George Voinovich

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote to confirm Michael R. Barrett, whom the President has nominated to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Mr. Barrett has a distinguished and impressive record as a prosecutor, a defense attorney, and a community leader, and he has deep roots in southwest Ohio. Mr. Barrett is a graduate of the University of Cincinnati, where he obtained his bachelor of arts in 1974, and his law degree in 1977. After graduating from law school, Mr. Barrett served as an administrative hearing officer for the State of Ohio and then joined the Hamilton County prosecutor's office as an assistant prosecuting attorney. When he joined the prosecutor's office, Mr. Barrett was assigned to the Felony Trial Division, where he participated in investigations, grand jury proceedings, and felony trials. In 1983, Mr. Barrett was promoted to be a chief assistant of the Felony Trial Division. In 1984, Mr. Barrett joined Graydon, Head & Ritchey, where he worked on both criminal and civil matters, initially as an associate before being promoted to partner. In 1995, he joined his current firm, Barrett & Weber, where he has continued to practice in the same areas of law. Mr. Barrett's law practice includes criminal defense work covering the spectrum of the Criminal Code. In addition, Mr. Barrett maintains an active civil litigation practice including recent securities law matters in which he has represented individual plaintiffs as well as the attorney general's office for the State of Ohio. His practice has earned him several listings in ``Best Lawyers in America'' and ``Ohio Super Lawyers.'' In addition, Mr. Barrett has received the Outstanding Service Award as a Mediator from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. In sum, Mr. Barrett has the broad courtroom experience that will serve him well as a federal judge. Mr. Barrett has also served on the Supreme Court of Ohio's Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, which evidences the high esteem in which members of the Ohio bar hold him and is testimony of his excellent character. As a result of Mr. Barrett's fine academic and professional achievements, I am not surprised that the American Bar Association found Mr. Barrett qualified to serve as a Federal district court judge. Mr. Barrett's legal credentials are not the only reasons I support his nomination. In an age where I believe too many people do not take the time to become active members of their communities, Mr. Barrett has been a community leader. Some of Mr. Barrett's community activities include his current service on the board of trustees of Talbert House, a Cincinnati-area social service organization; his current service as a director of Boys Hope/Girls Hope of Cincinnati, an organization designed to provide an array of services for at-risk children; and his past service as a trustee of Children's Services of Hamilton County. When I was Governor of Ohio, I was pleased to appoint Mr. Barrett to the board of trustees of the University of Cincinnati. He served 9 years on the board of trustees, including a period as chairman. Involvement in one's community is important. We need judges who not only have exceptional legal skills but who also recognize how the law impacts individuals and communities. I believe Mr. Barrett has this understanding because he is out in his community every day. In reviewing Mr. Barrett's academic and professional record, it is clear that he is well qualified to serve as a Federal district court judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, and I urge my colleagues to support his nomination.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to commend and congratulate Dr. Carol Cartwright who, after 15 outstanding years, is set to retire as president of Kent State University in Kent, OH. Kent State was originally founded in 1910 as a teacher-training school. It has a proud history of meeting the evolving needs of northeast Ohio and the Nation, and throughout her time on campus, President Cartwright worked hard to ensure that this commitment to history was preserved. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate President Cartwright on successfully overseeing one of the Nation's largest university systems with an annual budget of more than $416.1 million and eight campuses serving about 34,000 students from throughout Ohio and the Nation, and from more than 90 countries. Dr. Cartwright has earned many distinctions in her tenure at Kent State University--she was the first female president of a State university in Ohio when she took the helm in 1991 as the university's 10th president. Her presidency has been marked by innovations that have fostered economic growth on the campus and in the community. I am especially thankful for her work to train students for careers in underpopulated fields, and focus on unique courses of study to accommodate all students. As a member of the Greater Akron Chamber and the Northeast Ohio Council on Higher Education; a cochair of the Ohio Technology in Education Committee; the Governor's Commission on Higher Education and the Economy; and the Ohio Business Development Coalition, President Cartwright worked to ensure that a cooperative relationship between students and industry was strong on her campus. In fact, she welcomed the Northeast Ohio Trade & Economic Consortium, NEOTEC, an economic development partnership that promotes trade, business, and economic opportunities for northeast Ohio to Kent State University's campus to further students' connection to future employment opportunities. In 2004, the Kent Campus also became the site for NEOTEC's new regional International Trade Assistance Center, providing free information, resources, referrals, and counseling to small businesses, and expanded services such as market research. Also, in 2004, a new, market-driven Division of Regional Development was created to allow Kent State to serve a much wider constituency, develop mutually beneficial partnerships, and do an even better job of matching faculty and staff expertise with northeast Ohio's educational and economic needs. Further, working with the local Small Business Development Center, headquartered in Kent State's College of Business Administration, students are now exposed to real-world experiences while providing business and industry with essential new ideas and out-of-the-box thinking. These kinds of partnerships and innovations will carry Ohio into the next era of progress and development, and Kent State will be an important part of that success. Already, 10 start-up companies have been created in the last 6 years to capitalize on Kent State faculty research and add to the economic growth in the region. This is real- world research that benefits society, consumers, and the university. Under Carol Cartwright's leadership, Kent State was named by the Association of University Technology Managers as fourth in the Nation for the number of start-up companies formed per $10 million in research spending. Kent State also plays an important leadership role in JumpStart Inc., a new organization to help advance technology commercialization and foster economic development in Ohio. Overall, President Cartwright's presidency has been marked by a commitment to developing students who are leaders and experts in innovation and service. Kent State has launched degree programs in high-demand and emerging fields, including an interdisciplinary undergraduate program in biotechnology that is unique in the State of Ohio; an interdisciplinary bachelor's program in American Sign Language; a baccalaureate program in paralegal studies; and the first graduate programs in Russian and Japanese at a public university in northeast Ohio. The revolutionary joint doctoral program in biomedicine with the Cleveland Clinic Foundation matches some of America's best and brightest students with world-class medical training opportunities, and Kent State is a partner in the Nation's only joint, 4-year doctoral program in audiology. Her commitment to preparing students for the future and working with regional economic growth initiatives should be a model for colleges and universities across the country to emulate. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing and commending President Cartwright on an excellent job of leading Kent State through an age of innovation and extraordinary achievement during her tenure. I wish her well on her upcoming retirement.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from South Dakota.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I yield up to 5 minutes to Senator Stevens. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. VOINOVICH. How much time does the Senator need?

Mr. VOINOVICH. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I yield time to the Senator from Utah. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. VOINOVICH. I yield 7 minutes.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Again, the time remaining, Mr. President?

Mr. VOINOVICH. I yield the Senator from Arkansas up to 10 minutes.

