George Voinovich

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, this past Monday, the Ohio agriculture community lost a dear friend with the passing of Ed Johnson. He was not only a friend of mine, he was a wonderful human being. Ed Johnson grew up on a dairy farm in Fairfield County, Ohio. From the time he was a young boy, Ed realized that the only way to get ahead in life was through honest, hard work. This philosophy translated itself into a tremendous work ethic, which, combined with his robust energy and love for farming, made Ed an enthusiastic and well-regarded spokesman for Ohio farmers. With a background in agricultural economics and agricultural education, Ed started out his professional life as a teacher before joining the Ohio Farm Bureau as Organizational Director for Fairfield, Pickaway and Ross Counties. He worked hard on behalf of ``his'' farmers and was a great source of agricultural information for both farmers and non-farmers alike. It was while he served at Ohio Farm Bureau that he discovered he had a real knack for radio, reporting on Farm Bureau events, then sporting events and farm market news. Ed, it seems, had found his niche. He took his love of farming, combined it with his communication skills, and became a true media entrepreneur. He assumed the risk of starting up his own radio network, ABN, Agri Broadcasting Network, and developed a multi-state service to small stations by delivering market news and covering agricultural events. It wasn't long before Ed became an accomplished radio personality. As his success grew, he developed an early industry service of up-linking and down-linking sporting events for major radio, WBNS Columbus being one such station. Ed also branched out into television, hosting his own weekly morning show, Agri Country, which aired in Ohio and three other states. With Ed at the helm, Agri Country has been popular to both farming and non- farming audiences since 1982. In addition to his radio and television work, Ed advanced agriculture with ``Ohio's Country Journal,'' a monthly publication that, even though it struggled for its first few years, has blossomed as readership numbers shot up. It is now ``the'' farm publication for Ohio's agriculture. Ed's great contributions to agricultural media were surpassed only by his humanitarian giving in terms of his leadership and his time. His unselfish dedication to further the causes of his alma mater, the Ohio State University, the 4-H Foundation, the Future Farmers of America, and all Ohio farmers for that matter, were unparalleled. Ed's personal caring and concern for society and his fellow man made him an outstanding communicator. Ed could talk with anyone--rich man or poor man; farm hand or a nation's president--he had an uncanny ability to put anyone he talked to totally at ease. Throughout the years, I came to rely on Ed's knowledge of Ohio agriculture and his viewpoint on the agricultural situation throughout the state of Ohio. I appreciated his tireless efforts to promote agribusiness both within the state and nationwide. Because of Ed's contribution to agriculture in the State of Ohio, I was pleased to induct him into Ohio's Agriculture Hall of Fame in 1997. On that occasion, I said ``I don't think there's anyone in the state who is more readily identifiable with agriculture by the average person than Ed.'' Indeed. I've often said that it's not the number of years that one lives, but what one does with those years that counts. In his sixty-three years, Ed lived his life to the fullest, and in so doing, touched the lives of countless individuals. Ed took risks, celebrated his successes and learned from his defeats, and, through it all, Ed never lost his focus, his positive attitude, nor his ever-present grin. There is no one comparable, and the void his loss has created in Ohio will not soon be filled. Ed Johnson has been taken from us too early, and I will miss him. It is my hope that his wife, Marilyn, his children, Julie and Bart, his foster daughter Julie, his grandchildren--Adam, Eric, Nathan, Sarah, Elizabeth, Gage and Lauren--his brothers and sister and his entire family will take comfort in the knowledge that Ed is with our Father in Heaven.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I rise today to highlight February as American Heart Month, a designation that has stood since 1963 when Congress first recognized the need to focus national attention on cardiac health. I think it is particularly appropriate since it is Valentine's Day. The theme of this year's Heart Month is one that resonates deeply with me: ``Be Prepared for Cardiac Emergencies.'' This theme is especially meaningful because on January 20, the day of the Presidential Inauguration, the Voinovich family almost lost one of its beloved members to sudden cardiac arrest. Indeed, as the country welcomed the arrival of a new administration, I, like many of my colleagues, was looking forward to sharing this joyous occasion with family and friends. Tragically, our celebration was suddenly upended when Patricia Voinovich, my brother Vic's wife, was struck by sudden cardiac arrest. As she entered the Ohio Inaugural Ball, she crumpled to the ground without a pulse or respiration. Sudden cardiac arrest--as the name imples--happens abruptly and without warning. It occurs when the heart's pumping chambers suddenly stop contracting effectively and as a result, the heart cannot pump blood. Although it has received much less attention than heart attacks, sudden cardiac arrest is a major cause of death in the United States. This usually fatal event causes brain damage or death within minutes if treatment is not received immediately, and is estimated to cause more than 220,000 deaths in the United States annually. That is more than three lives every 7 minutes--more than 600 deaths a day. These deaths are largely attributed to the lack of preparedness and immediate accessible medical attention in the short window between the heart ceasing to pump and death. Just as in most sudden cardiac arrests, with Pat there was no warning or indicating that she would be susceptible to such a sudden physical trauma. She was in good health. As a matter of fact, she had just been to the doctor and had a check up. Even after the incident, doctors commented that her heart was undamaged and healthy. After she became stabilized, my family and I listened to the doctors at the George Washington University Hospital who informed us just how lucky Pat, Vic, and the rest of the family had been. I was told that when individuals are struck with sudden cardiac arrest, only a minuscule number, 5 percent, survive. Fortunately, Pat had been blessed to be in a place where there was what the American Heart Association calls a strong chain of survival in place. As a matter of fact, one of the doctors from George Washington University Hospital had been assigned to the convention center for the specific purpose of responding to an incident such as the one that occurred to my sister-in-law. It was only 2 or 3 months before the inaugural ball that this equipment had been put in place at the convention center in anticipation that something like this could happen. I think all convention centers throughout the United States should have that equipment on board. I think all of us here in the Senate should feel very fortunate that because of Dr. Frist, that kind of equipment is available to the floor of the Senate and the House and the corridors of the Capitol. The chain of survival, developed by the American Heart Association, is a four-step process to saves lives from cardiovascular emergencies. The process includes early access to emergency medical services, early CPR, early defibrillation and early access to advanced cardiovascular care. Its goal is to minimize the time from the onset of symptoms to treatment. Although I did not know it at the time, all of these factors were present that night at the Ohio Inaugural Ball. Indeed, the American Heart Association estimates that if what they call a strong chain of survival is in place, the survival rate of sudden cardiac arrest would increase to upward of 20 percent, saving as many as 40,000 lives per year. Think of that--40,000 lives per year if that chain of survival exists. As pat lay there on the floor following her collapse, I can only thank God that this chain of survival was present and went into effect. Secret Service agents and an on-hand emergency physician came to her side almost immediately. These Good Samaritans began administering CPR, as well as utilizing a life-saving machine called an automatic external defibrillator, also known as an AED. If it had not been for the grace of the Holy Spirit, the rapid response of Secret Service agents and the on-hand emergency physician and the presence of an AED, pat almost certainly would not have survived. The American Heart Association has been a longtime leader in educating the country in cardiovascular disease and the need for preparing for cardiac emergencies. Unfortunately, many Americans do not realize the kind of education and training that the Heart Association can provide until after an emergency situation occurs. I have certainly become even more aware of their services in light of my family's situation. Quite simply, being prepared for a cardiac emergency can and does save lives. It is my hope, that by focusing on this year's American Heart Month theme--``Be Prepared for Cardiac Emergencies''--we can save many thousands of lives, not only this year, but in years to come. I encourage all Americans to participate in American Heart Month, and take the time to educate themselves so that they will be prepared and know what do when an emergency strikes. For those of you who might be interested in how Pat is doing, she was in the hospital for 5 days. They inserted a defibrillator in her chest, so if she has another occurrence that defibrillator will respond to it. My brother thanked me profusely for inviting him to the inauguration because he said Pat had this preexisting condition they did not know about, and if it had occurred somewhere else instead of the Convention Center, she would no longer be with us. So we have a happy ending to what could have been a real tragedy for our family which, again, emphasizes that because of some folks out there who became involved in the chain of survival, she is now alive and well and able to take care of her family. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Clean Water Infrastructure Financing Act of 2001, legislation which will reauthorize the highly successful, but undercapitalized, Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund, SRF Program administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. As many of my colleagues know, the Clean Water SRF Program is an effective and immensely popular source of funding for wastewater collection and treatment projects. Congress created the Clean Water SRF Program in 1987 to replace the direct grants program that was enacted as part of the landmark 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, or, as it is known, the Clean Water Act. State and local governments have used the Federal Clean Water SRF to help meet critical environmental infrastructure financing needs. The program operates much like a community bank, where each state determines which projects get built. The performance of the Clean Water SRF Program has been spectacular. Total federal capitalization grants have been nearly doubled by non- federal funding sources, including state contributions, leveraged bonds, and principal and interest payments. Communities of all sizes are participating in the program, and approximately 7,000 projects nationwide have been approved to date. As in many states, Ohio has needs for public wastewater system improvements which greatly exceed typical Clean Water SRF funding levels. For instance, in fiscal year 2001, a level of $1.35 billion was appropriated for the Clean Water SRF. However, in Ohio alone, about $4 billion of improvements have been identified as necessary to address combined serve overflow, CSO, problems, according to the latest state figures. The City of Akron, for example, has proposed a Long Term Control Plan that will cost more than $248 million to implement--nearly 20 percent of the total SRF level appropriated in fiscal year 2001. Because of Akron's CSO problem, city sewer rates will more than double without outside funding. Further, estimates indicate that among Ohio towns with a population of less than 10,000, there exists $1.2 billion in CSO needs. In recent years, Ohio cities and villages have been spending more on maintaining and operating their systems in order to stave-off the inevitable upgrades. Nevertheless, their systems are aging and will need to be replaced. While the Clean Water SRF Program's track record is excellent, the condition of our nation's overall environmental infrastructure remains alarming. A 20-year needs survey conducted by the EPA in 1996 documented $139 billion worth of wastewater capital needs nationwide. In 1999, the national assessment was revised upward to nearly $200 billion, in order to more accurately account for expected sanitary sewer needs. This amount may be too small; private studies demonstrate that total needs are closer to $300 billion when anticipated replacement costs are considered. Authoziation for the Clean Water SRF expired at the end of fiscal year 1994, and the continued failure of Congress to reauthorize the program sends an implicit message that wastewater collection and treatment is not a national priority. The longer we have an absence of authorization of this program, the longer it creates uncertainty about the program's future in the eyes of borrowers, which may delay or, in some cases, prevent project financing. In order to allow any kind of substantial increase in spending, reauthorization of the Clean Water SRF program is necessary in the 107th Congress. The bill that I am introducing today will authorize a total of $15 billion over the next five years for the Clean Water SRF. Not only would this authorization bridge the enormous infrastructure funding gap, the investment would also pay for itself in perpetuity by protecting our environment, enhancing public health, creating jobs and increasing numerous tax bases across the country. Additionally, the bill will provide technical and planning assistance for small systems, expand the types of projects eligible for loan assistance, and offer financially-distressed communities extended loan repayment periods and principal subsidies. The bill also will allow states to give priority consideration to financially-distressed communities when making loans. The health and well-being of the American public depends on the condition of our nation's wastewater collection and treatment systems. Unfortunately, the facilities that comprise these systems are often taken for granted absent a crisis. Let me assure my colleagues that the costs of poor environmental infrastructure cannot be ignored and the price will pay for continued neglect will far exceed the authorization level of this bill. Now is the time to address our infrastructure needs while the costs are manageable. In just over a decade, the Clean Water SRF Program has helped thousands of communities meet their wastewater treatment needs. My bill will help ensure that the Clean Water SRF Program remains a viable components in the overall development of our nations' infrastructure for years to come. