George Voinovich

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. I rise today to discuss an issue that I have been known to have some thoughts about from time to time, and that is our Nation's fiscal situation and this body's approach to its budget responsibilities, something the President and I have talked about on many occasions. The country's finances are in dire condition. We face a sea of red ink as far as the eye can see, and perhaps the worst thing about it is that few people in this body appear to recognize or acknowledge how bad that predicament is. The Federal Government is running a deficit and will for the foreseeable future, when just last year we had an on- budget surplus. Despite this, Congress continues to spend money like drunken sailors, refusing to prioritize and make the tough choices necessary to stop the bleeding and get us back on track. In the rush to spend, we are not asking the basic question: Is this the best use of our limited funds at this point in time? I want to emphasize to my colleagues how critical our budget situation has become. Over the past year, the budget outlook has worsened dramatically. Last year, the Congressional Budget Office predicted a unified budget surplus of $313 billion. That is for fiscal year 2002. That means the Social Security surplus and the on-budget surplus together equals $313 billion. We all thought everything was going great, and I was extremely pleased because Congress believed that we might be able to once again use the entire Social Security surplus to reduce the national debt, after all, we did it in 1999 and 2000. As a matter of fact, during that period of time we reduced the national debt $365 billion, the first time that had happened in almost 30 years. Unfortunately, it is not turning out that way. Instead of reducing the debt, we are going to add to it. Seven months ago CBO released budget projections that showed the Federal Government is in much worse fiscal condition than we all thought. These new projections show that the Federal Government will spend the entire Social Security surplus in both the current fiscal year and in fiscal year 2003. Today, our fiscal condition continues to deteriorate. Figures from the Senate Budget Committee show that we will likely suffer a budget deficit of $152 billion this year. That means that this year we will borrow and spend the entire $157 billion Social Security surplus and on top of that we are going to have to borrow another $152 billion through the issuance of new debt. Put another way, the Federal Government will borrow a total of $310 billion this year. This is new debt on top of the staggering $6 trillion national debt we already owe. It is no wonder that our constituents have such a hard time grasping the magnitude of the national debt when it is counted in unfathomable terms like trillions of dollars. Unfortunately, next year it gets even worse. For fiscal year 2003, which begins October 1, if we maintain our current course of spending we will borrow and spend the entire $176 billion Social Security surplus and issue $194 billion in debt on top of that. Already, next year's budget deficit totals $370 billion, and that is before any supplemental spending, which we all know is inevitable. If anyone believes these discouraging numbers can be turned around by a growing economy, I think they ought to understand that these projections for 2003 are based on a healthy inflation-adjusted economic growth rate of 3.4 percent. I would like to draw everyone's eyes to this chart that I am talking about for fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003. This year, fiscal year 2002, we were projected to have a $313 billion surplus, but instead we are going to take the Social Security surplus that the President and I talked about using to pay down debt and spend that to operate the government. Then on top of that we are going to borrow another $152 billion. So we are going to borrow nearly $310 billion. Next year, the Social Security surplus will be $175 billion. Instead of using that money to pay down debt, we are going to spend it to run the Government, and then we are going to add another almost $200 billion of additional debt. When people come to see me in my office and want something from the Federal Government, I ask the question of them: Is it so worthwhile that we should borrow the money? Does it justify spending the Social Security surplus or causing the Treasury to issue new debt? We are filling the gap today in the only way we know; that is, we are putting the Treasury back in the business of auctioning new debt to raise the billions of dollars needed to pay for the Government's operations this year. What I find very telling about the Treasury auctions is the duration of some of the new bonds. They mature in roughly 10 years. What that tells me is the U.S. Treasury recognizes the Federal Government will need to borrow money for a long time. This speaks volumes about our long-term budget predicament. We better take notice. What we really need is a fiscal reality check. We are sinking deeper and deeper into deficits. But most disturbing of all, I don't hear any outcry. No one seems to be paying any attention. What I do hear are constant calls for more Government programs and for more Government spending. The fact that our Nation faces several serious challenges right now, including a serious national security challenge, does not exempt us from the basic rules of fiscal policy. In fact, I believe the national security crisis we now face demands of us an even more vigilant look at what we are doing with our spending to make sure the needed funds go to the most pressing priorities. Spending without check, wrapping every pork project in the flag and calling it a national security priority, saying yes to every major interest group, and playing politics with the public's purse are all irresponsible behaviors that will sentence us to another long term of deficit spending and increased national debt. We recently passed a farm bill that even leading farm legislators decried as too expensive. Besides returning to the failed farm policies of the past, this legislation increased agricultural spending by $80 billion over the next 10 years. We have also just finished a Defense authorization bill that contains huge increases. The Senate-passed bill authorizes $393.4 billion in spending. That is an increase of $42 billion or about 12.2 percent over last year. We cannot have it all. The White House is calling for a $45 billion increase in defense spending and a big increase in spending on homeland security. These are serious needs and deserve our attention. They require making some tradeoffs to meet them. We do need to increase defense spending, but let's examine whether $45 billion is the right number. I was heartened to learn that the House of Representatives acted to move about $2.3 billion in funding from defense allocations to other programs. The Senate should do the same, and then some, instead of forever increasing funding by adding additional spending to the total. We need to make some tough decisions to make tradeoffs and shift funding within given budget totals. At the same time, the record growth of domestic spending over the past several years has been nothing short of meteoric. Given the huge increases many agencies and programs have had, do we really need to continue feeding them at these huge levels? If anything, I think agencies need a breather to spend the money Congress has been shoveling their way over the past several years. Anyone looking for the location of the recently departed surplus, need look no further than the huge increases in discretionary spending for fiscal years 1998 to 2002. This is the chart that shows it: Agriculture, the average growth was 5.2 percent; total growth was 21 percent from 1998 to 2002; Commerce, 51 percent; Defense, 24 percent; Education, 60 percent; Energy, 23 percent; Health and Human Services, 50 percent; HUD, 44 percent. These are unbelievable increases in spending. That is a lot of money in the pipeline. The fact is, at this stage of the game, we need to look at the spending we have already done during the last several years and scrutinize our domestic priorities to make sure our most pressing needs receive our limited budget dollars. This means making tough choices, telling some people no, and having the guts to stand up to groups that are considered untouchables and say we cannot afford them right now. I am talking about lots of other requests we will be getting. For example, we are talking about Medicare and what we are going to do about that. What we have to understand is we just cannot rack up huge bills today that will come due tomorrow because tomorrow's bills will be even bigger than today's. I am talking about Social Security and Medicare. These two critical programs are headed toward serious financial trouble and will require huge infusions of cash to keep them going. On top of that, there is widespread agreement, myself included, that we need to provide a prescription drug benefit to seniors. And it is not going to be cheap. This is the issue now before the Senate. We face a situation in a couple of decades in which spending on Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlements will equal what we spend today on the entire Federal Government. In a few short years, the percentage of overall spending that is left for defense and other domestic needs will be very little. To their credit, David Walker, the Comptroller General, and CBO Director, Dan Crippen, have made this point over and over again, before committee after committee, but no one seems to be listening. Make no mistake, we will meet these obligations. The trillions of dollars in special issue Treasury bonds held by the Social Security trustees are going to be redeemed and made good by the Treasury. Some beltway pundits might dispute the reality of the Social Security trust fund, but they are dead wrong. The liabilities in the trust fund are real. The day will come, in 2015 or 2016, when the money coming into Social Security will not be enough to cover all the payments, and we will have to reach into that Social Security trust fund and begin redeeming those IOUs. To pay those IOUs we either have to borrow more money or raise taxes. The fact is the day of reckoning is rapidly approaching. We need to start being concerned about it. Remember the money that was supposed to be kept in the lockbox to pay down the debt? I remember the lockbox. I was going to bring my lockbox from my office to demonstrate my point. We will not see the money in that lockbox paying down debt for probably a decade. We won't see an on-budget surplus for at least 10 years at the rate we are going. Mr. President, I want my colleagues to recognize that the surpluses we refer to are on a unified basis. The public is being told we might go back to that unified budget. But I hope they understand that the unified budget includes the Social Security surplus. When we talk about a surplus, the surplus we are talking about includes the Social Security surplus. In my book that is not a true surplus because it requires raiding the Social Security surplus. The people that know, understand we will be using that Social Security surplus for a long time; not to pay down debt but to pay for the regular operation of the Federal Government. When the day arrives in 2015 or 2016 and that Social Security surplus disappears, we will have to find additional money to pay for Social Security and Medicare. Our budget process is broken and needs to be fixed. This year, the Senate is increasingly resigned to the fact that we will not adopt a budget resolution. I say, shame on the majority. This is the first time since 1974 that the Senate has not passed a budget resolution. What it tells us about the State of the budget process is this: It is a critical document that we need to manage our money, and we did not even write one. In its current form, the budget process is weak and meaningless and does nothing to control the endless congressional urge to splurge. When the Budget Enforcement Act expires in September, Katy bar the door on the floor of the Senate when the spending rampage begins. I fully support my colleagues efforts to extend the discretionary spending caps and extend the pay-go rules. These are important steps in reestablishing fiscal discipline. The problem is, these safeguards are not enough. These good rules have been circumvented repeatedly in the past, so we know that rules to enforce fiscal discipline can be ignored unless there is a broad-based sense of urgency that we must address our budgetary crisis. Until we change our thinking and recognize we must live within our means, we will continue to face a mounting deficit despite the rules. In the absence of an enforceable budget document this year, one key step for enforcing budgetary discipline in Congress would be to adhere to the aggregate discretionary spending total of $759 billion proposed in the President's budget and in the budget resolution that passed in the House of Representatives. Many of my colleagues say it is not possible to limit spending to that amount. I disagree, and I applaud my colleagues in the House who understand that we have to make those hard choices. Drawing a line in the sand at $759 billion is a way to do that. A few weeks ago my friend from Kentucky, Senator Bunning, and I sent a letter to the President with 34 signatures from Members of the Senate pledging to back him up if he vetoes excessive spending bills. I hope the President will exercise his veto authority for any bills that would likely increase spending beyond $759 billion. But the President has to understand that if he vetoes any spending over $759 billion, we cannot hold to that figure unless we shift money from the defense budget. What I am suggesting is that we shift some of the money from the defense budget to the domestic side, rethink some of the large increases in domestic spending that are in the 2003 budget, and spread that money around to meet our other domestic needs. That means taking on things such as NIH, that we all love. That has almost increased 50 percent during the last several years. The President knows, as a former State Governor, that when you have a financial problem, what you do is reconsider your spending plans. If you have some peaks in spending, you have to reduce those so you can make more money available to stay within your budget. This administration has to understand if they receive every dime they want for defense spending and do not do anything about the peaks they have on the domestic side of the budget, we are going to have a catastrophe at the end of this year. They will get their money for defense, the domestic money will be forthcoming, and we will go far beyond the $759 billion. We will do the same thing that happened in the 1980s when I was mayor of the city of Cleveland and watched what was happening here in Washington. The President got his defense money, others got their domestic spending, and this terrible debt that we have, the $6 trillion debt we are paying for today is a result of that fiscal irresponsibility. We have to make sure it doesn't happen again. As I said, these are the kinds of hard choices I had to make as a mayor and Governor. I did not have the option of just borrowing the money from our pension funds. I could not do that. If I told the people of Ohio, for example, when I was Governor, I was going to use the Public Employees Retirement Funds to run the State of Ohio, they would have run me out of office. But here in the Federal government it apparently is OK for Congress to use the Social Security money. It is unbelievable to me. We should be doing what cities are doing in this country today, what States are doing in this country today, and what families are doing. There are a lot of families in this country today who are reallocating their resources because the money is just not coming in. They are changing their priorities, and we should do the same thing. We are no better than America's families. If people around here could not borrow the money or use pension funds, I can tell you things would be different. That is why we ought to have a balanced budget amendment, so we have the same kind of fiscal restraint we had as Governors and mayors and county officials. This year is an anomaly, however, and I hope not to see it repeated. I hope that next year we will have in place an invigorated budget process that helps Congress resist its worst urges and control spending in a responsible way. Yesterday, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said: . . . that the underlying disciplinary mechanisms that form the framework for Federal budget decisions over most of the past 15 years have eroded. The administration and Congress can make a valuable contribution to the prospects for the growth of the economy by taking measures to restore this discipline and return the Federal budget over time to a posture that is supportive of long-term economic growth. If we do not get things under control, we are not going to have the economic growth necessary to take care of all our needs. That is why I have been developing a budget process reform bill with Senator Feingold. This bill will extend important aspects of the existing budget process, such as the spending caps and PAYGO. In addition, the bill contains several provisions aimed at providing more information on the true state of the budget so people understand what is going on around here. It is not hocus-pocus. The bill requires accrual accounting for Federal insurance programs. It requires CBO and the Joint Tax Committee to report how legislation changes interest costs. It requires the GAO to issue an annual report on the magnitude of liabilities facing the Federal Government. And it convenes another budget concepts commission, which last met in 1967, to assess whether the fundamental measures for the Federal budget are the right ones. With some tough new guidelines to rework the budget process, a willingness to accept the fact that future expenses are as real and as important as today's, and the guts to make the tough choices necessary to prioritize our spending, we might just have a shot at achieving sound fiscal health. Today, the Federal budget deficits are not as big as those we faced in the 1980s compared to the economy as a whole. But we are headed quickly in that direction. Given the rampant spending proclivities of Congress, it will not be long before our situation becomes just as bad as it was in the 1980s. I implore my colleagues to understand that we are on the edge of an abyss. We must stop before we commit fiscal suicide. A lot of people will say that the 1980s were pretty great, but it is also part of the reason, as I mentioned, that we have the enormous debt we have today. I remind my colleagues that we spend 11 percent of the annual Federal budget to pay for our fiscal irresponsibility of the past; i.e., we were not willing to either pay for or do without things. We borrowed the money, used the Social Security surplus, and that is why we have the debt we have today. We are now engaged in the war against terrorism at home and abroad, and we have some very pressing domestic needs. We have to understand that we cannot get the job done by practicing business as usual. We have to understand that. We just cannot do that anymore. The decisions we make this year are going to have enormous impact on the United States of America, our ability to maintain a competitive position in the world, and on the quality of life of our children and grandchildren. Our country and their future are in our hands. Let history record that we had the courage to prioritize our Nation's needs within the framework of fiscal responsibility--to make tough choices and exercise tough love today, for our children's and grandchildren's tomorrows. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Lynn Borkon of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor during my statement.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of establishing a permanent nuclear repository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain. Establishing a single site for high-level nuclear waste is the best thing we can do to meet our growing energy needs in an environmentally sound manner, support our domestic economy, and protect our national security. One of my goals in coming to the Senate was to enact a comprehensive U.S. energy policy that harmonizes our energy and environmental needs. I worked hard with my colleagues on the Energy bill and after 6 weeks of debate, this body finally passed legislation that does just that. Our challenge in the energy bill was to encourage development of domestic energy sources in a balanced way that respects seemingly competing needs, the economy and the environment. These are not competing needs, however. A sustainable environment is critical to a strong economy, and a sustainable economy is critical to providing the funding necessary to improve our environment. In order to maintain a strong economy, we will have to produce more energy to keep up with the growing demand. According to the Department of Energy, we need to increase by 30 percent the amount of energy we produce in the United States by 2015 in order to meet our county's demand. To ensure that consumers have access to low-cost, reliable energy, we must make use of every available resource instead of putting all of our eggs in one basket. We need to increase our production of oil, gas, coal, nuclear energy, and renewables. Keep in mind that only two-tenths of 1 percent of our total electricity comes from wind and solar power. At the same time, we need to continue to increase conservation efforts which have already substantially contributed to reducing our reliance on imports. We simply must diversify the source of our energy supply and we can do so while protecting our precious natural resources. One of our great untapped resources is nuclear energy. It is an important part of meeting our Nation's energy needs and harmonizing our energy and environmental policies. Over the past 40 years, we have seen how safe and reliable nuclear energy can be. We use it today. Nationally, we obtain 20 percent of our electricity from nuclear energy plants and in my State of Ohio, nuclear power provides 12 percent of our total. But this level is far below what other countries do. For example, France derives 70 percent of its electricity from nuclear power; Sweden uses 39 percent; South Korea 41 percent; and Japan uses 34 percent. One of the reasons these countries use so much nuclear energy is that it produces zero harmful air emissions. None. I am not sure that many people realize this. Throughout my career, I have been actively involved in the debate concerning how to reduce emissions from power plants and continue to provide safe and reliable electricity to consumers. This has been difficult, however, because so many so-called environmentalists raise issue with all of our energy alternatives. For example, here's what they say: coal, which supplies 52 percent of our energy, is too dirty. Hydropower, which supplies 7.3 percent of our total energy, is criticized because the dams can disrupt the ecosystem. Due to lengthy and complicated environmental regulations, it is nearly impossible to build new pipelines for natural gas, which supplies 16 percent of our energy. Even windmills, the source so many of my colleagues point to, has siting difficulties due to their noise and unsightly appearance. Nuclear power, which supplies 20 percent, has been demonized because of the waste issue, which can be solved. The science for using nuclear energy has been rapidly developing over the past several decades and nuclear energy offers one of the best alternatives for the future: a clean-burning and reliable source of energy. Since 1973, the use of nuclear energy has prevented 62 million tons of sulfur dioxide and 32 million tons of nitrogen oxide from being released into the atmosphere. Nuclear energy also releases none of the so-called greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide. In fact, according to the Energy Information Administration, nuclear power has offset more than 3.1 billion metric tons of carbon emissions between 1960 and 2000 that would have been generated by fossil fuels. Nuclear energy has incredible potential as an efficient and clean source of energy, yet we face some major impediments that prevent us from taking full advantage of its benefits. During consideration of the energy bill, I offered two amendments to address these problems and promote the growth of nuclear energy. Both amendments were included in the Senate version of the energy bill, and I hope the conferees will keep them in the final version. The first amendment reauthorizes the Price-Anderson program, which provides liability protection to the public paid by the industry. The second amendment provides needed Nuclear Regulatory Commission reforms to address the human capital crisis that is impacting the NRC, improves licensing and decommissioning oversight, and strengthens anti-trust protections by moving the review process from the NRC to the Justice Department. But the biggest impediment to the growth of nuclear energy could not be addressed in the energy bill and that is what brings us here today. Congress recognized the importance and necessity of having one storage site for spent nuclear fuel in 1982 with the passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which was signed into law. That law required the Department of Energy to locate, build, and operate a deep, mined geologic repository for high-level nuclear waste. In response to this law, the Energy Department identified, studied, and selected viable potential sites for this purpose. In 1987, Congress then amended the law and designated Nevada's Yucca Mountain as the only site that could be considered and stipulated the further study was required to determine whether that site was suitable. Congress stipulated that the nuclear waste storage facility was to be completed by January 31, 1998. Obviously, this deadline has not been met because the Energy Department wanted to be thorough and base their decision on science. Some of my colleagues would have you believe that this was a rash decision. On the contrary, Secretary Abraham recommended Yucca Mountain after two decades and $7 billion of scientific research. In addition, President Bush affirmed this recommendation. The House of Representatives affirmed this recommendation overwhelmingly by a vote of 306 to 117 in May. The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources affirmed this recommendation by a vote of 13 to 10 in June. Now it is the Senate's turn. All of this support is based on science. This is exactly what we want to see in the formation of public policy; science driving the policy. Yucca Mountain is located approximately 90 miles from Las Vegas in an area that averages about seven inches of rainfall a year. The Energy Department does not expect water to come into contact with any of the nuclear material that will be stored there for more than 10,000 years. Surrounded by unsaturated rock layers, nuclear waste would be stored approximately 1,000 feet above any water, which is still about 1,000 feet below ground. Even if water somehow infiltrated Yucca Mountain and corroded the seal and then penetrated the robust fuel containers before 10,000 years passed, natural and engineered barriers would prevent or limit any release of radiation. Furthermore, Yucca Mountain is located in a hydrologic basin, in which water does not connect to any rivers, oceans, or the groundwater system that serves Las Vegas. Through years of scientific research, it has been determined that the site is secure and that radiation exposure to the public would be well below both the stringent EPA limits and natural background radiation levels. Let me emphasize: The resolution we are considering allows the Yucca Mountain program to continue to the next step; it is not the end of the process. The site must still go through a rigorous licensing review, which is expected to last up to five years. Moreover, the NRC still must address a whole host of issues including monitoring and testing programs, quality assurance, personnel training, and certification, emergency planning, and more. Additionally, the NRC must use standards adopted by the EPA specifically and exclusively for Yucca Mountain. These strict standards provide that an engineered barrier system should be designed to work in combination with natural barriers so that, for 10,000 years following disposal, the expected radiation dose to an individual would not exceed 15 millirems total effective dose equivalent per year, and 4 millirems per year for groundwater exposure. These are exceedingly stringent standards designed to protect the public from any harmful exposure, now or in the future. To illustrate what the numbers mean, let me offer two examples. In Denver, Colorado, due to the higher altitude and cosmic radiation from the sun and stars, residents are subject to at least 15 millirems of radiation more per year than people who live in my hometown of Cleveland. On average, Americans are exposed to 4 millirems of radiation per year through the naturally occurring radioactive potassium in the 140 pounds of potatoes that an individual eats on average each year. This rigorous licensing process combined with the full completion of the site is expected to take 10 years. Therefore, unlike most of the attention this matter has received in the media, our action in the Senate will not begin the transportation of nuclear waste to the repository. Instead, this resolution simply affirms the science behind the project and allows the experts to continue to move ahead with their analyses and reviews. While some people have concerns about the transportation of nuclear waste, many people may not realize that nuclear waste has been shipped across our country since 1964 and that it has an amazing track record of safety. During this period, more than 3,000 shipments have traveled 1.7 million miles on roads and railways with only eight minor accidents: no injuries, fatalities, or release of any radiation. There are two reasons for this success. First, the containers for the waste have been tested rigorously under extreme conditions, including being dropped from buildings, hit by trains, and burned at high temperatures. Second, there are numerous safety measures that federal agencies and state and local governments have developed, including satellite positioning, designation of special routes, police escorts, inspections, and emergency response planning. Over the next 10 years as new scientific discoveries are made, it is likely that new regulations, procedures, and technology will offer further improvements to the safety and security of transporting spent nuclear fuel to Yucca Mountain. And the NRC in conjunction with other federal agencies will continue to examine the safest and most effective means of transport and storage. Failure to approve this resolution will have serious costs to our economy and national security. Our nation has already spent $7 billion over 20 years researching this specific site. The greater cost is the current danger we face across our nation with 131 facilities in 39 states storing more than 40,000 tons of spent nuclear material. To put these numbers in perspective, about 160 million Americans live within 75 miles of these sites. Establishment of a repository at Yucca Mountain would allow all of the nuclear waste to be stored in one place, underground in a remote location. The site is on federal property with restricted access to the land and airspace, and as a further safeguard, the Nellis Air Force Range is nearby. From a national security perspective, one site is easier to defend then many facilities scattered throughout the nation. The current situation is also costly in terms of capacity. The facilities which currently store this spent fuel are only designed to be used on an interim basis and space is limited. The Energy Department estimates that replacement facilities at each interim site would have to be built every 100 years with major repairs every half century. Nuclear power is a necessary and sound part of our energy future that makes sense for our environment and our economy. Furthermore, because it protects national security and the safety of all Americans, I urge my colleagues to listen to the science and support this resolution to affirm the President's recommendation to establish a permanent nuclear repository at Yucca Mountain.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. I Thank my colleagues for their commitment to this issue that is of the utmost national importance. I add my support to the idea that we should keep the pieces of this legislation together. I certainly agree that we should make certain that our private DOE contractors do not experience a protracted lapse in authority that will surely delay the implementation of important programs. But I want to point out that energy security and national security are very much related, and both are integral parts of our overall economic security. Nuclear power, science and technology are vital to this country. Nuclear generation provides 20 percent of our electricity and is the largest contributor to avoiding emissions. If we are to meet the future demands for electricity we will have to build more nuclear plants to augment the present fleet. All over the world, nations are considering building new nuclear facilities. The current administration wants to move forward with new plants that use new, more efficient nuclear technologies that reduce the volume of spent fuel and have even more safety features than the current plants which have unparalleled safety records. The original law was put together to support both aspects of nuclear operations. They have worked very well together. I would agree with my fellow Senators who have just spoken on this matter. I was proud to have introduced the original Price-Anderson reauthorization bill and was very pleased when the Senate voted overwhelming to include my Price-Anderson amendment on the energy bill. It is important that we reauthorize the entirety of this statute and I look forward to continuing to work with my fellow Senators to ensure that the Price- Anderson Act is reauthorized this Congress.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, over the Memorial Day recess, I joined seven members of the House of Representatives to participate in the spring meeting of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. Twice a year, legislators from NATO member countries and seventeen countries that have been given ``associate'' status--including NATO aspirants and members of the Partnership for Peace program--gather to discuss significant issues facing the Alliance. At the forefront of the agenda this year were issues related to the war on terrorism, and questions that will be raised when NATO heads of state meet in Prague this November, including: the future direction of the Alliance; the growing gap in military capabilities between the United States and our European allies; and the selection of new members. This was the third year that I have participated in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly's spring gathering. The meeting took on a new urgency as the Alliance continues to confront a changed international security environment in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11th. As parliamentarians discussed the military campaign in Afghanistan and the role of NATO in the war on terror, I reminded my European counterparts of the need to invest in the defense budgets of their respective countries. Without fundamental military capabilities such as strategic airlift and command and control systems, the European contribution to the global war on terrorism will continue to be limited. It was clear throughout the meeting that the events of 9-11 have impacted discussions in many areas, including expansion of the Alliance. During consideration of a Declaration on NATO Enlargement, I introduced an amendment calling attention to the significant threats that terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction pose to NATO countries, and recognizing that as NATO considers enlargement, the Alliance remains open to tolerant, democratic societies, which embrace values that terrorism seeks to destroy. As the meeting progressed, I also expressed my strong support for a robust round of enlargement during the Summit of the Alliance in Prague later this year. I share the President's vision of enlargement, articulated in Warsaw, Poland last June, when he said that as we approach Prague: ``We should not calculate how little we can get away with, but how much we can do to advance the cause of freedom.'' Yet while the Alliance should extend invitations to a number of countries in Prague, I believe it is premature to single out countries for membership at this point. Instead, we should continue to encourage aspirants to make progress on their membership action plans and move forward with democratic, economic and judicial reforms. As such, during consideration of the Declaration on NATO Enlargement, I joined Congressman Doug Bereuter, the chairman of the U.S. delegation, and other members of the United States Congress at the meeting in abstaining from a vote on an amendment that identified seven countries as ready for membership in the Alliance. Despite U.S. concerns, the amendment was adopted. While I do not disagree that the countries listed in the amendment-- Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania-- have made some strides in their preparations to join NATO, there are serious discussions that must take place between now and November regarding the selection of new members. This spring's NATO Parliamentary meeting was especially important to its host country, Bulgaria, which hopes to receive an invitation to join the Alliance in Prague. I remain very interested in discussion about NATO enlargement, and while in Sofia, I was glad to have opportunity to visit with Prime Minister Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gothe and President Georgi Parvanov to discuss Bulgaria's work to join the Alliance. I also met with Defense Minister Nikolay Svinarov and Foreign Minister Solomon Passy, who I have met with previously in my office in Washington, DC. My first official visit outside of the NATO session was with Bulgaria's Defense Minister, Nikolay Svinarov. Just minutes before our meeting, Mr. Svinarov spoke to the NATO PA's Committee on Defense and Security, outlining Bulgaria's plans to move forward with defense reforms. His presentation was clear, and I congratulated him on his effort to describe Bulgaria's progress on the defense portion of the membership action plan (MAP). While noting the progress that has been made, I encouraged him to follow through on the vision that he articulated to the NATO parliamentarians. I was impressed with Bulgaria's plan; however, it is evident that there is still a lot of work to be done to implement