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

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise to, first, commend Senators Lott and Collins for bringing the underlying bill to the floor of the Senate. I know both worked extremely hard to pass their respective pieces from the Rules Committee and the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Second, I want to make one thing clear: I strongly support lobbying reforms that protect the integrity of our legislative process, close loopholes, promote moral/ethical behavior, and enforce our Senate rules. Any reforms that make sense that are not cosmetic should be given the strongest consideration by this body. I am particularly pleased that this bill requires the completion of an ethics training program conducted by the Ethics Committee within 120 days of enactment for current Members of the Senate and staff as well as requiring training for incoming Members and staff. It is not mandatory today. It is voluntary. This makes it mandatory, which is an improvement. The Senate Ethics Committee professional nonpartisan staff already conduct numerous ethics lectures and seminars for the Senate community. The Ethics Committee staff also regularly conducts training for individual Member's offices upon request. In addition, the Ethics Committee staff receives and responds to over 200 calls per week asking specific questions about rules compliance. While I applaud the many positive aspects of the proposed lobbying reform bill, this amendment to create an Office of Public Integrity is off target and unnecessary. As a member of the Ethics Committee for 8 years and chairman for the past 3, I oppose the proposed OPI because it will harm the Senate ethics process rather than improve it. If adopted, the OPI will introduce partisan politics into a process that has been bipartisan. It is interesting to note that none of the sponsors of this OPI has served on the Ethics Committee, and all Members of the Ethics Committee currently, and others, are opposed to it. By its very design, the OPI will simply replicate the tasks the Ethics Committee does every day, including receiving complaints against Members and staff and investigating allegations of misconduct. Given all the other duties of the Ethics Committee staff and the need for the Ethics Committee to have its own counsel when reviewing the Director's recommendation, there would not be any reduction in the staff of the Ethics Committee. More importantly, the OPI would add a duplicate investigative stage because the Ethics Committee will need to conduct its own investigation to verify the merits of any complaint it receives from the Director of the OPI; otherwise, the Ethics Committee would be acting irresponsibly. Some proponents of the OPI have argued that the Ethics Committee cannot or does not get the job done. They believe that a third party must be appointed to ensure that nefarious acts are not committed within these walls. The fact that the Ethics Committee has an excellent track record of enforcement seems to have been forgotten by those who have taken this position, although I must say that the Senator from Maine has been very complimentary to the chairman of the Ethics Committee and the work we are doing. I am appreciative of that. Other OPI proponents argue that despite the great work of the Ethics Committee, the appearance of Senators enforcing our rules on other Senators is a problem that OPI will fix. Some of this criticism appears to be based on the fact that Members of the Ethics Committee and its staff are obligated to keep matters confidential. We can't talk to people about things. It is easy for critics to point and sneer when the committee and its members are obliged to confidentiality and are prohibited from responding to questions and criticism. Frankly, I believe it is the Ethics Committee's commitment to keep matters confidential that causes some to question the effectiveness and values of the Ethics Committee. However, it is this confidentiality that provides due process protection for Members and staff and keeps partisan politics out of the ethics process. These confidentiality provisions provide due process protection for Members while keeping partisan politics out of the ethics process. Nevertheless, if a colleague acts in a way that is contrary to the rules of conduct of the Senate, the Ethics Committee has the ability and the duty to investigate the allegation, and it does so. Right now we have a right to initiate investigations without a complaint. In terms of reading something in the newspaper, something brought to our attention and it seems like it casts a bad reflection upon the Members of the Senate, we have often sent letters off to Senators saying: We have seen this. We want you to respond to it. Frankly, that is why the proposed OPI is somewhat offensive. It suggests that Members lack the moral conviction to make difficult decisions when a fellow Member has acted in violation of the Senate rules. While sitting in judgment of one's peers is never easy, the Ethics Committee conducts itself with a sense that the reputation of the Senate is above any individual Member. In my opinion--I hope my colleagues will agree with me after considering this amendment--the OPI and its independent counsel is more cosmetic and, frankly, problematic. It seems as if proponents of the measure understand that as well. In fact, proponents of the OPI offered a much more robust proposal during the markup of the lobbying reform bill in the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The proposal was soundly defeated in a bipartisan manner. Recognizing all of the other flaws in the earlier proposal, this amendment strips away all of the other elements of the earlier proposal to offer nothing more than the creation of an independent counsel within the Senate. Frankly, I am confused. On the one hand, one would believe that in offering this amendment, faith in the Senate Ethics Committee would be low. However, the scaled-back version of the OPI suggests that the proponents recognize the Senate Ethics Committee is doing its job but still want to force this independent counsel on the Senate for no reason than to appease the media, frankly, and some of the watchdog groups. I keep hearing the public doesn't have any confidence in the process. There have been complaints about what has happened over in the other House. But the fact is, to my knowledge, we have not had complaints about the work of the Senate Ethics Committee. Certainly, I haven't heard any complaints from any of my constituents about this work, and I am chairman of the committee. Despite the misunderstandings and commentary by various groups, the Ethics Committee is already a vigorous enforcer of Senate rules. The Ethics Committee and its 11 professional, nonpartisan staff, including 5 nonpartisan attorneys with many years of prosecutorial and investigative experience, are there to initiate investigations based on complaints from Members and staff, outside individuals and groups, as well as on its own initiative. What I am saying is, if this stuff comes to the attention of the staff, they go out and do the investigation. They look into the matter. They bring it to us and ask us: Do you think we should go forward. It is not as though we are controlling what they can do. That is one of the things the proposal for the independent counsel doesn't recognize. They are already in a position to do that. We are proposing to do what we are already doing. With the assistance of this professional nonpartisan staff, the Senate Ethics Committee is doing exactly what our colleagues and the American people should expect of us--protecting the integrity of the Senate and vigorously pursuing and sanctioning Senators and staff who violate the rules of the Senate. I have not heard any evidence to the contrary. The tradition of the Ethics Committee doing its job is a long one. For over 40 years, the Ethics Committee has operated in a way to meet the constitutional mandate that each body establish rules, investigate its Members for disorderly behavior, and hand out appropriate punishment. The Ethics Committee continues to meet this mandate today, and it does so in a bipartisan manner. In fact, published accounts reveal that the Ethics Committee has considered allegations involving some 35 Senators, all but 3 of which occurred after 1977. While these Members include only public allegations, frankly, this reveals that the Senate Ethics Committee has not had the problem of partisan gridlock that has affected the House ethics process. If we create a Senate OPI, however, I can almost guarantee the Ethics Committee will become partisan and gridlocked, especially in the present political environment. This is also why all six members of the Ethics Committee, three Republicans and three Democrats, oppose creation of the OPI. Over the years, the Ethics Committee has benefited from a bipartisan working relationship. This positive working relationship could be quickly lost under this new independent counsel. Moreover, the OPI appears designed to result in conflict and disagreement between the Ethics Committee and the Director of the OPI. First, Members should understand the three-stage process that has been proposed under the OPI and understand why this proposal would ruin the bipartisan nature of the system as well as creating an adversarial relationship between the Ethics Committee and the Director. At each stage of the OPI process, if the Director, prosecutor, independent counsel, or whatever you want to call him or her, determines that he or she believes there are sufficient grounds to conduct or proceed with an investigation, then the Director would notify the Ethics Committee. The Ethics Committee then has the opportunity to overrule the determination by a two-thirds vote. But if the Ethics Committee disagrees with the Director and votes to overrule, the Ethics Committee is required to issue a public report which would include a record of how each Member voted. While this OPI amendment does not specify what should be included in these public reports, as a practical matter, these public reports will include the Member's name, facts about the alleged misconduct, and the rationale for rejecting the Director's recommendations. By requiring the public report, a Member's name will be disclosed even if the Ethics Committee determines there is no violation of the rules. I think this new public reporting process will turn the existing Senate ethics process into a political public relations battle rather than a determination on the merits of each matter. What's more, the Director is not likely to be happy that the Ethics Committee disagreed with his or her conclusions. If you bring it in, talk about it, and then if you disagree with independent counsel and you have a vote, this will go back and forth. Then Members will start worrying about how they are voting in terms of the fact that they disagreed with the independent counsel's decision. Then we get into the issue of your votes in terms of various Members who are before the committee and having Members in your own caucus coming up to you and saying: Why did you vote that way or why didn't you vote this way? These considerations are not part of our decisionmaking today. This is a nuance that I think many people don't understand. That is how we keep this. People ask me about cases, and I say ``no comment.'' The media asks, and I say ``no comment.'' Once the name is out there, Katey, bar the door--especially today, unfortunately, in this partisan, political environment. I want to take a second to point out something that is obvious but may be overlooked in this debate. Issuing a subpoena to a Member of the Senate is a very serious matter, and Members know it. The heart of the subpoena power is a big stick that the Ethics Committee must occasionally use to enforce information requests during an investigation. The subpoena power is used judiciously. This power should not be delegated lightly as the OPI proposes to do. Proponents of the OPI also suggest that the Director of the OPI will be responsible and answerable to the Ethics Committee throughout the process. In fact, this Director would not be answerable and responsible throughout the process. After the Ethics Committee approves the Director's initial decision to begin an investigation, the Director would have the unchecked power to investigate. These investigations may go on as long as the Director, in his or her sole discretion, sees fit. We all know that independent of any power to sanction, the power to investigate is itself an awesome power and may itself impose on the subject of the investigation a heavy burden to his or her resources, to his or her reputation, to his or her ability to represent and serve constituents fully and effectively. The OPI amendment would resurrect the independent counsel in the institution of the Senate. This would serve neither the interests of this institution nor the public. Finally, inherent conflict between the Ethics Committee and the Director, as I mentioned, is built into the way this determination is made. Advocates of the OPI state that the process would remove politics from the ethics process. I can guarantee you that by creating this independent counsel, politics would not only play a part in the ethics process but would be a decisive factor to every inquiry. Members of the Ethics Committee would have to explain why they voted the way they did to the media, their colleagues, and party members. Partisan considerations will transform a now bipartisan decisionmaking process into another partisan battle. The Senate has had enough of some of these partisan problems. I also find it troubling that Members believe it is better policy to turn over the investigative process to an unelected and unaccountable individual rather than leaving such an important responsibility with Members who respect the Senate as an institution and are accountable to the voters every 6 years. I also want to take a step back and discuss another reason proponents of the OPI claim it is necessary. Throughout the entirety of the recent scandals, reports appear that cast doubts upon the integrity of everybody on Capitol Hill. There is a belief that the Senate Ethics Committee was asleep at the wheel--or even worse, indifferent to the allegations in the Abramoff-related matter. As detailed in the committee response to Democracy 21, which is posted on the Ethics Committee Web site, the committee voted to follow its general practice of not initiating an investigation that might interfere with an ongoing Department of Justice criminal investigation. We keep hearing complaints from Democracy 21 and others that ``you guys should be involved in the Abramoff case.'' We discussed it and decided to follow the procedure we followed in the past. The Justice Department said: Keep your nose out of this. Let us do our work. When we are done, we will come to you. We had the same case in terms of Senator Torricelli. He was under investigation--this is public knowledge--by the Justice Department and, for some reason, they decided not to prosecute him. They sent the stuff to us after they did their investigation. By the way, it was helpful to us because we had the Justice Department investigation before us. As a result of that, we censured as a public admonition of Senator Torricelli. He decided not to seek reelection to the Senate. So I just want you to know that the opposition to this is a bipartisan opposition. People who have been around here and have been through the process understand that we are getting the job done. One other thing that I think will help is annual reports. As you know, right now we don't have to report what we do. People at home come up to me and say: What are you doing? I say: I am chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee. They say: What about it? I cannot talk about it. What do you do? I cannot talk about it. There is no record on this, and I put out an annual report every year and cannot talk about what we have accomplished. We have an amendment that we got in the committee, when it was marked up, that says we will report each year everything that we do. Members' names will not be mentioned, but at least the public will know that we are doing our work and we are not just sitting there letting everything pass us by. I am not sure that is going to satisfy some of the public interest groups, or that it will satisfy some of the media who have taken shots at me editorially because they think we are trying to hide something. But the fact is, we are trying to get the job done. We must preserve the reputation of this Senate. So I want to say that I think the creation of the OPI is not a positive step forward and, in fact, it would diminish the job that is being done in the Senate to enforce our ethics laws and rules. Mr. President, I reserve my time.

