George Voinovich

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I would just like to clarify something for my colleagues in the Senate. First of all, the A-76 old rule was considered to be broken. Congress recognized the problem, and they established a Commercial Activities Panel as part of the 2001 Defense Authorization Act. The panel was convened specifically to consider revisions to the A-76 competition. It was led by Comptroller David Walker, the head of the General Accounting Office. Now, there have been some allegations here that the circular that was put out by the Bush administration was not reflective of the panel's decision. First of all, the recommendations coming from the panel were either agreed to unanimously or by a supermajority of the public and private representatives. I will say, in all candor, I correct my earlier statements. They were not supported by Bob Tobias. They were not supported by Colleen Kelley. And they were not supported by Bobby Harnage. So let's clarify that. The union representatives did not like it that much. So the question is, Is the new A-76 better than the old one that the Senators from Maryland want us to adopt? As I noted earlier, the A-76, the new regulation, quoting David Walker: . . . is generally consistent with the commercial activities panel's sourcing principles and recommendations and, as such, provides improved and foundation for competitive sourcing decisions in the Federal Government. In particular, the new circular permits . . . Then he goes on to talk about the new circular. He goes on to say: If effectively implemented, the new Circular should result in . . . [greater credibility] and greater accountability regardless of the service provider selected. As part of an executive session at Harvard University that was convened by Dean Nye, in which I participated, I got to know several members of the Clinton administration. One of those members of the administration was Steve Kelman, administrator of the Office for Federal Procurement Policy at OMB. He had the job of Ms. Styles who has left the administration. I asked Steve what he thought about the new A- 76 circular and he said that overall it was better than the old A-76 and that the only problem he had with it was this recompete after 5 years for those people in the public sector who won the competition. What I am saying is that the A-76 circular that was submitted by the Bush administration is not perfect. There are differences of opinion about it, but it is a far cry better than the old A-76 circular. What we are saying today is that we should not go back to that, that the new circular is better. Our amendment enhances the playing field for our Federal workforce in that it requires certain reporting requirements that say this competition is not going to be done willy- nilly, that it is going to be done as part of their workforce shaping. By the way, I would like to correct one Senator from Maryland who said the administration has given the charge to go out and do this arbitrarily. They did that initially. I blew a gasket. I blew a fuse. Senator Durbin and I had a hearing on that. We had a second hearing on it and the administration has backed off from the quotas. So there is not going to be a rush out there to do competitive bidding. We are going to require them to have reporting requirements, letting people know beforehand that they are going to go to competition. Once they go to competition and if the private sector wins, they are going to have to report whether they are getting the money efficiencies and whether they are getting the other efficiencies they thought they were going to get.

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. Does the Senator yield?

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, the 2001 National Defense Authorization Act required that panel be put together to look at a new A-76 rule, and the commercial activities panel worked on this issue for a significant amount of time and reflected a cross section of labor and management, the final regulation that was put out by the administration was looked at by several of the people who were on that panel with whom I personally spent some time. In spite of whatever criticisms you may have with that A-76 process, it was the consensus that the new A-76 regulation is far better than the one we have on the books, which is not getting the job done or we wouldn't have asked that a commercial panel come up with a new A-76 recommendation in terms of a regulation. My argument would be that the regulation proposed by the administration--by the way, I don't think they even got into the issue of the A-76 regulation over in the House. This was just a question of whether we were going to have competitive bidding. Some people were for it; some people were not. With all due respect, I have talked with some of the people over on the other side and I don't think a lot understood what this was about. I am saying to the Senator, the new regulation, though he and others may have some problems with it, is far better than the one we decided wasn't getting the job done. I would argue that some of the concerns that have been raised about competitive bidding are being responded to with the amendment I am going to be offering with Senator Thomas this afternoon.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I am saying there was some difference of opinion, and it didn't do everything they wanted, but the consensus was that the new A-76 regulation that was proposed by the administration was better than the old A-76 procedure that we have.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I yield for a question.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? I am asserting that talking to individual members of the panel indicated to me that the circular that was put out by the administration was better than what they had before in terms of the A-76 process. Now, if you are asking me did everyone agree with everything that was on there, I can't verify that fact, but I will say this: The consensus that we got, particularly from David Walker who was chairman of the panel, indicated that he thought that what they came back with was better than the old A-76 process. Then, by the way, other issues were raised. Frankly speaking, that is one of the reasons why I am here with an amendment that deals with competitive sources. There was a concern about the fact that our employees would--if they won the competition--have to come back every 5 years. There was concern that there wasn't a right of appeal if our employees lost the competition. There was concern about the fact that the agencies have the individuals they need on board to put competition together, and that once they are put together, they have people who can monitor the private sector doing the work to make sure they are getting this cost savings and the efficiencies they expected they were going to get from the process. Last but not least, as you know, I am making it very clear that the amendment makes it very clear that if they do win, it can't be farmed out to some foreign workers. These amendments are a reflection of trying to deal with some of the concerns that employee unions and other people have with this A-76.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I would like to save my remarks. I am waiting for something to come from my office that I can share with the Members of the Senate from the chairman of the Commercial Activities Panel I made reference to in my remarks earlier. I will let the other side continue with their remarks.