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation, and I urge its speedy consideration by the Senate.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Clean Water Infrastructure Financing Act of 2001, legislation which will reauthorize the highly successful, but undercapitalized, Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund, SRF Program administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. As many of my colleagues know, the Clean Water SRF Program is an effective and immensely popular source of funding for wastewater collection and treatment projects. Congress created the Clean Water SRF Program in 1987 to replace the direct grants program that was enacted as part of the landmark 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, or, as it is known, the Clean Water Act. State and local governments have used the Federal Clean Water SRF to help meet critical environmental infrastructure financing needs. The program operates much like a community bank, where each state determines which projects get built. The performance of the Clean Water SRF Program has been spectacular. Total federal capitalization grants have been nearly doubled by non- federal funding sources, including state contributions, leveraged bonds, and principal and interest payments. Communities of all sizes are participating in the program, and approximately 7,000 projects nationwide have been approved to date. As in many states, Ohio has needs for public wastewater system improvements which greatly exceed typical Clean Water SRF funding levels. For instance, in fiscal year 2001, a level of $1.35 billion was appropriated for the Clean Water SRF. However, in Ohio alone, about $4 billion of improvements have been identified as necessary to address combined serve overflow, CSO, problems, according to the latest state figures. The City of Akron, for example, has proposed a Long Term Control Plan that will cost more than $248 million to implement--nearly 20 percent of the total SRF level appropriated in fiscal year 2001. Because of Akron's CSO problem, city sewer rates will more than double without outside funding. Further, estimates indicate that among Ohio towns with a population of less than 10,000, there exists $1.2 billion in CSO needs. In recent years, Ohio cities and villages have been spending more on maintaining and operating their systems in order to stave-off the inevitable upgrades. Nevertheless, their systems are aging and will need to be replaced. While the Clean Water SRF Program's track record is excellent, the condition of our nation's overall environmental infrastructure remains alarming. A 20-year needs survey conducted by the EPA in 1996 documented $139 billion worth of wastewater capital needs nationwide. In 1999, the national assessment was revised upward to nearly $200 billion, in order to more accurately account for expected sanitary sewer needs. This amount may be too small; private studies demonstrate that total needs are closer to $300 billion when anticipated replacement costs are considered. Authoziation for the Clean Water SRF expired at the end of fiscal year 1994, and the continued failure of Congress to reauthorize the program sends an implicit message that wastewater collection and treatment is not a national priority. The longer we have an absence of authorization of this program, the longer it creates uncertainty about the program's future in the eyes of borrowers, which may delay or, in some cases, prevent project financing. In order to allow any kind of substantial increase in spending, reauthorization of the Clean Water SRF program is necessary in the 107th Congress. The bill that I am introducing today will authorize a total of $15 billion over the next five years for the Clean Water SRF. Not only would this authorization bridge the enormous infrastructure funding gap, the investment would also pay for itself in perpetuity by protecting our environment, enhancing public health, creating jobs and increasing numerous tax bases across the country. Additionally, the bill will provide technical and planning assistance for small systems, expand the types of projects eligible for loan assistance, and offer financially-distressed communities extended loan repayment periods and principal subsidies. The bill also will allow states to give priority consideration to financially-distressed communities when making loans. The health and well-being of the American public depends on the condition of our nation's wastewater collection and treatment systems. Unfortunately, the facilities that comprise these systems are often taken for granted absent a crisis. Let me assure my colleagues that the costs of poor environmental infrastructure cannot be ignored and the price will pay for continued neglect will far exceed the authorization level of this bill. Now is the time to address our infrastructure needs while the costs are manageable. In just over a decade, the Clean Water SRF Program has helped thousands of communities meet their wastewater treatment needs. My bill will help ensure that the Clean Water SRF Program remains a viable components in the overall development of our nations' infrastructure for years to come. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation, and I urge its speedy consideration by the Senate.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to lend my voice to those of my colleagues in support of the nomination of Senator John Ashcroft for the position of Attorney General. I have known John Ashcroft for more than a decade. I first met him when I was mayor of Cleveland and he was Governor of Missouri, but I really got to know him through our service together in the National Governors' Association. John was the chairman of the National Governors' Association, and I had just joined the organization after being elected governor. My wife, Janet, and I were able to get to know John and his wife Janet on a personal basis. I could see almost immediately that John was a man who was dedicated to making a difference, and he wanted me to help in setting the NGA's education agenda. John appointed me to chair the NGA Bipartisan Taskforce on School Readiness. I will always be grateful for that appointment, because I quickly realized that the task force could serve as a forum in which to ``air out'' new ideas on how best to help our kids learn. From that task force, we were able to develop a Whole School Initiative. I admired the leadership role John took at NGA, and our work together helped me to get to know John Ashcroft. Of course, nothing will help you get to know someone better than going fishing with them, and John and I have spent hours together fishing. I have spent enough time with him to get to know what is in his heart, and I can honestly say that he is one of the most honorable men I have ever met. He is, in every sense of the word, a gentleman. We in the Senate have been given a remarkable obligation by our Founding Fathers to provide the President of the United States our ``advice and consent'' on certain Presidential nominees for Cabinet offices and other positions of governmental importance. It is a duty that all of us in this Chamber take seriously. Historically, members of the United States Senate have given the President--Republican or Democrat--the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the confirmation of a Cabinet official. On the rare occasion when a nominee fails, it is because the nominee's qualifications are lacking, or because a flaw in his or her character exempts them from successfully carrying out the duties of the office in which they would serve. However, in the case of President Bush's Attorney General nominee, John Ashcroft, there has been a steady stream of detractors who are trying to cast doubt on the character of John Ashcroft or misconstrue his record of accomplishments. I would like to say that those of us in this body who have worked with John Ashcroft, know the type of man he truly is. In my personal relationship with John, and in my evaluation of his ability to serve as Attorney General, I have seen only an individual with impeccable qualifications and unquestionable character. There is no doubt in my mind that John Ashcroft possesses the integrity and the experience necessary to carry out the duties of Attorney General. We all know his biography by now--elected for two terms to serve as the Attorney General for the state of Missouri and elected for two terms to serve as Governor of Missouri, and then elected to serve as United States Senator from Missouri. It is this record of public service that has made John Ashcroft the most qualified individual ever to be nominated to be Attorney General. Just look at some of our recent Attorneys General--Janet Reno, a prosecutor; Dick Thornburgh, a governor; Ed Meese, a district attorney. Of the 67 persons who have served in the office of Attorney General in the history of our nation, only one--John Ashcroft--has served as state attorney general of his state, and U.S. Senator--and only a handful have held two of these three offices. I might add that in each of the responsible positions he has held, he has served the people of Missouri with distinction. What is interesting, though, is how the special interest groups have ``taken the gloves off'' in their opposition to John. They are working overtime to demonize Senator Ashcroft, trying to paint him as unfit to hold public office. But, we seem to have lost sight of the fact that the citizens of Missouri elected John Ashcroft 5 times to statewide office. The John Ashcroft that the interest groups are characterizing is not the John Ashcroft we all know, and in my view, he has been the victim of a vicious character assassination, the likes of which I have not seen in years. This is just wrong. This visceral opposition is being orchestrated by groups that I have to believe are making tons of money in their fundraising efforts by using John Ashcroft as a lighting rod. For example, some have raised the accusation that he is a racist because of his opposition to Ronnie White's nomination. John Ashcroft did speak against Ronnie White in a convincing way. John did have some influence over my decision to vote against Ronnie White, but I had no idea he was an African American. That was never even an issue in our discussions over the nomination of Ronnie White, and I want everyone to understand that. Anyone who knows my record knows that I do not tolerate racism or insensitivity to others, and I have no patience for individuals who espouse such views. In fact, in the more than ten years I have known John Ashcroft, I have never heard a word uttered from him that indicated any insensitivity to any minority groups. To the contrary, his accomplishments reflect a real level of support for the African American community. John Ashcroft signed Missouri's first hate crimes statute into law. He signed into law the bill establishing a Martin Luther King, Jr., holiday in Missouri. He appointed the first African-American woman to the Missouri Court of Appeals. He led the fight to save Lincoln University, founded by African- American Civil War veterans--something that he and I have in common, given my work to save Central State University, a historically black university in Ohio. John also established an award in the name of renowned scientist, George Washington Carver. He also has been a leader in the opposition to racial profiling, convening the only Senate hearing on the subject to date. He voted to confirm 26 of 27 African American judicial appointees nominated by President Clinton that came to the Senate floor. John Ashcroft has worked with African Americans. He has appointed African Americans when he was Governor. He has worked on issues of importance to African Americans. That's why I cannot understand all this talk that John Ashcroft is somehow a racist. Does the Senate honestly think that the good people of Missouri would elect a racist? Do we honestly think John Ashcroft could have possibly fooled the people of the ``Show-Me State'' 5 separate times? John Ashcroft looks at his fellow human beings as in the image and likeness of God. Yes, he is a Christian, and he believes in the Two Great Commandments--love of God, and love of fellow man--and he follows the Golden Rule, but those traits are not--and should never be-- disqualifying traits. I have no question about what is in this man's heart, and I know that he will be impeccably impartial in carrying out his responsibilities. In fact, John Ashcroft will be scrupulous in carrying out the responsibilities of his office. Even with John's integrity, character and good sense, probably the loudest complaints about him seem to be from those individuals who believe that John will ignore or even seek to overturn laws he personally does not like. Nothing could be further from the truth. Throughout his many years of public service, John Ashcroft has been a sworn defender of the laws of the people--all of the people--and his record shows that he has not allowed his personal views to interfere in the pursuit of his duties. As Missouri Attorney General, John Ashcroft strictly enforced laws that differed from his own views, including such items as: firearms--he determined, under Missouri law, that prosecuting attorneys could not carry concealed weapons; abortion--he determined, under the law, that hospital records on the number of abortions performed must remain confidential, and, he determined, under the law, that a death certificate was not legally required for fetuses under 20 weeks; and church and state--he determined, under Missouri law, that public funds were not available for private and religious