Mr. VOINOVICH. How much time do I have?

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, first, I again compliment the chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee for the good job she and the committee have done in proposing legislation that will make a difference in the Senate and in the Congress. I respect everything the Senator has done. Some of the amendments making mandatory some of the things we are doing voluntarily I welcome. I thank the Senator. One thing I have tried to do is to inform Members about what the rules are so they do not get in trouble. I point out that even though the amendment is well motivated and meant to help the Ethics Committee, all six members of the Ethics Committee on a bipartisan basis oppose it. The Ethics Committee is the investigative arm of the Senate. It is a nonpartisan investigator of all matters brought before the Ethics Committee and, something some Members are not happy about, matters that are not brought before us, on the complaint of some, that we recognize, through the media, there is a problem with one of the Members, and we get involved in it. We do not have to wait for someone to file a complaint. We are the watchdog of the Senate. We want to protect the Senate's reputation. We admonish, we censor and, in some cases, eject Members of this Senate for not upholding the high standards all Members are expected to uphold after being elected to this Senate. I do not believe this is going to mend the problem in terms of public confidence. As I have mentioned, except for recently some criticisms, we did not get involved in the Abramoff investigation. Overall, in terms of the public, the Senate Ethics Committee has been doing the job they are supposed to do under the Constitution. Again, I underscore in terms of Abramoff, we did not get involved because of the fact that the Justice Department asked us not to get involved. They thought it would interfere with their investigation. I assure Members of the Senate and I assure the public and other groups that are looking in on us, once that investigation is finished and the information is sent here, if one of our Members or several Members are involved, we will fully investigate that. If those individuals have violated the rules of the Senate, they will be properly dealt with by the Ethics Committee. In terms of the specific parts of this legislation, I bring up something that has a problem, and that is that every time the Ethics Committee disagrees with the Office of Public Integrity, we have to have a published vote of the committee. As a result of that, what will happen, in my opinion, is that after a while, where the Ethics Committee does not agree with the Office of Public Integrity, you will build up an adversarial type of relationship. Members, in terms of how they vote, will start taking into consideration, gee, it is going to be public that we disagreed with this guy and people will ask, why did you disagree with that, and we get into that whole area of questioning people's motivation. It also gets us involved in partisanship, Members asking, why did you vote that particular way? You had a chance maybe to harm some other Member because of political reasons. Or why did you pick on one of our Members? This job is a very tough job. It is not a job that makes one popular with his colleagues in this Senate. I believe rather than helping the situation, in spite of the fine motivation of the people sponsoring this amendment, rather than helping, it is going to hurt the situation and also make it very difficult in the future to have Members being willing to serve as a member of the Senate Ethics Committee.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9 a.m., Wednesday, March 15. 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 resume consideration of S. Con. Res. 83, the budget resolution, as under the previous order.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak not only on the fiscal year 2007 budget resolution that has been placed before this body but also on the environment in which Chairman Gregg has had to write the resolution. First of all, I thank our chairman for his yeoman effort to bring this budget to the floor. Chairman Gregg has produced a very strong effort under difficult circumstances. For once, I am excited to see the chairman's limitation on the use of ``emergency'' designations for the fiscal year 2007 budget. While utilizing ``emergency'' spending may be necessary, Senator Gregg has put in place a process to force us to reflect on what should be deemed as an ``emergency'' and consequently sidestep the regular budgetary process versus what should be moved as part of the regular appropriations process. In other words, all of us feel that in terms of our emergency spending, much of it should be actually in the regular budget resolution rather than considered as emergency spending. I also applaud the chairman's inclusion of a new point of order against direct spending that would apply once it was determined that the general fund would contribute more than 45 percent of total Medicare outlays. This new point of order serves to highlight what all of us know is decimating future budgets--the impending costs of Medicare and other entitlements. While I respect the efforts required in producing this budget, and the effort to try to comply with the cap that the President issued, it is the view of this Senator that the budget falls short of meeting the current pressing needs of our country, and those sentiments are reflected in some of the amendments that have and will later be offered to the budget. Each of us must be able to justify our actions on behalf of our constituents. During my first biennial budget, as Governor of Ohio, I had to go back to the budget four separate times to find additional areas to cut. But after cutting program after program, I could not justifiably say I provided for the public good by slashing more. Indeed, I made the difficult choice to ask the legislature to increase taxes at the margins. After keeping spending to its lowest growth in 30 years, we were able to reduce taxes my last 3 years in office. But we did take care of the needs of the people of the State of Ohio. I am not calling for raising revenues at this time. However, I am calling attention to what I view as a lackadaisical attitude toward what I believe is a freight train bearing down on our fiscal house. I voted for tax cuts in 2001, 2002, and 2003. In 2001, we were projecting surpluses beyond the horizon, I think a $5.4 trillion surplus in 10 years. We believed those surplus funds were better utilized in what I called the three-legged stool of fiscal responsibility--pay down the debt, spending restraint, and returning excess funds to households so as not to be unwisely spent. In 2002, I supported additional tax cuts to stimulate our economy in the aftermath of September 11. And in 2003, our country was still reeling from September 11, the war against terror, and corporate accounting scandals. We needed additional stimulative medicine. I fought to ensure that the amount we passed was the right amount. I said that $350 billion in tax cuts would be enough to get the economy moving, and I believe that it worked. However, the world does not stand still, and we now face different challenges. Since that time, the economy has grown. The Nation's GDP grew by 4 percent in both 2003 and 2004 and 3.5 percent in 2005. Unemployment has dropped since we enacted the tax cuts from 6.6 percent to the current 4.8 percent. I wish it were as good in the State of Ohio as that, but overall that is what it is. While the tax cut stimulation worked, making these tax cuts permanent should be subject to pay-go. I am sorry today that we didn't have the votes to do that. While the economy has been renewed, our Nation has had to pay for the extraordinary expenses of Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as responding to our concern for homeland security for which, since 2001, we have tripled governmentwide spending related to nondefense homeland security, and on top of that add in the expenses of Hurricane Katrina. What I am saying is that with the 22 agencies we brought together after 2001, 180,000 people, we have tripled the budget of those agencies since 2001. While we are dealing with all these expenses, we are ignoring the 800-pound gorilla in the room: the impending tidal wave of entitlements coming due. In his State of the Union Address, President Bush acknowledged that: The retirement of the baby boom generation will put unprecedented strains on the federal government. By 2030, spending for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will be almost 60 percent of the entire federal budget. And that will present future Congresses with impossible choices--staggering tax increases, immense deficits, or deep cuts in every category of spending. I am pleased that the President decided to focus on what some have called the demographic tsunami coming our way and the necessity to reform entitlement programs before it hits. The 77 million baby boomers coming into Social Security and Medicare Programs will put the Federal budget under unprecedented pressure. Chairman Gregg took the courageous step to take on entitlement spending through the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, and I supported those efforts. However, this was just the tip of the iceberg. I would support greater efforts to continue to debate on entitlement reform so that we may make wise decisions and not decisions stemming from unneeded dawdling and delay. No matter which way you look at it, if we leave reform of entitlement programs to future Congresses to handle as well as a mountain of national debt to pay off, it will have devastating consequences on the economy and our children. We owe it to the American people to let them know the true condition of our Federal budget. Currently, governmental expenditures absorb about 20 percent of the GDP, while our tax receipts are only 17.5 percent of GDP. The debt has grown from about $5.5 trillion when I first came into office in 1999 to a staggering $8.1 trillion today. That is a 47-percent increase. The debt service alone threatens to gobble up revenues in the near future. According to the CBO, 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. Without major spending cuts, tax increases, or both, the national debt will grow more than $3 trillion through 2010 to $11.2 trillion according to GAO--nearly $38,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States. The interest alone will cost $561 billion in 2010, the same as today's budget for the Pentagon. Think of that. However, we all know that the real problem is our long-term debt. I might mention in terms of our interest costs, if the central banks of foreign countries that are investing in our debt decide to redo their portfolios, we are really going to be in trouble because we will see our interest costs spike dramatically. By the General Accounting Office's own estimates, about 35 years from now, when my grandchildren have their own children to care for, balancing the budget will require actions as large as cutting total Federal spending by 60 percent or raising taxes to 2\1/2\ times today's levels. Think about that. And if we are going to be honest with the American people about the shape of our fiscal house, we should be honest on budgeting. Accrual accounting is what we require private businesses