George Voinovich

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, over the past several months I have come to the floor on a couple of occasions to remind my colleagues and the American people about the unsustainable fiscal crisis confronting this country. Our national debt has exceeded $12 trillion for the first time in history. In fact from 2008 to 2009 alone, the Federal debt will increase 22 percent, boosting the country's debt-to-income ratio--or national debt as a percentage of GDP--from 70 percent last year to 86 percent this year. We have not seen this kind of debt to GDP ratio since the Second World War 65 years ago. The American people know that this is unsustainable, but my Senate colleagues from on the other side of the aisle continue to ignore this reality. I pledged that I would continue to cry ``the emperor has no clothes'' until we did something to address this crisis. I should explain. Most people know the story, ``The Emperor's New Clothes,'' by Hans Christian Anderson. In the tale, an emperor goes about the land wearing a nonexistent suit sold to him by a new tailor who convinced the monarch the suit is made of the finest silks. The tailors--two swindlers--tell the emperor that the threads of his robes will be so fine that they will look invisible to those dimwitted, or unfit for their position. The emperor and his ministers, themselves unable to see the clothing, lavish the tailor with praise for the suit, because they do not want to appear dimwitted or incompetent. Word spread across the kingdom of the emperor's beautiful new robes. To show off the extraordinary suit, a parade was formed. People lined the streets to see the emperor show off his new clothes. In this case, the health care reform bill before the Senate. Again, afraid to appear stupid or unfit, everyone pretends to see the suit. It is only when a child cries out ``the emperor wears no clothes'' does the crowd acknowledge that the emperor is, in fact, naked. Like the little boy crying out, those of us on this side of the aisle are pointing out this bill is fiscally not responsible. Yet, while not addressing our current health care challenges, the so- called health care reform bill we are debating also creates new programs at a time when we aren't paying for the one we already have, and it adds $2.5 trillion to what we are already spending. I learned as a mayor and as a Governor, if you cannot afford what you are doing, how can you take on new responsibilities? We could be using this opportunity to fix our health care system by finally working to lower health care costs and pass those savings on to citizens who are already overburdened by an expensive health care system. Yet instead of commonsense incremental reforms that increase access to affordable, quality health care, reduce the costs of health care for all Americans, and lower our national health care spending, we have this bill before us. Unfortunately, the bill violates the medical principle, first, do no harm. Instead, it is more of the same--more spending and more taxes--on an already struggling economy, this at a time when we are currently witnessing the worst recession this country has experienced since the Great Depression. The legislation we are considering when fully implemented, as I pointed out, spends $2.5 trillion to restructure our health care system. Yet it fails to rein in the cost of health spending in the next decade. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Federal Government's commitment to health care; that is, the cost of health care paid for by the Federal Government, would actually increase. In other words, we are adding more on to this extraordinary debt we have-- unfunded mandates we have--in terms of Medicare. The bill's proponents will tell you it is paid for. But as David Broder points out in his November 22 Washington Post editorial: While CBO said that both the House-passed bill and the one Reid has drafted meet Obama's test by being budget neutral, every expert I have talked to says the public has it right. These bills, as they stand, are budget-busters. And that is what many people are hearing right now from their constituents, particularly many of those individuals who are taking advantage of the Medicare Advantage Program. Furthermore, as former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin pointed out in the Wall Street Journal, this bill uses ``every budget gimmick and trick in the books.'' What are these gimmicks? Most troubling to me and what my colleagues on the floor have been discussing for the last few days is what the bill does to the Medicare Program. I think we need to be honest with the American people. The Medicare Program is already on shaky footing. Despite $37 trillion in unfunded-- unfunded--future Medicare costs and the prediction that the Medicare trust fund is expected to be insolvent by 2017, this bill calls for $465 billion in cuts to Medicare, not to fix the program but, as I said, to create new programs. For example, this health care bill fails to acknowledge the $250 billion that is necessary to reform the Medicare physician payment formula to ensure that our Nation's seniors will be able to see the doctor of their choice in the future. I have heard it firsthand from family and friends that in some places in Ohio, Medicare beneficiaries already face delays for physician services. Right in my hometown, I have had doctors tell me: George, if I have somebody before they are Medicare eligible and they go on Medicare, I will take care of them. I am not taking anymore new Medicare patients because of the reimbursement system. I heard the same thing in terms of Medicaid. We have a problem out there. Sadly, my friends on the other side of the aisle do not want to be honest with the American people and include the cost of the physician payment fix in the bill. It should be there. Let's be honest about it. Let's be transparent. It is another example, I think, of the smoke and mirrors and budget gimmicks and tricks that former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin mentioned. Like I said, we must fix our health care system to help millions of Americans who find themselves without insurance and those struggling to pay their health insurance premiums. We must increase competition in the private market, make it easier for small businesses and individuals to purchase insurance and reform our medical liability system. I call this malpractice lawsuit abuse reform. We should have done that a long time ago. But the fact is that the trial lawyers do not want that to happen. So we are doing nothing about a problem that is causing physicians to give unnecessary tests that are driving up the cost of health care in this country. Most important, we need to focus our efforts on jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs because one of the best things we can do to increase health care coverage is to help businesses start to hire again. I need a job. One of the reasons I need a job is when I have a job, in most instances, I have some form of health care. We have a lot of people who are being dropped off. We need more jobs. We should be concentrating on that if we want to up the number of people who can get health care. To repeat, we do not need to create another set of government programs that spends an additional $2.5 trillion to build a new entitlement system when we cannot afford the one we have now. That is the biggest thing with me. If you cannot afford what you have, how can you take on more? When we do that, we are being fiscally irresponsible. We should deal with what we have. It is amazing to me. If you look around the country, States are cutting their expenses and they are raising taxes. And what are we doing in Washington? We are taking on more expensive programs we cannot afford. That is what I think is troublesome to me as a debt hawk. We need to understand what we are doing. The American people are paying attention and they know that the emperor has no clothes when it comes to doing something about our unsustainable fiscal crisis. We are losing our credibility and our credit worldwide. They know it is immoral to be putting this debt on the backs of our children and grandchildren. I believe this health care bill does that exactly. It exacerbates our current fiscal situation. There are lots of good things out there, a lot of good things we all would like to do. But just like a family, if you cannot afford what you are doing now, how can you afford to take on more responsibility in terms of debt? Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, since arriving in the Senate in 1999, I have made improving the Federal workforce a priority. In that time, I have served as both chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, and have participated in many hearings to examine the personnel needs of the Federal Government. In fact, I recently attended my 52nd hearing examining Federal human capital issues. As my colleagues surely know, over the next several years the Federal workforce will experience an unprecedented demographic transition. By December 2012, 250,000 Federal employees are expected to retire. To maintain current staff levels amidst the impending wave of Baby Boomer retirements, and to cope with the increasing workload being placed on civil servants by Congress and the administration, more than 600,000 positions will need to be filled over this time period. This hiring challenge will be particularly significant for those positions designated by Federal agencies as ``mission-critical,'' or necessary for carrying out basic agency responsibilities. In its recently released survey of the coming hiring challenge, Where the Jobs Are, the Partnership for Public Service estimates that 273,000 new public servants--from doctors to intelligence analysts, program managers to police officers--will need to be brought on board to maintain current staffing levels, a 40 percent increase from the previous 3-year period. Successfully meeting this human capital challenge will require a sustained, multi-pronged effort addressing a host of issues. The Federal hiring process needs streamlining, improvements must continue in the processing of security clearances, and agencies will need to approach future hiring decisions in a strategic fashion rather than a tactical, reactive one. No matter how effectively the Federal hiring process is planned for and managed, however, an effective workforce cannot be built in the absence of talented individuals willing to pursue careers in public service. The need for well-qualified young people with aspirations to careers in public service is particularly important for mission- critical