their ambitious agenda for military reform. My impressions were reaffirmed several days later when I visited Graf Ignatievo air base, near the city of Plovdiv. The enthusiasm of the officers and pilots at the base was evident. Since 2001, the Bulgarian government has invested in modernization of base infrastructure, upgrading the runway and the flight line and renovating buildings and training facilities. While this is certainly a positive development, I was concerned with the equipment at the base, including Soviet-era MiG- 29 and MiG-21 aircraft. While the MiG-21s will be retired, the Bulgarians hope to upgrade their MiG-29s by 2004, with the goal of full NATO interoperability. There are serious questions not only about whether or not this can actually be done, but also whether this is money wisely spent. As NATO considers questions about military capabilities, it will be important to consider how NATO members and aspirant countries can best invest limited defense dollars to contribute to the overall mission of the Alliance. As Bulgaria continues with defense reforms, this will be one factor to consider. Bulgaria must also confront challenges in other areas, including the need to move forward with judicial reforms. The government must take action to combat corruption and organized crime. I discussed this issue with Prime Minister Saxe-Coburg-Gothe and President Purvanov, as well as Foreign Minister Passy. Perhaps one of the most eye-opening conversation I had during my trip to Bulgaria was with FBI Special Agent Victor Moore, who is working with the Bulgarian government and local NGOs to combat human trafficking. As a member of the Helsinki Commission and an active participant in the annual meetings of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, I have worked on this issue with Congressman Chris Smith--who has a long record of work to combat the trafficking of men, women and children. I also follow the efforts of the Southeast European Cooperative Initiative (SECI), which aims to combat trans-border crime in the region. SECI has spearheaded an initiative to combat human trafficking in southeast Europe, and Vic Moore's efforts are tied directly to their objectives. Of his eleven years in the FBI, he spent nine of them working on drug enforcement in New York City. In Bulgaria, he is working to give law enforcement personnel the skills they need to investigate and prosecute human trafficking cases. The Bulgarian government has formed a multi-agency task force, which has liberated more than 160 women, issued 60 arrest warrants and captured approximately 60 traffickers. This important work should continue. I believe it is important that the government take continued steps to strengthen the rule of law and reform the judicial systems. This will be important as NATO evaluates the progress of aspirant countries later this year. In all of my conversations in Sofia, one thing was clear: the people of Bulgaria, and the members of government who represent them, want to join NATO. Over a breakfast meeting with members of the U.S. delegation at the home of our Ambassador to Bulgaria Jim Pardew, President Parvanov said that there is complete public and political consensus on NATO in Bulgaria. I am hopeful Bulgaria's enthusiasm for NATO membership remains high, and the government stays committed to critical reform efforts. After participating in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly meeting in Sofia, I traveled to Macedonia, Kosovo, Slovakia, Slovenia and Brussels to evaluate the situation in southeast Europe, and to examine progress in Macedonia, Slovakia and Slovenia as they work to join NATO. Following my arrival in Skopje on Tuesday, May 28, 2002, I had the opportunity to visit with our Ambassador to Macedonia, Larry Butler, and his team at the U.S. Embassy. This was my third trip to Macedonia as a member of the U.S. Senate. I first traveled to Macedonia during the war and visited Stankovic refugee camp; my second trip was in February 2000, and I met with President Trajkovski, Prime Minister Goergievski, and ethnic Albanian leader Arben Xhaferi. At that time, our focus was on Kosovo. Since the spring of 2001, all eyes have been in Macedonia. In August 2001, following the outbreak of violence in the spring by ethnic Albanian rebels from Macedonia and Kosovo, the government's political parties came together to sign a peace agreement. The plan-- called the Ohrid Framework Agreement--called for the passage of laws and constitutional reforms to address concerns of Macedonia's ethnic Albanian minority, which makes up approximately one-third of the country's population. At the time of my visit last month, the government was expected to pass a final package of laws to implement the Ohrid Framework Agreement. This was a primary topic of discussion in my conversations with our Ambassador and staff at the U.S. embassy, as well as President Trajkovski and Mr. Xhaferi. While the parliament did not act in the days immediately following my visit, as hoped, I was pleased to learn that fifteen of the seventeen outstanding laws were passed last Thursday, June 20, 2002. I am hopeful that action on the remaining issues will be taken soon. During my meeting with Arben Xhaferi, he stressed the importance of the international community's involvement in Macedonia. He said the United States should continue to play a role in Macedonia--both with its military presence and financial assistance. While I agree with Mr. Xhaferi that U.S. involvement in the region is important, I stressed to him that the people of Macedonia--regardless of ethnicity--must take action to improve the situation in their country. While the international community can play a helpful role, ultimately, things are in the hands of the people and their elected leaders. As such, I encouraged Mr. Xhaferi to move forward with efforts to implement democratic and economic reforms, and to promote respect for the rule of law. I also shared with him my strong concern with organized crime, corruption and human trafficking in the region, and urged him to take action in this area. During my meetings, it was also clear that demarcation of the border between Macedonia and Kosovo has become a significant political issue in both Macedonia and Kosovo. Some in Macedonia would like to move forward with the demarcation of border, recognized by the U.N. Security Council, which was formally agreed upon by Macedonia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in March 2001. Judging from my conversations in Kosovo, however, it was evident that there is not yet a consensus regarding the right time to put down markers along the border. This issue must be approached with caution. I am also hopeful that free and fair parliamentary elections will take place in Macedonia on September 15, 2002, as planned. The United States and members of the international community, including the European Union, should do everything in their power to stress to leaders in Macedonia the importance of permitting people to go to the polls without incidence this fall. On Wednesday, May 29, 2002, I spent the day in Kosovo. It was my third trip to Kosovo since February 2000, and the fourth full day that I have spent there. During my time in the Senate, I have been very active on issues affecting southeast Europe, and I have been particularly concerned with the situation of ethnic minorities and respect for minority rights throughout the region--in Bosnia- Herzegovina, Croatia, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, as well as Kosovo. As such, I was glad to have the opportunity to examine this issue in Kosovo last month. I spent time with the Head of UNMIK Michael Steiner, as well as Commander of KFOR General Valentin. I also met with President Rugova and Prime Minister Rexhepi, and Serb leaders Rada Trajkovic and Ljubomir Stanojkovic. I met with Ambassador John Menzies and his team at the U.S. Office in Pristina, and I was glad to visit with General Lute at KFOR Main and some of our troops at Camp Bondsteel, as well as Ambassador Pascal Fieschi, who heads the OSCE Mission in Kosovo. Around the time of my visit, the Organization for Security and Cooperation and Europe (OSCE) and the U.N. High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR) released the Ninth Assessment of the Situation of Ethnic Minorities in Kosovo, which describes the quality of life experienced by Kosovo's minority groups. My impressions after spending time in Kosovo last month reaffirm many of the conclusions reached in the OSCE-UNHCR report: while there has been some improvement for ethnic minorities, there is still a long way to go. My first reaction was that things seem somewhat better now than they were when I visited nearly 3 years ago. I attribute this to several factors, including work done by the international community, including UNMIK, KFOR, the OSCE and others, as well as the interest that the people of Kosovo have shown in creating their own government following parliamentary elections last November and the election of new leadership in March. I believe the participation of the Serbian minority in the parliamentary elections last November was very important, as was the cooperation of the FRY government, which encourage Kosovar Serbs to vote. Additionally, I was impressed with the ``benchmark'' goals that have been outlined by UNMIK, which call for progress in key areas, including respect for the rule of law, strengthening democratic institutions, and building a civil society. The benchmarks paper also emphasizes respect for minority rights and refugee returns, which deserve attention both from the international community and from the newly elected leadership in Kosovo. This document is very important, as it lays out a plan for Kosovo. It will be critical for the international community to refer to this document from time to time to assess progress and, as necessary, to redouble efforts in certain areas. In the past, I have been concerned that the international community has not been focused in its vision of Kosovo, and this document offers a positive step in the right direction. To make real progress, however, we must encourage Michael Steiner and UNMIK to develop a strategic plan and a critical path for the implementation of the benchmark goals. When I attend the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly meeting in Berlin this July, I will encourage the Head of the OSCE Mission in Kosovo, Pascal Fieschi, to do so. This will allow UNMIK to monitor progress on the benchmark goals. While in Kosovo, I also met with the Commander of KFOR, General Valentin, and discussed with him the security situation in the region. He is optimistic, and believes that there is progress every day. He said things are much better than they were three years ago. Ambassador Fieschi was also encouraged that things have gotten better for Kosovo's minorities, though he indicated that change has been slow. While I agree that things are somewhat better, the findings in the OSCE-UNHCR report are less upbeat. With regard to security and freedom of movement, the report reads: ``Despite the decrease in serious incidents of violence, harassment, intimidation and humiliation of members of minority communities in Kosovo continued to prevail as a feature of daily life.'' This affects all of Kosovo's minorities, including Serbs, Roma, Egyptians, Bosniaks, Croats, Albanians, Turks and others. Serb leaders Rada Trajkovic and Ljubomir Stanojkovic discussed the situation for the Serbian minority with me over lunch in Gracanica, which was my third visit to the city. Though there are still many concerns which must be addressed, I got the general impression that things are somewhat better for the Serbs than they were two years ago. I am encouraged that Dr. Trajkovic and Mr. Stanojkovic are active and participating with the new government, and I believe it is important that they continue to call on others to do the same. I believe it is essential that Serbs participate in the municipal elections this October and take advantage of the opportunity to participate and have a voice at the table of government. During my visit, I met with Ibrahim Rugova, who was elected President in March. This was my second meeting with Mr. Rugova--we visited when I was in Kosovo in February 2000. At that time, I also met with ethnic Albanian leaders Hashim Thaci and Rexhep Oosja. Two years ago, as Mr. Rugova and others continued to call for independence, I expressed my belief that there could be little serious discussion on independence until the rights of all people in Kosovo--including minorities--were protected. During our meeting in May, I again stressed this point. In addition to President Rugova, I also met with the new Prime Minister of Kosovo, Bajram Rexhepi, and discussed with him the situation in Kosovo. I was impressed with him during our meeting. He seems to clearly understand work that needs to be done, focusing on the need for refugee returns and respect for minority rights, as well as the need to stimulate economic development. He reminded me that U.S. leadership in Kosovo, and the region at large, is still very important. While I was pleased that everyone I spoke with during my meetings in Kosovo last month, including President Rugova, Prime Minister Rexhepi, and Michael Steiner, was committed to refugee returns, I am concerned because there are still more minorities leaving Kosovo than returning. With regard to returns, the OSCE-UNHCR report notes that if more people are to actually return, it will ``require much more meaningful and broad progress on the main issues,'' such as security, freedom of movement, essential services and employment. I also believe it is critical that Mr. Steiner and UNMIK articulate a clear action plan for returns. Additionally, following my visit to Kosovo, I remain very concerned with the situation in Mitrovica, which remains divided between north and south. I believe the only way to achieve any progress will be if the international community works with the elected leadership in Kosovo to find a solution. While there are different schools of though as to what should happen in Mitrovica, it is imperative that discussion continues and the parties act to normalize life for all the city's residents. This should happen quickly, and any plan on decentralization to give local communities more a stronger voice should be finalized before the municipal elections in the fall. I also believe we must watch the situation along the border with Macedonia carefully. This issue has become controversial in both Kosovo and Macedonia. While some in Macedonia would like to move forward with the demarcation of the border, this is a sensitive issue which must be approached calmly and rationally. The people of Kosovo do not support this border agreement, and at the end of May, the Kosovo Assembly passed a resolution denouncing the border agreement--which Michael Steiner immediately annulled. I believe there should be discussion on this matter, with all involved parties together at one table. Following my time in Kosovo, I traveled to the Slovak Republic to discuss the country's aspirations to join the NATO Alliance, and to assess their progress as they continue to participate in the membership action plan process. Though my time was limited, I was pleased to finally have the chance to travel to Slovakia--which was the only country aspiring to join the NATO Alliance that I had yet to visit. While in Bratislava, I spent time with our Ambassador to Slovakia, Ron Weiser, who is working hard to promote the merits of democracy, the rule of law and a free market economy as the country looks toward membership in NATO. I believe his work is important in the months leading to parliamentary elections this September, which could be a determining factor in Slovakia's candidacy for NATO membership. During my visit, I had the opportunity to meet with Prime Minister Mikulas Dzurinda, who has pushed forward with critical economic and democratic reforms in Slovakia since becoming prime minister in 1998. His government has placed a top priority on joining NATO and the European Union. Prime Minister Dzurinda and I discussed ongoing efforts to liberalize the economy, strengthen democratic institutions and modernize the country's armed forces. We also talked about the importance of respecting minority rights including the rights of the country's ethnic Hungarian community. Additional, I expressed my strong concern with the problems of organized crime, corruption and human trafficking in central and eastern Europe, and encouraged the Prime Minister and his government to move forward with efforts to address these problems. I also met with Robert Fico, leader of the Smer (Direction) political party, who hopes to be the country's next prime minister. Young and charismatic, Fico's animate campaign signs were all around town as we drove from one meeting to the next. Fico and his colleague also expressed their strong support for Slovakia's membership in NATO and the European Union. As the polls are close, it is possible that he could play a role in the formation of the next government. Following my arrival at the Bratislava airport. I met with Defense State Secretary Ratislav Kacer. We discussed ongoing defense reforms, and the country's efforts to increase defense spending. During my time in public service, I have often said it is important to ``work harder and smarter,'' and do more with lees.'' Mr. Kacer knew of my philosophy, and said this could be helpful to Slovakia as the country works to modernize with limited resources. He reiterated the country's strong support of NATO, and said the government has aligned its own national defense priorities with issues important to the Alliance. Additionally, I have the oportunity to visit with ethnic. Hungarian Leader Mr. Laszlo Dobos, who was a member of Slovakia's parliament during the 1990s. Dr. Dobos is founder and chairman of Madach Posonium, as a Hungarian non-governmental organization that operates Hungarian bookstores in Slovakia and publishes Hungarian periodicals. We discussed a numb4er of tissues of concern to Slovakias Hungarian community, including higher education and greater autonomy for local governments. During at all meetings in Slovakia, I noted that the upcoming elections will be very important to the future of the country. Voters will decide the direction of he Slovakis Republic--and whether it moves toward membership in NATO and the DU, or whether it is left behind as others joint he broader European Community of democracies. Values are the hallmark of the NATO allcance, and I believe it is critical that Slovakia embraces the ideals of democracy, the rule of low and respect for human rights, consistnt with the current government, and break with the leadership of Vladimir Mecior that has been of strong concern to the United States, the Europe Union and other members international community in the past. I was also glad to have the opportunity to visit Slovakia to talk about the country's work to join the NATO Alliance. I have long followed developments in Slovenia, and I believe the country is in a very good position as we approach the NATO summit in Prague. Slovenia has made considerable progress on democratic, economic and defense reforms, and there is continued discussion on the merits of NATO membership in the public. At the same time, it is important that the government act to bolster public support for NATO, which has continued to hover around 50 percent. It is also imperative that the country work to increase its defense budget to the 2 percent