George Voinovich

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, according to the experts, focusing on the earliest years of a child's life can make the greatest difference in that child's development and learning. One program we all know that makes a difference is Head Start. In my State, we think so much of Head Start, that when I left office as Governor, Ohio was the only State in the Nation where every eligible child whose parents wanted them to be in the program had a slot open to them. Unfortunately, Head Start programs typically have a hard time recruiting teachers with a bachelor's or a master's degree generally because of the pay differential between Head Start teachers and elementary and secondary school teachers. For example, in Ohio today, only 11.3 percent of Head Start teachers have a bachelor's degree. Nationally, it is 22 percent. That needs to change. The amendment Senator Feinstein and I have offered is designed to encourage college students working on a bachelor's or a master's degree to become a Head Start teacher. In exchange for a 5-year teaching commitment in a qualified Head Start program, a college graduate with a bachelor's degree or a master's degree could have up to $5,000 of their Federal student loan waived. President Bush has pledged to improve the cognitive components of Head Start, and to do that, we have to have better teachers. Hopefully, the $5,000 incentive in our amendment will help us reach the President's goal of no child left behind. I urge my colleagues to support our amendment. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from California.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to make it very clear to my colleagues that I do not oppose constructing new schools. In fact, I firmly believe that more schools should be built, replaced, repaired, and renovated in the United States of America. I suspect there are few people in this country who have done as much as I have to make that happen. Earlier this month, I was in Cleveland, OH, to campaign for a $380 million local school construction bond and levy initiative. That money would be used to leverage $500 million from the State of Ohio. Last week, the voters of Cleveland passed that bond and levy by a margin of 3 to 2. They voted to tax themselves in order to help build, replace, and repair over 100 schools throughout the Cleveland School District. The citizens of Cleveland know that school construction is a State and local responsibility. But I am concerned about the Federal Government telling State and local officials they have to spend Federal resources on school construction instead of spending it on education priorities they have determined. Localities should have the freedom to invest their dollars in the greatest needs, whether it is teachers, computers, or textbooks, and not be locked in. We also need to consider the fairness factor. Many of our States have committed themselves in a very major way to school construction programs. I am concerned that as the Federal Government becomes more involved in school construction, the less inclined the States will be to invest their own funds in school construction. There will be an incredible temptation for States to simply sit back and let the Federal Government take care of things. That is something we see too much of in this body. All we would be doing in passing the Harkin amendment or any amendment is giving those States that refuse to step up to the plate and provide for their schoolchildren, a free pass from meeting their obligations. In my State, we have stepped up to the plate. Under Ohio's Classroom Facilities Assistance Program we have appropriated more than $2.7 billion to repair and rebuild our schools. By the end of this month, 23 schools will have been built or renovated by our program, and by the end of the year, 50 schools will be completed by the program. For example, in Canton, OH, the State is paying $129 million out of a $176 million schools project. In the Springfield City schools, the State is paying $135 million out of a $165 million project. In Youngstown, the State is picking up $130 million out of $163 million. In other words, the lower the wealth in the district, the less they have to pay for rebuilding their schools. We are going to get the job done in Ohio. In fact, a GAO report pointed out that in terms of investing in school construction, our State ranks ninth in the Nation in percentage terms and the eighth greatest in dollar amount. I think it is important for my colleagues to understand that last year, the National Governors' Association Center for Best Practices looked into the prevalence of State involvement in school construction. Here is what they had to report: The Center discovered Governors are focusing more attention on school construction and modernization than ever before. The report goes on to cite several examples: 11 States subsidize, reimburse, or match local funding for construction projects; 10 States have an established formula for determining the amount of State funding each school district will receive; six States have established a new agency to oversee school construction with the State; five States provide low-interest loans for low-income school districts to help support their school construction efforts; and four States require the Governor and State legislature to approve school construction projects prior to State funding being made available. The States are getting it done, which prompts me to ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, why should the taxpayers of Wyoming, Florida, or New Hampshire have to pay to build schools in Ohio? And, conversely, why should the taxpayers of Ohio, who are