George Voinovich

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. How much time does the Senator from North Dakota have?

Mr. VOINOVICH. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. VOINOVICH. I yield time to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I will make a couple of remarks and let the Senator from North Dakota finish up on his time, and then I want to give Senator Gramm of Texas the last part of my time, if that is acceptable to the Chair.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, we have a saying in Ohio, especially north of Route 40, that you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. We are talking about a Medicare Part A surplus, and to not also recognize that we have a Part B Medicare responsibility and argue that we have a surplus when the figures show that when we put A and B together they are in deficit some $52 billion--there is no such thing as a Medicare surplus, if you are looking at Medicare as it really is, and that is Part A and Part B. In this budget, we are going to have about $36 billion more than what we expected in Part A, but on Part B--that is the out of hospital--we are going to be in deficit some $88 billion. When we put the two of them together, we are in deficit $52 billion. How can one talk about a Medicare surplus when we are in debt $52 billion? If we take the next 10 years, we are going to take in $393 billion more in Part A, but in Part B we are going to have to subsidize $1.36 trillion, and it all works out to be a deficit of $643 billion. The point I am making is this: There is no Medicare surplus; it is a fiction. If we are to go along with the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota, in fact, what is going to happen is it will be used to pay down debt, and we will not have it to reform Medicare, which we need to do. We will not have it to pay for the prescription drug benefits that the American people are demanding we provide, and hopefully we are going to do something about it this year. I urge my colleagues to vote against that amendment and to support the real pure lockbox of Social Security that I suggest today. I point out to the Senator from North Dakota that the sequester does not take Medicare or Social Security. It exempts those under the Budget Act of 1985 so you don't have to worry, if the sequester goes into force, taking anything--Social Security, Medicare, and some of the other things to which the Senator made reference. It is written in my amendment and references the 1985 budget agreement.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, 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 terrible debt with which we will surely burden our children and grandchildren. As my colleagues know, for decades successive Congresses and Presidents spent money on things that, while important, they were unwilling to pay for or do without. In the process, we ran up a staggering debt and mortgaged our future. Today, our national debt is at $5.6 trillion, which costs us over $200 billion every year in interest payments. From the time I arrived in the Senate, I have been working to rein in spending and lower our national debt. Over the past 2\1/2\ years, I have sponsored and cosponsored a number of amendments designed to bring fiscal discipline to the Federal Government. For instance, in 1999 and 2000, we offered an amendment to use the entire on-budget surplus to pay down the debt. Also, in an effort to bring spending under control, Senator Allard and I offered an amendment in June of 2000 to direct $12 billion of the fiscal year on-budget surplus toward debt reduction. The amendment passed by an overwhelming margin of 95-3 and committed Congress to designate the on-budget surpluses to reduce the national debt, keeping those funds from being used for additional Government spending. Our amendment provided the mechanism to assure that Congress will begin the serious task of paying down the debt. Further, this past April, Senators Feingold, Gregg, and I offered an amendment to the fiscal year 2000 budget resolution designed to tighten the enforcement of existing spending controls. Our amendment created an explicit point of order against directed scoring and abuses of the emergency spending. Given this commitment to fiscal responsibility, the huge spending increases we have seen in the past 2 years have been troubling for me and for a lot of other Members of this body. I am worried that they will lead us back to our deficit spending and debt accumulation. I was encouraged, however, with the budget that the President sent to us this year. The President's budget relies equally on three primary principles. I refer to them as the ``three-legged stool.'' They are tax cuts, restrained spending, and debt reduction; all three of them fit together. This isn't just what the President proposed. It was what Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan called for in his groundbreaking testimony before the Senate Budget Committee earlier this year. Chairman Greenspan said that he hoped the recent increases in Federal spending was only an aberration. He went on to say that we needed a tax reduction because surpluses were accumulating so fast that they were overwhelming our ability to repay the national debt without having to pay a premium. This is precisely what the President's tax cut did. The President's proposal to cut taxes was responsible precisely because it was coupled with two other legs of this budgetary stool. Without limits on spending and maximum efforts to pay down the debt, I could not have supported in good conscience the proposed tax cuts. Ultimately, Congress passed the budget that achieves all three objectives of the three-legged stool. It cuts taxes, restrains spending to a responsible level, and pays down the available publicly held debt over a 10-year period. Little did we know how the tax cut would be needed to jump start the economy and restore consumer confidence. I don't think we knew that until recently when we saw what has been happening to our economy. Hopefully, with the tax reduction, lower interest rates, and action by Congress to curb energy costs, we will see an improvement in the economy and a restoration of the public's confidence in the economy. We have taken the first step to implement the budget agreement by enacting the President's proposed tax cuts with a large bipartisan majority. Tax cuts are now law and are a done deal. I know some Members of this body believe that those tax cuts were too much. But the fact is that a majority of us felt they were reasonable and less than what the President asked for. But our work is not yet finished. We still need to enact legislation to lock in the other two legs of the budgetary stool. We need a mechanism to restrain spending and pay down the debt. That is precisely what our amendment does. It is the teeth that ensures that we will pay down the debt and limit spending. Lockboxing the Social Security surplus is the key to protecting our accomplishments thus far and enforcing our budget agreement. I want to call your attention to this chart, which basically shows that all during the 1990s we had the deficit, but that deficit would have been much larger than was reported because we used the Social Security surplus to pay for things that Congress was unwilling to pay for or to do without. So as you can see, all the way up until the year 2000, we had a real deficit; there was no surplus whatsoever. It was only until 2000 that we saw a real on-budget surplus, and it wasn't until 1998 that we weren't using the Social Security surplus. The point is that we do not want to return to what we were doing in the past, and that is using the Social Security surplus. I think that my colleagues can see on this chart, and so can the American taxpayers, that the Social Security surplus, if you can see this, is significant all the way during this next decade. What my amendment would basically do is to make sure that all of this money is used to pay down the debt and to restrain spending by the Members of this Senate. I have every reason to believe if we don't pass this amendment, there is a good chance this money will be used to pay for spending. Mr. President, as you can see, Congress has not been able to resist spending Social Security. I was an earlier supporter of the Abraham- Domenici Social Security lockbox that was first offered in 1999. I voted in favor of the lockbox on several occasions. Laying out a thoughtful and well-reasoned budget plan is not enough to guarantee we do not stray back to spending the Social Security surplus. Good intentions are not enough. Our lockbox strengthens the existing point of order against spending the Social Security surplus. Our lockbox makes it out of order to use the Social Security surplus in any one of the next 10 years, contrasted with the current budget resolution. This is an important improvement. The existing point of order is written so it is possible to use the Social Security surplus in the future and is not possible to call a point of order. My amendment would prevent that. Most important, my amendment contains an automatic enforcement mechanism. If OMB reports that the Federal Government will spend the Social Security surplus, an automatic across-the-board sequester will be put in place by OMB, and the size of the sequester will offset the use of the surplus. This is the ultimate enforcement mechanism. If the Social Security surplus looks as if it will get spent, OMB stops it from happening. This mechanism is our safety valve which will ensure we stay on course to limit spending and pay down our debt. Spending cuts under my amendment would cut into both discretionary and mandatory spending. Mandatory spending for the most needy in society would not be affected by these cuts. My amendment would exclude Social Security, food stamps, and other programs that are excluded from sequesters under the Deficit Control Act of 1985, and to prevent an inadvertent sequester, my amendment builds in a margin of error. This margin is equal to one-half of 1 percent of outlays. Because it is so hard to calculate the aggregate level of spending from year to year, I think this is a reasonable measure and OMB supports it. It would prevent inadvertent sequesters. My amendment is straightforward and relies on existing law. I primarily build on existing budget process and mechanisms. We all know Social Security is off budget, and my amendment reinforces that position. My amendment does not modify any budgetary conventions or pretend Social Security is something that it is not. Everyone knows the Budget Act points of order have their limitations. Someone has to call them, and too often no one does call them. Take the use of Budget Act points of order against appropriations bills. The appropriations bills that pass early in the session can contain outrageous spending increases, and they are immune from the Social Security point of order because they do not threaten the Social Security surplus. It is only when we take up the last appropriations bills that it is obvious that the cumulative effect of our actions might cause a problem. Until we take up the last appropriations bill, it is pure conjecture as to whether we might spend the Social Security surplus. The use of omnibus appropriations bills makes this all the more problematic. By the time we reach that last appropriations bill around here, it is too late. Large spending increases could have already been done, and we all know how bad Congress wants to get out of town when that last bill rolls around. For this reason, no one is willing to call a point of order that threatens to derail the train or a carefully worked out compromise needed to pass the last appropriations bills. This is the shortcoming of points of order, and that is why we need an automatic enforcement mechanism to protect the Social Security surplus. The existence of an automatic Social Security sequestration will force Congress to act. I am no fool, however. I know that if Congress wants to spend money, it will. With 60 votes, we can do just about anything here, and just as we raise the discretionary spending caps and the debt ceiling, we can vote to undo this mechanism, but it will force Congress to act and will put Congress on record as violating the Social Security surplus. People of America should know that is what we are doing. It should not be hidden. My colleague across the aisle, on the other hand, relies exclusively on points of order to enforce his lockbox which we will be hearing more about and, in my opinion, this is a serious weakness. We in Congress spend and spend. For fiscal year 2001, with strong encouragement of the Clinton administration, my colleagues in Congress increased nondefense discretionary spending by a staggering 14.3 percent. I want everybody to hear that--14.3 percent. Think of it, a 