George Voinovich

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. A point of order was made.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, first I would like to say I have a great deal of respect for Senator Coburn. I think he is acting from honorable motives. I would remind Senators that our colleague, Senator Frist, is a doctor and is not asking for dispensation from the rule. He continues to practice without compensation on occasion. I have been hopeful that working in a truly bipartisan manner with the Ethics Committee, which I chair, the Rules Committee, our bipartisan leadership, and Senator Coburn, that we could come to an agreement which would address Senator Coburn's concerns. While I would like to be able to detail the long history of the Ethics Committee's work to find an accommodation with Senator Coburn to effectively address his concerns, in an effort to maintain the privileged nature of the communications between the committee and the Senator, I must speak only in generalities. Let me assure my colleagues that we have done everything that the Senate rules will allow us to do to help Senator Coburn in this matter. I can assure you that Senator Johnson and I have spent a great deal of time, and the staff of the Ethics Committee as well, trying to accommodate Senator Coburn. Ultimately, we found ourselves in a situation where we were asked to reinterpret what the Senate rules meant or to endorse a change of those rules for Senator Coburn. As I will soon detail, the specific language and legislative history of Senate Rules XXXVI and XXXVII and Federal law prevent us from reinterpreting the rules. With regard to changing the rules themselves, we did not believe the Ethics Committee should be involved in the sole jurisdiction of the Rules Committee. As my colleagues know, the Rules Committee establishes the rules of the Senate. The Ethics Committee is charged with enforcing those rules. This matter should not be on the Senate floor. It should be before the Rules Committee of the Senate. Despite these realities and all the work to accommodate Senator Coburn over the past year, here we are considering a sense-of-the- Senate resolution to clarify Senate Rule XXXVII in an effort to put pressure on the Senate Ethics Committee to reinterpret what ``compensation'' means. Unfortunately, this resolution has not been approved or considered by the Rules Committee. There have been no hearings on this matter in the Rules Committee. Nevertheless, here we are. First, allow me to lay out the Senate rules which guided the Ethics Committee's determination on the Coburn matter. Senate Rule XXXVII prohibits Senators from, No. 1, affiliating with a firm, partnership, association, or corporation for the purpose of providing professional services for compensation; 2, permitting his or her name to be used by a firm, partnership, association, or corporation which provides professional services for compensation; and 3, practicing a profession for compensation to any extent during regular office hours of the employing Senate office. The Senate Ethics Manual, the meat the committee provides the Senate for the bones of the Senate's rules, indicates on page 71 that Rule XXXVII ``prohibits the paid practice of fiduciary professions,'' which includes the medical profession. On page 72, the manual indicates that the rule applies to ``payment for professional services.'' This is important because it goes to the heart of why the committee determined that Senator Coburn's proposal to allow him to receive reimbursement for expense in lieu of compensation should not be approved. Senator Coburn has publicly stated that the purpose behind his effort today is to allow him to receive reimbursement to cover the medical malpractice costs associated with providing medical care. He believes that in order to maintain his medical skills and licenses and in order to be a ``citizen legislator,'' he should be allowed to receive this compensation. Again, to be absolutely clear, as chairman of the Ethics Committee, my job is to provide Senators guidance to help them comply with our rules. Our rules clearly state that payment of any kind for any purpose for fiduciary work is prohibited. Rule XXXVII prohibits exactly what Senator Coburn is asking for today. The Senate looked at this exact specific situation in 1977. Senator Thurmond, with whom a good number of us had the opportunity to serve-- and this is 1977--served as cochair with Senator Gaylord Nelson of the Special Committee on Official Conduct. This committee was charged with developing the original Senate Code of Conduct upon which many of our current Senate ethics rules are based. Senator Thurmond said on the Senate floor in 1977: If [doctors] value their duties and they want to keep up, they can visit hospitals and go out and participate, so long as they do not do it for compensation. Additionally, the Nelson committee report formed the basis for what is now Rule XXXVI and addresses the possibility of outside earned income. Specifically, the report states: During its deliberation on this Rule, the Committee was aware of clear and unmistakable practical facts of political life. For example, most Americans regard service in the Senate as a full-time job. And I can say that was 1977. This is 2005. I can say that I think it is more of a full-time job today