George Voinovich

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, the United States Government should be commended for the good work that is being done to raise awareness regarding growing anti-Semitism, both at home and abroad. However, our work is not done. Earlier this year, I introduced Senate Bill 2292, the Global Anti- Semitism Review Act of 2004. This legislation requires the State Department to enhance its reporting on anti-Semitism worldwide. It requires the State Department to submit to Congress a report on anti- Semitism this November. This report must include detailed information for each country, including, first, a description of physical violence against or harassment of Jewish people or community institutions, such as schools, synagogues, or cemeteries, that occurred in that country, and, second, the response of the government of that country to such attacks; What are they doing about that? Third, actions by the government of that country to enact and enforce laws relating to the protection of the right to religious freedom with respect to Jewish people; and finally, the efforts by that government to promote anti-bias and tolerance education. Following the report this November, my legislation requires enhanced reporting on anti-Semitism in two existing annual reports: the International Religious Freedom Report and the Human Rights Report. The Senate passed this critical legislation with strong, bipartisan support on May 7, 2004. Twenty-four of my colleagues joined me as co- sponsors. This underscores the high priority that the United States Senate has given to the fight against anti-Semitism. It is my sincere hope that the House of Representatives will soon pass this legislation, so that we can see the President sign the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act into law this year. We must do all that we can to move toward the goal of zero-tolerance of anti-Semitism in the world today. The United States must be the leader. I want my colleagues to know that I made a vow back in 1982 that if the ugly head of anti-Semitism rose, I would do everything in my power to make sure that we cut it off. I want my colleagues to know this is a passion with me, and I hope it becomes a passion with them. It is important to the world, and it is important to the United States of America.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, with a sense of regret, I come to the Senate floor to speak in opposition to the legislation before us to implement the free-trade agreement negotiated by the administration with our good friend and ally, Australia. One thing I have made clear throughout my career in Government is the fact that I believe in free trade. As Governor of Ohio, I supported NAFTA and the establishment of the WTO. As a Senator, I supported permanent normal trade relations for China, the Andean Trade Preference Expansion Act, and the so-called ``fast track'' trade negotiating authority. I also supported our FTAs with Jordan, Chile, and Singapore. Until very recently, our economy has been bleeding jobs--23,000 manufacturing jobs lost in my State of Ohio between May of 2003 and May of 2004, which is over half of the total 41,000 jobs lost in all sectors. While I still firmly believe in free trade, I cannot stand idly by while our trade laws are ignored by other countries and go unenforced by our own. I will no longer allow the illegal trade practices of other countries that put good, hard-working Americans in the unemployment lines to be disregarded, because that is exactly what is happening. When it comes to trade, China is the elephant in the room that everyone is afraid to acknowledge because they fear it will rear its ugly head. It seems as if we want to waltz with the Chinese and, for some reason, we are afraid to step on their toes for fear they might get mad. As I and many of my colleagues see it, the two most prevalent trade issues we face are the manipulation of China's currency and their resistance to reform and enforcement of their intellectual property rights laws as required by their WTO accession agreement. My good friend and colleague from South Carolina, Senator Lindsay Graham, and I held a press conference last month to highlight a finding in a report by the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a Commission we in Congress created to suggest changes to current U.S. policies with regard to China. The report issued by the Commission was quite alarming, and I suggest that every Member of both this and the other body read the trade sections of that report. The Commission reinforces what I have been hearing from Ohio businesses and what I have been saying for years: China is not trading fairly and is hurting Ohio workers and American workers. As we know, since the early 1990s--this is the early 1990s--China has pegged its currency at 8.28 yuan per dollar, which is believed to be anywhere between 15 and 40 percent lower than it should. This action has the effect of making U.S. products more expensive than items produced domestically. It also makes the retail prices paid here in the United States for Chinese goods artificially low, generating less demand for our domestic products. If demand is lowered both here and overseas of U.S.-manufactured goods, companies will lose money and lay off workers. They already have. The Commission's report states that if China were to end its currency manipulation, it is believed other East Asian countries, such as Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea that have also manipulated their currencies in order to remain competitive with China, would also follow suit and end their manipulation. The Commission has arrived at a unique solution to China's currency manipulation. They do not believe China's currency should be floated, as are most developed countries' currencies, because China's banking system and financial markets are simply not prepared. Instead, they recommend that it be pegged to a ``market basket'' of several trade- weighted currencies to avoid fluctuation of any one country. That is exactly the kind of ``outside the box'' thinking Congress had in mind when we created the Commission as part of the fiscal year 2001 Defense authorization bill. The Commission recommends that the administration take strong action to thwart China's exchange rate practices, something I have repeatedly urged the administration to do myself. Last fall, I introduced the Currency Harmonization Initiative through Neutralizing Action, CHINA, of 2003. This legislation requires the Secretary of the Treasury to analyze and report to Congress within 60 days whether China is manipulating its currency to achieve an advantage in trade. The CHINA Act also expresses the sense of Congress that the administration should pursue all means available to remedy China's currency manipulation. The other pressing trade issue is China's lack of enforcement of intellectual property rights laws. This issue at least is getting some traction in the Senate. Unfortunately, not enough of my colleagues are aware of how bad this situation is or of how long the situation has persisted. In April 1991, China was named a priority foreign country by the USTR under section 301. After further investigation, the U.S. threatened to impose $1.5 billion in trade sanctions if an IPR agreement was not reached by January 1992. While that deadline was met, by 1994, the USTR again listed China as a priority foreign country because they failed to properly enforce their laws. New talks failed for almost a year before a new agreement regarding Chinese IPR laws was reached. As part of their new commitment, China agreed to take immediate steps within 3 months, establish mechanisms for long-term, effective enforcement, and provide greater market access for U.S. products. In 1996, USTR again listed China as a priority foreign country for not fully complying with the latest agreement. Talks stalled until China was threatened with $2 billion in sanctions when they reportedly satisfied U.S. demands. However, the problem remains as estimates show the piracy rate for IPR-related products in China to be around 90 percent. Chinese law enforcement officials often lack the resources or the will needed to vigorously enforce IPR laws. Under the terms of the Chinese accession to the WTO, they were to immediately bring their IPR laws into compliance with the WTO Agreement on Trade Related Aspect of Intellectual Property Rights. This also has not happened as promised. U.S. firms are still losing billions of dollars per year in China alone, and all we have to show for it is a string of broken promises that started in 1991. I remember being in China in 1995 with a trade mission and speaking to the Chinese Government about the importance of enforcing their intellectual property rights. They said: Yes, we are going to do it. Here we are, 2004, and they have not continued to do the job they are supposed to be doing. Regardless of China's staggering piracy and counterfeiting operations, they are far from being the only problem area in the world. The U.S. Trade Representative lists 18 countries as ones with which we have ``significant concerns'' with respect to their IPR laws and enforcement. In my opinion, this is far too many countries flouting their international obligations. In the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee which I chair, I held a hearing on April 20, 2004, that focused on intellectual property violations in the manufacturing sector of the economy, and another on December 9, 2003, which examined the ability of the Department of Commerce and the U.S. Trade Representative to negotiate, monitor, and enforce our complex trade laws in a rapidly shifting global trade environment. Also, just last month, I participated in a hearing held by Chairman Lugar in the Foreign Relations Committee which focused on China's inability to enforce intellectual property rights when it comes to music, films, and software. To quote the testimony of Jack Valenti, the head of the Motion Picture Association of America: Piracy problems are only becoming more severe. In 2002, the piracy rate in China for American films, home videos, and television programs was about 91 percent. In 2003, the pirates captured at least 95 percent of that market. The current level of piracy is worse than it has been at any time since 1995 when it was 100 percent. But these industries are only the beginning of those suffering from China's disregard for international standards. Perhaps the greatest problem to overcome is to change the perception in many countries that intellectual property rights do not exist. For U.S. manufacturers, artists, filmmakers, and others, the protection of intellectual property is not an abstract concept because at stake are their livelihoods and those of the people who work with them and for them. We must make it clear we will not tolerate these trade violations. If the United States were to, in some way, violate a trade pact, the whole world would be beating down our door demanding we change our ways and pay for damages. But when we ask that countries follow the trade pacts to which they already agreed, we are denounced as bullies. Well, I say, let's be bullies. My concern is that we may not be able to be bullies because, as I learned in my hearings, we do not have the mechanism in place to enforce our trade laws. In other words, we do not know who we should bully around because we do not know who is breaking what agreement. Moreover, testimony indicated that our Government is not doing anything to help the companies that are having their intellectual property stolen. The state of enforcement is nothing short of abysmal. Amazingly, USTR only employs a grand total of 225 people. It has become painfully obvious that this is an insufficient number of employees to negotiate, monitor, and enforce our trade deals. Given the impact of changing global economic forces, it is important for our trade agencies to have the right people with the right skills and knowledge to effectively monitor and enforce our complex trade agreements. It was clear from the testimony delivered at the hearing that our Department of Commerce, the Customs and Border Protection Agency at the Department of Homeland Security, the USTR, and the rest of the 17 or more Federal agencies responsible for monitoring and enforcement of our trade agreements cannot do so effectively. This could accurately be described as a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. In my days of service in government as a Senator, Governor, and mayor, I have never seen such a hodgepodge of agencies and departments struggle with a relatively simple mission to enforce our trade laws. Following my April hearing, I visited the Web site given as an example of what the Federal Government was going to do to help manufacturers that had become victims of counterfeiting. On that Web site was a telephone number, which I called. However, the person on the other end of the line had no idea that anyone but those with problems relating to immigration would ever be calling that number. So I called later and I told them who I was, George Voinovich, U.S. Senator, and that I wanted to know what resources were available to victims of counterfeiting, and eventually I was connected to the correct person. Small business owners should not have to deal with such nonsense when asking their Government for assistance. I am pleased to say that those answering the line are now aware of this other function. But the way it works is, if I am an Ohioan who has an IPR problem, I call this number and then they give me the number of my local Customs office and ask me to call them to begin my complaint. That is ridiculous. It is absolutely no help whatsoever to smaller manufacturers in this country. I have been pressuring this administration at the highest levels to address the many issues we have with China. In March of this year, along with Senators Lindsey Graham, Schumer, and Durbin, I sent a letter to President Bush requesting an emergency meeting with the President, Treasury Secretary Snow, and Ambassador Zoellick to discuss concrete action regarding continuing illegal undervaluation of China's currency. That was 5 months after I wrote to Ambassador Zoellick, Secretary Snow, and Commerce Secretary Evans urging them to initiate a 301 investigation into China's practice of currency manipulation. The response we received from the administration? None. Nothing was known about the stance of this administration until April 28 of this year when Secretaries Snow, Chao, Evans, and Ambassador Zoellick held a press conference to announce they would reject a yet-to-be-filed 301 petition requesting an investigation into China's currency manipulation. Needless to say, I was extremely disappointed that the administration would announce such a position before even receiving the petition documents. China continues to tolerate rampant piracy of copyrighted U.S. material, with rates of piracy running above 90 percent across all copyright industries for 2003. This year, piracy is estimated to cost U.S. industries $2.6 billion. Technology has made it much easier to copy or steal the engineering, packaging, and so forth of a product than in the past. I was talking with a shareholder in a golf club manufacturing outfit 6 months ago. He said that within 3 days after they put a golf club out on the market they were already counterfeiting it in China and sending it to the United States. Another example, in my own State, Gorman-Rupp Company of Mansfield, which testified at my April hearing, since 1933 has designed and manufactured pumps used for many applications, including water, wastewater, petroleum, government uses, and agriculture. A Chinese company has not only copied and exploited Gorman-Rupp product manuals and performance specifications, but the Gorman-Rupp logo is still displayed on the products in the Chinese company's literature. In other words, this is a case where they copied the machine, the pump, to a ``T,'' then they used the same promotional material that Gorman-Rupp uses for their material. They copied it line and verse and are using it to promote their pirated product. Unfortunately, patents do not protect American manufacturers. America's competitive edge is derived from innovation and the resulting steady influx of new products and services. Intellectual property rights protect and promote this innovative spirit. In too many cases with too many foreign countries, our intellectual property is the last edge we have because of a fundamentally unbalanced playing field. Many of our competitors do not have to consider environmental standards, labor laws, employee safety, litigation costs--and this Congress has to do something about litigation costs in this country. It is a tornado cutting through the economy and we just sit here and do nothing--health care costs. Losing our intellectual property is the last edge we have. The United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission believes the administration should file a WTO dispute on the matter of China's failure to protect IPR and to promulgate and enforce WTO- required laws. To quote the report: Follow through and action have been limited. . . . The Commission believes that immediate U.S. action is warranted. I hope my colleagues read the report. The Commission believes that immediate U.S. action is warranted on this issue. There is a sense of urgency. We are just going to Tweedledee Tweedledum? We have done nothing since 1991 on IPR and it is now 2004 and we are still doing nothing? As I said, I believe in a fair playing field in which competitive and comparative advantage wins the day. We cannot continue to let countries walk all over us. The one country that everyone seems to be afraid to call on the carpet for flagrant violations of their international agreements is China. I do agree with some of my colleagues that maybe the reason we are not doing it is because of foreign policy decisions, but we have to put a stop to China's illegal and unethical trade practices. There are people who come into my office and literally shed tears, people who have been in business for years, and they are going out of business because of competition from China because of the fact they have taken their patents. So we need to do something. We have to do something now. Despite these overwhelming problems facing our Nation's manufacturers, I must say I have yet to see any significant action on behalf of the administration to respond. Now I have talked to some people and they say, oh, yes, George, we are working on this; we are talking to people; we are negotiating and we are doing this. Well, it is time to bring it to the surface. Let the American people know what they are doing instead of hiding out. Make it an issue. Let the Chinese know we are serious about this thing. Let them know the U.S. Congress is serious about it. Let them know the administration is serious about it. So we can get some action. Last month I made it known that I would not support any new trade agreements until there was a movement on these two fronts, and that makes me feel very bad. I am a free trader. I believe in free trade. But we do not have fair trade. Maybe the only way this Senator from Ohio, who has a lot of people who are on the edge of losing their businesses, can maybe get someone's attention in the administration to get out and start talking about this the way they should be so the American people, and particularly the voters in Ohio and the manufacturers and the people losing their jobs, is to say to them I will not support any other trade agreement on the Senate floor until they do something about the currency manipulation in China and the enforcement of intellectual property rights. