George Voinovich

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 25, 2003, at 10:00 a.m. to conduct a hearing on ``Counterterror Initiatives in the Terror Finance Program.''

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 25, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., in open session, to receive testimony on ongoing military operations and reconstruction efforts in Iraq. Witnesses Ambassador L. Paul Bremer III, Presidential Envoy to Iraq; General John P. Abizaid, USA, Commander, United States Central Command.

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

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space be authorized to meet on Thursday, September 25, 2003, at 2:30 pm on scientific and medical advances in the field of in utero surgery.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise to offer a second-degree amendment to the Reid amendment to the Interior appropriations bill. Before I speak to the specifics of the underlying Reid amendment, I will first describe my examination of the administration's competitive sourcing initiative which I have spent a great deal of time on. Competitive sourcing is one of the five management initiatives included in the President's management agenda. As I said, I paid close attention to this initiative because it is closely related to the Federal Government's strategic human capital management. It is fair to say I have spent more time on this issue than anyone in the Senate during the last 5 years. It is important to note that competitive sourcing is not privatization, nor is it outsourcing. It is public-private competition, a methodical process for evaluating the most efficient and cost- effective manner of providing a service that is commercial in nature and not inherently governmental. I would like to make clear to my colleagues that the total Government workforce is about 1.609 million. And inherently governmental is about 751,000; commercial, about 858,000; and of the 858,000 that are commercial, only about 416,000 are available for competition. That is 26 percent of the Federal workforce. The Department of Interior positions being evaluated, which we are talking about today, under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, clerical support and appraisers; National Park Service, maintenance of vehicle, lawn, bathroom, and air conditioner, archeological support; Bureau of Reclamation, Job Corps Centers; Bureau of Land Management, maintenance of lawn, vehicle, bathroom, and air conditioner, geographic information services, and photography. These are positions that are being evaluated. It doesn't necessarily mean they are going to be put out for competitive outsourcing. Contrary to what has been said on the floor of the Senate, I want to quote from the Government Executive, which talks about: April 25, 2003. Feds Win Job Competition at Park Service Agriculture Department. Federal employees have won several small public-private job competitions in land management agencies, including a competition at the National Park Service Office that had run into opposition on Capitol Hill. A team of 45 archaeologists at the Southeastern Archeological Center in Tallahassee, Florida, defeated private contractors earlier this month, according to Park Service officials. The in-house team re-organized itself into the ``most efficient organization,'' eliminating 17 seasonal jobs and trimming $850,000 in annual personnel costs, according to Donna Calvels, coordinator of the Park Service's competitive sourcing program. ``Not one permanent employee lost their job.'' Hear me? ``Not one permanent employee lost their job, and the competition will save $4.2 million over the next five years,'' Calvels said Thursday. Federal workers have prevailed in other small competitions decided recently. In the Forest Service, civil servants won competitions at six Job Corps centers across the country, according to Thomas Mills, the agency's deputy director for business operations. The Forest Service operates 18 Job Corps centers as part of a job training program for young adults, which dates back to the New Deal programs of the 1930s. Employees at every center--940 workers in all--are now competing for their jobs. So far, roughly 300 civil servants at Job Corps centers in Anaconda and Darby, Montana; Franklin, North Carolina; Estacada, Oregon, and Pine Knot and Mariba, Kentucky, have won their competitions. At each center, the Forest Service is using the ``streamlined'' competition method, which compares the cost of the in-house team with the going rate in the private sector. The agency received a waiver from the Office of Management and Budget that allows it to give incumbent workers a 10 percent cost advantage in the competitions, according to Mills. The cost advantage is prohibited under the revised OMB Circular A-76, issued in late May. Federal workers have also fared well in several streamlined competitions held by the Agriculture Department's Natural Resources Conservation Service. So the point is what we are talking about here is evaluating positions in various Federal agencies to determine whether those positions can be competitively bid and, in most of the cases, the in- house people win those competitions. In most cases, it is found after it is done that those people have been given an opportunity to get together and figure out how they can do a better job in order to save their job and compete with the private sector. That is what this is about. This is not like, well, if we don't pass this amendment, everything is going to be farmed out in the Interior Department. Historically, Government employees at the Department of Defense, the agency with by far the most experience in conducting competitions, have won more than two-thirds of public-private competitions since 1997 and in the process have saved taxpayers billions of dollars. Furthermore, from 1997 to 2001, Federal employees won 98 percent of the streamlined competitions conducted at the Defense Department. This demonstrates that Federal employees can compete and win. During the competition process, Federal employees form a most efficient organization--an MEO--to develop the most competitive bid possible. Through this process, employees make substantive changes to their organization in a collaborative process involving both managers and line employees. What I like is that is quality management--going to the employees and asking them how they can do their job better than they are now doing it. The result is, regardless of who wins the competition, performance is improved and savings are realized. Isn't that what we want, better performance and savings? Ultimately, MEOs allow agencies to work harder and smarter and do more with less. The teamwork and collaboration that characterize most efficient organizations should be present at all Federal agencies, not just those that are undergoing competition. The original goal of competitive sourcing was to compete a percentage of the Federal commercial functions with the private sector to cut costs and improve performance. This policy has merit. As a former mayor and Governor, I know from experience there are times when it is appropriate to compete government functions to obtain the best value for the taxpayers. At the same time, I know what motivated and well- trained public employees can accomplish. The original sourcing goals of this administration--and I had real problems with it--were to compete 5 percent of commercial functions in the first year, an additional 10 percent in the second year, and eventually 50 percent of eligible commercial activities. I have been very concerned with these goals since they were announced. My chief concern was that the governmentwide goals for competitive sourcing had not been based on comprehensive analysis of the Federal workforce on an agency-by-agency basis. The amendment I offer today requires that be done and reported on. In that regard, these goals reminded me of the workforce downsizing of the Clinton administration. The U.S. General Accounting Office has documented that little or no strategic workforce planning was conducted in Federal agencies before downsizing took place. It was a mindless downsizing, without looking at the jobs agencies had to perform. What this administration is trying to do right now is reshape their workforce to be able to do the job they have been asked to do. Therefore, I have endeavored to learn more about the initiative. I attended a Governmental Affairs Committee oversight hearing on sourcing in March 2002 and criticized--that was Chairman Durbin--the manner in which the administration was pursuing this program. Over the last 2 years, I have pressed this point in meetings with various officials from the OMB and the White House, urging them to modify the goals of the program. To its credit, the Bush administration has agreed. Clay Johnson was in my office last week. He gets it. At a Governmental Affairs subcommittee hearing I held on July 24, 2003, Angela Styles, who was, until recently, the administrator of Federal procurement policy, announced the administration would drop its governmentwide goals for competitive sourcing. I was pleased to learn that each Federal agency will decide the way in which competitive sourcing will proceed. Furthermore, the administration will release a report later this month that will outline the manner in which they have conducted this initiative over the last 3 years. The administration has demonstrated flexibility and a willingness to make significant modifications to this program. This is a significant step in the right direction and demonstrates that congressional oversight can yield positive results. However, Congress is considering several amendments that undermine the administration's progress on competitive sourcing. The amendment offered by Senator Reid would prohibit competitive sourcing studies and activities at the Department of the Interior. This is, in my opinion, misguided, for several reasons. First and foremost, since the Eisenhower administration decreed that the public sector should not compete with the private sector, the decision of whether or not to initiate competitions and the rules governing these competitions has been the purview of the executive branch of Government. We are stepping on the prerogatives of the executive branch of Government. There is another way we can do that, and