Floor Statements

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

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

Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 3087, a bill to provide an extension of highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund until February 29, 2004 pending enactment of a law reauthorizing the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21. However, I am disappointed that Congress has been unable to enact a 6-year reauthorization of TEA-21 prior to September 30, 2003.

According to the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, ARTBA, employment in the transportation construction industry was down in July 2003 compared to July 2002. Specifically, there were 12,100 fewer workers on project sites over the last year, a decrease of 3.7 percent. In Ohio, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, heavy construction jobs are up slightly from last year; however, there are still 3,800 fewer jobs than in August 2000 when they were at their peak. Moreover, last year had the lowest number of employees in heavy construction since 1995.

Our economy needs a public works program to create jobs. Investment in our Nation's transportation infrastructure through a 6-year reauthorization bill would create thousands of jobs and jumpstart our sluggish economy. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, for every $1 billion invested in highway construction, 47,500 jobs are created. It is also estimated that every dollar invested in the Nation's highway system generates $5.70 in economic benefits, including reduced delays, improved safety, and reduced vehicle operations costs. This is a six-to-one return on investment.

Although a 5-month extension extension will continue the flow of Federal funding to States' highway programs, it will not deal with the Nation's pressing, long-term transportation infrastructure needs. According to the Federal Highway Administration's, FHWA, 2002 Conditions and Performance Report, the average annual investment level needed to make improvements to highways and bridges is projected to be $106.9 billion through 2020. This amount is 65.3 percent higher than the $64.6 billion of total capital investments spent by all levels of government in 2000.

The average annual investment level necessary to maintain the current condition and performance of highways and bridges is projected to be $75.9 billion through 2020. This amount if 17.5 percent higher than capital spending in 2000.

If we continue to ignore the upkeep, and allow the deterioration of our infrastructure, we risk disruptions in commerce and reduced protection for public safety, health, and the environment. In my view, it is the responsibility of Congress to ensure that funding levels are adequate and efficiently allocated to the Nation's priority needs. In 1998, Congress recognized the importance of the Nation's transportation system through the enactment of TEA-21, a 6-year bill which increased by nearly 40 percent Federal investment in highways and transit. Under TEA-21, Ohio received a 23 percent increase in transportation funding.

As chairman of the National Governors Association, I was involved in negotiating TEA-21 and lobbied Congress to ensure that all Highway Trust Fund revenues were spent on transportation. I also fought to even out highway funding fluctuations and assure a predictable flow of funding to the States. TEA-21 achieved this goal with record, guaranteed levels of funding. While TEA-21 has enabled States and localities to improve the condition of deteriorating and unsafe highways and to increase capacity and performance, the system is still aging, and in need of additional investment.

TEA-21 also dedicated nearly all highway gas taxes to transportation funding and guarantees that States will receive at least 90.5 percent of their share of their contribution to the highway account of the Highway Trust Fund. One of my top priorities for TEA-21 reauthorization is to increase the minimum share for donor states to at least 95 percent. This increase in the rate of return would generate an additional $60 million or more in Federal highway funding for the State of Ohio.

In May 2003, Senator Carl Levin and I, along with House majority leader Tom DeLay and Congressman Baron Hill introduced legislation--the Highway Funding Equity Act of 2003--to increase donor States' minimum rate-of-return to 95 percent. Currently, there are 143 cosponsors of the House bill and 22 cosponsors of the Senate bill.

The legislation we are considering today does not improve donor State equity; rather, it continues current law with respect to the minimum guarantee program. For donor States, this is another reason why a 6- year reauthorization is so important and critical to our States. I am strongly committed to improving donor state equity in the longer term reauthorization, and look forward to working with my colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee to ensure that states receive their fair share of Highway Trust Fund dollars.

I am disappointed that the legislation we are considering does not contain language which would have ensured that States that consume ethanol-blended fuel are no longer penalized. The Finance Committee reported legislation I have cosponsored that would transfer 2.5 cents of the Federal tax on ethanol-blended fuel from the General Fund of the Treasury to the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund and replace the 5.2 cents per gallon reduced tax rate for ethanol-blended fuel with a tax credit. As a result, the same Federal tax will be collected and deposited into the Highway Trust Fund regardless of whether a gallon of fuel contains ethanol. The Ohio Department of Transportation, ODOT, estimates that Ohio would restore up to $170 million annually as a result of the Finance Committee's legislation. I am hopeful this legislation will be passed soon.

Ohio has the Nation's tenth largest highway network, the fifth highest volume of traffic, the fourth largest interstate highway network, and the second largest inventory of bridges in the country. Ohio's transportation challenge is to expand its 1960s transportation system to meet 21st century needs. Recently, Ohio approved a State motor fuel tax increase that will ensure an annual $250 million new construction program for the next 10 years while maintaining bridge and highway conditions. With additional Federal funds, ODOT has set a goal of having a $5 billion, 10-year Ohio construction program dedicated to addressing Ohio's most pressing congestion, safety, and rural access needs. The plan is predicated on Congress enacting legislation to correct the ``ethanol penalty'' which reduces Ohio's transportation revenue, increase donor states' minimum rate-of-return to 95 percent, and provide an increased level of investment in the nation's highways and bridges.

This is why a 6-year reauthorization is important to my State. I am hopeful that Congress can reach a consensus on how to fund a longer- term reauthorization. As far as this Senator is concerned, I support the principle that the highway program is a fully user-fee based system that pays its own way, and I am reluctant to borrow more money for highways.

Furthermore, as chairman of the Clean Air Subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I look forward to working with my colleagues to include provisions in the 6-year reauthorization that will streamline the project delivery process while protecting the environment and historic resources, reform the conformity process, and reauthorize and improve the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program.