than it was back in 1977. Senators work long hours devoting a substantial amount of not only their own time, but also time that they could be with their families, attending to Senate business on behalf of their constituents. Consistent with these duties is the notion that since service in the Senate is a full-time job, considerable skepticism is often raised in the minds of the public whenever outside earned income is received by a Senator because of personal services outside regular Senate duties. Now, this is to be differentiated from other outside income like farming because the personal services or fiduciary relationship is fundamentally different. A Senator engaged in farming is not put in the situation where he or she would have to choose between tending to their fields or serving a constituent. A doctor, who is in a fiduciary relationship, could face a situation where he had to choose between constituents and providing medical treatment for a patient. Writing a book is not a fiduciary relationship and would not interfere with a Senator's business because he can pick it up and lay it down. Not only do our own rules and history prevent the arrangement that Senator Coburn is asking for, but Federal law does as well. The Ethics Reform Act of 1989, enshrined as paragraph 5(b) of Rule XXXVII, explicitly prohibits Senators from entering into professional fiduciary relationships. The rule, again based on the Ethics Reform Act, prohibits: (1) receive compensation for affiliating with or being employed by a firm, partnership, association, corporation, or other entity which provides professional services involving a fiduciary relationship. (2) permit that Member's, officer's, or employee's name to be used by any such firm, partnership, association, corporation, or other entity. (3) receive compensation for practicing a profession which involves a fiduciary relationship. There may be an argument made to the Senate today that the ``compensation'' that Rules XXXVI and XXXVII and Ethics Reform Act refer to is profit. We may hear that the resolution we are considering encourages the Ethics Committee to define compensation as money received for costs or that compensation should only apply to for-profit enterprises or that ``breaking even'' is not compensation. Well, allow me to share some facts for the Senate to consider on what ``compensation'' means. Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code finds that gross income includes ``compensation for services including fees, commissions, fringe benefits and similar items.'' The U.S. Court of Claims held in 1968 ``that the statutory definition of gross income is broad enough to include as compensation any economic or financial benefit from any source, conferred in any form on any employee, unless specifically exempted by statute.'' Nowhere in the Internal Revenue Code or in our case law will one find ``compensation'' defined as ``breaking even.'' Let me raise some other facts. The Federal Acquisition Regulation defines compensation as ``all remuneration paid or accrued for services rendered by the employees to the contractor during the period of the contract performance.'' Again, in contracts with the Federal Government, breaking even is not an option. Finally, allow me to offer one more piece of information for my colleagues to consider when the ``actual and necessary expense'' argument is made on behalf of this resolution. The Code of Federal Regulations, 5 CFR section 2636.303(b), states: Outside earned income and compensation both mean wages, salaries, honoraria, commission, professional fees and other forms of compensation for services other than salary benefits and allowances paid by the United States Government. Again, the idea of defining compensation as profit is not considered in our Federal Code. Finally, allow me to offer some thoughts on what changing the committee's interpretation of rules XXXVI and XXXVII, the Ethics Reform Act, the Internal Revenue Code, findings of the U.S. Court of Claims, and our Federal Code would mean. Enforcement of this rule change will be impossible. The Ethics Committee would need to hire a small army of auditors and accountants to effectively evaluate what expenses were actual and necessary as the resolution would allow. These accountants would need to have some specific, specialized knowledge in the medical field to evaluate if the expenses Senator Coburn had were ``actual and necessary.'' Frankly, the committee is not equipped to handle this responsibility. Moreover, I do not believe that the committee should be asked to take this on. The rule change would inevitably lead to violations. I can hardly envision a scenario in which every procedure Dr. Coburn is involved with is billed exactly at the actual and necessary expenses. While Dr. Coburn does have a degree in accounting, I believe that should he be permitted to practice medicine, his focus should be on his patients, not on his accounts receivable. If his rates were to exceed or fall short of his actual or necessary expenses, he would be in violation and subject to an Ethics Committee violation. No one wants that. The rule change would lead to other calls for changes from our colleagues that are fraught with even more dangers. Why should we not provide the same arrangement to our two colleagues who are veterinarians? Do they not need to