George Voinovich

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend and partner on the Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee, Senator Akaka, to address the critical management challenges facing the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, by introducing the Effective Homeland Security Management Act of 2009. I am proud to have Senators Carper and Levin also joining us in this important effort. This legislation would elevate the role and responsibilities of the current DHS Under Secretary for Management to a Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security for Management while preserving the authority of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of DHS as the first-and second-highest ranking DHS officials, respectively. Under the legislation, the individual appointed as the Deputy Secretary for Management would be the third highest ranking official at DHS and would serve a five year term in order to provide management continuity at DHS during times of leadership transition, such as following a presidential election like the one we just experienced. In the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Congress established the position of Under Secretary for Management to oversee the management and administration of DHS. However, management issues have persisted at DHS since its creation. In 2003, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, included implementing and transforming DHS on its high-risk list of programs susceptible to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. Similarly, in December 2005, the DHS Inspector General issued a report warning of major management challenges facing DHS. The report noted that although progress has been made since DHS' inception, ``[i]ntegrating its many separate components in a single, effective, efficient, and economical Department remains one of DHS's biggest challenges.'' Further, DHS's own Performance and Accountability Report, released in November 2006, states that it did not meet its strategic goal of ``providing comprehensive leadership and management to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Department,'' further underscoring the need for good management. In 2007, the Homeland Security Advisory Council Culture Task Force Report also detailed persisting organizational challenges within DHS and prescribed leadership and management models designed to empower employees, foster collaboration, and encourage innovation. The third recommendation of the report was that DHS establish an operational leadership position. The report noted, ``[a]lignment and integration of the DHS component organizations is vital to the success of the DHS mission. The [Culture Task Force] believes there is a compelling need for the creation of a Deputy Secretary for Operations, DSO, who would report to the Secretary and be responsible for the high level Department-wide measures aimed at generating and sustaining seamless operational integration and alignment of the component organizations.'' For these reasons, as part of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Congress clarified that the role and responsibilities of the Under Secretary for Management would include serving as the Chief Management Officer and principal advisor to the Secretary on the management of DHS. In that legislation Congress also provided that the Under Secretary for Management would be responsible for strategic management and annual performance planning, identification and tracking of performance measures, and the management integration and transformation process in support of DHS operations and programs. The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 also established managerial and leadership qualifications for the Under Secretary for Management and increased the pay scale for that Under Secretary. However, there continue to be significant management challenges associated with integrating DHS, whose creation represented the single largest restructuring of the Federal Government since the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947. In addition to its complex mission of securing the Nation from terrorism and natural hazards through protection, prevention, response, and recovery, leadership of DHS has the enormous task of unifying 200,000 employees from 22 disparate Federal agencies. This January, GAO again included implementing and transforming DHS on its high-risk list, noting that ``[a]lthough DHS has made progress in transforming into a fully functioning department, this transformation remains high risk because DHS has not yet developed a comprehensive plan to address the transformation, integration, management and mission challenges GAO identified since 2003. . . DHS has developed an Integrated Strategy for High Risk Management that outlines the department's process for, among other things, assessing risks and proposing initiatives to address challenges, but the strategy lacks details for the transformation of DHS and integration of its management functions. DHS has also developed corrective action plans to address management challenges that contain several of the key elements GAO has identified for a corrective action plan . . . However, the plans generally do not contain measures to gauge performance and progress, nor do they identify the resources needed to carry out the corrective actions identified.'' As former Chairman and now Ranking Member of the Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee, improving the management structure at DHS has been one of my top priorities. The Subcommittee's Chairman, Senator Akaka, and I have been committed to ensuring that DHS has the proper tools to make continual improvements in its operations. Because management challenges persist at DHS, I believe the existing Under Secretary for Management position at DHS's lacks sufficient authority to direct the type of sustained leadership and overarching management integration and transformation strategy that is needed department-wide, and Congress must elevate that Under Secretary's role. The legislation I offer today would do that and would provide the focused, high-level attention that will result in effective management reform. I believe this legislation is vital to DHS's success, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend and partner on the Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee, Senator Akaka, to address the critical management challenges facing the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, by introducing the Effective Homeland Security Management Act of 2009. I am proud to have Senators Carper and Levin also joining us in this important effort. This legislation would elevate the role and responsibilities of the current DHS Under Secretary for Management to a Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security for Management while preserving the authority of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of DHS as the first-and second-highest ranking DHS officials, respectively. Under the legislation, the individual appointed as the Deputy Secretary for Management would be the third highest ranking official at DHS and would serve a five year term in order to provide management continuity at DHS during times of leadership transition, such as following a presidential election like the one we just experienced. In the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Congress established the position of Under Secretary for Management to oversee the management and administration of DHS. However, management issues have persisted at DHS since its creation. In 2003, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, included implementing and transforming DHS on its high-risk list of programs susceptible to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. Similarly, in December 2005, the DHS Inspector General issued a report warning of major management challenges facing DHS. The report noted that although progress has been made since DHS' inception, ``[i]ntegrating its many separate components in a single, effective, efficient, and economical Department remains one of DHS's biggest challenges.'' Further, DHS's own Performance and Accountability Report, released in November 2006, states that it did not meet its strategic goal of ``providing comprehensive leadership and management to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Department,'' further underscoring the need for good management. In 2007, the Homeland Security Advisory Council Culture Task Force Report also detailed persisting organizational challenges within DHS and prescribed leadership and management models designed to empower employees, foster collaboration, and encourage innovation. The third recommendation of the report was that DHS establish an operational leadership position. The report noted, ``[a]lignment and integration of the DHS component organizations is vital to the success of the DHS mission. The [Culture Task Force] believes there is a compelling need for the creation of a Deputy Secretary for Operations, DSO, who would report to the Secretary and be responsible for the high level Department-wide measures aimed at generating and sustaining seamless operational integration and alignment of the component organizations.'' For these reasons, as part of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Congress clarified that the role and responsibilities of the Under Secretary for Management would include serving as the Chief Management Officer and principal advisor to the Secretary on the management of DHS. In that legislation Congress also provided that the Under Secretary for Management would be responsible for strategic management and annual performance planning, identification and tracking of performance measures, and the management integration and transformation process in support of DHS operations and programs. The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 also established managerial and leadership qualifications for the Under Secretary for Management and increased the pay scale for that Under Secretary. However, there continue to be significant management challenges associated with integrating DHS, whose creation represented the single largest restructuring of the Federal Government since the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947. In addition to its complex mission of securing the Nation from terrorism and natural hazards through protection, prevention, response, and recovery, leadership of DHS has the enormous task of unifying 200,000 employees from 22 disparate Federal agencies. This January, GAO again included implementing and transforming DHS on its high-risk list, noting that ``[a]lthough DHS has made progress in transforming into a fully functioning department, this transformation remains high risk because DHS has not yet developed a comprehensive plan to address the transformation, integration, management and mission challenges GAO identified since 2003. . . DHS has developed an Integrated Strategy for High Risk Management that outlines the department's process for, among other things, assessing risks and proposing initiatives to address challenges, but the strategy lacks details for the transformation of DHS and integration of its management functions. DHS has also developed corrective action plans to address management challenges that contain several of the key elements GAO has identified for a corrective action plan . . . However, the plans generally do not contain measures to gauge performance and progress, nor do they identify the resources needed to carry out the corrective actions identified.'' As former Chairman and now Ranking Member of the Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee, improving the management structure at DHS has been one of my top priorities. The Subcommittee's Chairman, Senator Akaka, and I have been committed to ensuring that DHS has the proper tools to make continual improvements in its operations. Because management challenges persist at DHS, I believe the existing Under Secretary for Management position at DHS's lacks sufficient authority to direct the type of sustained leadership and overarching management integration and transformation strategy that is needed department-wide, and Congress must elevate that Under Secretary's role. The legislation I offer today would do that