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I rise today to speak on behalf of the Class Action Fairness Act, a bill to stop unfair and abusive class action lawsuits that ignore the best interest of injured plaintiffs. This legislation is sorely needed to help people understand their rights in class action lawsuits and protect them from unfair settlements. It is needed to reform the class action process which has been so manipulated in recent years that U.S. companies are being driven into bankruptcy to escape the rising tide of frivolous lawsuits that have resulted in the loss of thousands of jobs, especially in the manufacturing sector. Unfortunately, not enough Americans realize we are in a global marketplace and businesses now have choices as to where they manufacture their products. Many of our businesses are leaving our country because of the litigation tornado that is cutting through the economy and destroying their competitiveness. The Senate must start taking into consideration the impact of its decisions on this Nation's competitive decisions in the global marketplace. Too often, we think about things in the United States for Americans and forget the fact that we are in a global marketplace. Today, manufacturers and consumers worldwide have many choices about where to do business. I believe for the system to work we must strike a delicate balance between the rights of aggrieved parties to bring lawsuits and the rights of society to be protected against frivolous lawsuits and outrageous judgments that are disproportionate to compensating the injured and made at the expense of society as a whole. I believe this is what this legislation does. I am proud to be a cosponsor of it. Since my days as Governor of Ohio, I have been very concerned with what I refer to as a ``litigation tornado'' that has been sweeping through the economy of Ohio, as well as the Nation. The Ohio civil justice system is in a state of crisis. Ohio doctors are leaving the State and too many have stopped delivering babies because they cannot afford the liability insurance. From 2001 to 2002, Ohio physicians faced medical liability insurance increases ranging from 28 to 60 percent. Ohio ranked among the top five States for premium increases. General surgeons pay as much as $75,000 and OB/GYNs pay as much as $152,000. Comparatively, Indiana general surgeons pay between $14,000 and $30,000 and OB/GYNs pay between $20,000 and $40,000. Further, Ohio businesses are going bankrupt as a result of runaway asbestos litigation. Today, one of my fellow Ohioans can be a plaintiff in a class action lawsuit that she does not know about, taking place in a State that she has never even visited. In 1996, as Governor of Ohio, I was proud to sign H.B. 350, strong tort reform legislation into law--for a while. It might have helped today's liability crisis but it never got a chance. In 1999, the Supreme Court of Ohio in a politically motivated 4-to-3 decision struck down the Ohio civil justice reform law, even though the only plaintiff in the case was the Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers, the personal injury bar's trade group. Their reason for challenging the law--this is incredible--they claimed their association would lose members and lose money due to the civil justice reform laws that were enacted. The bias of the case was so great that one of the dissenters, Justice J. Lundberg Stratton, had this to say: This case should never have been accepted for review on the merits. The majority's acceptance of this case means that we have created a whole new arena of jurisdiction--``advisory opinions on the constitutionality of the statute challenged by a special interest group.'' From this, it is obvious to me the way we currently administer class actions is just not working. While we were frustrated at the State level, I am proud to have continued our fight in the Senate, a fight for fair, strong, civil justice. To this end, I worked with the American Tort Reform Association to produce a study entitled ``Lawsuit Abuse and Ohio'' that captured the impact of this rampant litigation on Ohio's economy, with the goal of educating the public on this issue and sparking change. Can you imagine what this study found? In 2002 in Ohio, the litigation crisis cost every Ohioan $636 per year. For every Ohio family of four, the cost was $2,544. These are alarming numbers. This study was released August 8, 2002. Imagine how high these numbers have risen since that time. In tough economic times, families cannot afford to pay over $2,500 to cover other people's litigation costs. Something needs to be done. Passage of this bill will help. This legislation is intended to amend the Federal judicial code to streamline and curb abuse of class action lawsuits, a procedural device through which people with identical claims are permitted to merge them and be heard at one time in court. In particular, this legislation contains safeguards that provide for judicial scrutiny of the terms of the class action settlements in order to eliminate unfair and discriminatory distribution of awards for damages and prevent class members from suffering a net loss as a result of a court victory. The bill is designed to improve the handling of massive U.S. class action lawsuits while preserving the rights of citizens to bring such actions. Class action lawsuits have spiraled out of control, with the threat of large, overreaching verdicts holding corporations hostage for years and years. In total, America's civil justice system had a direct cost to taxpayers in 2002 of $233.4 billion. That is 2.23 percent of our gross domestic product. That is $809 per citizen and equivalent to a 5- percent wage tax. That is a 13.3-percent jump from the year before--a year when we experienced a 14.4-percent increase, which was the largest percentage increase since 1986. These lawsuits cost billions of dollars and are putting a crimp in the budgets of every American. Now, some of my colleagues have argued that this bill sends most State class actions into Federal court and deprives State courts of the power to adjudicate cases involving their own laws. They argue that the bill, therefore, infringes upon a States' sovereignty. However, there is no evidence for this assertion, and, in fact, it is the present system that infringes upon State sovereignty rights by promoting a ``false federalism'' whereby some State courts are able to impose their decisions on citizens of other States regardless of their own laws. Another argument against the bill is that it will unduly expand Federal diversity jurisdiction at a time when courts are overcrowded. However, State courts have experienced a much more dramatic increase in class action filings and have not proven to be any more efficient in processing complex cases. In addition, Federal courts have greater resources to handle most complex interstate class action litigation and are insulated from the local prejudice problems so prevalent under current rules. We all know that so many of these class action lawsuits are filed in jurisdictions--two or three of them--because they know the results of those cases if they file them in certain jurisdictions. We have a certain jurisdiction in Illinois. We have another in Mississippi. As a result, there is no fairness to the defendants. I emphasize to my colleagues that this is not a bill to end all class action lawsuits. We will have plenty more class action lawsuits. Rather, it is a bill to identify those lawsuits with merit--with merit--and to ensure that the plaintiffs in legitimate lawsuits are treated fairly throughout the litigation process. It is a bill to protect class members from settlements that give their lawyers millions while they see only pennies. It is a bill to rectify the fact that over the past decade, State court class action filings increased over 1,000 percent. It is a bill to fix a broken judicial system. Madam President, I am a strong supporter of this bill and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I hope that the Holy Spirit enlightens us so we can have a vote on this legislation which is so important to the future of America's economy.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senators Bunning and Bingaman and the other supporters of this legislation, to support this very important amendment. This amendment will improve an existing program which provides financial and medical compensation to workers who were made ill as a result of their employment at the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons facilities. Since the end of World War II, at facilities all across America, tens of thousands of dedicated men and women in our civilian Federal and contract workforce helped keep our military fully supplied and our Nation fully prepared to face any threat from our adversaries around the world by developing and building our Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile. The success of these workers in meeting this challenge is measured in part with the end of the cold war and the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, for many of these workers, their success came at a very high price. They sacrificed their health and even their lives, in many instances without knowing the risks they were facing, to preserve our liberty. I will not go into the details, but I saw the memoranda and all the other items they should have had available to them but which were kept from them. What happened to these workers was worse than what happened to the workers in the movie ``Erin Brockovich'' that many of us saw. I believe these men and women have paid a high price for our freedom, and in their time of need this Nation has a moral obligation to provide some financial and medical assistance to these cold-war veterans. That is what they are--cold-war veterans. To meet that goal, I worked with a bipartisan group of my colleagues 4 years ago to create a program that would provide financial compensation to Department of Energy contract workers whose impaired health has been caused by exposure to beryllium, radiation, or other hazardous substances. I have been pleased to be involved with this program from the beginning. In fact, the passage and creation of this legislation in 2000 was one of my proudest moments as a Member of the Senate. It took monumental efforts by a bipartisan group of my colleagues, many of whom cosponsored this amendment we are debating today. I said at that time the Holy Spirit was working because, without divine help, this would never ever have gotten done. Under the current program, the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program, workers suffering from beryllium disease, silicosis, or cancer due to radiation exposure because of their work in our national security programs are eligible for Federal compensation. The Department of Labor was assigned primary responsibility for administration and adjudicating these claims under part B of this act. Under part D, the Department of Energy would assist claimants filing for compensation through State workers' compensation programs if a physicians panel found an occupational illness caused by chemical or other toxic exposure at a DOE site. Claims were not to be contested by contractors, and any compensation was to be paid by the Department of Energy. This compromise package that was ultimately agreed to by Congress and signed into law was not what I originally supported in 2000. I introduced a bill which called for a Federal program administered entirely by the Department of Labor, but during congressional negotiations on the language authorizing the program, I agreed to this multiagency concept in order to reach a compromise creating the program. The fact is, if we did not agree to that, we would not have gotten a bill out of conference. So I agreed to it. I have been pleased with the excellent program the Labor Department is running. Over 3 years after enactment, we have seen over 13,000 claimants receive compensation from DOL. On the other hand, I am becoming extremely frustrated with DOE's administration of part D of the program. More important than my frustration, however, is the fact that claimants who deserve answers and compensation are experiencing endless delays. I visited with some of those people. They cannot understand why this bureaucracy in Washington does not work. While over 24,000 claims have been received by the Department, only 646 final decisions have been sent to claimants. Think about that: Out of 24,000, only 646 have been sent to claimants. Even more shocking is that only four claimants have any compensation at all from the DOE portion of this program. I have always been skeptical of the capability of the Department of Energy to administer this because of their lack of experience in administering workers' compensation programs. I could have told them that when we started out, but no one would have listened. Additionally, I was concerned about the role of State workers' compensation programs outlined in part D. As a former Governor, I was doubtful that a Federal program such as this would be able to work in each of the individual State programs. There are two inherent problems within the existing program: continued delays and slowness in processing claims, and the so-called willing payer issue. This amendment addresses both of those issues. In order to speed up claims handling and processing, this amendment moves administration of part D from the DOE to the DOL. I believe DOL is better suited to administering this program because they have significant experience in administering workers' compensation programs, including part B of the program. This amendment also addresses the willing payer issue, another very important aspect. Under the current program, I understand it will be difficult for DOE to fulfill congressional intent in Ohio because there is not a contractor in place at the sites that can be compelled to pay the claims. They are no longer there. Many other workers nationwide are facing the same shortcomings in this program. In fact, the Ohio Bureau of Works' Compensation has tried unsuccessfully to work with DOE to ensure that this program works in Ohio. The current administrator of the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation is probably the best public administrator I have met in my life. He started with me when I was Lieutenant Governor, worked with me when I was mayor, and came to work with me as Governor of the State of Ohio. I would like to just quote from his letter to me and Senator DeWine. He stated: I understand DOL's and DOE's concern with this amendment, but BWC must ultimately look at what is best for the customer, in this case, the injured workers; consequently, we feel the changes proposed by the amendment will result in positive developments. Since the program's inception, DOE has failed (for whatever reasons, some of which may not be the department's fault) to process its claims in a timely fashion. A recent General Accounting Office report stated that DOE had only processed 6 percent of the 23,000 received claims. Clearly, the current system is not working. We believe throwing more money into a system that does not work will only compound the problem. The amendment we are considering today enjoys broad bipartisan support in the Senate. It is also supported by many State compensation systems and local labor organizations, including the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation, the PACE locals at Mound and Portsmouth, and the Fernald Atomic Trades and Labor Council in my home State of Ohio. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment. It simply fulfills the promise that we made to these veterans of the cold war. We have kept them waiting too long. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter from Administrator Conrad printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, the State of Ohio is home to Ohio University, the first public institution of higher learning in the old Northwest Territory. This institution, my alma mater, celebrates the 200th anniversary of its founding this year. On March 1, 1803, Ohio became the Nation's 17th State. Less than a year later, on February 18, 1804, the Ohio General Assembly approved Ohio University's charter. Ohio University is the realization of the Jeffersonian ideals of educating broadly and cultivating minds and ideas so that people can reason out their differences. Officially established in 1804, the university opened in 1808 with three students. In 1815, Ohio University award its first two bachelor's degrees. By the end of the Civil War, the university had graduated a total of 145 students. By 1920, the student population was 1,072, but it was not until after World War II that the university began to approach its present size. In the 1950s, the student population grew from 4,600 to 8,000, and the 1960s saw enrollment burgeon from about 10,000 to some 18,000 students on the Athens campus. Today, the Athens campus is comprised of more than 200 buildings on 1,800 acres, including state-of-the-art facilities featuring the latest in educational technology. Reinforcing the university's ongoing commitment to diversity, the Athens campus serves approximately 20,000 students hailing from all 50 States and about 100 nations. The university's service as a major educational and cultural institution in southeastern Ohio includes regional campuses in Chillicothe, Ironton, Lancaster, St. Clairsville, and Zanesville. These regional campuses collectively enroll about 8,500 students, making the full-time, part-time, and continuing education enrollment for Ohio University nearly 29,000. The university offers more than 270 undergraduate areas of study and a 20 to 1 undergraduate student-to-faculty ratio. On the graduate level, the institution grants master's degrees in nearly all of its major academic divisions, and doctoral degrees in selected departments. Ohio University is fully accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools and has been designated a Doctoral/Research University-Extensive, the highest classification, by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Throughout its life of change and growth, Ohio University and the town it calls home, Athens, has still successfully balanced all the advantages of a major university with the appeal of a caring and personal atmosphere. If there ever was a college town, Athens is it. The university's intellectual and cultural environment blends well with Athens' lively and quirky small-town atmosphere to create a setting where students, faculty and town residents live together in a community whose quality of life is difficult to match. A university of people, not a place or buildings, and the people of Ohio University--its students, staff, faculty, and alumni--have made their world a richer place. I am proud to be a Bobcat and proud of the accomplishments that so many alumni have made. Congratulations to Ohio University on 200 years of history, rich in providing excellence in higher education.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Allan Ramsay, Jr., assistant regional chief administrative law judge and Cleveland Hearing Office chief administrative law judge, who passed away on may 18, 2004. I have always been a strong advocate of public service, and a staunch supporter of those who put service before self. Serving the citizens of the great State of Ohio for over 22 years, Judge Ramsay was one of those individuals. His dedication to his profession and to helping others reflected his compassion and devotion to his fellow citizens. Appointed to the Cleveland Hearing Office of the Social Security Administration as an administrative law judge in 1982, Judge Ramsay worked tirelessly to improve the lives of more than 15,000 people who turned to the Social Security Administration in their times of need. From 1992 to 1997, he served as the chief administrative law judge in the Social Security Hearing Office in Columbus, OH. In 1997, he returned to Cleveland as the chief judge of that office, and in 1999 he became the assistant regional chief administrative law judge, while maintaining his leadership position in the Cleveland Hearing Office. Throughout his distinguished career, Judge Ramsay touched the lives of countless individuals. His career is a shining example of public service of which the people of Ohio and the rest of the Nation should be proud. Judge Ramsay held himself to a high standard and his service to our Nation reflects that. Judge Ramsay is survived by his wife, Beatrice, and his two children. In this time of great loss, my condolences go out to the entire Ramsay family. I can only hope that they will find solace in the thoughts and prayers of loved one, friends, and all those whose lives were bettered through his work. May God bless Judge Allan Ramsay and his entire family.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to Senate amendment No. 3158, which intends to delay for 2 years the process of base realignments and closures that is set to begin in 2005. Nearly 3 years ago, the Senate passed legislation calling for a round of base closures in 2005. I strongly supported that legislation, and I continue to believe it is important that we move forward with plans to realign and eliminate excess military infrastructure. In March, the Defense Department estimated that we support a defense infrastructure that is in excess of 24 percent. Rather than continuing to pay for unneeded or duplicative facilities, our limited defense dollars can and should be better spent to meet the most pressing needs of our Armed Forces. United States military forces remain engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. An American military presence remains important in Asia, including Korea, and U.S. soldiers are deployed to support peacekeeping operations in Southeast Europe and other parts of the world. With such demands on our men and women in uniform, it is imperative that our military resources are directed to meet our most critical defense needs. I agree with the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner and Senator Levin, that we must move forward with implementation of the BRAC legislation that was passed during consideration of the fiscal year 2002 Defense Authorization Act. Two years ago, the Armed Services Committee concluded: The committee believes that the arguments for allowing the closure of additional facilities are clear and compelling. The department has excess facilities. Closing bases saves money, and the military services have higher priority uses that could be funded with those savings. This remains true today. The fact that we remain engaged in efforts to fight the global war on terrorism and promote peace and stability in Iraq, Afghanistan and other parts of the world, does not mean that we should put the BRAC process on hold. To the contrary, it makes action even more important. Now, more than ever, we need the resources that are spent to maintain excess infrastructure to meet more pressing defense needs. Our highest-ranking military official, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers, agrees with this assessment. In a letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member of both the Senate and House Armed Services Committees dated May 18, 2004, General Myers and the Joint Chiefs concluded: A delay of the BRAC round, or a modification of the legislation that limits the Department's flexibility to execute it, will seriously undermine our ability to fundamentally reconfigure our infrastructure to best support the transformation of our forces to meet the security challenges we face now and will continue to face for the foreseeable future. Our highest-ranking men and women in uniform are requesting this authority so that we can best transform our military, moving beyond the cold war and preparing for current and future threats to U.S. national security interests at home and abroad. Last week, I joined four of my Senate colleagues for a breakfast meeting with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. During the meeting, Secretary Rumsfeld shared with us his vision for our global footprint. In an effort to better meet challenges to national security, the United States is changing its deployment of forces overseas. As the Secretary of Defense confirmed at that meeting, the realignment and closure of military installations, both at home and abroad, is critical as we look to continue that process. As a result of prior rounds of base realignments and closures, through fiscal year 2001, the Department of Defense had accumulated net savings of approximately $17 billion. Savings continue annually, freeing up nearly $7 billion each year. These resources have been reinvested to meet urgent defense needs. Given the fact that we still have a military infrastructure that is in excess of 24 percent, we can continue to generate even more savings with an additional round of base closures. The Defense Department estimates that an additional round of base closures could save more than $3 billion, with savings of $5 billion annually thereafter. Given these savings, there should be little doubt that additional rounds of closures will help to redirect expenditures where we need them the most. As I have long advocated during my time in public office, I believe we should work harder and smarter and do more with less. That is what we are being asked to do. By maintaining excess and unneeded military installations, we are keeping scarce and critical resources from more important defense priorities. It just doesn't make sense. Given the looming budget deficit, ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and other spending needs here at home, it does not make sense to spend billions of dollars each year on defense infrastructure that is not needed. We simply cannot afford it. While I strongly support the BRAC process, I believe that every facility in Ohio can justify its existence on the merits, and I will work hard as a partner with local communities and my colleagues in Ohio's congressional delegation to support Ohio's defense installations. I believe that base closures are essential to allowing our men and women in uniform to best serve the strategic and national security interests of the United States, and I strongly oppose any amendment that would delay the base realignments and closures process, or attempt to stop the process in its entirety.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of Mr. William B. Schatz, General Counsel of the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District, NEORSD, in Cleveland, OH. Mr. Schatz currently serves as the District's representative to the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, AMSA, and on May 24, 2004, will become president of this organization. Mr. Schatz was elected AMSA president based on his exemplary commitment and dedication to the clean water community in Ohio and throughout our Nation. AMSA's mission is to effectively maintain a strong leadership role in the development and implementation of scientifically sound, cost- effective, and environmentally friendly policies for the protection of public health and the environment. This month, AMSA celebrates 34 years of dedicated service to improving water quality nationwide. Mr. Schatz has served with distinction at NEORSD since 1979 and for over 20 years has been a leader in the water quality arena, working on many projects on behalf of NEORSD and AMSA. He has served as the ad hoc legal advisor to the Association of Ohio Metropolitan Wastewater Agencies, a member of the Advisory Board of the National Enforcement Training Institute, and a member of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Quality Review Committee on Grant Audits. At AMSA, Mr. Schatz has served as chairman of both the Legal Affairs Committee and Joint AMSA-Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies Insurance Committee, a leader of the Wastewater Infrastructure Funding Task Force, and as a member of AMSA's Board of Directors. Mr. Schatz was instrumental in establishing NEORSD as a leading agency in the wastewater industry and in helping to guide its capital programs. Mr. Schatz was also an influential leader in convincing Congress to fund the conversion of NEORSD's physical chemical Westerly Plant in Cleveland, Ohio, to a conventional biological process. Throughout his career, Mr. Schatz has played an important role in helping to shape critical national policy issues on infrastructure funding, enforcement, and construction grant audit appeals. Mr. Schatz has been of great assistance to me in my efforts in the United States Senate to bring attention to our Nation's vital water infrastructure needs. He is a well-known leader and someone who, day in and day out, goes above and beyond the call of duty. William B. Schatz has made a significant contribution to improving water infrastructure programs across America. On behalf of the people of Ohio, I am pleased to commend William B. Schatz for his extraordinary efforts to improve public health and the environment and I congratulate him on being elected president of the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, this morning, at Arlington National Cemetery, I was honored to join Congressman Steve LaTourette, LTG Richard A. Cody, Superintendent of Arlington Cemetery John Metzler and students and faculty from Painesville High School for the dedication of the Pyramid of Remembrance, a living memorial paying tribute to American soldiers who have lost their lives during peacekeeping operations, humanitarian efforts, training, terrorist attacks, or covert operations. The unveiling of this historic memorial today came as a result of the dedication and hard work of motivated young people at Riverside High School in Painesville, OH and their teacher, Dr. Mary Porter. More than one decade ago, in October 1993, these high school students watched in horror as a U.S. soldier in Somalia was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. The students--concerned that there was not a memorial in our Nation's Capital to honor members of the Armed Forces who lost their lives during peacekeeping missions such as the one in Somalia--felt compelled to take action. These students spearheaded a campaign to establish a Pyramid of Remembrance in Washington, DC. The students not only proposed the memorial, they also created a private non-profit foundation to raise the money to construct the memorial. The community in Painesville pulled together, providing legal counsel for the students and private donations to help fund the project. Due in part to the strong support of this Ohio community, the proposed national Pyramid of Remembrance has been erected at no cost to U.S. taxpayers. There has been considerable discussion regarding the Pyramid of Remembrance since it was first proposed by the students of Riverside High School and introduced in the House of Representatives in 1996. On October 17, 2002, Senator Mike DeWine jonied me in introducing legislation in the Senate for the first time to authorize the creation of the Pyramid of Remembrance. We re-introduced this legislation on January 30, 2003, taking into account recommendations made by the National Park Service, and the Senate Subcommittee on National Parks conducted a hearing to examine the legislation on June 3, 2003. In addition to consideration in the United States Congress, the National Capital Memorial Commission which is charged with overseeing monument construction in Washington, DC, conducted hearings about the proposed Pyramid of Remembrance in April 2001. The Commission recommended that the memorial be constructed on Defense Department land, possibly at Fort McNair. The commissioners also noted that such a memorial would indeed fill a void in our Nation's military monuments. I agree with the commissioners' findings. I, too, believe that this memorial is a fitting addition to our Nation's Capital to honor those who have lost their lives while serving in the United States military, and I am proud that it has now come to fruition. On May 6, 1999, I spoke on the Senate floor in honor of two brave American soldiers--CWO Kevin L. Reichert and CWO David A. Gibbs--who lost their lives when their Apache helicopter crashed into the Albanian mountains during a training exercise on May 5, 1999, as U.S. troops joined with our NATO allies in a military campaign against Slobodan Milosevic. As I remarked at the time, the United States owes Kevin, David and so many other service members a debt of gratitude that we will never be able to repay, for they have paid the ultimate sacrifice. As the Bible says in John, chapter 15:13: Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his own life for his friends. The Pyramid of Remembrance honors individuals such as David Gibbs and Kevin Reichert. It also honors the memory of the 17 service members who lost their lives when the USS Cole was attacked on October 12, 2000, and the American soldiers who lost their lives during the terrorist attacks against the Pentagon and the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. This memorial is dedicated to the brave men and women who have given their lives so that we may know freedom. I was deeply moved by words spoken this morning by Dr. Mary Porter, the teacher at Painesville High School who inspired these students to take action. She said: And so this memorial is for you, SSG William Cleveland. They dragged your body through the streets of Mogadishu, but they could not destroy your spirit . . . for you and for all those who have lost their lives in places like Somalia, Bosnia and Iraq and in training accidents and acts of terrorism: we celebrate your spirit. We recognize your sacrifice. We honor your effort to establish peace. This monument represents our eternal gratitude for your sacrifice, but it also represents hope for a future where human beings on this planet can live in peace and without fear. The patriotism, dedication, and vision of the students at Riverside High School are commendable. Their action shows maturity, leadership and passion for their country that Americans of all ages should emulate. I support and applaud the work these students have done to establish the Pyramid of Remembrance, as well as the efforts of community members who have provided ongoing guidance and support to help the students turn their vision into reality. I believe it is our duty to honor American men and women in uniform who have lost their lives while serving their country, whether in peacetime or during war, and this memorial, which will remain and grow at Arlington National Cemetery, will ensure that the sacrifice made by so many is always remembered by our grateful Nation.