George Voinovich

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, if there is one thing that the Senate can agree on, it is the obligation we have to help prepare our children for the future. Even as we recognize the importance of education, we must ask ourselves, if this government function is so important, how do we best meet this obligation? This bill does not meet our children's education needs in the best way possible. This bill throws money at problems that can ultimately only be resolved by more parental involvement, and it violates our Nation's long-held tradition of federalism in which duties not expressly assigned to the Federal Government are assigned to the State and local level. By seeking to abolish the role that State and local governments, specifically locally elected school boards, have in our children's education, I fear will put us on the slippery slope to the eventual federalization of all education in this country. Despite its grave faults, the conference report to H.R. 1, the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act contains several provisions that I favor. The bill contains a modest performance partnership provision that will help us build on the Education Flexibility Partnership Act that I worked to help pass in the 106th Congress that allows States to consolidate Federal education programs to meet local needs. H.R. 1 also expands local flexibility and control by block-granting funds, consolidating many programs, and includes another amendment that I sponsored to allow local districts to spend title II funds, if they desire, on pupil services personnel. On balance, however, these token allowances to local control are insufficient to outweigh the all out assault on local control represented by this bill. As a former Governor and mayor, I've seen how well State and local governments can respond to the needs of the people they serve. The Federal Government cannot and does not have a better understanding of how to serve the millions of students in local school districts across this great country. That is the responsibility of sovereign local school boards working together with parents, educators and community leaders. Congress is not the national school board and any attempt by it to play that role will result in a Federal curriculum of one-size- fits-all programs that fail to prepare a nation of students for the challenges ahead. Our forefathers specifically warned us against the urge to federalize in the 10th amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.'' Education is one such responsibility. Since our country's creation, those at the local level have been responsible for educating our children. In fact, only in the past 35 years has the Federal Government even had much of a role in education policy, albeit a small one. The reason for this is that the educational environments of our children greatly vary by region, just as the economies of our Nation's regions greatly vary. Therefore, universal education solutions will always elude us. As my colleagues know, the Federal Government currently provides approximately 7 percent of all money spent on education in America, while 93 percent is spent by local and State educators. Indeed, in spite of this limited expenditure of Federal funds, Congress is saying with this bill that the Federal Government has the right to dictate that every school district in America will test their students from grades 3 through 8. This testing will occur regardless of how well students are performing in their particular school districts, and despite the fact that most of our states have mechanisms already in place that test students' educational performances. I can assure you that there are many teachers in Ohio who are going to be saying, ``here we go again.'' We already have in place statewide standardized tests in Ohio, which were controversial enough when they were established, I speak from first-hand experience here. Yet these tests have been good measures of the progress students are making and were, in fact, recently revised to be even more effective. Even these statewide tests have been criticized by local voices, however, for being too centralized to be effective. That's because the tradition of local control of education is zealously guarded in our Nation and will not be easily surrendered. This bill also steps on State and local control in its provisions addressing failing schools. What this bill fails to appreciate is that many states, such as my home State of Ohio, are already addressing the needs of failing schools by increasing accountability, measuring school performance, building the capacity of local schools and district leaders, and providing significant resource assistance to low- performing and at-risk schools. Also under H.R. 1, the Federal Government would be able to tell States that its teachers in many schools must meet certain Federal qualification and certification requirements. Further, the Federal Government would tell school districts how to spend funds in a number of areas including: reading; teacher development; technology; and programs for students with limited English language skills, instead of providing States and local school districts with full flexibility to spend funds on their own identified priorities. Many groups, from the American Association of School Administrators to the National Conference of State Legislators are opposing passage of this conference report, in large part because of its increase in the scope and influence of the Federal Government into education matters best left to our States and localities. None of these provisions are, on their face, bad for education. What is troubling is the direction in which these measures lead us. Make no mistake, with this bill we take a giant leap forward toward federalizing our education system. We should not let Federal bureaucrats become the national school board. Besides violating a long-held principle regarding State and local control over schools, the bill's fatal flaw is that it increases authorized spending for education by more than 41 percent over last year's budget. According to the Congressional Research Service, CRS, ESEA spending totaled $18.6 billion in fiscal year 2001. The total authorization level for this conference report for fiscal year 2002 is $26.3 billion. If this level of funding is appropriated, that is more than a 41- percent increase. However, according to CRS, 16 of the programs listed in this ESEA bill are listed at unspecified authorization levels, and, therefore, are not included in that $26.3 billion level. So the final cost to the taxpayer may well be higher. When you consider that the House and Senate agreed to a budget resolution that included a modest increase in Federal spending over last year's budget of approximately 5 percent, it's obvious that if we are to fund ESEA with a 41-percent increase, many legitimate functions that are the true responsibility of the Federal Government may not be met. Our situation has been exacerbated by a war and a recession. The response to these concerns are, of course, ``But Senator Voinovich, are you saying that our children do not deserve all that we can provide them?'' My response to that shallow criticism is, in fact, ``Yes, our children deserve all that we can provide them, such as a strong military, and adequate funding for transportation and health research, prescription drugs and unemployment insurance and all the myriad other worthy efforts in which the Federal Government engages.'' We pursue this bill and provide this unsustainable amount of funding authorization as if our Federal Government has no other obligations. In a perfect world, I would love to be able to provide this much money for education, but a perfect world isn't governed by a budget resolution and a perfect world doesn't come with other expensive priorities that must fit within a finite pool of dollars. It is high-time for Congress to stand-up and show that it has the courage to be fiscally responsible, to prioritize our spending on the basis of those responsibilities that are truly Federal in nature, and to make the tough choices. It is completely irresponsible to issue new debt and further burden our children in the name of preparing them for their futures. The two are irreconcilable and highlight one of the major faults of this bill. While I realize that the conference report to H.R. 1 will pass and will likely be signed into law, I cannot in good conscience vote in favor of this legislation. It is a well-intentioned bill but spends far too much money at a time when we can least afford it, and on priorities that are better left to our State and local governments.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate will pass S. 1271, the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2001. 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 has, 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. 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 2001 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 OMB 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 maintain 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. As the bill was introduced just this past July, 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 Blanche Lincoln for joining me in introducing this bill, and I thank the co-sponsors of S. 1271, Senators Bond, Leahy, Jeffords, Conrad, Miller, Lieberman, Carper, Cleland, Bunning, Thompson, Collins, Dayton, and Kerry for their strong support. I also thank the many business groups who have helped us craft a solid bill with their suggestions and those who have lent their support to this legislation, 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 Retailers 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. Further, I thank public interest groups such as OMB Watch for their valuable input. I also thank the administration for their support of this bill and for the valuable input of OMB in helping to make this bill more effective in helping our nation's small business owners. And since the House of Representatives passed a similar version of S. 1271 this past March, I hope that we will have a final bill for the President's signature very soon. 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. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Ms. Joan Douglas who will celebrate here retirement later this month after many years of dedicated service to the citizens of Ohio and the United States of America. For the past 12 years, Joan has been an integral part of my team, from my earliest days on the campaign trail when I was running for Governor of Ohio, to my current service in the U.S. Senate. Not only has Joan been a valued employee, she has been a friend to me and my wife, Janet. One of the things that I admire about Joan is her passion for public service, for it is something that both of us share. Just like I once did, Joan served in the Ohio Legislature, and she has also given back to her community at the local level, serving 8 years on the Mansfield, OH, City Council and by also serving on the Mansfield Elections Board. Given her interest in helping her fellow Ohioans, I was extremely pleased that Joan joined my campaign for Governor in 1990 and that she stayed through both my terms. Joan was the first impression that people had of the Governor's office whether in-person or on the phone, and I believe that her professionalism and compassion made thousands of great first impressions on visitors and callers alike. Joan has always had a wonderful way to make anyone who deals with her feel immediately at ease, whether it was frustrated constituents, harried staff or individuals with special needs. She has also always been cool under pressure, witnessing numerous demonstrations and protests and dealing with more than her fair share of troublesome individuals. And Joan always let me know what ``the pulse of the people'' was by keeping track of the calls we received and letting me know what our constituents were saying. Not only did Joan smooth over the problems of countless Ohioans, she also shared her talents with fellow staff members, serving as ``den mother'' to many of the younger staff members in my office. Whether it was a shoulder to cry on, or motherly advice, I know that many people cherished her guidance, her comfort and her companionship. When I was elected Senator, I was genuinely pleased that Joan continued to serve the people of Ohio when she stayed on to work for me. A whole new generation of staff and thousands more Ohioans had a chance to get to know her and experience her warmth and charm. My wife, Janet and I appreciate all that Joan has done for us and the people of Ohio and the fellowship that she has shared with so many. We will always treasure Joan's friendship, and we wish her many years of a happy and healthy retirement.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Ms. Jenny Ogle, who is retiring at the end of this month after 23 years of service to the citizens of Ohio and the United States of America. Many of my colleagues might not realize this but Senator Mike DeWine and I have one of the few joint casework operations in the Senate. Shortly after I was elected, Senator DeWine graciously offered to combine our casework services in an effort to better serve our constituents in Ohio by avoiding duplication of effort and by saving money on staff and office expenses. To head up this office, Mike and I asked Jenny Ogle, who had been Mike's own Director of Constituent Services since 1995, and who had been a caseworker for Mike from 1982 to 1989 when he was in the House of Representatives. In the interim years, while Mike was serving as my Lieutenant Governor, Jenny brought her experience to Congressman Dave Hobson, where she served as casework manager. I knew that Senator DeWine and I were asking a lot of Jenny to run this new one-stop operation, but I was confident, given the great work that she had done for Mike and for Dave, that she could handle the load and do it well. And I was right. For the past 3 years Jenny has been our Director of Constituent Services, and has done an excellent job in ensuring that all our casework is handled properly and in a timely manner. One of the things that I have come to respect about Jenny is her leadership and interpersonal skills and her ability to reach out and make a difference in the lives of so many people. In fact, she could probably write a book based on the cases she handled personally as well as the cases she ``quarterbacked'' as Constituent Services Director. Jenny has a unique ability to bring out the best in herself, but more important, she has a real talent for bringing out the best in her staff. I have often said that the most important work that my office does is outreach to my fellow Ohioans, and in terms of outreach and getting things done for the people of Ohio, Jenny has had a major impact. She can rest assured that her accomplishments are appreciated by me and my entire staff and her influence will continue to be felt for many years to come. I will genuinely miss Jenny's service because she is a consummate professional. Throughout her career in constituent services in both the House and Senate, Jenny has dedicated herself to helping solve the problems of tens of thousands of Ohioans, many of whom have had nowhere else to turn. She is one of those rare individuals who can honestly say that they have made a difference in the lives of their fellow man. I am proud of what she has been able to accomplish, and I know that her family is just as proud of her, if not more so. I thank Jenny for her service, and I wish her and her husband, Mike, a happy and healthy retirement together.