George Voinovich

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I am so proud to stand on the floor of the Senate today as we consider the candidacy of seven new European democracies--Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia--for membership in the NATO Alliance. The question of NATO enlargement is one that has long been close to my heart. As Mayor of Cleveland and Governor of the State of Ohio, I worked closely with constituents in my State with ties to countries that were once subject to life behind the Iron Curtain. It is amazing to me to see how far many of these countries have come in such a short time, rising to embrace democratic reforms after so many years under communist rule. The fact that seven countries that were once part of the former Soviet Union, the Warsaw Pact or Tito's Yugoslavia have been invited to join the NATO alliance is testament to how much has been achieved since the collapse of the Soviet Empire more than a decade ago. We owe so much to Pope John Paul II, President Reagan, President George H.W. Bush, and now President George W. Bush. As I said to the President in a letter prior to his trip to Poland in June 2001, when he clearly articulated his support for enlargement of the Alliance: During my entire life I have supported the Captive Nations and yearned that someday they would have freedom, but I doubted that would happen during my lifetime. However, it did happen because of your dad and President Reagan, who said ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.'' I also said: You, Mr. President, have the opportunity to guarantee the freedom and security of those once subjected to life under Communist control by making it clear that you will support the expansion of NATO to include former territories of the Soviet Union, Tito's Yugoslavia and the Warsaw Pact regardless of Russia's opposition. And he did it. President Bush outlined his vision for enlargement in a landmark speech to the students and faculty at the University of Warsaw on June 15, 2001, when he remarked that as we approach the NATO Summit in Prague: We should not calculate how little we can get away with, but how much we can do to advance the cause of freedom. That speech was very strategic because at the time there were many people who were wondering whether or not the President would move away from the expansion of NATO in consideration of compromising with at that time President Putin in regard to the ABM Treaty--the ABM Treaty at the time looking like it would stand in the way of moving forward with the President's National Missile Defense Initiative. The President was true to his word, and it was extremely gratifying to see this vision begin to turn to reality when President Bush joined other NATO heads of state in Prague last November. I remain grateful to the President for inviting me to join him as a member of the Congressional delegation to the NATO Summit, along with Senator Bill Frist, Congressman Tom Lantos, Congressman Elton Gallegly and Congressman Doug Bereuter. The thrill of being in the room when NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson announced the decision to invite the three Baltic nations, as well as Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia, to join the Alliance, is something that I will always remember. On that historic day, I listened as heads of state from our allied nations including the Czech Republic, France, Spain, Great Britain, Poland, Canada, Turkey, and many others praised the work done by the seven candidate countries and expressed their strong support for enlargement to include these new European democracies. While there are disagreements within NATO that must be addressed, there is general consensus among the current members of the Alliance on the question of enlargement. It is acknowledged that in addition to shared values, the seven candidate countries bring defense capabilities that will enhance the overall security and stability of the NATO Alliance. President Bush, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and the highest-ranking member of the U.S. military, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers, have all expressed this view. America's top leaders believe that in addition to niche military capabilities, these seven countries bring energy, freshness and enthusiasm to the Alliance. As Secretary Powell remarked in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week, enlargement of the NATO Alliance to include Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia is in the national security interest of the United States. It will, he said: Help to strengthen NATO's partnerships to promote democracy, the rule of law, free markets and peace throughout Eurasia. Moreover, it will better equip the Alliance to respond collectively to the new dangers we face. NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson, after working with the NATO aspirant countries on comprehensive domestic reforms in preparation for membership in the Alliance, has also concluded that this round of enlargement will enhance the strength and vitality of NATO a view which he expressed at the Prague Summit and reiterated earlier this week during a meeting with members of the Foreign Relations Committee. I share this view, and I believe it is appropriate and timely that we now consider these candidates for membership in NATO. They have provided crucial support in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks against our country on 9/11, and continue to make significant contributions to the ongoing campaign against international terrorism. They have shown their solidarity in our efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein and liberate the Iraqi people, and have pledged to work with the international community to promote security and reconstruction in Iraq following the end of military action. The candidate countries have also moved forward with democratic reforms to promote the rule of law and respect for human rights. I am strongly concerned about the disturbing rise in anti-Semitic violence in Europe and other parts of the world. Several of the candidate countries, including Latvia, Bulgaria, and Romania, have joined with the United States, Poland and other countries to actively encourage the chair-in-office of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe--OSCE--to mount a serious and credible OSCE conference on anti- Semitism. Due in part to their efforts, the OSCE has agreed to conduct such a conference, and it is scheduled to take place in June. This is just one example, but it is indicative of important action that is taking place. As was highlighted during a series of hearings on NATO enlargement conducted by the Foreign Relations Committee, the seven candidate countries bring nearly 200,000 new troops to the alliance. They have also pledged to commit significant resources to national defense, with Bulgaria, Romania, Estonia, and Lithuania all at or above 2 percent of the gross domestic product mark in 2002. Slovakia and Latvia were just under 2 percent, and Slovenia at 1.6 percent in 2002, and they have pledged and committed to reach the 2-percent mark by 2008. The average defense spending among candidate countries was 2.1 percent for 2002, which is equal to the average spent by the current NATO members for the same period. It is interesting to note that 11 of the 19 members of the alliance did not reach the 2-percent mark for defense spending in 2002, which we should all be concerned about. Clearly, there is room for improvement in this regard for current members of the alliance. On March 27, 2003, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Marc Grossman testified before the Armed Services Committee regarding the future of NATO. When asked about the benefits of enlargement, he said: I believe, Senators, that the accession of these countries are about the future of NATO, and will be good and directly benefit U.S. interests. Why? They're strong Atlanticists. They're allies in the war on terror. They've already contributed to Operation Enduring Freedom and the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul. The list goes on. I agree with Secretary Grossman's assessment. These countries already make significant contributions that strengthen the transatlantic relationship. They have acted as de facto Allies. In fact, they have acted as better Allies than some of the members that are currently in NATO. And I believe they will make important contributions, as members, to the NATO alliance. While much has been achieved, there is still work to be done as the candidate countries continue to work on their membership action plans. As was said in Prague, Prague should be viewed as the starting line, not the finishing line. There is still a lot more that has to be done on those maps. Efforts have continued since the Prague summit. I was very pleased to learn that the people of Slovenia--who have been engaged in a discussion about NATO membership for many years now--voted overwhelmingly in support of Slovenia's membership in NATO during a national referendum on March 23, with roughly two-thirds of the voters favoring accession to the alliance. This was a crucial step for the country that was the birthplace of my maternal grandparents. Hooray for Slovenia. I am glad they understood. It is imperative that the candidates continue to address the outstanding issues that require attention, including military reform, respect for human rights, and efforts to combat organized crime and corruption. It is this last piece, perhaps, that concerns me the most. These problems have the potential to undermine democratic reforms, respect for the rule of law, and other core NATO values, and I believe they could be very dangerous if left unchecked. I was glad to hear from Secretary Powell, during his testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee last week, that there are, in fact-- this is wonderful--significant steps