Floor Statements

Mr. President, on rollcall vote 100, I voted ``aye.'' It was my intention to vote ``nay.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.

Mr. President, competitive sourcing is the process by which the Federal Government conducts a competition to compare the

cost of obtaining a needed commercial service from a private sector contractor rather than from Federal employees. Properly conducted, competitive sourcing can be an effective tool to achieve cost savings. Poorly utilized, however, it can increase costs and hurt the morale of the Federal workforce.

The current guidelines under which agencies conduct these competitions are contained in the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Circular A-76 (A-76). To ensure that we maximize the benefit and minimize the cost of competitive sourcing, A-76 competition must be conducted in a carefully crafted manner. The rules under which they take place must be fair, objective, transparent, and efficient. In one particular regard, I believe the current rules fail to meet these criteria.

Specifically, they do not allow Federal employees to protest the agency's decisions in an A-76 competition beyond the agency's own internal review processes to the General Accounting Office (GAO). Congress has vested in the GAO the jurisdiction to hear and render opinions in protests of agency acquisition decisions generally. Private sector contractors, in contrast to federal employees, have standing to protest agency procurement decisions, including those in A-76 competitions, before GAO. Today, along with my distinguished colleague, Senator Levin, I am introducing legislation to correct this imbalance by providing Federal employees with standing to protest A-76 decisions to GAO.

The current situation does not arise from any conscious policy decision of Congress, GAO or OMB. Rather, it occurs because the Federal statute that confers protest jurisdiction upon GAO, the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 or ``CICA,'' was not drafted to address the unique nature of A-76 competitions, in particular, the role of Federal employees in the ``Most Efficient Organization'' or ``MEO,'' which is the in-house side of these competitions. This was not deliberate--this particular circumstance for protest was simply not contemplated by Congress when drafting CICA.

Recent revisions to A-76 created the potential for GAO to review past decisions by Federal courts and revisit its own opinions to see whether the revisions would merit a determination that Federal employees had gained standing to protest adverse A-76 competition decisions. However, a recent GAO protest decision indicates that GAO has concluded it lacks the authority under CICA to hear protests from Federal employees in the MEO in these competitions. As a result, corrective legislative action has become necessary in our view.

Our bill would extend GAO protest rights on behalf of the MEO in A-76 competitions to two individuals. The first is the Agency Tender Official or ``ATO.'' The ATO is the agency official who is responsible for developing and representing the Federal employees' MEO. The second is a representative chosen directly by the Federal employees in the MEO for the purposes of filing a protest with GAO where the ATO does not, in the view of a majority of the MEO, fulfill his or her duties in regards to a GAO protest.

As I mentioned, the rules under which these competitions are run must be fair. In addition to being objectively fair, however, I think they must also be perceived as fair by all parties. If the private sector perceives the rules to be unfair, they will decline to participate in competitive sourcing competitions, and the Federal Government will enjoy less competition in its acquisitions. If Federal employees perceive the rules to be unfair, there will be less interest in Federal employment at a time when we are all concerned about the Federal Government's human capital challenges. As the congressionally established Commercial Activities Panel noted in its report on competitive sourcing, the lack of GAO protest rights for Federal employees was one of the most often-heard complaints about the A-76 rules. Providing them with protest rights that are similar to those enjoyed by the private sector is, I think, vital to assuring Federal employees that the rules of the game are fair to them.

The rules must also be efficient. There are three interests that are served by A-76 rules that ensure a speedy process with finality. The Federal Government benefits by enjoying the benefits and efficiencies of competitive sourcing sooner rather than later. Federal workers benefit in that they spend less time having to worry about the outcome of these competitions, which can be stressful as they create uncertainty about employees' employment situations. Finally, because time is money in the private sector, private contractors will benefit by spending less time on competitions as well. In my view, having Federal employees vote to choose a representative to protest when they are dissatisfied with the ATO should achieve the maximum efficiency possible while respecting Federal employees' interests.

In the end, our intent is to bolster the A-76 process by providing a mechanism for Federal employees to seek redress from GAO, an entity that is well known for its fair, effective and expert handling of acquisition protests.

Mr. President, competitive sourcing is the process by which the Federal Government conducts a competition to compare the

cost of obtaining a needed commercial service from a private sector contractor rather than from Federal employees. Properly conducted, competitive sourcing can be an effective tool to achieve cost savings. Poorly utilized, however, it can increase costs and hurt the morale of the Federal workforce.

The current guidelines under which agencies conduct these competitions are contained in the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Circular A-76 (A-76). To ensure that we maximize the benefit and minimize the cost of competitive sourcing, A-76 competition must be conducted in a carefully crafted manner. The rules under which they take place must be fair, objective, transparent, and efficient. In one particular regard, I believe the current rules fail to meet these criteria.

Specifically, they do not allow Federal employees to protest the agency's decisions in an A-76 competition beyond the agency's own internal review processes to the General Accounting Office (GAO). Congress has vested in the GAO the jurisdiction to hear and render opinions in protests of agency acquisition decisions generally. Private sector contractors, in contrast to federal employees, have standing to protest agency procurement decisions, including those in A-76 competitions, before GAO. Today, along with my distinguished colleague, Senator Levin, I am introducing legislation to correct this imbalance by providing Federal employees with standing to protest A-76 decisions to GAO.

The current situation does not arise from any conscious policy decision of Congress, GAO or OMB. Rather, it occurs because the Federal statute that confers protest jurisdiction upon GAO, the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 or ``CICA,'' was not drafted to address the unique nature of A-76 competitions, in particular, the role of Federal employees in the ``Most Efficient Organization'' or ``MEO,'' which is the in-house side of these competitions. This was not deliberate--this particular circumstance for protest was simply not contemplated by Congress when drafting CICA.

