security clearances for transition team members and prospective presidential appointees, the architecture our country uses to achieve a successful transition remains largely the same almost a half-century on. So I am pleased to today join the distinguished junior Senator from Delaware, Senator Edward Kaufman, in introducing legislation to contribute to the future success of presidential transitions. Prior to returning to the U.S. Senate as a Member, Senator Kaufman served as one of the Obama-Biden Transition Project's twelve board members, where he gained first-hand experience in the challenges associated with transitioning the Federal Government. I am happy to also be joined by two of the U.S. Senate's most ardent champions of good governance: the Chairman and of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Senator Joseph Lieberman, and my longtime friend and colleague on the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, Senator Daniel Akaka. The Pre-Election Presidential Transition Act of 2010 would extend to the major party candidates and certain third-party candidates a select list of the services currently provided to the president-elect under the PTA. These benefits include office space, communications services, printing and binding expenses, and briefings and workshops designed to acquaint key potential administration staff with the problems and challenges they are likely to face. The bill would also provide candidates with assistance from the General Services Administration in designing systems architecture compatible with federal systems. To encourage more deliberate transition preparation in the executive branch, the Pre-Election Presidential Transition Act also authorizes funding for the establishment of a transition coordinating council and an agency transition directors council modeled on the coordinating bodies that functioned so successfully during the Bush-Obama transition. The assistance extended to the candidates by these authorized functions would be provided on the same terms as those employed during the last transition, on an equal basis and without regard to a candidate's political affiliation. The bill would also require the President, or the President's designee, to report to Congress in presidential election years on the preparations being made to ensure a smooth transition. We in Congress cannot, and should not, dictate the roles and decision-making processes employed by the outgoing and incoming administrations; as a former mayor and governor, I know how fluid and dynamic transfers of power can be. So I am especially pleased that Senator Kaufman's bill is not prescriptive. Rather, the Pre-Election Presidential Transition Act provides assistance that candidates can reject or accept at their discretion, and the authorized activities included in the bill for coordinating bodies in the executive branch respect separation of powers issues by allowing, but not requiring, the use of these best practices. Perhaps most importantly, the Pre-Election Presidential Transition Act provides valuable transition assistance to candidates at an earlier time than ever before. Regardless of the various unique obstacles a president-elect faces, each transition since the Nixon administration has been provided formal assistance for a very short period of time--76 days during the most recent transition. Of course, candidates can begin preparing for the transition before the general election. But in the home stretch of a presidential election, every spare dollar and body are employed to help the candidate win, and preparing to govern often falls by the wayside. Senator Kaufman's bill will contribute to earlier, more robust transition planning by providing candidates with the means, the architecture, and the sanction associated with an equitable and impartial assistance mechanism to combat unfortunate dispersions of the transition planning process, like the comments directed at then Senator Obama's transition activities during the campaign. Candidates taking deliberate steps to ensure a smooth transition should not be criticized as presumptuously ``measuring the White House drapes'' before the election; they should be encouraged and supported. The Pre-Election Presidential Transition Act seeks to achieve that goal. I urge my colleagues to join in supporting the Pre-Election Presidential Transition Act.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise to speak about one of the recess appointments President Obama made when the Senate was not in session. Before I get into my concern about this, I wish to emphasize the fact that I have been the ranking member or the chairman of the Oversight of Government Management and the District of Columbia and then several years ago the Federal Workforce. Working with Senator Akaka, we have conscientiously tried to make the most significant improvements in the Federal service, in terms of human capital and looking at title V of the code that deals with our Federal workers. If we look at the past and determine why we have had some real bad situations in the Federal Government, it is we have not had the right people with the right knowledge and skills at the right time in the right place. The whole effort has been to try to improve the management of our government, to work with Senator Akaka to try to get Federal agencies off the high-risk list. The high-risk list is agencies subject to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. I first share that with you because I think it may cast a little bit of a light on what I am going to talk about this evening. The President nominated Rafael Borras to serve as the Department of Homeland Security Under Secretary for Management on June 24, 2009. That is June of last year. I met with Mr. Borras to discuss his experience, qualifications, and goals for the Department of Homeland Security and also served as the ranking member when the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held his nomination hearing on July 29, 2009. I carefully reviewed Mr. Borras's background and resume and stated qualifications and heard what people he worked for and what people who worked for him said about him. Based on all that, I placed a hold on Mr. Borras's nomination because I believe he is unqualified to be the DHS Under Secretary for Management. On March 27 of this year, the President ignored my concerns and my hold and made Mr. Borras 1 of his 15 recess appointments, and I want to know why. I want to know why. I do not generally oppose nominees, and I do not put holds on lightly. When I do, I explain why I put on holds. I do not hide out. I let people know why I put on a hold. I am extremely concerned about the management challenges the Department of Homeland Security faces, which are wide ranging and far reaching. When Congress established the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, we initiated the Federal Government's largest restructuring since the Department of Defense was created in 1947. What is more, we told the Department to protect us from terrorism and natural disasters, while addressing the organizational, operational, and cultural challenges associated with merging 22 agencies and 170,000 employees into one entity. It is probably the biggest management challenge in the history of the world. The Government Accountability Office cautioned about the challenges the merger would cause and placed the Department of Homeland Security on its high-risk list in January of 2003. Today, DHS is the third largest Cabinet department with about 230,000 employees and an annual budget of $50 billion. Management challenges persist and the Department remains on GAO's high-risk list. Additionally, the DHS inspector general, the DHS Chief Financial Officer, and the Homeland Security Advisory Council's Cultural Task Force have also identified management challenges at the DHS. They recognize they have some big problems. DHS is too big an entity, spending too much money, with too important a job to be deemed susceptible to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement year after year, and it is imperative that the right person be put in place to address those challenges. I do not believe Mr. Borras is the person, and I do not think he will move the Department forward toward getting off the Government Accountability Office's high-risk list. My concerns about Mr. Borras's qualifications and the hold on the nomination, as I mentioned, were not secret. I wrote to the majority leader, I wrote to Secretary Napalitano, and I also wrote to the President to outline my concerns. I announced at a Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing on DHS management challenges that I was holding the nomination because of those concerns, but no one approached me to discuss those concerns. The Senate did not debate Mr. Borras's qualifications. No cloture motion was filed. Rather, my concerns were ignored, and this recess appointment was made. I would like for someone in the administration to explain why things were done this way. I assume because it is everyone knows Mr. Borras is not the best person to manage our third largest department, and any debate we had would have made his lack of qualifications plainly apparent. So we did not debate it. If the Senate had taken the time to debate this nomination, I would have explained in 2007, Congress set statutory requirements for the DHS Under Secretary for Management. By the way, we helped create that special Under Secretary for Management because we believed the Department needed someone who would get up early in the morning and go to bed late at night and move on the transformation that is needed in the Department to get it off the high-risk list. We required the Under Secretary to have extensive executive-level leadership and management experience, a demonstrated ability to manage large and complex organizations, and a proven record in achieving positive operational results. Mr. Borras did not meet those statutory requirements because he does not have the appropriate executive-level leadership experience or demonstrated ability to manage an organization as large and complex as DHS. The administration and Mr. Borras point to his experience as one of several vice presidents in one region of a Fortune 500 company, as a regional administrator for one region of the General Services Administration, and as a Deputy Assistant Secretary at the Department of Commerce. I do not believe, and most people do not believe, these experiences are in any way comparable to the challenges Mr. Borras will face at DHS. Mr. Borras has never overseen a budget anywhere near as large as the DHS budget. His own assertions indicate that the largest budget he ever was involved with was $4.5 billion at the Department of