mark. Currently, Solvenia allocates approximately 1.5 percent of GDP for its armed forces. During my time in Slovenia I had the opportunity to visit with President Milan Kucan, who I have known for many years. We discussed the country's work to join NATO, as well as its progress in efforts to prepare for membership in the European Union. With regard to public opinion, President Kucan indicated that public support for NATO is not a problem. He said people want to discuss the implications of membership in the Alliance and debate the merits of joining NATO. We also discussed Solvenia's progress on military reforms, as well as the country's interest in working to promote security and stability in southeast Europe. I again discussed these issues and found the same enthusiasm for Slovenia's membership in NATO and the European Union with members of the Slovenian parliament, including the President of Parliament Borut Pahor, President of the Foreign Affairs Committee Jelko Kacin and President of the Defense Committee Doran Marsic. Even the opposition expressed a solid commitment to moving forward with efforts to join the NATO Alliance. During consideration of a resolution on whether or not to have a national referendum on Slovenia's membership in NATO before the Prague summit, there was a very strong consensus that this should not happen until after the November meeting--with 63 agreeing that this should not happen immediately, with 9 opposing. I also discussed these issues with Prime Minister Janez Drnovsek, who has recently announced his intention to run for President of Slovenia, as well as Minister of Defense Anton Grizold. Additionally, I visited with our ambassador, John Young, and discussed the country's strong candidacy for membership in both NATO and the European Union. I am hopeful that public support for NATO membership will continue to grow, and I am glad that this will be an enlightened decision in Slovenia given the high level of discussion on the issue. Following meetings in Slovenia on Friday, May 31, 2002, I traveled to Brussels to visit with our Ambassador to NATO, Nick Burns, and the director of Javier Solana's Balkans Task Force, Mr. Stefan Lehne. During my meeting with Stefan Lehne, I discussed my long interest in southeast Europe and impressions from my recent visits to Macedonia and Kosovo. I spoke with him about my strong concern with political situation in Macedonia, and urged the European Union to remain involved in efforts to bring all parties to the table to discuss disagreements over the order between Macedonia and Kosovo. I also told him I believe it is essential that the international community do everything in its power to encourage the Macedonian government to remain committed to free and fair parliamentary elections scheduled for this September. We also discussed my interest in the Stability Pact--in particular, the Stability Pact's Quick Start Infrastructure Projects. I believe it is critical that the Pact make its intentions clear on the Quick Start projects. Finally, we discussed my concern with organized crime, corruption and trafficking in human beings, drugs and weapons that plague many countries in central and eastern Europe. I encouraged Mr. Lehne to make these problems a top priority, as they undermine efforts on behalf of the international community to promote democratic reforms and respect for the rule of law in many of Europe's new democracies. With Ambassador Nick Burns, I discussed my interest in NATO enlargement and observations from my visits to Bulgaria, Macedonia, Slovakida and Slovenia. While I share the vision of President Bush for a large round of enlargement in Prague, I expressed to Ambassador Burns my strong concern with the need for continued action in candidate countries. As we approach Prague, we must decide whether each candidate country has gone for enough to take the necessary steps to join the Alliance. And as we answer that question, we will also ask whether or not action is still needed, and whether reforms are best encouraged if that country is extended an invitation at Prague, or if that country is instead asked to continue reforms while looking toward the next round of enlargement. These will be difficult questions, and we must be prepared to answer them. I look forward to continued discussion with the administration and my colleagues in the Senate on NATO enlargement in the months ahead, and I encourage NATO aspirant countries to take as many steps as they can between now and November to address issues outlined in their respective Membership Action Plans. Additionally, I will continue to be active and involved in the Senate on issues affecting southeast Europe. We had a very productive Helsinki Commission hearing to examine the situation for ethnic minorities in Kosovo earlier this month, and I will continue to discuss this issue when I participate in the annual meeting of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly next week.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. I was just here listening to this interesting debate.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I rise today in support of the Gregg- Feingold amendment. I realize that some of my colleagues will say that this is not the right time or place to consider budget process reforms. I strongly disagree. In fact, I wonder if my colleagues realize how bad the budget situation has become. According to the most recent calculations from the Senate Budget Committee, the budget outlook has swung dramatically in the past year. Last year, CBO predicted a $313 billion surplus for fiscal year 2002. Now, instead of a surplus, we face a tremendous deficit. We will borrow and spend the entire $163 billion Social Security surplus and on top of that we are going to have to borrow an additional $137 billion from the private markets. To sum it up, we are going to borrow $300 billion in the 2002 budget. This is new debt, on top of the staggering $6 trillion debt we already owe. The budget outlook for fiscal year 2003 is just as bad. The way things look now, we will borrow and spend the entire $179 billion Social Security surplus projected for next year. And on top of that we will have to borrow at least another $100 billion to fund the Government next year. Some people might think a surge in economic growth is going to bail us out of our budget problems. It won't. These skyrocketing deficit figures are based on CBO's assumption that the economy will grow by 5.4 percent next year. If that does not happen, the 2003 budget deficit is even going to be worse. My point is: these deficits will not go away on their own. We must prioritize. We must make hard choices. Unfortunately, our record on making hard choices is not encouraging. Just look at the farm bill. It speaks volumes about the lack of fiscal discipline in this body. We need to put our foot down and recognize the obvious. In order to be fiscally responsible we have to live within our means and we must rein in spending. That is why I am cosponsoring this amendment. The amendment won't solve all our budget problems. As everyone in this Chamber knows, we regularly circumvent budget rules, and I have no doubt that we will push in some instances to do the same thing this time. Nonetheless, we need to do something. This amendment marks an important first step to regain control. I am working with my friend from Wisconsin and other Senators on other legislation to improve the budget process. And we hope to introduce that legislation soon. But in the mean time, this amendment would help keep the national debt in check. We cannot wait. We have to act now. We have a moral obligation to our children and grandchildren. Remember, at the end of the day, it is their future we are mortgaging away. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this very important amendment.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Dayton- Craig amendment. This amendment reduces Trade Promotion Authority to something that exists in name only. With all due respect to the sponsors of this amendment, it is a backdoor attempt to gut this bill and still allow people to say they voted for free trade. It would have a chilling effect on international trade negotiations. Supporters of the Dayton-Craig amendment claim that unless you support their amendment then you do not support upholding U.S. trade laws. Nothing could be further from the truth. I stand before you as a strong free trader who is a proponent of vigorous enforcement of our country's trade laws. I supported NAFTA and GATT as Governor and PNTR for China as a Senator. I've seen Ohio benefit from NAFTA with a net increase of approximately 55,000 jobs and I've seen it also lose out as a result of our President not having Trade Promotion Authority. At the same time, no one cares more about making sure our trade laws are followed. Ohio has lost tens of thousands of steelworker jobs as a result of foreign steel dumping, which led me to urge the President to use Section 201 authority to help provide relief to our nation's steel industry. He did so and our steel industry now has a breather to reconstitute itself and regain its competitive footing. I also have been a committed advocate of strengthening enforcement of our trade laws by addressing the human capital needs in the Commerce Department's international trade divisions. I recently held a hearing in which I pushed Undersecretary for International Trade Grant Aldonis on the need to address these very concerns. In little more than a year in office this Administration has already demonstrated its commitment to U.S trade laws. In a letter to Congress this week, Commerce Secretary Don Evans, Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick point out: We have been committed not just to preserving U.S. trade laws, but more importantly, to using them. The Administration initiated an historic Section 201 investigation that led to the imposition of wide-ranging safeguards for the steel industry. The Administration's willingness to enforce vigorously our trade laws, in Canadian lumber and other cases, sends the clearest signal of our interest in defending these laws in the WTO. Our trade laws are part of the overall trade equation that enhances American competitiveness by helping to guarantee new access to world markets. They require the approval of Congress before any changes are made. To buy the argument that opposition to this amendment equates to relinquishing control of our trade laws is to believe that Congress is simply going to give up its legislative duty to the executive branch. That is not going to happen. The argument is simply groundless and without merit. Additionally, logic dictates that no trade negotiator is going to agree to something which will automatically be rejected by Congress. The congressional observers guarantee that Congress is aware of what is being negotiated as it is happening. Congress has the final say in approving trade deals with its final vote and if I am confident of anything it is that this body is willing to hold up any and all legislation that gives a member even the most minor case of heartburn. Trade Promotion Authority does not equate to gutting our trade laws. This Administration has already proven itself to be a strong defender of our trade laws and, regardless, Congress has the final say over legislation, not the executive branch. Furthermore, this amendment should be opposed because of the chilling effect it will have on the negotiating process. Sufficient safeguards already exist in the TPA legislation to guarantee the legitimate and constitutional role of Congress as the final guardian of trade law. This amendment goes beyond that, however, with limits which would essentially allow additional and superfluous votes to hold hostage international trade negotiations. As a manager, I would never assign a task to someone without also empowering them with the tools and authority to get the job done. Dayton-Craig takes those tools away. Its effect wouldn't be felt somewhere down the road, it would have an impact now, today. The very fact that this amendment has been offered has had an impact already on our trading partners, I am sure. Again, Ambassador Zoellick writes that: The rest of the world will determine that the U.S. Congress has ruled out even discussion of a major topic. Other countries will refuse to discuss their own sensitive subjects, unraveling the entire trade negotiation to the detriment of U.S. workers, farmers and consumers. Without the ability to engage our trading partners effectively on their own trade laws, we cannot hope to see other countries raise their laws to U.S. standards. Our country's exports are frequently targeted by foreign trade interests for action. Between 1995 and 2000, our exports were targeted for action in foreign countries 81 times. Other governments do not necessarily share our commitment to fair and open procedures, such as those conducted by our International Trade Commission. To prevent unfair trade actions against our exporters, we must have the leverage to engage them constructively. This amendment strips us of that ability, which is one reason 79 agricultural groups urge us to reject the Dayton-Craig amendment. If anyone is opposed to free trade, I urge them to vote their conscience. While I disagree with them, I respect their position, but don't pretend to be for free trade and then call for an amendment which guts the ability of our President to negotiate the agreements that make free trade a reality.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of an amendment which recognizes the importance of the automotive industry to the U.S. economy and to our international trade agreements. The auto industry is a cornerstone of the U.S. economy, directly or indirectly supporting one out of every 15 jobs in America. Auto manufacturing and related industries account for 6.5 million jobs nationwide, nearly a quarter million of which are in my home state of Ohio. Ohio boasts the 2nd highest auto industry employment in the country, and that industry represents $22.6 billion in wages and benefits for Ohioans. Furthermore, the production assembly line that characterizes the modern automobile industry was invented in the American Midwest and is now used in factories across the globe. Currently, the U.S. automotive market is the most open and competitive in the world. Our allies in Europe and our trading partners in developing nations alike have free access to American markets and consumers. Unfortunately, that is not true for American auto manufacturers. United States companies face significant pre-meditated trade barriers in the same countries that enjoy free trade and exports to the United States. In fact, the automotive industry trade deficit has accounted for one-third of the total U.S. trade deficit since 1992. These results do not represent the intent or spirit of the free trade agreements signed in recent years, such as NAFTA and GATT, and the time has come to remove the barriers to free and open trade for American automobile manufacturers. I know firsthand how difficult it is to open trade for American auto manufacturers. I vividly recall the free trade mission that I led in 1997 to South Korea. I spent two days with top government leaders and private sector groups urging them to open their markets to non-Korean made automobiles. Quite frankly, although they listened, I felt I was talking to a brick wall and received absolutely no satisfaction whatsoever. On the contrary, the Korean officials were proud to report that their imports doubled yet the actual number of those imports was a mere fraction of Korea's total auto sales. That was 1997 and today--May 22, 2002--5 years later there has been no progress since I visited. Mr. President, I would have hoped that things would have improved. Last year, South Korea exported more than 1.5 million vehicles to the world, while importing only 7,747. Also last year, South Korea exported more than 618,000 vehicles to the U.S., while importing a mere 2,854 from the U.S. In fact, South Korea sells more cars in the U.S. per day than U.S. manufacturers sell in South Korea all year. In addition to unfair trade regulations, the Korean authorities use another barrier to prevent their citizens from buying American cars: intimidation. According to auto industry sources, Koreans caught driving American-made cars can anticipate such punitive measures as getting pulled over by the police, being subject to more parking violations, and even experiencing more frequent and severe tax audits than their neighbors who drive Korean-made automobiles. Why would any Korean citizen choose to drive an American vehicle when faced with consequences like these? Currently, the Baucus-Grassley TPA bill includes 14 major objectives for U.S. trade negotiators. The first of these objectives is to expand competitive market opportunities for U.S. exports in foreign markets by reducing or eliminating tariff and nontariff barriers that prevent U.S. goods from entering these markets. Our amendment states that as trade agreements are negotiated in the future, U.S. trade negotiators should specifically aim to open up export markets for U.S. automakers and vehicle parts manufacturers. Opening up export markets for U.S. automakers and parts manufacturers is critical, because in the future, the majority of growth in these industries will not be in the U.S., but in the developing nations of Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe. Our amendment will tell trade negotiators that they need to make sure that U.S. automakers are in a position to compete fairly in these high-growth markets. Today, sales of new passenger vehicles account for nearly 4 percent of total U.S. GDP. Clearly, the automotive industry is important to the economic growth and stability of our economy and we must take action to protect and strengthen an industry so vital to our nation. Our amendment will make a difference for American manufacturers, consumers and our economy as a whole. Without it, one of America's most important manufacturing industries could soon take second place to foreign competitors. Opening new markets for our products helps create jobs and stimulate our economy, both of which are especially important as we seek to move out of recession. I urge my colleagues to join in this growth and vote for this amendment.