George Voinovich

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise to speak to an amendment S. 150, the Internet Tax Non-Discrimination Act of 2003. Over the past few weeks some have mischaracterized my position concerning the Internet tax moratorium and suggested that I supported taxing the Internet or, even more inaccurately, that I supported taxing e-mail. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I welcome the opportunity to set the record straight on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I have never and will never support taxing e-mail. That's patently ridiculous. On October 31, 2003, the Cincinnati Enquirer correctly reported my opposition on this very important issue: Senator George Voinovich of Ohio has been boiled in a witches' cauldron this week by critics angered that he helped block an expanded ban of taxes on Internet services. The current Internet Tax Moratorium, which he supports, expires Saturday. Anti-tax groups making Voinovich out to be the devil incarnate are roasting the wrong guy. Voinovich favors keeping the tax moratorium on Internet access. He helped negotiate the Internet Tax Freedom Act of 1998, supported its renewal in 2001 and opposes new taxes on telecommunications services. And yes, he strongly opposes a tax on e-mail. This newspaper and others like it in Ohio have captured the essence of my argument. The debate on S. 150 is not about taxing e-mail. This debate is about federalism, unfunded mandates, and protecting the States' rights to govern their own affairs. To clarify my position, I will offer an amendment that expresses the sense of the Senate that e-mail should not now, nor in the future, be taxed by Federal, State, or local governments.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I have made the point that I have strong concerns with the pending legislation because it is an unfunded mandate. At the same time, I think it would be wrong for Congress to do nothing and allow taxes on Internet access. As I have said emphatically, I am against taxes on e-mail and the Internet. It is no secret that my interest in the current moratorium dates back to my time as Governor. During my tenure as Governor, I was also chairman of the National Governors Association. As chairman, I asked Governor Mike Leavitt to be the lead Governor on the Internet economy and its effects on State government and federalism. The NGA efforts on this important topic led to the current moratorium on Internet taxes which was signed into law in 1998, and then again in 2001. Our goal then is the same as my goal today: to encourage the growth of the Internet as a driving force in our economy. Let's look at the facts. Under the original 3-year moratorium from 1998 to 2001, the Internet rapidly expanded to all corners of our country. The point I am trying to make is that with the current moratorium that we have, we have seen unbelievable expansion in the Internet. That is what we wanted to have. That is why we put the moratorium in effect. In February 2002, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration at the Department of Commerce issued a report entitled ``a Nation Online: How Americans Are Expanding Their Use of the Internet.'' It is just unbelievable what has happened during that period of time. My point is, the Internet flourished in all segments of society during the original moratorium, and I think it is safe to assume that Internet usage continues to increase every day. The question is, how do we continue to support the growth of the Internet and bring parity for all Internet service providers without causing undue harm to our State and local governments that have been experiencing serious budget shortfalls? S. 150 would, for the first time since 1998, change the definition of Internet access and, without a clear understanding of the definition's impact, rush to make it permanent. The fact is, Internet technologies are changing more rapidly than ever. Companies are moving quickly to provide multiple services over a single line, including Internet access, voice communication, data service, and entertainment service. It does not make sense to change and make permanent the definition of Internet access when the technologies and the different ways Internet services are being offered is changing so rapidly. My colleagues, Senators Alexander, Graham, and Carper, and I will introduce an amendment that simply keeps current law in place and offers language to level the playing field for DSL, wireless, cable, and satellite Internet services. Basically, what we are offering will be a 2-year moratorium. We will amend the current definition of the Internet tax moratorium to preclude the taxing of DSL. Many States today, under the grandfather clause of the tax moratorium, have been collecting taxes on DSL. Several other States, because of a loophole in the definition, have started collecting taxes on DSL connections. What we are proposing--and it is very fair--is that in consideration of this body extending this moratorium for only 2 years, States such as Ohio and others that are now collecting Internet taxes will give them up at the end of a 2-year period. This gives them adequate time to prepare, in terms of their budget, for the loss of the revenues. Clearly, the States are willing to give up taxes that they are now collecting on the Internet in consideration of not going forward with a permanent moratorium with the definition that is now contained in the bill before us. In other words, the fear of what could happen under the definition of the bill that is before us today in the managers' amendment is so large that they are saying: We will give up that money just so it lasts for 2 years. During this time, we can work on a definition that will make sense. I believe that is a very fair proposal. It means we will be reducing taxes on the Internet in many of our States that are now collecting taxes. Last but not least, on October 29, the Wall Street Journal wrote an editorial entitled ``Taxing Your E-Mail.'' The Journal claimed that a few Republicans have decided to dress up as tax-and-spend Democrats for Halloween. The fact is, the Wall Street Journal article completely misstated what we are trying to do here tonight. The reference to taxing e-mail is nonsense. In fact the Cincinnati Enquirer followed up the Wall Street Journal by saying on October 31, quote: Anti-tax groups making Voinovich out to be the devil incarnate are roasting the wrong guy. Voinovich favors keeping the tax moratorium on Internet access. He helped negotiate the Internet Tax Freedom Act of 1998, supported its renewal in 2001 and opposes new taxes on telecommunication services. And yes, he strongly opposes a tax on e-mail. In fact, I am going to be introducing an amendment tomorrow that is a Sense of the Senate to make it very clear that this is not about taxing e-mail. I think it is important my colleagues understand that. This is not what this legislation is about. I am hoping tomorrow we will have an opportunity to vote on this bill and this amendment. I hope my colleagues will be fair enough to understand how serious this matter is to the future of our States and to federalism. I hope we are successful tomorrow with our amendment.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Delaware, my colleague from the State of Tennessee, and my colleague from the State of Florida for standing up--all of us former Governors--to deal with a matter that will have great impact on our respective citizens for many years ahead. We want to make sure that whatever we do makes sense. Before I begin, I would like to set the record straight that this debate is about federalism, unfunded mandates, and protecting States' ability to collect taxes. It has nothing to do with taxing e-mail. I have made the issue of unfunded Federal mandates a top priority during my 36 years of public service. At every level of government--as a State representative, county auditor, county commissioner, lieutenant governor, mayor of the City of Cleveland, Governor of Ohio for 8 years--I have seen firsthand how the relationship of the Federal Government with its State and local counterparts affects our citizens and the communities in which they live. My background has fueled my passion for the issue of federalism and the need to balance the Federal Government's power with powers that our Founding Fathers envisioned to the States. This very body was created, in part, to guarantee that States had adequate, equal means to assert their interest before the Federal Government. Our forefathers provided that each State has two Senators to protect States rights and federalism, and prior to 1913 those Senators were elected by their legislatures to guarantee that they would protect federalism. I believe strongly that the relationship between the Federal Government and State and local governments should be one of partnership. That is why I vowed when