George Voinovich

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. I object.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I am very pleased with the efforts of Secretary of Commerce Thomas Gutierrez and my good friend Ambassador Rob Portman at USTR to help several Ohio companies, victims of intellectual property theft abroad. They have shown the importance of enforcing our trade agreements and are committed to improving our enforcement record, especially in the area of property rights. I am very impressed by how much progress they have made during their short tenures in raising the issue of intellectual property rights abroad, and I am confident they will continue to work closely with Congress to address trade issues. Our trade policies are only as good as the people who execute them. I am pleased to say we have excellent leadership right now in Secretary Gutierrez and Ambassador Portman. They both have a good background on trade. Secretary Gutierrez has firsthand experience with trade issues due to his work as CEO of Kellogg. Ambassador Portman has unique knowledge of trade legislation as a result of his work as a member of the Ways and Means Committee while he was a Member of Congress. Recently, I sent a letter to the President asking him to appoint a coordinator for all of the agencies that deal with commerce--Commerce, the Patent Office, USTR, Homeland Security, Customs, Border Patrol, and the Justice Department. They need someone to coordinate them so they get the job done. I was also pleased to hear Treasury Secretary Snow's comments earlier this week that he is prepared to cite China if it does not address the yuan's overvalued exchange rate against the dollar. In light of the administration's new effort to improve enforcement of our trade agreements and in consideration of the merits of the agreement, I have decided to support the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement. Passage of CAFTA will lay the foundation for a growing and valuable trade relationship with CAFTA countries as well as strengthen the U.S. leadership position in promoting global trade. I believe CAFTA embodies precisely the type of long-term economic planning that we too often fail to integrate into our policies. CAFTA will not only facilitate the expansion of trade between the United States and other CAFTA countries by eliminating most trade barriers but will also help American companies get on the ground floor in those developing countries, ahead of our competitors in Europe and in China. Right now, the CAFTA countries have relatively small economies, but they have made great progress over the last decade. Over the past 5 years alone, U.S. exports to Central America have increased by 35 percent. As these countries continue to grow, we will see growing demands for our exports. Presently, about 44 percent of the region's imports come from the United States, so as their economies expand, so will purchases of American products. Moreover, the United States has already accorded duty-free treatment to more than 80 percent of Central American imports to the United States under the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act and other trade agreements. As a result, CAFTA is largely a one-way lowering of trade barriers by the CAFTA countries and will measurably improve our opportunity to export to those countries. Presently, the CAFTA countries impose high tariffs on agricultural products, especially on several of Ohio's top agricultural exports such as soybeans, corn, dairy products, beef, and pork. Under CAFTA, these tariffs will be eliminated, making Ohio's agricultural exports much more competitive in the CAFTA country. Since most agricultural products from CAFTA countries already enter the United States duty free, CAFTA levels the playing field and gives American farmers the same access to the markets in the CAFTA countries. For Ohio farmers, CAFTA is a good deal. Not surprisingly, CAFTA has received support from the Farm Bureau, the Ohio Cattlemen Association, Soybean Association, Poultry Association, and, of course, the Ohio Corn Growers Association. CAFTA is also very important to the survival of the U.S. apparel industry. Only with open access to CAFTA can American apparel compete with China. Unless CAFTA is passed, we will see the entire American apparel industry move to China. CAFTA also improves the protection of intellectual property in the CAFTA countries. Under CAFTA's intellectual property provisions, they are obligated to ratify numerous international agreements on intellectual property rights to which the United States is already a signatory and will be obligated to enforce intellectual property rights. The ratification of these agreements is a very important step to protecting American companies from intellectual property theft abroad. While some may argue that more needs to be done, the fact is, if CAFTA does not pass, American companies will not have the protection of even those basic agreements. We often forget that trade agreements are about more than just trade. They are key components of American foreign policy. They are one of the best ways this country can develop better relationships around the globe. At a time when I believe the United States badly needs to improve its relationship with other countries, trade agreements offer us an excellent opportunity to reach out to the other countries and foster economic ties. The CAFTA countries are exactly the types of countries with which we should build better relationships. After decades of civil wars, the CAFTA countries have made dramatic progress toward establishing democracy and market-based economies. Because the United States is their largest trading partner and foreign investor, the CAFTA countries need a good trade relationship with the United States to fuel their development and help them to continue their reforms. By passing CAFTA, we can help ensure that our southern neighbors succeed in their reforms and in the process greatly expand our influence in the region. I note that President Jimmy Carter supports CAFTA for precisely this reason. It is in the best strategic interest of the United States to see that CAFTA countries become successful republics and do not once again fall victim to economic crises and civil wars. The existence of stable and prosperous countries in our southern border will not only be good for American commerce but also good for American security. Approval of CAFTA will also send an important signal to the countries in the region as well as other developing countries that the United States is committed to assisting them in building their economies. If the United States does not develop closer relationships with these countries, they will undoubtedly look elsewhere for help, such as the European Union or, more troubling, to Cuba, Venezuela, or China. Rejection of CAFTA will only clear the way for our competitors to enter our backyard. In my opinion, a defeat of CAFTA is a victory for China and Cuba. In addition to rejecting CAFTA, it would greatly damage Ambassador Portman's ability to open markets for U.S. exports at the Doha round of WTO negotiations and with respect to the planned trade agreement with the Andean nations and for the free trade area of the Americas. The U.S. trading partners would have a reduced incentive to agree to open their markets to U.S. goods because they would claim, sincerely or tactically, that the U.S. commerce will not be willing to approve a final agreement. To get other countries to agree to politically unpopular reductions in trade barriers, the United States needs to have credibility that it will do the same. Since the end of World War II, the United States has been the driving force in promoting trade liberalization. Because of U.S. leadership, global trade barriers have steadily fallen for nearly 60 years, greatly