14.3-percent growth in nondefense discretionary spending, and we increased overall spending by 8 percent. We grew the size of the Federal Government by 8 percent. We spend, and we spend. As we begin to consider spending for fiscal year 2002, the President presented a modest, responsible budget that called for a 4-percent growth rate. Congress tacked on more spending and passed a bipartisan budget that called for a 4.7-percent increase in Federal spending. We spend. We then took up an education bill intended to reform schools in an effort to ensure we were properly preparing our children for the 21st century, a goal I wholeheartedly support. Unfortunately, reform in Congress means more spending. We passed an education bill that authorized an incredible 62-percent increase in Federal spending on education--62 percent. Again, we spend. If I can refer to this chart, my colleagues can see just what has happened to spending in Congress in the last couple of years. The budget caps that were put in place in 1997 in the budget agreement were supposed to cap spending in 1998 at 52.7, in 1999 at 53.3, in 2000 at 53.7, and in 2001 at 54.2. The red line is what we actually spent. Look at this increase. Starting in 1997, we increased spending. From looking at that, one can see that walling off the Social Security trust fund from spending is something that has to be done. We have proven time and again that we are very good at one thing: spending other people's money. I remind the President and others that prior to 1999 we were spending that Social Security surplus regularly. This amendment ensures we will not spend that money. It ensures it will go where it belongs: paying down the national debt and providing a firewall against irresponsible spending. We must make sure history does not repeat itself. If, however, the economic prosperity this Nation has enjoyed recently continues to fade--and I hope it is just a temporary situation--any surplus projections are likely to be revised downward and that Social Security surplus will, again, be in the crosshairs. It will be in the crosshairs because Congress's yearning for spending has not abated, for example, as I mentioned, the 62-percent increase in education. The President now is asking for more money in defense spending. Given the spending trajectory and the possibility of continued economic softness and that the surplus will not be as large as projected, we could be bumping against the Social Security trust fund. We cannot let that happen. There is a real risk of it happening. We need to rein in the spending and protect Social Security from these spending threats. We need to lockbox it. Once lockboxed, the Social Security surplus will go to our debt reduction as our budget and the President's original plan intends and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has recommended. It is Congress's irresponsible record of spending that has accumulated the $5.6 trillion in debt that now hangs over our children and our children's children. Paying off the debt will free up the 11 percent of the Federal budget which currently goes to debt service so we can focus on other needs such as Social Security reform. There is what at first appears to be an alternative to my amendment, and that is the amendment offered by my colleague from North Dakota, the chairman of the Budget Committee. Unfortunately, I do not think it measures up to the amendment I have offered. I would like to take a moment to address the second-degree amendment of my colleague from North Dakota. Its enforcement measure, in my opinion, is not as tough as mine. Therefore, my colleague's measure can easily be dodged by a Congress under pressure to spend more or which simply lacks the same commitment to debt reduction and spending restraint we have shown in our budget resolution. The Senator's amendment purports to lockbox the Medicare surplus, but there is no such surplus. There is no Medicare surplus. It is money that does not exist. The Part B deficit exceeds the so-called Part A surplus. For fiscal year 2002, the net position of the Medicare Program, when we combine Part A and Part B, we have a negative $52 billion that is coming from the general fund. Medicare is an on-budget account, unlike Social Security, which is currently in a huge deficit and which relies upon direct infusions from the general fund. I note that some tried harsh words to differentiate between Parts A and B, but the fact is we are still talking about the same program. Considering them separately and pretending they are off budget are simply not intellectually honest deductions and are a faulty premise on which to base legislation. If you want the appearance of action, coupled with the security of inaction, don't vote for my amendment, vote for the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota. I want to be frank with the President and my colleagues in the Senate. Many gave thought to the idea of ``lockboxing'' Part A of Medicare. I think our colleagues know there is a Part A and Part B. Part A is funded by deducting money from people's Social Security check and by everyone paying into the Medicare trust fund. We take in more money than is spent out for Part A. However, Part B, which is the nonhospital portion of Medicare, does not take in enough money. The Medicare Part A surplus projected for the year 2002 is $36 billion; Medicare Part B deficit is $88 billion. In effect, we are taking $52 billion out of the general fund of the United States to support Medicare. I am sure a lot of people getting Medicare today think the money coming out of their Social Security, the money sons and daughters are paying into the Medicare fund, is taking care of it. That is not the case. That is not the case. When you combine Part A and Part B, the taxpayers of the United States subsidize Medicare. There is not enough money in the Medicare fund from the money coming in every year and the money being taken out of people's Social Security and the money they pay in for Part B. We are subsidizing it. To talk of a Medicare surplus when you see these numbers, is not being truthful. The surplus projected for the next 10 years shows the Medicare surplus for Part A is $393 billion. Whoopee. Part B, the deficit is $1.36 trillion. The overall subsidy coming from the general fund of the United States is $643 billion. For us to talk about lockboxing this, to me, really does not make sense. I know some talked about doing this last year, but the only reason it was brought up was the concept it would help restrain spending. When you see the total budget picture, the Medicare surplus is part of the on-budget surplus. It is in deficit. We ought not talk about locking off something that is not there. I urge my colleagues to reject the Conrad second-degree amendment because I don't think it will be enacted. In my opinion, it is a poison pill. It pretends there is a sacrosanct Medicare surplus which does not exist and which was never walled off. I predict today if the second- degree amendment is passed by the Senate, the entire provision will be removed from the conference report of this bill. That money is going to be needed to pay for spending in the budget we now have, particularly if we increase education 62 percent, as some colleagues would like to do, and we entertain the President's request for more money for defense. On the other hand, if you want to make sure the money is there to follow through on what we promised the American people, if we want to pay down the debt as we promised--we said we want to pay down the debt and we want to restrain spending--if we want to do that without gimmicks, the pure Social Security lockbox that will do that, I request my colleagues support this amendment. I am not proposing this today for political reasons. It is popular. I want to lockbox Social Security. I want to lockbox Medicare. The fact is, this is very serious business. I testified before Congress in 1985 as president of the National League of Cities. At that time, spending was out of control. What happened was during the Reagan years--some of my colleagues might not like to hear it--we reduced taxes, but at the same time we reduced taxes which was supposed to stimulate the economy, at the same time we increased spending astronomically. What President Reagan received was money for the defense initiative, and what the other colleagues received was money for domestic spending. It was during that period of the 1980s where we saw the national debt skyrocket, and we gobbled up Social Security. We need to be fiscally responsible. The way to do that is lockbox Social Security so it can be used for deficit reduction; lockbox it so it can not be used for spending. I think we can leave here with our head high and it will be something we may very well need by the end of this year if things do not work out as well as we hoped.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable provisions of the Budget Act and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I ask my colleagues to vote to support our Social Security lockbox amendment. Our lockbox strengthens the existing point of order against spending the existing Social Security surplus. Our lockbox makes it out of order to use the Social Security surplus in any single year of the next decade. More important, our amendment contains an automatic enforcement mechanism. If OMB reports the Federal Government will spend the Social Security surplus, an automatic across- the-board cut in spending, a sequester will be put in place. The size of this sequester will offset the use of the surplus. This is the ultimate enforcement mechanism. If the Social Security surplus looks like it will get spent, the OMB stops it from happening. This will ensure we stay the course on limiting spending and pay down the national debt as we promised when we passed the budget resolution. Spending cuts under this amendment would impact both discretionary and mandatory spending. Mandatory spending for the most needy in society would not be affected by these cuts. My amendment would exclude Social Security, food stamps, and other programs that are excluded from sequesters under the Deficit Control Act of 1985. In reality, about $33 billion of mandatory spending is subject to sequester. Hopefully, we would never have to use the sequester. This amendment is straightforward. It relies largely on existing law. It primarily builds upon the existing budget process. We all know Social Security is off budget and my amendment reinforces that position. Our amendment does not modify any budgetary conventions, nor does it pretend Social Security is something it is not. We must make sure history does not repeat itself. For years the Social Security surplus has been an all too readily available source of cash for Congress to spend. However, since 1999, there has been a political consensus not to return to spending of the Social Security surplus, in large part because we have had an on-budget surplus that supplied the extra money. If, however, the economic prosperity that this Nation enjoyed recently continues to fade, although I hope this is a temporary situation, and surplus projections are likely to be revised downward, then the Social Security surplus will again be in the crosshairs. It will be in the crosshairs because of Congressional yearning for more spending. If you want to make sure money is there to follow through on what we promised the American people, if you want to pay down the debt, if you want to control spending, and if you want to do it in an accountable, enforceable way, without gimmicks, vote for this amendment. I think everyone in this room knows this is the right thing to do. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment and urge them to vote for waiving the point of order that will be raised against it. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Allard, Fitzgerald, and Hagel as cosponsors, and I also thank Senators Sessions, Helms, and Crapo for their help on this amendment.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Thank you. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Conrad amendment. In fiscal year 2002, the overall Medicare Program would require over $50 billion in general tax revenues. Over the next 10 years, the Medicare Program would require over $600 billion in general tax revenues. We can't lockbox something that simply does not exist. It is a fiction. This amendment, in my opinion, will harm our ability to reform Medicare and also harm our ability to provide a prescription drug benefit that is so long due for the American people. Furthermore, the Conrad amendment does not contain any real teeth in terms of a Social Security lockbox. It lacks any automatic enforcement mechanism to protect Social Security. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment and against the waiver of the point of order.