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, 2001 has been a year of tragedy for the United States as well as a year of resolve. I am proud of the way my fellow Americans have united behind efforts to heal and comfort their fellow citizens who have been devastated by the attacks of September 11. Just as the American people have opened their wallets to provide hundreds of millions of dollars to those in need, the Federal Government so too has provided billions of dollars to make our homeland safe, rebuild, comfort and provide, and wage war against the terrorist enemies of freedom. Protecting our homeland and fighting terrorism are our Nation's top priorities right now, and the work of this body and the use of our Nation's resources must reflect that. One critical way we do that is to vigilantly guard against the misuse of the taxpayer's hard-earned dollars and ensure that we get the most out of every dollar spent on homeland defense and the war on terrorism. Those who seek to use the current crisis as an excuse to spend more on pet projects should be ashamed of themselves and their efforts must be defeated. We simply cannot afford pork barrel politics right now, period. Just look how quickly things have changed in our country--with amazing speed we went from an environment where some of us were worried the government would run out of national debt to repay, to an environment where not only is the Federal Government no longer paying off debt, but regrettably, it is adding to it. The year started out with the President proposing a budget with a roughly 4 percent increase in discretionary spending. Given last year's enormous 14.5 percent increase in non-defense discretionary spending, I thought a 4 percent increase was reasonable and realistic, and I was pleasantly surprised that the Senate budget resolution didn't dramatically exceed this figure, as I feared, but instead was largely in-line with the President's budget plan. Because of this, I supported the $661 billion in discretionary spending it contained. Besides supporting the budget resolution, I also supported the President's tax cut, because I saw it fit within a plan whereby spending increases would be limited and the Social Security surplus would be reserved for reducing the national debt. Clearly the situation has changed. Even before the events of September 11, Congress was on-track to increase overall discretionary spending by approximately 8 percent. To facilitate the completion of the annual appropriations process, a deal was struck by the Administration and the members of the appropriations committee to set a discretionary spending cap of $686 billion in fiscal year 2002--$25 billion more than agreed to in the budget resolution. This number was agreed to by the appropriators and leaders in both parties in both Houses, and the President. In the President's letter to the leaders agreeing to this new, revised number he wrote, ``And I expect that all parties will now proceed expeditiously and in full compliance with the agreement.'' While I was disappointed that this deal circumvented the budget resolution, I believe it quite likely would have been worse if no deal had been struck, and Congress had been able to steam roll the budget resolution in the urge to spend. Now Congress is poised to leave this number and this agreement in the dust as appropriators seek billions more. Some justify this by saying that the current crisis requires the death of fiscal discipline. Nothing is further from the truth. The current crisis requires us to be more fiscally disciplined than ever before, to carefully direct funds to the most pressing needs of defending against and fighting terrorism. Compounding the problem is the softening economy and the need to walk the tightrope of crafting a stimulus package to provide short-term relief without causing long-term harm. We are certainly in a grave fiscal situation. Spending is required but not too much, stimulus is required but it cannot be overly zealous. If we fall from this tightrope, there is no safety net to catch us. Instead our Nation falls into the grasping arms of structural deficits, from which we only recently freed ourselves after decades of imprisonment. After working so hard to free ourselves from deficit spending, starting to pay off our debt, and beginning to prepare for Social Security's looming insolvency, isn't it worth it for us to do all we can to keep from slipping back into the clutches of deficits? The only way to avoid this is through self-discipline. Every member must sacrifice individual political wants for the greater good of the nation. We need to avoid pet projects. We need to set aside our parochial interests. We should proceed very carefully and very deliberately with every piece of legislation that authorizes any additional spending or equally importantly, reduces revenues. Unless we get a handle on our spending habits, we are going to add to the national debt that we stand to pass on to our children and grandchildren. Sometimes I wonder if my colleagues actually realize how dire the condition of the Federal Government has become. As it now stands, for fiscal year 2002, we are poised to spend every last tax dollar we collect and the entire $174 billion projected Social Security surplus. On top of that, we are going to issue new debt to the tune of $52 billion to pay for the fiscal stimulus bill and another $15 billion on top of that if the senior Senator from West Virginia gets his way. OMB Director Mitch Daniels, in a speech last week before the National Press Club, relayed the same sobering message. According to Director Daniels, the Federal Government is on track to run a deficit through the remainder of this presidential term. So, as we discuss every piece of legislation that will cost money or reduce revenues, whether on efforts to fight terrorism or anything else we do, we must ask ourselves: Do these new spending initiatives warrant issuing new debt to pay for them? With this in mind, I am utterly amazed that some of my colleagues are proposing new spending. For example, the Agriculture Committee is proposing a new farm bill that would increase agricultural spending by roughly $70 billion over the next 10 years. I ask my colleagues, should we issue new federal debt to increase payments to farmers? Wasn't the Freedom to Farm bill designed to free farmers from dependency upon federal handouts so they could farm as they wished in response to international market conditions? Would the farming community support these proposals if they knew that we were going to have to issue debt to provide such payments? We're poised to debate a farm bill yet the old farm programs don't even expire until next year. Is this money and this bill the most critical thing we should be doing at this time? Other colleagues of mine today are proposing additional spending increases over and above the $686 billion agreed to with the President earlier this Fall, and the $40 billion emergency supplemental passed in the aftermath of September 11; $20 billion of which is included in this Department of Defense Appropriations bill. They think the Federal Government needs to spend an additional $15 billion on homeland security. The fact of the matter is the Director of Homeland Security, Governor Tom Ridge, says we don't need any more funds for homeland defense at this time than the amount requested by the President because of what we've already passed here on Capitol Hill. Why are we unwilling to take his word on this issue? It seems to me that he and the President, our Commander in Chief, are more qualified to advise us on what the nation needs and we should heed their advice. Other colleagues are considering increasing education spending by billions of dollars over and above the already large increases agreed to by the President and the Appropriations Committee. Again, I ask, should we issue new federal debt to increase education spending--which as we all know has been, is, and should be primarily a state and local responsibility? I am flabbergasted to watch this parade of spending proposals at a time when we have to dig ourselves deeper in debt to pay for them. I am encouraged that the President has taken a stand by pledging to veto an emergency supplemental spending measure that would exceed the $686 billion spending agreement. I stand squarely behind the President. And if the President indeed uses his veto to control spending, I will vote against any attempt to override it. Hopefully my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who care about fiscal responsibility and who care about honoring an agreement we made with the President will join me in supporting his veto. It is fortunate we have a President with the courage to hold fast against rampant spending, even if that spending is cloaked in the guise of homeland safety and national defense. The Administration recognizes that we have to draw a line and is willing to lay it on the line. The Senate is supposed to be a deliberative body, a cooling saucer if you will. At this crucial time, it is important that the Senate carry out its appointed role. If we do increase spending, it should be limited to measures that truly enhance domestic and international security and efforts that truly stimulate the economy. We should not accept the fact that the Treasury Department must once again issue new debt to finance the operation of the Federal Government for any longer than is absolutely necessary, and every dollar we spend is going to be borrowed money. The current crisis is not an excuse to spend but is a call to vigilance. As we fight for the future security of our country and our ideals, let us also fight for the future fiscal health of our nation which will in turn help provide for the continued and future stability and prosperity of the American people.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the amendment to the underlying bill before the Senate. I think the Senator from Kansas has spoken eloquently on the need to pass a moratorium on human cloning. It is interesting to note that about 80 percent of the people in this great Nation agree with that. It is also interesting to note that the other portion of the amendment calling for an energy policy for this country is also supported by about 80 percent of the people in this country. Although I do not ordinarily pay that much attention to polls, I say, in this case, the polls reflect good public policy for the United States of America. Mr. President, with all the debate that has been going on in this body and throughout the Nation as to whether or not we actually need a stimulus bill, I reiterate my view that, yes, we do need a stimulus bill. It is important that we pass a bill from several points of view. Psychologically, the American people need a stimulus bill. For all the talk over the last couple of months about how much we need a stimulus bill, the public has now grown to expect we will pass a stimulus bill. I think that has been taken into consideration in the decisions the American public has been making. They see it as a positive measure, one that will bring us out of our economic doldrums and put things back on track. As my colleagues know, the National Bureau of Economic Research reported earlier this week what many of us knew; and that is, our country is in recession. The people in my State of Ohio have known that since last year. We need to spark our economy by getting businesses to boost investment. We need a stimulus package to help raise consumer confidence and get the American people spending again. As you know, consumer spending makes up two-thirds of our economy. We have to get buying. That is what we need to do: We have to get buying. We need an economic stimulus bill that will put money in people's pockets, one that will restore consumer confidence, give businesses the money they need to survive by letting them recapture taxes they paid in the past. We need a bill that will lower people's tax rates by expanding the amount of earnings that are taxed at the 10-percent marginal rate. We need a stimulus package that provides a ``life preserver'' to the unemployed by giving them 13 additional weeks of unemployment benefits and one that responds to their health care needs. One proposal that responds to what Americans want is the Centrist Coalition package that the Presiding Officer is completely familiar with and that has been sponsored, on a bipartisan basis, by the Presiding Officer, Senators John Breaux, Olympia Snowe, Zell Miller, and Susan Collins. Regardless of what we do involving a stimulus bill, the American people expect us to work together in a bipartisan fashion. They see President Bush doing that. He is more worried about protecting the Nation's interests than in partisan politics. Indeed, some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle have been critical of the President because he has not been partisan enough. In fact, he has gone the extra mile, I believe, to be nonpartisan. The American people believe that Congress' motives are the same as the President's. If they become convinced otherwise, that we are working for special interests or succumbing to our past bad habits of playing politics, the consequences are going to be devastating. It will lower their confidence in us and in the economic future of our Nation. Things changed on the 11th of September. Those of us in Congress should never forget it. There is one other action we need to take to stimulate our economy, improve and enhance public health and the environment, secure our competitive position in the global marketplace, and secure our homeland and national security. That action is the adoption of an energy policy for this Nation. That is why I am so enthusiastic about the amendment to the underlying bill. Given the tragedy of September 11 and the actions that have occurred in the aftermath, enacting an energy plan is much more relevant than ever before. As far as I am concerned, and many others, our adoption of an energy package is, in the long term, more important to this country than the economic stimulus package. Because of the situation in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf and Southwest and Central Asia, we are more vulnerable today than ever before. You can see from this chart that one-fourth of our crude oil imports, 27.18 percent, come from the Middle East. Consider the following numbers: Iraq, 6.83 percent; Kuwait, 2.9 percent; Saudi Arabia, 16.79 percent; the United Arab Emirates, about three one-hundreths of 1 percent; Oman, less than three one-hundreths of 1 percent; Yemen, three-tenths of 1 percent. Given the near constant instability in the region, it should give my colleagues little comfort to know that we are so reliant on that part of the world. OPEC, which produces approximately 40 percent of the world's oil supply, has threatened to cut oil production 4 separate times this year, and they cut oil production a total of 3.5 million barrels per day or 13 percent this year. I know this is a figure that can be difficult for people to comprehend, but every day, the United States receives 750,000 barrels of oil from Iraq. If we look at the chart, over 6.8 percent of the oil we import every day comes from Iraq. In December, the United Nations will be conducting a periodic review of Iraq's oil-for-food program. In the past Iraq has suspended exports during the review in order to press their case that the program be allowed to continue uninhibited by the United Nations. This could happen again. As many of you know, Iraq could be next on the list of nations that we go after because of their threat to world peace. It would be surreal if we were importing oil from Iraq at the same time we were engaging in antiterrorist activities against that nation. It was strange enough that when we had the last oil crunch last year, we were providing them with technology to increase their oil production while at the same time we were conducting air sorties over their no-fly zone. We were bombing them on one hand and providing them technology so they could increase their oil production at the same time. It doesn't make sense. The attack on Washington and New York could make things even more unpredictable as support for the United States by oil-producing Arab nations could bring Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida attacks on them. It is important to make it clear that Osama bin Laden would dearly like to bring down the Saudi government because of its Western influence and the alleged exploitation by the United States of Saudi oil. Remember, the Saudis provide 16.8 percent of our oil imports. On the domestic front, we are also in trouble. The refinery fire in Illinois this past August decreased the available supply of gasoline while our inventory was already low. That caused prices to jump in my State of Ohio and other Midwest States. The price of gasoline jumped up 30 cents per gallon in Ohio over a 2-week period because of a fire at a refinery. We have had no new refineries built in almost 26 years, while the number of refineries has dropped from 231 in 1983 to 155 today. While the refineries today are more efficient, they are not getting the job done. When a refinery shuts down for repairs or accidents such as fires, it creates price spikes that can be felt across the Nation. We should not be lulled into complacency because of the temporary low cost of gasoline. If you travel the country, the price is down. We must do more to increase domestic production of oil in the United States. Our transmission system also needs to be improved and opened up. We don't have the infrastructure in place to transmit natural gas and the pipelines to transmit oil. Last year one of the reasons we had the large increase in gasoline prices in the Midwest was because of a break in an oil pipeline coming up from Texas and another one coming from Wolverine, MI. Those two events skyrocketed the price of oil in Ohio and many other States in the Midwest. Because of this, last month I introduced the Environmental Streamlining of Energy Facilities Act with Senator Landrieu. Our bill will streamline the siting process for pipelines and transmission lines. Utility costs are another major factor in our Nation's competitive position in the global marketplace. Long before the events of September 11, utility costs were exacerbating the recession in Ohio and the Midwest. We need to assure Americans that they can count on reasonable, consistent energy costs if we expect to get their confidence back in terms of the economy. As a major manufacturing State, energy is the backbone of my State, and Ohio and the Midwest are the backbone of this Nation's economy. Twenty-three percent of our Nation's gross State product for manufacturing is concentrated in five States which comprise the Midwest; Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin. For example, when you compare Ohio's manufacturing production with the New England States, Ohio's gross State product for manufacturing is higher than all six of the New England States