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of the Class Action Fairness Act, a bill to stop unfair and abusive class action settlements that ignore the best interests of injured plaintiffs. It tickles the cockles of my heart that this is the first time I can recall that my colleague from the State of Delaware and I have spoken out on the same position on a bill before the Senate. Senator Carper and I have worked together for many years in the National Governors Association. We have been looking for an opportunity to collaborate and support legislation on the floor of the Senate. It is a particular pleasure for me to follow the Senator from Delaware. We both believe this is good legislation for the people in our districts and for our country. This legislation is sorely needed to help people understand their rights in class action lawsuits and protect them from unfair settlements. It is also 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 a rising tide of frivolous lawsuits and has resulted in the loss of countless numbers of jobs, especially in the manufacturing sector. I believe that for the system to work, we must strike a delicate balance between the rights of the 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 that is what this legislation does, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of it. Since my days as Governor of Ohio, I have been very concerned with what I call the ``litigation tornado'' that has been sweeping through the economy of my State and throughout the United States. Ohio's 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 liability insurance. 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 doesn't even know about that is taking place in a State she has never visited. In 1996, as Governor of Ohio, I was proud to sign H.B. 350, strong tort reform legislation that became law in Ohio 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 decision, struck down Ohio's 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: They claimed their association would lose members and lose money due to the civil justice reform laws that were enacted. That is how they got standing in court. It was an incredible situation that I hope we never see again. While we were frustrated at the State level, I am proud to have continued my fight for a fair, strong civil justice system in the U.S. Senate. To this end, I worked with the American Tort Reform Association to produce a study titled ``Lawsuit Abuse in Ohio'' that captured the impact of this rampant litigation on Ohio's economy with a goal of educating the public on the issue and sparking change. Can you imagine what this study found? In Ohio, the litigation crisis costs every Ohioan $636 per year, and every Ohio family of four $2,500 per year. These are alarming numbers. This study was released on August 8, 2002. Imagine how these numbers have risen in 1 year. In tough economic times, families cannot afford to pay over $2,500 to cover other people's litigation costs. Something needs to be done, and the 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. This 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 fact, America's civil justice system had a direct cost in 2001 of $205.4 billion or almost 2.5 percent of GDP. That is a 14.3-percent jump from the year before, the largest percentage increase since 1986. Thousands of jobs have been impacted by that litigation. I emphasize to my colleagues that this is not a bill to end all class action lawsuits. It is a bill to identify those lawsuits with merit and to ensure that plaintiffs in legitimate lawsuits are treated fairly through the litigation process. It is a bill to protect class members from settlements that give their lawyers millions while they only see 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. I am a strong supporter of this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, today is a glorious day. Today is the day that we finally send the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act to the President for his signature, and we can now begin to save human lives. Today's vote is only marred by the fact that it took us so long to get here. Just imagine the number of lives we could have saved if we had sent this bill to the President 8 months ago, when we first passed it. The subject of partial-birth abortion is not a new one for me. Eight years ago, when I was Governor of Ohio, we were the first State to pass a partial-birth abortion ban, which was unfortunately struck down by the courts. Subsequent to that, I watched the partial birth abortion ban make its way through the 104th and 105th Congresses, only to be vetoed by President Clinton. After I arrived in the Senate in the 106th Congress, I gave a speech in support of a partial birth abortion ban that passed both chambers but never made it to Conference. I am overjoyed that we finally got this done in the 108th Congress! During debate on this bill, I listened to my colleagues quote statistics and spout off facts about medical necessity and the health of the mother. Well, we can all quote different statistics, but the bottom line is that there is no need for this procedure. Most of these partial birth abortions are elective. They take 3 days to complete and are never medically necessary. The victims of the partial-birth abortions are human beings. I find it interesting that they are sometimes called living fetuses. Whether they are called babies or fetuses, no one seems to dispute the fact that they are living. In fact, they are human babies and they can feel pain. I would like to thank all of my colleagues who voted for this very important legislation. We can certainly be proud of what we have accomplished today!

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, today Senator DeWine and I have introduced legislation that will help level the playing field for American manufacturers futilely struggling to keep pace with their Chinese competitors. My legislation, the Currency Harmonization Initiative Through Neutralizing Action (CHINA) Act of 2003, would allow for the use of tariffs to punish China for unfair trade practices that makes Chinese exports cheaper, in effect subsidizing them, and U.S. exports more expensive. Representatives English, Ballenger, and Mark Green, my colleagues on the other side of the Capitol, have already introduced this legislation in that body. I am deeply concerned with the harm that the People's Republic of China (China) is doing to our economy by pegging the value of its currency, the renminbi, to the U.S. dollar because Ohio is a manufacturing State. Manufacturing contributes to the quality of life in Ohio by providing more than one million jobs for Ohio workers, an annual payroll of more than $45 billion, the second highest weekly earnings of any economic sector, support for local communities and schools with more than $1 billion in corporate franchise and personal property taxes, and more than $26 billion in products to more than 196 countries. After a significant recession in 2001, the 2002-2003 manufacturing recovery has been the slowest on record; during this time, roughly 2.7 million jobs have been lost. In Ohio, we have lost 170,000 manufacturing jobs since July 2000--that's nearly 16 percent or one out of six. Over the past year, I have held numerous listening sessions throughout the State of Ohio to hear from these manufacturers and see what they attribute this loss of jobs to. Overwhelming, I have heard that China, and particularly its policy of pegging its currency to the dollar, is one of their top concerns and is costing Ohio manufacturing jobs. It is these concerns which have led me to introduce this legislation. If the value of the renminbi is allowed to float freely, as the currencies of our other major trading partners do, it would reflect China's enormous trade surplus and increase significantly in value. China's systematic undervaluation of its currency makes its exports less expensive and puts U.S. workers at a severe disadvantage. This is both unfair and unacceptable. I have long advocated free trade, provided it is fair trade. China's currency policy clearly tilts the international playing field against workers in Ohio and across the entire United states. This is unacceptable. As a major international trading nation, China's currency should be allowed to float and to have its value reflect its net trade positions with other nations. This is only fair. My bill will help level the playing field by requiring the Secretary of the Treasury, within sixty days of enactment, to analyze and report to Congress whether China is manipulating its currency to achieve an advantage in trade. If the Secretary finds manipulation, the report to Congress will indicate the degree of manipulation against the dollar. Within thirty days after reporting manipulation to Congress, the Secretary is required to levy tariffs equal to the percentage of manipulation found. This is in addition to tariffs currently in place on Chinese imports. Furthermore, the Treasury Secretary is directed to report to Congress thereafter on a yearly basis from date of enactment. Finally, the legislation expresses the sense of Congress that the Administration should pursue all means available (WTO, IMF and Sections 301-310 of the Trade ACt of 1974) to remedy China's currency manipulation. If we are to stop the hemorrhaging of American manufacturing jobs, we must take strong measures to persuade China to abandon its peg policy and allow its currency to be set in the free and open marketplace. This is exactly what my legislation does. I would ask that my colleagues, especially from those States that are feeling the effects of this manufacturing crisis deeply, support this legislation and consider cosponsoring it.