I was elected to the Senate, I would work to find ways in which the Federal Government can improve the way it works with these levels of government to serve the American people. I have also been concerned about the tendency of the Federal Government to preempt the functions of State and local governments and force on them new responsibilities, particularly without also providing the funding to pay for these new responsibilities. Seventeen years ago, in 1986, I spoke to the Volunteers of the National Archives regarding the relationship of the Constitution to America's cities and the revolution of federalism. I brought to the attention of the audience my observation, since my early days in government, regarding the course American government has been taking: We have seen the expansion of the federal government into new, non-traditional domestic policy areas. We have experienced a tremendous increase in the proclivity of Washington both to preempt state and local authority and to mandate actions on state and local governments. The cumulative effect of a series of actions by the Congress, the Executive Branch and the U.S. Supreme Court have caused some legal scholars to observe that while constitutional federalism is alive in scholarly treatises, it has expired as a practical political reality. In 1991, I started a long crusade when I became a member of the National Governors Association, working with the State and Local Government Coalition to do something about unfunded mandates. In fact, as Governor of Ohio, I requested that a study be done to examine unfunded mandates. It was the first of its kind in any State. It captured just how bad the mandate problem was in real dollars. Between 1992 and 1995, Ohio had unfunded mandates of almost $2 billion. These efforts were strongly supported by Senator Kempthorne, Senator Roth, Senator Glenn, Congressmen Robert Portman, Tom Davis, and Bill Clinger and culminated with the passage of the unfunded mandates legislation in the Senate on March 15, 1995. As a matter of fact, for the first time in my life I set foot in the Senate when the Senate passed that Unfunded Mandate Relief Act. I was in the Rose Garden representing State and local government when President Clinton signed the legislation on March 22, 1995. In fact, I have that pen proudly displayed in my Senate office. This milestone concluded a lengthy and coordinated effort by State and local government officials and their congressional allies to reduce the economic burden of Federal unfunded mandates and the adverse impact they have on State and local services. By the way, this was the second plank in the Contract With America that was developed in 1994. I will never forget when we were in Williamsburg and committed ourselves to the Contract With America. The Senator from Virginia was present at that time in the capacity of Governor of Virginia. I believed then and I believe today that mandates forced us to cut vital services and cut taxes. Mandates also rob our citizens and elected officials of perhaps the most fundamental responsibility of government, prioritizing government services. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act does not prohibit unfunded mandates, but it does slow down the process of enacting a mandate and forces each Senator and House Member to go on record that we want to mandate or prevent action by State or local governments without providing the resources with which to pay for it. It ensures that Congress is informed and accountable when considering an unfunded mandate for pending legislation. The law was designed specifically to ensure an up-or-down vote on whether to impose a mandate. The mandate we are debating is exactly what the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was designed to address. This is the first time this Act has been used on the Senate floor since it was enacted in 1995. When this legislation passed the Senate in March of 1995, the vote was an overwhelming 91-to-9 vote. Of the 91 Senators supporting the bill, 50 are still here today, and of the 9 nays, 7 Senators are still in office. In addition, 14 Members of the House--voting in favor of unfunded mandates reform--have moved over to the Senate. So we have 64 Senators today who voted for this bill in 1995 in their respective Chambers. The bill currently under consideration, the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act of 2003, sponsored by my good friend from Virginia, Senator Allen, and Senator Wyden and Senator McCain, has included unfunded mandates by the Congressional Budget Office. In fact, I want to quote from the Commerce Committee's report dated September 29, 2003, in which CBO said: By extending and expanding the moratorium on certain types of state and local taxes, S. 150 would impose an intergovernmental mandate as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. CBO estimates that the mandate would cause state and local governments to lose revenue beginning in October 2006; those losses would exceed the threshold established in [the unfunded mandates relief legislation]. While there is some uncertainty about the number of states affected, CBO estimates that the direct costs to states and local governments would probably total between $80 and $120 million annually. . . . Furthermore, they went on to say: Depending on how the language altering the definition of what telecommunications services are taxable is interpreted, that language also could result in substantial revenue losses for states and local governments. It is possible that states could lose revenue if services that are currently taxed are redefined as Internet access under the definition of S. 150. Finally, the report states that CBO cannot estimate the magnitude of these losses. Mr. President, let me reiterate, CBO said: Depending on how the definition is interpreted, the loss of revenue to the States and local governments could be substantial. If CBO cannot calculate the potential loss of revenue to the States, why in the world would we change the definition of Internet access? And why in the world would we make the new definition permanent? Even FCC Commissioner Michael Powell said the telecommunications industry is in flux and that few industry experts could agree on a definition in view of the rapid changes in technology. Senator Wyden, in his presentation earlier this evening, made the allegation that no State will lose money under this proposal. We asked the National Governors Association to contact the tax commissioners from various States and here are some of the findings: Kentucky will lose $265 million; Iowa, $45 to $50 million; Maine, $35 million; Michigan, $360 million; New Jersey, $600 million; Ohio, $55 million; Oklahoma, $159 million; Tennessee, $358 million; Utah, $92 million; Washington, $33 million. That is a lot of money--a lot of money--and States will lose tax revenue under this proposal. In my own State, I spent a lot of time with our Ohio Tax Commissioners Office and the Office of Budget and Management. According to the Department of Taxation in Ohio, we will be losing about $700 million over our 2-year biannual budget period. Last week, my staff was on a conference call with SBC Communications, Bell South, Sprint, the Tennessee Revenue Director, and the Ohio Tax Commissioner's Office. The telecommunications companies did not dispute the Ohio Tax Department's estimates. So let's be honest about it. If this permanent moratorium goes through with the current definition, there is no question in the world that States are going to lose money. At the end of that conversation, by the way, the only thing we got out of it was that there was uncertainty, confusion, and speculation regarding what this all meant. In addition, we are going to be losing $350 million, at least, as a result of this proposal today. If we pass S. 150, Congress will, in effect, force States to raise taxes or cut services in order to make up the difference. In other words, all 50 States will be forced to debate whether to raise taxes, cut services, or come to Congress for more money. Mr. President, unlike Congress, by law all states must balance their budgets. They don't have the option of printing more money like the federal government. States have to balance their budgets and if they don't spend within their means, they are forced to make a choice to either cut services or raise taxes. Of course, that is something we have not done. And I mention, that some of my colleagues say States are not fiscally responsible. I would like to say that most of the States in the United States of America are much more fiscally responsible than this body, in which we have increased spending and added to our burgeoning deficit. Mr. President, the newspapers in Ohio get it. The Cincinnati Enquirer, one of the most conservative papers in Ohio, understands: One reason governors, mayors and county officials oppose expanding the Internet tax