combined. Energy is the backbone of the U.S. economy. And without a reliable supply, we are not competitive in the world marketplace. Congress needs to act on an energy bill as soon as possible. It needs to be done on a bipartisan basis. This chart is really very illuminating. It looks at projected demand for energy in this country between now and 2020. The green line is what we are going to need. The red line is based on current production and shows what we will have available to meet the demands for energy in this country. As my colleagues can see, there is a large canyon between the lines that needs to be filled. That means that we are going to have to produce more oil, more gas, use more coal, produce more nuclear energy, if we are going to take care of this large gap. Many of my colleagues would argue that the solution to our need for energy is the issue of renewables and other alternatives. The fact is, today, renewables, that includes hydro- and non-hydropower, take care of only a fraction of our energy needs in the United States of America. That is surprising, because I have had some colleagues come to the floor and argue that all we need are acres and acres of windmills and acres and acres of solar panels and that will take care of our energy problem. The fact is, solar and wind power make up only one-tenth of one percent of our energy needs. There is no way that we are going to be able to deal with our energy problem with renewables because if you look at the bottom line, this purple line, going out to 2020, you can see that it is going to represent a very small part of the production we have in America. There is no question, we need more energy. We need more oil. We need more gas. We need more nuclear. We need more coal. While conservation helps, it is not going to meet our estimated consumption without drastically changing America's standard of living. We cannot kid ourselves and think otherwise. Although it won't get the entire job done, a good beginning in our goal of achieving a solid energy policy is a bill that is currently on the Senate calendar, H.R. 4, and which is part of the amendment to the underlying bill before the Senate that was submitted today by Senator Lott. It is a good beginning. Those of us who have been on this issue for a long time would like to see amendments dealing with an ethanol component which will help decrease our dependence on foreign oil. We need to use more ethanol. We need to have an electricity title to improve nationwide delivery. We need more funding for clean coal technologies and a nuclear title, including Price-Anderson reauthorization. It is a beginning, a big beginning, a bill that passed the House of Representatives and one that should be passed in the Senate. I hope when Monday comes and this body has an opportunity to vote on the issue of cloture dealing with the amendments to the underlying bill that we will vote to allow those amendments to be debated by the Senate. It is important not only to the economic well-being of our country, but it is important to our national security. We cannot allow ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of complacency simply because energy prices have stabilized. People say, ``Natural gas prices are down, George,'' and, ``Oil prices are down, George.'' The fact is that they have been down before and we have seen them go up. These prices are like a yo-yo, up and down and I am worried that one day, we are going to end up hanging at the end of the string. It is time for us to act. As sure as the Sun will rise, so too will prices. OPEC will make sure it happens. The longer we wait to pass an energy bill, the more vulnerable this Nation will be to supply disruptions, which will, in turn, have a dramatic impact on our economy, our environment, our health and, yes, our national security. The time has come for the Senate to act and adopt an energy policy for the United States of America. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I yield myself 4 minutes. Madam President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my colleagues, Senators Enzi and Dorgan. Most experts agree that this explosion in electronic commerce, made possible through the Internet, helped fuel our most recent economic surge and contributed to the greatest sustained period of growth in our nation's history. However, most would agree that the current framework of thousands of state and local tax jurisdictions is now well-built for this ``new economy.'' Technology has made it possible for commerce to transcend traditional local, state and even national borders. The issue here is how can we continue to grow the Internet while at the same time preserving state's rights to collect revenues on sales that traditionally would be generate sales taxes. Frankly, I believe that no state is in favor of creating new taxes so as to cripple the growth of the Internet. But I do feel that states and localities should be able to collect taxes on legitimate transactions that have a substantial nexus with their state so that they would be able to collect sales taxes on those transactions if they were to physically take place in their state. And many other organizations agree. This legislation is supported by the National Governors Association, National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, Council of State Governments, International City and County Management Association, National Retail Federation, National Association of Retailers, E-Fairness Coalition and companies such as Gateway, Compaq, VerticalNet, Walmart, Target, HomeDepot, and Circuit City. This issue is truly about federalism--the delineation of the role the federal government plays relative to state and local governments and the people. With regard to sales taxes, there are currently 45 states that rely on some form of sales tax. These states receive, on average, almost 33 percent of their annual operating budgets from sales taxes. In my state of Ohio, it's 31.4 percent. Our States are in a very serious situation. A recent study prepared by the University of Tennessee shows that states could lose nearly $440 billion in sales tax revenue over the next decade in Internet tax revenues if Congress does not empower our states to collect revenues from remote sales. These are revenues that would not be available to build schools, pave roads, pay for emergency services or meet other fundamental responsibilities. In my home state of Ohio, our state government will lose more than $475 million in fiscal year 2002 and Ohio is projected to lose $596 million in fiscal year 2003 in revenue forgone from their ability to raise funds from Internet sales. And as our economy moves more and more towards E-commerce, the fiscal impact on Ohio and other states will continue to damage the abilities of our states to fund their own services. This lost revenue merely exacerbates the difficult fiscal challenges Ohio and other states face as they suffer revenues losses from the current economic downturn. For the federal government to shield Internet sellers from state tax collection responsibilities would usurp the autonomy of the states and force them to cut services and/or raise revenue elsewhere through additional taxes or fees. In my view, preempting the states in such a critical area as e- commerce without addressing the state and local revenue needs suggests that Congress is not as committed to the principles of federalism. And it could force the states to come to Washington in order to make up the funds we have taken away from them. For those concerned about the growth of the federal government, as I am, it will be very difficult to say ``no'' when states argue for more money if Congress by inaction has taken away a revenue source. That is why this amendment by Senators Enzi and Dorgan is so important. It provides a permanent extension of the moratorium on Internet access taxes, and extends the moratorium on multiple and discriminatory taxes for five years. In addition, this amendment encourages states to develop a streamlined system of sales and use taxes that provides: a centralized multi-state registration system for sellers; uniform rules for attributing transactions to particular taxing jurisdictions; uniform procedures for exempt purchases; uniform software certification procedures; uniform tax return and remittance forms; consistent electronic filing and remittance methods; and protections for consumer privacy. This amendment will also allow Congress to remain involved before any state moves to tax any Internet transactions. Once 20 states have developed and adopted an Interstate Simplified Sales and Use Tax Compact, the states will submit the Compact to Congress. Our State and local governments are not interested in putting a damper on the expansion of the Internet; they want it to prosper like all of us. The real question before us is: how can we ensure that our businesses and our nation are able to compete in this new, technology driven economy without sacrificing the principles of federalism which have served us well for over 200 years? State economies benefit from the healthy and unfettered growth of electronic sales. All they and traditional retailers ask is fair treatment. Federalism can adapt and even flourish when we remember to work as partners with our state and local governments. That is why I urge my colleagues to support the Enzi-Dorgan amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. I will yield for a question.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, before the tragic events of September 11, one of most pressing issues facing this Nation was what to do about the economy. From the spring of 2000 until September 10 of this year, all the indicators pointed to an economic slowdown, if not a mild recession, for fiscal year 2002. Since September 11, the economy has far worsened. Hundreds of thousands of people have been laid off. Businesses and industry are in dire financial shape, and consumer confidence has plummeted. Several friends of mine in the retail industry have predicted a nuclear winter for the retail industry this holiday season, and many Ohio manufacturers I have talked to have told me they have never seen things as bad. Given the challenges these turbulent times present, I say to my colleagues in the Senate--and to the American people as well--we need to focus on those measures that will stabilize and grow the U.S. economy. The need for fiscal discipline is more important today than ever before. I am worried that Congress, in its haste to enact measures to eliminate the scourge of terrorism at home and abroad and counter our recession, is overlooking the Nation's long-term fiscal integrity. Earlier in this calendar year, the Congressional Budget Office indicated that the United States would have a fiscal year 2002 on- budget surplus of $125 billion and a Social Security surplus of $156 billion. However, given the worsening economic condition of our Nation over the past year, the most recent calculations of the Senate Budget Committee show that the Federal Government is on track to have a unified or combined surplus of $52 billion in the current fiscal year. In essence, the Budget Committee is saying that the on-budget surplus CBO estimated for fiscal year 2002 has been totally wiped out, gone. Two-thirds of the $156 billion in Social Security surplus no longer exists. What is more, the stimulus package the Senate is considering will cost approximately $75 to $100 billion. To pay for that package, the $52 billion in Social Security surplus will be gobbled up, and the Federal Government is going to have to issue somewhere between $23 and $50 billion of new debt this fiscal year. In addition, the Federal Government likely will end up a lot further in the financial hole because Congress will pass additional supplemental spending measures as the fiscal year progresses and disasters and other emergency issues inevitably arise. The President said he may be coming back to Congress later this fiscal year for more money as he finds the need to respond to some of the issues that some of my colleagues have been talking about. My point in going through these numbers is to highlight the fact that each and every additional dollar this Congress appropriates in fiscal year 2002 is going to require the U.S. Treasury to issue new debt. We are right back to where we were in 1997, the last year the Federal Government had to issue new debt. As we debate the economic stimulus package, efforts to fight terrorism or anything else to do for that matter, we must constantly ask ourselves a vital question: Do these new spending initiatives or tax cuts warrant issuing new debt to pay for them? The question I am asking the various constituencies who visit me asking for more money from the Government is whether or not their request is worthy enough to borrow money from our fellow Americans to pay for it? That is the question. Again, the circumstances warrant borrowing money to fight terrorism and to boost the economy. I supported the $40 billion emergency supplemental that we passed following the September 11th attacks, and much of that supplemental is going to respond to the needs we have heard about this afternoon. Extraordinary times require Congress to take extraordinary actions. We will spend what it takes to defend this Nation from our enemies and to respond to the needs of our country. The fact that the Federal Government will, once again, have to issue new debt to fund any new spending highlights how critical it is that we appropriate these funds wisely. Earlier this year I supported the budget resolution and the tax cut. I saw a plan whereby increased spending increases would be limited and we would use the Social Security surplus to pay down debt. It wasn't too many weeks ago we were talking about this in the Senate. Unfortunately, this is not what has happened. Even before the events of September 11, Congress was on track to increase overall discretionary spending by 8 percent. That follows a 14.5-percent increase in non- defense discretionary spending the year before and another 8.6-percent increase in spending the year before that. This pace of spending increases is just unsustainable. I support the need for a stimulus package. I have been working with members of the Centrist Coalition to craft a balanced bill that will help spark our economy by getting businesses to boost investment and which helps raise consumer confidence and gets the American people spending again and responds to the financial and health care needs of the unemployed. Sadly, though, the bill reported out of the Finance Committee last week appears as if Christmas has come a month early. In fact, some of the provisions of the majority stimulus measure as well as the measure that was passed by the House, are nothing more than handouts for any number of special interest groups. For example, under the majority stimulus bill, Amtrak would receive $4.4 billion in tax breaks and $3.5 billion to subsidize farm products, including up to $10 million for bison farmers for the Midwest. For each employee they have, Wall Street investment bankers would receive a $4,800 tax credit, a credit originally designed for use in training individuals moving from welfare to work.