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, today Senator DeWine and I have introduced legislation that will help level the playing field for American manufacturers futilely struggling to keep pace with their Chinese competitors. My legislation, the Currency Harmonization Initiative Through Neutralizing Action (CHINA) Act of 2003, would allow for the use of tariffs to punish China for unfair trade practices that makes Chinese exports cheaper, in effect subsidizing them, and U.S. exports more expensive. Representatives English, Ballenger, and Mark Green, my colleagues on the other side of the Capitol, have already introduced this legislation in that body. I am deeply concerned with the harm that the People's Republic of China (China) is doing to our economy by pegging the value of its currency, the renminbi, to the U.S. dollar because Ohio is a manufacturing State. Manufacturing contributes to the quality of life in Ohio by providing more than one million jobs for Ohio workers, an annual payroll of more than $45 billion, the second highest weekly earnings of any economic sector, support for local communities and schools with more than $1 billion in corporate franchise and personal property taxes, and more than $26 billion in products to more than 196 countries. After a significant recession in 2001, the 2002-2003 manufacturing recovery has been the slowest on record; during this time, roughly 2.7 million jobs have been lost. In Ohio, we have lost 170,000 manufacturing jobs since July 2000--that's nearly 16 percent or one out of six. Over the past year, I have held numerous listening sessions throughout the State of Ohio to hear from these manufacturers and see what they attribute this loss of jobs to. Overwhelming, I have heard that China, and particularly its policy of pegging its currency to the dollar, is one of their top concerns and is costing Ohio manufacturing jobs. It is these concerns which have led me to introduce this legislation. If the value of the renminbi is allowed to float freely, as the currencies of our other major trading partners do, it would reflect China's enormous trade surplus and increase significantly in value. China's systematic undervaluation of its currency makes its exports less expensive and puts U.S. workers at a severe disadvantage. This is both unfair and unacceptable. I have long advocated free trade, provided it is fair trade. China's currency policy clearly tilts the international playing field against workers in Ohio and across the entire United states. This is unacceptable. As a major international trading nation, China's currency should be allowed to float and to have its value reflect its net trade positions with other nations. This is only fair. My bill will help level the playing field by requiring the Secretary of the Treasury, within sixty days of enactment, to analyze and report to Congress whether China is manipulating its currency to achieve an advantage in trade. If the Secretary finds manipulation, the report to Congress will indicate the degree of manipulation against the dollar. Within thirty days after reporting manipulation to Congress, the Secretary is required to levy tariffs equal to the percentage of manipulation found. This is in addition to tariffs currently in place on Chinese imports. Furthermore, the Treasury Secretary is directed to report to Congress thereafter on a yearly basis from date of enactment. Finally, the legislation expresses the sense of Congress that the Administration should pursue all means available (WTO, IMF and Sections 301-310 of the Trade ACt of 1974) to remedy China's currency manipulation. If we are to stop the hemorrhaging of American manufacturing jobs, we must take strong measures to persuade China to abandon its peg policy and allow its currency to be set in the free and open marketplace. This is exactly what my legislation does. I would ask that my colleagues, especially from those States that are feeling the effects of this manufacturing crisis deeply, support this legislation and consider cosponsoring it.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, as we continue discussion on the supplemental spending request to support military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, I would like to take a few minutes to again express my strong support for the funding included in this bill. I believe these resources are essential to our efforts to secure a stable future for the people of Iraq. This funding is also crucial to American soldiers serving on the ground in Iraq, providing necessary resources to help them finish the job, and to bring them back home as quickly as possible. This is true not only of the military portion of the request, totaling approximately $66 billion, but also the $20.3 billion in funding for reconstruction in Iraq. Some of my colleagues believe this funding for reconstruction should be in the form of a loan. While I understand their rationale, after carefully considering the situation and listening to the points raised by Ambassador Bremer and our colleagues, I have concluded this funding must be in the form of a grant. It is important for several reasons. First, if we tell the American people we are going to loan this money and that it is going to be paid back somewhere down the road, many of them will be very cynical about whether or not we will get the money back. There is no Iraqi government to agree to repay a loan. I think we ought to level with them and say, this initial grant is a grant. If we are asked to look at additional funding down the road, then that is a different story. However, there is very little chance that Iraq would be able to pay back this money in the near future. Next, as we look to increase contributions from the international community, I think this funding must be in the form of a grant and not a loan. This is particularly important as we approach the Donors' Conference in Madrid next week. We must do all that we can to make this a shared responsibility, and if we make U.S. funds for infrastructure projects contingent upon a loan, I do not think our friends and allies would be willing to come to the table and support additional money for Iraq. This is also crucial as we call on those countries that did business with Saddam Hussein to eliminate the debt owed to them by the former Iraqi dictator. I would suggest to those who have made loans to the former regime in Iraq that they step up quickly and waive those loans. This will go a long way in helping a new, democratic Iraq move forward. I am pleased that the Senate accepted an amendment that I introduced on October 2, 2003, which requires the President to report to Congress within four months regarding steps taken to increase financial commitments from the international community. The amendment also requires a detailed list of countries that have contributed funds, as well as information on those countries that have eliminated debt owed to them by the former Iraqi regime. Further, as we encourage other countries to eliminate their debt, we should not saddle