Recent revisions to A-76 created the potential for GAO to review past decisions by Federal courts and revisit its own opinions to see whether the revisions would merit a determination that Federal employees had gained standing to protest adverse A-76 competition decisions. However, a recent GAO protest decision indicates that GAO has concluded it lacks the authority under CICA to hear protests from Federal employees in the MEO in these competitions. As a result, corrective legislative action has become necessary in our view.

Our bill would extend GAO protest rights on behalf of the MEO in A-76 competitions to two individuals. The first is the Agency Tender Official or ``ATO.'' The ATO is the agency official who is responsible for developing and representing the Federal employees' MEO. The second is a representative chosen directly by the Federal employees in the MEO for the purposes of filing a protest with GAO where the ATO does not, in the view of a majority of the MEO, fulfill his or her duties in regards to a GAO protest.

As I mentioned, the rules under which these competitions are run must be fair. In addition to being objectively fair, however, I think they must also be perceived as fair by all parties. If the private sector perceives the rules to be unfair, they will decline to participate in competitive sourcing competitions, and the Federal Government will enjoy less competition in its acquisitions. If Federal employees perceive the rules to be unfair, there will be less interest in Federal employment at a time when we are all concerned about the Federal Government's human capital challenges. As the congressionally established Commercial Activities Panel noted in its report on competitive sourcing, the lack of GAO protest rights for Federal employees was one of the most often-heard complaints about the A-76 rules. Providing them with protest rights that are similar to those enjoyed by the private sector is, I think, vital to assuring Federal employees that the rules of the game are fair to them.

The rules must also be efficient. There are three interests that are served by A-76 rules that ensure a speedy process with finality. The Federal Government benefits by enjoying the benefits and efficiencies of competitive sourcing sooner rather than later. Federal workers benefit in that they spend less time having to worry about the outcome of these competitions, which can be stressful as they create uncertainty about employees' employment situations. Finally, because time is money in the private sector, private contractors will benefit by spending less time on competitions as well. In my view, having Federal employees vote to choose a representative to protest when they are dissatisfied with the ATO should achieve the maximum efficiency possible while respecting Federal employees' interests.

In the end, our intent is to bolster the A-76 process by providing a mechanism for Federal employees to seek redress from GAO, an entity that is well known for its fair, effective and expert handling of acquisition protests.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the fiscal year 2005 National Defense Authorization Act. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I especially commend the able leadership of our chairman, Senator John Warner. Under his leadership and that of the distinguished ranking member, Senator Levin, the Senate Armed Services Committee has delivered to the full Senate a vital piece of legislation for our security now and in the years to come.

This legislation provides vital resources for the men and women in our military, resources they require in defending our Nation and in carrying out the operations overseas.

I am proud that the legislation before us builds on the efforts we have made in previous years to ensure that our troops are the best paid, the best trained, and best equipped in the world. It includes, for example, a 3.5-percent across-the-board pay raise for military personnel. It authorizes the permanent increase in the rate of family separation allowances from $100 per month to $250 per month. It also authorizes a permanent increase in the rate of special pay for duties subject to hostile fire or imminent danger from $150 per month to $225 per month. These provisions, in a small way, help to recognize the sacrifices of those who are deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

One of the greatest obligations we have is to provide the best protection possible to our troops who are being sent into harm's way. Therefore, the committee added $425 million for additional force protection equipment, such as up-armored Humvees, ballistic equipment kits to fortify Humvees, and combat clothing for service members, such as body armor.

With 60 percent of its National Guard personnel deployed, Maine has the second highest deployed ratio in the Nation. There is only one other State that has deployed more of its National Guard than the State of Maine. I am very grateful for the service of our Guard and Reserve members, but I am also very concerned about the heavy burden we are imposing on our Guard members and reservists, their families, and their employers.

Many of my colleagues know of the experience, for example, of one of the military police companies from Maine which was on its way home on Easter weekend when it received orders to extend its deployment and return to Kuwait and Iraq. This news was demoralizing for some of the soldiers in this unit who had already been in Iraq for more than a year, and it was devastating to the family members who were ready to welcome them home on Easter Sunday.

Thankfully, this bill begins to address the many significant contributions and sacrifices being made by our guardsmen and reservists in the global war on terrorism. It authorizes a new benefit option under the military health care program known as TRICARE.

TRICARE Reserve Select would be offered for the first time to members of the selected Reserve and Guard and their families who could participate in TRICARE for a premium. It authorizes more than $400 million above the President's budget request for enhanced health benefits for reservists, which will improve mobilization readiness and ensure the continuity of health care services.

The legislation focuses on other areas in need of reform as well. Earlier this year, the committee held a hearing on sexual assaults in the military. We heard very disturbing testimony about sexual assaults and the inadequate response to victims. This legislation directs the Secretary of Defense to develop a comprehensive policy and procedures for the prevention of and response to incidents of sexual assault involving military members.

As a member of the Seapower Subcommittee under the able chairmanship of Senator Jim Talent, I am particularly pleased that this authorization bill provides significant funding for our naval forces. We continue to marvel at the capabilities and the commitment of our Navy. At the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, for example, 70 percent of our surface fleet and 50 percent of our submarine fleet were deployed in Iraq, the highest deployment rate since World War II.

This Defense authorization includes $6.7 billion for the procurement of seven ships. These include three DDG-51 Arleigh Burke class destroyers, two of which will be constructed at the famous Bath Iron Works in Maine. While this shipbuilding budget represents considerable progress, I want to note for my colleagues that we need to be vigilant about the number of ships we are building to ensure that our fleet can meet our national security requirements.