continue their practices to maintain their skills and licenses? Is this not their chosen profession and one that they may want to return to eventually? How long will it be before one of the many excellent lawyers amongst us will ask to practice but only receive actual and necessary expenses? If we decide today to allow a colleague to pursue their profession and receive compensation to cover their expenses, how will the committee say no to other requests like this? This is the slippery slope and one that I believe we must carefully avoid. Again, I am sorry this matter has come to the floor of the Senate. I believe Senator Coburn means well in his efforts today. He wants to continue his services as a doctor to help people. I applaud that altruistic commitment to public service. Rather than debating the possibility of reinterpreting our rules, we should be talking about a real, practical solution that would allow Senator Coburn to continue serving people and to maintain his medical skills and licenses. The committee has long indicated to Senators that they could provide medical services to patients on a volunteer basis where no compensation is received, as the Senate majority leader does, and we are very familiar with it. The committee has indicated to Senators, consistent with Senator Thurmond's comments in 1977, that they can pursue a volunteer relationship with a VA hospital in their home States or in Washington at Walter Reed or at the Bethesda Medical Center where no compensation is provided. I understand they have arrangements to cover the malpractice insurance of doctors who operate there, so that malpractice problem would not occur. Unfortunately, instead of congratulating Senator Coburn for finding a solution that will allow him to continue practicing, we are debating a Senate resolution to instruct the Senate Ethics Committee to ignore Rules XXXVI and XXXVII, the Ethics Reform Act, and definitions of compensation that are in Federal statute. We cannot do that. With that, I urge my colleagues to reject this effort, and I raise a point of order that the Coburn amendment is not germane to the underlying bill.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I would ask the Chair to remind me of that.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I will clarify again for my colleagues the fact that the Ethics Committee genuinely tried to accommodate the concerns of the Senator from Oklahoma. We, as I say, worked hard to do it. But the fact is, the rule is clear on its face, and we are being asked to reinterpret what the Senate rules mean or to endorse a change in those rules for Senator Coburn. I think the specific language and legislative history of the rules and the Federal law prevent us from reinterpreting the rules. I believe, as I mentioned when I started my remarks earlier, this matter should not be here being debated on the floor of the Senate but, rather, as Senator Dodd suggested, Senator Coburn should go before the Rules Committee. And if Senator Ensign is unhappy that he cannot practice veterinary medicine, perhaps he should go before the Rules Committee and have a hearing and discuss this matter, and do it according to the procedures of the Senate. If this were to pass today, I think it would set a very dangerous precedent that would encourage people--rather than going through the process of the rules and procedures we have here in the Senate, it would cause them to come to the floor. I do not think that is good for the institution. I ask my colleagues to not support this resolution. Mr. President, at this time I raise a point of order that the Coburn amendment is not germane to the underlying bill.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise to strongly encourage my colleagues in the Senate to support this resolution recognizing the 40th anniversary of the Second Vatican Council's Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, Nostra Aetate, and the continuing need for mutual interreligious respect and dialogue. October 28, 2005 marked the 40th anniversary of Nostra Aetate, which means ``in our time.'' On October 28, 1965, Nostra Aetate affirmed the respect of the Roman Catholic Church for Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and Judaism, and called upon all Catholics to engage in dialogue and cooperation with the followers of other religions. Nostra Aetate states that the Roman Catholic Church, moved by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecution, and displays of anti-Semitism directed at Jews at any time and by anyone. As stated in the resolution, Nostra Aetate marked a new relationship between Catholics and Jews worldwide and opened a chapter in Jewish-Christian relations that is unprecedented in its closeness and warmth. With Nostra Aetate, Pope John Paul VI called on all Catholics not only to decry the persecution of people of non-Christian religions, but also to love and respect them. As it is stated in a passage from Nostra Aetate: ``In our time, when day by day mankind is being drawn closer together, and the ties between different peoples are becoming stronger, the Church examines more closely its relationship to non-Christian religions. In her task of promoting unity and love among men, indeed among nations, she considers above all in this declaration what men have in common and what draws them to