to use in presenting their finances to give an honest snapshot. On an accrual basis, our Federal deficit for fiscal year 2005 was $760 billion, representing an increase of $144 billion or 23 percent over the previous year's deficit of $616 billion. That is a stark difference from the $319 billion deficit that was reported. That is what we told the American people: It is $319 billion. Under this convenient Government accounting, it made it look as if we had a decrease in the deficit of $93 billion from the previous year's deficit of $412 billion. Frankly, if the Treasury Department already has the numbers, why don't we use the accrual method of accounting for our budget? I want to remind the American people again, as well as my colleagues in the Senate, that the true deficit in 2005 was $760 billion--an increase of $144 billion or 23 percent over the previous year's deficit. I have also introduced a bill called the Truth in Budgeting Act, cosponsored by Senator Conrad, which stops the Federal Government from using surplus trust fund revenues to hide the true size of the Government's deficit and highlighting the true size of the Federal debt by forcing the Government to increase borrowing from the public to cover general fund expenses. It is important to have an honest accounting of where we are and where we are headed from a fiscal perspective. We need to change the current Federal accounting and reporting model and budgeting systems to better reflect the Government's true financial condition. This will bring about greater transparency and accountability in Government operations and really let the American people know what is happening here in Congress. Additionally, if we are to be honest about the budget, we should make reasonable assumptions. The administration's budget assumes enactment of more than a dozen user fees totaling $3.2 billion in 2007 to offset discretionary spending increases. The user fee proposals in the budget include an increase in airline passenger security fees, changing some veterans' enrollment fees for medical care--which, by the way, was rejected by the Senate today 100 to 0--increased TRICARE enrollment fees and deductibles for military retirees under 65, regulatory fees for explosives, and Food Safety and Inspection Service user fees. These proposals have been rejected by Congress in the past and are unlikely to materialize. What they will do is, because that money is not going to come in, it is just going to squeeze other priorities. Additionally, we are not being honest about the Medicare physician fee schedules. Physicians are reimbursed for treatment of Medicare patients through that fee schedule. Right now, physicians are facing another 5 percent decrease in their Medicare payment on January 1, 2007. Reducing physician payments will have a direct negative impact on seniors' access to quality health care. Last year, we responsibly offset funding to avoid a scheduled 4-percent reduction. We included a freeze in their payment rates in the deficit reduction bill. It has become evident that we must face this annually, but never truly budget for it. In other words, we know that we can't cut the reimbursement for doctors in this country for Medicare patients, but we just assume that we are going to do it, at least the administration does, knowing full well that Congress is going to have to come in with that additional money--in this case, $1.5 billion--and that means that there is just going to be less money for other priorities that we have on our domestic side of the budget. The administration's budget also accounts for an extension of AMT relief in 2006 but not for 2007 or the rest of the 5-year budget window. The administration says that a permanent solution to the AMT issue should be enacted as part of tax reform. However, the likelihood of Congress passing tax reform this year, as much as I would like to see it since I offered the legislation calling for the blue ribbon panel on tax reform, is slim to none. I feel bad that the administration has backed away from tax reform as a priority since simplifying the Code to make it more simple, fair, and honest could, by some estimates, save taxpayers $260 billion in costs associated with preparing their taxes. That is across the country. Saving that cost would be a real tax reduction and not cause the Treasury to lose one dime of lost revenue. The question we must ask ourselves is, If we don't have enough revenue to pay our current bills, how in the world are we going to prepare to cover much larger future promises? The simple fact is that we can't have it all. We need to set priorities. We need to make choices; otherwise, our children will end up paying for it. Our forefathers recognized the inequity of passing on debt to future generations. George Washington in his farewell address stated: [likewise avoid] the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. In other words, throwing the cost of a war on to the next generation. Frankly, if we are willing to be honest with ourselves and make the hard decisions, the last thing we should be doing is talking about making tax cuts permanent. If we are to be honest and forthright with the American people, we should be asking them to pay for the extraordinary cost of the war and improving our homeland security. Because if we are not willing to do so, it will not be Members of this body who are going to be paying the tab. We will be gone. Instead, repayment of the debt will land squarely in the lap of our children and grandchildren. I don't know any parents or grandparents who would think it was a good idea to run up huge personal debts that their children and grandchildren would have to pay at the time of their death, but that is exactly what we are doing with our Federal budget--passing it on to our children and grandchildren. The major reason I sought reelection to this venerable body was to make sure that was not going to be our legacy or the legacy I left my three children and seven grandchildren and my fellow Americans. According to the administration's fiscal year 2000 budget, mandatory spending will take up 54 percent of the $2.8 trillion budget; net interest we will have to pay on the debt will eat up 9 percent; 18 percent would be allocated for the defense discretionary budget, leaving 19 percent for all the discretionary programs or about one- fifth of the budget. And what we have been doing the last couple of years is flat-funding discretionary spending, the real increases in this budget. People say: You are spending money. The money is being spent on the war and on homeland security. And in terms of discretionary nondefense spending, we basically have flat-funded that. As I quoted, by the administration's conservative estimate, the programs on auto-pilot, such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, will account for over 60 percent of the budget by 2030. That does not leave much for all other governmental obligations we have. We are putting the squeeze on just one-fifth of the budget while the rest sees large increases. We must make entitlement reform a priority, but in the meantime, we should not pretend that by flat funding or cutting nondefense, nonhomeland security needs or programs that work and serve a critical governmental purpose will get the job done. Some of these programs actually save the Government money by benefiting the economy or avoiding further costs down the road. The point is that in this global economy, we are confronted with the most competitive environment our Nation has ever faced, at least in my lifetime. Anyone who has read Tom Friedman's book ``The World is Flat'' or read the National Academy of Sciences report ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' gets it. They get it. In the big picture of where the United States stands, it is clear to me that the economic framework of our Nation needs to be refurbished. There are certain investments and responsibilities that this Senator believes we can no longer ignore and must address. We should be rebuilding an infrastructure of competitiveness so that future generations can compete in that global marketplace and have at least the same opportunity to enjoy our standard of living and quality of life. We cannot remain competitive without a workforce full of educated and motivated young Americans. As a nation, we have to 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. And right now we are not getting the job done. Globally, the United States ranks 17th in proportion to college aid population earning science and engineering degrees, down from third place several decades ago. In fact, the percentage of 24-year-olds with science or engineering degrees is now higher in many industrialized nations, including England, South Korea, Germany, Australia, Singapore, Japan, and Canada. All produce a higher percentage of science and engineering graduates than the United States. The National Academy of Sciences released a report this fall that recommends action that the Federal Government should take to enhance our ability to compete in our global economy. The recommendations range from those that will 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, to the crucial need for energy independence, and an investment in research. I am encouraged the President recognized that America needs to wake up and build a new infrastructure for competitiveness, and I applaud his American competitiveness agenda. Also, I have joined a number of my colleagues as an original cosponsor of the Protecting America's Competitive Edge Act of 2006, PACE. This legislation is aimed at improving our Nation's competitiveness through advancements in and emphasis on math and science education. Like the President's initiative, this legislation is comprehensive in its aim to increase our Nation's research capacity, emphasize strong science and math education, but it will require a national commitment to reengage our Nation's youth in science and math, similar to our response in the late 1950s to Russia's launch of Sputnik and the ensuing space race. In order to implement PACE, it is going to take $10 billion a year for the next 10 years, including making the research and development tax credit permanent. That money is not in this budget. That money is not in this budget. Funding for nuclear engineering programs truly showcases the disconnect between our stated priorities and the budget. The administration and numerous Members in this body are supportive of the recommendations in the National Academy's report, which also highlighted the importance of moving toward greater energy independence. However, the administration's budget zeroes out funding for the Department of Energy's University Nuclear Reactor Infrastructure and Education Assistance Program from $27 million in fiscal year 2006--it is a relatively innocuous amount within the context of a $2.6 trillion budget. But with our renewed focus on our Nation's competitiveness and the need to address our education and energy policies, it doesn't make sense to eliminate this program. That is what we see all the way through this budget. Additionally, beyond our human capital infrastructure needs, our physical infrastructure needs are facing a real dilemma as well. In other words, we have to build that infrastructure of competitiveness. We are not getting it done. We desperately need to provide increased funding for the Army Corps of Engineers, including funding