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank the Senator for refreshing my memory. The fact is, tax breaks would be given to individuals who purchase State issued bonds. However, in effect, the U.S. Treasury ends up paying $4.4 billion in interest for Amtrak on those bonds by giving up tax revenue from individuals who purchase such bonds. That is the point I was making. The movie industry would receive expedited depreciation for their capital assets. Chicken farmers would get a tax credit extension for converting chicken waste to energy. The list goes on and on. Over in the House, one of the biggest items in their stimulus package would repeal the corporate minimum tax and repay more than $20 billion retroactive to 1986 and give some of the major corporations in this country a big tax bonus. As reported in the November 11 edition of the Washington Post, 16 companies in particular, many in the energy field, would receive more than $7 billion in immediate tax refunds. While a number of the specific proposals in either package might give a boost to certain areas of the economy, we need a bill that will give us what truly are the best stimulus proposals, the ones that will give us the biggest bang for the buck for both the economy and our unemployed workers. Another important factor we should consider is whether these provisions stimulate the economy in the short run without causing a fiscal hangover that lasts many years. In brief, they need to be temporary. One such provision I support as part of the stimulus package is a temporary extension of unemployment benefits for up to 13 additional weeks for those who have been hit hardest by the recession. In addition, I believe families who through no fault of their own find themselves relying on unemployment benefits should not have these benefits reduced further through taxation. Therefore, I propose, as part of the package, an interim suspension of the taxation of unemployment benefits. We should do that. Several weeks ago I met with Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan to discuss the state of the economy and the need for a stimulus package. Perhaps the most important point he made to me was that the Congress should consider the net effect of any stimulus package, not just the gross amount of the dollars involved. In other words, don't just focus on the size of the tax cuts or the dollars spent but look at the net effect on the economy when all is said and done. If the stimulus package that Congress adopts leads to chronic budget deficits, either through increased spending or revenue reductions, it is going to drive up interest rates. Make no mistake about it, the financial markets are watching us. The Senate lays claim to the title ``world's most deliberative body.'' As George Washington said, ``We pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.'' At this time in our history, it is critical that the Senate takes on its role and thinks carefully about the long-term fiscal consequences of its actions. Intellectually, this means Congress must hold the line on spending and that any increased spending should be limited to measures that truly raise domestic and international security and efforts that truly stimulate our economy. I also remind my colleagues that the events of the past couple of months, momentous as they have been, do not change the fact that the baby boomers are aging and approaching retirement. When 2011 rolls around, the baby boomers will start to retire by the tens of millions. Unavoidably, the cost of a host of Federal social programs also will increase significantly. Chiefly, I am talking about Medicare. A few years latter, the Social Security Program will begin to pay out more money in benefits than it will collect in payroll taxes. The difference between those inflows and outflows is going to have to come out of general revenues, or more borrowing. What we are doing today will have a large impact down the road. In order for this Nation to deal with these looming responsibilities, it is critical that we have our fiscal house in order and have a robust economy. The first obvious step to ensuring that we can meet these obligations is to get spending under control and return to reducing the national debt, as we did the last 3 years. I am heartened that our President said he will veto an emergency supplemental spending measure being developed by some of my colleagues. I stand squarely behind the President, and so do 36 signatories of a letter Senator Bunning and I circulated several months ago. This letter reinforced the fact that we would uphold a Presidential veto of excessive spending. The fact that the Treasury will once again be issuing new debt to finance the operations of the Federal Government makes it that much more important that Congress work together--work together--on a bipartisan basis to make the hard choices and prioritize our spending. As I have traveled across my State over the past 2 months, I have seen the anxiety on the faces of my constituents. The thing that is giving them a great deal of comfort is the fact that they believe the President is doing a good job, that he is 100 percent focused on protecting the Nation's interests and he has put those interests ahead of partisan politics. The American people also believe Congress is doing the same thing, and we must not let them down. One of the things we need to do is understand that we are facing a much different ball game than we have ever faced before. This is not 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 15 years ago; this is a new ball game for all of us. The people have anxiety; they are fearful and angry. They are looking at us, and they are wondering: Are you going to work together for our interests, or are you going to go back to partisan politics again and put your particular party's interests above those of the people? Madam President, we can work together, and we must if we expect to get a bill to the President by the end of the month. The eyes of America are upon us to see if we have learned that this Nation's interests are bigger than our own partisan interests. I pray that the Holy Spirit enlightens this body to understand the enormous impact our decision will have on the future of our Nation and on the quality of life of its citizens. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH. According to the information I have, under the majority stimulus package, they would end up getting a $4.4 billion benefit. And if I stand corrected, I am more than happy to check that.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I would like to take an opportunity to recognize the years of dedicated service of Robert W. Gillespie as a leader in the business community and a friend to the City of Cleveland over the years. This year, after fourteen years as President and CEO of KeyCorp, Bob decided to separate from the financial institution that has benefitted from his vision and experience in the business world. Under his leadership, KeyCorp was built into one of the Nation's largest financial service companies that now reaches more than 3.8 million households and commercial clients and operates in 13 States, with assets of $84 billion. Bob began his association with KeyCorp when it was known as Society National Bank. He started with the company on a part-time basis while completing his graduate studies at Case Western Reserve University. After time, Bob rose through the ranks and eventually served as the executive vice president and the vice chairman, and later the chief operating officer of the corporation and the bank. During a time when Cleveland needed a friend, Bob, along with many other business leaders, joined forces with us at City Hall to form public-private partnerships, which proved to be crucial to the city's turnaround. Cleveland also benefitted from the leadership skills Bob demonstrated while at the helm of Key Corps, with his roles on the boards of Cleveland Tomorrow, the Greater Cleveland Growth Association and the Cleveland Museum of Art. Bob's vision of a revitalized Cleveland included the contribution of his time and resources to help build the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and the Great Lakes Science Center. I wish Bob and his wife Ann the best that life has to offer during this next phase of their lives. On behalf of the people of Cleveland and the State of Ohio, I offer my most sincere thanks and appreciation.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I was proud to offer an amendment to the fiscal year 2002 agriculture appropriations bill. The amendment I offered last week set aside $500,000 from the Office of Generic Drugs at the Food and Drug Administration for use in the education and dissemination of information to America's senior citizens regarding the efficacy, safety and availability of generic drugs. Currently, the FDA informs the public and providers about generic drugs through print advertising, reaching a limited number of individuals. It is my hope that this amendment will allow FDA to enlarge its outreach, utilizing not only print media, but also radio and television public service announcements. In the absence of a Medicare prescription drug benefit, it is imperative that Congress provide alternative avenues for seniors needing to lower their out-of-pocket prescription drug costs. Although millions of seniors already know about and use generic drugs, there are still many others who are not aware of their availability. Indeed, many highly used brand-name drugs whose patents have expired have generic alternatives available. These generic drugs are chemically identical in their active ingredient to their brand-name counterparts and are sold at substantial discounts from the branded price. For example, the prescription drug Kelflex, an antibiotic, costs approximately $88 per month. Its generic equivalent costs about $13 per month, a potential annual savings of $900 for an individual who uses this product. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, generic drugs save consumers an estimated $8 to $10 billion per year at retail pharmacies. As each of my colleagues knows, the nature of health care has changed dramatically in America since the creation of Medicare in 1965. In many instances, diseases or conditions that once required hospitalization are now treated by pharmaceuticals. However, as advances in pharmaceuticals continue and the population ages, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services reports that national spending for prescription drugs is expected to more than double from an estimated $117 billion to $366 billion over the next ten years. Unfortunately, the financial burden on Medicare beneficiaries, those who use prescription drugs the most, will continue to increase. Consider the fact that Medicare beneficiaries account for 14 percent of the U.S. population, yet they consume approximately 43 percent of the nation's total drug expenditures and you can understand why we need to address this issue. $500,000 will ultimately only be a drop in the bucket in finding a solution to providing access to affordable prescription drugs to seniors. However, these funds will help provide valuable information to those who rely on medications the most. With greater reliance on pharmaceuticals, increased direct-to-consumer advertising and the increased empowerment of seniors, it is imperative that those who use prescription drugs become better educated about the availability of generic equivalents that are just as effective as their name-brand counterpart. While seniors wait for Congress to pass permanent prescription drug benefit legislation, the federal government should capitalize on other opportunities to aid seniors in their effort to obtain affordable prescription drugs. That is why I have offered this important amendment and why I will work with Secretary Thompson and the Department of Health and Human Services to provide seniors with thorough information regarding highly utilized drugs, their generic equivalent and comparative pricing, as well as any other pertinent information that is necessary to improve the health and quality of life of our senior citizens. This information would prove to be highly useful to seniors and could easily be included in the annual ``Medicare & You'' publication. Seniors are typically very knowledgeable consumers of health care, and whatever information we can provide is a critical way to help them bypass the high cost of prescription drugs. It is a sad reality that some senior citizens on fixed incomes do not take their full doses of their medications because they try to save money by stretching out their supply. Unfortunately, such self- medication can lead to life threatening health considerations. The amendment I offered will help our seniors get the information they need on lower cost generic drugs so they may obtain the prescription drugs they need to live their lives to the fullest. I thank the manager and ranking member of the subcommittee for accepting this important amendment.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, as the Senate considers the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002, I would like to take this opportunity to discuss discrepancies between the House and Senate versions regarding funding for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). I have strong reservations about certain language included by the House Appropriations Committee in its report accompanying H.R. 2506. In its report, the House Committee recommends $145 million in funding for the FRY, of which $60 million is to be provided to Montenegro. I support at least $145 million for the FRY, which is the amount requested by the President. However, if the House funding level stands for Montenegro, with a population of just 600,000 people, which is one- thirteenth the size of Serbia, it would receive more than 40 percent of the total assistance package for the FRY. I do not believe Montenegro could constructively absorb this much assistance, and I am concerned about the impact such a division of assistance for the FRY would have on U.S. assistance to Serbia. In my conversations with State Department officials, they also expressed strong reservations about providing $60 million to Montenegro, as they believe it is more than Montenegro can effectively absorb. The State Department believes Montenegro should not receive more than the $45 million recommended by the Senate, and in fact, they believe that $35- 40 million would be an appropriate amount. Given disturbing reports of official corruption that have surfaced regarding illicit activity in Montenegro, it is particularly important that we are able to fully account for the expenditure of U.S. assistance there. Moreover, if the House recommendation of $60 million prevails, U.S. assistance for the Republic of Serbia could fall to $85 million, which is significantly below the $100 million we provided to Serbia in fiscal year 2001. As my colleagues are aware, significant changes have taken place in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during the past twelve months. On Friday October 5, 2001, marked the one-year anniversary of the fall of the Milosevic regime and the beginning of a new, democratic government. Since then, the new leaders have made significant strides in implementing political and economic reforms. While there is still much work to be done, it is critical that we recognize the important progress that has been made in the past year. A cut in funding for Serbia would send precisely the wrong message. We want to support the Serb reformers, who took the courageous step of arresting and transferring Slobodan Milosevic to The Hague. We want to encourage their continued cooperation with the War Crimes Tribunal, as well as other democratic reforms and respect for the rule of law. When the conference committee meets to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the foreign operations bill for fiscal year 2002, I urge the Senate conferees to support the funding levels for Serbia and Montenegro that are recommended in the Senate bill. I would appreciate knowing if the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee agree with me about this.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, as the Senate considers the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002, I would like to take a few minutes to address U.S. assistance to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. As many of my colleagues are aware, I have taken a strong interest in issues affecting Southeast Europe during my time in the Senate. I have made many trips to the region, most recently in December of 2000 with my friend from Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, and I continue to meet with the region's political, spiritual and community leaders both in the United States and during time abroad. I have long recognized the destabilizing influence that men such as Slobodan Milosevic have had on the region and the broader European community. The international community witnessed the devastating influence of this so-called leader during years of violent conflict in the former Yugoslavia, and we continue to see evidence of its affects in Kosovo and other parts of the region. While the Balkans have not been without recent challenges, as demonstrated by the situation in Macedonia and continued violence and destruction in Kosovo and parts of Bosnia-Herzegovina, significant changes have taken place in this part of the world during the past year and a half. The death of Franjo Tudjman in Croatia in December of 1999 and the ouster of the Milosevic regime in October of 2000 have removed major obstacles to positive change in the region. One year ago this month, I watched with tremendous gratification when the people of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia went to the polls, and then to the streets, to demonstrate their support of democracy and their denouncement of Milosevic. Since my days as mayor of Cleveland and Governor of the State of Ohio, I have been an ardent supporter of democratic reformers in Serbia. I have long admired the courage and determination of many individuals who remained focused on a democratic future for Serbia, whatever the odds, such as members of the OTPOR student movement. When I met with a group of these young leaders following the election of President Vojislav Kostunica and the removal of Milosevic from power, they told me that the feat we witnessed last October would not have been possible without the support and influence of the United States. Just a few weeks ago in my office in the Hart building, I met with one of the founders of the OPTOR student movement, who is now a member of the Serbian Parliament. Once focused on removing Milosevic from power, he is now intent on helping the government to strength its democratic institutions so that the FRY may better position itself among Europe's new democracies. Without a doubt, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is a different place today than it was one year ago. When the Senate considered the foreign operations bill last year, we conditioned U.S. assistance to Serbia after March 31, 2001 on three conditions. In order to receive continued non-humanitarian assistance, the United States had to certify that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was doing the following: First, cooperating with the War Crimes Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia; next, taking steps