schools even though federal grants permitted it, and he determined, under the law, that religious materials could not be distributed in public schools. I believe we all have faced laws or responsibilities that we must carry out that we may not necessarily agree with. I did so when I was Governor because I took an oath to uphold the law. So did John Ashcroft. For those who are not inclined to support the nomination of John Ashcroft, I need only refer to his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator Ashcroft gave his assurance--his word-- that as Attorney General he will uphold the law, including laws he may personally disagree with. The fact that he has his faith is one of the reasons why John Ashcroft has upheld the law and why he will uphold the law--because he has character, because he has principles, because he has a foundation, because he has roots and because he has grounding. I think in our assessment of John, all we need to do is look at our colleague, Senator Joseph Lieberman. Part of the reason why Senator Lieberman is where he is in life is due to his profound faith. He abides by his faith and it impacts on decisions he makes in the Senate and in his life. There are many other members of this chamber who I believe are exactly the same; with their faith at the base of who they are, whether they are Jewish, Protestant, Catholic or whatever their religion. It is that faith that builds the character and builds the individual. It is what has made John Ashcroft. And I urge all of my colleagues to read an article written by one of Senator Ashcroft's former staff members, Tevi Troy, for the New Republic online. Mr. Troy, who is an Orthodox Jew, explains how faith has influenced John Ashcroft's deep respect for other religions, and how faith has shaped John Ashcroft to be the man he is today. In my family--and I would imagine in most families as well--when we're getting to know someone, we subconsciously subject them to what I call the ``kitchen test.'' Basically, the kitchen test is: is this person someone I would feel comfortable enough to bring to my home, to sit at my dinner table, with my family? John Ashcroft is someone I would be honored to have in my home, at my dinner table, with my family. He is a good solid man. Based on his record, John Ashcroft is fit in every way to be the Attorney General. He is a man of integrity, and I am completely confident that not only will he be fair and impartial in the administration of justice, but that he will insist that every employee at the Department of Justice do the same. He sets high standards for people. John Ashcroft's experience is more than enough to qualify him for the role as the nation's ``top cop,'' but the added bonus to his achievements is the fact that he is a man of character, and a man who believes that the law is the law, and not something with which to manipulate policy. Though some of my colleagues may not agree with his personal views, I urge them to look beyond their personal prejudices and look at John's record, his character, his integrity and his experience and give President Bush the man he wants to serve as Attorney General of the United States. I will vote in favor of the nomination of John Ashcroft to be United States Attorney General, and I sincerely urge my colleagues to give him their full support as well.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, several weeks ago, Senator Specter and I had the unique privilege to represent our nation and this body during a visit to Germany, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Egypt and Israel. While in these nations, we were able to meet with a number of government and non-governmental leaders who familiarized us with the current situation in southeastern Europe and the Middle East. I found our discussions with these leaders to be extraordinarily educational and highly productive, and their insight helped us assess the broad spectrum of issues that shapes both of these volatile regions of our globe. Our first stop was in Munich, Germany where Senator Specter and I spoke with members of the U.S. Embassy about trade, security and foreign policy issues facing the United States and Germany. We also met with a number of leaders of the Munich business community to talk about trade issues affecting the United States and the European Union, (EU). Specifically, we discussed steel, bananas, and genetically-modified beef--all issues currently dominating our trade relations. We further spoke about the deployment of the National Missile Defense system, our commitment to the ABM Treaty and the concern in the U.S. that the Europeans are moving away from their commitments to NATO. Our second stop was in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. It was my first trip to Yugoslavia in many years; since before Milosevic came to power. I had been asked to go many times--even by the Patriarch himself--but I said that I would not go until Milosevic was no longer in power. I had taken the same view with regards to Croatia; I would not go there until Tudjman was gone. The fact that in the last year I've visited both Croatia and Yugoslavia says that a lot about the change that has happened. And I am proud of the fact that I was the first member of the House or Senate to visit Croatia's new president, Stipe Mesic, and that Senator Specter and I were the first U.S. elected officials to fly into Yugoslavia and congratulate President Kostunica. I think it's important for the American people to know that our efforts in southeastern Europe are paying dividends for the cause of democracy, the rule of law, human rights and a market economy. However, a part of me often wonders if we had taken as much of an interest in southeastern Europe in the early 1990's as we do today, perhaps we wouldn't have to have U.S. troops in Bosnia and Kosovo. Still, we are making progress in restoring order and building peace, and though some may not agree, it is in our national interest to be involved in the Balkans. I was impressed with the leadership of Yugoslavia's President Kostunica. He has surrounded himself with bright, capable individuals who share their President's eagerness to bring their nation back into the fold of the international community. Our discussion focused on a number of issues, including reintegrating Yugoslavia into the international community after Milosevic's downfall, the country's continuing economic challenges, the humanitarian issues facing the people--including a lack of power, medicine and medical equipment--and the situation in Kosovo, the Presevo Valley and relations with Montenegro. I was also impressed with Zoran Djindjic, the Serbian government's prime minister. Our meeting largely focused on the same subject matters discussed with President Kostunica. We also discussed in detail the war crimes issue and America's strong interest in seeing progress in this area. I reminded him that Congress had laid out conditions in the FY 2001 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill in order for U.S support to continue. From Serbia, we traveled to Bosnia to visit our American troops. We were met by Major General Smart who gave us an overview of the situation in Bosnia. He informed us that the men and women under his command understand the importance of their mission, have high morale and are performing beyond expectations. After lunching with some of our men and women in uniform from Ohio and Pennsylvania, Senator Specter and I rode along with some of our troops on a Humvee patrol through the area. I asked a couple of the young soldiers with whom we were patrolling what they thought would happen if the United States were to pull out of the region. They answered without hesitation that the ethnic hostilities between the Serbs, the Croat's and the Muslim's would almost immediately resume. Their assessment--these two young men who are right in the thick of it--made it clear how important it is to maintain an ongoing international military presence in Southeastern Europe for at least the immediate future. In my view, Bosnia's government structure which was created in Dayton is fundamentally unworkable, and it must be reassessed if there is ever to be a lasting peace in Bosnia. After a return to Belgrade for more meetings, we flew to Egypt, where we met with President Mubarak. We had a detailed discussion about the latest peace plan put forward by President Clinton, Egypt's role in the peace process, and the comparative positions of the Israelis and Palestinians. During the meeting, we encouraged President Mubarak to support President Clinton's peace initiative, and requested he urge other Arab leaders to support the peace initiative in Israel. From Cairo, we went to Israel to meet with Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon and other leaders to discuss the fragile peace process. Mr. Peres felt that economic cooperation is a key to conflict resolution, believing that if people have something to lose in war or violence, they will be less likely to fight. We also discussed the issues of the day in the negotiations--the Temple Mount and refugee returns. Mr. Barak expressed his disappointment at the failure of various peace initiatives, and concern that the Palestinians may be learning the wrong lesson: that continued violence strengthens their negotiating position. He stressed the opposite: that violence is slowing the peace process and strengthening the negotiating position of the Israelis. Mr. Barak was hopeful that negotiations would continue throughout the American presidential transition and the Israeli elections. Thank God they have. We then met with Ariel Sharon, and immediately discussed his controversial visit to the Temple Mount last September and the impact it had on the peace process. I indicated that many Americans felt it was inflammatory. Mr. Sharon explained that his visit was a normal event and that every Israeli citizen has the right to visit the Temple Mount because of its religious significance. Evoking images of Richard Nixon, he further stated that he was the only candidate for Prime Minister who could reach a true peace agreement with the Palestinians. After my meeting with Mr. Sharon, I joined U.S. Consul General Ron Schlicher for a dinner discussion with Faisal Husseini. Husseini is a leading figure in the Palestinian community. We had a lengthy discussion regarding the ongoing violence and tensions in Israel, prospects for peace, and the Palestinian perspective on the last 50 years. The next day, I also met with Mr. Jawdat Ibrahim, a young Palestinian businessman who was deeply interested in the peace negotiations. I was interested in his view--and through him, the Palestinian view--on current events. Our discussion was interesting and it added an important perspective to my trip. Mr. President, at this time, I ask unanimous consent that a longer statement outlining many of the observations that I was able to make over the course of our trip be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, one of the true benefits of traveling overseas is it gives lawmakers an opportunity to see first hand the political, social and economic conditions of nations that many of us only read about in the papers or see on the nightly news. It also allows us to see how these conditions in one part of the world can have a profound impact on an entirely different part of the world. So it was with my trip to the Middle East, where I was able to see how events there have a direct effect on events in the United States. Many people in our nation do not realize this, but there actually is an ``interconnectedness'' of issues between nations that sometimes we don't think about. One thing that I have thought a lot about since my visit is just how much the ``on-again/off-again'' peace process in the Middle East affects our nation's energy policy, particularly as it relates to our national security. While I was in Israel, I met with Richard Shotenstein, the Managing Director of the Ohio Department of Development's Eastern Mediterranean Regional Office, an office I created as Governor of Ohio. He told me that the tensions surrounding the ongoing Middle East crisis have dramatically lessened the interest of Ohio companies in business opportunities in the region. He also indicated that there is a growing anti-Americanism, largely seen in boycotts, spreading throughout the Arab world, where many view the U.S. and Israel as intimately linked. Thus, anti-Israel trends become anti-American trends. This should be a concern of every American given the fact that today, the United States is more dependent on foreign oil than at any other time in history. In 1973, at the time of the Arab oil embargo, we imported 35 percent of our oil to meet our domestic needs. Today, that number averages 58 percent and it is estimated that we could be importing 65 percent of our oil by 2020. Unless we address our own domestic energy needs and become less dependent on foreign oil, we may be held to the whims of the OPEC nations, and indirectly, to the vagaries of the Arab world-- particularly in Iraq, arguably our nation's biggest enemy. On January 17, the New York Times reported that the OPEC nations were going to reduce oil production by 1.5 million barrels per day. Although this will likely drive up prices, the real problem to watch for is what Iraq will do. According to the article: If Iraq indeed keeps exports to a trickle, Saudi Arabia--as the largest producer in OPEC and its de facto leader--may feel compelled, as it has intermittently over the last year, to increase its own output to make up for the Iraqi supplies. But the Saudis might be able to replace only part of the oil that Iraq took off the market. I shudder to think how Iraq would use its influence should they gain a more dominant role in the production of crude oil in the Middle East. It is one of the major reasons why a lack of a reliable supply of energy should be of great concern to all Americans. Consider the rolling electricity blackouts that California is now experiencing. Consider also natural gas prices which are expected to skyrocket 70 percent by the end of winter according to predictions by the Department of Energy. Add in the fact that home heating oil prices have already jumped by 40 percent and more, not to mention high gasoline prices, and it should become crystal clear that our country's lack of a comprehensive energy policy must be addressed. Since at least the mid-1970's, Congress and presidential administrations of both parties have been unwilling, unable and unmotivated to implement