Our Navy now has fewer than 300 ships, and the current rate of production, unfortunately, will not allow that number to increase. This could place our shipbuilding industrial base at risk. To avoid that unacceptable outcome, the Senate Armed Services Committee added report language at my request that directs the Navy to take all actions necessary to ensure the viability of the second shipyard--that is Bath Iron Works--in order to maintain a healthy and competitive industrial base.

We have a responsibility to ensure that our Navy is well prepared to fight today and tomorrow. Part of that involves designing and developing the next generation of ships. The last three destroyers of the Arleigh Burke class are funded in this fiscal year 2005 Defense authorization. They will be followed by a new class of destroyers, a destroyer designed to meet the challenges of the 21st century, the DDX. One of the two builders of the DDX, I am proud to say, is Bath Iron Works in the State of Maine.

I am pleased to state to the distinguished Presiding Officer, my colleagues, the citizens of Maine, and the fine employees of Bath Iron Works that this bill represents important progress in securing the future of our Navy and the future of Bath Iron Works. It will help to preserve America's proud maritime tradition and our shipbuilding industrial base.

I have been extremely concerned about the fiscal year 2006 gap in the production of surface combatants in the administration's proposed budget. If permitted, this would be the first time in 20 years that no surface combatant would be built.

Moreover, the Navy's analysis of the impact on the industrial base indicates that if the DDX schedule were to slip, the shipyard that is scheduled to build the follow ship--in this case Bath Iron Works--could experience significant workload issues.

Fortunately, there is good news in this bill. I have worked very hard with my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee in an effort to maintain some stability in the shipbuilding industrial base. At my request, the committee added $99.4 million to begin the construction of a second DDX to be built in Bath in fiscal year 2006, thus accelerating the start of construction by 1 year and helping to partially fill that very dangerous gap in our shipbuilding budget. This funding will help to ensure a more stable workload for Bath Iron Works and, thus, to preserve the skilled workers essential to our national security.

We only have two shipyards left that now build surface combatant ships. We need to make sure that we sustain the highly skilled workforce in both of those yards so that we have a competitive environment for the Navy.

This bill has a number of other very important provisions for new weapon platforms and systems. It also recognizes that our Nation cannot maintain its technological superiority over potential adversaries without investing in emerging capabilities.

The legislation authorizes $11 billion for the Defense Science and Technology Program, including an additional $450 million for transformational basic and applied research activities, bringing the Department closer to its goal of investing 3 percent of its budget in such programs.

Finally, I am also very pleased that this legislation includes provisions that I authored allocating $3 million to establish a U.S. Army Center of Excellence at the University of Maine. I know from my conversations with Army officials and generals that they are very excited about the possibility of a Center on Advanced Structures and Composites in construction. The center will focus on addressing the Army's needs in fundamental and applied research related to the use of advanced composite materials and structures.

These are a few of the reasons why this Senate should strongly support the fiscal year 2005 National Defense Authorization Act.

I again want to commend the chairman and ranking member of the committee for their hard work, working with all of us on the committee, as well as with the administration and one another, in bringing forward this vital legislation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the Harkin-Hagel amendment to fully fund the Federal share of the individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This proposal is long overdue and will help every school district in Maine.

IDEA is based on two fundamental principles: First, that all disabled children are entitled to a free and appropriate public education; and, second, to the maximum extent possible, these children should be educated alongside their nondisabled peers.

To help States achieve these principles, in 1975 Congress authorized funding at 40 percent of the average per pupil expenditure. Unfortunately, this funding level has never been realized, leaving States with insufficient resources and jeopardizing the achievement of IDEA's worthy goals.

In 1996, the year I was first elected to the Senate, the Federal Government provided only $2.3 billion for IDEA funding, about 7 percent of the promised level. Through our efforts in the Senate, IDEA funding has steadily climbed, reaching nearly $10.1 billion in fiscal year 2004, an increase of more than 300 percent. Despite this considerable progress, current IDEA funding still represents only half of the original 40 percent promised by Congress. This is an unfunded mandate that affects every State in the Nation.

Over the years, this shortfall in IDEA funding has placed a tremendous financial strain on communities in providing these services, and in particular, on small rural towns, such as those in Maine. According to recent CRS estimates, if IDEA were fully funded, Maine would receive approximately $104 million in part B funding, an increase of approximately $56 million over current levels.

While the shortfalls affecting Maine and other States are startling, they fail to convey the crushing financial blow which can result to a small community when a medically fragile, high-cost child with special needs locates there.

In these cases, school systems are often forced to cut back in services to all children in an attempt to meet their legal obligations. Unfortunately, this can result in resentment of these special needs children by members of their own community.

During my time in the Senate, I have consistently supported efforts to fully fund IDEA. In 2001, during Senate consideration of No Child Left Behind, I was pleased to join Senators Hagel and Harkin in sponsoring another amendment to fully fund IDEA. Although the amendment passed the Senate, unfortunately, it was removed during conference with the House.

After over 2 years of work, we now have before us a bill to reauthorize IDEA. S. 1248 has strong bipartisan support and reflects a bipartisan commitment to make the improvements necessary to ensure better educational services for disabled students.

For example, it contains modifications designed to improve parental involvement, to resolve conflicts more effectively and without litigation, and to reduce unnecessary paperwork. With these reforms in place, it is time for Congress to step up and meet its funding obligations under IDEA.

Our amendment would provide crucial resources necessary to support communities and special education students throughout the country. Specifically, it would provide mandatory funding increases of $2.2 billion each year for the next 6 years to reach full funding by 2010, and then maintain full funding in subsequent years.