expanding world trade and helping to improve living standards around the world. I believe it would be unfair to Ambassador Portman to reject CAFTA and undermine his ability to continue the U.S. leadership on trade, especially given that he only recently assumed his post. Members who have worked with Ambassador Portman know he is very talented and a skilled legislator and negotiator who understands the importance of close consultations with Congress during the negotiation of any trade agreement. Hence, I think we have a great opportunity to improve Congress's involvement in the negotiation of trade agreements which would build support for future trade agreements by having Congress's concerns addressed early in the process. Too often, it comes in too late. We have somebody there as our new U.S. Trade Representative--and I have spoken to him about it--who understands because of his legislative experience that he needs to get over here and spend some time with Congress before the final touch is put on those trade agreements. By voting down CAFTA, however, we would undermine Ambassador Portman's ability to respond to our concerns in the future and negotiate better agreements. CAFTA is a good agreement which will further integrate the United States in the world economy and help ensure the United States remains the world's leader in global trading. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this agreement. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1010. I ask unanimous consent the current order in terms of the amendment be waived so we can discuss this amendment at this time.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my amendment that will address an issue that is becoming a problem in my home State of Ohio and a number of other States nationwide--the explosive growth of Indian gambling. I thank Senator Enzi, Senator DeWine, Senator Vitter and Senator Allard for cosponsoring my amendment. Currently, there are over 400 tribal casinos in 30 States. To build on the success of these tribal casinos, some Native American tribes are aggressively seeking to take gambling off reservations and into local communities all across the country--from States like California to New York, Oregon to Florida, and my home State of Ohio. In this practice, commonly referred to as ``reservation shopping,'' tribes are looking to acquire new, non-contiguous land to open casinos near large communities or next to major roads with easy access. A loophole in the law that regulates Indian gaming, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, allows the Department of Interior to take land into trust for a tribal casino, even at great distances from their home reservation, if it advances the economic interest of the tribe. Originally, many reservations were located in rural areas at great distances from population centers. They were unable to sustain profitable casinos, so they moved casinos to areas near cities that were part of the reservation. Now these casinos aren't enough--the tribes are looking at lands great distances from their reservations and near population centers like Cleveland, Chicago, Miami, the Bay Area of California, to name a few. In Ohio, the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma has filed a land claim in Federal court for 146 square miles throughout the State, alleging that this land was illegally taken in 19th Century treaties. They have also reached an agreement with four separate mayors in the State to site casinos in their communities, stating that a casino complex would bring new jobs and increase the tax base. In announcing their lawsuit, the Eastern Shawnee announced they would also try to blackmail the State of Ohio--they will drop the land claim in exchange for the right to put an unlimited number of casinos in the State. The tribe's attorneys said the aim was not to seize cities and farms, but to negotiate a deal to open casinos where the tribe has been invited. It is important to note here that the population of Ohio is more than three times the size of the population in Oklahoma, where the Eastern Shawnee already have a casino. The tribe sees dollar signs, dollar signs that they will make at the detriment of my constituents. In response to the threat of reservation shopping nationwide, the Senate Indian Affairs Committee has held a number of hearings investigating the current issues, and Senator McCain, the Chairman of the Committee, has indicated that he will be offering legislation this Congress to address the reservation shopping created as an unintended consequence of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. It is my hope that his legislation will close some of the loopholes created by this law. The amendment I have offered to the Interior Appropriations bill is simply a moratorium on taking land into trust by the Department of Interior for the purposes of gambling unless the Governor of a State specifically gives his consent. This moratorium will give Congress the time needed to pass thoughtful legislation that will protect States from the threat to States rights that the proliferation of these casinos will have. Some of my colleagues may ask why I am opposed to the prospect of Indian casinos in Ohio. The answer is simple. This issue is really about families. Back when I was a State representative and just beginning my career in government, I was asked how I would confront the problems of Ohio if I had a magic wand. My answer then was the same as it is now: I would use it to reconstitute and protect the family, which is the foundation of this country and the reason why most of us get up in the morning, go to work and hurry to get home at the end of the day. In the late 1980s, when I was Mayor of Cleveland, the first attack against our families was mounted by the backers of what studies call the ``crack cocaine'' of gambling: casino gambling. Voters fought back at the polls in 1990. We defeated the effort to amend the Ohio constitution that prohibits gambling in Ohio, but it wasn't long before it surfaced in Ohio again. In 1996, as Governor of Ohio, I was proud to lead a coalition of some 130 organizations, dozens of elected officials and thousands of individual citizens, in defeating State Issue 1, another effort to amend the Ohio constitution, the second ballot initiative that would have legalized casino gambling. So here we are in 2005 and it's deja vu all over again. It's a new millennium, but the same forces are back, but this time they are joined by the Shawnee tribe. They have regrouped and reappeared in different disguises. This amendment, which just lasts one year, will guarantee that through stealth this tribe and others can not sneak into the Department of Interior and get land taken into trust and abrogate the Ohio constitution. It also gives urgency to the work by Senator McCain as he grapples to deal with the proliferation of reservation shopping around the country. This amendment is supported by the National Governors Association. I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Ray Scheppach, Executive Director of NGA, be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, this amendment is opposed by Senator McCain as chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. It is opposed by Senator McCain, not because he is not concerned about the proliferation of Indian gaming, but rather because he believes this is within the jurisdiction of his committee and that he is already addressing the issue. He has indicated he will give me a hearing on my amendment right after the July break. This issue of Indian gaming is a serious threat to the people of Ohio and other people throughout the country. It is an issue in terms of States rights and the States' Constitution and their ability to deal with the issue of casino gambling. Mr. President, I respectfully withdraw my amendment. Exhibit 1 National Governors Association, Washington, DC, June 27, 2005. Hon. George V. Voinovich, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. Dear Senator Voinovich: The nation's governors appreciate your efforts to ensure that states continue to play a meaningful role in the trust land acquisition process. The Governors are committed to working with Congress, the Executive Branch and Indian tribal governments to resolve the Complex issues involved in the implementation of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA). By requiring the consent of the governor before land can be placed into trust for gaming purposes, your proposed amendment would underscore the governors' role in the trust land acquisition process and in determining whether Indian gaming is consistent with existing state gaming policy. Thank you for your continued leadership in support of a strong role for states in our federal system. Sincerely, Raymond C. Scheppach, Executive Director.