for levees and additional civil engineers. This Nation has an aging national water resources infrastructure. If we continue to ignore the upkeep, the deterioration of locks, dams, flood control projects, and navigation channels, we risk disruptions in waterborne commerce, decreased protection against floods, as we saw in Katrina, and other environmental damage. I have been concerned about the backlog of unfunded Corps projects since I was chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure in 1999 and 2000 on the Environment and Public Works Committee. When I arrived in the Senate in 1999, the operation and maintenance deficit was about $250 million. Today it is $1.2 billion. In 2001, there was $38 billion in active resources projects waiting to be funded. Today there is $41 billion in active construction general projects that need to be funded. This budget is only going to increase this backlog. This budget proposes a 33-percent cut in the Corps construction budget and a 42-percent cut in the Corps investigations budget. Currently, the Corps is able to function only at 50-percent capacity at the rate of funding proposed by this budget. Listen to this: Currently the Corps is able to function only at 50-percent capacity at the rate of funding proposed by this budget. Can you believe this, after the lesson we learned from Hurricane Katrina? We had people testify before the Environment and Public Works Committee who were a part of the American Civil Engineers Society saying that if we had properly funded the levees in New Orleans, they would have survived Katrina. Let's talk about our highways. According to the Federal Highway Administration 2002 Conditions and Performance Report, $106.9 billion through 2020 is needed to maintain and improve our highways and bridges. We are just not getting the job done. Community development block grants, which was spoken to by Senator Murray earlier, is another example. These grants support State and local government-directed neighborhood revitalization, housing rehabilitation, and economic development activities. I know in my time being mayor of the city of Cleveland how important CDBG is in terms of providing funds to local government officials so they can do housing rehabilitation, neighborhood revitalization, and economic development. I refer to it as the yeast that raises the dough. It is probably the best leveraged Federal program we have for our cities in the United States of America. By the way, it is a program that was put in place by Richard Nixon when he was President of the United States. When we fail to recognize our country's needs, it is at the expense of our seed corn programs that are essential to the future of our country. We must not be pennywise and pound foolish while we consider this budget. While cuts and reforms need to be made, it should not be made at the expense of programs that our country relies on, such as these. It is too bad that we don't have to balance our budget. That would be beautiful. The thing that drives me crazy about this place, after being mayor for 10 years and doing 10 budgets, and being Governor and having to do four budgets when we had to balance our budget, is that we are irresponsible when it comes to budgeting. I recall as Governor, as I mentioned earlier, we had to raise taxes at the margin to balance the budget and respond to critical needs of Ohio. It was through cuts in spending and making very difficult choices that we balanced the budget and accumulated over $1 billion in our rainy day fund. It was through these efforts--in other words, we tried to do everything, and at the end, through what I call the strong- management, good-economy bonus, we reduced our State income tax 3 years in a row, including almost 10 percent in 1998. It is difficult for this Senator to believe that we have the ability to fund the war on terror, respond to homeland security needs, pay for emergencies such as Hurricane Katrina, deal with explosions in entitlement costs, guarantee our country will have the infrastructure of competitiveness to battle the global marketplace, balance budgets, pay down the debt by focusing our attention solely on the discretionary, nondefense, nonhomeland security part of the budget--it doesn't make sense, and it is not fair. It is not fair, and I think the American people understand what I am talking about. The problem is that Congress has not told the truth about what we can and cannot afford. We want to have it all but don't want to pay for it. America's families don't live like that, nor should we. I learned this difficult lesson while serving as mayor of Cleveland for 10 years and Governor of Ohio for 8 years. It is time that we in Congress learned that lesson as well. Yesterday, I sat in the Presiding Officer's chair listening to Chairman Gregg and Senator Conrad debate. I was heartened to hear these two budgeteers agree that we have to take on the debt on a bipartisan basis, and sooner rather than later. I wish to be associated with those sentiments, and I hope both sides of the aisle will promptly realize the dilemma and heed the words of Senators Gregg and Conrad. We can get the job done. We can be responsible, but we have to do it on a bipartisan basis. When I had my problems when I was Governor of Ohio, I had the strongest leader we ever had, a Democrat, in the House of Representatives. He had been there for 24 years. We named a building after him while he was alive. In fact, I had to genuflect to his statue every day when I went to my office at the State House. He was a very powerful guy. We had problems. I went to him and said: Vern, we have to do something about this. He said: Partner, OK, but you have to give a little, we will have to give a little. We spent 3 weeks and came up with a program to get the job done. The President recognized this. One of the things I felt very bad about last year is we spent all this time on dealing with Social Security when I knew right from the beginning if it wasn't going to be on a bipartisan basis, it would go nowhere, and it went nowhere. The President wasted a lot of time--I give him credit for pointing out the fact that we had a problem with Social Security, but it had to start out on a bipartisan basis. I was so delighted, I got up and clapped when the President said: We have to put together a commission of the best and brightest to tackle the problem of entitlements so we can move toward fiscal sanity. We have to do that. The American people are looking at what we are doing here and they are saying: Put aside your partisan differences; come together for the benefit of our country, for our children, for our grandchildren. I am concerned about this budget, but I am more concerned about the direction we are going. Our problem is that we are unwilling to pay for things or do without them. Unless we wake up to that fact, we are in very deep trouble.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that Executive Calendar No. 428 be recommitted to the Commerce Committee.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, tomorrow morning we will continue to debate amendments to the budget resolution. In addition to the amendments debated this evening, on Wednesday, we will have an additional series of amendments ready for votes. We will announce the precise timing of the votes in the morning, but it is likely we will have one or two votes starting at 1 p.m. At 1:40 p.m., the Senate will proceed to the House of Representatives in order to hear an address by the President of Liberia. That address begins at 2 p.m. Therefore, we will recess from 2 to 3 p.m. At 3 p.m., we will likely then begin a lengthy series of votes to dispose of the remaining amendments under the order from earlier this evening. As a reminder, the majority leader has announced that this week we will need to complete action on the budget, as well as the debt limit. Members can expect full days and late nights.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, 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. Madam President, I rise out of concern for our generation and also for the generations of our children and grandchildren and the legacy we leave them. It has been said that the real test for a moral society is the kind of world it leaves to its children. With that in mind, I speak about the reconciliation tax bill before the Senate. First, I comment on the larger context of what I and others see as a great threat to our future way of life. Comptroller General David Walker has said that the greatest threat to our future is our fiscal irresponsibility. He also says: America suffers from a serious case of myopia or nearsightedness both in the public sector and the private sector. We need to start focusing more on the future, we need to recognize the reality that we are on an imprudent and unsustainable fiscal path and we need to get started now. In November of last year, 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, for one, am taking this warning very seriously, and I have since I have been a Member of the Senate. I strongly believe deficits do matter. I do not know how anyone can say with a straight face that when we voted to cut spending in December to help achieve deficit reductions, we can now turn around a short while later to provide tax cuts that exceed or cancel out the reduction in spending. I voted to cut spending in the reconciliation bill, but I voted against the tax cuts that were part of the reconciliation effort. In my opinion, it is the only responsible course of action. There are three reasons we should oppose tax cuts at this time. It is simple. First of all, we cannot afford those tax cuts; two, we do not need these tax cuts; three, we should be working on tax reform rather than tax cuts. Let's look at some of the looming problems or liabilities that our Federal Government will have to face in the near future. There is the often quoted but perhaps not recognized statistic that 77 million baby boomers, about whom the President talked last night--he is one of them; so is Bill Clinton--will begin to retire in just a couple of years, and they will be a tremendous drain on our entitlement programs. It has been called a demographic tsunami that will never go away. By 2030, the Congressional Budget Office projects Social Security spending as a share of the U.S. economy will rise by 40 percent. The bottom line is the predictions are that by 2030 almost the entire budget will be used for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and we will not have anything left for anything else. At the size of the Federal budget today, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the prescription drug benefit will cost $155 billion a year by 2016, and taken together with Medicare and Medicaid will cost us $1.3 trillion or about one-third of Federal spending. On top of this, we must consider the pension liabilities taxpayers may soon take on. The Pension Guaranty Corporation has assumed 1.3 million pensions, which adds up to about $23 billion more in obligations than its premiums can cover. That shortfall could grow to more than $100 billion in the near future, considering that about 1,100 companies are at high risk of defaulting on their plans. All that may be added to the Government's bill to pay. We are going to have to pick up the tab on that if this happens. The war on terror has cost us over $350 billion since it began. This just happens to be the