George Voinovich

Mr. VOINOVICH

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask I be given an opportunity to speak as in morning business.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, while the Senate was in recess for the month of August, the Congressional Budget Office released its projections as to the size of the Nation's surplus. As we expected, the numbers were not good. For fiscal year 2001, the CBO indicates the Federal Government will not only not have an on-budget surplus for the first time since 1999 but that Washington will actually dip into the Social Security surplus to the tune of $9 billion in order to cover spending. The Office of Management and Budget says we will have a $1 billion surplus, but, in my view, that is effectively no surplus. So our financial situation this year is basically somewhere between a negligible surplus at best and a $9 billion deficit. Some of my colleagues might look at the CBO midterm budget review and see the problem of on-budget deficits as a short-term phenomena since CBO projects a return to consistent on-budget surpluses after 2004. This belief is misplaced. I remind my colleagues that CBO's forecast is based on the dubious assumption that spending in the outyears will increase only at the rate of inflation, which is roughly 2\1/2\ percent. To say that level of spending is unrealistic is an understatement, and anyone in this Chamber who honestly thinks Congress can keep spending at the level of inflation just does not live in the real world. I remind my colleagues, around this time last year, Congress increased nondefense discretionary spending 14.3 percent and overall spending was increased by more than 8 percent over fiscal year 2000. Had we not spent money like drunken sailors in the fiscal year 2001 budget, even with the economic turndown and the needed tax cut for the American people, Congress would not have invaded the Social Security this year. The problem is we just spend too much money. If we had increased overall spending in fiscal year 2001 by only 6 percent, we would have saved tens of billions of dollars and we would not be dipping into the Social Security surplus and we would not have a problem in the 2001 budget. The concern now is, what will happen in fiscal year 2002? As it is, we are on track to increase 2002 discretionary spending by at least 6 percent over last year. The President originally talked about 4 percent, and we came out of the Senate with roughly a 5-percent increase. Based on the current demand for money in Washington and based on our past performance, spending in fiscal year 2002 will likely grow faster than that anticipated by CBO. That means next year we will not have an on-budget surplus and we are going to spend Social Security surplus funds to cover the growth in spending. That is where we are. Alarm bells should be going off all over Capitol Hill because we are getting ready to do something Senators and Representatives from both parties have vowed not to do, and that is spend the Social Security surplus. I often say ``there is always some good that blows in an ill wind.'' In this case, the ``ill wind'' is Congress's potential use of the Social Security surplus. The ``good'' is the hope that it will force Congress to control spending, prioritize, and make hard choices-- what the Presiding Officer and I had to do when we were Governors of our respective States. We had to prioritize, we had to make those tough choices and live within a budget limit. We didn't do that in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 here in Washington. We had a combined on-budget surplus of $88 billion and Congress and the previous administration did not believe they had to make hard choices. Well, things are different today, and now we must make the hard choices. The first thing we have to do is avoid spending the Social Security surplus. The second thing we have to do is not increase taxes. According to a national poll released by CBS news just yesterday, more than 70 percent of Americans opposed using the Social Security surplus to fund general government spending; 66 percent of Americans oppose using the Social Security surplus even in the event of a recession. Our constituents are making it pretty clear where they stand. They stand against spending the Social Security surplus. Some of my colleagues and the media say we should spend the Social Security surplus to stimulate the economy. I say to that, ``hogwash,'' and so do the American people. For me, spending the Social Security surplus is black and white. It is simply wrong. The fact of the matter is there is a difference between income taxes and payroll taxes. Just ask the people who count, the hard-working men and women who pay those payroll taxes, if there is a difference. More people pay higher payroll taxes in this country today than they do income taxes. They expect that money will be used for their Social Security benefits and not for general government spending. As my colleagues know, there are only two things we should legitimately spend the Social Security surplus on: Social Security benefits or paying down the debt. It is that simple. If we are not spending it on Social Security, we have a moral responsibility to use it to pay down the national debt. One of the primary reasons I wanted to serve as a U.S. Senator was to have an opportunity to bring fiscal responsibility to our Nation and help eliminate the terrific debt we have accumulated. As my colleagues know, for years successive Congresses and Presidents have spent money on things that, while important, they were unwilling to pay for; or in the alternative, do without. In the process, Washington ran up a staggering debt and mortgaged this country's future, my children's future, and my grandchildren's future. We have been reaping all the benefits and putting the future of our children and grandchildren in jeopardy. In other words, ``we buy now, you pay later.'' I cannot convey how wrong I think it is to saddle them with such an excessive financial burden, something this Congress should correct. Using the Social Security surplus to repay the publicly held national debt will make it easier for the Government to meet its obligation to pay Social Security benefits in the future. At this point, the vast majority of projected debt reductions--some 75 percent over the next 10 years--will be out of that Social Security surplus. In testimony before the Senate Budget Committee last year, Dan Crippen, the CBO Director, stated ``most economists agree saving the surpluses and paying down the debt held by the public is probably the best thing we can do relative to the economy.'' It was true then and it is true today. If the Government has little or no publicly held debt when the baby boomers begin to retire, it will be more manageable for the Government to borrow money, the money that it will need to meet its obligations if Congress has not reformed Social Security by that time. The baby boomers will retire. We will either take care of their situation by raising payroll taxes or raising income taxes or having to borrow the money. We ought to at least anticipate that. Everyone knows that the lockbox we are talking about is nothing more than a slew of IOUs that must be repaid when the baby boomers start to retire. As I mentioned, either higher payroll taxes or higher income taxes or borrowing the money, those bills will be paid, one way or another. Moreover, by reserving the Social Security surplus to help repay that $3.1 trillion publicly held debt, money currently invested in U.S. Treasury bonds will be released to be invested more productively in the private sector. More private investment means more capital formation and a more robust economy now and in the future, which is precisely what we need most to meet the demands of our retiring baby boomers. We have to have a growing economy. That is the most important thing we have. Reserving the Social Security surplus to reduce the publicly held debt has the effect of reducing interest rates by reducing the overall demand for savings. In short, reserving the Social Security surplus to lower the debt sends a positive signal to Wall Street and Main Street that encourages more investment, which in turn fuels productivity and economic growth. It also lessens our cost of servicing interest on the Federal debt. Currently, we pay 11 cents out of every dollar--I don't think a lot of people realize this--11 cents out of every dollar is used to pay the interest on our debt. Lower the debt and you lower the interest burdens, and that frees more money for other priorities. It was not until 1999 that we got to a point where the Social Security surplus was no longer used to offset spending--being used for debt reduction instead--and members of each party in both the Senate and House swore they would not go back to using the Social Security surplus for spending. In addition, many of us who supported the President's tax reduction package did so because the President promised he would limit spending and he would use all of the Social Security surplus to pay down debt. I refer to that as a three-legged stool: No. 1, it allows meaningful tax reductions; No. 2, it restrains the growth of spending; and No. 3, it reduces debt. That was the promise and I expect the President to keep his promise. I know many of us who supported the tax reduction will keep our promise to limit spending, and we are not going to spend the Social Security surplus. So far in the appropriations process we look like we are on track to maintain a semblance of fiscal discipline because we are basically sticking with the budget resolution. Those appearances are deceiving because we are holding off the toughest bills for last, instead of tackling them first. We all know the way things are going, we are likely to increase spending for defense and education far beyond the levels anticipated when the budget resolution was passed. Like my colleagues, I support a strong national defense and funding for true educational responsibilities. However, I think we must offset increases in these programs by making reductions in other areas, understanding the President is not going to get everything he wants and Members of this body are not going to get everything they want. Unfortunately, that is not what we are doing. I agree with President Bush that the responsible course of action for the Congress is to immediately move up the two biggest appropriations bills, Defense and Labor-HHS: Consider them first. We need to get everything on the table and reallocate resources in order to stay within the budget limits, just as I did when I was Mayor of Cleveland and Governor of the State of Ohio. If we were in this kind of situation in a county, or in a city or at the State level, we would get everything on the table, we would look at all the things that need to be done, and say we have to reallocate these resources. But not in the U.S. Senate. Not in the U.S. Congress. We do these appropriations bills, No. 1 with blinders on, No. 2 with blinders on, No. 3 with blinders on--we go all the way to the end and just keep ratcheting it up a little bit until we get to the biggest ones at the end, and then we say: Holy smoke, we don't have the money; and then Katie bar the door. That is what has happened in the last 2 years I have been here. I urge the President and urge the Senate leadership, let's get real. Let's look at what we are doing and understand we cannot do everything for everyone, and try to figure out how we can live within the limits we have set. We can do that. I think it would be the finest thing we could do for this country. It hasn't been done around here--I don't remember if it has ever been done since I have been watching government, and I have been watching it as a mayor and as a Governor for 20 years. I would like to see that happen. The other thing I am going to try to do to guarantee we do not end up spending the Social Security surplus is offer two amendments in the near future, with colleagues from both sides of the aisle, that will force the Senate and House to make the necessary hard choices that will bring fiscal discipline to the Government and keep the Social Security surplus from being used. My first amendment I will introduce will address Congress's perpetual irresponsible spending and budget gimmicks, gimmicks that Congress used in 1999 to avoid the appearance of using Social Security. There are a lot of them out there. We have to make sure we are honest with the public about what we are doing and not try to pull the wool over their eyes. The second amendment I will be offering is an amendment to guarantee Social Security funds will not be spent and instead will be used to reduce debt. It is my hope, as we proceed through the appropriations process, these amendments will be given favorable consideration by my colleagues and not turned aside on a procedural vote. We ought to have an up-or-down vote on some of these issues that are really going to clarify the process and make what we do in the Senate more transparent. We owe the American people nothing less. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to reauthorize the Price Anderson Act, which provides the insurance program for our Nation's commercial nuclear reactor fleet. In 1954, Congress passed the Atomic Energy Act which ended the government monopoly over possession, use, and manufacturing of ``special nuclear material''. While the Act allowed the private sector access to the nuclear market, due to concerns over liability, the private sector was extremely hesitant to invest in the new market. Due to these liability concerns, Congress passed the Price-Anderson Act in 1957, the Act was reauthorized on three occasions, most recently in 1988. The Act is due to be reauthorized in 2002. In 1998 the NRC issued their report to Congress called ``The Price Anderson Act-- Crossing the Bridge to the Next Century: A Report to Congress.'' In that report the NRC recommended renewal of the Price Anderson Act because the Act provides a valuable public benefit by establishing a system for prompt and equitable steelement of public liability claims resulting from a nuclear accident. While the report originally suggested that consideration be given to doubling the maximum annual retrospective premium installment from each power reactor license, the NRC has reconsidered this suggestion and now recommends that original premium level be retained. They expressed this view in a letter to me, as the Chairman of the Nuclear Safety Subcommittee on May 11th of this year. The reason for the change is that in 1998 the NRC had projected that many of the existing commercial reactors would not file for license renewal. The drop in the number of reactors would cause a corresponding drop in the contributions to the fund. There is now heightened interest in extending the operating license of most of the commercial reactors. Therefore an increase in the premium from each reactor is no longer necessary. This has occurred because of the growing interest in nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is a clean, emissions-free source of electricity which currently provides almost twenty percent of our nation's energy supply. This legislation will help further the commercial application of nuclear energy for electricity, as well as the growing number of medical applications of nuclear medicine. Nuclear energy is vital to supplying cost-efficient and environmentally sound power to the American consumer. This legislation will continue to ensure the availability of our commercial nuclear reactor program. I am joined in introducing this legislation by the ranking members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Smith, and the Nuclear Safety Subcommittee Senator Inhofe, as well as an important member of the Subcommittee Senator Crapo.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to reauthorize the Price Anderson Act, which provides the insurance program for our Nation's commercial nuclear reactor fleet. In 1954, Congress passed the Atomic Energy Act which ended the government monopoly over possession, use, and manufacturing of ``special nuclear material''. While the Act allowed the private sector access to the nuclear market, due to concerns over liability, the private sector was extremely hesitant to invest in the new market. Due to these liability concerns, Congress passed the Price-Anderson Act in 1957, the Act was reauthorized on three occasions, most recently in 1988. The Act is due to be reauthorized in 2002. In 1998 the NRC issued their report to Congress called ``The Price Anderson Act-- Crossing the Bridge to the Next Century: A Report to Congress.'' In that report the NRC recommended renewal of the Price Anderson Act because the Act provides a valuable public benefit by establishing a system for prompt and equitable steelement of public liability claims resulting from a nuclear accident. While the report originally suggested that consideration be given to doubling the maximum annual retrospective premium installment from each power reactor license, the NRC has reconsidered this suggestion and now recommends that original premium level be retained. They expressed this view in a letter to me, as the Chairman of the Nuclear Safety Subcommittee on May 11th of this year. The reason for the change is that in 1998 the NRC had projected that many of the existing commercial reactors would not file for license renewal. The drop in the number of reactors would cause a corresponding drop in the contributions to the fund. There is now heightened interest in extending the operating license of most of the commercial reactors. Therefore an increase in the premium from each reactor is no longer necessary. This has occurred because of the growing interest in nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is a clean, emissions-free source of electricity which currently provides almost twenty percent of our nation's energy supply. This legislation will help further the commercial application of nuclear energy for electricity, as well as the growing number of medical applications of nuclear medicine. Nuclear energy is vital to supplying cost-efficient and environmentally sound power to the American consumer. This legislation will continue to ensure the availability of our commercial nuclear reactor program. I am joined in introducing this legislation by the ranking members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Smith, and the Nuclear Safety Subcommittee Senator Inhofe, as well as an important member of the Subcommittee Senator Crapo.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to join my friend and colleague, Senator Mike DeWine, to introduce legislation that will highlight the week of September 23, 2001 as National Parent's Week. Positive parenting is a task that is crucial to the future of our Nation, yet the responsibilities and burdens that fall upon parents are too often undervalued. I believe it is essential that we highlight the importance of parents in developing healthy and productive children in our society. Children thrive in homes where parents take an active role in providing stability, safety and discipline. This, combined with unconditional affection and encouragement, provide children with the solid foundation to move ahead in life. I was fortunate to have grown up in a household with such loving and dedicated parents. My mother and father strongly believed in the duty and responsibility they had to their six children, and worked tirelessly to ensure that my brothers and sisters and I would become healthy, productive adults. As a matter of fact, it is from my parents that I learned the importance of using my God-given talents to serve others. My life in public service has been a reflection of what they not only preached, but on how they lived their lives. My siblings and I were taught early on that part of earning and deserving our citizenship was giving back, not only to our immediate family, but also to our community and our country. Even as my mother entered her eighties, she still served as a model for our family. Although, she was moving on in years, she would still volunteer her time in the library of a Cleveland city school. I would ask her, ``Mom--why are you still doing this? You've done enough! Why don't you just rest and take it easy?'' Her answer was always the same: ``Because I'm needed.'' I was truly blessed to have two wonderful parents who were such loving and supportive role models. Too often, today's youth look elsewhere for guidance and comfort, not realizing that all the support and guidance they need is already there under their own roof. It is imperative that we bring the role of parents back to prominence, for they are the front-line for instilling the values we cherish in all our nation's youth. I encourage parents all over the nation to recognize and cherish the blessing and responsibility the have in raising God's gifts to them. It is my hope that through the establishment of ``National Parents Week,'' we will raise awareness of just how important our parents are in molding the next generation of Americans citizens.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Max Baucus, in introducing The Highway Trust Fund Recovery Act of 2001. The tax treatment of ethanol-blended fuels is an issue that is disproportionately reducing the amount of Federal highway funding States receive, serving as a disincentive to ethanol use, and impacting our ability to address fully our highway improvement needs. The legislation we are introducing today addresses this problem by ensuring that the portion of the per gallon Federal tax on ethanol-blended fuels which is currently deposited into the General Fund is deposited into the Highway Trust Fund instead. As my colleagues may be aware, the Federal tax on gasoline that does not contain ethanol is 18.4 cents per gallon, whereas the Federal tax on gasohol, a blend of gasoline and ethanol, is 13.0 cents per gallon. The 5.4 cents per gallon tax difference is meant to keep the price of ethanol down, and serve as an incentive to help promote ethanol's use as a renewable and alternative fuel. The 18.4 cents per gallon tax on gasoline is the major source of income to the Highway Trust Fund. The money that accumulates in the Highway Trust Fund is used for highway, highway safety, transit, and other surface transportation programs. However, of the 13.0 cents per gallon Federal tax on gasohol, only 10.4 cents are sent to the Highway Trust Fund, .1 cent goes to the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Fund, while the remaining 2.5 cents are deposited into the General Fund of the Treasury. Although 2.5 cents does not sound like a lot of money, it actually adds up to hundreds of millions of dollars per year that are not being used for the purpose of improving our Nation's roadways, the reason they were collected in the first place. The bill we are introducing today, the Highway Trust Fund Recovery Act, would ensure that the remaining 2.5 cent tax paid by highway users on ethanol-blended fuels is deposited into the Highway Trust Fund. Under the bill, annual deposits to the Highway Account would increase by some $400 million per year based on current gasohol sales. Ohio has the Nation's 10th largest highway network, the 5th highest volume of traffic, the 4th largest interstate highway network, and the 2nd largest inventory of bridges in the country. While Ohio's traffic and congestion have risen, its Federal receipts have not risen commensurately because of the different tax treatment of ethanol- blended fuels. The reason for this disproportion is because Ohio's uses of gasohol is among the highest in the Nation, 40 percent of the state's gasoline consumption in 2000 compared to a national average of around 10 percent. Since Ohio's Federal appropriation under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, is determined by its contribution to the Highway Trust Fund, and gasohol is taxed differently than conventional gasoline, gasohol consumption has significantly decreased the amount of revenue credited to Ohio in the Highway Trust Fund. It's simple: less money in means less money out. According to the Ohio Department of Transportation, ODOT, Ohio is losing more than $160 million per year due to gasohol consumption. To put that number in perspective, it equals 17 percent of Ohio's total obligation ceiling; over one half of the State's major new construction program budget; and it nearly equals the amount the State budgets for routine bridge repair and replacement for an entire year. Of that $160 million figure, the state is losing more than $50 million simply because 2.5 cents of the Federal tax on gasohol are deposited into the General Fund. This amount is 5 percent of the Ohio's total obligation ceiling; one-sixth of Ohio's major new construction program; and equal to the amount ODOT budgets for safety improvement projects for a two-year period. The 11 States that make up the Mississippi Valley Conference of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin, account for 70 percent of the Nation's ethanol consumption. The Federal fuel tax rate for ethanol impacts this region more than any other region of the country. If the legislation we are introducing were enacted today, this region alone would receive over $225 million more in additional highway funding. My State of Ohio has made the environmentally sound decision to utilize ethanol in order to keep the air clean; we should not be penalized with fewer highway dollars for doing the right thing. Our legislation would not affect the highway formulas or distribution of funds under TEA-21, and it does not take effect until fiscal year 2004, after the expiration of TEA-21. It is important that Congress know what estimated Highway Trust Fund revenues will be prior to the next highway authorization process. The current tax treatment of gasohol is a disincentive to use ethanol, a clean, renewable fuel source. The bill we are introducing today is good environmental policy, good agricultural policy, good energy policy, and good transportation policy. States should not be penalized for using ethanol. It does not make sense for taxes paid on ethanol-blended fuels to be deposited in the General Fund when we need more than $50 billion per year over the next 20 years just to maintain the current physical condition of our Nation's highways. Taxes on ethanol are paid by motorists whose vehicles are causing the same wear and tear on our roads and bridges that non-ethanol-fueled vehicles cause. While we may have policy reasons for taxing ethanol at a lower rate or establishing a market for ethanol-blended fuels, surely we ought to insist that the taxes paid by ethanol users are deposited into the Highway Trust Fund where they can be used to make our highways safer and less congested. This bill would help ensure that we have reliable alternative sources of energy, while we meet our clean air goals, but not at the expense of States' highway funding. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation, and I urge its speedy consideration by the Senate.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I apologize to the majority leader for taking more time than I expected. I hope he will forgive me. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Yes, I yield.