that is what our amendment does--in a way that I think is appropriate. This authority has been exercised in the past by both Democratic and Republican administrations. Legislatively exempting the Department of the Interior from competitive sourcing circumvents longstanding executive branch prerogative. It is not surprising the administration would strenuously resist efforts to diminish this authority, which is why OMB has said it will recommend a veto of any bill that abolishes or weakens existing management prerogatives. Second, this amendment is one of a variety of different restrictions on competitive sourcing that have been placed on 5 appropriations bills that, if enacted, would constitute an incoherent set of restrictions. I agree Congress needs additional information on the implementation of this initiative. However, any reporting requirements, which I support and will discuss in the context of my second-degree amendment with Senator Thomas, should be uniform across the executive branch, not willy-nilly from one department to another department. Third, I consider this issue the jurisdiction of the Governmental Affairs Committee. That committee has held hearings on this initiative under both Republican and Democratic leadership. Any Senator seeking to make changes to this initiative should introduce a bill, have it referred to the Governmental Affairs Committee, and advance it through the normal committee process. It should not be addressed through a series of disjointed amendments to appropriations bills. Fourth, as I noted a moment ago, the administration announced a major change to its sourcing initiative at my subcommittee July 24 hearing. It dropped its governmentwide goals and plans and will now do this on an agency-by-agency basis. It is reasonable for us to monitor how this change is implemented. Therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the amendment being offered by Senator Thomas and me. Our amendment would require the Interior Department to provide Congress with detailed information on how it is implementing public- private competitions. This includes a description of how the Department's competitive sourcing decisionmaking process is aligned with the Department's strategic workforce plan. It also requires the Department to report the projected number of full-time equivalent employees covered by competitions scheduled to be announced in the next fiscal year. If this amendment is adopted, it will not affect the Interior Department's consideration this year, but if they want to do them next year, in this report they are going to be required to say which ones next year they are going to be putting out for competition and why they are putting them out for competition. This is not some arbitrary type of activity as some people would like to characterize it. Imposing rigorous reporting requirements is the right approach. 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. Congress, in its oversight role, has a right and responsibility to know what the executive branch is doing. The amendment would require the Bush administration to provide exactly that information. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this report from Government Executive magazine be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, this report contradicts some of the arguments that have been made for the Reid amendment this afternoon.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, the amendment that was just adopted makes sense out of competitive sourcing, makes the agencies accountable for competitive sourcing, and makes it part of the shaping of their workforce. It is long overdue. The Reid amendment completely eliminates competitive sourcing period. It leaves it out. If you look at other Federal agencies that have competitively sourced, for example at the Department of Defense, in about 98 percent of streamlined competitions--and these all have to be commercial functions--98 percent of the time, the Federal workers win the competition. They win because they come together, use quality management, and figure out a way to do the job better than they were doing it before. Anyone who supported our amendment should vote no on this amendment which just eliminates competitive sourcing altogether and is not good public policy.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I call for the regular order with respect to amendment 1731. I have an amendment to send to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the motion to proceed to conference on the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. We passed the legislation to ban this barbaric procedure on March 13, 2003, by a vote of 64 to 33, and I am shocked that we are back on the Senate floor in September, still debating whether to send this bill to conference. Just imagine the number of lives we could have saved if we had sent this bill to the President 6 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. We cannot let this happen again. Now is the time to get this done. 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. 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. If a mother really needs an abortion, she has alternatives available to her that are not as torturous as partial birth abortion. 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. When partial birth abortions are performed, these babies are just 3 inches away from life and, for that matter, seconds away. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to vote to send this bill to conference and stand up against what I refer to as human infanticide. This is not a vote on Roe v. Wade. This is a vote to eliminate a horrible procedure that should be outlawed in this country. In his State of the Union Address this year, President Bush again pledged to support the legislation and said, ``We must not overlook the weakest among us. I ask you to protect infants at the very hour of their birth and end the practice of partial birth abortion.'' I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this motion so we can send a bill to the President that will finally ban partial birth abortions in the United States of America.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the Collins-Reed Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, amendment. This amendment will provide an additional $300 million for LIHEAP. Additional funding at this time is critical because of the crisis the United States is facing with natural gas prices. Natural gas, pinched by low inventories and a dearth of new drilling activity, has been hovering in the United States at about $6 per million British thermal units, MMBtu. This amount is roughly twice the historical norm. In fact, we set records for natural gas prices this past spring and summer. And there is no end in sight. Recently, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan stated that little prospect is seen for natural gas prices to fall much in coming months. These historic highs in natural gas prices should be a harbinger for the winter. In fact, if we look to this past winter in anticipation of what this nation should expect in terms of natural gas prices, the outlook is grim. In fact, the utility company that provides my heating in Cleveland has already acknowledged the fact that I can expect my home heating costs to at least double this winter. In February of this year, natural gas spot prices reached an historic high of over $18 per MMBtu. To compare, the spot price in 2002 was $2.40 per MMBtu during the same time period. That is a 650 percent increase over the previous year. Why are rising natural gas prices important for LIHEAP? In Ohio, of the 235,000 households that receive assistance through LIHEAP, 70 percent of them--or 162,500 households are heated by natural gas. That means that 70 percent of LIHEAP recipients in Ohio will be adversely affected by the rising cost of natural gas. And who are LIHEAP recipients? In Ohio: two-thirds of the households that receive LIHEAP assistance--160,000 households--are below 100 percent of the Federal poverty level; one-third are seniors; one-third are disabled; and three-fourths of the households have children under five years of age. LIHEAP provides crucial assistance to the least of our brethren to help survive the most extreme weather conditions. In Ohio, there is no doubt that home heating costs are going to rise dramatically. The doubling of natural gas prices will not allow current resources to provide adequate assistance for low-income seniors and families. This is going to force folks on low- and fixed-incomes to choose between heating their homes and paying for other necessities such as food or medicine. This is the environment laid before the Senate: the Nation is facing some of the highest natural gas prices in history with no end in sight; a soft economy has left an increased number of households in need of assistance; and winter is quickly approaching. So where does that leave us? States, which receive LIHEAP funding from the Federal Government, will not be able to adequately plan for the acute need that will certainly occur. The National Energy Assistance Directors' Association--the folks that run LIHEAP in the States--indicated, in a letter dated September 4, 2003, that providing additional funds through the regular FY2004 appropriations process is necessary to plan and manage for the upcoming winter. If States cannot plan, then this in turn leaves social service agencies, like the Council for Economic Opportunity of Greater Cleveland and Catholic Charities, unable to provide assistance at the local level. The bottom line is that low- income households will be in dire straits when winter rears its head. Inevitably, if we do not appropriate additional funding now, LIHEAP funds will be depleted and a growing murmur will turn into a cry for additional LIHEAP funds--then to be declared ``emergency funding.'' I believe all my colleagues here realize that, at some point, we will have to increase LIHEAP funding. The question is whether we will do so now through the regular FY2004 appropriations process, or through the FY2004 supplemental. The responsible action to take would be to increase LIHEAP funding now. Besides being morally responsible, increasing funding now is fiscally responsible. Natural gas prices will continue to rise as demand will increase as colder temperature set in. It would be