a long-term energy policy. As I have stated, the United States relies on more foreign sources of oil than at any other time in history. However, even if we wanted to increase the production of crude oil in this country, there has not been a new refinery constructed in 25 years due, in part, to changes in U.S. environmental policies. Additionally, 36 refineries have closed since the beginning of the Clinton administration, in part, because of strict environmental standards. Last year, the existing refineries were running at 95 percent capacity or higher for much of the year. With our refineries running at these levels, even if a greater oil supply was available, there would be no capability for refineries to turn it into useful products. As a result, we must currently rely on overseas supplies at an astronomical cost from a region fraught with instability. Until new refining capacity is available, even minor supply disruptions will continue to lead to drastic increases in fuel prices. No one has dared contemplate what would happen should major disruptions occur. In addition, natural gas heats 56 million American homes and provides 15 percent of the nation's electric power, for nearly one-quarter of our energy supply. Because natural gas burns so cleanly, it is easier to obtain the environmental permits necessary to build natural gas-run energy plants. Thus, it is easy to see why virtually all new electric generation plants that are currently being built will use natural gas for fuel. The popularity of natural gas is good for the air we breathe, but the high demand for it is beginning to pinch the pocketbook, resulting in soaring costs. We should not forget that other energy resources are available which can provide additional sources of clean, low-cost power. New technologies are making coal an increasingly cleaner source of electricity. We should not forget this valuable, abundant natural resource--with an estimated domestic supply of 250 years--as we move forward with an energy policy that not only protects our environment, but also continues to meet consumer's needs for power. I support efforts such as those in the National Electricity and Environmental Technology Act, introduced last week by Senator Byrd. His bill creates research and development programs that provide incentives for developing clean-coal technologies in the U.S. As my colleagues know, if we are to decrease our dependence on foreign energy sources, research and development will be important to ensure that coal can remain a viable energy option in the future. During this energy crisis, it is critical that we restructure our country's disjointed energy policy into a national plan that is comprehensive, cohesive and cost-efficient. Last year, the Majority Leader and Senator Murkowski introduced legislation to address many of these problems. I was proud to be an original cosponsor of that legislation in the 106th Congress, and I will cosponsor Senator Murkowski's bill when he introduces it this year. In addition, Senator Murkowski and I sat down last week to discuss the role that environmental regulations play in our nation's energy policy. We agreed that it is imperative that we work to harmonize our environmental and energy policies so that clean, affordable and reliable energy can be made available to all consumers. To help accomplish this goal, we both agreed that the key to a comprehensive energy policy will rely on environmental regulations that, while protecting public health and the ecosystem, are based on cost-benefit analysis and sound science. As Chairman of the Senate's Clean Air Subcommittee, it is something that I will work towards in the 107th Congress. Finally, with the extreme cold weather we have experienced so far this winter compounding our current energy crisis, we need to encourage the President to provide more funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program--LIHEAP--to meet the pressing needs of those who are most vulnerable to skyrocketing energy prices. Certainly if we have a supplemental this is an emergency that needs to be addressed in that. Under LIHEAP, states are required to use the Federal funds they receive to provide the greatest level of benefit to the greatest need. That means in my State of Ohio, some 220,000 households are expected to be helped this year--10 percent more than last year--with each household receiving payments between $150 and $400 to cover energy costs. Last week, along with a number of my colleagues, I asked the President to provide $300 million in emergency LIHEAP funds. Should he allocate these funds, it will help hundreds of thousands of low income families, seniors and the disabled get through our current energy crisis. Our national security depends on our ability to guarantee a reliable energy supply. To do this, we must lessen our dependence on foreign oil, investigate alternative fuels and energy sources and ensure an adequate delivery and supply infrastructure. At the same time we are developing this energy policy, we must insist that it does not result in diminishing our environment or public health. We cannot allow that to happen. We must continue to improve the environment and public health. It is a complex task, but one I know that we can accomplish if we work together on a bipartisan basis. We need to get the environmentalists, industry, and consumers--all of us in the same room talking to each other, so we can come up with a policy that is fair to everyone. Exhibit 1 Observations in Southeastern Europe and the Middle East, January 29, 2001 (By Senator George Voinovich) On the morning of December 28, 2000, Senator Specter and I left Andrews Air Force Base for a 7 day assessment of the situation in Southeastern Europe and the Middle East and the prospect for peace in either region. The first leg of our journey consisted of an approximately nine hour flight to Munich, Germany where we were scheduled for an overnight stay. Arriving late that evening, we were met by Consul General Robert W. Boehme and John McCaslin, a U.S. Foreign Commercial Service officer. We had an interesting discussion about a variety of trade, security and foreign policy issues facing the United States and Germany. The next morning, (December 29), Senator Specter and I met with a number of leaders of the local business community. We had an interesting conversation about a variety of trade concerns facing the United States and the European Union, EU. Specifically, we discussed the steel, banana, and genetically-modified beef issues currently dominating our trade relations. When the conversation turned to technology, I was surprised to learn that the Germans are facing the same shortage of highly-trained information technology workers that our nation has been struggling with in recent years. This problem has been exacerbated by the growing number of entrepreneurs funneling venture capital into the high-technology sectors of the economy. We also had an interesting discussion about National Missile Defense, NMD. The business leaders we met with explained their deep concern that the United States' commitment to an NMD system may create another Cold War with Russia and China. They were also concerned with our continued commitment to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, ABM Treaty, and indicated that their views largely reflected those of the German people. Finally, we discussed the European Union's, EU, European Security and Defense Policy, ESDP. Senator Specter and I made it clear that many Members of Congress are concerned that our European allies are moving away from their commitments to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO. The group responded by explaining that the Europeans will continue to view NATO as the foundation of the trans-Atlantic relationship. After the meeting in Munich, Senator Specter and I flew to Belgrade in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, FRY. Ours was the first American plane to land in Serbia since the Kosovo bombing campaign in early 1999. While a number of the buildings in the central section of the city were abandoned due to bomb damage, I was generally impressed with the city's landscape. It was clear that Belgrade was once the economic, political and cultural heart of Tito's Yugoslavia. We immediately met with Vojislav Kostunica, the recently elected President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia at the Federation Palace, and it was not lost on me that we were the first federally-elected officials from the U.S. to meet the man who toppled Slobodan Milosevic. He reminded us that it took Yugoslavia less time to elect their new president than it did for us to elect the President of the United States. The President sat down with us after completing a meeting with Boris Trikosky, the President of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, whom I personally had met last February during a visit I made to Croatia, Macedonia and Kosovo. The discussion President Kostunica had with Senator Specter and me focused on the progress that has been made in reintegrating the FRY into the international community after Milosevic's downfall, the country's continuing economic challenges, the humanitarian issues facing the people (including a lack of power, medicine and medical equipment), and the situation in Kosovo, the Presevo Valley and relations with Montenegro. We spent a great deal of time stressing to President Kostunica the importance of cooperation with the United Nations' International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, ICTY or the Hague. We made it clear that Congress will demand significant progress in this area in order for economic assistance to continue to be made available to the FRY. We also highlighted the view of many in the U.S. that Milosevic must be brought to justice for the crimes he committed against humanity in Bosnia and Kosovo; specifically, that he be brought to the Hague. In response, the President indicated that he was very aware of American concern over the war crimes issue, and that he shared our concern but for very different reasons. Milosevic is thought to have stolen over $1 billion from the people of Serbia during his rule, ordered the murder of many of his political opponents and manipulated the results of several elections, among other crimes. President Kostunica made it clear that the Serb people want him to be held accountable for his crimes against the Serb people before he faces any international court or charges for war crimes. He also indicated that a domestic trial would begin to show to the people of the FRY what horrors were committed on their behalf over the last ten years. He explained that Milosevic's control of the media prevented the vast majority of people from the truth about Bosnia and Kosovo. A trial would begin to present these ugly realities. He pointed out that the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia is expected to open an office in Belgrade as a sign of growing cooperation and understanding between The Hague and the FRY. The next meeting we held was with Miroljub Labus, the Federal Deputy Prime Minister responsible for economic policy, and his senior team. I was very impressed by his understanding of the various problems dragging down the Serbian economy. He made a point to stress the humanitarian crisis the country is facing. He also made it clear that their efforts to reinvigorate the economy, attract foreign investment and begin to address the nation's debilitated infrastructure would not likely have an effect for several months. He explained that Milosevic's rule had left the economy in such a shambles that they were only now beginning to pick up the pieces. I stressed the importance of resisting the traditional Balkans temptation to fill key jobs in the new government with family, friends and political allies. Given the troubles before them, now is not the time to bring in political hacks. Labus must assemble a clean, well-qualified team, and from what I saw, he has done so thus far. I was very impressed by Deputy Prime Minister Labus and his team. The future Serbian Minister for Finance, Bozidar Djelic, and the FRY's Stability Pact Coordinator, Milan Pajevic, attended the meeting as well. It was clear that they understood the importance of addressing their people's needs in the short-term. We then met with Zoran Djindjic at his campaign headquarters. Mr. Djindjic ran Mr. Kostunica's presidential campaign and has been active in the opposition movement in Serbia for years. It was widely reported that he would soon be installed as the Serbian government's prime minister, and in fact, on January 25, he was sworn in as prime minister. As my colleagues may not be aware, under the FRY's constitution, the prime minister of Serbia is given a great deal of power, thus, Mr. Djindjic will be intimately involved in finding solutions to the various problems facing his country. The discussion largely focused on the same subject matters discussed with President Kostunica--reintegrating the FRY into the international community after Milosevic's downfall, the country's continuing economic challenges, the humanitarian issues facing the people (including a lack of power, medicine and medical equipment), and the situation in Kosovo, the Presevo Valley and relations with Montenegro. We also discussed in detail the war crimes issue and America's strong interest in seeing some progress in this area. I found Mr. Djindjic to be well-versed in all of these matters and largely aware of the official American position on them. Of the various matters covered, the issue of Montenegro's relationship with Serbia was discussed in the most detail. Mr. Djindjic's passion for retaining the existing structure/ relationship with Montenegro was clear. As some of my colleagues may know, President Djukanovic of Montenegro has indicated that, in response to the popular will of his citizens, he may be forced to hold a referendum on Montenegrin independence in the next few months. Mr. Djindjic indicated that such a move would create a crisis between Serbia and Montenegro which would have the potential to have a broader regional impact. I then traveled to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for a meeting with Foreign Minister Goran Svilanovic. Again, in an effort to be consistent in my message to the new government, I explained in detail the importance of cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal, (The Hague). The Foreign Minister's response echoed that of the President and Mr. Djindjic. I was pleased to know that