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I have had an opportunity to listen to my colleagues talk about what is happening in the Senate in terms of procedure. I had an opportunity to sit in the Presiding Officer's chair for a lot of time during my first 2 years in the Senate. In fact, I was the first member of the Republican Party as a freshman to get the Golden Gavel Award for 100 hours in the Chair. I have to comment on what I am hearing on the other side of the aisle that this side of the aisle is delaying the passage of bills. The same complaints being lodged against the Republican side of the aisle are the same complaints the Republicans lodged against the Democratic side of the aisle during my first 2 years in the Senate. It is deja vu all over again. The fact is, some of us have some major concerns that we would like to have discussed in the Senate. We would like to have our point of view listened to and taken into consideration. For example, the dairy compact was brought up and then withdrawn. I was very upset when this was brought up last time. My State was opposed to the dairy compact because we thought extending it was not in the best interest of our State, but I never had a chance to vote on it because it came up in conference. It was done in that way. I think some of us who are concerned about the dairy compact think it is unfair to the farmers in our respective States. For example, my State legislature would never have granted permission for Ohio to be involved in the dairy compact. We ought to have an opportunity to talk about that in the Senate if we think it is something that is very relevant, and we should at least have a chance to vote on it on the floor, if that is the consensus of the Members of the Senate. In addition, I have heard that this amendment I am bringing up this evening is not relevant to this farm bill. I happen to believe it is very relevant to this farm bill. The farmers in my State are not only interested in money for farmers and for agribusiness, but they are also very interested in fiscal responsibility. For example, I was at a meeting of farmers in Ohio a couple of weeks ago. One of them asked me: Senator, why did you vote against the education bill? My response was that the education bill increased spending by 64 percent. There was not another question about it in the room. Someone said: Well, if you are going to increase education 64 percent over what you spent last year, that means there is not going to be money for other priorities facing the Federal Government. The Agriculture Supplemental for FY 2001, in my opinion, could be passed immediately tomorrow if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would agree to the $5.5 billion that the House passed and to which the President agreed to sign. One of my great concerns is that because of the disagreement over the amount of money this might be delayed. If it is not done before we go home, there is a good possibility that our farmers won't get the $5.5 billion that we want to provide for them. I suggest to my friends on the other side of the aisle that they agree to the $5.5 billion. Let's get it done, and let's get the money out so we can help our farmers. In my opinion, to add another $2 billion that is going to come out of the FY 2002 budget when we have a very tight budget situation already is fiscally irresponsible. We know that the House provided $5.5 billion. If we put in another $2 billion for next year, that means that in order to revise the farm bill, we are going to have to put even more money in there. And I would argue that we are very close right now to spending the Social Security surplus in the 2002 budget. So I believe this amendment that I am bringing to this Senate is relevant. It is an amendment that I brought up a couple of weeks ago, and it is an amendment I am going to continue to bring up. I am going to repeat the same words I heard from some of the Members on the other side of the aisle, where the Republicans, they felt, did not give them a chance for an up-or-down vote, whether it was on minimum wage or whatever else it was. I want an up-or-down vote on a pure Social Security lockbox. I do not want to see it tabled. I do not want to see it objected to on some procedural matter. I want an up-or-down vote on this. I think it is extremely important to fiscal responsibility for this country. I think if we do not pass this lockbox legislation, that indeed we will spend the 2002 Social Security surplus of $172 billion. So I am here to offer an amendment that will lockbox that Social Security surplus and force the Senate and the House to make the necessary hard choices that will bring fiscal discipline to the Government and keep the Social Security surplus from being used. I am also offering this amendment because it is part of the covenant that we made to the American people when we passed the budget resolution and reduced taxes. I refer to that covenant as the ``three-legged stool.'' One leg allows for meaningful tax reductions. One other leg reduces debt. The third leg restrains spending. The Presiding Officer may not know this, but in the last budget that we passed in the Senate, we increased budget authority for nondefense discretionary spending by 14.5 percent, with an overall increase in the budget of about 9 percent over what we spent in the year 2000. I believe this amendment I am offering guarantees that the tax reduction will continue, that we will continue to pay down the debt, and that we will control spending. As I mentioned, if we do not get an up-or-down vote on this, I am going to continue, every opportunity I have, to bring this amendment to this Senate Chamber. I think my colleagues should know that the softening economy and the inexorable growth of Federal spending are putting us perilously close to spending the Social Security surplus. I think that has been enunciated by Senator Conrad on several occasions, that we are close to spending the Social Security surplus. Until CBO and OMB issue their budget reports in August, we will not know for sure, but the early economic barometers are worrisome, and the primary barometer--tax receipts--is down. In addition, I am concerned that the money in the fiscal year 2001 Agriculture supplemental bill--the bill we are talking about, including the more than $2 billion that the Senator from Iowa is looking to spend in 2002 funds--will, I fear, push us over the top towards spending the Social Security surplus. So that my colleagues understand what is going on with spending in the Senate, let's just look at this chart. I call it the ``here we go again'' chart. The President came in with a budget recommendation of a 4-percent increase over last year. Our budget resolution came back with an increase of about 5 percent. But after the Senate has passed three appropriations bills, and if you take into consideration if we kept the other 10 appropriations bills at their 302(b) allocations, and you add in the $18.4 billion that the President proposes for defense spending, we are now at an increase in spending of 7.1 percent. And who knows where we are going to be going in the future. So here we are in the middle of the appropriations season, and we are on track to increase discretionary spending in fiscal year 2002 by more than 7 percent. But we are not done yet. We have 10 appropriations bills to go, and that does not include conference reports. By the time we are all done, who knows what the final fiscal year 2002 budget will be increased by? Just look at how much we are increasing some of the specific appropriations bills already. I call this chart: ``old spending habits die hard.'' Here are the three appropriations that we have passed already: Legislative branch, 5.6 percent over last year; Energy and Water, 6.4 percent over last year; Interior, 7.9 percent over last year. Now let's look at the other bills that have been reported out: Foreign Operations looks like it is OK, 2 percent; Transportation, 3.6 percent--but I am sure it is going to be more than that before the Transportation bill gets out of the Senate--Commerce-Justice-State, 4.4 percent; VA-HUD, 6.8 percent; Treasury-Postal, 6.8 percent; Agriculture, 7.1 percent. So when you add all of this together, there is a very good chance that our spending could be 8, 9, 10 percent higher than last year. So I think we have a problem. As I mentioned, if you take into consideration that we increase education--that is, if we appropriate a 64-percent increase--we are really in trouble. I think a 64-percent increase for education, is $14 billion more than we would be spending ordinarily. So I am trying my best, I am trying my very best, to avoid the spending ``train wreck.'' The amendment that I am offering will keep that train on track. When I was Governor of Ohio, I was faced with a $1.5 billion budget deficit. When I came into office, my colleagues in the House and Senate, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House, said to me: George, don't worry about it. Everything is going to work out fine. I did not think it would work out fine, and I began almost immediately to start cutting spending. Over a 2-year period, we decreased spending by almost $1 billion. If I had not gotten started early with that process, we would have had a catastrophe. My feeling is, the sooner the Senate understands we have a real problem that needs to be dealt with, the better off we all are going to be. So the amendment I offer will guarantee we stay the course toward fiscal discipline. It contains two enforcement mechanisms: A supermajority point of order written in statute, and an automatic across-the-board spending cut to enforce the lockbox. The amendment creates a statutory point of order against any bill, amendment, or resolution that would spend the Social Security surplus in any of the next 10 years. And waiving the point of order would require the votes of 60 Senators. In addition, if the Social Security surplus was spent, OMB would impose automatic across-the-board cuts in discretionary and mandatory spending to restore the amount of the surplus that was spent. I want everyone to understand that this amendment specifically protects the Medicare Program from any cuts. The only exceptions to the lockbox would be a state of war or if we have a recession. Some of my colleagues are probably thinking that we don't need this amendment; that the spending excesses I have outlined earlier just will not happen; that we won't spend so much, that we won't dip into Social Security. I disagree. We only need to look at our recent history to see how addicted to spending Congress really is. If my colleagues will look at this chart, they will see how much Congress has spent on some of the appropriations bills for fiscal year 2001 according to the Senate Budget Committee. We can see Agriculture, a 26.2 percent increase over FY 2000; energy and water, 10.1 percent; Interior, 24.7 percent, Labor-HHS, 25 percent; Transportation, we spent 26.6 percent over fiscal year 2000; Treasury-Postal, 13.4 percent; and VA-HUD, a 13.5 percent increase over FY 2000. You can see, when you look at the numbers, that we have increased budget authority for nondefense discretionary spending by 14.5 percent in fiscal year 2001. It is amazing to me. I will talk to colleagues who were here during the last 2 years and say to them: Do you realize how much we increased spending? Some of them seem to be shocked that we increased spending 14.5 percent. When I go home and tell people in Ohio that this is what Congress did, they think it is incredible. They just cannot believe it. I have said to them on many occasions, if I had spent money as mayor, as commissioner, as Governor of Ohio the way we have here in the Senate, they would have run me out of office. They would have literally sent me home. What are we going to do? What we need to do is wall in Congress. And by ``wall in,'' I mean we are not going to spend Social Security and we are not going to increase taxes, we are going to live within our means. It is very important that we face up to this reality. My recommendation to my colleagues is that we ought to get out the Defense and the Labor-HHS bills and bring them to the floor now and not wait until the very end as we did last year for the pork-athon. We have to live within the budget we have. I know that if we keep going one appropriation after another, say we do 11 of them and wait until the very end of the fiscal year for the last 2, we are going to have the same situation we had last year. It is time we got those 13 appropriations bills on the table simultaneously and looked at them with the administration and indicate how much we intend to spend overall--5 percent, or maybe at 6 percent, whatever it is, but work it out so that we don't end up with this great train wreck at the end of this year as we did last year. I implore my colleagues, the best way we can help our budgetary situation is to formally lockbox the Social Security surplus, simply take it out of the spending equation. It is the best thing we can do relative to our economy. I realize we have a number of pressing needs facing our Nation. Agriculture is one of them. One of the things about which I have always felt good was even though I am from Cuyahoga County, a big urban county, I was referred to as ``the agri-Governor.'' I am interested in agribusiness. I care about my farmers and I have spent a great deal of time with them. I want them to have that $5.5 billion. I want them to have it now and they can have it now if we can get an agreement with our colleagues from the other side of the aisle. Let's get it done. Let's not go home and not have it done and have it disappear when the OMB or CBO comes out with their numbers. I support a strong defense. I support education. However, the money to pay for whatever increases Congress makes to these and other programs has to come from somewhere. We either prioritize our spending or we take the easy way out and reduce the Social Security surplus. That had happened for 30 years before I came to the Senate. It was not until 1999 that we stopped using the Social Security surplus to subsidize the spending by Congress and by the administration. I am asking this body to put their money where their mouth is. If my colleagues do not want to spend the Social Security surplus, then I urge them to join me in support of this lockbox amendment. Before I ask for the amendment to be read, I would like to make one other point in regard to the discussion prior to my speaking that I heard relating to the Transportation bill. I was one of the Senators who stuck around here last Friday until the very end to find out what would happen. I had an event in Cleveland to which I had to go, but I did not go because I really thought it was important that we get some dialog between Members of the Senate in regard to that Transportation bill and the provision of it that deals with truck traffic coming out of Mexico. I sincerely believed that that legislation interfered with NAFTA and that we ought not to be doing that in the Transportation appropriations bill. I believed it was wrong. I believed my colleagues from the other side of the aisle should have sat down with Senator McCain and Senator Gramm of Texas and worked out some language that was satisfactory to the Senate and to the President of the United States and which did not violate the NAFTA agreement. I would like to read an editorial from the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the largest newspaper in Ohio, which I think really captures what happened here last Friday. The title of the editorial is: ``Protectionism in High Gear.'' The Democrat-controlled Senate, with the help of enough Republicans to block a filibuster, decided last week that equal protection under the law doesn't apply to Mexico under