meeting their responsibility, pay for those who have not yet done so? What kind of a message are we sending to these people? They have done the right thing, but we are saying: Tough luck, we are going to take your tax money, the tax money we should spend on true Federal responsibilities, and totally ignore them so we can do something that is politically popular. That is just wrong. Mark my words, once the Federal Government gets involved in providing direct grants to build schools, there will be pressure like you would not believe to ramp-up the funding. We just heard from the Senator from New York saying they have already committed schools for the money that has been made available to New York State. I tell you this, they are lining up in New York and every other place. They are letting their Governors and their legislatures and their local officials off the hook. The passage of the amendment of the Senator from Iowa will do more to discourage States from stepping up to the plate and doing what they are supposed to be doing than anything I can think of today. As chairman of the National Governors' Association, we worked very hard to make a real difference in this area. I started on this effort back in 1991 when I became Governor of the State of Ohio, and we are getting it done. But there is one more thing we need to remember: When we spend Federal money on things like this, we give up what you could have purchased with the money for other Federal responsibilities. Economists call that concept ``opportunity cost.'' When the Senate thinks about spending money on one thing, we need to recognize we are giving up the ability to use money for other worthy causes. When figuring opportunity costs, we need to remember the fact that we have a number of unmet Federal needs, needs that are a Federal responsibility, and which we should address as part of our full and balanced approach to the Federal budget. I am going to be talking more about that in this Chamber with my colleagues later on this year. I have asked the General Accounting Office to do a study on unmet infrastructure needs in our Nation--needs that are the responsibility of the Federal Government, not State government, not local government, but the Federal Government. That GAO study is going to include highways, mass transit, airports, drinking water supply, wastewater treatment, public buildings, and water resources projects. I believe the GAO's final report will give us a better sense of exactly how formidable our unmet needs really are. We cannot do everything for everyone. Before we start down the road to spend billions upon billions of dollars, we need to remember that school construction, like the vast majority of education programs, is a responsibility best left to our State and local officials. They are the ones who are on the front lines. They are the ones who know best the needs of their respective communities in their States. I think it is time for this body to stop acting like a national school board. We are not a national school board. Many States elect their school board members. Many States elect their superintendents. They are the ones who are charged with the responsibility under the Constitution. Under the 10th amendment, that is a responsibility of local and State government. Let them do the job they are elected to do. And let us allocate our resources in those areas where we do have the Federal responsibility. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, this amendment will encourage young teachers to go into early childhood education, encourage further learning and credentialing of early learning educators, and lead to better education for our nation's youngest children. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Feinstein, Cochran, Baucus, Landrieu, Murray and Corzine in offering this amendment. If one asks virtually any scientific expert in human development or any mother for that matter--and they will tell you that there is no more important time in a child's life than their earliest years. In terms of priorities, the experiences and learning that fill a child's first years have a critical and decisive impact on the development of the brain and on the nature and extent of their adult capacities--in other words, who they will become as they grow older. That window of opportunity can be impacted by things that are within our control. To maximize their potential, we must begin to teach our children the necessary learning skills as early as possible; well before they reach kindergarten. There is countless amounts of research and data that shows that by focusing on these earliest years, we can make the greatest difference in a child's development and capacity to learn, and I know of few other programs that provide that kind of focus as does Head Start. The amendment that I am offering is designed to encourage currently enrolled and incoming college students working on a bachelor's or a master's degree to pursue a career as a Head Start teacher. In exchange for a 5-year teaching commitment in a qualified Head Start program, a college graduate with a minium of a bachelor's degree could receive up to $5,000 in forgiveness for their federal Stafford student loan. When I was Governor of Ohio, we invested heavily in Head Start, increasing funding from $18 million in 1990, to $180 million in 1998. By the time I left office, there was a space available for every eligible child in Ohio whose parents wanted them in a Head Start or preschool program, and because of our efforts, Ohio led the Nation in terms of children served by Head Start. Today, there are 60,000 children in our Head Start programs. Now that I am in the Senate, I continue to believe