occupations, which tend to require highly specialized skill sets that too often are in short supply. At the same time, the average debt load undergraduate and graduate students must bear to finance their education continues to increase. As a result, many young Americans who would otherwise be eager to join the civil service are prevented from doing so. In an effort to help established a talent pipeline for such mission- critical positions, today I join with the distinguished Senator from New York, Senator Gillibrand, and the distinguished Senator from Delaware, Senator Kaufman, to introduce legislation aimed at encouraging and enabling young people with valuable, mission-critical skills to pursue careers in public service. The Roosevelt Scholars Act of 2009 would establish a foundation named in honor of our 26th President and a principal architect of the modern civil service, Theodore Roosevelt. The Theodore Roosevelt Scholarship Foundation would be charged with awarding scholarships to outstanding undergraduate and graduate students pursuing fields of study identified by Federal agencies as mission-critical. In return for tuition support and a small stipend, selected students--dubbed Roosevelt Scholars-- would be required to engage in 3 to 5 years of service with a Federal agency in need of an individual with a Roosevelt Scholar's unique skill set. Scholarships would be provided through the Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Scholarship Trust Fund, whose endowment would eventually provide a self-sustaining funding mechanism for Roosevelt Scholarships. I am pleased to be joined in offering this legislation by enthusiastic partners. Senator Gillibrand is a strong supporter of encouraging Americans to pursue careers in public service, and I am thankful for her diligent work in advancing this legislation. Likewise, Senator Kaufman has demonstrated his strong support of our Nation's civil servants by his frequent appearances on the floor of this chamber to recognize the accomplishments of outstanding Federal employees. And on the other side of the Capitol Rotunda, Representatives David Price and Michael Castle are already hard at work promoting this important legislation. The higher education community has been quick to see the promise offered by the Roosevelt Scholars Act. More than 100 public and private universities have endorsed this legislation, and the list continues to grow. I will be the first to tell my colleagues that problems as daunting as those facing the Federal workforce are not solved overnight. I have learned from 18 years as a public executive--first as mayor of Cleveland, then as Governor of Ohio--that progress on such challenges is made incrementally. Opportunities offered by legislation like the Roosevelt Scholars Act are important components in a larger strategy. I urge my colleagues to join in cosponsoring the Roosevelt Scholars Act, and look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and Senate to provide young people the opportunity to pursue a career in public service as Roosevelt Scholars.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I wish to recognize the promotion of U.S. Army Reserve BG Mark C. Arnold. On November 14, 2009, Mark Arnold will be promoted to brigadier general. He has more than 32 years of military service including time served in Afghanistan and Iraq. He was commissioned a distinguished military graduate and holds a bachelor of science degree from Ohio University, my alma mater, and he also holds a master of business administration degree from Cleveland State University. Brigadier General Arnold began his military career as an infantryman and has completed the airborne course, jumpmaster course, pathfinder course, air assault course, ranger course, special forces qualification course, psychological operations course, civil affairs course, Combined Arms Services Staff School, Command and General Staff College, and the Army War College where he completed his master of strategic studies. Brigadier General Arnold is presently assigned as the deputy commanding general of the U.S. Army Reserve 81st Regional Support Command at Fort Jackson, SC. He is also the president and chief executive officer of GSE, which is a $500 million multinational manufacturing firm. He has demonstrated that he is a ``Warrior- Citizen'' who is equally committed to the defense of our great Nation and the advancement of his community. I applaud his commitment to public service as well as his commitment to his community. The State of Ohio and all Americans congratulate Brigadier General Arnold for his tireless dedicated duty to protect freedom, ensure liberty, and defend the principles of the United States. Leaders like Brigadier General Arnold will ensure the United States will continue to prosper as the world's greatest Nation. I want to extend congratulations and my sincere regards and best wishes to Brigadier General Arnold and his family in honor of his promotion.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I concur with my colleague. Our floor amendment requires FEBs to coordinate with appropriate agencies for preparedness, response, and COOP. We do not mean that OPM must enter into a memorandum of understanding with every agency that participates in an FEB or every agency that is affected by an FEB. We believe OPM should have the discretion and flexibility to determine which agencies are the ``appropriate agencies'' to coordinate with in any particular situation as well as the discretion to decide when that coordination needs to be defined in memoranda of understanding or other formal agreement.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Akaka for leading this amendment to recognize FEBs' role in preparing the Federal workforce for emergencies. FEBs participate in a number of activities in this regard, including working with the Department of Health and Human Services to brief the Federal workforce on points of distribution that can be set up to dispense medication during health emergencies and working with the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, and the Chief Human Officers Council to distribute information on human resources flexibilities available during snow storms and other emergencies. Our floor amendment clarifies that these activities can and should continue.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I am honored to serve as the congressional cochairman of National Bible Week 2009. National Bible Week, which will be held from November 22 to 29, was created to underscore the importance of regular Bible study and scripture reading. The Bible is the word of God. I know that many of us could not face the challenges, stress, and heavy burden of serving during this critical time for our country, if it were not for the daily guidance God provides us through scripture--and for those of us in the Catholic faith, reception of the Blessed Sacrament. I believe that my colleagues and I need to pay special attention to the lessons the Bible teaches us, as we work together to make a difference for our country. The enormity of what confronts us makes it is easy to become frustrated, discouraged and tired. Thankfully, the Bible provides us with inspiration, strength, and wisdom to motivate us. Prominently displayed in my office is a picture showing an eagle soaring high in the sky. One of my favorite Bible verses, Isaiah 40:31 adorns the frame, it reads: Those who hope in the Lord will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow weary, they will walk and not be faint. As I read those words so often, I am reminded that the Holy Spirit is always present and willing to inspire and help us. Isaiah reminds us that we can certainly try to tackle the big issues on our own, but that without the Holy Spirit by our side, the road will be long and arduous. My colleagues have often heard me express my desire to address the ballooning Federal deficit, to create an economic climate that is conducive to higher job-growth, and to improve the standard of living and quality of life of our children and grandchildren--undertakings that take much time and effort. Isaiah's message makes the importance and urgency of these undertakings no less daunting, but does reassure us that if we trust in the Holy Spirit, he will allow us to persevere. I urge all Americans to celebrate National Bible Week to discover the lessons, inspiration and guidance that God's scripture provides for each of us.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I rise in support of the Department of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 2010. This legislation will help our Nation perform a variety of vital functions that serve to protect the Nation's environment, properly manage its natural resources and provide funding for critical water infrastructure projects. The bill will fund the activities of a number of important initiatives such as the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, and the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act. This bill will help to ensure that we wisely spend our Federal monies in the most effective and efficient manner possible. In particular, I would like to address the specific language in the conference report addressing the request for a study regarding the use of hydraulic fracturing, an extremely important tool that will help us unlock the vast potential of our own domestic oil and gas supplies. As we all know, it is in the best interests of our Nation to become more energy secure and to reduce our reliance on foreign oil supplies. Harmful reliance on foreign supplies can certainly have adverse national security and economic implications for our country. No country can remain a leading player in the community of nations if it must increasingly rely on other nations for one of the bedrock elements of its economy. Current events compel us to proceed forward with the efficient development of our own domestic energy resources. Our continued economic prosperity, as well as the national security of the country itself, depends on the development of clean, secure and affordable energy supplies such as natural gas. One of the most significant ways to help us tap our natural gas is through the use of hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing is a technique that has been commonly used in industry for many decades to allow our gas reserves below ground to move freely from the rock pores where it is trapped to a producing well that can readily bring the gas to the surface. This technique is particularly used to help us tap the vast potential of our unconventional gas supplies in the United States, including tight geological formations