and would provide the focused, high-level attention that will result in effective management reform. I believe this legislation is vital to DHS's success, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Akaka to introduce the Federal Executive Board Authorization Act of 2009 in order to provide for the establishment, administration and funding of Federal Executive Boards, FEBs. As you may know, President Kennedy issued a ``Memorandum on the Need for Greater Coordination of Regional and Field Activities of the Government'' in 1961 that noted that more than 90 percent of Federal employees work outside of Washington, DC. President Kennedy wanted to strengthen the coordination of their activities, so he directed ``the establishment of a Board of Federal Executives'' to ``consider management matters and interdepartmental cooperation and establish liaison with State and local government officials in their regions.'' That Memorandum led to the creation of ten FEBs to ``increase the effectiveness and economy of Federal agencies.'' These FEBs proved their worth, because the number of FEBs across the Nation has increased to 28 FEBs total in Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Buffalo, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dallas-Fort Worth, Denver, Detroit, Honolulu, Houston, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Minnesota, Newark, New Mexico, New Orleans, New York City, Oklahoma, Oregon, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, San Antonio, San Francisco, Seattle, and South Florida. Those FEBs serve an important role in coordinating Federal activities. For example, earlier this year a proactive FEB executive director sent an e-mail to her FEB colleagues in an effort to coordinate stimulus spending. However, a 2007 Government Accountability Office, GAO, report, ``Additional Steps Needed to Take Advantage of Federal Executive Boards' Ability to Contribute to Emergency Operations,'' noted that FEBs have no congressional charter and rely on voluntary contributions from their member agencies for funding. Because such voluntary contributions result in financial uncertainty on the part of FEBs, GAO recommended that the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, develop a proposal to address the uncertainty of funding sources for FEBs. Based on that recommendation, the Federal Executive Board Authorization Act of 2009 provides for the establishment, administration and funding of FEBs. The legislation is based in large part on Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, where OPM has set forth regulations relating to the authority, location, and membership of FEBs. Similar to those provisions, this bill calls on the Director of OPM to determine where to establish FEBs and requires the Director to consult with agencies in making that determination. The bill also provides that FEBs shall consist of senior officials from appropriate agencies in those areas. Also similar to provisions in the Code of Federal Regulations, the bill authorizes the Director of OPM to establish staffing policies for FEBs, designate an agency to staff each FEB, establish communications policies, performance standards and accountability initiatives for FEBs, and administer FEB funding. The Federal Executive Board Authorization Act of 2009 also requires each FEB to adopt bylaws or other rules for its internal governance, elect a chairman from among its members, provide a forum for the exchange of information, and develop coordinated approaches to the development and operation of programs that have common characteristics. Under the bill, FEBs would be required to communicate management initiatives and other concerns from Washington, DC to the field and develop relationships with State and local governments and private sector organizations to help coordinate emergency management and homeland security matters. To address GAO's concern about the uncertainty of FEB funding, the legislation establishes a fund for FEB operations which would be administered by OPM. The fund would consist of contributions from OPM for administrative and oversight activities as well as contributions from each agency participating in FEBs for staffing and operations. Each agency's contribution would be determined by a formula established by the Director of OPM in consultation with agencies and the Office of Management and Budget, and that formula must take into account each agency's number of employees in areas served by FEBs. President Kennedy showed great foresight when he called for the coordination of Federal agencies' activities in 1961, and FEBs have done a good job since then in coordinating their work. These FEBs need a congressional charter and a set source of funding, so I hope the Senate will act quickly to pass this legislation, which OPM and GAO were consulted in drafting. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Akaka to introduce the Federal Executive Board Authorization Act of 2009 in order to provide for the establishment, administration and funding of Federal Executive Boards, FEBs. As you may know, President Kennedy issued a ``Memorandum on the Need for Greater Coordination of Regional and Field Activities of the Government'' in 1961 that noted that more than 90 percent of Federal employees work outside of Washington, DC. President Kennedy wanted to strengthen the coordination of their activities, so he directed ``the establishment of a Board of Federal Executives'' to ``consider management matters and interdepartmental cooperation and establish liaison with State and local government officials in their regions.'' That Memorandum led to the creation of ten FEBs to ``increase the effectiveness and economy of Federal agencies.'' These FEBs proved their worth, because the number of FEBs across the Nation has increased to 28 FEBs total in Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Buffalo, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dallas-Fort Worth, Denver, Detroit, Honolulu, Houston, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Minnesota, Newark, New Mexico, New Orleans, New York City, Oklahoma, Oregon, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, San Antonio, San Francisco, Seattle, and South Florida. Those FEBs serve an important role in coordinating Federal activities. For example, earlier this year a proactive FEB executive director sent an e-mail to her FEB colleagues in an effort to coordinate stimulus spending. However, a 2007 Government Accountability Office, GAO, report, ``Additional Steps Needed to Take Advantage of Federal Executive Boards' Ability to Contribute to Emergency Operations,'' noted that FEBs have no congressional charter and rely on voluntary contributions from their member agencies for funding. Because such voluntary contributions result in financial uncertainty on the part of FEBs, GAO recommended that the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, develop a proposal to address the uncertainty of funding sources for FEBs. Based on that recommendation, the Federal Executive Board Authorization Act of 2009 provides for the establishment, administration and funding of FEBs. The legislation is based in large part on Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, where OPM has set forth regulations relating to the authority, location, and membership of FEBs. Similar to those provisions, this bill calls on the Director of OPM to determine where to establish FEBs and requires the Director to consult with agencies in making that determination. The bill also provides that FEBs shall consist of senior officials from appropriate agencies in those areas. Also similar to provisions in the Code of Federal Regulations, the bill authorizes the Director of OPM to establish staffing policies for FEBs, designate an agency to staff each FEB, establish communications policies, performance standards and accountability initiatives for FEBs, and administer FEB funding. The Federal Executive Board Authorization Act of 2009 also requires each FEB to adopt bylaws or other rules for its internal governance, elect a chairman from among its members, provide a forum for the exchange of information, and develop coordinated approaches to the development and operation of programs that have common characteristics. Under the bill, FEBs would be required to communicate management initiatives and other concerns from Washington, DC to the field and develop relationships with State and local governments and private sector organizations to help coordinate emergency management and homeland security matters. To address GAO's concern about the uncertainty of FEB funding, the legislation establishes a fund for FEB operations which would be administered by OPM. The fund would consist of contributions from OPM for administrative and oversight activities as well as contributions from each agency participating in FEBs for staffing and operations. Each agency's contribution would be determined by a formula established by the Director of OPM in consultation with agencies and the Office of Management and Budget, and that formula must take into account each agency's number of employees in areas served by FEBs. President Kennedy showed great foresight when he called for the coordination of Federal agencies' activities in 1961, and FEBs have done a good job since then in coordinating their work. These FEBs need a congressional charter and a set source of funding, so I hope the Senate will act quickly to pass this legislation, which OPM and GAO were consulted in drafting. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

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

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I rise to support Senator Gregg's amendment to create a deficit-neutral reserve fund for the creation of a task force to address tax entitlement reform and reduce our Nation's long-term fiscal gap. The amendment would fund a vehicle to examine our tax and entitlement systems and present long-term solutions to place the Senate on a fiscally sustainable course and ensure the solvency of our entitlement programs for future generations. Senator Lieberman and I have introduced a very similar amendment, and I understand that Senator Lieberman is going to be willing to support this amendment. I am not going to go into detail. The chairman and the ranking member of the Budget Committee have laid out in very frightening terms where we are in terms of our deficits and our national debt. Frankly, I have been talking about this since I have come to the Senate in 1999. I said we have to do something about this growing debt that is blossoming. Now we are talking about the possibility of it doubling in the next 5 years. So we have to get at entitlements and tax reform. The thing that is encouraging to me is, there is legislation I am introducing in the Senate that has been introduced in the House. It is called the SAFE Commission. It is sponsored by 52 House Members, 26 Republicans, 26 Democrats. It has the support of the Business Roundtable, the Heritage Foundation, the Concord Coalition, the Peterson Foundation. They have all voiced support. What we are trying to do with this amendment to the budget is to have an acknowledgement of the fact that money is set aside to fund a commission that will be set up. I am hoping my colleagues don't get involved in one of these, ``Well, I don't like the language of this,'' because we haven't gotten to the language yet. I am saying to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and on my side that we have to negotiate the kind of vehicle we are going to use. Two years ago, the vehicle we had had more Republicans than Democrats because we controlled the Presidency, the House, and the Senate. The new legislation coming out, that I will support, will have more Democrats because the Democrats have the Presidency and the Senate and the House. It does provide that in order to get something, it be fast-tracked. They spend, say, 6 months looking at it and come up with tax and entitlement reform. They send it on an expedited procedure to the House and Senate. Before they do that, they have to have 75 percent of the people supporting it, and you have to have at least two Republicans. That does bring in minority participation. What I am afraid of is that I have heard Senator Conrad say: I don't like the idea