Floor Statements

I object.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Delaware, my colleague from the State of Tennessee, and my colleague from the State of Florida for standing up--all of us former Governors--to deal with a matter that will have great impact on our respective citizens for many years ahead. We want to make sure that whatever we do makes sense.

Before I begin, I would like to set the record straight that this debate is about federalism, unfunded mandates, and protecting States' ability to collect taxes. It has nothing to do with taxing e-mail.

I have made the issue of unfunded Federal mandates a top priority during my 36 years of public service. At every level of government--as a State representative, county auditor, county commissioner, lieutenant governor, mayor of the City of Cleveland, Governor of Ohio for 8 years--I have seen firsthand how the relationship of the Federal Government with its State and local counterparts affects our citizens and the communities in which they live. My background has fueled my passion for the issue of federalism and the need to balance the Federal Government's power with powers that our Founding Fathers envisioned to the States.

This very body was created, in part, to guarantee that States had adequate, equal means to assert their interest before the Federal Government. Our forefathers provided that each State has two Senators to protect States rights and federalism, and prior to 1913 those Senators were elected by their legislatures to guarantee that they would protect federalism. I believe strongly that the relationship between the Federal Government and State and local governments should be one of partnership. That is why I vowed when I was elected to the Senate, I would work to find ways in which the Federal Government can improve the way it works with these levels of government to serve the American people.

I have also been concerned about the tendency of the Federal Government to preempt the functions of State and local governments and force on them new responsibilities, particularly without also providing the funding to pay for these new responsibilities.

Seventeen years ago, in 1986, I spoke to the Volunteers of the National Archives regarding the relationship of the Constitution to America's cities and the revolution of federalism. I brought to the attention of the audience my observation, since my early days in government, regarding the course American government has been taking:

We have seen the expansion of the federal government into

new, non-traditional domestic policy areas. We have

experienced a

tremendous increase in the proclivity of Washington both to

preempt state and local authority and to mandate actions on

state and local governments. The cumulative effect of a

series of actions by the Congress, the Executive Branch and

the U.S. Supreme Court have caused some legal scholars to

observe that while constitutional federalism is alive in

scholarly treatises, it has expired as a practical political

reality.

In 1991, I started a long crusade when I became a member of the National Governors Association, working with the State and Local Government Coalition to do something about unfunded mandates. In fact, as Governor of Ohio, I requested that a study be done to examine unfunded mandates. It was the first of its kind in any State. It captured just how bad the mandate problem was in real dollars. Between 1992 and 1995, Ohio had unfunded mandates of almost $2 billion. These efforts were strongly supported by Senator Kempthorne, Senator Roth, Senator Glenn, Congressmen Robert Portman, Tom Davis, and Bill Clinger and culminated with the passage of the unfunded mandates legislation in the Senate on March 15, 1995.

As a matter of fact, for the first time in my life I set foot in the Senate when the Senate passed that Unfunded Mandate Relief Act. I was in the Rose Garden representing State and local government when President Clinton signed the legislation on March 22, 1995. In fact, I have that pen proudly displayed in my Senate office.

This milestone concluded a lengthy and coordinated effort by State and local government officials and their congressional allies to reduce the economic burden of Federal unfunded mandates and the adverse impact they have on State and local services.

By the way, this was the second plank in the Contract With America that was developed in 1994. I will never forget when we were in Williamsburg and committed ourselves to the Contract With America. The Senator from Virginia was present at that time in the capacity of Governor of Virginia.

I believed then and I believe today that mandates forced us to cut vital services and cut taxes. Mandates also rob our citizens and elected officials of perhaps the most fundamental responsibility of government, prioritizing government services. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act does not prohibit unfunded mandates, but it does slow down the process of enacting a mandate and forces each Senator and House Member to go on record that we want to mandate or prevent action by State or local governments without providing the resources with which to pay for it. It ensures that Congress is informed and accountable when considering an unfunded mandate for pending legislation. The law was designed specifically to ensure an up-or-down vote on whether to impose a mandate.

The mandate we are debating is exactly what the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was designed to address. This is the first time this Act has been used on the Senate floor since it was enacted in 1995. When this legislation passed the Senate in March of 1995, the vote was an overwhelming 91-to-9 vote. Of the 91 Senators supporting the bill, 50 are still here today, and of the 9 nays, 7 Senators are still in office. In addition, 14 Members of the House--voting in favor of unfunded mandates reform--have moved over to the Senate. So we have 64 Senators today who voted for this bill in 1995 in their respective Chambers.

The bill currently under consideration, the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act of 2003, sponsored by my good friend from Virginia, Senator Allen, and Senator Wyden and Senator McCain, has included unfunded mandates by the Congressional Budget Office.

In fact, I want to quote from the Commerce Committee's report dated September 29, 2003, in which CBO said:

By extending and expanding the moratorium on certain types

of state and local taxes, S. 150 would impose an

intergovernmental mandate as defined in the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act. CBO estimates that the mandate would cause state

and local governments to lose revenue beginning in October

2006; those losses would exceed the threshold established in

[the unfunded mandates relief legislation]. While there is

some uncertainty about the number of states affected, CBO

estimates that the direct costs to states and local

governments would probably total between $80 and $120 million

annually. . . .

Furthermore, they went on to say:

Depending on how the language altering the definition of

what telecommunications services are taxable is interpreted,

that language also could result in substantial revenue losses

for states and local governments. It is possible that states

could lose revenue if services that are currently taxed are

redefined as Internet access under the definition of S. 150.

Finally, the report states that CBO cannot estimate the magnitude of these losses.

Mr. President, let me reiterate, CBO said: Depending on how the definition is interpreted, the loss of revenue to the States and local governments could be substantial.

If CBO cannot calculate the potential loss of revenue to the States, why in the world would we change the definition of Internet access? And why in the world would we make the new definition permanent?

Even FCC Commissioner Michael Powell said the telecommunications industry is in flux and that few industry experts could agree on a definition in view of the rapid changes in technology.

Senator Wyden, in his presentation earlier this evening, made the allegation that no State will lose money under this proposal. We asked the National Governors Association to contact the tax commissioners from various States and here are some of the findings: Kentucky will lose $265 million; Iowa, $45 to $50 million; Maine, $35 million; Michigan, $360 million; New Jersey, $600 million; Ohio, $55 million; Oklahoma, $159 million; Tennessee, $358 million; Utah, $92 million; Washington, $33 million.

That is a lot of money--a lot of money--and States will lose tax revenue under this proposal.

In my own State, I spent a lot of time with our Ohio Tax Commissioners Office and the Office of Budget and Management. According to the Department of Taxation in Ohio, we will be losing about $700 million over our 2-year biannual budget period.

Last week, my staff was on a conference call with SBC Communications, Bell South, Sprint, the Tennessee Revenue Director, and the Ohio Tax Commissioner's Office. The telecommunications companies did not dispute the Ohio Tax Department's estimates.

So let's be honest about it. If this permanent moratorium goes through with the current definition, there is no question in the world that States are going to lose money.

At the end of that conversation, by the way, the only thing we got out of it was that there was uncertainty, confusion, and speculation regarding what this all meant.

In addition, we are going to be losing $350 million, at least, as a result of this proposal today.

If we pass S. 150, Congress will, in effect, force States to raise taxes or cut services in order to make up the difference. In other words, all 50 States will be forced to debate whether to raise taxes, cut services, or come to Congress for more money. Mr. President, unlike Congress, by law all states must balance their budgets. They don't have the option of printing more money like the federal government.

States have to balance their budgets and if they don't spend within their means, they are forced to make a choice to either cut services or raise taxes. Of course, that is something we have not done. And I mention, that some of my colleagues say States are not fiscally responsible. I would like to say that most of the States in the United States of America are much more fiscally responsible than this body, in which we have increased spending and added to our burgeoning deficit.

Mr. President, the newspapers in Ohio get it. The Cincinnati Enquirer, one of the most conservative papers in Ohio, understands:

One reason governors, mayors and county officials oppose

expanding the Internet tax ban is that telecom companies are

racing as fast as they can to convert most services to the

Internet. If just about everything gets tax-exempt under a

broader ``Internet access'' definition, states and localities

would take a huge tax revenue hit.

The development of DSL, broadband and cable Internet

service were just the sort of new access technology that

Voinovich and others hoped would result from the tax

moratorium, but they don't want it expanded to kill existing

tax revenues.

The Akron Beacon-Journal also understands:

In short, critical programs would be put in jeopardy, from

mental health care to public schools.

Even the Washington Post understands:

What's driving this legislation is that telecommunications

companies and Internet service providers see an opportunity

not only to make the tax moratorium permanent--in itself a

bad idea--but to save what could amount to billions in

additional taxes. The law frees service providers from having

to pay taxes on telephone service they use to provide

Internet access. And as the Internet becomes a more effective

medium for providing phone service and delivering products

such as downloaded movies, software and music, the

legislation could sweep such offerings within the ambit of

services that states are prohibited from taxing.

The Internet shouldn't be subject to conflicting taxes, but

that's no reason to argue that it shouldn't be taxed at all.

There should be a level playing field for taxing Internet

access, whether it comes through ordinary dial-up, cable

modems or high-speed telephone lines.

The last thing Congress should do now to cash-strapped

states is pass a law that would not only permanently put

Internet access off limits for taxation but also deprive them

of revenue that they now collect.

And they go on--I will finish the quote--

Proponents of the law are busy demagoguing the issue,

suggesting, as Senate sponsor Ron Wyden (D-OR) put it the

other day, that users ``could be taxed every time they read

their local newspaper online or check the score of a football

game.'' Congress should step back from the brink, temporarily

extend the moratorium and sort this all out in a way that

doesn't intrude on state prerogatives.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these articles be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I have made the point that I have strong concerns with the pending legislation because it is an unfunded mandate. At the same time, I think it would be wrong for Congress to do nothing and allow taxes on Internet access.

As I have said emphatically, I am against taxes on e-mail and the Internet. It is no secret that my interest in the current moratorium dates back to my time as Governor. During my tenure as Governor, I was also chairman of the National Governors Association. As chairman, I asked Governor Mike Leavitt to be the lead Governor on the Internet economy and its effects on State government and federalism. The NGA efforts on this important topic led to the current moratorium on Internet taxes which was signed into law in 1998, and then again in 2001.

Our goal then is the same as my goal today: to encourage the growth of the Internet as a driving force in our economy.

Let's look at the facts.

Under the original 3-year moratorium from 1998 to 2001, the Internet rapidly expanded to all corners of our country. The point I am trying to make is that with the current moratorium that we have, we have seen unbelievable expansion in the Internet. That is what we wanted to have. That is why we put the moratorium in effect.

In February 2002, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration at the Department of Commerce issued a report entitled ``a Nation Online: How Americans Are Expanding Their Use of the Internet.'' It is just unbelievable what has happened during that period of time. My point is, the Internet flourished in all segments of society during the original moratorium, and I think it is safe to assume that Internet usage continues to increase every day.

The question is, how do we continue to support the growth of the Internet and bring parity for all Internet service providers without causing undue harm to our State and local governments that have been experiencing serious budget shortfalls?

S. 150 would, for the first time since 1998, change the definition of Internet access and, without a clear understanding of the definition's impact, rush to make it permanent.

The fact is, Internet technologies are changing more rapidly than ever. Companies are moving quickly to provide multiple services over a single line, including Internet access, voice communication, data service, and entertainment service. It does not make sense to change and make permanent the definition of Internet access when the technologies and the different ways Internet services are being offered is changing so rapidly.

My colleagues, Senators Alexander, Graham, and Carper, and I will introduce an amendment that simply keeps current law in place and offers language to level the playing field for DSL, wireless, cable, and satellite Internet services. Basically, what we are offering will be a 2-year moratorium. We will amend the current definition of the Internet tax moratorium to preclude the taxing of DSL.