I urge my colleagues to work together to produce a six-year reauthorization of TEA-21 before the extension bill expires at the end of next February. Reauthorization of TEA-21 will be one of the most important actions this Congress will take to get people back to work.

inequity of donor states

Mr. President, I couldn't agree more with my colleague from Michigan. There is no logical reason why donor States should be contributing more dollars to the Highway Trust Fund than are returned to them for highway, bridge, and other surface transportation projects. Donor States like Ohio, Michigan, and Oklahoma have as many transportation infrastructure needs as other States. With so many projects needing funding in our own States, why should the citizens in our States continue to pay for transportation improvements in other States?

I, too, would like an assurance that the donor State equity issue will be addressed in the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century and that this long-term reauthorization will be presented to the Senate as soon as possible.

Mr. President, I am also reassured to hear the strong conviction of my colleague from Oklahoma that donor States should receive a minimum rate of return of 95 percent on the share of their contributions to the Highway Trust Fund. I too look forward to working with the chairman and my colleague from Michigan to improve donor State equity.

Mr. President, I rise to support the inclusion of the District of Columbia School Choice Program contained within the fiscal year 2004 District of Columbia appropriations bill. I urge my colleagues to defeat any attempt to weaken or remove the program.

I also rise to support the amendment of Senator Feinstein which strengthens that provision in the appropriations bill.

First of all, I applaud the efforts of my friend, the senior Senator from Ohio, Mr. DeWine, for his efforts to expand school choice for the parents and schools of the District. I also applaud the leadership of Senator Gregg moving this issue forward. I also applaud Senator Feinstein for her courageous support of this program and her very thoughtful amendment to the amendment to the appropriations bill.

My father, a first generation American, used to say that America enjoys more of the world's bounty than any other nation because of the free enterprise system and our educational system. This is true today as it was years ago. It we expect to remain competitive in the world marketplace and maintain our standard of living, this country needs to rededicate itself to the free enterprise and most importantly our educational system.

Some in Congress believe rededicating ourselves to this Nation's educational system means simply throwing more money at the issue, closing our eyes, hoping it will solve itself.

If spending alone ensured a quality education, the District would be one of the best school systems in the Nation. For the school year that ended June 2001, the District spent an average of $10,852 per student. That is the third highest in the Nation. However, the 2002 national assessment of educational progress showed fourth grade students in the District held the lowest scores for writing and tied with Los Angeles for the lowest score in reading. That means 27 percent of fourth graders in the District scored below the basic level in writing, and 69 percent tested below the basic level in reading.

What a dismal message on the state of education for the families who live in the shining city on the hill, the Nation's Capital. What a terrible record to send throughout the country and the world.

We, in Congress, are obligated to do more to help the children in our Nation's Capital. I have often said that the greatest thing one could do for their fellow human being is to help them fully develop their God-given talents so they can take care of themselves, their families, and make a contribution to society. We need to empower families and children with more than just additional funding.

When I was first elected Governor of Ohio in 1990, I pledged to the people that I would draw a line in the sand for this generation of children in Ohio by making their health education my administration's top priority. As I look back, I am proud of that record in Ohio. When I left the Governor's mansion in 1998 for the Senate, Ohio led the Nation in State funding for Head Start. Every eligible child whose parents wanted them in a Head Start Program, early education had a place for them. Many of these Head Start facilities were sponsored by religious organizations and located on the premises of religious organizations.

We were among the Nation's leaders in providing health care for uninsured children. Ohio increased funding for children and family programs by 47 percent while holding State spending to its lowest rate in 30 years. These actions and accomplishments were rooted in the belief that future generations of Ohioans would be served by a government that strived to empower families.

As the Presiding Officer knows, education begins with a family. A parent must be a child's first teacher. It was in this context that Ohio became one of the first States to undertake the challenges of implementing school choice. My colleagues in the Senate know how tumultuous a battle that program faced. It went on for years and finally ended up in the Supreme Court.

At the beginning of the Cleveland scholarship program, we provided 2,000 scholarships to children in grades kindergarten through third grade that would follow them through the eighth grade. Depending on the family's income level, the State paid between 75 and 90 percent of the cost of education. The scholarship amount did not exceed $2,250, which provided a significant portion of the tuition at one of the participating nonpublic schools in Cleveland. The State also provided an equal number of $500 tutoring grants to those students who did not receive scholarships but whose parents felt they needed additional help for their children.

The response to our program was overwhelming. The State received nearly 7,000 applications from Cleveland parents. More than half of the applicants were from households dependent on welfare, and half were from minorities. It was evident from the sheer number of applicants that parents were demanding options that the Cleveland Scholarship Program provided.

Today, the program has expanded. Effective July 1, 2003, students who had previously received a scholarship are now eligible to receive a scholarship for grade 9 in the 2003-2004 school year. And beginning in the 2004-2005 school year, a student who received a scholarship in the 9th grade will be eligible to receive a scholarship in the 10th grade. We are moving them along. Additionally, the scholarship amount has increased. The capped tuition for the 2003-2004 school year is now $3,000.

From its humble beginnings in 1996, with 2,000 students, and total scholarships of $2.9 million, the program has more than doubled its enrollment. Today it covers some 5,200 students. Additionally, total scholarship amounts have increased to almost $10 million.

Since 1998, Indiana University's Center for Evaluation has been conducting longitudinal studies regarding the Cleveland Scholarship Program. So we have been watching it. We put the money out so we could watch how this thing has progressed.