fiscally irresponsible for the U.S. Senate not to appropriate additional funds that would better help states and social service providers plan assistance for low-income households. And while there is no doubt that the U.S. Senate should appropriate additional funds for LIHEAP now, I would be remiss if I did not take time and reflect on why there is the need to do so. This natural gas crisis is the result of environmental policies that have driven up the use of natural gas in electricity generation significantly while domestic supplies of natural gas have fallen. The result is predictable, tighter supplies of natural gas, higher energy prices and a financial strain on low-income households and a drain on our economy. Not only will natural gas prices adversely affect the least of our brethren, these exorbitant prices will also affect our economy. The agricultural community, the steel and metal industries, the chemical and polymer industries and the manufacturing community all rely on natural gas and have seen their energy costs skyrocket. Ohio companies are closing plants, laying off workers and moving their production overseas due to these high energy prices. I recently met with a group of manufacturers from Cleveland and was shocked when two of them told me that they will be forced to move their operations overseas unless something is done to give them some relief. In order to deal with this natural gas crisis, we must enact legislation that will increase domestic supplies of natural gas and ensure that utilities will not be forced to fuel switch from coal to natural gas for electricity generation. I want to commend Majority Leader Frist and Chairman Domenici for trying to pass a comprehensive energy bill that will increase domestic supplies of natural gas, and I am currently working with Chairman Inhofe to move President Bush's Clear Skies Initiative out of committee to ensure that utilities will not be forced to rely solely on natural gas. These two important pieces of legislation clearly show that there is a fundamental disconnect happening here in Washington. Republicans are trying to enact legislation that will address our natural gas crisis, keep energy and home heating costs low and protect American jobs. Democrats on the other hand are moving in exactly the opposite direction. Democrats are pushing legislation that will establish a Nationwide cap on carbon emissions and their passage would force they utility sector, that is now coal to generate over half of our Nation's electricity, in my State of Ohio it is 85 percent, to rely solely on natural gas for generation. Carbon-cap language that has been sponsored by Senators Jeffords, Lieberman, and Carper, if enacted, will force our utilities to fuel switch to natural gas, will significantly raise energy prices and will cause thousands of jobs to be lost, particularly in manufacturing States like Ohio. Let me be clear, carbon-caps mean fuel switching. And fuel switching means moving jobs and production overseas where there are less stringent environmental programs and will actually increase global levels of pollution and higher burdens on our poor and elderly. The question we face is whether we should enact comprehensive and balanced energy legislation and Clear Skies, which will help solve our natural gas crisis, or rush into a short-sighted policy that will cap carbon, shut down our economy, cost thousands of American jobs and move manufacturing overseas? The answer is clear. We need to pass the energy bill and Clear Skies. And we need to move away from harshly ideological positions that advance nothing other than the agenda of national environmental groups who have made a carbon cap a political litmus test. There is an energy crisis in America. Increasing LIHEAP funding is only a temporary measure to help low-income households get by. If we do not enact a comprehensive energy bill that balances our Nation's environmental and consumption needs, we will be dooming not only low-income households, but our economy as well. I ask unanimous consent to print the letter I referenced in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, it has been nearly 2 years since terrorists attacked the United States on September 11, 2001. As our Nation prepares to honor the memory of those who were lost on that tragic day, I would like to submit for the Record a piece that I read in yesterday's Cleveland Plain Dealer that was written by Christy Ferer, whose husband, Neil Levin, perished in the World Trade Center. I was deeply moved by her words, which serve to remind us of the reason behind our ongoing efforts to promote the virtues of freedom and democracy as our men and women in uniform remain on the front lines in the fight against terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other parts of the world. We owe them our deepest gratitude. I ask unanimous consent the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for States that provide tax incentives for ethanol or for electricity produced from clean coal technology or renewable in their State. For example, in my home State, the Ohio coal tax credit provides $3 per ton of Ohio coal burned using clean coal technology. This tax credit encourages use of clean coal technology and holds down electricity costs in Ohio. With Ohio's large manufacturing base, affordable energy costs keep costs down to these companies and keep jobs in the State. I believe that States should have the opportunity to provide tax incentives for energy production and am hopeful that this is something we can address in conference on this bill.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. Res. 211. I join my colleagues to speak out against the administration using these trade agreements to implement immigration policy without the authority or direction to do so from Congress. It is the function of the Congress to set policy on the immigration laws of this country, and in this case, the USTR overstepped its bounds. This resolution sends a message to the administration that the USTR has overreached its negotiative authority by including immigration provisions in the FTA, and in the future, they must consult with Congress before implementing new policy, and I strongly support it. I am a strong free-trader whose State has benefited from free-trade agreements. I do have some concerns, however, about the enforcement of trade laws and I have expressed those concerns to the administration. Free trade must also be fair and I will continue to pay close attention to our trade agreements and their enforcement to make sure that American workers are not hurt by unfair trade.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, as cochairman of the Senate Auto Caucus, I am pleased to join with my colleagues, Senator Bond and Senator Levin, as a cosponsor of this CAFE standards amendment to the energy bill. This is truly an important issue; one that impacts upon our Nation's economy, our environment, and the safety of the traveling public. There is no doubt that each of us wants the automobile industry to make cars, trucks, SUVs, and minivans that are as energy efficient as possible. Not only is it good for the environment, it also means more money in the pocket of the American consumer because they will spend less at the gas pump. However, I am deeply concerned that the extreme Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard supported by some of my colleagues will have a devastating effect on public safety, as well as put a severe crimp in the manufacturing base of my State of Ohio which is already under duress because of high natural gas costs, litigation, health care costs, and competition from overseas. Two years ago, new vehicle sales of trucks, SUVs and minivans outpaced the sale of automobiles for the first time in American history. This remarkable result can be attributed to a number of factors, but one reason that is often cited is the fact that these vehicles are seen as safer. Another concern is that an arbitrary standard would have a devastating effect on jobs. Ohio is the No. two automotive manufacturing State in America, employing more than 630,000 people either directly or indirectly. I have heard from a number of these men and women whose livelihood depends on the auto industry and who are frankly very worried about their future. There is genuine concern that a provision mandating an arbitrary standard could cause a serious disruption and shifting in the auto industry resulting in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs across the Nation. For example, DaimlerChrysler's fleet of light trucks makes up more than 50 percent of their entire fleet. The company manufactures the Jeep Liberty and the Jeep Wrangler in Toledo, OH and employs approximately 5,200 workers at this plant. If an arbitrary CAFE provision is mandated that requires a shifting of vehicles manufactured, this plant could close because Chrysler would be forced to redistribute their manufacturing base to build more small, high- mileage cars. The Bond-Levin amendment is a rational proposal that will keep workers both in Ohio and nationwide working, allowing these men and women to continue to take care of their families and educate their children while also encouraging greater fuel efficiency and safer vehicles. This amendment calls for the Department of Transportation to increase fuel economy standards based on several factors including the following: technological feasibility; economic practicability; the need to conserve energy; the desirability of reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil; the effect on motor vehicle safety; the effects of increased fuel economy on air quality; and the effect on U.S. employment. I believe this is a much more responsible approach that will improve the fuel efficiency of our Nation's vehicles while also protecting public safety and our nation's economic security. This amendment also requires that the Department of Transportation complete the rulemaking process that would increase fuel efficiency standards within 2\1/2\ years. If the administration doesn't act within the required timeframe, Congress will act, under expedited procedures, to pass legislation mandating an increase in fuel economy standards consistent with the same criteria that the administration must consider. The amendment will also increase the market for alternative powered and hybrid vehicles by mandating that the Federal Government, where feasible, purchase alternative powered and hybrid vehicles. I believe that this guaranteed market will encourage the auto industry to continue to increase their investment in research and development with an eye towards making alternative fuel and hybrid vehicles more affordable, available and commercially appealing to the average consumer. As a matter of fact, I have ridden in a hybrid manufactured by DaimlerChrysler, and I have driven a fuel cell automobile manufactured by General Motors. I firmly believe that my children and grandchildren will one day be driving automobiles that run on hydrogen and give off only water. However, it will take time for the technology that makes these vehicles possible to be cost-effective and for these vehicles to be marketable. Until then, truck, SUV, and minivan demand is not expected to decrease anytime soon. Automakers that are meeting this demand will have to manufacture and sell a high-gas mileage vehicle that likely does not exist now. This will only increase prices for the safe vehicles America wants. I urge my colleagues to support the Bond-Levin amendment. It meets our environmental, safety and economic needs in a balanced and responsible way, contributing to the continued and needed harmonization of our energy and environmental policies.