Mr. VOINOVICH. May I ask, how much time do we have?

Mr. VOINOVICH

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

Mr. VOINOVICH. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, one of the primary reasons I wanted to serve as a Senator was to have an opportunity to bring fiscal responsibility to our Nation and help reduce our national debt. As many of my colleagues know, for decades successive Congresses and Presidents spent money on items 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 our future. Today our national debt stands at about $5.7 trillion. That costs about $200 billion a year in interest payments. From the time I arrived in the Senate, I have worked to rein in spending and lower the national debt. Over the past 2\1/2\ years, I have cosponsored and sponsored a number of amendments designed to bring fiscal discipline to the Federal Government. In March of 1999, I offered an amendment to use whatever on-budget surplus as calculated in the fiscal year 2000 budget to pay down the debt. In March of 2000, I again offered my amendment to use the on-budget surplus calculated for fiscal year 2001 for debt reduction. In an effort to bring spending under control, Senator Allard and I offered an amendment in June of 2000 to direct $12 billion of fiscal year 2000 on-budget surplus toward debt reduction. The amendment passed by an overwhelming 95-3 and committed Congress to designate the on-budget surpluses to reduce the national debt, keeping these funds from being used for additional Government spending. Our amendment provided the mechanism to assure that Congress would begin the serious task of paying down the debt. Further, this past April, Senator Feingold, Senator Gregg, and I offered an amendment to the fiscal year 2002 budget designed to tighten enforcement of existing spending controls. Our amendment created an explicit point of order against directed scoring and abuses of emergency spending. Even with all the amendments I proposed and cosponsored to bring Federal spending under control, I have never lost sight of the fact that we need to enact a Social Security lockbox. Make no mistake, adopting a Social Security lockbox is not about Social Security benefits. Social Security beneficiaries will not know the difference if we pass or do not pass a Social Security lockbox. What we are doing today will not have an impact at all on the beneficiaries. The amendment I am offering today will permanently lockbox the Social Security surplus and prevent it from being used for any other purpose. For decades, the Social Security surplus was used by Congress after Congress and President after President to offset Federal spending. For many of those years, Members of both the House and Senate worked to put the Social Security surplus off limits from being used for such Federal spending. We talked a lot about it. In 1999, after years of wrangling, in a landmark budget agreement passed in 1995, the Federal Government finally achieved a balanced budget. With this good news, it became apparent that Congress and the President would not need to use the Social Security surplus for spending. This was made possible by our economic prosperity which guaranteed and generated a huge increase in tax revenues, which we know about, and in turn a massive on-budget surplus. Because the United States was running in the black for the first time in recent memory, Social Security surpluses were used to pay down the national debt instead of being used for spending. Indeed, since 1999, there has been a political consensus not to return to spending that surplus. However, the economic prosperity this Nation enjoyed as recently as months ago is fading, although I hope this is only a temporary situation. Surplus projections are likely to be revised downward. Yet Congressional yearning for more spending has not abated. For fiscal year 2001, Congress, with the encouragement of the Clinton administration, increased nondefense discretionary spending 14.3 percent. That is something people have not taken into consideration. Nondefense discretionary spending in the last budget was 14.3 percent above the year before and increased overall spending by 8 percent, which was way above inflation. All of this was on top of large increases in the previous years' budgets. If we fund the education bill that the Senate recently passed, which increases spending by 62 percent or $14 billion, and if we spend the $18.4 billion increase in defense spending that the administration is talking about, we could end up spending a portion of the on-budget surplus of fiscal year 2003 and beyond. Part of the reason for this is the fact that the tax reduction was more front-end loaded than the President had originally planned. Frankly, if the economy really falters, we could bump up against the Social Security trust fund next year. Nearly everyone in this Chamber agrees we should not spend that surplus, and the public has grown to expect that Congress won't return to spending it. This year's budget resolution was designed in part to avoid spending that surplus. At the moment, we are de facto lockboxing Social Security. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to take the next step and lockbox these funds permanently. It is the best possible action we could take to bring fiscal discipline to the 107th Congress. On the one hand, it guarantees we don't touch Social Security, and on the other it ensures we will continue to pay down debt, which fulfills the commitment we have all made and which will give us the interest savings. It is a two-for: We won't spend it; second, it will allow us to continue to pay down the national debt substantially. That is part of what I refer to as the three-legged stool. That three-legged stool in terms of my support for the budget resolution was: Hold spending down, reduce debt, and reduce taxes. But all three of them have to be present. We have to preserve that one stool of reducing the national debt. If my colleagues think back to the 1980s, they will remember the dramatic increase in the national debt, primarily because of the use of the Social Security surplus. I was here. I was president of the National League of Cities. I came to this Congress before the Finance Committee and supported the Republican proposal to limit spending in 1985. What we saw happen during that period of time was that taxes were reduced and spending went up. Republicans wanted to spend on defense, the Democrats wanted to spend on social programs, and the way they paid for it was to use the Social Security surplus. I don't want that to happen while I am a Member of the Senate. I don't think any of my other colleagues want that to happen again. The 1999 budget was the first time in over three decades that Congress did not use Social Security to pay for Federal spending. Again, in 2000, Congress did not use Social Security spending, although I must say it was hand-to-hand combat to make sure it wasn't used. There was direct scoring, there was emergency spending, and all kinds of other gimmicks because CBO had said we were spending the Social Security surplus, and the only thing that saved us was we got back here in January and CBO came out with new projections and said the budget surplus was more than what we had originally anticipated it to be. Although the economy is not as robust as it was a year ago, we must resist the temptation to fall off the wagon of fiscal responsibility and resist the urge to resume spending that Social Security trust fund. The amendment we are offering guarantees we will not fall off the wagon. It contains two enforcement mechanisms: A supermajority point of order written in statute and automatic across-the-board spending cuts. Our amendment creates a statutory point of order against any bill, amendment, or resolution that would spend the Social Security surplus any of the next 10 years. Waiving the point of order would require the votes of 60 Senators. In addition, if the Social Security surplus were spent, the Office of Management and Budget would impose automatic across-the-board cuts in discretionary and mandatory spending to reduce the amount of the surplus that was spent. We are talking about mandatory spending; we are talking about the fact that it will exempt Social Security and those things that are contained in the Deficit Control Act of 1985. My understanding is that is about $33 billion that would be subject to sequester or reduction. This amendment will only trigger the automatic reduction if spending of the surplus exceeds one-half of 1 percent of the total outlay expenditure. In other words, it is not going to be one of those things that will happen automatically. It has a provision that says, if it is shown you have spent over one-half of 1 percent of the Social Security surplus, then the trigger will go into effect. That is because we are talking about a $2 trillion budget and I think there ought to be some kind of flexibility in the amendment. I think, frankly, it is something that is intellectually honest to do. The only exceptions to the lockbox would be a state of war as declared by Congress or a recession defined as two successive quarters of negative economic growth. For the past 2\1/2\ years I have fought to make sure we in the Senate hold ourselves accountable for the spending decisions that we make. Thus far, our spending choices, whether I have agreed with them or not, have involved on-budget surplus dollars. But I believe we need to prepare to protect Social Security funds from being used for even more spending, should our budget surplus fade. That is what will happen. If we keep this spending up, and then the surplus isn't there, there is going to be a great temptation for this body to invade the Social Security surplus. Some of my colleagues in the Senate might argue we do not need a separate law establishing a Social Security lockbox since it already exists in the budget. Some of my colleagues might also swear that we would never return to the days when the Social Security trust fund was used as the Government's private piggy bank. Invariably we are told to have faith that this institution called Congress will do the right thing when it comes to spending. I am a firm believer in Ronald Reagan's philosophy: Trust but verify. In my view, a permanent statutory Social Security lockbox is the best way to verify that the Social Security surplus remains untouched by those who would spend it. It would also force Congress to fiscal discipline and to make the hard choices in prioritizing our spending with the funds that we have today at our disposal. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this amendment. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I thank my friends from Maine and Nebraska for offering this important amendment. I believe the Collins- Nelson amendment will allow the Senate to move forward and pass a strong Federal patient protection bill without suffocating the patient protections States have adopted over the last several years. I wholeheartedly agree that the Senate should take action to protect those Americans not covered under state plans. While the states were in front protecting the majority of those insured individuals through state regulation, the federal government has dragged its feet. However, a federal patient's bill of rights should not preempt the patient protections that have already been passed by the states. There are more than 117 million Americans who are covered under fully insured plans, governmental plans and individuals policies, which are all regulated under state law. My colleagues supporting the McCain-Kennedy legislation believe that the federal mandates in the bill should apply not only to ERISA plans, but also to those 117 million Americans in state regulated health plans. Apparently, they do not think that the states, which have already acted and are already protecting millions of Americans, are competent enough to do the job. Instead, they think that the federal government will do a much better job. My colleagues on the other side of this debate want the public to believe that all Americans need to be covered under a federal patient protections bill or else the quality of their health care will be jeopardized. The fact of the matter is that the majority of Americans are already covered under very good, very comprehensive state health care laws. As a former Governor of Ohio, I was on the front lines in the fight to give working men and women in Ohio real health care choices. As governor, I signed into law five legislative measures and pushed through several administrative improvements to protect families who relied on state-regulated plans for their health care coverage. The majority of states, including Ohio, have moved aggressively-- certainly more quickly than the federal government--to reduce health care inflation, expand access for the working poor, enhance consumer protections and bring greater accountability to the system. If the states had waited for the federal government to step up to the plate to provide patient protections, 117 million Americans would not have the patient protections they currently enjoy. The simple truth is that the states have been out in front of the federal government in providing sound protections for its citizens. The following facts prove this point: 42 states have already enacted a comprehensive Patient's Bill of Rights; 50 states have mandated strong patient information provisions; 50 states already have an internal appeals process and 41 states have included an external appeals process; 48 states already enforce consumer protections regarding gag clauses on doctor-patient communications; 47 states already have regulations regarding prompt payment; and 44 states already enforce consumer protections for access to emergency care services. The states are already getting the job done for the majority of insured Americans. But if we do not pass this amendment, we will be turning over to the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) the enforcement of state sponsored protection plans that are not substantially equivalent with the federal bill. The fact is, HCFA already has its hands full. Administering and regulating Medicare and Medicaid has already overburdened this federal agency. Think about it. HCFA already has under its purview over 70 million Americans through these federal programs. Now, my colleagues want to place the health care of an additional 170 million Americans on HCFA's shoulders. The simple fact is that HCFA cannot handle the burden. Those individuals on the front lines of protecting the 117 million Americans with state regulated insurance know what will happen if the federal government is given the responsibility to oversee these state regulated health insurance plans. In fact, the National Conference of State Legislatures has described the McCain-Kennedy bill as, ``. . . federal legislation that will largely preempt important state laws and replace them with federal laws that . . . the federal government is ill-prepared to monitor and enforce.'' Additionally, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners has made clear its concerns about the McCain-Kennedy bill: if the federal government unilaterally imposes a one-size-fits-all standard on the states, it ``could be devastating to state insurance markets.'' The amendment that Senators Collins and Nelson have offered will give true deference to state laws and the traditional authority that states have had to regulate insurance. By ``grandfathering'' all state patient protection laws, Senators Collins and Nelson recognize that the vast majority of states have enacted comprehensive patient protections laws, as Ohio has done. The amendment also encourages states, through Patient Quality Enhancement Grants, to review their current patient protection and, if the state legislature and governor so desire, take action to mirror federal patient protections. I want to relay to my colleagues that I truly believe that this will be the most important federalism vote that the Senate takes this year. In conclusion, it has been the traditional role of States to regulate the needs of our States. However, both the McCain-Kennedy bill as written and the Breaux amendment seek to preempt what the States have accomplished in protecting patients. The underlying bill as written would step over the 10th amendment which says: the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The bottom line is that the States have been involved in protecting patients a lot longer than the Federal Government, and they are doing a good job with the protections they have put in place. They debated them in their State legislatures. Their insurance departments are doing a good job of enforcing those laws. The Breaux amendment and the underlying bill gets the States out of their role. We will have a dual system of enforcement--State insurance commissioners and HCFA. And I can tell you, anyone who knows anything about HCFA in terms of the responsibilities they have, knows they have a hard-enough time doing their job now. We should not get them involved in a system that is already working on the State level. I beg my colleagues not to go along with federalizing this issue. Let's take care of the Federal people who have been exempted over the years because we haven't done the job we are supposed to do, and let the States continue to do the job they have been doing. I thank the Chair.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, today, I am joined by Senators Biden, DeWine, and Harkin in congratulating the Republic of Slovenia on its tenth anniversary of independence. Ten years ago today, on June 25, 1991, the Republic of Slovenia declared itself an independent and sovereign Nation. Since that time, Slovenia has remained a model of reform and progress in Central and Eastern Europe, working to promote democratic ideals, respect for human rights and the rule of law, and the merits of free market economic systems. Slovenia has made great strides in its work to join the NATO Alliance and the European Union. In addition to its outstanding human rights record and commitment to the democratic process, the people of Slovenia enjoy the highest per capita gross domestic product in the region, and the country's economy continues to grow. Slovenia has also demonstrated its ability to contribute to international peacekeeping operations, including NATO's Stabilization Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as NATO's force in Kosovo, among others. Given its record in these regards, I believe the Republic of Slovenia stands as a strong candidate for NATO membership when the Alliance considers enlargement in Prague in November 2002. Slovenia's progress extends beyond domestic reform and foreign policy goals. In Southeast Europe, a part of the world that continues to feel the burden of decades of war and ethnic strife, Slovenia continues to serve as a leader in efforts to remove destructive land mines in the region. The International Trust Fund for Demining, ITF, established by the Slovenian government in 1998, has undertaken more than 200 projects in the Balkans since its creation. As a result, more than 12 million square meters of land have been cleared throughout Albania, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kosovo. In addition, the ITF Mine Victims' Assistance program has helped more than 500 people in Bosnia and Herzegovina who have been injured by land mines. Congress provided matching funds to assist the International Trust Fund for Demining in 1998, and this year the United States will again consider funding for this important initiative. As the Republic of Slovenia has made considerable and important progress during its 10 years of independence, working to promote peace, stability and prosperity in Central and Eastern Europe, I am pleased to have the opportunity to submit this resolution on the occasion of Slovenia's 10th anniversary of independence. I congratulate the people of Slovenia on their accomplishments thus far, and I urge them to continue their significant work to advance the ideals of democracy, human rights, the rule of law and free market economies throughout the Balkans region.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arkansas. He does have my support for his amendment. It is well taken, and it will go a long way to help provide more health care for the citizens of our country. The quality of health care in the United States has long been the envy of the world. If I happen to fall ill when I am home in Cleveland, I know that I can go to any of the hospitals in the community and receive quality care unparalleled around the globe. However, I also think that more can be done to improve the overall status of health care in America. In fact, I believe Congress must do more to expand health care coverage for more individuals, keep health care costs down and maintain the rights of each individual patient to make decisions affecting their own health. Five years ago, Congress realized that one arena in which the Federal Government has an obligation is protection for those Americans covered under self-insured ERISA plans because the Federal Government has the sole authority to do so. There are 56 million Americans who are in health care plans that are self-insured, which are regulated under Federal law. The Federal Government, unfortunately, has been slow in creating consumer protection standards for these 56 million Americans, and I agree with my colleagues that patient protections should be established for these ERISA plans. In 1999 and 2000, this body passed patient protections legislation that filled the hole in ERISA protections. These absolute and comprehensive patient protections, included: Access to emergency care; A point-of-service option; A continuity of care provision; Access to prescription drugs that are not covered in plan formularies; Access to specialist; A prohibition of gag rules; Access to clinical trials; Provider nondiscrimination; A strong internal and external review process; A genetic nondiscrimination provision; and Provisions that would increase access to health insurance, such as increasing the availability of medical savings accounts, full deduction of health insurance for the self- employed and long term care insurance. I am encouraged that the McCain-Kennedy bill, in spirit, has the same core patient protections that the Senate passed in 1999 and again in 2000. However, while the McCain-Kennedy bill contains these provisions, I cannot support the McCain-Kennedy bill as currently written for two significant reasons. First, the bill represents an inappropriate preemption of state law. Ohio and the vast majority of other states have already enacted strong patient protection laws that provide their citizens with quality health care. My colleagues on the other side of this debate want the public to believe that all Americans need to be covered under a Federal patient protections bill or else the quality of their health care will come under jeopardy. The fact of the matter is that the majority of Americans are already covered under very good, very comprehensive State health care laws. The proponents of this