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Early Care and Education Act of 2002 which was introduced today by Chairman Kennedy. I am proud to have been invited by him to work on this legislation, together with the ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Senator Gregg, and the other distinguished cosponsors. Early childhood development is a true passion of mine. In fact, one of the first bills I introduced when I came to the Senate in 1999 was an early childhood development bill targeting children from prenatal through age three. And the following year I was pleased to work with Senators Stevens and Kennedy on the Early Learning Opportunities Act. Leading researchers from the distinguished National Research Council and Institute of Medicine emphasize that the first years of a child's life are the most important time in a child's development in terms of socialization and brain synapses, both of which are necessary for learning. As a fiscal conservative, I believe that one of the best investments the federal government can make is in 0-3. Providing comprehensive early care that includes physical, social, emotional and cognitive development makes a real difference in a child's future because it not only prepares them for preschool, but also carries through to provide success from K through 12. I am encouraged that both the President and First Lady are working actively to raise the profile of this important bipartisan initiative that will provide high-quality, comprehensive care for young children. When I was Governor of Ohio, I prioritized early childhood development, drawing a line in the sand and determining that our State would not allow another generation of children to fall by the wayside. We committed to meeting the health, education and social service needs of the disadvantaged from prenatal through kindergarten. Ohio became the nation's leader in Head Start by fully-funding it--in combination with other State programs, so that every eligible child had a space if their parents choose it. Then we began local partnerships between government agencies and community organizations in every county, with the goal of having all children in Ohio starting school ready to learn. I should also mention something we seem to forget, that the first goal of the national initiative launched in 1989, Goals 200, was that by the year 2000, all children in America would start school ready to learn. Ohio also launched Help Me Grow, an information campaign for parents of every income level regarding prenatal and well-baby care, child development, child safety, preventing child abuse and identifying local resources to help with all those issues that are so essential to raising a healthy child. I was so impressed with the results we saw in Ohio that I agreed as vice-chairman of the National Governors Association to join with Governor Miller of Nevada to make early childhood development a two- year priority. This was the first time two consecutive chairmen of the National Governors Association joined in having the same priority, encouraging States to focus on child development from 0-3. I also worked with Rob Reiner, who created and developed the I am Your Child Foundation, and who has done so much to raise awareness and provide assistance to parents for early child care. The bill that Senators Kennedy, Gregg, Murray, and I are introducing will build on what States such as Ohio have already done, coordinate efforts and target dollars to make a real difference for those young children who are the most vulnerable in our society. The incentive grants in the bill will help states that have already started down this path provide higher quality services, but more importantly, this bill will provide the catalyst for those States that have not yet made early childhood development a priority. I'm amazed today that only 13 states have actually put State money into the Head Start program. Unfortunately, for families in some states, there is no coordinated system that connects parents of young children to a network of information and resources for assistance with the comprehensive early care a child needs to start school ready to learn. By providing Federal dollars to help states coordinate their efforts, we are drawing a line in the sand for the Nation and saying, ``This is the generation that will have every child starting school ready to learn.'' As a federalist, I believe states can and should have a big role in helping make our Nation a better place to live. This bill provides the Federal-State partnership which is appropriate, avoids federally imposed one-size-fits-all solutions, and gives States the flexibility to find solutions that best fit their citizens' needs. I think the best evidence of how important that is, is the successful reform of this country's welfare system. I've seen what works and I've seen what doesn't. I'm glad to be a part of the team to get this bill passed and I pray that my fellow Senators are inspired to understand how important this is to the future of America.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Early Care and Education Act of 2002 which was introduced today by Chairman Kennedy. I am proud to have been invited by him to work on this legislation, together with the ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Senator Gregg, and the other distinguished cosponsors. Early childhood development is a true passion of mine. In fact, one of the first bills I introduced when I came to the Senate in 1999 was an early childhood development bill targeting children from prenatal through age three. And the following year I was pleased to work with Senators Stevens and Kennedy on the Early Learning Opportunities Act. Leading researchers from the distinguished National Research Council and Institute of Medicine emphasize that the first years of a child's life are the most important time in a child's development in terms of socialization and brain synapses, both of which are necessary for learning. As a fiscal conservative, I believe that one of the best investments the federal government can make is in 0-3. Providing comprehensive early care that includes physical, social, emotional and cognitive development makes a real difference in a child's future because it not only prepares them for preschool, but also carries through to provide success from K through 12. I am encouraged that both the President and First Lady are working actively to raise the profile of this important bipartisan initiative that will provide high-quality, comprehensive care for young children. When I was Governor of Ohio, I prioritized early childhood development, drawing a line in the sand and determining that our State would not allow another generation of children to fall by the wayside. We committed to meeting the health, education and social service needs of the disadvantaged from prenatal through kindergarten. Ohio became the nation's leader in Head Start by fully-funding it--in combination with other State programs, so that every eligible child had a space if their parents choose it. Then we began local partnerships between government agencies and community organizations in every county, with the goal of having all children in Ohio starting school ready to learn. I should also mention something we seem to forget, that the first goal of the national initiative launched in 1989, Goals 200, was that by the year 2000, all children in America would start school ready to learn. Ohio also launched Help Me Grow, an information campaign for parents of every income level regarding prenatal and well-baby care, child development, child safety, preventing child abuse and identifying local resources to help with all those issues that are so essential to raising a healthy child. I was so impressed with the results we saw in Ohio that I agreed as vice-chairman of the National Governors Association to join with Governor Miller of Nevada to make early childhood development a two- year priority. This was the first time two consecutive chairmen of the National Governors Association joined in having the same priority, encouraging States to focus on child development from 0-3. I also worked with Rob Reiner, who created and developed the I am Your Child Foundation, and who has done so much to raise awareness and provide assistance to parents for early child care. The bill that Senators Kennedy, Gregg, Murray, and I are introducing will build on what States such as Ohio have already done, coordinate efforts and target dollars to make a real difference for those young children who are the most vulnerable in our society. The incentive grants in the bill will help states that have already started down this path provide higher quality services, but more importantly, this bill will provide the catalyst for those States that have not yet made early childhood development a priority. I'm amazed today that only 13 states have actually put State money into the Head Start program. Unfortunately, for families in some states, there is no coordinated system that connects parents of young children to a network of information and resources for assistance with the comprehensive early care a child needs to start school ready to learn. By providing Federal dollars to help states coordinate their efforts, we are drawing a line in the sand for the Nation and saying, ``This is the generation that will have every child starting school ready to learn.'' As a federalist, I believe states can and should have a big role in helping make our Nation a better place to live. This bill provides the Federal-State partnership which is appropriate, avoids federally imposed one-size-fits-all solutions, and gives States the flexibility to find solutions that best fit their citizens' needs. I think the best evidence of how important that is, is the successful reform of this country's welfare system. I've seen what works and I've seen what doesn't. I'm glad to be a part of the team to get this bill passed and I pray that my fellow Senators are inspired to understand how important this is to the future of America.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate has passed H.R. 327, the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002. As my colleagues know, small businesses are the backbone of our economy and significantly important to the fiscal health of the United States. Small businesses constitute more than 90 percent of this nation's employers, employ 53 percent of the private workforce, and create approximately 74 percent of this country's new jobs. While on the whole, America's small business owners are successful, the numerous federal paperwork requirements that they must face, I believe, have had a negative impact on further entrepreneurial growth in the United States. There is little doubt that America's small business owners could be even more successful if they were able to devote more time and resources to their businesses instead of mountains of federal paperwork. That is why I introduced S. 1271, the Senate companion to H.R. 327, on July 30, 2001. I was pleased when the Senate passed S. 1271 on December 17, 2001. This ``good government'' legislation continues the efforts on the part of Congress to streamline and reduce paperwork burdens on small businesses and help increase the productivity of American business. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has estimated that the federal paperwork burden is 7.2 billion hours annually, at a cost of some $190 billion per year. Small business owners are particularly hurt by regulatory and paperwork burdens. The Small Business Administration (SBA) estimates that the costs to small businesses are a staggering $5,100 per employee. While many of these requirements are important and necessary, the high costs of understanding them and complying with them can sometimes prevent small businesses from being able to expand or even stay afloat. In some cases, this burden can deter entrepreneurs from opening in the first place. The Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002 will help improve the ability of small business owners to understand and comply with federal regulations and paperwork mandates through the following helpful provisions: A requirement for the Office of Management and Budget to annually publish in the Federal Register and on the Internet a list of the compliance assistance resources available to small businesses; A requirement for each federal agency to establish a single point of contact to help small business owners fill out forms and comply with federal regulations; A requirement for each federal agency to make further efforts to reduce paperwork for small businesses with fewer than 25 employees; The establishment of an interagency task force to develop an interactive government web-site to help each small business owner understand which federal paperwork requirements and regulations apply to his or her business; An amendment to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) to require that each agency provide information on the number of enforcement actions in which civil penalties are assessed, the number of such actions against small entities, the number of such actions in which civil penalties are reduced or waived, and the monetary amount of each reduction or waiver. I am pleased that the Senate has taken action in considering this important legislation, and I am also pleased that the bill enjoys bipartisan support. I would particularly like to thank Senator Blache Lincoln for joining me in introducing this bill. I would also thank Senators Lieberman and Thompson for cosponsoring this legislation and for their strong leadership in advancing it through the Governmental Affairs Committee and the Senate. I would like to thank all of the other cosponsors of S. 1271, Senators Bond, Bunning, Carnahan, Carper, Cleland, Conrad, Dayton, Jeffords, Kerry, Leahy, and Miller for their strong support. I would also recognize Representatives Dan Burton and Doug Ose and their staffs for their strong leadership in crafting, introducing and passing this measure in the House. I would like to thank Representative Henry Waxman and John Tierney and all the members of the House of Representatives who supported this bipartisan effort. The Bush Administration is to be commended for their support of this bill and I appreciate the valuable recommendations of the Office of Management and Budget that will make this bill more effective in helping our Nation's small business owners. It is my hope that the House of Representatives will pass this final version of this measure shortly and that we will have a final bill for the President's signature very soon. The many business groups who have lent their support and helped us craft a solid bill are also deserving of mention, particularly: the National Federation of Independent Businesses; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; the American Farm Bureau Federation; the Cleveland Growth Association; the Associated Builders and Contractors; the National Association of Convenience Stores; the American Feed Industry Association; the National Association of Manufacturers; the National Tooling and Machining Association; National Small Business United; the National Restaurant Association; the National Pest Management Association; the Academy of General Dentistry; the American Road and Transportation Builders Association; the Small Business Coalition for Regulatory Relief; the Small Business Legislative Council; the Small Business Survival Committee; the Agricultural Retailer Association; the Associated General Contractors; the Automotive Parts and Service Alliance; the Food Marketing Institute; the National Automobile Dealers Association; the National Business Association; the National Roofing Contractors Association; the Society of American Florists and the North American Equipment Dealers Association. Finally, I would like to thank David Gray, a former employee of my Subcommittee staff, for all of his hard work on this legislation. Once again, I am pleased that the Senate has acted to provide relief to small business owners. This bill will help save time and money and will allow small business owners the ability to better understand and comply with federal regulations and paperwork requirements. It is good for the country and good for our economy, and I thank my colleagues for their support in passing this bill today.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. In the resolution, they note: ``We believe that NATO is the backbone of the transatlantic community and has been an effective bulwark in the defense of freedom, democracy and human rights. We further believe that a strong involvement of the United States in Europe serves the vital interest of the United States.'' I strongly support that message, and I share the sentiments expressed by President Bush in remarks he delivered in Poland last June, when he said that as the NATO Summit in Prague approaches, ``We should not calculate how little we can get away with, but how much we can do to advance the cause of freedom.'' During the cold war, as a public official in the State of Ohio, I remained a strong supporter of the captive nations, who were for so many years denied the right of self-determination by the former Soviet Union. When I was mayor of Cleveland during the 1980s, we celebrated the independence days of the captive nations at city hall--flying their flags, singing their songs and praying that one day the people in those countries would know freedom. In August 1991, as communism's grip loosened, I wrote a letter to then-President George H.W. Bush urging him to recognize the independence of the Baltic nations. Now, these countries are among those being considered for membership in the NATO alliance. Last May, I had the opportunity to visit Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania as part of a Senate delegation traveling to the meeting of the NATO parliamentary assembly, and I--along with my colleagues--was very impressed with what I saw. Our observations were confirmed when many of us visited with General Ralston. He spoke very eloquently about what he has seen in the Baltic nations--with heavy emphasis on their communication systems. He spoke about BALTnet, and said the communication system in place in the Balts is as good as any system within NATO. So is the network in Slovenia they are ready to plug into NATO immediately. As I stood with my colleagues in the streets of Lithuania--surrounded by thousands of Lithuanian citizens all rallying in support of NATO enlargement--I remembered the celebrations we had in Cleveland years earlier, when Lithuania was still part of the Soviet empire. It was a remarkable feeling for me to stand in a free Lithuania, and to talk about making the country part of the NATO alliance. After I returned to the United States, I sent a letter to President Bush conveying my impressions of some of the work done in those countries. I encouraged him to guarantee the freedom of those once subjected to life under Communism by making clear his strong support for NATO enlargement. I was pleased when the President outlined his vision for NATO enlargement in Warsaw last summer, noting that ``All of Europe's new democracies, from the Baltic to the Black Sea and all that lie between, should have the same chance for security and freedom--and the same chance to join the institutions of Europe--as Europe's old democracies have.'' During my time in the Senate, I have been privileged to travel to a number of other NATO aspirant countries--Macedonia and Albania during the war in Kosovo in 1999, and Slovenia, Romania, and Croatia in 2000. I will visit Bulgaria over the Memorial Day recess to take part in the meeting of the NATO parliamentary assembly, and I also hope to visit Slovenia and Slovakia--the only country on the list that I have yet to visit--later this month. As we approach the Prague summit in November, the NATO alliance finds itself at pivotal point in world history. More than a decade ago, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet empire marked a moment of profound change for millions of people in Europe and the world at large. It was clear that the global political scene was changed forever. As we look toward Prague, it is evident that the world is again a changed place. We face new challenges, and we must rise to meet them. It is clear that the events of September 11 have given all of us a new focus. They have opened our eyes to issues that must not be ignored. I am grateful for the support that the United States has received from our NATO allies and those countries aspiring to join the alliance. This assistance is critical for the international community to be successful in carrying out a comprehensive campaign to fight terrorism, and it is important that these collaborative efforts continue. NATO's decision