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2001, that will help lift the burden of confusing regulation on small businesses by helping them to be better able to understand and comply with Federal paperwork mandates. I am pleased to be joined by my good friend Senator Blanche Lincoln in putting forth this ``good government'' bill which continues congressional efforts to streamline and reduce paperwork burdens on small businesses. Ask any small business owner and he or she will tell you that Federal paperwork requirements on small businesses are impeding America's entrepreneurial growth. Indeed, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has estimated that the Federal paperwork burden is 7.2 billion hours annually, at a cost of $190 billion a year. The Small Business Administration, SBA, estimates that the cost to small businesses are staggering $5,100 per employee. While many paperwork 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, remain in business, or deter them from opening in the first place. Helping ease the burdens of regulation on small business has long been an interest of mine. As governor of Ohio, I pushed for passage of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act on behalf of our state governments and was an original cosponsor of the Regulatory Improvement Act in the 106th Congress. Last year, I worked to help pass the Congressional Accountability for Regulatory Information Act and the Regulatory Right to Know Act. Senator Lincoln and I introduced s. 1378, a bill similar to the one we introduce today, in the last Congress as well. Many Federal regulations of business are important, since they help protect our environment, workers' safety and the health of our families. However, some of these regulations are unnecessarily difficult for our businesses, particularly small businesses without large legal staffs, to understand. Our bill will help business owners understand and comply with federal regulations. The Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2001 would require each agency to establish a single point of contact to help answer questions and aid small business owners in complying with paperwork requirements. In addition, our bill requires the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, to publish annually in the Federal Register and on the Internet a list of each agency's Federal paperwork requirements applicable to their small businesses. Our bill also requires each agency to make further efforts to reduce paperwork requirements for small businesses with fewer than 25 employees. Further, the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2001 establishes an interagency task force to study the streamlining of paperwork requirements for small businesses. Our legislation asks this task force to consider having each agency consolidate its reporting requirements for small businesses, resulting in reporting to the agency's single point of contact, in a single format or using a single electronic reporting system, and on one date. Our bill also will help make government more accountable and aid congressional oversight of Federal agencies by requiring that each agency maintain information on the number of enforcement actions in which civil penalties were assessed; the number of such actions against small businesses; the number of such actions in which civil penalties were reduced or waived; and the monetary amount of these reductions or waivers. I believe any resulting burden on Federal agencies would be minimal, and would certainly be offset by the benefits to small businesses. Small businesses are vital to the health of our Nation's economy. They represent more than 90 percent of our Nation's employers, employ 53 percent of the private workforce and create about 75 percent of this country's new jobs. In my own State of Ohio, there are more than 300,000 full-time businesses. Of these, 96 percent employ fewer than 100 people, and 75 percent employ fewer than 10 individuals. The National Federation of Independent Business estimates that the majority of new jobs in the next decade in Ohio will be created by small businesses. Given the prevalence of small businesses in our Nation, I believe we should do all within our ability to ensure that small business owners are not unfairly burdened, or simply overwhelmed, by federal paperwork requirements. Earlier this year, the House passed the companion bill, H.R. 327, unanimously, by a vote of 418-0, on March 15. I hope we can do the same in this body. This bill has been endorsed by the following groups: American Farm Bureau Federation, National Federation of Independent Business, The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Convention Stores, American Feed Industry Association, National Association of Manufacturers, National Tooling & Machining Association, National Pest Management Association, Academy of General Dentistry, and American Road & Transportation Builders Association. I encourage my colleagues to join Senator Lincoln and me in our efforts to help lessen the burden on small businesses, while helping them to be able to comply with federal requirements, by cosponsoring and supporting the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2001. I ask consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2001, that will help lift the burden of confusing regulation on small businesses by helping them to be better able to understand and comply with Federal paperwork mandates. I am pleased to be joined by my good friend Senator Blanche Lincoln in putting forth this ``good government'' bill which continues congressional efforts to streamline and reduce paperwork burdens on small businesses. Ask any small business owner and he or she will tell you that Federal paperwork requirements on small businesses are impeding America's entrepreneurial growth. Indeed, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has estimated that the Federal paperwork burden is 7.2 billion hours annually, at a cost of $190 billion a year. The Small Business Administration, SBA, estimates that the cost to small businesses are staggering $5,100 per employee. While many paperwork 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, remain in business, or deter them from opening in the first place. Helping ease the burdens of regulation on small business has long been an interest of mine. As governor of Ohio, I pushed for passage of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act on behalf of our state governments and was an original cosponsor of the Regulatory Improvement Act in the 106th Congress. Last year, I worked to help pass the Congressional Accountability for Regulatory Information Act and the Regulatory Right to Know Act. Senator Lincoln and I introduced s. 1378, a bill similar to the one we introduce today, in the last Congress as well. Many Federal regulations of business are important, since they help protect our environment, workers' safety and the health of our families. However, some of these regulations are unnecessarily difficult for our businesses, particularly small businesses without large legal staffs, to understand. Our bill will help business owners understand and comply with federal regulations. The Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2001 would require each agency to establish a single point of contact to help answer questions and aid small business owners in complying with paperwork requirements. In addition, our bill requires the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, to publish annually in the Federal Register and on the Internet a list of each agency's Federal paperwork requirements applicable to their small businesses. Our bill also requires each agency to make further efforts to reduce paperwork requirements for small businesses with fewer than 25 employees. Further, the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2001 establishes an interagency task force to study the streamlining of paperwork requirements for small businesses. Our legislation asks this task force to consider having each agency consolidate its reporting requirements for small businesses, resulting in reporting to the agency's single point of contact, in a single format or using a single electronic reporting system, and on one date. Our bill also will help make government more accountable and aid congressional oversight of Federal agencies by requiring that each agency maintain information on the number of enforcement actions in which civil penalties were assessed; the number of such actions against small businesses; the number of such actions in which civil penalties were reduced or waived; and the monetary amount of these reductions or waivers. I believe any resulting burden on Federal agencies would be minimal, and would certainly be offset by the benefits to small businesses. Small businesses are vital to the health of our Nation's economy. They represent more than 90 percent of our Nation's employers, employ 53 percent of the private workforce and create about 75 percent of this country's new jobs. In my own State of Ohio, there are more than 300,000 full-time businesses. Of these, 96 percent employ fewer than 100 people, and 75 percent employ fewer than 10 individuals. The National Federation of Independent Business estimates that the majority of new jobs in the next decade in Ohio will be created by small businesses. Given the prevalence of small businesses in our Nation, I believe we should do all within our ability to ensure that small business owners are not unfairly burdened, or simply overwhelmed, by federal paperwork requirements. Earlier this year, the House passed the companion bill, H.R. 327, unanimously, by a vote of 418-0, on March 15. I hope we can do the same in this body. This bill has been endorsed by the following groups: American Farm Bureau Federation, National Federation of Independent Business, The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Convention Stores, American Feed Industry Association, National Association of Manufacturers, National Tooling & Machining Association, National Pest Management Association, Academy of General Dentistry, and American Road & Transportation Builders Association. I encourage my colleagues to join Senator Lincoln and me in our efforts to help lessen the burden on small businesses, while helping them to be able to comply with federal requirements, by cosponsoring and supporting the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2001. I ask consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, for the past few days now, we have been here on the floor of the Senate debating a very basic question: do we trust our trading partners? As I see it, this debate is not about truck safety, but, rather, it is about whether or not the United States is willing to honor its trade agreements and adhere to the principals of NAFTA. Over the past several years, as my colleagues are aware, the United States has enjoyed one of its longest periods of economic prosperity in our history. Vital to this remarkable economic boom has been international trade. Trade is the economic lifeblood of the United States. Some twelve million American jobs depend directly on exports, and countless millions more, indirectly. In fact, the growth in American exports over the last ten years has been responsible for about one-third of our total economic growth. That means jobs for Americans and of particular concern to this Senator, jobs for Ohioans. The United States is the world's single largest exporter of goods and services, accounting for 12 percent of the world's total goods exports and 16 percent of the world's total service exports. Goods and services exports from the State of Ohio constitute a significant share of exports coming from the United States, making the Buckeye State the 8th largest exporter in the nation. Ohio is a textbook example of why international trade is good for America. When I was Governor, I had four goals in the area of economic development--agribusiness, science and technology, tourism and international trade. We pursued each of these aggressively in order to maximize Ohio's business potential, especially in the trade arena. Thanks to trade-stimulating agreements, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), overall Ohio exports have skyrocketed 103 percent in just the last decade. When the North America Free Trade Agreement took effect on January 1, 1994, it brought together three nations and 380 million people to form the world's largest free trade zone, with a collective output of $8 trillion. We in the State of Ohio were so excited about the potential of NAFTA, that in order to take advantage of this trade agreement, Ohio opened a trade office in Mexico shortly after NAFTA's passage. Thanks to NAFTA, historic trade barriers that once kept American goods and services out of the Canadian and Mexican markets either have been eliminated or are being phased out. The positive economic effects have been astounding: From 1993 to 1998, U.S. exports to Canada grew 54 percent and U.S. exports to Mexico grew 90 