Iraq with any more loans. Countries that chose to do business with Saddam should, as I said, eliminate that debt as a way to share in the task of rebuilding a democratic Iraq. Iraq's debt is already mountainous, totaling nearly $200 billion in debts and reparations. As Ambassador Bremer has pointed out, Iraq can hardly service its existing debt, let alone take on more. As a matter of fact, as one member of the Iraqi Governing Council has said, in his opinion, those loans are morally repugnant to the Iraqi people because they were made to a dictator who killed thousands of their brothers and sisters and who made them live under a 35-year reign of terror. Finally, providing assistance to Iraq at this time in the form of a grant is the right thing to do. As I remarked on the floor of the Senate on October 1, 2003, we now have the chance of a lifetime to create a new paradigm of democracy in the Middle East, and to do for this part of the world what we did for Germany and Japan in the aftermath of World War II. As we consider this question, it is appropriate that we look to the lessons of history. We should look to the peace that prevailed in Europe following World War II under the Marshall plan, when our assistance was given as a grant, as contrasted with the events that took place following the signing of the Treaty of Versailles. Ambassador Bremer said it well in testimony before the Senate a few weeks ago. He observed that after World War I, the allied forces ``celebrated their victory, mourned their dead and demanded the money they were owed.'' He said, ``We know the results of that policy. Extremism, bred in a swamp of despair, bankruptcy and unpayable debts, gave the world Fascism in Italy and Nazism in Germany.'' Today we find ourselves with another historic opportunity to promote a new era of peace, stability and democracy in Iraq and in the Middle East. By extending support to help Iraq in the form of a grant, our actions will demonstrate better than any rhetoric could that we are genuinely interested in supporting humane reconstruction in Iraq, as we did following World War II. We must remember that our war on terrorism began after 9/11. Two years ago, after it happened, I said, ``Our actions must be ongoing and relentless, and dedicated to excising the cancer of terrorism wherever it raises its ugly head. We owe it to the victims and their families, especially their children and grandchildren, to make sure this never happens again. Most of all, we owe it to the American people and the world community to bring an end to terrorism everywhere and forever.'' There are millions of young people under the age of 20 in the Middle East and we want them chanting, ``Freedom and Democracy!'' not Jihad against the rest of the world. This funding is critical as we continue that effort.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate and pay tribute to Mr. Raj Soin of Beavercreek, OH as a 2003 Ellis Island Medal of Honor recipient. The prestigious Ellis Island Medal of Honor award is presented annually to ``remarkable American 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.'' Mr. Soin was born in New Delhi, India in 1947 and graduated from Delhi University in 1969 with a Bachelor's degree in Mechanical Engineering. After graduation, he came to the United States with barely enough money to make his way to Bradley University, where he earned a Master of Science degree in Industrial Engineering in 1971, while working as a research assistant. Mr. Soin continued his post-graduate studies in business and finance, at Bradley University, Illinois State University, and the advanced management programs at Harvard University and The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Raj Soin and his wife, Indu, became proud citizens of the United States in 1978. In 1984, Raj Soin created his company, Modern Technologies Corporation, MTC, on a dream. MTC was founded with the idea of proving engineering and technical services to the Department of Defense, but quickly became an incubator that has spawned numerous businesses in a variety of industries. From its inception, MTC has grown at an exceptional rate and was hailed as one of the fastest growing companies in the United States by Inc. magazine for 4 consecutive years. In June 2002, MTC Technologies was listed on NASDAQ. Today the company has sales in excess of $140 million and employs over 1100 people in 25 cities and 18 States. With the success of his company, Modern Technologies Corporation, he could have chosen to channel his energies solely toward his business. Instead, he believes in contributing to the community that has given him so much. And the one area in which Mr. Raj Soin has made a particular difference has been in the area which has had such an enormous impact on his own life--education. When I was Governor of Ohio, one of the goals that I set for my administration was to celebrate the cultural diversity of our State by seeking out individuals from non-traditional ethnic groups and giving them an opportunity to serve. I was so impressed by Raj's devotion to education, that as Governor, I appointed him to Wright State University's Board of Trustees in 1993. One of the main reasons that I asked Raj to serve on the Board of Trustees was that he constantly mentioned the fact that we needed to do a better job in higher education, that we needed to do a better job in secondary and primary education. He has served with great distinction and is held in the highest regard by his colleagues. More important is the fact that through his work on behalf of Wright State University, Raj has directly touched the lives of so many. Raj Soin has truly made a difference on behalf of the citizens of Dayton, the State of Ohio and thousands of Wright State University graduates. Because of his commitment to higher education and in honor of his accomplishments and support of the University, in 2000, the business college at Wright State was renamed the Raj Soin College of Business and I was delighted to be on campus in Dayton, OH, for the dedication ceremony. Raj's determination, his hard work and his selflessness are traits that all of us should strive to emulate, not only in business, but in life, because there are rewards that are greater than money-- particularly, the ability to make a difference in the lives of one's fellow man. For example, Raj is the founding trustee and first president of the Ohio-India project. Two of the local projects of the Ohio-India Project are the Ghandi House, a transitional house for women in need and the Annual Day of Caring, which started as a local event and is now conducted in several states with expectations of becoming a national program. Additionally, as Governor, we led a trade mission to India in April of 1996, and I had the chance to see Raj Soin in action when his company, Modern Technologies Corporation and CMC Limited announced their joint agreement to, among other things, greatly expand India's access to the Internet. Mr. Soin's company, MTC Technologies also supports many community projects through the MTC Foundation. MTC not only provides part of the funding for the Foundation, but permits and encourages employers to spend company time to help with the Foundation's work. Raj Soin serves as a member of the Board of Directors of Victoria Theatre Association, and on the Board of Directors of the Kettering Medical Center Network. He is a past member of the Board of Trustees of Wright State University, the Advisory Board of KeyBank, and Dayton District. He is a founding trustee and past president of Asian Indian American Business Group. He has also served as a member of the Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce Board of Trustees; member of the Ohio Business Roundtable; Co-Chair of the Center for Information Technology in Dayton; member of the Board of Dayton Council on World Affairs; and member of the Board of the Dayton Air and Trade Show. Mr. Soin has received many awards, including: The National Conference of Christians and Jews Humanitarians Award, Ernst & Young's Master Entrepreneur, and Beavercreek Chamber of Commerce Business