George Voinovich

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. I ask unanimous consent Jeff Muhs of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor during my remarks.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the ``Federal and District of Columbia Government Real Property Act of 2005,'' a bill to authorize the exchange of certain land parcels between the Federal Government and the District of Columbia. This proposal was submitted to Congress by the administration with support of the District. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia, I understand the special relationship shared with the Federal Government and the District. Because of this relationship, Congress shares in the responsibility of ensuring that the Nation's capital remains a socially, economically, and culturally vibrant city. Under this legislation, the Federal properties to be transferred to the District of Columbia will be put to better use. This will free up tax dollars being used to maintain the underutilized land to be spent on more important needs facing our Nation. The vast majority of the conveyance is contained in three large properties at or near the Anacostia River: Popular Point, Reservation 13, and several acres of National Park Service land near Robert F. Kennedy Stadium. The bill also would transfer buildings and property located on the west campus of St. Elizabeth's Hospital and several smaller properties from the District of Columbia to the Federal Government. Conveying these properties will allow the Federal Government to better manage its properties. Additionally, the District gains the ability to spur economic development in Southeast Washington, better address the needs of its citizens, and increase the local tax base. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation and I am confident that it can be enacted this year. 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 the ``Federal and District of Columbia Government Real Property Act of 2005,'' a bill to authorize the exchange of certain land parcels between the Federal Government and the District of Columbia. This proposal was submitted to Congress by the administration with support of the District. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia, I understand the special relationship shared with the Federal Government and the District. Because of this relationship, Congress shares in the responsibility of ensuring that the Nation's capital remains a socially, economically, and culturally vibrant city. Under this legislation, the Federal properties to be transferred to the District of Columbia will be put to better use. This will free up tax dollars being used to maintain the underutilized land to be spent on more important needs facing our Nation. The vast majority of the conveyance is contained in three large properties at or near the Anacostia River: Popular Point, Reservation 13, and several acres of National Park Service land near Robert F. Kennedy Stadium. The bill also would transfer buildings and property located on the west campus of St. Elizabeth's Hospital and several smaller properties from the District of Columbia to the Federal Government. Conveying these properties will allow the Federal Government to better manage its properties. Additionally, the District gains the ability to spur economic development in Southeast Washington, better address the needs of its citizens, and increase the local tax base. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation and I am confident that it can be enacted this year. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote to confirm Judge John G. Roberts as the next Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Before I discuss my reasons for supporting Judge Roberts, however, I would like to make a few remarks about the judicial confirmation process. Judge Roberts is the first nominee to the Supreme Court since I have been a Senator. I have been very pleased with how his nomination has been handled by both the White House and the Judiciary Committee and hope that this confirmation process will be a model for future confirmations. I want to compliment the President, and in particular the President's Counsel Harriet Miers, for doing an excellent job in reaching out to Senators prior to Judge Roberts' nomination. Ms. Miers called me prior to Judge Roberts' nomination and asked me what qualities I thought the President's nominee should possess. Our conversation gave me confidence that the President wanted to work with Senators to make sure that he nominated an excellent candidate--which I believe he succeeded in doing. I hope the White House undertakes the same outreach to the Senate prior to the President's nomination of the next nominee to the Supreme Court. I also want to compliment Senator Specter and Senator Leahy for the superb job they have done in handling the confirmation hearings for Judge Roberts. The hearings were fair and orderly and did not significantly interfere with the Senate's other business. I was very pleased that the questioning and debate on Judge Roberts was largely devoid of personal attacks. Indeed, I think the hearings gave the country an opportunity to see what type of judge and person Judge Roberts is. They also gave the country a wonderful lesson in constitutional law. I hope that Judge Roberts' confirmation hearing will serve as a model for future confirmation hearings for nominees to the Supreme Court. Turning now to Judge Roberts' nomination, I believe that Judge Roberts is among the finest candidates to the Supreme Court in our Nation's history. I believe history will look back on the nomination of Judge Roberts as one of the most important legacies of the Bush administration. When I spoke with White House Counsel Harriet Miers on the qualities I looked for in a Supreme Court nominee, I told her there were two qualities I valued most. First, a nominee must have outstanding professional credentials. Second, a nominee must be committed to the rule of law. I am very pleased to say that Judge Roberts is extraordinarily qualified on both of these counts. It is difficult to see how Judge Roberts could have more impressive professional credentials. From his academic record to his Government service to his law practice, Judge Roberts has accumulated a remarkable record of achievement. As my colleagues have previously noted, he graduated from Harvard College summa cum laude in 3 years, and graduated from Harvard Law School magna cum laude, where he served as the managing editor of the Harvard Law Review. During his time at Harvard, he was awarded numerous academic accolades, including being inducted into Phi Beta Kappa. He has excellent Government experience, having served as a law clerk to then Justice William Rehnquist and in several top positions in the Reagan and Bush administrations, including as Associate Counsel to President Reagan and as Principal Deputy Solicitor General for the first President Bush. Prior to his unanimous confirmation to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Judge Roberts was widely regarded as the best Supreme Court litigator in the Nation. Throughout his distinguished career, he argued an impressive 39 cases before the Supreme Court. He has now served for 3 years as a judge on the D.C. Circuit, which is regarded as among the most important appellate courts in the Nation. As a judge, he has developed a reputation for fairness and producing well-written and well-reasoned opinions. This impressive background has made Judge Roberts well prepared to be Chief 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 real world experience in Government and in how law interacts with the actual day-to-day operation of Government. Judge Roberts has the perfect balance of academic and practical experience. Judge Roberts also has an impeccable ethical record. No question has been raised regarding his integrity or professionalism. On the contrary, the record is full of testimony praising his honesty and propriety from friends and former colleagues. Moreover, during his confirmation hearings he properly resisted the temptation to discuss cases and legal disputes that could come before him as Chief Justice so he would not bias his consideration of those cases and debates. While some would like to hear how Judge Roberts would decide future cases, it is clear that legal ethics prevent him from doing so. Furthermore, knowing how a nominee is going to decide future cases is not necessary to select good judges. When I was Governor, I appointed scores of judges and never--not once--did I ask how they would decide a case. Instead, I examined their credentials, reviewed their writings and past decisions and, on several occasions, personally interviewed them. Given his professional achievements and ethical record, it is not surprising that the American Bar Association has given him a unanimous well-qualified rating, its highest rating. I also believe that Judge Roberts 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 every statute. I may not agree with all of Judge Roberts' future decisions. However, I think that 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 Roberts' confirmation hearings, I was struck by how dedicated he is to the law and to correctly applying the law as a judge. As he stated during his testimony, ``Judges and Justices are servants of the law, not the other way around.'' He also revealed his dedication to the law by recognizing that the judiciary has a limited role in our government. This means that judges are, to use Judge Roberts' words, ``constrained by the words of the Constitution'' and ``by the precedents of other judges.'' Judges must interpret the law based on the text of the Constitution or statute, as the case may be, and based on precedent, rather than on their own personal beliefs about how the case should be resolved. It is the role of Congress to pass legislation and the role of the courts to apply that legislation to particular cases. I believe Judge Roberts not only understands this distinction, but also will prove to be both a skilled practitioner and an eloquent advocate of judicial restraint. Accordingly, I have every confidence that parties who appear before Judge Roberts will see a fair and brilliant judge who will decide their case according to the dictates of the law, not his own personal preferences. When I initially spoke to Ms. Miers about the qualities I was looking for in a nominee, we were discussing a replacement for Justice O'Connor. Now that Judge Roberts has been re-nominated to be Chief Justice, I believe that Judge Roberts' management skills are an important aspect to consider. The Chief Justice is the top administrator of the Federal Courts, so any nominee to Chief Justice must possess management skills. Former Chief Justice Rehnquist was an excellent administrator, so Judge Roberts has some shoes to fill. I had an opportunity to sit down with Judge Roberts, and I asked him about his management experience. We discussed his management responsibilities while he was at his law firm where he helped manage the firm's litigation group. While Judge Roberts has never managed anything as large as the Federal court system, our conversation convinced me that he has the management skills necessary to be Chief Justice. He clearly has already thought about how he will undertake his management responsibilities and what he needs to do in order to effectively carry out those responsibilities. Finally, I want to offer some personal observations about Judge Roberts. 