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. I think the main purpose of his testimony was that in decisions we make in the Senate regarding environmental legislation, we ought to take into consideration the impact it is having on those who have to pay the energy costs that are increased as a result of those initiatives. There seems to be some type of disconnect between our environmental policy and our energy policy. What we are hoping to do here is to harmonize our environmental and energy policies so we can put together a policy that will reduce emissions and at the same time not destroy our economy and impact on the least of our brethren who pay a large percentage of what they have toward the cost of energy.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, the Senator portrayed Tom Mullins' comments accurately. In the statement I am going to be making, I will refer to those remarks--the indication that many of the people who are promoting capping carbon at the altar of responding to the climate change promotion are not seeking to affect the impact that capping carbon would have on natural gas questions and on those people in our country who are least able to pay their energy costs.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, as we consider appropriations for our men and women in uniform for the upcoming fiscal year, I would like to take this opportunity to express my strong support for the M1A2 System Enhancement Program. As our experience in Iraq has demonstrated, the Abrams tank remains crucial to the efforts to the United States Armed Forces. The tanks of the 3rd Infantry Division were among the first on the ground in Iraq. However, the armed reconnaissance regiment of the CounterAttack Corps (CATK)--the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment (ACR)--is fighting with older, less capable M1A1 tanks. The M1A2 System Enhancement Program retrofits existing tanks to incorporate the most sophisticated technologies, allowing them to best communicate with and protect the rest of the CounterAttack Corps. I believe it is critical to provide our soldiers in the 3rd Armed Cavalry Regiment--the eyes and ears of the CounterAttack Corps--with the most modern equipment available to them. The State of Ohio, home to the Lima Army Tank Plant, plays a critical role in this modernization effort. The thousands of men and women who have worked at the Lima Army Tank Plant have played a long and distinguished role in the history of the mighty Abrams. This continued during Operation Iraqi Freedom, when the plant's employees responded to a call by the Defense Department and within the period of just one week designed, tested, produced and shipped to Iraq armored protection to bolster the armor around the exhaust. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and the House of Representatives in conference to ensure that sufficient funds are maintained to upgrade the tanks of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, better serving our men and women in uniform and the U.S. military in their efforts to promote peace, security and democracy in Iraq and other parts of the world.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to address my strong concern with the safety of U.S. military helicopters. As my colleagues may be aware, yesterday, a MH-53E Sea Dragon helicopter crashed roughly 10 miles southwest of the island of Sicily, which is home to U.S. Naval Air Station Sigonella. Four members of the U.S. Armed Forces lost their lives in this tragic accident. During my time in the Senate, I have continued to raise the issue of aviation safety with our Defense Department. I believe it is crucial that we provide the funding necessary to provide for the safety of our men and women in uniform who ride in military helicopters--including funds for required maintenance, training, and modernization. On May 6, 1999, I spoke on the Senate floor in honor of two brave American soldiers--Chief Warrant Officer Kevin L. Reichert and Chief Warrant Officer David A. Gibbs--who lost their lives when their Apache helicopter crashed into the Albanian mountains during a routine training exercise on May 5, 1999, as U.S. troops joined with our NATO allies in a military campaign against Slobodan Milosevic. As I remarked at that time, the United States owes David, Kevin, and so many other service members a debt of gratitude that we will never be able to repay, for they have paid the ultimate sacrifice. As the Bible says in John chapter 15:13, ``Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.'' As such, I strongly support a section of the report accompanying the version of the Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004 passed by the House of Representatives, H.R. 2658, which calls on the Army to provide a report describing mishaps sustained by Apache aircraft in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Specifically, the language reads: The Committee is additionally concerned about the unusually high number of mishaps sustained by Apache aircraft in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The high incident rate may have resulted from the extensive number of security support and non-traditional missions flown by aircraft, as well as adverse weather conditions. As such, the Army is directed to provide the congressional defense committees a report, no later than January 30, 2004, that enumerates and describes the Apache aircraft mishaps, the cause and to the extent known, the follow-up actions the Army is considering to address any systemic problems. As we begin conference on the Defense Appropriations Act of fiscal year 2004, I urge my Senate colleagues to retain this important provision.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for Senate Amendment No. 1149, which would grant the President the authority to extend normal trade relations to Serbia and Montenegro. As my colleagues may be aware, Serbia and Montenegro is one of just four countries that is currently denied normal trade relations, NTR, by the United States. Others in that group include North Korea, Cuba and Laos. Although there are certainly challenges in Serbia and Montenegro that must be addressed, as we discussed during a hearing of the Foreign Relations Committee 2 weeks ago, there is no doubt among my colleagues that this country no longer belongs in this category of ``bad actors.'' While the President has the authority to extend normal trade relations to most countries, the case of Serbia and Montenegro is different. In 1992, Congress revoked most favored nation status for Yugoslavia in response to the policies of former Yugoslav dictator Slobodan Milosevic, who was supporting nationalist Serbian aggression in the conflicts in Croatia and Bosnia. The legislation passed in 1992, P.L. 102-420, prohibits the extension of normal trade relations to Yugoslavia, now Serbia and Montenegro, until certain conditions have been met. The President must certify that Serbia and Montenegro has ceased armed conflict with other peoples of the former Yugoslavia, agreed to respect the borders of the former Yugoslav states, and ended all support to Bosnian Serb forces. As written, the law intended to stop Milosevic from aiding Serbian forces responsible for brutal atrocities during the 1990s. There is no doubt that the situation in Serbia and Montenegro has changed, and that the spirit of these conditions has been met. However, some support for Bosnian Serb forces is permitted under the Dayton Peace Accords signed in 1996. Given the situation on the ground in the early 1990s, the legislation enacted in 1992 did not provide the flexibility for this situation. As such, a legislative fix is required to permit the President to extend NTR to Serbia and Montenegro. With Milosevic behind bars at The Hague and the current government taking action to promote democratic reforms following the assassination of Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic on March 12, 2003, I believe that it is time to take action to extend normal trade relations to Serbia and Montenegro. While we should continue to call on Serbia and Montenegro to meet its international obligations to apprehend war criminals and cooperate with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslivia, we should take this step to promote trade, economic development, and improved relations between the United States and Serbia and Montenegro. Many of my colleagues agree. A provision to give the President the authority to extend NTR to Serbia and Montenegro is included in S. 671, the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2003. While this is an appropriate vehicle for this measure, I am frustrated that this important piece of legislation is being held up indefinitely in the Senate. I submit for the record a letter of June 26, 2003, signed by myself and 65 of my colleagues calling for Senate passage of this bill. As a member of the Senate who pays close attention to developments in southeast Europe, I am committed to doing all that I can to make sure that this