that have taken place on behalf of the NATO aspirants to combat corruption and organized crime. With regard to Bulgaria, for example, the Secretary of State remarked that the Bulgarian Government recently created an interagency anticorruption commission to be led by the Minister of Justice. The Bulgarian Parliament also passed anticorruption legislation and antibribery legislation. Secretary Powell noted that the Romanian Government is now working on legislation to reform its judiciary, civil service, and political party financing activities. I am also hopeful that Romania will move forward with steps to ensure progress on outstanding property restitution issues, including those of significance to Hungarian and other minority groups in Romania. So while I still think there is work to be done, I am satisfied that things are moving in the right direction. After meeting with leaders from these seven countries and spending time in each country that has been invited to join NATO--I have been in all of them and have met with all of their leaders--I am confident that reforms will continue. I sincerely believe reforms will be swifter and more complete as these countries are brought into the alliance rather than left out. History tells us this has been the case with other countries that have been part of the alliance. NATO has a way of asserting pressure and, as General Lord Robertson said during our meeting Monday, squeezing those who need to shape up. As we consider enlargement today, it is clear that the world is a different place than it was when Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic were brought into NATO. The world's democracies and multilateral institutions, including the NATO alliance, face new threats to freedom, marked not by Communist aggression but, instead, by the dangerous nexus between weapons of mass destruction, rogue nations, and terrorists who have shown their willingness to use chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons against those who value freedom and democracy, if given the chance. NATO's decision to invoke article 5 in the aftermath of the tragic events of September 11 signifies that an attack on one is an attack on all, and that sent a strong message of solidarity to the people of the United States and the world at large. I suspect that when the resolution was put together in regard to article 5, we were very careful to make sure we did not get ourselves in entangling alliances. Never did we ever believe we would be calling on the other nations in NATO to come to our assistance as they did. NATO's mission to transform to meet these growing threats does not make the alliance irrelevant; rather, it means we need the shared commitment to freedom, democracy, and security embodied by the NATO alliance now more than ever before. A NATO alliance enlarged to include seven new democracies that have embraced these values will enhance our ability to meet new challenges for peace in the world. At the Prague summit, NATO heads of state embarked upon a course to identify the capabilities needed to confront new challenges to international security. They agreed that new challenges would require the alliance to operate beyond Europe's borders. The Prague Declaration noted: In order to carry out the full range of its missions, NATO must be able to field forces that can move quickly to wherever they are needed, upon decision by the North Atlantic Council, to sustain operations over distance and time, including in an environment where they might be faced with nuclear, biological and chemical threats, and to achieve their objectives. As Secretary General Lord Robertson has said, NATO must either go out of area, or go out of business. This will become crucial as NATO prepares to assume new responsibilities in Afghanistan this August, moving forward on the North Atlantic Council's decision on April 16 to provide enhanced support to the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul. NATO's new ISAF role is perhaps indicative of the types of missions the alliance could take on in years to come. As Secretary Powell indicated last week, this is the largest step to date that the alliance has taken outside its traditional area of responsibility. And, as you know, Mr. President, they are now talking about the possibility of NATO being involved in security forces in Iraq. As the alliance prepares for its role in Afghanistan, it does so at a time when current members of NATO and other countries in Europe have considerable experience working together, due to operations in Kosovo, Bosnia, and Macedonia. As former Supreme Allied Commander Joe Ralston noted in remarks before the Atlantic Council on Monday evening, this is in stark contrast to the past, when members of the alliance depended on annual training exercises. I think that is really something we should emphasize, that these nations have been working militarily together since Bosnia. They are in Kosovo today. They will be in Afghanistan. It is amazing how well the NATO command has worked in Kosovo. And I am confident it will work as well in Afghanistan. But new missions will demand that NATO step up efforts to improve its military capabilities. This was a major theme at the Prague summit last November, where NATO heads of state approved the creation of a NATO response force, which is envisioned to consist of approximately 25,000 troops who are ready and able to deploy anywhere in the world within 30 days. The goal is to have the force operational by 2006. While work has been ongoing to flesh out the details of the NATO response force, this is still a paper concept, and we look forward to learning more about efforts to turn this into a viable force at the June ministerial meeting in Madrid. The NATO response force goes hand in glove with the Prague Capabilities Commitment, which replaces the Defense Capabilities Initiative, or DCI, that was initiated at the 1999 Washington summit. As many of us know, very little progress was made on that 1999 Defense Capabilities Initiative. The Prague Capabilities Commitment, though, calls on Allies to improve and develop military capabilities, focusing on defense against weapons of mass destruction, intelligence, command, control and communications, and strategic air and sea lift, among other things. This initiative focuses on pooling resources and identifying niche capabilities that certain countries can bring to the table in order to strengthen NATO's military reach. I have been pleased to hear from Secretary Powell, Lord Robertson, and General Ralston that the alliance has begun to identify niche contributions that the seven candidates can make to future operations. They are willing and able. They have, in fact, already demonstrated their willingness to use them in NATO operations in the Balkans as well as military efforts to combat international terrorism. For example, Bulgaria contributes troops to NATO operations in the Balkans, with military personnel in both Bosnia and Kosovo. Bulgaria has also contributed to Operation Enduring Freedom, allowing for coalition aircraft to refuel at Burgas, and sending a nuclear, biological and chemical decontamination unit to Afghanistan. Bulgaria has also deployed a NBC unit to the Iraqi theater of operations at the request of U.S. Central Command. Estonia also supports NATO missions in southeast Europe, and has approved the deployment of troops to assist in the reconstruction of Iraq. Latvia has deployed medical teams to Afghanistan, and in April the Latvian Parliament approved the deployment of troops to Iraq for peace enforcement and humanitarian operations. Lithuania has deployed a medical team and a Special Operations Unit to Afghanistan. Lithuania has also deployed troops to support Operation Iraqi Freedom. Romania sent a military police platoon to support the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. Romania has also provided an NBC unit in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Slovakia has deployed an engineering unit to Afghanistan, and was the first NATO candidate country to deploy troops--an NBC unit--in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Slovenia provides troops and equipment to NATO operations in the Balkans, and has also provided crucial assistance in de-mining and mine victims assistance, running the International Trust Fund for De-mining. Additionally, Slovenia has provided humanitarian and de-mining assistance to Afghanistan. They are all doing a job right now and will do more once they are brought into NATO formally. While there is still work to be done, these contributions are encouraging. If NATO is to meet future challenges, it is imperative that the capabilities gap between the U.S. and our European allies be addressed. The Prague Capabilities Commitment highlights critical needs within the alliance. This is a good place to start, and I am hopeful that it will succeed in producing tangible results. Without adequate capabilities, NATO's ability to respond to future security challenges will be seriously undermined. As NATO looks to the future, there will be other challenges. Bringing in seven members will, I believe, strengthen the alliance; at the same time, there will be adjustments as NATO adapts to membership at 26 rather than the current 19. I share the sentiments expressed by Secretary of State Colin Powell and NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson that the alliance will adapt, as it always have. I disagree with some of my colleagues, who may argue that significant changes should be made to the NATO decision-making process. The alliance has always been based on consensus, protecting the view of each member. As Secretary Powell remarked in testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee last week, NATO is not a committee or a council. It is an Alliance that has traditionally--and successfully-- been based on the rule of consensus. I was interested when Lord Robinson spoke to us on Monday. We were talking about this issue. He said somehow we worked it out. We had the problem with Turkey, and there was a question of how that would all be worked out. The alliance had the flexibility to move forward and take care of that problem. He specifically said that they need the flexibility, that somehow they will work it out. If we come in with some specific way of how we will do this, it will tie their hands and won't give them the flexibility to do what they have to do when the time comes. I am confident they will do that. It is my sincere belief that the European democracies of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia will, as they have already demonstrated, contribute to NATO's proud tradition and serve to strengthen the alliance. I strongly support enlargement of the alliance to include these countries, and look forward to further expansion in the future to those countries who have demonstrated the ability to accept the responsibilities that come with membership in the NATO alliance. I never thought I would be here today on the Senate floor able to recommend this to my colleagues. It is a wonderful day. I rise today in strong support of the Resolution on Ratification before us today, which will extend U.S. support to make NATO membership a reality for these new European democracies. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VOINOVICH