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 as being a follower of a particular thinker or politician. This is unfortunate, as each nominee's own personality gets overlooked and we fail to see the most important aspect of a nominee. It is, however, a nominee's character that can have the biggest impact on his or her work. In Judge Roberts, I believe the Senate has before it not only a nominee who has the capability to be a great Chief Justice, but also a nominee who is simply a wonderful person. During my meeting with him, I was struck by his gracious manner and humble attitude. He is clearly very smart and engaging, and it is a pleasure to hear him explain Supreme Court cases. But, he is also a very open minded person, who listens to others with sincerity and a willingness to hear their views. Yet what struck me most about him was his humility. 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 been struck by how my regard for Judge Roberts has been echoed by so many others, including many whose politics may differ from his. I would like to encourage my colleagues to get a hold of an interview C- SPAN recently aired of Professor Richard Lazarus and Patricia Brannan, two longtime friends of Judge Roberts. Both Professor Lazarus and Ms. Brannan are Democrats, but they both expressed the highest respect for Judge Roberts and supported his nomination. Now, such testimonials may concern some of my Republican friends, but to me they are further signs that Judge Roberts has the ability to persuade people across the spectrum about the importance of judicial restraint. In short, I believe Judge Roberts displays the openmindedness and humility that should serve as the paradigm of judicial temperament for members of the Federal bench. In reviewing Judge Roberts' impeccable academic and professional record, his firm commitment to the rule of law, and his strong character, I believe that Judge Roberts is a nominee of the highest caliber. Indeed, I wonder if a stronger nominee could be found. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to support the nomination of Judge Roberts to be the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. This represents a continuing saga that started out in 2001 by those of us from the midwestern part of the United States of America with our respected friends from the northeastern part of the United States. I believe everyone should put what we are doing tonight in context; that is, to be effective, this resolution must be passed by the Senate and House and signed by the President. While the act provides for expedited and privileged procedures in the Senate, there is no such rule in the House. The House will not consider this. The President announced today, if the resolution is passed, that he would veto it. That is where we are. On March 15, the EPA finalized the Clean Air Mercury Rule and made the United States the first nation in the world to regulate mercury emissions from existing coal-fired powerplants--the first in the world. Through two phases in a ``cap-and-trade'' program, mercury emissions will be reduced by 70 percent. This is modeled after the Nation's most successful clean air program, the Acid Rain Program. Modeling by the Electric Power Research Institute, an independent nonprofit research organization, shows that the rule will reduce mercury in every State. This is quite amazing, given the nature of mercury. It is important for my colleagues to understand that all the mercury that is being deposited in the United States doesn't come from the United States. Only 1 percent of the mercury in the world comes from our powerplants in this country. Mercury pollution is a global issue because it travels hundreds of thousands of miles. About 5 percent of worldwide mercury emissions comes from natural sources, such as oceans and volcanoes. From 1990 to 1999, EPA estimates that U.S. emissions of mercury were reduced by nearly a half, which has been completely offset by increases in emissions from Asia. The fact is that U.S. powerplants account for a small percentage of worldwide emissions, and most of the mercury deposited in our Nation comes from outside the country and natural sources. Still, the administration has decided to lead with the first-ever Federal regulation of powerplant mercury emissions in the world. By using the Congressional Review Act, the Senator from Vermont and the resolution's supporters are seeking to topple this regulation that has been nearly 15 years in the making--starting in the Clinton administration--and represents one of the most extensive rulemakings ever conducted for a clean air regulation. The broader intent of the resolution seems to force EPA to impose a very costly and potentially devastating regulation. Several of the sponsors of Senate Joint Resolution 20 have expressed support for maximum available control technology--called a MACT standard--to reduce mercury emissions from every powerplant by 90 percent within 3 years. Proponents of this approach claim that each powerplant should be able to reduce mercury emissions by at least 90 percent. However, this level of reduction is not currently achievable, and no controlled technology vendor can guarantee the performance of mercury removal technology at this or any other specific level in the future. According to the independent Energy Information Administration, a MACT standard would have a devastating impact on our Nation because coal plants unable to attain it would be forced to fuel-switch away from coal, which is our most abundant and least costly energy source, to natural gas. Increased reliance on natural gas for electricity generation will add to the already obscene increase in natural gas costs that our businesses and families are exposed to, including those people who live in the northeastern part of the United States. We have the highest natural gas prices in the developed world, and increased costs have diminished our businesses' competitive position in the global marketplace. We don't live in a cocoon; we live in a global marketplace. The chemical industry's eight-decade run as a major exporter ended in 2003 with a $19 billion trade surplus in 1997 becoming a $9.6 billion deficit. These are real jobs. The impact of a MACT standard has led many groups to express opposition to this resolution, including the American Chemistry Council, American Farm Bureau Federation, Edison Electric Institute, National Mining Association, National Association of Manufacturers, and United Mine Workers of America. It just can't be justified from a cost- benefit point of view. This is very important. While EPA estimates the cost of its cap-and- trade rule at about $2 billion, EIA has projected costs as high as $358 billion for a 90-percent MACT standard. The public's return for such a regulation is an average increase in national electricity and natural gas prices by 20 percent and additional reduction in U.S. mercury disposition of 2 percent, an almost immeasurable decline in people's exposure to mercury. I don't understand why people in this country are so bent on doing the ``perfect,'' when you have something that is good and makes sense from a cost-benefit point of view. Given the state of technology and cost of various proposals, the best way to reduce emissions now is by reducing sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxides and getting cost-benefit reductions. Obtaining reductions cost effectively is very important; otherwise, companies may not be able to move forward with other pollution benefits such as integrated gasification combined cycle. We are moving ahead with the Energy bill and by reducing SOX and NOX we will do more to reduce mercury than any other proposal out there. I hope my colleagues understand what we are talking about tonight. Whatever happens tonight, it is going nowhere because the President has said he will veto this resolution if it passes. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise this evening to express opposition to the resolution that we are going to be voting on tomorrow morning. First, for the benefit of my colleagues, I would like to explain that to be effective the resolution must be passed by the Senate and the House and signed by the President. While the act provides for expedited and privileged procedures in the Senate, there are not such rules in the House. I have every reason to believe this resolution will not be considered by the House, and even if it is considered by the House and passed, the President has announced today that he would veto this legislation. So it is clear where this is going. What are we talking about? On March 15 of this year, EPA finalized the clean air mercury rule and made the United States the first nation in the world to regulate mercury emissions from existing coal-fired powerplants. That is the first in the world. We know we have coal-fired powerplants all over the world--China, India, all over. Through two phases in a program called cap and trade, mercury emissions will be reduced by 70 percent. The program is modeled after the Nation's most successful clean air program, the Acid Rain Program. There were not any lawsuits filed, and it went through and made a big difference in terms of reducing acid rain. Modeling by the Electric Power Research Institute, an independent nonprofit research organization, shows that the rule is going to reduce mercury in every State. This is quite amazing given the nature of mercury. Let us talk about mercury and where it comes from because the debate earlier this evening gave the impression that all of the mercury that people are experiencing today in the United States comes from the United States. Not so. Mercury travels hundreds and thousands of miles. About 55 percent of worldwide mercury emissions come from natural sources such as oceans and volcanoes. So it is already in the environment. Only 1 percent of worldwide emissions come from U.S. powerplants, which is what we are talking about today. From 1990 to 1999, the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that U.S. emissions of mercury were reduced by nearly half. So we have been doing some real good, and that has been completely offset by increases in emissions from Asia. As many of my colleagues know, throughout my career I have focused a lot of my time and energy on the Great Lakes. In a report published after a workshop sponsored by the International Air Quality Advisory Board of the International Joint Commission--the International Joint Commission is made up of U.S. and Canadian representatives and the Commission for Environmental Cooperation--I learned that as much as 45 percent of the mercury disposition in the Great Lakes is believed to come from Asia. We have had some discussion today about mercury control technology. I would like to share with my colleagues that the testing performed by the Department of Energy, EPA, and the electric utility industry has demonstrated that existing control equipment for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and particulate matter can reduce mercury emissions by approximately 40 percent. In other words, if we do a better job of reducing NOX and SOX, we will have a real impact on the reduction of mercury in the United States. According to the DOE's national environmental technology laboratory, the ability of these existing pollution controls to reduce mercury can vary from zero levels approaching 90 percent. In fact, some combinations of control technologies for reasons unexplained show an increase in mercury emissions. So the status of the technology is really fuzzy. If mercury technology is so settled, as my colleagues would lead many to believe, then why is the Department of Energy supporting 36 mercury control projects located in 12 States--California, Washington, Alabama, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, West Virginia, Colorado, North Dakota, North Carolina, and Iowa. Additionally, Green Wire published an article, by the way, that was referenced by the Senator from Delaware, where the first sentence reads: A leading technology for removing mercury from the coal combustion process will be fully applied for the first time to a commercial scale powerplant. So this is proven technology of one or two out of more than a thousand coal-fired units are going to install it. In other words, we have a couple of plants that they are talking about doing something in terms of this mercury technology. The vendor that is going to install this technology on two plants in the Midwest has said their target is 80 percent. Those who are promoting the resolution want a 90-percent reduction within 3 years. Now, here is somebody who is out there in front on technology, and they are talking about their target being 80 percent. The President's regulation, EPA regulation, is a reduction of 70 percent. So let us look at this. Two plants out of more than 1,000 coal-fired plants. I am not sure that one could argue with a straight face that the technology is out there to do what the sponsors of this resolution would say that they could do. According to the DOE, currently no single technology exists that can uniformly control mercury from all powerplant gas emissions. For that reason, the EPA concluded that mercury-specific control technologies are not yet commercially available and does not believe widely applicable technologies can be developed and broadly applied over the next 5 years. The sponsors of this resolution, as I mentioned, are for something called the Maximum Available Control Technology. They want a 90-percent reduction in 3 to 4 years. First of all, the technology is not there, but let's say what would happen if it were there. EPA's cap-and-trade program, the one that is reflected in the regulation that EPA promoted on mercury, is going to cost $2 billion, while the regulation of the sponsors of this regulation would cost $358 billion. That is not million; we are talking about $2 billion versus $358 billion. Utilities will be forced to increase their use of natural gas by almost 30 percent because natural gas is the only means available at the present time to achieve significant mercury reductions within such a short timeframe. Natural gas prices will increase by over 20 percent. National average electricity prices will increase by 20 percent. Some regions of the United States, especially those that rely on coal, are projected to experience electricity price increases as much as 45 percent. I have to say that I come from the State of Ohio. I live in Cleveland, OH. We have seen our natural gas prices increase almost 100 percent since 2001. In fact, I believe that is when the recession started in my State. This is impacting dramatically on those people who are the least able to pay. It is impacting dramatically on the businesses in my State and, frankly, throughout the United States of America. I suspect it is also impacting on those people in the Northeastern part of the United States, the home of many of those who are sponsoring this resolution to overturn the EPA rule on mercury. Let's talk about natural gas prices. According to the independent Energy Information Administration, a maximum standard would have a devastating impact on our Nation because coal plants, unable to attain it, would be forced to fuel switch away from coal, which is our most abundant and least costly energy source, to natural gas. One of the things my colleagues need to understand is that we are the Saudi Arabia of coal. We have 250 years' worth of coal here in the United States. There are some people, frankly, who would like to see coal put out of business. In fact, the lawyer for the Sierra Club indicated about a year ago that it is their goal to make sure that we no longer have any coal-fired facilities, energy plants in the United States. Increased reliance on natural gas for electricity generation will add to the cost, as we have already seen. We have the highest natural gas prices in the developed world today. Increased costs have diminished our businesses' competitive position in the global marketplace. I was saying earlier today, some of my colleagues are living in a cocoon. The biggest threat to the United States, and we don't recognize it, is that we have the most fierce competition this country has ever confronted in my memory today, and we still go about dealing with our problems the way we did 25 or 15 years ago. We have to understand that decisions we make not only impact on the people in our Nation, but they also impact on the competitive position of the United States in the global marketplace. The Energy Information Agency, which is part of the Department of Energy, estimates that natural gas prices may go up as much as 71 percent in some parts this fall. Did you hear me? That is 71 percent. Talk to the people in Cleveland or in Columbus or other parts of the United States who have had it up to here with their natural gas costs. It will place a burden on the poor and elderly and on American businesses both large and small. EIA finds that the use of natural gas for electricity generation may increase up to 10 percent by 2025, with nationwide electricity prices expected to rise by as much as 22 percent. The repercussions of high natural gas prices do not end with higher energy prices for individuals and businesses. What we forget about is natural gas--this is something I think the American people have to understand--is a vital feedstock for many industries in the United States. Since 1999, 21 nitrogen fertilizer production facilities have closed, 16 of them permanently. As a result, farmers are paying up to 70 percent more for nitrogen fertilizer materials than they did before, and that is reflected of course in the price we pay for corn and for other crops that use fertilizer. The chemical industry had an eight-decade run as a major exporter; that is, we exported chemical products all over the world. That ended in 2003. With a $19 billion trade surplus in 1997--that is $19 billion we are selling--it went to a $9.6 billion deficit. That means today we are importing chemical products into the United States. More than 90,000 U.S. chemical industry jobs have been lost since 2000. Of the 125 large-scale chemical production plants under construction worldwide, 50 are in China, while only 1 is in the United States. This is another example, because of our policy, of jobs shifting out of this country to other countries. Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of this resolution for me is that it completely circumvents the Environment and Public Works Committee and the subcommittee I chair. That subcommittee is the Clean Air Subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works Committee Climate Control and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Disregarding our committee's jurisdiction and extensive work on this matter, with a total of 24 hearings held on emissions issues since 1998, S.J. Res. 20 was discharged from the EPA Commission by a petition, not by a vote of its members. In fact, the committee worked hard during the first few months of this year to pass the Clear Skies Act to reduce emissions of mercury, NOx and sulfur dioxide. Unfortunately, several of my colleagues simply did not want a bill and were unable to compromise so we would be able to move the bill out of committee. It is astounding that many of the Members who are now supporters of this resolution on which we will vote tomorrow--if Members want to reduce emissions sooner or even through a different mechanism, then let's work together and pass a multi-emissions bill that deals with SOX, NOX, and mercury, as proposed in the President's Clear Skies Initiative on which we agreed to compromise and now we are dealing with one part of it. Instead, proponents of this resolution are taking a step backward. At the least, passage of this resolution means that the Clean Air Mercury Rule would be repealed and there would be years of delay before a new regulation would be developed, proposed, finalized, and then implemented after resolving the inevitable litigation. I want to point out the beginning of this rule--in other words coming up with a mercury rule--started in the Clinton administration 15 years ago. Some arguments have also been advanced that the resolution would eliminate any legal requirement that EPA even promulgate a regulation to control mercury emissions from powerplants. This resolution is not the right way to get actual reductions. EPW Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe and I showed earlier this year that we are willing, as I mentioned, to sit down at the table and work through a multi-emissions bill. We made changes in the committee to address every concern raised and we are willing to do more, but frankly no member of the opposing side told us what is wrong with our proposal and what would be needed for them to support our bill. We got nowhere. Our managers' amendment to Clear Skies is stronger on mercury than the Rule. We move up the second phase from 2018 to 2016, and create a hotspot program to address concerns that people have with our cap-and- trade program. The last thing I would like to get at is there are being represented all kinds of statistics on how mercury is impacting the population of the United States, particularly women of childbearing age. I want to point out the major sponsors of this resolution live up in this area of the United States. The disposition of mercury in micrograms per square meter is less than 1 in this area, where they are complaining about all the mercury and how it is impacting on their lakes and streams and on their population. The people who have the problem are in Pennsylvania and Ohio--this blue area on the map. They are the ones who have the mercury problem. As I mentioned before, a lot of it has to do with mercury that is coming from other places in the world. The Clear Skies legislation that we put together was going to deal with this problem. But, oh, no, it is our way or no way; we have to have something that is perfect. The thing we do here so often in the Senate is we allow the perfect to get in the way of the good. We better realize we are going to need more compromising if we are going to do the things we want to do, to reduce emissions in the air and at the same time stay competitive in the global marketplace. I am going to finish with a little information on the risks of mercury. We have heard all of the gloom and doom and how terrible it is and we can't eat the fish and we can't do this and we can't do that. EPA's reference dose for methylmercury is the basis for regulating mercury because methylmercury poses the greatest risks of exposure to people, including women of childbearing age. Understand that. EPA's reference dose for methylmercury is very conservative. It is more than twice as stringent as that of the World Health Organization; twice as stringent as Health Canada; three times more stringent than the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. In other words, the rule that we have is more stringent. First of all, it is the first real rule we have in terms of the world dealing with mercury. But compared to the one some of these other organizations have stated, it is so much better than what they have put out as being the goal. The National Academy of Sciences concluded that EPA's reference dose is a ``scientifically justifiable level for the protection of public health.'' EPA's analysis concluded that, as a result--we are talking about the Environmental Protection Agency. We keep hearing that the inspector general of the EPA does not like this. The agency the inspector general works for disagrees with the inspector general. As I said, the National Academy of Science scientists concluded that EPA's reference dose is ``a scientifically justifiable level for the protection of public health.'' EPA's analysis concluded that as a result of the cap-and-trade program: . . . the overwhelming majority of the general public and those who consume large quantities of fish-- And I consume large quantities of fish because Lake Erie is one of the best fisheries in the United States of America. We eat a lot of perch in the Voinovich household-- are not expected to be exposed above the methylmercury reference dose. Additionally, while several of my colleagues and groups claim that there is an urgent need to dramatically reduce mercury emissions because many are at serious risk, this is simply not the case. Two months ago, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released their ``Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals,'' stating that all women of childbearing age--16 to 49 years of age--had blood mercury levels below that associated with the neuro- developmental effects in the fetus. We have been hearing lots of information and statistics about this issue. The fact of the matter is that the EPA rule on mercury is reasonable. It will cost $2 billion, versus $385 billion. It has been shown, if we went with what the sponsors of this resolution want to do--that is, overturn the mercury rule of EPA--if they got everything they wanted, we would have a 2-percent reduction below what we are going to get with this 70 percent rule that has been promulgated by the EPA. I hope my colleagues spend a little time looking at this situation and its impact and tomorrow vote no on the proposed resolution to overturn the EPA's mercury rule. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of quorum.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period for morning business.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to address the national crisis we are facing in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. It is hard to even begin estimating the extent to which this natural disaster will affect all of us and, most particularly, our fellow Americans along the gulf coast. I extend my deepest sympathies to the victims and loved ones of this unprecedented disaster. My thoughts and prayers are with all those in need. Katrina is likely the largest natural disaster this nation has ever faced. The storm's impact is unfathomable, and an entire region has been irrevocably affected. I cannot conceive of a perfect evacuation or mitigation effort for a circumstance of this magnitude. I urge people to refrain from allocation of blame. Finger pointing will only make matters worse. For now we must show our strength as Americans: we must do the best that we can with what we have. Our first priority must remain search and rescue. We are working to save as many lives as we can, and to send aid to those victims who at this time are without adequate shelter, food, and water. We need to bring relief to those who are living this nightmare, beginning with the most vulnerable--children, elderly, those in need of medical attention--and moving outward to encompass all those who can be reached. Once we have ensured the basic health and safety of those in need, our next priority will be to begin restoring some quality of life. Many have lost everything. Until the region is stabilized, they will need somewhere to go, somewhere to work, somewhere to be with their families, somewhere to begin rebuilding their lives. Last Friday, the Senate acted and passed a $10.5 billion emergency funding package for New Orleans; however, we will need to give more Federal money for disaster relief. I recognize that this will be costly, and although I am an advocate for fiscal responsibility, this is a time for the Federal Government to act. We also need to reach into our own pockets and be as generous as we can be. I encourage my fellow members, my fellow Ohioans, and my fellow Americans to contribute to this relief effort by calling the Red Cross at 1-800-HELP-NOW, or visiting their website at www.RedCross.org. The Department of Homeland Security website, www.dhs.gov, also has valuable information for those wishing to make a monetary donation or to offer other services such as housing, and many local communities and faith-based groups have set up collection agencies. Opportunities to give are readily available, and the need is great. I would like to thank all those who have already opened their hearts and homes, and have given whatever is in their power to give. The response of this Nation, as well as many foreign countries, has been remarkable. Individuals, businesses, and governments--all have answered this call to meet human needs, and this effort will demand that all levels of government work together to ensure that what needs to get done, gets done. I would like to take a moment to recognize the dedication of those who have offered tireless assistance to the victims of Katrina. In the last eight days, the Coast Guard alone has saved over 30,000 people, more than the cumulative number of its search and rescue operations for the last 10 years combined. Their relief effort has been simply incredible. I am proud of the Coast Guard men and women who have truly exhibited semper paratus. Katrina also reminds us of how important our National Guard troops are in a time of crisis. From across the United States, there are some 41,500 National Guard troops that are on duty along the Gulf Coast. I am very proud of Ohio's National Guard, which have deployed a total of 1,500 soldiers and airmen to support Operation Buckeye, Ohio's hurricane response operation. This includes the 437th Military Police Battalion, the 1-148th Infantry Battalion and the 73rd TC-Task Force Command from Columbus; the 371st Corps Support Group from Kettering; and the 269th Combat Communications Squadron from Springfield. As we review the many policy concerns that have emerged in response to Katrina, it will be important to look at the issues facing our National Guard and to work to support them. I have only mentioned the Coast Guard and the National Guard, but approximately 100,000 people are now involved in relief efforts. These people have chosen service over self and demonstrated their dedication to their fellow Americans. I am inspired by their efforts and I thank them for their service. We owe them all our gratitude and respect. In addition, words cannot express my gratitude for the 20 States that have welcomed some 235,000 survivors from the gulf region. I would also note the contributions that my home state is making to the recovery effort, in addition to the contributions of the Ohio National Guard. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources deployed 24 officers with 10 boats and 10 vehicle-trailer combinations to Louisiana. In addition, hundreds of Ohio police officers and firefighters have gone or are on call to go to Louisiana and Mississippi to assist with the recovery effort. I am pleased that Ohio has opened its arms and stands ready to receive over 1,000 victims. In preparation, the State Emergency Management Agency, in conjunction with their local partners, is already locating housing, schools, and support services for families who have been displaced. As a former Mayor of Cleveland and Governor of Ohio, I am extremely proud of the Buckeye State's response. However, Mr. President, in my current capacity as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I have many questions about the timely response to this catastrophe which have yet to be answered. In my position, I will work to make sure these questions are answered because we need to understand what went right and what went wrong in order to better prepare for natural disasters. At this juncture, it is too early to prejudge the overall successes and failures of each level of government during this disaster, or answer questions such as, ``Should FEMA be part of DHS?'' Those answers should be provided only after a careful and thorough assessment of the entire situation. I would like to recognize the leadership of Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman, the chair and ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and I look forward to working with them as we examine the response of all levels of government. However, right now, our responders have a job to do on the gulf coast, and our first objective should be to offer whatever assistance it is within our power to give. Even though we are just beginning to wrap our arms around the magnitude of this event, I would offer some initial thoughts as to how we might mitigate the damage from future natural disasters like Katrina. The responsibility of planning for, and responding to, natural disasters is shared by all levels of government. But as a former Mayor of Cleveland and Governor of Ohio, I know firsthand the paramount importance of State and local first responders. Therefore, I implore every State and local emergency preparedness organization to review their action plans to ensure that they have the proper procedures and contingencies in place to deal with a catastrophic event. The emergency planning and response capabilities must be reviewed and, if necessary, rewritten to address every possible incident for a given geographic location. The safety of our citizens and communities depends on it. Prior to Hurricane Katrina, I began working with the State of Ohio's Emergency Management Agency in efforts to assess the ability of the State to prevent, protect, respond to and recover from any disaster, whether natural or otherwise. The State of Ohio is currently conducting a thorough top to bottom review of their strategic and emergency operations plans. It is my hope that these reviews will be conducted by every State. I would also highlight a Federal program that can help prepare State and local first responders. Earlier this year I offered an amendment to the Homeland Security Appropriations bill to increase funds for the Emergency Management Performance Grant program. The EMPG program is the only source of Federal assistance that provides vital emergency management, coordination and planning support to State and local governments and first responders for all hazards. I believe that by investing in a program with a proven track record, recovery from events like Katrina will be more effective, and the EMPG should receive even higher levels of funding. I will continue in my efforts to ensure that the Federal Government stresses preparation for all hazards: we must be prepared for both terrorism and all of the blows that nature can deal. Hurricane Katrina also shows that we have serious needs for the repair and improvement of our Nation's aging infrastructure and waterway systems. The desperate conditions these systems are currently in are impacting our economy, the environment, and the welfare of the American people. The backlog of unfunded Army Corps of Engineers operation and maintenance projects mandated by Congress is $1.2 billion. This is up from $250 million when I arrived in the Senate in 1999. It has been 5 years since Congress passed a water resources and development reauthorization bill. The passage of another WRDA bill cannot be delayed any further. It is simply too important to our Nation in terms of its benefits to our economy and environment and for the speedy recovery for the areas affected by Hurricane Katrina. The economic benefits of infrastructure projects speak for themselves. The national return on investment for the Mississippi Valley and Tributary system--the system affected by Hurricane Katrina-- is $24 for each dollar spent, according to the National Waterways Conference. The Corps of Engineers flood damage reduction program saves lives and prevents almost $8 in damages for each dollar spent. Right now our infrastructure is collapsing due to insufficient funding. We desperately need to provide increased funding for the Army Corps of Engineers. Currently, the Corps is able to function only at 50 percent capacity at the rate of funding proposed by the Office of Management and Budget. With proper investment from Congress, our waterways and ports have the potential to help strengthen our economy, help ease our Nation's growing congestion problem, and provide a better quality of life. This devastating hurricane also served to underscore the fragile nature of our national and economic security when the energy spigot went from a full flow to merely a drip. I praise my colleague and Chairman of the Energy Committee, Senator Domenici, for his Herculean task of shepherding an energy bill through this body. That bill is a tremendous step toward a much larger goal, which is our Nation's energy independence. However, in the aftermath of the energy bill's passage, we should not assume those efforts will suffice. Rather, the effects of this hurricane on our Nation's energy supply and the ripple effects sent through the economy should only heighten the clarion call for our country. Much like our Nation committed itself when the Russians launched Sputnik and we entered the race to space, I believe we should have a national commitment to becoming energy independent. We should open additional domestic resources in the near term to help wean us from foreign oil. My colleagues from Alaska have long sought to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge an idea I support. We should also invest in clean coal technologies that will help utilize one of our Nation's cheapest and most abundant resources. However, we should also look ahead. For instance, a great deal of research has been done in my State on hydrogen fuel cells. I have heard that within a decade, commercial applications for these fuel cells will be a real possibility. But I would ask, why 10 years? Why not five? I truly believe there is too much at stake to ignore or merely feign interest in becoming energy independent. I do not think it hyperbole to say that one of the main factors that will determine the next great superpower will be the nation that is able to become energy independent. The commitment we make today will determine the safety and quality of life future generations will have. I pray that we heed this warning. Finally, I would like to address an issue related to Hurricane Katrina, and that is the soaring gasoline prices across the Nation. In the wake of the horrible tragedy caused by Hurricane Katrina, it now appears that some individuals may be profiting off the misfortune of others. This is unconscionable. It is unfortunate that there are no Federal laws in place to address and stop the price gouging of gasoline. In fact, less than half of our States have laws on the books to protect consumers from price gouging. Therefore, I am considering legislation to provide the Federal Government with the requisite authority to investigate cases of gasoline price gouging during an emergency. This proposed legislation would resolve this issue by providing a Federal framework for protecting consumers against this unjustifiable business practice. I would note that I have been actively involved in this issue for several years. I participated in hearings in 2000, 2002, and 2004 in two different committees, and I have asked Senator Collins to explore this issue in the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Mr. President, these are but a handful of the issues that must be addressed in the weeks and months ahead. Let us roll up our sleeves and get to work. Let us learn from this horrible tragedy that has befallen the gulf coast, and forge better laws and procedures for the future. In closing, my heart goes out to the victims of this disaster, and I ask that all Americans do what they can to assist them.