critical piece of legislation is passed during this session of Congress, and I am hopeful to work closely with my colleagues to get this done as soon as possible. I ask unanimous consent that the June 26, 2003 letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. I rise today to introduce an amendment that would require the State Department to include in its annual report on international religious freedom a section highlighting the issue of anti-Semitism abroad. As many of my colleagues are aware, we have seen a disturbing trend in the increase of anti-Semitic violence abroad, with growing reports of incidents in countries that have traditionally been among Europe's strongest democracies, including France and Germany. I remain deeply concerned with these reports, and I believe it is absolutely essential that we do all that we can to take action to combat this problem, both at home and overseas. Last month, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani led the U.S. Delegation to the first conference of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE, dedicated solely to the issue of anti- Semitism. The conference took place in Vienna, Austria, during the period of June 19-20, 2003, bringing together parliamentarians, officials, and private citizens from all 55 OSCE participating states. As a member of the Helsinki Commission, I strongly encouraged the State Department to make this conference a priority of the U.S. government. Last October, a number of my colleagues joined me in a letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell urging him to call on the OSCE to schedule this meeting. With the support of Secretary Powell, Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman, and our Ambassador to the OSCE, Stephan Minikes, I was very pleased that the chair-in-office of the OSCE did in fact agree to put this meeting on the calendar. It is an important step in the right direction. Work to highlight this alarming trend began in earnest last year. In May 2002, the Helsinki Commission conducted a hearing to examine reports of increased anti-Semitism. During that hearing, I called on the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE, to conduct a separate session on anti-Semitism during the annual meeting of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly in Berlin last July. I was pleased that this did, in fact, take place. Delegates to the meeting unanimously passed a resolution calling attention to the danger of anti-Semitism, which I cosponsored. The conference held last month was a product of much of the work done during the past year. As we discuss the need to address this issue, I could not agree more with a statement made by Mayor Giuliani just before he left for the Vienna conference, in which he remarked, ``The conference represents a critical first step for Europeans, who have too frequently dismissed anti-Semitic violence as routine assaults and vandalism. Anti-Semitism is anything but routine. When people attack Jews, vandalize their graves, characterize them in inhumane ways, and make salacious statements in parliaments or to the press, they are attacking the defining values of our societies and our international institutions.'' While we are headed down the right path, it is critical that we take action to follow up on the successful beginning found at the conference in Vienna. This amendment aims to ensure that the U.S. Government pays close attention to the issue of anti-Semitism internationally, with the hope that it will encourage our friends, allies, and partners abroad to do the same. The amendment requires the inclusion of the following information on the subject of anti-Semitism for each foreign country: acts of anti-Semitic violence that occurred in that country; the response of the government of that country to such acts of violence; actions by the government of that country to enact and enforce laws relating to the protection of the right to religious freedom with respect to people of the Jewish faith; societal attitudes in that country toward people of the Jewish faith; and trends relating to such attitudes in that country. The promotion of human rights worldwide is a central aspect of U.S. foreign policy, and consistent with this goal, the Senate has acted to condemn anti-Semitism abroad. I believe this amendment is a necessary step as we look to combat anti-Semitism at home and abroad. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this amendment.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of S. 11, the Patients First Act, of which I am an original cosponsor. Throughout my career in public service, health care has been one of my top legislative priorities. We all want access to quality, affordable health care. And when the quality is not there, when people die or are truly sick due to negligence or other medical error, they should be compensated. But when healthy plaintiffs file meaningless lawsuits to coerce settlements or to shake the money tree to get as much as they can get, there's a snowball effect and all of us pay the price. For the system to work, we must strike a delicate balance between the rights of aggrieved parties to bring lawsuits and the rights of society to be protected against frivolous lawsuits and outrageous judgments that are disproportionate to compensating the injured and made at the expense of society as a whole. I have been concerned about this issue since my days as Governor of Ohio. I wish we had the outpouring of support for medical liability reform 6 years ago that I see now. In 1996, I essentially had to pull teeth in the Ohio Legislature to pass my tort reform bill. I signed it into law in October 1996. Three years later, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional, and if that law had withstood the Supreme Court's scrutiny, Ohioans wouldn't be facing the medical access problems they are facing today: doctors leaving their practice, patients unable to receive the care they need and costs of health insurance going through the roof. During my time in the Senate, I have continued my work to alleviate the medical liability crisis. To this end, I worked with the American Tort Reform Association to produce a study that captured the impact of this crisis on Ohio's economy in order to share these findings with my constituents and colleagues. Guess what we found? In Ohio, the litigation crisis costs every Ohioan $636 per year, and every Ohio family of four $2,544 per year. These are alarming numbers! In these economic times, families can not afford to pay $2,500 for the lawsuit abuse of a few individuals. It is not just the individuals but the lawyers who bear some of the responsibility. I recently received my yellow and white pages. Look what I found on the front and back covers, advertisements for personal injuries. This is the yellow pages of the Cleveland phonebook and the white pages, advertisements on the front cover and on the back cover. One of them says: Medical malpractice. It talks about wrongful death, quadriplegic/paraplegic. They have pictures, birth injuries, nursing home negligence, Erb's palsy, cerebral palsy, heart attacks/late treatment, cancer late diagnosis, emergency room negligence. It goes on to say, ``Our firm will advance expenses for our clients in most cases,'' and ``Clients do not have to repay expenses unless there is a successful outcome.'' This kind of stuff is in the yellow pages and on television every night. When I got out of law school, solicitation was a violation of the canons of professional ethics of lawyers. That has all changed today. I think unfortunately so. Next to the economy and jobs--the most important issue facing our country today is health care. In fact, it is a major part of what is wrong with the economy. We have too many uninsured, employers face spiraling costs, and those who have insurance face soaring premiums every year. The impact on businesses is great. It affects their ability to offer health insurance to employees. Too many times, they pass on the added costs to their employees, whose family budgets are often already stretched razor thin. And then there are those who lose their jobs and can't afford COBRA, assuming their company is still in business and COBRA is available. This issue is a personal one for me. My daughter-in-law, who is expecting her fourth child, recently learned from her obstetrician that after her delivery, she is no longer going to deliver any more babies. Her doctor is in a four-physician group, all of them obstetricians. They have never had any lawsuits against them, yet their insurance premiums have skyrocketed from $81,000 three years ago to over $381,000 today. That's $75,000 per person over a period of 3 years. How can physicians be expected to afford rate hikes like these? And how many babies do they have to deliver in order to pay for medical insurance. Think of somebody getting out of medical school that is an OB/GYN and being told: Before you open the door, you will have to pay a premium of $75,000 to $80,000 to practice medicine. This crisis is out of control, and when you listen to the statistics, you will be astounded: From 1994 to 2000, the median award for medical negligence in childbirth cases, $2.05 million, was the highest for all types of medical malpractice cases analyzed. The median medical liability award jumped 43% in one year, from $700,000 in 1999 to $1 million in 2000; it has doubled since 1995. Medical liability reform could produce $12.1 billion to $19.5 billion in annual savings for the Federal Government and increase the number of Americans with health insurance by up to 3.9 million people. There are some who say the Federal Government doesn't have a dog in the fight. We certainly have, when medical liability reform could produce $12.1 billion to $19.5 billion in annual savings and increase the number of Americans covered by insurance. Seventy-six percent of physicians in Ohio, surveyed by the Ohio State Medical Association, said rising professional liability premiums have impacted their willingness to perform high-risk procedures. Over half said they are considering early retirement as a result of rising costs. There has also been an immense jump in million-dollar verdicts. In 1995-97, a little over 36 percent of cases resulted in an award of $1 million or more. By 1998-99, the rate of million dollar awards reached 43 percent. By 2000-01, it