In its most recent study, the center found that students who have participated in the Cleveland Scholarship Program since kindergarten have achieved significantly higher levels than public school students in reading and language skills.

I would also like to call my colleagues' attention to the results of an evaluation of the Cleveland voucher program that was conducted 2 years after it began by Paul Peterson of Harvard University.

In his study, Dr. Peterson found that parents of voucher recipients were consistently more satisfied with many aspects of their child's education than were parents of students in the Cleveland Public Schools. From the quality of academic programs to school discipline, teachers' skills, class size, and so forth, parents whose children were participants in the Cleveland Scholarship Program showed greater satisfaction and enthusiasm than did parents in the Cleveland Public School System.

The Cleveland Scholarship Program is merely one component of a renewal in our education system that needs to occur. I do not stand before the Senate and claim it is a cure-all for all troubled school districts. I think it is very important. Those of us who are supporting Senator DeWine's and Senator Feinstein's amendment are not claiming this is going to be the cure-all for troubled school districts. What we are saying is that it is another option on the education smorgasbord. And as the Presiding Officer so eloquently stated, why not look at some other programs that are out there? A business that is not doing very well starts to look at itself saying: What are other things we could be doing? Let's do some research and development. Let's look at some new ideas. Let's try something else.

I must tell you, as chairman of the Governmental Affairs subcommittee with jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, I support this as one of many options. We need to expand our vision. Instead of putting on our blinders, let's look at some other programs. The legislation offers the positive step toward empowering parents in the District by increasing their involvement in their child's education and offering them more choices.

Families in the District of Columbia have limited opportunity for choice in their children's education, and families have wholeheartedly embraced school choice. In 1996, the first charter schools opened in the District. The 39 charter schools operating in the District of Columbia only educate 1 in 7 children in the District. That is 15 percent of the students. Hundreds--hundreds--are on waiting lists.

Additionally, the Washington Scholarship Fund, a private, nonprofit organization, that provides scholarships for economically disadvantaged families, received over 7,500 applications for 1,000 available scholarships. It is clear that the parents of children in the District of Columbia want more options.

When I came to the Senate, I said I would not mandate a scholarship program on any jurisdiction; they had to want it. It is clear to me that the District of Columbia wants this. And it is just as clear that the District is within the responsibility of the Congress. They are our responsibility. We are not mandating every school district in America. We are increasing options for families in the District of Columbia.

Some would contend this is going to be running throughout the United States of America. We are concentrating our attention on our responsibility: the city on the hill, the Nation's Capital--our responsibility. And we are saying we want to give the parents of those children more options.

The most important thing is that this proposal for fiscal year 2004 has been drafted in consultation with and has the approval of Mayor Anthony Williams--I have talked to him about it; he is passionate about it--Council Member Kevin Chavous, chair of the Council's Committee of Education, Libraries, and Recreation; and Ms. Peggy Cooper Cafritz, president of the DC Board of Education. They are for this. They want this for their children. They are asking us for it.

The bill also contains $13 million for charter schools and $13 million for public schools to assist them with requirements under No Child Left Behind for teacher recruitment, training, and similar programs. Combined, the funds for these three programs represent the largest Federal contribution to the District of Columbia in the history of this country.

Unfortunately, the debate is not focused on the $39 million in new funds for the District. Oh, no. It is on the $13 million being considered for the scholarships. The proposed scholarship program would be authorized for 5 years, giving Congress the opportunity to monitor and evaluate the progress of schools and students--5 years. Let's watch it, just as we did in Cleveland with the longitudinal studies. Let's see how it works out. It would be overseen by the District of Columbia and the U.S. Secretary of Education.

Finally, it is a scholarship program that will help the neediest families in the District, the ones about whom the Presiding Officer so eloquently spoke. Eligible students are children attending low- performing public schools and whose household incomes do not exceed 200 percent of the poverty level. We are talking about a relatively small number of students. I think it is something like 2,000 students who would be eligible for the program.

I would like to stress to my colleagues that this is all new Federal money for students in the District of Columbia. Let me repeat: This is all new money. These scholarships are one piece of a larger proposal to address the educational needs in Washington, DC.

Certainly there is a role for Congress to play. We in Congress have increasingly recognized the need for the Federal Government to serve as the State for the District, a necessity considering the unique relationship between the District of Columbia and the Federal Government.

For example, just 4 years ago, I was the chief sponsor in the Senate of the DC Tuition Assistance Grant Program, which was enacted in 1999. This program provides grants for students graduating from DC high schools to attend public universities and colleges nationwide at in- State tuition rates. In other words, we put the students in the District in the same position as if they lived in the State of Tennessee or the State of Ohio. There is a subsidy by the State so they could go on and get higher education.

It also provides smaller grants for students to attend private institutions in the DC metropolitan area and private historically black colleges and universities nationwide. So we have expanded it beyond just public. We now have private and historically black colleges included. This program has been enormously successful.

There is one final point I would like to discuss. Critics of scholarships argue that scholarships are ways for private schools, especially religious schools, to get rich quick. Incredible, just incredible. It is not true. As my colleagues may know, tuition for a student does not cover the full cost of educating a child. The difference currently is made up by private donations.

Many schools in the District run by the Archdiocese of Washington are struggling financially and would not be able to support a large influx of students. The Archdiocese estimates needing an additional $5 million in the first year alone, should the Archdiocese fill all open seats in their schools with students on scholarships. It basically means, if they opened their doors and took advantage of the scholarship program, for them to do that, they would have to go out and find $5 million someplace in order to educate these children.