Mr. Svilanovic is pushing EU membership as a long-term goal for the FRY. To that end, he plans on traveling extensively in the near future to explain the various issues facing his country, their plans to address them, and their long-term agenda. I am hopeful that he will be successful in this effort. I believe that a focus on EU membership will encourage changes within the FRY that will further instill a commitment to democracy, the rule of law and human rights. For dinner that evening, I was pleased to join U.S. Ambassador to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, William Montgomery, Foreign Minister Svilanovic, Professor Vojin Dimitrijevic, who is head of the Belgrade Human Rights Committee, and Milan St. Protic, the Mayor of Belgrade. It was widely expected at that time that Mayor Protic would be named as the FRY's Ambassador to the U.S. and since we've been back in the United States, it has actually occurred. As a matter of fact, just last week, I met with Ambassador Protic to discuss a variety of issues of concern to his nation. The dinner we had in Yugoslavia included a frank, wide- ranging, off-the-record discussion, where we exchanged views on the opposition movement in Serbia during the Milosevic years, the Bosnia tragedy and Kosovo. It was a dinner that I am not likely to forget soon. The morning of December 30, Senator Specter and I met with His Holiness Paul, the Patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church, at the Patriarchate. The Patriarch discussed the importance of reconciliation between the various peoples of southeast Europe to the future of the region. He pointed out that cooperation and mutual respect between the various ethnic groups in the region, between the Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo, for example, is impossible while violence continues. He expressed his deep concern and remorse that nearly 100 Serbian Orthodox religious sites, included centuries-old churches, had been destroyed in Kosovo since the completion of the 1999 NATO bombing campaign. The Patriarch gave me a copy of a booklet that the Serbian Orthodox Church prepared on the number of churches gutted, damaged and destroyed. I told the Patriarch I had read it and had shared copies that I had been given by Father Irini Dobrevich with some of my colleagues. I reminded the Patriarch that I met with Bishop Artemiie on his visit to the UN and the United States last year and indicated that he is an effective voice for the Serbian Orthodox Church in Kosovo. I stated that because of the efforts of people like Bishop Artemjie, the U.S. State Department is a little more focused in terms of their involvement and concern with Yugoslavia. Further, the Patriarch Senator Specter and I discussed the terrible ethnic cleansing that had happened and was continuing to happen in Kosovo, and I asked him to keep me updated on the ongoing situation in Kosovo. Finally, I thanked him for the leadership role the Orthodox Church played in the removal of Slobodan Milosevic and their push for free and fair elections, and for establishing a Serbian Orthodox Church office in Washington, led by Father Irini Dobrevich. I have gotten to know Father Dobrevich and find him to be a breath of fresh air in Washington. He has worked hard on behalf of Serbs in diaspora and continues to respond to the many ongoing humanitarian needs in the FRY. Senator Specter and I then flew to Tuzla, Bosnia where we were met and briefed by Major General Walter M. Sharp. Major General Sharp commands Multi-National Division, a force of some 7,000 soldiers. He was happy to report that the men and women under his command understand the importance of their mission, have high morale and are performing beyond expectations. After the overview, we traveled to Camp Dobol where we shared lunch with a number of Ohioans and Pennsylvanians serving their nation in Bosnia. And I have to say that we as a nation should be very proud of all of our young men and women who serve their country, not just in Southeastern Europe, but all over the world. Senator Specter and I then rode along with some of our troops on a mounted patrol through area. It quickly became clear to me that General Sharp's comments about the morale and performance of his people were accurate. Although some of the scenery looked very peaceful, it belied incredible tension in the area. I asked a couple of the young soldiers with whom we were patrolling what they thought would happen if the United States were to pull out of the region. They answered without hesitation that the ethnic hostilities between the Serbs, the Croats and the Muslims would almost immediately resume. Their assessment made it clear how important it is to maintain an ongoing international military presence in Southeastern Europe for at least the immediate future. After our tour, we returned to Belgrade for more meetings. We met with Momcilo Grubac, the Federal Minister of Justice at the Federation Palace. Mr. Grubac stressed his government's commitment to the rule of law. He explained that his first task will be to modernize the legal framework within the FRY to bring it into compliance with international standards. He was quick to point out that the years under Milosevic had set the country and its people behind in this area. Again, we discussed in great detail the importance of cooperation with the international community on war crimes. As expected, his comments largely reflected those of President Kostunica. However, he did indicate that the FRY will no longer harbor indicted war criminals. He added that an internal criminal proceeding to deal with Milosevic would be important to further establishing democracy in the FRY. We then traveled to the Federal Parliament Building where we met with Dragoljub Micunovic, the President of the Chamber of Citizens, and a number of other leading parliamentarians. On the war crimes issue, Mr. Micunovic agreed that accountability must be established to remove the sense of collective guilt that is beginning to become more and more prevalent in the FRY. On Milosevic specifically, he indicated his strong belief that Milosevic would be tried domestically and by the international community if there were evidence to support charges. Senator Specter and I then joined Mr. Micunovic at a press conference to discuss our meeting and our general impressions from our visit to Belgrade. I explained my position about the bombing campaign, that I really believed that other diplomatic routes should have been pursued in dealing with Milosevic. I also explained that had the U.S. not legitimized Milosevic's leadership at Dayton, and not refused to support the resistant movement in 1997, the situation could have been a lot different in Serbia. There could have been an earlier removal of Milosevic from office and avoidance of the whole war, and the death, destruction and human suffering that accompanied it. One of the questions I was asked was whether the U.S. and/ or NATO leaders should appear before a war crimes tribunal for the air war conducted over Kosovo. I made it very clear that the responsibility for the bombing rest solely with Milosevic--not the United States or any of her officials, nor NATO. To those in NATO and the U.S., Milosevic and his thugs were a cancer that had to be removed from Serbia for the crimes he has committed. With Milosevic out of power, it is now possible to stabilize southeastern Europe, integrate Serbia into the EU and improve the standard of living and quality of life of all the Serbian people. That evening, I joined a number of OTPOR activists for dinner. As my colleagues may know, it was the demonstrations by OTPOR members against Slobodan Milosevic's attempt to steal last autumn's election from Mr. Kostunica that hastened the downfall of Milosevic. I was heartened by the youthful spirit of the people I met and I suggested some new roles that they could play now that Milosevic has been removed from leadership. I was thoroughly impressed with the quality of this group of leaders in Yugoslavia, men and women who were able to mobilize a nearly 70 percent youth vote turnout in the election that toppled Milosevic. I am sure that they will continue to be a significant force for democracy in the years ahead. The next day (December 31), we traveled to Cairo, Egypt where we met with U.S. Ambassador Daniel C. Kurtzer. He explained that President Mubarak, with whom we were planning on meeting the next day, was consumed with the Middle East peace process. With that in mind, we discussed the political environment among the Arab and Israeli peoples, Prime Minister Barak's political position in light of the upcoming elections in Israel and Arafat's negotiating positions in the discussions. The morning of New Year's day (January 1, 2001), we met with President Hosni Mubarak at his presidential complex in downtown Cairo. We had a detailed discussion about the latest peace plan put forward by President Clinton, Egypt's role in the peace process, and the comparative positions of the Israelis and Palestinians. During the meeting, we encouraged President Mubarak to support President Clinton's peace initiative, and that he should urge other Arab leaders to support the peace initiative in Israel. After meeting with President Mubarak, Senator Specter and I had a news conference where we indicated that we would send out a telegram encouraging other Arab leaders to come out publicly in favor of the initiative. We also announced that we would be urging President Clinton to meet with Chairman Arafat for the purpose of clarifying the details of the proposal and to keep the parties talking to one another rather than seeing the peace discussions end precipitously. Later that day, we sent a telegram encouraging other Arab leaders to come out publicly in favor of the initiative and continuing the negotiations. We were pleased that ultimately the President did meet with Arafat and that the Arab leaders came out and said that they were supportive of the initiative. I found President Mubarak to be an engaging, affable man, committed to peace yet struggling to maintain a very difficult political position. Given Egypt's crucial role in maintaining relative peace in the region since the Camp David Accords, it was an honor to meet him. I believe his role will be crucial in the coming weeks, months, and years if peace is to truly be reached in the Middle East. After the meeting and press conference, we flew to Tel Aviv and then drove to Jerusalem for a series of meetings. Our time in Israel began with a discussion with U.S. Ambassador Martin Indyk who updated us on the American perspective on the peace negotiations. We examined the right of return and Temple Mount issues in some depth which quickly confirmed my impression that the issues facing the negotiators are incredibly complex. We then traveled to the Knesset building where we had a series of meetings. We first saw Shimon Peres, a friend I have known for years. He indicated that he did not believe that the schedule imposed on the ongoing peace talks, considering the U.S. presidential transition and the upcoming election for prime minister in Israel, was realistic. I agreed. I believe that it was a mistake and is a mistake to set deadlines on the discussions because they create unnecessary pressure. I believe that it is best to continue an active, open dialogue for as long as necessary, even if it appears that little progress is being made. Mr. Peres commented how advances in information technology had fundamentally altered the worlds of diplomacy and warfare. He also explained that one of the keys to peace in the region that has not been properly addressed is economic cooperation. He believes that if people have something to lose in conflict or violence, they will be less likely to fight. This is a message I had received from him several years ago and was crucial in my decision when I was Governor of Ohio to open a Middle East trade office, the Eastern Mediterranean Regional Office, in Israel. We then discussed the issues of the day in the negotiations--the Temple Mount and refugee returns. As always, I found his analysis to be insightful. Senator Specter and I then visited with Prime Minister Ehud Barak. As my colleagues would expect, the peace process was the only matter discussed. Mr. Barak expressed his disappointment at Camp David's failure and the various peace initiatives attempted since then. He also expressed his concern that the Palestinians may be learning the wrong lesson in recent months--that continued violence strengthens their negotiating position. Rather, he made it clear that violence is slowing the peace process and strengthening the negotiating position of the Israelis. Mr. Barak was hopeful that negotiations would continue throughout the American presidential transition and the Israeli elections. It was clear, however, that the continued violence was putting a great deal of pressure on him. We then met with Ariel Sharon who is widely expected to defeat Mr. Barak in the upcoming elections for prime minister. We immediately turned to his controversial visit to the Temple Mount last September and the impact it had on the peace process. I pointed out to him that many of us felt that his visit was inflammatory, that it did nothing to aid the peace process and that if elected Prime Minister of Israel, he would have to make it very clear that he was for peace. Mr. Sharon explained that his visit was a completely normal event and that every Israeli citizen has the right to visit the Temple Mount because of its religious significance. I also expressed my opinion that in visiting Israel for the sixth time in twenty years, the situation there was more critical and explosive than I'd ever seen. We then discussed his plans for the peace process, should he be elected prime minister. He made a number of strong statements regarding his commitment to the process. He argued that since only President Nixon could open the door to China, only he could come to a peace agreement with the Palestinians given his military background. After the Sharon meeting, Senator Specter traveled on to Jordan to continue examining issues in the Middle East. I remained in Jerusalem to continue to examine the situation in Israel. That evening, I joined U.S. Consul General Ron Schlicher for a dinner discussion with Faisal Husseini. Husseini is a leading figure in the Palestinian community. We had a lengthy discussion regarding the ongoing violence and tensions in Israel, prospects for peace, and the Palestinian perspective on the last 50 years. I thought