fellowship. . . . Men expect from the various religions answers to the unsolved riddles of the human condition, which today, even as in former times, deeply stir the hearts of men: What is man? What is the meaning, the aim of our life? What is moral good, what sin? Whence suffering and what purpose does it serve? Which is the road to true happiness? What are death, judgment and retribution after death? What, finally, is that ultimate inexpressible mystery which encompasses our existence: whence do we come, and where are we going?'' Nostra Aetate acknowledges that all people of all religions are united by the fact that we are all searching for the answers to the most basic questions about life and God, and that we must love and respect one another, despite our differences. The message of Nostra Aetate is of particular importance today, amidst the conflict in the Middle East and terrorism in the name of Islam. As we continue the battle against the rise in anti-Semitism, prejudice against Muslims, and all other forms of intolerance and xenophobia, both internationally and within the United States, we must remember the value of this message that calls for interreligious respect, tolerance, and dialogue and decries all forms of hatred.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate concur in the House amendments, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair now lay before the Senate the House message to accompany the bill (S. 1713) to make amendments to the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 related to International Space Station payments. The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives:

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2490, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk that is due for a second reading.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceedings.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate proceed to a period of morning business for up to an hour with the first 30 minutes under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee and the final 30 minutes under the control of the majority leader or his designee; further, that the Senate resume consideration of S. 1042, the Defense authorization bill.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3339 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Today, we have made great progress on the Defense authorization bill, and we are now on track to complete action on it tomorrow. Tomorrow will be a very busy day with votes on the remaining amendments. Senators can expect a late night, if necessary, to finish the Defense bill. Before we leave for the week, we will also be scheduling votes on several appropriations conference reports.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the reconciliation tax relief bill that will most likely come before the Senate next week. I felt it necessary to come and speak on this topic because I am thinking of not only our generation but of the generations of our children and grandchildren and the legacy we leave them. How do the decisions we make in the Senate today affect their lives after we have long left this body? That is a question I will be asking should the Senate, as I expect it will, begin debate on reconciliation for tax cuts. Last week, Alan Greenspan testified before the Joint Economic Committee and told Congress: We should not be cutting taxes by borrowing. We do not have the capability of having both productive tax cuts and large expenditure increases, and presume that the deficit doesn't matter. I do not know how anyone can say with a straight face that when we voted to cut spending last week to help achieve deficit reductions we can now then turn around 2 weeks later to provide tax cuts that exceed the reductions that we made in spending. It just does not make any sense, and I think it does not make any sense to the American people. Well, I for one am taking Chairman Greenspan's warning seriously. Last week, I voted to cut spending. And should tax cuts come to the floor next week, I will vote against them. I believe it is the only responsible course of action. There are three reasons we should oppose tax cuts at this time: No. 1, we cannot afford these tax cuts; No. 2, we do not need these tax cuts; and, No. 3, we should be working on tax reform rather than tax cuts. In case anyone has forgotten, the deficit for fiscal year 2005 was $317 billion. That was the third largest deficit in our Nation's history. The first and second largest deficits occurred in 2004 and in 2003. On October 20, the gross Federal debt climbed past $8 trillion. Looking at this chart, you can see what is happening. This is the combined debt, the public and the Government debt. It climbed to over $8 trillion. And according to the Congressional Budget Office, in fiscal year 2005, interest on the public debt grew more rapidly than any other major spending category, rising 14 percent above the fiscal year 2004 level. So we can see that this debt is escalating rapidly, and it is something about which we should all be very concerned. Let me put this in perspective. Just the interest payments on the public debt are more than $1,600 for each tax-paying American--more than $1,600 for each tax-paying American. If we could wave a magic wand and stop adding to the deficit today--which we won't--the Federal debt