size of the tax cut we enacted in 2003. I took a lot of heat for holding the line on that $350 billion, but the costs of the war were not clear at that time. Consider where we would be today had we not limited the scope of the tax cuts. Where would we be in terms of our budgets being in balance and our national debt? I voted for funding for the war on terror because it is the Federal Government's primary duty to provide national security. However, considering these large increases in spending, it certainly does not make sense to give away large tax cuts. The Congressional Budget Office projects that Defense spending will rise from $420 billion in 2006 to $461 billion in 2011. This is excluding supplemental appropriations. And, of course, we must look at the Federal spending for Hurricane Katrina. While not as expensive as originally thought, relief spending will amount to about $101.5 billion--the total cost of the supplemental appropriations, targeted tax relief, and other Katrina-related bills we have passed. Now add to that we are already operating in a deficit. In case anyone has forgotten, the deficit for fiscal year 2005 was $319 billion. In October of last year, the gross Federal debt climbed past $8 trillion. The debt has grown from $5.5 trillion, when I first came into office, to a staggering $8.1 trillion. The debt service alone threatens to gobble up revenues in the near future. According to CBO, 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. Let's face it, we have been lucky. Interest rates have been very low so our interest costs to the debt have been relatively modest. But as we move up the chain and interest rates start to rise, they are going to take a much larger share of our expenditures. Without major spending cuts, tax increases, or both, the national debt will grow by more than $3 trillion through 2010, to $11.2 trillion, according to the General Accounting Office. In other words, it is going to grow more than $3 trillion through 2010. According to the General Accounting Office, that will be nearly $38,000 for every man, woman, and child. The interest alone would cost $561 billion in 2010, the same as the budget of the Pentagon. In other words, the interest costs in 2010 are going to be the same cost as to entirely fund our Defense budget. However, we all know the real problem is our long-term debt. By the General Accounting Office's own estimates, about 35 years from now, when my grandchildren have their own children to care for, balancing the budget could require actions as large as cutting total Federal spending by 60 percent. We had a tough time with our modest reduction in terms of cutting expenses 1 percent. We went through all kinds of furor around here. By passing these tax cuts into law, I believe we are increasing the deficit and thus the Nation's debt, which results in a future tax on our Nation's children. I believe it is immoral to bequeath trillions of dollars in debt to our children and grandchildren. This will not be politically easy, and I understand that. But the simple, undeniable fact is we cannot have it all. We have to make hard choices. We have to decide we cannot say to them: You pay for things we wanted and were not willing to pay for. We should either pay for them or be doing without them. I learned this lesson while I was mayor of Cleveland for 10 years and as Governor of Ohio for 8. You have to balance budgets. You have to deal with deficits. In the words of Robert J. Samuelson in a Newsweek article called ``Capitalism vs. Democracy'': So it is that budget deficits persist; any combination of spending cuts and tax increases arouses a coalition of the angry. And so it is that--despite a gradual aging of the population that will require huge and, probably, damaging tax increases--no one has seriously attempted to contain these costs. It is easier to pretend that there will be no ill effects. It is time to recognize a simple fact, and that is this: Tax cuts do not pay for themselves. We have heard all of this about: Did the tax cuts generate more revenues than what we had expended? The red bars on this chart show the revenue projected before we cut taxes in 2003. In other words, these are the revenues we expected to get if we had not cut taxes. The blue bars show the revenue projected after we cut taxes. The green bars show the revenue actually collected. The green bar shows the most important thing. The blue bar shows what we thought we were going to get, and we did get more revenue than we expected in 2003. We expected this, as shown by the blue bar, in 2004, and we got the green. We expected what is shown with the blue bar, as projected, and we were able to get added revenue, as shown by the green bar. The revenue came up, but there is a big debate. Particularly, we were talking about that yesterday in a meeting, about what caused the increase in revenues. Some were arguing it was because of reducing the tax on dividends and lowering the capital gains tax. I asked the question: Did the lowering of interest rates have anything to do with the fact that we had added revenues? We talk about the stock market. Did the fact interest rates were down impact on the fact that the stock market has gone up? So there are a lot of things that come into play. I am sorry, but so many of my colleagues say these two tax reductions made the difference for America and fail to realize there were a lot of other things that were happening in our economy. The 2003 tax cuts, yes, were not as expensive as we feared, but the fact is, they still did not pay for themselves in terms of what we projected the revenues to be if we did not have the tax cuts. The Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office have both stated we cannot simply grow our way out of the problem. The Congressional Budget Office said last year: [E]conomic growth alone is unlikely to bring the nation's long-term fiscal position into balance. What I am saying is we have to make some tough choices around here. I voted for tax cuts in 2001, 2002, and 2003 because the country needed stimulative medicine. It has worked. The economy has grown. 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 it worked. 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, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and all the other mandatory spending I have mentioned earlier. The second reason to put the tax cut medicine back on the shelf is that many important tax extensions do not have to happen today. They do not. For instance, the reduced rates on dividends and capital gains do not expire until 2008. As a matter of fact, we could wait until 2009 to deal with it in terms of the 2008 tax year. That is 3 years from now. If we wait to look at these extensions, perhaps it would give us a chance to find offsets to pay for them or even look further at something that is long overdue, tax reform. I am going to discuss that in a moment. When Alan Greenspan testified before the Joint Economic Committee at the end of last year, a member of the committee asked if he supported extending the current 15-percent tax rate for capital gains and dividends. Former Chairman Greenspan replied 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, which I referred to 5 minutes ago; that is, interest costs go up, and we end up paying a large portion of our budget on interest costs. Chairman Greenspan said: unless the situation is reversed, at some point these budget trends will cause serious economic disruptions. The fact is if these taxes 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 in November. We have pay-go that says if you want to spend more, you have to find some way to pay for it. We should do the same thing with tax cuts. No, we decided not to do that. I also supported the Deficit Reduction Act when it passed the Senate in December because I believe controlling the growth of entitlement spending is essential to dealing with our fiscal challenges. The Deficit Reduction Act has been presented as an important step toward putting our fiscal house in order. However, adjusting the balances on the pay-go scorecard to reflect the passage of the reconciliation bill would give credence to the criticism that we voted to restrain entitlement spending to allow for larger tax cuts, not to reduce the deficit. In other words, you guys cut your expenses so you could pay for your tax reductions, and you did nothing for the deficit. Furthermore, even though the budget resolution adopted last April allowed for legislation increasing the deficit by $75.6 billion, the fiscal and political environment is very different now than it was when the budget resolution was adopted. As I mentioned before, the costs of responding to Hurricane Katrina have had a substantial impact on the budget deficit. Katrina hit the United States on August 29, well after we passed the budget resolution. We had no idea this was coming. This was the worst natural disaster we have had, and we have to say: Well, we will take care of it. We will find some way to fudge it and pay for it. But we know fudging it means our budget for 2006 is going to be more unbalanced and we are going to add to the national debt. The Office of Management and Budget recently announced that the deficit will exceed $400 billion once again in fiscal year 2006, $60 billion higher than projected last summer. Another important step toward fiscal responsibility is to have honest accounting for the Social Security surplus. We have borrowed over $1.9 trillion from Social Security to finance the rest of the Government. I want to make this point clear. When I first came to the Senate, we were talking about ``unified budget'' and ``on budget.'' All of a sudden, we are now back to the unified budget. In those days, we were saying: We cannot spend the Social Security surplus. Now we do not even talk about the Social Security surplus. The real number is masked by borrowing from the trust funds of other programs. When you add the off-budget surplus of $175 billion from the Social Security trust fund and Postal Service outlays, the real, or on-budget, number is $494 billion. The American people do not understand that. We report $319 billion. The fact is, it cost us almost $500 billion. The Government's accounting for total trust fund surpluses is actually $226 billion. That would increase the total deficit to $545 billion. In other words, we talk about the Social Security surplus we spent. We do not tell the American people that we are also spending the other money that is in the trust funds. So if you add them all up, we are talking about a deficit of $545 billion, when you include spending the money that is in Social Security and the other trust funds. It is time to stop the raid on Government trust funds. That is why I have introduced the Truth in Budgeting Act. I am happy Senator Conrad is willing to work with me on this important budget reform. The legislation would stop the Federal Government from using surplus trust fund revenues to hide the true size of the Government's deficit spending and highlight the true size of the Federal debt by forcing the Government to increase borrowing from the public to cover general fund expenses. I have introduced this bill not as a Social Security reform measure but as a budget reform measure. It is important to have an honest accounting of where we are and where we are headed from a fiscal perspective. If you look at a study by the Heritage Foundation on