It is the same thing in the city of Cleveland, with our nonpublic schools. We have hundreds of low-income kids who are not Catholic who are attending Catholic schools. My mother was a volunteer librarian at one of them where 70 percent of the kids were non-Catholic. There was not any proselytizing going on.

The reason they opened their doors is they believed in the two great commandments--love of God and love of fellow man. They believed the best way they could witness their faith is by reaching out and making a difference in the lives of these children, developing their God-given talents so they can take care of themselves and their families and make a contribution to society.

I will never forget one of those students was a player on the Ohio State football team. He was a big center. He went to the school where my mom was a librarian. I went out there to one of their practices. He almost picked me up, and he looked at me and said: Are you Mrs. Voinovich's son?

I said: Yes, I am.

And he talked about the wonderful experience he had at St. Aloysius and the difference it made in his life so he could go on to high school and get a scholarship to play football.

This is what we are talking about. Why anyone would deny a student in the District the opportunity that students have had in the city of Cleveland and other places throughout the United States is simply beyond me. It is not the end of the world, if this is adopted. That is ridiculous. This is a small experiment to give people an option in their children's education.

Over the years it was argued that the Cleveland scholarship program was unconstitutional. I argued it was constitutional. I am not going to make that argument because the Presiding Officer made it in his presentation just before me, in terms of kids having money. The money goes to them, and then they can go wherever they want to go. That is in the American tradition. That is how thousands of Americans got their college education through the GI bill. The Supreme Court, on June 27, 2002, upheld the Cleveland scholarship program. When they did that, I labeled it a victory for hope. We have seen wonderful successes in Cleveland of children excelling in school, when the doors of opportunity were opened and parents could choose to offer what they believed is the best education. I believe all families deserve those options. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation for the families in our Nation's capital.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 25, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., in open session, to receive testimony on ongoing military operations and reconstruction efforts in Iraq.

Witnesses

Ambassador L. Paul Bremer III, Presidential Envoy to Iraq;

General John P. Abizaid, USA, Commander, United States Central Command.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 25, 2003, at 10:00 a.m. to conduct a hearing on ``Counterterror Initiatives in the Terror Finance Program.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 25, 2003 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on European Nominations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, September 25, 2003, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on the reauthorization of the Head Start program.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, September 25, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. in Dirksen Room 226.

Agenda

I. Nominations

Henry W. Saad to be United States Circuit Judge, for the Sixth Circuit; Mauricio J. Tamargo to be Chairman of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States; Carlos T. Bea to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit; Charles H. Pickering, Sr. to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit; Marcia A. Crone to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas; Philip S. Figa to be United States District Judge for the District of Colorado; William Q. Hayes to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of California; John A. Houston to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of California; Robert Clive Jones to be United States District Judge for the District of Nevada; Ronald A. White to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Oklahoma; John F. Bardelli to be United States Marshal for the District of Connecticut.

II. Bills

S. 1451, Runaway, Homeless, and Missing Children Protection Act [Hatch, Leahy];

S. 1293, A bill to criminalize the sending of predatory and abusive e-mail [Leahy, Hatch, DeWine, Edwards, Feinstein, Grassley, Schumer];

S. 1580, Religious Workers of Act of 2003 [Hatch, Kennedy, DeWine];

S. Res. 209, Recognizing and honoring Woodstock, Vermont native Hiram Powers for his extraordinary and enduring contributions to American sculpture [Jeffords, Leahy, DeWine, Feinstein, Grassley, Hatch, Schumer, Specter]'

S. Res. 222, Designating October 17, 2003, as National Mammography Day [Biden, Chambliss, DeWine, Edwards, Feinstein, Grassley, Hatch, Kennedy, Leahy, Schumer, Specter];

S. Res. 98, Expressing the Sense of the Senate that the President should designate the week of October 12, 2003, as National Cystic Fibrosis Awareness Week [Campbell, Biden, DeWine, Grassley, Specter].

subcommittee on science, technology, and space

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space be authorized to meet on Thursday, September 25, 2003, at 2:30 pm on scientific and medical advances in the field of in utero surgery.

Mr. President, I call for the regular order with respect to amendment 1731. I have an amendment to send to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I rise to offer a second-degree amendment to the Reid amendment to the Interior appropriations bill. Before I speak to the specifics of the underlying Reid amendment, I will first describe my examination of the administration's competitive sourcing initiative which I have spent a great deal of time on.

Competitive sourcing is one of the five management initiatives included in the President's management agenda. As I said, I paid close attention to this initiative because it is closely related to the Federal Government's strategic human capital management. It is fair to say I have spent more time on this issue than anyone in the Senate during the last 5 years.

It is important to note that competitive sourcing is not privatization, nor is it outsourcing. It is public-private competition, a methodical process for evaluating the most efficient and cost- effective manner of providing a service that is commercial in nature and not inherently governmental.

I would like to make clear to my colleagues that the total Government workforce is about 1.609 million. And inherently governmental is about 751,000; commercial, about 858,000; and of the 858,000 that are commercial, only about 416,000 are available for competition. That is 26 percent of the Federal workforce. The Department of Interior positions being evaluated, which we are talking about today, under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, clerical support and appraisers; National Park Service, maintenance of vehicle, lawn, bathroom, and air conditioner, archeological support; Bureau of Reclamation, Job Corps Centers; Bureau of Land Management, maintenance of lawn, vehicle, bathroom, and air conditioner, geographic information services, and photography.

These are positions that are being evaluated. It doesn't necessarily mean they are going to be put out for competitive outsourcing. Contrary to what has been said on the floor of the Senate, I want to quote from the Government Executive, which talks about:

April 25, 2003.