to implement the Dayton Accords; and finally, taking steps to implement policies reflecting the rule of law and respect for human rights. Given the importance of a democratic and stable government in the FRY to the broader region and Europe as a whole, I was pleased that the new government was, in fact, making significant progress in the areas outlined in the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001, thus allowing President Bush and the Secretary of State to grant certification and allow non-humanitarian U.S. assistance to the FRY to continue following the March 31 deadline. Additionally, the FRY's progress facilitated help from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, and the international community pledged more than $1.2 billion for the country during a donors' conference sponsored by the World Bank at the end of June. Most recently, we have seen positive developments in the FRY's negotiations with the Paris Club to reschedule a portion of its debt. The reforms took important action in each of the three areas. Regarding cooperation with the War Crimes Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, we all remember the dramatic scenes on television during the days before Slobodan Milosevic was transferred to The Hague in the middle of the night. It was a courageous and necessary step, and I am pleased that the government understood the necessity to doing so. In efforts to implement policies reflecting the rule of law and respect for human rights, perhaps the most significant accomplishment demonstrating the government's actions involved its work with the international community to successfully resolve the situation in southern Serbia, without significant international incident. In line with the Dayton Agreement, the FRY has reduced its military to military ties with the Republic Srpska, and it has indicated its commitment to eliminate remaining ties and ensure transparency of any dealings it might have with the Republic Srpska in the future. While we acknowledge the positive things that have taken place during the past twelve months, we must also recognize the reality that is still work that remain to be done. Of highest priority is the release of ethnic Albanian prisoners who continue to remain incarcerated in Serbian jails. Moreover, it is critical that the Government further its cooperation with The Hague War Crimes Tribunal. Certainly the transfer of Milosevic was highly important; at the same time, other indicated war criminals remain at large in the FRY, and every effort should be made to work with The Hague Tribunal to rid the country of those responsible for past atrocities. That being said, as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia joins the ranks of southeast Europe's new democracies, I believe it is important that we begin to look beyond the conditions outlined in the foreign operations appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001, and work to create an assistance program for the FRY that is in line with our aid programs to other countries in the region. Last October, when House and Senate conferees considered the final version of the fiscal year 2001 foreign operations spending bill. Vojislav Kostunica had been in office just a few short weeks. The status of Milosevic was widely unknown. Given the nascent state of the new government at that time, I believe including language allowing the United States flexibility in its assistance program to the FRY, should the new government have moved in a direction contrary to U.S. interests, was a reasonable thing to do. However, in the year following final consideration of last year's foreign operations appropriations bill, I believe the reformers in the FRY have developed a position--though not perfect--track record. While it is clear that additional steps must be taken to further cooperation with The Hague and implementation of the rule of law, I believe we have solid evidence that the new government is committed to moving forward with reforms. If they fail to make the progress they have promised, we have many avenues from which to demonstrate our displeasure. As my colleagues are aware, the State Department must notify Congress before distributing U.S. funds abroad. At that time, our Foreign Relations Committee or Foreign Operations Subcommittee can withhold assistance to any country abroad. Additionally, we may instruct U.S. representatives to international organizations such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to withhold their support for programs benefitting the FRY. Finally, if the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia does not act in accordance with actions deemed to be in their best interests by the United States and other members of the international community, there is no doubt in my mind that future U.S. support will be terminated. I appreciate the work that my colleagues on the Foreign Operations Subcommittee have done in preparing the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002. I recognize their efforts to send a positive message to reformers in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia by increasing the level of assistance to Serbia to $115 million for fiscal year 2002, which is $15 million above the fiscal year 2001 level, and providing $45 million for Montenegro. Further, the committee has included language in its report applauding the work that has been done by reformers in the FRY during the past year. I also strongly support my colleagues' decision to provide $28 million toward debt relief for the FRY, and I was pleased to join Senator Leahy and Senator McConnell as a cosponsor of an amendment authorizing that authority. While I support many provisions in the bill, I am nonetheless concerned that the same conditions on U.S. assistance to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia that were crafted in October 2000, just weeks after the change of government, appear in the bill one year later. It is my feeling that placing the same conditions on U.S. assistance to FRY now may send the wrong message to the country's reformers. While we should continue to encourage progress in the FRY, I believe placing the same three conditions on U.S. aid to the country year after year could be counterproductive. I will continue to work with my colleagues on the Foreign Operations Subcommittee and the Foreign Relations Committee during the next year regarding developments in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as our aid program to the country evolves, with the hope that we will be able to move beyond conditionality in years to come. While it is important for the United States to understand progress that is made in the FRY, it is also imperative that the leaders of the FRY understand that the actions they take on the three areas outlined in the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for FY2001 will have a dramatic impact on whether or not the conditions are included in next year's bill.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, earlier today I joined colleagues to underscore the importance of an energy policy to our national security. One of the reasons I came to the Senate was to adopt an energy policy. I lived with the lack of one as the mayor of the city of Cleveland and as Governor of the State of Ohio. An energy policy is needed to secure our national economy and guarantee our competitiveness in the global marketplace and now, more than ever before, to secure our national security. We do indeed have to harmonize our environmental needs and our energy needs to continue to improve the quality of our air and water, public health, and at the same time guarantee we have the resources at reasonable cost to meet our energy needs. In my opinion, we are in the midst of an energy crisis, one that is having a tremendous influence over the state of our economy and is affecting the quality of life of the American people and their confidence about the economic future of our Nation. I believe this crisis is caused by several factors. One, as I mentioned, the national energy policy, is faulty. Two, we saw in California a deregulation law which could be looked at in other parts of the country. Three, environmental policies have contributed to a lack of diversity and difficulties in siting new facilities, pipelines, and transmission lines. The definition of something called NSR, new source review, has put utilities and manufacturers in limbo to the extent they are doing nothing to improve the environment, and at the same time doing nothing to improve the availability of energy in our country. Fourth, we are too reliant on foreign sources of oil. Fifth, I think we have had an inappropriate demonizing of nuclear power in this country. As the Presiding Officer of the Senate knows, in his part of the country, many States rely heavily on nuclear power. Today we are a fossil fuel-based economy. Although there is broad recognition there will eventually be a shift away from primary reliance on fossil fuels and a greater use and emphasis on other resources, there are many people who would argue that alternative fuels are the answer to our energy crisis. Yes, several alternative energy sources exist today. They are either inexhaustible: solar, wind, nuclear; or renewed through a natural process: hydropower, plant-based fuels such as ethanol and vegetable oils. Currently, the contribution of alternative energy sources to U.S. needs range from less than one-tenth of 1 percent for wind and solar power, 3 percent from hydroelectric and biofuels each, and 8 percent from nuclear energy. Today, however, fossil fuel reserves appear to be adequate to serve this Nation's current energy needs, with a 70-year reserve for oil and approximately a 250-year reserve for coal at current consumption rates. One of my colleagues noted that wind power is the fastest growing source of electricity in the world and we should look to it more seriously as an alternative energy source. Another colleague pointed out that solar panels covering 100 by 100 square miles would produce enough solar energy to power this entire Nation. The truth is, although alternative energy sources are being used in some places across the country, we have been subsidizing solar and wind power for over 25 years. Combined, they make up only one-tenth of 1 percent of the total energy demand today. Renewables are now generally costlier than fossil fuels. For example, solar power is currently 8 to 10 times more costly. Even assuming an optimistic technology scenario, it will take at least 30 to 40 years before renewables energy infrastructure could be built from its current level to start contributing significantly to our energy supplies. In this chart we are talking about the impact of the lack of an energy policy. Costs have a disproportionate impact on low-income families. Since the beginning of the 107th Congress, I have been holding hearings across my State. I have asked individuals and business owners to relay their experiences on how the energy crisis has impacted them. In Cleveland, for example, I held a meeting with Catholic Charities, Lutheran Housing, the Salvation Army, senior citizens, low- income parents, and handicapped individuals. I heard many heartrending stories about their struggles to be able to afford their monthly energy bills. The Catholic diocese said in the year 2000 their help line received 3,400 calls for basic needs, items such as food, utilities, mortgage, and rent. The number of calls the diocese received went up 96 percent from 1999 to 2000, a 194-percent increase from 1998 to 2000. In the first 7 weeks of 2001, the Salvation Army in Cleveland had 559 families seeking assistance with energy costs. In comparison, for all of 2000 they had 330 families. On this chart, the Department of Energy demonstrates an individual or family making less than $10,000 a year is going to spend 29 percent of their income on energy. Those making between $10,000 and $24,000 spend about 13 percent of their income on energy. Those making over $50,000 spend 4 percent. It is obvious, for some of our brothers and sisters, the choice sometimes comes down to paying for heat or paying for food. Because of this, many of them had to rely on hunger centers for their meals and other necessities. The next chart shows the principal sources of energy today are oil, natural gas, and coal. It goes without saying that these fuels have become essential elements in creating our way of life. Despite the fact that each year we use energy more efficiently, energy demand rises about two-thirds of the rate of economic growth. With the funk we have in the economy, that is a little bit down right now. The chart shows that nuclear, hydropower, and nonhydropower renewables and others make up a very small percentage of production. Any shortfall created between production and consumption of the other three main sources of energy-- natural gas, oil, and coal--will be made up from imports. For example, oil imports have risen from 36 percent in 1973 to 56 percent in the year 2001. Refined gasoline net imports have risen from 1 percent in 1980 to approximately 5 percent in 2000. This increase in imports has been necessary to make up the difference from our closed refineries. Oil and natural gas demand is expected to continue to grow for the foreseeable future--oil at about 2 percent a year and gas in excess of 3 percent. Alternative energy sources such as wind and solar power are being pursued but will not alter this outlook for decades to come. Next, U.S. energy production. Now that we know how much Americans can expect to consume over the next two to three decades--we are talking from 1995 to the year 2020--it is important to see how that expectation will be met, given our current state of resources. This chart shows how much energy we produce domestically by fuel type. We can see the hydropower. We can see the nuclear, nonrenewables. We have petroleum. We have natural gas. We have coal. According to the Department of Energy, natural gas is expected to be the fastest growing component of world energy consumption. We saw that this winter when gas prices skyrocketed. Gas use is projected almost to double to 162 trillion cubic feet in 2020 from 84 trillion in 1999. If we do not increase infrastructure, installing more pipelines, the increased production will not reach our consumers. According to a study by the nonprofit operator of New England's power grid, New England will be increasing its natural gas demand from 16 percent in 1999 to a projected 45 percent in 2005, but they lack the local pipelines to distribute the gas to its markets. With that in mind, we also know there is an estimated 40 percent of undiscovered natural gas located on land leased by the Federal and State government. These resources will be needed to be tapped to accommodate the inevitable increase in natural gas consumption. If not, then we face the hardship of increasing dependence on foreign resources that will have the capacity to cripple our energy economy. The challenge to produce more oil and natural gas is greater because the production of our existing resource base is subject to a natural decline through depletion. Fuel cells, electric vehicles, hybrids, biomass, solar technology, and wind energy, all represented on this chart as nonhydropower renewables, are all very promising alternative energy sources for the future. But right now there is no suitable infrastructure in place that will allow for these energies--even when combined, as you will see in later charts--to sufficiently supply current needs, much less future demands. Let's look at U.S. energy consumption. The green line is the consumption of energy in this country. The red line represents the current production. And of the projections, the purple line represents renewables, including hydro- and nonhydropower. In other words, the difference between the green and the red line is what we are having to bring in from out of the U.S. sources in order to meet the needs of the United States of America. Americans do consume more energy than we produce and will continue to consume more energy, especially fossil fuels, for decades to come. Although several sources exist today, the chart reflects, as I said before, that the contribution of renewables and others is very little, if you look down the road. This means that our President is right. We need more refineries. We need more electric powerplants, more coal, more natural gas pipelines and production. It is plain to see that we will not be able to conserve our way out of this crisis. While conservation helps--and it has rightly made a difference--it is not going to meet our estimated consumption without drastically changing America's standard of living. The United States of America is the world's largest energy producer, consumer, and net importer. However, it is no secret that the United States is becoming more and more dependent on foreign oil imports. This chart reflects what we have to look forward to by way of dependence, out through the year 2020. If we look at our petroleum consumption and look at it here on this chart, and this green line is our petroleum production, what we are faced with is, between 2000 and 2020 we will be relying on oil from foreign countries. It is an enormous amount of oil. We will be depending on them for an enormous amount of oil. Total imports