that it is absolutely critical that we do more to help our young people prepare to begin school ready to learn. In this regard, I was pleased to work with Senators Jeffords and Stevens last year to help pass the Early Learning Opportunities Act. Still, we must now do more to help those teachers who educate our youngest children. The results of a survey undertaken by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in 1999 and 2000 has shown a significant correlation between the quality of education a child receives and the amount of education that child's teacher possesses; that is, the more education a teacher has, the more effectively they teach their students cognitive skills, the more likely the students are to act upon those skills. Current Federal law requires that 50 percent of all Head Start teachers must have an associate, bachelor's, or advanced degree in early childhood education or a related field with teaching experience by 2003. Under Ohio law, by 2007, all Head Start teachers must have at least an associate's degree. It is hoped that this requirement will encourage Head Start educators to pursue a bachelor's or even an advanced degree. After all, the more education our teachers have, the better off our children will be. Unfortunately, as we all know, education can be expensive. In Ohio today, only 11.3 percent--242--of the 2,126 Head Start teachers employed in the State have a bachelor's degree. Additionally, less than 1 percent--20--of Ohio's Head Start teachers have a graduate degree. We must do more to help our teachers afford the education that will be used to help educate our children. If we do not intervene at this critical time in a child's life with programs such as Head Start and the Early Learning Opportunity Act, we will not likely reach our goal of ``no child left behind.'' One of the best uses of our Federal education resources is to target them toward our youngest citizens where they can have the most impact. Recruiting and retaining Head Start and early childhood teachers continues to be a challenge for Ohio and other States. This amendment--which is based on the bill that Senator Feinstein and I introduced, the Loan Forgiveness for Head Start Teachers Act, S. 123 will help communities, schools and other Head Start providers to meet the challenge of recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers. It is one of the best ways that I know of where we can make a real difference in the lives of our most precious resource--our children. I am pleased to have been able to work with the National Head Start Association, the Ohio Head Start Association, and my Senate colleagues on this legislation. I urge the Members of this Chamber to support this amendment. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I yield the floor to the Senator from California.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 443.

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

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment.

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

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

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, the amendment that I have offered will improve the coordination, accountability and delivery of educational services in states all across America. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Bayh and Senator Ben Nelson in introducing this amendment. Mr. President, as many of my colleagues know, Senator Bayh, Senator Nelson and I served as Governors of our respective states; they served in Indiana and Nebraska respectively, and I served as Governor of Ohio for 8 years. As my state's chief executive, I learned that few individuals have more of an impact on education policy in their state than the Governor. Yet, under federal law, governors--the men and women who are their state's CEOs--are not able to fully participate in their state's education planning process. Mr. President, most federal education assistance to our states currently flows directly to state education departments, where a large percentage 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 parameters that local school officials must subsequently follow in developing and implementing their own spending plans. However, there is no requirement that governors be involved in this process, nor is there any requirement for coordination between Chief State School Officers and Governors on the use or disposition of federal education dollars. In some states, the Chief State School Officers are appointed by Governors and are, therefore, accountable to them, while in other states, Chief State School Officers are elected directly by the people. If these individuals share the same political leanings, there is usually little conflict on education policy. However, where governors and chief state school officers do not see eye-to-eye, potential conflict can arise that could threaten the educational needs of our children. Regardless of how a state's top education official achieves his or her position, in each and every state, it is the governor the public holds accountable for the overall condition and success of public schools. 