Commerce. That is roughly one-tenth the size of the DHS $50 billion budget, and Mr. Borras was never directly responsible for the Commerce Department budget. He was just one of those who worked at the Department. Additionally, Mr. Borras has never managed hundreds of thousands of employees, such as the 230,000 he will be responsible for at DHS. At most, he asserts he was directly responsible for managing 1,500 employees while a GSA regional administrator. He has also never overseen a procurement budget similar to that at DHS, where in 2005, $10 billion was spent on 63,000 contracts. Mr. Borras asserts that the largest procurement budget he has been involved with was one-quarter of that, $2.5 billion, while he was at the General Services Administration. Given the vast difference between Mr. Borras's experience and the requirements of the job, I agree with two of his former supervisors who told me this job is a big leap from what he has done in the public and private sector. In other words, they said this is a big leap from what he has done. Further, when you compare Mr. Borras's qualifications with the qualifications of past nominees for this position, it is even more concerning. For example, Paul Schneider had over 38 years of Federal service when he was nominated to be the DHS Under Secretary for Management, and much of that experience was with the Navy, a large, complicated organization such as DHS. Similarly, Elaine Duke had more than 25 years of progressively difficult Federal Government experience, primarily within the Department of Defense, when she was nominated to be DHS Under Secretary for Management. I do not mean to imply only career civil servants are appropriate for this role, but Mr. Borras's resume does not include high-level managerial positions in organizations that are similarly complex to DHS. I think the Department of Homeland Security Under Secretary for Management needs a proven record in that regard. I emphasize again, we set this up specifically to be responsible for transformation and to deal with the management problems of the Department. We laid it out: This is the kind of person we ought to be putting into this position. Additionally and unfortunately, Mr. Borras demonstrated a lack of attention to detail on two separate occasions in his personal life, which makes me wonder whether he is prepared to successfully undertake all the responsibilities required of the DHS Under Secretary for Management, such as addressing DHS's low rank on the ``Best Places to Work in the Federal Government'' study and overseeing the billions of dollars the DHS spends on hard-to-manage projects such as SBInet. I feel so strongly about Mr. Borras's lack of qualifications that I am no longer seeking to work to enact a 5-year term for the person who holds this position. The thought was, when we put this position together, we would give it a 5-year term because we knew that if we were going to do transformation, it was going to take more than 1 year. We would give that individual 5 years to go forward and work on nothing but transformation, transformation, transformation, so this Department would come together and get it off the high-risk list. The Government Accountability Office suggested that such a term would help improve the management function at DHS, and I have been advocating for such legislation for the last couple years. My bill has bipartisan support and has passed the Senate before, but now I don't want it enacted because I am afraid of having Mr. Borras in this position for 5 years. I don't think he has the skills necessary to get the job done. So that is gone. I know I am not alone in my concerns. Mr. Borras was passed out of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee largely on a party-line vote, but it should be noted that two Democratic members of the committee expressed concern about his qualifications when we were debating his nomination. In fact, one of the Democrats who voted for the nomination said she was doing so to send the nomination to the floor, but that she wanted the committee to take a closer look at Mr. Borras's qualifications to make sure he had the management skills necessary to manage the Department of Homeland Security. I wonder, did such a review ever occur? If it did, it did not include me even though I am the ranking member on the committee's Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee. I should have asked Senator Akaka if he had ever been consulted, but a dime will get you a dollar that they didn't talk to him at all. I wasn't a strong supporter in creating the Department of Homeland Security. Standing it up created real challenges, and those challenges remain. But the Department exists, and we owe it to the United States and our children and grandchildren to ensure that the Department is as good as it can be. I think we need to ask our President why he made this recess appointment when doubt existed on both sides of the aisle about Mr. Borras's qualifications. What was the stated reason for the appointment? Will somebody explain why the appointment was made? I sat with the Secretary, and we talked about it. Never in all of my conversations did anyone come forward and say he should get the job; that he is qualified for the job. The fact that no one in the administration defended Mr. Borras or explained why they thought he was qualified to be a DHS Under Secretary for Management still remains a puzzlement to me. I think somebody owes it to me, to Senator Akaka, and to the Members of this Senate to explain why they put this man in this position under a recess appointment, particularly when we have an agency that, if we don't have the kind of attention given to it, will never be in a position where it can get off the high-risk list. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. If the Senator would yield, Mr. President, I would like to say, I hope that one of the things I write about is the Lieberman amendment that passed the Senate.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I thank Senator Lieberman for the leadership he has shown in this effort to make a difference in the lives of students in the District of Columbia. The Senator from California did a beautiful job of outlining the difference it has made for just a few who have been able to participate in the program thus far. I rise, of course, to support the amendment--the amendment that will continue to give thousands of children in the District of Columbia an opportunity for a good education. It was first authorized in 2004. The program has the potential to provide 1,700 children with scholarships of up to $7,500 each to attend the school of their choice. To qualify, students must live in the District and have a household income of no more than 185 percent of the poverty line. In the District, recipients' average family income is $24,300. These are very poor kids from families who are just making it. It is not something we have created to make available to everyone. Unfortunately, while the program can provide 1,700 children with scholarships, it does not. Increasingly, prohibitive language in the appropriations bills and a hostile administration--and I mean hostile-- has already decreased participation significantly. The program now helps just over 1,300 students. It is baffling to me why this administration has focused so much attention opposing a successful program which has provided a high- quality education to more than 3,300 children. According to the independent evaluator of the program, ``participating DC students are reading at higher levels as a result of the Opportunity Scholarship Program.'' That is why, since 2004, approximately 9,000 families have applied for spots in the program--nearly three applications for each available scholarship. In its fiscal year 2011 budget request, President Obama has indicated this will be the last year he expects to request funding for the program based on declining participation. Give me a break. I say to the President: It is difficult to participate in a program that is closed to new applicants. Participation levels are down because the Secretary of Education rescinded more than 200 scholarships to deserving children for the current school year, and he did so after enrollment in desirable charter and public schools had already begun. Are we going to allow these children to return to failing, unsafe schools? High school graduation rates in the District's public schools are consistently among the worst in the Nation. According to the Washington Post--which, by the way, has editorialized in favor of this over and over--just over half the District's teenage students attend a school that is ``persistently dangerous,'' as defined by the DC Government. On an average school day, nine violent incidents are reported throughout the school system. I would like to say that Michelle Rhee is doing her very best to bring back the school system. The DC Tuition Assistance Grant Program has been a help to many of these students. In fact, we increased attendance to college education because of the TAG Program. She is doing everything she can. Here is someone who came in here and wants to make a difference for the District. Before our Governmental Affairs Committee, she came out strongly and said this program should be continued. Mayor Fenty, the Mayor of the District of Columbia, again said this program should be continued. What I find troubling is that some of our leaders who have exercised their right to school choice are denying that right to District parents. President Obama enrolled his children in a private school. There is no way he would allow his kids to attend the DC public schools. Listen to this: Secretary of Education Arne Duncan moved his family to Virginia, saying: I didn't want to try to save the country's children and our educational system and jeopardize my own children's education. Hear that? I don't want to try to save the country's children and our educational system and jeopardize my own children's education. He has that opportunity. These people who take advantage of the program do not have that opportunity. To quote former DC Mayor Anthony Williams: It is only fair to allow low-income parents the same choices that we all have, to select the best educational environment for their child. In a letter to Senate Democrats regarding the DC program, the National Education Association wrote: Throughout its history, NEA has strongly opposed any diversion of limited public funds to private schools. Unfortunately, the letter neglects the fact that the scholarships were designed according to a three-sector approach under which not a single dime has been cut from public schools. In fact, when we came in with this program--I think the Senator from Connecticut remembers--we