Feds Win Job Competition at Park Service Agriculture

Department.

Federal employees have won several small public-private job

competitions in land management agencies, including a

competition at the National Park Service Office that had run

into opposition on Capitol Hill.

A team of 45 archaeologists at the Southeastern

Archeological Center in Tallahassee, Florida, defeated

private contractors earlier this month, according to Park

Service officials. The in-house team re-organized itself into

the ``most efficient organization,'' eliminating 17 seasonal

jobs and trimming $850,000 in annual personnel costs,

according to Donna Calvels, coordinator of the Park Service's

competitive sourcing program.

``Not one permanent employee lost their job.''

Hear me?

``Not one permanent employee lost their job, and the

competition will save $4.2 million over the next five

years,'' Calvels said Thursday.

Federal workers have prevailed in other small competitions

decided recently. In the Forest Service, civil servants won

competitions at six Job Corps centers across the country,

according to Thomas Mills, the agency's deputy director for

business operations. The Forest Service operates 18 Job Corps

centers as part of a job training program for young adults,

which dates back to the New Deal programs of the 1930s.

Employees at every center--940 workers in all--are now

competing for their jobs.

So far, roughly 300 civil servants at Job Corps centers in

Anaconda and Darby, Montana; Franklin, North Carolina;

Estacada, Oregon, and Pine Knot and Mariba, Kentucky, have

won their competitions. At each center, the Forest Service is

using the ``streamlined'' competition method, which compares

the cost of the in-house team with the going rate in the

private sector. The agency received a waiver from the Office

of Management and Budget that allows it to give incumbent

workers a 10 percent cost advantage in the competitions,

according to Mills. The cost advantage is prohibited under

the revised OMB Circular A-76, issued in late May.

Federal workers have also fared well in several streamlined

competitions held by the Agriculture Department's Natural

Resources Conservation Service.

So the point is what we are talking about here is evaluating positions in various Federal agencies to determine whether those positions can be competitively bid and, in most of the cases, the in- house people win those competitions. In most cases, it is found after it is done that those people have been given an opportunity to get together and figure out how they can do a better job in order to save their job and compete with the private sector. That is what this is about. This is not like, well, if we don't pass this amendment, everything is going to be farmed out in the Interior Department.

Historically, Government employees at the Department of Defense, the agency with by far the most experience in conducting competitions, have won more than two-thirds of public-private competitions since 1997 and in the process have saved taxpayers billions of dollars. Furthermore, from 1997 to 2001, Federal employees won 98 percent of the streamlined competitions conducted at the Defense Department.

This demonstrates that Federal employees can compete and win. During the competition process, Federal employees form a most efficient organization--an MEO--to develop the most competitive bid possible. Through this process, employees make substantive changes to their organization in a collaborative process involving both managers and line employees.

What I like is that is quality management--going to the employees and asking them how they can do their job better than they are now doing it. The result is, regardless of who wins the competition, performance is improved and savings are realized. Isn't that what we want, better performance and savings? Ultimately, MEOs allow agencies to work harder and smarter and do more with less. The teamwork and collaboration that characterize most efficient organizations should be present at all Federal agencies, not just those that are undergoing competition.

The original goal of competitive sourcing was to compete a percentage of the Federal commercial functions with the private sector to cut costs and improve performance. This policy has merit. As a former mayor and Governor, I know from experience there are times when it is appropriate to compete government functions to obtain the best value for the taxpayers. At the same time, I know what motivated and well- trained public employees can accomplish.

The original sourcing goals of this administration--and I had real problems with it--were to compete 5 percent of commercial functions in the first year, an additional 10 percent in the second year, and eventually 50 percent of eligible commercial activities. I have been very concerned with these goals since they were announced. My chief concern was that the governmentwide goals for competitive sourcing had not been based on comprehensive analysis of the Federal workforce on an agency-by-agency basis. The amendment I offer today requires that be done and reported on.

In that regard, these goals reminded me of the workforce downsizing of the Clinton administration. The U.S. General Accounting Office has documented that little or no strategic workforce planning was conducted in Federal agencies before downsizing took place. It was a mindless downsizing, without looking at the jobs agencies had to perform. What this administration is trying to do right now is reshape their workforce to be able to do the job they have been asked to do.

Therefore, I have endeavored to learn more about the initiative. I attended a Governmental Affairs Committee oversight hearing on sourcing in March 2002 and criticized--that was Chairman Durbin--the manner in which the administration was pursuing this program. Over the last 2 years, I have pressed this point in meetings with various officials from the OMB and the White House, urging them to modify the goals of the program. To its credit, the Bush administration has agreed. Clay Johnson was in my office last week. He gets it.

At a Governmental Affairs subcommittee hearing I held on July 24, 2003, Angela Styles, who was, until recently, the administrator of Federal procurement policy, announced the administration would drop its governmentwide goals for competitive sourcing.

I was pleased to learn that each Federal agency will decide the way in which competitive sourcing will proceed. Furthermore, the administration will release a report later this month that will outline the manner in which they have conducted this initiative over the last 3 years.

The administration has demonstrated flexibility and a willingness to make significant modifications to this program. This is a significant step in the right direction and demonstrates that congressional oversight can yield positive results.

However, Congress is considering several amendments that undermine the administration's progress on competitive sourcing. The amendment offered by Senator Reid would prohibit competitive sourcing studies and activities at the Department of the Interior. This is, in my opinion, misguided, for several reasons.