that it has to be even-steven. The main thing is, I would like the Senate to go on record that we will create a fund that will fund a commission that will finally get to the entitlement problem we have had now for a long time. The bottom line is, we have this avalanche that has hit us. We are in trouble. But at the same time, underlying that, we have the problem of this long-term national debt. Everybody is aware of the challenge. Recently, Premier Wen pointed out that he is concerned about what we are doing. Europe is concerned about what we are doing. Canada is worried about it. They are saying: You folks haven't been willing to take on your entitlement and tax reform. What bothers me is that if we don't deal with this and our neighbors start to get leery of what we are doing, we could see interest rates skyrocket because everybody acknowledges that as long as we are getting money from China, Japan, and the OPEC nations, we will be able to borrow money at a cheap rate. But if they lose confidence that we have not been willing to stand and do what we are supposed to, that could change dramatically. I urge my colleagues to look at this not as we are drafting the legislation. What we are saying is, we acknowledge there is a problem that needs to be dealt with. Peter Orszag understands there is a problem. He was with this effort 2 years ago. Now he has been ``I am not sure how we want to do this.'' All I would like to do is to come in with a bipartisan commission that says: We are willing to tackle this. Give it to the administration and say: If you don't like it, what is better than what we have? We have to get going on this. We cannot keep putting it under the rug. We need to deal with it. I have a lot of other words to speak today, but I hope I get the message across to everyone that all we are basically doing is setting aside money to pay for a commission, the complexity of which and the rules of which are something we will have to try and come up with a compromise on. We have an amendment, Senator Lieberman and I, that is less restrictive than Senator Gregg's. Apparently, that language bothers Senator Conrad. All I know is, I would like us to go on record that we know there is a problem. We know we can't get it done in the regular order doing tax reform and entitlement reform. We need a commission to take it on as we did with Social Security. They took it on. We got together, came back with a recommendation, and got it done. I urge colleagues to look at the big picture and not get tied in with this is a Republican thing or a Democratic thing. It is a problem for America. It is a Republican and Democratic problem. It is America's problem. We have to do something about it. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend and partner in Federal workforce issues, Senator Daniel K. Akaka, to introduce the Federal Hiring Process Improvement Act of 2009. When we discuss hiring, we discuss a process that affects every individual employed by the government today. Making the right hiring decisions affects the current workforce's ability to continue doing their jobs. It also is the same process these employees must go through when pursuing new opportunities within the Government, including promotions. Additionally, we need to convey to the thousands of men and women at all stages of their career that the Federal Government is more than just an employer, but a place where Americans can utilize and grow their skills in service to their Nation. As the old cliche goes, ``You never get a second chance to make a first impression.'' We need to convey to these Americans that the Federal Government wants them. If we do not, someone else will. The Baby Boomers are retiring at a time when needs and demands on Government continue to grow. The Office of Personnel Management has identified certain areas of critical hiring importance: air traffic controllers, border patrol officers, engineers, food inspectors, human resources specialists, nurses, visa examiners, patent examiners, scientists, veterinarians, accountants, and acquisition professionals. In addition, the Partnership for Public Service has estimated the Federal Government will lose approximately 530,000 employees over the next 5 years, including many mission critical jobs. We know the challenges confronting the Federal Government. Now we must make sure our processes result in hiring the right person, at the right place, at the right time, to get the job done. Over and over, we hear of the problems in the Federal hiring process. It takes too long; it is too burdensome, and so forth. The quality of technology has improved, but our processes have not. This does nothing to dispel any preconceived notions that the Federal Government is nothing but a bureaucratic system. Accordingly, Senator Akaka and I are introducing legislation to streamline the hiring process. The Federal Hiring Process Improvement Act brings together commonsense solutions to a government-wide management challenge. Our legislation would require job announcements to be written in plain language; guarantee agencies provide feedback to applicants at a minimum of four key points during the process; and ensure individual hiring decisions are made within 80 days or less. In addition, our legislation would require agencies to improve their workforce planning and make hiring projections available to the public. Too often, we have heard that processes exist for what I believe to be unacceptable reasons, such as, that is how it always has been done. But to be an employer of choice, the government must understand what the competition is doing and adapt to the changing environment. This legislation is an important first step in meeting that goal.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend and partner in Federal workforce issues, Senator Daniel K. Akaka, to introduce the Federal Hiring Process Improvement Act of 2009. When we discuss hiring, we discuss a process that affects every individual employed by the government today. Making the right hiring decisions affects the current workforce's ability to continue doing their jobs. It also is the same process these employees must go through when pursuing new opportunities within the Government, including promotions. Additionally, we need to convey to the thousands of men and women at all stages of their career that the Federal Government is more than just an employer, but a place where Americans can utilize and grow their skills in service to their Nation. As the old cliche goes, ``You never get a second chance to make a first impression.'' We need to convey to these Americans that the Federal Government wants them. If we do not, someone else will. The Baby Boomers are retiring at a time when needs and demands on Government continue to grow. The Office of Personnel Management has identified certain areas of critical hiring importance: air traffic controllers, border patrol officers, engineers, food inspectors, human resources specialists, nurses, visa examiners, patent examiners, scientists, veterinarians, accountants, and acquisition professionals. In addition, the Partnership for Public Service has estimated the Federal Government will lose approximately 530,000 employees over the next 5 years, including many mission critical jobs. We know the challenges confronting the Federal Government. Now we must make sure our processes result in hiring the right person, at the right place, at the right time, to get the job done. Over and over, we hear of the problems in the Federal hiring process. It takes too long; it is too burdensome, and so forth. The quality of technology has improved, but our processes have not. This does nothing to dispel any preconceived notions that the Federal Government is nothing but a bureaucratic system. Accordingly, Senator Akaka and I are introducing legislation to streamline the hiring process. The Federal Hiring Process Improvement Act brings together commonsense solutions to a government-wide management challenge. Our legislation would require job announcements to be written in plain language; guarantee agencies provide feedback to applicants at a minimum of four key points during the process; and ensure individual hiring decisions are made within 80 days or less. In addition, our legislation would require agencies to improve their workforce planning and make hiring projections available to the public. Too often, we have heard that processes exist for what I believe to be unacceptable reasons, such as, that is how it always has been done. But to be an employer of choice, the government must understand what the competition is doing and adapt to the changing environment. This legislation is an important first step in meeting that goal.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank the Senator from New Mexico. Since my election to the Senate, I have made improving the Federal workforce a priority. I know from 18 years of experience as both a mayor and a Governor that you simply cannot have effective government without the right people to get the job done. The Oversight of Government Management and the Federal Workforce Subcommittee, which I chaired and of which I am now the ranking member, has held dozens of hearings on issues related to attracting and retaining talented people in government service. Roughly one-third of government's top scientists, engineers, physicians, mathematicians, economists, and other highly specialized professionals will be leaving government service in the next 5 years. The labor needs of government are becoming more professional and specialized than ever before. Unfortunately, the same is true of the overall U.S. labor market and an insufficient number of citizens are pursuing study in high need areas. We need programs like Roosevelt Scholars to help address this shortage of skilled talent. I am pleased to join the Senator as a cosponsor of the Roosevelt Scholars proposal so more of our talented young people who answer the call to service will have government service as an option.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend and partner on human capital issues, Senator Daniel K. Akaka, in introducing the Telework Enhancement Act of 2009. One of my top priorities as a Senator has been to transform the culture of the Federal workforce, something I conscientiously undertook with the city and State workforces as Mayor of Cleveland and Governor of Ohio. I know that investing in our workforce pays off. We have an aging workforce that has difficulty attracting young people to public service careers. The image of the public sector can be bureaucratic--an impression that too often discourages young, creative college graduates. We must be able to recruit the best candidates, provide training and professional development opportunities, and reward good performance. To compete as an employer of choice in the fast-paced 21st century knowledge economy and improve our competitiveness, we need to create an environment that supports those with the desire and commitment to serve. Just as other aspects of their lives have been informed by technology, we need to acknowledge that this next generation will have different expectations of what it means to go to work. The growth of Web 2.0 hand held devices makes it far more likely that working anytime from most anywhere will be the new norm. As I stated in my 2000 report to the President on the Crisis in Human Capital, Federal agencies should enable as many employees as possible to telecommute or participate in other types of flexible workplace programs. Not only would this make Federal service more attractive to many employees, especially parents of young children, it has the potential to reduce traffic congestion and pollution in large metropolitan areas. According to the Telework Exchange, the average round trip commute is 50 miles, and commuters spend an average of 264 hours per year commuting. Looking at the Federal Government, if all Federal employees who are eligible to telework full time were to do so, the Federal workforce could realize $13.9 billion savings in commuting costs annually and eliminate 21.5 billion pounds of pollutants out of the environment each year. Though more difficult to quantify, but equally important, is the improved work/life balance which has a positive effect on employee morale. An additional reason that was made plain on September 11, 2001, is the need for a workforce that can be dispersed and decentralized so that essential functions can continue during an emergency. The legislation we introduce today helps ensure that executive agencies better integrate telework into their human capital planning, establishes a level playing field for employees who voluntarily elect to telework, and improves program accountability. According to the most recent OPM survey on Federal human capital, only 22 percent of employees when asked about work/life and family friendly benefits said that they were satisfied with current telework/ telecommuting opportunities. Another 37 percent responded that they had no basis to judge. Even though teleworking has increased since OPM began reporting in 2001, participation is far short of what it should be and what the Federal workforce needs if our government is to remain an employer of choice. While most Federal agencies have made progress, the overall number of teleworkers decreased by approximately 15,000 employees between 2006 and 2007, according to the Office of Personnel Management. In addition, less than 8 percent of eligible Federal employees telework regularly. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Akaka and me in ensuring the Federal Government better integrates telework into its operational plans.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend and partner on human capital issues, Senator Daniel K. Akaka, in introducing the Telework Enhancement Act of 2009. One of my top priorities as a Senator has been to transform the culture of the Federal workforce, something I conscientiously undertook with the city and State workforces as Mayor of Cleveland and Governor of Ohio. I know that investing in our workforce pays off. We have an aging workforce that has difficulty attracting young people to public service careers. The image of the public sector can be bureaucratic--an impression that too often discourages young, creative college graduates. We must be able to recruit the best candidates, provide training and professional development opportunities, and reward good performance. To compete as an employer of choice in the fast-paced 21st century knowledge economy and improve our competitiveness, we need to create an environment that supports those with the desire and commitment to serve. Just as other aspects of their lives have been informed by technology, we need to acknowledge that this next generation will have different expectations of what it means to go to work. The growth of Web 2.0 hand held devices makes it far more likely that working anytime from most anywhere will be the new norm. As I stated in my 2000 report to the President on the Crisis in Human Capital, Federal agencies should enable as many employees as possible to telecommute or participate in other types of flexible workplace programs. Not only would this make Federal service more attractive to many employees, especially parents of young children, it has the potential to reduce traffic congestion and pollution in large metropolitan areas. According to the Telework Exchange, the average round trip commute is 50 miles, and commuters spend an average of 264 hours per year commuting. Looking at the Federal Government, if all Federal employees who are eligible to telework full time were to do so, the Federal workforce could realize $13.9 billion savings in commuting costs annually and eliminate 21.5 billion pounds of pollutants out of the environment each year. Though more difficult to quantify, but equally important, is the improved work/life balance which has a positive effect on employee morale. An additional reason that was made plain on September 11, 2001, is the need for a workforce that can be dispersed and decentralized so that essential functions can continue during an emergency. The legislation we introduce today helps ensure that executive agencies better integrate telework into their human capital planning, establishes a level playing field for employees who voluntarily elect to telework, and improves program accountability. According to the most recent OPM survey on Federal human capital, only 22 percent of employees when asked about work/life and family friendly benefits said that they were satisfied with current telework/ telecommuting opportunities. Another 37 percent responded that they had no basis to judge. Even though teleworking has increased since OPM began reporting in 2001, participation is far short of what it should be and what the Federal workforce needs if our government is to remain an employer of choice. While most Federal agencies have made progress, the overall number of teleworkers decreased by approximately 15,000 employees between 2006 and 2007, according to the Office of Personnel Management. In addition, less than 8 percent of eligible Federal employees telework regularly. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Akaka and me in ensuring the Federal Government better integrates telework into its operational plans.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 30 minutes.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to call attention to what I refer to as the irresponsible and reckless fiscal path we find ourselves on as a nation and to urge my colleagues to act now to take the first step toward meaningful, comprehensive tax and entitlement reform. On Tuesday night, we gathered here to cast our votes on the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009. I could not vote for this bill because it ignores the fiscal realities we find ourselves in today. This omnibus bill, which includes $408 billion in nonemergency spending, is 8 percent larger than it should be. Some agencies in the bill are set to get a 40-percent increase in funding. From my experience as a former Governor of Ohio and the mayor of the city of Cleveland, I do not believe those agencies have the capacity to spend that kind of money. This adds to the $787 billion stimulus bill that was passed last month. It increases the already staggering $10.9 trillion national debt and continues to expand the size of the Government at what has become an alarming rate. As you can see from this chart, Federal spending as a percentage of GDP averaged just under 20 percent under President Bush. This year, under President Obama, it will reach almost 28 percent, and his administration projects that it will average out to over 23 percent across two terms. In other words, I came to the Senate in 1999, and this is what we were spending, totally, on Medicare, Medicaid, all the other appropriations. Then, as you see, it started to go up. We have to be honest, that is where we started to borrow money because we were not taking in enough money to pay for it, so we started to have deficits. Then, under Bush, it started to go up some more. Here we are in 2009. You can see that the size of the Government is up to 27.7 percent. That is what we are spending on everything. We have gone from 8 percent to 27.7 percent. That is going to start to slide down. In 2012, the President says to us, don't worry, we are going to reduce the deficit spending by 50 percent. Look at this, it continues to spend out at this point, and by 2016--I have not shown it on the chart, but it just keeps going. We just cannot keep going that way. That is over half a trillion dollars a year we are borrowing to run the Government. To complete what I call the triple whammy to our national debt, the administration adds to the stimulus and omnibus a new 10-year budget where the lowest deficit for a single year is larger than any annual deficit from the end of World War II. In fact, President Obama's smallest deficit is larger than President Bush's largest deficit. And that is true despite proposing the largest tax increase in American history, including a new energy tax that will expose the false claim that we will not raise taxes on the middle class. This $646 billion tax increases will affect rich, poor and middle class alike. Yet future generations will still be burdened with higher debt. So we have gone from--and I am not proud of some Republican years, what we did. As I used to say, the Democrats tax and spend; the Republicans spent and borrowed. Now we have gone to spend, borrow, and tax. In spite of all of that, we are going to have these gigantic deficits as far as we can see in this country. Simply put, our spending is out of control. We are spending and funding more money at a time when we should be finding ways to work harder and smarter and do more with less. I know a little bit about this, because I took over Cleveland, the first city to go into default in the depression of 1979. We were in deep trouble. I took over the State of Ohio. We were $1.5 billion in debt at that time. We had to cut the budget four times, and ultimately had to increase taxes in the margin. I know what this is about. But nobody is talking about ``working harder and smarter'' or ``doing more with less.'' If you look at the stimulus, we spent $787 billion, and now some congressional leaders are talking about putting together a second package. I cannot believe it. We cannot continue down this path. It is our responsibility to make budgeting decisions based on our Nation's fiscal situation and to take into consideration the impact it is having on others but, more importantly, on our children and grandchildren. Over the past year, we have been hit by an economic avalanche that started in housing, quickly spread to the financial and credit markets, then continued onward to every corner of the economy and across the world. We have taken steps over the past months to dig out of the avalanche. But we have not reinforced our tax and entitlement system's crumbling foundation. In other words,--I have been talking about this for 8 years--we need to have tax reform and entitlement reform. Now all of this other stuff has hit us, but the fact of the matter is, that is still there. We need tax reform. We need entitlement reform. And that is why, despite the enormity of the legislation passed over the past month, there is still a sense of great anxiety on Main Street and my street. I still live in the house that Janet and I bought in 1972. I am with real people every day. They are very concerned about the future. They get it. The stimulus and omnibus has caused everyone who paid attention to say: My God, we have to do something to get back on firm fiscal footing. They know that unless we fix our tax and entitlement system we might as well be flying a kamikaze plane. When I arrived in the Senate in 1999, gross Federal debt stood at $5.6 trillion or 16 percent of GDP. The Obama administration recently projected the national debt to more than double, to $12.7 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2009. That would amount to a 126-percent increase compared with only a 56-percent increases in the gross domestic product during the same 10-year period. From 2008 to 2009 alone, the Federal debt would increase 27 percent, boosting the country's debt-to-income ratio or national debt as a percentage of our gross domestic product from 74 percent last year to 89 percent this year. The Pacman. Here it was in 1999. Federal debt. And it is up to 70. We are now up to 89 percent. I think there are still some people who understand Pacman. When I was Governor of Ohio, I used to say that Medicaid--I am sure the Presiding Officer understands that Medicaid is the Pacman that kept eating up the budgets in your State. Under the Obama budget, though, at 2017, for the first time since 1947 when we were paying down our World War II debt, the national debt will be larger than the size of the entire American economy. At that point, we will be too fat and out of shape to escape from our creditors around the world. That is what it is going to look like. In 2017, it is more than 100 percent of our gross domestic product. Think of that. Today, if we are candid with the American people, when you consider the TARP, the stimulus package, and the money we continuously borrow from the Social Security trust fund, we are facing a projected budget deficit of $1.9 trillion, which is more than four times the reported 2008 deficit of $455 billion as a share of the economy. The 2009 deficit will become the largest recorded deficit since World War II. Last June when I spoke here on the floor of this fiscal