legislation believe we need to pass a bill that will wipe clean the hard work the States have done. I could not disagree more. A Federal Patient's Bill of Rights should not preempt the work that has already been done by the States. State regulation of the insurance industry has been very effective for more than 50 years. There are more than 117 million Americans who are covered under fully insured plans, governmental plans and individual policies, which are all regulated under State law. My colleagues supporting the McCain-Kennedy legislation believe that the Federal mandates in the bill should apply not only to ERISA plans, but also to those 117 million Americans in State-regulated health plans. Apparently, they do not think that the states, which have already acted and are already protecting millions of Americans, are competent enough to do the job. Instead, they think that the Federal Government will do a much better job. Mr. President, do you know to whom the Federal Government will turn to enforce the law? The Health Care Financing Administration. The fact is, HCFA already has its hands full. Administering and regulating Medicare, Medicaid and the SCHIP program has already overburdened this administration. Think about it. HCFA already has under its purview over 70 million Americans through these Federal programs. Now my colleagues want to place the health care of an additional 170 million Americans on HCFA's shoulders. Under the McCain-Kennedy bill, States will now have to report to HCFA on the status of the health care plans in their States. It has been pointed out to me numerous times that the regulations that only govern Medicare are three times what the Federal Tax Code is. Imagine the regulatory nightmare that will occur when Congress hands over regulation of the private insurance market to the Federal Government. The simple fact of the matter is that HCFA cannot handle the burden this bill would bestow. However, even if HCFA had the ability to enforce uniform consumer protection standards across the country, it would still not be the right decision. Different regions have different problems against which they need to guard. A ``one-size-fits-all'' approach from Washington will not work any better for health regulation than for other centralized approaches to problems, such as education. All wisdom does not reside in Washington-- local people understand their own local needs, and they elect representatives to serve those needs. On the Federal level, if we in Congress want to mandate certain health care changes with respect to Federal coverage, then it is well within our ability to do so. And in certain instances, it may be necessary to do so. But why should Congress intrude on the States and mandate sweeping, across-the-board changes on how they regulate the health care industry in their States? We should let the States decide what is best for their citizens, but there seems to be a feeling here in this town that the States just will not do the right thing. If you observe what the States have accomplished, you will see that the States have been and will continue to be at the forefront of the nation's efforts to improve the quality and efficiency of our health care system. In fact, the States have been on the vanguard of health care services, and because of this, many ERISA plans have followed suit voluntarily. It should be pointed out that the majority of ERISA plans have already taken upon themselves to provide quality patient protections, taking notice from what their States have done. They have mirrored in their insurance plans what the States have already done. However, by seizing and usurping the great works the States have accomplished, the Federal Government is once again stating a one-size-fits-all approach. It will not work. The majority of States, including Ohio, have moved aggressively, certainly more quickly than the Federal Government, to reduce health care inflation, expand access for the working poor, enhance consumer protections, and bring greater accountability to the system. In fact, if the States waited for the Federal Government to step up to the plate to provide patient protections, 117 million Americans would not have the patient protections they currently enjoy. The simple truth is, the States have been in front of the Federal Government in providing sound protections for their citizens. The following facts prove it: 50 States have mandated strong patient information provisions; 50 States already have internal appeals processes, and 41 States have included external processes; 48 States already enforce consumer protections regarding gag clauses on doctor- patient communications; 47 States have regulations regarding prompt payment; 42 States have already enacted a comprehensive Patients' Bill of Rights; and 44 States have already enforced consumer protections for access to emergency care services. As a former Governor of Ohio, I have been on the front lines in the fight to give working men and women in Ohio real health care choices. As Governor, I signed into law five legislative measures and pushed through several administrative improvements to protect families who relied on State-regulated plans for their health care coverage. Now I am in the Senate to try to give those Ohioans who are covered by the Federal ERISA law those same benefits. I believe the legislation the Senate approved in 1999 and 2000 went a long way to ensuring that Ohioans covered under ERISA are given the health care protections they deserve. The bills passed in this body are nearly identical to those protections passed in Ohio for State- regulated plans, many of which I fought for as Governor. The bills passed by the Senate in 1999 and 2000 extend emergency care coverage under the prudent layperson standard. Ohio enacted that protection in 1997. The Senate passed bills included a ban on gag clauses. Ohio enacted that protection in 1997. The Senate passed bills included strong internal and independent external appeals. Ohio enacted those provisions in 1999. The Senate passed bills allowed a woman to designate an OB/GYN as her primary care provider. Ohio enacted a standing referral provision in 1997, and then direct access in 1999. The Senate passed bills provide patients the right to accurate, easy- to-understand information about their health plan. Ohio's law requires that all beneficiaries have an I.D. card and access to health care information on a 24-hour, 7-day-a-week basis via a toll-free number. The Senate passed bills ensure that patients may go out of a network if the plan does not have an appropriate provider within its network. That is already Ohio law. Additionally, Ohio already has enacted a prompt payment provision and a prescription drug formulary exception. Ohio has already put into place a mandatory 48-hour maternity hospital stay benefit for new mothers. We were the first State to eliminate the drive-through baby, 24-hour situation we had several years ago. Prior to the State's action, in a number of instances, women were being discharged sometimes within hours of giving birth. Now all women in Ohio know that when they give birth, they will have the peace of mind that they and their baby will have access to medical care, if only for observation, for at least 48 hours. In Ohio, we also allowed for the creation of insurance pools for companies who wanted to be able to provide insurance for their employees but could not afford to do it by themselves. Now, Ohio has one of the most successful examples of an insurance pool in the entire country--the Council of Smaller Enterprises, COSE. COSE provides health insurance to more than 200,000 people and represents more than 16,000 small businesses in Ohio. Without the ability to pool together, many of these businesses would not be able to offer their employees health insurance, and therefore, many more Ohioans would be uninsured. The second reason that I cannot support McCain-Kennedy as it is currently written is because the bill will encourage frivolous lawsuits, leading employers to question whether or not providing health insurance is worth the cost. A great deal has been said about the options available to a patient who has somehow been wronged by a particular health care plan. Proponents of the McCain-Kennedy legislation have indicated that the only way patients can ensure that they will be able to obtain relief from being denied benefits is if they maintain the ability to sue their health plans. They further contend that if they can sue their health plans, it should follow that they can sue their employers. They base this on the belief that employers maintain a fiduciary responsibility to monitor health plan quality, making it impossible to completely delegate responsibility for the health benefit plan's decisions. I believe such a provision would open a virtual Pandora's box of potential lawsuits and would force any employer who provides health insurance to cover every health claim or risk being sued over those that are not. Proponents of the McCain-Kennedy legislation believe they have carved out employers, stating only those employers that ``directly participate'' in medically reviewable decisions can be held liable. However, for all these claims of employer carve-outs, the fact remains, employers can still be sued. Lawsuits can still be brought against the employer for a number of reasons. For instance, the phrase ``actual exercise of control'' broadens the avenue for a lawsuit to come against an employer, although the employer had no ``direct participation'' in a medically reviewable decision. If, during negotiations with a health plan, an employer agrees to the definition of a certain contractual phrase used by the plan for a decisionmaking process, this could be a cause of action for a lawsuit. Additionally, although proponents of McCain-Kennedy believe they have properly excluded employers, the phrase ``conduct constituting failure'' to perform plan terms and conditions provides a clean sheet for any personal injury lawyer to claw at any alleged failure of an employer. This could be as minor as a simple administrative error in notifying individuals about the availability of continued health coverage after they leave employment. And as a practical matter, do my colleagues think a personal injury lawyer will not attempt to test the defense of the ``no direct participation'' standard? If I were a savvy personal injury lawyer and saw before my eyes unlimited punitive damages and a new Federal cause of action with a cap of $5 million, I certainly would test the defense laid out in the McCain-Kennedy bill. Unfortunately, this is what it has come down to: the ability of personal injury lawyers to dictate health care in America. Whom will this ultimately hurt? It will hurt those individuals and families at the margins who are working hard to take responsibility for themselves. I am thinking about the families to whom that employer protection is provided. The fact is, health insurance is a benefit that employers have provided. It is a voluntary benefit they provide because they care about their workers. Approximately two-thirds of insured Americans under 65 receive their health insurance through employer- sponsored plans. I point out for senior citizens who are retired, half of their Medicare Supplemental for Part B is paid for under the employer plan-- half of it. We want employers to stay in this business. It is important to the country. According to a Gallup poll conducted last September, the vast majority of Americans, 70 percent, are satisfied with their health insurance provided by their