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank the Senator from Arizona for his leadership and accept his invitation to testify on this issue before his Committee.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to express my continued concerns about the proliferation of off- reservation gambling by Indian tribes. I know that Senator McCain is holding a number of hearings in the Indian Affairs Committee to investigate this issue. I urge him to act quickly on this issue. It is very important to my home State of Ohio. Mr. McCain, I understand the Senator from Ohio's concerns, and appreciate the Senator not calling for a vote on his amendment. I will be holding a hearing in the Indian Affairs Committee in July and would welcome Senator Voinovich to testify at that time.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senate for its expeditious consideration of Ms. Linda Springer of Pennsylvania to be the Director of the Office of Personnel Management. On Wednesday, June 15, I chaired a hearing of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs to consider the nomination of Ms. Springer. One week later, the committee unanimously approved her nomination. As my colleagues in the Senate know, I am committed to finding solutions to the human capital challenges of the Federal Government. Clearly, there is no more important partner in the executive branch of Government than the Director of the Office of Personnel Management in addressing these issues. The Federal civil service now is undergoing the most dramatic changes in more than a quarter century. For example, agencies are implementing new performance management and a related pay for performance systems for the senior executive service. The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense are designing new, modern, and flexible personnel systems to meet their national security missions. As these and other reforms continue, leadership from the Office of Personnel Management is imperative to guarantee that the merit principles that are the core of our Federal civil service are upheld and that the new personnel systems are fair and equitable for employees. During the committee's hearing, I found Ms. Springer to be focused, dedicated, and more than capable of taking on this important job. Prior to the hearing, I met with Ms. Springer in my office and was impressed with her candor and recognition of the challenges confronting the workforce. Ms. Springer's experience in the private sector and as Controller of the Office of Management and Budget has prepared her to lead this Federal agency. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this nomination. Thank you.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. President, as cochairman of the Senate Auto Caucus, I am pleased to join with my colleagues, Senator Bond and Senator Levin, as a cosponsor of this corporate average fuel economy standards amendment to the Energy bill. It is an important issue, and it impacts on the economy of our country, the environment, and the safety of the traveling public. There is no doubt that each of us wants the automobile industry to make cars, trucks, SUVs, and minivans that are energy efficient. It is not only good for the environment, but it means more money in the pockets of the American consumers because they are going to spend less money at the gas pump. However, I am deeply concerned that the artificial and arbitrarily chosen CAFE standard supported by some of my colleagues will have a devastating effect on jobs. Ohio is the No. 2 automotive manufacturing State in America, employing more than 630,000 people either directly or indirectly. I have heard from a number of these men and women whose livelihood depends on the auto industry and who are, frankly, very worried about their future. There is genuine concern that a provision mandating an arbitrary standard could cause a serious disruption and shifting in the auto industry resulting in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs across the Nation. Domestic automakers build the light trucks that consumers want. DaimlerChrysler's fleet of light trucks makes up more than 50 percent of their entire fleet. The company manufactures the Jeep Liberty and the Jeep Wrangler in Toledo, OH, and employs approximately 5,200 workers at this plant. If an arbitrary CAFE provision is mandated that targets light trucks, this plant could close because Chrysler would be forced to redistribute their manufacturing base to build more small, high-mileage cars. The concern of auto workers was evident at the polls in Ohio last November. Voters rejected a candidate for President who had advocated an arbitrary standard that would have cost jobs and raised prices on the vehicles that consumers demand. Another concern is that an arbitrary standard would have a harmful effect on public safety, as well as put a severe crimp in the manufacturing base of my State of Ohio which is already under duress because of high natural gas costs, litigation, health care costs, and competition from overseas. In 2001, new vehicle sales of trucks, SUVs, and minivans outpaced the sale of automobiles for the first time in American history. This remarkable result can be attributed to a number of factors, but one reason that is often cited is the fact that these vehicles are seen as safer. On the other hand, the Bond-Levin amendment is a rational proposal based on sound science that will keep workers both in Ohio and nationwide working, allowing these men and women to continue to take care of their families and educate their children while also encouraging greater fuel efficiency and safer vehicles. This amendment calls for the Department of Transportation to increase fuel economy standards based on several factors including the following: technology feasibility; economic practicability; the need to conserve energy and protect the environment; the effect on motor vehicle safety; and the effect on U.S. employment. I believe this is a much more responsible approach that will improve the fuel efficiency of our Nation's vehicles while also protecting public safety and our Nation's economic security. This amendment also requires that the Department of Transportation complete the rulemaking process that would increase fuel efficiency standards for 2008 model vehicles. If the administration doesn't act within the required timeframe, Congress will act, under expedited procedures, to pass legislation mandating an increase in fuel economy standards consistent with the same criteria that the administration must consider. This administration is already taking steps to improve fuel efficiency. As you know, in 2003, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration enacted the largest fuel efficiency increase for light trucks in over 20 years. By 2007, fuel efficiency requirements will increase to 22.2 