crisis, I pointed out that our national debt was $9.4 trillion, and the per capita debt, each American's share of the national debt was $31,000, up from $20,000 in 1999. This year, that figure will reach $41,000. Let's put that into perspective. In 2009, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median income for an Ohio family in 2007 for one earner was $40,000. That means each person's share of the national debt is more than many hard-working Ohioans make in an entire year. Alarmingly, these figures did not even count our accumulated long- term financial obligations: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, which grew $2.5 trillion last year as a result of the increases in the costs of Medicare and Social Security benefits. The baby boomers are here. They are coming on. If we include those numbers, taxpayers are on the hook for a record $57 trillion in Federal liabilities to cover the lifetime benefits of everyone eligible for Medicare, Social Security, and other Government programs. That is nearly $500,000 per household. Now, it does not take an economist to realize that of course we cannot keep going. As our former Comptroller General and head of the Government Accountability Office said, we are facing a fiscal timebomb. We must come to terms with the fact that the U.S. Government is the worst credit card abuser in the world, and it is time that we came to terms with the fiscal realities of 2009. We cannot continue to heap debt on the backs of our children and grandchildren without a second thought. Lip service from Congress and the administration is not going to get the job done. Recently, the Office of Management and Budget Director, Peter Orszag, spoke to a group of bipartisan Senators who have breakfast regularly to talk about some of the problems. He pointed out that as we are confronted with the economic tsunami hitting our country, we are lucky our interest rates are very low, because many investors in America and around the world are parking their money in Treasury bills. Mr. Orszag continued on to say, we cannot expect that rate of borrowing to last, and it is imperative we take advantage of this phenomena now before foreign markets and our people demand more interest for their investment in the U.S. debt. I could not agree more. We cannot rely on luck and foreign investors. When I met with Larry Summers, Martin Feldstein, and Larry Lindsay, they say our current fiscal path is only sustainable--listen to this-- as long as the Japanese, the Chinese, and the OPEC and others have confidence that we are going to pay back our debt. And, boy, are they watching whether we are going to do anything about tax reform and entitlement reform. Now, this has serious implications. Foreign creditors have provided more than 70 percent of the funds that the United States has borrowed since 2001--70 percent. Today 50 percent, 51 percent of the privately owned national debt is held by foreigners. That is up from 37 percent just 6 years ago. If these foreign investors lose confidence and pull out of U.S. Treasurys, Katey bar the door. Borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from China and OPEC nations not only puts our economy but our national security at risk. We have to make sure other countries do not control our debt. One of the things I pointed out--and the Presiding Officer understands this--is that we have to become more oil independent. We have a situation today where somebody else controls the supply, the cost, and they are buying our debt. If I control the supply and the cost and then I am paying for your debt, I put you out of business. That is just a fact of life. We have to wake up to the fact that we cannot rely on these other countries to take care of this debt. We cannot continue to live in the United States of denial. In 2006, I sent a letter to President Bush urging him to take on comprehensive tax and entitlement reform. I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Sadly, no action was taken. We missed a gigantic opportunity to make meaningful reform while times were relatively good. We are more or less lucking out now, but we cannot count on that luck to last forever. We have to tackle tax and entitlement reform to maintain credibility, to turn around our economy, and to regain our global respectability--not a year from now, not 2 years from now, but now, now, now. Our Tax Code, for example, is imploding from the hundreds of economic and social policies Congress pursues through tax incentives and dozens of temporary tax provisions. It is a nightmare. Just ask the millions of Americans right now who are filing their tax returns. I have said this on the floor before: When we got our tax return back last year, my wife and I looked at it. My wife said: Do you understand it? I said: No, I don't understand it. I said: Why don't we call our accountant; maybe he will explain it. She said: Don't you dare. He will charge us $500. It is out of control. For anybody who understands what is going on, it is a nightmare. Tinkering with the Tax Code won't work. The argument I made to President Bush several times was that we know the reduction in marginal rates is going to evaporate. We know the capital gains reduction is going to evaporate in 2010. We know the reduction in taxes on dividends is going to evaporate in 2010. Why don't we take this opportunity to look at tax reform and look at those things that are going to encourage people to save and keep the economy going? Frankly, those three things might be wonderful in that regard. But you can't have it unless you make it up with some other taxes that are the least hurtful to savings and the economy. Since the last major tax reform in 1986, we have added over 15,000 new provisions in the Internal Revenue Code. Last year alone, we passed 500 changes in the Tax Code. It is no wonder why only 13 percent of Americans file their taxes without the help of either a tax preparer or computer software. Clearly, we have waited too long to act. This is not just a matter of saving taxpayers' time and effort, it is also about saving real money. The Tax Foundation calculates conservatively that we all spend about $265 billion a year to keep track of our records and pay people to pay our taxes. If we could streamline it and make it simple and understandable, if we could only cut that in half, that would be a gigantic tax reduction for the American people and not cost us one dime. We must enact fundamental tax reform to help make the Tax Code simpler, fairer, transparent, and economically efficient. Thankfully, there have been some encouraging signs of new developments. Earlier this month, I attended a bipartisan press conference along with Senator Conrad, Representatives Cooper and Wolf, and former U.S. Comptroller General Walker who now heads up the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. David Walker and the rest of us urged Congress to take action to restore fiscal discipline. In other words, we all said: This has to be done. We agreed it is time to begin to enact the first pillar of meaningful comprehensive tax and entitlement reform. That is why I am disappointed that President Obama did not mention a vehicle to enact tax and entitlement reform in his address to Congress, just as I was very disappointed that the Bush administration never once mentioned reducing our national debt after 2001. I am a Republican. He was a Republican President. Our President never, ever mentioned the national debt all the time he was President. It was like it didn't exist. Yet the debt kept going up, up, up, and up. I have been calling for the creation of a commission to facilitate tax and entitlement reform for some time. In fact, back in 2006, I introduced the Securing America's Future Economy or SAFE Commission Act, which I reintroduced in the Senate in the 109th and 110th Congresses. Congressman Jim Cooper of Tennessee and Congressman Frank Wolf of Virginia introduced a version in the House that enlisted 93 cosponsors from both parties. This bipartisan, bicameral group had the support from corporate executives, religious leaders, and think tanks across the political spectrum--the conservative Heritage Foundation and the liberal Brookings Institute. All of these people realize where we are. Building on the SAFE Commission, two of my colleagues, the Budget Committee chairman from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, and ranking member from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, introduced a bipartisan bill that would create a tax and entitlement reform task force very similar to the SAFE Commission called the Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action. I signed on as 1 of 19 cosponsors. We will never, ever take the necessary steps toward fiscal responsibility unless we create this BRAC-like, bipartisan commission. The commission would take on the tough issues of Social Security, health care, and tax reform, and create recommendations that would be fast-tracked through a special process and brought to the floor of both Chambers for a vote. In other words, to do it the traditional way we do things around here it will never, ever get done. If you think we would have been able to close airbases and other bases around the country by doing it through legislation without the BRAC process, you are not in the real world. If we really want to tackle this stuff, we have to get a group together. We have to work on it and come up with a compromise. If three quarters agree, it is the thing to do. We put it through an expedited procedure. The Senate gets it; the House gets it. They have to vote up or down. It is important that that happen because it will have legislators on it. I know if somebody asked you to spend a year and a half of your life putting something together and then said: Well, once it is done, it will go through the regular procedure, you would say: Goodbye. I don't have time for that. But if you knew you put the time in and that if you had three quarters who agreed on it and the thing was going to get some action, then you would have some incentive to say: I will stay at the table, work on this, and we will get the job done. The workload would be heavy, and the commission could certainly benefit by taking a look at previous work that has been done to study these issues by foundations and others. It also could start by considering some of the previous proposals that have been introduced by some of our former colleagues, Senators Mack and Breaux, cochairs of the commission created by the Bush administration to reform our Tax Code. I worked like the dickens to say: Let's have this commission to study the Tax Code. I will never forget talking to Karl Rove. I said: I want it to be legislated. That is the way we had it in the appropriations bill. He said: No, we will do it with something else. We will put Breaux and Mack in charge. I think he said at that time he was afraid that Pelosi and Steny Hoyer might kill it in the beginning. I said: If they are going to kill it in the beginning, let's find out. He said: No, we want the other direction. So Connie Mack and John Breaux worked their tails off for over a year. They came back with a very good report. It wasn't perfect, but I expected President Bush to take that and tweak it and send it over here. I will never forget the story John Breaux told me. He went to visit with President Bush. He walked in the Oval Office and he started looking around. The President said to him: John, what are you doing? And he said: Mr. President, I am looking for the report that we did. On the shelf, gathering dust. That is why I was pleased to hear President Obama mention the national debt in his address to Congress. But I was disappointed that when he mentioned the ``crushing cost'' we face and the reform we can no longer afford to put on hold, he only talked about health care. Although health care costs are a big part of our entitlement problem, addressing health care reform alone will not get the job done. It is not the time for dodging and ducking. This is the time for the cold hard truth. Everyone knows we need tax and entitlement reform. I know it, the Obama administration knows it, and the American people know it. And I know for sure Peter Orszag does because a couple years ago, he was as enthusiastic about dealing with this problem as anybody in this country. The