Western European economies, you get a glimpse of where we are going. Many older European nations have been forced to impose large tax increases on workers to fund benefit systems mainly for retirees. Overall government spending in the 15 nations comprising the European Union averages 48 percent of GDP, and tax revenues average 41 percent of GDP, which has placed a significant drag on their economies. Compared to the United States, per capita income is 30 percent lower in these countries. Economic growth rates are 34 percent lower than the United States, and unemployment is substantially higher. As their populations continue to age, the economies of countries such as Germany and France risk collapsing under the weight of their unrealistically generous retirement and welfare systems. We can't allow that to happen here. I am pleased that President Bush, in the State of the Union Address last night, called for a bipartisan commission to examine the full impact of baby boom retirements on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. He said the commission ``should include Members of Congress of both parties and offer bipartisan solutions. We need to put aside partisan politics and work together and get this problem solved.'' I couldn't agree more. We have ignored this issue. It is time that we sit down in a bipartisan basis and face up to this pending disaster and deal with it now before it is too late. My third reason for opposing tax cuts at this time is that the President's Advisory Panel on Tax Reform released its final report in November of last year. All of us have heard from families and businesses in our States lamenting the complexity and frustration with the current Tax Code. I don't know about the Presiding Officer, but I know my wife and I spend hours getting our papers together, and we have to take them to an accountant. I used to do my tax return. I am a lawyer. I wouldn't touch my tax return today with a 10-foot pole. I am disappointed that the administration seems to have put tax reform on the back burner. Why extend tax reductions, which we are talking about now, piecemeal when we should be considering fundamental tax reform instead? The goal of any government revenue program should be to raise sufficient funds to operate public programs with the least amount of disruption to the economy. Our tax structure should be simple, fair, and honest. Our current Tax Code achieves none of these objectives. Last year, the Tax Foundation, a conservative think tank, estimated that Americans spent more than 6 billion hours doing their taxes and that complying with the current Federal income tax code costs U.S. individual businesses and nonprofits $265 billion, which is 22 cents for every dollar of income tax collected. This is equivalent to the combined budgets of the Departments of Education, Homeland Security, Justice, Treasury, Labor, Transportation, Veterans Affairs, Health and Human Services, and NASA. Individuals and businesses lose money they could otherwise save, invest, spend on their kids' education, or enjoy an extra evening out with the family. But the Federal Government gains nothing from this atrocious tax system we have. It is the equivalent of stacking money in a pile and lighting a match. It doesn't do anything for anybody. We all recognize the need for a simple, fair, and honest Tax Code. This would be a win-win goal for everyone. We will soon be considering a bill that would cut taxes by about $60 billion. Simply cutting tax compliance costs in half, from 20 percent to 10 percent, would have the impact of a much larger tax cut in the amount of $130 billion. In other words, if we could get a fair, simple, understandable Tax Code and eliminate this enormous amount of money it costs all of us to pay our taxes and reduce that by half, we could save the American people $130 billion. That is real money. This tax cut we are talking about is $60 billion. We are talking about $130 billion out there that we have in our pockets. It doesn't impact the revenues to the Federal Government one iota. However, it would be a tax cut that doesn't reduce our revenue. We all know that fundamental tax reform is critical. I cannot understand why some of my colleagues want to make so many provisions of the Tax Code permanent or add new tax cuts when we very well may be eliminating precisely the same provisions as part of fundamental tax reform. The problem we have is this, if you want to be practical: When I got involved in this whole business in 2003 of the $350 billion tax reduction to stimulate the economy, and we started talking with some of the high leadership in the House of Representatives, I was saying to them: When I was Governor, what we did is we looked at tax reductions that stimulate the economy, and then we looked at other areas where we could increase taxes that would have less impact on the economy. We had to be concerned about balancing our budget. What I heard from the leadership on the other side of the Capitol was: We can't increase taxes because we all took the pledge that we can't increase taxes. I said: Even if you could increase taxes that don't have that much impact on the economy so that you could decrease taxes that would help stimulate the economy? No way. Where are we going? If that is the deal, we will never get anything done around here. It is my opinion that it is not time for piecemeal tinkering. No homeowner would remodel their kitchen and bathroom a year before tearing down the house to build a newer and better one. We need to tear down the house. If you look at that Tax Code, consider it to be a Christmas tree. If you look at all the ornaments on that tree, you would sit back and say: Who in the devil ever decorated this tree? They must have been under the influence of alcohol or drugs. That is what it is today. We just keep adding things, one after another, another bell, another whistle, this and that. It is time for us to look at this. I wish to reiterate the three reasons I think we should oppose these tax cuts at this time. No. 1, we cannot afford them because of our soaring deficit and the national debt. Putting our spending on the credit cards of our kids is unconscionable, particularly because they are going to have to work harder and smarter to compete in a global marketplace just to maintain our current standard of living. Don't think they are not worried about that. And as a parent, don't think I am not worried about the kind of environment in which my kids are going to live. They are going to have to work very hard in this new competitive world. We better wake up to it. It is the most formidable competition we have ever had in my lifetime; from China, India, you name it. What we are basically saying to our kids is: You are going to go into this competitive society and have to work harder than you have ever had to before. And by the way, down the road, you are going to have to pay for things we weren't willing to do without or pay for. God bless you. I can't do that. I cannot do that. I don't think any of us can do that. Second, we don't need tax cuts at this time. If this body believes we must have them, then follow Alan Greenspan and David Walker's advice and let's pay for them. 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 consider the ramifications of additional tax cuts at this time and reaffirm a principle we have held dear over the years and that I have adhered to as mayor of Cleveland and governor of Ohio. That is to balance budgets and reduce deficits and, yes, when the circumstances warrant it, cut taxes, as I did the last 3 years as governor of Ohio. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote to confirm Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr., as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Before I discuss my reasons for supporting Judge Alito, I would like to make a few remarks about the judicial confirmation process. Judge Alito is the second nominee to the Supreme Court since I was elected to the Senate. I have been pleased with how his nomination has been handled by both the White House and the Judiciary Committee. I wish to compliment Senator Specter and Senator Leahy for the excellent job they have done in handling the confirmation hearings for Judge Alito. The hearings were fair and orderly. These hearings gave the country an important opportunity to see what type of person Judge Alito is: one with a long history of service to his country and with a true love of the law. As was the case with the confirmation hearings for Chief Justice Roberts, the ``advice and consent'' process gave the country a valuable lesson in constitutional law, showing that each branch of Government plays a valuable role in our democracy. The President has nominated another fine candidate to the Supreme Court. History will look back on the nomination of Judge Alito, combined with President Bush's nomination of Chief Justice Roberts, as one of the most important legacies of the Bush administration. A Supreme Court nominee must have two qualities. First, a nominee must have an exceptional intellect. Second, a nominee must be committed to the rule of law. I am very pleased to say that based on everything I have seen and heard, Judge Alito has demonstrated both of these qualities. It is difficult to see how Judge Alito could have more impressive professional credentials. From his academic record to his almost 30 years in government service, including 15 years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Judge Alito has accumulated a remarkable record of achievement. As my colleagues have previously noted, Judge Alito graduated from Princeton University, was elected to Phi Beta Kappa, and was selected as a Scholar of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Judge Alito then attended Yale Law School where he served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal. Since his start as a young lawyer, Judge Alito has shown a commitment to public service in the Jeffersonian ideal of the citizen-lawyer. Judge Alito served as a law clerk to Judge Leonard Garth of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. After completing his clerkship, Judge Alito began his legal career as an Assistant U.S. Attorney briefing and arguing cases before the Third Circuit. I hope that Judge Alito's commitment to public service is noted by law students and young lawyers around the country as they think about their career choices. Judge Alito's experience stands as a model of public service and has led him to the opportunity to obtain one of the highest honors a lawyer can hope to achieve, a chance to serve his country as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1987, Judge Alito was nominated and approved by unanimous consent as the U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey. As U.S. attorney, Judge Alito prosecuted a wide variety of cases, including those involving white collar and environmental crimes, drug trafficking, organized crime, and violations of civil rights. Judge Alito's extensive experience as a Federal prosecutor will add a unique perspective to the Court's decisionmaking process. In 1990, Judge Alito was unanimously confirmed by the Senate to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Throughout his 15 years as a judge on the Third Circuit, Judge Alito has developed a reputation as a methodical, gracious, even-tempered jurist with a history of fairness for all who appear before