percent. Also from 1993 to 1998, Ohio outperformed the nation in the growth of exports to America's two NAFTA trading partners. Ohio's exports to Canada grew 64 percent and Ohio exports to Mexico grew 101 percent. But, in my view, if the Senate enacts the Murray amendment, we will be jeopardizing one of the most successful trading partnerships that this nation has ever had. It is hard to believe that this legislation, which singles-out just one nation and holds up one crucial aspect of their trade policy to scrutiny, would not violate NAFTA. I cannot fathom how supporters of this legislation ignore this fact. I am every bit as concerned as any other member of this chamber about the safety of tractor trailer trucks. As anyone who has driven through my state of Ohio knows, it is a hub of long-haul trucking. You can be certain that I do not want my constituents endangered by unsafe tractor trailer trucks regardless of their city, state or country of origin. But we must be cognizant of the fact that, if this amendment is enacted, we will be unfairly discriminating against our second largest trading partner--Mexico. Mexican trucks are already required to comply with our laws governing truck safety if they want to operate on our highways. The state and federal laws are already in place. Is there room for improvements to safety? Of course. But, I also believe if these laws were adequately enforced, we would not be having this discussion today. Do I think we should enforce these laws vigorously? Of course. But, I am not calling for this nation to enact restrictive laws that single out Mexico. However, what the Senate is in the process of doing is raising the bar for our Mexican trading partners by requiring an extraordinary safety requirement that does not apply to our other NAFTA trading partner, Canada, and establishes a whole new regimen that Mexican trucks will have to follow that most American trucks do not. Make no mistake: Our other trading partners throughout the world are watching what the Senate is doing, and our action--should the Murray amendment be enacted--could shake their faith in our willingness and ability to engage in truly ``fair'' trading practices. The stakes are high--higher than I think anyone in this Chamber realizes. The United States has proudly claimed itself a bastion of open markets for more than 200 years. Indeed, we have set the example of consistently striving to comply with our trade treaty obligations. But, how can we ask and expect other countries to abide by international trade rules if the United States flagrantly disregards them itself? If we want a rules-based system of international trade to work, so that we can have a level playing field across the board on all goods, America must lead by example and not pass xenophobic restrictions on our neighbors. How can USTR Ambassador Robert Zoellick successfully negotiate vital trade agreements to open up new markets for American industry that will benefit American workers when the Senate signals that America is unwilling to play by the rules? What faith can our partners have? What can we demand of them? If the Murray amendment is enacted, can you imagine the damage that we would bring upon ourselves when we try and negotiate the Free Trade of the Americas treaty? Who would trust us? I can just imagine President Cordoza of Brazil--who is not too keen on the Free Trade of the Americas treaty to begin with--telling all of the Central and South American leaders that they shouldn't get into a treaty with the U.S. He just might say that the U.S. Senate, that ``reasoned, deliberative body'' cannot be trusted, and is fanned by the flames of political opportunism. Think also what the amendment will do to the budding relationship between President Bush and President Vicente Fox? They have worked well together and I would hate to think that this amendment could set back our relationship with the Mexican leader and his nation. President Bush is fully aware of what this amendment would mean, and I would like to quote from the Statement of Administration Policy on this bill: The Administration remains strongly opposed to any amendment that would require Mexican motor carrier applicants to undergo safety audits prior to being granted authority to operate beyond commercial zones on the U.S.-Mexico border, as this would violate the NAFTA agreement and the President's strong commitment to open the U.S.-Mexico border to free and fair trade. This amendment defies logic and reason. If this amendment is enacted, what the Senate would be doing is re- opening one of the most significant trade treaties in history by legislative fiat. Mr. President, but we should not be modifying our international agreements via a rider to an appropriations bill. This is no way to run our foreign policy, nor our trade policy. Senator McCain said the other day that the Commerce Committee, on which he is ranking and which has jurisdiction over surface transportation, has not considered any legislation on this important matter. This is precisely the kind of complex and delicate matter that deserves full and balanced consideration before we charge ahead and make a decision we most assuredly will regret later. And what about my good friend from Texas, Senator Gramm. His state has more border crossings from Mexico than any other state represented in this chamber. He would have every right in the world to oppose trucks from Mexico coming into his state. But the Senator from Texas fully understands the importance of adhering to our trade agreements and he has spoken eloquently on this topic. Mr. President, it is of obvious concern to make sure that all trucks that operate on American highways do so in compliance with all applicable safety standards. However, this amendment goes too far in trying to ensure those standards, and it is an inappropriate response for the U.S. Senate to take. I urge this body not to jeopardize the benefits of international trade in the haphazard way that this amendment would undertake. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to wholeheartedly support the nomination of Dr. John Graham to be Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget. I view the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, or, OIRA, as a key office in the Federal Government. It is charged, among other things, with ensuring that cost-benefit analyses are completed on major Federal rules. Fortunately, President Bush has nominated an individual who has the experience, the knowledge and the integrity to uphold the mission of OIRA and who will be a first-rate Administrator. Dr. John Graham is a tenured professor at Harvard University. He has published widely, has managed the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis at the Harvard School of Public Health, and is considered a world-renowned expert in the field of risk analysis. When I was active in the National Governors' Association, I had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Graham and hearing his testimony about risk assessment and cost benefit analysis. He is, by far, one of the most qualified people ever to be nominated for this position. As my colleagues know, I served as Governor of Ohio for 8 years. I know what it's like to operate in an environment of scarce resources where tough choices have to be made on resource allocation among a state's various programs. In many instances, new federal regulations have a habit of costing state and local governments tremendous sums of money to implement. That is why it is so important to have an OIRA Administrator who understands the significance of sound regulations and the usefulness of cost- benefit analysis when determining how federal regulations will be applied to our state and local governments. As one who was very involved in the development of the passage of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, I believe it is important that the OIRA Administrator work to encourage agencies to consult with State and local governments while developing new Federal rules. OIRA is an enforcer of UMRA and a protector of the principle of federalism. It is important that OIRA produces accurate cost-benefit analyses for major Federal regulations. For governments, businesses, and those concerned with protecting the environment, accurate accounting of the costs and benefits of Federal regulations is a critical tool in formulating both public and private decisions. And accurately assessing risks, costs and benefits is what John Graham has done successfully throughout his career, and he will bring this experience to OIRA as its Administrator. Given his background and his years of experience, I am confident that Dr. Graham will bring a reasoned approach to the federal regulatory process. Dr. Graham is widely respected and his nomination has received support from many of his colleagues and public health officials at Harvard, from numerous business groups, from dozens of academics, from labor unions such as the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers and from environmental advocates such as former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator William Reilly. Robert Litan, a Democrat who heads economic studies for the Brookings Institution, has said that Graham ``is the most qualified person ever nominated for the job.'' John Graham is so well-qualified for this job that the last five OIRA administrators, Democrats and Republicans alike, wrote to the Governmental Affairs Committee on May 3rd, saying that ``We are confident that [John Graham] is not an `opponent' of all regulation but rather is deeply committed to seeing that regulation serves broad public purposes as effectively as possible.'' These five individuals know what it takes to be an effective Administrator because they have done the job themselves. In their view, Dr. Graham has the skills and he has the qualifications to be a responsible steward of the public interest. I agree with their assessment. John Graham makes objective analyses. He throws the ball right over the plate, contrary to what some of my colleagues have said about his record this evening. Dr. Graham has a distinguished record. He makes well-reasoned judgments about the use of public resources. For example, Dr. Graham has supported additional controls on outdoor particulate pollution while also highlighting the need to give some priority to indoor air quality. The American Council on Science and Health has stated that ``the comparative risk methods that Professor Graham and his colleagues have pioneered have been particularly useful to our organization and others in efforts to highlight the health dangers of smoking.'' Maria New of Cornell University Medical School has stated that ``Graham has dedicated his life to pursuing cost-effective ways to save lives (and) prevent illness. . . .'' According to Cass Sunstein, a Professor at the University of Chicago Law School, ``. . . [Graham] is seeking to pave the way toward more sensible regulation, not to eliminate regulation. In fact [Graham] is an advocate of environmental protection, not an opponent of it.'' And the American Trauma Society has concluded that, ``Graham cares about injury prevention and has made many important and significant contributions to the field of injury control.'' Before I conclude, I would like to raise one other point about John Graham's nomination. There has been strong support for Dr. Graham's nomination from a variety of sources. However, there have also been some criticism of Dr. Graham and the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis regarding their corporate funding. I see this criticism as totally unfounded. While some corporate funding has been provided to the Harvard Center, what is generally not revealed is the fact that Federal agencies also fund Dr. Graham's work. Moreover, John Graham and the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis have financial disclosure policies that go beyond even that of Harvard University. The Harvard Center for Risk Analysis has a comprehensive disclosure policy, with the Center's funding sources disclosed in the Center's Annual Report and on their Web Site. You just turn on your computer, get in their Web site, and it is all there for everyone to see. They do not hide one thing. If reporters, activists, or legislators want to know how the Harvard Center is funded, the information is publicly available. It is well known that the Harvard Center has substantial support from both private and public sectors. The Harvard Center also has an explicit, public conflict-of-interest policy, and as for Dr. Graham, he has a personal policy that goes beyond even Harvard's as he does not accept personal consulting income from companies, trade associations, or other advocacy groups. We should publicly thank individuals such as Dr. Graham who are willing to serve our Nation, even when they are put through our intense nomination process. I know this has been very hard on his family. As my mother once said, ``This too will pass.'' I am sure my colleagues will see through the smokescreen that is being put out here this evening by some of my colleagues. Dr. Graham has answered his critics. It is now time for the Senate to get on with the business of the people. It is time to confirm Dr. Graham as the next Administrator of OIRA.