like some coalbeds, sandstones and shales where huge amounts of gas presently are located. To obtain this gas, a well is drilled into this area and a fracturing fluid, usually consisting primarily of water and sand. This highly-reliable and cost-effective technology was developed in the late 1940s and has been continuously improved and applied since that time. Hydraulic fracturing will undoubtedly play an important role in our future energy plans. Hydraulic fracturing will help us to develop our vast potential of oil and gas supplies more efficiently and will allow us to develop many resources that we would not otherwise be able to retrieve. Application of hydraulic fracturing to increase recovery is estimated to account for 30 percent of U.S. recoverable oil and gas reserves and has been responsible for the addition of more than 7 billion barrels of oil and 600 trillion cubic feet of natural gas to meet the Nation's energy needs. The National Petroleum Council estimates that 60 to 80 percent of all the wells drilled in the next decade to meet natural gas demand will require fracturing. In 2004, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a report on hydraulic fracturing which the Agency characterized as the most extensive study of the technique ever performed. That study focused on hydraulic fracturing of coalbed methane wells, which was viewed as a ``worst case'' scenario in terms of the potential impacts on drinking water aquifers because hydraulic fracturing of these coalbed methane wells tends to take place at shallower depths than hydraulic fracturing of shales or other types of formations. This study carefully investigated all of the facts of hydraulic fracturing and was extensively reviewed by numerous EPA offices, other Federal agencies, a panel of technical experts and members of the public. Based on its investigation, this study again confirmed that there is no evidence that hydraulic fracturing has resulted in the contamination of drinking water supplies and that this technique poses little threat to human health and the environment. In light of this work, the Congress reaffirmed in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that hydraulic fracturing should not be regulated as underground injection under the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act except in very limited circumstances. Federal regulation would not result in any additional environmental benefits and could impose unnecessary burdens on the use of this critical technology that would impede development of our domestic energy resources. This new study that Congress is requesting of the Environmental Protection Agency is intended to review the risks, if any, that hydraulic fracturing poses to drinking water sources. Just like the Agency's prior study, this study should be conducted using a systematic, scientific approach that assures transparency, validity, and accuracy. The study should be based on accepted quality assurance guidelines to ensure that the information on which the study is based is of sufficient quality to support the study's conclusions. It should be properly peer-reviewed by qualified experts in accordance with standard practices, and should also draw on the expertise of those both inside and outside the Federal Government who can contribute relevant information to a high quality study. These contributors should include other appropriate Federal agencies as well as the State regulators who have many years of experience with hydraulic fracturing. This study should eventually be made available for review and comment by interested members of the public prior to being finalized. At the same time, since we have already studied hydraulic fracturing, it would be prudent for any proposed study to fully take into account other studies that have already been undertaken by Federal or State governmental agencies, councils, commissions, or advisory committees. For example, given the significant effort associated with the Agency's prior 2004 study, it would certainly be prudent to fully consider this study in undertaking any further examination of hydraulic fracturing. The 2004 study spent a considerable amount of time examining the hydraulic fracturing process, including the depth at which hydraulic fracturing activities take place as compared to the much shallower depths of drinking water aquifers, the physical characteristics of the rock formations that separate the zones targeted for oil and gas production and the drinking water aquifers and the creation of fractures during the hydraulic fracturing process. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the study should be based on well-recognized principles of risk assessment to determine whether there is any realistic risk that individuals may be exposed to substances used in the hydraulic fracturing process at levels that could possibly be considered harmful. I believe that a targeted study of hydraulic fracturing is the most efficient way to use our resources to accomplish the goals of this study. We need to continue to develop our domestic energy resources, including clean-burning natural gas. A focused approach to the study will allow us to address concerns about hydraulic fracturing while facilitating the continued use of this critical technology.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, several weeks ago I came to the floor to remind my colleagues and all Americans about the fiscal realities in which we find ourselves. I promised I would continue these efforts until we did something to address this crisis, so my colleagues are going to see a lot of me between now and the end of the year. Hopefully something will get done on this issue before the end of the year. Unfortunately, I return today to tell my colleagues that the bill to repeal the Medicare physician payment formula the Senate considered earlier today is a step in the opposite direction, and I was very pleased with the vote on that. There were 47 votes for cloture and 53 votes in opposition, so we had more opposed than we had for cloture. When I spoke here earlier this fall, I discussed one of my children's favorite stories, ``The Emperor's New Clothes'' by Hans Christian Anderson. This little piece of artwork I have in the Chamber is in that fairytale. In the tale, an emperor goes about the land wearing a nonexistent suit sold to him by a new tailor who convinced the monarch the suit was made of the finest silks. The tailors--two swindlers--tell the emperor that the threads of his robes will be so fine that they will look invisible to those dimwitted or unfit for their position. The emperor and his ministers, themselves unable to see the clothing, lavish the tailor with praise for the suit because they do not want to appear to be dimwitted or incompetent. Word spread across the kingdom of the emperor's beautiful new clothes. To show off the extraordinary suit, a parade was formed. People lined the streets to see the emperor show off his new clothes. Again, afraid to appear stupid or unfit, everyone pretends to see the suit. It is only when a child cries out ``the emperor wears no clothes'' does the crowd acknowledge that the emperor is, in fact, naked. Mr. President, much like the emperor in this story, America's elected leaders know we face a fiscal train wreck, but we are choosing to ignore our current economic reality. The American people know ``we are naked,'' and so does the rest of the world, and our credibility and our credit are at risk, but we refuse to acknowledge what is obvious: When it comes to fiscal responsibility, ``the emperor wears no clothes.'' Yet earlier today we had a vote on whether to proceed to a bill that would have added $247 billion to our Nation's debt. The interest alone adds another $50 billion in debt over the next 10 years. We are just going to put it on the national credit card and let our children and grandchildren take care of it. We are the biggest credit card abusers in the world, and the credit cards we are using are the credit cards of my children and grandchildren and other Americans. I am pleased, as I said, that a majority of my colleagues joined me in opposing moving forward with this legislation. The President has said the health care reform bill would not add one dime to the deficit. Yet the bill we voted on earlier today should be a larger part of reform legislation, and it is going to spend over $\1/4\ trillion without paying for it--that is what would have happened. I suppose it is easy to make claims about health care reform legislation not adding to the deficit when Congress takes the parts that cost money off the table, but to do so is fiscally irresponsible and morally corrupt. The physician fix was left out of the Finance Committee, I suspect, not because my colleagues do not agree it is a fundamental part of health care reform but because it would have cost money my colleagues did not want to account for in the bill. If the Finance Committee would have included the fix in their bill, the $81 billion surplus they say the bill will create would have quickly turned into a deficit. That is unacceptable, and I am not the only one who feels that way. The Washington Post discussed the effort to take the fix for the sustainable growth formula--the formula that calculates reimbursement for physicians under Medicare--out of the larger health care bill as a ``shell game'' and ``budgetary smoke and mirrors.'' This is just another illustration of our out-of-control spending that has caused our national debt to skyrocket. One of the reasons I ran for the Senate and came to Washington a long time ago was to reduce the Federal debt and balance our budgets. That is what I did when I was mayor of Cleveland. That is what I did when I was Governor of Ohio. When I arrived in the Senate in 1999, the gross national debt stood at $5.6 trillion, or 61 percent of the GDP. Today, the gross national debt is nearly $11.8 trillion, and the President will be coming before us to raise the national debt to, I think, over $12 trillion. The 2009 deficit stands at about $1.4 trillion. I just got back 2 weeks ago from Athens, Greece, and an Organization for Security and Co-operation meeting in Athens. When I shared with my colleagues that we borrowed $1.4 trillion to run the government--and they were all asking for help--they were astounded. They just could not believe it. I also reminded them that debt was like the debt we racked up during the Second World War. In other words, that is the period to which you can compare it. So the 2009 deficit stands at $1.4 trillion and at $9.1 trillion over the next decade, which does not include the borrowing from the trust funds and which is three