was at 54 percent, with one quarter of all awards exceeding $2.7 million. It is going up like a rocketship. These numbers are shocking, and they continue to grow. We feel this crisis very strongly in Ohio. Medical Liability Monitor ranked Ohio among the top five states for premium increases in 2002. OHIC Insurance Co., among the largest medical liability insurers in the State, reports that average premiums for Ohio doctors have doubled over the last 3 years. But don't listen only to the statistics. Let's talk about doctors--human beings who have practices and patients: Dr. Perm Jawa, a Cleveland urologist, says that soaring liability premiums leave him in perpetual fear of career-ending lawsuits. ``I shy away from major cases now. Sometimes you know what the best thing is but you don't want to be doing it because there are potential complications with it,'' Jawa said. ``You're not as aggressive as you should be.'' In Columbus, Dr. David Stockwell has seen coverage for his two- physician OB-GYN practice climb to over $100,000 a year. And he expected his premiums to rise 20 to 25 percent in May. Dr. Robert Norman, a geriatrician in Cuyahoga Falls, saw his annual medical liability premium jump $5,700 to $34,000 last year. He had been warned that it could reach $100,000 this year if he continued treating patients in nursing homes. But in May he received an unexpected ultimatum from his insurer and every other carrier he queried: agree to stop seeing nursing home patients or lose liability coverage altogether. As a result, 150 of Dr. Norman's patients had to find a new doctor. Dr. Stephen Cochran lost his hospital privileges at Akron General Medical Center when his insurer's financial stability rating was downgraded recently. He is seeking another insurer, but meanwhile, he says, ``We receive daily phone calls from the patients: `Why aren't you here? Why aren't you seeing me? I want my doctor.' '' He says. ``It's been very stressful to a lot of the patients, particularly the geriatric patients . . . This [the malpractice crisis] has probably changed the nature of our practice more than anything that has happened in the last 10 to 20 years.'' After practicing for 15 years--their entire careers--in Cleveland, Dr. Christopher Magiera and his wife, surgeon Patricia Galloway, decided to leave Ohio to seek refuge from overwhelming liability premiums. Their insurance agent warned them that both would soon be paying $100,000 in annual premiums, up from $30,000 this year. Magiera and his wife decided to ``get out before the situation became hopeless,'' he said. They resettled in Wisconsin. Good for Wisconsin. This is disgraceful. This crisis is forcing doctors to close their doors and greatly affecting patient access to care. I want to commend the physicians' grassroots efforts--they are really starting to get attention for this issue. On May 3, 2003, I spoke in my home State of Ohio at the annual conference of the Ohio State Medical Association. I also participated in a physicians rally last October in Columbus, OH which was sponsored by the Ohio State Medical Association. I was impressed with all of the speakers, in particular, Dr. Evangeline Andarsio, an OB-GYN from Dayton, who described the changes in the profession and the effect of the litigation cloud: The professional liability crisis is creating a barrier to patients' access to good medical care, especially pregnant women. . . . a paradigm shift needs to occur in our society. Our laws must change to begin to reflect this paradigm shift. After speaking at this rally, I received a letter from a young doctor, telling me that he was leaving Ohio because he couldn't afford his medical liability insurance premiums. Dr. Cly had received a notice from his insurance carrier that his premiums would be increased by $20,000-30,000. This, plus the $20,000 increase from last year, forced him to make the difficult decision of uprooting his family and his practice to another State. Dr. Cly was unable to make the insurance premiums and still take care of his student loan obligations and his family. Even though he has never had a malpractice claim or judgment against him during his residency training or his private practice years, his rates continued to skyrocket to the point where he could no longer afford them. His move to Fort Wayne, IN, will save him $50,000 per year in liability insurance. In his letter to me, which I would like to submit for the record, Dr. Cly writes: I represent young physicians in Ohio. Most young physicians I speak with are all considering relocating to a place where the ability to practice medicine is better and the liability situation is more stable. I do not want to leave. I have developed close relationships with many patients, families, nurses, physicians, and staff here in Dayton, Ohio. I always planned to retire here and raise my children here. It saddens me greatly to have to make this decision. I feel as if I am giving up and ``throwing in the towel'' by leaving, but I believe my decision is the right one for my family. I ask unanimous consent that this entire letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH. For those of my colleagues who think medical liability reform is a State issue, I ask them to read this letter and see how the medical liability crisis transcends State lines--particularly my friends from the neighboring State of West Virginia. Our Ohio physicians who practice along the border are feeling the effects of their proximity to West Virginia and its favorable plaintiff's verdicts. They are feeling these effects in their increasing insurance premiums. This is a nationwide crisis. And it's not only doctors crossing State borders to find better insurance rates--it's patients as well. Citizens living along the thousands of miles of State borders very often obtain their medical care across that line. Federal action is appropriate and critically necessary. Even more so because this crisis affects Federal health care programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, and costs the Federal Government billions of dollars every year. In fact, the cost of this crisis to the economy is quite staggering. With over 41 million Americans without health insurance, including an estimated 1.25 million Ohioans at some time in 2001, we have to look at a new system--because this crisis is not only bad for doctors and patients, it also affects our competitiveness in the global marketplace. Many of our company's insurance costs have skyrocketed because of medical lawsuit abuse costs that their competitors just do not have. The Nation's medical schools and students feel the effects of the medical liability crisis. According to the National Resident Matching Program, a private, nonprofit corporation, the number of American medical students applying to general surgery residency programs declined by 30 percent from 1992 to 2002. If this trend continues, less than 5 percent of medical school graduates will choose a career in surgery by 2005, and only 75 percent of general surgery residency positions will be filled by graduates of medical schools in the United States. Thank God we have foreign doctors who have come to the United States of America. In Ohio, one out of six doctors is an Asian Indian. And, in its 2003 biennial survey of medical residents in their final year of training, the firm of Merritt, Hawkins & Associates, MHA, noticed a disturbing trend. When asked if they would study medicine or select another field if they had their education to begin again, one quarter of all residents surveyed indicated they would select another field--this compared with only 5 percent in 2001. It is sweeping across the country and everybody is getting hit. It is going to have a disastrous effect--it already is--and we have to do something about it. When asked to identify what factors caused them a significant level of concern, sixty-two percent of residents indicated that malpractice is a significant area--compared to just 15 percent of residents surveyed 2 years ago. Specific medical specialties feel the crisis more than others. A September 25, 2002 report by the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, Congress of Neurological Surgeons, and Council of State Neurological Societies, entitled ``Neurosurgery in a State of Crisis'' found that professional liability costs among Ohio neurosurgeons have skyrocketed since 2000. For a $5 to $7 million coverage policy, in 2000, a physician would have paid $75,000. By 2002, this number had jumped to $168,000. Not only in Ohio, but across the nation, between 2000 and 2002, the average premium increase was 63 percent. As a result, of those neurosurgeons polled: 14 percent said they plan to, or are considering moving; 25 percent said they either plan to, or are considering, retiring; 34 percent said they already do, or are considering, restricting their practices. In my hometown of Cleveland, OH, at one of our hospitals, the neurosurgeons just left. There was no one there to take care of emergency patients, although just recently because of something the Cleveland Clinic did, they agreed to step in, but there were four neurosurgeons serving about 15 hospitals, and they just decided they were getting out. Who is going to pick that up for them? What is going to happen to those patients? Patients cannot get emergency medical treatment because fewer neurosurgeons are covering ERs, and trauma hospitals are shutting their doors and diverting patients with serious head and spinal cord injuries to other locations. Patients cannot find a neurosurgeon close to home because neurosurgeons are moving to States where insurance costs are relatively stable. Further exacerbating this problem is the high retirement rate. According to the American Board of Neurological Surgery, in 2001 alone, over 300 neurosurgeons retired. This is 10 percent of our Nation's neurosurgical workforce. And for the first time in over a decade, there are now fewer than 3,000 board certified neurosurgeons practicing in the U.S. Earlier this year, I participated in a press conference with my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum, and my distinguished colleague from Nevada, Senator Ensign. During this conference, I met a doctor from Florida who had rushed his son to the hospital with his head hemorrhaging, only to find that there were no pediatric neurosurgeons there. He asked if