miles per gallon from the 20.7 miles per gallon that had been in place through the 2004 model year. The amendment will also increase Federal research and development for hybrid electric vehicles and clean diesel vehicles. Additionally, the amendment will increase the market for alternative- powered and hybrid vehicles by mandating that the Federal Government, where feasible, purchase alternative powered and hybrid vehicles. I believe that this guaranteed market will encourage the auto industry to continue to increase their investment in research and development with an eye towards making alternative-fuel and hybrid vehicles more affordable, available, and commercially appealing to the average consumer. As a matter of fact, I have ridden in a hybrid manufactured by DaimlerChrysler and I have driven a fuel-cell automobile manufactured by General Motors. I firmly believe that my children and grandchildren will one day be driving automobiles that run on hydrogen and give off only water. However, it will take time for the technology that makes these vehicles possible to be cost-effective and for these vehicles to be marketable. Until then, I believe that consumer demand will continue to drive the market place. While truck, SUV, and minivan demand is not expected to decrease any time soon, automakers will meet this demand. In the meantime, many consumers are making the decision to move from light trucks to smaller vehicles as their needs change. In light of today's gas prices, consumers will demand more fuel efficient-vehicles that do not jeopardize their personal and family safety. For example, my daughter-in-law currently drives a full-size van. As the mother of four young children, she has needed the space and flexibility a van provides in order to accommodate the necessary safety seats for my grandchildren. Now that her children are getting older and are able to travel without car safety seats, she is looking into purchasing a station wagon. Such a vehicle will meet her needs while saving fuel over the long term. As consumer demands change because of trends and fuel prices, automakers will change to meet that demand. These changes in auto manufacturing should be driven by consumer choice, not by a government- mandated arbitrary standard. The Bond-Levin amendment is supported by the AFL-CIO, the UAW, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the automotive industry, the American Farm Bureau Federation and a number of other organizations. I urge my colleagues to support the Bond-Levin amendment. It meets our environmental, safety and economic needs in a balanced and responsible way, contributing to the continued and needed harmonization of our energy and environmental policies.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. As I mentioned, we are taking a lead internationally. The United States is by far the largest funder of activities under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Also, despite complaints to the contrary, the United States remains fully engaged in multilateral negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Announced by EPA in July of 2004, along with 13 other countries, the Methane-to-Markets partnership is a new and innovative program to help promote energy security, improve environmental quality, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions throughout the world. The United States hosted the first Ministerial Meeting of the International Partnership for Hydrogen Economy, the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum and Earth Observation Summit. We never hear anything about this. It is as if we are doing nothing. Despite all that we are doing and all that is contained in the Energy bill, we can even do more by passing this amendment proposed today by Senators Hagel and Pryor. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against any amendments that contain mandatory programs which work against the very purpose of the Energy bill and cause substantial harm to our economy, its workers, and our families. Instead, I urge the support of this bipartisan amendment which builds on all we are doing and will do under the Energy bill to address climate change responsibly and comprehensively. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of the bipartisan amendment proposed by Senators Hagel and Pryor to add a climate change title to the Energy bill. I commend them for their leadership on this very important issue. Man's relationship with the world's climate has long been a focus of scientists and policymakers. Thirty years ago, there was great concern about global cooling, as evidenced by articles in Science Digest in February, 1973, entitled ``Brace Yourself for an Ice Age'' and Time Magazine in June, 1974, entitled ``Another Ice Age?'' Today, many are worried instead about global warming, with claims that urgent and dramatic actions are needed to avoid catastrophic impacts. As the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, I have spent a great deal of time studying this issue, as our committee has held numerous hearings on climate change. The chairman of the committee, Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma, has spent countless hours personally examining climate change science. He has recently given several speeches on the Senate floor, pointing out serious flaws in the four principal beliefs underlying what some call a consensus on global warming. His work points out very clearly that we are far from a consensus and many questions remain. I am hopeful today he will take the floor some time to go into more of the details on that, as he has in the past. Despite the scientific debate, the issue of global warming and proposals to address this perceived threat have received a lot of attention lately in the Senate. On one side of this debate, there are proposals to create a mandatory domestic program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as the amendment that will be proposed by Senator McCain, to my understanding, and I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. It is my understanding that the amendment, according to Charles Rivers Associates, which analyzed its provisions, would cause the loss of 24,000 to 47,000 Ohio jobs, in 2010, and energy-intensive industries to shrink by 2.3 to 5.6 percent in 2020. We are talking about manufacturing industries, energy-intensive manufacturing and chemical and many others. The McCain amendment will put coal out of business by forcing fuel switching to natural gas. This might even be why some organizations are pushing this amendment. Last year, I was shocked to read that a Sierra Legal Defense Fund staff lawyer said: In general, our long-term objective is to make sure that coal-fired plants get closed. This is an unacceptable outcome for my State and our Nation. Nearly 90 percent of Ohio's electricity comes from coal. For the Nation, it is about 50 percent. Companies depend on this low-cost energy to compete in the global marketplace. We do not live in a cocoon. Companies are moving overseas because of increased health care costs, litigation costs, and energy costs are also a major factor. According to a recent survey of industrial executives, the No. 1 barrier to U.S. manufacturing growth in the coming year is high energy prices. It becomes even more costly for companies to operate in this country when you consider the new air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter. States and localities have yet to fully understand how difficult and expensive it will be to come in compliance with the standards. Over the last decade, the use of natural gas in electricity generation has risen significantly, while domestic supplies of natural gas have fallen. That is why we are trying to do something about more natural gas in this Energy bill. The results are predictable: Tightening supplies