times the largest deficit in our history. It does not take an economist to realize our current course is unsustainable. The Medicare Program is scheduled to be bankrupt by 2017. I cannot understand why we are not talking about that. That means the supply of money coming in is not going to be enough to take care of the demand--just what is happening now in Social Security. In the next couple years, the money coming in is not going to be adequate to take care of people who are on Social Security, so we are going to have to borrow that money in order to take care of their needs. We need to take a comprehensive look at the program. I will be the first to admit we must honor our commitment to our Nation's seniors and ensure they have access to quality health care services. I have heard it firsthand from family and friends that in some places in Ohio, Medicare beneficiaries face delays for physician services right now. In fact, 6.8 percent of Ohioans live in a designated primary care shortage area. We need more doctors and nurses. The situation is only going to get worse. Thirty-nine percent of physicians are over the age of 50 and considering limiting the amount of time they see patients. For these reasons, I have been advocating for the past several years that we need a permanent and commonsense fix for the flawed sustainable growth rate formula, which we refer to as the doc fix. I do not think there is anyone on either side of the aisle who disagrees. We need to do that. Yet this bill we just considered is not the way to do it. Any fix must be part of a larger conversation, and it must be done in a way that does not simply add to the burden we are already placing on our children and grandchildren. I am pleased that in a letter last week to Senator Reid, 10 Senate Democrats joined me in this conclusion, asking the majority leader that he get serious about the Federal debt and tax and entitlement reform. They believe, as I do, that we cannot continue to keep spending without consequence. As I have been advocating, we must give larger reform serious thought before it is too late. We must act on the tough issues today. As Gerald Seib noted in the Wall Street Journal yesterday: Administration officials also know they have little choice but to start showing early next year that they take the deficit seriously, for both political and economic reasons. That is why Senator Lieberman and I have introduced legislation called Securing America's Future Economy, which basically creates a bipartisan commission that would deal with the deficit and deal with tax reform; that if a supermajority of those agree to the solution, that would get expedited procedure on the floor of the Senate and move to an up-or-down vote, very much like we do with the BRAC process. We have been trying to do this now for 4 years. We have talked to the OMB Director, Peter Orszag. It is interesting. Two years ago he was with a lot of former CBO Directors and said, We have to have a commission. It is the only way we are going to deal with entitlements; it is the only way we are going to deal with tax reform, yet we are not able to convince the administration to move forward with us to tackle this very heavy responsibility. Time is running out. The dollar is going down. People are talking about not using the dollar as an exchange anymore. Most of the economic experts say if we keep going on this unsustainable course, we are going to see interest rates start to skyrocket in this country. Over half our debt is in the hands of the Chinese and the Indians and the OPEC nations and Japan. We are in bad shape. The public understands it. They understand. They understand that the emperor has no clothes. We are not doing anything about the problem, and they get it today. I happen to believe that the undertow that is out there in the country today in terms of health care reform and in terms of climate change is the fact that the American people understand that things aren't right. The American people in the Presiding Officer's State, in my State, do you know what they are doing? They are buying less. They are not putting it on their cards. They are trying to save some money. They know they have been on a binge. They look to us and they say, What are you doing? What are you doing? We care about ourselves, but we also care about our children and grandchildren. It is not fair to those individuals to do what we are doing. We have a moral obligation to do what we can to try to make sure this generation's standard of living will not be less than those who came before them. Many people believe that is going to be the case. The passage of the legislation to fix the physician payment formula by borrowing more money will only help guarantee that they are right. We have a serious problem. I will be coming to the floor over and over to see if we can't do it. I am going to do what I can to convince the President that he ought to participate in setting up this commission, working with Senator Gregg and Senator Kent Conrad, to see if we can't get them together to agree on what this commission would look like. We are hoping the President is alert enough to know that if he doesn't deal with this problem, it is not only a substantive problem that needs to be dealt with but a major political problem that he is going to have. The American public demands that we start talking about doing something about this problem and they know we are running out of time. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

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

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of our subcommittee, Senator Byrd, for the outstanding job he has done in finally putting together this conference report so it can be considered by the Senate. I also acknowledge the tremendous help we have gotten from our staff on this piece of legislation. I am sorry that Carol Cribbs cannot be here today. Carol worked very hard on this legislation. She is at home after taking a big fall and cutting her face, and I want to mention her name and let her know we miss her and we appreciate the good job she has done for us. Rebecca Davies has worked very hard on this legislation, and I appreciate it. She was bringing in a neophyte. This is my first opportunity to be on the Appropriations Committee. There have been several issues raised here by some of my colleagues on our side of the aisle that are things that should be taken into consideration. The Senator from Arizona continues to make the case in terms of earmarks, and I am sure he will continue to do that, and we do respect what he has to say about that issue. But I believe the way this legislation is put together carefully justifies people on my side of the aisle supporting this legislation, in spite of some of the things the Senator from Arizona talked about. In addition to the provisions that deal with Guantanamo Bay, I wish to point out that the language in this conference report is the same language that appeared in the June Defense supplemental that was passed in 2009, which continues to be the law under the continuing resolution. Fundamentally, what we do is put that same language here in this conference report. If somebody reads the conference report, on page 38, they can see, in spite of the fine words of the Senator from Illinois, there is a large barrier the President has to go over before he could let anyone here into this country. And if he does let them here, as Senator Durbin has said, they would be here for prosecution. But there are seven hurdles that have to be met by the President. Once he does that, then 45 days thereafter he could bring someone in for prosecution. So I think anyone who is concerned about bringing a bunch of the Gitmo people here in the United States for any other reason but prosecution should be comforted by the fact of this language. Also, I point out, there is language in the Senate Defense appropriations bill that also deals with this subject. So for all intents and purposes, I think we have done a fairly good job. Frankly, I wish we had adopted this conference report a month and a half ago. But we did not. I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I wish to thank Mr. Price, the ranking member of the House committee, and Mr. Rogers for their substantial contributions to this bill. It has taken many hours of hard work by these Members and their staffs to reach the agreements which are presented to the Senate today. While everything is not settled to my liking, I believe this is a balanced set of recommendations which reflects many of the Department's priorities and achieves a reasonable degree of compromise in some of the more contentious issues. I again wish to join Senator Byrd in commending our staff. Mr. Kieffer has been wonderful to work with. The folks on my side, Carol and Rebecca. I am a new member of the Appropriations Committee. I have never seen staff work as conscientiously as we have had for the Appropriations Committee. Senator Byrd, it is almost like magic they do such a good job for us. So again, I wish to thank them for their good work. Madam President, I recommend this conference report to my colleagues for their consideration, and I support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I am pleased to join the distinguished Senator from West Virginia in presenting the fiscal year 2010 appropriations conference report for the Department of Homeland Security. As my colleagues know, it is after October 1--the start of a new fiscal year--and the Department of Homeland Security's programs and activities are being funded under a continuing resolution because we did not complete our work on time. I think this is unfortunate. The House adopted its version of the bill on June 24 and the Senate adopted it on July 9. When I was mayor and Governor of Ohio, I would have lost my job if the budget were not done in time or the appropriations not done on time. I think everyone would agree that this is not the way to properly run our operation. I know of no good explanation as to why we could not have resolved our differences to allow this conference agreement to be signed into law before this date. Senator Byrd said the conference report recommends a total of $44.1 billion in appropriations to support programs and activities of the Department of Homeland Security. Of this amount, $42.8 billion is for discretionary spending, and this is roughly $254 million less than the President's total discretionary request. I wish to make that clear, that it is less than the President requested. In addition, $1.4 billion is provided for the Coast Guard retired pay--the only mandatory appropriations account in the conference