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Senator DeWine which will close a loophole in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). By clarifying this statute, a State's right to prevent unwanted forms of gambling in the State will be protected. The current laws governing Indian gambling are ambiguous when outlining which types of gambling are allowed. The provision in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, IGRA, that determines permitted gambling activities defines casino-style gambling as Class III, including slot machines, blackjack, craps, roulette, some lotteries and pari-mutuel racing. This class of gambling activity on Indian lands can only be, and I quote, ``located in a State that permits such gaming for any purpose by any person, organization or entity.'' It is unclear whether this means that the statutory language should be read and applied in a class-wide or categorical sense or whether it should be read and applied on an activity-by-activity basis. District and circuit Federal courts have both considered this question. In 1991, a District Court in Wisconsin ruled that if a State permits one type of class III gaming, then all other types of class III gaming can be conducted in that State under the IGRA. On the other hand, in 1993 and 1994, the Eighth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals construed the language of the IGRA to mean that class III gaming in a particular State is limited under the Federal law to the specific activities that are permitted under that State's laws. In July 2005, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals revealed that these uncertainties continue when it ruled in favor of the Northern Arapaho tribe in their efforts to build a casino, with ``Vegas Style'' gambling in Wyoming. In this instance, the tribe argued that it is entitled to offer full Class III gambling because the State allows casino style activities for social or nonprofit purposes. In Ohio, gambling for commercial purposes is prohibited by the State Constitution. However, pari-mutuel racing and lottery are both permitted as well as charitable gambling on a very limited and controlled basis. The bill I am introducing today will clarify that Class III gambling under IGRA applies only on an activity-by-activity basis, rather than in a class-wide sense. I have been a long time supporter of a ban on casino gambling and have taken steps to keep casino gambling out of Ohio. As Mayor of Cleveland and as Governor of Ohio, I worked to inform Ohioans of the negative impact casino gambling has on our families and our economy, leading to gambling's defeat at the polls. These initiatives proved to be successful and have kept legalized gambling under control in Ohio. My introduction of this legislation comes at a time when the progress we've made is in danger of being compromised. Across the country, Indian tribes are looking to expand gambling and even looking at a State like Ohio where gambling is illegal. The distinction in my bill is necessary to help control the explosive growth of tribal casinos nationwide. I call on my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Senator DeWine which will close a loophole in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). By clarifying this statute, a State's right to prevent unwanted forms of gambling in the State will be protected. The current laws governing Indian gambling are ambiguous when outlining which types of gambling are allowed. The provision in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, IGRA, that determines permitted gambling activities defines casino-style gambling as Class III, including slot machines, blackjack, craps, roulette, some lotteries and pari-mutuel racing. This class of gambling activity on Indian lands can only be, and I quote, ``located in a State that permits such gaming for any purpose by any person, organization or entity.'' It is unclear whether this means that the statutory language should be read and applied in a class-wide or categorical sense or whether it should be read and applied on an activity-by-activity basis. District and circuit Federal courts have both considered this question. In 1991, a District Court in Wisconsin ruled that if a State permits one type of class III gaming, then all other types of class III gaming can be conducted in that State under the IGRA. On the other hand, in 1993 and 1994, the Eighth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals construed the language of the IGRA to mean that class III gaming in a particular State is limited under the Federal law to the specific activities that are permitted under that State's laws. In July 2005, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals revealed that these uncertainties continue when it ruled in favor of the Northern Arapaho tribe in their efforts to build a casino, with ``Vegas Style'' gambling in Wyoming. In this instance, the tribe argued that it is entitled to offer full Class III gambling because the State allows casino style activities for social or nonprofit purposes. In Ohio, gambling for commercial purposes is prohibited by the State Constitution. However, pari-mutuel racing and lottery are both permitted as well as charitable gambling on a very limited and controlled basis. The bill I am introducing today will clarify that Class III gambling under IGRA applies only on an activity-by-activity basis, rather than in a class-wide sense. I have been a long time supporter of a ban on casino gambling and have taken steps to keep casino gambling out of Ohio. As Mayor of Cleveland and as Governor of Ohio, I worked to inform Ohioans of the negative impact casino gambling has on our families and our economy, leading to gambling's defeat at the polls. These initiatives proved to be successful and have kept legalized gambling under control in Ohio. My introduction of this legislation comes at a time when the progress we've made is in danger of being compromised. Across the country, Indian tribes are looking to expand gambling and even looking at a State like Ohio where gambling is illegal. The distinction in my bill is necessary to help control the explosive growth of tribal casinos nationwide. I call on my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of a resolution to commemorate the 25th Anniversary of the Polish worker's strike of 1980, an important day in history for Poland, Eastern Europe and for democracy world-wide. In 1980, while Poland was still very much under the control of the former Soviet Union, Lech Walesa formed the Solidarity Trade Union. In July and August of that year, he and other members of the Solidarity Trade Union led a worker's strike to demand greater political freedom in Poland. That August, the Communist government in Poland yielded to the demands of the workers. In doing so, Lech Walesa and the Solidarity Trade Union won the release of all political prisoners held by the Polish government, forced that government to broadcast religious services on television and the radio, and won the right to establish other trade unions. By late 1981, the Communist government, in an attempt to regain absolute control, instituted martial law in order to drive Lech Walesa and the Solidarity Trade Union underground. However, the seeds of freedom had already begun to grow in Poland, and throughout Eastern Europe. On December 9, 1989, Lech Walesa was democratically elected President of Poland, signaling an end to Communist rule in Poland. Two years later, that failed ideology was dead in the Soviet Union itself. As a strong supporter of NATO expansion, I was proud to welcome Poland and two other former Warsaw Pact members into NATO in May of 1999. I have long said that NATO expansion is the best way to guarantee that freedom and democracy continue to thrive in Eastern Europe, Southeastern Europe, and the Baltic states. The acceptance of Poland into the alliance, as well as the acceptance of eight other former Eastern Bloc nations, may not have been possible were it not for the Polish worker's strike of 1980. Now, twenty-five years after the historic strike, Poland has become a staunch ally of the United States. Poland's contributions to the war on terror have been tremendous. Today, we honor Lech Walesa and the people of Poland who risked their lives to restore liberty in Poland and to return Poland to the democratic community of nations.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of a resolution to commemorate the 25th Anniversary of the Polish worker's strike of 1980, an important day in history for Poland, Eastern Europe and for democracy world-wide. In 1980, while Poland was still very much under the control of the former Soviet Union, Lech Walesa formed the Solidarity Trade Union. In July and August of that year, he and other members of the Solidarity Trade Union led a worker's strike to demand greater political freedom in Poland. That August, the Communist government in Poland yielded to the demands of the workers. In doing so, Lech Walesa and the Solidarity Trade Union won the release of all political prisoners held by the Polish government, forced that government to broadcast religious services on television and the radio, and won the right to establish other trade unions. By late 1981, the Communist government, in an attempt to regain absolute control, instituted martial law in order to drive Lech Walesa and the Solidarity Trade Union underground. However, the seeds of freedom had already begun to grow in Poland, and throughout Eastern Europe. On December 9, 1989, Lech Walesa was democratically elected President of Poland, signaling an end to Communist rule in Poland. Two years later, that failed ideology was dead in the Soviet Union itself. As a strong supporter of NATO expansion, I was proud to welcome Poland and two other former Warsaw Pact members into NATO in May of 1999. I have long said that NATO expansion is the best way to guarantee that freedom and democracy continue to thrive in Eastern Europe, Southeastern Europe, and the Baltic states. The acceptance of Poland into the alliance, as well as the acceptance of eight other former Eastern Bloc nations, may not have been possible were it not for the Polish worker's strike of 1980. Now, twenty-five years after the historic strike, Poland has become a staunch ally of the United States. Poland's contributions to the war on terror have been tremendous. Today, we honor Lech Walesa and the people of Poland who risked their lives to restore liberty in Poland and to return Poland to the democratic community of nations.