I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this amendment. Let's make this the year where we finally make good on the promise to fully fund IDEA.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, before I turn to the subject matter of the amendment which I have just submitted, I rise to take a moment to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their courtesy, and in particular to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Finance Committee and their staffs for their assistance in advancing this important legislation and in helping to bring this amendment to the Senate floor.

Over the past year, the American economy has emerged from a period of recession and slow growth into a period of economic recovery. The last half of 2003 saw the strongest growth in two decades and the growth continues to be strong, 4.2 percent in the first quarter of this year, a clear sign of a healthy and sustainable economic rebound.

There are hopeful signs on the job front, too. Last month, 308,000 new jobs were added to our Nation's payrolls. This is very good news, but the recovery has not affected all sectors equally. One sector in particular, manufacturing, is struggling to cope with the long-term decline that has cost so many workers their jobs.

Job losses in the manufacturing sector did not begin with the recent recession, nor with this administration. It is not a Democratic issue or a Republican issue. In each decade since World War II, employment in the manufacturing sector has declined as a share of total employment. In absolute terms, the number of American manufacturing jobs has fallen each year since the end of 1997. In fact, if one examines the past 84 months since March of 1997, the number of manufacturing jobs has declined each and every month except 7.

No State has been harder hit by the loss of manufacturing jobs than my home State of Maine. According to a study by the National Association of Manufacturers, on a percentage basis Maine has lost more manufacturing jobs than any State in the Nation. We have lost nearly 18,000 jobs during that period, good jobs that once provided lifelong employment to Mainers living in communities such as Millinocket, Brewer, Wilton, Waterville, Fort Kent, Dexter, Westbrook, and Sanford.

Many people are asking: Why are so many manufacturing jobs in this country disappearing?

According to a recent study conducted by the National Association of Manufacturers, one answer is the disparity in manufacturing costs in our country versus other countries. In fact, compared to other countries, it costs an average of 22 percent more to manufacture goods in the United States.

While it would surprise no one that U.S. manufacturers face a higher cost of doing business compared to manufacturers in countries such as China or Mexico, it would be a mistake to assume wage rates alone explain this difference. They do not. In fact, the productivity of the American worker is unrivaled, allowing American workers to receive more value in terms of wages for the goods they produce. As the NAM study states, if wages were the only factor, then:

U.S. manufacturers would be much more dominant . . . in the

global markets than the current trade situation suggests.

It is other structural costs such as the high corporate tax rate we impose on manufacturers that make it much more expensive to manufacture goods here in the United States relative to the costs elsewhere. Indeed, the NAM study shows it is significantly cheaper to produce goods even in high-wage industrialized nations such as Japan and France. This fact illustrates the critical impact these high structural costs have on manufacturers in our country.

In essence, these costs have the same effect as imposing a 22-percent additional tax on making goods here, rather than overseas. To compete, American manufacturers must somehow do more with less, move operations overseas, or get out of manufacturing altogether. None of those is a good solution. The result is fewer jobs, a weaker economy, and a manufacturing sector in crisis.

Earlier this session I introduced legislation known as the Growing Our Manufacturing Employment Act. This legislation provides a 9-percent deduction for manufacturing income, and contains additional provisions benefiting the forest products industry, an industry critical to manufacturers and jobs, good jobs in my home State. I am very pleased the underlying bill we are considering, the JOBS Act, has already been amended to accelerate the deduction for manufacturing income and it contains these important forestry provisions. But I believe we need to go further to address the loss of these vital manufacturing jobs. For that reason, I am offering the final provisions of the Growing Our Manufacturing Jobs Act as an amendment to this bill. My amendment is aimed at reinvigorating the manufacturing sector, boosting the level of domestic manufacturing, and preventing the further loss of these important jobs.

My amendment would help to reduce the 22-percent cost differential American manufacturers face by providing a jobs tax credit to those manufacturers that increase their payrolls by hiring displaced workers who are receiving trade adjustment assistance. That would mean we would be providing an important incentive for manufacturers to rehire workers who have been laid off because of the impact of foreign competition.

In Maine alone, nearly 60 manufacturers are currently TAA-certified, and more than 4,200 Maine workers have been deemed eligible for benefits under TAA since the start of 2002. The credit I have suggested would provide a powerful incentive to hire these workers and help them get back to work.

This credit is very carefully targeted. For that reason, it carries a modest pricetag, which, thanks to the efforts of the Finance Committee, would be fully offset by other provisions included in the amendment.

Finally, this amendment is designed to ensure only those companies that are helping to build America's manufacturing base obtain the credit. It has both a carrot-and-a-stick approach. Companies that move jobs offshore will see their benefits reduced. Most important, companies that chose to reincorporate in offshore tax havens to avoid American taxes will not be eligible for this credit.

I am hopeful that by working together on this proposal and the important provisions of the underlying bill, we can take the important steps that are needed to strengthen American manufacturers, to preserve our manufacturing capacity and, most of all, to help ensure hard- working Americans have the jobs they need and deserve.

Let me once again thank the chairman and the ranking member for their ongoing efforts to advance this significant legislation. It has been a pleasure working with them to bring this proposal before the Senate. Few subjects the Senate will address this year are as important as creating and protecting good jobs, and few bills are as important to advancing that goal as the legislation before us today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Russ

Feingold, to introduce the ``Purchase Card Waste Elimination Act of 2004,'' to help eliminate wasteful spending through the use of governmental credit cards.

Today, the Governmental Affairs Committee explored the federal government's use of ``purchase cards,'' which are commercial charge cards used by federal agencies to buy billions of dollars worth of goods and services. The Committee heard the results of the General Accounting Office's investigation into waste, fraud, and abuse in the purchase card program.