report--and $241.5 million is provided for Coast Guard overseas contingency operations. The conference report includes significant resources for border security and enforcement of our immigration laws, for continued improvements in security at our Nation's airports and modes of surface transportation, for the Coast Guard operations and recapitalization, for helping our citizens prepare for and recover from natural disasters, and for equipping and training our Nation's first responders. I think Senator Byrd did a beautiful job in terms of his five reasons and the things we ought to be doing, and that is what we have tried to do in this report, to respond to those five goals Senator Byrd outlined. As Senator Byrd has indicated, there is much in this conference report to recommend. I am not going to list all of the funding recommendations, but I do wish to note some. This is very important: Full funding is provided for border security. This includes funds to support 20,163 Border Patrol agents, 21,124 Customs and border protection officers, and 33,400 detention beds. These are the beds we use when we pick up people and we put them there and hold them until we return them to where they came from. Also included is $800 million to continue work on the virtual border fence and to improve radio communications. Starting in fiscal year 2005, significant increases have been provided for border and immigration enforcement. Fewer people are illegally crossing our borders. This can be seen in the decrease in apprehensions of aliens along our borders from nearly 1.2 million in fiscal year 2005 to nearly 724,000 in fiscal year 2008. More fencing, roads, and personnel have allowed the Border Patrol to increase the number of miles over which it has effective control from 253 miles in October of 2005 to 729 miles in March of 2009. Additional agents and detention beds have allowed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to increase total removals of aliens from nearly 247,000 removals in fiscal year 2005 to approximately 347,000 in fiscal year 2008. We are making significant progress in terms of our border protection and going after these illegal aliens. This fiscal year 2010 conference report provides nearly $16 billion in appropriations for these activities. This will allow us to continue making progress, but we still have a long way to go and at a great expense. One of these days I am going to come to the Senate floor and talk about how much money we have spent and how much money we are going to have to continue to spend if we are going to do anything about the problems of illegal aliens in this country. While this conference report is significant for what it includes, it excludes two important provisions added to this bill when it was considered by this Senate, including a permanent extension of the E- Verify program and the extension of E-Verify to current employees. I would have preferred to have the conference agreement to include both provisions, but my House colleagues were not so inclined. Even though this conference agreement does not permanently authorize E-Verify programs as opposed to the Senate bill, it does extend the program's authorization for an additional 3 years, allowing its continued development as a crucial tool for employers to ensure a legal workforce. However, it does not include the Senate provision offered by my colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, which would have given employers the flexibility to voluntarily check their entire workforce and not solely new hires. The administration expressed concerns that the provision could tax the capacity of E-Verify. Let me tell my colleagues, E-Verify has the capacity to handle more than 60 million queries a year and it has received less than 8.7 in fiscal year 2009. Capacity does not seem to be a barrier of this program, and this is an issue I hope we are going to revisit one of these days. I wish to thank the chairman of the Senate subcommittee, my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Byrd. It has been an honor for me to work with Senator Byrd this year. This is my first year on Appropriations, and who do I have as my chairman but the distinguished Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I rise to discuss America's relationship with our Eastern European friends as well as the challenges America faces in our relationship with Russia. Over the last decade in the Senate, I have been a champion of NATO and worked diligently to increase membership in the alliance. I have also been active in improving our image in Eastern Europe through the expansion of the Visa Waiver Program at the request of our friends and allies in Eastern Europe. My passion for foreign relations stems in large part as a supporter of Ohio's diverse ethnic communities. As mayor of Cleveland and Governor of Ohio, I gained a keen understanding of Europe from my close work with constituents who had ties to countries that were once subject to life behind the Iron Curtain. This goes back to my first paper in undergraduate school and how the United States sold out Yugoslavia at Teheran and Yalta. We did see the Berlin Wall fall and the Iron Curtain torn thanks in part to the efforts of Pope John Paul II, President Reagan, and President George H.W. Bush. But even with the end of the Cold War, I was deeply concerned that darker forces in Russia could once again reemerge as a threat to democracy, human rights, and religious freedom not just for the Russian people but for the newly freed ``captive nations'' of Eastern Europe. I understood getting those nations into NATO could make the alliance more vibrant and healthy and give them safe harbor from the possible threat of Russian expansionism. One of my proudest moments in the Senate was being present at Prague in March of 2002 in the room when Lord Robertson announced that seven countries--Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia--were invited to join NATO. When I was Governor of Ohio and chairman of the National Governors Association, I led an effort in 1998 to secure passage of an all-50-State resolution in support of NATO expansion for the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland. These new members have brought great vigor to the NATO Alliance and are now some of our strongest allies working alongside our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan--especially Afghanistan. As such, I was astounded last week to see the Obama administration appear to turn its back on some of our staunchest NATO allies. Last week's missile defense announcement was made with little advance notice or consultation and disregarded the great political capital expended by the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic. This decision leaves the impression that the United States is dealing unilaterally with Russia without regard to our NATO allies. Regardless of the merits of the decision itself--and I had a chance to talk to Secretary Gates about it, and it makes sense that this was a good decision--the manner in which it was revealed to Warsaw and Prague was a major public relations and public diplomacy blunder. The Polish people are up in arms about the decision--and not so much with the decision, but the way it was handled and the disregard for handling it in a proper fashion. The fact also that the decision was announced on September 17, 2009, the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland, makes it even worse. The way this decision was communicated shabbily to Poland and the Czech Republic should also send a shiver down the spines of our brothers and sisters in Eastern Europe and their Baltic neighbors, who are concerned with Russia's aggressive efforts to reassert its influence in what was once the Soviet Union. In an opinion piece in last Friday's edition of the Washington Post, David J. Kramer, of the German Marshall Fund, notes that: Whatever the official explanation now for not moving forward, many--including the Kremlin--will read this shift as an effort to placate Moscow. Announcing the decision ahead of [President] Obama's meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev this week in Pittsburgh reinforces such thinking. I had the opportunity this past July to travel to the Baltic States with my friends Senators Durbin, Cardin, and Wicker as part of the U.S. delegation to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, to the parliamentary assembly that was held in Vilnius, Lithuania. As part of that trip, I also visited Riga, Latvia--a stop that marked the highest ranking official visit of the United States in Latvia in over 3 years. In all of our bilateral meetings with Presidents, Prime Ministers, and Foreign Ministers from former Soviet countries or countries the Soviet Union exercised influence over, we were told it was comforting for them to know their membership in NATO serves as a hedge against a potential expansionist Russia. We should be worried about the uncertainty surrounding a Russia that is reverting back to a KGB-ruled country seeking to weaponize its oil and natural gas resources as a means to expand its influence on Europe and the West. I think one of the concerns we all ought to have is that many members of the European Union, instead of coming together and negotiating with Russia over the issue of natural gas, are cutting their own deals. I think we should be very concerned that in the long run many of those countries are not going to be able to make good decisions because of the influence Russia will have over their natural gas resources. Russia has the world's largest reserves of natural gas and has the eighth-largest oil reserves. Moscow turned off the tap to Ukraine this past winter. They could do it again. We should also be concerned about Moscow using its control of oil and natural gas to pit members of NATO against each other. There is much talk about resetting the U.S. bilateral relationship with Russia. Moscow seeks to regain its global stature and be respected as a peer in the international community. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. I believe there are key areas where the United States and Russia share common cause and concern: Russia is a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council and will be essential to effective multilateral pressure on Iran to give up its nuclear program; Russia continues to have leverage on the North Korean regime and has stated that a nuclear- free Korean peninsula is in the interest of both our countries; we are partners on the International Space Station--in fact, we are going to rely on them to send our NASA people to the space station; and, until the Georgia situation flared in August of last year, our government and U.S. industry were working hard on a nuclear cooperation agreement with Russia, very much like the one we entered into with India. With the world economy as it is today, the worst thing we could do is break off communication and revert back to our Cold War positions. This week's G-20 conference in Pittsburgh is an opportunity to further engage Russia and determine where we have a symbiotic relationship and what we can accomplish together for the good of the international community. Nevertheless, such a reset should not come at the expense of our Eastern European friends. Time will tell whether last week's decision will have any influence on Russian cooperation on the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty--START-- or our efforts to prevent a nuclear-armed Iranian regime. In the meantime, we have our work cut out as we seek to rebuild confidence and trust with our friends in Eastern Europe. After last week's events, I suspect that their confidence in the reliability of the United States as a partner and ally has been shaken. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