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, the State of Ohio has had a good friend in Ohio University President Robert Glidden for many years. Higher education in particular, in Ohio and elsewhere, has had a good friend in Dr. Glidden for a lifetime. As he prepares to retire next month from the presidency of Ohio University, my alma mater, I think it is important to recognize Dr. Glidden's commitment, dedication and hard work. Most of all, though, I would like to applaud his stance that education is the best means through which to raise up the individual, the State of Ohio and our great Nation, and his zeal in conveying that philosophy. On July 1, 1994, Dr. Glidden became the 19th president of Ohio University, the first public institution of higher learning in the old Northwest Territory. He previously had served Ohio as dean of the Bowling Green State University College of Musical Arts from 1975 to 1979 and assistant professor of music at Wright State University from 1966 to 1967. His other posts have included professor, music school dean, provost and vice president for academic affairs at Florida State University and music professor at Indiana University and the University of Oklahoma. Dr. Glidden can be proud of his service to higher education. In the past decade, he has taken Ohio University to a new level of excellence by emphasizing the university's academic and research missions. He has also made it an Ohio University priority to reach out to Southeast Ohio through the university's strong regional campus system, the Voinovich Center for Leadership and Public Affairs, and a multitude of other offerings. He has moved the university forward--by way of improvements in undergraduate education, technological advancements and campus improvements--during some of the toughest economic times we have faced in recent memory. This has taken considerable creativity, focus and foresight, and often it has meant making difficult decisions. It also has required a commitment to seeking out new opportunities and revenue steams. Under Dr. Glidden's watch, external funding for Ohio University faculty research has climbed to $54.3 million, up from just $34.4 million six years earlier. The university also is about to surpass the $200 million goal of its Bientennial Campaign. These are accomplishments on the grand scale, but there is a personal side to Dr. Glidden that students of Ohio University have come to know and appreciate. Above all, he respects them. He wants them to appreciate learning for learning's sake and gain knowledge and skills that will last them a lifetime, especially because the focus of their careers is likely to change several times as the years go by. He also has emphasized civility and character, attributes that--as we see every day--are more important now than ever. Likewise, Dr. Glidden has nurtured Ohio University's relationship with its alumni. These individuals, now some 170,000 strong, are making important advancements and contributions around the globe. He takes pride in their accomplishments, and he encourages their continued involvement with and support for their university and education in general. My wife Janet and I have enjoyed being able to get to know Bob and his wife, Renee. Renee's contributions to the university community are noteworthy in their own right. Not only did she oversee the renovation of the President's residence--painstakingly stripping and refinishing the home's main staircase herself--she has also made valuable contributions as a career volunteer. She has served on the Board of Trustees of the Dairy Barn/Southeastern Ohio Cultural Arts Center, the Stuart Opera House, Community Design Inc., the Percent for Art Committee, and the Ohio Arts Council. In addition to his distinguished service to Ohio University, Dr. Glidden has taken a leadership role in higher education in Ohio and around the country through his involvement with Ohio's Inter-University Council and service as founding chair of the Council on Higher Education Accreditation. Such activities have helped raise the bar for educational institutions around the country and earned him the respect of his peers nationwide. In the words of Miami University President James Garland, whose school has long enjoyed a healthy rivalry with Ohio University: ``When it comes to defending budgets and advancing policies in the interest of higher education, Bob has been a leader in the state . . . I have as much respect for him as a university president as anyone I've ever met.'' I am grateful, as I know others throughout southeast Ohio are that Dr. Glidden has expressed an interest in continuing his service to Ohio University, albeit in a more modest fashion, during retirement. His passion for education and the doors it opens make him a most valuable ally for the students of today and the leaders of tomorrow. Thank you, Bob, for your service. Go Bobcats.

Mr. VOINOVICH

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

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I am rising this evening in support of S. 1637. This is legislation, sponsored by Senator Cantwell and myself, to extend the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Program for another 6 months. The TEUC Program provides additional unemployment compensation benefits to individuals who have exhausted their initial eligibility without finding new employment. It covers those individuals who may find themselves out of a job, once it takes effect. This program is absolutely critical to thousands of people in the United States of America, many of them who live in my home State of Ohio. The Congressional Budget Office recently reported that for the past 2 years, the exhaustion rate for unemployment benefits has been higher than at any time in recent history. During calendar year 2003, 43 percent of UI recipients exhausted their entitlement to regular benefits. This is best depicted by this chart that I have here this evening. The bottom line shows the unemployment from a period of 1972 up to 2004. The top line shows the exhaustion rate of benefits. You can see during this period of time we had exhaustion in benefits, then it goes down, then we come out to the 2003-2004 area and you can see that means these people have been unemployed for a much longer period than is traditional in a recessionary period. Many of those out there today are still in great need. They need these unemployment benefits in order to keep going, paying their mortgages, and giving them some time so they can gain new skills for the jobs that we hope are going to be available to them. In my own State of Ohio, over 31,000 individuals have exhausted their unemployment benefits since the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Program ended in late December. Without additional assistance, these families face severe financial difficulties until they are able to regain employment. Many of my colleagues believe the recent declines in overall unemployment and the continuing decline in initial unemployment claims indicate there is no further need for a TEUC. Nothing could be further from the truth. As CBO's recent report indicates, long-term unemployment has actually continued to increase, even though short-term unemployment has been declining. Part of the problem we face is that many of our assumptions regarding recessions, economic recovery, and job creation are more suited for the 1950s than the 21st century. Traditional economic analysis tells us companies lay off workers during a recession and rehire them to the same jobs during a recovery. Workers may have collected unemployment during a limited period of time, but they have not lost a job and usually return to their former workplace with no need to seek new employment. Unfortunately, the current recession has not followed this pattern. Instead of existing companies laying off employees and later rehiring them, many corporations have permanently eliminated positions or even gone out of business. This has particularly been hurtful in the State of Ohio, where manufacturing has been hit by international competition, litigation costs, and high energy costs. We have lost some 17.5 percent of our manufacturing jobs in the State of Ohio. Companies like Rubbermaid, in Wayne County, Worchester, OH, one of the most successful companies that Ohio has ever had, a company that was written up in Fortune magazine, just closed down--1,200 jobs, in Worchester, OH, a small Ohio city in a small county, Wayne County. Thankfully, new companies and new types of jobs are emerging to replace those that are lost; however, many of the workers who were displaced during the recession have difficulty qualifying for these new jobs. Usually they have to retrain and it is not uncommon they have to relocate. Quite often, middle-aged factory workers find themselves competing with younger, better educated workers for jobs in the technology sector. Also, many times jobs are lost in older urban communities, but the replacement technology or service sector jobs are created in distant suburban areas that require long commutes or changing residences. Families who are dependent on two incomes may find it difficult to locate employment for both wage earners at the same location. Consequently, either the husband or the wife may be unemployed for much longer than in previous recessions. This is precisely the situation we are facing in Ohio. We have lost manufacturing jobs in older communities such as Youngstown and Cleveland and southeast Ohio. Most of these job losses reflect plant closings or permanent downsizing. These jobs are gone and they are not coming back. They are gone. They are finished. Meanwhile, some areas of the State are picking up service sector jobs and have unemployment rates as low as 3.9 percent. Unfortunately, expanded financial service jobs in suburban Columbus are not much help to an unemployed tool and die maker in Toledo, OH. It is all very well to talk about the bright new economy that will generate plentiful employment at high wages for the knowledge workers of the future. However, we still have a responsibility to assist the semiskilled manual laborers being displaced by the demise of the old manufacturing economy. Many of these workers can and will retrain. Some will, however reluctantly, relocate. All of them will require time to make these changes. Recently, Chairman Greenspan has recognized the need to extend temporary unemployment benefits. Secretary Snow has recognized the need to extend temporary unemployment benefits. Our President recognizes that we need to extend temporary unemployment benefits. It is time for Congress to extend these benefits. The program was designed specifically to give long-term unemployed individuals the time they need to readjust to changing economic realities. The recent report from the CBO clearly indicates the continued need for this program. Consequently, I call upon my colleagues to offer a helping hand to workers from that old economy, while we welcome the rise of the new economy. We can afford to help with this transition, and it is the right thing to do. I know there are many of my colleagues from States that do not have the problem we have in my State, and they don't understand the urgency of the passage of this legislation. I think we owe it to these people, to these families. Some of them live in my neighborhood in the city of Cleveland. I have lived in the same house since I was mayor of the city of Cleveland, since 1972. I live in a middle-class neighborhood. I have a neighbor across the street who has been unemployed and his benefits have been exhausted. He needs help. I see these people in the grocery store and they talk to me about it. I think some of our colleagues who are opposed come from States where things are fine, things are wonderful. But I think part of the responsibility we have as Senators in the United States of America is to look after the needs of the entire country. If I were in a position where things were wonderful in my State and they weren't good in some other State and they needed some help in unemployment, then I would be supportive of that because I think it is the proper thing for us to do. The other thing about this program that a lot of my colleagues do not understand is that, even though this money is coming from the Federal Treasury, the money ultimately is repaid back to the Treasury from the unemployment compensation fund that is supported by a tax on our businesses in our State. This happened when we had the last recession in the State of Ohio. I am urging my colleagues to open their eyes to the pleas and the needs of so many of our fellow Americans who need that extra help at this time for themselves and for their families. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, perhaps I have been in local and State government too long. I really do care about my brothers and sisters in State government and in local government. I was not going to speak on the Feinstein amendment, but I have some statistics about the fiscal stress on the States that would lose the DSL after they sunset the exemption in the next 2 years. I am here to urge my colleagues to support the 4-year extension for those States that have used DSL. The reason for it is this: The States are under one of the worst fiscal constraints they have been in since the Second World War. Alabama, projected deficit next year, $620 million; Alaska, $475 million; Arizona, the State of the Senator McCain, sponsor of the underlying compromise, $1.1 billion; California, $15 billion; Connecticut, $200 million; Illinois, $2 billion; Indiana, $595 million; Kentucky, $200 million; Louisiana $500 million; Minnesota, $185 million; Mississippi, $709 million--a small State, lots of money; Missouri, $600 million; New Jersey, $5 billion; New York, $5.1 billion; North Carolina, $400 million; Rhode Island, $188 million; South Carolina, $300 million. The States are in trouble. If we give them an extra 2 years so they can make the adjustment in terms of losing these dollars, I think it will help them segue into a situation where they can get themselves back on track. The last thing I would say is that the way this is going, I think it could end up being the largest unfunded mandate on the States. We should at least give these States a break. I urge my colleagues to include passing the Feinstein amendment.