ban is that telecom companies are racing as fast as they can to convert most services to the Internet. If just about everything gets tax-exempt under a broader ``Internet access'' definition, states and localities would take a huge tax revenue hit. The development of DSL, broadband and cable Internet service were just the sort of new access technology that Voinovich and others hoped would result from the tax moratorium, but they don't want it expanded to kill existing tax revenues. The Akron Beacon-Journal also understands: In short, critical programs would be put in jeopardy, from mental health care to public schools. Even the Washington Post understands: What's driving this legislation is that telecommunications companies and Internet service providers see an opportunity not only to make the tax moratorium permanent--in itself a bad idea--but to save what could amount to billions in additional taxes. The law frees service providers from having to pay taxes on telephone service they use to provide Internet access. And as the Internet becomes a more effective medium for providing phone service and delivering products such as downloaded movies, software and music, the legislation could sweep such offerings within the ambit of services that states are prohibited from taxing. The Internet shouldn't be subject to conflicting taxes, but that's no reason to argue that it shouldn't be taxed at all. There should be a level playing field for taxing Internet access, whether it comes through ordinary dial-up, cable modems or high-speed telephone lines. The last thing Congress should do now to cash-strapped states is pass a law that would not only permanently put Internet access off limits for taxation but also deprive them of revenue that they now collect. And they go on--I will finish the quote-- Proponents of the law are busy demagoguing the issue, suggesting, as Senate sponsor Ron Wyden (D-OR) put it the other day, that users ``could be taxed every time they read their local newspaper online or check the score of a football game.'' Congress should step back from the brink, temporarily extend the moratorium and sort this all out in a way that doesn't intrude on state prerogatives. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these articles be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I object.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. I object.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate and pay tribute to Mr. Monte Ahuja of Hunting Valley, OH as an Ellis Island Medal of Honor recipient. The prestigious Ellis Island Medal of Honor award is presented annually to ``remarkable Americans who exemplify outstanding qualities in both their personal and professional lives,'' and ``who have distinguished themselves as citizens of the United States, while continuing to preserve the richness of their particular heritage.'' Monte Ahuja was selected to receive this honor in 2001. Mr. Ahuja is a distinguished American who immigrated to the United States from India in 1969. He received a bachelor of science degree in mechanical engineering in India and pursued his graduate education at Ohio State University where he received his masters degree in mechanical engineering. He moved to Cleveland, OH in 1972 and received his masters in business administration at Cleveland State University in 1975 while working full time. While pursuing his MBA, Mr. Ahuja began to dream about creating a global parts distribution network solely dedicated to providing transmission rebuilders the highest quality products and services. He pursued his dream by undertaking considerable research and hard work developing his idea, and he established Transtar Industries, Inc. in 1975. Over the past 28 years, Transtar Industries has grown from a two- person, one-location operation to a company with over 25 locations nationwide and over 500 dedicated employees that services the automotive transmission aftermarket in over 60 countries. Transtar Industries, Inc. is headquartered in Cleveland, OH and distributes the world's largest and most comprehensive line of automotive transmission replacement parts and kits. The company's products are the result of proactive product research and development. Transtar also has outstanding business systems. Its sales forecasting system is state-of-the art and its level of customer service consistently exceeds 95 percent. All of Transtar's distribution centers are electronically linked, which makes it possible for Transtar to ship virtually every order the same day. Mr. Ahuja has provided outstanding leadership at Transtar Industries and he has received numerous awards for his achievements, including the Arthur Anderson 2000 Leadership Award, the Inside Business NEO Success Award and the Association of Corporate Growth Deal Makers Award. As Governor of Ohio, I was proud to recognize Mr. Ahuja on two occasions as recipient of the ``E'' Award for Excellence in Export. In 2002, Mr. Ahuja was chosen the World Trade Center Cleveland International Executive of the Year. Monte Ahuja is also extremely involved in the community and he demonstrates generously his philosophy of contributing to the community that has given him so much. He has a passion for education which is demonstrated by his years of commitment to his alma mater where he began to envision and create his company. At Cleveland State University, he has served as director of the Cleveland State University Foundation and he has established the Ahuja Endowed Scholarship Fund in business administration and engineering. He also established the Distinguished Scholar in Comparative Indian and Western Philosophy--which is so important today as we strive to appreciate the richness of this country's cultural diversity. I was so impressed with Monte's devotion to education that when I was governor of Ohio I appointed him to Cleveland State's Board of Trustees in 1991. From 1992 to 1998, he served with distinction as chairman of the Board of Trustees. He also served as chairman of the Cleveland State University Task Force, part of a statewide project I initiated as governor of Ohio, the ``Ohio Task Force for Managing Future Higher Education in the State of Ohio'' to challenge the universities to conduct private sector management audits to work harder and smarter and do more with less. Under Monte Ahuja's leadership, Cleveland State University's audit was one of the best in the State and saved the University $8.5 million a year. Monte Ahuja's commitment to education is relentless and he has dedicated himself to the advancement of quality education at Cleveland State and in Ohio. He is the embodiment of the achievements that a quality education can help facilitate. In 1990, Mr. Ahuja was named one of Cleveland State University's 25 most distinguished alumni. In 1999, he received Harvard University Business School's Dively Award and that same year his alma mater recognized him again by naming the Business School building at Cleveland State University Monte Ahuja Hall. Mr. Ahuja has served on the boards of many civic, business and philanthropic organizations, including the Greater Cleveland Roundtable, The National Conference, World Trade Center Advisory Council, and Ohio Export Promotion and Trade Council. Currently, Mr. Ahuja serves on the boards of the Cleveland Cuyahoga County Port Authority, University Hospitals of Cleveland, Greater Cleveland Growth Association, United Way, WVIZ/PBS, Enterprise Development, Inc., and the Cleveland Council on World Affairs. In addition to his significant contributions to the community, Monte has a wonderful sense of family. He is a loving husband to Usha, his wife of 30 years, a tremendous father to his two daughters and a caring son. Monte Ahuja is a remarkable American and someone I am privileged to call friend. He has the highest integrity in both his personal and professional life and he has made many outstanding contributions to the Asian Indian community, to his local community in Cleveland, OH and to American society. I am proud to recognize my friend Monte Ahuja and congratulate him on this wonderful honor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate and pay tribute to Mr. Umberto P. Fedeli of Gates Mills, OH as a 2003 Ellis Island Medal of Honor recipient. The prestigious Ellis Island Medal of Honor award is presented annually to ``remarkable Americans who exemplify outstanding qualities in both their personal and professional lives,'' and ``who have distinguished themselves as citizens of the United States, while continuing to preserve the richness of their particular heritage.'' Umberto P. Fedeli is such an American. In addition to creating a business in Ohio and being active in numerous charitable causes, Umberto has maintained strong ties to the Italian American community. I've often said, ``show me someone who is proud of their ethnic heritage and I'll show you a great American!'' Mr. Fedeli's