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

Mr. VOINOVICH

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

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business for up to 25 minutes.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, building on a series of speeches I have given over the past few years and in the tradition of a former Member of this body, Senator Fritz Hollings of South Carolina, I hope to provide my colleagues and the American people with regular updates on our catastrophic national debt. Unfortunately, given the lack of action to address this coming tsunami, I believe President Obama and Congress need to be reminded of the fiscal realities in which we find ourselves. Senator Hollings came down to the Senate floor every few weeks with a poster updating the national debt, and today I renew his tradition, and I will continue it until we do something about this unsustainable financial crisis. One of my grandchildren's favorite stories is ``The Emperor's New Clothes'' by Hans Christian Anderson. In the tale, an emperor goes about the land wearing a nonexistent suit sold to him by a new tailor who convinced the monarch the suit is made of the finest silks. The tailors--two swindlers--tell the emperor that the threads of his robes will be so fine that they will look invisible to those dimwitted or unfit for their position. The emperor and his ministers, themselves unable to see the clothing, lavish the tailor with praise for the suit because they do not want to appear dimwitted or incompetent. Word spread across the kingdom of the emperor's beautiful new robes. To show off the extraordinary suit, a parade was formed. People lined the streets to see the emperor show off his new clothes. Again, afraid to appear stupid or unfit, everyone pretends to see the suit. It is only when a child cries out ``the emperor wears no clothes'' does the crowd acknowledge that the emperor is, in fact, naked. Much like the emperor, America's elected leaders know we face a fiscal train wreck, but we are choosing to ignore our current economic reality. I am here to tell my colleagues and President Obama, the emperor has no clothes and we are naked in terms of dealing with our deficits and national debt. As shown right here on this chart, get the book out. I am sure you have it. Read it. That is where we are right now. The irony is that the American people know we are naked, and they are coming to Washington to let us know we are naked, and so does the rest of the world, and our credibility and our credit today are at risk. I have this chart, what I refer to as the ``Wheel of Misfortune.'' This lays out quite clearly what our national debt is today. One of the reasons I ran for the Senate back in 1998 was I wanted to come to Washington and reduce the national debt and balance budgets, which is something I did as the mayor of the city of Cleveland and something I did as Governor of the State of Ohio. When I came to the Senate in 1999, our gross national debt stood at $5.6 trillion or 61 percent of the GDP. Today, as you can see from the chart behind me, the gross national debt is nearly $11.8 trillion. I understand the President is going to ask us to increase our debt limit to $12 trillion and, quite frankly, I believe he is going to be asking us to raise the debt limit to more than $12 trillion. This is an increase of more than 100 percent in 10 years. Much of this increase has come recently. In fact, from 2008 to 2009 alone, the Federal debt will increase 22 percent, boosting the country's debt-to- income ratio--our national debt as a percentage of GDP--from 70 percent last year to 86 percent this year. We haven't seen this kind of GDP debt since the Second World War. It was 65 years ago during the Second World War that we saw these kinds of numbers. By the way, this does not include our unfunded Medicare and Social Security obligations which the Peterson Foundation recently tagged at $56.4 trillion. This is the equivalent of a $483,000 debt per American household or $184,000 for every man, woman, and child in America today. Those are unfunded liabilities. It doesn't take an economist to realize our course is unsustainable. President Obama and this Congress are fully aware of this reckless fiscal path. Yet they continue to spend and borrow, spend and borrow. Our Federal Government is the worst credit card abuser in the world. We talk to our kids about not abusing their credit cards. What kind of example do we set? You know what. We are putting the tab on the credit of our children and grandchildren. Like the boy who cried ``the emperor has no clothes,'' the American people see through this sham. There were a bunch of them here this weekend who saw through the sham. A recent poll conducted by the Peterson Foundation showed that after their personal job, the most pressing concern of Americans is the national debt. Americans are cutting back, folks, in their own family. They are making tough decisions. They know they haven't been living within their means. Some people are saying: Why are they paying attention to this finally? Well, they are finally realizing in their own families they need to redo the way they are doing things, and they are asking themselves: Why isn't our Federal Government doing the same thing we are doing in our households? It is no wonder they are looking at government's reckless spending with disapproval and wondering why we are not doing the same thing they are doing. They are mad as hell, and they aren't going to take it anymore. The media is also finally starting to pay attention to this issue. Recently, the Washington Post ran an article by Fred Hiatt, their chief editorial writer, acknowledging that our long-term fiscal path is unsustainable, as well as an editorial taking the administration to task for lacking a plan on how to start digging our economy out of this fiscal crisis. Additionally, Newsweek published an article by Fareed Zakaria where he outlines what he describes as ``the disease of modern democracy: the system cannot impose any short-term pain for long-term gain.'' We are unwilling to pay for it or do without. The first one, this Newsweek article, is called, There is a Silver Lining. The crisis has forced the United States to confront bad habits developed over the past few decades. If we can kick those habits, today's pain will translate into gains. The other is a Washington Post article entitled ``No Laughing Matter. Why the U.S. Needs to Get Serious About Long-Term Budget Deficits.''

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Congressional Record the articles to which I previously referred.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, now is the time to take the first step toward fiscal responsibility and making good on our promises by enacting meaningful, comprehensive tax and entitlement reform. The recent pay-as-you-go legislation passed by the House isn't going to get the job done. We know that. This Band-Aid relies on smoke and mirrors and exempts the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, patching the alternative minimum tax, updating physician payments in Medicare, and modifying the estate tax. It is intellectually dishonest. Even the Budget Committee chairman in the Senate, Senator Conrad, calls this pay-go that came out of the House insincere. If Congress is going to reenact statutory pay- go, then it should apply to everything, not just to what is convenient. We need real comprehensive reform. I am pleased to say it appears as though President Obama is finally starting to get it. In an interview with the Washington Post, President Obama endorsed the idea of creating a commission where--here is what he said: Everything is going to be on the table when it comes to examining our tax and entitlement systems and presenting long-term solutions to place the United States on a fiscally sustainable course. He went on to say: What you end up having to do in terms of structural reforms realistically is you probably have to set up some sort of commission or mechanism that reports back with the prospect of maybe locking in a pledge for action, post election. I know we have talked about this on occasion, about this commission and setting it up and trying to get the administration to commit to it so we can let the American people know we are sincere about doing something about this debt and balancing our budget. For the past three Congresses, I have been calling for such a commission. This Congress, I am proud to say, Senator Lieberman has joined me as an original cosponsor to create the commission now. Similar to the BRAC process, the Save America's Future Economy Commission--we call it SAFE--would break the legislative logjam in Washington by creating a bipartisan, bicameral committee to draw up policy prescriptions for the government's long-term budget shortfalls that would then go before Congress on an up-or-down vote. The legislation is similar to legislation introduced by Congressmen Jim Cooper and Frank Wolf in the House, and today they have 69 cosponsors. It is vital--it is vital--to ensuring the solvency of entitlement programs for future generations. It is my understanding that Pete Peterson and David Walker of the Peterson Foundation have endorsed this legislation along with the Heritage Foundation, the Brookings Institute, the Business Roundtable, and a host of other former CBO Directors who said it is time for us to do something about the problem, and they understand we will not get it done with the regular order of