of natural gas, higher natural gas prices, and higher electricity prices. Because of this situation, U.S. natural gas prices are the highest in the developed world. Families that use natural gas to heat their homes, farmers that use it to make fertilizer, and the manufacturers who use it as a feed stock are getting hammered due to these higher costs. The chemical industry's 8-decade run as a major exporter ended in 2003 with a $19 billion trade surplus in 1997 becoming a $9.6 billion deficit. So we have lost the chemical industry for all intents and purposes because of the high cost of natural gas. The President of one major pharmaceutical company that employs 22,000 people in the United States called me recently and said unless we do something about natural gas prices, his company will be forced to move many of its operations overseas. The bottom line is, if you kill coal with a mandatory cap on carbon, you force more people to go to natural gas to produce electricity. We just add to the crisis that we already have. The energy bill tries to address this crisis, but the amendment we are going to be getting later on would reverse those efforts and cause an even worse situation than what exists today. The U.S. has a responsibility to develop a policy that harmonizes the needs of our economy and our environment. These are not competing needs. A sustainable environment is critical to a strong economy, and a sustainable economy is critical to providing the funding necessary to improve our environment. If we kill the golden goose, we will not have the money for the technology to do the things that we need to do, to improve the environment. A carbon cap--and that is what we are going to be hearing more about--means fuel switching, the end of manufacturing in my State, enormous burdens on the least of our brethren, and moving jobs and production overseas. It is already happening. We have a $162 billion trade deficit with China and almost all of it is in the manufacturing area. These are people who are moving out because of the high cost of producing here in the United States. Ironically, a carbon cap, a cap on carbon, as I say, is going to have a dramatic negative impact on our manufacturing. A couple of years ago, when Senator Jeffords was promoting a bill that would put a cap on carbon, I said to him: Senator, those jobs that you are killing in Ohio are not going to Vermont. They are going to China, and they are going to go to India. I have also discussed this issue twice with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has made climate change one of the focuses of the upcoming G8 meeting. I think he understands that Kyoto is not working, and we need to do something else. Furthermore, many of the countries that did ratify the Kyoto treaty are not expected to meet their commitments. According to a Washington Times article of May 16 entitled ``Broken Promises, Hot Air,'' 12 of the 15 European Union countries are currently 20 to 70 percent above their emissions target levels. I think the Senator from Idaho mentioned earlier in his remarks that the Italians have basically said they are not going to be able to meet their commitments that they made when they signed the Kyoto treaty. So last week I became a cosponsor of three pieces of legislation that comprehensively address climate change by focusing on tax incentives, technology development, and international deployment. The amendment that we have proposed today contains the domestic and international proposal. It does not include the tax incentives because the Energy bill now includes an amendment by the Finance Committee to add over $14 billion, over 10 years, in tax incentives. I will only briefly explain the amendment since it has been explained by colleagues. It proposes the adoption of technologies that reduce greenhouse gas intensity by creating a Climate Coordinating Committee and Climate Credit Board to assess, approve, and fund projects. Addressing climate change must be accomplished through the development of new technologies, as there currently is no technology available to capture and control carbon dioxide emissions. Many people today are promoting combined gas--integrated gas combined cycle technology, which will reduce NOx and SOx and deal with mercury. The fact of the matter is, in terms of greenhouse gases, it does not get the job done. Second, the amendment focuses on the notion that all nations must be part of this effort. It directs the Department of State to work with the top 25 greenhouse gas-emitting developing countries to reduce their greenhouse gas intensity. It also promotes the export of greenhouse gas intensity reducing technologies. I really think, if this amendment to the Energy bill is agreed to, it is something the President, when he goes to the G8 meeting, can refer to in terms of its importance, getting everybody at the table to start to do something realistic about the problem of greenhouse gases. I am concerned that the very nature of this amendment is misleading; that is, that we are adding a climate title to the Energy bill, which means that maybe it does not address climate change. This is not true. I commend Senators Domenici and Bingaman for putting together a bipartisan energy bill that deals with climate change in several ways. In other words, the underlying bill already deals with climate change. First, the bill provides research and development funding for long- term zero- or low-emitting greenhouse technologies. These include fuel cells, hydrogen cells, coal gasification--with the greatest potential to capture and control carbon dioxide emissions. Second, the bill includes extensive provisions to increase energy conservation. Third, the bill promotes the use of nuclear power, which is emissions-free power. There is no greenhouse gas with nuclear power. I restate this for my colleagues: The Energy bill already addresses climate change. For all those concerned about climate change, the underlying bill deals with it. The Hagel-Pryor amendment simply adds to these provisions. Let me restate this for my colleagues: This bill, without any amendments, including ours, addresses climate change. Some might be further misled to think that our country is currently not doing anything because the Energy bill does all of this to address a climate change. However, this is far from the truth. In fact, our Nation is taking so many actions on this front that I am going to try to run through them very quickly. In other words, we are doing an enormous amount in our country in terms of greenhouse gases and dealing with this whole issue of carbon emissions. The President established a climate change policy to reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of our economy by 18 percent over the next 10 years through voluntary measures. This is more than most of the countries involved in the Kyoto Protocol. Unlike the rest of the world, we are on target to meet our goal--not like the Europeans, 12 to 70 percent away from meeting their goals. We have the Climate VISION Partnership which involves 12 major industrial sectors and the members of the Business Roundtable who have committed to work with Cabinet agencies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the next decade. We have the climate leader's program, an EPA partnership encouraging individual companies to develop long-term comprehensive climate change strategy. Sixty-eight corporations are already participating in the program. The administration's budget for 2006 is $5.5 billion for extensive climate change technology and science programs and energy tax incentives. The United States is also taking a lead internationally--and again, we get no credit. There is $198 million included in the President's fiscal year 2006 budget for international climate change.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Yes.