parents immigrated from Lascio, Italy to the same neighborhood in which I grew up--the Collinwood neighborhood of Cleveland, OH. He learned many important lessons from his father, Umberto, Sr. including a philosophy of life which is based on integrity, loyalty, civic responsibility and a strong work ethic. In his early 20s, Mr. Fedeli formed a partnership which led to the creation of his own insurance company, The Fedeli Group which he built to one of the top 100 insurance firms in the nation. Today his company employs 85 people and provides a range of insurance products and services--property, general liability, life, health, workmen's compensation and estate planning. It provides insurance for over 3,000 businesses and, remarkably, has averaged nearly 20 percent growth per year for 20 years. The Fedeli Group has received many industry awards and has been named several times as winner of the Weatherhead 100's fastest growing companies in northeastern Ohio. Through the years, Mr. Fedeli has been active in Ohio politics-- serving on advisory committees for my campaigns, those of Senator Mike DeWine and countless other state, local and national candidates. As Governor-elect of Ohio in 1991, I appointed Umberto Fedeli to my gubernatorial transition team and after I took office, I was pleased to appoint him to the Ohio Turnpike Commission where he served as chairman for 6 years. Under his leadership, the turnpike's resources served as a catalyst for growth and economic development. In fact, as Governor, I noted that ``Umberto's leadership will be remembered as the Turnpike Commission's most energetic and accomplished era.'' I still believe that today. Umberto Fedeli was the best leader of the turnpike aside from the man who created it. Mr. Fedeli is very involved in his community and is a friend to countless people in northeast Ohio, across the State--and throughout our Nation. He values serving others above all else, including his family, his church, his clients and his community. He has been named Man of the Year for both the Italian-American Sports Hall of Fame and the Americans of Italian Heritage. In 1995, he was recognized by the John Carroll University Business School as one of ``Fifty of Its Finest.'' Umberto serves as chairman of the Cleveland Chapter of Legatus, an international group of Catholic CEOs for which he also serves on the International Board of Directors. He was recognized as 2002 Officer of the Year for Legatus, and became a Knight of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem, administered by the Holy See, in 1998. He received both the Grand Illusion Award for the Ohio Cancer Research Associates and the National Multiple Sclerosis Norman Cohn Hope Award for philanthropic and community service. In 2000 he was honored by the Italian Federation with its Columbian Award and 2003 Man of the Year for the Christ Child Society. In 1995, Umberto was instrumental in the formation of the Northern Ohio Italian American Foundation, a group of prominent business people who lend philanthropic support to various groups in northeast Ohio and which he presently serves as chairman. In 1997, the Northern Ohio Italian American Foundation established the Bishop Anthony M. Pilla Institute of Italian American Studies at John Carroll University. Umberto is also a member of the Board of Directors of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, the Board of Trustees at John Carroll University and trustee of the Cleveland Catholic Diocese Foundation. Mr. Fedeli cares deeply for others and gives witness to his faith in God every day by helping people he knows well and those he has never met. He gives witness to the second great commandment, ``Love thy neighbor as thyself'' at every opportunity. He is a role model in every sense of the word: in terms of his devotion to his family, his success in business and his contributions to his ``extended family'' in the community. He and his wife Maryellen, whom he describes as the only girlfriend he ever had, have been married for 19 years and have five children. Umberto Fedeli is indeed a remarkable American of the highest integrity in both his personal and professional life. He has made many outstanding contributions to the Italian American community, to his local community and to America. I am proud to recognize my friend, Umberto P. Fedeli and congratulate him on this wonderful honor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, this legislation is the first step in our country toward participating in the Kyoto protocol at a time when Russia and Australia have indicated they will not ratify the treaty, and when China, India, Brazil, and South Korea are exempt because they are ``developing countries.'' Our trade deficit with China alone is $103 billion. Yet supporters of this legislation want to shut down American plants and send American jobs overseas to these ``developing countries'' that do not have the environmental safeguards that we have in America. I can hear the giant sucking sound of jobs leaving our country every time I return to Ohio. Let me be perfectly clear, carbon caps are lethal to our economy. Carbon caps--any carbon caps--will cause a switch to burning coal with clean coal technology. That will cause fuel switching to natural gas. It will mean the end of manufacturing jobs in my State. It will send thousands of American jobs overseas and will significantly drive up natural gas and electricity prices and put millions of Americans out of work. Too many Americans have lost their jobs because we have not harmonized our energy and environmental policy in this country. We need a truly comprehensive energy policy that protects our environment while also protecting our energy security and our economy. We do not need legislation such as S. 139 that attempts to protect the environment while completely disregarding negative impacts on our energy security and economy. As I stated last night, I strongly oppose any legislation that will exacerbate the loss of jobs in my State and drive up the cost of energy for the least of our brethren, the poor and the elderly. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this legislation.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I wish to comment on some of the statements made by my distinguished colleague, Senator Lieberman, during the debate last night. Senator Lieberman was correct when he said concerns about climate change and atmospheric concentrations of carbon are widespread and bipartisan. He was also right when he said that support for increasing our scientific understanding of this issue and reducing atmospheric concentration of carbon is widespread and bipartisan. However, I note that opposition to the language offered by Senator Lieberman and Senator McCain is both widespread and bipartisan, including labor and management. The bill is opposed by a large number of stakeholders, including the Chemistry Council, the American Farm Bureau, the American Health Care Association, the American Highway Uses Alliance, the American Iron and Steel Institute, the National Association of Corn Growers, and the National Association of Wheat Growers, and the list goes on of the organizations opposed to this legislation. The legislation is also opposed by a large number of labor unions, including the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers; the Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers, and Helpers; the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; the International Brotherhood of Teamsters; the Marine Engineers Beneficial Association; the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union; the United Mine Workers of America; the United Transportation Union; the Utility Workers Union of America; and several locals of the United Steelworkers of America. I also note that Senator Lieberman stated that over 75 percent of people in a recent poll support this language. I would argue if these people had been told of the negative effects of this legislation on heating and electrical costs and the loss of jobs, the results of that poll would have been much different. As I discussed last night, Thomas Mullen of Catholic Charities testified last year against the Lieberman-Jeffords bill saying it would have a devastating impact in significantly higher heating prices on the poor and elderly. I also point out that the Department of Energy has stated that high energy costs consume a disproportionately large share of the income of the poor and elderly on fixed incomes. They are left out of this debate. I would also like to address statements by Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman that because they offered a substitute to their original version of S. 139, all the comments and analyses cited by opponents of this bill, including myself, are irrelevant. That statement could not be further from the truth. I refer to a letter I recently received from many of the stakeholders against S. 139: The undersigned commercial, industrial, small business and agricultural organizations strongly urge you to oppose S. 139, the Climate Stewardship Act, or any substitute that may be offered by its sponsors, Senators Joe Lieberman and John McCain, when this measure comes before the Senate. As they proclaimed, the vote on S. 139 (or its substitute) will be a test vote on the most appropriate response to concerns about our changing climate. Among all the policy options available to the Congress to improve our understanding of climate systems, the arbitrary imposition of energy rationing as embodied in S. 139 is one of the worst possible options the Senate could choose for farmers, industry, the poorest of Americans, and the economy as a whole. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about awareness and prevention of breast cancer. My wife Janet and I have always made the early prevention and detection of breast cancer a top priority. During my tenure as Governor of Ohio, the State became one of only four States to create an office within my administration devoted solely to women's health issues. The Office of Women's Health continues to address women's health needs such as early prevention and detection of breast cancer and recommends actions such as legislation or policy development. I am so proud of Janet who is a champion of detection and prevention procedures to combat breast cancer and that as First Lady she was successful in lobbying the Ohio Legislature to designate the third Thursday in October as Ohio Mammography Day. This year was Janet's eleventh year traveling throughout the State on this day to stress the importance of early breast cancer detection. For all of Janet's work to promote early prevention and screenings for breast cancer, the Ohio Breast and Cervical Cancer Coalition named an annual award after her. Janet continues to present the ``Janet Voinovich Service Award'' to recognize an individual's commitment to improving the quality of life for cancer survivors. Yet, there is more that needs to be done to find a cure for breast cancer and I have been fighting in the Senate to encourage the National Institutes of Health, NIH, to take advantage of new technology to undertake innovative research in this field. One research initiative that could give women a critical tool in the prevention of breast cancer is the study of environmental effects on the occurrence of the disease. Some studies have suggested that environmental factors like diet, pesticides and electromagnetic fields could play a role in the growth of breast cancer. Yet, to date, there have not been enough comprehensive research initiatives to draw conclusions. For this reason, in the 107th Congress and again this year, I cosponsored the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act to create eight centers throughout the Nation to study the link between environmental factors and breast cancer. While we continue to work on this bill in the Senate, I am so pleased that the NIH and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIEHS, have taken the first step in creating four centers for this purpose. I was so proud to be at the University of Cincinnati earlier this month to announce that the University along with the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center had been chosen to receive a NIH grant to establish one of the four centers. The University of Cincinnati and Children's Hospital have a long history of contribution to the quality of life and health in the Greater Cincinnati region and nationwide, and I am encouraged about the work that is being done to determine the factors that cause breast cancer. We must work to make sure that quality research initiatives like this one continue. That is why I recently joined my colleagues in a letter of support for the reauthorization of the Breast Cancer Research Stamp program. Since 1998, sales of the stamp have generated more than $34 million for breast cancer research at Federal research facilities. In fact, the Breast Cancer Stamp is the most successful semi-postal in history, and I am confident that its reauthorization will continue to help fund life-saving breast cancer research over the next several years. Until we find a cure however, Janet and I will continue to do what we can to promote awareness of breast cancer and help ensure that early detection procedures are available to women who need them most.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Certainly.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Yes, I do. Over the last decade, use of natural gas electricity generation has risen significantly while domestic supplies of natural gas have fallen. The result is predictable: tightening supplies of natural gas, higher natural gas prices, and higher electricity prices. Home heating prices are up dramatically, forcing folks on low and fixed income to choose between heating their home and paying for other necessities such as food or medicine. Donald Mason, a commissioner on the Ohio Public Utilities Commission, testified earlier this year in the House Energy and Commerce Committee: In real terms, the home heating cost this winter will increase by at least $220 per household. That might sound not significant, but during the winter season of 2000-2001, one gas company in Ohio saw nonpayment jump from $10 million a year to $26 million. One of the amendments I supported in the Senate to the Labor-HHS bill would have provided more money for LIHEAP, the low-income help in heating costs. We will have a crisis this winter in natural gas costs. As a result of these heating cost increases, 50 percent more residential customers were disconnected from gas service last year than in 2001. I personally have seen natural gas go from $4 an MCF to $8 an MCF in heating bills in northeast Ohio and projections indicate this winter will be devastating on the elderly and low-income families who are already struggling to survive. In an Environment and Public Works Committee hearing last year, Thomas Mullen, of Catholic Charities and Health and Human Services of Cleveland, described the direct impact of significant increases of energy prices on those who are less fortunate. Here is what he had to say: In Cleveland, over one-fourth of all children live in poverty and are in a family of a single female head of household. These children will suffer from further loss of basic needs as their moms are forced to make choices of whether to pay the rent or live in a shelter; pay the heating bill or see their child freeze; buy food or risk availability of a hunger center. These are not choices that any senior citizen, child, or for that matter, person in America should make. What really gets to me was after he made that statement the Clean Air Trust, the O'Donnell person who is always speaking out on these issues, named Tom Mullen, the head of Catholic Charities, as the villain of the month because he dared talk about energy costs impacting the poor and elderly in this country. Manufacturers that use natural gas as feedstock are getting hammered because of the doubling and tripling of natural gas costs and are leaving the country or closing their doors. It is happening. Lubrizol, a chemical company, has moved production to France as a result of a threefold increase in natural gas prices from $3 per million Btu in 2002 to $10 per Btu in 2003. The president of Zaclon, a chemical manufacturer based in Cleveland, testified this year that increased natural gas costs resulted in lost sales revenue and increased total energy cost. The president of one major international pharmaceutical company, a company that has 22,000 employees in the United States, recently told me unless we do something about our natural gas crisis, his company will be forced to pull many of its operations out of the United States. Due to high natural gas prices, the Dow Chemical Company, headquartered in Michigan, will be forced to shut down several plants and eliminate 3,000 to 4,000 jobs this year. The American Iron and Steel Institute reported that an integrated steel mill--we have some in Ohio still--could pay as much as $73 million for natural gas this year, up $37 million from last year. An east Texas poultry producer reported his poultry house heating bill jumped from $3,900 to $12,000 in one month, forcing him to decide between paying the bank or the gas company. High natural gas prices have resulted in the permanent closure of almost 20 percent of the United States nitrogen fertilizer production capacity and the idling of an additional 25 percent. That is why the corn growers and other agriculture groups are opposed to McCain- Lieberman. The Potash Corporation, one of the world's largest fertilizer producers, has announced layoffs at the Louisiana and Tennessee plants due to high natural gas prices. The company spends $2 million per day on natural gas. A farmer in Belleville, MO, who paid $295 per ton for nitrogen fertilizer last fall expects to pay between $400 and $600 this year. It is impacting the entire segment of our economy. Utilities are already facing tremendous increases in their fuels costs, which force them to either take losses or pass these increases on to their customers. And the carbon caps proposed by Senators McCain and Lieberman will only exacerbate this situation. The end result is a drag on the economy. But don't take my word for it. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has testified before the Senate Energy Committee, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and the Congressional Joint Economic Committee on the supply and price of natural gas this year, stating: I'm quite surprised at how little attention the natural gas problem has been getting because it is a very serious problem. Among his comments, Chairman Greenspan noted: The price of gas for delivery in July closed at $6.31 per billion Btu's. That contract sold for as low as $2.55 in July 2000 and for $3.65 a year ago. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the testimony of Dr. Greenspan be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, the Senate has passed a comprehensive energy bill that is currently stuck in conference with the House of Representatives. The energy bill passed by the Senate includes several provisions to increase domestic production of natural gas and to ensure that we have a healthy, vital fuel mix for electric generation. It is vitally important for the conference committee to wrap up its work and report a bill that will increase our supplies of natural gas and promote alternatives to natural gas. Unfortunately, the legislation that has been offered by Senators McCain and Lieberman goes in exactly the opposite direction. We are trying to free up more natural gas. We are trying to take the heat off the demand for natural gas. It will force our utilities to fuel switch to natural gas. It will significantly raise energy prices. It will cause additional thousands of jobs to be lost. And I agree with the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond, that is what is going to happen. The Energy Information Administration estimates that passage of S. 139--I think this is really important, and our colleagues should listen to this--will raise petroleum products prices by 31 percent, raise natural gas prices by 79 percent, raise electricity prices by 46 percent, and reduce GDP by up to $93 billion by 2025. I just received a letter today from Commerce Secretary Evans, Labor Secretary Chao, and Acting EPA Administrator Horinko. Here is what they said in the letter: According to an analysis conducted by the Independent Information Administration (EIA), S. 139 would cause an estimated average loss of 460,000 American jobs through 2025, with estimated job losses reaching 600,000 by 2012. Instead of improving our economic security through economic growth and job creation, the job losses resulting from S. 139 would place an unacceptable burden on American workers and the American people. EIA's analysis further reveals the higher energy costs the legislation would impose on American energy consumers: once fully implemented, S. 139 would require a 40 cent per gallon increase in gasoline prices and cause a nearly 50% increase in natural gas and electricity bills. As a result of these higher energy costs, EIA projects a net loss of $507 billion (1996 dollars) in Gross Domestic Production over the next two decades. These higher energy costs and reduced economic growth would likely lead American businesses to move overseas, taking jobs with them. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter from Secretary Evans, Secretary Chao, and Acting EPA Administrator Horinko be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Schlesinger points out that ``science remains unable to either attribute past climate changes to changes in CO2 or to forecast with any degree of precision how [the] climate will change in the future,'' and warns that: We cannot tell how much of the recent warming trend can be attributed to the greenhouse gas effect and how much to other factors. In climate change, we have only a limited grasp of the overall forces at work. Uncertainties have continued to abound--and must be reduced. Any approach to policy formation under conditions of such uncertainty should be taken only on an exploratory and sequential basis. A premature commitment to a fixed policy can only proceed with fear and trembling. Several Members of this body have introduced pieces of legislation this year and a couple last year to address the issue of climate change by capping carbon--such as the Jeffords-Lieberman 4-P bill, the Carper 4-P bill, and, of course, the subject of our debate today, the McCain- Lieberman climate change bill. Passage of any of these bills will force our utilities which are now using coal to generate over half of our Nation's electricity--by the way, 85 percent of electricity generated in my State--to fuel-switch and to rely solely on natural gas for generation despite the fact we have a 250-year supply of domestic coal and are currently in the grips of a natural gas crisis. Senator Lieberman, in his opening statement, mentioned two companies from Ohio I am very familiar with, ADP and Synergy. There was some indication there was possibly--from his words--support for S. 139. I make it clear for the record that ADP and Synergy--ADP is the company that burns more coal than any other utility in the country--are both opposed to S. 139.

Mr. VOINOVICH. As I said, Mr. President, carbon caps mean fuel switching. Carbon caps mean the end of manufacturing in my State. They mean enormous burdens on the least of our brethren. And they mean moving jobs and production overseas. What we need to do is move forward in a responsible manner, and move away from harshly ideological positions that advance nothing other than the agenda of environmental groups that have made support for carbon caps a political litmus test. We must move forward in a manner that includes sound science and concrete reductions in carbon without seriously harming our economy. In response to the need for better understanding of the underlying science of climate change, President Bush has moved forward aggressively to focus administration science and climate programs on a comprehensive approach to this issue. Earlier this year, Secretary Veneman announced a new series of initiatives to increase agricultural sequestration of carbon, which is a major problem. The Department of Energy is implementing President Bush's $2 billion Clean Coal Technology Initiative. And the DOE and the Environmental Protection Agency have worked with the State Department on several international carbon control and sequestration projects, including the exportation of clean coal technologies to underdeveloped nations. I appreciate the steps the administration is taking on climate change. I would like to make clear today that, as a State legislator, county official, mayor, and Governor of Ohio, I have been able to work across the aisle with environmental groups to accomplish many things. Efforts were successful because reasonable minds were able to sit at the table together, work together in good faith, and get things done. It is unfortunate in this debate that we have not been able to sit down with folks and work through this issue in good faith. Our friends in the environmental community and their allies in Congress have hardened their positions on climate change to the point that voting for carbon caps--despite the tremendous negative impact such caps have on jobs, the poor, and our economy--has become a litmus test. In a word, this position is unreasonable. It is unreasonable that nothing other than capping carbon is acceptable. It is unreasonable that nothing other than forcing utilities to rely solely on natural gas to generate electricity and devastating our economy is acceptable. And, finally, it is unreasonable that nothing other than sending American jobs overseas and driving up energy costs for the poor and elderly on fixed income is acceptable. Mr. President, I have been fortunate to serve the State of Ohio for many years. I take my responsibility to serve my State's interests very seriously. And I will work all day, every day, to block legislation such as this legislation that will devastate my State. I urge my colleagues to vote no on S. 139, a bill that will shut down our manufacturers, send thousands of American jobs overseas--to countries that do not have the environmental laws that we have in America--significantly raise energy prices for those who can least afford them, and do little or nothing to solve the global warming problem. I yield back my time.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask for another 5 minutes.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Three?