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I am kind of surprised that the Corn Growers Association of America is supporting the Allen-Wyden legislation. I am sure that if they really understood the ramifications of this legislation, they would not be supportive of it because they would understand that if that legislation passes, their real estate taxes or other taxes they are paying would increase. I am going to make a point of getting in touch with them. I received the President's Award last year from the Corn Growers, from Fred Yoder, who was their president, and worked very hard, several years ago, to get the petroleum people and the Corn Growers together to come up with the ethanol compromise that is now in the Energy bill. I am glad the Senator from Virginia has pointed out they are supporting this legislation. I am going to get in touch with them right away and share with them some information they might not have had at the time they came out to support this legislation. This afternoon the Senator from Arizona quoted from a policy paper of the National Governors Association and mentioned the criteria that the National Governors Association said should be in any bill that deals with this question of Internet taxation. I would like to go through that policy paper and share that with my colleagues in the Senate. First: NGA supports, as I do and as the Presiding Officer does, reasonable extension of the Internet Tax Freedom Act. In this policy paper that was quoted from: The NGA calls upon Congress to adopt S. 2084, the ``Internet Tax Ban Extension and Improvement Act.'' This compromise bill, sponsored by Senators Alexander and Carper-- and, by the way, Senator Voinovich-- offers a reasonable extension of the moratorium while addressing industry concerns for technological neutrality without unduly burdening state and local governments. I am not going to go into all these, but I ask unanimous consent that this policy paper be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH. First, they talk about: ``DO NO HARM. Any extension of the moratorium should preserve existing state and local revenues.'' The next point they make is: ``BE CLEAR. Definitions matter.'' By the way, in the area of ``DO NO HARM,'' they mention the fact: With state and local governments collecting over $18 billion in telecommunications taxes annually, any significant change in the taxability of telecommunications could cost states billions [billions] of dollars. At a time when state and local governments are facing large increases in mandatory spending and stagnant revenue growth, Congress should not exacerbate state fiscal problems by interfering with the collection of existing taxes. In terms of the definitions, they believe that: The original moratorium split the definition of Internet access into two parts: a broad and inclusive description of Internet access and an absolute exclusion of telecommunications services from the moratorium. The definition read: ``Internet access means a service that enables users to access content, information, electronic mail, or other services offered over the Internet, and may also include access to proprietary content, information, and other services as part of a package of services offered to users. Such term does not include telecommunications services.'' The exclusion of telecommunications services protected states by clarifying that Internet access was a separate, distinct and limited service. They go on to say, under definitions: [The House bill] and S. 150 would also intensify a long- standing problem with the original definition: the unlimited ability to bundle together content and ``other services'' into a single offering of tax-free Internet access. Services such as VOIP-- That is being able to use your computer to make telephone calls-- highlight the risk states face from this broad definition. Unlike traditional telecommunications services, VOIP uses the Internet to transmit voice communications between computers, phones and other communications devices. Industry observers expect 40 percent of all telephone calls in the United States to be Internet based within five years. If VOIP is allowed to be bundled with Internet access into a single tax-free offering, and telecommunications used to deliver that offering are also tax free, states could quickly see their telecommunications tax base erode to nothing [nothing]. Language in S. 150 as amended and S. 2084 that requires service providers to unbundle taxable services from non- taxable Internet access is helpful, but only if the universe of what constitutes Internet access is actually limited. It also goes on and talks about ``STAY FLEXIBLE. A temporary solution is better than permanent confusion.'' Did you hear that? ``A temporary solution is better than permanent confusion.'' Rapid pace innovation in the Internet and telecommunications industries makes it difficult to define accurately these complex and ever-changing services. The original moratorium was made temporary in part for this reason--to provide Congress, industry and state and local governments with the ability to revisit the issue and make adjustments where necessary to accommodate new technologies and market realities. The fact that the courts, the Federal Communications Commission and Congress are all in the process of examining and redefining the core elements of what constitutes telecommunications and Internet access underscores the need for caution. We are in an era right now of unbelievable change. With so much uncertainty, a temporary extension of the moratorium is the best way to avoid unintended consequences from a permanent moratorium. Their final conclusion--and I am sure the Presiding Officer is very happy about this--is: NGA supports S. 2084 because it best reflects a balance between state sovereignty and federal support for the Internet. First, it protects states by drawing a line in the sand to prohibit new taxes on Internet without interfering with existing state taxes. Second, by making the connection from a consumer to their Internet access provider tax free, the Alexander-Carper bill actually levels the playing field for competing technologies without overreaching. That is a point that the Presiding Officer has made several times on the floor of the Senate. Continuing: Third, it gives Congress, industry and states a chance to revisit the Act by making the moratorium expire after two years. For these reasons NGA supports S. 2084 as a true compromise that is fair to industry, respectful of states, and good for consumers. Now, I contacted the National Governors Association earlier today. I asked them if they could opine on the McCain amendment that was so eloquently spoken to by Senator McCain. They worked very quickly and came back with a letter to Senator Frist, majority leader, and Senator Daschle, Democratic leader. It is signed by Governor Brad Henry, Oklahoma, Chair, Committee on Economic Development and Commerce, and Governor Michael Rounds, South Dakota, Vice Chairman, Committee on Economic Development and Commerce. I would like to read from that letter. Dear Senator Frist and Senator Daschle: The National Governors Association . . . supports an Internet access tax moratorium that benefits consumers, is fair to industry, and does no harm to states. As the Senate once again considers the moratorium, we urge you to oppose efforts that would deprive states of existing tax revenues and to support the compromise proposal to be offered by Senator Alexander and Senator Carper and embodied in S. 2084, the ``Internet Tax Ban Extension and Improvement Act.'' NGA supports the Alexander/Carper compromise because it best reflects the appropriate balance between state sovereignty and federal support for the Internet. First, it protects states by prohibiting new taxes on Internet access without interfering with existing state revenues. Second, by making the connection from a consumer to their Internet access provider tax free, the compromise language encourages broadband deployment by leveling the playing field for all technologies. That is what we are trying to do. The amendment we tried to get in last year and which will be offered by the Senator from Tennessee tries to level the playing field for all of the providers of this access. Third, because it is temporary, it gives Congress, industry, consumers, and states a chance to revisit the issue and make adjustments where necessary to accommodate new technologies and market realities. Here is the paragraph that I think gets to the heart of the matter: The recent proposal by Senator McCain, while an improvement on the bill sponsored by Senator Allen and Senator Wyden . . . does not go far enough to protect states. By adopting the broad definition of tax-free Internet access used in S. 150-- That is the same definition that is in the Wyden-Allen bill; the same definition is in the amendment proposed by Senator McCain-- and terminating the grandfather protections before the end of the moratorium, the McCain proposal would still deprive state and local governments of existing tax revenues and violate the principle of ``do no harm.'' The nation's governors call on the U.S. Senate to oppose the McCain amendment and support Senator Alexander and Senator Carper in their efforts to strike a reasonable compromise to extend the Internet access tax moratorium. The Senator from Tennessee, Senator Alexander, Senator Carper, and Senator Voinovich, who is the third sponsor of S. 2084, should be very happy with the support we are getting from the National Governors Association. I hope our colleagues take that into consideration. In addition to the letter from the National Governors Association, I would like to share a letter I recently received from the Ohio Department of Taxation. In fact, I have never seen a letter from the Department of Taxation of the State of Ohio turned around so quickly in my life. We faxed them the McCain proposal. We asked them to give us their opinion of the McCain amendment. I suggest to my colleagues that before they vote on this legislation, they take it upon themselves--as a matter of fact, I think it is an obligation for them--to get in contact with their State departments of taxation to get a read from them about what impact this amendment would have on their respective States. Some of my colleagues, frankly, are supporting this and may not want to hear the impact it is having on their State. But I think it is incumbent upon them at least to find out what their States think about this proposed legislation and the impact it would have on their respective States. I am going to read a portion of this letter. It reads: Dear Senator Voinovich: We reviewed the text of the McCain language that you FAXed to us this morning. Our preliminary impression is that this bill is very similar to the version of S. 150 containing the ``managers amendment'' and has roughly the same negative revenue impact on Ohio. Specifically, we think that the bill would cause a state and local revenue loss of about $72 million per year. The amount would become larger as more telecommunications services are provided through Internet technology and/or bundled with Internet access, and as broadband Internet access is used by more households. Specifically, the $72 million estimate does not account for state and local revenues lost as more phone services are replaced by VOIP, which we believe the McCain bill will still prohibit the states from taxing (as long as VOIP is bundled with Internet access). That is the way they do it. They bundle it together and under their definition this would be exempt from taxation. As you know, the states objected to S. 150 on several grounds. One of the most important was the language ``the term `Internet access' does not include telecommunications services, except to the extent such services are purchased, used, or sold by a provider of Internet access to provide Internet access.'' This ``Allen-Wyden'' definition of Internet access is so broad that it essentially can be used to exempt what we have seen referred to as the ``Internet backbone'' telecommunications services, the ``middle mile'' telecommunications services, and the ``last mile'' telecommunications services. This is in contrast to S2084, which you cosponsored, and which would have provided a much more limited exemption for last mile telecommunications services that are used to connect an end-user (e.g. household) to an Internet service provider such as AOL or Earthlink or Comcast. That is the thing we don't want. We want people to have to plug into that mile, but the thing we are concerned about is they want to go beyond that. They want to take in the whole watermelon. In Ohio, the impact of the S. 150 moratorium on state and local taxation of all these telecommunications services may not be as damaging as in some other states because Ohio already has a broad exemption for the purchase of property used in providing telecommunications services. Even so, we still estimate that the annual full-year loss to Ohio from the provision would be about $72 million. Another notable provision of the McCain bill is the exception of VOIP services from the tax moratorium. To the extent that such service mimics traditional telephone service, we believe that this means that State and local governments would be allowed to tax VOIP services insofar as they mimic traditional telephone services. The so-called VOIP exception to the moratorium actually does nothing for the states' ability to tax that or similar services that may migrate to the Internet. Current Ohio law allows state and local governments to tax VOIP as a telecommunications service, as long as there is no federal preemption. The McCain ``exception'' to the federal preemption does not apply to services that are defined as Internet access. This means that the exemption will not apply to voice services that are bundled with Internet access, and since that is how VOIP services are currently sold and probably will continue to be sold, the exception in the McCain bill will in fact provide no protection against states losing revenues as phone services migrate to VOIP. The Senator from Tennessee, the Presiding Officer, has made it very clear if there was an amendment to that bill that made it very clear that could continue to be taxed, that might remedy this whole issue. The letter goes on to say: We do not know exactly how much revenues will be lost in the future due to the migration of currently taxable phone service to exempt VOIP service, but it could end up being most of Ohio's telecommunications tax revenues. I'll read that again: We do not know exactly how much revenue will be lost in the future due to the migration of current taxable phone service to exempt VOIP service, but it could end up being most of Ohio's telecommunications tax revenues. You know if that happens, the State is either going to reduce services or they are going to find something else to tax. That is the way this thing operates. The letter concludes: To put the estimated $72 million loss in context, in fiscal year 2003, Ohio collected about $250 million in sales tax and use tax from telecommunications service providers. The most recent biennial budget bill switched local telephone providers from the old gross receipts tax to the sales tax and use tax, so that now the forecasted full year sales and use tax revenue from all telecommunications providers is about $370 million. This is at a 5 percent state tax rate--we are ignoring the current 6 percent tax rate because it is set to expire. . . .Thus, the estimated revenue loss from the McCain bill (excluding the VOIP loss) is slightly less than 20 percent of total estimated Ohio telecommunications sales tax revenues. The fact is the McCain amendment is going to have a devastating impact on the revenues of our States and goes far beyond the moratorium I helped negotiate when I was chairman of the National Governors Association, and is something we should all be concerned about. I also want to make another couple of points, if I may. I have heard so much today already and in the past about the fact that if we don't get this done, everything is going to stop and it is going to be a terrible thing for farmers and all Americans, and so on. The fact is, Internet technology has grown unbelievably over the past year. According to a study released by the Pew Internet and American Life Project last week, 55 percent of American Internet users have access to broadband, either at home or in the workplace. As a matter of fact, it is going to keep growing because I think the Senator from Tennessee pointed out this afternoon there are some communities that have their own electric companies that are giving it away. This thing is moving. We don't see anything slowing down. We are moving fast. The report also noted home broadband usage is up 60 percent since March 2003, with half of the growth since November 2003. You will recall back when we were debating this last year, the allegation was, gee, if we don't get this done, everything is going to be taxed, things are going to end up in the mud, slowed down, and we are in trouble. Since the moratorium ended, half of this growth occurred. So this thing is moving. This moratorium--the fact we didn't extend it has not really impacted this one iota. DSL technology now has a 42-percent share of the home market, which is up 28 percent since March 2003. Most of the growth I outlined occurred after the Internet tax moratorium expired last November, which refutes the argument S. 150 was necessary to help the expansion of broadband services. In addition, April 21--a couple days ago--a major telecommunications company released their 2004 first quarter earnings. I want to read the first two sentences from the company's press release because it illustrates how fast this technology is growing. This is from SBC Communications: SBC Communications, Inc., today reported first quarter 2004 earnings of $1.9 billion, as it delivered strong progress in key growth products. In the quarter SBC added 446,000 DSL lines, the best ever by a U.S. telecom provider. Some of these people who are supporting the Wyden-Allen amendment and now McCain amendment are companies like this. They are doing well. They are moving. They are bragging, ``We are moving ahead.'' We all know the Federal Government today subsidizes this telecommunications industry. If I remember correctly from a speech the Presiding Officer gave this afternoon, it is a $4 billion subsidy from the Federal Government, and the States--all of them--have been doing everything they can to encourage this industry. I don't know of any industry that has been treated better than this industry. For the life of me, I cannot understand why it is they insist on having us whack out all of the taxes they are paying. I cannot understand it. I think if this Senate does the right thing, what we are going to tell this industry, which does a pretty