The American people have the right to expect the federal government to spend their tax dollars carefully and wisely. While this is true at all times, it is never more so than today, when the government faces enormous fiscal pressures and a growing budget deficit.

The Governmental Affairs Committee has a mandate to help safeguard those tax dollars from waste, fraud, and abuse. To meet this mandate, the Committee has launched an initiative to root out government waste. Today's hearing was part of that effort and focused on wasteful, inefficient, and in some cases, fraudulent, transactions using purchase cards.

These cards were first introduced by the General Services Administration on a government-wide basis in 1989. Purchase cards are used primarily for making routine purchases such as office supplies, computers and copying machines. Purchase cards are similar to the personal credit cards we all carry, but with one important difference: The taxpayers pays the bill. Although the card is only supposed to be used for official purposes, the Federal Government is responsible for paying all charges by authorized cardholders, regardless of what was purchased.

While legitimate purchases are usually small, they nevertheless add up to big money. Purchase card use has soared during the past decade-- from less than $1 billion in fiscal year 1994 to more than $16 billion in fiscal year 2003. There are more than 134,000 purchase cardholders in the Defense Department alone.

This explosive growth presents both challenges and opportunities. While there are many benefits to the purchase card, such as expediting purchases, cutting red tape, and saving administrative costs, the General Accounting Office and the Inspectors General have reported that inadequate controls over purchase cards leave agencies vulnerable to waste, fraud, and abuse.

The Governmental Affairs Committee heard testimony describing how smarter use of purchase cards could save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. A GAO report that I requested along with Senator Feingold and Congresswoman Schakowsky, which is being released today, highlights several wasteful purchasing practices.

The GAO concludes that many agency cardholders fail to obtain readily available discounts on purchase card buys. In too many cases, purchase cardholders are buying goods and services from vendors that already agreed to provide government discounts through the GSA schedule, yet cardholders often lack the information and training needed to obtain the discounted prices. As a result, GAO found numerous instances of cardholders paying significantly more for items for which discounts already had been negotiated. In light of the fact that conscientious shoppers often can obtain savings beyond the schedule discounts, these findings indicate that some federal agencies are substantially overpaying for routine supplies.

For example, an analysis of the Department of Interior's purchase card buys of ink cartridges found that most of the time the cardholder paid more than the government schedule price to which the vendors had already agreed. One vendor had agreed to a schedule price of $24.99 for a particular ink cartridge, yet of 791 separate purchases of this model,only two were at or below that price. Some purchasers paid $34.99 or about 40 percent more for the same item.

In conducting its investigation, the GAO examined six agencies that together account for over 85 percent of all government purchase card transactions. If the six agencies reviewed in this study negotiated automatic discounts of just 10 percent from major vendors, and if agency employees had used those discounts, GAO estimates annual savings of $300 million. Over 10 years, that's $3 billion. Pretty soon, as Senator Dirksen once observed, we're talking real money.

The GAO also found that agencies should be making greater efforts to collect and analyze data on purchase card transactions. This would help agencies to eliminate waste and to expose fraud and abuse.

We must assure taxpayers that the federal government is shopping carefully, wisely and honestly. That's why the legislation we introduce today would require the Office of Management and Budget to direct agencies to better train cardholders and to more effectively scrutinize their purchases. This legislation would also instruct the General Services Administration to increase its efforts to secure discount agreements with vendors and to better provide agencies with the tools needed to control wasteful spending. According to testimony by GAO, this legislation would be a strong first step to eliminating $300 million in wasteful spending.

The American people have the right to expect the federal government to spend their tax dollars carefully and wisely. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and help eliminate wasteful purchase card spending.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Russ

Feingold, to introduce the ``Purchase Card Waste Elimination Act of 2004,'' to help eliminate wasteful spending through the use of governmental credit cards.

Today, the Governmental Affairs Committee explored the federal government's use of ``purchase cards,'' which are commercial charge cards used by federal agencies to buy billions of dollars worth of goods and services. The Committee heard the results of the General Accounting Office's investigation into waste, fraud, and abuse in the purchase card program.

The American people have the right to expect the federal government to spend their tax dollars carefully and wisely. While this is true at all times, it is never more so than today, when the government faces enormous fiscal pressures and a growing budget deficit.

The Governmental Affairs Committee has a mandate to help safeguard those tax dollars from waste, fraud, and abuse. To meet this mandate, the Committee has launched an initiative to root out government waste. Today's hearing was part of that effort and focused on wasteful, inefficient, and in some cases, fraudulent, transactions using purchase cards.

These cards were first introduced by the General Services Administration on a government-wide basis in 1989. Purchase cards are used primarily for making routine purchases such as office supplies, computers and copying machines. Purchase cards are similar to the personal credit cards we all carry, but with one important difference: The taxpayers pays the bill. Although the card is only supposed to be used for official purposes, the Federal Government is responsible for paying all charges by authorized cardholders, regardless of what was purchased.

While legitimate purchases are usually small, they nevertheless add up to big money. Purchase card use has soared during the past decade-- from less than $1 billion in fiscal year 1994 to more than $16 billion in fiscal year 2003. There are more than 134,000 purchase cardholders in the Defense Department alone.

This explosive growth presents both challenges and opportunities. While there are many benefits to the purchase card, such as expediting purchases, cutting red tape, and saving administrative costs, the General Accounting Office and the Inspectors General have reported that inadequate controls over purchase cards leave agencies vulnerable to waste, fraud, and abuse.

The Governmental Affairs Committee heard testimony describing how smarter use of purchase cards could save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. A GAO report that I requested along with Senator Feingold and Congresswoman Schakowsky, which is being released today, highlights several wasteful purchasing practices.