First and foremost, since the Eisenhower administration decreed that the public sector should not compete with the private sector, the decision of whether or not to initiate competitions and the rules governing these competitions has been the purview of the executive branch of Government. We are stepping on the prerogatives of the executive branch of Government. There is another way we can do that, and that is what our amendment does--in a way that I think is appropriate. This authority has been exercised in the past by both Democratic and Republican administrations.

Legislatively exempting the Department of the Interior from competitive sourcing circumvents longstanding executive branch prerogative. It is not surprising the administration would strenuously resist efforts to diminish this authority, which is why OMB has said it will recommend a veto of any bill that abolishes or weakens existing management prerogatives.

Second, this amendment is one of a variety of different restrictions on competitive sourcing that have been placed on 5 appropriations bills that, if enacted, would constitute an incoherent set of restrictions. I agree Congress needs additional information on the implementation of this initiative. However, any reporting requirements, which I support and will discuss in the context of my second-degree amendment with Senator Thomas, should be uniform across the executive branch, not willy-nilly from one department to another department.

Third, I consider this issue the jurisdiction of the Governmental Affairs Committee. That committee has held hearings on this initiative under both Republican and Democratic leadership.

Any Senator seeking to make changes to this initiative should introduce a bill, have it referred to the Governmental Affairs Committee, and advance it through the normal committee process. It should not be addressed through a series of disjointed amendments to appropriations bills.

Fourth, as I noted a moment ago, the administration announced a major change to its sourcing initiative at my subcommittee July 24 hearing. It dropped its governmentwide goals and plans and will now do this on an agency-by-agency basis. It is reasonable for us to monitor how this change is implemented. Therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the amendment being offered by Senator Thomas and me.

Our amendment would require the Interior Department to provide Congress with detailed information on how it is implementing public- private competitions. This includes a description of how the Department's competitive sourcing decisionmaking process is aligned with the Department's strategic workforce plan. It also requires the Department to report the projected number of full-time equivalent employees covered by competitions scheduled to be announced in the next fiscal year.

If this amendment is adopted, it will not affect the Interior Department's consideration this year, but if they want to do them next year, in this report they are going to be required to say which ones next year they are going to be putting out for competition and why they are putting them out for competition. This is not some arbitrary type of activity as some people would like to characterize it.

Imposing rigorous reporting requirements is the right approach. 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. Congress, in its oversight role, has a right and responsibility to know what the executive branch is doing. The amendment would require the Bush administration to provide exactly that information.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this report from Government Executive magazine be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, this report contradicts some of the arguments that have been made for the Reid amendment this afternoon.

Mr. President, the amendment that was just adopted makes sense out of competitive sourcing, makes the agencies accountable for competitive sourcing, and makes it part of the shaping of their workforce. It is long overdue.

The Reid amendment completely eliminates competitive sourcing period. It leaves it out. If you look at other Federal agencies that have competitively sourced, for example at the Department of Defense, in about 98 percent of streamlined competitions--and these all have to be commercial functions--98 percent of the time, the Federal workers win the competition. They win because they come together, use quality management, and figure out a way to do the job better than they were doing it before.

Anyone who supported our amendment should vote no on this amendment which just eliminates competitive sourcing altogether and is not good public policy.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the motion to proceed to conference on the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. We passed the legislation to ban this barbaric procedure on March 13, 2003, by a vote of 64 to 33, and I am shocked that we are back on the Senate floor in September, still debating whether to send this bill to conference. Just imagine the number of lives we could have saved if we had sent this bill to the President 6 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. We cannot let this happen again. Now is the time to get this done.

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. 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. If a mother really needs an abortion, she has alternatives available to her that are not as torturous as partial birth abortion.

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. When partial birth abortions are performed, these babies are just 3 inches away from life and, for that matter, seconds away.

I strongly urge all of my colleagues to vote to send this bill to conference and stand up against what I refer to as human infanticide. This is not a vote on Roe v. Wade. This is a vote to eliminate a horrible procedure that should be outlawed in this country. In his State of the Union Address this year, President Bush again pledged to support the legislation and said, ``We must not overlook the weakest among us. I ask you to protect infants at the very hour of their birth and end the practice of partial birth abortion.''

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this motion so we can send a bill to the President that will finally ban partial birth abortions in the United States of America.

Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the Collins-Reed Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, amendment. This amendment will provide an additional $300 million for

Mr. President, it has been nearly 2 years since terrorists attacked the United States on September 11, 2001. As our Nation prepares to honor the memory of those who were lost on that tragic day, I would like to submit for the Record a piece that I read in yesterday's Cleveland Plain Dealer that was written by Christy Ferer, whose husband, Neil Levin, perished in the World Trade Center. I was deeply moved by her words, which serve to remind us of the reason behind our ongoing efforts to promote the virtues of freedom and democracy as our men and women in uniform remain on the front lines in the fight against terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other parts of the world. We owe them our deepest gratitude.

I ask unanimous consent the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for States that provide tax incentives for ethanol or for electricity produced from clean coal technology or renewable in their State. For example, in my home State, the Ohio coal tax credit provides $3 per ton of Ohio coal burned using clean coal technology. This tax credit encourages use of clean coal technology and holds down electricity costs in Ohio. With Ohio's large manufacturing base, affordable energy costs keep costs down to these companies and keep jobs in the State.

I believe that States should have the opportunity to provide tax incentives for energy production and am hopeful that this is something we can address in conference on this bill.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. Res. 211. I join my colleagues to speak out against the administration using these trade agreements to implement immigration policy without the authority or direction to do so from Congress. It is the function of the Congress to set policy on the immigration laws of this country, and in this case, the USTR overstepped its bounds. This resolution sends a message to the administration that the USTR has overreached its negotiative authority by including immigration provisions in the FTA, and in the future, they must consult with Congress before implementing new policy, and I strongly support it.