business. We have to have a commission come back with a recommendation, put it on a fast track, send it to the House, send it to the Senate, and let us either vote up or down as we do with the commissions we have set up on closing bases. I am sure many of my colleagues are familiar with this legislation. I know David Walker has met with both Republican and Democratic legislative leaders or directors regarding this legislation. Continuing down our current path, folks, is unsustainable. It is unsustainable, and it is immoral. For too long we have clothed ourselves in economic falsehoods, pretending they would protect us from the harsh economic realities. Folks, time is running out. The world sees that the emperor, in fact, has no clothes. I am calling on President Obama to follow through on his comments about the need for a commission and support the SAFE Commission Act. OMB Director Peter Orszag has understood our fiscal crisis in the past and called for the creation of an entitlement commission, but since joining the administration he has stopped pushing for a commission, instead focusing just on health care reform. The bottom line is health care reform is but one of the major issues that needs to be addressed to respond to our fiscal crisis. We must also reform the Tax Code to encourage personal savings, investment, job creation, and economic growth. A lot of Americans are not aware of this fact, that we spend $240 billion a year paying our taxes; that is, to pay for professional help and keeping track of all of the papers we need to have when we prepare to pay our Federal income tax. I think the current health care debate in Congress is a perfect example of why a piecemeal approach doesn't work. If we dealt with the fiscal crisis, it would be a lot easier for us to deal with health care. There is a new poll out just today, AP, that says half of Americans are more concerned about tackling our debt than our health care reform, education, and climate change. Did my colleagues hear that? Over half of them say deal with the fiscal crisis. The reason I believe we are having such a darn difficult time dealing with health care and why we are not going to pass any kind of climate change legislation is that the people of this country know we have a fiscal crisis and they want us to contend with that before we deal with these other issues. I think the American people know we can't afford the health care system we now have, and we must find a way to be more responsible. Think of this: We spend $2.2 trillion on health care in this country. The Medicare trust fund will be insolvent in 2017, and we have to reform the way we pay physicians under the program, which experts say will cost us $280 billion over 10 years. Furthermore, the States are already overburdened by the cost of their Medicaid programs. We gave the States $87 billion in the stimulus bill. I can tell you in ordinary circumstances, many States usually come to Washington with a tin cup. I can guarantee you that the Governors of this country are going to be down here with a large bathtub asking us to fill it because of the problems they confront. In other words, they can't now take care--well, they can now because they got the $87 billion, but once that runs out, they are going to be down here saying: We can't handle the current system as it is. How can we expand Medicaid when we can't take care of the Medicaid Program we now have? With the financial crisis we have in this country, we have to be careful of taking on something we can't afford, particularly when we can't afford to pay for what we already have. I am surprised that in the President's speech last week he didn't talk about the fact that by 2017--everybody needs to understand this-- the money coming in for Medicare would not be adequate to take care of the people who are out there who are eligible for Medicare. It is part of what I call that unfunded liability I talked about earlier. The Peterson Foundation recently commissioned an in-depth health care study conducted by the Lewin Group, and I urge my colleagues to take a close look at this analysis and see the principles the Peterson Foundation lays out to determine a fiscally responsible health care reform bill. I am not the only one calling for Congress to be fiscally responsible when considering health care reform. In order for health care reform legislation to be fiscally responsible, it must, one, pay for itself over a 10-year period; two, not add to the deficit beyond a 10-year period; three, bend the cost curve down to reduce health care spending; and four, significantly reduce current unfunded obligations. That is what we should be talking about. President Obama and Congress must act. We all came to Washington to serve, and we have a moral responsibility to leave this place better than what we found it. How will we look our children and grandchildren in the eye knowing we have mortgaged their future at a time when we know they are going to have to work harder than we have to maintain the standard of living we enjoy. God has blessed me with three children and seven grandchildren. I am constantly worried about what kind of America they are going to be living in. I know darn well the competition we face today worldwide is a lot more fierce than anything I experienced during my life here. I know because of that competition they are going to have to work harder. They are going to have to work smarter. It would be very cruel for us, on top of that, to lay this terrible burden on their shoulders and say: We weren't willing to pay for it or do without, so you take care of it. It is your problem. You handle it. I was pleased to hear President Obama echo this last Wednesday during his joint session of Congress, the same sentiment I have just made. He stated--and I quote the President of the United States: I understand that the politically safe move would be to kick the can further down the road--to defer reform one more year, one more election, one more term. But that is not what the moment calls for. That is not what we came here to do. We did not come here to fear the future. We came here to shape it. I still believe we can act, even when it is hard. President Obama's words ring true in light of the fiscal challenges we face as a nation today. And they should get the first priority. Until we start on a commission, Congress, the administration, the American people, and the world will know the Emperor has no clothes. We are naked in terms of realizing and dealing with our fiscal crisis. Now is the time to act. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the passing of our dear colleague and friend, Senator Edward M. Kennedy. Our great Nation has lost a true statesman, and the Kennedy family has lost its beloved patriarch. Senator Kennedy's unparalleled leadership and decades spent in service to his fellow Americans will be missed by all, especially here in the U.S. Senate. No one can deny that Ted was a man of convictions, passion and resolve for doing what he felt was best for the country. While I was not always in agreement with him on policy, I always knew he was my friend. His willingness to reach across the aisle and find common ground serves as an inspiration to all of us during this pivotal moment in our Nation's history. Senator Kennedy and I shared a passion for early childhood development, and together with Senator Gregg, we worked on legislation to improve the quality and availability of early education for all children. On a more personal note, Ted was a guiding light for me during my late-nephew's treatment for bone cancer. His uplifting spirit and thoughtfulness helped steer my family through a very difficult time, and I will never forget the words he shared with us: ``Even when it's sometimes stormy one day, the sun always seems to shine the next.'' Janet and I will keep Victoria and the entire Kennedy family in our thoughts and prayers during this trying time, as they mourn the loss of both Ted and his sister Eunice. Senator Kennedy's great shadow of leadership which loomed so large across the U.S. Senate will continue for years to come, and I hope the Kennedy family and my colleagues can find solace in the fact that Ted has joined our Heavenly Father.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I rise today in support of the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. The role of the Senate in the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice is to give its advice and consent on the President's nomination. I believe it has been the longstanding tradition of this body that we are to judge whether an individual is qualified to serve based on the complete record of each nominee. Once again, I compliment Senators Sessions and Leahy for the excellent job they have done in handling the confirmation hearings for Judge Sotomayor. The hearings were fair and enabled the American people to get a better understanding of what sort of Justice Judge Sotomayor will be. Equally important, these hearings were conducted with civility, allowing Senators to disagree without being disagreeable. This is something I would like to see more of in the Senate. Sadly, as some of my colleagues have pointed out, the judicial nomination process has become so partisan that it seems to bring out the worst in the Senate, when it ought to bring out the best. I believe the factors to be examined in determining whether a Supreme Court nominee is qualified include her education, prior legal and judicial experience, judicial temperament, and commitment to the rule of law. Based on my review of her record, and using these factors, I have determined that Judge Sotomayor meets the criteria to become a Justice of the Supreme Court. I didn't come to this determination lightly, and Judge Sotomayor has made statements that give me pause. However, after reviewing her judicial record and the comments made during the Judiciary Committee hearings, on balance, I believe she is fit to serve on our Nation's highest Court. I am comforted by Judge Sotomayor's express rejection of then-Senator Obama's view that in a certain percentage of judicial decisions ``the critical ingredient is supplied by what's in the judge's heart and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.'' In answer to a question from Senator Kyl, Judge Sotomayor said: I can only explain what I think judges should do, which is judges can't rely on what's in their heart. They don't determine the law. Congress makes the laws. The job of a judge is to apply the law. And so it's not the heart that compels conclusions in cases, it's the law. The judge applies the law to the facts before that judge. In addition to being fit for the