in the month of April, for example, this year, as a percentage of total domestic petroleum deliveries was 62.4 percent. At this time last year, it was about 59 percent. The total petroleum products delivered to the domestic market in April equaled over 19 million barrels per day, while in the same month last year it delivered about 18.5 million barrels per day. The scarce petroleum resource is not a problem experienced only by the United States; this energy crisis is experienced across the globe, so much so that as foreign countries realize the increase in their own energy needs, they will be far less willing to accommodate the growing export demands our country is going to place upon them. For example, China used to export oil. Today they are a big importer of oil. The demand for oil is growing worldwide. But even with increased reliance on foreign oil as a country, we are not going to go far if we do not work earnestly to expand the natural gas and oil pipeline system we have in our country. Our Nation's 200,000-mile oil pipeline system is the world's largest. These almost invisible ribbons of steel deliver more than 13.3 billion barrels of crude oil and petroleum products in a typical year. Without them, it would take thousands of trucks and barges clogging the Nation's roads and waterways to do the same. The capacity of the system, however, is being seriously eroded and the future of oil and natural gas transmission does not appear to be promising. If we refuse to act, the alternative will be a continued capacity squeeze and higher transmission costs passed on to the consumer. And in some areas they are very expensive. This chart shows what we can expect under three different energy production scenarios through the year 2020. The top line assumes energy use with respect to economic growth. This means that if we as a nation continued along the same lines as we are currently traveling, to the year 2020, with energy demands rising in proportion to economic growth, and there were no further technological advances made, then consumption would increase dramatically. The bottom line represents energy production growth without significant changes. The second line is what the Department of Energy predicts will happen if consumers are offered a menu of available technologies to choose from, an example of which would be a family replacing a vehicle after several years of use, with a more fuel-efficient one. What happens is, if you use this chart, if we use energy production with available technology and conservation, we will bring down the need. Then if we fold in energy production using available technology, we will bring it down some more. So this shows that by using technology and conservation, we can bring down this demand for energy in this country. But the fact is, we still have a long way to go, if you look at the difference between this green line and this gray line. This is the amount of energy we are going to have to make up for during the years to come. The third path, as I already mentioned, reflects the impact of conservation at its height. The point I am trying to make is that we have an enormous gap between what we are going to need, in terms of energy in the United States of America, and our production. That gap will have to be made up by foreign imports if we do not act quickly to accommodate this increased demand with our own resources. There is no guarantee that these foreign imports will be available. I believe we are more vulnerable today then ever before. Early this year, I visited with President Mubarak, for an hour, with Senator Specter. Then we traveled to Israel and met with at that time Prime Minister Barak, Shimon Peres, and now-Prime Minister Sharon, and several Arab leaders. I came back from that trip very concerned in regard to the growing Muslim extreme fundamentalism in that part of the world. The thought I had was that if this continued to grow and they impacted on our allies in that part of the world, we could be brought to our knees in terms of our ability to get oil from that part of the world. I think most people would agree the situation today is far more scary than it was then. As you know, our major source of oil there is the Saudis--good friends. I am pleased the President and Secretary of State have worked with some of our friends there and they are stepping up to the plate and being responsive to our needs. But there is no guarantee. Osama bin Laden, who has targeted the leadership in Saudi Arabia, could change that situation. Then the issue is, Where do we find ourselves? If we think about what happened in California this last year, and the urgency, the crisis, and the impact that it had on the rest of the country, it affected businesses in the State of Ohio. But when that happened, we started burning dirty diesel. Environmental restrictions came off, and we just went to town to take care of the problem we had in California. Can you just imagine what would happen in this country if our oil supply was cut off? It would be Katy bar the door. We would get oil from wherever we could, and environmental concerns would go straight out the window because we would need to keep our country going. What I am saying is that it is time we adopt an energy policy in this country. It is something that cannot be delayed. This is not a Republican or a Democratic issue. We have a real problem that needs to be solved. Our national security is in jeopardy, and we need to go forward and deal with this problem before we leave the Senate this year. As far as I am concerned, it is just as important as the proposed legislation we have to stimulate the economy. If we don't have an energy policy as part of that economic stimulus and if we cannot guarantee that the future looks bright in terms of our energy costs, we are in deep trouble. Part of the recession in the State of Ohio occurred this last winter when the price of heating oil went up because of the demand for natural gas. It struck a blow to many of the businesses in our State, let alone those people who I talked about before who live in our inner cities and who do not have the kind of furnaces we have, the windows, and all of the other items that are available to those who are a little bit more fortunate. I am urging my colleagues in the Senate to arrange to work out some agreement where we can bring this energy issue to the floor and debate it. I am sure there are going to be controversial issues, but we have dealt with controversial issues before. Let's get it on the floor. Let's amend it. Let's debate it and get it over with so we can secure our economic future, secure our competitive position in the global marketplace, and, last but not least, secure our national security. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I cannot help but comment about the eloquent words we have just heard from the Senator from West Virginia. When I go home, people are quite concerned about our country, the state of our homeland security, the state of our security abroad, the situation with our economy. The eloquent words of the Senator from West Virginia speak to that and underscore the fact that when we have ever been challenged, we have had the people who will rise to the occasion and solve those problems that have been confronting our country. One of the things I have been really impressed with is how thankful the people are that those of us who are Republicans and Democrats have been working together and putting aside partisan politics for the benefit of our country. We need to really not forget how important that is to our people at this very critical time. So I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his remarks.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, discussions of the budget that once dominated the news headlines have been eclipsed since the world was forever changed by the horrendous events of September 11, and no one knows more about those events than the Presiding Officer. Perhaps one of the most significant changes resulting from the terrorist attacks is how significantly our fiscal priorities have been altered. Almost instantly the debate shifted from how to protect the Social Security surplus to how we should spend it to pay for counterterrorism and homeland defense efforts and stimulate the economy. By necessity, this dramatic change in our fiscal situation calls for Congress to sort out our top priorities between those that existed before September 11 and which continue to demand our attention and our new priorities, defending our homeland, fighting terrorism, and boosting the economy. We will commit the resources that are needed to succeed in this challenge and we will obtain those resources in whatever way is necessary. Some of my colleagues will remember that prior to the events of September 11 I was working closely with the administration and several of my colleagues on a bill designed to protect the Social Security surplus, control spending, and ensure debt reduction. That legislation had two exceptions: recession and war. If it had been in place, both of these exceptions would apply. Having said that, I emphatically say to my colleagues that the need for fiscal discipline is greater now than ever before. It must not be a casualty of September 11. We still need to prioritize our spending and we still need to make hard choices. As I said, the events of September 11 changed everything, and they have also changed our fiscal outlook for years to come. Over the past few fiscal years, sustained by peace, prosperity, and assuredness, our Nation has had record budget surpluses. Unfortunately, the existence of surpluses has had an undesirable effect. Congress has expanded the Government, created new programs, and dramatically increased spending in others. The speed at which the fiscal fortunes of the Federal Government have shifted is astounding. Almost 8 months ago, CBO projected we would run an on-budget surplus for fiscal year 2001 of $125 billion, as well as a $156 billion Social Security surplus--a total of $281 billion that was supposed to be used for debt reduction. However, on September 26, the CBO released its monthly budget review and revealed a much different story. According to the CBO, when all is said and done the total unified budget surplus in fiscal year 2001 will be $121 billion, a change of $160 billion from the January estimate. This means Congress used $40 billion of the Social Security surplus to fund the general Government activities. The news for fiscal year 2002 is equally sobering. Last week the Senate Budget Committee, working in a bipartisan manner, released new figures on the budget outlook for fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2011. The committee predicts that we are on track to spend the entire Social Security surplus in the 2002 fiscal year, and most or part of the Social Security surplus in the following year. We see that on this chart. We show a $52 billion surplus, but the fact is, we are truly in deficit because we will be using $122 billion of Social Security in 2002, $125 billion in 2003, and so forth. So we are going to be using the Social Security surplus, according to this chart, all the way out to the year 2006. I remind my colleagues the projected $52 billion unified surplus is a gross exaggeration of the possible surplus this year because we have pledged we are going to use $60 to $75 billion to stimulate the economy, which means we are going to wipe out this $52 billion surplus in 2002. In fact, we are going to have to borrow the money from the public to pay for the things we want to do. I would like to remind my colleagues the bleak budget outlook I described goes way out into future years. The Senate Budget Committee projected we will spend significant portions of Social Security surpluses, as I mentioned, in 2003 to 2006. I further remind my colleagues that these figures on this chart, as bad as they are, do not tell the whole story. These we are showing are based on a cost-of-living increase in spending based on inflation. Remember Congress spent 14.5 percent more in fiscal 2001 on nondefense discretionary spending than they did in fiscal year 2000. We should have no illusions that Congress is going to spend at the rate of inflation. I don't know of any time that Congress has spent money at the rate of inflation. As to these numbers on this chart, you might as well forget them. They are gone because the projections are based on inflationary increases and we know that is not going to be the case. Our current crisis should not be used as an excuse to run up the tab for programs and projects not related to the war on terrorism or stimulating our economy. Now more than ever before we have to prioritize our funding and make tough choices. Do our spending choices put the safety of American lives at home and abroad front and center? Will they truly boost the economy? These are the questions that should be applied to every dollar Congress spends. Our current fiscal position does not allow for any unnecessary spending. Domestic needs must be reprioritized. Those of us who have been concerned about fiscal responsibility have to recommit ourselves to fiscal discipline. We have to make the tough choices to keep in check the urge to spend, keeping in mind we are spending the Nation's Social Security money with every additional dollar that goes out the door. Once it has gone out the door, we are then going to borrow that money from the public. I am concerned that some proposals being considered in this Senate are inappropriate, given the long-term budget pressures we face. You will be hearing from me and hopefully many others about some of those proposals. If the stimulus package we put in place results in chronic budget deficits, it is going to drive up interest rates. And make no mistake about it, the financial markets are closely watching what we do. If they see Congress taking actions that will steer the Federal Government towards persistent deficits, they will drive interest rates higher. Higher interest rates will have exactly the opposite effect on the economy from what we want. They would put a brake on the economy by raising consumers' interest payments and discouraging economic activity. Remember, low interest rates are important to the economy. In fact, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has been quite clear about this as he has highlighted this to many of us. I think this is very important. This is not merely an academic exercise. The recent rise in long-term interest rates is attributed to the deteriorating budget condition of the Federal Government in the past few weeks. As my colleagues know, Congress will consider a true stimulus package in the near future. Helping America's workers, all workers, should be and will be a part of that package and should be our No. 1 priority. The stimulus package can only be so big. So it is critical that we touch as many Americans as possible. All of them should participate in that economic stimulus package. That same message applies to the money we allocate to fight terrorism at home and abroad. We need to prioritize and we need to get the biggest bang for our buck, literally and figuratively. We in this body must never lose sight that the day of reckoning with the baby boomer retirement has not been put off by our current crisis. Like it or not, the baby boomers will begin to retire in about 10 years, and if we fail to act, we will put an unacceptable burden on our children and grandchildren. We face an important challenge in preparing for that day. Our goal should be to fund our war on terrorism at home and abroad, respond to the needs of the victims of the terrorist attack in New York and here in Washington, get our economy going, and as soon as possible end deficit spending. We owe it to our children and grandchildren. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about fiscal responsibility. Before I begin, I take a moment to discuss the Carnahan amendment to the aviation security bill. First, I congratulate Senator McCain and Senator Hollings for the passage of the airport security bill. The passage of that bill is long overdue. It is needed to secure our airports and aviation and to build confidence in the American public. One of the things that has gone unmentioned is most economists agree one of the best things we can do to get the economy off the ground is to get our airlines into the air. My constituents in Ohio have a significant stake in this bill because Ohio has a significant aviation presence. In fact, with no disrespect to my good friends from North Carolina, Ohio is the birth place of aviation since the Wright brothers hailed from Dayton and honed their skills in Ohio. They just happened to test out the ``flyer'' at Kitty Hawk. Today, a number of airlines have hubs in Ohio: Continental in Cleveland, Delta in Cincinnati, America West has a big presence in Columbus. Thousands of men and women working in the airline industry are hurting. I greatly appreciate the effort of my colleague from Missouri to aid them. There is no question the aviation sector has suffered particularly hard from this economic downturn and was hit right in the eye with the terrorist attack on September 11. However, as my colleagues well know, there are tens of thousands around the country who have lost their jobs in the past few months. There are tens of thousands more who are facing tough times, particularly in manufacturing States such as Ohio. There are thousands of Ohioans who lost their jobs in the steel mills, in the polymer industry, and in the auto plants. According to the most recent statistics from the Ohio Department of Jobs and Family Services, 250,000 Ohioans today are unemployed. This figure is before September 11. Now, undoubtedly that number is larger. The vast majority of these workers would not benefit from the provisions of the Carnahan amendment. It is very important that whatever assistance Congress renders to the workers of this Nation, it is not just restricted to a set of workers. I would have offered an amendment to the airport security bill, but I felt it would delay the bill and I also felt it would be more properly a part of the economic stimulus package. I intend to offer an amendment to that package when it comes before the Senate. I hope that happens quite soon.