put $14 million into charters, $14 million into the public school system, and $14 million into the scholarship program. We did not take a dime away from the District. In fact, they made out quite well on it. Add up 3 times 14, whatever that is. That is not bad coming from the Congress so we can move forward with some new ideas. I have to tell my colleagues something. The merits of the program are of little importance to the NEA. I know this because after endorsing my 1998 Senate campaign, here is what they said. I love this: It is fair to say that no other Governor has done more for education and Ohio's children. That is the NEA. They then quickly withdrew support for my 2004 campaign because I supported the DC School Choice Act. I was told--I will never forget it. I went into the interview. They all sit around. You know how it is. I answered their questions. After it was over, my opponent did the same thing. Later on I heard back from the people who were there. They said: You did a terrific job. We appreciate what you have done, but you are not going to get it because we have been told from the boys in Washington: There is no way you are going to be allowed to endorse George Voinovich because he came out for the DC Scholarship Program. Mr. President, I know the same kind of pressure is on many Members of this Senate. What they are afraid of is, if they vote for this amendment Senator Lieberman has, it will hurt them with the OEA or the NEA they have in their respective States. Senator Lieberman has done the job explaining what this is. This is not a big deal. Why can't they stand and say: This is a little bitty program that is helping a bunch of kids in the District of Columbia. Give me a break. Why shouldn't I support it? I may be a little emotional about this, but Ohioans knew this was a good program way back in 1995 when, as Governor, I supported the opportunity scholarships with the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program Office. This was opposed--of course it was--but Ohioans knew it was a good program. Over 1,900 students participated in the first year. So with hard work and dedication, we fought for the program for nearly a decade. Finally, on June 27, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a landmark decision, agreed that the program was constitutional in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris. When I leave the Senate, I am going to write a book. One of the things I am going to talk about in that book is that landmark decision that started out in the State of Ohio in 1995 because I told the legislature the Cleveland system was going down the tubes and they needed to do something else. We finally got them to agree to put that scholarship program into Cleveland, OH. As a result of that program, over 1,900 participated in the beginning of it. Today, there are 6,000 students who are participating in that program. The benefits, I would like to say, go beyond the academic. I think the Senator from California did a beautiful job in laying out how this helps academically, but a study by the Buckeye Institute in Ohio found students involved in the Cleveland program are gaining access to a more integrated school experience. It is very important they have this kind of experience. This program wasn't available when I was mayor, and my children probably wouldn't have been eligible for it, but I will never forget that my son George was the only White kid in his class in a major work program in the city of Cleveland, and I have to tell you he is a different person because of the fact that he had that experience. My daughter was one of two White kids who were in a class that was all African American. The program was terrific and they took advantage of it and they had a learning experience they would not have had if it hadn't been for this program that brought kids together for a special program. In his closing testimony before our committee, former Mayor Anthony Williams said: Quite frankly, I am befuddled by the proposal to have the program die by attrition. I cannot understand why anyone could eliminate a program that has uplifted the lives, fulfilled the dreams and given hopes to thousands of low- income families. I am also befuddled by that idea, and I urge my colleagues to stand and be counted. Support the Lieberman amendment. Let's let these kids have an opportunity that without this program they are not going to have available to them.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, today I honor Carl Tubbesing, executive director of the National Conference of State Legislatures, NCSL, on the occasion of his retirement after 35 years of service. Carl's dedication to the ideals of federalism has been steadfast and unwavering during the course of his time at NCSL, and his accomplishments have been many. His tireless commitment to maintaining the balance among Federal, State and local governments undoubtedly has made a positive impact in the lives of many. I am fortunate to have worked with Carl during my days as chairman of the National Governors Association. Together, we fought to maintain a healthy relationship between Federal and State governments, and to ensure that the folks in Washington adhered to the same ideals of federalism in which we believed. In 1986, I made a speech as mayor of Cleveland lamenting the fact that while Constitutional federalism was alive in theory, it had died in practice. We have made great progress since I gave that speech more than 20 years ago. The comeback story of federalism and our success in the proper delineation of responsibility from Federal centralization to local control is due, in no small part, to Carl's perseverance and hard work. Carl's efforts to devolve authority for domestic policy from the Federal to State level paid off, most notably, with the passage of several major pieces of legislation. These include the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Reform Act, welfare reform, and Medicaid reforms. It is my privilege to recognize Carl Tubbesing for his diligent commitment to federalism and dedicated service to the National Conference of State Legislatures, and to congratulate him on his well- deserved retirement.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. David Walker, President and CEO of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, former Comptroller General of the United States, has long advocated a special process to get our Nation's fiscal house in order. Mr. Walker has testified: Clearly escalating Federal deficits and debt levels, combined with our growing dependency on foreign lenders and the deepening Federal financial hole, represents challenges that must be addressed. A commission could make recommendations in connection with needed statutory budget control, social insurance program reforms, tax reform, additional health care reforms, and other appropriate areas. Importantly-- This is the most important thing-- everything must be on the table with the commission to be credible and to have a real chance of success. Recently, Mr. Walker released a book entitled ``Comeback America: Turning the Country Around and Restoring Fiscal Responsibility.'' In his book, Mr. Walker explains the nature of the crisis and why we must act now. Rather than describe all of the frightening statistics myself, and many people have heard those statistics, I would recommend this book to my colleagues if they have any doubts about the seriousness of this fiscal crisis facing our Nation. Of course, throughout the debate on their amendment, Senators--and I heard them earlier today--Conrad and Gregg have described the dire fiscal future our Nation faces without action. We just heard another presentation from my distinguished colleague from the State of Maine. I have, in my prior floor speeches on this topic, which probably are dozens, described the significance of this fiscal crisis our Nation faces. For any of my colleagues or members of the public, you can access these speeches on my Web site. I would note that the American people agree. This is important. The American people agree with Senators Conrad and Gregg. In fact, the latest bipartisan public opinion poll commissioned by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation this past November indicates that 80 percent--80 percent--of American voters are concerned about escalating debt and deficits. Voter concern about debt and deficits exceeded concern about health care access and affordability by 24 percent--by 24 percent--and 70 percent of Americans believe the regular order in Washington is broken. They think the regular order is broken, and it is time for a fiscal reform commission to become a reality. I was pleased last year that the distinguished minority leader, the senior Senator from Kentucky, spoke eloquently about the merits of the bipartisan Conrad-Gregg Commission. In a July statement on the Senate floor, Senator McConnell said: This means that in order to face our problem head on, we will have to address the problem of entitlement spending. And the only serious option on the table is the Conrad-Gregg proposal which would provide a clear pathway for fixing these long-term challenges by forcing us to get debt and spending under control. He goes on to say: I have had a number of good conversations about this proposal with the President. Based on those conversations, I am hopeful it will be given serious attention. For the safety and security of our Nation, the Conrad-Gregg proposal deserves broad bipartisan support. That was the minority leader of the Senate. Senator Reid has been silent on his support, but based on conversations I have had with him, I believe he also appreciates the dire financial situation our Nation faces. Still I want to say that I have been disappointed there has not been more of a recent effort by leaders of both parties embracing the Conrad-Gregg Commission, which is one of the most bipartisan pieces of legislation we have seen in the Senate during this Congress--in fact, I believe the most bipartisan legislation that has come before this session of Congress. My question to Senators Reid and McConnell is, If you are not in favor of the Conrad-Gregg Commission, what bipartisan proposal are you for? In other words, if you do not like the commission, then what bipartisan proposal are you for? I was also disappointed that the President initially threw in the towel on the Conrad-Gregg Commission on the grounds that he understood the votes to pass this proposal were not there. Instead the President proposed issuing an Executive order establishing a debt commission. An Executive order commission, I believe, will be looked upon by many on my side of the aisle as nothing more than an exercise in political messaging. But I say