American people elected President Obama to make the tough decisions to put this country back on the right track. As President Obama said himself so eloquently: We must take responsibility for our future, and for posterity. I love that. I love that part of his speech. I thought it was just great. He cares about me. He cares about my children. He cares about my grandchildren. ``We must take responsibility for our future, and for posterity.'' Sadly, so far he is missing in action on tax and entitlement reform. In fact, in a February 27 column in the Washington Post, Michael Gerson called the President's stance on tax and entitlement reform in his joint address to Congress ``timid'' and ``hardly courageous.'' Now, in fairness to our President, he and his administration have been busy putting out fires. This President has more on his plate than maybe any President we have ever had, maybe since Franklin Delano Roosevelt. But if he ignores comprehensive tax and entitlement reform, we could see an economic holocaust. That is why I would suggest to my fellow colleagues who have voiced similar calls for reform that we should gather our staffs, on a bipartisan and bicameral basis, to agree on the language of a vehicle commission that can get the job done--in other words, getting Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate, to get the language of what this commission should look like. We will work on that. If the administration does not like our proposals, then they would be free to weigh in with their own ideas. But doing nothing simply is not an option. I have talked to Senator Gregg about this, Senator Conrad. And I said it is our duty to position this Nation so we have the greatest opportunity for success for the future. I am saying, if the President does not want to do this, let's us get together and help him. OK. Let's get together. Let's help him and then say: Here, Mr. President, here is something agreed to on a bipartisan basis. We would like to go with it. If you have a better idea on how to get it done, amen and hallelujah, but we have to get going. Each and every one of us should be able to look into the eyes of our children and grandchildren and know in our hearts we have done all we can to make sure that at least they have the same opportunity we have had for our standard of living and quality of life. If I had to name one of the primary contributing factors to our worsening economic situation, it would have to be the loss of faith we seem to have experienced in ourselves. In many ways, today America is mired in a crisis of confidence. I do not share the despair many experts hold concerning the future of our country. When I first became mayor of Cleveland in 1979, the city was in default on its bonds. Unemployment for the first couple of years continued to grow to more than 18 percent. Think of that: 18 percent. Cynics at the time joked, saying: Will the last person leaving Cleveland turn out the lights. We decided that no one was going to come to Cleveland and solve our problems for us. We had the courage to be more self-reliant and make tough decisions. Through the public-private partnerships we created, we were able to unite everyone behind common goals. We empowered the community, and it worked. In fact, at that time, Cleveland was known as the ``comeback city.'' I say to the Presiding Officer, I know you could identify with this. Cleveland was named an All America City three times in a 5-year period. It never happened before, and I suspect it will never happen again. It was that public-private partnership, everybody coming together. Our motto was: Together we can do it. Similarly, when I became Governor of Ohio in 1991, we faced a $1\1/2\ billion budget shortfall, and we were a no-growth State. We made some tough decisions. As I mentioned earlier, I had to cut the budget four times and raise taxes. But, as a result, we were able to turn the tide, create 540,000 new jobs--in fact, manufacturing grew for the first time in 25 years--and the State's rainy-day fund grew from 14 cents to over $1 billion. And we put $200 million aside to take care of any Medicaid problem we would have. Mr. President, I know we can turn things around again. We really can. But we need to stop the spending spree and start making tough decisions on this tax and entitlement reform. Why don't we work together to get America back on track? Let's work together to systemically deal with each of the problems, challenges, and opportunities we have in America, so we are filled with the same hope and optimism of Ronald Reagan. I got to know Ronald Reagan. He was quite a guy, quite a President. He always had a positive attitude, and he said: I know that for America, there will always be a bright dawn ahead. Mr. President, the glass is not half empty, the glass is half full. If all of us work together, we can turn this thing around. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I rise in support of the amendment by Senator Ensign to continue funding for the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, which has given thousands of children in the District of Columbia a chance to escape failing schools. Unfortunately, the underlying bill contains language which would have a devastating impact on low-income families in the District of Columbia by prematurely ending the program. Many of us are outraged that a Member of the Senate has included a provision to kill the program. The provision has not gone unnoticed. On March 6 The Washington Post asked why ``anyone would want to force children out of schools where they are happy, safe and satisfied'' and on March 9, Newsweek asked why lawmakers would consider stopping a $14 million program which is a ``rounding error'' on the General Motors bailout figure. Finally, The Wall Street Journal calls it what it is: ``perhaps the most odious of double standards in American life today: the way some of our loudest champions of public education vote to keep other people's children--mostly inner-city blacks and Latinos--trapped in schools where they'd never let their own kids set foot.'' Whoever is responsible should be ashamed and admit who put them up to it. I think I know who is behind efforts to end this program. The program provides 1,700 children with scholarships of up to $7,500 each to attend the school of their choice. To qualify, students must live in the District and have a household income of no more than 18 percent of the poverty line. For 2008-2009, the average income for families using the program was just over $23,000 a year. Since 2004 when the program began, approximately 7,200 families have applied for spots in the program--nearly four applicants for each available scholarship. It is a program that has repeatedly shown improved family satisfaction and increase parental involvement. The students themselves are perhaps the best testimonials. Tiffany Dunston, valedictorian of Archbishop Carroll High School's class of 2008, who was a four year scholarship recipient, is now studying biochemistry at Syracuse University. Tiffany's thoughts on the program underscore why this program must continue: ``I am determined to build a better life and want others in my community to have that chance as well.'' Another scholarship student, Ronald Holassie, was recently sworn in as deputy youth mayor for the District. Ronald says he ``wouldn't be where he is today'' without his scholarship. It is premature to add conditions to this important program. This spring, Congress will have the results of the comprehensive analysis of the program. Chairman Lieberman has committed to holding a hearing to review the program and discuss proposals for improvement in advance of the Senate's debate on reauthorization. I appreciate the majority leader's commitment to a fair debate on long-term reauthorization. My colleagues know that I have been through this fight before. As Governor I supported opportunity scholarships for Cleveland in 1992. With hard work and dedication, we managed to get the bill through in 1995 and within 3 years, over 3,600 children were attending the school of their choice. Just last year, there were over 6,000 students participating! It wasn't easy. After we stood-up the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program, the American Federation of Teachers, National Education Association, and others filed a lawsuit and for nearly a decade Ohioans fought for the program. All along I had advocated that the program was constitutional. I will never forget the day when the U.S. Supreme Court agreed the program was constitutional in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639, on June 27, 2002. The program continues to thrive and expand because of its success. I consider it one of the major contributions to our country's educational system. It is a morsel on our smorgasbord of educational opportunities. And the benefits go far beyond the academic. A study by the Buckeye Institute found that students involved in the Cleveland program are gaining access to a more integrated school experience. Here in Washington, a Georgetown University study found that with their children in safer schools, parents were free to focus on their child's academic development and the school's curriculum. Now, after so much progress and money invested, some Members of Congress wish to establish premature roadblocks for the program. What is lost in the underlying language is the need for the children of the District of Columbia to have every opportunity to receive a high- quality education. How offensive for Members of Congress, many with the means to send their children to any school, to limit the ability of District students to do the same. Just last week, one of my esteemed colleagues came to the floor and discussed how he had sent his children to private Catholic School. He said that it was a family decision and that they made the ``extra sacrifice'' to pay for it. What my colleague fails to realize is that many of the parochial schools that participate in the program do so because they are giving witness to the Second Great Commandment. During the State of the Union, President Obama said that ``good education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity--it is a prerequisite . . . to ensure that every child has access to a complete and competitive education--from the day they are born to the day they begin a career.'' The DC Opportunity Scholarship Program provides District students the pathway to meet the President's goal. Shame on the President for not getting involved and telling his friends in the Senate how embarrassed he is about what they are attempting to do to the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program in this bill. Two weeks ago, the Senate voted by supermajority to give voting rights to the District of Columbia--which I was proud to cosponsor. I am sure if we were to let parents in the District vote on this amendment--let the parents tell Congress what they want for their children--their answer would be to continue funding the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. The language in the base bill takes away the opportunity for parents of limited means to choose the best education available for their children. The Omnibus appropriations bill provides $410 billion to fund Federal programs through the end of the fiscal year. Surely my colleagues would be willing to continue to spend $14 million on a program that continues to give quality education to thousands of deserving children. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I wanted to briefly comment on the remarks by the senior Senator from New York in opposition to Ensign amendment 615 to H.R. 1105. The Senator emphasized the importance of local support for educational programs. My colleagues may be interested to know that the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program had the support of the District of Columbia government when it was created. On June 24, 2003, in testimony before the House Committee on Government Reform, then District of Columbia Mayor Anthony Williams testified, ``I support the President's desire to create a scholarship program in the District. I believe, if done effectively, such a program could truly expand choice to low-income families, who currently do not have the same freedom of choice enjoyed by more affluent families.''