him. Judge Alito is also known for producing well-written and well-reasoned opinions. His 15 years on the Third Circuit give Judge Alito a unique and seasoned perspective on, and appreciation for, the courts. His impressive educational and professional background makes Judge Alito well prepared to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. As he displayed during his confirmation hearings, he has an encyclopedic knowledge of the Supreme Court and of constitutional law. Yet he also has diverse, real-world experience in government and in how law interacts with the actual day-to-day operation of government. Judge Alito has the ideal balance of academic and practical experience. Given his professional achievements, it is not surprising that the American Bar Association has given Judge Alito its highest rating. Mr. Stephen L. Tober, the chairman of the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, noted in his statement, the ABA unanimously concluded that Judge Alito is ``well qualified'' to serve as Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. The ABA noted that ``[Judge Alito's] integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament are indeed found to be of the highest standing. Judge Alito is an individual who, we believe, sees majesty in the law, respects it, and remains a dedicated student of it to this day.'' Judge Alito has shown a commitment to the rule of law. Now, no two people will agree on how to interpret every provision of the Constitution or of every statute. Nevertheless, Judge Alito's statement that ``there is nothing that is more important for our republic than the rule of law'' is an important testament to his commitment to ensuring that the rule of law, and not individual preferences of Justices, remains supreme. It is essential that any nominee displays a conscious commitment to deciding cases based on the law, rather than on his or her own personal views. During Judge Alito's confirmation hearings, I was struck by how dedicated he is to the law and to correctly applying the law as a judge. As Judge Alito noted, ``The judiciary has to protect rights, and it should be vigorous in doing that, and it should be vigorous in enforcing the law and in interpreting the law . . . in accordance with what it really means and enforcing the law even if that's unpopular.'' He went on to state, ``A judge can't have any agenda. A judge can't have any preferred outcome in any particular case. And a judge certainly doesn't have a client. The judge's only obligation--and it's a solemn obligation--is to the rule of law, and what that means is that in every single case, the judge has to do what the law requires.'' I observed Judge Alito's demeanor and conduct during this confirmation process, as he refused to abandon his judicial independence for the sake of political expediency. As Judge Alito noted, ``We shouldn't decide those questions, even in our own minds, without going through the whole process. If we announce--if a judge or a judicial nominee announced before even reading the briefs or getting the case or hearing the argument what he or she thought about the ultimate legal issue, all of that would be rendered meaningless, and people would lose all their respect for the judicial system, and with justification, because that is not the way in which members of the judiciary are supposed to go about the work of deciding cases.'' Accordingly, I have every confidence that parties who appear before Judge Alito will encounter a judge who is committed to viewing each case without bias and to reaching a decision that is dictated by the rule of law alone. Finally, I want to offer some personal observations about Judge Alito. Too often we view executive and judicial nominees through political or ideological glasses and not as human beings. Nominees quickly get labeled as being a ``Republican nominee'' or a ``Democratic Nominee'' or as belonging to a particular school of thought or being a follower of a particular thinker or politician. This is unfortunate as each nominee's character gets overlooked and we fail to see this important aspect of each nominee. It is, however, a nominee's character that can have the biggest impact on his or her work. In Judge Alito, I believe the Senate has before it not only a nominee who has the capability to be a great Associate Justice but also a nominee who is simply a wonderful person. I share Judge Alito's appreciation of the great and wonderful opportunities for all Americans. I was moved by Judge Alito's sentiments about his father, as he recalled how a ``small good deed'' from a local Trenton area person allowed his father the chance to attend college and how this act of kindness eventually led to Judge Alito's presence before the U.S. Senate. I can relate to the story of Judge Alito's father because my own father was strongly influenced by his high school principal and a history teacher to stay in school rather than take a laborer's job. With the strong encouragement from these two individuals, my father completed high school and attended Carnegie Tech on a Kroger's Scholarship. Such stories are familiar to many descendants of immigrants and they show that the American Dream is still alive and well. During my meeting with Judge Alito, he displayed a gracious manner and humble attitude. He is clearly very smart and engaging, and it was a pleasure to hear him explain his view of the Supreme Court and the rule of law. But he is also a very openminded person who listens to others with sincerity and a willingness to hear their views. For such a brilliant and successful person, I did not detect a hint of arrogance. He is a dedicated family man with a good sense of humor whom I believe all Americans will be able to respect and admire. I have also been pleased to hear that my impressions of Judge Alito have been echoed by so many others during the hearings. I point particularly to the testimony of Professor Nora Demleitner, a self- professed ``left-leaning Democrat,'' who served as a law clerk with Judge Alito after graduating from Yale Law School. Professor Demleitner described Judge Alito as ``a man of great integrity, decency and character.'' Professor Demleitner also noted that Judge Alito is one of her role models and that he has one of the most brilliant legal minds of our generation. In short, Judge Alito displays the openmindedness, humility and commitment to serving the public interest that should serve as the paradigm of judicial temperament for members of our highest Court. In reviewing Judge Alito's academic and professional record, his firm commitment to the rule of law, and his strong character, it is clear that Judge Alito is eminently qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. It would be truly unfortunate if we allow this nomination to fall victim to the partisanship that has been growing in the Senate. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to support the nomination of Judge Alito to be the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to reauthorize the District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Grant (D.C. TAG) program for five additional years. This program has had a tremendously beneficial impact on promoting higher education for high school graduates in our Nation's capital. The aim of this program is to assist District students, who do not have access to state-supported education systems, in attending college. D.C. TAG scholarships are used by District residents to pay the difference between in-State and out-of-State tuition at State universities nationwide, up to $10,000 per student per school year, with a cumulative cap of $50,000 per student. In addition, since March 2002, District students attending private institutions in Maryland and Virginia, as well as Historically Black Colleges and Universities nationwide, started receiving tuition grants under the program of $2,500 per student per school year, with a cumulative cap of $12,500 per student. Since the first grants were awarded in 2000, the program has dispersed over $98 million to 8,454 District students; many are the first in their family to attend college. Moreover, District high school graduating seniors have seen a 28 percent increase in college attendance. Seventy five percent of District students said that D.C. TAG made a difference in their decision to continue their education beyond high school. Sixty five percent of District students have indicated that D.C. TAG has enabled them to choose a college that best suits their educational needs. Because of the great success and positive impact of this program, I propose to expand the program to private schools nationwide, thereby creating greater equity between all private colleges, while establishing a cap on program funding at the current appropriation of $33.2 million annually. In addition, this legislation will require the Mayor of the District of Columbia to submit an annual report to Congress on the program's status. As Chairman of the District of Columbia authorizing subcommittee, leveling the playing field for high school graduates in the District and enhancing their educational opportunities continues to be a top priority. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to reauthorize the District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Grant (D.C. TAG) program for five additional years. This program has had a tremendously beneficial impact on promoting higher education for high school graduates in our Nation's capital. The aim of this program is to assist District students, who do not have access to state-supported education systems, in attending college. D.C. TAG scholarships are used by District residents to pay the difference between in-State and out-of-State tuition at State universities nationwide, up to $10,000 per student per school year, with a cumulative cap of $50,000 per student. In addition, since March 2002, District students attending private institutions in Maryland and Virginia, as well as Historically Black Colleges and Universities nationwide, started receiving tuition grants under the program of $2,500 per student per school year, with a cumulative cap of $12,500 per student. Since the first grants were awarded in 2000, the program has dispersed over $98 million to 8,454 District students; many are the first in their family to attend college. Moreover, District high school graduating seniors have seen a 28 percent increase in college attendance. Seventy five percent of District students said that D.C. TAG made a difference in their decision to continue their education beyond high school. Sixty five percent of District students have indicated that D.C. TAG has enabled them to choose a college that best suits their educational needs. Because of the great success and positive impact of this program, I propose to expand the program to private schools nationwide, thereby creating greater equity between all private colleges, while establishing a cap on program funding at the current appropriation of $33.2 million annually. In addition, this legislation will require the Mayor of the District of Columbia to submit an annual report to Congress on the program's status. As Chairman of the District of Columbia authorizing subcommittee, leveling the playing field for high school graduates in the District and enhancing their educational opportunities continues to be a top priority. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.