to my colleagues on this side of the aisle: If you are not for the Conrad-Gregg proposal, what are you for? What are you for? Thus, I am grateful that this Saturday the President has changed his position and stated: The only way to solve our long-term fiscal challenge is to solve it together, Democrats and Republicans. That's why I strongly support legislation under consideration to create a bipartisan fiscal commission to come up with a set of solutions to tackle our nation's fiscal challenges, and call on Senators from both parties to vote for the creation of a statutory, bipartisan fiscal commission. The President of the United States made it clear. He wants this bipartisan statutory commission to pass the Senate. The beauty of creating the commission through legislation is it would force Congress to deal with the Nation's looming fiscal catastrophe, rewarding the work of the commission's members by ensuring that if their proposal gets 14 out of 18 votes, the bill will not be placed on a shelf to gather dust. I can tell you, as I watched this Senate during the last 11 years, if someone would ask me to sit on a commission and spend the time I would have to spend to deal with the problems that would be confronting the commission, I would want a guarantee. I would want a guarantee that if the majority, 14 out of 18 members were for it, it would get expedited procedure; that I would get a vote, up or down, on that labor of work in which I had participated. I think the President understands if we are going to respond to the fiscal crisis facing our Nation, it has to be bipartisan. I am prayerful he will use his political capital with Senator Reid and Senator McConnell to secure the 60 votes needed for this landmark legislation and then urge our House colleagues to do the same. Some of my colleagues have other proposals. Many of them are worthy of consideration. However, none of these proposals is bipartisan. In the end, such proposals might result in great messaging. Boy, we do a lot of messaging around here. For some it would provide a way to cover their behinds or, more tactfully, to provide a fig leaf to cover their unwillingness to support something that is bipartisan and ultimately good for the country. Moreover, of course, these folks would save themselves from heartburn, heartburn that they might suffer when special interests complain, and perhaps give ammunition to someone who might be running against them in a Republican or Democratic primary for the Senate. Since the possible passage of this commission has become a reality, it is interesting how this starts to work. Special interest groups on both sides of the aisle have assailed it as terrible. The taxpayer organizations on the right warn that the commission will increase taxes. The liberal groups on the left warn it will result in cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and other government programs. You know something. If the left and the right are so unhappy with this, this has to be good legislation. Others, frankly, want to use the debt limit issue to embarrass our friends on the other side of the aisle because of the large increases we have approved, particularly as a result of the recession and the collapse of our financial markets. Other members continue to blame President Bush and earlier Congresses. The truth is, none of us, Republicans or Democrats, has clean hands. Since 2002 there have been nine votes, nine votes to increase the debt limit. They have occurred both under Democrats and Republicans when they controlled Congress. In that time, our debt has gone from $6.4 trillion to roughly $12.4 trillion. All of us, all of us have done it. The American people know the chickens have come home to roost, and we better understand that. That is what I hear when I go back to Ohio. If one thing came out of Massachusetts, the people are tired of the--to put it in the vernacular--BS coming out of Congress. Congress's numbers continue to be among the worst they have ever been because the folks back home think we are more interested in protecting our political hide and who is going to control the next Congress than working in a bipartisan way to solve our Nation's problems. They know when their elected representatives are scrapping, their interests are scraps falling off the table. They also know, as I know, that even when we work together, it is often difficult to get things done because many of us have sincere differences of opinion. I learned both of those lessons as mayor of the city of Cleveland and Governor of Ohio. The eyes of the American people are focused on what we are doing. The American people will be watching to see if we got the wake-up call from Massachusetts. They are telling us they are mad as hell with business as usual and they are not going to take it anymore. The American people want us to work together. They do. They want us to work together. They do not want messaging and back-room deals that favor one group or another. Americans always hear from politicians about how they will work for bipartisan solutions to America's problems that will strengthen our future. How many times have they heard that on the floor of this Senate? Well, here is the opportunity for Members of the Senate, the House, and President Obama to show when they make such statements they are serious. I came here in 1999, and one of the major reasons I came here was to deal with paying down our Nation's debt and balance budgets. I can remember back in 2000, I was the only Republican that voted against the Republican legislation to reduce taxes because I said that money should be used to pay down debt. I am leaving the Senate at the end of this year, as is the Presiding Officer. I have three children and seven grandchildren. The wife of my youngest son Peter is expecting their first child. I have always believed it is my responsibility to try to leave this world and particularly our Nation in better shape than how I found it. It was something that was ingrained in my first-generation parents: George, you have a responsibility to leave this country a better place than that which you found. I am running out of time to do something. So is the country. On too many occasions, Congress has been unwilling to experience short-term pain to achieve long-term gain. We have been unwilling do without or pay for things that many folks have wanted us to do. Our Nation has put the financial costs of the two wars on the credit card, even while the soldiers and their families continue to bear the human cost of these wars. To me, this lack of effective action is absolutely immoral. It is absolutely immoral. I recently talked with my oldest son George, the father of four beautiful girls, who genuinely feels there will be no Social Security for him, that Medicare may not be there either. He understands the global competition facing his generation and his daughters' generation is greater than at any other time in our Nation's history, that global competition is greater than at any other time in this Nation's history. The burden we have created because of our fiscal irresponsibility brings into question whether his children will enjoy the same opportunity for a standard of living that we have had. I said in the beginning of my speech, I believe the issues this amendment is designed to address, our national debt and deficits as far as the eye can see, are two of the most important issues Congress and our Nation face. Our failure to address these issues will damage our economy, our Nation's security, peace in the world, and the kind of future we leave to our children and grandchildren. The future of our Nation is in our hands. The future of our Nation is in the hands of these 100 Senators. I pray the Holy Spirit will come down and inspire us to make the right decision. My two mottos have been over the years: ``Together we can do it'' and, Ohio's motto, ``With God all things are possible.'' Working together on a bipartisan basis and with God's help, I am positive we can solve our problems, meet our challenges, and take advantage of the opportunities before us. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Statement on the Fiscal Responsibility Summit February 19, 2009. President Obama's intention to convene a fiscal responsibility summit is a very welcome development. It offers a valuable opportunity to focus public attention on our nation's unsustainable budget outlook and to highlight various approaches to meaningful action. As a group of budget analysts and former senior budget officials, we view this summit as the first step to addressing the enormous long-term fiscal problem facing the United States. Without decisive action this problem will lead to serious harm to our economy and a huge financial burden on our children and grandchildren. Tackling these problems will require a degree of sacrifice impossible under the existing policy process, which discourages bipartisan compromise and encourages procrastination and obstructionism. Unless those procedures are modified, and the American people are engaged in the process, future legislative attempts to address the looming fiscal crisis will almost certainly fail. In our view, the American people are ready to confront the challenge. For the last three years several of us have traveled around the country as a group, discussing these issues with thousands of Americans in dozens of cities, in a bipartisan effort known as the Fiscal Wake-Up Tour. We have found that when Americans are given the facts and options in a neutral and bipartisan way, they want action and are willing to make difficult trade-offs. We therefore urge the President to lead a major public engagement effort--beyond a one-day summit--to inform Americans of the scale and nature of the long-term fiscal crisis, explain the consequences of inaction and discuss the options for solving the problem. This should be bipartisan, and involve a serious conversation with Americans to help guide action in Washington. As a group with some experience in this domain, we stand ready to assist if needed. We also believe that for this policy commitment to produce tangible results, the President and others who share the goal of fiscal responsibility must address the fact that the regular political process has been incapable of dealing with long-term fiscal issues. We see no alternative but to create an independent and truly bipartisan commission or other mechanism capable of bringing about decisive action that has broad public support. We therefore urge the President to support such a commission. For this commission or some other mechanism to break through the legislative logjam it will need four key elements: It must be truly bipartisan and develop solutions that command wide support. It must have a