good job of lobbying around here and in the States--I knew it when I was Governor--we will tell them: You know what. You are not going to get a complete release of all the taxes you pay. It is time for you to sit down, like I did with the petroleum industry and the Corn Growers--they came to me and wanted me with them on ethanol, and the oil industry--and the Senator from Oklahoma knows them well--said you have to be with us. I said, you know something, I had Ashland Marathon Oil in Ohio, and I had my Corn Growers and I love you both. You ought to get in the room and sit down and talk to each other and see if you cannot work something out. Lo and behold, after 6 months, they had a big news conference. About 20 Senators were there, and on that stage were people who, if you talked to them 6 months before and said you are going to be on the stage together in a compromise, would have said you are crazy. They were on that stage and they put a compromise together. The problem we have today in the Senate is the fact that the telecommunications industry thinks this thing is going to go through and they don't have to sit down and talk to State and local government officials, or with the Commerce Committee, and work something out. I know it can be done. I am prayerful our colleagues today understand that and that they will come together and say we have not been able to do this, and we will have a continuation of a moratorium. But let's sit down and work it out. Probably the best way to do that under the circumstances, with the time limitation we have, would probably be to pass a 14-or 15-month extension of the current moratorium, while we can take it back to the Commerce Committee, where we can get the telecommunications industry in, get the Governors and other local government officials in, and the FCC, and start to make some sense out of this. I thank the Senator from Tennessee, Senator Alexander, for the great leadership he has provided on this issue. We got together last year, and the train was moving and we got in the way of it and caught a lot of criticism because they were accusing us of being for taxing e-mail and the Internet and all the rest of it. That wasn't it at all. All we wanted to do was continue a moratorium but do no harm to our States. We probably understand that more than some Members because we are former Governors. In my case, I am a former mayor and county commissioner, and we also appreciate it because we all worked together for legislation in 1995--the unfunded mandates relief legislation I worked my heart out to get passed. As a matter of fact, the pen President Clinton used to sign that legislation is on the wall in my Senate office in the Hart Building. The first time I set foot on the floor of the Senate was the day the Senate passed the unfunded mandates relief legislation. I don't like unfunded mandates. I don't think it is fair. We have done it to the States for so many years. We finally got that legislation passed. The American people should know this is a big unfunded mandate, the way it is put together. We can change it and make it fair so they are not going to see the taxes on telecommunications disappear and then see taxes increased in some other area. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, leveling the playing field for high school graduates in the District of Columbia continues to be a top priority of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia which I chair. Today I would like to highlight the tremendous impact the District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Program--D.C. TAG--has had on promoting higher education for high school graduates in the Nation's Capital and introduce legislation that would permanently authorize the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999. In 1999, I worked with the House and fellow Senators Jeffords and Durbin to craft the District of Columbia College Access Act which was signed into law on November 12, 1999. Soon after, under the direction of Mayor Anthony Williams, the D.C. TAG Program was created to implement this important legislation. The first grants were awarded in 2000. The aim of the Program was to afford D.C. high school graduates the same opportunity that high school seniors in each of the 50 States have, the ability to attend public universities and colleges at in- State tuition rates in all 50 States and participating private schools--Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) nationwide or private colleges or universities in Virginia or Maryland. The program has made it possible for D.C. residents to attend college who did not have access to similar State-supported systems. The D.C. TAG scholarships are used by D.C. residents to pay the difference between in-State and out-of-State tuition, up to $10,000 per student per school year with a cumulative cap of $50,000 per student. In addition, as of March 2002, D.C. residents attending participating private institutions started receiving tuition grants under the program of $2,500 per student per school year with a cumulative cap of $12,500 per student. To date, D.C. TAG has dispersed more than $63 million to a total of 6,527 students, many of whom are the first in their family to attend college. All current high school students who are D.C. residents are eligible for these scholarships and participation is increasing. The powerful impact of the program on high school graduates continuing on to college is hard to deny. Data from the Department of Education's Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System show that the number of D.C. high school graduates continuing on to college increased from 1,750 in 1998 to 2,230 in 2002. That's a 28 percent increase since the program was created. This is the highest level of college attendance of District students and exceeds the national average, over the same period, of a 5-percent increase. Mayor Williams stated that `'No State in the Union can make that claim. This unprecedented figure is due in large part, if not almost exclusively, I believe, to D.C. TAG.'' According to a survey conducted by the D.C. TAG Office, the grants have become an essential part of higher education planning for D.C. residents. The majority of students who have received assistance through the program have indicated that the existence of the grants made a difference in their decision to attend college, and also played a role in deciding which college to attend. It is important for my colleagues to know that thousands of D.C. students have taken advantage of this program. It can help to turn around years of economic and educational despair in the District. We are now coming to the end of the 5-year authorization for the program which expires in November 2005. Because of this and the success of the program, Senators Durbin, Jeffords, Lieberman, and I are introducing this bill to permanently reauthorize the D.C. College Access Act. In closing I would like to quote two D.C. Residents. La Rue Purry, currently a freshman at the University of Alabama states that ``This program gave me the opportunity to get the education I always wanted, the education my family couldn't have provided for me.'' Brian Ford, a former D.C. TAG recipient, who testified at the House committee on Government Reform Hearing on March 25, 2004, stated that ``The D.C. Tuition Assistance Program is a necessity for the city of Washington, DC, and for its residents. I urge Congress to please continue to provide financial support to the D.C. TAG program so one day students like myself can have a college diploma hanging on the wall for the world to see.'' I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation and I'm confident that it can be enacted this year. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. I have already listed them in my formal presentation on the floor. There are so many it is hard to remember. But I did mention the fact that we all worked together as members of the National Governors Association. In fact, the Senator from Delaware was vice chairman of the National Governors Association when I was president of the National Governors Association, and we worked together and collaborated on a lot of issues. I have been concerned about this issue since I was president of the National League of Cities back in 1985. As the Presiding Officer knows, one of the biggest issues we had in 1995 and 1996 was unfunded mandates. We went right across the country pointing out how devastating these mandates coming out of Washington were for State and local governments. We thought we had done something very significant about it. But to answer the question of the Senator from Delaware, from my perspective, the passage of this bill would be the most egregious unfunded mandate we have seen since 1995, when the unfunded mandates relief legislation was passed. It seems to me we still have Members of this body who were around when unfunded mandates relief legislation was passed and there was great support for it. It seems to me those who supported it at that time should give some real consideration to the fact that we are about, if this were to pass, to have the biggest unfunded mandate, as I said, since that bill passed.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, first of all, I want to thank the Senator from Tennessee for the tremendous amount of time and effort he has put into this issue. We all got into this together last year when we saw the train moving very fast and we wanted to do what we could to slow it down. We were able to accomplish that. Since that time, the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Delaware have been working on a bipartisan basis to try to spend a great deal of time with the folks who have a different point of view, trying to reconcile the differences. Unfortunately, those differences have not been reconciled. But it certainly is not based on a lack of trying. The Senator from Tennessee now has become the expert on this. Madam President, I wish you had been at a meeting I had with him last week, where he was teaching the teachers on this legislation. I thank him so very much for all of his hard work and dedication to this issue. I hope our colleagues will listen to us today and perhaps come up with another compromise that will allow us to spend more time to deal with this subject. This is a very complicated issue and we need to be careful how we proceed. Today we are going to consider a motion to proceed on S. 150, the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act of 2003. When the Senate first considered this legislation last November, I argued the debate on S. 150 was not about taxing e-mail or increasing taxes on Internet access. It was suggested by some members of this legislative body that we were in favor of taxing the Internet or e-mail. In fact, I stand here today in opposition to taxes on Internet access and firmly opposed to any and all taxes on e-mail by any level of government-- Federal, State, or local. But that is not what today's debate is about. Rather, the debate on S. 150 is about federalism, unfunded mandates, and protecting the States' ability to collect revenue at a time when State and local governments are struggling to make ends meet. As a former State representative, counter auditor, counter commissioner, Lieutenant Governor, mayor of Cleveland, and Governor of Ohio, I have seen firsthand how the relationship between the Federal Government and our State and local counterparts affect our citizens and the communities in which they live. My experience has fueled my passion for federalism and the need to balance the Federal Government's power with the powers our Founding Fathers envisioned for the States. This very body was created in part to guarantee that States have adequate and equal means to assert their interests before the Federal Government, and I can assure you that if we Senators were still elected State legislators, this issue would not be before us today. The relationship between the Federal Government and State and local governments should be one of partnership. However, that is not always the case. I am concerned about the tendency of the Federal Government to preempt the functions of State and local governments and force on them new responsibilities, particularly without also providing funding to pay for these new responsibilities. Madam President, that is why I fought for the passage of unfunded mandates reform. As a matter of fact, I will never forget the first time in my life I set foot on the floor of the U.S. Senate was when the unfunded mandates reform legislation passed. Then, later at the Rose Garden, I was there representing State and local governments when President Clinton signed UMRA in 1995. As I said, I was representing State and local governments, and, Madam President, your husband a former Senator from Kansas, Mr. Dole, was representing the national interests. It is a day I will never forget. In fact, I have the pen that was used to sign the legislation proudly displayed in my office in the Senate. As I will explain in a moment, S. 150 violates the principles of federalism. When S. 150 was pulled from the Senate floor last November, advocates on both sides of the issue agreed to resolve our differences. For the past 6 months, we have been engaged in meaningful dialog, but we just cannot reach an agreement. At this point in time, I am concerned that the philosophical differences between the two sides may be too deep to bridge. Madam President, I have three problems with the definition of Internet access: First, it is so broad that it prevents State and local governments from collecting taxes on all telecommunications services used to provide Internet access over the entire broad band network. We are talking about the entire network, last mile, middle mile, and backbone. States are currently collecting between $3 billion and $10 billion annually in telephone taxes. I am concerned that this tax base may erode as traditional phone service migrates to cutting edge technology called voice over Internet protocol, VOIP. In fact, the migration is happening at a rapid pace. For example, on April 9, 2004, Newsday reported that AT&T expects to add 1 million VOIP customers by the end of 2005 and there are many other companies rolling out this service as well. This will have a tremendous change in the way telephone service is provided in the United States. As a part of our good-faith negotiations on S. 150, Senators Allen and Alexander were working on language to preserve the States' ability to collect taxes on VOIP, but they have not yet reached an agreement. In addition, the Federation of Tax Administrators noted that S. 150 would prohibit States from continuing to tax some transactions such as business-to-business transactions between Internet service providers and telephone companies, and they estimate this could cost State and local governments $500 million annually in lost revenues. Second, S. 150 violates the spirit of the original moratorium by making a brand new definition of Internet access permanent. The original 1998 moratorium was 3 years in duration, and in 2001, Congress extended it for 2 more years. With technology changing so rapidly, we must be cautious when trying to define Internet access. Third, according to the CBO, S. 150 imposes an intergovernmental mandate under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Let me repeat, CBO says it is an unfunded mandate. On page 6 of the September 29, 2003, Commerce Committee's report on S. 150, CBO said: By extending and expanding the moratorium on certain types of State and local taxes, S. 150 would impose an intergovernmental mandate as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. CBO estimates that the mandate would cause State and local governments to lose revenue beginning in October 2006; those losses would exceed the threshold established in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act . . . by 2007. While there is some uncertainty as to the number of States affected, CBO estimates that the direct costs to State and local governments would probably total between $80 million and $120 million annually, beginning in 2007. There is no question, this is an unfunded mandate. Furthermore--and this is the part to which we really need to pay attention: Depending on how the language altering the definition of what telecommunications are taxable is interpreted, that language also could result in substantial revenue losses for States and local governments. It is possible that States could lose revenue if services that are currently taxed are redefined as Internet access under the definition of S. 150 . . . However, CBO cannot estimate the magnitude of these losses. In other words, at this stage of the game, they have no idea how large these losses will be to State and local governments if the definition of Internet access in S. 150 is passed. To follow up on CBO's assessment, I went to my own State and said: Can you examine the proposals and let me know what they would cost our state? Under S. 150, as reported, it would cost the State of Ohio $350 million a year at a time when they are trying to balance their budget. They are making cuts in services right now to try to balance the State budget. The Allen-Wyden managers' amendment we discussed in November would cost about $150 million for 2 years, and the Alexander-Carper- Voinovich amendment would cost my State about $40 million a year. So any proposal under consideration would cost my State money. Logic tells me that if CBO cannot calculate the potential