it was important that I have a balanced understanding of the current situation in Israel and was pleased to have the opportunity to meet with Mr. Husseini. The next day (January 2), I met with Ehud Olmert, the Mayor of Jerusalem. I met Mr. Olmert on my fourth trip to Israel in 1993. He indicated how important it was to retain Jerusalem's integrity during the course of the peace negotiations. He also argued that the various plans being considered, including President Clinton's proposal, were fundamentally flawed on this point. He strongly believes that the people of Jerusalem, his constituents, will never agree to a divided capital city. Richard Shotenstein, the Managing Director of the Ohio Department of Development's Eastern Mediterranean Regional Office, attended the meeting with Mayor Olmert. Afterwards, I spoke with Mr. Shotenstein regarding the Office's recent activities. While there have been some great successes, he explained that the tensions surrounding the ongoing Middle East crisis have dramatically lessened the interest of Ohio companies in business opportunities in the region. He also indicated that there is a growing anti-Americanism, largely seen in boycotts, spreading throughout the Arab world. This trend has especially impacted consumer products. Mr. Shotenstein explained that to many in the Arab world, the U.S. and Israel are intimately linked. Thus, anti-Israel trends become anti-American trends. I then met with Mr. Jawdat Ibrahim, a young Palestinian businessman who was deeply interested in the peace negotiations. I was interested to see his view--and through him, the Palestinian view--on current events. Our discussion was interesting and it added an important perspective to my trip. Later that day, I met with a group of Ohioans now living in Israel. After meetings with various political leaders, I wanted to have an opportunity to discuss the issues of the day with people whose lives are affected by the ongoing violence. The group made it very clear that there was a very real sense of fear living in Israel. Some described risking their life simply driving to and from work. Others feared that their car would explode when they started it every morning. Still others recounted phone calls from relatives living in America expressing concern about the safety of their grandchildren. I cannot imagine living with this kind of fear. The last day of the trip (January 3), I had a telephone conversation with Benjamin Netanyahu. While I was disappointed that scheduling conflicts prevented our meeting in person, I found his analysis of the situation in the region to be very insightful. I hope to have the opportunity to meet him on my next visit to the region, although he indicated that he would make it a point to meet with me the next time he visited the United States. Following my phone conversation, I had another meeting with Ambassador Indyk to discuss the various things I had learned during my visit to the region. I was pleased to travel with my colleague, Senator Specter, to two of the most important regions to our national security at such a crucial time. I gained valuable insight as to the fragility of peace, and came away with a new and deeper appreciation for our American democracy. Mr. President, as we welcome a new administration to the White House, I am hopeful that President Bush and his foreign policy team will be successful in promoting peace, stability and prosperity in these areas. We must never forget that both southeastern Europe and the Middle East are important to our national security and our nation's future.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to speak in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

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

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to join my friend and colleague, Senator Feinstein, in introducing legislation which 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. There is no more important time in a child's life than their earliest years. Scientific research tells us that babies are born with 100 billion neurons, or brain cells, that are waiting to make connections, or synapses, with one another. These synapses empower the brain and dictate healthy development and future learning. By the time a baby is three, 1,000 trillion connections have been made--twice as many synapses as most adults have. However, at age 11, children start eliminating those brain connections that have not been used, thus decreasing their potential for learning and development. To maximize their learning potential, we must begin to teach our children the necessary skills before they reach kindergarten. Researchers have found that focusing on these earliest years can make the greatest difference in a child's development and learning, and I know of few other programs that provide the same focus as Head Start. Our bill, the Loan Forgiveness for Head Start Teachers Act of 2001, 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 minimum 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 so that there was room for every eligible child in Ohio. Because of our efforts, Ohio is 4th in the nation in terms of children served by Head Start with nearly 38,000 students served in the year 2000. I have carried my passion for early childhood education with me to the U.S. Senate. I continue to believe that it is absolutely critical that we do more to help our young people prepare to begin school and it is why I was pleased to work with Senators Jeffords and Stevens to help pass the Early Learning Opportunities Act of 2000. 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 over the past two years 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, and the more likely that 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 associates degree. The more education our teachers have, the better off our children will be. Unfortunately, as we all know, education is 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 one 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. Recruiting and retaining Head Start and early childhood teachers continues to be a challenge for Ohio and other states. The Loan Forgiveness for Head Start Teachers Act of 2001 will help communities, schools and other funded 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 and Ohio Head Start Association, and my colleague Senator Feinstein, on this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join as co- sponsors of this bill.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. I wholeheartedly agree with my colleague, Senator DeWine. I do not think we can stress enough that this really is a matter of survival for these companies and their employees. The government bears some responsibility here, we simply must get this bill done as soon as possible. The companies, their workers, and asbestos victims--after all when the companies go bankrupt it affects payments to victims--need certainty that this will be brought to the Senate floor at the earliest possible date next year. We need to work to keep these companies afloat.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, today is November 1st, one month after the beginning of the new fiscal year and less than one week before the 2000 elections. Most of us in this body had anticipated that by now, we would be home in our respective states instead of here in Washington. However, we are once again in the midst of gridlock with a President who, despite his eight years in office, still does not understand how to delineate the proper role of government at the federal, state and local level. Our forefathers referred to this differentiation as federalism, and 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. Just the other day, in response to his veto of the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill, the President made the claim that we in Congress were taking care of ourselves first before we take care of education, and that he could not ``in good conscience'' sign a bill that would do so. I would say to the Chair that I am as committed to the need to provide our children with a quality education as any member of this body--Democrat or Republican--and just as committed as the President. But what the President and my friends on the other side want to do with respect to education is all wrong and it smacks of election year politics. The reality is that the President has his priorities all mixed up. Over the last eight years, he has missed a fundamental opportunity to reform Social Security. Over the last eight years, he has missed the opportunity to reform Medicare. Over the last eight years, he has missed the opportunity to revamp and upgrade our military. As my colleagues know, both Governor Bush and Vice President Gore have made education among their top priorities in their campaigns. As such, I believe in a few short months from now, Congress and the new President will work together to craft an ESEA reauthorization bill, which I am confident will pass quickly and be signed into law. However, instead of waiting a few months to allow his successor the opportunity to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, this President seems consumed with constructing education policy through the appropriations process. In this appropriation cycle, the President has demanded more than $4 billion in new education spending primarily for additional teachers, after school programs and school facilities, plus billions of additional dollars for school construction bonds. Let me state emphatically to my colleagues: these activities are not federal responsibilities. What is a federal responsibility is giving state and local leaders the flexibility to spend funds the way that makes the most sense for their particular school districts. On this side of the aisle, we are saying, ``we trust our teachers, and principals and school superintendents to make decisions on education spending.'' We are saying we will give you education funds and if you want to spend them on hiring teachers or building schools you can, but if your needs are new technology or books or training or special education, you ought to be able to spend the money on those programs. This is the right approach. Throughout American history, the federal government's role in educating America's youth has traditionally been relatively minor. The U.S. Constitution and the Federalist Papers affirm that the primary responsibility for education lies with those closest to our students in our states and localities. It is parents, teachers, local school districts and states who have done the lion's share with respect to educating our children, not Washington. And the numbers back up this fact. Right now in America, the Federal Government only provides 7 percent of the funds for education. Let me repeat that because that fact is hardly ever discussed: the Federal Government only provides 7 percent of the funds for education in this nation. That means 93 percent of each dollar that is spent on education comes from state taxes or local taxes or some other non-federal source. Yet, this Administration would have the American people believe that all good things spring from Washington and that ``top down'' command- and-control policies from the White House work best. To them, the local school districts in America--the parents and teachers and administrators across this nation--have no earthly idea how to educate their own children, nor do they know what their needs are. Believe it or not, most states are already investing in teachers and in school construction and in technology and after school programs. Most States have the money to pay for education--for teachers, for classroom materials, and for school construction. The National Governors Association reports that 46 states have a budget surplus and at least 36 states have a comfortable surplus. As a result, many states have been able to increase spending on education while cutting taxes. Does it make sense, then, for the White House to dangle a $4 billion carrot in front of America's school districts when so many states are reporting budget surpluses and are cutting taxes? The federal government has billions of dollars of unmet needs. We have a national debt of $5.7 trillion--a debt that is costing us $224 billion in interest payments a year, and $600 million per day just to pay the interest. Out of every federal dollar that is spent, 13 cents will go to pay the interest on the national debt. In comparison, 16 cents will go for national defense; 18 cents will go for non-defense discretionary spending; and 53 cents will go for entitlement spending. Right now, we spend more federal tax dollars on debt interest than we do on the entire Medicare program. Yet the President is willing to spend billions of dollars on what are state and local government responsibilities instead of targeting those funds on what are true federal needs. Clearly, states are the ones with the resources for school construction, and they are, in fact, using them for that purpose. When I was Governor, I felt so strongly about the importance of building new schools that I started the Ohio School Facilities Commission. Because of what we were able to do in Ohio, the General Accounting Office reported earlier this year that Ohio's increase in school construction spending from 1990-1997 was the ninth greatest in the nation in percentage terms, and the eighth greatest in terms of dollar amount. In addition, thanks to the settlement our states have negotiated with the tobacco industry--something I fought hard to achieve--Ohio has more than $10 billion in additional revenues. Governor Taft has pledged to fully address the facility needs of every Ohio school district within the next 12 years. His proposal for allocating $23 billion in state and local resources included a plan to fund the building needs of Ohio's 49 vocational school districts, accelerate the pace of work for our largest urban school districts, and in short give all districts an opportunity to address their immediate facility needs. And in New Jersey, Governor Christine Todd Whitman announced recently that her state has begun spending money on a plan to build $12 billion worth of classrooms over the next 10 years. States have invested in teachers as well. In Ohio, we realized that young teachers needed mentors to show the way. So we started a program that pays teachers $1,500 to serve as mentors to younger teachers. And because professional development is important, I initiated Ohio's participation in the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards. I