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

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I am very pleased today to speak on behalf of Deborah Cook, an exceptional lawyer and a longtime friend from the State of Ohio. The President nominated her to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on May 9, 2001, 2 years ago. In fact, I was at the White House when President Bush nominated Deb, and I remember how enthusiastic he was about her record, not only as a distinguished judge but as a dedicated volunteer and role model in her community. Now, 2 years later, we are finally voting on her nomination. I am extremely disappointed at the length of time it has taken for this highly qualified nominee to reach the floor but am grateful that this day has come. I have had the privilege of knowing Deborah Cook for over 25 years. She is not only a brilliant lawyer but a wonderful person. She graduated from the University of Akron School of Law in 1978 and immediately went to work for the law firm of Roderick, Myers & Linton, Akron's oldest law firm. She was the first female lawyer to be hired by this firm, and 5 years later, in 1983, she became its first female partner. Deborah remained at Roderick Myers until 1991 when she was elected to Ohio's Ninth District Court of Appeals. She remained on this bench until 1995 when she successfully won election to the Ohio Supreme Court, an office she continues to hold. Deb has always devoted her life to her family, community and profession. Married to Robert Linton, Deborah has always acted on her belief that a member of the bar and judiciary has responsibilities to the community. In this regard, she has given generously of her time to the Akron Women's Network, Akron Volunteer Center, the University of Akron School of Law Intellectual Property Advisory Council, Summit County United Way, and the Akron Art Museum, to name just a few. In 1999, Deb and her husband established a foundation, Collegescholars, Inc., with their own private funds to foster the education of underserved public school students and encourage them to seek higher education. Students were selected upon finishing third grade based on teacher recommendations, financial need and family support of the program. This group of students is promised a 4-year tuition scholarship to any public university in Ohio. The students, called ``scholars,'' remain eligible for the scholarship by maintaining good grades and conduct and participating with the other college scholars in activities organized for their benefit, including a one- hour, instructed mentor meeting weekly during the school year. Deb has always recognized that she has a responsibility to help strengthen the legal profession and honors this responsibility through her work with the Ohio and American Bar Associations. She chaired the Commission on Public Legal Education, was a member of the Ohio Courts Futures Commission, and the Ohio Commission on Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management. She is a past president of the Akron Bar Association Foundation, a fellow of the American Bar Foundation, and was a member of the Akron Bar Association disciplinary committee from 1981 to 1993. Throughout these past 25 years, I have found Deborah Cook to be a woman of exceptional character and integrity. Her professional demeanor and thorough knowledge of the law make her truly an excellent candidate for an appointment to the Sixth Circuit. Deb has served with distinction on Ohio's Supreme Court since her election in 1994 and reelection in 2000. My only regret is that with her confirmation to the Sixth Circuit, we will lose an outstanding justice on the Supreme Court of Ohio. However, she will be a tremendous asset to the Federal bench. With 10 years of combined appellate judicial experience on the Ohio Court of Appeals and the Ohio Supreme Court, Deborah Cook also possesses a keen intellect, a record of legal scholarship and consistency in her opinions. She is a strong advocate of applying the law without fear or favor and of not making policy towards a particular constituency. Deborah Cook is committed to upholding the highest standards of her profession and she is a trusted leader. It is my pleasure to give her my highest recommendation for this nomination. When it was announced that Deb was nominated by the President, the response from the major newspapers in our State was wonderful and amazing. Newspapers from all over Ohio have echoed my sentiments. In January 6, 2003, the Columbus Dispatch stated that: Since 1996, she has served on the Ohio Supreme Court, where she has distinguished herself as a careful jurist with a profound respect for judicial restraint and the separation of powers between the three branches of government. On December 29, 2002, the Cleveland Plain Dealer stated that: Cook is a thoughtful, mature jurist--perahaps the brightest on the state's highest court. In a May 11, 2000 editorial the Beacon Journal newspaper stated that what distinguishes Deborah Cook's work: has been a careful reading of the law, buttressed by closely argued opinions and sharp legal reasoning. In addition to newspapers, Deb Cook has a bevy of other supporters. John W. Reece, retired Ohio jurist, stated: Judge Cook and I served on the Ninth Judicial District Court of Appeals in Ohio from 1991 to 1995. I believe we became friends as well as colleagues, working closely together although she was a Republican and I a Democrat. I became impressed with Judge Cook's work ethic and legal mind. She quickly became a talented Appellate Judge. In fact, in a rather brief period of time she became a leader on the Court. Later, when she was elected to the Ohio Supreme Court, I was privileged to sit by assignment with her on the Court a few times. She has exhibited an ability and willingness to be an independent thinker and member of that Court. William Harsha, Judge on the Ohio Court of Appeals, Fourth District, stated: Always courteous and seldom impatient, she is the antithesis of the ill-tempered despot that comes to mind when one thinks of `black robe fever.' '' Many of us have seen people change once they get on the Federal bench. J. Dean Carro, Director of the Legal Clinic at the University of Akron remarked: I feel comfortable with expressing an opinion on the qualities I like to see in judges. These qualities are independence, intelligence, and integrity. Justice Cook scores high in all three categories. This Senator would like to add the characteristic of humility. With the confirmation of Jeff Sutton last week and Deb Cook today, the Sixth Circuit can begin to breathe a little easier. From 1998 up until September, 2002, the number of vacant judgeship months in the Sixth Circuit has increased from 13.7 to 91, the highest in the Nation. In addition, during this same time period, the median time from the filing of a notice of appeal to disposition of the case in the Sixth Circuit was 16 months, well above the 10.7 months national average, and the longest in the Nation. Clearly, the Sixth Circuit is in crisis, and today's confirmation of Deborah Cook will go a long way toward restoring the court's efficiency and ability to deal with cases. I am sure you will agree that Deborah Cook is exactly what we need on the Federal bench. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate and pay tribute to the E.E. Ward Moving and Storage Company LLC of Columbus, OH, for 122 years of service to the great State of Ohio. Recently, the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Congressional Black Caucus recognized the E.E. Ward Company as the oldest African-American- owned business in America. The Ward family has longstanding roots in Ohio dating back before the Civil War. From 1842 to 1858, John T. Ward was a conductor on the Underground Railroad which ran through Columbus, and the Ward home was a well-known stop. During the Civil War, John T. Ward received government contracts to haul munitions, supplies, and equipment for the U.S. Army. After the Civil War, John's son, William Ward, began working for his father, and then he went to work for the Union Transfer and Storage Company. At Union Transfer, he moved up through the ranks serving as teamster, work supervisor, foreman, and rate clerk. In 1881, William Ward rejoined his father John T. Ward and together they founded the Ward Transfer Line, a wagon transportation business in downtown Columbus. Since 1881 the company has evolved and changed with the times. In 1889, the company changed its name to E.E. Ward Transfer and Storage Company, when the youngest son, Edgar Earl Ward, assumed management of the company. He was 18 years old. Twenty-five years later, in 1914, the company began its shift to motorized moving and retired its last horse in 1921. Over the years, E.E. Ward has performed moves for schools, museums, libraries, business, and homes. In the 1950s, the E.E. Ward Company was awarded two notable contracts in Columbus--from the Steinway Piano Company and the Franklin County Board of Elections. During the course of those contracts, it is estimated that the company moved over 900,000 pianos and hundreds of voting machines to various precincts in Columbus. The Company's Chairman Emeritus is Eldon W. Ward, the grandson of William Ward. He joined the company in 1945 and retired 51 years later in 1996. Mr. Eldon Ward has been recognized as an accomplished business leader and is admired by many. He was inducted into the Ohio Corporate Hall of Fame in 1991 and the Central Ohio Business Hall of Fame in 1992. Under his leadership, the E.E. Ward Company received the National Torch Award of Marketplace Ethics from the Better Business Bureau. As a community leader, Eldon Ward served on the boards of over 40 community organizations, including the local chapter of the American Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and the Chamber of Commerce. He served as board president of the Columbus Foundation, the Franklin County United Way, and the Central Ohio YMCA, which was renamed the Eldon W. Ward YMCA in 1991. Today, E.E. Ward Moving & Storage Company is an agent of Bekins Van Lines and provides local and interstate household goods relocation services and a variety of logistics services to residential, government and corporate customers. The company focuses primarily on residential and business moves and storage. The longevity of the E.E. Ward Company is the result of its commitment to excellent service. The current owners, Brian A. Brooks, president and godson of Eldon Ward, and Otto Beatty III, co-owner, recently purchased the company. Both are in their early thirties. They have chosen to carry on the entrepreneurial torch of their parents and grandparents and are wonderful examples to other young business owners. In fact, the company was recently awarded the 2002 Super Service Award from Angie's List, a consumer and household rating company. Brian Brooks and Otto Beatty are privy to a wealth of experience and wisdom from family members and community members. Like their forebears, they focus on providing excellent service to their customers and giving generously to their community. Their dedication and commitment is a shining example of good corporate citizenship, something we need more of throughout America. I am pleased that this year the King Arts Complex in Columbus will be the recipient of a beautiful painting by famed Columbus Artist Aminah Lynn Robinson that illustrates the history of the company and the Ward family's role in the Underground Railroad. We shall all pay tribute to people like the John T. Ward family who helped America's enslaved citizens gain freedom. That is why in my first year in the United States Senate, I co-sponsored the bill to provide Federal funding to the Underground Railroad Freedom Center in Cincinnati, the only national center of its kind in the country. I hope the painting about the Ward Family will inspire people of all ages to learn more about the significant role of the Underground Railroad in our history. Recently, on the occasion of Ohio's bicentennial, I reminded a joint session of the Ohio General Assembly in Chillicothe that our forefathers delivered for us and now the future of our great State is in our hands. Throughout Ohio's history, the Ward family has made major contributions to the quality of life by creating jobs and opportunities for countless Americans and we should all be grateful for their hard work and dedication. I believe Brian Brooks's and Otto Beatty's ancestors would be very proud of their work today. With the two of them at the helm of the E.E. Ward Moving and Storage Company, I think its future will be bright for many years to come. I wish the E.E. Ward Moving and Storage Company the best of luck in all of its endeavors and I look forward to congratulating them on many successes in the future.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Federal Employee Student Loan Assistance Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Federal Employee Student Loan Assistance Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, thank you for allowing me to speak on behalf of Jeff Sutton, a star in the Ohio bar. I am here to express my strongest recommendation for Jeff, whom the President nominated to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on May 9, 2001. Can you believe that? On May 9, I was at the White House when President Bush nominated Jeff, and here we are, almost 2 years later, finally voting on his nomination. I am extremely disappointed at the length of time it has taken for this most qualified nominee to reach the floor of the Senate. Much of my disappointment stems from the fact that anyone who knows Jeff knows him to be a man of unquestioned integrity, intelligence, and qualifications, with vast experience in commercial, constitutional, and appellate litigation. Jeff will bring a special quality to the bench. His first career was as a teacher. He was a 7th grade geography and 10th grade history teacher, as well as a soccer and baseball coach before heading off to law school. Jeff graduated first in his law school class from the Ohio State University College of Law, followed by a clerkship with the Honorable Thomas Meskill of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and a clerkship for Justices Powell and Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court. From 1995 to 1998, Jeff left his Jones, Day law firm behind and answered the call to public service as the State solicitor general of Ohio. It was during this time that the National Association of Attorneys General awarded Jeff a Best Brief Award for practice before the U.S. Supreme Court 4 years in a row. After his tenure as State solicitor, Jeff returned to Jones, Day to practice law, where he works today. Because he was the State solicitor of Ohio when I was Governor, I worked with him extensively when he represented the Governor's office, and, in my judgment, he never exhibited any predisposition with regard to any issue and had great interpersonal skills. Jeffrey Sutton has exactly what the Federal bench needs: a fresh, objective perspective. In spite of being a brilliant lawyer, he has never exhibited anything but humility. In fact, Professor John Jeffries of the University of Virginia agrees with me on this point, calling Jeff ``compassionate, humane and modest.'' He goes on to say that Jeff ``does not rush to judgment, nor is he burdened by the kind of unwarranted confidence in his own opinion that closes the mind to concerns of others.'' Let me repeat that: He is not ``burdened by the kind of unwarranted confidence in his own opinion that closes the mind to concerns of others.'' Jeff Sutton's qualifications for this judgeship are best evidenced through his experience. He has argued 12 cases and filed over 50 merits and amicus curiae briefs before the U.S. Supreme Court, both as a private attorney and as Solicitor for the State of Ohio. In addition to the U.S. Supreme Court, Jeff has also argued 13 cases in State supreme courts, 8 cases before the Federal Court of Appeals, and dozens more cases in State and Federal trial courts. I want to share a story with you that reflects how good a lawyer Jeff really is. I visited the Supreme Court last year to move the admission of some of my fellow Ohio State Law School alumni. We were having our 40th class reunion here in Washington. While giving us a tour of the Supreme Court, Bill Suter, the Clerk of the Court, upon realizing that we were Ohioans, went way out of his way to commend Jeff's abilities as an appellate lawyer. I cannot think of higher praise than the Clerk of the Supreme Court, who witnesses so many arguments and sees so many lawyers every year, remembering Jeff and having nothing but praise for him. In fact, Jeff has earned such a vaulted reputation among the Supreme Court Judges that they regularly seek him out to participate in proceedings before the High Court. These cases include that of Becker v. Montgomery, where the Supreme Court appointed Sutton to represent an inmate in a prisoner's rights lawsuit against his jailors. The Court unanimously agreed with his position, and Justice Ginsburg even went so far as to remark in the opinion that ``[Jeff's] able representation . . . permit[s] us to decide this case, satisfied that the relevant issues have been fully aired.'' It is also worthy to note that the lawyer for the State of Ohio in this case, Stewart Baker, said of Jeff: [T]he Becker case illustrates the fallacy of claims that Mr. Sutton's judicial philosophy can be gleaned from the positions he has advocated in court. . . .While the Becker case may or may not tell us something about his personal views, Mr. Sutton's willingness to take the case without compensation does tell us a lot about his compassion and commitment to justice. In Westside Mothers v. Haveman, the Supreme Court again invited Jeff's participation in a Medicaid case as amicus curiae after it found the parties' briefing to be ``less than satisfactory.'' And again, the Court responded with thanks and praise, stating: Particularly noteworthy for its quality and helpfulness is the amicus participation at the court's request of the [Michigan Municipal] League and its pro bono counsel, Mr. Jeffrey Sutton. In addition to his appellate practice and family responsibilities, Jeff has exhibited an appreciation that one has a responsibility to contribute to the legal profession. He has been an adjunct professor of law at Ohio State, teaching seminars in constitutional law. He also teaches continuing legal education