to invoke article V--signifying that an attack on one was an attack on all--sent a strong message of solidarity to the people of the United States, and the world at large. The world is different not just for us in America, but for all of Western civilization. NATO has begun to examine the role the alliance will play in efforts to protect the world against threats associated with terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Without a doubt, the events of September 11 dramatically impacted the conversations that took place in Iceland last week, and they will certainly influence the agenda in Prague this November. As the United States and other members of NATO consider enlargement of the alliance in the six months leading to Prague, it is within the broader context of a changed world post-9-11. I believe this debate is still very relevant. In fact, as some have said, discussion about NATO enlargement is perhaps more important now than ever before. I strongly agree with remarks made by Under Secretary of State Grossman in testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee earlier this month. While acknowledging that some people have argued that after September 11, expansion of the alliance should not remain a priority, Secretary Grossman said he does not agree. He remarked, ``I believe that enlargement should remain a priority . . . The events of September 11th show us that the more allies we have, the better off we're going to be; the more allies we have to prosecute the war on terrorism, the better off we're going to be. And if we're going to meet these new threats to our security, we need to build the broadest and strongest coalition possible of countries that share our values and are able to act effectively with us. With freedom under attack, we must demonstrate our resolve to do as much as we can to advance our cause.'' While NATO is a collective security organization, formed to defend freedom and democracy in Europe, we cannot forget that common values form the foundation of the alliance. When we consider enlargement to include Europe's new democracies, we must answer a central question: how would each country contribute to the collective security of the NATO alliance? When we answer that question, our response should certainly factor in the military attributes of each aspirant country, which continue to be evaluated by U.S. and NATO military officials. At the same time, as NATO evaluates its needs for the future, we should take into consideration other ways in which aspirant countries can contribute to the collective defense of Europe. Since September 11, the United States and NATO have called on members of the international community to provide critical assistance in a number of areas outside of the traditional military realm. While these do not outweigh the need for improved defense capabilities, such as strategic airlift capabilities and improved communication systems, they are nonetheless critical to thwarting future terrorist attacks. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage outlined a number of these areas in remarks to leaders of the NATO aspirant countries at the V-10 summit in Bucharest, Romania 2 months ago. Secretary Armitage said, ``The threats we now face have changed the way we think about defending ourselves and broadened the scope of possible contributions to the common defense. Forces in the field remain indispensable, but other contributions are just as important. Law enforcement, intelligence sharing, controlling the flow of terrorist financing are essential weapons in responding to today's threats.'' We have seen the benefit of these contributions as the international community continues to engage in a global campaign against terrorism. The nine NATO aspirant countries, as well as Croatia, have reached out to the United States in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. They have pledged their solidarity, volunteered their resources, and shared intelligence information with the United States and NATO. They have decided to act not as aspirants, but as allies, and their support is highly important. As significant as this cooperation has been, the work is not done. It is critical that countries aspiring to join the alliance continue their efforts to make progress in areas outlined in the membership action plan--developing free market economies, promoting democracy and the rule of law, respecting the rights of minorities, and implementing military reforms. These values are the hallmark of the NATO alliance, and they must not be neglected. Secretary Armitage underscored this point to NATO aspirant countries at the V-10 summit in Bucharest. He reaffirmed President Bush's commitment to enlargement, which the President made clear in his remarks in Warsaw, Poland last June. Secretary Armitage called on the aspirant countries to continue their work, saying, ``We believe that the conditions are better than ever to pursue a robust enlargement. Now it's up to you. You have worked hard on your Membership Action Plans . . . You have pursued political and economic reform programs; and you have continued to restructure your militaries. These efforts must continue.'' I was pleased when NATO foreign ministers again confirmed their belief in the importance of NATO enlargement at the ministerial meeting last week, noting ``At their Prague Summit in November this year, our Heads of State and Government will launch the next round of NATO enlargement. This will confirm the Alliance's commitment to remain open to new members, and enhance security in the Euro-Atlantic area.'' As the U.S. Government has done, NATO foreign ministers called on aspirant countries to continue their work to join the alliance not only in the upcoming months, but in the years beyond November's summit. As we approach the Prague Summit, I look forward to continued discussion about the key issues facing the NATO Alliance. I am pleased that the Secretary of State's visit to Reykjavik was productive, providing a solid foundation for the ambitious agenda to be tackled in Prague. I am confident that our visit to Bulgaria for the meeting of the NATO parliamentary assembly will also serve as a forum to further discussion on the subjects of new capabilities, new members and new relationships. I am pleased that the Senate voted overwhelmingly in favor of the Freedom Consolidation Act last week, which passed by a vote of 85 to 6. This bill puts the Senate on record in support of enlargement of the alliance in Prague, expressing the belief that NATO should remain open to Europe's new democracies able to accept the responsibilities that come with membership. At the same time, as I expressed last week and many of my colleagues made clear during Senate debate of the measure, this does not guarantee Senate support for the extension of invitations to all nine candidate countries in Prague. There is still work to be done, and NATO aspirants should continue to make progress on their membership Action Plans in the months leading to Prague. As a member of Congress who has long been involved with Euro-Atlantic issues, I understand the importance of NATO expansion to strengthening security and stability in Europe. I supported enlargement of the alliance in 1997; I will again support enlargement at Prague. And I believe NATO should be open to further expansion in the future. It is clear that the selection of new members this year will take place in a world vastly different than it was during the last round of enlargement; nonetheless, we should continue to explore questions on enlargement as NATO moves forward to strengthen its ability to provide for the collective defense of Europe in the post September 11th security environment. I strongly believe that supporting NATO expansion demonstrates our country's commitment to freedom, democracy and peace, and I will continue to promote expansion of the Alliance to include Europe's new democracies which demonstrate the ability to handle the responsibility of NATO membership.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, Last week, May 14-15, Secretary of State Colin Powell joined foreign ministers from all 19 members of the NATO Alliance in Reykjavik, Iceland, where they began to lay the groundwork for the Summit of the NATO Alliance in Prague this November. As many of my colleagues are aware, three themes have emerged to fill the agenda in Prague: first, discussion of NATO's capabilities and the ability to respond to today's most urgent threats; second, the selection of new members; and third, the beginning of new relationships with Russia, Ukraine and other members of the international community. During the two-day ministerial meeting in Reykjavik, Secretary Powell and his NATO colleagues addressed each of these issues, beginning with the announcement of a new NATO-Russia Council. As the British foreign minister put it, we saw the end of the cold war--again. The agreement, which is to be finalized in Rome on May 28th, puts Russia and the 19 members of the NATO Alliance at the same table, as equal partners, to discuss a number of issues, including counterterrorism, military cooperation, nonproliferation and peacekeeping. While establishing new areas in which NATO and Russia will work together, the agreement makes certain that NATO will maintain complete control over enlargement and core military issues. This news is even more significant when coupled with the recent announcement that President Bush and Russian President Putin will sign a treaty to reduce their nuclear arsenals by nearly two-thirds when they meet in Moscow later this month. As Secretary Powell remarked in Reykjavik, our relationship with Russia seems to be on sound footing as we look toward the 21st century. It is my hope that conversations continue to be productive, and I look forward to further discussion about the implementation of these two agreements. However, I remain a little bit skeptical that this will substantially change our relationship with Russia. In addition to discussion about NATO's relationship with Russia, the ministerial meeting highlighted the urgent need to address the widening gap in military capabilities between the United States and our NATO allies. As Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Marc Grossman remarked in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on May 1, ``The growing capabilities gap between Europe and the United States is the most serious long-term problem facing NATO, and must be addressed.'' This message is not new to members of the Alliance. We've talked about it before. NATO developed the Defense Capabilities Initiative, DCI, at the Washington Summit in 1999 to begin to address deficiencies in technology and military equipment. But there has been little progress, and as the events of September 11th have made all too clear, the Alliance must have the ability to respond in times of crisis. While the United States and our NATO allies have begun to identify new threats in Europe and beyond, as Secretary Grossman remarked, ``There has to be lots more done at NATO to meet them.'' The United States has identified shortfalls in four key areas of NATO's military capabilities, which Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith outlined in Senate testimony earlier this month. These include: first, nuclear, biological and chemical defenses to protect allied troops and territory; next, the capability to transport troops to the battlefield--in short, we need the right aircraft to get our troops where they need to be; third, communication and information systems to allow allied countries to work together effectively; and finally, modern weapons systems, such as precision- guided munitions and capabilities to suppress enemy air defense. In a NATO Communique released on May 14th, the NATO foreign ministers recognized the need to take steps to improve military capabilities. They note that ``To carry out the full range of its missions, NATO must be able to field forces that can move quickly to wherever they are needed, sustain operations over distance and time, and achieve their objectives.'' In order to fulfill these objectives, they further note that ``This will require the development of new and balanced capabilities within the Alliance, including strategic lift and modern strike capabilities, so that NATO can more effectively respond collectively to any threat of aggression against a member state.'' While this statement is important, I am hopeful that these words will be followed by action and the financial commitments necessary to make this vision a reality. The United States has acted to increase its investment in defense. And as Secretary Powell remarked to reporters last week, ``We think that all of our colleagues in NATO should be doing likewise.'' The United States will spend more than 3.5 percent of its GDP on defense in Fiscal Year 2002. While we ask NATO aspirant countries to spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense, nearly half of NATO's current members do not meet this benchmark. Though we sought to address this issue with the Defense Capabilities Initiative in 1999, defense spending in many countries has actually decreased since that time. If NATO is going to stay relevant, members of the Alliance must do better with their defense budgets. At the NATO Parliamentary Assembly meeting in Sofia, Bulgaria next week, I will be asking them why they have not kept commitments on their defense spending. NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson underscored the importance of making substantial contributions to military capabilities during the meeting in Reykjavik, saying the Alliance must change if it is to be effective. Further, he was clear in his message: NATO must ``modernize or be marginalized.'' Without the ability to communicate and work together in the field, NATO cannot be effective. And without the fundamental ability to get forces to the frontline to provide for the defense of NATO interests when the time comes, NATO cannot fulfill its basic mission of collective security. I look forward to continued discussion on this issue in the months leading to Prague, and I am hopeful that as NATO defense ministers and heads of state discuss viable options for closing the capabilities gap, they come prepared to make financial commitments to finally get the job done. In addition to driving home the need for improved military capabilities, the events of 9/11 and the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan have raised serious questions about NATO's ability to respond to terrorist threats, which may likely originate outside of the Alliance's traditional area of operations. This has already generated much debate, and I believe this will be an important item on the agenda in Prague. It will also be important in Bulgaria. I am hopeful there will be productive dialogue as NATO considers action in this realm in the future. Finally, in addition to new capabilities and new relationships, the question of new members will be on the forefront of the agenda this fall. This is a big deal. I have been a proponent of enlargement of the NATO Alliance to include Europe's new democracies for many years, and I look forward to a robust round of enlargement in Prague. In March, I spoke to a gathering of individuals with ties to every country aspiring to join the NATO Alliance, including: Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia, as well as Croatia. They came together to promote the merits of enlargement as a single, unified group--working together to deliver the message that NATO expansion is in the strategic interest of the United States, Europe, and the broader international community of democracies. As the meeting concluded, the delegation passed a resolution in support of enlargement, reaffirming the importance of NATO to the security and stability of Europe. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Joint Statement prepared at that meeting be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Indiana for his courtesy. I am pleased to have opportunity to speak today on behalf of the Freedom Consolidation Act. I have long supported expansion of the NATO alliance to include Europe's new democracies, and I believe this piece of legislation sends an important signal to countries aspiring to join the alliance. The U.S. Senate supports the process of enlargement that began in Madrid in 1997, and believes NATO should remain open to Europe's new democracies able to accept the responsibilities that come with membership in the alliance. During the cold war, as a public official in the State of Ohio, I remained a strong supporter of the captive nations, who were for so many years denied the right of self-determination by the former Soviet Union. That strong support of the captive nations was generated back in my youth. As a matter of fact, the first paper that I wrote in undergraduate school at Ohio University was about how the United States sold out Yugoslavia at Tehran and Yalta. That grieved me, and I wondered whether those nations would ever have the self-determination that they were promised. When I was mayor of Cleveland during the 1980s, we celebrated the independence days of the captive nations at city hall--flying their flags, singing their songs, and praying that one day those countries would know the freedom that we enjoy in the United States. In August of 1991, as communism's grip loosened, I wrote a letter to then-President George H.W. Bush urging him to recognize the independence of the Baltic nations. Now these countries are among those being considered for membership in the NATO alliance. I know the President remembers last year when we were in Vilnius, Lithuania, on the square before 2,000 Lithuanians. I could not help but think back 15 years and being at the Lithuanian hall of Our Lady of Perpetual Help and wondering if the Lithuania people would ever enjoy freedom. There they were before us, and I had tears rolling out of my eyes. They wanted to join NATO. Last month, I had the opportunity to meet with representatives with ties to NATO-aspirant countries at a meeting organized by the Embassy of the Slovak Republic and cosponsored by the Polish American Congress, strong supporters of the Solidarity movement in Poland and great advocates of Poland becoming a member of NATO. The meeting included individuals from nine aspirant countries, including Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovenia, and Slovakia, as well as Croatia, which was formally invited to join the NATO accession process at the NATO ministerial meeting this week. Representatives from the Czech and Hungarian communities were also there, who were also in favor of continued expansion of the alliance. They came together to promote the merits of enlargement as a single, unified group, and to deliver the message that NATO expansion is in the best interest of the United States of America, Europe, and the broader international community of democracies. The spirit of that meeting I think is encapsulated in this bill; it does not divide; it does not endorse one candidate country over another; rather, it encourages emerging Central and Eastern European democracies to continue reforms to promote democracy, the rule of law, the merits of free market economies, respect for human rights, and military reform. These values are the hallmark of the NATO alliance. And I can tell you that the progress that we have seen in those countries toward the issues I have just enunciated would not have been as aggressive if it wasn't involved in their trying to prove to the other NATO members