I am a strong free-trader whose State has benefited from free-trade agreements. I do have some concerns, however, about the enforcement of trade laws and I have expressed those concerns to the administration. Free trade must also be fair and I will continue to pay close attention to our trade agreements and their enforcement to make sure that American workers are not hurt by unfair trade.

Mr. President, as cochairman of the Senate Auto Caucus, I am pleased to join with my colleagues, Senator Bond and Senator Levin, as a cosponsor of this CAFE standards amendment to the energy bill. This is truly an important issue; one that impacts upon our Nation's economy, our environment, and the safety of the traveling public.

There is no doubt that each of us wants the automobile industry to make cars, trucks, SUVs, and minivans that are as energy efficient as possible. Not only is it good for the environment, it also means more money in the pocket of the American consumer because they will spend less at the gas pump.

However, I am deeply concerned that the extreme Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard supported by some of my colleagues will have a devastating effect on public safety, as well as put a severe crimp in the manufacturing base of my State of Ohio which is already under duress because of high natural gas costs, litigation, health care costs, and competition from overseas.

Two years ago, new vehicle sales of trucks, SUVs and minivans outpaced the sale of automobiles for the first time in American history. This remarkable result can be attributed to a number of factors, but one reason that is often cited is the fact that these vehicles are seen as safer.

Another concern is that an arbitrary standard would have a devastating effect on jobs. Ohio is the No. two automotive manufacturing State in America, employing more than 630,000 people either directly or indirectly. I have heard from a number of these men and women whose livelihood depends on the auto industry and who are frankly very worried about their future.

There is genuine concern that a provision mandating an arbitrary standard could cause a serious disruption and shifting in the auto industry resulting in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs across the Nation.

For example, DaimlerChrysler's fleet of light trucks makes up more than 50 percent of their entire fleet. The company manufactures the Jeep Liberty and the Jeep Wrangler in Toledo, OH and employs approximately 5,200 workers at this plant. If an arbitrary CAFE provision is mandated that requires a shifting of vehicles manufactured, this plant could close because Chrysler would be forced to redistribute their manufacturing base to build more small, high- mileage cars.

The Bond-Levin amendment is a rational proposal that will keep workers both in Ohio and nationwide working, allowing these men and women to continue to take care of their families and educate their children while also encouraging greater fuel efficiency and safer vehicles.

This amendment calls for the Department of Transportation to increase fuel economy standards based on several factors including the following: technological feasibility; economic practicability; the need to conserve energy; the desirability of reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil; the effect on motor vehicle safety; the effects of increased fuel economy on air quality; and the effect on U.S. employment.

I believe this is a much more responsible approach that will improve the fuel efficiency of our Nation's vehicles while also protecting public safety and our nation's economic security.

This amendment also requires that the Department of Transportation complete the rulemaking process that would increase fuel efficiency standards within 2\1/2\ years. If the administration doesn't act within the required timeframe, Congress will act, under expedited procedures, to pass legislation mandating an increase in fuel economy standards consistent with the same criteria that the administration must consider.

The amendment will also increase the market for alternative powered and hybrid vehicles by mandating that the Federal Government, where feasible, purchase alternative powered and hybrid vehicles.

I believe that this guaranteed market will encourage the auto industry to continue to increase their investment in research and development with an eye towards making alternative fuel and hybrid vehicles more affordable, available and commercially appealing to the average consumer.

As a matter of fact, I have ridden in a hybrid manufactured by DaimlerChrysler, and I have driven a fuel cell automobile manufactured by General Motors. I firmly believe that my children and grandchildren will one day be driving automobiles that run on hydrogen and give off only water. However, it will take time for the technology that makes these vehicles possible to be cost-effective and for these vehicles to be marketable.

Until then, truck, SUV, and minivan demand is not expected to decrease anytime soon. Automakers that are meeting this demand will have to manufacture and sell a high-gas mileage vehicle that likely does not exist now. This will only increase prices for the safe vehicles America wants.

I urge my colleagues to support the Bond-Levin amendment. It meets our environmental, safety and economic needs in a balanced and responsible way, contributing to the continued and needed harmonization of our energy and environmental policies.

Mr. President, the Senator portrayed Tom Mullins' comments accurately. In the statement I am going to be making, I will refer to those remarks--the indication that many of the people who are promoting capping carbon at the altar of responding to the climate change promotion are not seeking to affect the impact that capping carbon would have on natural gas questions and on those people in our country who are least able to pay their energy costs.

I think the main purpose of his testimony was that in decisions we make in the Senate regarding environmental legislation, we ought to take into consideration the impact it is having on those who have to pay the energy costs that are increased as a result of those initiatives. There seems to be some type of disconnect between our environmental policy and our energy policy. What we are hoping to do here is to harmonize our environmental and energy policies so we can put together a policy that will reduce emissions and at the same time not destroy our economy and impact on the least of our brethren who pay a large percentage of what they have toward the cost of energy.

Mr. President, as we consider appropriations for our men and women in uniform for the upcoming fiscal year, I would like to take this opportunity to express my strong support for the M1A2 System Enhancement Program.

As our experience in Iraq has demonstrated, the Abrams tank remains crucial to the efforts to the United States Armed Forces. The tanks of the 3rd Infantry Division were among the first on the ground in Iraq. However, the armed reconnaissance regiment of the CounterAttack Corps (CATK)--the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment (ACR)--is fighting with older, less capable M1A1 tanks.