felt it was so important for us to prepare our teachers that we began encouraging teachers in Ohio to participate by paying their application fees and the cost to take the test. Teachers who passed the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards certification process were rewarded with a bonus of $2,500 for 10 years. As a result of these commitments, Ohio has ranked fourth in the nation in professional development by the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. And Congress continues to recognize the value of this organization. In short, like most states, Ohio is getting it done for education. But what really upsets me is the fact that the President is calling on Ohio taxpayers to send money to Washington so that the federal government can turn around and send it to states that are not meeting their responsibilities--responsibilities that are totally and absolutely state or local obligations. Right now, the President is pushing to spend $1.75 billion on a school class size reduction program, but, with 120,000 teachers already in Ohio, this program at best yields only 1.5% increase in the number of teachers in my state. In fact, even if the President gets all the money he wants, 47% of Ohio's public school districts and community schools will not even receive enough money from the President's program to hire a single teacher. Not a single one. The Clinton class size reduction proposal undermines local control and the ability of school districts to spend money where it is needed most. But it goes to the point that the Clinton-Gore administration wants to be all things to all people. I say to my colleagues, if we really want to do something for education, then we should live up to the federal commitment to IDEA. In 1975, Congress passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), a program designed to help mainstream young men and women with disabilities so they could obtain a quality education. Congress thought it was such a national priority, that it promised that the Federal Government would pay up to 40 percent of the cost of this program. However, through fiscal year 2000, the most that Washington provided to our school districts under IDEA is 12.6 percent of the educational costs for each handicapped child. The remainder of the cost for IDEA falls on State and local governments. Earlier this year, the Senate passed two amendments that I offered regarding IDEA. The first said that Washington should live up to its commitment to fund IDEA at the 40% level before it allocates new education money. The second would allow school districts to use federal money for IDEA. Or, if the district wanted to spend the money on new teachers or new facilities, they could do so. If the Federal Government was fully funding IDEA, most of the education initiatives the President and my colleagues are proposing-- school construction, after-school programs, and new teachers--could be and likely would be taken care of at the State and local level. The Federal Government does have important responsibilities like national defense, infrastructure, Medicare and Social Security and we must also look at real federal priorities such as prescription drugs and responding to the cries of our health care system that has been short changed by the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. However, Washington must figure out how to sustain paying for its responsibilities before making new commitments. Because of the President's spending programs, the Labor HHS appropriations bill is, at last count, already at $113 billion. Last year, we spent $96 billion for the same bill. That's nearly an 18 percent increase. This appropriations bill contains more than $43 billion for the Department of Education. In the President's own budget, he asked for only $40 billion. Still, that is almost double the $21.1 billion in discretionary education spending allocated by the Federal Government just 10 years ago in fiscal year 1991, and nearly 5 times the $8.2 billion spent on discretionary education spending 25 years ago in 1976. The President and my colleagues across the aisle must stop acting as if they are the Nation's school board, trying to fund every education program possible. I believe our State and local leaders should be given the flexibility they need to spend their Federal education dollars to live up to our obligations with respect to IDEA, freeing them to address state and local education needs that have not yet been met. It is my hope that in the waning days of this Congress, we will find the strength to recognize what is a federal responsibility and what is not and act accordingly. We can no longer count on the President to do so: it is up to us.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 289, I inadvertently voted yea, when I intended to vote nay. I ask unanimous consent that on rollcall vote No. 289, I be permitted to change my vote from yea to nay, which in no way will change the outcome of the vote.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, this is the day the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad. This is Sunday, when it is the Sabbath for millions of Americans. Many of my colleagues have explained why we are here today, but I hope this is the last Sunday that the Senate, the U.S. Congress, is in session unless it is for a crisis of national or international concern. I hope this is the last Sunday that we would be here for anything but that. Next Tuesday, the citizens of this nation will go to the polls and elect the next president of the United States. One of the first challenges that the new president will face is the need to recapture what has been lost for a generation of Americans: trust in the Federal Government. The American people used to believe in the competence of the Federal Government to provide services and meet this nation's needs in a variety of ways. Unfortunately, in too many instances, this is not happening. Today, the Federal Government is held out as a source of scorn and ridicule. The fact of the matter is that the Federal Government has brought most of this on itself through a gross inattention to management. In 1993, Vice President Gore launched his ``Reinventing Government'' initiative. Purported to make government ``work better and cost less,'' it had every intention to turn the diminished reputation of the Federal Government around. However, this initiative will be remembered not for its modest accomplishments, but for missed opportunities. It has rejected bold efforts to reform Federal programs and personnel issues, and actually contributed to the growing human capital crisis that will be a major headache of the next administration. It will be one of the most formidable tasks of the next administration. As we have all seen, the Vice President is trying to run away from the label of being for ``Big Government.'' In recent remarks in Arkansas, and in the presidential debates, he pointed to Reinventing Government as proof that he favors small government. He claims credit for shrinking the Federal Government by 300,000 positions. In the third Presidential debate held earlier this month, the Vice President boasted that, due to his efforts, the Federal Government is ``now the smallest that it has been since . . . John Kennedy's administration.'' The Vice President's record of reinventing government is second only to his record of inventing the Internet for genuine achievement and accuracy. The truth is: more than 450,000 positions have been removed from the Federal Government since January 1993, not 300,000 as the Vice President claims. However, his offense lies not just in the fuzzy math but also in taking credit for reductions where he does not deserve it. More than 290,000 of the personnel cuts that were made--64 percent of the total--came from the departments of Defense and Energy. These cuts were made at the end of the Cold War in the resulting Pentagon budget reductions, as well as through four rounds of military base closings. My colleagues should be aware that this process began before the advent of the Clinton-Gore administration and existed independently of the Reinventing Government initiative. Other significant personnel reductions were also independent of Reinventing Government, including 15,000 employees of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation who were downsized at the end of the savings and loan crisis, and 8,500 employees of the Panama Canal Commission--now just a force of seven after the canal's hand off to Panama. In truth, most of the non-defense positions discussed by the Vice President have not been eliminated, but merely transferred to the private sector through Federal contracts and Federal mandates. Paul Light, of the highly-respected Brookings Institution, has documented a ``shadow workforce'' of almost 13 million contractors, grantees, and state and local government employees who serve as a de-facto extension of the Federal workforce--yet without the oversight and accountability. Evidence suggests that oversight of the contractor workforce is poor, yet contract managers were targeted for downsizing by Reinventing Government. Far more noteworthy than the Vice President's characteristic exaggerations, however, is the sorry state of the civil service seven years after Reinventing Government was initiated. As chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, I have led an ongoing review of overall government performance. I have found an appalling lack of forethought by the Clinton-Gore administration toward workforce planning as well as the training and development of Federal employees. The ``A-Team,'' the people who get the job done, and who, for the last 7 years, have been ignored. In testimony earlier this year before my subcommittee, nonpartisan experts testified that inattention to management has taken a heavy toll on the ability of the Federal workforce to do the job the American people deserve and expect. Don Kettl, from the University of Wisconsin, testified: The problem is that we have increasingly created a gulf between the people who are in the government and the skills needed to run that government effectively. Paul Light of the Brookings Institution put it more bluntly. He testified that the downsizing initiated by Reinventing Government: Has been haphazard, random, and there is no question that in some agencies we have hollowed out institutional memory and we are on the cusp of a significant human capital crisis. The U.S. General Accounting Office may well designate human capital as a Federal ``high risk'' area when it releases its next series on government high risk problems in January 2001. The numbers are alarming, and most of the people are not aware of this, even Members of this body. Right now, the average Federal employee is 46 years old. By 2004, 32 percent of Federal employees will be eligible for regular retirement, and 21 percent more will be eligible for early retirement. Taken together, more than half the Federal workforce--900,000 employees--could potentially leave in just 4 years. Obviously, if that happens, neither Vice President Gore nor Governor Bush would have any problems meeting their campaign promises regarding this nation's Federal workforce. Regrettably, the Clinton-Gore administration squandered 7 years before getting serious about this potential retirement wave. Indeed, Reinventing Government targeted human resources, contract oversight, financial management and other professionals for downsizing, leaving the Federal Government without the expertise it now needs to recruit talented, technology-savvy people to fill the coming vacancies. When it comes to the achievements of Reinventing Government, Vice President Gore has nothing to brag about. In my opinion, this effort is a liability for the Vice President, not a feather in his cap. Reinventing Government has failed to improve Government management or confront the fundamental question of how the civil service should be deployed to serve our nation. Cutting costs by only cutting jobs fails to acknowledge the central concern Americans have with Government, and that is ineffective programs, Government waste, command and control policies, and in many instances just plain gridlock. Agencies with less staff but the same workload only experience more of the bureaucratic meltdown which undermines the public trust and demoralizes the remaining Federal workforce. Wouldn't it be better if we focused on putting the right individuals in the job the American people actually want the Federal Government to accomplish--missions such as strengthening our national defense, saving Social Security, and saving Medicare--and giving them the training they need to get the job done? When I asked OMB how much money they spent on training, they said they didn't know. So my subcommittee did a survey of the Federal agencies and we asked them: How much do you spend on training? They didn't know. We did get letters back from a couple of agencies and they said: We know, but we won't tell you because if we do, you, Congress, will take the money away from us. Mr. President, I am not advocating the Federal Government fill every vacancy, person for person. What we need to do is ensure that every Federal agency has assessed its current and future workforce needs and has planned accordingly. Agencies must have the flexibility to design the recruiting and training programs that will allow them to attract and retain quality personnel and ensure they are deployed in the most effective way. In other words, the Federal workforce should be treated as an investment, not an expense. Earlier this year, when I had begun to examine the management of human capital in my subcommittee, I asked for the training budgets of all Federal agencies. As I mentioned, they did not know; they did not collect the information. That is incredible. The coming human capital crisis creates an opportunity for the next administration to reshape the 21st century Federal workforce, to improve Federal performance and efficiency, and to invest in the people who make the Government run. My hope is that in 4 years the next President will boast, not just of reducing the size of Government, but also of a well planned reorganization of Federal jobs, and of having equipped our Federal workforce to support a more focused and more streamlined Federal mission so they can work harder and smarter and do more with less. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, in keeping with the back and forth, would it be all right for me to speak for up to 15 minutes?