employer. If the McCain-Kennedy bill passes with its current liability provision, I cannot honestly see employers continuing this benefit. As a matter of fact, employers have already told me they will drop their health care insurance. These liability provisions, the unlimited punitive damages in state courts on top of the $5 million damages that can be awarded in Federal court, will hang like a cloud over employers. Even if a lawsuit was never filed, a prudent employer would place in his budget the possibility of this occurrence. Therefore, the costs associated with retaining legal counsel, as well as the insurance premium paid against the possibility of a large award would be budgeted annually, which of course, would be passed along in higher premiums to the employees. Employers, if they decide to continue providing coverage, will then place on employees a higher participation of the financial burden for health insurance. And what if one state jury finds an employer liable and grants a multi-million dollar award? Well, I can tell you what will happen. Employer-based insurance will tumble like a house of cards. Employers will see the writing on the wall and say, Good-bye! Although I care a great deal about each and every one of you, my employees, I cannot afford to be subjugated to this kind of liability. Here's my contribution of what I pay for your health insurance: good luck finding the same coverage at a fraction what you had previously paid. The proponents of McCain-Kennedy say that the State of Texas has enacted a similar bill that has not caused the collapse of employer based insurance in Texas. What my colleagues are not saying is that Texas specifically carved-out all employer liability. The provision in Texas law reads as follows, and I quote, ``This chapter does not create any liability on the part of an employer, an employer group purchasing organization, or a pharmacy licensed by the State Board of Pharmacy that purchases coverage or assumes risk on behalf of its employees.'' That is what any Federal law ought to state. It really is amazing to me that the United States Senate is contemplating opening up employers to lawsuits. Through these actions, we are sending a mixed signal to the American people. Out of one side of our mouth, we say there are too many uninsured people in the United States. And, in fact, I think there are. However, out of the other side of our mouth, we say that the United States Senate may allow legislation to move forward that will increase health care premiums by at least 4.2 percent. This is on top of the hyper health care inflation that the country's employers are currently facing--between 18 to 22 percent increases in the State of Ohio over the past year alone. Indeed, it is estimated that if the McCain-Kennedy bill went into effect as is, over 1.4 million Americans will lose their health coverage--nearly 30,000 in my state of Ohio. (Based on CBO numbers). What's more, according to a study conducted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 57 percent of small employers said they would likely drop health benefits for their employees if the McCain-Kennedy liability provision was the law of the land. In addition, at least 1,000 larger employers across the nation- including many Fortune 500 companies-have expressed opposition to the McCain-Kennedy liability provision. The implementation of a liability standard would not only have a devastating impact on many families in America, but I don't believe it will have the intended purpose of providing restitution to patients. Most Americans don't realize that 70 percent of all health care liability claims filed in our courts are resolved with absolutely no payment to the patient. Zero dollars. In cases where a payment is made to a patient who sues, the patient receives, on average, only 43 percent of the damage award. Forty-three percent! The other 57 percent goes right into the pockets of the personal injury lawyers and their expert witnesses. In addition, achieving a final resolution to these claims is not a speedy process. The average medical malpractice case takes over 2 years, 25 months, to resolve. In many instances, that is long after the patient has suffered permanent damage, or even death. What we need to do is focus our attention on getting patients treated quickly and accurately and not concentrating on getting them a pay-out that may never come. I would like to have an opportunity to support a bill that truly utilizes the internal and independent external review process. Towards that goal, I believe we should revisit the legislation that the Senate passed in 2000. In the Senate-passed bill for which I voted last year, if the group health plan makes a determination to deny coverage and notifies the enrollee and health care professional, the enrollee or the doctor would be able to request an internal review of the coverage decision. That review must be completed within 30 days for a routine determination, or 72 hours for an expedited determination. If an enrollee is denied after an internal review, he or she can request an independent, external review. An independent medical expert, utilizing valid, relevant scientific and clinical evidence, including peer reviewed medical literature, would then make an objective determination based on the medical exigencies of the case, within 30 days. The decision of the external reviewer would be binding on the plan. If the external reviewer rules in favor of the enrollee, the plan must notify the enrollee of their decision to cover the benefit with ordinary care. If the plan refuses to follow the decision of the expert reviewer, the enrollee could then sue in Federal court for unlimited economic damages and capped non-economic damages. If the court ruled for the enrollee, then the court: one, would require the plan to cover the service; two, assess a $10,000 penalty for failing to comply with the agreed upon time frame; three, additionally assess a penalty of $10,000, payable to the enrollee, for failure to comply with the decision of the medical reviewer; four, award attorneys' fees; and five, provide non-economic damages of up to $350,000. I think we should offer patients an opportunity to obtain timely coverage of legitimate health services before permanent damage is done to them. Unfortunately, the McCain-Kennedy bill offers patients faint hope that, well into the future, after the damage is already done, they may recover less than half of a damage award. Our main goal in this debate must be to provide quality health consumer protections while maintaining the ability for America's families to obtain their insurance through their employers. We should not enact massive changes to our health care system which will irreparably harm the ability of millions of Americans to obtain affordable, quality health care. I hope that my colleagues and I can work to pass a real Patients' Bill of Rights: one that will not impede on the progress the states have made, and one that provides health care to patients, not money to personal injury lawyers. Regrettably, I do not believe that the McCain-Kennedy bill will accomplish these goals. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, if there is one thing that the Senate can agree on wholeheartedly, it is that we, as a Nation, need to invest in our children's educational future. There is no other issue that hits closer to home for America's families. But, even as we recognize the importance of education, we must realize that close to home is where education works best in America, and simply spending more and more Federal dollars on more and more Federal ``one size fits all'' education directives will not, by itself, make our education system perform better. S. 1, the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act, that the Senate passed last Thursday contains several provisions that I favor. The bill contains a modest pilot ``Straight A's'' provision that will help us build on the Education Flexibility Partnership Act that I worked to help pass in the 106th Congress to allow States to consolidate Federal education programs to meet State and local needs. It also contains an amendment that I sponsored, that will provide loan forgiveness to Head Start teachers in effort to encourage teachers to go into early childhood education. Further, S. 1 expands local flexibility and control by block-granting funds, consolidating some programs, and includes another amendment that I sponsored to allow local districts to spend Title II funds, if they desire, on pupil services personnel. However, taken as a whole, S. 1 is fiscally irresponsible and violates my deeply held principles of federalism. Over the course of my 35 years of public service to the people of Ohio, I have developed a passion for the issue of federalism--that is, assigning the appropriate role of the Federal Government in relation to State and local government. Our forefathers outlined this relationship in the 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Education is one such responsibility, and it has only been in the last 35 years that the Federal government has had much of a role to play in education policy, albeit a small one. As my colleagues know, the Federal Government currently provides approximately 7 percent of all money spent on education in America, while 93 percent of the money is provided at the state and local level. In my view, S. 1 not only violates that principle of federalism and the proper role of the Federal Government in education, it violates a principle long-held in this country; and that is, local control of our schools. I am concerned that this bill will put us on a fast-track towards thoroughly federalizing education. As it has been said before on the floor of the Senate, one size does not fit all when it comes to education. Different districts have different requirements, with the needs of rural areas differing from the needs of our cities. And that has been the guiding force in American education for over 200 years. But some of my colleagues think the Congress is the national school board. Well, we are not the national school board here in this Congress! With the expansion of education programs that the Federal Government would undertake in this bill, I have a genuine concern that in ten or fifteen years, Washington will be dictating what is happening in every schoolhouse across the nation. Indeed, in spite of the limited expenditure of Federal funds for education, this bill stipulates that every school district in America will test their students from grades 3 through 8. This testing will occur regardless of how well students are performing in their particular school districts, and despite the fact that most of our states have mechanisms already in place that test students' educational performances. For instance, just last week in my state of Ohio, Governor Taft signed into law a bill to revamp the State's testing program. Governors, legislators, school boards, parents and most of all, teachers, all understand how onerous additional federally mandated testing provisions truly are. I can assure you that there are many teachers in Ohio who are going to be saying, ``here we go again.'' In addition, there are other provisions in this legislation that usurp the authority of states and local school districts in their ability to make decisions that will affect their students. For example, S. 1 lays out specific steps that states and school districts must take to address failing schools. Also under S. 1, the Federal Government would be able to tell States that its teachers in low-income schools must meet