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. This accountability issue is magnified under the legislation we are considering. Under Title VI of this bill, States may lose between 30 and 75 percent of their administrative funds for formula programs if States fail to meet specified performance requirements. If a State budgets those administrative funds and they are lost as a result of this bill, then the entire State budget could be impacted. Ohio, for example, received $3.1 million in Title I administrative funds last year. If Ohio were to lose 75 percent of these funds, that would mean about $2.33 million would have to come from somewhere else in the state budget. Governors do play a leadership role in the development of State education policy, including standards and assessments, and the allocation of State budget resources for public education. Governors are willing to be held accountable for Federal programs as well, but it is imperative that the Federal Government give them the authority to help determine reform through Federal education programs. It doesn't make sense, that a Governor, who has to manage the State's budget and is accountable for any shortfall, is not required to be consulted when State educational officers set education priorities. Our amendment hopes to change that. What our amendment is designed to do, is very simple: it encourages consolidation and coordination between Governors and chief State school officers in designing State education reform plans. Under our amendment, State education plans submitted to the U.S. Secretary of Education for Federal programs, as well as funding for the school improvement program, must be jointly signed by both the Governor and the chief State school officer--both of them. The timing of this amendment is critical, since once Congress passes ESEA reauthorization this year, each State will finalize their educational plans and priorities. State legislatures will consider funding and resource issues, chief State schools officers will consult local districts, and Governors will set out plans for educational priorities throughout the State. Speaking from personal experience, having the Governor and the chief State school officer working together is absolutely critical. Having these two individuals working independently on education policy does not maximize our ability to achieve the educational goals the President has set out and that this Congress has set out. I believe we need to require both signatures. Our amendment will also help leverage State resources. As my colleagues know, the Federal contribution to education amounts to only 7 percent, with the State and locals funding the remaining 93 percent of education spending in the State. Requiring joint sign off on education plans by the Governor and the chief State school officer enables the Governor to leverage and ensure coordination of the much larger pot of state education funding to work with the Federal dollars. The only way to fully leverage Federal funds is to ensure the coordination of these funds with State efforts. Governors are the national leaders in education reform. I remember as Governor of Ohio, we pushed for EdFlex authority from this body so that we could have the flexibility to combine programs and target funds where they were needed. Governors like Bill Clinton in Arkansas, Richard Reilly in South Carolina and Lamar Alexander in Tennessee became well known nationally on education, not because of what they did in Washington, but because as Governors they innovated to improve education in their States. Our current President, George W. Bush, ran for President partly to share with the rest of America, the successful education plan he had implemented in Texas. What ultimately matters--and what should drive our decisions on education policy--is whether or not our students learn. That is really what we are talking about in this debate. We must coordinate policies so that there is a consensus on education in the state for the benefit of our students. Education is too important to have our different stakeholders working separately. Our Governors and chief State school officers must be working together. Our amendment will foster greater cooperation between all State officials responsible under State law for the performance of public schools. It will also help to ensure that state plans submitted for approval by the Department of Education align with the implementation of State accountability legislation. It is of vital importance that chief State school officers and Governors work together to establish education goals in their States. I might add, Mr. President, this amendment is strongly supported by the National Governors' Association. As a former Governor who had education as one of my highest priorities, I am offering this amendment to make sure that the highest elected official of every State is a full partner with Congress in the effort to implement true reform. I urge my colleagues to support our amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

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

Mr. VOINOVICH. I agree that it is important for States to be responsive to the concerns of their citizens. As a former Governor of Ohio, I have the unique first-hand experience of dealing with such issues and the role of the state. In fact, Ohio law already requires the state to respond to environmental complaints. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, OEPA, responds under the verified complaint procedure required under State law. Under this statute, the Director of OEPA must take action by expeditiously investigating claims and following up within a specified period of time. If enforcement action is warranted, then the Director must contact the State Attorney General to initiate proper proceedings.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank my colleagues for clarifying the role of the States in making these determinations. Regarding Petroleum Sites

Mr. VOINOVICH. Is it also correct that this provision does not limit the Administrator of the EPA from making a determination, based on new information, that the conditions at the facility present a threat that requires further remediation?