loss in revenue to the States, and my State projects large revenue losses, why would we make dramatic and permanent changes to the Internet tax moratorium? Why would we do that to our friends in State and local government? Last month, Senator Collins, chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, confirmed in a letter to me that the Allen-Wyden managers' amendment to S. 150 also contained unfunded mandates as defined by UMRA. The CBO says it and the Governmental Affairs Committee says it is an unfunded mandate. Unlike Congress, by law States must balance their budgets. They do not have the option of printing money like we do. Therefore, if the Senate passes S. 150 or the managers' amendment, Congress will, in effect, force States to raise taxes or cut services in order to make up the difference, which is why each State and local government and organizations are opposed to this legislation with the exception of the NCSL. However, NCSL did send a strong message earlier this year. In fact, they were in favor of this bill last November but have since removed their support and are now neutral on the legislation. They are giving more consideration to this issue. The financial impact of S. 150 would be devastating to our State and local governments, but there are other problems with the legislation that are beyond our control. The Federal Communications Commission classifies DSL as both an information service and telecommunications service. I just wonder how many of our colleagues really understand what this is all about. This is a very complex issue and we really need to pay attention to both the language in the proposals and, now to the courts as well. Under the 1998 moratorium, State and local governments are able to collect taxes on the telecommunications portion of DSL service. The problem that supporters of S. 150 point out is that cable modem Internet service has been classified by the FCC as an information service and, therefore, it is not subject to State and local telecommunications taxes. My colleagues argue that we need to bring parity to the industry by enacting an expanded definition of Internet access. I agree with them in principle. However, earlier this month the Ninth Circuit overruled the Federal Communications Commission decision that cable modem broadband service was a single information service. The court ruling means that cable modem service now can be classified as part information service and part telecommunications service, just like DSL. So under the Ninth Circuit, there is now parity between DSL and cable modem. The Ninth Circuit case may be appealed to the Supreme Court. This whole area still is in flux. But it does not end there. As I mentioned, we think it will go to the Supreme Court, and, if so, they may not render a decision until June of 2005. The case, obviously, has significant impact on the debate today. When we have so much uncertainty, Congress should proceed very cautiously and not run out and do something that will have a tremendous impact on all the future decisions that are made on this issue. I am one of 11 Members joining Senators Alexander and Carper on S. 2084, the Internet Tax Ban Extension and Improvement Act. The bill provides a 2-year solution that expands the definition of Internet access to the level playing field for all Internet providers: DSL, cable, modem, wireless, and satellite. In other words, our bill would put them all in an equal position and would resolve the issue with the Ninth Circuit Court because it would basically say we agree with the court. Our legislation would make the last mile of Internet service from the Internet provider to the customer tax free. In addition, our legislation retains the existing grandfather clause in effect for 2 years, that is 11 States; expands the grandfather clause by allowing States that are now collecting taxes on DSL service to continue to do so for 2 more years, currently 16 States; and prohibits States that are not collecting taxes on DSL from doing so. It would also prevent them from collecting taxes on cable and other services on the Internet. Unfortunately, our legislation was not acceptable to the sponsors. We thought it was very reasonable because they believed we needed a broader policy to promote the growth of the Internet. However, recent trends on the growth of broadband services may suggest otherwise. When I was chairman of the National Governors Association back in 1998, I helped negotiate the first Internet tax moratorium because there was a big concern about what it would do to the Internet. Our goal then and our goal today is the same: to encourage the growth of the Internet as a driving force in our economy. We want that to happen. I believe we have been successful. In fact, I will highlight how much Internet technology has grown over the past years. It is unbelievable. According to a study released by the Pew Internet and American Life Project last week, 55 percent of American Internet users have access to broadband either at home or at the workplace. The report also noted that home broadband usage is up 60 percent since March of 2003, with half of that growth since November of 2003. DSL technology now has a 42-percent share of the home broadband market. This figure is up from 28 percent in March of 2003. What I would like to point out is that it all happened since the moratorium ended. I think the Chair will recall that our opponents were concerned that if the moratorium expired, States would rush out and tax the Internet. That has not happened. In fact, we have just seen an exponential growth in the use of the Internet. Additionally, on April 21, a major telecommunications company, SBC released their 2004 first quarter earnings. I will read the first two sentences from the company's press release because it illustrates how fast this technology is growing. SBC Communications, Inc., today reported first-quarter 2004 earnings of $1.9 billion as it delivered strong progress in key growth products. In the quarter, SBC added 446,000 DSL lines, the best ever by a U.S. telecom provider . . . I congratulate this company for fostering the growth of DSL service in our country and for building a solid business plan that allowed them to have such a positive impact on their bottom line. Their financial outlook proves that Congress should not subsidize a growing industry at the expense of our State and local governments. As I mentioned earlier, not one State has passed legislation to tax Internet access in the absence of a Federal moratorium. In fact, we have reports that a couple of States have even backed off from what they were doing before. Therefore, the sky that was predicted to fall has not. That is not to say that I am opposed to an Internet tax moratorium. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is still more room to compromise, and I think it is fair to say that some of my colleagues agree with my assessment. The inability of both sides to reach an agreement prompted Senator McCain to offer a new proposal. I commend my good friend from Arizona for trying to reach a middle ground on this complex issue and, for that matter, I congratulate him on trying to bring us together. I do not know whether the Senator from Tennessee is going to opine on that proposal, but the four principles are: Establishes a 4-year moratorium; allows States to collect taxes on telephone calls made over the Internet; extends the original grandfather clause for 3 years; initiates the 2-year grandfather clause for States that are currently collecting taxes on DSL services. I am very concerned because the term of the moratorium is longer than the two grandfather clauses, which may trigger the unfunded mandate that I have been talking about in the point of order. I appreciate the attempt of the Senator from Arizona to offer a solution. But here we are here again at the last minute trying to get something done, and now we have a new proposal. We have no idea of what impact it is going to have. I for one, would like my state to review the proposal. It seems to me that at this stage the best thing we can do is to understand that we have unresolved issues, and that S. 150 was passed out of the Commerce Committee by voice vote. That is the way it came out of the committee. If one examines S. 150 and they examine the Alexander-Carper-Voinovich, et al., bill they will find both bills have 11 cosponsors. There are 11 for our bill and 11 for the legislation of the Senator from Virginia. Six cosponsors of each bill are from the Commerce Committee. So it is evident that even within the Commerce Committee there are genuine differences of opinion on the best way to proceed. I think we understand that given the longstanding impasse on negotiations and the possible Supreme Court action, there has to be an easier way to get this done. I understand Senator Enzi will introduce a 15-month extension of the original moratorium, and perhaps that is the most reasonable solution because it will provide all stakeholders, including the Commerce Committee, the FCC, the State and local government groups, and the industry time to draft a reasonable bill. If the motion to proceed to S. 150 passes this afternoon, I believe the Senate will not be able to reach an agreement on the underlying bill, which may signal the end of the Internet tax moratorium. If we cannot agree, that is the end of it. I do not want that to happen. Therefore, I implore my colleagues to continue negotiations on the Internet tax moratorium. Our goal should be to reach a sensible solution with two simple principles in mind: First and foremost, do no harm to the States. Second, foster the growth of high-speed Internet access by leveling the playing field for all Internet service providers. So a way out of the thicket may be to extend the moratorium for another 2 years or for 15 months, give the Commerce Committee more of an opportunity to work on the issue, give the FCC more time to be involved, see which way the court cases are going, and come back with something where all of us can agree that makes sense. We need a proposal that respects the State and local governments, does not violate unfunded mandates, and at the same time make sure we can move forward with the Internet and achieve the phenomenal success that it already has achieved. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, leveling the playing field for high school graduates in the District of Columbia continues to be a top priority of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia which I chair. Today I would like to highlight the tremendous impact the District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Program--D.C. TAG--has had on promoting higher education for high school graduates in the Nation's Capital and introduce legislation that would permanently authorize the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999. In 1999, I worked with the House and fellow Senators Jeffords and Durbin to craft the District of Columbia College Access Act which was signed into law on November 12, 1999. Soon after, under the direction of Mayor Anthony Williams, the D.C. TAG Program was created to implement this important legislation. The first grants were awarded in 2000. The aim of the Program was to afford D.C. high school graduates the same opportunity that high school seniors in each of the 50 States have, the ability to attend public universities and colleges at in- State tuition rates in all 50 States and participating private schools--Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) nationwide or private colleges or universities in Virginia or Maryland. The program has made it possible for D.C. residents to attend college who did not have access to similar State-supported systems. The D.C. TAG scholarships are used by D.C. residents to pay the difference between in-State and out-of-State tuition, up to $10,000 per student per school year with a cumulative cap of $50,000 per student. In addition, as of March 2002, D.C. residents attending participating private institutions started receiving tuition grants under the program of $2,500 per student per school year with a cumulative cap of $12,500 per student. To date, D.C. TAG has dispersed more than $63 million to a total of 6,527 students, many of whom are the first in their family to attend college. All current high school students who are D.C. residents are eligible for these scholarships and participation is increasing. The powerful impact of the program on high school graduates continuing on to college is hard to deny. Data from the Department of Education's Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System show that the number of D.C. high school graduates continuing on to college increased from 1,750 in 1998 to 2,230 in 2002. That's a 28 percent increase since the program was created. This is the highest level of college attendance of District students and exceeds the national average, over the same period, of a 5-percent increase. Mayor Williams stated that `'No State in the Union can make that claim. This unprecedented figure is due in large part, if not almost exclusively, I believe, to D.C. TAG.'' According to a survey conducted by the D.C. TAG Office, the grants have become an essential part of higher education planning for D.C. residents. The majority of students who have received assistance through the program have indicated that the existence of the grants made a difference in their decision to attend college, and also played a role in deciding which college to attend. It is important for my colleagues to know that thousands of D.C. students have taken advantage of this program. It can help to turn around years of economic and educational despair in the District. We are now coming to the end of the 5-year authorization for the program which expires in November 2005. Because of this and the success of the program, Senators Durbin, Jeffords, Lieberman, and I are introducing this bill to permanently reauthorize the D.C. College Access Act. In closing I would like to quote two D.C. Residents. La Rue Purry, currently a freshman at the University of Alabama states that ``This program gave me the opportunity to get the education I always wanted, the education my family couldn't have provided for me.'' Brian Ford, a former D.C. TAG recipient, who testified at the House committee on Government Reform Hearing on March 25, 2004, stated that ``The D.C. Tuition Assistance Program is a necessity for the city of Washington, DC, and for its residents. I urge Congress to please continue to provide financial support to the D.C. TAG program so one day students like myself can have a college diploma hanging on the wall for the world to see.'' I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation and I'm confident that it can be enacted this year. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I preface my remarks by saying my thoughts are with the victims of asbestos exposure, those families that have lost loved ones, and those that have to live with the debilitating illness caused by asbestos. They are at the forefront of my mind and in my heart as I discuss this issue of asbestos liability. I want to be sure the legislation we pass today will ensure that those truly sick individuals are allowed fair and just compensation. Without the passage of this legislation, they will not be compensated. As hundreds of companies will cascade into bankruptcy, we will lose thousands of good-paying jobs and see the pensions of thousands of retirees evaporate. Most people would agree that the issue of asbestos litigation and its aftermath is presenting a crisis in our country. With roughly 70 companies already in bankruptcy and a slew of bankruptcies soon to follow, the U.S. Supreme Court had it right when they called this an elephantine mess. People need to understand this mess has far-reaching effects and ripples and they are being felt way beyond corporate boardrooms. They are being felt intensely by middle America, people from States such as Ohio, in the form of job loss. We have lost over 2.7 million manufacturing jobs in the United States. In my State alone, in July, there were 1 million manufacturing jobs in 2000, but by October 2003 that fell to 840,000, 17.6 percent of our State's manufacturing employment, a loss of more than 1 out of every 6 Ohio factory jobs. These numbers represent a crisis for Ohio's economy. Already, roughly 70 companies have been forced into bankruptcy with between 52,000 and 60,000 jobs lost as a result. Shattered families and communities. The statistics are only the beginning as thousands of jobs were subsequently lost in industries dependent on those bankrupt firms. In fact, a recent study by Financial Institutions for Asbestos Reform and conducted by Navigant Consulting details the hidden cost of this crisis and shows how passage of Federal asbestos legislation would provide a tremendous boost to the economy and create jobs. Dr. William Kerr, author of the study, said the failure to enact legislation would reduce economic growth by $2.4 billion per year. Failure to enact legislation could reduce economic growth by $2.4 billion per year, costing more than 30,000 jobs annually. Extended over a 27-year frame, as contemplated, this means the loss of more than 800,000 jobs and $64 billion in economic growth. Another study, entitled The Secondary Impacts of Asbestos Liabilities, conducted by NERA Economic Consulting for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, shows how asbestos lawsuits can cause secondary harm to businesses, governments, communities, and