Many States today, under the grandfather clause of the tax moratorium, have been collecting taxes on DSL. Several other States, because of a loophole in the definition, have started collecting taxes on DSL connections. What we are proposing--and it is very fair--is that in consideration of this body extending this moratorium for only 2 years, States such as Ohio and others that are now collecting Internet taxes will give them up at the end of a 2-year period. This gives them adequate time to prepare, in terms of their budget, for the loss of the revenues.

Clearly, the States are willing to give up taxes that they are now collecting on the Internet in consideration of not going forward with a permanent moratorium with the definition that is now contained in the bill before us. In other words, the fear of what could happen under the definition of the bill that is before us today in the managers' amendment is so large that they are saying: We will give up that money just so it lasts for 2 years. During this time, we can work on a definition that will make sense.

I believe that is a very fair proposal. It means we will be reducing taxes on the Internet in many of our States that are now collecting taxes.

Last but not least, on October 29, the Wall Street Journal wrote an editorial entitled ``Taxing Your E-Mail.'' The Journal claimed that a few Republicans have decided to dress up as tax-and-spend Democrats for Halloween. The fact is, the Wall Street Journal article completely misstated what we are trying to do here tonight. The reference to taxing e-mail is nonsense.

In fact the Cincinnati Enquirer followed up the Wall Street Journal by saying on October 31, quote:

Anti-tax groups making Voinovich out to be the devil

incarnate are roasting the wrong guy. Voinovich favors

keeping the tax moratorium on Internet access. He helped

negotiate the Internet Tax Freedom Act of 1998, supported its

renewal in 2001 and opposes new taxes on telecommunication

services. And yes, he strongly opposes a tax on e-mail.

In fact, I am going to be introducing an amendment tomorrow that is a Sense of the Senate to make it very clear that this is not about taxing e-mail. I think it is important my colleagues understand that. This is not what this legislation is about.

I am hoping tomorrow we will have an opportunity to vote on this bill and this amendment. I hope my colleagues will be fair enough to understand how serious this matter is to the future of our States and to federalism. I hope we are successful tomorrow with our amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate and pay tribute to Mr. Umberto P. Fedeli of Gates Mills, OH as a 2003 Ellis Island Medal of Honor recipient.

The prestigious Ellis Island Medal of Honor award is presented annually to ``remarkable Americans who exemplify outstanding qualities in both their personal and professional lives,'' and ``who have distinguished themselves as citizens of the United States, while continuing to preserve the richness of their particular heritage.''

Umberto P. Fedeli is such an American. In addition to creating a business in Ohio and being active in numerous charitable causes, Umberto has maintained strong ties to the Italian American community. I've often said, ``show me someone who is proud of their ethnic heritage and I'll show you a great American!''

Mr. Fedeli's parents immigrated from Lascio, Italy to the same neighborhood in which I grew up--the Collinwood neighborhood of Cleveland, OH. He learned many important lessons from his father, Umberto, Sr. including a philosophy of life which is based on integrity, loyalty, civic responsibility and a strong work ethic.

In his early 20s, Mr. Fedeli formed a partnership which led to the creation of his own insurance company, The Fedeli Group which he built to one of the top 100 insurance firms in the nation. Today his company employs 85 people and provides a range of insurance products and services--property, general liability, life, health, workmen's compensation and estate planning. It provides insurance for over 3,000 businesses and, remarkably, has averaged nearly 20 percent growth per year for 20 years.

The Fedeli Group has received many industry awards and has been named several times as winner of the Weatherhead 100's fastest growing companies in northeastern Ohio.

Through the years, Mr. Fedeli has been active in Ohio politics-- serving on advisory committees for my campaigns, those of Senator Mike DeWine and countless other state, local and national candidates.

As Governor-elect of Ohio in 1991, I appointed Umberto Fedeli to my gubernatorial transition team and after I took office, I was pleased to appoint him to the Ohio Turnpike Commission where he served as chairman for 6 years. Under his leadership, the turnpike's resources served as a catalyst for growth and economic development. In fact, as Governor, I noted that ``Umberto's leadership will be remembered as the Turnpike Commission's most energetic and accomplished era.'' I still believe that today. Umberto Fedeli was the best leader of the turnpike aside from the man who created it.

Mr. Fedeli is very involved in his community and is a friend to countless people in northeast Ohio, across the State--and throughout our Nation. He values serving others above all else, including his family, his church, his clients and his community.

He has been named Man of the Year for both the Italian-American Sports Hall of Fame and the Americans of Italian Heritage. In 1995, he was recognized by the John Carroll University Business School as one of ``Fifty of Its Finest.''

Umberto serves as chairman of the Cleveland Chapter of Legatus, an international group of Catholic CEOs for which he also serves on the International Board of Directors. He was recognized as 2002 Officer of the Year for Legatus, and became a Knight of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem, administered by the Holy See, in 1998.

He received both the Grand Illusion Award for the Ohio Cancer Research Associates and the National Multiple Sclerosis Norman Cohn Hope Award for philanthropic and community service. In 2000 he was honored by the Italian Federation with its Columbian Award and 2003 Man of the Year for the Christ Child Society.

In 1995, Umberto was instrumental in the formation of the Northern Ohio Italian American Foundation, a group of prominent business people who lend philanthropic support to various groups in northeast Ohio and which he presently serves as chairman.

In 1997, the Northern Ohio Italian American Foundation established the Bishop Anthony M. Pilla Institute of Italian American Studies at John Carroll University.

Umberto is also a member of the Board of Directors of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, the Board of Trustees at John Carroll University and trustee of the Cleveland Catholic Diocese Foundation.

Mr. Fedeli cares deeply for others and gives witness to his faith in God every day by helping people he knows well and those he has never met. He gives witness to the second great commandment, ``Love thy neighbor as thyself'' at every opportunity.

He is a role model in every sense of the word: in terms of his devotion to his family, his success in business and his contributions to his ``extended family'' in the community.

He and his wife Maryellen, whom he describes as the only girlfriend he ever had, have been married for 19 years and have five children.

Umberto Fedeli is indeed a remarkable American of the highest integrity in both his personal and professional life. He has made many outstanding contributions to the Italian American community, to his local community and to America.

I am proud to recognize my friend, Umberto P. Fedeli and congratulate him on this wonderful honor.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate and pay tribute to Mr. Monte Ahuja of Hunting Valley, OH as an Ellis Island Medal of Honor recipient.

The prestigious Ellis Island Medal of Honor award is presented annually to ``remarkable Americans who exemplify outstanding qualities in both their personal and professional lives,'' and ``who have distinguished themselves as citizens of the United States, while continuing to preserve the richness of their particular heritage.'' Monte Ahuja was selected to receive this honor in 2001.

Mr. Ahuja is a distinguished American who immigrated to the United States from India in 1969. He received a bachelor of science degree in mechanical engineering in India and pursued his graduate education at Ohio State University where he received his masters degree in mechanical engineering. He moved to Cleveland, OH in 1972 and received his masters in business administration at Cleveland State University in 1975 while working full time.

While pursuing his MBA, Mr. Ahuja began to dream about creating a global parts distribution network solely dedicated to providing transmission rebuilders the highest quality products and services. He pursued his dream by undertaking considerable research and hard work developing his idea, and he established Transtar Industries, Inc. in 1975.

Over the past 28 years, Transtar Industries has grown from a two- person, one-location operation to a company with over 25 locations nationwide and over 500 dedicated employees that services the automotive transmission aftermarket in over 60 countries.

Transtar Industries, Inc. is headquartered in Cleveland, OH and distributes the world's largest and most comprehensive line of automotive transmission replacement parts and kits. The company's products are the result of proactive product research and development. Transtar also has outstanding business systems. Its sales forecasting system is state-of-the art and its level of customer service consistently exceeds 95 percent. All of Transtar's distribution centers are electronically linked, which makes it possible for Transtar to ship virtually every order the same day.

Mr. Ahuja has provided outstanding leadership at Transtar Industries and he has received numerous awards for his achievements, including the Arthur Anderson 2000 Leadership Award, the Inside Business NEO Success Award and the Association of Corporate Growth Deal Makers Award.

As Governor of Ohio, I was proud to recognize Mr. Ahuja on two occasions as recipient of the ``E'' Award for Excellence in Export.

In 2002, Mr. Ahuja was chosen the World Trade Center Cleveland International Executive of the Year.

Monte Ahuja is also extremely involved in the community and he demonstrates generously his philosophy of contributing to the community that has given him so much.

He has a passion for education which is demonstrated by his years of commitment to his alma mater where he began to envision and create his company. At Cleveland State University, he has served as director of the Cleveland State University Foundation and he has established the Ahuja Endowed Scholarship Fund in business administration and engineering.

He also established the Distinguished Scholar in Comparative Indian and Western Philosophy--which is so important today as we strive to appreciate the richness of this country's cultural diversity.

I was so impressed with Monte's devotion to education that when I was governor of Ohio I appointed him to Cleveland State's Board of Trustees in 1991. From 1992 to 1998, he served with distinction as chairman of the Board of Trustees.

He also served as chairman of the Cleveland State University Task Force, part of a statewide project I initiated as governor of Ohio, the ``Ohio Task Force for Managing Future Higher Education in the State of Ohio'' to challenge the universities to conduct private sector management audits to work harder and smarter and do more with less. Under Monte Ahuja's leadership, Cleveland State University's audit was one of the best in the State and saved the University $8.5 million a year.

Monte Ahuja's commitment to education is relentless and he has dedicated himself to the advancement of quality education at Cleveland State and in Ohio.

He is the embodiment of the achievements that a quality education can help facilitate. In 1990, Mr. Ahuja was named one of Cleveland State University's 25 most distinguished alumni. In 1999, he received Harvard University Business School's Dively Award and that same year his alma mater recognized him again by naming the Business School building at Cleveland State University Monte Ahuja Hall.

Mr. Ahuja has served on the boards of many civic, business and philanthropic organizations, including the Greater Cleveland Roundtable, The National Conference, World Trade Center Advisory Council, and Ohio Export Promotion and Trade Council.

Currently, Mr. Ahuja serves on the boards of the Cleveland Cuyahoga County Port Authority, University Hospitals of Cleveland, Greater Cleveland Growth Association, United Way, WVIZ/PBS, Enterprise Development, Inc., and the Cleveland Council on World Affairs.

In addition to his significant contributions to the community, Monte has a wonderful sense of family. He is a loving husband to Usha, his wife of 30 years, a tremendous father to his two daughters and a caring son.

Monte Ahuja is a remarkable American and someone I am privileged to call friend. He has the highest integrity in both his personal and professional life and he has made many outstanding contributions to the Asian Indian community, to his local community in Cleveland, OH and to American society.

I am proud to recognize my friend Monte Ahuja and congratulate him on this wonderful honor.

Mr. President, I wish to comment on some of the statements made by my distinguished colleague, Senator Lieberman, during the debate last night.

Senator Lieberman was correct when he said concerns about climate change and atmospheric concentrations of carbon are widespread and bipartisan. He was also right when he said that support for increasing our scientific understanding of this issue and reducing atmospheric concentration of carbon is widespread and bipartisan.

However, I note that opposition to the language offered by Senator Lieberman and Senator McCain is both widespread and bipartisan, including labor and management.

The bill is opposed by a large number of stakeholders, including the Chemistry Council, the American Farm Bureau, the American Health Care Association, the American Highway Uses Alliance, the American Iron and Steel Institute, the National Association of Corn Growers, and the National Association of Wheat Growers, and the list goes on of the organizations opposed to this legislation.