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his kind words. The two of us will try to explain to our colleagues the real meaning of this legislation proposed by Senator Lieberman and Senator McCain. I rise in opposition to the legislation offered by Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman. This legislation will place a cap on carbon dioxide emissions by requiring all segments of the economy to reduce emissions to 2000 levels by 2010 despite the fact that such a cap would have devastating impacts on our economy, on our manufacturing sector, and on average Americans, and especially on our brothers and sisters, the elderly and the poor. I have stated time and time again here on the floor that we must recognize that the energy policy and our environmental policies are two sides to the same coin and that the Senate has responsibility to harmonize those policies. We have an obligation in the Senate to ensure that any legislation we consider takes into account its potential impact on our economy, which is in intensive care, particularly in States such as mine. And we have a moral obligation to ensure that we consider a bill's potential impact on the poor and the elderly who must survive on a fixed income and who pay an inordinate amount of their income for energy. They are the forgotten people in this country. We must ensure that we do not pass climate change legislation that will significantly drive up the cost of electricity for those who can least afford it. Although some science has attributed changes in the climate to atmospheric concentration of carbon, it is clear the science of climate change is far from settled. We need significantly more research on the issue. To accept the statements of supporters of S. 139 at face value is to accept one side of the debate, a very serious debate, among respected scientists and policy experts on both sides of the issue. I recall the hearings Senator Lieberman had when he was chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee and two hearings I had. It was interesting to see the difference of opinion among very respected scientists in this country. My distinguished colleague Senator Inhofe has discussed at length both in the Environment and Public Works Committee and in the Senate the newest information on the issue which is contrary to the views expressed by Senators McCain and Lieberman. In a recent column, former Secretary of Energy James Schlesinger commented: . . . despite the certainty many seem to feel about the causes, effects and extent of climate change, we are in fact making only slow progress in our understanding of the underlying science. I ask unanimous consent the column by Mr. Schlesinger be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Gov. Michael Leavitt to serve as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. As my colleagues here in the Senate know, I have more than a passing interest in the people who run our Government. Many of our problems have been caused because we do not have the right people with the right knowledge and skills in the right place at the right time. The process is even more difficult when trying to find people to nominate for controversial appointments like Federal judgeships or high-profile Cabinet officers. Well, I would like to say that President Bush got it right. Mike Leavitt is clearly one of the best people we could ever get to run the EPA. I first met Mike while we were both Governors and were active together in the Republican Governors and National Governors Associations. Mike served as NGA vice-chairman, under then-Gov. Tom Carper, NGA chairman, RGA vice-chairman, while I was chairman, and as RGA chairman. He has established a very strong reputation as a straight-shooting consensus builder with the proven ability to work on a bipartisan basis. On many issues, Mike was willing to take on tough issues--such as internet taxation and unfunded mandates legislation--and worked with both Republican and Democratic Governors to form consensus and move the ball down the field. During his three terms as Governor, Mike has demonstrated an outstanding ability to efficiently and effectively manage the State of Utah's provision of public goods and services. Time after time, Governor Leavitt has set an agenda in Utah, and each time he has rolled up his sleeves, pulled together broad coalitions, reached consensus, and gotten results. Under Mike's watch, Utah has hosted the most environmentally friendly Olympics ever, reduced crime, decreased reliance on welfare, reduced unemployment, and improved education funding and performance--all while the State's sales, income, and property taxes have been reduced. In fact, During Mike's tenure as Governor, Utah has been named the best- managed State five times. No wonder he was recently named ``Public Official of the Year'' by Governing magazine. Governor Leavitt's record on the environment is equally as impressive. Consider: Utah's air quality has demonstrably improved during the Leavitt administration. Utah currently meets all Federal air quality standards; this was not the case when Governor Leavitt started his service. Visibility and air quality in the West have improved because of Governor Leavitt's co-chairmanship of the Western Regional Air Partnership. Utah has among the Nation's cleanest watersheds and water quality has improved dramatically during the Leavitt administration. Governor Leavitt helped protect 500,000 acres of remarkable land in national parks, monuments, recreation areas and wilderness study areas through value-for-value land exchanges with the Federal Government. Utah's Quality Growth Commission, which Governor Leavitt helped establish, has conserved approximately 35,000 acres of critical land in perpetuity, protecting critical wildlife, watershed and historical and agricultural assets in the State. Governor Leavitt helped found Envision Utah, the Nation's largest voluntary quality growth partnership. It was formed to create a vision and implement strategies to protect Utah's environment for future generations. I cannot think of anyone who is better suited to lead the EPA. Governor Leavitt has continuously demonstrated the tremendous interpersonal skills and management experience necessary to handle the major challenges that the Agency faces during the months and years ahead. He cares deeply about the environment and will pull people together to get things done. Mike's proven ability to facilitate the creation of positive solutions to multiple problems and interests is exactly what is needed at the EPA's top post. He has established an impressive track record of producing results; one that I believe will continue should he be confirmed as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. I strongly urge all my colleagues here in the Senate to support Mike's nomination.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. I yield for a question.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise to strongly oppose the Mikulski amendment to the Transportation, Treasury, general government appropriations bill. I have the highest regard for both Senators from Maryland but have a real difference of opinion in regard to the relevancy and the need for this amendment that would throw out the new OMB A-76 circular that was issued in May of this year. The A-76 rules were designed to fix a process which government managers, private sector contractors, and Federal employees unions agreed was broken. Congress recognized the problem as well. Therefore, Congress established the commercial activities panel as part of the 2001 national defense authorization bill. In other words, Congress recognized that there was a problem with the A-76 back in 2001. The panel was convened specifically to consider A-76 revisions and other issues related to competition. It was led by Comptroller General David Walker, head of the General Accounting Office. The other members of that panel should be of interest to the Members of the Senate: David Walker was chairman; Pete Aldridge, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisitions; Frank A. Camm, senior analyst from Rand; Mark C. Filteau, President, Johnson Controls; Steven Goldsmith, Senior Vice President, Affiliated Computer Services; Bobby Harnage, Sr., National President, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO; Kay Cole James, Director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management; Colleen M. Kelley, National President, National Treasury Employees Union--this is the panel that considered changing A-76 and came back with a recommendation--David Pryor, Director, Institute of Politics, Harvard University; Stan Soloway, President, Professional Services Council; Angela B. Styles, Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy in the administration; and another very distinguished labor leader in this country, Robert M. Tobias, distinguished adjunct professor at American University who is the former President of the National Treasury Employees Union. This was a very distinguished group that looked at the A-76 process and said it is broken and it needs to be fixed. What this amendment would do is take us back to that broken A-76 which was recognized for some time and deny us the opportunity to use this new A-76 that was agreed upon by this distinguished panel. I could go on at length as to how the new rules are an overall improvement on the old. But this is not really what this amendment is about. The real purpose of the amendment we are hearing from the other side of the aisle is to stop the Bush administration's competitive sourcing initiative by disrupting the administrative processes associated with it. While Senator Mikulski's amendment would not stop competitive sourcing, as I say, it would force the executive branch to continue to use a process that everybody agreed was broken and in need of repair. When the administration first came out with their six management initiatives, one of the things I became very upset about, as someone who has a great appreciation for people who work in government, was that they had set some artificial percentages that Departments would have to follow in terms of outsourcing. So it would be 5 percent this year and then 10 percent. We had a hearing on this, and we made it clear that we thought it was bad public policy, that what directors should be doing, and people who work for them, was to look at their manpower to see if those people who are in place can do the job better; and in many cases they could, but they were not given money for the training they needed to upgrade their skills. I say to colleagues on both sides of the aisle, we got the administration to back away from that. They publicly have backed away from it. Clay Johnson, the new management person at OMB, has said we are backing away from it. He gets it; he understands that that policy wasn't in the best interest of the people who work for the Government or in the best interest of the taxpayers of this country. I urge colleagues to defeat this amendment. I want you to know that Senator Thomas and I will offer an amendment later this afternoon to address what we have identified as some remaining issues of concern with the A-76 rules and the Bush administration's competitive sourcing agenda. I believe these amendments will indeed level the playing field. I believe they will give the fairness that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to see in terms of the issue of competitive sourcing. The amendment will apply to all competitive sourcing activities all across the Government. It will do the following: It will require all agencies to provide Congress with detailed information on how it is implementing public-private competition. This includes a description of how the agency's competitive sourcing decisionmaking process is aligned with the Department's strategic workforce plan. That is the beginning--the strategic workforce plan: How are we going to get the job done and shape our workforce to achieve the goals we set for our Departments? It also requires the agency to report the projected number of full- time equivalent employees covered by the competition scheduled to be announced during the next fiscal year. So right off the bat, we are going to require these people to identify what they are looking at in terms of outsourcing or putting up for competitive bid. I believe having rigorous reporting requirements is the right approach. This would have to do it prospectively and retroactively. How much money are we saving? How much more efficient are we? Then they would have to come back and report after they did it to see how it was working.