Mr. VOINOVICH

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

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to offer amendment No. 1075 to the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2006. First, I acknowledge the hard work of Senators Gregg and Byrd and thank them for their diligence in coming to a consensus on this crucial legislation. The balance between enhanced security and responsible stewardship of the taxpayers' dollars is a fine one. I applaud their attention to both, and I support the legislation. In an effort to increase the sound management of homeland security funds, I offer an amendment that would increase the funding of the Emergency Management Performance Grant Program by $10 million. I am joined on this amendment by Senators Collins and Lieberman, the chair and ranking members of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, as well as 17 other Senators. I thank them all for their support. I believe that redirecting funds to the EMPG Program, which has a proven track record, is both fiscally responsible and strategically sound. The EMPG Program assists the emergency management agencies and programs of the States, the District of Columbia, U.S. Territories, and local and tribal governments to prepare for all hazards and disasters, both natural and manmade. The EMPG Program is the only source of Federal assistance that supports comprehensive emergency management, coordination, and planning. Funding for this program is split 50/50 between the Federal and State governments. This unique and important program provides States and localities with the flexibility to allocate funds according to risk, which helps address their most urgent needs in disaster mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery. Most importantly, EMPG funds are also used to pay for personnel costs, including training and exercises. This aspect of the program is important given the tight budget constraints and increased counterterrorism responsibilities currently faced by State and local governments. States also have the flexibility to develop intrastate emergency management systems that encourage the building of partnerships which include government, business, volunteer, and community organizations. As Governor of Ohio, I had first-hand experience with the EMPG Program and would note some examples that illustrate its effectiveness. Since 2002, Ohio has issued eight major disaster declarations and two emergency declarations. The 2005 winter storm was the most widespread disaster in Ohio's history, with 59 counties declared disaster areas with damage assessments that exceeded $260 million. EMPG funding has played a critical role in allowing Ohio State and local emergency management agencies to plan for these disasters, respond in a timely manner to those areas hit hardest, and pay the salaries of local emergency management staff. Additionally, Ohio has elected to use a portion of the annual EMPG funding for special projects, such as local emergency operations center construction. This is one of the few funding streams that allow for brick and mortar type projects. At any given time there are several counties benefiting from the use of these dollars. Ohio is not the only State that has benefited from the EMPG Program. For example, EMPG funds play a critical role in helping the State of Alabama develop its plans to respond to natural disasters, particularly hurricanes. EMPG grants have been used for contingency planning, including evacuation plans, debris removal plans, and plans for postdisaster distribution of critical aid to those affected by the storms. The State of Kansas is struck by nearly 50 tornadoes every spring. Without local government emergency management staff paid for by EMPG funding, there wouldn't be adequate coordination to help respond to those tornadoes in a timely manner. York County, ME, has had 12 declared disasters in 12 years, including coastal flooding and severe ice storms. The York County Office of Emergency Management works with 29 towns on the full range of emergency management, including preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation. Without the help of EMPG funds they would have only one full-time person; with EMPG support they have three. Additionally, during last year's devastating hurricane season, the EMPG Program proved its worth. The Emergency Management Assistance Compact, which is funded by the EMPG, enabled 38 States to provide $15 million worth of aid and over 800 personnel to support Florida and the other impacted States for over 85 days. These are just a few examples of how EMPG funds are used to help State and local governments prepare for the worst situations. They demonstrate that EMPG funds are the backbone of emergency management and disaster response in America. Many of the people who have been involved in emergency management in the States have been impacted by the budget crisis we are experiencing in many States throughout the country. In Ohio, for example, they substantially cut back on the State funds for local and State government. Again, they are being asked to do the ordinary work that they do in emergency management and, at the same time, take on added responsibilities to deal with the issue of responding to terrorists. I will now address how EMPG funds have been spent relative to other grant programs. The Senator from New Hampshire has noted how billions of dollars of Department of Homeland Security grant money remains unspent by State and local government. However, according to the Department of Homeland Security, EMPG funds are spent rapidly compared to other programs. In other words, there may be a problem with some of these other funds getting through to the folks who need them, but in this particular case, these moneys flow very rapidly. In other words, if Congress appropriates extra EMPG funding, it will not go unused. Although both Congress and President Bush have recognized the importance of this program, it still faces a shortfall. The disaster relief fund is our Government's rainy day fund, and it is robust in comparison to other programs in this bill. Therefore, my amendment would take $10 million from this $2 billion account to increase EMPG funding. Increased EMPG funding will ensure strong management and planning prior to any disaster. In other words, when asked about the logic of taking $10 million out of the $2 billion account for the disaster relief fund, our arguments would be, as a result of this additional money, we can do a lot better job of preventing more of these disasters in the long run and make sure the dollars that are spent in the disaster relief fund are spent in the most efficient and effective way. Increased EMPG funding will ensure strong management and planning prior to any disaster. In other words, redirecting these funds will enhance the effectiveness of every disaster relief fund dollar directed toward response and recovery and ensure we get the biggest bang for the buck when it comes to Federal disaster relief funding. Again, there are some other funds in the Homeland Security appropriations. It was our best judgment that going after the disaster relief fund was the most logical way to pay and add this $10 million to the EMPG program. As I mentioned, this amendment is sponsored by both the chairman and ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee which has the oversight responsibility for homeland security, as well as 17 other Senators, including Senator Grassley, chairman of the Finance Committee, which is significant. In closing, we must prepare for terrorist attacks in addition to natural disasters. The EMPG program is a proven method of doing this. It is my strong belief that by enhancing the EMPG funding, we increase the capacity of State and local emergency management agencies to get the job done when the needs of our citizens are the greatest. Once again I applaud the efforts of Senator Gregg and Senator Byrd, and I ask my colleagues to support increased funding for the EMPG program. Mr. President, I was going to ask for the yeas and nays, but the fact is, we are negotiating now with Senator Gregg's staff and Senator Gregg and perhaps we can find some other language that might be more acceptable to them. I am not going to ask for the yeas and nays now. If we are unable to reach a compromise, then I will ask for the yeas and nays at a later date. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Yes, I do request that.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. I do not.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I have been here since 10 minutes to 10 waiting to give a speech. I have a schedule today. I would like to have my time.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I just found out that Sandra Day O'Connor has resigned from the Supreme Court. I think regardless of what our political persuasion is or our ideology, we all respect her for living up to her oath of office in that her presence on the Supreme Court is going to be missed by this country.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. This is the third time I have come to the Senate floor to speak about the nomination of John Bolton to be the next ambassador to the United Nations. It is particularly apropos because the Senate is on the eve of going into the Fourth of July recess. The record before the Senate documents the allegations related to Mr. Bolton's lack of interpersonal skills and management style, the pattern of intimidation with intelligence analysts, and the allegations that Mr. Bolton had a habit of cherrypicking intelligence to suit his perception of the world and his ideology. The record has also documented Mr. Bolton's tendency to stray off message in a manner that could harm U.S. interests and his need for supervision from higher authorities to prevent him from hurting U.S. objectives. The record documents the fact that I was given assurances by the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, that Mr. Bolton would be supervised closely in his new position at the U.N. Because of these concerns--and according to other Members of the Senate, they were given the same assurances--the question we all have to ask is, Why would we send someone to the United Nations who needs supervision? I did not come to the floor today to repeat the record, although these issues are very important to our decision to confirm Mr. Bolton as our next ambassador to the United Nations. I came to the floor to talk about why this nomination is particularly unique and why it is particularly important at this time in history that we send the right candidate to the United Nations. The nominee that we send to the U.N. to be the face of the United States to the world community must be able to advance our objectives through diplomacy and improve the world's opinion of the United States at this critical time. America's image is in trouble. World opinion is increasingly negative when it comes to the United States. It is not limited to Muslim countries. Polls of traditional allies and nonallies reveal a dangerous rise in negative opinion since the beginning of the conflict in Iraq. The Associated Press reported that the popularity of the United States in many countries, including many in Europe, is lagging behind even Communist China. According to the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, about two-thirds of Britain, 65 percent, saw China favorably compared with 55 percent who held a positive view of the United States. It is easy to understand why our friend, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, lost 30 seats in the Parliament. The 9/11 Commission made this point in its report that negative opinions of the United States have a serious impact on U.S. national security objectives. The report stated that winning hearts and minds through public diplomacy is just as critical to the war on terrorism as other tools, such as military assets and intelligence. I know I am not the only American who is disturbed by these numbers. The allegations and the criticism do not reflect the facts and are in no way fair to the United States of America. Our country is a decent, generous