seminars on the U.S. Supreme Court and Ohio Supreme Court to Ohio State court judges and develops curricula for appellate judges on behalf of the Ohio State Judicial College. While his unwillingness to shy away from challenging or controversial cases has, in some instances, led critics to allege he has a predisposition toward certain cases, I believe such comments are not accurate--for instance, the allegation that Jeff is biased against people with disabilities. I disagree strongly with my colleague, the Senator from Iowa, on this point. Anyone who really knows this man knows these allegations are just untrue and that Jeff should not be judged on a handful of cases where he did his job by vigorously advocating on behalf of his clients. I believe it is patently unfair for groups to take the position that, based upon his advocacy in this handful of cases, this man wants to curtail the civil rights of persons with disabilities. Nothing-- nothing--could be further from the truth. First, I would like to point out that it is a well-established principle in the legal profession that lawyers should not be held responsible for the positions of their clients. By serving as a lawyer to certain groups or individuals, Jeff does not necessarily adopt their viewpoints as his own; he just does his job, as he is supposed to, by subordinating his own interests to those of the client and doing everything possible within the bounds of the law to win. In fact, the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct state: A lawyer's representation of a client, including representation by appointment, does not constitute an endorsement of the client's political, economic, social or moral views or activities. Second, instead of focusing on a handful of cases, Jeff's detractors should review his history of representing a very diverse group of clients who advocate every conceivable point on the political spectrum. This includes Cheryl Fischer, a blind woman refused entry to an Ohio medical school, whom Jeff represented when he was the Ohio State solicitor. Ms. Fischer wrote a letter of support on Jeff's behalf stating: I recall with much pride just how committed Jeff was to my cause. He believed in my position. He cared and listened and he wanted . . . to win for me. Jeff represented the National Coalition of Students with Disabilities where he successfully argued that Ohio State-run universities were violating the motor voter law by failing to provide their disabled students with voter registration materials. This is very important. In that particular case, Benson Wolman, a former law school classmate of mine, who would smile with great pleasure if described as a liberal civil rights advocate, and a former director of the ACLU in Ohio, asked Sutton to help out in this motor voter case. He supports his nomination, stating: [Mr. Sutton's] commitment to individual rights, civility as an opposing counsel, his sense of fairness, his devotion to civic responsibility, and his keen and demonstrated intellect all reflect the best that is to be found in the legal profession. This is the former head of the Ohio Civil Liberties Union saying Mr. Sutton's commitment to individual rights, his civility as an opposing counsel, his sense of fairness, his devotion to civic responsibilities, and his keen and demonstrated intellect all reflect the best that is to be found in the legal profession. Wolman's endorsement of Jeff is very important. It should give comfort and alleviate the fears of my colleagues who believe Jeff may be too conservative and not sensitive to liberal causes and civil rights. Third, Jeff's service on the board of the Equal Justice Foundation, a public interest organization that provides pro bono legal services on behalf of disadvantaged individuals, including people with disabilities, is evidence of his interest to advance the interests of the disabled. During his tenure, the foundation tackled a variety of cases which advanced these interests: One, for example, suing three Ohio cities to force them to build curb cuts to make their sidewalks wheelchair accessible; two, suing an amusement park company that had a blanket policy banning the disabled from their rides; and, three, representing a girl with tubular sclerosis in a case alleging that her school was not providing her with an adequate education plan--to name a few. Last, anyone who knows of Jeff's work when he was younger at his father's school for children with cerebral palsy knows this is not a man who wants to curtail the rights of the disabled. Think about that. His father ran a school for children with cerebral palsy. Can you think that someone who had that experience in his family would want to curtail the rights of the disabled? In fact, you only need to read the letters of support from those who work in the disabled community to see the number of people who support Jeff. These include Francis Beytagh, legal director of the National Center for Law and the Handicapped, who wrote: I believe Jeff Sutton would make an excellent federal appellate judge. He is a very bright, articulate and personable individual who values fairness highly. . . . I do not regard him as a predictable ideologue. . . . I recommend and support his confirmation without reservation. And James Leonard, codirector of the University of Alabama's Disability Law Institute, who wrote: In my opinion, Jeffrey Sutton is well-qualified to sit on the Sixth Circuit Court and should be confirmed. . . . I see no ``agenda'' on Mr. Sutton's part to target disabled citizens-- That is something that is going to be advocated on the floor of the Senate for the next day and a half. He says: In my opinion, Jeffrey Sutton is well-qualified to sit on the Sixth Circuit Court and should be confirmed. . . . I see no ``agenda'' on Mr. Sutton's part to target disabled citizens. . . . Seth Waxman, President Clinton's Solicitor General and Jeff's opposing counsel in University of Alabama v. Garrett, stated: I know that some have questioned whether the position Mr. Sutton advocated last Term . . . reflected antipathy on his part toward the Americans with Disabilities Act. I argued that case against Mr. Sutton, and I discerned no such personal antipathy. Mr. Sutton vigorously advanced the constitutional position of his client in the case, the State of Alabama; doing so was entirely consistent with the finest traditions of the adversarial system. Jeff Sutton should not be criticized on assumptions that past legal positions reflect his personal views. Instead, he should be lauded for always zealously advocating his client's interest, no matter the issue. While I could continue praising Jeff as a lawyer, what I am most impressed by is that I could spend equally as much time praising Jeff, the man. There is no question that Jeffrey Sutton is one of this Nation's premier appellate lawyers and could remain at his law firm and literally make millions of dollars. He has chosen, however, to turn his back on that opportunity because he is deeply committed to public and community service and believes he can do more for his fellow men and their quality of life and the legal system by serving on the appellate bench. His motives, in my opinion, are fundamental to one who seeks a lifetime appointment to a Federal circuit court of appeals. Jeffrey Sutton wants his job for the right reasons. He does not need it for his ego or the financial well-being of having a permanent job. He has a wonderful wife and three children, whom I have met and talked to, who are willing to make the financial sacrifice so that Jeff can serve. Jeff is an elder and deacon in the Presbyterian Church, as well as a Sunday school teacher. He also participates in the I Know I Can program, which provides college scholarships to inner-city children; ProMusica, a chamber music organization; and coaches youth soccer and basketball teams. I have met some exceptional people during my 35 years in government, and Jeff is one of the most exceptional. I have worked closely with Jeff and know that he will make an exemplary addition to the Sixth Circuit, which is in crisis because of the vacancies now on it. I respectfully urge the Senate to confirm Jeff Sutton's nomination as quickly as possible.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, today I wish to speak on behalf of a man, Victor Baird, who, until recently, had probably one of the most thankless jobs in the Senate--Staff Director and Chief Counsel of the Senate Ethics Committee. In this position, Victor was charged with preserving the integrity of the Senate by policing the conduct of its Members and ensuring that the Senators and their staffs adhered to the Senate's high ethical standards. The nature of the Ethics Committee is that the work we do remains confidential, except in the most egregious circumstances. Victor faced some of these circumstances and his guidance in steering the committee, the Senate, through them was invaluable. In general, though, most people didn't hear that much about Victor or the work he did in his 16 years on the committee, but to those of who sit on the committee or who have ever sat on the committee, we know that a lack of public exposure for the committee means that Victor was doing his job, and doing it well. As I mentioned before, Victor was a 16 year veteran of the Senate Ethics Committee. He was first appointed to the committee by Senator Heflin in March 1987. He was acting Staff Director and Chief Counsel from October 1992 until March 1993 and became Staff Director and Chief Counsel from April 1993 until this January. Before arriving in the Senate, Victor served in the United States Air Force and had a distinguished legal career in Georgia that included serving as an Assistant Attorney General in Georgia, as an Administrative Law Judge for the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, and on the Consumers' Utility Council of Georgia. Victor's legal acumen, good nature, keen attention to detail, nonpartisan nature, and most of all, his integrity, all contributed to his success in the Senate. He will be missed by many. I thank him for his service to the United States Senate and to his country, and wish him God speed in all his journeys ahead.