Person of the Year. Even with all the business success he has enjoyed and all the charitable and philanthropic acts that he has undertaken, perhaps what best exemplifies Raj Soin is the fact that he is a loving husband, devoted father and caring son. I have been to Raj and Indu's home and I have been with them at other occasions and observed the genuine love and admiration they have for each other and their pride in their two sons. Raj understands, as so many Asian Indians do, that the family is the backbone of our society. I remember also on our business mission having the pleasure of meeting Raj Soin's father. You could not help but see how proud he was of Raj. And that love and respect was mutual; for Raj is the main benefactor for the Sukh Dev Raj Soin Hospital which is being built in memory of his father in India. Raj has been a role model in every sense: in terms of his family, in terms of his contributions to his ``extended family'' in the community, and in terms of his success in business. Raj Soin is indeed a remarkable American of the highest integrity in both his personal and professional life. He has made many outstanding contributions to the Asian Indian community, to his local community in Dayton, OH and to American society. Raj Soin is a man who came to our shores in search of a dream, who started from scratch and became a success in his adopted country, and then he went back to his homeland to help millions of people join the information age. There is just one way to describe it--only in America could such an opportunity arise to be successful and to serve. I am proud to recognize my friend, Raj Soin, and congratulate him on this wonderful honor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, just over 2 years ago, our lives were forever changed when terrorists attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, claiming the lives of nearly 3,000 Americans and declaring war on freedom and democracy everywhere. In the aftermath of the tragic events of September 11, it became very clear that we would be engaged in a war against terrorism that would span years rather than months and require the full attention of the United States and our allies. On September 12, 2001, I spoke on the Senate floor regarding the challenge before America. I said: Our determination to winning the war on terrorism must have the same high priority that we gave to winning World War II, and we must engage our allies in this war. We should make the same preparations that we made for D-day and the world's entry into the Persian Gulf war. I also said: Our actions must be ongoing and relentless, and be dedicated to excising the cancer of terrorism wherever it raises its ugly head. Our efforts cannot be another catharsis after a national tragedy, and they must not fade away with time and business as usual. We owe it to yesterday's victims and their families, especially their children and grandchildren, most of all we owe it to the American people and the world community, to bring an end to terrorism everywhere and forever. Exactly one year ago this week, I spoke in the Senate as we considered a resolution authorizing the President to use military force to disarm Saddam Hussein and liberate the Iraqi people should our diplomatic efforts fail. At that time, I said: Saddam Hussein poses a clear threat to peace in the world, to America and our interests, to regional stability and to his own people. That is why I voted in favor of a resolution expressing the conviction of Congress that the United States should exhaust all diplomatic options first, but if Iraq resisted diplomatic solutions the President would be authorized to use all necessary means to enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions in Iraq. Though we all hoped and prayed the growing crisis would not have to be settled with military action, Iraq's 12-year defiance of the world community ultimately left no other action. Joined by members of the international community, a United States-led coalition engaged in a campaign against the Iraqi dictator, and as I stand before you 12 months later, the reign of terror of Saddam Hussein is no more. People in Iraq and people in the world can breathe easier now that Iraq is rid of a tyrant who used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands of his own people, an enemy of humanity who shunned democracy and balked at the rule of law. Saddam Hussein was a dangerous threat to his own people, his regional neighbors, and the international community. In an effort to perpetuate the fear on which his power was based, he used his own people as test subjects for the development of weapons of mass destruction. He depended on torture chambers as a method of coercion. Operation Iraqi Freedom has annihilated this vile oppression. This is significant not only for the well-being of the Iraqi people, but it is also crucial for our national security and the future of our children and grandchildren. This is as much about us, and our war against terrorism, and the security of the American people, as it is about Iraq. I repeat: This is as much about us, our war against terrorism and the security of the American people, as it is about Iraq. We now have a chance of a lifetime to create a new paradigm of democracy in the Middle East and to do for this part of the world what we did for Germany and Japan in the aftermath of World War II. Today, 58 years after the Second World War, Japan is a strong ally in Asia, and Germany is no longer a threat but instead our partner in NATO and partners with its neighbors in the European Union. We spent billions of dollars during the Cold War in anticipation that one day our brothers and sisters behind the Iron Curtain and the Berlin Wall would enjoy the freedom we have now enjoyed. Now the Wall is down, the Curtain is torn, and we see democracy growing in that part of the world. Many of us believed it would never happen. Today we find ourselves with another historic opportunity to promote a new era of peace, stability, and democracy in Iraq and the Middle East. As Ken Pollack writes in his book ``The Threatening Storm": This is our one opportunity to create a stable, prosperous, self-sufficient Arab state that could serve as a model for the region. This is our one opportunity to turn Iraq from a malignant growth helping to poison the Middle East into an engine for change for the entire region, and we must not let it slip away from us. I could not agree more. We have a chance to cultivate an important friendship in the Middle East. By helping Iraq, we send an important message not only to those who seek to undermine stability in Iraq but to the entire world. By extending support to help stabilize and strengthen a new democratic Iraq, our actions will demonstrate more than any rhetoric could that we are genuinely interested in supporting humane reconstruction in Iraq as we did following World War II. It will show that we will take the necessary steps and devote the resources required to secure a bright future for Iraq, especially for the young people, and stabilize that part of the world. Today we begin discussion of the President's critical request for an additional $87 billion to support ongoing military operations and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. In testimony before both Houses of Congress last week, the head of the coalition provisional authority, Ambassador Bremer, outlined the resources that will be required to enhance security and restore essential services in Iraq, which total of $20.3 billion. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld also testified regarding the funding that is required to support ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other parts of the world, which totals roughly $66 billion, nearly two-thirds of the total request. The funding is urgently needed, both for military operations and reconstruction. The portion to sustain military operations will support the nearly 130,000 American soldiers on the ground, and it goes hand and glove with the $20.3 billion requested for reconstruction in Iraq. It is imperative that we act now to restore essential services, build infrastructure, and improve life for the Iraqi people. As Ambassador Bremer remarked last week: Early progress on restoring basic infrastructure gives us an edge against the terrorists. Ambassador Bremer also said if we fail to act soon, ``the consequences for American troops and American interests will be severe.'' What I am saying is that the $20.3 billion they are asking for infrastructure is just as important to the safety of our men and women in harm's way as the $69 billion that has been called for in the rest of the request. This investment will also support our troops. The sooner Iraq is up and running on its own, the sooner our troops will be able to come home. United States-led coalition forces on the ground continue to encounter on a daily basis those who seek to undermine our efforts to ensure a free and democratic future for Iraq. We saw this last weekend when facilities used by U.N. officials and other members of the international community came under attack. There are those who would like to see us fail, and they are working to undermine our efforts with the expectation that our resolve is weak and that with enough violence we will leave. That is why we must act now. This is a considerable sum of money, and Congress has an obligation to carefully consider this spending request in the broader context of other domestic needs. I understand while Iraq is in need of funding for security and infrastructure projects, we also have urgent spending needs here at home. Congress and the administration should address these priorities for the State of Ohio, my State, and cities and towns across America and make a renewed commitment to invest in our Nation's critical infrastructure, including our highways, bridges, drinking water, wastewater treatment facilities, and other water resources. As a member of the Senate, I believe Congress should work to move critical infrastructure bills such as reauthorization of the surface transportation program, water infrastructure funding legislation, the Water Resources Development Act. I have also urged the administration to create an emergency jobs bill much like the emergency jobs bill that President Reagan created in 1983 while I was mayor of the city of Cleveland and lobbying the Reagan administration to help my city, county, and State. But while action on these items is important, it should not keep us from doing what we need to do to finish the job in Iraq. We must address the spending request before us today as a separate issue. They are disconnected. From the very beginning, it has been my belief that it will take a considerable amount of time, manpower, and money to do what must be done to truly secure a better future for the Iraqi people. Again, I just want to mention, the money we spent in Japan, the money we spent in Germany after World War II, and the money that we spent during the Cold War--we spent billions of dollars. These were grants; these were not loans. We did it because we thought it was important to our national security. And we did it because we thought it was important for world peace. Our military campaign to topple the Iraqi regime was accomplished swiftly and successfully. However, much of our work, as I said, has just begun, and it is not going to be done overnight, nor is it best done alone. In February, prior to the onset of military action to disarm Saddam Hussein, I raised this point as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee with Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman and Under Secretary of Defense Doug Feith when they testified before our committee. I said then, and I believe now, if we are going to be successful in our efforts in Iraq, it will require not only the long- term commitment of the United States but our partners in the United Nations and other members of the international community. At that time, I underscored the importance of building the broadest international coalition possible, and I urged the administration to lay the groundwork with the American people regarding the number of troops that would be required to win the peace in the aftermath of a military campaign, how long they might be needed, and what this would cost the U.S. taxpayers. The answers to these questions are becoming even more critical as we find ourselves assessing the resources that will be required now to finish the job in Iraq. Our men and women in uniform are serving their country proudly, but they are spending increasing amounts of time away from their families. We must do everything we can to give them the tools they need to do what we have asked them to do, and then bring them home as quickly as possible. One of the ways we can do that is to improve the Iraqi civil defense operations themselves. We have some 55,000 people in place, and we are trying to train another 20,000, I think, as Paul Wolfowitz said to us. They are now taking over the border patrol and other civil and security functions in Iraq. We need to move on that. Part of the funding included in the $20.3 billion is to be used for that purpose. I am pleased President Bush addressed the United Nations General Assembly last week, and it is my sincere hope Secretary of State Colin Powell will be successful in securing a U.N. resolution that will allow for enhanced support from other countries, both in terms of military forces and financial resources to help build Iraq. In order to achieve our goals in Iraq and take care of important needs here at home, it is essential we do all we can to make our efforts in Iraq a shared responsibility, calling on other countries and international organizations to invest in a free and democratic future for Iraq. Our human and financial resources will stretch further when they are supplemented by funds from our friends and allies abroad. This was evident during the Persian Gulf War in 1991, when other countries made significant contributions to the war and the reconstruction effort. It has been estimated the Gulf War cost between $60 and $80 billion. Members of the international community contributed approximately $70 billion to aid in the gulf war. The largest donations came from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Japan, Germany, and a smaller one from the United Arab Emirates. In all, approximately 40 countries contributed either financial or military resources. In addition to the countries I have just listed, another 35 countries together contributed an additional $10 billion to the effort. We need a similar commitment right now. Like many of my colleagues, I strongly believe we should provide the resources necessary to restore essential services in Iraq. The funding for reconstruction requested by the President and reflected in this spending bill is an important part of the process. However, Ambassador Bremer has indicated it will take considerably more than $20 billion, perhaps as much as $70 billion, to meet Iraq's infrastructure needs in the years ahead. Therefore, I believe it is particularly important to step up our efforts to secure contributions from our friends and allies and build the economy of Iraq as soon as possible so they can use their resources to rebuild their own country. As we look to increase contributions from the international community, I think this funding must be in the form of a grant and not a loan. While I initially thought this should be a loan, after carefully considering the situation and listening to the points raised by Ambassador Bremer and our colleagues, I have concluded this funding must be in the form of a grant. It is important for several reasons. No. 1, if we tell the American people we are going to loan this money and that it is going to be paid back somewhere down the road, many of them will be very cynical about whether or not we will get the money back. I think we ought to level with them and say, this initial grant is a grant. Second, it should be a grant in an effort to encourage other countries to make financial commitments for the reconstruction of Iraq. How can we ask them to come forward with money if we say that we are going to loan that $20.3 billion