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today, joined by my colleagues, Senator Bill Frist, Senator James Inhofe, and Senator Mitch McConnell, to introduce the Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 2001. Once enacted, our bill will reauthorize the Appalachian Regional Commission, ARC and create a specific initiative to help bridge the ``digital divide'' between Appalachia and the rest of our nation. One of the honors that I have as a United States Senator is to serve as a member of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the Environment and Public Works Committee. One of the reasons I am pleased to be on this subcommittee is the fact that it has oversight jurisdiction over the ARC. As a Senator who represents one of the thirteen States within the ARC, my membership on this subcommittee gives me a great opportunity to focus on issues of direct importance to this region of our Nation. In 1965, Congress established the ARC to help bring the Appalachian region of our Nation into the mainstream of the American economy. This region includes 406 counties in 13 States, including Ohio, and has a population of about 22 million people. The ARC is composed of the governors of the 13 Appalachian states and a Federal representative who is appointed by the President. The Federal representative serves as the Federal Co-Chairman with the governors electing one of their number to serve as the States' Co-Chairman. As a unique partnership between the Federal Government and these 13 States, the ARC runs programs in a wide range of activities, including highway construction, education and training, health care, housing, enterprise development, export promotion, telecommunications and technology, and water and sewer infrastructure. All of these activities help achieve a goal of a viable and self-sustaining regional economy. ARC's programs fall into two broad categories. The first is a 3,025- mile corridor highway system to break the regional isolation created by mountainous terrain, thereby linking the Appalachian communities to national and international markets. Roughly 80 percent of the Appalachian Development Highway System is either completed or under construction. The second is an area development program to create a basis for sustained local economic growth. Ranging from water and sewer infrastructure to worker training to business financing and community leadership development, these projects provide Appalachian communities with the critical building blocks for future growth and development. The sweeping range of options allows governors and local officials to tailor the federal assistance to their individual needs. The ARC currently ranks all of the 406 counties in the Appalachian region, including the 29 counties in Ohio that are covered by the ARC, according to four categories: distressed, transitional, competitive, and attainment. These categories determine the extent for potential ARC support for specific projects. They also help ensure that support goes to the areas with the greatest need. Distressed countries are the most ``at-risk,'' with unemployment at least 150 percent of the national average, a poverty rate of at least 150 percent of the national average, and a per capita market income of no more than two-thirds of the national average. Generally, this means that a distressed county has an unemployment rate of greater than 7.4 percent, a poverty rate of at least 19.7 percent, and a per capita income of less than $14,164. In fiscal year 2001, 114 counties, or roughly one-fourth of the counties in the ARC, have been classified as distressed. Ten of these counties are in Ohio. In order to undertake a wide variety of projects to help improve the region's economy, the ARC uses the Federal dollars it receives to leverage additional State and local funding. This successful partnership enables communities in Ohio and throughout Appalachia to have programs which help them to respond to a variety of grassroots needs. In Ohio, ARC funds support projects in five goal areas: skills and knowledge, physical infrastructure, community capacity, dynamic local economies, and health care. In rough figures, every ARC dollar Ohio received in fiscal year 2000 leveraged approximately $2.60 in additional federal, state and local funds. In fiscal year 2000, ARC provided approximately $4.7 million to fund non-highway projects in Ohio. As my colleagues are aware, the current authorization of the ARC will soon expire. In anticipation of the need for reauthorization legislation, I have been working since last year on putting together a bill that focuses on the issues that the ARC needs to address in the early part of the 21st century. One of the more productive activities I did in preparation for reauthorization was to conduct a Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee field hearing on the ARC at the Opera House in Nelsonville, OH, in August 2000. Following the hearing, I had the opportunity to tour the region to witness first-hand the beneficial impact of ARC-funded projects in the community. My objectives for both the field hearing and the tour were to obtain an overview of the importance of ARC programs to Appalachia, to closely examine the progress that has been made with respect to the implementation of these programs, and to identify the challenges that still must be overcome for the region to fully participate in our Nation's economy. Along with the poignant visual impact of my tour, the testimony I received from the impressive array of witnesses at this hearing provided valuable input that has been very helpful in drafting this legislation. Our legislation, the Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 2001, would allow the ARC to continue its important work for the people of Appalachia. One of the most innovative aspects of our bill would establish a Telecommunications and Technology Initiative that would focus on providing training in new technologies; assisting local governments, businesses, schools, and hospitals in developing e- commerce networks; and creating more jobs and business opportunities though access to telecommunications infrastructure. E-commerce is one of the largest factors driving our economy and any business that wants to successfully compete in today's technological revolution must have access to the Internet. By establishing a specific initiative under the ARC to help the people of Appalachia connect with today's technology, we are also helping Appalachian communities achieve the same quality of life that is available to the rest of the Nation. The bill also would increase the percentage of ARC funds required to be spent on activities or projects that benefit distressed counties or area. Right now, the requirement is set at 30 percent, and under our bill, it would increase to 50 percent. An analysis of fiscal year 1999 and 2000 shows that the ARC already spends about half of its project funding on grants to Appalachia's poorest counties, therefore this provision simply codifies current practice. In addition, the bill would establish the ARC as the lead Federal agency in coordinating the economic development programs carried out by Federal agencies in the region through the establishment of an Interagency Coordinating Council on Appalachia. The Council would be established by the President and its membership composed of representatives of the Federal agencies that carry out economic development programs in the region. The bill also would change the non-federal match requirement for administrative grants to the region's Local Development Districts from 50 percent to 25 percent for those Local Development Districts which include all or part of at least one distressed county. Local Development Districts are multi-county economic development planning agencies that work with local governments, non-profit organizations, and the private sector to determine local economic development needs and provide professional guidance for local economic development strategies. There are 71 Local Development Districts working with ARC in Appalachia. Additionally, the bill would authorize annual appropriations for the ARC for five years, beginning with $83 million in fiscal year 2002 and increasing by $3 million in each of fiscal years 2003 through 2006. Of the authorized amount, $10 million would be earmarked each fiscal year for the Telecommunications and Technology Initiative. For more than 35 years, the ARC has had a dramatic impact on the lives of the men and women who live in the Appalachian region of our Nation, helping to cut the region's poverty rate in half, lowering the infant mortality rate by two-thirds, doubling the percentage of high school graduates to where it is now slightly above the national average, slowing the region's out-migration, reducing unemployment rates, and narrowing the per capita income gap between Appalachia and the rest of the United States. Despite its successes to date, the ARC has not completed its mission in Appalachia. I know that there is a vast reserve of potential in Appalachia that is just waiting to be tapped, and I wholeheartedly agree with one of ARC's guiding principles that the most valuable investment that can be made in a region is in its people. The ARC is the type of Federal initiative that we should be encouraging. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation, and I urge its speedy consideration by the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today, joined by my colleagues, Senator Bill Frist, Senator James Inhofe, and Senator Mitch McConnell, to introduce the Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 2001. Once enacted, our bill will reauthorize the Appalachian Regional Commission, ARC and create a specific initiative to help bridge the ``digital divide'' between Appalachia and the rest of our nation. One of the honors that I have as a United States Senator is to serve as a member of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the Environment and Public Works Committee. One of the reasons I am pleased to be on this subcommittee is the fact that it has oversight jurisdiction over the ARC. As a Senator who represents one of the thirteen States within the ARC, my membership on this subcommittee gives me a great opportunity to focus on issues of direct importance to this region of our Nation. In 1965, Congress established the ARC to help bring the Appalachian region of our Nation into the mainstream of the American economy. This region includes 406 counties in 13 States, including Ohio, and has a population of about 22 million people. The ARC is composed of the governors of the 13 Appalachian states and a Federal representative who is appointed by the President. The Federal representative serves as the Federal Co-Chairman with the governors electing one of their number to serve as the States' Co-Chairman. As a unique partnership between the Federal Government and these 13 States, the ARC runs programs in a wide range of activities, including highway construction, education and training, health care, housing, enterprise development, export promotion, telecommunications and technology, and water and sewer infrastructure. All of these activities help achieve a goal of a viable and self-sustaining regional economy. ARC's programs fall into two broad categories. The first is a 3,025- mile corridor highway system to break the regional isolation created by mountainous terrain, thereby linking the Appalachian communities to national and international markets. Roughly 80 percent of the Appalachian Development Highway System is either completed or under construction. The second is an area development program to create a basis for sustained local economic growth. Ranging from water and sewer infrastructure to worker training to business financing and community leadership development, these projects provide Appalachian communities with the critical building blocks for future growth and development. The sweeping range of options allows governors and local officials to tailor the federal assistance to their individual needs. The ARC currently ranks all of the 406 counties in the Appalachian region, including the 29 counties in Ohio that are covered by the ARC, according to four categories: distressed, transitional, competitive, and attainment. These categories determine the extent for potential ARC support for specific projects. They also help ensure that support goes to the areas with the greatest need. Distressed countries are the most ``at-risk,'' with unemployment at least 150 percent of the national average, a poverty rate of at least 150 percent of the national average, and a per capita market income of no more than two-thirds of the national average. Generally, this means that a distressed county has an unemployment rate of greater than 7.4 percent, a poverty rate of at least 19.7 percent, and a per capita income of less than $14,164. In fiscal year 2001, 114 counties, or roughly one-fourth of the counties in the ARC, have been classified as distressed. Ten of these counties are in Ohio. In order to undertake a wide variety of projects to help improve the region's economy, the ARC uses the Federal dollars it receives to leverage additional State and local funding. This successful partnership enables communities in Ohio and throughout Appalachia to have programs which help them to respond to a variety of grassroots needs. In Ohio, ARC funds support projects in five goal areas: skills and knowledge, physical infrastructure, community capacity, dynamic local economies, and health care. In rough figures, every ARC dollar Ohio received in fiscal year 2000 leveraged approximately $2.60 in additional federal, state and local funds. In fiscal year 2000, ARC provided approximately $4.7 million to fund non-highway projects in Ohio. As my colleagues are aware, the current authorization of the ARC will soon expire. In anticipation of the need for reauthorization legislation, I have been working since last year on putting together a bill that focuses on the issues that the ARC needs to address in the early part of the 21st century. One of the more productive activities I did in preparation for reauthorization was to conduct a Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee field hearing on the ARC at the Opera House in Nelsonville, OH, in August 2000. Following the hearing, I had the opportunity to tour the region to witness first-hand the beneficial impact of ARC-funded projects in the community. My objectives for both the field hearing and the tour were to obtain an overview of the importance of ARC programs to Appalachia, to closely examine the progress that has been made with respect to the implementation of these programs, and to identify the challenges that still must be overcome for the region to fully participate in our Nation's