The legislation is also opposed by a large number of labor unions, including the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers; the Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers, and Helpers; the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; the International Brotherhood of Teamsters; the Marine Engineers Beneficial Association; the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union; the United Mine Workers of America; the United Transportation Union; the Utility Workers Union of America; and several locals of the United Steelworkers of America.

I also note that Senator Lieberman stated that over 75 percent of people in a recent poll support this language. I would argue if these people had been told of the negative effects of this legislation on heating and electrical costs and the loss of jobs, the results of that poll would have been much different.

As I discussed last night, Thomas Mullen of Catholic Charities testified last year against the Lieberman-Jeffords bill saying it would have a devastating impact in significantly higher

heating prices on the poor and elderly. I also point out that the Department of Energy has stated that high energy costs consume a disproportionately large share of the income of the poor and elderly on fixed incomes. They are left out of this debate.

I would also like to address statements by Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman that because they offered a substitute to their original version of S. 139, all the comments and analyses cited by opponents of this bill, including myself, are irrelevant. That statement could not be further from the truth.

I refer to a letter I recently received from many of the stakeholders against S. 139:

The undersigned commercial, industrial, small business and

agricultural organizations strongly urge you to oppose S.

139, the Climate Stewardship Act, or any substitute that may

be offered by its sponsors, Senators Joe Lieberman and John

McCain, when this measure comes before the Senate. As they

proclaimed, the vote on S. 139 (or its substitute) will be a

test vote on the most appropriate response to concerns about

our changing climate.

Among all the policy options available to the Congress to

improve our understanding of climate systems, the arbitrary

imposition of energy rationing as embodied in S. 139 is one

of the worst possible options the Senate could choose for

farmers, industry, the poorest of Americans, and the economy

as a whole.

I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, this legislation is the first step in our country toward participating in the Kyoto protocol at a time when Russia and Australia have indicated they will not ratify the treaty, and when China, India, Brazil, and South Korea are exempt because they are ``developing countries.''

Our trade deficit with China alone is $103 billion. Yet supporters of this legislation want to shut down American plants and send American jobs overseas to these ``developing countries'' that do not have the environmental safeguards that we have in America. I can hear the giant sucking sound of jobs leaving our country every time I return to Ohio.

Let me be perfectly clear, carbon caps are lethal to our economy. Carbon caps--any carbon caps--will cause a switch to burning coal with clean coal technology. That will cause fuel switching to natural gas. It will mean the end of manufacturing jobs in my State. It will send thousands of American jobs overseas and will significantly drive up natural gas and electricity prices and put millions of Americans out of work.

Too many Americans have lost their jobs because we have not harmonized our energy and environmental policy in this country. We need a truly comprehensive energy policy that protects our environment while also protecting our energy security and our economy. We do not need legislation such as S. 139 that attempts to protect the environment while completely disregarding negative impacts on our energy security and economy.

As I stated last night, I strongly oppose any legislation that will exacerbate the loss of jobs in my State and drive up the cost of energy for the least of our brethren, the poor and the elderly. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about awareness and prevention of breast cancer. My wife Janet and I have always made the early prevention and detection of breast cancer a top priority. During my tenure as Governor of Ohio, the State became one of only four States to create an office within my administration devoted solely to women's health issues. The Office of Women's Health continues to address women's health needs such as early prevention and detection of breast cancer and recommends actions such as legislation or policy development.

I am so proud of Janet who is a champion of detection and prevention procedures to combat breast cancer and that as First Lady she was successful in lobbying the Ohio Legislature to designate the third Thursday in October as Ohio Mammography Day. This year was Janet's eleventh year traveling throughout the State on this day to stress the importance of early breast cancer detection.

For all of Janet's work to promote early prevention and screenings for breast cancer, the Ohio Breast and Cervical Cancer Coalition named an annual award after her. Janet continues to present the ``Janet Voinovich Service Award'' to recognize an individual's commitment to improving the quality of life for cancer survivors.

Yet, there is more that needs to be done to find a cure for breast cancer and I have been fighting in the Senate to encourage the National Institutes of Health, NIH, to take advantage of new technology to undertake innovative research in this field.

One research initiative that could give women a critical tool in the prevention of breast cancer is the study of environmental effects on the occurrence of the disease. Some studies have suggested that environmental factors

like diet, pesticides and electromagnetic fields could play a role in the growth of breast cancer. Yet, to date, there have not been enough comprehensive research initiatives to draw conclusions.

For this reason, in the 107th Congress and again this year, I cosponsored the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act to create eight centers throughout the Nation to study the link between environmental factors and breast cancer. While we continue to work on this bill in the Senate, I am so pleased that the NIH and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIEHS, have taken the first step in creating four centers for this purpose. I was so proud to be at the University of Cincinnati earlier this month to announce that the University along with the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center had been chosen to receive a NIH grant to establish one of the four centers. The University of Cincinnati and Children's Hospital have a long history of contribution to the quality of life and health in the Greater Cincinnati region and nationwide, and I am encouraged about the work that is being done to determine the factors that cause breast cancer. We must work to make sure that quality research initiatives like this one continue.

That is why I recently joined my colleagues in a letter of support for the reauthorization of the Breast Cancer Research Stamp program. Since 1998, sales of the stamp have generated more than $34 million for breast cancer research at Federal research facilities. In fact, the Breast Cancer Stamp is the most successful semi-postal in history, and I am confident that its reauthorization will continue to help fund life-saving breast cancer research over the next several years.

Until we find a cure however, Janet and I will continue to do what we can to promote awareness of breast cancer and help ensure that early detection procedures are available to women who need them most.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his kind words. The two of us will try to explain to our colleagues the real meaning of this legislation proposed by Senator Lieberman and Senator McCain.

I rise in opposition to the legislation offered by Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman. This legislation will place a cap on carbon dioxide emissions by requiring all segments of the economy to reduce emissions to 2000 levels by 2010 despite the fact that such a cap would have devastating impacts on our economy, on our manufacturing sector, and on average Americans, and especially on our brothers and sisters, the elderly and the poor.

I have stated time and time again here on the floor that we must recognize that the energy policy and our environmental policies are two sides to the same coin and that the Senate has responsibility to harmonize those policies. We have an obligation in the Senate to ensure that any legislation we consider takes into account its potential impact on our economy, which is in intensive care, particularly in States such as mine. And we have a moral obligation to ensure that we consider a bill's potential impact on the poor and the elderly who must survive on a fixed income and who pay an inordinate amount of their income for energy. They are the forgotten people in this country. We must ensure that we do not pass climate change legislation that will significantly drive up the cost of electricity for those who can least afford it.

Although some science has attributed changes in the climate to atmospheric concentration of carbon, it is clear the science of climate change is far from settled. We need significantly more research on the issue. To accept the statements of supporters of S. 139 at face value is to accept one side of the debate, a very serious debate, among respected scientists and policy experts on both sides of the issue.

I recall the hearings Senator Lieberman had when he was chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee and two hearings I had. It was interesting to see the difference of opinion among very respected scientists in this country.

My distinguished colleague Senator Inhofe has discussed at length both in the Environment and Public Works Committee and in the Senate the newest information on the issue which is contrary to the views expressed by Senators McCain and Lieberman.

In a recent column, former Secretary of Energy James Schlesinger commented:

. . . despite the certainty many seem to feel about the

causes, effects and extent of climate change, we are in fact

making only slow progress in our understanding of the

underlying science.

I ask unanimous consent the column by Mr. Schlesinger be printed in the Record.

Schlesinger points out that ``science remains unable to either attribute past climate changes to changes in CO2 or to forecast with any degree of precision how [the] climate will change in the future,'' and warns that:

We cannot tell how much of the recent warming trend can be

attributed to the greenhouse gas effect and how much to other

factors. In climate change, we have only a limited grasp of

the overall forces at work. Uncertainties have continued to

abound--and must be reduced. Any approach to policy formation

under conditions of such uncertainty should be taken only on

an exploratory and sequential basis. A premature commitment

to a fixed policy can only proceed with fear and trembling.

Several Members of this body have introduced pieces of legislation this year and a couple last year to address the issue of climate change by capping carbon--such as the Jeffords-Lieberman 4-P bill, the Carper 4-P bill, and, of course, the subject of our debate today, the McCain- Lieberman climate change bill.

Passage of any of these bills will force our utilities which are now using coal to generate over half of our Nation's electricity--by the way, 85 percent of electricity generated in my State--to fuel-switch and to rely solely on natural gas for generation despite the fact we have a 250-year supply of domestic coal and are currently in the grips of a natural gas crisis.

Senator Lieberman, in his opening statement, mentioned two companies from Ohio I am very familiar with, ADP and Synergy. There was some indication there was possibly--from his words--support for S. 139. I make it clear for the record that ADP and Synergy--ADP is the company that burns more coal than any other utility in the country--are both opposed to S. 139.

Certainly.

Yes, I do.

Over the last decade, use of natural gas electricity generation has risen significantly while domestic supplies of natural gas have fallen. The result is predictable: tightening supplies of natural gas, higher natural gas prices, and higher electricity prices.

Home heating prices are up dramatically, forcing folks on low and fixed income to choose between heating their home and paying for other necessities such as food or medicine.

Donald Mason, a commissioner on the Ohio Public Utilities Commission, testified earlier this year in the House Energy and Commerce Committee:

In real terms, the home heating cost this winter will

increase by at least $220 per household. That might sound not

significant,

but during the winter season of 2000-2001, one gas company in

Ohio saw nonpayment jump from $10 million a year to $26

million.

One of the amendments I supported in the Senate to the Labor-HHS bill would have provided more money for LIHEAP, the low-income help in heating costs. We will have a crisis this winter in natural gas costs.

As a result of these heating cost increases, 50 percent more residential customers were disconnected from gas service last year than in 2001. I personally have seen natural gas go from $4 an MCF to $8 an MCF in heating bills in northeast Ohio and projections indicate this winter will be devastating on the elderly and low-income families who are already struggling to survive.

In an Environment and Public Works Committee hearing last year, Thomas Mullen, of Catholic Charities and Health and Human Services of Cleveland, described the direct impact of significant increases of energy prices on those who are less fortunate. Here is what he had to say:

In Cleveland, over one-fourth of all children live in

poverty and are in a family of a single female head of

household. These children will suffer from further loss of

basic needs as their moms are forced to make choices of

whether to pay the rent or live in a shelter; pay the heating

bill or see their child freeze; buy food or risk availability

of a hunger center. These are not choices that any senior

citizen, child, or for that matter, person in America should

make.

What really gets to me was after he made that statement the Clean Air Trust, the O'Donnell person who is always speaking out on these issues, named Tom Mullen, the head of Catholic Charities, as the villain of the month because he dared talk about energy costs impacting the poor and elderly in this country.

Manufacturers that use natural gas as feedstock are getting hammered because of the doubling and tripling of natural gas costs and are leaving the country or closing their doors. It is happening. Lubrizol, a chemical company, has moved production to France as a result of a threefold increase in natural gas prices from $3 per million Btu in 2002 to $10 per Btu in 2003. The president of Zaclon, a chemical manufacturer based in Cleveland, testified this year that increased natural gas costs resulted in lost sales revenue and increased total energy cost. The president of one major international pharmaceutical company, a company that has 22,000 employees in the United States, recently told me unless we do something about our natural gas crisis, his company will be forced to pull many of its operations out of the United States. Due to high natural gas prices, the Dow Chemical Company, headquartered in Michigan, will be forced to shut down several plants and eliminate 3,000 to 4,000 jobs this year. The American Iron and Steel Institute reported that an integrated steel mill--we have some in Ohio still--could pay as much as $73 million for natural gas this year, up $37 million from last year. An east Texas poultry producer reported his poultry house heating bill jumped from $3,900 to $12,000 in one month, forcing him to decide between paying the bank or the gas company.