The M1A2 System Enhancement Program retrofits existing tanks to incorporate the most sophisticated technologies, allowing them to best communicate with and protect the rest of the CounterAttack Corps. I believe it is critical to provide our soldiers in the 3rd Armed Cavalry Regiment--the eyes and ears of the CounterAttack Corps--with the most modern equipment available to them.

The State of Ohio, home to the Lima Army Tank Plant, plays a critical role in this modernization effort. The thousands of men and women who have worked at the Lima Army Tank Plant have played a long and distinguished role in the history of the mighty Abrams. This continued during Operation Iraqi Freedom, when the plant's employees responded to a call by the Defense Department and within the period of just one week designed, tested, produced and shipped to Iraq armored protection to bolster the armor around the exhaust.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and the House of Representatives in conference to ensure that sufficient funds are maintained to upgrade the tanks of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, better serving our men and women in uniform and the U.S. military in their efforts to promote peace, security and democracy in Iraq and other parts of the world.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to address my strong concern with the safety of U.S. military helicopters. As my colleagues may be aware, yesterday, a MH-53E Sea Dragon helicopter crashed roughly 10 miles southwest of the island of Sicily, which is home to U.S. Naval Air Station Sigonella. Four members of the U.S. Armed Forces lost their lives in this tragic accident.

During my time in the Senate, I have continued to raise the issue of aviation safety with our Defense Department. I believe it is crucial that we provide the funding necessary to provide for the safety of our men and women in uniform who ride in military helicopters--including funds for required maintenance, training, and modernization.

On May 6, 1999, I spoke on the Senate floor in honor of two brave American soldiers--Chief Warrant Officer Kevin L. Reichert and Chief Warrant Officer David A. Gibbs--who lost their lives when their Apache helicopter crashed into the Albanian mountains during a routine training exercise on May 5, 1999, as U.S. troops joined with our NATO allies in a military campaign against Slobodan Milosevic. As I remarked at that time, the United States owes David, Kevin, and so many other service members a debt of gratitude that we will never be able to repay, for they have paid the ultimate sacrifice. As the Bible says in John chapter 15:13, ``Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.''

As such, I strongly support a section of the report accompanying the version of the Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004 passed by the House of Representatives, H.R. 2658, which calls on the Army to provide a report describing mishaps sustained by Apache aircraft in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Specifically, the language reads:

The Committee is additionally concerned about the unusually

high number of mishaps sustained by Apache aircraft in

Operation Iraqi Freedom. The high incident rate may have

resulted from the extensive number of security support and

non-traditional missions flown by aircraft, as well as

adverse weather conditions. As such, the Army is directed to

provide the congressional defense committees a report, no

later than January 30, 2004, that enumerates and describes

the Apache aircraft mishaps, the cause and to the extent

known, the follow-up actions the Army is considering to

address any systemic problems.

As we begin conference on the Defense Appropriations Act of fiscal year 2004, I urge my Senate colleagues to retain this important provision.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for Senate Amendment No. 1149, which would grant the President the authority to extend normal trade relations to Serbia and Montenegro.

As my colleagues may be aware, Serbia and Montenegro is one of just four countries that is currently denied normal trade relations, NTR, by the United States. Others in that group include North Korea, Cuba and Laos. Although there are certainly challenges in Serbia and Montenegro that must be addressed, as we discussed during a hearing of the Foreign Relations Committee 2 weeks ago, there is no doubt among my colleagues that this country no longer belongs in this category of ``bad actors.''

While the President has the authority to extend normal trade relations to most countries, the case of Serbia and Montenegro is different. In 1992, Congress revoked most favored nation status for Yugoslavia in response to the policies of former Yugoslav dictator Slobodan Milosevic, who was supporting nationalist Serbian aggression in the conflicts in Croatia and Bosnia.

The legislation passed in 1992, P.L. 102-420, prohibits the extension of normal trade relations to Yugoslavia, now Serbia and Montenegro, until certain conditions have been met. The President must certify that Serbia and Montenegro has ceased armed conflict with other peoples of the former Yugoslavia, agreed to respect the borders of the former Yugoslav states, and ended all support to Bosnian Serb forces.

As written, the law intended to stop Milosevic from aiding Serbian forces responsible for brutal atrocities during the 1990s. There is no doubt that the situation in Serbia and Montenegro has changed, and that the spirit of these conditions has been met. However, some support for Bosnian Serb forces is permitted under the Dayton Peace Accords signed in 1996. Given the situation on the ground in the early 1990s, the legislation enacted in 1992 did not provide the flexibility for this situation. As such, a legislative fix is required to permit the President to extend NTR to Serbia and Montenegro.

With Milosevic behind bars at The Hague and the current government taking action to promote democratic reforms following the assassination of Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic on March 12, 2003, I believe that it is time to take action to extend normal trade relations to Serbia and Montenegro. While we should continue to call on Serbia and Montenegro to meet its international obligations to apprehend war criminals and cooperate with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslivia, we should take this step to promote trade, economic development, and improved relations between the United States and Serbia and Montenegro.

Many of my colleagues agree. A provision to give the President the authority to extend NTR to Serbia and Montenegro is included in S. 671, the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2003. While this is an appropriate vehicle for this measure, I am frustrated that this important piece of legislation is being held up indefinitely in the Senate. I submit for the record a letter of June 26, 2003, signed by myself and 65 of my colleagues calling for Senate passage of this bill.

As a member of the Senate who pays close attention to developments in southeast Europe, I am committed to doing all that I can to make sure that this critical piece of legislation is passed during this session of Congress, and I am hopeful to work closely with my colleagues to get this done as soon as possible.

I ask unanimous consent that the June 26, 2003 letter be printed in the Record.