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, today I am pleased to offer special recognition to a great Ohio company, LexisNexis, on the auspicious occasion of the Thirtieth Anniversary of online legal research. Thirty years ago today in a Dayton, OH office building, a team of employees and consultants developed the world's first full-text commercial search engine to use for legal research. LexisNexis thus launched the first online legal research system, an innovation that revolutionized the way legal and business professionals, government officials, and academics conduct online legal and business research. This special milestone offers a unique opportunity to reflect on the company's tradition of innovation and to look with optimism to the future. Today, LexisNexis is a global leader in legal, news and business information services, a distinction supported by product lines that date back more than a century. With more than 3,000 employees in Ohio and over 13,000 employees worldwide, LexisNexis has enhanced the quality of life within the communities where it employees live and work, and it is truly deserving of high praise. I am certain that as this worthy enterprise maintains its commitment to deliver superior services and solutions to its customers, it will continue to grow and prosper and will follow in the tradition of innovation which has long been the hallmark of the company. Thus, with sincere pleasure, I congratulate LexisNexis on this Thirtieth Anniversary and extend best wishes for the future.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I thank the majority leader for the hospitality he extended to Rev. Glen W. Warner. I have had the pleasure of knowing Reverend Warner for many years. He is a remarkable person who has a distinguished record of service to his community in northeast Ohio in two vocations--as a spiritual leader of the Second Congregational Church and a leader in his family's business, the Molded Fiber Glass Companies, which is one of the area's leading employers. I have been very impressed over the years that he has been so successful in both of these very different careers. He has ministered to people's spiritual and temporal needs and he has made a real difference in the community. Reverend Warner has volunteered for several community organizations including serving on the board of the Ashtabula Foundation. His church is the one in which Reverend Warner and his wife, Nancy, who joins him today were married. In his business career, Reverend Warner travels throughout North America and Europe to develop new markets and new products for the company which was founded by his father-in-law, Robert S. Morrison. Reverend Glen Warner is a wonderful role model for anyone, and his unique, dual-career underscores the fact that one can be successful in business and in serving the Lord. That one can exercise his spiritual purpose in the realm of his secular responsibility in the great tradition of the English parliamentarian and leader, William Wilburforce. I am so happy that his wife, Nancy, and his granddaughter Tyra Miller and her friend Keisha Gilbert joined Reverend Warner in the Chamber today as he led the opening prayer at today's session of the United States Senate. Reverend Glen Warner is a good friend and I am proud to have him here as the guest Chaplain. I encourage Members of the Senate, as they come to the Chamber, if they get a chance, to meet Reverend Warner. He is truly an inspiration.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank the Chair.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I want to share with my colleagues the fact that the budget deficit for 2003 and 2004, including Social Security and the cost of the war, is going to be over $500 billion. Again, in 2003 and 2004, including Social Security, it will be a half trillion dollars. This amendment basically says the tax package will be at $350 billion. It also says if this Congress decides to go over $350 billion, we ought to offset it either by cutting expenses or, in the alternative, increasing other taxes that are less stimulative to the economy, and paying for a tax reduction that is more stimulative to the economy. It makes sense. We are on the edge of a fiscal crisis in this country if we keep going the way we are, particularly with the war that is hanging over us today.

Mr. VOINOVICH

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

Mr. VOINOVICH

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

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, today, our hearts and prayers go out to those people in the Armed Forces who are fighting the war in Iraq. This morning, I put on this orange ribbon I wore when I was Governor of the State of Ohio during Desert Storm. I am going to continue to wear it during the war in Iraq to remind me and others that our men and women are in harm's way, and I will continue to wear it until they return.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. I seek 15 minutes.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, before I address the merits of this amendment, I commend the chairman of the Budget Committee for his successful efforts to bring a budget resolution to the floor. I would like to particularly commend the chairman for including several important budget reform initiatives that will control spending and impact the soaring deficit: Extension of supermajority enforcement, reestablishment of discretionary spending limits in the Senate, reestablishment of restrictions on advance appropriations in the Senate, providing a clear definition of emergency legislation, reestablishment of the pay-as-you-go point of order in the Senate. Those are good things, but I must say I take issue with the reconciliation instructions contained in the budget resolution. As much as I oppose deficit spending, I also oppose deficit tax reduction, and these reconciliation instructions have the opposite effect of the budget reforms in the resolution. I say to my colleagues this evening that we are on the edge of a serious crisis in terms of our Federal budget. In the past decade, conservatives worked hard to return the Federal Government to a balanced budget. For a short time after hand-to-hand combat, we met our goal for 2 years in 1999 and 2000. We balanced the budget without raiding the Social Security surplus. We had an on-budget surplus. That means we did not use Social Security in 1999. In 2000, again we did not use Social Security and we had a true on-budget surplus of $87 billion. Ever since 2000, we have been increasing our budget deficit to the extent that if the budget deficit for 2003 is projected, it will be $408 billion, the largest budget deficit we have experienced in the Senate. Unfortunately, as I said, our balancing the budget was short lived. Today, instead of reducing our $6.2 trillion national debt, we are expanding it. In 2001, we suffered an on-budget deficit of $33 billion. In 2002, we suffered an on-budget deficit of $314 billion. CBO now projects that if Congress were to go home and not legislate any further--and that does not include costs associated with the economic stimulus, a drug benefit for Medicare, or the war--we would suffer an on-budget deficit, as I mentioned, of $408 billion. It is clear that increased discretionary spending has led to these exploding Federal deficits. This discretionary spending reached a post-cold-war low in 1995 of $502 billion. At the current rate of growth, discretionary spending will exceed $1 trillion in fiscal year 2008. In terms of deficits, the future does not look very good. CBO recently prepared an analysis of OMB's budget proposals and, according to this report, if these proposals are enacted, we can expect a whopping on-budget deficit of $452 billion in fiscal year 2003, which does not include costs associated with war, and $512 billion in fiscal year 2004. Again, that does not include the costs associated with the war. The fact of the matter is that in 2003 and 2004, if we include Social Security, we are going to be borrowing over half a trillion dollars to run our Government. Currently, as I said, we have a $6.2 trillion debt. The administration has recently asked Congress to again raise the debt ceiling. I am sure they are reluctant to come over here and ask us to raise the debt ceiling at the same time we are talking about a $726 million reduction in taxes. The current Federal debt represents an obligation of more than $21,000 for each man, woman, and child in the United States, including the Budget chairman's new grandson Nicholas and my new granddaughter Emily. Under CBO's baseline, again, assuming Congress goes home and does not legislate anymore for the next 10 years and spending grows at inflation, we will reach a total debt of $8.7 trillion by 2008 and $9.7 trillion by 2012. However, under current policy assumptions, which include costs associated with economic stimulus and a drug benefit for Medicare, but not the war, OMB's budget projects Federal debt will exceed $9.3 trillion by 2008. The President's budget did not even include a projection for debt of 10 years. I say to my colleagues that debt does matter. Every dollar we add to the Federal debt today must be repaid in the future with interest, and there is no way around it. I am also concerned about the seemingly new message which minimizes the importance and effect of the debt. In contrast, Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan has consistently stated that all things being equal, a declining level of Federal debt is desirable because it holds down long-term interest rates, thereby lowering the cost of capital and elevating private investments. Even the proponents of using the debt-to-GDP