High natural gas prices have resulted in the permanent closure of almost 20 percent of the United States nitrogen fertilizer production capacity and the idling of an additional 25 percent. That is why the corn growers and other agriculture groups are opposed to McCain- Lieberman.

The Potash Corporation, one of the world's largest fertilizer producers, has announced layoffs at the Louisiana and Tennessee plants due to high natural gas prices. The company spends $2 million per day on natural gas.

A farmer in Belleville, MO, who paid $295 per ton for nitrogen fertilizer last fall expects to pay between $400 and $600 this year. It is impacting the entire segment of our economy.

Utilities are already facing tremendous increases in their fuels costs, which force them to either take losses or pass these increases on to their customers. And the carbon caps proposed by Senators McCain and Lieberman will only exacerbate this situation.

The end result is a drag on the economy. But don't take my word for it. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has testified before the Senate Energy Committee, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and the Congressional Joint Economic Committee on the supply and price of natural gas this year, stating:

I'm quite surprised at how little attention the natural gas

problem has been getting because it is a very serious

problem.

Among his comments, Chairman Greenspan noted:

The price of gas for delivery in July closed at $6.31 per

billion Btu's. That contract sold for as low as $2.55 in July

2000 and for $3.65 a year ago.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the testimony of Dr. Greenspan be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the Senate has passed a comprehensive energy bill that is currently stuck in conference with the House of Representatives. The energy bill passed by the Senate includes several provisions to increase domestic production of natural gas and to ensure that we have a healthy, vital fuel mix for electric generation.

It is vitally important for the conference committee to wrap up its work and report a bill that will increase our supplies of natural gas and promote alternatives to natural gas.

Unfortunately, the legislation that has been offered by Senators McCain and Lieberman goes in exactly the opposite direction. We are trying to free up more natural gas. We are trying to take the heat off the demand for natural gas. It will force our utilities to fuel switch to natural gas. It will significantly raise energy prices. It will cause additional thousands of jobs to be lost. And I agree with the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond, that is what is going to happen.

The Energy Information Administration estimates that passage of S. 139--I think this is really important, and our colleagues should listen to this--will raise petroleum products prices by 31 percent, raise natural gas prices by 79 percent, raise electricity prices by 46 percent, and reduce GDP by up to $93 billion by 2025.

I just received a letter today from Commerce Secretary Evans, Labor Secretary Chao, and Acting EPA Administrator Horinko. Here is what they said in the letter:

According to an analysis conducted by the Independent

Information Administration (EIA), S. 139 would cause an

estimated average loss of 460,000 American jobs through 2025,

with estimated job losses reaching 600,000 by 2012. Instead

of improving our economic security through economic growth

and job creation, the job losses resulting from S. 139 would

place an unacceptable burden on American workers and the

American people.

EIA's analysis further reveals the higher energy costs the

legislation would impose on American energy consumers: once

fully implemented, S. 139 would require a 40 cent per gallon

increase in gasoline prices and cause a nearly 50% increase

in natural gas and electricity bills.

As a result of these higher energy costs, EIA projects a

net loss of $507 billion (1996 dollars) in Gross Domestic

Production over the next two decades. These higher energy

costs and reduced economic growth would likely lead American

businesses to move overseas, taking jobs with them.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter from Secretary Evans, Secretary Chao, and Acting EPA Administrator Horinko be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask for another 5 minutes.

Three?

As I said, Mr. President, carbon caps mean fuel switching. Carbon caps mean the end of manufacturing in my State. They mean enormous burdens on the least of our brethren. And they mean moving jobs and production overseas.

What we need to do is move forward in a responsible manner, and move away from harshly ideological positions that advance nothing other than the agenda of environmental groups that have made support for carbon caps a political litmus test.

We must move forward in a manner that includes sound science and concrete reductions in carbon without seriously harming our economy.

In response to the need for better understanding of the underlying science of climate change, President Bush has moved forward aggressively to focus administration science and climate programs on a comprehensive approach to this issue.

Earlier this year, Secretary Veneman announced a new series of initiatives to increase agricultural sequestration of carbon, which is a major problem. The Department of Energy is implementing President Bush's $2 billion Clean Coal Technology Initiative. And the DOE and the Environmental Protection Agency have worked with the State Department on several international carbon control and sequestration projects, including the exportation of clean coal technologies to underdeveloped nations.

I appreciate the steps the administration is taking on climate change. I would like to make clear today that, as a State legislator, county official, mayor, and Governor of Ohio, I have been able to work across the aisle with environmental groups to accomplish many things. Efforts were successful because reasonable minds were able to sit at the table together, work together in good faith, and get things done.

It is unfortunate in this debate that we have not been able to sit down with folks and work through this issue in good faith. Our friends in the environmental community and their allies in Congress have hardened their positions on climate change to the point that voting for carbon caps--despite the tremendous negative impact such caps have on jobs, the poor, and our economy--has become a litmus test.

In a word, this position is unreasonable. It is unreasonable that nothing other than capping carbon is acceptable. It is unreasonable that nothing other than forcing utilities to rely solely on natural gas to generate electricity and devastating our economy is acceptable. And, finally, it is unreasonable that nothing other than sending

American jobs overseas and driving up energy costs for the poor and elderly on fixed income is acceptable.

Mr. President, I have been fortunate to serve the State of Ohio for many years. I take my responsibility to serve my State's interests very seriously. And I will work all day, every day, to block legislation such as this legislation that will devastate my State.

I urge my colleagues to vote no on S. 139, a bill that will shut down our manufacturers, send thousands of American jobs overseas--to countries that do not have the environmental laws that we have in America--significantly raise energy prices for those who can least afford them, and do little or nothing to solve the global warming problem.

I yield back my time.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Gov. Michael Leavitt to serve as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

As my colleagues here in the Senate know, I have more than a passing interest in the people who run our Government. Many of our problems have

been caused because we do not have the right people with the right knowledge and skills in the right place at the right time. The process is even more difficult when trying to find people to nominate for controversial appointments like Federal judgeships or high-profile Cabinet officers.

Well, I would like to say that President Bush got it right. Mike Leavitt is clearly one of the best people we could ever get to run the

Mr. President, I rise to strongly oppose the Mikulski amendment to the Transportation, Treasury, general government appropriations bill. I have the highest regard for both Senators from Maryland but have a real difference of opinion in regard to the relevancy and the need for this amendment that would throw out the new OMB A-76 circular that was issued in May of this year. The A-76 rules were designed to fix a process which government managers, private sector contractors, and Federal employees unions agreed was broken. Congress recognized the problem as well. Therefore, Congress established the

commercial activities panel as part of the 2001 national defense authorization bill. In other words, Congress recognized that there was a problem with the A-76 back in 2001.

The panel was convened specifically to consider A-76 revisions and other issues related to competition. It was led by Comptroller General David Walker, head of the General Accounting Office. The other members of that panel should be of interest to the Members of the Senate: David Walker was chairman; Pete Aldridge, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisitions; Frank A. Camm, senior analyst from Rand; Mark C. Filteau, President, Johnson Controls; Steven Goldsmith, Senior Vice President, Affiliated Computer Services; Bobby Harnage, Sr., National President, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO; Kay Cole James, Director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management; Colleen M. Kelley, National President, National Treasury Employees Union--this is the panel that considered changing A-76 and came back with a recommendation--David Pryor, Director, Institute of Politics, Harvard University; Stan Soloway, President, Professional Services Council; Angela B. Styles, Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy in the administration; and another very distinguished labor leader in this country, Robert M. Tobias, distinguished adjunct professor at American University who is the former President of the National Treasury Employees Union.

This was a very distinguished group that looked at the A-76 process and said it is broken and it needs to be fixed. What this amendment would do is take us back to that broken A-76 which was recognized for some time and deny us the opportunity to use this new A-76 that was agreed upon by this distinguished panel.

I could go on at length as to how the new rules are an overall improvement on the old. But this is not really what this amendment is about.

The real purpose of the amendment we are hearing from the other side of the aisle is to stop the Bush administration's competitive sourcing initiative by disrupting the administrative processes associated with it. While Senator Mikulski's amendment would not stop competitive sourcing, as I say, it would force the executive branch to continue to use a process that everybody agreed was broken and in need of repair.

When the administration first came out with their six management initiatives, one of the things I became very upset about, as someone who has a great appreciation for people who work in government, was that they had set some artificial percentages that Departments would have to follow in terms of outsourcing. So it would be 5 percent this year and then 10 percent.

We had a hearing on this, and we made it clear that we thought it was bad public policy, that what directors should be doing, and people who work for them, was to look at their manpower to see if those people who are in place can do the job better; and in many cases they could, but they were not given money for the training they needed to upgrade their skills. I say to colleagues on both sides of the aisle, we got the administration to back away from that. They publicly have backed away from it. Clay Johnson, the new management person at OMB, has said we are backing away from it. He gets it; he understands that that policy wasn't in the best interest of the people who work for the Government or in the best interest of the taxpayers of this country.

I urge colleagues to defeat this amendment. I want you to know that Senator Thomas and I will offer an amendment later this afternoon to address what we have identified as some remaining issues of concern with the A-76 rules and the Bush administration's competitive sourcing agenda. I believe these amendments will indeed level the playing field. I believe they will give the fairness that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to see in terms of the issue of competitive sourcing.

The amendment will apply to all competitive sourcing activities all across the Government. It will do the following:

It will require all agencies to provide Congress with detailed information on how it is implementing public-private competition. This includes a description of how the agency's competitive sourcing decisionmaking process is aligned with the Department's strategic workforce plan. That is the beginning--the strategic workforce plan: How are we going to get the job done and shape our workforce to achieve the goals we set for our Departments?

It also requires the agency to report the projected number of full- time equivalent employees covered by the competition scheduled to be announced during the next fiscal year. So right off the bat, we are going to require these people to identify what they are looking at in terms of outsourcing or putting up for competitive bid.

I believe having rigorous reporting requirements is the right approach. This would have to do it prospectively and retroactively. How much money are we saving? How much more efficient are we? Then they would have to come back and report after they did it to see how it was working.

After I am finished with my presentation.

It has been the prerogative of every administration since the 1950s to decide when to conduct public-private competitions and the manner in which these competitions would be conducted. That is the prerogative of the executive administrative branch of Government. Congress, in its oversight role, has the right and responsibility to know what the executive branch is doing.

This amendment will require the Bush administration to provide exactly that information. This will create a uniform reporting requirement on competitive sourcing activities at all executive branch agencies of Government across the board--not just Treasury. This affects the entire operation across the board of the Federal Government. That information will guide congressional oversight and allow us to judge if further congressional action is necessary.

The amendment also gives appeal rights to a Federal organization when it loses a bid. Currently, when private contractors lose a competition with a Government entity, or another private sector contractor, they have a right to appeal the decision to the General Accounting Office. The Federal organization currently does not have that right. This provision levels the playing field and makes the competition process fair to Federal employees. We put them in the same position as we do the private contractors. We want them to be able to appeal it. This time, it says if our employees lose, they can appeal that, just as the private contractor can appeal.

Third, this amendment modifies the provision of the new Circular A- 76, which requires that activities identified for competitive sourcing must be recompeted every 5 years if the Federal organization wins the competition. I am concerned about the effects this requirement may have on employee morale. This amendment removes the provision. In doing so, it sends a signal that as long as the MEO continues to perform well, it doesn't need to be subject to future competition. In other words, if the Federal workers win the competition, why should they, at the end of 5 years, have to have it recompeted? If you want to recompete it, the Department decides that; it means they are not getting the job done. But to have an automatic 5 years that says, hey, boys and girls, you are getting the job done, but after 5 years we are going to recompete it, that is not fair.