economy. Along with the poignant visual impact of my tour, the testimony I received from the impressive array of witnesses at this hearing provided valuable input that has been very helpful in drafting this legislation. Our legislation, the Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 2001, would allow the ARC to continue its important work for the people of Appalachia. One of the most innovative aspects of our bill would establish a Telecommunications and Technology Initiative that would focus on providing training in new technologies; assisting local governments, businesses, schools, and hospitals in developing e- commerce networks; and creating more jobs and business opportunities though access to telecommunications infrastructure. E-commerce is one of the largest factors driving our economy and any business that wants to successfully compete in today's technological revolution must have access to the Internet. By establishing a specific initiative under the ARC to help the people of Appalachia connect with today's technology, we are also helping Appalachian communities achieve the same quality of life that is available to the rest of the Nation. The bill also would increase the percentage of ARC funds required to be spent on activities or projects that benefit distressed counties or area. Right now, the requirement is set at 30 percent, and under our bill, it would increase to 50 percent. An analysis of fiscal year 1999 and 2000 shows that the ARC already spends about half of its project funding on grants to Appalachia's poorest counties, therefore this provision simply codifies current practice. In addition, the bill would establish the ARC as the lead Federal agency in coordinating the economic development programs carried out by Federal agencies in the region through the establishment of an Interagency Coordinating Council on Appalachia. The Council would be established by the President and its membership composed of representatives of the Federal agencies that carry out economic development programs in the region. The bill also would change the non-federal match requirement for administrative grants to the region's Local Development Districts from 50 percent to 25 percent for those Local Development Districts which include all or part of at least one distressed county. Local Development Districts are multi-county economic development planning agencies that work with local governments, non-profit organizations, and the private sector to determine local economic development needs and provide professional guidance for local economic development strategies. There are 71 Local Development Districts working with ARC in Appalachia. Additionally, the bill would authorize annual appropriations for the ARC for five years, beginning with $83 million in fiscal year 2002 and increasing by $3 million in each of fiscal years 2003 through 2006. Of the authorized amount, $10 million would be earmarked each fiscal year for the Telecommunications and Technology Initiative. For more than 35 years, the ARC has had a dramatic impact on the lives of the men and women who live in the Appalachian region of our Nation, helping to cut the region's poverty rate in half, lowering the infant mortality rate by two-thirds, doubling the percentage of high school graduates to where it is now slightly above the national average, slowing the region's out-migration, reducing unemployment rates, and narrowing the per capita income gap between Appalachia and the rest of the United States. Despite its successes to date, the ARC has not completed its mission in Appalachia. I know that there is a vast reserve of potential in Appalachia that is just waiting to be tapped, and I wholeheartedly agree with one of ARC's guiding principles that the most valuable investment that can be made in a region is in its people. The ARC is the type of Federal initiative that we should be encouraging. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation, and I urge its speedy consideration by the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Yes.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I rise to generally speak about the issue of energy in this country and to underscore the fact that one of the sources of energy that we really need to look at is nuclear energy. The sooner we resolve the issue of how we deal with nuclear waste, the better for this Nation. We ought to do everything in our power to accelerate the decision in terms of where that waste is going to be located if we expect to deal with not only the energy needs of our country but also with something about which many of us are concerned, and that is climate change. Nuclear power is a source of energy that does not produce greenhouse gases, and I think it is something that should be a priority for the Senate and for this Nation to resolve once and for all. My other remarks will deal with the issue of the fact that in spite of much talk and much writing, conservation and alternative fuels are not going to be able to deal with the problem we have in this Nation in terms of our energy crisis. We have that crisis because we lack a national energy policy. We haven't had one for 30 years, and it is a Republican and Democrat problem. We have a faulty deregulation law in California. We have environmental policies that have contributed to a lack of diversity and difficulties in siting new facilities, pipelines, and transmission lines. We are too reliant on foreign sources of oil, and we have inappropriately demonized nuclear power. Today, we are a fossil-based economy, although there is broad recognition that we are eventually going to shift away from primary reliance on fossil fuels to much greater use and emphasis on other sources. Several alternative energy sources exist today. They are either inexhaustible, i.e. solar, wind and nuclear--or renewed through natural processes--i.e. hydropower or 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 the Nation's current energy needs, with a 70-year reserve for oil and approximately 250 years of reserves for coal, at current consumption rates. One of my colleagues noted a while ago 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 one of my colleagues pointed out that solar panels covering a 100 by 100 mile square would produce enough solar energy to power this entire Nation. The truth is that although alternative energy sources are being used in some places across the country, we have been subsidizing solar and wind power for 25 years now, and combined they only make up one tenth of 1 percent of the total energy demand to date. Renewables are now generally costlier than fossil fuels, for example, solar power is currently 8 to 10 times more costly. Even assuming optimistic technology scenarios, it will take at least 30 to 40 years before renewables' energy infrastructure could be built up from its current level and start contributing significantly to our energy supplies. As this chart shows, costs have a disproportionate impact on low- income families. Since the beginning of the 107th Congress, I have been holding a series of public meetings across the state of Ohio where I have asked individuals and business owners to relay their experiences as to how our energy crisis is impacting them. In Cleveland, I have held a meeting with Catholic Charities, Lutheran Housing, and Salvation Army as well as senior citizens, low-income parents, and handicapped individuals, and another with some small businesspeople to talk about the impact energy costs were having on their businesses. Another was with governmental agencies and the increase our heating bills had on their budgets. Then I met with some folks who talked about the impact our high cost of gasoline was having on their businesses. One of the things the people of America should note is that when it gets to energy costs, the least of our brethren are those who are impacted the most. As this chart shows, the people making under $10,000 in the United States of America spend 29 percent of their income on energy costs, and those making between $10,000 and $24,000 spend 13 percent, and those who are over $50,000, about 4 percent. This energy crisis, quite frankly, is impacting more, as I refer to it, the least of our brethren than any other segment in our society. For example, the Catholic diocese said in the year 2000 their help line received 3,400 calls for basic needs, items such as food, utilities, mortgage, or rent. The number of calls the diocese received went up 96 percent from 1999 to 2000 and 194 percent from 1998 to 2000-- attributable to this energy crisis. Let's look at U.S. energy consumption by fuel so we get an idea of from where our energy actually is coming. As we can see by this chart, the principal sources of energy today are oil, natural gas, and petroleum. It goes without saying that these fuels have become essential elements in creating our way of life. Despite the fact each year we use energy more efficiently, energy demand rises about two-thirds the rate of economic growth. As we can see, nuclear, hydro, and renewables are at the bottom of the chart, and any shortfall created between production and consumption of our three main energy sources--that is, oil, natural gas, and coal--is going to be made up in imports. For example, oil imports have risen, as we are all aware, from 1973, when they were 36 percent, to 2001 at 56 percent. Refined gasoline net imports have risen from 1 percent in 1980 to approximately 5 percent in 2000. The reason for it is we have had to import oil to make up for the lack of our own production. Oil and natural gas demand is expected to continue to grow for the foreseeable future. Alternative energy sources, such as wind and solar power, are being pursued but will not alter this outlook for decades to come, again making the point that for those who say do not worry about these three major sources of energy, we are going to make it up with nonrenewables, we can see the large discrepancy. Now that we know how much Americans expect to consume over the next two to three decades, it is important to look at how that expectation will be met given our current state of resources. This chart shows how much energy we produce domestically by fuel type. At the top of the list are natural gas, coal, petroleum, and then we have nuclear and renewables at the bottom of the list. According to the Department of Energy, natural gas is expected to be the fastest growing component of world energy consumption. Gas use is projected to almost double to 162 trillion cubic feet in 2020 from 84 trillion cubic feet in 1999. So the world demand for natural gas is going up. It is that increase in natural gas prices that drove up the cost of energy in my State for my homeowners, my businesses, my farmers, and for the other portions of our economy. If that continues, we can see continuing high prices. We need to increase our infrastructure. 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--another thing we need to talk about--the local pipelines to distribute the gas to its market. We have a need for gas. The next question is, How do we get it to folks? We know we do not have the infrastructure to do that. With that in mind, we also know there is an estimated 40 percent of undiscovered natural gas that is located on land owned by the Federal and State Governments. These resources will need 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 and again drive up our cost. The challenge to produce more oil and natural gas is greater because the production from our existing resource base is subject to natural decline through depletion. Fuel cells, electric vehicles, hybrids, biomass, solar, and wind technology, all represented on this chart as nonhydropower renewables, are all promising energy sources for the future, but right now there is no suitable infrastructure in place that will allow for these energies, even combined, as we will see in later charts, to sufficiently supply current needs, much less future demands. Energy consumption: As we can see by this chart, Americans consume more energy than we produce and will continue to consume more energy, especially fossil fuels, for decades to come. Although several alternative energy sources exist today, the chart reflects that even the combination of those sources, marked ``renewables'' at the bottom of the chart, through 2020 will not compensate for the need for energy production that will take place over the next two decades. Even if we double or triple renewables, we will not make up the difference between production and consumption. The President is right: We need more refineries, more electric powerplants, more coal, and 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, it is not going to meet our estimated consumption without drastically changing Americans' standard of living. Looking at this chart, we can see renewable energy sources that reflect some of the most promising forms of alternative energy in existence today. However, each is accompanied by extremely realistic limitations that hamper their ability to be viable in the near future. We hear a lot about fuel cells, and I have studied fuel cells substantially. I met with the president of General Motors. He said it is going to be 10 to 15 years before fuel cells will be marketable and commercially viable. Electric vehicles: I visited a facility in Euclid, OH, Alliance Electric, a Rockwell Automation subsidiary, and they are working on a little gismo for hybrid automobiles, but it is going to be 5 to 6 years before they get that down to a cost where it is going to be commercially viable. We have biomass and solar power to which I made reference. All of these are available, but the practical impact on our needs in this country in the next 20 years is negligible. World primary energy is another issue at which we ought to look. This is not to say that alternative fuels are destined for failure. I agree with the President that we need to diversify our energy sources. I believe promoting technology of these sources is the right approach to take, not