a regular neurosurgeon could help, but they could not because pediatric neurosurgeons require special liability insurance. Due to the exorbitant costs of insurance for pediatric neurosurgeons, only seven were practicing in the State of Florida and the nearest one was 150 miles away. Fortunately, the boy survived, but this type of scenario does not need to happen. I was recently speaking with some doctors in Cleveland who told me that the nephrologists practicing there will not even look at a baby facing kidney problems, because adding pediatric work to their existing practices will cause their premiums to skyrocket. The effects of the medical liability crisis can also be felt by the obstetrics-gynecologists community. In fact, obstetrics-gynecology is among the top three specialties in the cost of professional liability insurance premiums. Nationally, insurance premiums for OB-GYNs have increased dramatically: the median premium increased 167 percent between 1982 and 1998. The median rate rose 7 percent in 2000, 12.5 percent in 2001, and 15.3 percent in 2002 with increases as high as 69 percent, according to a survey by Medical Liability Monitor, a newsletter covering the liability insurance industry. According to Physicians Insurance Association of America, OB-GYNs were first among 28 specialty groups in the number of claims filed against them in 2000. OB-GYNs were the highest of all specialty groups in the average cost of defending against a claim in 2000, at a cost of $34,308. In the 1990s, they were first--along with family physicians- general practitioners--in the percentage of claims against them closed with a payout of 36 percent. They were second, after neurologists, in the average claim payment made during that period. Although the number of claims filed against all physicians climbed in recent decades, the phenomenon does not reflect an increased rate of medical negligence. That is something we should point out. It does not reflect an increased rate in negligence. In fact, OB-GYNS win most of the claims filed against them. A 1999 American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology survey of its membership found that over one-half of claims against OB-GYNS were dropped by plaintiffs' attorneys, dismissed or settled without a payment. Of cases that did proceed, OB-GYNS won seven out of ten times. Enormous resources are spent to deal with these claims, only 10 percent of which are found to have merit. The costs to defend these claims can be staggering and often mean that physicians invest less in new technologies that help patients. In 2000, the average cost to defend a claim against an OB-GYN was the highest of all physician specialties: $35,000. According to an ACOG survey of its members, the typical OB-GYN is 47 years old, has been in practice for over 15 years, and can expect to be sued 2.53 times over his or her career. Over one-fourth of ACOG fellows have even been sued for care provided during their residency. In 1999, 76.5 percent of ACOG fellows reported they had been sued at least once so far in their career. The average claim takes over 4 years to resolve. Practicing medicine and having lawsuits hanging over your head, and only 10 percent are well taken, can you imagine, Mr. President, how it is to practice medicine under those conditions? How does all of this affect patients' access to care? As premiums increase, women's access to general health care-- including regular screenings for reproductive cancers, high blood pressure and cholesterol, diabetes, and other serious health risks-- will decrease. OB/GYNs are disappearing. It leads to more uninsured women. Last year, 11.7 million women of childbearing age were uninsured. Without medical liability reform, a greater number of women ages 19 to 44 will move into the ranks of the uninsured. The legislation we are debating today gets us on our way to enacting meaningful medical liability reform. There are going to be a lot of excuses. We are going to hear from some colleagues as to why this is not a good thing, and they are going to get into specific caps and so forth. The fact is, this legislation provides a commonsense approach to our litigation problems that will help keep consumers from bearing the cost of costly and unnecessary litigation, while making sure those with legitimate grievances have recourse to the courts. That is what we want to do. We want to make sure those who are legitimately harmed have recourse to the courts and are compensated. The bill sets sensible limits on noneconomic damages to help restrain medical liability premium increases, while ensuring unlimited economic compensation for patients injured by negligence. In other words, there is no cap on economic compensation. All of those issues that can be documented, you can be reimbursed for. It limits attorney's fees so the money awarded in the court goes to the injured parties, who are the people who really need it. It mandates that relevant medical experts testify in malpractice trials, as opposed to highly paid ``expert witnesses'' who are often used to influence juries and foster abuses in the legal system. It also allows physicians to pay any large judgments against them over a period of time in order to avoid bankruptcy, and requires all parties to participate in alternative dispute resolution proceedings, such as mediation or arbitration, before going to court. It is a sensible way of handling a problem in our country and, at the same time, looking at the societal costs that are being paid today by all Americans. Providing this commonsense approach to our medical liability premiums is a win-win situation. Patients would not have to give away large portions of their judgments to their attorneys, truly injured parties can recover 100 percent of their economic damages, punitive damages are reserved for those cases that are truly justified, doctors and hospitals will not be held liable for harms they did not cause, and physicians can focus on doing what they do best: practicing medicine and providing health care. I end with the words of Dr. Andarsio, whom I quoted earlier: Help us to maintain an ability to have a practice that offers patients excellent access to care--to continue one of the most important relationships in our lives--the doctor- patient relationship--thus maintaining individualized and compassionate care. In my own particular case--and it may be why I am probably more fired up about this than some people in the Senate--when I was about 2 years old, I contracted osteomyelitis. It is a disease in the marrow of the bone. There was a lot of controversy among a couple of doctors on how I should be treated for that osteomyelitis. There was one physician who had the courage to try some new things. His name was Dr. Holloway. Dr. Holloway saved my life. I will not ever forget going to his funeral. There are a lot of other people around this country like George Voinovich who are in need of access to orthopedic surgeons and other types of medical care. I want them to have the same opportunity I had, to have a life. That is what this is about. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of a bill considered by the Senate, H.R. 985, to designate a post office in Bowling Green, OH, as the Delbert L. Latta Post Office Building. I strongly support this bill honoring a long-time member of the Ohio congressional delegation. Naming this post office after Del Latta is a fitting way to honor him. The building that houses this post office also served as a district office for Mr. Latta during his 30 years of service in Congress. Delbert Latta is a native and lifelong resident of Ohio. Born in the small northwestern town of Weston, OH, Mr. Latta attended Findlay College and Ohio Northern University Law School. Mr. Latta began his service to our Nation as a member of the Ohio National Guard. During World War II, Mr. Latta served with the U.S. Marine Corps Reserves. After his military service, Mr. Latta practiced law in Bowling Green, but in 1953, he again answered the call to public service by running for the State legislature. Mr. Latta was elected to the Ohio State Senate. After serving three terms, Mr. Latta was elected by the people of Ohio's fifth congressional district to the U.S. House of Representatives. During his long and distinguished career in Congress, Mr. Latta fought hard against wasteful government spending and to balance the Federal budget, a passion that I share. During his 30 years in Congress, Mr. Latta earned prominent committee assignments in the House, including serving as the ranking member of the Budget Committee, and as a member of the powerful Rules Committee, and the Agriculture Committee. Naming this post office the Delbert L. Latta Post Office Building is a wonderful tribute to a man who served Ohio and our Nation with distinction throughout his life. I thank my colleagues for their consideration of this matter.