that they were worthy of membership in NATO. I strongly support that message, and I share the sentiments expressed by President Bush in remarks he delivered in Poland last June, when he was at the NATO summit in Prague. He said: We should not calculate how little we can get away with, but how much we can do to advance the cause of freedom. When NATO heads of state join in Prague this November for the summit of the alliance, three primary items will fill their agenda: First, discussion about capabilities and the future of the alliance; next, the selection of new members; and, finally, new relationships with Russia, Ukraine, and other members of the international community. As the Senator from Indiana said, without a doubt, the events of September 11 have dramatically impacted the conversations that will take place in Prague. As the United States and other members of NATO consider each of these issues, it is within the broader context of a changed world post-9-11. This reality was seen this week when Secretary of State Colin Powell joined his NATO colleagues for a NATO ministerial meeting in Reykjavik, Iceland. New threats facing the alliance in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks against the U.S. influenced discussions on Russia, as NATO foreign ministers reached a historic agreement on a new NATO- Russian Council, and they certainly influenced conversations about the urgent need to address the growing capabilities gap between the United States and our European allies, which I am sure the Senator from Virginia is very much concerned about. They also influenced discussions on NATO enlargement, as the foreign ministers reaffirmed their support of the alliance at Prague. Although there are, without a doubt, a number of pressing questions that the alliance must begin to answer, I believe NATO enlargement is still a high priority because of its importance to U.S. national security and peace in the world. I strongly support a statement made by Under Secretary of State Mark Grossman in his testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee earlier this month, when he said: The events of the September 11 show us that the more allies we have, the better off we are going to be; the more allies we have to prosecute the war on terrorism, the better off we are going to be. And if we are going to meet these new threats to our security, we need to build the broadest and strongest coalition possible of countries that share our values and are able to act effectively with us. With freedom under attack, we must demonstrate our resolve to do as much as we can to advance our cause. Since September 11, the United States and NATO have called on members of the international community to provide critical assistance in a number of areas outside of the traditional military realm. While these do not outweigh the need for improved defense capabilities, such as strategic airlift capabilities and improved communication systems, they are nonetheless critical to thwarting future terrorist attacks. We have seen the benefit of these contributions as the international community continues to engage in a global campaign against terrorism. The nine NATO aspirant countries, as well as Croatia, have reached out to the United States in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. They have pledged their solidarity, volunteered their resources, and shared intelligence information with the United States and NATO. They have decided to not act as aspirants, but as allies, and their strong support is highly important. Senator Lugar, in his remarks, pointed out how much help they have given us so far. As significant as this cooperation has been, the work is not done. It is critical that countries aspiring to join the alliance continue their efforts to make progress in areas outlined in the membership action plan--developing free market economies, promoting democracy and the rule of law, respecting the rights of minorities, implementing military reforms, and committing resources to their defense budgets, just as we are doing. I have made it clear to all of these countries that are seeking membership in NATO that it is the MAP, the membership application plan--we are going to watch what you do, and there is not going to be any automatic entry into NATO; you are going to have to prove you are worthy and show us through your actions and also in your ability to use a good portion of your budget and invest it in defense. As a Member of Congress who has long been involved with transatlantic issues, I understand the importance of NATO expansion to strengthening security and stability in Europe. I supported the enlargement of the alliance in 1997, and I will again support enlargement at Prague. I believe NATO should be open to further expansion in the future. There are probably very few Members of this body who have visited all of the NATO aspirants. I have, with the exception of Slovakia. I have been impressed with what they are doing. I will visit Slovakia, Macedonia, and Slovenia after attending the National Assembly meeting in Bulgaria later this month. Last year Senator Durbin and I visited Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania and were impressed with the commitment they were making to qualify themselves as members of NATO. I remember before we attended the OSE meeting in Paris we visited with General Ralston at Normandy, and he spoke eloquently about what he had seen when he visited the Baltic countries, with heavy emphasis on communications, the BaltNet they put in place, which he said was better than countries that already belonged to NATO, and then being in Slovenia 2 years ago and seeing the communication system they put in place. I will never forget General Kronkaitis, a former U.S. Army General who is now the adviser to the Lithuanian army, and how he really made me very proud of how he had inculcated the spirit that he received from being a member of our U.S. military. I strongly support and believe NATO expansion demonstrates our country's commitment to freedom and democracy in the global arena, and I will continue to promote expansion of the alliance to include Europe's new democracies which demonstrate the ability to handle the responsibility of NATO membership. Ronald Reagan used to talk about trust but verify. Although we have entered into some new negotiations with President Putin and Russia, my history makes me a little bit uneasy. One of the thoughts I had is that now that these countries, which I so longed to have freedom, have freedom, we verify they will continue to have freedom. In other words, they have their self-determination, they have freedom, but the only thing that will make me comfortable before I am taken to some other place is that we verify this trustful relationship we have with Russia. Mr. President, the only way I think we can verify that relationship is to make sure these democracies become part of NATO. That will assure me that the big boot of someone will not again step on those nations that have been through so much during the last century. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important legislation which makes clear the Senate's strong support for NATO enlargement in Prague this November. I thank the Chair.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, will the Senator from Virginia yield for a question?

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. VOINOVICH. I must tell the Senator that my support does not guarantee I will support all nine of those countries coming in because we are going to distinguish between those that are qualified and not qualified. As I mentioned in my remarks, I made it very clear to the leaders of these aspirant countries that they cannot take for granted that they are going to be admitted into NATO unless they comply with the requirements of the membership application plan. I was with the President last Friday and discussed this issue with him. He made it very clear to me that in spite of the fact he has made some very strong statements about NATO expansion, he has made it very clear to those aspirant countries, to their Prime Ministers and Presidents, that they had to meet the requirements. I want to make it clear, no one should assume from my vote on this and I hope a lot of others, that this is a layup shot and all these countries are going to be coming into NATO because they have a long way for that to happen.

Mr. VOINOVICH. From what the Senator from Virginia just said, is it his understanding that if this bill passes tomorrow, that means we are automatically going to----

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today as a friend of agriculture from one of our Nation's leading agriculture States to oppose the farm bill conference report currently before us. It is too expensive, doesn't help those it claims to help, refuses to acknowledge the other priorities and challenges currently facing our nation, and will only worsen the problems with overproduction which it seeks to remedy. According to the most recent numbers from CBO, this bill authorizes at least $180 billion in mandatory spending over the next 10 years, an $83 billion increase over existing programs. Increases such as this--an 80 percent spending boost--are irresponsible during times like this and totally ignore that we are at war abroad, trying to strengthen our homeland defense against terrorism and that our economy is in trouble. When you have a situation like this you've got to set priorities and stick to them, even if they force you to make hard choices. If Congress approves this conference report, it is sending a message to the American people that fiscal responsibility no longer matters, although our record in the last couple of years should give them a clue that we are not a fiscally responsible Senate. The Cleveland Plain Dealer said it best in its editorial yesterday, ``No Republican who votes for [this bill] can ever say with a straight face that he or she believes in limited government or market economics. No Democrat can hold that she or he believes in balancing the budget or preventing runaway spending.'' I agree. The Senate should not approve this bill today, but rather we should send it back to the conference committee from where it came and we should tell them to make the cuts in spending necessary to fit this bill into the new reality we're facing in this country. I agree with my colleague from Ohio, Congressman John Boehner, a member of the House Agriculture Committee who served on the Conference, who said last week in a press release, and I quote: We should pass a supplemental aid bill now to help farmers during this year's crop season. And once the November elections are over--when sound, long-term policy takes precedence over Washington politics--we should revisit the Farm bill and make the right choices for Ohio and the nation. I take a back seat to no one in terms of my concern for the American farmer. I am pleased that I was referred to as the ``Ag Governor.'' When I was Governor of Ohio, agribusiness was my number one economic development initiative. Many people--even Ohioans--don't realize that food and agribusiness means more than $73 billion to Ohio's economy each year. In fact, one in six Ohioans is employed in one aspect of agriculture or another. Nevertheless, I cannot support this conference report, and honestly, I am disappointed at the apparent lack of respect some of my colleagues seem to have for the American farmer. Every farmer worth his salt knows that if he or she wants to stay in business, they have to be fiscally responsible and make tough choices. Farmers are some of the most fiscally disciplined people in business and they know that the United States has to be fiscally disciplined as well. They understand that the farm bill does not focus on proper planning and making the right choices, but rather ``getting while the getting is good.'' This bill dispenses with any lip service toward fiscal conservatism and the other obligations our Nation now faces and plunges full speed ahead with spending. It is heedless of Americas national security needs, and it does nothing to acknowledge the long-term fiscal responsibilities of our Nation. Instead, this conference report really just helps the Nation's agricultural conglomerates receive lots of money from the Federal treasury. It's an enormous transfer of wealth. It's really that simple. Gone are our efforts to let farmers operate in a free market economy and benefit from their own choices. We're turning our back on the market-oriented philosophy laid out in the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act which sought to wean farmers from large Government subsidies. And yes, in a free market there will be winners and losers, but the free market is what has made this country great, and it is what can make agriculture thrive if we let it operate without Government interference. Instead, when the waves of economic change get a little rough, Congress tries to retreat into the safe harbor of Government handouts in the expectation that it will solve the problem. The real truth is, however, that this will only worsen the problem. The effect of this legislation will be to encourage production resulting in commodity surpluses, lower prices, and the need for greater government support. And I'm not just talking about small farmers. The bill includes heightened incentives for large agribusinesses to overproduce as they seek to maximize the Federal subsidies for which they are eligible. The result will be continuing downward pressure on prices and continuing calls for emergency farm rescue legislation. When will we end this cycle and truly set our farmers free to work as they see fit and respond to the changing market with their own judgment, skill, and hard work? The agriculture community in my State recognizes this trap and has told me that this bill sends the wrong message to farmers by encouraging farmers to grow for the program and not for the market. Many of my colleagues constantly discuss how this bill so effectively meets the needs of America's small farmer. As the Cincinnati Post so eloquently responded to that claim in its editorial yesterday, ``That is hogwash.'' This bill does nothing to help the small farmer, but rather penalizes the small farmer--the supposed beneficiary of this bill. There is no effective payment cap, which will continue to allow large agroindustrial operations to continue to reap millions of federal dollars in subsidies, perhaps using them to buy out small family farmers in the end. The majority of America's farms do not benefit from Federal subsidies, and the formulas created in this bill will result in 10 percent of the producers getting two-thirds of the money. To make matters worse, I was disappointed to read in the Akron Beacon Journal that this bill includes a provision that would protect payments made under this program from public scrutiny. I believe that it is important for the American taxpayer to have access to information regarding how their tax dollars are spent. I also believe that the specific programs in this farm bill demonstrate very little understanding of the broader needs of American taxpayers. It is a regional rip-off that includes new program payments for sugar, peanut, and dairy producers. It also increases the payments to large cotton, rice, corn, wheat, and soybeans producers. Finally, it revives programs which were terminated in the 1996 Farm bill--the honey, wool and mohair payments. Additionally, I am concerned that this bill could have a devastating effect on farm exports. The formula for countercyclical payments included in this bill could place us in jeopardy of violating our obligations under the World Trade Organization and weaken our demands that Europe and other countries cut subsidy payments to their agricultural producers. The conference report does include a mechanism for the Secretary of Agriculture to cut off payments if it appears that we are in danger of violating our WTO obligations. Is it reasonable to expect that a political appointee will have the strength necessary to make this decision? For that reason alone the Bush administration should veto this conference report. I have heard many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle comment that this legislation does not present a budget problem because it is within the budget parameters outlined in the FY2002 Budget Resolution. I disagree. The new budgetary outlook argues against the bill. Late last year, as the Senate began debating the farm bill that ultimately passed the Senate, Senator Kent Conrad, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, who clearly must understand our countrys financial condition, said, ``the money is in the budget now. If we do not use the money . . . it is very likely not going to be available next year.'' He was more prophetic than he could have ever imagined. When we passed the budget resolution last year and allocated $83.5 billion to reauthorize the farm bill, the budget outlook appeared much brighter than it now does. At that time it looked like we had surpluses as far as the eye could see. Well, my friends, things have changed. When we passed the FY2002 Budget Resolution we were operating using a CBO estimate that said we would have a $313 billion surplus in FY2002. However, as everyone now knows there won't be any surplus this year. Instead, there is going to be an enormous deficit. The public needs to know the facts. When you take CBO's latest budget estimates for FY2002, released this past March, and you deduct the $51 billion cost of the recent economic stimulus package, and you subtract the part of the $27 billion defense supplemental we will pay out this year, and then you consider that tax receipts are running $50 billion less than expected, you end up with at least a $100 billion deficit in the current fiscal year. Put another way, the budget outlook for FY2002 swung by $400 billion in just over a year. I remind my colleagues, when I talk about a $100 billion budget deficit, I am talking about a unified budget deficit. In other words, this year we are going to borrow the entire $163 billion Social Security surplus and then go out and spend all of it and then on top of that we are going to go out into the capital markets and issue $100 billion of new debt and spend all of that. Put another way, we are going to have to borrow at least $263 billion to fund the Government this year. And next year it looks just as bad. We are on track next year to borrow and spend the entire $179 billion Social Security and on top of that go out and borrow another $100 billion to pay for the operation of the Federal Government. Since there is no surplus this year or next year, and I doubt anytime soon, I ask my colleagues, from where is the money for the farm bill going to come? Well, I will tell you from where it is going to come. We will borrow it. When people come to my office and ask for new or additional spending I always try to point out to them that every dollar of new spending is going to require us to borrow more money. And I ask them, do they think their request warrants borrowing money to pay for it? It is just that simple. Every additional dollar of spending we enact puts us deeper into debt and requires the Treasury to borrow more money. And who do you think is going to pay off that new debt? Our children and grandchildren, that's who. The burden of paying off that debt is going to fall to them because it is increasingly clear that we are not going to be paying off debt anytime soon. In fact, this week the Treasury Department is auctioning