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify some issues related to the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act. Is it the Chairman's understanding that the exception under which the President may bring an enforcement action following new information becoming available is to occur after the Administrator has consulted with the State?

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, this legislation will provide incentives to clean up abandoned industrial sites, or brownfields, across the country and put them back into productive use and preserve our green spaces. I want to congratulate the chairman of the committee, Senator Smith, the ranking member of the committee, Senator Reid, the subcommittee chairman, Senator Chafee, and all the other members of the committee who have worked to put this piece of legislation together. Revitalizing our urban areas has been an issue I have been passionate about for many years. As former mayor of Cleveland, I experienced first-hand the difficulties that cities face in redeveloping these sites. I have been working on brownfields issues at the national level since I became Governor of Ohio in 1990 and through my involvement with the National Governors' Association and the Republican Governors' Association. For more than a decade, I have worked closely with congressional leaders, such as Mike Oxley of Ohio and the late Senator John Chafee, to develop legislation that would do many of the same things this bill does. When the Environment and Public Works Committee considered this legislation in March, I voted to report the bill out of committee after getting a commitment from the Presiding Officer today, Senator Reid, that he would be willing to work with me on some concerns I had regarding specific bill language. During the committee markup of S. 350, I offered an amendment seeking to strengthen the State finality provisions in the legislation. Based on the commitment I received from Senator Reid, I ultimately withdrew my amendment. In my view, we need to create more certainty in the brownfields cleanup process. Parties that clean up non-Superfund sites under State cleanup laws need certainty about the rules that apply to them, particularly that their actions terminate the risk of future liability under the Federal Superfund Program. Last Congress, I introduced legislation supported by the National Governors' Association and the National Council of State Legislatures which would create more certainty by allowing States to release parties that cleaned up sites under State laws and programs from Federal liability. I believe it is important that we build upon the success of State programs by providing even more incentives to clean up brownfield sites in order to provide better protection for the health and safety of our citizens and substantially improve the environment. What we do not need are delays caused by the U.S. EPA's second- guessing of State decisions. A good example of second-guessing occurred in my own State. One company, TRW, completed a cleanup at its site in Minerva, OH, under Ohio's enforcement program in 1986. Despite these cleanup efforts, the U.S. EPA placed the site on the NPL list in 1989. However, after listing the site, the EPA took no aggressive steps for additional cleanup, and it has remained untouched for years. To enhance and encourage further cleanup efforts, my State has implemented a private-sector-based program to clean up brownfield sites. When I was Governor, the Ohio EPA, Republicans and Democrats in the General Assembly and I worked hard to implement a program that we believe works for Ohio. Our program is already successful in improving Ohio's environment and our economy, recycling acres and acres of wasteland, particularly in our urban areas. In almost 20 years under the Federal Superfund Program, the U.S. EPA has only cleaned up 18 sites in Ohio. In contrast, 78 sites have been cleaned up under Ohio's voluntary program in the last 6 years, and many more cleanups are underway. States clearly have been the innovators in developing voluntary cleanup programs, and Ohio's program has been very successful in getting cleanups done more quickly and cost effectively. For example, the first cleanup conducted under our program--the Kessler Products facility near Canton, OH--was estimated to cost $2 million and to take 3 to 5 years to complete if it had been cleaned up under Superfund. However, under Ohio's voluntary program, the cost was $600,000 and took 6 months to complete. These cleanups are good for the environment and they are good for the economy. States are leading the way in cleaning up sites more efficiently and cost effectively. According to State solid waste management officials, States average more than 1,400 cleanups per year, and they are addressing approximately 4,700 sites all over the United States of America at any given time. I am pleased the bill we are considering today does not require the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to pre-approve State laws and programs. State brownfield programs address sites that are not on the national priorities list and where the Federal Government has played little