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to ask my colleagues' support for legislation I have introduced creating the new position of Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing in the Department of Commerce. In America we are blessed with ingenuity, gumption, and a can-do spirit that is recognized around the world. At the turn of the last century we helped lead the world into the Industrial age. American inventors gave electricity and air travel to the world. As we enter the 21st century, American manufacturing has as much potential as it has ever had at any time in our Nation's history. Accomplishments in the high-tech industry have been rapidly integrated into manufacturing to make our factories and our workers more productive, reduce costs, and save time. At the same time, substantial new trade, training, energy, labor, and foreign competition challenges have arisen. Helping our manufacturing interests deal with these challenges is something that private sector organizations such as the National Association Manufacturers have done well for years. It only stands to reason that we focus resources in the Government sector in support of manufacturing as well. I am concerned about the slow economic recovery and our Nation's declining position in the global marketplace, particularly for manufacturing, which is the backbone of our economy, both in Ohio and the Nation. There is a genuine panic by the manufacturing community over their future and the jobs created from manufacturing. They feel they are under siege from environmental regulations, rising health care costs, litigation, escalating natural gas costs, and the prospect of dramatically higher electricity costs if energy reform legislation is not passed. First, health care costs continue to rise. Nationwide, we have seen double-digit increases in health care premiums over the last 2 years alone. In Ohio, the business community tells me they are seeing 20 to 50 percent increases in their health care costs. These increases raise labor costs, decreasing capital that otherwise would be available to make investments, and, ultimately, negatively impact our global competitiveness. In addition, these costs are being passed on to employees, limiting their take-home pay and increasing the number of uninsured. Second, high natural gas prices are also having a detrimental effect on industry in Ohio and across the Nation. Many industries cannot compete internationally because of these high prices. Over the last 10 years, the average price for natural gas has been less than $3.00 per million cubic feet (Mcf). This year, companies in Ohio have been paying almost $10.00 per Mcf, more than a threefold increase. These price spikes are felt the hardest by Ohio's agriculture, chemical, and manufacturing industries. In order to be competitive, we cannot afford to hamper American companies in this manner. Additionally, I have heard from companies in both the manufacturing and the chemical sectors that they cannot survive with these high prices. In particular, two chemical companies in Ohio have informed me that they are considering moving their operations not only out of Ohio, but outside of the United States because of these high costs. At the same time, suppliers of these companies are considering temporary shutdowns because they cannot afford to operate. Ohio's companies have not been able to budget and plan sufficiently because these prices have been so unpredictable this year. As natural gas prices continue to rise, the President's National Energy Policy Task Force projects that over 1,300 new power plants will need to be built to satisfy America's energy needs over the next 20 years. As a result of the emissions limits and regulatory uncertainty triggered by the Clean Air Act, the Department of Energy currently predicts that over 90 percent of these new plants will be powered by natural gas. Further, analysis by EIA and the EPA shows that a large percentage of coal-fired plants are likely to be replaced by natural gas-fired plants in the near future. Third, manufacturers need reliable transportation infrastructure to bring in supplies and ship out their products. We are a ``just in time'' economy and we are falling behind in our national investment in highways and bridges. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, for each $1 billion of Federal spending on highway construction, 47,500 jobs are created annually. Furthermore, the Department estimates that every dollar invested in our highways yields $5.70 in economic benefits due to reduced delays, improved safety and reduced vehicle operating cost. Clearly, transportation investment in needed ``ready-to-go'' projects could go a long way in getting the economy back on track. Finally, manufacturing companies are distressed by the surge in foreign competition, particularly from China. As a matter of fact, if a vote were taken today among Ohio manufacturers, many would oppose normal trade relations with China. These are only a few of the challenges facing American manufacturers. Their profitability and survivability is impacted by virtually every policy and/or agency within the Federal Government. Moreover, the fact that there has been limited coordination of Government policies and agencies that impact manufacturing has contributed to a prolonged, steady decline of what I believe is the most critical sector of our economy. According to USA Today, U.S. manufacturers laid off 95,000 workers in April--the 33rd consecutive month of decline and the largest drop in 15 months. Since July 2000, manufacturing has lost 2.6 million jobs. My own State of Ohio has lost 154,500 manufacturing jobs, over a 15- percent decline. New orders for manufactured goods in April decreased by $9.4 billion, or 2.9 percent, to $320 billion. This was the largest percent decline since November 2001. Shipments decreased by $7.1 billion or 2.2 percent to $320.6 billion. This was the largest percent decline since February 2002. According to the National Association of Manufacturers, ``If the U.S. manufacturing base continues to shrink at its present rate and the critical mass is lost, the manufacturing innovation process will shift to other global centers. Once that happens, a decline in U.S. living standards in the future is virtually assured.'' Unfortunately, up to now, there has been no senior level policymaker responsible for examining prospective and existing Government policies to determine their potential impact on manufacturing. This is more than an unfortunate oversight; it is a potential economic disaster. Government policies are often developed without regard to their impact on manufacturing. Too many Government decisionmakers view manufacturing as a ``dying sector'' that is better transferred overseas so Americans can focus on the more profitable service sector. What these people fail to realize is that manufacturing is the foundation of the service sector. There is no retail industry without manufactured products to sell. There is no transportation industry without manufactured products to transport. There is no repair industry without manufactured products to repair. Even services such as accounting, financial management, banking, and information technology sell their services to manufacturers and could not remain profitable without a vibrant manufacturing sector. Manufacturing growth spawns more additional economic activity and jobs than any other economic sector. Every $1 of final demand for manufactured goods generates an additional 67 cents in other manufactured products, and 76 cents in products and services from nonmanufacturing sectors. In fact, manufacturers are responsible for almost two-thirds of all private sector Research & Development--$127 billion in 2002. In addition, spillovers from R&D benefit other manufacturing and nonmanufacturing firms. Manufacturing productivity gains are historically higher than those of any other economic sector. For example, over the past two decades, manufacturing averaged twice the annual productivity gains of the rest of the private sector. These gains enable Americans to do more with less, increase our ability to compete, and facilitate higher wages for all employees. Manufacturing salaries and benefits average $54,000, which is higher than the average for the total private sector. Two factors in particular attract workers to manufacturing: one, higher pay and benefits, and, two, opportunities for advanced education and training. Manufacturing has been an important contributor to regional economic growth and tax receipts at all levels of government. During the 1990s, manufacturing corporations paid 30 to 34 percent of all corporate taxes collected by State and local governments, as well as Social Security and payroll taxes, excise taxes, import and tariff duties, environmental taxes and license taxes. Furthermore, manufacturing is a secure foundation for future economic prosperity. Capital investments in factories and equipment tend to anchor businesses more securely to a community, a State or a nation. When a corporation owns property in a community, they are more likely to be an active participant in helping improve the quality of life, stability, and economic vitality of that community. Our competitors recognize this and are moving rapidly to claim the manufacturing preeminence that once characterized the U.S. economy. While America's industrial leadership is being squeezed by rising health care costs, runaway litigation, excessive regulation and some of the highest taxes on investment in the industrialized world, our foreign competitors are taking a larger market share with less expensive products that make it difficult to raise prices. The result is a dramatic decline in manufacturing cashflow that forces firms to cut back on R&D and capital investment, and to reduce employment. The U.S. manufacturing base is receding--and with it the all-important innovation that is the seedbed of our industrial strength and competitive edge. Unfortunately, while many countries support their manufacturing sector with favorable government policies, tax incentives, and even financial subsidies, the United States does not even coordinate government initiatives that might impact our own manufacturers. Within the U.S. Government, however, we do have Cabinet level Departments to represent the interests of agriculture, transportation, and energy. These three sectors combined do not generate as much economic activity, nor employ as many individuals as manufacturing. Nevertheless, there is no senior level policymaker anywhere in the Federal Government whose sole responsibility is the health and growth of manufacturing. Is it any wonder we are losing market share to foreign competition? The bill I am introducing today will help rectify this unfortunate situation. It will establish an Assistant Secretary in the Commerce Department who will: one, represent and advocate for the interests of the manufacturing sector; two, aid in the development of policies that promote the expansion of the manufacturing sector; three, review policies that may adversely impact the manufacturing sector; and, four, assist the manufacturing sector in other ways as the Secretary of Commerce shall prescribe. The new Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Manufacturing will also submit to Congress an annual report that contains: one, an overview of the state of the manufacturing sector in the United States; two, forecast of the future state of the manufacturing sector in the United States; and, three, an analysis of current and significant laws, regulations, and policies that adversely impact the manufacturing sector in the United States. It is a small step forward but an important one. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this important legislation.

Mr. VOINOVICH

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