broad mandate to address all aspects of the fiscal problem while fostering strong economic growth. There must be no preconditions to the deliberations. All options must be on the table for discussion. Nobody should be required to agree in advance to any option. Recommendations must go before Congress for an up-or-down vote with few if any amendments. Such a game-changing process is not without precedents; controversial military base closings or the ratification of international trade agreements, for example, have long been governed by special rules along these lines, not by business as usual. We are deeply worried about the long-term fiscal imbalance and the dangers it carries for the economy and for our children and grandchildren. We know the President is concerned as well, as are many Members of Congress in both political parties. We are ready to help in building public understanding of the problem and the options, and in crafting an approach that will enable the legislative process to deal with the problem. This statement is offered by members of the Brookings- Heritage Fiscal Seminar. The views expressed are those of the individuals involved and should not be interpreted as representing the views of their respective institutions. For purposes of identification, the affiliation of each signatory is listed. Signatories: Joe Antos, American Enterprise Institute; Robert Bixby, Concord Coalition; Stuart Butler, Heritage Foundation; Alison Fraser, Heritage Foundation; William Galston, Brookings Institution; Ron Haskins, Brookings Institution; Julia Isaacs, Brookings Institution; Will Marshall, Progressive Policy Institute; Pietro Nivola, Brookings Institution; Rudolph Penner, Urban Institute; Robert Reischauer, Urban Institute; Alice M. Rivlin, Brookings Institution; Isabel Sawhill, Brookings Institution; C. Eugene Steuerle, Peter G. Peterson Foundation. Exhibit 2 [PBS Nightly Business Report, Jan. 12, 2010] ``Commentary''--Budget Commission SUSIE GHARIB: Tonight's commentator says with a budget deep in red ink and a Congress that hasn't cut spending, she's taking a fresh look at things. She's Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Recently, on PBS's nightly business program, Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, who has been working on this problem for a dozen years, made a strong statement in support of a commission. I ask unanimous consent to have printed her full statement in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks, and I would highlight that in her statement Ms. MacGuineas notes her early opposition to such a commission, but she has changed her mind based on the urgency of our Nation's fiscal situation.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the Conrad-Gregg amendment. I believe the issues this amendment is designed to address--our national debt and deficits as far as the eye can see--are two of the most important issues Congress and our Nation face. Our failure to address these issues will damage our economy, our Nation's security, peace in the world, and the kind of future we leave to our children and grandchildren. The greatness of the issue has resulted in the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, Senators Conrad and Gregg, coming together and introducing the Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action Act, which is supported by 29 Senators--14 Democrats and 15 Republicans. I am pleased to say I am one of those 15 Republicans. I think those who followed the recent operations of the Senate will appreciate that in this Balkanized Senate, where nothing seems to get done on a bipartisan basis, this commission has significant bipartisan support. The Conrad-Gregg proposal would create a statutorily based commission of 18 members, 16 of them Members of Congress, who would study the long-term fiscal imbalance of the Federal Government and submit recommendations as a legislative proposal that would receive expedited consideration by Congress resulting in an up-or-down vote. The commission would consider all options on both sides of the ledger and would require the approval of 14 of its 18 members, ensuring a bipartisan product. I want to emphasize to my Republican colleagues who may be skeptical of this bipartisan commission, half of the congressionally appointed members will be appointed by the Senate minority leader and the House minority leader, which guarantees that the Conrad-Gregg commission will protect the concerns of my colleagues. For example, large tax increases are unlikely, given the makeup and procedures of the commission. And, finally, three-fifths of the Senate and three-fifths of the House must vote for passage of the recommendations, ensuring strong bipartisan support from both Chambers. The bipartisanship is the key to success because this is not a Democratic or Republican problem. It affects everyone. I believe this special process is the most practical and effective method to deal with the looming debt crisis that endangers the economic future of all of us. A commission to address our Nation's fiscal issues has been recommended by outside budget experts from across the political spectrum. These experts have declared that the regular process is incapable of dealing with long-term fiscal issues. Just ask me. This is my 12th year in the Senate. The regular process does not work. In February 2009, groups including Brookings, the Urban Institute, the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, the Concord Coalition, AEI, Progressive Policy Institute, and the Heritage Foundation issued a statement calling for the establishment of a commission to address our fiscal issues. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, today I am pleased to extend my warmest congratulations to the Supreme Council of the House of Jacob of the United States of America as it celebrates its 100th anniversary with delegates from 41 locations from around the United States travelling to Coshocton, OH, for services in the church's newly constructed Mount Zion Tabernacle. For 100 years, the Supreme Council of the House of Jacob of the United States of America has invited men and women of diverse backgrounds to worship God according to the teachings of Jesus Christ, advocating strong family ties, a high standard of moral values and civic participation. I would like to recognize Supreme Bishop, Father J. Daniel Israel, J.O.G., and the Board of Directors of the House of Jacob of the United States of America, which make up the leadership of this church. I commend the ministries and the good works under their supervision within Ohio, and across our Nation. I encourage my fellow Ohioans, my colleagues in the Senate and the entire Nation to recognize this memorable anniversary celebration and to congratulate the Supreme Council of the House of Jacob of the United States of America on its 100-year anniversary on the 1st day in January 2010. Also, may God continue to bless this Church, its leaders and its faithful members.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I wanted to take some time to talk about the health care bill before the Senate which the majority leader is anxious to get passed before Christmas. I suspect that he knows if this bill sees too much light of day, he could lose 1 or 2 of his 60 votes, and that is why his managers' amendment was kept under wraps so that no one knew anything about it until the last minute. On our side of the aisle, we would like to hold off until after Christmas to give all Members of the Senate and the American people a chance to review this legislation. Obviously, this is not going to happen. I think that is unfortunate. When you compare the number of days we spent debating this bill to other major pieces of legislation that have come before this body in recent years, the Democrats' haste is obvious. For example, in 2002, I was very much involved in the legislation that created the Department of Homeland Security. We spent 19 days over 7 weeks on the floor debating that bill. We took 20 votes on amendments during the debate. The final result was bipartisan. Ninety Members of the Senate voted for it. Tragically, for the American people, unlike other important health care-related bills such as the Medicare Modernization Act that garnered wide bipartisan support, this bill is nowhere near bipartisan and did not receive a single Republican vote for cloture at 1 this morning, and only one Republican in the House of Representatives supported it. In my humble opinion, the way this bill was negotiated behind closed doors, and without the input of Members from both sides, will sour relations and bipartisan discussion on other major issues to come before the Senate, such as debt and deficit reduction--notably bipartisan legislation that I have been working on very closely with Senators Gregg and Conrad, a comprehensive energy bill, reauthorization of the surface transportation bill, climate change legislation, and-- very important--a jobs bill. The problems facing our country are too serious for business as usual, each side one-upping the other for political advantage, with the 2010 elections casting shadows on what we should be doing for the benefit of our country, at a time when this Nation is as fragile as I have seen it in my entire life. Our future and the future of our children and grandchildren is in our hands. Our constituents and the world are watching. Our credibility and credit are on the line, and so is our economic and national security, and, quite frankly, our leadership position in the world. We need fewer partisans in this body and more statesmen. Last week I came to the floor to remind my colleagues and the American people about the fiscal realities that face our Nation and explained how this health reform legislation, which is now likely to pass based on this morning's cloture vote, would make an unsustainable fiscal situation even worse. Let me remind you as we stand right now that our Nation's debt has exceeded $12 trillion for the first time in our history. In fact, from 2008 to 2009 alone, the Federal debt increased 19 percent, boosting national debt as a percentage of GDP from 70 percent last year to 84 percent this year. We have not seen this kind of debt-to-GDP ratio since the end of the Second World War. We have amassed a staggering $70 trillion in unfunded obligations over the next 75 years or an estimated $600,000 per American household. Our Medicare Program is already on shaky footing with $37 trillion in unfunded future Medicare costs, and the Medicare trust fund is expected to be insolvent by 2017. Frankly, this is why I am disappointed the Senate failed to support Senator Gregg's amendment we considered earlier in this debate to ensure that the savings achieved by Medicare cuts would be used to ensure the viability of the program, and not new entitlements. I ask my colleagues, can our Nation take on new programs and costs when we cannot pay for what we are doing right now? Our Nation's fiscal picture is not pretty. Our obligations to our entitlement programs are exploding. If we keep going the way we are, our debt will double in 5 years and triple in 10. Our budgets are unbalanced as far as the eye can see. Last year we borrowed $1.4 trillion, and 50 percent of our debt is in the hands of foreign countries. The American people get it. They already know the Federal Government is the worst credit card abuser in the world, and we are putting everything on the tab of our children and grandchildren. They are not the only ones. Internationally, our creditors are concerned. Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao has noted: We have lent a huge amount of money to the United States and of course we're concerned about the security of our assets and, to be honest, I am a little bit worried. That's why here I would like to urge the US to keep its commitment and promise to ensure the safety of Chinese assets. That is what he said to the President--anybody who goes to China today. They are worried about the fact they have lent us a lot of money and maybe they might not get it back. While the international community understands our crisis, somehow Congress does not get it. Here we are considering a bill that, when fully implemented, spends more than $2 trillion over 10 years to restructure our health care system. I respect my friends on the other side of the aisle, but the assumptions they make are optimistic about the cuts in this bill, especially when one considers this body's propensity for acting in a fiscally irresponsible manner. Frankly, our history on the so-called doc fix is illustrative. We continue to kick the cost of fixing Medicare payments for physicians down the road, instead of dealing with its more than $200 billion cost. The bill before us does not even have the 1-year fix that the original bill had included. My friends on the other side of the aisle have decided to put it off and deal with it in a separate measure because it would make this bill even more expensive. As congressional observers have noted, we continue to put off the difficult choices. The fact is, Congress is not willing to take short- term pain for long-term gain. This is my 11th year, and it is the same old story year after year. This brings me back to the health care bill. I have heard all the arguments of why health care reform is needed, and--do you know something--I agree with most of them. Frankly, there are a number of incremental things we could do today to make real improvements in our system in a bipartisan way. In fact, I encourage my colleagues to take a look at some of the proposals contained in the alternatives offered by my colleagues, including Senators Wyden and Bennett. These and other legislative proposals include things we can do on an incremental basis to improve our system, such as making it easier for small business to group together to reduce their health care costs; passing medical liability reform, where we have more tests being taken because doctors are afraid of being sued; increasing flexibility in the private market so people have more options and can choose insurance products that best meet their needs; implementing policies that encourage wellness and prevention; eliminating the fraud and abuse that have and will continue to plague our public health care programs; eliminating the ability of insurance companies to deny people insurance coverage because of preexisting conditions; or eliminating the caps that insurance companies put once an individual reaches a certain amount. Instead, we are going to pass a massive new spending bill that does little to fix our problems in the long run. What too many of my colleagues do not understand is there are limits to what government can do. There are limits on what government can do. When I was mayor of the city of Cleveland, Governor of Ohio, people would come to me with ideas to expand programs and services. Often, even though I saw the merit of these proposals, just like I see the merit of a lot of the suggestions we need to have in terms of health care, I knew we did not have the money to pay for these proposals, especially because we had to balance our budgets. In those situations, I had to be honest and say no. It is the same thing here. I am sure the Presiding Officer has people coming into his office every day saying: I want you to help with this worthy cause. I sit, I listen patiently, and I say to them: If what you are asking me to do means we are going to have to borrow money, and it is going to be paid for by our children and grandchildren, what do you have to say? Nine times out of 10, they say: No. Thank you very much, Senator. And they go out the door. They get it. They understand that. Unfortunately, Congress does not get it. It is not just my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, folks. No one's hands are completely clean. That is the way it is. We just keep on going the way we are, keep going down the road. Here we are in the worst recession since the Great Depression. Millions of Americans are out of work. Others lucky enough to have a job are wondering if they will be next to be laid off or fired. In my State of Ohio, the unemployment rate is 10.6 percent. Yet we are talking about health care reform, cap and trade, which will put unsustainable burdens on doing business in this country and make it more difficult to get this economy going again. What people in this country want is to go back to work and have some assurance that their jobs are safe. The best way to give them security and access to health insurance is to get them back to work. We should not be asking our Nation's businesses to take on new tax burdens in the current recession. Yet this bill before us would impose $28 billion in new taxes on employers--$28 billion. Furthermore, the legislation creates a new Medicare payroll tax that will likely hit approximately one-third of the small businesses in this country, which employ some 30 million Americans. These new taxes are likely to significantly hinder these engines of job growth. Another troubling tax that will impact businesses in my State is the tax on device manufacturers. I have heard from one of our Ohio companies that this tax could force it to move its operations overseas to keep its doors open. In fact--this is unbelievable--according to the company's own calculations, the new device tax will exceed 100 percent of its domestic earnings and research and development budget. It has nothing to do with their profitability. They say: You are this business. You have a percentage of it, and we are going to lay the tax right on your back. Ohio cannot afford to lose these jobs to another country at any time but certainly not right now in this struggling economy. But this is just the beginning for businesses, large and small. The bill will add a whole new, never seen before, layer of bureaucracy on our businesses. Think about that. Small and even large businesses are already overwhelmed with management and paperwork demands as a result of government mandates. Many of them have to hire multiple tax attorneys and accountants to help them navigate the Federal laws and their tax obligations. I cannot help but wonder how many businesses, both large and small, will have to hire new ``benefit managers.'' There is an area where we will create some new jobs. We are going to hire benefit managers to help them keep track of the new requirements to ensure they are offering the appropriate benefits or paying the appropriate fine. What a nightmare. No one has mentioned the thousands of additional Federal workers. Nobody has talked about it. When we did Part D of Medicare, they had to hire over 500 people at CMS. So we will have to hire all kinds of people, including--listen to this--at the Internal Revenue Service. I bet you would have a hard time finding an American who thinks it is a good idea to get the IRS involved in delivering our Nation's health care. The worst thing we can do is borrow another $2.3 trillion, create additional Federal programs, and put a bigger burden on the engine of job creation. I find this especially troublesome after hearing the Chief Actuary at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services last week report that under the original Reid health care bill costs would go up, not down. In fact, according to his analysis, the Federal Government would spend $234 billion more on health care if this legislation became law than without it--$234 billion more with this legislation than what we are spending right now. It is not just the Federal Government. As I discussed in some detail last week, most States will have new fiscal obligations of about $26 billion under this bill. If you are not lucky enough to be from one of the States, such as the Cornhusker State or another State that got a special deal in this legislation to get the Democratic leadership's 60 votes, your Governor is going to be hit with a portion of the cost of expanding the Medicaid Program to cover all individuals up to 133 percent of the Federal poverty level. In the State of Ohio, we have had 154,000 more people come on Medicaid just with the current extent of poverty, and to go to 133 percent, it is going to be incredible. As a former Governor of Ohio, former chairman of the National Governors Association, and past chairman of the National League of Cities, I am very familiar with what unfunded mandates can do to State and local governments. By the way, there is a point of order that lies against this bill as an unfunded mandate in terms of local and State government, and also business. The American people should understand that the new State obligations under the Medicare expansion will mean less funding, OK, less funding for primary and secondary education, higher education programs, roads and bridges, county and local government projects, and safety service programs run by their States. In fact, I used to call Medicaid the Pacman that gobbled up our State budget dollars. So let's look at this. You take the side over here of Medicaid, but then what you do is you expand that, and it is going to be more expensive, and then you look around and you say: We have great needs with secondary and primary education. The kids are complaining about the fact that tuition is going up for our institutions of higher education. Our local government officials are complaining because the State and local government funds that are going to them are not available to them because all of this money is flowing in this direction. In other words, under