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I am very pleased with the commitments of the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water to fix these flaws in the pending legislation. All of these energy projects are very important to the future of our country as we work towards achieving energy independence and cleaner environment. USEC's American Centrifuge Plant project is not only very important to Ohio, it is particularly important to the Nation. The ACP project is shovel-ready and is estimated to create over 3,000 jobs in Ohio where it is located, and another 3,000 or more jobs in 11 other States around the country through manufacturing and engineering contracts. The ACP project will have the capacity to provide domestically enriched uranium to fuel over one-half of the 104 domestic nuclear powerplants that provide nearly all of our emission-free base-load electricity. Once built, the ACP project will be the only U.S.-owned source of nuclear fuel that is critically important for various national security reasons. I would like to observe that the Governors of Ohio, Maryland, Tennessee and Kentucky strongly support USEC's ACP project. Mr. President, I will ask unanimous consent that the letter from the Governors of Ohio, Maryland, Tennessee and Kentucky be printed in the Record following my statement. I would also like to observe that President Obama, during his campaign visits to Ohio last summer, expressed his support for USEC's ACP project, as articulated in his letter to Governor Strickland of Ohio dated September 2, 2008, and I will ask unanimous consent that that letter also be printed in the Record following my statement. I thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 2 letters to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

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

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, today I speak as a Member of the Senate, but also as a former chairman and now ranking member of the Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia Subcommittee. I have had a relationship with the District for quite some period of time and have been very interested in the District and also in the District's reaching out in terms of providing a quality education for the boys and girls who live in the District, understanding that this is the Nation's Capital and it should be the shining city on a hill where people can come from all over America and see the very best we have in our country in terms of educational opportunities and, I also feel, the opportunity of people to have the right to vote. As a result of my concerns about the ways to rectify the lack of voting representation for the District, I have approached this bill with the belief that citizens who pay taxes and serve in the military should have House representation so long as such representation conforms to the Constitution. Although a constitutional amendment would provide the clearest constitutional means to ensure District residents are provided House representation, after studying the legal arguments, I have concluded that there are sufficient indicia and precedent that the Constitution's District clause grants Congress the constitutional authority to give the District a House Member. As for any argument that the bill is unconstitutional, I need only to say that I believe any ambiguity and disagreement will be resolved quickly by the courts. After weighing the constitutional arguments and equities, I have decided to support this legislation--in fact, I am a cosponsor of this legislation--on one condition: We must also continue to give the families of the District a vote on how their children are educated. Accordingly, I am proud to join Senator Ensign in offering an amendment to reauthorize the District of Columbia Scholarship Program for an additional year. Perhaps one may wonder why am I so concerned about this issue. It is because of the fact that when I was Governor of Ohio, we started a scholarship program in Ohio for children who were not members of the public schools. That experiment has worked to the benefit of thousands of children, particularly in the Cleveland district, who have gone through the system and are now in college. I meet with them, and they tell me: Were it not for the Cleveland Scholarship Program where I had a choice to go to another school, I don't believe I would be in college today and be as successful as I have been. When I instituted that program, it was said it was unconstitutional. I am pleased to say that several years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court said that providing scholarships to nonpublic school systems fit in with the Constitution of our country. When we had an opportunity to help the District, we provided $14 million for public schools, $14 million for charters, and $14 million for the scholarship program. It is a critical component of a three- sector education strategy to provide a quality education to every child in the District, regardless of income or neighborhood. The program provides up to $7,500 per student per year to fund tuition, fees, and transportation expenses for K-12 for low-income DC families. To qualify, students must live in the District and have a household income of no more than 185 percent of the Federal poverty level. In 2008, that was about $39,000 per family of four. In fact, the average income for families using scholarships in 2008 was just over $24,000. Since its inception, the program has served over 2,600 students. They have about 7,500 who would like to get in the program, but they do not have a place for them. Entering students had average math and reading test scores in the bottom third. A recent evaluation of the Department of Education reaffirms academic gains among participants less than 2 years after receiving a scholarship. They are benefiting from it. We need more time to see how it works out. I wish to underscore that I think this is part of this whole package we put together. Many Members of this body are unaware of the fact that today the people who live in the District can go to any public college in the United States and we provide up to $10,000 for out-of-State tuition. They are not aware of the fact that Don Graham over at the Washington Post got the business community together and set up the Washington scholarship program, the CAP program, and $2,500 is available for youngsters. Or that the Gates Foundation thinks so much of what is happening in the District that they provided another $120 million to keep kids in school in the two worst dropout districts in the District of Columbia. There are some wonderful things happening in the District, and yet-- and yet--there are some people here, because of special interest groups, who want to do away with the scholarship program. They want to deny these children an opportunity to have this educational opportunity, this smorgasbord we have available to them. What this amendment does is it extends for 1 year that program as we look at it and see how it goes through its metamorphosis. I have to say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and this side of the aisle, if you want to do something that is disastrous to the kids in the District in terms of public relations and the interest of all these people in the District, go ahead and make it impossible for this program to keep going. Think about this: the Gates Foundation, the College Assistance Program--great things are happening in the District today. What a terrible message it would send to the rest of the country and those who care about education in the District if we were denied this opportunity, this experiment to continue in the District. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two editorials, one on January 26 titled ``School Vouchers, District parents know why the program should continue.'' The demand for it is tremendous. They want it. And a recent editorial, ``Hoping no one notices, congressional Democrats step between 1,800 DC children and a good education.''