The GAO concludes that many agency cardholders fail to obtain readily available discounts on purchase card buys. In too many cases, purchase cardholders are buying goods and services from vendors that already agreed to provide government discounts through the GSA schedule, yet cardholders often lack the information and training needed to obtain the discounted prices. As a result, GAO found numerous instances of cardholders paying significantly more for items for which discounts already had been negotiated. In light of the fact that conscientious shoppers often can obtain savings beyond the schedule discounts, these findings indicate that some federal agencies are substantially overpaying for routine supplies.

For example, an analysis of the Department of Interior's purchase card buys of ink cartridges found that most of the time the cardholder paid more than the government schedule price to which the vendors had already agreed. One vendor had agreed to a schedule price of $24.99 for a particular ink cartridge, yet of 791 separate purchases of this model,only two were at or below that price. Some purchasers paid $34.99 or about 40 percent more for the same item.

In conducting its investigation, the GAO examined six agencies that together account for over 85 percent of all government purchase card transactions. If the six agencies reviewed in this study negotiated automatic discounts of just 10 percent from major vendors, and if agency employees had used those discounts, GAO estimates annual savings of $300 million. Over 10 years, that's $3 billion. Pretty soon, as Senator Dirksen once observed, we're talking real money.

The GAO also found that agencies should be making greater efforts to collect and analyze data on purchase card transactions. This would help agencies to eliminate waste and to expose fraud and abuse.

We must assure taxpayers that the federal government is shopping carefully, wisely and honestly. That's why the legislation we introduce today would require the Office of Management and Budget to direct agencies to better train cardholders and to more effectively scrutinize their purchases. This legislation would also instruct the General Services Administration to increase its efforts to secure discount agreements with vendors and to better provide agencies with the tools needed to control wasteful spending. According to testimony by GAO, this legislation would be a strong first step to eliminating $300 million in wasteful spending.

The American people have the right to expect the federal government to spend their tax dollars carefully and wisely. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and help eliminate wasteful purchase card spending.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Emergency Medical Services Support Act of 2004 with my colleague, Senator Russ Feingold. This legislation will strengthen Federal efforts to support community-based emergency medical services across America.

A comprehensive, coordinated emergency medical services system is essential to assure quality care and prompt response in incidents ranging from automobile crashes to catastrophic weather to terrorist attacks. The emergency medical services system is a crucial part of our health care safety net.

Unfortunately, for the past twenty years, Federal support for EMS has been both inefficient and uncoordinated. No fewer than seven Federal agencies are involved in various aspects of emergency medical services. Most, however, focus on only one segment of the EMS system and don't effectively coordinate with other agencies.

In 2001, at the request of Senator Feingold and myself, the General Accounting Office researched the status of this vital system. The GAO report, titled, ``Emergency Medical Services: Reported needs are Wide- Ranging with a Growing Focus on Lack of Data,'' exposed the need to increase coordination among Federal agencies as they address the needs of regional, State, or local emergency medical services systems.

This legislation would formally establish a Federal Interagency Committee on Emergency Medical Services (FICEMS), which is currently an ad-hoc committee with little formal direction. It would require the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security, to provide organizational and staff support.

This legislation would enhance coordination among the Federal agencies involved with the State, local, tribal and regional emergency medical services and 9-1-1 systems. It also would help Federal agencies coordinate their EMS-related activities and maximize the best use of established funding.

The President has recognized the need for this coordination. He included a similar proposal in his reauthorization proposal for the ``Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity act of 2003'' (SAFETEA) that was transmitted by Secretary Mineta to Congress on May 12, 2003. The Senate-passed highway bill also included a similar proposal.

The legislation we introduce today builds upon the Administration's proposal by creating a more effective structure and enhancing the role of local EMS providers into Federal EMS programs. While I support the provisions in the Senate-passed bill, they fail to create a mechanism for individuals at the state and local levels to provide input into how Federal EMS programs should be coordinated.

Local, State and Federal level emergency medical services systems are extremely diverse and involve numerous different agencies and organizations. To assure a viable, responsive emergency medical services system, Federal agencies need the input and advice of their non-Federal partners and from persons regulating or providing emergency medical services systems at the state and local level.

According to Tom Judge, the Executive Director of Lifeflight of Maine, an air ambulance provider, and Jay Bradshaw, the State of Maine's EMS Director, improved coordination can help strengthen support for a wide range of emergency medical services, from rural EMS providers, to communications between EMS systems, to improving coordination between local EMS providers and their Federal partners.

Another recent GAO report made it clear that the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services needs to better coordinate its reimbursement with the Department of Transportation's matching grants for equipment and vehicles. Many of Maine's rural communities, such as Rumford, are at risk of seeing their first ambulance service closures due to low- reimbursement rates. If DOT targeted assistance to the low reimbursement areas that are at risk of shutting down, we might be able to maintain service in these areas.

Decisions at the Federal Communications Commission regarding spectrum management could make most of the existing EMS and Fire radios obsolete over the next few years. In St. George, Maine, the volunteer Fire Rescue has 30 mobile and portable radios, 40 pagers, and a base station that could become obsolete. In making future decisions regarding spectrum management, the FCC must work with Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice to help communities purchase interoperable radios if their old ones become obsolete.

I am pleased to have the support of Maine EMS, LifeFlight of Maine, the American Ambulance Association, the National Association of EMS Directors, and others for this legislation.

We must ensure that Federal agencies coordinate their efforts to support the dedicated men and women who provide EMS services across our Nation. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting their efforts by cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Emergency Medical Services Support Act of 2004 with my colleague, Senator Russ Feingold. This legislation will strengthen Federal efforts to support community-based emergency medical services across America.