to Iraq? We will be going to the Donors' Conference in Madrid later this month. If we make U.S. funds for infrastructure projects contingent upon a loan, I do not think they are going to be willing to come to the table and support money for Iraq. Third, Iraq's debt is already mountainous, totaling nearly $200 billion in debts and reparations. As Ambassador Bremer has pointed out, Iraq can hardly service its existing debt, let alone take on more. As a matter of fact, as one member of the Iraqi Governing Council has said, in his opinion, those loans are morally repugnant to the Iraqi people because they were made to a dictator who killed thousands of their brothers and sisters and who made them live under a 35-year reign of terror. I would suggest to those who have made loans to the former regime in Iraq that they step up quickly and waive those loans because I believe it would be the smartest thing for them to do in terms of reaching out rather than waiting until later on to have a new Iraq government say to them: You know what, folks, we are not going to honor those loans you made to Saddam Hussein. Fourth, as we encourage other countries to eliminate their debt, we should not saddle Iraq with any more loans. Countries that chose to do business with Saddam should, as I said, eliminate that debt as a way to share in the task of rebuilding a democratic Iraq. In the past, the United States has also engaged in efforts to help ease the debt burden incurred by rogue regimes. This was the case in the former Yugoslavia, as the U.S. Government worked with the Paris Club to reduce the amount of debt the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, now Serbia and Montenegro, owed to its creditors after Slobodan Milosevic was removed from power. We did everything we could to work with the World Bank, and with the IMF and the Paris Club, and we said: Get the debt off the back of Yugoslavia--Serbia and Montenegro--because we want them to get back on their feet, and this debt is killing them. This was an important and necessary step as the country attempted to move forward with democratic reforms after years of authoritative rule. Finally, providing assistance to Iraq at this time in the form of a grant is the right thing to do. We must contribute all necessary resources to finish the job that has been started, while working together with our friends and allies. I submit to the desk an amendment that would encourage the administration to step up efforts to gain support from the international community, call on other countries to eliminate debt that was incurred during Saddam Hussein's regime, and examine the feasibility of repayment of funds spent on infrastructure projects. I submit the amendment and will call it up later.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank the Chair. Specifically, this amendment would require the President to report to Congress within 4 months on the following items: First, the amendment calls for an assessment of U.S. efforts to enhance financial contributions from other countries and international organizations to assist in the reconstruction of Iraq, including a list of those countries contributing and the amount of their contribution. As we move forward with our efforts, additional support from other countries and organizations would be extremely helpful. Second, the amendment requires an assessment of the impact that debt incurred by the regime of Saddam Hussein has on the country's ability to move forward with efforts to rebuild infrastructure and restore essential services such as health care and education. It also calls for an analysis of the impact that forgiveness of such debt would have on Iraq's ability to move forward with reform, and it would require a detailed list of countries that have eliminated their debt and the amounts. Finally, my amendment calls for an assessment of the feasibility of Iraq's ability to repay the United States for a portion of American funds spent on infrastructure projects in Iraq. Although I think we must now provide funds in the form of a grant, we should look at the possibility of any further help in terms of possible repayment. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this amendment which underscores the importance of working together with our friends and allies abroad to promote security and improve the quality of life for the Iraqi people. While I believe we should encourage support from foreign countries and international organizations as we move forward in Iraq, I support the funding requested by the President, both the military portion and the funds for reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have a golden opportunity to guarantee a new era of freedom and democracy for the people in Iraq. It is one we cannot afford to miss. This is an investment in a better future for Iraq, the Middle East, and the world at large. It is an investment for our children and our grandchildren. I believe it is the right thing to do. I hope this body has the courage to rise to the occasion and take advantage of this wonderful opportunity that could ensure that our children and grandchildren are going to live in a peaceful world and not be threatened by terrorism, the cancer that has newly appeared on the face of the world. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. VOINOVICH

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

Mr. VOINOVICH

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

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 3087, a bill to provide an extension of highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund until February 29, 2004 pending enactment of a law reauthorizing the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21. However, I am disappointed that Congress has been unable to enact a 6-year reauthorization of TEA-21 prior to September 30, 2003. According to the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, ARTBA, employment in the transportation construction industry was down in July 2003 compared to July 2002. Specifically, there were 12,100 fewer workers on project sites over the last year, a decrease of 3.7 percent. In Ohio, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, heavy construction jobs are up slightly from last year; however, there are still 3,800 fewer jobs than in August 2000 when they were at their peak. Moreover, last year had the lowest number of employees in heavy construction since 1995. Our economy needs a public works program to create jobs. Investment in our Nation's transportation infrastructure through a 6-year reauthorization bill would create thousands of jobs and jumpstart our sluggish economy. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, for every $1 billion invested in highway construction, 47,500 jobs are created. It is also estimated that every dollar invested in the Nation's highway system generates $5.70 in economic benefits, including reduced delays, improved safety, and reduced vehicle operations costs. This is a six-to-one return on investment. Although a 5-month extension extension will continue the flow of Federal funding to States' highway programs, it will not deal with the Nation's pressing, long-term transportation infrastructure needs. According to the Federal Highway Administration's, FHWA, 2002 Conditions and Performance Report, the average annual investment level needed to make improvements to highways and bridges is projected to be $106.9 billion through 2020. This amount is 65.3 percent higher than the $64.6 billion of total capital investments spent by all levels of government in 2000. The average annual investment level necessary to maintain the current condition and performance of highways and bridges is projected to be $75.9 billion through 2020. This amount if 17.5 percent higher than capital spending in 2000. If we continue to ignore the upkeep, and allow the deterioration of our infrastructure, we risk disruptions in commerce and reduced protection for public safety, health, and the environment. In my view, it is the responsibility of Congress to ensure that funding levels are adequate and efficiently