or no role. Ohio and other States have very successful programs that clean up sites more efficiently and cost effectively. I worked closely with Senator Smith and Senator Reid and other Members to protect these State's programs. The managers' amendment is a result of that hard work. While I would still like to see more protection and certainty for State programs, I do not believe we should delay the improvements to the current programs that are in this bill. What our States are doing is helping to recycle our urban wastelands, prevent urban sprawl, and preserve our farmland and green spaces. So often people forget about the fact we have these acres of wastelands in many urban, and even rural, areas around the nation. Unless these sites are cleaned up, they will force a greater loss of green space in our respective States. These programs are cleaning up industrial eyesores in our cities and making them more desirable places to live and work. That is another aspect of this legislation to which the Senator from California, Senator Boxer, eloquently spoke. Because these programs are putting abandoned sites back into productive use, they are a key element in providing economic rebirth to many urban areas and good paying jobs to local residents. That is another side we do not think about. We have all sorts of assistance programs, training programs, and so forth, helping people become self- sufficient and productive citizens. In far too many cases in the United States, because we have not recycled urban industrial sites, businesses and jobs are developed in the outlying areas where many urban residents simply cannot get to, and are, therefore, unable to take advantage of those jobs. Mr. President, this is a wonderful bill in so many respects. It makes sense for our environment and it makes sense for our economy. Therefore, I am pleased the Senate is considering this bill today and I urge the House and Senate to come to a prompt agreement on a final version of this legislation so we can provide a cleaner environment for cities across America. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Yes, it is.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 350, the Brownfields Revitalization and Restoration Act.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, just prior to the Easter recess, the Senate completed action on the fiscal year 2002 budget resolution. I voted in favor of final passage of the budget resolution, recognizing that it does not reflect everything that I wanted. However, I am thankful the Senate-passed resolution does contain a fair amount of what President Bush had originally proposed in his budget plan. Nevertheless, it is my hope that when the Senate does go to conference with the House--which has passed a more stringent budget resolution--the end result will yield a budget resolution more in-tune with the President's more responsible package. As it was originally put forward, I felt the Bush budget plan provided much of the fiscal responsibility I have long sought from Washington prior to, and since, becoming a Member of the Senate. Specifically, it restrains the growth of spending, reduces the debt as fast as is prudent, and allows for meaningful tax cuts. This is what I like to refer to as a ``three-legged stool'' approach. For this package to work, however, we have to insist on a balanced approach, because fiscal responsibility, like a three-legged stool, cannot stand if one leg is significantly longer or shorter than the others. Unfortunately, if we characterized the Senate budget resolution as a three-legged stool, it would be rather wobbly right now since under the Senate budget resolution, discretionary spending increases at 8 percent, and that is double the amount the President suggested. People often forget the President's proposal increased spending by a modest 4 percent at a time when inflation is approximately 2.8 percent, meaning it contains a real increase of 1.2 percent. In contrast, the Senate budget resolution, in real terms, results in a spending increase of 5.2 percent. That is a 333-percent higher rate of growth than what the President proposes. These increases may sound like small numbers in the grand scheme of things, or in the Senate, but do not be fooled. It adds up to tens and hundreds of billions of dollars in more spending over time. If we continue to spend money at this rate, we will have less resources to address important national needs, such as reforming Social Security, reforming Medicare, or providing a prescription drug benefit. Indeed, according to calculations by the Concord Coalition, the Senate budget resolution includes new and expanded entitlement spending that is going to cost $600 billion over 10 years, and discretionary spending that may total $240 billion over 10 years. Coupled with the resulting increased interest cost of $550 billion, this package of amendments to the budget resolution could reduce the on-budget surplus by $1.4 trillion over 10 years. I say to my colleagues, enough is enough. We have to stop this rampant spending and, instead, prioritize what we ought to be doing with the taxpayers' money. We need to sit down and make some hard choices about where