Fourth, this amendment requires the executive branch Departments and Agencies to spend such sums as are necessary to ensure that they have strong contract oversight capabilities. One of the problems we have in a lot of Federal agencies is we don't have the people who can properly oversee this competitive sourcing, nor do we have the people inside. There is a contract management office in the executive branch, and they don't have the necessary resources to properly do their job.

It is not enough to farm something out to a private company and then not find out whether or not they are doing the job. We should have that. When I was the tax assessor of Cuyahoga County, we had internal people who watched the appraisal company that we had do the annual job. When I became the

auditor, we had nobody inside. So we would hire a company, and nobody would know whether they were doing a good or a bad job or who helped us draft a contract to make sure we got what we wanted. So we brought them in house. It is the same thing we need in the Federal Government.

If you are going to do competitive outsourcing, you had better have people in house who can do it right and, once it is done, make sure you are getting what you are supposed to get: We are saving money, and we are more efficient. If it is not happening, then you can throw the red flag.

This amendment demonstrates congressional awareness of this problem and directs the executive branch agencies to do what is necessary to correct any deficiencies. This is a lot of work. I have talked to Clay Johnson at OMB. He gets it. He knows we must do a better job in these agencies.

Fifth, the amendment prohibits private sector contractors who win competitions from relocating jobs overseas. Our reasoning is very simple. Jobs that were previously performed by U.S. citizens should not go to foreigners. We know today that more and more of that is happening with these private companies. Say it would be some company that competes for data processing and they get the job and then they would have people in Bangalore, India, do the work for them. This would require that if somebody won the competition in the private sector, those jobs had to be in the United States and not farmed out to India or some other country.

Overall, this amendment represents a very balanced approach to further addressing some lingering concerns Congress may have with the Bush administration's competitive sourcing initiative. I have spent a lot of time on this issue. I have been working on the Governmental Affairs Committee. I am chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia. We were the ones who put together, with Senator Akaka, amendments to the Homeland Security Act that created more flexibility, and it was something we worked on, on a bipartisan basis.

I have several other pieces of legislation that just got voted out of the Governmental Affairs Committee on a bipartisan basis this week. I care about our Federal workers. I do. I believed that our Federal workers, when I was mayor, Governor, and now as a Senator, if given the right tools and are empowered and get the training they need, can beat anybody. We have to make sure they have an even playing field. But at the same time we do that, I don't think we should go back to an A-76 procedure that we, many years ago, said was broken.

So, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to not support the amendment proposed by my good friends--people I respect--from Maryland, and that they support the amendment I have put together with Senator Thomas.

I will say that we are trying to still, between now and then, work with people on the other side of the aisle, and they have other ideas on how we can do this better. This is a serious issue.

I will now yield for a question to my colleague from Maryland.

I yield for a question.

Does the Senator yield?

Mr. President, the 2001 National Defense Authorization Act required that panel be put together to look at a new A-76 rule, and the commercial activities panel worked on this issue for a significant amount of time and reflected a cross section of labor and management, the final regulation that was put out by the administration was looked at by several of the people who were on that panel with whom I personally spent some time.

In spite of whatever criticisms you may have with that A-76 process, it was the consensus that the new A-76 regulation is far better than the one we have on the books, which is not getting the job done or we wouldn't have asked that a commercial panel come up with a new A-76 recommendation in terms of a regulation.

My argument would be that the regulation proposed by the administration--by the way, I don't think they even got into the issue of the A-76 regulation over in the House. This was just a question of whether we were going to have competitive bidding. Some people were for it; some people were not.

With all due respect, I have talked with some of the people over on the other side and I don't think a lot understood what this was about. I am saying to the Senator, the new regulation, though he and others may have some problems with it, is far better than the one we decided wasn't getting the job done. I would argue that some of the concerns that have been raised about competitive bidding are being responded to with the amendment I am going to be offering with Senator Thomas this afternoon.

Mr. President, I am saying there was some difference of opinion, and it didn't do everything they wanted, but the consensus was that the new A-76 regulation that was proposed by the administration was better than the old A-76 procedure that we have.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield? I am asserting that talking to individual members of the panel indicated to me that the circular that was put out by the administration was better than what they had before in terms of the A-76 process.

Now, if you are asking me did everyone agree with everything that was on there, I can't verify that fact, but I will say this: The consensus that we got, particularly from David Walker who was chairman of the panel, indicated that he thought that what they came back with was better than the old A-76 process.

Then, by the way, other issues were raised. Frankly speaking, that is one of the reasons why I am here with an amendment that deals with competitive sources. There was a concern about the fact that our employees would--if they won the competition--have to come back every 5 years. There was concern that there wasn't a right of appeal if our employees lost the competition. There was concern about the fact that the agencies have the individuals they need on board to put competition together, and that once they are put together, they have people who can monitor the private sector doing the work to make sure they are getting this cost savings and the efficiencies they expected they were going to get from the process.

Last but not least, as you know, I am making it very clear that the amendment makes it very clear that if they do win, it can't be farmed out to some foreign workers.

These amendments are a reflection of trying to deal with some of the concerns that employee unions and other people have with this A-76.

Mr. President, I would like to save my remarks. I am waiting for something to come from my office that I can share with the Members of the Senate from the chairman of the Commercial Activities Panel I made reference to in my remarks earlier. I will let the other side continue with their remarks.

Mr. President, in my previous remarks in opposition to the Senator's amendment, I went into the details of the amendment we presented to the floor. So those five provisions I just mentioned--and they were reiterated by the Senator from Wyoming--basically constitute the amendment. I think that lays it out. I am more than happy to hear the Senator's thoughts in regard to that.

Mr. President, could the Chair inform me when I have used 5 minutes?

Mr. President, I would just like to clarify something for my colleagues in the Senate. First of all, the A-76 old rule was considered to be broken. Congress recognized the problem, and they established a Commercial Activities Panel as part of the 2001 Defense Authorization Act. The panel was convened specifically to consider revisions to the A-76 competition. It was led by Comptroller David Walker, the head of the General Accounting Office.

Now, there have been some allegations here that the circular that was put out by the Bush administration was not reflective of the panel's decision.

First of all, the recommendations coming from the panel were either agreed to unanimously or by a supermajority of the public and private representatives.

I will say, in all candor, I correct my earlier statements. They were not supported by Bob Tobias. They were not supported by Colleen Kelley. And they were not supported by Bobby Harnage. So let's clarify that. The union representatives did not like it that much.

So the question is, Is the new A-76 better than the old one that the Senators from Maryland want us to adopt?

As I noted earlier, the A-76, the new regulation, quoting David Walker:

. . . is generally consistent with the commercial activities

panel's sourcing principles and recommendations and, as such,

provides improved and foundation for competitive sourcing

decisions in the Federal Government. In particular, the new

circular permits . . .

Then he goes on to talk about the new circular.

He goes on to say:

If effectively implemented, the new Circular should result

in . . . [greater credibility] and greater accountability

regardless of the service provider selected.

As part of an executive session at Harvard University that was convened by Dean Nye, in which I participated, I got to know several members of the Clinton administration. One of those members of the administration was Steve Kelman, administrator of the Office for Federal Procurement Policy at OMB. He had the job of Ms. Styles who has left the administration. I asked Steve what he thought about the new A- 76 circular and he said that overall it was better than the old A-76 and that the only problem he had with it was this recompete after 5 years for those people in the public sector who won the competition.

What I am saying is that the A-76 circular that was submitted by the Bush administration is not perfect. There are differences of opinion about it, but it is a far cry better than the old A-76 circular.

What we are saying today is that we should not go back to that, that the new circular is better. Our amendment enhances the playing field for our Federal workforce in that it requires certain reporting requirements that say this competition is not going to be done willy- nilly, that it is going to be done as part of their workforce shaping.

By the way, I would like to correct one Senator from Maryland who said the administration has given the charge to go out and do this arbitrarily. They did that initially. I blew a gasket. I blew a fuse. Senator Durbin and I had a hearing on that. We had a second hearing on it and the administration has backed off from the quotas. So there is not going to be a rush out there to do competitive bidding. We are going to require them to have reporting requirements, letting people know beforehand that they are going to go to competition.

Once they go to competition and if the private sector wins, they are going to have to report whether they are getting the money efficiencies and whether they are getting the other efficiencies they thought they were going to get.

It provides that if the Government employees lose the competition, they will have a right to appeal, just as the private sector has a right of appeal. So we are giving them that opportunity. We are eliminating the every 5-year competition if it is won in-house.

It also provides that if the private sector gets the work, it has to go to American people and not be farmed out overseas.

I believe this amendment, plus the revised A-76 regulation, is a far better system than going back to something that we acknowledged back in 2001 was not working. We fixed it. It may not be perfect. I am not saying it is. I am not saying that everybody agrees with it. But it is a far cry better than to go back to what we had before.

Fundamentally, I think the other side wants to go back there because there are many people who are opposed to competitive bidding. I want everyone to know, competitive bidding ought to be something that is available to the administrative branch of Government, but it ought to be something that is carefully considered before they go forward and do it.

My feeling always is, I would rather stay with the people who are working in the Federal Government and give them the training, the empowerment, and tools to get the job done. We have leveled the playing field. We slowed down the process.

I believe with Clay Johnson over there at OMB and with Kay James over at OPM, we have two outstanding people. That is what it is about, the integrity of the people. They are not going to go forward and do some of the things that the folks on the other side of the aisle think they are going to do.

I am staying on top of this issue. I am going to monitor this issue to make sure they continue to do what they have represented that they are going to do to me and so many other members of the Governmental Affairs Committee.

Madam President, I need 2 minutes.

I appreciate the kind words from the Senator of Maryland with regard to our amendment. But I think that to go back to the old A-76 circular after the commercial panels spent so much time on it would not be in the best interest of our Government.

I am going to quote from David Walker, who is chairman of that panel, to clarify the fact that the new circular is better than the old system, and that we would be better off having our amendment attached to the new circular rather than to the old rules and old circular. He says:

As I noted previously, the new Circular A-76 is generally

consistent with the Commercial Activities Panel's sourcing

principles and recommendations and, as such, provides an

improved foundation for competitive sourcing decisions in the

Federal Government. In particular, the new Circular permits:

greater reliance on procedures contained in the FAR, which

should result in more transparent, simpler, and consistently

applied competitive process, and source selection decisions

based on tradeoffs between technical factors and cost.

The new Circular also suggests the potential use of

alternatives to the competitive sourcing process, such as

public-private and public-public partnerships and high-

performing organizations. It does not, however, specifically

address how these alternatives might be used.

That is an improvement.

If effectively implemented, the new Circular should result

in increased savings, improved performance, and greater

accountability, regardless of the service provider selected.

That is why the amendment is so important.

However, this competitive sourcing initiative is a major

change in the way Government agencies operate, and successful

implementation of the Circular's provisions will require that

adequate support be made available to Federal agencies and

employees, especially if the timeframes called for in the new

Circular are to be achieved.

The point I am making today--one of the reasons we have one of our amendments--is that we are requiring the Federal agencies to have the capacity to properly go through this competitive sourcing. That is what our amendment says. In addition, it says that once the competitive sourcing has been--if the outsiders win, we are going to monitor their performance to make sure we are going to get the savings and the efficiencies we are supposed to get. If we are not, that would mean our workers in the Federal Government would get another shot at what had been farmed out to the private sector.

I know there have been instances in the Defense Department where things have been farmed out and then they have been brought back into the Federal Government.

Madam President, today is a glorious day. Today is the day that we finally send the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act to the President for his signature, and we can now begin to save human lives. Today's vote is only marred by the fact that it took us so long to get here. Just imagine the number of lives we could have saved if we had sent this bill to the President 8 months ago, when we first passed it.