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will hopefully begin debate on the Older Americans Act at 9:30 a.m. At 11 a.m., the Senate will be in a period of morning business for 1 hour and then resume consideration of the Older Americans Act. The House is expected to consider the conference report to accompany the District of Columbia appropriations bill, which also contains the Commerce-Justice- State appropriations language, the Labor-HHS appropriations conference report, and the tax bill during tomorrow morning's session. It is hoped that the Senate can begin consideration of those bills as they are received from the House. Therefore, votes are expected in the afternoon on these bills, as well as a vote on a continuing resolution.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, one of the main reasons I ran for the Senate was to bring fiscal discipline to Washington. As the 106th Congress winds down this week, I look back with mixed feelings at the actions that have been taken over the last 2 years toward bringing our financial house in order. While for the first time we are not spending the Social Security surplus or the Medicare Part A surplus, I believe we could have done a much better job in reining in Federal spending. Indeed, one fact that does not seem to draw too much attention is the fact that Washington increased overall nondefense domestic discretionary spending in fiscal year 2000 to $328 billion. That is a 9.3-percent boost over the previous fiscal year, and the largest single-year increase in nondefense discretionary spending since 1980. And I fear we will have another big increase in fiscal year 2001. However, there is actually some good news to celebrate since the beginning of this Congress. As my colleagues may recall, President Clinton said in his State of the Union Address in 1999 that he wanted to save 62 percent of the surplus and spend the other 38 percent. Well, at the time, the entire surplus was the Social Security surplus. It was Members on this side of the aisle in both the House and the Senate who exposed the President's plan as just another spending gimmick. We were also the ones who got busy advocating and fighting for a lockbox for Social Security and Medicare. For all intents and purposes, we were successful in fiscal year 2000 in doing so, and we will do the same in fiscal year 2001. Now the Vice President is out there on the campaign trail bending the truth and taking credit for lockboxing Social Security and Medicare. Everyone should be aware that it was the Clinton-Gore administration that sent a veto threat to the Senate regarding the Social Security lockbox amendment that the Senate considered in April of 1999. Let me recite the direct quote from the veto threat: If the Abraham-Domenici amendment or similar legislation is passed by the Congress, the President's senior advisors will recommend to the President that he will veto this bill. I suspect that senior advisors would include the Vice President. Although Congress has agreed by consensus not to use the Social Security and Medicare surplus for more spending, Congress still has not been able to pass lockbox legislation. I am fearful, if things get tight in the future and we have a blip in the economy, Congress will revert to its old ways. So I am hoping next year that on a bipartisan basis we can pass lockbox legislation for the Social Security and Medicare surplus. Probably the best news from fiscal year 2000 is that despite all the supplemental spending we did this past summer, we still achieved an $87 billion on-budget surplus in fiscal year 2000. That is a lot more than the $1 billion on-budget surplus we had at the end of fiscal year 1999. Without question, though, the American people are responsible for this surplus, and their success continues to generate better than expected revenues. However, Congress would have spent considerably more money, had it not been for a handful of us in the House and Senate who were willing to take the heat for condemning massive spending increases and budget gimmickry. Because this $87 billion on-budget surplus had not been spent, and not used for tax cuts, it is going to go to reduce the national debt. In my view and in the view of many experts, using our on-budget surplus to pay down the national debt is the best way to ensure fiscal discipline and continue our economic prosperity. We need to continue that economic prosperity if we are going to deal with the problems of Social Security and Medicare in the future. We cannot be lulled by the booming economy and the fact that we have been able to utilize the $87 billion fiscal year 2000 on-budget surplus for debt reduction. In addition, the way things are going right now in Washington, we may not even see a fiscal year 2001 on-budget surplus. That is because the projected $102 billion surplus is evaporating very quickly. With all the years of experience that I have had in public service, I have to say that I have never seen anything more fiscally irresponsible than the spending spree I have seen occur in Washington this year--but, in particular, these past weeks. The lack of willingness on the part of Congress to make the hard choices and restrain the urge to bring home the bacon is blowing a hole in the fiscal year 2001 surplus and a gigantic hole in the projected 10-year budget surplus. I think back to 1997 when Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act, helping to put an end to the era of annual deficits. The Balanced Budget Act set spending targets for each fiscal year and was meant to teach Congress to prioritize its spending choices. Under the Balanced Budget Act, if Congress wanted to spend money, it had to find an offset to cover the additional spending. Fair enough, and it worked. It helped to balance the budget. Today, with the surplus we have achieved and the surplus that everyone thinks we are going to have in the future, the discipline is gone. It is just an out-of-control feeding frenzy. Add the fact that the normal legislative process has gone out the window, and we are in a free fall. Right now, only a handful of individuals--the President and my colleagues who are on the Appropriations Committee--are making the decisions that will impact how much the Federal Government spends for the coming fiscal year. Once the decisions are made, they are packaged together, sent to the floor of the Senate and the House, and voted on: No debate, no amendments. In some circumstances, Members have not even seen the bills they are voting on. Basically, it is a take-it-or-leave-it attitude. Since these bills contain the bacon, most Members go along and simply vote for them. For those Members who do, they will run home, bragging about how they got this or that for their districts or for their State, failing to understand that their constituents know there is no such thing as a free lunch. Make no mistake, the American people will fast appreciate the spending spectacle that is going on here in Congress. If you think they were mad in 1998 when Congress went on a similar spree--and I remember that because I was campaigning for the Senate in 1998 and I caught all kinds of flak from people because of what Congress had done--wait until they get wind of what is happening right now. And they will. We will definitely feel their wrath. But more important, we will experience their disappointment in letting them down. This Senator is not going along with the ``pork-a-thon.'' I have voted against most of the appropriations bills that have come before the Senate, not because I am opposed to the Federal Government spending money on what is necessary, but because Congress has been unwilling to prioritize spending and unwilling to make the hard choices within the framework of the 2001 budget resolution. In case my colleagues are not aware, let me explain briefly how big the increases are in the various appropriations bills. The fiscal year 2001 Interior appropriations bill spends $18.8 billion, a 26-percent increase over fiscal year 2000; the Transportation appropriations bill, spends $16.8 billion in discretionary spending, a 23-percent increase over fiscal year 2000; the VA-HUD appropriations bill spends $82.5 billion, a 14-percent increase; the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill spends $15.6 billion, a 13-percent increase; the Energy and Water appropriations bill spends $24 billion, a 12-percent increase; the Agriculture appropriations bill spends $15 billion in discretionary spending, an 8-percent increase, and that is not including agriculture emergency spending. For fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 2001, nearly $23.25 billion in agriculture emergency spending has been provided by the Government-- $23.25 billion in emergency spending. That is more than double the approximately $10.75 billion in emergency spending for the entire 10 year period before. In other words, in 3 years, we have doubled the emergency spending for agriculture over what we spent in the 10 previous fiscal years. In April, the Senate spent over 50 hours debating and amending a budget resolution for fiscal year 2001. An agreement was reached on an overall spending amount of $600.3 billion in budget authority. I worked with Senators like Phil Gramm to add new points of order to bring more discipline to the process. But in light of recent events, I wonder what was the 50 hours of effort over? I find myself asking, Why should we have a budget resolution if we are just going to ignore it? Why even have a budget process if we are just going to operate as if the rules did not exist? Congress and the White House are spending money like drunken sailors, and we need to get on the wagon before it is too late and we spend it all. CBO's projections over the next 10 years estimate that Federal spending will grow with the rate of inflation, but this does not reflect reality. In fiscal year 2000 alone, we increased discretionary spending by 8.3 percent, a rate much higher than the actual inflation rate. When you compare that with the spending increases of 14 percent, 23 percent, and 26 percent in just fiscal year 2001 alone, then you can see the kind of trouble we are getting ourselves into. Add up all the numbers, include the appropriations bills that have passed and those that are anticipated to pass; include as much as $265 billion worth of tax reductions for the next 10 years; and, of course, we cannot forget there are going to be additional interest costs that will be generated by Congress simultaneously increasing spending and lowering taxes. Just add it all up. When you do, you will find that Congress and the Clinton-Gore administration will have reduced the 10- year projected budget surplus by more than $600 billion. In a worst case scenario, the Concord Coalition estimates that Congress' accelerated pace of spending could wipe out up to $1.46 trillion of the non-Social Security surplus projected for the next 10 years--over a trillion dollars is what they project. What a terrible thing we are doing to the next administration and to the citizens of this Nation. After the 106th Congress' drunken spending spree is over, the American people and the future President will be waking up to a tremendous hangover.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on the bill (H.R. 1651). The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the House agree to the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 1651) entitled ``An Act to amend the Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967 to extend the period during which reimbursement may be provided to owners of United States fishing vessels for costs incurred when such a vessel is seized and detained by a foreign country, and for other purposes'', with the following amendment: Page 1, line 4, strike ``SEC. 401. USE OF AIRCRAFT PROHIBITED.'' and all that follows through ``SEC. 402.'' and insert ``SEC. 401.''.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I ask unanimous consent the Senate agree to the amendment of the House.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, there has been an effort in recent days to score partisan political points by misrepresenting Governor Bush's commitment to NATO and southeast Europe. Unfortunately, some of my Senate colleagues have been involved in this effort. No one in the Senate has been more involved in our policy toward southeast Europe, and no one cares more than I do about that part of the world. I have traveled to the region three times this year--on a factfinding mission, to participate in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and to participate in the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. I have been to Kosovo twice and visited with troops. I have been involved in efforts to bring about alternative leadership in Serbia--something that has finally happened. I have been a leader on the Stability Pact with the belief that its successful implementation is crucial to the long-term stability, prosperity, and peace in the region. I have also constantly watched the situation in Kosovo, outraged at the ongoing ethnic cleansing going on there today. With this background and involvement, I can say definitely that Governor Bush understands the importance of the region to our national security interests. I think it is important that we set the record straight. Governor Bush has said that he would systematically review our military commitments internationally upon his inauguration. He will look at them across the world. This will include a review of our deployments in the Balkans. He has said that he will work with our allies to develop a strategy to remove our troops from the region when it is possible to do so without threatening peace and stability in the region or our relationship with our European allies. He understands the important relationship we have with our NATO allies. There never was and never will be any statement by Governor Bush or, if he is elected, President Bush, regarding a reduced commitment to NATO. He understands how important NATO is. Vice President Gore has joined Governor Bush in saying that we should pull out of the Balkans when we are no longer needed. Governor Bush is committed to political stability and security in the Balkans. He emphasized this point repeatedly--that stability in southeast Europe is vital to Europe and hence to the U.S. In other words, we have strategic interests in southeast Europe, which are important to Europe and to the security of the U.S. and, for that matter, peace in the world. So Governor Bush is committed to political stability. Without the Governor's involvement in the Byrd-Warner debate on our troop commitment to Kosovo, the next President would be facing a July 1 deadline to decide whether to stay or go. Governor Bush stood up and was counted at the time of the Byrd-Warner discussion in the Senate. He demonstrated leadership at a time when leaders from both parties were considering having the U.S. unilaterally withdraw from a NATO commitment. That was a very important thing that he did at that time, because if he had not stood up and said he thought it was overreach, we would have lost that on the floor of the Senate and would have done irreparable damage to our relationship with NATO. We must remember that the Clinton-Gore administration promised the American people in 1995 that our troops would not be in Bosnia for longer than a year. That promise was never kept. Rather than set a misguided deadline, Governor Bush is simply saying we should not, and will not, be in the Balkans forever. Nothing more. Governor Bush has said time and again that he would actively consult our European allies in the formation and implementation of our policies in NATO and in southeast Europe. I hope Lord Robertson, who heads up NATO, understands that. I made that very clear when I was at the NATO Assembly in Budapest. We understand how important our leadership and our commitment is to NATO. Governor Bush is an internationalist who is committed to NATO and our European allies. These attacks are just partisan politics designed, in my opinion, to turn attention from a growing scandal involving Vice President Gore. Just this morning, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing to examine Vice President Gore's dealings with former Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin regarding weapons sales to Iran. It has been widely reported that the Vice President failed to fully and properly inform relevant congressional oversight committees regarding agreements reached with Russian officials. He has to be more forthcoming about what went on there. The hearing was in response to new and critical information on this matter which surfaced in the New York Times report dated October 13. Governor Bush remains fully committed to NATO and American leadership in Europe. Repeating, he remains fully committed to NATO and American leadership in Europe. He understands our unique role and is committed to maintaining that leadership. We know how important our leadership is to NATO. We certainly found that out during the Kosovo-Serbian war that we had. To suggest that he doesn't understand is just plain hogwash.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order following the remarks of Senator Reid from Nevada, who has been very patient. I thank Senator Reid and the Chair very much for their patience this evening.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Yes.