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

Mr. VOINOVICH. Yes.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I wish to make a brief statement before we vote on the Voinovich, Carper, Feinstein, Jeffords, Hutchison, Stevens, Clinton, Obama, Lautenberg, DeWine, Levin, and Alexander amendment. It is based on the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005, S. 1265. That bill is cosponsored by the Environment and Public Works Committee chairman, Jim Inhofe, Ranking Member Jeffords, Senators Tom Carper, Johnny Isakson, Hillary Clinton, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and Dianne Feinstein. The bill was developed in close consultation with a strong and diverse group of environmental, industrial, and public officials. The groups range from the Environmental Defense, to the Union of Concerned Scientists, to the Associated General Contractors of America, to the Engine Manufacturers Association, to the Chamber of Commerce, to the National Conference of State Legislators. The cosponsors and these groups do not agree on many issues, which is why this amendment is so special. It is focused on improving air quality and protecting public health. It establishes voluntary national and State level grant and loan programs to promote the reduction of diesel emissions. It authorizes $1 billion over 5 years, $200 million annually. Onroad and nonroad diesel vehicles and engines account for roughly one-half of the nitrogen oxide and particulate matter mobile source emissions nationwide, and diesel retrofits have proven to be one of the most cost-effective emission reduction strategies. The bill has a 13-to-1 cost-benefit ratio. Spectacular. This would help bring counties into attainment with new air quality standards by encouraging the retrofitting and replacements of diesel engines. The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005 enjoys broad bipartisan support and is needed desperately. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. Mr. President, I would like to now yield the remainder of my time to my longstanding good friend, Senator Carper, and say it is wonderful to be on the floor of the Senate cosponsoring with him an amendment that has such broad support.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. I withdraw the request for the 10 minutes until the ranking member has an opportunity to review the amendment, and we can discuss at that time how much time the Senator is willing to give.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank the Senator from Tennessee. The administration should be complimented. The new diesel regulations will go into effect next year. The fact is, 11 million on- and off-road vehicles will still be on the road for many years to come. As the Senator pointed out regarding retrofitting, we had a bus retrofit. We are talking about 85 percent reduction. The diesel fuel is fine, but if you do not have the retrofit, it will not give you the desired emissions control. Amendment No. 800 (Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1936 to provide energy tax incentives, and for other purposes)

Mr. VOINOVICH. The process for developing this legislation began last year when several of these organizations came in to meet with me. They informed me of the harmful public health impact of diesel emissions. On-road and non-road diesel vehicles and engines account for roughly one-half of the nitrogen oxide and particulate matter mobile source emissions nationwide. I was pleased to hear that the administration had taken strong action with new diesel fuel and engine regulations, which were developed in a collaborative effort to substantially reduce diesel emissions. However, I was told that the full health benefit would not be realized until 2030 because these regulations address new engines and the estimated 11 million existing engines have a long life. Diesel engines have a very long life. I was pleased that they had a constructive suggestion on how we could address this problem. They informed me of successful grant and loan programs at the State and local level throughout the Nation that are working on a voluntary basis to retrofit diesel engines. I was also cognizant that the new ozone and particulate matter air quality standards were going into effect and that a voluntary program was needed to help the Nation's 495 and Ohio's 38 nonattainment counties--especially those that are in moderate nonattainment like Northeast Ohio. Additionally, I have visited with University of Cincinnati Medical Center doctors--as recently as earlier this month--to discuss their Cincinnati Childhood Allergy and Air Pollution Study. Some of the early results indicate disturbing impacts on the development of children living near highways because of emissions from diesel engines. It became clear to me that a national program was needed. We then formed a strong, diverse coalition comprised of environmental, industry, and public officials. The culmination of this work was released last Thursday with the introduction of the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005. The amendment that I am offering today is the same as this bill. It would establish voluntary national and State-level grant and loan programs to promote the reduction of diesel emissions. The amendment would authorize $1 billion over 5 years--$200 million annually. Some will claim that this is too much money and others will claim it is not enough--so probably it is the right number. We should first recognize that the need far outpaces what is contained in the legislation. This funding is also fiscally responsible as diesel retrofits have proven to be one of the most cost-effective emissions reduction strategies. For example, let's compare the cost effectiveness of diesel retrofits versus current Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program projects. We are talking about the per ton of Nitrogen Oxides reduced, cost on average. We are talking about 1 ton of nitrogen oxides and how much it costs to reduce them: $126,400 for alternative fuel buses; $66,700 for signal optimization; $19,500 for bike racks on buses; and $10,500 for vanpool programs. This is compared to $5,390 to repower construction equipment and $5,000 to retrofit a transit bus. The bottom line is that if we want to clean up our air to improve the environment and protect public health, diesel retrofits are one of the best uses of taxpayers' money. Furthermore, as a former Governor, I know firsthand that the new air quality standards are an unfunded mandate on our States and localities--and they need the Federal Government's help. We are going to find that out. Many Americans are not aware, because of the ozone and particulate standards that many communities are going to have a difficult time complying with these new ambient air standards. This legislation would help bring counties into attainment by encouraging the retrofitting or replacement of diesel engines, substantially reducing diesel emissions and the formation of ozone and particulate matter. The amendment is efficient with the Federal Government's dollars in several ways. First, 70 percent of the program would be administered by the EPA. The remaining 20 percent of the funding would be distributed to States that establish voluntary diesel retrofit programs. Ten percent of the amendment's overall funding would be set aside as an incentive for state's to match the Federal dollars being provided. The hope is this amendment leverages additional public and private funding with the creation of State level programs throughout this country. The amendment would expand on very successful programs that now exist in Texas and California. Second, the program would focus on nonattainment areas where help is needed the most. Third, it would require at least 50 percent of the Federal program to be used on public fleets since we are talking about using public dollars. Fourth, it would place a high priority on the projects that are the most cost effective and affect the most people. Lastly, the amendment includes provisions to help develop new technologies, encourage more action through nonfinancial incentives, and require EPA to reach out to stakeholders and report on the success of the program. EPA estimates this billion-dollar program would leverage an additional $500 million, leading to a net benefit of almost $20 billion with the reduction of 70,000 tons of particulate matter. This is a quite substantial 13-1 cost-benefit ratio. The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005 enjoys broad bipartisan support and is needed desperately. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays, and I ask unanimous consent 10 minutes be set aside prior to the vote on the amendment for sponsors to speak on its behalf.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I offer this amendment today as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety. This amendment is a bipartisan piece of legislation that was introduced last Thursday. It is called the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005, or S. 1265. This bill is cosponsored by Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe and Ranking Member Jim Jeffords and Senators Tom Carper, Johnny Isakson, Hillary Clinton, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and Dianne Feinstein. Focused on improving air quality and protecting public health, it would establish voluntary National and State-level grant and loan programs to promote the reduction of diesel emissions. Additionally, the bill would help areas come into attainment for the new air quality standards. Developed with environmental, industry, and public officials, the legislation complements Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, regulations now being implemented that address diesel fuel and new diesel engines. I am pleased to be joined by a strong and diverse group of organizations and officials: Environmental Defense, Clean Air Task Force, Union of Concerned Scientists, Ohio Environmental Council, Caterpillar Inc., Cummins Inc., Diesel Technology Forum, Emissions Control Technology Association, Associated General Contractors of America, State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators/ Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Regional Air Pollution Control Agency in Dayton, OH., and the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission. The cosponsors and these groups do not agree on many issues, which is why this amendment is so special. I ask unanimous consent that letters of support from these organizations be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Right. This is one of the most effective ways, actually, to reduce nitrogen oxide and also particulate matter. In my remarks I mentioned the study at the University of Cincinnati on children. The negative impact is amazing on children who live very close to freeways with this diesel fuel. Retrofitting would be the most cost-efficient way of dealing with that problem. This program fundamentally is a voluntary program. It is a program in which we encourage all of the States to participate. If they did, each State would get 2 percent of the money. If they didn't, those States that participated would benefit from this on a per capita basis, 30 percent of the program allocated to them and 70 percent of it would be distributed by the Environmental Protection Agency based on submissions submitted and also on the basis of giving priority to public requests for this money.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I speak as Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety to introduce a landmark, bipartisan piece of legislation--the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005. This bill is cosponsored by Environment and Public Works Committee Jim Inhofe and ranking member Jim Jeffords and Senators Tom Carper, Johnny Isakson, Hillary Clinton, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and Dianne Feinstein. Focused on improving air quality and protecting public health, it would establish voluntary national and state-level grant and loan programs to promote the reduction of diesel emissions. Additionally, the bill would help areas come into attainment for the new air quality standards. Developed with environmental, industry, and public officials, the legislation complements Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, regulations now being implemented that address diesel fuel and new diesel engines. I am pleased to be joined by a strong and diverse group of organizations and officials: Environmental Defense; Clean Air Task Force; Union of Concerned Scientists; Ohio Environmental Council; Caterpillar Inc.; Cummins Inc.; Diesel Technology Forum; Emissions Control Technology Association; Associated General Contractors of America; State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators/ Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials; Ohio Environmental Protection Agency; Regional Air Pollution Control Agency in Dayton, Ohio; Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission. The cosponsors of this legislation and these groups do not agree on many issues--which is why this bill is so special. The process for developing this legislation began last year when several of these organizations came in to meet with me. They informed me of the harmful public health impact of diesel emissions. Onroad and nonroad diesel vehicles and engines account for roughly one-half of the nitrogen oxide and particulate matter mobile source emissions nationwide. I was pleased to hear that the administration had taken strong action with new diesel fuel and engine regulations, which were developed in a collaborative effort to substantially reduce diesel emissions. However, I was told that the full health benefit would not be realized until 2030 because these regulations address new engines and the estimated 11 million existing engines have a long life. I was pleased that they had a constructive suggestion on how we could address this problem. They informed me of successful grant and loan programs at the State and local level throughout the Nation that were working on a voluntary basis to retrofit diesel engines. I was also cognizant that the new ozone and particulate matter air quality standards were going into effect and that a voluntary program was needed to help the nation's 495 and Ohio's 38 nonattainment counties--especially those that are in moderate nonattainment like Northeast Ohio. Additionally, I have visited with University of Cincinnati Medical Center doctors--as recently as this month--to discuss their Cincinnati Childhood Allergy and Air Pollution Study. Some of the early results indicate disturbing impacts on the development of children living near highways. It became clear to me that a national program was needed. We then formed a strong, diverse coalition comprised of environmental, industry, and public officials. The culmination of this work is being revealed today in the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005. This legislation would establish voluntary national and State-level grant and loan programs to promote the reduction of diesel emissions. It would authorize $1 billion over 5 years--$200 million annually. Some will claim that this is too much money and others will claim it is not enough--which is probably why it is just right. We should first recognize that the need far outpaces what is contained in the legislation. This funding is also fiscally responsible as diesel retrofits have proven to be one of the most cost-effective emissions reduction strategies. Furthermore, as a former Governor, I know firsthand that the new air quality standards are an unfunded mandate on our states and localities--and they need the Federal Government's help. This legislation would help bring counties into attainment by encouraging the retrofitting or replacement of diesel engines, substantially reducing diesel emissions and the formation of ozone and particulate matter. The bill is efficient with the Federal Government's dollars in several ways. First, 20 percent of the funding would be distributed to States that establish voluntary diesel retrofit programs. 