ratio as a measure of fiscal responsibility must acknowledge our current situation is not good. As recently as 2000, we had a surplus-to-GDP ratio of 2.4 percent. In 2001, when we passed the last stimulus package, the ratio of deficit to GDP was only 1.5 percent. Currently, CBO estimates the GDP ratio for 2003 will be 3 percent and could go higher. We have doubled that percentage in 1 year without including the cost of the war. In January, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan described the effort to bring deficits under control and decisions needed to maintain fiscal discipline. He said: Achieving a satisfactory budget posture will depend on ensuring that the new initiatives are consistent with our longer run budgetary deficits. As you craft the budget strategy for the coming years, you may want to consider provisions that in some way would limit decreasing tax and spending initiatives if specified targets for the budget surplus and Federal debt were to be satisfied. In other words, in putting our budgets together, we have to look down the road to the day of reckoning when the baby boomers retire and we are in a position where we can take care of their retirements. Many foreign investors believe budget deficits demonstrate the relative strength of an economy. In addition, they believe this ratio gives a fair idea of Government policies and political aspects of the individual nation's monetary systems. Consequently, the Maastrich Treaty requires the EU countries not to exceed a debt-to-GDP ratio of 3 percent. When the costs of the anticipated supplemental spending related to the war are added, the current budget deficit will exceed 3 percent of GDP in 2004. The U.S. Federal budget would demonstrate less fiscal discipline than European nations are imposing on themselves. This change in perception would tend to increase interest costs for Federal borrowing since the United States finances a large portion of its debt held by the public through the sale of T-bills. And it will become progressively more difficult to finance continued deficits or pay future Social Security benefits. That being said, and despite my concerns regarding the expanding national debt, I think most agree that some economic stimulus is needed to provide a shot in the arm to our economy, although many economists, including Alan Greenspan, have said the problem is geopolitical, that after the cloud of a war is over our economy will move forward. Stimulus, I believe, is still needed. But not $700 billion worth of stimulus. Our amendment calls for $350 billion in stimulus. And realistically, tax cuts larger than $350 billion appear to have very little support on either side of the Hill. It might not be possible to pass any stimulus proposal if the pricetag is too large. The all or nothing approach could rob us of the opportunity to give business the stimulus it needs. That is unacceptable. We need to cooperate and enact a $350 billion stimulus package and get the economy moving as rapidly as possible. I say to the Presiding Officer, when I was Governor of Ohio, if I suggested a $700 billion package of tax reductions to the legislature and they came back to me and said on a bipartisan basis, we will give you $350 billion, I would have taken it and ran. We believe that $350 billion will cover what is needed to help rev up the economy, especially given the fact we will be borrowing each and every dollar used for the tax cut. Reconciliation instructions at the $350 billion level provide the financing committee the ability to enact one large tax reform proposal, several small reforms, or a combination of medium and small reforms. It is reasonable to expect future economic growth within 10 years would begin to pay for the cost of tax reforms limited to $350 billion. It is also important to note our amendment does not preclude Congress from passing a larger economic stimulus package this year. It just says we need to pay for it. We should honor the principle embodied in pay-go. If people want more than $350 billion in tax reductions, pay for them with offsets. Even proponents of dynamic scoring can see it would take much longer than 10 years for economic growth to begin to pay for tax reductions of more than $350 billion. Although many have agreed to vote for final passage of the budget resolution, I can guarantee we will not support a package larger than $350 billion. The Senate should also clearly recognize bipartisanship is the best stimulus we can provide the American people at this time. The Senate did not even consider a budget resolution on the floor last year. It led to partisan gridlock and failure to enact appropriations bills before the end of the 107th Congress. Major programs, including many related to homeland security, were left in limbo. We must not repeat this mistake. The Senate, the administration, and the American people are best served through bipartisan support for budgetary initiatives. The people are watching us. They want to see us work together. We are at a time of war. Given the current economic and geopolitical climate, we should avoid excessive partisanship which breeds uncertainty and discourages business investment. Enacting a budget resolution with only a one or two vote margin tells financial markets that Congress is likely to drag out the whole process, including reducing taxes and passing appropriations bills when they are needed. In contrast, enacting a budget resolution with strong bipartisan support will signal stability, tell financial markets that Congress is likely to manage Federal finances efficiently and effectively, and encourage business investment. Additionally, I think it is very important that we act in a unified manner, supporting the President due to the war. I disagree strongly with my Republican colleagues who maintain that not passing the President's larger package will look bad for him. I don't agree with that. Instead, I believe passing a $350 billion package with strong bipartisan support will be looked upon very favorably by the American public, that the Congress and the President can work together to move things ahead on a bipartisan basis. Let's send a signal to Wall Street, Main Street, and the rest of the world that during this time of crisis we are able to overcome our differences and unify behind fiscal policies with a broad base of support. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I will continue the debate in regard to the partial-birth abortion ban. This afternoon, I will talk about the constitutionality of this statute, S. 3. The argument has been made that this statute is unconstitutional, but I differ with my colleagues who make this argument. Reference has been made to the Stenberg case that overturned the Nebraska partial-birth abortion law. I argue that the law in front of us, or the statute in front of us, is fundamentally different. First, the language is different. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 provides a very precise definition of partial-birth abortion so that it is clear on the face of the legislation exactly what procedure is to be banned, unlike the Nebraska statute that was declared unconstitutional. The bill would outlaw one, and only one, abortion procedure, and that is the D&X procedure, the partial-birth procedure we have been describing in very vivid detail on the Senate floor, the procedure that no one really can argue is anything less than barbaric and inhumane. There is absolutely nothing vague, unclear, or ambiguous about how this bill defines the partial-birth abortion procedure. To make this even more clear, it is useful to examine the law struck down by the Supreme Court in the Stenberg case. The procedure was defined in that case by the Nebraska Legislature as follows, and I will read from that Nebraska law that was found to be unconstitutional, to show its difference from this law: An abortion procedure in which the person performing the abortion partially delivers vaginally a living unborn child before killing the unborn child and completing the delivery. That is what the Nebraska law said. The phrase ``partially delivers vaginally a living unborn child before killing the unborn child'' was further defined in the Nebraska statute as follows: Deliberately and intentionally delivering into the vagina a living unborn child, or a substantial portion thereof, for the purpose of performing a procedure; that the person performing such procedure knows will kill the unborn child and does kill the unborn child. The Supreme Court held this language of the Nebraska statute covered more than just one abortion procedure. The definition used in the Nebraska statute implicated not only partial-birth abortion procedures, but it also implicated the more common dilation and evacuation or D&E methods, which is different from a D&X method we are dealing with in this statute. For the record, a D&E, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, is described as follows: D&E involves the dilation of the cervix and the dismemberment of the fetus inside the uterus. The fetal parts are later removed from the uterus either with forceps or by suction. In other words, in a D&E procedure, an unborn child is essentially dismembered, limb by limb, piece by piece. During a D&E, an arm or leg is sometimes pulled into the birth canal before being twisted off, while the baby is still alive. The Justices thought this might be considered a partial-birth abortion under the Nebraska law definition because that definition, as I have just stated, includes any procedure in which a baby is delivered vaginally, even if that vaginal delivery is just a partial delivery. At this point, it is worth repeating exactly how a partial-birth abortion procedure, again also known as a D&X procedure, is distinguished from a D&E procedure. The D&X or partial-birth abortion procedure was very well described by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in his dissent in the Stenberg