A comprehensive, coordinated emergency medical services system is essential to assure quality care and prompt response in incidents ranging from automobile crashes to catastrophic weather to terrorist attacks. The emergency medical services system is a crucial part of our health care safety net.

Unfortunately, for the past twenty years, Federal support for EMS has been both inefficient and uncoordinated. No fewer than seven Federal agencies are involved in various aspects of emergency medical services. Most, however, focus on only one segment of the EMS system and don't effectively coordinate with other agencies.

In 2001, at the request of Senator Feingold and myself, the General Accounting Office researched the status of this vital system. The GAO report, titled, ``Emergency Medical Services: Reported needs are Wide- Ranging with a Growing Focus on Lack of Data,'' exposed the need to increase coordination among Federal agencies as they address the needs of regional, State, or local emergency medical services systems.

This legislation would formally establish a Federal Interagency Committee on Emergency Medical Services (FICEMS), which is currently an ad-hoc committee with little formal direction. It would require the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security, to provide organizational and staff support.

This legislation would enhance coordination among the Federal agencies involved with the State, local, tribal and regional emergency medical services and 9-1-1 systems. It also would help Federal agencies coordinate their EMS-related activities and maximize the best use of established funding.

The President has recognized the need for this coordination. He included a similar proposal in his reauthorization proposal for the ``Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity act of 2003'' (SAFETEA) that was transmitted by Secretary Mineta to Congress on May 12, 2003. The Senate-passed highway bill also included a similar proposal.

The legislation we introduce today builds upon the Administration's proposal by creating a more effective structure and enhancing the role of local EMS providers into Federal EMS programs. While I support the provisions in the Senate-passed bill, they fail to create a mechanism for individuals at the state and local levels to provide input into how Federal EMS programs should be coordinated.

Local, State and Federal level emergency medical services systems are extremely diverse and involve numerous different agencies and organizations. To assure a viable, responsive emergency medical services system, Federal agencies need the input and advice of their non-Federal partners and from persons regulating or providing emergency medical services systems at the state and local level.

According to Tom Judge, the Executive Director of Lifeflight of Maine, an air ambulance provider, and Jay Bradshaw, the State of Maine's EMS Director, improved coordination can help strengthen support for a wide range of emergency medical services, from rural EMS providers, to communications between EMS systems, to improving coordination between local EMS providers and their Federal partners.

Another recent GAO report made it clear that the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services needs to better coordinate its reimbursement with the Department of Transportation's matching grants for equipment and vehicles. Many of Maine's rural communities, such as Rumford, are at risk of seeing their first ambulance service closures due to low- reimbursement rates. If DOT targeted assistance to the low reimbursement areas that are at risk of shutting down, we might be able to maintain service in these areas.

Decisions at the Federal Communications Commission regarding spectrum management could make most of the existing EMS and Fire radios obsolete over the next few years. In St. George, Maine, the volunteer Fire Rescue has 30 mobile and portable radios, 40 pagers, and a base station that could become obsolete. In making future decisions regarding spectrum management, the FCC must work with Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice to help communities purchase interoperable radios if their old ones become obsolete.

I am pleased to have the support of Maine EMS, LifeFlight of Maine, the American Ambulance Association, the National Association of EMS Directors, and others for this legislation.

We must ensure that Federal agencies coordinate their efforts to support the dedicated men and women who provide EMS services across our Nation. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting their efforts by cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to reflect on the life of Professor Norman A. LeBel, who passed away on December 21, 2003. Professor LeBel's life was dedicated to organic chemistry research where he was an outstanding example to his colleagues and an inspiration to his students.

Professor LeBel was born in Augusta, Maine on March 22, 1931, and received an A.B. degree in chemistry from Bowdoin College in 1952. Professor LeBel and his wife Connie, also from Maine, returned often to the States.

Professor LeBel obtained a Ph.D. in organic chemistry from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1957. He then moved to Detroit, MI, where he began a 40-year career at Wayne State University in the Department of Chemistry, during which time he directed the research of 32 Ph.D. students. Professor LeBel made numerous contributions to organic chemistry during his long career, the most notable being the development of the chemical transformation commonly called the LeBel Reaction. He retired in 1996, after serving Wayne State University as chairman of the chemistry department; as chief of staff for the office of the provost; and as interim dean of the College of Liberal Arts.

Professor LeBel served the American Chemical Society (ACS) in a number of roles, starting as chairman of the Awards Committee of the Detroit Section (1961-1962), then secretary-treasurer of the Division of Organic Chemistry (1965-1969). He was a division councilor for 20 years, starting in 1970, and served on the Committees on Publications, Nominations & Elections, and Divisional Activities. Professor LeBel was also general chairman of the international chemistry meeting known as Pacifichem 2000.

Among his many awards, Professor LeBel received the Wayne State University President's Award for Excellence in Teaching in 1981, the ACS Organic Chemistry Division's Paul G. Gassman Distinguished Service Award in 1996, and the ACS Santa Clara Valley Section's Shirley B. Radding Award in 2001.

In conclusion, I want to express my condolences to Professor LeBel's family and former students. His contributions to the field of organic chemistry are only equaled by his devotion to higher education.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business for not to exceed 12 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to reauthorize the Department of Homeland Security's Emergency Food and Shelter Program. This vital program enables communities nationwide to provide services to help individuals who are at risk of becoming homeless or going hungry due to an emergency or economic disaster. As a 1999 General Accounting Office report concluded, ``in most areas of the United States, the Emergency Food and Shelter Program is the only source of funding for the prevention of homelessness.''

I am pleased to have the support of Senator Lieberman, the ranking member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, which oversees this important program as well as the Department of Homeland Security generally. I commend Senator Lieberman for his work on this important issue, including his efforts in the 107th Congress to pass legislation very similar to the bill that we are introducing together today.