bonds to raise $24 billion in additional money. What is telling about this auction is the duration of some of these bonds being issued. They mature in 9 years and 9 months. What that tells me is that the Treasury recognizes that the Federal Government is going to be borrowing money for a long time to come. The actions of the Treasury speak volumes about our long-run budget predicament. Another illustration of how bad things have gotten is the pressing need to raise the debt ceiling, which now stands at $5.95 trillion. Last year we were told that we would not have to worry about raising the debt ceiling till the end of the decade. But now we know that we are going to bump into the debt ceiling in a couple weeks. Again, this illustrates the extent of our budget predicament and how the situation has changed. The budget outlook is bad and bound to get worse. The fact is that these recent budget deficits are a systemic problem; they are not a cyclical issue that will take care of itself. Here is why. First, the recent and large increases in military and homeland defense spending are permanent increases. Almost all this spending is going to be mirrored in future budgets. The need to defend the homeland is not going to go away any time soon and neither will those costs. Likewise, increases in defense spending to rebuild the military involve long-term commitments that won't decline any time soon. My point is that neither of these significant expenses is cyclical; they are here to stay. Second, some people might think a surge in economic growth is going to bail us out of our budget problems. Well, my friends, I want vigorous economic growth as much as the next person, but I must point out to my colleagues that CBO's projections already assume robust growth. In fact, CBO projects that the economy will grow at 5.4 percent next year. This is the same level of economic growth as the consensus Blue Chip private forecast. My point is that CBO's numbers are based on the assumption that the economy is going to experience robust growth; it's already built into the numbers. And the fact is that if the economy got going much faster than CBO and the private sector project, that would probably mean an increase in inflation. And we all know what happens when we face inflation, or even the threat of inflation. The Federal Reserve puts the brakes on by raising interest rates. Again, my point is that we face the prospect of chronic deficits, and the economy is not going to bail us out. The fact is that we can't avoid making hard choices and prioritizing. If we don't, then we face more farm bills down the road, if we can give out this type of money with this bill. As a Senator who came here to try to bring some fiscal discipline to this place, I am just dismayed by our complete lack of fiscal responsibility. We just spend and spend and spend around here like there is no tomorrow. And this farm bill is a fine example. As the Akron Beacon Journal, wrote in straightforward language in a May 7 editorial, ``This farm bill is really, really bad.'' It's that simple folks. I cannot in good consciousness vote for this conference report, and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing it. If that fails, I respectfully urge the President to veto it. If he doesn't, and we choose to give out this type of money with this bill, every other group with a concern or problem will come before us and say, ``Well, you did it for them.'' And what will our response be? We won't have one.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the Corzine/ Brownback amendment No. 3239. This amendment replaces the existing language in Title 11 which would have created a mandatory registry for the reporting of greenhouse gases and replaces it with a voluntary program. I am pleased that the Senate has rejected the concept of mandating greenhouse gas reports at this time. While the amendment does contain language which would trigger compulsory reporting in five years if sixty percent of the national aggregate anthropogenic greenhouse gases are not represented on the voluntary registry, we do not expect this trigger to ever be activated since presently thirty percent of the gases are already reporting under the Clean Air Act by the utility sector. I had joined with Senator Hagel in offering an alternative amendment which would have provided a much more robust voluntary reporting program with a transferable credit program and baseline protection. This would have provided a clear incentive to encourage maximum participation. The approach that Senator Hagel and I took in our amendment would have accomplished three key objectives: (1) It will help us get the full picture on climate change with real incentives for voluntary participation in the registry; (2) It will make sure that picture reflects what is really happening by providing for accurate measurement and verification of emission reductions, and (3) It is forward looking because it creates a process for establishing transferable credits that can be used in voluntary transactions for any future potential regulatory program. Unfortunately, due to cloture limitations, the Senate ran out of time to fully consider our amendment, yet I am pleased that Senators Corzine and Brownback adopted our idea of a voluntary registry to replace the overly burdensome mandatory program contained in the original bill. At this point in time I do not think it is wise public policy to mandate the reporting of greenhouse gases, and I am pleased that the Senate agrees with this point. Amendment No. 3146, Withdrawn

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise to support the Nickles-Breaux amendment on renewable portfolio standards. Last month, the Senate debated the renewable portfolio standard included in the legislation before us today. I want to make it clear that I applaud the efforts of my colleagues to encourage the use of renewable electricity generation. I agree that renewable energy is an important part of the future and should be developed. I also strongly believe renewable sources are vital as this country seeks to diversify energy supplies and decrease our dependence on foreign sources to meet our energy needs. As my colleagues know, the Bingaman amendment that was accepted last month stipulates that we must develop a mandatory minimum standard for renewable energy of 10 percent by the year 2019. At the time, I opposed the requirement because I believed it mandated an unrealistic level of renewable usage in a short period of time, at the virtual expense of other sources of electricity generation. I think one point that seems to get lost over the use of renewables in America is that, right now, very little of our power in this Nation is generated by renewables. As a matter of fact, it is 1.6 of 1 percent. My colleagues should understand when we are talking renewables in this bill, we are talking solar, we are talking wind, we are talking geothermal and we are talking biomass; that is it. When I stood to oppose the original mandate, I pointed out that in my home State of Ohio, our use of renewable energy is much lower than the national average. Renewables, including hydropower, generate 1 percent of our electricity. I also pointed out there are many other States which rely on renewable sources for electricity generation. According to the 1998 data from the Energy Information Administration--and this is really important because it gets at the regionalism and how unfair this mandate is, as it is written, to certain regions of the country--at least 10 percent of the electricity generated in 16 States comes from renewable power. Of these 16, 5 States receive more than 50 percent of their electricity from renewable sources, and the primary source is hydroelectric power. Four of the five States--Idaho, Oregon, South Dakota, Washington--rely on hydroelectric power for more than 60 percent of their electricity. Maine is the only State east of the Mississippi to rely on renewables for more than 50 percent of its electricity, 30 percent coming from hydro and 30 percent from other renewables. Regions and even individual States that currently have a high percentage of renewable energy sources would be less impacted by the underlying provisions. However, forcing a mandatory minimum would unduly burden States such as Ohio. Let me tell you a little about my State and States in the Midwest. We rely heavily on coal. Mr. President, 86 percent of our energy comes from coal. As Members of this Senate know, there are bills that have been introduced that will increase and require us to reduce NOX, SOX, mercury, and some are even talking about carbon. In our State, we are putting our money into clean coal technology, not into switching to renewables. What this underlying bill requires is that, in a place such as Cleveland, OH, my kilowatt--maybe some of my colleagues are not aware of this--my cost per kilowatt hour in Cleveland is 4.7 cents. This bill is talking about increasing that by 3 cents per kilowatt hour. That is a tremendous increase we are going to have to bear in States such as Ohio. AEP, which has its home office in Ohio, American Electric Power, estimates that they would have to install an additional cumulative total of 2,100 megawatts of renewables by 2011, a total of 4,100 megawatts by 2015, and a total of 7,000 megawatts by 2020 under this requirement. This should be compared with their total generation, which is 38,000 megawatts. That is in 11 States. And this calculation does not include a safety valve or cost cap. The cost impact on AEP alone would range from $100 million to $400 million net present value. One of the things that bothers me when we debate these things in the Senate is, we are talking about the utilities. The utilities are the ratepayers. In my State, our manufacturers are taking it in the back of the neck. We are losing manufacturing jobs in the Midwest. One of the things that triggered this was a year ago we had a spike in gas prices, which put most of the small businesses in a negative position. Then, with the high cost of the dollar, they are in deep trouble, especially if they export. So we are talking about adding costs on a specific segment of our economy, which happens to fall heavily in my State. We use a lot of electricity. It also puts a negative burden on the people who live in my inner cities. People just talk about these things as if it didn't matter. But the people who make less than $10,000 a year pay about 30 percent of whatever they have for energy costs. This kind of legislation, as it is written, is going to drive those costs up. Let's talk about those people who are going to pay the cost. What I am saying today, to my colleagues, is give me a break. Give us a break. Some of you are from regions that do not have the problems we have. We have 23 percent of the manufacturing jobs in this country in the Midwest. In my State alone, we have more manufacturing jobs than they have in the entire northeastern part of the country. What we are trying to do today is come up with a reasonable number in terms of this mandate. It may not mean a lot to some people who live in some of the other States that do not have manufacturing, but it does mean a great deal in States like my State. I think of Paul's Letter to the Romans, Chapter 12: We are all part of one body. We have different functions. It would be really nice if on the floor of this Senate we would start to give a little more consideration to some of the specific problems some of us have in our States so we could continue to survive and prosper and have reasonable energy costs, continue our manufacturing, and not drive up the cost for the least of our brethren. I urge my colleagues to really give serious consideration to this. This is a reasonable proposal we are making today. It does not eliminate the mandate. It just says, if we have to comply with it, we comply with it in a way that is less oppressive than what is contained in the underlying bill.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I rise today to propose an amendment to the energy bill that will promote the safe and efficient supply of nuclear energy while maintaining strong environmental protections. My amendment, the Nuclear Safety and Promotion Act, supports the growth of nuclear energy, provides regulatory reform to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and addresses the personnel crisis at the NRC. According to the Department of Energy, we are going to have to increase the amount of energy we produce by 30 percent by 2015 in order to meet our demand. Nuclear power must be a significant part of meeting this demand. My amendment addresses an unintended consequence of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 that will help nuclear energy grow in our country. This act created a combined construction and operating license of 40 years. However, it inadvertently caused the clock on the 40-year period to begin ticking when the license is issued, not when the facility actually begins operating. Since this could result in a difference of several years, this amendment fixes the quirk in the law by making the clock on a license start when a facility begins operating. In addition, the Energy Policy Act of 1954 requires the NRC to perform antitrust reviews when considering initial licensing. However, these reviews are currently also performed by the Department of Justice and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. This duplication is unnecessary and inefficient. My amendment establishes antitrust review authority firmly in the hands of the Justice Department, who has the experience and background to best perform these reviews. Under this new provision, the NRC would have no authority to either review the application or impose conditions regarding antitrust matters on any new or renewed license for commercial reactors. The NRC simply would be required to notify the Attorney General when the NRC proposes to issue a license for a reactor, and if the Attorney General requests, the NRC would provide general information about the facility and the applicants. Thus, the Attorney General would make a determination as to whether the proposed license for the reactor would create or maintain a situation inconsistent with antitrust laws. The licensing process and the antitrust review are two different matters and should be treated as such. The NRC would continue with its licensing action while the Justice Department makes its determination. In fact, this determination would not affect the NRC's licensing action in any way. If it is determined that the license would create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws, then the Attorney General could take action, but these actions would and should be independent of NRC's licensing process. While removing this inefficient duplicative burden on the NRC, my amendment also ensures that NRC maintains authority of a facility regardless of its status. In most cases, where a nuclear power reactor licensee sells ownership of a reactor to a new licensee, the responsibility for funding decommissioning is the new owner's, and decommissioning funds that have been set aside in a trust fund are transferred to the new licensee as part of the transfer. However, in license transfers involving the Indian Point 3 and Fitzpatrick reactors, the former licensee has retained the trust funds. Although the NRC, in approving the transfer of the reactors, imposed conditions aimed at ensuring that the former licensee may only use the decomissioning funds for that purpose, I, as well as the NRC, am concerned about this situation not being clearly provided for in law. My amendment would provide the explicit statutory authority to ensure that decomissioning funds are used for that purpose and that decomissioning is done in accordance with NRC regulatory requirements. Furthermore, the NRC would be able to retain a decomissioning fund over sellers of nuclear facilities even though the seller may no longer be a NRC licensee. Additionally, a provision of this amendment would prevent any funds or other assets held by a licensee or former licensee of the NRC to be used to satisfy the claim of any creditor until the decontamination and decomissioning of the nuclear power reactor is completed. Both of these provisions ensure that decomissioning funds are used for decomissioning. One of the biggest problems in our country and government is the human capital crisis, and the NRC is no different. The NRC currently has six times as many employees older than 60 as it does under age 30, meaning that a potential wave of retirements could leave the agency without the expertise it needs. Adding to this problem is the fact that former employees cannot consult for the NRC without jeopardizing their pensions. These are people with critical skills that cannot provide their expertise without being penalized. Fortunately, the Office of Personnel Management has provided the NRC with a limited-scope, temporary pension offset waiver to rehire former employees. My amendment would eliminate this pension offset to help preserve the knowledge base by allowing individuals with critical skills to be hired as consultants in future years. Under this amendment, individuals like the former Deputy Director of the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, who has 44 years of experience in the nuclear industry and is currently consulting with the NRC due to the temporary waiver, would be paid for their consulting services to the NRC while still receiving their federal pensions. The NRC is also facing extreme shortages of individuals with critical safety skills. The numbers of education and training programs in the two basic disciplines, nuclear engineering and health physics, are declining. From 1996 to 2001, university programs in nuclear engineering have declined 26 percent, from 50 to 37, and healthy physics programs have declined 12 percent, from 49 to 43. Within the general disciplines, the NRC is experiencing shortages of people with a variety of critical skills, including: nuclear process engineering, thermal hydraulics, geology, structural engineering, and transportation. The shortages in these fields are a result of NRC's aging workforce and nuclear industry requirements. Over the next decade, the demand for nuclear engineers is projected to be twice the supply, and for health physicists, one and one half times the supply. To help train and recruit the next generation of nuclear regulatory specialists, this amendment authorizes the NRC to fund academic fellowships to address shortages of individuals with critical safety skills. Instead of the funding coming from user fees, $1 million would be authorized per year for 2002-2005. The ability to fund training programs in specialized areas at universities would enable the NRC to implement more timely and effective strategies to close future skill gaps identified through the agency's planning processes. Our Nation needs to be responsible to future generations. We must allow nuclear energy to grow today to meet future needs. We also must realize that our resources are scarce and we should not waste them on duplicative and costly regulatory burdens that place us into further debt. We also must plan for the future by ensuring that nuclear plants are cared for properly when they are closed, that we fully utilize the people who have spent years in this industry, and that have future generations with the necessary critical skills. Amendments Nos. 3148 Through 3156, En Bloc

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. I ask unanimous consent for 3 more minutes.