country that has sacrificed a great deal for our brothers and sisters throughout the world. Our men and women have sacrificed their lives in many wars and peacekeeping operations so that others could be free from oppression and free to pursue happiness. In Iraq, the deaths of over 1,700 Americans and the injuries borne by almost 13,000 Americans bear witness to this sacrifice. But the fact is, we have to do a better job of getting our message out. Our President, who made an outstanding case for our need to stay the course in Iraq the other night, has stated on a number of occasions that we need to improve our public diplomacy, and he has been very successful in pushing forward that agenda in recent months. As I mentioned before, the President has nominated Karen Hughes to head up his public diplomacy efforts at the State Department, understanding that it is going to take a talented individual to get the job done. He has also been very successful in strengthening relationships with key allies in the last several months. The President has been very clear about the importance of diplomacy in dealing with the world and the most pressing national security issues. During the President's May 31 press conference at the White House, just a month ago, he stated: The best way to solve any difficult situation is through diplomacy. In response to questions about Iran, the President stated that U.S. policy is to let diplomacy work its way and to solve the problem with diplomacy, working with the EU-3, France, Great Britain, and Germany. In response to questions about North Korea, the President said: We want diplomacy to work. Repeating: We want diplomacy to be given a chance to work. And that is exactly the position of the Government. Based on these statements, there is no doubt that U.S. national security strategy is going to rely on diplomacy for the months ahead, and our ambassador to the United Nations must have the ability to implement this Presidential strategy. I recently spoke with Comptroller General David Walker who heads the Government Accountability Office and is an expert on change in governmental organizations and how one achieves reform in a governmental organization. He said that in order to be successful on reform, you need someone who respects the institution to be reformed and who is respected by the institution. In a March 2005 article in the Los Angeles Times, it was reported that Mr. Bolton was asked why he opposed offering incentives to North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program. Mr. Bolton stated, ``I don't do carrots.'' Any competent diplomat knows you need both a carrot and a stick to be successful. One would assume by that statement that Mr. Bolton's mode of diplomacy is solely through carrying a big stick. I will read a few quotes of many Mr. Bolton has spoken over the years: There's no such thing as the United Nations. If the U.N. Secretary Building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a difference. Not only do I not care about losing the General Assembly vote, but actually see it as a ``make my day'' outcome. Most recently, in answering a question from Juan Williams from National Public Radio, Mr. Bolton said: If I were redoing the Security Council today, I'd have one permanent member because that's the real reflection of the distribution of power in the world. Mr. Williams queried: And that one member would be, John Bolton? Mr. Bolton responded: The United States. This is not a man who is perceived to respect the U.N. and who will be respected by the institution if he goes there. The other issue that makes this nomination particularly unique is the great opportunity we have before us to reform the United Nations. This is not an ordinary time in regard to the U.N. The U.N. has serious problems that need attention now. We all know about the flaws in the oversight system and the corruption related to the Oil for Food Program. There are also serious problems with the general management of the U.N., the Commission on Human Rights, and the standards of conduct for U.N. peacekeepers. All of these areas require reform now. The bipartisan U.S. task force, led by Newt Gingrich and George Mitchell, has issued a report detailing several recommendations for reforming the U.N. and calling for action. The report notes that without a renewed and more effective United Nations, the challenges to international security, development, and general well-being will be all the greater because, as the report states, ``an effective U.N. is in American interests.'' The opportunity to finally reform the U.N. is even greater now because we have the support of U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. He finally gets it, Mr. President. In an article in Foreign Affairs Journal and in a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, Kofi Annan stated, ``The desire for change is widespread, not only in the U.S., but among many member-states, and also many U.N. staff.'' I ask unanimous consent that both of these articles be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, Kofi Annan also stated there is considerable overlap between the Mitchell-Gingrich task force report and the reforms he himself is proposing, and that he is prepared to implement them. He stated: All of us want to make the U.N.'s management more transparent and accountable, and its oversight mechanisms stronger and more independent. He stated: All of us want to make the U.N.'s human rights machinery more credible . . . by replacing the present Commission on Human Rights with a Human Rights Council. He also stated: All of us want to impose stricter standards of conduct on U.N. peacekeeping missions, especially an end to sexual abuse and exploitation. These statements indicate we are in a unique position with the U.N. and there is a sincere interest in reform. We have to seize this opportunity now. When you are dealing with an organization that understands the need for reform and is echoing our objectives and is ready to cooperate, we need to send in not the ``bad cop,'' or the guy with the ``sharp elbows,'' or the guy who says, ``I don't do carrots.'' We need to send the ``good cop,'' the guy who knows how to reap the benefits of the environment for change and make it happen. John Bolton is a bold contradiction to the efforts to improve the image of the U.S. at this critical time, as well as a contradiction to the President's efforts to ramp up public diplomacy. John Bolton is a bold contradiction to efforts to reform the U.N. If we do not send the right person to the U.N., there is substantial risk we might lose this unprecedented and ripe opportunity to achieve important reforms. The person we send to the U.N. will have great influence on the world's perception of the United States, our values, our decency, and will be critical to the urgent reforms that must be made at the U.N. Our success on these issues--public diplomacy and U.N. reform--will have an enormous impact on our ability to win the war on terrorism, to promote peace in the world and, most importantly, whether we live in an America that is free from terror. Mr. President, how many minutes do I have left?

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I will comment for a couple of minutes on the very fine statement the leader made in regard to the advertising for prescription drugs. I think he made a clear statement and sends a large message to the drug companies that they have to reevaluate their advertising campaign. The statement confirms the fact to the American people that we are paying more for drugs because of those advertising costs. I think it is particularly appropriate for us to be raising this issue at this time because this year millions of Americans--Medicare- eligible people--are going to be signing up to take advantage of the prescription drug benefits of the Medicare Modernization Act. It is very important that while they are signing up and taking advantage of this new opportunity--an opportunity that I think will make the largest improvement in public health since the advent of the Medicare Program-- they don't just willy-nilly have drugs prescribed for them that they may or may not need. I think one other point needs to be made, and that is, in this era in which we live, we all have to be our own best friend. At one time, I took Vioxx. I called my pharmacist and discussed other drugs I was taking. He told me Vioxx contributed to an increase in blood pressure. I was taking other drugs to bring down my blood pressure. I decided voluntarily that this doesn't make sense and I got off Vioxx. I lost 10 pounds. Now, once in a while when I have arthritic pain, I take a Motrin. But the fact is that all of us Members of Congress and the ordinary public have to pay a lot more attention to the drugs we are taking because, as the leader said, the side effects are significant and we have to be careful about it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Central American Free Trade Agreement--CAFTA. I have been a long-time supporter of expanding United States trading relationships. I believe trade is vital to the long-term health of the U.S. economy and to raising living standards around the globe. Since my days as Governor, I have worked to open markets around the world for Ohio's exports. Exports are extremely important to the Ohio economy. When I was Governor, exports were one of my four economic development priorities. During my tenure in the Senate I have supported the vast majority of trade agreements that have been brought before the Senate. However, in the last year and a half or so, I have been troubled by several aspects of our trade policies that I believe severely, and understandably, undermine the American people's support, as well as my own support, for new trade agreements. In particular, I believe the failure of the United States to properly enforce its existing trade agreements has contributed to growing skepticism of the American people about the benefits of trade. In particular, the failure to enforce the intellectual property right protections in our trade agreements has contributed to a proliferation of counterfeiting and pirating of American products across the globe. I have met with numerous Ohio business leaders whose support for trade has been severely tested when their company's products were counterfeited by firms operating in countries whose governments simply refuse to live up to their commitments to protect intellectual property rights. I believe in free trade, but the cornerstone of free trade is the protection of property rights. It is unreasonable to expect American companies to compete against companies from countries that do not abide by this basic principle. Last year I was so troubled by the lack of enforcement of our trade agreements I decided the United States should hold off entering into any new trade agreements until our enforcement efforts dramatically improved. Accordingly, I voted against the Australian and Moroccan Free Trade Agreements. Those were not popular votes, but they were necessary to draw attention to the need to enforce our trade agreements. Although I have been critical of the way our trade agreements have been enforced, I remain committed to seeing the United States continue its leadership in promoting lower trade barriers and global trade. My criticism is that of a friend of trade and one who wants to see the U.S. trade policy succeed. Accordingly, I have been very pleased with the administration's new efforts to improve the enforcement of our trade agreements. Earlier this year, I held a hearing by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia, to examine the administration's new Strategy Targeting Organized Piracy or STOP! Program which aimed to combat intellectual property theft abroad and help small and medium size businesses protect their intellectual property. Although much more needs to be done, STOP! is off to a very good start. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will familiarize themselves with the STOP! program because it will be of great assistance to small businesses in States that have had their intellectual property rights infringed upon.