Mr. VOINOVICH. After I am finished with my presentation. It has been the prerogative of every administration since the 1950s to decide when to conduct public-private competitions and the manner in which these competitions would be conducted. That is the prerogative of the executive administrative branch of Government. Congress, in its oversight role, has the right and responsibility to know what the executive branch is doing. This amendment will require the Bush administration to provide exactly that information. This will create a uniform reporting requirement on competitive sourcing activities at all executive branch agencies of Government across the board--not just Treasury. This affects the entire operation across the board of the Federal Government. That information will guide congressional oversight and allow us to judge if further congressional action is necessary. The amendment also gives appeal rights to a Federal organization when it loses a bid. Currently, when private contractors lose a competition with a Government entity, or another private sector contractor, they have a right to appeal the decision to the General Accounting Office. The Federal organization currently does not have that right. This provision levels the playing field and makes the competition process fair to Federal employees. We put them in the same position as we do the private contractors. We want them to be able to appeal it. This time, it says if our employees lose, they can appeal that, just as the private contractor can appeal. Third, this amendment modifies the provision of the new Circular A- 76, which requires that activities identified for competitive sourcing must be recompeted every 5 years if the Federal organization wins the competition. I am concerned about the effects this requirement may have on employee morale. This amendment removes the provision. In doing so, it sends a signal that as long as the MEO continues to perform well, it doesn't need to be subject to future competition. In other words, if the Federal workers win the competition, why should they, at the end of 5 years, have to have it recompeted? If you want to recompete it, the Department decides that; it means they are not getting the job done. But to have an automatic 5 years that says, hey, boys and girls, you are getting the job done, but after 5 years we are going to recompete it, that is not fair. Fourth, this amendment requires the executive branch Departments and Agencies to spend such sums as are necessary to ensure that they have strong contract oversight capabilities. One of the problems we have in a lot of Federal agencies is we don't have the people who can properly oversee this competitive sourcing, nor do we have the people inside. There is a contract management office in the executive branch, and they don't have the necessary resources to properly do their job. It is not enough to farm something out to a private company and then not find out whether or not they are doing the job. We should have that. When I was the tax assessor of Cuyahoga County, we had internal people who watched the appraisal company that we had do the annual job. When I became the auditor, we had nobody inside. So we would hire a company, and nobody would know whether they were doing a good or a bad job or who helped us draft a contract to make sure we got what we wanted. So we brought them in house. It is the same thing we need in the Federal Government. If you are going to do competitive outsourcing, you had better have people in house who can do it right and, once it is done, make sure you are getting what you are supposed to get: We are saving money, and we are more efficient. If it is not happening, then you can throw the red flag. This amendment demonstrates congressional awareness of this problem and directs the executive branch agencies to do what is necessary to correct any deficiencies. This is a lot of work. I have talked to Clay Johnson at OMB. He gets it. He knows we must do a better job in these agencies. Fifth, the amendment prohibits private sector contractors who win competitions from relocating jobs overseas. Our reasoning is very simple. Jobs that were previously performed by U.S. citizens should not go to foreigners. We know today that more and more of that is happening with these private companies. Say it would be some company that competes for data processing and they get the job and then they would have people in Bangalore, India, do the work for them. This would require that if somebody won the competition in the private sector, those jobs had to be in the United States and not farmed out to India or some other country. Overall, this amendment represents a very balanced approach to further addressing some lingering concerns Congress may have with the Bush administration's competitive sourcing initiative. I have spent a lot of time on this issue. I have been working on the Governmental Affairs Committee. I am chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia. We were the ones who put together, with Senator Akaka, amendments to the Homeland Security Act that created more flexibility, and it was something we worked on, on a bipartisan basis. I have several other pieces of legislation that just got voted out of the Governmental Affairs Committee on a bipartisan basis this week. I care about our Federal workers. I do. I believed that our Federal workers, when I was mayor, Governor, and now as a Senator, if given the right tools and are empowered and get the training they need, can beat anybody. We have to make sure they have an even playing field. But at the same time we do that, I don't think we should go back to an A-76 procedure that we, many years ago, said was broken. So, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to not support the amendment proposed by my good friends--people I respect--from Maryland, and that they support the amendment I have put together with Senator Thomas. I will say that we are trying to still, between now and then, work with people on the other side of the aisle, and they have other ideas on how we can do this better. This is a serious issue. I will now yield for a question to my colleague from Maryland.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I need 2 minutes. I appreciate the kind words from the Senator of Maryland with regard to our amendment. But I think that to go back to the old A-76 circular after the commercial panels spent so much time on it would not be in the best interest of our Government. I am going to quote from David Walker, who is chairman of that panel, to clarify the fact that the new circular is better than the old system, and that we would be better off having our amendment attached to the new circular rather than to the old rules and old circular. He says: As I noted previously, the new Circular A-76 is generally consistent with the Commercial Activities Panel's sourcing principles and recommendations and, as such, provides an improved foundation for competitive sourcing decisions in the Federal Government. In particular, the new Circular permits: greater reliance on procedures contained in the FAR, which should result in more transparent, simpler, and consistently applied competitive process, and source selection decisions based on tradeoffs between technical factors and cost. The new Circular also suggests the potential use of alternatives to the competitive sourcing process, such as public-private and public-public partnerships and high- performing organizations. It does not, however, specifically address how these alternatives might be used. That is an improvement. If effectively implemented, the new Circular should result in increased savings, improved performance, and greater accountability, regardless of the service provider selected. That is why the amendment is so important. However, this competitive sourcing initiative is a major change in the way Government agencies operate, and successful implementation of the Circular's provisions will require that adequate support be made available to Federal agencies and employees, especially if the timeframes called for in the new Circular are to be achieved. The point I am making today--one of the reasons we have one of our amendments--is that we are requiring the Federal agencies to have the capacity to properly go through this competitive sourcing. That is what our amendment says. In addition, it says that once the competitive sourcing has been--if the outsiders win, we are going to monitor their performance to make sure we are going to get the savings and the efficiencies we are supposed to get. If we are not, that would mean our workers in the Federal Government would get another shot at what had been farmed out to the private sector. I know there have been instances in the Defense Department where things have been farmed out and then they have been brought back into the Federal Government.

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