10 percent of the bill's overall funding would be set aside as an incentive for States to match the Federal dollars being provided. The remaining 70 percent of the program would be administered by the EPA. Second, the program would focus on nonattainment areas where help is needed the most. Third, it would require at least 50 percent of the Federal program to be used on public fleets since we are talking about public dollars. Fourth, it would place a high priority on the projects that are the most cost effective and affect the most people. Lastly, the bill would include provisions to help develop new technologies, encourage more action through non-financial incentives, and require EPA to outreach to stakeholders and report on the success of the program. EPA estimates that this billion dollar program would leverage an additional $500 million leading to a net benefit of almost $20 billion with a reduction of about 70,000 tons of particulate matter. This is a 13 to 1 benefit-cost ratio. The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005 enjoys broad bipartisan support, and it is needed desperately. I plan to work with the bill's cosponsors and the coalition to use every avenue to get it signed into law as soon as possible. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I speak as Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety to introduce a landmark, bipartisan piece of legislation--the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005. This bill is cosponsored by Environment and Public Works Committee Jim Inhofe and ranking member Jim Jeffords and Senators Tom Carper, Johnny Isakson, Hillary Clinton, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and Dianne Feinstein. Focused on improving air quality and protecting public health, it would establish voluntary national and state-level grant and loan programs to promote the reduction of diesel emissions. Additionally, the bill would help areas come into attainment for the new air quality standards. Developed with environmental, industry, and public officials, the legislation complements Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, regulations now being implemented that address diesel fuel and new diesel engines. I am pleased to be joined by a strong and diverse group of organizations and officials: Environmental Defense; Clean Air Task Force; Union of Concerned Scientists; Ohio Environmental Council; Caterpillar Inc.; Cummins Inc.; Diesel Technology Forum; Emissions Control Technology Association; Associated General Contractors of America; State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators/ Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials; Ohio Environmental Protection Agency; Regional Air Pollution Control Agency in Dayton, Ohio; Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission. The cosponsors of this legislation and these groups do not agree on many issues--which is why this bill is so special. The process for developing this legislation began last year when several of these organizations came in to meet with me. They informed me of the harmful public health impact of diesel emissions. Onroad and nonroad diesel vehicles and engines account for roughly one-half of the nitrogen oxide and particulate matter mobile source emissions nationwide. I was pleased to hear that the administration had taken strong action with new diesel fuel and engine regulations, which were developed in a collaborative effort to substantially reduce diesel emissions. However, I was told that the full health benefit would not be realized until 2030 because these regulations address new engines and the estimated 11 million existing engines have a long life. I was pleased that they had a constructive suggestion on how we could address this problem. They informed me of successful grant and loan programs at the State and local level throughout the Nation that were working on a voluntary basis to retrofit diesel engines. I was also cognizant that the new ozone and particulate matter air quality standards were going into effect and that a voluntary program was needed to help the nation's 495 and Ohio's 38 nonattainment counties--especially those that are in moderate nonattainment like Northeast Ohio. Additionally, I have visited with University of Cincinnati Medical Center doctors--as recently as this month--to discuss their Cincinnati Childhood Allergy and Air Pollution Study. Some of the early results indicate disturbing impacts on the development of children living near highways. It became clear to me that a national program was needed. We then formed a strong, diverse coalition comprised of environmental, industry, and public officials. The culmination of this work is being revealed today in the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005. This legislation would establish voluntary national and State-level grant and loan programs to promote the reduction of diesel emissions. It would authorize $1 billion over 5 years--$200 million annually. Some will claim that this is too much money and others will claim it is not enough--which is probably why it is just right. We should first recognize that the need far outpaces what is contained in the legislation. This funding is also fiscally responsible as diesel retrofits have proven to be one of the most cost-effective emissions reduction strategies. Furthermore, as a former Governor, I know firsthand that the new air quality standards are an unfunded mandate on our states and localities--and they need the Federal Government's help. This legislation would help bring counties into attainment by encouraging the retrofitting or replacement of diesel engines, substantially reducing diesel emissions and the formation of ozone and particulate matter. The bill is efficient with the Federal Government's dollars in several ways. First, 20 percent of the funding would be distributed to States that establish voluntary diesel retrofit programs. 10 percent of the bill's overall funding would be set aside as an incentive for States to match the Federal dollars being provided. The remaining 70 percent of the program would be administered by the EPA. Second, the program would focus on nonattainment areas where help is needed the most. Third, it would require at least 50 percent of the Federal program to be used on public fleets since we are talking about public dollars. Fourth, it would place a high priority on the projects that are the most cost effective and affect the most people. Lastly, the bill would include provisions to help develop new technologies, encourage more action through non-financial incentives, and require EPA to outreach to stakeholders and report on the success of the program. EPA estimates that this billion dollar program would leverage an additional $500 million leading to a net benefit of almost $20 billion with a reduction of about 70,000 tons of particulate matter. This is a 13 to 1 benefit-cost ratio. The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005 enjoys broad bipartisan support, and it is needed desperately. I plan to work with the bill's cosponsors and the coalition to use every avenue to get it signed into law as soon as possible. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.