the Reid bill, we will put more stress and further unfunded mandates on the States, making our health care fiscal picture even worse than it would be without doing anything at all. This doesn't make any sense. As I have often said--in fact, when I was Governor, I said--Gone are the days when public officials will be judged by how much they spend on a problem; the new realities dictate that we work harder and smarter and more with less. In fact, I remember giving my state of the union addresses or state of the State addresses in Ohio, and they used to take a pool about how many times I would say ``harder and smarter and more with less.'' That is what our States are doing but not the Federal Government--not the Federal Government, oh, no. States are raising taxes and cutting but not the Federal Government. We are just in there borrowing and borrowing and borrowing as if there will be no tomorrow. The costs incurred by our children and grandchildren as a result of this bill will be a crushing blow to their futures--a future that is already ominous because of this body. In other words, what we are saying to them is we are putting the cost on their credit card. You are in a new world where the competition is going to be keener than ever. We have all kinds of competitors that we didn't have when I was growing up, so they are going to have to work harder. Then we are going to say to them: By the way, your taxes are going up. We are going to put a burden on your back because we weren't willing to pay for or do without during the time we were in a position of responsibility. Another legacy I am upset about leaving for our children and grandchildren is the public funding of abortion. The other day, I explained to an individual that since Roe v. Wade, we have had over 40 million abortions--40 million abortions. Yet I have friends of mine who are wanting children, and they are going to China, they are going to Russia, they are going to other places to find those children, but here in the United States over 40 million abortions. Unfortunately, the language that was inserted in the managers' amendment does not protect taxpayer dollars from being used to fund abortion. In fact, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and National Right to Life have said the language, and thus the bill, is unacceptable and should not move forward. Turning back to the fiscal arguments against this bill, one of my colleagues said yesterday that those of us on this side of the aisle who argue we cannot afford this bill are being disingenuous and we are engaging in scare tactics, even asking when the ``lying time''--from a colleague on the other side--the ``lying time'' for this side of the aisle will stop. Well, we will see. We will see. I am not going to be a Member of the U.S. Senate in 2012, but if God gives me the health and the energy, I will certainly be around to remind people who was telling the truth and who was not. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Thank you, Mr. President. I have been coming to the floor to remind my colleagues and the American people about the fiscal realities our Nation faces and to explain how this health reform legislation would make our fiscal situation worse and our economy suffer even more. I have been here before to highlight how this health care bill is chock-full of budget gimmicks to hide its true unmanageable costs. As I have said before on the floor of the Senate, as a former mayor and a former Governor, many people have come to me over the years and said: Mayor, you have to do this; Governor, you have to do this. The plea they had was genuine, and the need they expressed was genuine, but the fact is we couldn't afford what they were asking us to do, and I had to say no. Unfortunately, this legislation, in my opinion, will increase the cost of health care, drive up our national debt, and contribute to unbalanced budgets as far as the eye can see in the United States. As a former Governor and chairman of the National Governors Association, the past chairman of the National League of Cities, one gimmick I am particularly concerned about is the one that puts 14 million additional individuals into the Medicaid Program and then asks the States to pick up a portion of the tab. I am very familiar with what unfunded mandates can do to State and local governments, and I wish to highlight some of the potential consequences of the Medicaid expansion for my colleagues. At a $374 billion cost to Federal taxpayers, the health care bill before us would expand Medicaid coverage to all people under 133 percent of the Federal poverty level. Because Medicaid costs are shared by the Federal and State governments, the States will be on the hook for $25 billion of this expansion during the first 10 years. To put the $25 billion into perspective, let me spend a minute explaining the current fiscal situation of most States in this country. Most States such as my State--and I am sure the same is true in the Presiding Officer's State--are struggling to make ends meet. I have never seen anything like it in my entire life. According to the National Governors Association, the States are in the deepest and longest economic downturn since the Great Depression. In the first two quarters of 2009, State revenues were down 11.7 and 16.6 percent, respectively. At the same time, Medicaid spending is growing, which already makes up, on average, approximately 22 percent of States' budgets, and enrollment in the program is skyrocketing at the levels it is today because more and more people are becoming eligible for Medicaid under the current Federal law. In Ohio, for example, where the unemployment rate is hovering around 10.5 percent, 154,000 Ohioans enrolled in the Medicaid Program in the last year alone, an 8-percent increase over last year. This is hard to believe, but Medicaid now provides health coverage to nearly 2 million Ohioans, almost one out of five residents. Unbelievable. Recognizing this increased demand, States have had some help from the Federal Government. Earlier this year, Congress provided $87 billion in Federal aid to States in the so-called stimulus bill to help States deal with Medicaid costs. Yet this money was not intended to last forever. As it stands right now, in December 2010, States will face--that is next December--States will face a steep budget cliff when the temporary Medicaid payments coming from the stimulus package expire. In facing these realities, Governors across the country are already wondering how they will cover the cost of their existing programs. I recently met with Ray Scheppach, who is the executive director of the National Governors Association. He said: Senator, Governor, Mayor, we are going to need some help when the money runs out or we will not be able to handle the Medicaid challenges we have. Not surprisingly, my State's current Governor, Ted Strickland, a Democrat, has told me if Medicaid is expanded, he hopes the Federal Government will assume most, if not all, the costs. In fact, he told the Columbus Dispatch that he has warned officials in Washington that ``with our financial challenges right now, we are not in a position to accept additional Medicaid responsibilities.'' I suspect that almost every Governor in the country would make that same statement to us in the Senate. By the way, this is both Republican and Democratic Governors. I ask: How can we in good conscience move forward with this bill and the new mandate it places on States? How can we force the States to make the difficult choices that we are unwilling or unable to make in Washington? Pass it on to them, we will pay for it a while, and then you guys pick up the cost. I served the people of Ohio as Governor for 8 years, and I was forced to cut my budget in the beginning four times. I will never forget it. There were about 5,000 people outside my office screaming because we had made it more difficult or increased the cost of tuition for our colleges. I had to make countless difficult decisions across the board to be fiscally responsible. I understand the demands of soaring health care costs, and as I called that program then, it devoured--Medicaid devoured up to 30 percent of our State budget, and I referred to it as the Medicaid Pac-Man. I think some people remember Pac-Man. That was the Pac-Man just eating up money like crazy. It took away money from primary and secondary education, higher education, roads, bridges, county and local government projects, and safety service programs that we wanted to provide for the citizens of Ohio. We had to do it. It was a mandate. It just sucked up that money, and that meant we didn't have money for higher education, secondary and primary education, and some of the other responsibilities of the State. With this experience, I became particularly concerned with the cost of Federal mandates, and I worked tirelessly with State and local governments to help pass the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. In fact, the first time I ever set foot on the floor of the Senate is the day the unfunded mandates bill passed the Senate. It was a wonderful day for Ohio and for this country. I was in the Rose Garden representing State and local governments when President Clinton signed the legislation into law in 1995. After that experience, you can imagine how it pains me to be standing here today debating legislation that provides for the largest single expansion of the Medicaid Program in our country's history and a brandnew fiscal liability for States at a time when the States can least afford it. I have serious concerns if this bill becomes law and States are required to take on more just as the extra stimulus funds disappear--which they are going to have to do or we will have to come up with the money--Congress will be forced to spend billions more to keep the Medicaid safety net from failing completely in the not too distant future. So what I am basically saying is that when the stimulus money ends in December of next year, the Governors are going to be down here with a bathtub asking us to fill it because if we don't do it, they are going to have to knock off thousands of people, millions in the country, because they don't have the money to provide for the program. Now, providing extra dollars to States--and I predict it is going to happen. It will become an annual ritual for Congress, just as the doctors fix has become an annual ritual for doctors. Every year they come in. We are not going to cut the annual reimbursement. Next year it is 23 percent, I think. We are not going to fill the hole, and the Governors are going to be asking for the same kind of help. It is not only a mandate for them, it is going to become a mandate for us at a time when we are least able to handle anything like that. So as a former Governor and a former mayor, a former county commissioner, I urge my colleagues to consider the impact this bill will have on their respective States. Think about it. Talk to your Governors. See what it is going to do to your States. I hope each of my colleagues will give careful thought to the potentially devastating effects it could have on each of their State budgets and to consult, as I said, with their Governors and to talk about the fact that if this happens, what is going to happen in terms of the Pac-Man eating up more money in their State and their inability to take care of primary and secondary education, higher education, and all of the other responsibilities State governments have. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I want to spend a minute discussing the very emotional and divisive issue of abortion. I personally believe that all children, born or unborn, are a precious gift from God, and we have a moral responsibility to protect them. It grieves me to think that there have been more than 40 million abortions performed in this country since 1973. I am pleased to support the Nelson amendment that would apply the long-standing Hyde amendment, which currently prohibits Federal funding to pay for abortion services except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother, to the health care reform bill. The issue of abortion is one that results in very strong emotions on both sides of this issue. Because of the concerns that millions of Americans have with using Federal taxpayer dollars for abortion, Congress enacted the Hyde amendment. As my colleagues know, the Hyde amendment has restricted Federal Medicaid dollars from paying for abortion services since 1977, and has been applied to all other federally funded health care programs, including the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Think about that, this language has been in place since the Ford administration, and has survived through the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush. That is 33 years, and all of a sudden, my colleagues want to change our policy on Federal funding of abortion. We shouldn't be making this type of sweeping policy change in the health care legislation, and the Nelson amendment is a necessary addition to the bill in order to protect our current policy and the unborn. I understand that not everyone in this country agrees with my position on abortion, but I am deeply concerned about the possible implications of spending taxpayer dollars on abortions when the issue so deeply divides Americans on ethical grounds. While as I have said, I don't agree with abortion and believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned, the Nelson amendment does not prohibit anyone from seeking an abortion, it does not overturn Roe v. Wade, and it does not place any new restrictions on access to abortions. It simply ensures that the taxpayer dollars will not pay for services that cause such deep moral divisions in our Nation. I think it is notable that this amendment is one of the few bipartisan amendments that the Senate will consider as part of this debate. I am pleased that a similar amendment in the House of Representatives passed with a convincing margin, and I urge my colleagues to support the Nelson-Hatch amendment before the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate a distinguished American public administrator, Dr. James A. (Dolph) Norton, who is being awarded the 2009 George Graham Award for Exceptional Service by the National Academy of Public Administration, NAPA. NAPA is a congressionally chartered national institution created to help governments serve the public better and achieve excellence. Dr. Norton's career in public service stands as a shining example and testament to the high ideals of public administration that NAPA represents. His diverse and numerous accomplishments serve as an inspiration to those who may also aspire to careers in public administration. During the course of his outstanding career, Dr. Norton earned degrees from both Louisiana State University and Harvard University. He served with distinction on the faculties at Florida State University, Case Western Reserve University, and the University of Virginia. He went on to become the chief executive officer of several organizations during times of notable achievement. He directed a comprehensive research study on urban governance for the city of Cleveland, served as director of the Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation and director of the Cleveland Foundation, the Nation's oldest and then-largest community foundation, and as chancellor of the Ohio Board of Regents as the State innovated funding for centers of excellence at universities. In retirement he answered the call to serve from several institutions of higher education throughout the Nation by providing the unique skills necessary to manage their transition from one generation of leadership to another. He served with distinction as interim chancellor of the University of Maryland System, interim president of Hiram College in Ohio, interim president of Adelphi University in New York, interim president of Bryant College in Rhode Island, interim chancellor of Lamar University System in Texas, and interim president of Central Washington University. I commend Dr. Norton for his lifelong dedication to public service and outstanding leadership, and congratulate him on his award.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to join my good friend and Chairman on the Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee, Senator Akaka, to ensure that security clearance reform efforts begun in recent years continue by cosponsoring the Security Clearance Modernization and Reporting Act of 2009. Since the 1990s, the Government's Accountability Office, GAO, has documented problems with the Department of Defense's, DoD, personnel security clearance program, and in 2005 added the program to its high- risk list. DoD's personnel security clearance program has remained on the 2007 and 2009 high risk lists. In an effort to address this matter and improve the security clearance process, Congress set benchmarks for the time taken to issue clearances in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, IRTPA. IRTPA also required the President to select a single agency or office to oversee the security clearance process across the federal government and required uniform policies regarding the security clearance process, reciprocal recognition of security clearances among agencies, an evaluation of technology to expedite security clearance processes, and a plan to reduce the length of the security clearance process. While progress has been made to decrease the amount of time it takes to obtain a security clearance, more improvement is needed to fully reform the security clearance process, but reform efforts have been delayed this year by an interagency review of the security clearance reform initiatives undertaken over the past several years. To ensure that the good work begun with passage of IRTPA in 2004, I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Akaka's legislation that extends IRTPA's reporting requirements relating to security clearance reform efforts beyond their current 2011 expiration date and requires more details in those reports about the amount of time required by individual agencies to conduct both security clearance investigations and adjudications. To ensure that efforts begun over the past several years continue, the bill codifies portions of Executive Order 13467, which deals with reforming processes related to eligibility for access to classified information. The bill also calls for the development of the strategic plan GAO has been asking for since the DoD personnel security clearance program was put on its high risk list in 2005 and requires a more detailed information technology strategy relating to security clearance reform efforts. I am proud to cosponsor this bill and thank the Senator from Hawaii for his work on this legislation to address such an important issue.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to join my good friend and Chairman on the Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee, Senator Akaka, to ensure that security clearance reform efforts begun in recent years continue by cosponsoring the Security Clearance Modernization and Reporting Act of 2009. Since the 1990s, the Government's Accountability Office, GAO, has documented problems with the Department of Defense's, DoD, personnel security clearance program, and in 2005 added the program to its high- risk list. DoD's personnel security clearance program has remained on the 2007 and 2009 high risk lists. In an effort to address this matter and improve the security clearance process, Congress set benchmarks for the time taken to issue clearances in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, IRTPA. IRTPA also required the President to select a single agency or office to oversee the security clearance process across the federal government and required uniform policies regarding the security clearance process, reciprocal recognition of security clearances among agencies, an evaluation of technology to expedite security clearance processes, and a plan to reduce the length of the security clearance process. While progress has been made to decrease the amount of time it takes to obtain a security clearance, more improvement is needed to fully reform the security clearance process, but reform efforts have been delayed this year by an interagency review of the security clearance reform initiatives undertaken over the past several years. To ensure that the good work begun with passage of IRTPA in 2004, I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Akaka's legislation that extends IRTPA's reporting requirements relating to security clearance reform efforts beyond their current 2011 expiration date and requires more details in those reports about the amount of time required by individual agencies to conduct both security clearance investigations and adjudications. To ensure that efforts begun over the past several years continue, the bill codifies portions of Executive Order 13467, which deals with reforming processes related to eligibility for access to classified information. The bill also calls for the development of the strategic plan GAO has been asking for since the DoD personnel security clearance program was put on its high risk list in 2005 and requires a more detailed information technology strategy relating to security clearance reform efforts. I am proud to cosponsor this bill and thank the Senator from Hawaii for his work on this legislation to address such an important issue.