for the near term but for the future. We as a government should continue to invest in providing grants and incentives to move forward with some of these alternatives. Over time, we have learned advancing technologies is perhaps the single most important factor that contributes to long-term productivity and economic growth. For example, we have clean coal technology available that we could use for burning coal. We need to move forward with that. This chart is a little complicated, but it shows how energy sources have peaked in the world: Oil going down, gas going up, and we are seeing nuclear at the bottom of the chart. This little bit is the increase in renewables. Again, if you look at the world picture, we have a problem. Today, China imports oil. They used to export oil. We are seeing that all over the world. The economy is getting better for all people. Their standard of living is going up and they are using more. We need more energy. On petroleum production, the United States is the world's largest energy producer, consumer, and net importer. It is no secret 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 through the year 2020. This is petroleum production and consumption, which is going up. Imports in the month of April as a percentage of petroleum delivered was 62.4 percent. This time last year it was only 60 percent. The total petroleum products delivered to the domestic market in April was over 19 million barrels per day. In the same month last year, it was 18\1/2\ million barrels per day. Scarce petroleum resources is not a problem experienced only by the United States. The energy crisis is being felt across the globe; so much so that inevitably, as foreign countries realize an increase in their own energy needs, they will be less willing to accommodate the growing energy demands our country places on them. With the increased reliance on foreign oil, we will not get far if we do not work to expand the current oil and natural gas pipeline system. Our Nation's 200,000-mile pipeline system is the world's largest. These nearly invisible ribbons of steel deliver more than 13.3 billion barrels of crude oil and petroleum products in a typical year. Without them, it will take thousands of trucks and barges clogging the Nation's roads and waterways to do the job. The capacity of the system, however, is being seriously eroded and the future of oil and natural gas transmission does not appear promising. If we refuse to act, the alternative will be a continued capacity squeeze and higher transmission costs, passed on to the consumer. That is one of the problems we had last year with the big spike in gasoline. We had a break in two lines, one coming from the Gulf of Mexico, the other coming from Canada. That had a dramatic increase on the cost of oil to the people living in Ohio and other parts of the Midwest. On conservation and its impact, this chart shows what we can expect under three different energy production scenarios through the year 2020. The top line assumes constant energy use with respect to economic growth, and it is going up. Hopefully, the economy continues to grow. This means if a nation continued along the same path we are traveling, through 2020, with energy demands rising with proportion to growth, and there were no technological advances made, consumption would increase dramatically. The bottom line represents energy production growth without significant change. If we stay the way we are now, we are in very big trouble. The second line shows what the Department of Energy predicts will happen when or if consumers are offered a menu of available technologies from which to choose. An example would be a family replacing a vehicle after several years of usage for a more fuel- efficient automobile. This menu of options makes a big difference when compared to increased energy intensity and consumption in the first line. We need to move forward in order to meet our demand. The third path reflects the impact of conservation at its height. This includes nonuse and the use of the most competent and efficient technology combined. This chart shows an ``available technology'' consumption curve by barely 20 percent. There is still a considerable gap between consumption, even at the greatest levels of conservation. We need to be concerned about it. The point I am making this morning is that we have a challenge to meet the energy needs of this country. Those people who advocate conservation and alternative fuels, renewables and so forth, as the answer to the problem, frankly, are not being intellectually honest or facing reality. That means the Members of this Senate and the House of Representatives are going to have to face up to the issue of how to harmonize this Nation's environmental needs and this Nation's energy needs so we can come up with a realistic energy policy. It is very important for the future of our country. I happen to believe, in terms of issues that need to be dealt with, we need to face this head on as soon as possible. President Bush should be given a great deal of encouragement for coming up with a comprehensive energy policy that is being quarterbacked by the Vice President of the United States. It is long overdue to get on with the issue of debating how it is that we are going to confront this energy crisis that is having such a negative impact on the people in my State of Ohio, the people who live in our inner cities, our small businesspeople. I had a meeting this week with small businesspeople, manufacturers. I asked the question, How many believe we are not in recession? There was not a hand that went up. Part of the reason they are being negatively impacted is the fact that the energy costs are skyrocketing. We have a very large plastics industry. We have more jobs in plastic than any other State. Because of the high cost of natural gas, they are now in a noncompetitive position and are laying off workers. For farmers in our State, natural gas is used in fertilizer. As a result, our corn crop will be 25 percent less this year because of the cost of fertilizer. Some fertilizer companies are not manufacturing fertilizer this year but selling their natural gas contracts and are making more doing that rather than selling fertilizer. The point I am making is, the energy crisis is cutting across my State and, I am sure, the State of the Presiding Officer and all other Senators. We owe it to our constituents to make sure we do not duck, take a walk, be unwilling to make the hard decisions we are going to have to make to deal with this problem, including the issue of what do we do with waste from our nuclear energy plants in this country. There are still people who demonize nuclear energy, for example, and fail to recognize our entire nuclear fleet has had not one problem since Three Mile Island, very little problem whatsoever. It is a safe way of producing energy. Europe is into it. We have had it in limbo because of the fact it has been demonized. More important than that is how to deal with the nuclear waste. It is time we moved on with this. I hope this energy appropriations bill puts in enough money so we can intellectually move forward in resolving that issue. If it is not Yucca Mountain, what are the alternatives? We have to come up with a solution for what we do with our nuclear waste, to take advantage of nuclear energy in this country. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Yes.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my friend and colleague, Senator Carper, which will strengthen the use of science at the Environmental Protection Agency. By improving science at the Agency, we will be improving the framework of our regulatory decisions. It is important that these regulations be effective, not onerous and inefficient. To make government regulations efficient, they must be based on a solid foundation of scientific understanding and data. Last year, the National Research Council released a report, ``Strengthening Science at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Research Management and Peer Review Practices'' which outlined current practices at the EPA and made recommendations for improving science within the agency. The bill we are introducing today, the ``Environmental Research Enhancement Act,'' builds on the NRC report. When the Environmental Protection Agency was created in 1970 by President Nixon, its mission was set to protect human health and safeguard the environment. In the 1960s, it had become increasingly clear that ``we needed to know more about the total environment--land, water, and air.'' The EPA was part of President Nixon's reorganizational efforts to effectively ensure the protection, development and enhancement of the total environment. For the EPA to reach this mission, establishing rules and priorities for clean land, air and water require a fundamental understanding of the science behind the real and potential threats to public health and the environment. Unfortunately, many institutions, citizens and groups believe that science has not always played a significant role in the decision-making process at the EPA. In NRC's report last year, it was concluded that, while the use of sound science is one of the Environmental Protection Agency's goals, the EPA needs to change its current structure to allow science to play a more significant role in decisions made by the Administrator. The legislation we are introducing today looks to address those shortcomings at the EPA by implementing portions of the report that require congressional authorization. Under our bill, a new position, Deputy Administrator for Science and Technology will be established at the EPA. This individual will oversee the Office of Research and Development; the Environmental Information Agency; the Science Advisory board; the Science Policy Council; and the scientific and technical activities in the regulatory program at the EPA. This new position is equal in rank to the current Deputy Administrator and would report directly to the Administrator. The new Deputy would be responsible for coordinating scientific research and application between the scientific and regulatory arms of the Agency. This will ensure that sound science is the basis for regulatory decisions. The new Deputy's focus on science could also change how environmental decisions are made. Additionally, the Assistant Administrator for Research and Development, currently the top science job at the EPA, will be appointed for 6 years versus the current 4 years political appointment. Historically, this position is recognized to be one of the EPA's weakest and most transient administrative positions according to NRC's report, even though in my view, the position addresses some of the Agency's more important topics. By lengthening the term of this Assistant Administrator position and removing it from the realm of politics, I believe there will be more continuity in the scientific work of the Agency across administrations and allow the Assistant Administrator to focus on science conducted at the Agency. In 1997, we learned the problems that can arise when sound science is not used in making regulatory decisions. Following EPA's ozone and particulate matter regulations there was great uncertainty on the scientific side. When initially releasing the Ozone/PM regulations, the EPA greatly over estimated the impacts for both ozone and PM, and they had to publicly change their figures later on. Additionally, they selectively applied some study results while ignoring others in their calculations. For example, the majority of the health benefits for ozone are based on one PM study by a Dr. Moogarkar, even though the Agency ignored the PM results of that study because it contradicted their position on PM. The legislation that Senator Carper and I are introducing will ensure that science no longer takes a ``back seat'' at the Environmental Protection Agency in terms of policy making. I call on my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this bill, and I urge speedy consideration of this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I rise in favor of the Landrieu amendment to the Interior appropriations bill regarding the distribution of $100 million in state wildlife grants for priority wildlife conservation, education, and restoration projects. As currently written, the Interior appropriations bill changes the way these grants are allocated to the States. The change would negatively affect the amount of grant money most states would receive. Last year, Congress established the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Account as part of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Fund. It was Congress' intent that funds from the account be distributed to the states through a formula based on one-third of the land area of a state and two-thirds population. Congress also said that no state will receive less than one percent or more than five percent of the total funding. The Landrieu amendment would distribute the funds under the same formula allocation that was enacted last year by directing them through the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Account. All 50 State fish and wildlife agencies agree that the formula Congress enacted last year is the most equitable distribution of these funds. If we agree to the formula proposed in the Interior appropriations bill, 37 States will receive less money. Ohio would receive over $100,000 less than under the already established formula. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources supports the Landrieu amendment. With so many States facing such large reductions in the amount of grant money they would receive, it makes sense to distribute these funds based on the equitable formula that Congress agreed to last year. Support of the Landrieu amendment will ensure that the $100 million appropriated for State wildlife grants is distributed fairly and provides all states with the funds they need for their most critical wildlife and conservation projects.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?