to allocate taxpayers' money, where we want to increase spending, where we want to make cuts or maybe where we want to flat-fund. For example, with regard to the National Institutes of Health, the President has included a generous increase in the amount of money that the NIH will receive in its budget, boosting NIH spending $2.8 billion. That is a 13.8 percent increase. The Senate, not wanting to be outdone, added an additional $700 million in NIH funding. Therefore, under the Senate's plan, NIH funding will be increased 17.2 percent over last year. In other words, the Senate wants to boost the rate of spending increase some 25 percent faster than the President. Do I think we should spend money on important health research? Absolutely. But how much is enough? The true cost is not just the dollar figure, it is what you give up, or what you could have purchased with that money. Economists call the concept ``opportunity cost.'' When the Senate thinks about spending money on one thing, we need to recognize that we are giving up the ability to use the money for other worthy purposes. If we follow through with the Senate's budget resolution, that means we will have fewer funds to conduct necessary Medicare reform, undertake education efforts aimed at preventive health care, provide greater access to rural health care, or fully fund the social services block grant. Think about the social services block grant for a moment. Congress promised a funding stream of $2.8 billion for this program, but funding has actually eroded $1 billion over the past 6 years. I hear a lot about that from our county commissioners in the State of Ohio. What most people do not realize is the fact that funds from the social services block grant go towards providing health care services for children, prenatal to age 3. There are tough choices and dilemmas: Do you give more to NIH to fight disease, or do you give more money to the social services block grant, a program that gives children the nutrition and health services they need so they do not develop the diseases that the NIH is trying to fight? Another thing we need to remember in figuring opportunity costs is the fact that we have a number of unmet Federal needs--needs that are a Federal responsibility, and which we should address as part of our full and balanced approach to the Federal budget. Do we spend Federal dollars on school construction, which is a State and local responsibility, or do we prevent flood and storm damage from ravaging people's lives? As former chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee, I personally know we have $39 billion of water resources development projects that the Army Corps of Engineers needs to fund, and yet we only provide $1.3 billion each year for such projects. Let's get serious. We will never deal with that backlog at this rate. Addressing such unmet needs does not sound important until there is a flood situation such as the folks along the Mississippi River are enduring right at this very moment. In addition, we have serious unmet needs in our Nation's wastewater treatment and sewer infrastructure. The costs are going up astronomically in the State of Ohio to comply with mandates from the U.S. EPA for sewer and water treatment. We have a responsibility to participate in helping to alleviate those costs. My point is this: We should allocate our financial resources on a very deliberate and prioritized basis and make the hard choices instead of the reckless last-minute spending that has often characterized the Senate over the last 3 years. I cannot believe what the Senate has done the last couple of years. I cannot believe it. If I as a Governor or as a mayor or as a member of a board of county commissioners spent money the way we did during the last couple of years, they would have run me out of office very quickly. I would remind my colleagues that just last year alone, we increased non-defense discretionary authority by an astounding 14.3 percent. Think about it. This is unsustainable. In my view, we need to stiffen our backbones and bring an end to this spending habit. Families need to carefully budget their resources. So do cities and States, and so, too, should the Federal Government. It is one of the reasons I wanted to get two points of order agreed to in the budget resolution to prevent further game playing with tax dollars. One point of order I offered would have helped stop abuses of emergency spending, and another would have prevented ``directed scoring,'' a process used to circumvent the budget process. I am glad 51 Senators joined me and my cosponsors, Senators Gregg and Feingold, in supporting this measure. It is my hope the next time we will get the 60 votes we need for adoption. I also wanted to offer an amendment that would have extended and strengthened the current caps on discretionary spending. Unfortunately, that amendment would never have passed muster due to the excessive spending in the amendments of the budget resolution. We blew that out before I even had a chance to bring it up. While the Senate's version of the budget resolution did not do enough, in my opinion, to keep spending in check, the silver lining is the fact that it