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, do you know why? It is because of the National Education Association. They do not want it to happen. They fought it in my State. The Ohio school boards fought it. I will never forget going up for an endorsement in 2004 when I ran last time. When I ran in 1998, I got support from the Ohio Education Society. They said: No Governor has done more for education than George Voinovich. So I came to Washington. They kind of forgave me for the scholarship program in Cleveland. They kind of let that go. Madam President, 2004 came along, and I went through the whole endorsement procedure. I did everything. After it was over, many people came up to me and said: George, you absolutely did a fabulous job with your presentation, what you are trying to do with education on the national level and you are concerned about it. But we got the word from Washington that you are not going to be endorsed because you have broken the rule in supporting scholarships, supporting an opportunity for kids to have another opportunity to go to school and try something new. I want to say this. In this country of ours, we cannot survive with half the kids in our urban districts dropping out of school. I am glad the President spoke about it in his State of the Union. I am glad the President talked about charter schools. But the real question is, Is he going to stand up and are the Democrats on the other side of the aisle and some Republicans going to stand up to the National Education Association, the National School Boards Association and some of these groups that want to keep things as they are? I am going to tell you something, Madam President. We will never make it. I want everybody to understand that I am for this bill, voting rights, but I am not going to support this bill unless I am convinced we are going to have an opportunity to debate this issue in the Senate and keep this program going for the boys and girls who are benefiting from it, the same kind of program that benefited so many thousands of people in the State of Ohio. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Kohl in introducing legislation to assist many of our Nation's public servants who choose to work part-time for a portion of their Federal career. The legislation is timely given the increasing number of Federal employees eligible to retire and the need for agencies to retain an experienced workforce to carry out critical government functions. Our legislation would change the computation of Civil Service Retirement System, CSRS, annuities involving part-time service by correcting an anomaly that is a disincentive for employees nearing the end of their careers who would like to phase into retirement by working part-time. Under current law, if an employee under the CSRS system with substantial full-time service before 1986 switches to a part-time schedule at the end of his or her career, the high-three average salary that is applied to service before 1986 is the pro-rated salary or, if higher, the full-time salary from the years before the employee began working part-time. This often results in a disproportionate reduction in the employee's benefit. The legislation would clarify that CSRS annuities based in whole or in part on part-time service should be pro-rated for the period of service that was performed on a part-time basis. The correction will help agencies, as part of their succession planning efforts, in retaining the expertise of staff that elect to work on a part-time basis at the end of their Federal careers. It is my hope agencies will include this tool in their human capital plans to help facilitate the transfer of knowledge to the next generation of government leaders. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Kohl in introducing legislation to assist many of our Nation's public servants who choose to work part-time for a portion of their Federal career. The legislation is timely given the increasing number of Federal employees eligible to retire and the need for agencies to retain an experienced workforce to carry out critical government functions. Our legislation would change the computation of Civil Service Retirement System, CSRS, annuities involving part-time service by correcting an anomaly that is a disincentive for employees nearing the end of their careers who would like to phase into retirement by working part-time. Under current law, if an employee under the CSRS system with substantial full-time service before 1986 switches to a part-time schedule at the end of his or her career, the high-three average salary that is applied to service before 1986 is the pro-rated salary or, if higher, the full-time salary from the years before the employee began working part-time. This often results in a disproportionate reduction in the employee's benefit. The legislation would clarify that CSRS annuities based in whole or in part on part-time service should be pro-rated for the period of service that was performed on a part-time basis. The correction will help agencies, as part of their succession planning efforts, in retaining the expertise of staff that elect to work on a part-time basis at the end of their Federal careers. It is my hope agencies will include this tool in their human capital plans to help facilitate the transfer of knowledge to the next generation of government leaders. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in regards to a recent rollcall vote held in the Senate. On February 5, 2009, the Senate voted 32 to 65 on Senate amendment No. 140, which was offered by the junior Senator from Wisconsin. Due to an inadvertent error, I recorded my support for this amendment. I would like to take a few moments to clarify my views regarding this amendment. As my colleagues know, this amendment would have allowed a point of order to be raised against congressionally directed spending for programs whose authorization has lapsed. This amendment would have hamstrung the Senate in the exercise of its constitutionally delegated ``power of the purse.'' Procedures already exist for Senators to strike provisions of bills they find objectionable, including language in appropriation bills. For example, Members may offer amendments to strike or amend such provisions as they deem appropriate. In addition, as my friend, the senior Senator from Hawaii, has pointed out, this amendment would have exempted funding requests for unauthorized programs included in the President's budget request from this so-called ``earmark point of order.'' In effect, this would have allowed unelected bureaucrats the ability to request funding for programs whose authorization has lapsed while denying elected and accountable members of the Senate from doing likewise. Finally, important programs like the ones that could be affected by this point of order should not be penalized by Congress's inability to enact authorization bills in a timely fashion. Together, the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Appropriations are taking steps to provide for unprecedented levels of transparency in the appropriations process. As a new member of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, I look forward to working with my colleagues to address the pressing issues that will come before the committee, and I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my views on this issue.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Tester and Klobuchar to introduce the Passport Card Travel Enhancement Act of 2009 in order to allow United States citizens to use passport cards for air travel between the United States and Canada, Mexico, Bermuda and the Caribbean. Over the past several years, the Departments of State, State, and Homeland Security, DHS, have worked hard to implement the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, WHTI, as recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. As part of those efforts, State has developed the United States passport card as a cheaper, more portable alternative to a United States passport book. The passport card is adjudicated to the exact same standards as the passport book and allows United States citizens to enter United States land and sea ports-of-entry from Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean and Bermuda, but the card does not allow for any air travel. In my mind, this discrepancy makes no sense, and the passport card should allow for air travel between the United States and Canada, Mexico, Bermuda and the Caribbean for several reasons. First, prior to 2007, United States citizens rarely needed a passport to enter the United States by air from Canada, Mexico, Bermuda or the Caribbean. Rather, United States citizens were only required to satisfy inspecting officers of their identities and citizenship. This practice changed in 2007, when WHTI went into effect for air travel. I think we all recall the events that occurred following WHTI air implementation, when State was deluged with passport applications, the time necessary to get a passport expanded from the typical four to six weeks to several months, and some Americans were forced to cancel trips. We need to avoid problems like that in the future by providing United States citizens with more documents that comply with WHTI. Further, State's ``Card Format Passport; Changes to Passport Fee Schedule'' final rule states that the passport card ``is not intended to be a globally interoperable travel document,'' and ``will not be designed to meet the International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, standards and recommendations for globally interoperable passports,'' but I do not believe that these facts mean that the passport card cannot be used for limited, western hemisphere air travel. In fact, I question whether globally interoperable passport standards and recommendations need be met in order to use passport cards for the limited flights allowed by the Passport Card Travel Enhancement Act of 2009 because DHS's NEXUS card, which does not meet ICAO standards, is currently accepted as an alternative to a passport for some air travel between the United States and Canada. Lastly, in today's current economic climate, I believe we must foster secure, legitimate trade and tourism between the United States and our allies. Providing additional, less expensive ways for our constituents to comply with WHTI is good government and makes sense for our Nation's security and economic prosperity. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Tester and Klobuchar to introduce the Passport Card Travel Enhancement Act of 2009 in order to allow United States citizens to use passport cards for air travel between the United States and Canada, Mexico, Bermuda and the Caribbean. Over the past several years, the Departments of State, State, and Homeland Security, DHS, have worked hard to implement the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, WHTI, as recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. As part of those efforts, State has developed the United States passport card as a cheaper, more portable alternative to a United States passport book. The passport card is adjudicated to the exact same standards as the passport book and allows United States citizens to enter United States land and sea ports-of-entry from Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean and Bermuda, but the card does not allow for any air travel. In my mind, this discrepancy makes no sense, and the passport card should allow for air travel between the United States and Canada, Mexico, Bermuda and the Caribbean for several reasons. First, prior to 2007, United States citizens rarely needed a passport to enter the United States by air from Canada, Mexico, Bermuda or the Caribbean. Rather, United States citizens were only required to satisfy inspecting officers of their identities and citizenship. This practice changed in 2007, when WHTI went into effect for air travel. I think we all recall the events that occurred following WHTI air implementation, when State was deluged with passport applications, the time necessary to get a passport expanded from the typical four to six weeks to several months, and some Americans were forced to cancel trips. We need to avoid problems like that in the future by providing United States citizens with more documents that comply with WHTI. Further, State's ``Card Format Passport; Changes to Passport Fee Schedule'' final rule states that the passport card ``is not intended to be a globally interoperable travel document,'' and ``will not be designed to meet the International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, standards and recommendations for globally interoperable passports,'' but I do not believe that these facts mean that the passport card cannot be used for limited, western hemisphere air travel. In fact, I question whether globally interoperable passport standards and recommendations need be met in order to use passport cards for the limited flights allowed by the Passport Card Travel Enhancement Act of 2009 because DHS's NEXUS card, which does not meet ICAO standards, is currently accepted as an alternative to a passport for some air travel between the United States and Canada. Lastly, in today's current economic climate, I believe we must foster secure, legitimate trade and tourism between the United States and our allies. Providing additional, less expensive ways for our constituents to comply with WHTI is good government and makes sense for our Nation's security and economic prosperity. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.