individuals. The study found the ripple effects of plant closures and mass layoffs, such as causing local real estate values to fall, per capita income to decline, and tax coffers to dwindle. The study estimates the total cost to taxpayers of unemployment insurance benefits to displaced workers for asbestos-related bankruptcies at $80 million. The study put the indirect cost of the company closing due to asbestos liability at as much as $2.1 billion. If nothing is done to resolve what has been described as the elephantine mess of asbestos litigation, scores, if not hundreds, of additional businesses will be forced into bankruptcies and tens of thousands of additional workers will find themselves unemployed. Retiree and workers who spent decades working for retirement will see their life savings vanish. This crisis can really be felt in my home State of Ohio. In fact, Ohio is the fifth biggest State in the country in terms of asbestos claims hanging around our court. In Cuyahoga County, more than 41,000 asbestos cases have swamped the court system. At least 20 large Ohio companies, representing more than 80,000 employees, are the targets of asbestos litigation. Of course, over the past few years the circle of liability has expanded to pull in more and more solvent companies, many of which never manufactured or installed asbestos. There are numerous examples of Ohio companies negatively impacted by this crisis. Take the case of Federal Mogul, a company that employs over 1,200 in six cities through my State. Employees held 16 percent of the company stock. That stock lost 99 percent of its value. Current employees and also retirees feel the effects of the bankruptcies. Many retirees depend on company stock and dividends for income, and as this value heads south, retirees feel it immediately. Another company which does a lot for the Toledo area is Owens Corning. As Governor, I worked hard to get Owens Corning to put the new corporate headquarters in downtown Toledo to help facilitate the city of Toledo renaissance. Owens Corning, unfortunately, went bankrupt in 2000. In the 2 years preceding this bankruptcy, the stock lost 97 percent of its value. Fourteen percent of the stock was owned by company employees. Another Ohio company spoke with me off the record about its growing asbestos liability. When this company announced it had limited asbestos liability, the stock dropped by about 20 percent and its debt rating was lowered. This began a chain-reaction ripple effect that included the loss of over 100 jobs, the sale of assets, a 50-percent cut in capital investments, and a huge cut in the amount of contributions to the surrounding community. As a former mayor, I know firsthand the impact of what happens when companies go bankrupt. Many of us forget that these companies make a significant contribution to the tax revenues of the cities in which they are located, including their philanthropic contributions, such as United Way, arts, education, health care, and many other forms of community involvement. As I have said before, companies such as this one make up the backbone of the Ohio economy. They do not want to shirk their responsibility to those victims who will become sick truly because of asbestos exposure; they want to know that they are not compensating those individuals who are unimpaired. Ohio feels the crisis most acutely. It has so impacted my State of Ohio that the State legislature has decided to act where the Federal legislature has failed to do so. On December 11, 2003, the Ohio House of Representatives approved a bill to make Ohio the first in the Nation to block suits by people exposed to potentially deadly asbestos but who have yet to fall ill. The bill would adopt State medical standards for such litigation, allowing lawsuits to be filed by those who have yet to develop cancer or suffer measurable loss of lung function to be placed on hold until they do actually develop the symptoms. I applaud the State of Ohio for recognizing the true magnitude of the threat to Ohio citizens and for not waiting for Washington to act. With the passage of this bill, Ohioans who are sick from asbestos exposure will go to the top of the court dockets where they belong. Finite resources will be available for those who need compensation most. The people who are now sick will be able to file claims. Now, if we could only get something done here. I have been working on this issue since I was elected to the Senate, and I have been a cosponsor to several pieces of legislation, including the Asbestos Tax Fairness Act and both versions of the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act. I have testified twice before the Judiciary Committee on the need for this legislation. I have lobbied my colleagues in the administration on the need to see this bill passed. If we want to get something done, we need to do it now. Now is the time. We passed the FAIR Act out of the Judiciary Committee last summer and have spent the time between then and now negotiating to try to find a solution that everyone can support. That is almost a year that we have been negotiating back and forth trying to figure out something we think will be fair to everyone. The time has come for action. We cannot afford any more delays. The ever rising tide of corporate bankruptcies affect victims' compensation so that the truly sick asbestos victims in too many cases and more and more frequently only receive pennies on the dollar. In addition, employees of bankrupt companies suffer as they watch their jobs disappear and their pensions in 401(k) plans decrease dramatically. Again, we have to do something now, not later. Passage of this legislation will get us well on our way. And we have never come closer to resolving the asbestos litigation crisis than this legislation. This bill provides for a privately funded, no-fault, national asbestos victims compensation fund that will replace the broken tort system and ensure that individuals who are truly sick receive compensation quickly, fairly, and efficiently. It retains the bipartisan agreement on medical criteria that was approved unanimously by the Judiciary Committee. These criteria form the basis of a no-fault victims' compensation fund that will stop the flow of resources to the unimpaired and ensure that the truly ill will be paid quickly and fairly. The bill contains many improvements made to its predecessor and reflects the product of the last several months of extensive negotiations by the stakeholders in this debate--all of the stakeholders. I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture on this very important piece of legislation. On a broader scale, the litigation crisis in this country is like a tornado ripping its way through our economy. The American Tort Reform Association published a study in 2002 on the impact of litigation in Ohio and found that it costs every Ohioan $636 per year--that is every Ohioan, all 11.5 million. That is $636 a head. A large part of it is due to the issue that we have before us today, asbestos. We need to move immediately on this issue. In my opinion, passing responsible asbestos reform legislation to ensure that the truly injured receive fair and just compensation, and to prevent more companies from sliding into bankruptcy, will do far more for Ohio's economy than many other stimulus proposals we have been talking about on the floor of the Senate or in our respective committees. The consequences of inaction are grave. As previously mentioned, a large swath of corporate America is at risk, jeopardizing the jobs of thousands of employees, impoverishing retirees, and shattering families and communities. America's clear national interest lies in making sure asbestos funds are available for those who become sick and lifting an ominous cloud of litigation from our troubled economy. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I also share the Senator's enthusiasm about the ethanol guarantee in the Energy bill. There are many other provisions in that bill many of us are concerned about. I think it represents the first real energy policy this country has had. Again, hopefully, we can work it out so that can get done along with the other provisions. He is right; that bill has some real job-creation aspects to it, particularly in the area of ethanol. We have several companies now that are thinking about building ethanol plants in Ohio, and I think one of the things the American public doesn't understand is it is going to provide less reliance on foreign oil and, in addition, it will limit some of the environmental problems we have from gasoline, with some other very good and important aspects to all of our brothers and sisters.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I want to comment on the remarks of the Senator from Minnesota this evening before the Senate and indicate many of us who voted against the Harkin amendment were also as concerned about some of the things the Senator of Minnesota talked about, in terms of the benefits that accrued to working men and women in the United States of America. I made it clear at that time, when I voted against the Harkin amendment, I felt the Department of Labor should be able to move forward with their recommendations on a law that hasn't been changed since 1978, and that if what my colleagues on the other aisle have indicated is true, many of us would join them in having those rules overturned by the Members of the Senate. I am pleased to say those rules have been finished by the Department of Labor and they are now at OIRA, which is in the Office of Management and Budget, being reviewed by John Graham. I am hopeful they will be back to the Department of Labor within the next 30 days, so we will know specifically what it is those rules are going to recommend in terms of changes in the law. Hopefully, they are not going to reflect what I have heard on the floor of the Senate over the last couple of months about eliminating overtime for 8 million workers. The other thing I want to point out is there are many of us on this side of the aisle who are very much in favor of extending unemployment benefits, and I joined with many colleagues to try to get cloture on that amendment several weeks ago. I hope in the next couple of weeks we will be able to get that passed on the Senate floor. There are hundreds of workers in my State--and I am sure also in Minnesota--anxiously waiting for those benefits. In my State, we have too many people who are unemployed. Quite frankly, too many people in my State are worried about whether they are going to have a job. So some of the things the Senator talked about, I hope, will be dealt with during the next couple of weeks.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, during the last several years, I have been deeply concerned with the rise of antisemitism in countries throughout the world, including countries that have traditionally been among the world's strongest democracies. Today, as Jewish people across the world celebrate Passover, a festival of freedom and redemption, I rise to again call attention to growing antisemitism and to urge a renewed effort to combat this serious problem, both at home and abroad. Although some of my colleagues might not be aware, I have had the opportunity to visit the State of Israel seven times, as mayor of Cleveland, Governor of Ohio, and as a Member of the Senate. I will always remember visiting Yad Vashem on my first visit in 1980, and again on several other visits, and the Diaspora Museum in Tel Aviv in 1982. That experience truly brought home to me the horrors of the Holocaust and the role antisemitism played in leading to the Holocaust. I vowed I would do everything in my power to make sure it would not happen again. Frankly, I never thought during my lifetime I would have to try to keep that vow. Unfortunately, antisemitism's deadly, ugly head is rising again. Working with other groups, I am determined to do everything I can do to stop it. There must be zero tolerance of antisemitism. In May of 2002, following a disturbing number of antisemitic incidents in Europe, I joined members of the Helsinki Commission in a hearing to examine the rise of antisemitic violence in Europe. I was shocked by the reports I heard. Now, nearly 2 years later, the news is not much better. The first 3 months of 2004 have seen numerous acts of antisemitism abroad. For example, in Toulon, France, on March 23, 2004, a Jewish synagogue and community center were set on fire. In St. Petersburg, Russia, on February 15, 2004, vandals desecrated approximately 50 gravestones in a Jewish cemetery, painting them with swastikas and antisemitic graffiti. Antisemitic incidents are not unique to Europe. In Australia, on January 5 of this year, antisemitic slogans and symbols were burned into the lawns of Tasmania's Parliament House. In Toronto, Canada, over the weekend of March 19, 2004, vandals attacked a Jewish school, cemetery, and area synagogues, painting swastikas and antisemitic slogans on the walls of the synagogue and on residential property in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood nearby. This alarming trend has not gone unnoticed. The high number of antisemitic incidents in Europe and other parts of the world has caused the United States, working with our allies and international organizations such as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, to take action. Efforts to highlight growing antisemitism began in earnest following the Helsinki Commission hearing in May 2002, to which I have just referred. During that hearing, I called on the OSCE to conduct a separate session on antisemitism during the annual meeting of the OSCE parliamentary assembly in Berlin in July 2002. I was pleased this did in fact take place. Delegates to this meeting also unanimously passed a resolution calling attention to the dangers of antisemitism, which I cosponsored. I was honored to be in Berlin for the meeting, joining Representative Chris Smith, who serves as chairman of the Helsinki Commission and continues to be a great leader on this issue. We are very fortunate to have Chris Smith heading the Helsinki Commission in the House of Representatives. He is doing a wonderful job. Work continued upon our return with letters to the President and Secretary of State, underscoring the importance of a strong U.S. commitment to the fight against global antisemitism. Last June, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani led the U.S. delegation to the first conference of the OSCE dedicated solely to the issue of antisemitism. The conference took place in Vienna, bringing together parliamentarians, officials, and private citizens from all 55 OSCE participating states. This conference was the product of much hard work and would not have been a reality without the strong support of Secretary of State Colin Powell, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Mark Grossman, and our Ambassador to the OSCE, Stephan Minikes. Stephan Minikes, by the way, I think is the most outstanding ambassador the United States has sent to the OSCE in a very long time. The Vienna conference was a step in the right direction. I believe Mayor Giuliani best captured the significance of the event when he remarked: The conference represents a critical first step for Europeans who have too frequently dismissed anti-Semitic violence as routine assaults and vandalism. Antisemitism is anything but routine. When people attack Jews, vandalize their graves, characterize them in inhumane ways, and make salacious statements in parliaments or to the press, they are attacking the defining values of our societies and our international institutions. While the Vienna conference provided a solid foundation, followup to the meeting is absolutely essential. As such, the OSCE will convene a second conference on antisemitism in Berlin later this month. I believe this meeting is urgently needed, and I am pleased Secretary Powell has asked me to serve as a member of the U.S. delegation to this critical gathering. Again, this meeting in Vienna would not have happened without the strong support of our Secretary of State and his team at the State Department. In Berlin, our goal is to ensure we move beyond rhetoric and move forward to institutionalize the fight against antisemitism in the OSCE. We hope to put in place an action plan to formalize a process to identify, monitor, and measure efforts to combat antisemitism in each of the 55 OSCE participating states, including the United States. Too often, as the Presiding Officer knows, there is a lot of talk at these meetings but no action. If we are to be successful in our effort, we must establish a commitment to action--action that can be monitored. This is the message I have continued to stress. Last July, I wrote to those individuals who joined Mayor Giuliani as members of the U.S. delegation to the Vienna conference, including Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, Mike Levin of the National Conference on Soviet Jewry, David Harris of the American Jewish Committee, and Dave Mariaschin of B'nai B'rith, asking them for recommendations for action, things that can be done to encourage tangible steps rather than just dialog. They came back to me with recommendations for the Berlin conference which I then sent to Secretary of State Colin Powell. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my letter to Secretary Powell, including the proposed agenda for the Berlin conference, be printed in the Record.

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