allocated to the Nation's priority needs. In 1998, Congress recognized the importance of the Nation's transportation system through the enactment of TEA-21, a 6-year bill which increased by nearly 40 percent Federal investment in highways and transit. Under TEA-21, Ohio received a 23 percent increase in transportation funding. As chairman of the National Governors Association, I was involved in negotiating TEA-21 and lobbied Congress to ensure that all Highway Trust Fund revenues were spent on transportation. I also fought to even out highway funding fluctuations and assure a predictable flow of funding to the States. TEA-21 achieved this goal with record, guaranteed levels of funding. While TEA-21 has enabled States and localities to improve the condition of deteriorating and unsafe highways and to increase capacity and performance, the system is still aging, and in need of additional investment. TEA-21 also dedicated nearly all highway gas taxes to transportation funding and guarantees that States will receive at least 90.5 percent of their share of their contribution to the highway account of the Highway Trust Fund. One of my top priorities for TEA-21 reauthorization is to increase the minimum share for donor states to at least 95 percent. This increase in the rate of return would generate an additional $60 million or more in Federal highway funding for the State of Ohio. In May 2003, Senator Carl Levin and I, along with House majority leader Tom DeLay and Congressman Baron Hill introduced legislation--the Highway Funding Equity Act of 2003--to increase donor States' minimum rate-of-return to 95 percent. Currently, there are 143 cosponsors of the House bill and 22 cosponsors of the Senate bill. The legislation we are considering today does not improve donor State equity; rather, it continues current law with respect to the minimum guarantee program. For donor States, this is another reason why a 6- year reauthorization is so important and critical to our States. I am strongly committed to improving donor state equity in the longer term reauthorization, and look forward to working with my colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee to ensure that states receive their fair share of Highway Trust Fund dollars. I am disappointed that the legislation we are considering does not contain language which would have ensured that States that consume ethanol-blended fuel are no longer penalized. The Finance Committee reported legislation I have cosponsored that would transfer 2.5 cents of the Federal tax on ethanol-blended fuel from the General Fund of the Treasury to the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund and replace the 5.2 cents per gallon reduced tax rate for ethanol-blended fuel with a tax credit. As a result, the same Federal tax will be collected and deposited into the Highway Trust Fund regardless of whether a gallon of fuel contains ethanol. The Ohio Department of Transportation, ODOT, estimates that Ohio would restore up to $170 million annually as a result of the Finance Committee's legislation. I am hopeful this legislation will be passed soon. Ohio has the Nation's tenth largest highway network, the fifth highest volume of traffic, the fourth largest interstate highway network, and the second largest inventory of bridges in the country. Ohio's transportation challenge is to expand its 1960s transportation system to meet 21st century needs. Recently, Ohio approved a State motor fuel tax increase that will ensure an annual $250 million new construction program for the next 10 years while maintaining bridge and highway conditions. With additional Federal funds, ODOT has set a goal of having a $5 billion, 10-year Ohio construction program dedicated to addressing Ohio's most pressing congestion, safety, and rural access needs. The plan is predicated on Congress enacting legislation to correct the ``ethanol penalty'' which reduces Ohio's transportation revenue, increase donor states' minimum rate-of-return to 95 percent, and provide an increased level of investment in the nation's highways and bridges. This is why a 6-year reauthorization is important to my State. I am hopeful that Congress can reach a consensus on how to fund a longer- term reauthorization. As far as this Senator is concerned, I support the principle that the highway program is a fully user-fee based system that pays its own way, and I am reluctant to borrow more money for highways. Furthermore, as chairman of the Clean Air Subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I look forward to working with my colleagues to include provisions in the 6-year reauthorization that will streamline the project delivery process while protecting the environment and historic resources, reform the conformity process, and reauthorize and improve the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program. I urge my colleagues to work together to produce a six-year reauthorization of TEA-21 before the extension bill expires at the end of next February. Reauthorization of TEA-21 will be one of the most important actions this Congress will take to get people back to work. inequity of donor states

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

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I couldn't agree more with my colleague from Michigan. There is no logical reason why donor States should be contributing more dollars to the Highway Trust Fund than are returned to them for highway, bridge, and other surface transportation projects. Donor States like Ohio, Michigan, and Oklahoma have as many transportation infrastructure needs as other States. With so many projects needing funding in our own States, why should the citizens in our States continue to pay for transportation improvements in other States? I, too, would like an assurance that the donor State equity issue will be addressed in the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century and that this long-term reauthorization will be presented to the Senate as soon as possible.

Mr. VOINOVICH

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

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

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, September 25, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. in Dirksen Room 226. Agenda I. Nominations Henry W. Saad to be United States Circuit Judge, for the Sixth Circuit; Mauricio J. Tamargo to be Chairman of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States; Carlos T. Bea to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit; Charles H. Pickering, Sr. to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit; Marcia A. Crone to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas; Philip S. Figa to be United States District Judge for the District of Colorado; William Q. Hayes to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of California; John A. Houston to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of California; Robert Clive Jones to be United States District Judge for the District of Nevada; Ronald A. White to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Oklahoma; John F. Bardelli to be United States Marshal for the District of Connecticut. II. Bills S. 1451, Runaway, Homeless, and Missing Children Protection Act [Hatch, Leahy]; S. 1293, A bill to criminalize the sending of predatory and abusive e-mail [Leahy, Hatch, DeWine, Edwards, Feinstein, Grassley, Schumer]; S. 1580, Religious Workers of Act of 2003 [Hatch, Kennedy, DeWine]; S. Res. 209, Recognizing and honoring Woodstock, Vermont native Hiram Powers for his extraordinary and enduring contributions to American sculpture [Jeffords, Leahy, DeWine, Feinstein, Grassley, Hatch, Schumer, Specter]' S. Res. 222, Designating October 17, 2003, as National Mammography Day [Biden, Chambliss, DeWine, Edwards, Feinstein, Grassley, Hatch, Kennedy, Leahy, Schumer, Specter]; S. Res. 98, Expressing the Sense of the Senate that the President should designate the week of October 12, 2003, as National Cystic Fibrosis Awareness Week [Campbell, Biden, DeWine, Grassley, Specter]. subcommittee on science, technology, and space