certain Federal qualification and certification requirements. Further, the Federal Government would be able to continue to tell school districts how to spend funds in a number of areas including: reading; teacher development; technology; and programs for students with limited English language skills, instead of providing States and local school districts with full flexibility to spend funds on their own identified priorities. Besides violating a long-held principle regarding State and local control over schools, the bill's fatal flaw is that it increases authorized and appropriated spending for education by more than 62 percent over last year's budget, and it demolishes the budget resolution that Congress recently passed. According to the Senate Budget Committee, ESEA spending totaled $17.6 billion in fiscal year 2001. That same year, we spent over $6.3 billion on special education. That's a total of $23.9 billion of Federal funds for kindergarten through grade 12. It also represents a 21 percent increase over fiscal year 2000. S. 1 as reported authorized $27.7 billion for ESEA alone for fiscal year 2002. Since the beginning of the debate on the floor of the Senate until its passage on June 14th, a period of some 7 weeks, the Senate added an additional $11.1 billion in education spending for fiscal year 2002. That's a total of $38.8 billion and, as I said earlier, a 62 percent increase in just one year! Over the life of the bill, these amendments add $211 billion to ESEA for a total of $416 billion. That is an increase of 101 percent over seven years. When you consider that the House and Senate agreed to a budget resolution that included a modest increase in Federal spending over last year's budget of approximately 5 percent, it's obvious that if we are to fund ESEA with a 62 percent increase, many legitimate functions that are the true responsibility of the federal government will not be met. Otherwise, we will not be able to live within the parameters of the FY 2002 budget resolution. I am concerned that a number of my colleagues may have voted for many of the amendments to S. 1, as well as the final version of the bill-- even with its expensive price tag--believing that the Appropriations Committee will not fully-fund each and every authorized program. In my view, we should only vote to authorize what we are actually willing to appropriate. That's because, I am very sure that there will be tremendous pressure on the appropriators to fully-fund the programs included in this bill. And, at 62 percent over last year's level, the programs in S. 1 just cost too much money for this Congress to spend. In fact, I am concerned that the level of spending in this bill will put us back on the path towards a repeat of last year's ``budget busting'' appropriations cycle; a cycle that saw the Congress spend 14.3 percent more in non-defense discretionary spending than the year before. That is why over the last few weeks, I have been working with my friend from Kentucky, Senator Bunning, to get the signatures of our Senate colleagues on a letter to President Bush to show him that we are willing to support him in his efforts to instill fiscal discipline in the appropriations process. In addition, our letter is meant to put Congress on notice that excessive spending will not be tolerated. Although President Bush has indicated that he will not hesitate to use his veto pen on spending bills, Senator Bunning and I felt he needed a ``Backbone 34''--a contingent of at least 34 Senators who would agree to uphold the President's veto on bloated spending bills, should it be necessary. I am pleased to say that Senator Bunning and I collected the signatures of 35 Senators who have agreed to ``vote against any congressional effort to override [vetoes] to enforce fiscal discipline.'' What these 35 signatures do is send an important message to all of our colleagues regarding the need for the Senate to stay within the budget resolution guidelines. Simply put, the President will have the support he needs in Congress to sustain his veto of spending bills that are not fiscally responsible. As far as I am concerned, the ``easy'' vote would have been to vote in favor of S. 1. However, I was not elected to the Senate to take the easy votes and hide from my responsibilities to the taxpayers of Ohio and this nation. It is high-time for us to stand-up and show that we have the courage to be fiscally responsible, to prioritize our spending on the basis of those responsibilities that are truly Federal in nature, and to make the tough choices. If Congress won't do it, I hope the President will, because the American people deserve to know that their government is serving in their best interest. In my view, the funding expectations that are established in S. 1 are just too unrealistic, and if the President does not insist on a final bill that is more fiscally responsible, I do not doubt that my friends across the aisle will demand that he fund ESEA to the fully authorized level in his next budget. That's why I urge President Bush to insist that the Members of the conference committee to S. 1 eliminate the enormous excess in spending that this bill contains before it is sent back to each of the respective Houses of Congress for a final vote. By so doing, it will show the citizens of this nation that their President truly is not only the Education President, but that he cares about putting an end to Congress' spendthrift ways as well.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I would first like to express my appreciation to the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate's Health, Education Labor and Pensions Committee for accepting this important amendment to S. 1, the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act. Simply put, the amendment that I have offered will help protect the ability of school counselors, social workers, psychologists and others to receive professional development and training as determined by local school districts. Each of us in this body wants what's best for our Nation's children, and when it comes to their education, we want our schools and our educators to find ways to provide a first-class education for our children, to ensure their safety, and to help them develop their God- given talents so they may become upstanding, contributing members of our society. Nearly everyone agrees our schools need help, but not everyone agrees on which way is best. That is why we in the Senate have tried to put together this Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization bill that gives our states and localities the flexibility to do what is necessary to improve their schools. Part of educating, protecting, and preparing our students is seeing to it that they get the help they need to succeed in the classroom. That is why I offered this amendment to make pupil services personnel eligible to be recipients of title II professional development funds. Pupil services personnel, the men and women who are our school counselors, school psychologists, school social workers, and other school-based personnel, are essential components in our effort to guarantee that no child is left behind. These educators help ensure student achievement by securing a safe learning environment, helping to solve problems students experience that extend far beyond the schoolyard, and crafting a challenging, personalized, college-oriented curriculum so that all students have a chance to succeed. To maximize State and local flexibility, it is important that pupil services personnel be included under title II programs. For example, if a school district wants to engage a team of teachers, principals, and pupil services personnel in a comprehensive curriculum reform planning program, Federal law should not exclude part of that team from taking part in those activities if they use title II funds. Nothing in my amendment would mandate that title II funds have to be spent on these educators, only that we not rule out their participation, which I believe would limit state and local flexibility. Further, adding pupil services personnel under title II ``allowable uses'' does not add any additional funds on top of those already authorized in this ESEA reauthorization legislation. Pupil service organizations represent more than one million people who work and teach in our schools. Allowing these educators access to title II professional development opportunities could unlock innovative approaches to reduce barriers to classroom learning and integrate future planning-like professional or college preparation-into classroom practice. In Ohio, it leaves options open to include an estimated 40,000 school-based educators in professional development activities. For the students and parents served by these educators, the benefits of having highly-trained, integrated pupil services staff are potentially shared by tens of thousands of additional stakeholders each year. Achieving school reform and improving student achievement requires the support and active participation of all educators in each school. I hope my colleagues will agree that, using our limited role in educating our children, we will provide the flexibility to promote innovative, coordinated professional development opportunities that may help generate solutions to the problems that face our schools.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I call up amendment 390, and I send a modification to my amendment to the desk.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, the Voinovich-Bayh amendment fundamentally requires the Governors of the 50 States to sign the application that is submitted to the Secretary of Education for the expenditure of funds under the ESEA. It is in contrast with the Bingaman amendment that was just adopted which says consultation should take place with the Governor rather than having the Governor's signature. I argue there is not much consultation that will take place unless a Governor's signature is also required on that application. Most Senators know that the Governors of the 50 States are the ones who are held responsible for the education programs in their States. Our amendment recognizes some State constitutions and laws preclude participation by the Governor, and we exempt any State with a constitution or law which does not allow the Governor to participate. This amendment is supported by the bipartisan National Governors' Association unanimously. They have asked for it because they believe consensus on education in the States is needed. It will make it easier to leverage State resources, and it also will provide more accountability. I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Bayh.