The subject of partial-birth abortion is not a new one for me. Eight years ago, when I was Governor of Ohio, we were the first State to pass a partial-birth abortion ban, which was unfortunately struck down by the courts. Subsequent to that, I watched the partial birth abortion ban make its way through the 104th and 105th Congresses, only to be vetoed by President Clinton. After I arrived in the Senate in the 106th Congress, I gave a speech in support of a partial birth abortion ban that passed both chambers but never made it to Conference. I am overjoyed that we finally got this done in the 108th Congress!

During debate on this bill, I listened to my colleagues quote statistics and spout off facts about medical necessity and the health of the mother. Well, we can all quote different statistics, but the bottom line is that there is no need for this procedure. Most of these partial birth abortions are elective. They take 3 days to complete and are never medically necessary.

The victims of the partial-birth abortions are human beings. I find it interesting that they are sometimes called living fetuses. Whether they are called babies or fetuses, no one seems to dispute the fact that they are living. In fact, they are human babies and they can feel pain.

I would like to thank all of my colleagues who voted for this very important legislation. We can certainly be proud of what we have accomplished today!

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of the Class Action Fairness Act, a bill to stop unfair and abusive class action settlements that ignore the best interests of injured plaintiffs. It tickles the cockles of my heart that this is the first time I can recall that my colleague from the State of Delaware and I have spoken out on the same position on a bill before the Senate. Senator Carper and I have worked together for many years in the National Governors Association. We have been looking for an opportunity to collaborate and support legislation on the floor of the Senate. It is a particular pleasure for me to follow the Senator from Delaware. We both believe this is good legislation for the people in our districts and for our country.

This legislation is sorely needed to help people understand their rights in class action lawsuits and protect them from unfair settlements. It is also needed to reform the class action process which has been so manipulated in recent years that U.S. companies are being driven into bankruptcy to escape a rising tide of frivolous lawsuits and has resulted in the loss of countless numbers of jobs, especially in the manufacturing sector.

I believe that for the system to work, we must strike a delicate balance between the rights of the aggrieved parties to bring lawsuits and the rights of society to be protected against frivolous lawsuits and outrageous judgments that are disproportionate to compensating the injured and made at the expense of society as a whole. I believe that is what this legislation does, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of it.

Since my days as Governor of Ohio, I have been very concerned with what I call the ``litigation tornado'' that has been sweeping through the economy of my State and throughout the United States. Ohio's civil justice system is in a state of crisis. Ohio doctors are leaving the State, and too many have stopped delivering babies because they cannot afford liability insurance. Ohio businesses are going bankrupt as a result of runaway asbestos litigation. Today, one of my fellow Ohioans can be a plaintiff in a class action lawsuit that she doesn't even know about that is taking place in a State she has never visited.

In 1996, as Governor of Ohio, I was proud to sign H.B. 350, strong tort reform legislation that became law in Ohio for a while. It might have helped today's liability crisis, but it never got a chance. In 1999, the Supreme Court of Ohio, in a politically motivated decision, struck down Ohio's civil justice reform law, even though the only plaintiff in the case was the Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers, the personal injury bar's trade group. Their reason for challenging the law: They claimed their association would lose members and lose money due to the civil justice reform laws that were enacted. That is how they got standing in court. It was an incredible situation that I hope we never see again.

While we were frustrated at the State level, I am proud to have continued my fight for a fair, strong civil justice system in the U.S. Senate. To this end, I worked with the American Tort Reform Association to produce a study titled ``Lawsuit Abuse in Ohio'' that captured the impact of this rampant litigation on Ohio's economy with a goal of educating the public on the issue and sparking change. Can you imagine what this study found? In Ohio, the litigation crisis costs every Ohioan $636 per year, and every Ohio family of four $2,500 per year. These are alarming numbers. This study was released on August 8, 2002. Imagine how these numbers have risen in 1 year. In tough economic times, families cannot afford to pay over $2,500 to cover other people's litigation costs. Something needs to be done, and the passage of this bill will help.

This legislation is intended to amend the Federal judicial code to streamline and curb abuse of class action lawsuits, a procedural device through which people with identical claims are permitted to merge them and be heard at one time in court. In particular, this legislation contains safeguards that provide for judicial scrutiny of the terms of the class action settlements in order to eliminate unfair and discriminatory distribution of awards for damages and prevent class members from suffering a net loss as a result of a court victory.

This bill is designed to improve the handling of massive U.S. class action lawsuits while preserving the rights of citizens to bring such actions. Class action lawsuits have spiraled out of control with the threat of large overreaching verdicts holding corporations hostage for years and years. In fact, America's civil justice system had a direct cost in 2001 of $205.4 billion or almost 2.5 percent of GDP. That is a 14.3-percent jump from the year before, the largest percentage increase since 1986. Thousands of jobs have been impacted by that litigation.

I emphasize to my colleagues that this is not a bill to end all class action lawsuits. It is a bill to identify those lawsuits with merit and to ensure that plaintiffs in legitimate lawsuits are treated fairly through the litigation process. It is a bill to protect class members from settlements that give their lawyers millions while they only see pennies. It is a bill to rectify the fact that over the past decade, State court class action filings increased over 1,000 percent. It is a bill to fix a broken judicial system.

I am a strong supporter of this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, today Senator DeWine and I have introduced legislation that will help level the playing field for American manufacturers futilely struggling to keep pace with their Chinese competitors. My legislation, the Currency Harmonization Initiative Through Neutralizing Action (CHINA) Act of 2003, would allow for the use of tariffs to punish China for unfair trade practices that makes Chinese exports cheaper, in effect subsidizing them, and U.S. exports more expensive. Representatives English, Ballenger, and Mark Green, my colleagues on the other side of the Capitol, have already introduced this legislation in that body.

I am deeply concerned with the harm that the People's Republic of China (China) is doing to our economy by pegging the value of its currency, the renminbi, to the U.S. dollar because Ohio is a manufacturing State. Manufacturing contributes to the quality of life in Ohio by providing more than one million jobs for Ohio workers, an annual payroll of more than $45 billion, the second highest weekly earnings of any economic sector, support for local communities and schools with more than $1 billion in corporate franchise and personal property taxes, and more than $26 billion in products to more than 196 countries.

After a significant recession in 2001, the 2002-2003 manufacturing recovery has been the slowest on record; during this time, roughly 2.7 million jobs have been lost. In Ohio, we have lost 170,000 manufacturing jobs since July 2000--that's nearly 16 percent or one out of six. Over the past year, I have held numerous listening sessions throughout the State of Ohio to hear from these manufacturers and see what they attribute this loss of jobs to. Overwhelming, I have heard that China, and particularly its policy of pegging its currency to the dollar, is one of their top concerns and is costing Ohio manufacturing jobs. It is these concerns which have led me to introduce this legislation.

If the value of the renminbi is allowed to float freely, as the currencies of our other major trading partners do, it would reflect China's enormous trade surplus and increase significantly in value. China's systematic undervaluation of its currency makes its exports less expensive and puts U.S. workers at a severe disadvantage. This is both unfair and unacceptable.

I have long advocated free trade, provided it is fair trade. China's currency policy clearly tilts the international playing field against workers in Ohio and across the entire United states. This is unacceptable. As a major international trading nation, China's currency should be allowed to float and to have its value reflect its net trade positions with other nations. This is only fair.

My bill will help level the playing field by requiring the Secretary of the Treasury, within sixty days of enactment, to analyze and report to Congress whether China is manipulating its currency to achieve an advantage in trade. If the Secretary finds manipulation, the report to Congress will indicate the degree of manipulation against the dollar. Within thirty days after reporting manipulation to Congress, the Secretary is required to levy tariffs equal to the percentage of manipulation found. This is in addition to tariffs currently in place on Chinese imports.

Furthermore, the Treasury Secretary is directed to report to Congress thereafter on a yearly basis from date of enactment. Finally, the legislation expresses the sense of Congress that the Administration should pursue all means available (WTO, IMF and Sections 301-310 of the Trade ACt of 1974) to remedy China's currency manipulation.

If we are to stop the hemorrhaging of American manufacturing jobs, we must take strong measures to persuade China to abandon its peg policy and allow its currency to be set in the free and open marketplace. This is exactly what my legislation does.

I would ask that my colleagues, especially from those States that are feeling the effects of this manufacturing crisis deeply, support this legislation and consider cosponsoring it.

Mr. President, today Senator DeWine and I have introduced legislation that will help level the playing field for American manufacturers futilely struggling to keep pace with their Chinese competitors. My legislation, the Currency Harmonization Initiative Through Neutralizing Action (CHINA) Act of 2003, would allow for the use of tariffs to punish China for unfair trade practices that makes Chinese exports cheaper, in effect subsidizing them, and U.S. exports more expensive. Representatives English, Ballenger, and Mark Green, my colleagues on the other side of the Capitol, have already introduced this legislation in that body.

I am deeply concerned with the harm that the People's Republic of China (China) is doing to our economy by pegging the value of its currency, the renminbi, to the U.S. dollar because Ohio is a manufacturing State. Manufacturing contributes to the quality of life in Ohio by providing more than one million jobs for Ohio workers, an annual payroll of more than $45 billion, the second highest weekly earnings of any economic sector, support for local communities and schools with more than $1 billion in corporate franchise and personal property taxes, and more than $26 billion in products to more than 196 countries.

After a significant recession in 2001, the 2002-2003 manufacturing recovery has been the slowest on record; during this time, roughly 2.7 million jobs have been lost. In Ohio, we have lost 170,000 manufacturing jobs since July 2000--that's nearly 16 percent or one out of six. Over the past year, I have held numerous listening sessions throughout the State of Ohio to hear from these manufacturers and see what they attribute this loss of jobs to. Overwhelming, I have heard that China, and particularly its policy of pegging its currency to the dollar, is one of their top concerns and is costing Ohio manufacturing jobs. It is these concerns which have led me to introduce this legislation.

If the value of the renminbi is allowed to float freely, as the currencies of our other major trading partners do, it would reflect China's enormous trade surplus and increase significantly in value. China's systematic undervaluation of its currency makes its exports less expensive and puts U.S. workers at a severe disadvantage. This is both unfair and unacceptable.

I have long advocated free trade, provided it is fair trade. China's currency policy clearly tilts the international playing field against workers in Ohio and across the entire United states. This is unacceptable. As a major international trading nation, China's currency should be allowed to float and to have its value reflect its net trade positions with other nations. This is only fair.

My bill will help level the playing field by requiring the Secretary of the Treasury, within sixty days of enactment, to analyze and report to Congress whether China is manipulating its currency to achieve an advantage in trade. If the Secretary finds manipulation, the report to Congress will indicate the degree of manipulation against the dollar. Within thirty days after reporting manipulation to Congress, the Secretary is required to levy tariffs equal to the percentage of manipulation found. This is in addition to tariffs currently in place on Chinese imports.

Furthermore, the Treasury Secretary is directed to report to Congress thereafter on a yearly basis from date of enactment. Finally, the legislation expresses the sense of Congress that the Administration should pursue all means available (WTO, IMF and Sections 301-310 of the Trade ACt of 1974) to remedy China's currency manipulation.

If we are to stop the hemorrhaging of American manufacturing jobs, we must take strong measures to persuade China to abandon its peg policy and allow its currency to be set in the free and open marketplace. This is exactly what my legislation does.

I would ask that my colleagues, especially from those States that are feeling the effects of this manufacturing crisis deeply, support this legislation and consider cosponsoring it.

Mr. President, as we continue discussion on the supplemental spending request to support military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, I would like to take a few minutes to again express my strong support for the funding included in this bill.

I believe these resources are essential to our efforts to secure a stable future for the people of Iraq. This funding is also crucial to American soldiers serving on the ground in Iraq, providing necessary resources to help them finish the job, and to bring them back home as quickly as possible.

This is true not only of the military portion of the request, totaling approximately $66 billion, but also the $20.3 billion in funding for reconstruction in Iraq.