case. This is what Justice Thomas wrote: After dilating the cervix, the physician will grab the fetus by its feet and pull the fetal body out of the uterus into the vaginal cavity . . . While the fetus is stuck in this position, dangling partly out of the woman's body, and just a few inches from a completed birth, the physician uses an instrument such as a pair of scissors to tear or perforate the skull. The physician will then either crush the skull or will use a vacuum to remove the brain and other intracranial contents from the fetal skull, collapse the fetus' head and pull the fetus from the uterus. That is depicted in a later phase of this procedure in this picture. In order to avoid any possibility of confusion, the bill before the Senate, S. 3, defines the phrase ``partial-birth abortion'' so narrowly that only the D&X abortion procedure is covered. No other abortion procedures--including the D&E procedure in which an unborn baby's arm or leg is pulled into the birth canal before being twisted off--could possibly be implicated by S. 3. While we have already heard it read on the Senate floor during the debate, while I read it last night in this debate, I think it is important to again repeat the bill's definition of the partial-birth abortion procedure. According to the definition in this bill, S. 3: (1) the term 'partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which---- (A) the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and (B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus; My colleague from California and others have argued that the S. 3 definition of a partial-birth abortion still covers more than one abortion procedure. But she has never explained how this is possible. The description of partial-birth abortion in S. 3 is so precise and is based, frankly, on the description of a leading abortionist, Dr. Mark Haskell, a man about whom I spoke last night on the Senate floor, a man who regularly conducts these heinous procedures in my home State of Ohio. This is a very precise definition of a partial-birth abortion that leads absolutely nothing to the imagination. Clearly, without question, S. 3 very precisely and very specifically addresses the first constitutional issue that was raised in the Stenberg case and is fundamentally different than the Nebraska statute that was declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. S. 3 would ban one and only one very specific abortion procedure. It simply imposes absolutely no undue burden on a woman's ability to obtain an abortion. Let me turn now to the second issue, the second constitutional issue, and that is the health of the mother, which was the other issue raised in the Stenberg case. The so-called requirement that the statute must contain ``the health of the mother'' also springs from the notion of undue burden on the woman's ability to get an abortion. The argument, as I understand, goes something like this: If a procedure is medically important to protect the health of the mother, banning that procedure would pose an undue burden on her ability to have an abortion. Yet in the case of the partial-birth abortion, medical experts have repeatedly confirmed that this callous act is never medically indicated. And because it is never medically indicated, banning it cannot possibly be an undue burden. There is substantial evidence from past congressional hearings on this issue to support a finding obtained in the bill itself, and the bill makes these findings. It says in part, the following: Rather than being an abortion procedure that is embraced by the medical community, partial-birth abortion remains a disfavored procedure that is not only unnecessary to protect the health of the mother but, in fact, poses serious risk to the long-term health of women and, in some circumstances, their lives. I remind my colleagues of a 1996 interview in which the former U.S. Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, explicitly discussed partial-birth abortion. In that interview, a reporter for American Medical News posed the following question. This is what the interviewer asked. President Clinton just vetoed a bill to ban partial-birth abortions, a late-term abortion technique that practitioners refer to as intact dilation and evacuation or dilation and extraction. In so doing, he cited several cases in which women were told these procedures were necessary to preserve their health and their ability to have future pregnancies. How would you characterize the claims being made in favor of the medical need for this procedure? Dr. Koop responded as follows: I believe that Mr. Clinton was misled by his medical advisers on what is fact and what is fiction in reference to late term abortions because in no way can I twist my mind to see that the late term abortion as described, you know, partial-birth, and then destruction of the unborn child before the head is born, is a medical necessity for the mother. Similarly, in 1997 a House committee report on the subject cited over 400 OB/GYN and maternal/fetal specialists who have unequivocally stated: Partial-birth abortion is never medically indicated to protect a woman's health or her fertility. In fact, the opposite is true. The procedure can pose a significant and immediate threat to both the pregnant woman's health and her fertility. The majority leader of the Senate, a medical doctor, gave us, a few moments ago, the benefit of his wisdom, of his experience on this issue. The point I believe is worth repeating because it is notable that so many doctors are willing to come right out and say: No, this is absolutely not necessary; we can never find one instance in which it is medically indicated. Doctors usually don't say things like this. They just don't like being that definite because medicine, by definition, is usually a case- by-case situation, a case-by-case profession. But this issue is different. On this issue, it is crystal clear, partial-birth abortions serve no legitimate medical purpose that cannot be served by other means. As my colleague from Pennsylvania stated earlier today: Over the past several years the Senate advocates of partial-birth abortion have never produced even one case in which a partial-birth abortion is shown to be medically necessary. Opponents of this bill go beyond just arguing about the merits of partial-birth abortion. They go further, probably because it is so gruesome that some of my colleagues are uncomfortable supporting it. Some of my colleagues would prefer to debate the issue of abortion more generally. They try to cast this debate as a debate about a broader issue, and that issue is reproductive freedom. But the issue before us today is not reproductive freedom; it is a much more narrow issue. The issue is very narrowly defined. It is simply the issue of partial-birth abortion. The issue before us is the very specific method of partial- birth abortion, a method that is particularly brutal and gruesome and wrong. Brenda Pratt Shafer, a registered nurse who observed Dr. Haskell use the procedure to abort three babies in 1993, testified before our Senate Judiciary Committee in 1995. I would like to share with my colleagues what she said because she gave very gripping, very telling testimony.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. What is puzzling to me--the question is, you have pointed out some unusual cases that----

Mr. VOINOVICH. I do have a question.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I think that was a statement.

Mr. VOINOVICH. The question I would ask, again, is that those of us who have had a concern about this for many, many years have studied the language quite carefully. I particularly have because of the fact that we had two partial-birth abortion statutes that passed in Ohio, and we were looking at what the Supreme Court was going to do with the Nebraska case. I must say to you we have looked at it as carefully as we can. We believe the language that is in the bill is not vague. We believe it will stand up to a test in the Supreme Court, and that to go back to the Judiciary Committee, quite frankly, would just delay the real issue; that is, whether we have enough votes on the floor of the Senate to ban partial-birth abortions.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I reiterate the fact that this is not an issue that gets to the basis of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. I predict that just as in the past on the floor of the Senate, there are going to be people supporting the outlaw of this gruesome procedure, which is not necessary, who are very much pro-choice, pro- abortion, and who will probably have amendments on the floor of the Senate, a sense of the Senate, in terms of Roe v. Wade and many of the people who will vote to sustain Roe v. Wade will be some of the same people who will vote against this procedure because they understand how gruesome it is. I point out one other fact. You just cannot give the back of the hand statistics from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which is a very respected institute, which is an affiliate of Planned Parenthood, that published a survey of abortion providers showing--these are abortion providers, OK--showing that the number of partial-birth abortions more than tripled between 1996 and 2000. So this procedure is not one that is being practiced in some of the examples that my colleague from California has presented on the floor of the Senate but, rather, has become a regular procedure in the offices of many OB/GYN doctors in this country--a procedure that is not necessary.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Is my colleague from California aware of the fact that those of us who want to ban this procedure believe the language in this bill is not vague and that it will sustain a test in the Supreme Court of the United States?

Mr. VOINOVICH. Do you agree this issue has been debated on the floor of the Senate for a long period of time?