would still be about $28,000 for every person in the United States, and close to $1 million each if it is left to those who are under 20 years of age. And even if we were to start running surpluses as large as last year's deficit, it would still take us 14 years to pay off just the debt held by the public. It is time to recognize a simple fact of life. Contrary to what some of my colleagues seem to believe, tax cuts do not pay for themselves. We have heard about the impact of the previous tax cuts, how in the past few months revenues have exceeded expectations, and how economic growth would pay for all the tax cuts Congress enacted in 2003. But as this chart shows, exceeding expectations does not mean there was no revenue lost as a result of the tax cuts. As shown on this chart, the red bar indicates what our revenues would have been had we not had the tax cuts. The blue bar shows what the projected revenue was as a result of the tax cuts. The green bar shows what we actually received as a result of the tax cuts. Now, we can see there is a difference between if we had not had the tax cuts and having the tax cuts. Now, let's go to 2004. Shown in red is what we would have expected in revenues in 2004 had we not had the tax cuts. We had the tax cuts, and shown in blue is what was expected as a result of them. The good news is, we did receive more money than we anticipated from the tax cuts, as shown in the green. Now, let's go to 2005. Again, the red bar shows what the projection was of what we would have had without the tax cuts. The blue bar shows what the projection was of the revenues we would have because we had the tax cuts. And the green bar shows actually what the revenues were that came in. The fact is, tax cuts are never free. All during this time, we were adding to the national debt. Now, I voted for tax cuts in 2001, 2002, and 2003 because the country needed stimulative medicine, and it worked. But like any other medicine, an overdose of tax cuts can, and in my opinion will, do more harm than the original disease. In 2003, I said that $350 billion in tax cuts would be enough to get the economy moving, and now I am saying that any more would be an overdose. It is time to put the tax cut medicine back on the shelf, particularly in light of the war in Iraq, our spending on homeland security, and Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Just today, the Senate increased mandatory spending over the next 10 years by $9.5 billion. The second reason to put the tax cut medicine back on the shelf is that most of the provisions included in the reconciliation package do not have to be extended now. In fact, most of the tax cut provisions included in the reconciliation package, including the reduced rates on dividends and capital gains, do not expire until 2008--over 2 years from now. So here are the provisions of the economic growth plan that we worked on during the last several years. You can see that one of the provisions of the proposal for next week is ``reduced rate on dividends and capital gains.'' This is not going to expire until 2008. Another one is ``section 179 expensing,'' which many of us supported in the bill we passed last year, the JOBS bill. That is not going to expire until 2007. So the point I am making is, there really is not any need for us to pass these tax cuts next week because most of them are not going to expire until years in the future. As my colleagues can see, most of the core provisions of the President's tax reform plan, as I mentioned, do not expire until 2010. A handful expire in 2007 or 2008, and only one expires next year. When Alan Greenspan testified before the Joint Economic Committee last week--I think this is really telling testimony on the part of Chairman Greenspan--a member of the committee asked if he supported extending the 15-percent tax rate for capital gains and dividends. Chairman Greenspan replied that he could only support extending these tax cuts if they were paid for. According to Chairman Greenspan, large budget deficits will drive up interest rates over time, raising the Government's debt service costs. I think, as we watch what is happening to interest rates, they are starting to creep up. What we forget is, as they creep up, interest costs are going to take a larger and larger percent of our Federal budget. I quote Alan Greenspan again: Unless the situation is reversed, at some point these budget trends will cause serious economic disruptions. I will repeat it again. Alan Greenspan: Unless the situation is reversed, at some point these budget trends will cause serious economic disruptions. The fact is, if these tax cuts are so important, we should pay for them, which is why I supported the pay-go amendment to the budget resolution in March, and supported it again last week. My third reason for opposing piecemeal tax cuts at this time is that the President's Advisory Panel on Tax Reform just released its final report. All of us have heard from families and businesses in our respective States lamenting the complexity and frustration with the current Tax Code. Well, thanks to our former colleagues, Connie Mack and John Breaux, it seems to me we have a chance to finally do something about it. Why extend tax deductions piecemeal when we should be considering fundamental tax reform? Our tax structure should be simple, fair, and