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, one of the guiding principles upon which the United States of America was founded is that of religious freedom. Indeed, it is guaranteed in the Constitution, and it is a right that we as Americans hold dear. Our forefathers came to these shores from nations all over the world searching for the ability to worship as they pleased, and even now, men, women and children still come to the United States to do so. Today, virtually every branch of religion known to man is represented here in the United States. That fact should not only be expected in a Nation of immigrants, but our diversity of cultures and religions should be celebrated. However, in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, events have occurred across this Nation that fly in the face of our Constitutional guarantees. Acts of hatred have been perpetrated against Arab-Americans and Muslim-Americans as if they had carried out or even condoned the killing of thousands of innocents. I am disturbed by the stories I have heard in the last few weeks; a Sikh gas station owner in Mesa, AZ, who was shot and killed in the weekend following the attack simply because he was wearing a turban; a Pakistani Muslim grocer in Texas, as well as an Egyptian Christian in California, both killed in crimes of hate as a result of the attacks; two girls in Palos Hills, IL, beaten because they were Muslim; a mosque in Evansville, IN, damaged by a man who rammed his car through a wall. We have had incidences of intolerance in my own home state of Ohio, I'm sad to say, where large ball bearings have been tossed through the windows of Arab-American owned businesses in Hamilton, and an Islamic Center in Cincinnati continues to receive harassing and threatening phone calls. These stories, which have resonated across the country, do not constitute the views of the majority of Americans. Indeed, most Americans are peaceful and tolerant. The individuals perpetrating these crimes may think these acts represent patriotism, but they are far from it. Instead, they are perpetuating a hatred similar to that which drove 19 terrorists to take so many lives on that fateful Tuesday, and it must stop. There are 6.5 million Muslims living in the United States today. By September 27, the FBI was investigating over 90 hate crimes committed against Muslims, individuals of Middle Eastern descent, or in some cases, individuals who appear Muslim or Middle Eastern. While these cases are under investigation, the Council on American-Islamic Relations has received reports of more than 625 attacks against Arab- Americans. This type of bigotry cannot go on. On September 11, the terrorists did not single out their victims based on what they looked like or how they worshiped. They killed American citizens and foreign nationals of dozens of other nations indiscriminately. They murdered men, women and children of different ethnic backgrounds and religions, many of whom were themselves Muslims. Some of our citizens have lost loved ones and friends, yet the vast majority of us have lost only our innocence. Our Nation is hurting right now, and we will all grieve in our own fashion, but we must not redirect our anger and frustration against one another. Even in the face of such hatred in our own Nation, the rays of hope and compassion still shine. The same Islamic Center in Cincinnati that has been the target of hate has raised $6,000 for the American Red Cross, and will hold a blood drive soon to help in rescue efforts. Muslims from the tri-state area, Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana, have also helped in the relief efforts, calling on their community to donate blood, give money, and pray for the victims and their families. As President George W. Bush stated in his September 20 speech to the Nation, ``[Islam's] teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah.'' We must not only remember these words in the weeks to come, but we need to assure men and women of all backgrounds that the American people understand that the terrorists who attacked the United States do not represent all Muslims, just like those who commit hate crimes against Americans of Muslim or Middle Eastern origin do not represent all Americans. The more that we understand one another, the greater the chance for peace.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I rise today in support of the preservation of the Federal Prison Industries Program. Language that is currently in the Defense authorization bill would gut this program within the Bureau of Federal Prisons, effectively withdrawing hope for thousands of incarcerated Federal prisoners and fostering a dangerous number of idle hands within our Federal prison system. Today, the Federal Prison Industries Program employs and provides valuable skills training to the greatest practicable number of inmates incarcerated within the Federal prison system. Overall, FPI has some 21,000 inmates in more than 100 Federal prisons working in 100 industries, from textiles to electronics to graphic design. In Ohio, the Federal Correctional Institute at Elkton has up to 450 inmates working in data processing and electronics recycling. This employment of prisoners does more than just occupy time, it teaches prisoners the skills they need to obtain a job once they leave prison. By giving prisoners an opportunity to change their lives, the FPI program contributes to security inside prisons, and it reduces the rate of recidivism among those it trains. Indeed, inmates in FPI's work programs are 24 percent less likely to be repeat offenders after being released. In addition, 55 percent of inmates' wages go toward meeting their financial obligations, such as victim restitution, child support, and court fees. When I was Governor of Ohio, we had a similar program to FPI and saw firsthand the success and value of giving inmates a second change at being productive members of society. In Ohio, we had inmates who had been trained in horticulture take part in groundskeeping throughout the Governor's residence. We had inmates working in the Governor's office mailroom and copy center operations, where they put together news clippings, distributed mail and did a good portion of the photocopying. Overall, I had an extremely good experience with the work these inmates did, and I have to say that for the most part, the work they performed was excellent. For some inmates who had exemplified themselves, I even wrote letters of recommendation to help them get jobs when they got out of prison. The experience that I have had at the State level by employing State inmates is one that is replicated at the Federal level through the FPI program. I understand that some private sector companies desire to compete for FPI contracts, however, I believe that FPI provides an invaluable opportunity for inmates, and the communities to which they will eventually return, that cannot be ignored. While I find merit in pursing possible reforms to the FPI program, I do not believe the answer is to completely obliterate FPI, as the current language does. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support to ensure the viability of FPI, the safety of our Federal prisons and the rehabilitation of our Federal inmates.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the motion to strike BRAC from the Defense authorization bill and to speak on behalf of amendments that would put the money that we would save to better use in terms of our national security. We just elected a new President of the United States. He selected an outstanding management team: Colin Powell, Secretary of State; Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense; people who are well seasoned in terms of our national security interests. It seems to me if that team we are entrusting the security of the United States of America to believes the BRAC process would be well taken in the best interests of the United States of America and would serve our national security needs that we ought to follow their leadership in that regard. If we have confidence in them moving forward with all the other aspects of securing our national defense, we ought to also give them some recognition and approval in terms of what they want to do in terms of our infrastructure and our bases in the United States and throughout the world. I hope the Members of the Senate will consider their recommendations. As recently as September 21 after the national tragedy on the 11th, Secretary Rumsfeld came back and said to the Armed Services Committee: We want it. We need it. Please give it to us. I urge my colleagues to pay attention to the folks to whom we have entrusted our security. Almost two weeks ago, the American people watched in horror as the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon unfolded before our very eyes. As the nation slowly recovers, the image that no one will forget is that of Fire, Police and emergency service personnel running towards the flames and destruction while terrified individuals ran the other way. These brave men and women knew they were racing into obvious danger, risking their own lives in order to save others, but each one knew--and accepted the fact--that it was their job to do so. Just three days after the attack on the Pentagon, I got an opportunity to see the devastation at that familiar landmark first- hand. I was struck by the looks of quiet determination on the faces of the rescue personnel, each knowing the serious business they faced, and contemplating the serious business they have yet to do. Last Thursday, I was in New York City with 40 of my colleagues to tour the World Trade Center site. Standing at ``ground zero,'' seeing that devastation first hand, has sealed my resolve to do whatever I can to make sure that such terrorism is never again used upon the United States of America. It is important for the future of our nation--our children and grandchildren--that we support the President. The President was absolutely right in his speech to the nation last Thursday evening when he said ``Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen.'' As I said on the floor of the Senate the day after this heinous attack, ``our actions must be ongoing and relentless, and be dedicated to excising the cancer of terrorism wherever it raises its ugly head.'' And if we expect to win this war, we will need the resources necessary to do so, and the one resource we need above all others is human capital. The American people have demanded--and rightly so--that we make our airports and commercial aircraft safer. They want this government to turn the full force of the FBI towards conducting investigations and pursuing terrorism suspects. They have urged us to beef-up our border patrols and strengthen our immigrations and customers enforcement. And most of all, they want this nation to use the full force of its intelligence, law enforcement and military apparatus to root out and squash every terrorist organization in the world. To ask their government to do these things is the right of every American, but these will not be easy tasks to accomplish, Mr. President. They will not be easy because at this moment, the federal government faces a human capital crisis; we are losing the very people we need to run our government--and their valuable experience--with each passing month. And as they retire, we are not doing enough to replace them with the ``best and the brightest:'' the individuals who will carry-on the important work of our nation. The human capital crisis saps our strength as a nation, and at this critical time in our history, we cannot afford to be vulnerable. Since I was elected to the Senate, I have devoted a great deal of my time towards examining this crisis in the Federal workforce and how we can address it. I can tell you that we need a unified strategy to rebuild the federal civil service in light of the challenges it confronts--especially in the aftermath of the attack on our nation on September 11. The human capital crisis extends not just to our security and law enforcement agencies, but it includes virtually every department, agency, and office in the Federal Government. While the entire Federal Government is in need of a massive infusion of high quality human capital, I am most concerned about the workforce of the national security establishment, because national security is the most important responsibility of the Federal Government. On March 29, the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management held a hearing entitled, ``The National Security Implications of the Human Capital Crisis.'' At the March 29 hearing that I chaired, former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger and Admiral Harry Train, United States Navy, retired, testified on behalf of the U.S. Commission on National Security in the 21st Century. The Commission, which was chartered by former Defense Secretary William Cohen in 1998 and chaired by former Senators Warren Rudman and Gary Hart, undertook a comprehensive evaluation of our national security strategy and structure. The final report of the Commission, ``Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change,'' was released this past February. It includes 50 recommendations on such areas as recapitalizing America's strengths in science and education, institutional redesign of critical national security agencies, the human requirements for national security, and securing the national homeland. On this latter point, I am pleased that the President has taken quick action to establish an Office of Homeland Security. The head of that office, Governor Tom Ridge is a friend of mine, and I know that he is more than able to face this challenge. Regarding human capital, the Commission's final report concludes: As it enters the 21st century, the United States finds itself on the brink of an unprecedented crisis of competence in government. The maintenance of American power in the world depends on the quality of U.S. government personnel, civil and military, at all levels. We must take immediate action in the personnel area to ensure that the United States can meet future challenges. The report went on the state that: . . . it is the Commission's view that fixing the personnel problem is a precondition for fixing virtually everything else that needs repair in the institutional edifice of U.S. national security policy. The General Accounting Office's Comptroller General, David Walker, also pointed to the human capital crisis as a growing problem in our national security establishment, stating at a hearing I held in February that: At the Department of Defense, where a Defense Science Board task force found that ``there is no overarching framework'' for planning DOD's future workforce, civilian downsizing has led to skills and experience imbalances that are jeopardizing acquisition and logistics capacities. In addition, the State Department is having difficulty recruiting and retaining Foreign Service Officers . . . In fact, we have less people today applying to the Foreign Service. And of those people who we find meeting those very high standards, less of them are going in the Foreign Service than ever before. I believe Secretary Schlesinger and Comptroller General Walker hit it right on the head when it comes to human capital. Consider that we are currently making preparations to take on Osama bin Laden and his Taliban protectors and we don't have enough people who speak their language. Consider that the investigation that is underway by the FBI is hampered by a lack of language specialists. Indeed, the Washington Post reported on September 17 that: . . . although investigators are receiving large quantities of data from documents and wiretaps, two well-placed former law enforcement officials said the FBI suffers a lack of Arabic linguists and analysts. In fact, the situation is such that, the United States is now advertising for anyone who speaks Farsi or Arabic to come forward and help out as translators in the aftermath of the September 11 tragedies. I do not know how many people in the national security establishment actually speak Farsi, but it is apparent that we do not have enough. And while I believe we need a full scale assault on human capital crisis in the Federal Government, again, the first and foremost obligation of the Nation is to ensure the defense of its citizens. For the last 2\1/2\ years, I have been working on a targeted piece of the human capital needs of the civilian defense workforce. I remind my colleagues that during the 1990s, over 280,000 Defense Department civilian positions were eliminated with little or no regard for workforce planning. On top of that, new hiring was severely restricted. Taken together, these two factors have inhibited the development of mid-level career, civilian professionals--the men and women who serve a vital role in the management and development of our Nation's military. To help remedy this, Senator DeWine and I amended last year's defense authorization bill and provided the Department with a special authority to reshape its workforce after a decade of significant downsizing. The authority provided to the Department last year allowed it to offer 1,000 voluntary separation incentive payments in fiscal year 2001, and 8,000 total incentive payments and voluntary early retirements--4,000 in fiscal year 2002 and 4,000 in fiscal year 2003-- for the purpose of reshaping that workforce. Last year's defense authorization bill required these authorities to be reauthorized this year. Human capital is the Federal Government's most valuable resource, and this program is only a downpayment on the changes and authorities the U.S. will need to enact and implement to revitalize the civilian side of our defense establishment. The amendment Senator DeWine and I are offering to section 1113 of this bill is simple: it reauthorizes these important workforce reshaping proposals for both fiscal years 2002 and 2003. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, OH, is an excellent example of the challenge facing military installations across the country. Wright-Patterson is the headquarters of the Air Force Materiel Command, employing 10,900 civilian Federal workers. By 2005, 40 percent of the workforce will be age 55 or older. Another 19 percent will be between 50 and 54 years of age. Thirty-three percent will be in their forties. Only 6 percent will be age 35 to 39, and less than 2 percent will be under the age of 34. According to these numbers, by 2005--only 4 years from now--60 percent of Wright-Patterson's civilian employees will be eligible for either early or regular retirement. There is a legitimate concern that when significant portions of the civilian workforce at Wright-Patterson and other military bases retire, including hundreds of key leaders and employees with crucial expertise, the remaining workforce could be left without experienced leadership and most important institutional knowledge. Military base leaders--indeed, the entire Defense establishment--need to be given the flexibility to hire new employees so they can begin to develop another generation of civilian leaders and employees who will be able to provide critical support to our men and women in uniform. I thank Chairman Levin and Senator Warner for their support on this amendment. Incredibly, with a human capital crisis facing our Nation and the report on the vulnerability of U.S. security in the year 2000, it seems that the House of Representatives may not reauthorize the workforce reshaping program that Congress passed last year. We should be very, very concerned about this. If the provisions of our amendment are not included in the House bill, I would urge the House conferees to join in support of this amendment as the final version of the Defense Authorization Act is being developed. Let me state again that this amendment does not address all of the human capital needs of the Defense Department. It is just a small down payment. Additional action needs to be taken to help ensure that the Department of Defense recruits and retains a quality workforce so that our Armed Forces may remain the best in the world and be able to keep the world secure in the 21st century. I will continue to work towards that goal, and will be introducing a more comprehensive bill that not only responds to the human capital crisis in the U.S. security establishment, but in the entire Federal Government as well. In the wake of these attacks, our men and women in Government all across the Nation have a renewed sense of purpose--to keep America safe and preserve our freedoms. I have never seen more determination and patriotism in my entire life. Right now, law enforcement and military personnel are standing vigilant to watch over America. The Border Patrol, the Customs Service, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service are closely monitoring who is coming into the United States and who is leaving. Active and reserve elements of the Air Force, Navy, and the Marine Corps have been and will continue to patrol the skies above Washington and other cities. The Navy and Coast Guard are guarding our ports and patrolling our waters. Tens of thousands of reservists have been called up to assist in these activities. At this moment, troops are being deployed in Southwest and Central Asia. In the days and weeks and months ahead, our brave soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines will be called upon to risk their lives and, in some cases, give their lives in an effort to rid the world of the evil scourge of terrorism. Still, Mr. President, as much as we are asking our military personnel and our Government employees to do what we are asking them to do right now, more is going to be asked of them. More will be asked of them. We have a responsibility to the future generations of this Nation to give the Federal Government the tools it needs to help retain and attract the best and the brightest. I believe our amendment is a good first start towards getting that job done. I think all of us know, if we want to win the World Series or we want to win the Super Bowl, we need the best and the brightest. That is what we need. And the best and the brightest have not been coming to the Federal Government. In fact, I have talked to the dean of Harvard's John F. Kennedy School, Dean Nye. He is very concerned about the fact that 10 years ago, 70 percent of their brightest people would be going into Government; today it is around 40 percent. So we have a long way to go. I hope with this amendment we will be able to attract some of those people to our civilian defense establishment.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I rise today to indicate my strong opposition to amendment No. 1622, which would strip a provision authorizing a round of base closures in fiscal year 2003 from the fiscal year 2002 Defense authorization bill, and differ from some of my colleagues who would like to do that. As one who voted for base closing last year, I understand how important this provision is to our national security. As many of my colleagues are aware, our military now finds itself with an infrastructure base that is no longer proportionate to its force structure. It is estimated we now support an infrastructure that is in excess nearly 25 percent. In other words, we have an infrastructure out there of bases; there is 25 percent more than what we really need. I believe rather than continuing to pay for unneeded facilities, our defense dollars can and should be better spent to meet the most pressing needs of our armed services. I stand behind Chairman Levin, Senator Warner, and other members of the Armed Services Committee who supported the inclusion of this provision in the fiscal year 2002 Defense authorization bill. As the committee noted in its report accompanying the bill, our top civilian and uniformed military leaders have requested this authority. For the last 5 years, they have been asking for it. I believe we should trust their guidance and act to grant the Defense Department this much- needed authority. Too often I have noticed in this body that we do not support the recommendations of the people we charged with the responsibility to get the job done. We know more about it than they do. In this case, we have charged these people with the responsibility to secure our freedom and provide our national defense. We should listen to them. I am so glad the Armed Services Committee did so in this case. The committee said: The committee believes that the arguments for allowing the closure of additional facilities are clear and compelling. The department has excess facilities. Closing bases saves money, and the military services have higher priority uses that could be funded with those savings. As our Nation prepares to engage in a new battle to combat terrorist threats against the United States and the Free World at large, it is critical that these excess resources be used to meet the most pressing defense needs. I respectfully disagree with the argument that we should not act on this initiative as our country prepares to take on those who commit acts of terrorism against our Nation. On the contrary, I believe that now, more than ever before, we need these resources for more important endeavors. As the Secretary of Defense noted in a letter to Chairman Levin, dated September 21, 2001--I want to make the point that I have heard several people say on the floor of the Senate that they can't do it, they are too busy with other things, and don't have the time or resources to properly do the overview that they need to determine which of these bases ought to be closed. It seems to me that they have a better idea of what their capacity is than we have. In this letter from the Secretary of Defense, dated September 21-- that is pretty near--he said: Indeed, in the wake of the terrible events of September 11, the imperative to convert excess capacity into war-fighting ability is enhanced, not diminished. Basically, they say we can handle the job. Give us the permission so we can move on with it. We made hard decisions regarding the size of force structure during the past decade and we can continue to do more to make corresponding choices regarding the size and configuration of our military installations. Some of the words I have heard were that we have had base closings and they have been wonderful in terms of cost savings. The cost savings associated with past base realignment and closures, including several from my State of Ohio, is considerable. That is the other thing. So often when these things come up, people are thinking of their own bases and they don't want to lose the bases. I didn't want to lose the bases in Ohio that went through the BRAC process. I thought it was fair and above board. They did close down bases. In other instances, we were able to convince them that the bases should remain open. But the fact is, as a result of these base closings, the Department of Defense has a cost savings of nearly $14 billion because of these initiatives. Given the fact we still have a military infrastructure that is in excess of more than 20 percent, we can continue to generate even more savings with an additional round of base closures. The Secretary of Defense estimates that with an additional round of base closures, in fiscal year 2003, our taxpayers are going to save $3.5 billion annually. In this particular case, I don't think the savings are going to be there. We will take the savings and put them to use by taking care of this war dealing with terrorism. Given these savings, there should be little doubt that additional rounds of closures will do a much better job of directing expenditures where we need them. As I have long advocated during my time in public office, I believe we should work harder and smarter and do more with less. That is what we are asked to do. Keeping excess and unneeded military installations up and running takes scarce and critical resources from meeting important priorities in light of our new war. It just doesn't make sense. How can we ask the American people to increase our defense budget by $18.4 billion and, at the same time, know that by closing these bases we can save another $3.5 billion annually? Again, that is $3.5 billion annually. I believe the base closures are essential to allowing our men and women in uniform to best serve the strategic and national security interests of the United States. I strongly oppose any amendment that would remove the much needed provision from the fiscal year 2002 Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, yesterday the United States of America suffered a horrible national tragedy the images of which will forever etch the date, September 11, 2001, in the collective minds of the American people. As Father Eugene Hemrick of St. Joseph's Church said this morning at mass, our lives will never be the same. As one who has lost a child, I know this is especially true for the families of those who were the victims of this act of war and of those who laid down their lives to save them. My thoughts and prayers are with them. As Members of Congress, our first responsibility, working with the President on a bipartisan basis, is to secure the support that the victims and their families will need in the days and months ahead-- their grief should not be compounded by worrying about how they will deal with their tragedy financially. We must provide the resources our country needs to guarantee that yesterday's tragedy will not be repeated during the lifetime of our children and grandchildren. We must prioritize how we allocate these resources including the money to upgrade the technology and personnel that secure our airports, and we must respond to the human capital needs that caused former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, who now represents the U.S. Commission on National Security in the 21st Century, to say before the Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee earlier this year: . . . it is the Commission's view that fixing the personnel problem is a precondition for fixing virtually everything else that needs repair in the institutional edifice of U.S. national security policy. We must also dedicate ourselves to meeting a number of other challenges, including: providing the resources that will help improve our signals intelligence capabilities, or, in other words, our ability to ``listen in'' on unfriendly nations; stepped-up law enforcement to prevent terrorism; coordination of effort between various Federal agencies such as CIA, FBI, NSA, etc.; coordination of effort between Federal, State and local governments and law enforcement to maximize our ability to stop terrorist activity; and greater use of electronic surveillance and satellite imagery to track the enemies of peace. Finally, we must identify those responsible for committing these cowardly acts of war as well as those who have encouraged them by silence, assistance or asylum and we must hold these individuals or Nations accountable. I agree with what President Bush said in his address to the Nation last evening: we will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them. We must also join the President and declare war on terrorism and convince world religions and political leaders that terrorism is a threat to peace in the world and a prelude to Armageddon. We need more voices in the world like Pope John Paul II who said: . . . the ways of violence will never lead to genuine solutions to humanity's problems. Our determination to winning the war on terrorism must have the same high priority that we gave to winning World War II, and we must engage our allies in this war. We should make the same preparation that we made for D-Day and the world's entry into the Persian Gulf war. Our actions must be ongoing and relentless, and be dedicated to excising the cancer of terrorism wherever it raises its ugly head. Our efforts cannot be another catharsis after a national tragedy, and they must not fade with time into business as usual. We owe it to yesterday's victims and their families, especially their children and grandchildren. Most of all, we owe it to the American people and the world community to bring an end to terrorism everywhere and forever.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I am honored to stand before you today and congratulate Lieutenant Steve Young, his family and friends on his well-deserved nomination as President of the National Fraternal Order of Police, FOP. As you may know, the 86 year-old Fraternal Order of Police is the world's largest organization of sworn law enforcement officers, improving the working conditions and advocating the safety of its 298,000 members in over 2,000 local lodges throughout the United States. I am confident that with his 25 years of membership in the FOP and his current position as a Lieutenant in the Marion Police Department in my State of Ohio, Lt. Young is an outstanding choice to lead the National Fraternal Order of Police. Prior to being named National President, Lt. Young has proudly and effectively served as both National Vice President and Ohio's State President. Further, he has become something of an expert in helping to ensure police officers' pension plans throughout the country. He also helped to create the Ohio Labor Council to improve the effectiveness of negotiations between management and labor in police forces, a model that has since been utilized in 14 other States. I know that Lt. Young will use his new position to further ensure fair and equal treatment to our nation's true heroes, police officers, on the job and to expand the FOP's involvement throughout the Nation. I wish Lt. Young the best of luck and extend my congratulations to him once again here before Congress. I know he will do an excellent job.