Since its creation 21 years ago, the Emergency Food and Shelter Program has provided a helping hand to local social service organizations that assist thousands of people in need of food and shelter. This program is effective because of the way it is structured. A national board, chaired by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, governs the program. The board itself is composed of representatives from organizations who work every day to look out for those who are less fortunate--representatives of the American Red Cross, Catholic Charities, United Jewish Communities, the National Council of the Churches, the Salvation Army, and the United Way.

This program is a model for an effective public-private partnership. The volunteer participation by these charitable organizations has kept administrative costs to less than 3 percent of the total program, making even more funds directly available for communities.

Funds are distributed by the national board to local boards according to a formula that takes into account unemployment and poverty statistics in each community. Once local boards in counties and municipalities across America receive the funding, they decide how to best address the needs of their residents. These local boards are key to this process. That is because they are composed of individuals and organizations who live and work in the communities they serve. Therefore, they can best decide how to meet the needs of those who are at risk of becoming homeless.

In recent years, communities in Maine have put the funding to good use. Communities in Cumberland and Franklin Counties, for example, have used most of these funds to supplement the efforts of local soup kitchens, Meals-on Wheels programs, and food pantries. The Wayside Soup Kitchen in Portland, ME, uses this funding to enhance their efforts to provide three separate food assistance programs to those in need.

Demonstrating the flexibility of this program, communities in northern Maine's Aroostook County used more than 30 percent of their 2003 funding to address emergency shelter and housing needs. This diversity in how communities spent these funds highlights the importance of letting local organizations decide how best to spend these resources, tailored to local needs.

The Emergency Food and Shelter Program helps individuals maintain their dignity during difficult times. It also prevents dependency by providing emergency services to individuals and families on a limited basis so they can remain self-sufficient.

Although Congress has continued to provide funding, the program's authorization expired in 1994. My bill, the Emergency Food and Shelter Act of 2004, seeks to again authorize this program and provide modest increases to reflect an increasing need.

I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation to help families across America who are at risk of losing their homes or going hungry because of circumstances beyond their control.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to reauthorize the Department of Homeland Security's Emergency Food and Shelter Program. This vital program enables communities nationwide to provide services to help individuals who are at risk of becoming homeless or going hungry due to an emergency or economic disaster. As a 1999 General Accounting Office report concluded, ``in most areas of the United States, the Emergency Food and Shelter Program is the only source of funding for the prevention of homelessness.''

I am pleased to have the support of Senator Lieberman, the ranking member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, which oversees this important program as well as the Department of Homeland Security generally. I commend Senator Lieberman for his work on this important issue, including his efforts in the 107th Congress to pass legislation very similar to the bill that we are introducing together today.

Since its creation 21 years ago, the Emergency Food and Shelter Program has provided a helping hand to local social service organizations that assist thousands of people in need of food and shelter. This program is effective because of the way it is structured. A national board, chaired by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, governs the program. The board itself is composed of representatives from organizations who work every day to look out for those who are less fortunate--representatives of the American Red Cross, Catholic Charities, United Jewish Communities, the National Council of the Churches, the Salvation Army, and the United Way.

This program is a model for an effective public-private partnership. The volunteer participation by these charitable organizations has kept administrative costs to less than 3 percent of the total program, making even more funds directly available for communities.

Funds are distributed by the national board to local boards according to a formula that takes into account unemployment and poverty statistics in each community. Once local boards in counties and municipalities across America receive the funding, they decide how to best address the needs of their residents. These local boards are key to this process. That is because they are composed of individuals and organizations who live and work in the communities they serve. Therefore, they can best decide how to meet the needs of those who are at risk of becoming homeless.

In recent years, communities in Maine have put the funding to good use. Communities in Cumberland and Franklin Counties, for example, have used most of these funds to supplement the efforts of local soup kitchens, Meals-on Wheels programs, and food pantries. The Wayside Soup Kitchen in Portland, ME, uses this funding to enhance their efforts to provide three separate food assistance programs to those in need.

Demonstrating the flexibility of this program, communities in northern Maine's Aroostook County used more than 30 percent of their 2003 funding to address emergency shelter and housing needs. This diversity in how communities spent these funds highlights the importance of letting local organizations decide how best to spend these resources, tailored to local needs.

The Emergency Food and Shelter Program helps individuals maintain their dignity during difficult times. It also prevents dependency by providing emergency services to individuals and families on a limited basis so they can remain self-sufficient.

Although Congress has continued to provide funding, the program's authorization expired in 1994. My bill, the Emergency Food and Shelter Act of 2004, seeks to again authorize this program and provide modest increases to reflect an increasing need.

I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation to help families across America who are at risk of losing their homes or going hungry because of circumstances beyond their control.

Mr. President, I rise to engage the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, Senator Graham, in a brief colloquy in order to make clear the intent behind the language in this bill. It is my understanding that there is nothing in the language of this bill that would, in any way, undermine the constitutional right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy, as expressed by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, and subsequent decisions.

I inquire of the Senator, who is one of the coauthors of the bill, if my understanding of the intent behind the language in the bill is correct.

Mr. President, it is also my understanding that at least 27 States have statutes that criminalize the killing of a fetus or an ``unborn

child.'' Am I correct in understanding that there is no legal precedent where a court has held that any of these State statues in any way undermine abortion rights of a woman, as expressed by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, and subsequent decisions?

Mr. President, I have one final inquiry I would like to make of my colleague. It is my understanding that the intent behind the language of this bill, H.R. 1997, is that this bill, like those State laws, not be construed to undermine the legal basis for abortion rights.

I thank my colleague for making the intent in this respect clear.