provides for two tax cuts. I am hopeful, therefore, that we can, first, get this budget resolution to conference and that it emerges looking more fiscally responsible and that the conferees pare-down the spending; and second, that the Finance Committee begins work immediately on developing an $85 billion tax cut which I call a ``balloon-payment'' approach, using the fiscal year 2001 on-budget surplus. I suggest this money go toward an immediate fiscal stimulus in the form of a cut in marginal rates; a cut that people will see in their paychecks directly through a change in their withholding. We need to get the money in the people's hands right now. If we are serious about getting this reduction in marginal rates done soon, I honestly think we could get legislation considered and passed in the Senate and the House and on the President's desk by Memorial Day and the American people could see the benefits this summer. Let's get it done. I think we are all agreed that something needs to be done to restore people's faith in the economy and bolster consumer optimism. It is at the lowest level in my State since 1992. In my view, the balloon payment is probably one of the best ways to show the doubting Thomases that the money is there and that we are doing something in Congress to address the issue. Further, I believe we need to enact a long-term marginal rate tax reduction as proposed by the President, which economists say will have a tremendous impact on stimulating our economy. Given our economic situation, we in Congress need to follow a balanced three-legged stool approach. If we can control the growth of spending, reduce the debt and achieve quick passage of a balloon payment and implement both a long-term and short-term marginal tax cut, it will give a gigantic boost to consumer confidence and help us return to economic normalcy. We can quibble about how to distribute the balloon payment. Let's just work it out. The main thing is, get it done and connect to it a true marginal rate tax reduction. However, there is one thing that I fear could torpedo any recovery and that is our inability to address our Nation's energy crisis. While we have already seen unprecedented home heating bills this past winter, I am concerned the worst is yet to come. Indeed, we are already seeing gasoline prices move toward the $2-per-gallon range, and it is far from the peak summer driving season. What's more, the cost of energy is skyrocketing and supplies are scarce or unreliable. We can expect California's problems to intensify and likely be duplicated in other areas across the Nation. It is not as if we didn't see this coming. The storm clouds have been brewing for many years. Still, there has been no action on the part of Congress to consider a comprehensive energy policy along the lines of what Senator Murkowski has proposed in his bill, S. 388. I fear if we don't get moving, we will not get that done, either. We need to act on these issues quickly. The American people are watching to see if we intend to bring this Nation out of our economic downturn and back on the road to economic prosperity, or if we are going to continue to fiddle around while the country burns. I hear that from the folks back in Ohio: ``You are fiddling around in the Senate, and you are not getting anything done. Don't you understand how bad it is on the street?'' They want us to make the hard choices about spending. They want us to work together to develop solutions to our energy crisis, to pay down our debt, and provide quick and measurable tax relief. They want us to put aside the partisan bickering and the gamesmanship and act in the best interests of the Nation. After all, that is what they think they elected us to do. We need to act in the spirit of the old Rogers and Hammerstein song from Carousel--many remember that--``You'll Never Walk Alone,'' so that the American people know that ``at the end of the storm there is a golden sky and the sweet silver song of the lark.'' Now, more than ever before, we have to restore people's faith and their confidence in the economic future of our Nation. It is in our hands.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. For the information of all Senators, it is hoped that the Senate can begin consideration of S. 1, the education bill, during tomorrow's session. An agreement on the bill is being negotiated, and we are hoping to begin consideration shortly after an agreement is reached. All Senators are encouraged to come to the floor tomorrow to participate in that debate. Votes are therefore possible during tomorrow's session.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, April 25. I further ask consent that on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate begin a period of morning business until 11 a.m. with Senators speaking for up to 10 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Durbin or his designee from 9:30 to 10:15 a.m.; and Senator Thomas or his designee from 10:15 to 11 a.m.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I ask unanimous consent the Rules Committee be discharged from further consideration of H. Con. Res. 66, and the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.