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, the Senate has before it two approaches to giving the Governors of our respective States an opportunity to participate in having some input in the plan that a State submits to the Secretary of Education as to what will be done with the Federal money under ESEA. When I originally offered my amendment, there was some concern on the part of my colleagues that this amendment might violate State law or the constitutions of the States. Earlier today I modified our amendment to provide that the signature of the Governor would not be required on the application to the Department of Education in the event there was a State constitution or State law that prevented it. It has been argued by the Senator from New Mexico, and the Senator from Massachusetts, that this legislation would be a veto on the part of the Governors of the States over the wishes of the State superintendents of education. I think that by requiring the signature of the Governor, as contrasted to consultation, you are going to have a situation where you enhance the application because it will force the Governor and the chief State superintendent to work together in promoting the plan for the spending of that money. In too many States, the Governors and the State superintendents of education do not speak to each other on such matters. When we came up with ESEA in 1965, the Governors were not as involved as they are today. But, I say to my colleagues, if you go to your State and ask your citizens, do you believe that the Governor of your State signs the application to the Secretary of Education for Federal money? the answer 95 percent of the time will probably be yes and they would be wrong, even though the Governors are being held responsible for education. All we are saying is, rather than taking the approach as suggested by Senator Bingaman and Senator Kennedy, rather than consulting, we require that the Governor's signature be on that application. Most of us know that if we have to consult with somebody, and they know our signature isn't necessary, there ``ain't'' much consultation that takes place.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I appreciate the words of the Senator from Massachusetts. I rise to make a couple of points with regard to his remarks. No. 1, if we think about it, when the State constitutions were adopted, there was no contemplation at all of a Federal role in education. As a matter of fact, up until the last couple of decades, education was primarily the responsibility of State and local government. The education arena has changed dramatically. As I pointed out in my remarks a few minutes ago, the Governors have taken a much larger role in education than ever before in this country. They started to play a role in 1983, when we had the report on the crisis in education, ``A Nation at Risk.'' As I mentioned, it was Governor Clinton who brought all of the Governors together to deal with the challenge of education in their respective States. Since that time, Governors have become much more involved in education. If people were asked whether their Governor would sign off on an application from their respective States for the use of Federal money, they would be shocked to know that their Governors are not required to sign off on that application. My amendment is not intended to be a veto. It is intended for the Governors who are being held responsible by the citizens in their respective States for education policies to have an opportunity to participate in putting the plan together as to how those Federal dollars are going to be used in their States. Rather than a veto, having the Governor involved is going to enhance the application and make it more meaningful because it is the Governor who is responsible in most of the States for the budget that is allocated for education and it is the Governor who takes the leadership role. I can tell my colleagues, in Ohio today there is a discussion going on about whether or not Ohio is meeting the standards of the State supreme court. It is not the superintendent of public education that is being held responsible by the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio. It is the Governor of the State of Ohio and the State legislature that are being held responsible. This amendment is not going to do any harm whatsoever to what is happening in our States in terms of Federal money. Rather, it is going to enhance the utilization of those Federal dollars because it is going to require the coordination and cooperation of the Governors and the chief State school officers to utilize those moneys on the State level.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, throughout the course of the debate on the education bill, we have been proceeding toward the goal of bringing positive change to our education system. However, for these school reforms to succeed, we need to ensure that the parties affected by this bill are able to work in unison. In nearly every instance where federal funds pass-through to states from highways to health care the Federal government directs those Federal funds to go right to Governors and to State legislatures. The exception is education, where State education agencies are the direct recipients of Federal funds for education. Most of that funding is then passed on to local schools. State plans submitted by State education departments to the U.S. Department of Education set the guidelines local school officials are to follow in coming up with their own spending plans. However, there is no requirement for coordination between chief State school officers and Governors on how Federal education dollars are to be used in a State. In some States, the chief State school officers are appointed by Governors. In other States, though, chief State school officers are elected. Whatever situation exists between chief State school officers and Governors, in the final analysis, it is the Governors of our States who are held accountable for the overall condition and success of public schools. I can testify to that as a former Governor of Ohio. As it is currently written, the Senate's ESEA reauthorization bill also holds governors accountable for student progress, even where Governors have no current discretion over federal education programs and federal education funding. In my view, it doesn't make sense that a Governor, who has to manage his or her State's budget and is responsible for any shortfall, is not required to be consulted when state educational officers set education priorities. That is why I have offered this amendment. This amendment is simple: for programs where a State receives federal monies under ESEA, both a chief State school officer and that State's Governor need to sign the education plan that is submitted to the Secretary of Education. Requiring joint sign-off on education plans by the Governor and the chief State school officer ensures agreement over the content of the State's submitted education plan. The amendment we have offered makes sure that Federal education funds work with State education funds for the benefit of our children. Opponents of our amendment have made the assertion that under this amendment the Federal Government would be imposing a new structure of education on the states by superceding State law. This is incorrect. Each State's constitution or its statutes create a State education agency that administers State education programs. This amendment does not change State or local education policy or structures. This amendment only applies to Federal education policy. It only applies to ESEA. Our amendment would leave State governing authority alone. Here is how it would work. Today, nearly every State files a consolidated education plan to the Secretary of Education to receive ESEA funds. State constitutions and laws do not define what entity signs the ESEA consolidated plans. Most State constitutions and accompanying statutes were passed long before ESEA was even written. In fact, it is the Federal Government-- ESEA itself--that specifically states that State education agencies should sign the consolidated plans that nearly every State uses. Some of my colleagues have expressed their concerns that this amendment may violate State constitutions and laws because a particular State may give sole authority for education policy to the State education agencies. To address these concerns, we have modified the amendment to say that this joint sign-off will not apply if it is prohibited under a state's constitution or its laws. In other words, this amendment will not supersede State constitutions or State laws. Any State that gives their State education agency the sole statutory authority to sign these plans can do so. My co-sponsors, Senator Evan Bayh, Senator Ben Nelson, and Senator Chuck Hagel, and I are not proposing to substitute State education authority with Federal authority. As a former Governor of my State, I have fought for years to support State education authority, and I believe my co-sponsors have as well. In addition, we realize that each State's Governor plays a key role in the development of education policy. That is something a lot of people fail to realize--that during the 1980s, and, frankly, during the term when President Clinton was Governor of Arkansas, and during the period when he became chairman of the National Governors' Association, the Governors really became intimately involved in education in their respective States. There were education summits in 1989, 1996, and 1999. In each State it is the Governor who works with the legislature to determine key State education policies and funding priorities. It seems logical that the individual who helps direct a State's education policy and education funding--the Governor--should have some meaningful input into where the Federal money that State receives goes. This amendment makes sense because under ESEA we say that States that take title I funds must target them to poor students. In this bill, we state that if a State takes funds, they must test students from grades 3 to 8. So it is not radical for us to say that if the States receive Federal funding, they should coordinate that spending so that it works with the State's education spending. Let me remind my colleagues that Congress supplies only 7 percent of the education funding in America. This amendment only addresses that 7 percent. Why wouldn't we want that 7 percent to be coordinated with the 93 percent that are State and local funds? However, the substitute amendment offered by my colleague from New Mexico does not ensure coordination. Currently, in some States, politics and personalities create differences between Governors and State school officers. This is again something that is not talked about in this country, but there are many States where the Governors and their State chief school officers rarely spend time together discussing education. In my State, I was fortunate that we developed a good interpersonal relationship with each other, but in many cases that is not the situation. In other words, what my amendment would do is require that the Governor sign off, unless it is in violation of a State constitution or State law. I believe that requiring a joint signoff on education plans by the Governor and the chief State school officer enables the Governor to leverage and ensure coordination of State education funding to work with the Federal dollars Congress allocates. And the only way to fully leverage Federal funds is to ensure the coordination of those funds with State efforts. Our modified amendment preserves State authority and ensures the coordination of Federal and State roles to promote education reform and the efficient expenditure of education dollars to the maximum benefit of our students. I urge my colleagues to reject the Bingaman substitute amendment and to vote for what I consider to be a very commonsense approach and one that recognizes that today in our States--if we are going to get the kind of education we want for our children, if we are going to get the kind of coordination of our Federal dollars with our State dollars, and to make the maximum use of them for the benefit of our kids--it is important that the Governors of our respective States sign off on the applications that are submitted by their States to the Secretary of Education for the use of Federal funds under ESEA. I thank you, Mr. President. With the Chair's permission, I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Indiana.