Some of my colleagues believe this funding for reconstruction should be in the form of a loan. While I understand their rationale, after carefully considering the situation and listening to the points raised by Ambassador Bremer and our colleagues, I have concluded this funding must be in the form of a grant. It is important for several reasons.

First, if we tell the American people we are going to loan this money and that it is going to be paid back somewhere down the road, many of them will be very cynical about whether or not we will get the money back. There is no Iraqi government to agree to repay a loan. I think we ought to level with them and say, this initial grant is a grant. If we are asked to look at additional funding down the road, then that is a different story. However, there is very little chance that Iraq would be able to pay back this money in the near future.

Next, as we look to increase contributions from the international community, I think this funding must be in the form of a grant and not a loan. This is particularly important as we approach the Donors' Conference in Madrid next week. We must do all that we can to make this a shared responsibility, and if we make U.S. funds for infrastructure projects contingent upon a loan, I do not think our friends and allies would be willing to come to the table and support additional money for Iraq.

This is also crucial as we call on those countries that did business with Saddam Hussein to eliminate the debt owed to them by the former Iraqi dictator. I would suggest to those who have made loans to the former regime in Iraq that they step up quickly and waive those loans. This will go a long way in helping a new, democratic Iraq move forward.

I am pleased that the Senate accepted an amendment that I introduced on October 2, 2003, which requires the President to report to Congress within four months regarding steps taken to increase financial commitments from the international community. The amendment also requires a detailed list of countries that have contributed funds, as well as information on those countries that have eliminated debt owed to them by the former Iraqi regime.

Further, as we encourage other countries to eliminate their debt, we should not saddle Iraq with any more loans. Countries that chose to do business with Saddam should, as I said, eliminate that debt as a way to share in the task of rebuilding a democratic Iraq.

Iraq's debt is already mountainous, totaling nearly $200 billion in debts and reparations. As Ambassador Bremer has pointed out, Iraq can hardly service its existing debt, let alone take on more. As a matter of fact, as one member of the Iraqi Governing Council has said, in his opinion, those loans are morally repugnant to the Iraqi people because they were made to a dictator who killed thousands of their brothers and sisters and who made them live under a 35-year reign of terror.

Finally, providing assistance to Iraq at this time in the form of a grant is the right thing to do.

As I remarked on the floor of the Senate on October 1, 2003, we now have the chance of a lifetime to create a new paradigm of democracy in the Middle East, and to do for this part of the world what we did for Germany and Japan in the aftermath of World War II.

As we consider this question, it is appropriate that we look to the lessons of history. We should look to the peace that prevailed in Europe following World War II under the Marshall plan, when our assistance was given as a grant, as contrasted with the events that took place following the signing of the Treaty of Versailles.

Ambassador Bremer said it well in testimony before the Senate a few weeks ago. He observed that after World War I, the allied forces ``celebrated their victory, mourned their dead and demanded the money they were owed.''

He said, ``We know the results of that policy. Extremism, bred in a swamp of despair, bankruptcy and unpayable debts, gave the world Fascism in Italy and Nazism in Germany.''

Today we find ourselves with another historic opportunity to promote a new era of peace, stability and democracy in Iraq and in the Middle East. By extending support to help Iraq in the form of a grant, our actions will demonstrate better than any rhetoric could

that we are genuinely interested in supporting humane reconstruction in Iraq, as we did following World War II.

We must remember that our war on terrorism began after 9/11. Two years ago, after it happened, I said, ``Our actions must be ongoing and relentless, and dedicated to excising the cancer of terrorism wherever it raises its ugly head. We owe it to the victims and their families, especially their children and grandchildren, to make sure this never happens again. Most of all, we owe it to the American people and the world community to bring an end to terrorism everywhere and forever.''

There are millions of young people under the age of 20 in the Middle East and we want them chanting, ``Freedom and Democracy!'' not Jihad against the rest of the world.

This funding is critical as we continue that effort.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate and pay tribute to Mr. Raj Soin of Beavercreek, OH as a 2003 Ellis Island Medal of Honor recipient.

The prestigious Ellis Island Medal of Honor award is presented annually to ``remarkable American who exemplify outstanding qualities in both their personal and professional lives,'' and ``who have distinguished themselves as citizens of the United States, while continuing to preserve the richness of their particular heritage.''

Mr. Soin was born in New Delhi, India in 1947 and graduated from Delhi University in 1969 with a Bachelor's degree in Mechanical Engineering. After graduation, he came to the United States with barely enough money to make his way to Bradley University, where he earned a Master of Science degree in Industrial Engineering in 1971, while working as a research assistant. Mr. Soin continued his post-graduate studies in business and finance, at Bradley University, Illinois State University, and the advanced management programs at Harvard University and The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

Raj Soin and his wife, Indu, became proud citizens of the United States in 1978.

In 1984, Raj Soin created his company, Modern Technologies Corporation, MTC, on a dream. MTC was founded with the idea of proving engineering and technical services to the Department of Defense, but quickly became an incubator that has spawned numerous businesses in a variety of industries. From its inception, MTC has grown at an exceptional rate and was hailed as one of the fastest growing companies in the United States by Inc. magazine for 4 consecutive years. In June 2002, MTC Technologies was listed on NASDAQ. Today the company has sales in excess of $140 million and employs over 1100 people in 25 cities and 18 States.

With the success of his company, Modern Technologies Corporation, he could have chosen to channel his energies solely toward his business. Instead, he believes in contributing to the community that has given him so much. And the one area in which Mr. Raj Soin has made a particular difference has been in the area which has had such an enormous impact on his own life--education.

When I was Governor of Ohio, one of the goals that I set for my administration was to celebrate the cultural diversity of our State by seeking out individuals from non-traditional ethnic groups and giving them an opportunity to serve.

I was so impressed by Raj's devotion to education, that as Governor, I appointed him to Wright State University's Board of Trustees in 1993. One of the main reasons that I asked Raj to serve on the Board of Trustees was that he constantly mentioned the fact that we needed to do a better job in higher education, that we needed to do a better job in secondary and primary education.

He has served with great distinction and is held in the highest regard by his colleagues. More important is the fact that through his work on behalf of Wright State University, Raj has directly touched the lives of so many. Raj Soin has truly made a difference on behalf of the citizens of Dayton, the State of Ohio and thousands of Wright State University graduates.

Because of his commitment to higher education and in honor of his accomplishments and support of the University, in 2000, the business college at Wright State was renamed the Raj Soin College of Business and I was delighted to be on campus in Dayton, OH, for the dedication ceremony.

Raj's determination, his hard work and his selflessness are traits that all of us should strive to emulate, not only in business, but in life, because there are rewards that are greater than money-- particularly, the ability to make a difference in the lives of one's fellow man.

For example, Raj is the founding trustee and first president of the Ohio-India project. Two of the local projects of the Ohio-India Project are the Ghandi House, a transitional house for women in need and the Annual Day of Caring, which started as a local event and is now conducted in several states with expectations of becoming a national program.

Additionally, as Governor, we led a trade mission to India in April of 1996, and I had the chance to see Raj Soin in action when his company, Modern Technologies Corporation and CMC Limited announced their joint agreement to, among other things, greatly expand India's access to the Internet.

Mr. Soin's company, MTC Technologies also supports many community projects through the MTC Foundation. MTC not only provides part of the funding for the Foundation, but permits and encourages employers to spend company time to help with the Foundation's work.

Raj Soin serves as a member of the Board of Directors of Victoria Theatre Association, and on the Board of Directors of the Kettering Medical Center Network. He is a past member of the Board of Trustees of Wright State University, the Advisory Board of KeyBank, and Dayton District. He is a founding trustee and past president of Asian Indian American Business Group. He has also served as a member of the Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce Board of Trustees; member of the Ohio Business Roundtable; Co-Chair of the Center for Information Technology in Dayton; member of the Board of Dayton Council on World Affairs; and member of the Board of the Dayton Air and Trade Show.

Mr. Soin has received many awards, including: The National Conference of Christians and Jews Humanitarians Award, Ernst & Young's Master Entrepreneur, and Beavercreek Chamber of Commerce Business Person of the Year.

Even with all the business success he has enjoyed and all the charitable and philanthropic acts that he has undertaken, perhaps what best exemplifies Raj Soin is the fact that he is a loving husband, devoted father and caring son. I have been to Raj and Indu's home and I have been with them at other occasions and observed the genuine love and admiration they have for each other and their pride in their two sons.

Raj understands, as so many Asian Indians do, that the family is the backbone of our society.

I remember also on our business mission having the pleasure of meeting Raj Soin's father. You could not help but see how proud he was of Raj. And that love and respect was mutual; for Raj is the main benefactor for the Sukh Dev Raj Soin Hospital which is being built in memory of his father in India.

Raj has been a role model in every sense: in terms of his family, in terms of his contributions to his ``extended family'' in the community, and in terms of his success in business.

Raj Soin is indeed a remarkable American of the highest integrity in both his personal and professional life.

He has made many outstanding contributions to the Asian Indian community, to his local community in Dayton, OH and to American society.

Raj Soin is a man who came to our shores in search of a dream, who started from scratch and became a success in his adopted country, and then he went back to his homeland to help millions of people join the information age. There is just one way to describe it--only in America could such an opportunity arise to be successful and to serve.

I am proud to recognize my friend, Raj Soin, and congratulate him on this wonderful honor.

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

Mr. President, just over 2 years ago, our lives were forever changed when terrorists attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, claiming the lives of nearly 3,000 Americans and declaring war on freedom and democracy everywhere.

In the aftermath of the tragic events of September 11, it became very clear that we would be engaged in a war against terrorism that would span

years rather than months and require the full attention of the United States and our allies.

On September 12, 2001, I spoke on the Senate floor regarding the challenge before America. I said:

Our determination to winning the war on terrorism must have

the same high priority that we gave to winning World War II,

and we must engage our allies in this war. We should make the

same preparations that we made for D-day and the world's

entry into the Persian Gulf war.

I also said:

Our actions must be ongoing and relentless, and be

dedicated to excising the cancer of terrorism wherever it

raises its ugly head. Our efforts cannot be another catharsis

after a national tragedy, and they must not fade away with

time and business as usual. We owe it to yesterday's victims

and their families, especially their children and

grandchildren, most of all we owe it to the American people

and the world community, to bring an end to terrorism

everywhere and forever.

Exactly one year ago this week, I spoke in the Senate as we considered a resolution authorizing the President to use military force to disarm Saddam Hussein and liberate the Iraqi people should our diplomatic efforts fail. At that time, I said:

Saddam Hussein poses a clear threat to peace in the world,

to America and our interests, to regional stability and to

his own people.

That is why I voted in favor of a resolution expressing the conviction of Congress that the United States should exhaust all diplomatic options first, but if Iraq resisted diplomatic solutions the President would be authorized to use all necessary means to enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions in Iraq.

Though we all hoped and prayed the growing crisis would not have to be settled with military action, Iraq's 12-year defiance of the world community ultimately left no other action. Joined by members of the international community, a United States-led coalition engaged in a campaign against the Iraqi dictator, and as I stand before you 12 months later, the reign of terror of Saddam Hussein is no more. People in Iraq and people in the world can breathe easier now that Iraq is rid of a tyrant who used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands of his own people, an enemy of humanity who shunned democracy and balked at the rule of law. Saddam Hussein was a dangerous threat to his own people, his regional neighbors, and the international community.

In an effort to perpetuate the fear on which his power was based, he used his own people as test subjects for the development of weapons of mass destruction. He depended on torture chambers as a method of coercion. Operation Iraqi Freedom has annihilated this vile oppression. This is significant not only for the well-being of the Iraqi people, but it is also crucial for our national security and the future of our children and grandchildren.