bench, the story of Judge Sotomayor is the story of so many Americans who rose from humble beginnings to reach levels of achievement that would not be possible in any other nation. It is sort of the story that reminds me of what is so unique and special about our Nation, that a young working-class Latina woman or the son of a first-generation Eastern European immigrant family can be nominated to the Supreme Court or be elected to serve his home State in this great Chamber. During our private meeting, Judge Sotomayor and I were able to discuss this opportunity. What struck me is she is someone who understands what a great opportunity this is, as well as the great challenges that await her. While the Founding Fathers may have a disagreement with her on some of her legal views, I think they would be proud that judging individuals on their merit has endured as part of this great experiment. As a number of my colleagues have already noted, Judge Sotomayor, through hard work, has risen from humble beginnings to now await confirmation to the Supreme Court. Judge Sotomayor excelled throughout her academic career. From the time at Blessed Sacrament School and Cardinal Spellman High School, where she was the valedictorian of her class, she has excelled in highly competitive environments. Like Justice Alito, she is a graduate of Princeton University and Yale Law School. Judge Sotomayor attended Princeton on scholarship and graduated not only summa cum laude but also was the recipient of the prestigious Pyne Prize from that university. Judge Sotomayor went on to Yale Law School, where she served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal. Her academic record should serve as an inspiration to all that in a meritocracy, we all have an equal opportunity to rise to the top. After her stellar academic career, Judge Sotomayor entered public service as a district attorney in New York, where her drive and basic fairness were well noted. This commitment to public service impressed me. Judge Sotomayor not only succeeded in the public sector, she also worked her way up from associate to partner, practicing corporate law at a New York law firm. In private practice, Judge Sotomayor specialized in intellectual property and copyright law. Her rise from associate to partner in such a specialized field is a clear indication that the private sector recognized her merit and rewarded her for her skill and ability. Judge Sotomayor returned to public service with her appointment to the district court, where she served for 6 years. I believe Judge Sotomayor's experience on the district court will be invaluable to the Supreme Court, where none of her colleagues have experience as a judge in a trial court. I hope her experience there will help shape her future opinions, particularly in procedural cases where many commentators have noted a need for rules that work in practice, not just in theory. Judge Sotomayor's time on the trial bench was marked by opinions that set forth the facts and applied the law narrowly. Did you hear that? Her time on the trial bench was marked by opinions that set forth the facts and applied the law narrowly--exactly what one would want from a trial court. In addition to district court experience, Judge Sotomayor has appellate court experience, over 10 years on the Second Circuit. I reviewed many of her opinions from her time on the Second Circuit, and while many were not opinions I would have offered, her opinions, as well, were within the legal mainstream. Judge Sotomayor's opinions, for the most part, were lengthy, workman-like, limited rulings, the sort of opinions that exhibit the judicial restraint one would hope for a Supreme Court Justice. Given her academic and professional achievements, it is not surprising that the American Bar Association has given the judge its highest ratings when considering her for the Supreme Court. While impressive in what she has overcome to reach this point in her career, her record is not without blemish. In particular, the one comment that gave me significant pause as to whether I would support her nomination is the now well-known statement by the judge that ``a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.'' Such a statement is repugnant to someone like me who has worked so hard to reach a colorblind society where an individual's race or gender is not considered in judging a person's merit. The question I had to ask myself was, Is this comment an indication that Judge Sotomayor would reject the rule of law and blind justice to favor certain people on the basis of inappropriate criteria? After study of her judicial record, I have concluded it is not. Based on my review, Judge Sotomayor's decisions, while not always decisions I would render, are not outside the legal mainstream and do not indicate an obvious desire to legislate from the bench. Furthermore, Judge Sotomayor recognized during her nomination hearings that this ``could be hurtful'' and was not reflective of how she would judge cases. Through my review and my staff's review of her cases, her testimony, and my conversations with the judge, I have confidence that the parties who appear before her will encounter a judge who is committed to recognizing and suppressing any personal bias she may have to reach a decision that is dictated by the rule of law and precedent. I think I would be remiss in my discussion of the judge if I failed to address the Supreme Court's decision in the Ricci v. DeStefano case. By now, all my colleagues and many Americans are aware that the Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit's decision in the Ricci case. The case involved a reverse-discrimination suit against the city of New Haven, CT. Some opponents of Judge Sotomayor's confirmation have used this opinion to suggest that her legal philosophy is outside the mainstream of American jurisprudence and that her nomination should be rejected. I believe a review of the close decisions rendered by the various Federal courts, including the Second Circuit's 7-to-6 decision to refuse to rehear the case and the Supreme Court's 5-to-4 decision to reverse the Second Circuit, suggests this matter was, for a number of the judges who reviewed the case, a close call. In other words, it was very close. For one to say she is outside the mainstream when these decisions were so close I think is really stretching things quite a bit. Nevertheless, I believe Judge Sotomayor and her fellow panel judges would have better served the public by issuing a more comprehensive decision regarding their logic in affirming the district court's decision in favor of the city of New Haven. In closing, I wish to make a few remarks about the judicial confirmation process. Judge Sotomayor is the third nominee to the Supreme Court to come before the Senate since I came to the Senate in 1999. For both Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, then-Senator Obama promoted an ``empathy standard'' to determine if he would vote for these nominees. Then- Senator Obama said: The critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart. Such an analysis is no analysis at all. In fact, it flies in the face of the meritocracy in which Judge Sotomayor succeeded. All of us in this Chamber can examine the academic credentials of and prior judicial decisions authored by a nominee and determine whether he or she is qualified. We cannot examine and judge what is in the heart. Let me be clear. If I applied Senator Obama's standard, I would not be voting for Judge Sotomayor, his nominee. The President was wrong. I think his standard makes the whole nomination process an exercise in partisan politics. We need less politics in the judicial selection process and the judiciary in general, not more. It has become too politicized in the last several years. It is something about which all of us should be concerned. I urge all my colleagues to reject the Obama empathy standard--just as Judge Sotomayor rejected it, just as I am rejecting it--and return to a standard where it is the qualifications of the nominee we judge, not the politics or heart of that nominee. Judge Sotomayor is not the nominee I would have selected if I were President, but making a nomination is not my role today. My role is to examine her qualifications to determine if she is fit to serve. Again, in reviewing her academic and professional record, taking into account her temperament and integrity, it is clear to me she is qualified to serve as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Yes.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the passage of the Car, Allowance Rebate System, CARS, commonly referred to as Cash for Clunkers. CARS provides both a direct and indirect economic benefit to the State of Ohio by supporting the manufacturing of automobiles, automotive parts suppliers, and auto dealers, as well as the many businesses that support these companies. This program is providing valuable jobs and much needed revenue--a direct stimulus--to the State. Furthermore, Ohio car buyers responded positively and Ohio has been one of the top recipients under the CARS program. That is why I am asking my colleagues to reject amendments that would prevent the program from operating until September when the House of Representatives is scheduled to reconvene. If the Senate adopts even one amendment, the bill will be on hold until the mid-September. In some instances, if these same amendments were considered as stand-alone legislation or as amendments to other legislation, I may have supported them, but because these amendments hold hostage the continuation of the CARS I will oppose anything that would keep the Senate from transferring these funds. The Senate's decision to continue funding the cash for clunkers program will allow consumers to purchase new cars, delivering a real economic stimulus to our Sates. As evidenced by the extraordinary response to the program thus far, this is a win-win. It provides much needed jobs and resources to our states and promotes fuel efficient cars to benefit our environment, reducing our dependence on foreign oil. I am thankful the additional $2 billion for this program is being taken from the already-enacted stimulus bill, which I voted against earlier this year. Unfortunately, programs that would provide real stimulus like cash for clunkers and robust highway and infrastructure investments were not part of the original stimulus package. These types of direct tangible investments provide not only jobs through dealers, manufacturers, and auto suppliers, but usable assets for taxpayers. I am hopeful that this program will continue to provide much-needed relief to the Ohio's automotive manufacturers.