honest. Our current Tax Code achieves none of these objectives. I used to prepare my own tax returns and made out tax returns for my clients. I would not touch my tax return today with a 10-foot pole because of the complexities. I am with the 55 percent of other Americans who have to hire professional help to make out our tax returns. Last year, it is estimated that Americans spent more than 3.5 billion hours doing their taxes, the equivalent of hiring almost 2 million new IRS employees, more than 20 times the agency's current workforce. If the money spent every year on tax preparation and compliance was collected, about $140 billion each year or over $1,000 per family, it could fund a substantial part of the Federal Government, including the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State, NASA, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Transportation, the U.S. Congress, our Federal courts, and all the Federal Government's foreign aid. Individuals, businesses, and nonprofits must pay these compliance costs, but the Federal Government cannot use them for any useful purpose. Individuals and businesses lose money that they could otherwise save, invest, and spend on their children's education, buy a home, or simply enjoy an extra evening out with the family. But the Federal Government gets nothing. That is the equivalent of stacking money in a pile and lighting a match to it. We all recognize the need for a simple, fair, and honest Tax Code. This is a win-win goal for everyone. Simply cutting tax compliance costs in half from 20 percent to 10 percent would have the same impact as a major tax cut. Just cutting the compliance costs would be the equivalent of a major tax cut for most Americans, but it would be a tax cut that does not reduce Federal revenues but would guarantee that people are paying their fair share and bring more money into the Federal Treasury. We all know that fundamental tax reform is critical and that President Bush will be sending us his recommendations in February. I simply cannot understand why some of my colleagues want to make so many provisions of the current Tax Code permanent or add new tax cuts, when next year we very well may be eliminating the same provisions as part of fundamental tax reform. Why do it now when we are expecting the President to come back with a fair and simple, honest tax reform package? Again, this is not the time for piecemeal tinkering. No homeowner would remodel their kitchen and bathroom the year before tearing down the house to build a newer and better one. That is, in effect, what we would be doing next week if we vote for these cuts. In closing, I reiterate the three reasons we should oppose tax cuts at this time. No. 1, we cannot afford them because of our soaring deficit and national debt. Putting our spending on the credit card of our kids is unconscionable, particularly because they will have to work harder and smarter to compete in the global marketplace to maintain our current standard of living and quality of life. Two, we do not need these tax cuts at this time. If this body believes we must have them, we should follow Alan Greenspan's advice and pay for them. If these tax cuts are so important to the economy, then let's pay for them. And third, from a public policy point of view, these tax cuts are premature because in the very near future, we may well change them as part of fundamental tax reform and simplification. I thank my colleagues for their attention and urge them to vote against the tax cuts proposed next week. I reaffirm a Republican principle we have held dear over the years and one that I adhered to as mayor of the city of Cleveland and Governor of Ohio; that is, balance budgets and reduce deficits. I yield the floor and 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 261, H.R. 797.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I applaud your leadership on the Medicare and Medicaid portion of this reconciliation package and am committed to working with you to achieve reductions in mandatory spending programs under your jurisdiction as instructed in the congressional budget resolution. I believe that it is necessary to maintain fiscal constraint and recognize the difficult task involved in achieving that end while ensuring that the country's health care safety net remains available for our citizens who truly need it the most. As we move forward in advancing that goal, I understand that there are several changes included in the reconciliation package being considered today that address Medicaid pharmacy reimbursement for prescription drugs dispensed in the pharmacy setting. I know you and your staff worked very hard to craft the Medicaid provisions contained in this legislation and that we both share the common goal of ensuring that Medicaid beneficiaries continue to have access to cost-effective prescription drugs reimbursed at an appropriate rate. In that light, I understand that it is not your intent to inadvertently disrupt the highly efficient drug distribution system responsible for assuring access to needed drugs across the Nation's pharmacies. I think we both believe that the drug distribution system can best be preserved if prompt-pay discounts paid to distributors are excluded from the new Medicaid pharmacy reimbursement methodology. Was this the Chairman's intention?

Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank the chairman and look forward to working with him in this effort. I know he agrees with me that Congress should not establish a Medicaid pharmaceutical reimbursement system that might discourage manufacturers from paying distributors prompt-pay discounts if wholesalers pay their bill prior to their contractual obligation--a practice that has occurred for the past 30 years. We both understand that the drug distribution system has consistently ensured that every pharmacy in the Nation has access to prescription drugs in a timely manner. This system is highly complex but provides an extremely efficient delivery model that reduces health care costs to the overall health care system. Within the system, pharmaceutical distributors are able to reduce the cost by minimizing the overall number of transactions required to distribute prescription drugs, over-the-counter products, and medical supplies. Nationally, wholesalers serve more than 130,000 customers. The typical distributor purchases products from an average of 850 vendors. These distributors take ownership of the products and responsibility for warehousing and distributing individual orders to retail pharmacies and other sites of care on a daily basis. This efficient model ensures that pharmacies have pharmaceutical products available for their patients. I look forward to working with Chairman Grassley to maintain this current drug distribution system and to ensure that when the legislation before us is enacted into law, it clearly excludes prompt- pay discounts from the pharmacy reimbursement methodology that will be used to pay pharmacies for drugs dispensed to Medicaid beneficiaries. medicare bad debt, collection

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. I rise today to discuss and bring to my colleague's attention an issue that I believe must become one of our Nation's top education priorities. As the world's economy becomes more interconnected, our Nation's economic edge will continue to depend on our ability to innovate. We cannot remain competitive without a workforce full of educated and motivated young Americans. We must invest in our children and enable them to fully develop their God-given talents in order to compete in a knowledge-based, global economy. This means we have to place more emphasis on careers in science, engineering and math. Right now, we are not getting the job done. Globally, the United States ranks 17th in the proportion of the college-age population earning science and engineering degrees, down from 3rd place several decades ago. While China graduated 600,000 engineers and India graduated 350,000 last year, only 70,000 students earned degrees in engineering here in the United States. In fact, the percentage of 24-year-olds with science or engineering degrees is now higher in many industrialized nations. Countries including England, South Korea, Germany, Australia, Singapore, Japan and Canada all produce a higher percentage of science and engineering graduates than the United States. Is the chairman aware of these startling statistics?

Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank the chairman for his attention to the issue and the opportunity to briefly discuss the importance of science and math education today. I know there are other Senators, especially Senators Alexander and Bingaman, who care a great deal about this issue. In fact, as many of my colleagues know, Senator Alexander and Bingaman asked the National Academy of Science to compile a report on the top 10 actions the Federal Government can take to enhance our ability to compete in our global economy. And while the academy provided a variety of recommendations, from the crucial need for energy independence and investment in research infrastructure--which are in their own right extremely important--a great deal of their recommendations focus on the need to improve our Nation's math and science coursework and establish a workforce of qualified teachers who will prepare our students for futures in highly innovative careers. Has the chairman seen this report?

Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank the chairman. I have heard from my State's superintendent that MSP grants have gone a long way in Ohio to support programs the Ohio Science Institute, which is a statewide professional development opportunity for science teachers of grades 3-10, and the Ohio Mathematics Academy Program, which is a statewide professional development opportunity for mathematics teachers in similar grades. As the chairman and many of my colleagues are aware, I am a fiscal conservative and understand the deficit and funding constraints we face. Yet, in light of the National Academy's report and other studies that point to our Nation's declining rank in science and math students, I don't know of too many other programs that deserve our focus and investment more than those that will prepare our children to compete in the global marketplace. I thank the chairman for his commitment to science and math education programs as we move to conference on this appropriations bill. I hope his commitment to quality science and math education will extend even further down the road, as we prepare our budgets for the next fiscal year. cdc's arthritis program