This is as much about us, and our war against terrorism, and the security of the American people, as it is about Iraq. I repeat: This is as much about us, our war against terrorism and the security of the American people, as it is about Iraq.

We now have a chance of a lifetime to create a new paradigm of democracy in the Middle East and to do for this part of the world what we did for Germany and Japan in the aftermath of World War II. Today, 58 years after the Second World War, Japan is a strong ally in Asia, and Germany is no longer a threat but instead our partner in NATO and partners with its neighbors in the European Union.

We spent billions of dollars during the Cold War in anticipation that one day our brothers and sisters behind the Iron Curtain and the Berlin Wall would enjoy the freedom we have now enjoyed. Now the Wall is down, the Curtain is torn, and we see democracy growing in that part of the world. Many of us believed it would never happen.

Today we find ourselves with another historic opportunity to promote a new era of peace, stability, and democracy in Iraq and the Middle East. As Ken Pollack writes in his book ``The Threatening Storm":

This is our one opportunity to create a stable, prosperous,

self-sufficient Arab state that could serve as a model for

the region. This is our one opportunity to turn Iraq from a

malignant growth helping to poison the Middle East into an

engine for change for the entire region, and we must not

let it slip away from us.

I could not agree more. We have a chance to cultivate an important friendship in the Middle East. By helping Iraq, we send an important message not only to those who seek to undermine stability in Iraq but to the entire world. By extending support to help stabilize and strengthen a new democratic Iraq, our actions will demonstrate more than any rhetoric could that we are genuinely interested in supporting humane reconstruction in Iraq as we did following World War II. It will show that we will take the necessary steps and devote the resources required to secure a bright future for Iraq, especially for the young people, and stabilize that part of the world.

Today we begin discussion of the President's critical request for an additional $87 billion to support ongoing military operations and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. In testimony before both Houses of Congress last week, the head of the coalition provisional authority, Ambassador Bremer, outlined the resources that will be required to enhance security and restore essential services in Iraq, which total of $20.3 billion. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld also testified regarding the funding that is required to support ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other parts of the world, which totals roughly $66 billion, nearly two-thirds of the total request.

The funding is urgently needed, both for military operations and reconstruction. The portion to sustain military operations will support the nearly 130,000 American soldiers on the ground, and it goes hand and glove with the $20.3 billion requested for reconstruction in Iraq. It is imperative that we act now to restore essential services, build infrastructure, and improve life for the Iraqi people.

As Ambassador Bremer remarked last week:

Early progress on restoring basic infrastructure gives us

an edge against the terrorists.

Ambassador Bremer also said if we fail to act soon, ``the consequences for American troops and American interests will be severe.''

What I am saying is that the $20.3 billion they are asking for infrastructure is just as important to the safety of our men and women in harm's way as the $69 billion that has been called for in the rest of the request.

This investment will also support our troops. The sooner Iraq is up and running on its own, the sooner our troops will be able to come home. United States-led coalition forces on the ground continue to encounter on a daily basis those who seek to undermine our efforts to ensure a free and democratic future for Iraq. We saw this last weekend when facilities used by U.N. officials and other members of the international community came under attack. There are those who would like to see us fail, and they are working to undermine our efforts with the expectation that our resolve is weak and that with enough violence we will leave. That is why we must act now.

This is a considerable sum of money, and Congress has an obligation to carefully consider this spending request in the broader context of other domestic needs. I understand while Iraq is in need of funding for security and infrastructure projects, we also have urgent spending needs here at home. Congress and the administration should address these priorities for the State of Ohio, my State, and cities and towns across America and make a renewed commitment to invest in our Nation's critical infrastructure, including our highways, bridges, drinking water, wastewater treatment facilities, and other water resources.

As a member of the Senate, I believe Congress should work to move critical infrastructure bills such as reauthorization of the surface transportation program, water infrastructure funding legislation, the Water Resources Development Act.

I have also urged the administration to create an emergency jobs bill much like the emergency jobs bill that President Reagan created in 1983 while I was mayor of the city of Cleveland and lobbying the Reagan administration to help my city, county, and State.

But while action on these items is important, it should not keep us from doing what we need to do to finish the

job in Iraq. We must address the spending request before us today as a separate issue. They are disconnected.

From the very beginning, it has been my belief that it will take a considerable amount of time, manpower, and money to do what must be done to truly secure a better future for the Iraqi people.

Again, I just want to mention, the money we spent in Japan, the money we spent in Germany after World War II, and the money that we spent during the Cold War--we spent billions of dollars. These were grants; these were not loans. We did it because we thought it was important to our national security. And we did it because we thought it was important for world peace.

Our military campaign to topple the Iraqi regime was accomplished swiftly and successfully. However, much of our work, as I said, has just begun, and it is not going to be done overnight, nor is it best done alone.

In February, prior to the onset of military action to disarm Saddam Hussein, I raised this point as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee with Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman and Under Secretary of Defense Doug Feith when they testified before our committee. I said then, and I believe now, if we are going to be successful in our efforts in Iraq, it will require not only the long- term commitment of the United States but our partners in the United Nations and other members of the international community.

At that time, I underscored the importance of building the broadest international coalition possible, and I urged the administration to lay the groundwork with the American people regarding the number of troops that would be required to win the peace in the aftermath of a military campaign, how long they might be needed, and what this would cost the U.S. taxpayers.

The answers to these questions are becoming even more critical as we find ourselves assessing the resources that will be required now to finish the job in Iraq. Our men and women in uniform are serving their country proudly, but they are spending increasing amounts of time away from their families. We must do everything we can to give them the tools they need to do what we have asked them to do, and then bring them home as quickly as possible.

One of the ways we can do that is to improve the Iraqi civil defense operations themselves. We have some 55,000 people in place, and we are trying to train another 20,000, I think, as Paul Wolfowitz said to us. They are now taking over the border patrol and other civil and security functions in Iraq. We need to move on that. Part of the funding included in the $20.3 billion is to be used for that purpose.

I am pleased President Bush addressed the United Nations General Assembly last week, and it is my sincere hope Secretary of State Colin Powell will be successful in securing a U.N. resolution that will allow for enhanced support from other countries, both in terms of military forces and financial resources to help build Iraq.

In order to achieve our goals in Iraq and take care of important needs here at home, it is essential we do all we can to make our efforts in Iraq a shared responsibility, calling on other countries and international organizations to invest in a free and democratic future for Iraq. Our human and financial resources will stretch further when they are supplemented by funds from our friends and allies abroad.

This was evident during the Persian Gulf War in 1991, when other countries made significant contributions to the war and the reconstruction effort. It has been estimated the Gulf War cost between $60 and $80 billion. Members of the international community contributed approximately $70 billion to aid in the gulf war. The largest donations came from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Japan, Germany, and a smaller one from the United Arab Emirates.

In all, approximately 40 countries contributed either financial or military resources. In addition to the countries I have just listed, another 35 countries together contributed an additional $10 billion to the effort. We need a similar commitment right now.

Like many of my colleagues, I strongly believe we should provide the resources necessary to restore essential services in Iraq. The funding for reconstruction requested by the President and reflected in this spending bill is an important part of the process. However, Ambassador Bremer has indicated it will take considerably more than $20 billion, perhaps as much as $70 billion, to meet Iraq's infrastructure needs in the years ahead. Therefore, I believe it is particularly important to step up our efforts to secure contributions from our friends and allies and build the economy of Iraq as soon as possible so they can use their resources to rebuild their own country.

As we look to increase contributions from the international community, I think this funding must be in the form of a grant and not a loan. While I initially thought this should be a loan, after carefully considering the situation and listening to the points raised by Ambassador Bremer and our colleagues, I have concluded this funding must be in the form of a grant. It is important for several reasons.

No. 1, if we tell the American people we are going to loan this money and that it is going to be paid back somewhere down the road, many of them will be very cynical about whether or not we will get the money back. I think we ought to level with them and say, this initial grant is a grant.

Second, it should be a grant in an effort to encourage other countries to make financial commitments for the reconstruction of Iraq. How can we ask them to come forward with money if we say that we are going to loan that $20.3 billion to Iraq? We will be going to the Donors' Conference in Madrid later this month. If we make U.S. funds for infrastructure projects contingent upon a loan, I do not think they are going to be willing to come to the table and support money for Iraq.

Third, Iraq's debt is already mountainous, totaling nearly $200 billion in debts and reparations. As Ambassador Bremer has pointed out, Iraq can hardly service its existing debt, let alone take on more. As a matter of fact, as one member of the Iraqi Governing Council has said, in his opinion, those loans are morally repugnant to the Iraqi people because they were made to a dictator who killed thousands of their brothers and sisters and who made them live under a 35-year reign of terror.

I would suggest to those who have made loans to the former regime in Iraq that they step up quickly and waive those loans because I believe it would be the smartest thing for them to do in terms of reaching out rather than waiting until later on to have a new Iraq government say to them: You know what, folks, we are not going to honor those loans you made to Saddam Hussein.

Fourth, as we encourage other countries to eliminate their debt, we should not saddle Iraq with any more loans. Countries that chose to do business with Saddam should, as I said, eliminate that debt as a way to share in the task of rebuilding a democratic Iraq.

In the past, the United States has also engaged in efforts to help ease the debt burden incurred by rogue regimes. This was the case in the former Yugoslavia, as the U.S. Government worked with the Paris Club to reduce the amount of debt the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, now Serbia and Montenegro, owed to its creditors after Slobodan Milosevic was removed from power. We did everything we could to work with the World Bank, and with the IMF and the Paris Club, and we said: Get the debt off the back of Yugoslavia--Serbia and Montenegro--because we want them to get back on their feet, and this debt is killing them. This was an important and necessary step as the country attempted to move forward with democratic reforms after years of authoritative rule.

Finally, providing assistance to Iraq at this time in the form of a grant is the right thing to do. We must contribute all necessary resources to finish the job that has been started, while working together with our friends and allies.

I submit to the desk an amendment that would encourage the administration to step up efforts to gain support from the international community, call on other countries to eliminate debt that was incurred during Saddam Hussein's regime, and examine the feasibility of repayment of funds spent on infrastructure projects. I submit the amendment and will call it up later.

I thank the Chair.

Specifically, this amendment would require the President to report to Congress within 4 months on the following items:

First, the amendment calls for an assessment of U.S. efforts to enhance financial contributions from other countries and international organizations to assist in the reconstruction of Iraq, including a list of those countries contributing and the amount of their contribution. As we move forward with our efforts, additional support from other countries and organizations would be extremely helpful.

Second, the amendment requires an assessment of the impact that debt incurred by the regime of Saddam Hussein has on the country's ability to move forward with efforts to rebuild infrastructure and restore essential services such as health care and education. It also calls for an analysis of the impact that forgiveness of such debt would have on Iraq's ability to move forward with reform, and it would require a detailed list of countries that have eliminated their debt and the amounts.

Finally, my amendment calls for an assessment of the feasibility of Iraq's ability to repay the United States for a portion of American funds spent on infrastructure projects in Iraq. Although I think we must now provide funds in the form of a grant, we should look at the possibility of any further help in terms of possible repayment.

I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this amendment which underscores the importance of working together with our friends and allies abroad to promote security and improve the quality of life for the Iraqi people. While I believe we should encourage support from foreign countries and international organizations as we move forward in Iraq, I support the funding requested by the President, both the military portion and the funds for reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We have a golden opportunity to guarantee a new era of freedom and democracy for the people in Iraq. It is one we cannot afford to miss. This is an investment in a better future for Iraq, the Middle East, and the world at large. It is an investment for our children and our grandchildren. I believe it is the right thing to do. I hope this body has the courage to rise to the occasion and take advantage of this wonderful opportunity that could ensure that our children and grandchildren are going to live in a peaceful world and not be threatened by terrorism, the cancer that has newly appeared on the face of the world.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.