George Voinovich

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it recess until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, October 26. I further ask consent that on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and it will be the intention of the leader to begin consideration of the Older Americans Act, hopefully under an agreement. I further ask consent that at 11 o'clock there be a period of morning business until 12 noon, with the time equally divided between Senators Bryan and Domenici, and that Senator Bryan be in control of the first half of that time.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the inductees into the National Inventors Hall of Fame for the year 2000. Located in Akron, OH, the National Inventors Hall of Fame is America's shrine to those who have made significant contributions to our nation, and improvements to the quality of life for all mankind. As Governor of Ohio, I was proud to speak at the dedication ceremony for this magnificent facility in July of 1995, and I was pleased to have the Hall also serve as the backdrop for the Edison Innovator Awards my office presented to companies throughout the State of Ohio. Inductees into the National Inventors Hall of Fame represent the epitome of ingenuity and inspiration, and this year's class is no exception. Inductees for the year 2000 include: Walt Disney, whose name has become synonymous with imagination and creativity; Reginald Fessenden, whose pioneering work in the area of wireless communication led to the modern radio broadcasting industry; Helen and Alfred Free, whose work developing the ``dip-and-read'' urinalysis test greatly eased the lives of those suffering from diabetes; J. Franklin Hyde, whose discovery of fused silica made possible the fiber optic cable so widely used today; William Kroll, who escaped Europe before the onset of World War II, and whose work in his home laboratory resulted in a process that allows titanium and zirconium to be produced; and Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple Computer and the inventor of the modern personal computer. Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door. In modern parlance, one might say that technological advancement is the engine that drives our economy. It is the biggest contributor to increasing our standard of living here in the United States, and the best way to improve the lives of individuals the world over. This progress is essentially made possible through the protection of intellectual property that is afforded by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the main force behind the founding of the National Inventors Hall of Fame. In today's rapidly changing world, the Patent and Trademark Office is the ``safe haven'' that encourages men and women to accept the challenge to build the better mousetrap through the protection of creativity and what our minds can produce. Consider the accomplishments of the 158 inventors enshrined at the Hall. Consider the contributions they have made to society: to prolonging our lives and making them more enjoyable; to reducing our workload; and to allowing us to explore new continents and the heavens themselves. It is easy to see the power of invention and the tremendous impact inventors have on all of us. As an Ohioan, I am always struck by the ingenuity and sheer determination of two Dayton bicycle workers who dared to believe that they could defy gravity with their winged invention. Little did the Wright Brothers realize that 66 years after their historic flight, man's inquisitive nature would improve upon their invention and put another Ohioan--Neil Armstrong--on the moon. Invention is progress, and I salute the work of America's inventors, the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office and the National Inventors Hall of Fame in Akron, Ohio, for their continuing efforts to improve and enrich our lives.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Michael Dawson, who, over the past 11 years, has been my press secretary, one of my most trusted advisors, and a man whose judgement has been a key component to my success, from the campaign trail, to the Statehouse of Ohio and to the Capitol of the United States. But most of all, Mike Dawson has been, and will always be, my friend. I first got to know Michael in 1989, when I was pursuing the governorship of Ohio and he was working as a top aide to then- Congressman Mike DeWine during his campaign for Lieutenant Governor. I was immediately struck by his work ethic and his tenacity. During that campaign, it was reported that if Mike saw the lights on in the offices of our opponent when he was leaving the office, no matter what time it was, Mike would turn around, go back inside and continue to work. Mike refused to allow them to get the upper hand by putting in more time or effort. Once the election was over, and I was elected Governor, there was little doubt in my mind that one of the people I had to have on my executive team was Mike Dawson. Since then, Mike has been with me through thick and thin and through good times and bad. Whatever the situation, and no matter how rough things got, Mike was always there providing me sound advice. I will never forget Mike's dedication and professionalism during the Lucasville prison riots in April of 1993--a period I consider to be the darkest days of my administration. For eleven days, Ohio held its breath as the Lucasville prison erupted in violence. As I worked to find a peaceful solution to the crisis, one of the people I depended upon most for assistance was Mike Dawson. Not only did Mike serve as press secretary at that time, but he was also my executive assistant in charge of emergency management operations. In that position, Mike had a strong hand in working with the Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections, the Ohio Highway Patrol, and several other agencies in helping to put an end to the siege at the prison and restoring order. Mike initiated a task force to review what had gone wrong at Lucasville and to make recommendations on how to avoid similar Lucasville situations in the future. A special emphasis of the task force focused on the proper role of the media in covering prison situations. Mike's service in emergency management operations was not limited just to the Lucasville riots. He was instrumental in Ohio's efforts to coordinate assistance to flood-ravaged areas of Ohio in 1997 and 1998, and was always right in the middle of things whenever Ohio was faced with an emergency situation during my two terms as Governor. But no tribute to Mike would be complete without mentioning the work he has done as my press secretary. Mike has a relationship with Ohio's press corps and editorial writers that is legendary. All you would have to do, Mr. President, is ask any reporter who has covered my two terms as governor or my first two years in the Senate to find out what kind of a professional Mike really is. Throughout the entire time that he has been my press secretary, Mike has always been accessible, always wiling to go the extra mile to furnish the information that will make a reporter's job easier and he has made it a point to be able to provide an answer to whatever questions the press ask. If Mike does not know an answer, he will find it, and he will make sure that he understands the entire issue well- enough to be able to explain it. Mike has always been relentless in wanting to guarantee that the press gets the story right the first time. Of course, the Ohio press corps could write volumes of examples of Mike's tenacity in wanting a story reported correctly. If Mike felt he was right, he would argue his point until that reporter understood what he was talking about and where he was coming from. If Mike knew he was right, he would be relentless in his effort to not only convince the reporter to see his point of view, but to agree with it as well. Mike's style has earned him the respect of reporters from all across Ohio. In fact, when I left the Governor's office to come to the Senate, Mike was lauded in a column written by Joe Hallett in the Cleveland Plain Dealer for how diligently he served as press secretary during my administration: probably the highest compliment any press secretary can receive from his peers. That column put in print what I already knew and what I told millions of Ohioans on the night I was elected to the Senate--that Mike Dawson was the best press secretary in America. It was true then, and it is true today. In all the years I have known him, and in the hundreds, if not thousands, of stories that Mike handled for my gubernatorial administration, as well as here in the Senate, he has always kept the best interests of Ohio at heart. I have been truly blessed to have had Mike provide me such tremendous professional service over the years. As I have been blessed with Mike's service, he has been blessed even more so with a wonderful and loving family. To witness the love that Mike has for his wife Laurel and his son Will makes it evident that they are the most important priorities in his life, and to see them all together makes it easy to realize that God's love truly shines upon them. Mike is an Ohioan to the core, and he has always considered it his distinct privilege to work on behalf of the people of his state of Ohio in an effort to improve government and make government work more efficiently, and for the benefit of all Ohioans. When serving the people of Ohio, Mike was the first to arrive in the morning and the last to leave at night, and it was a given that Mike was on-call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Today, though, Mike's responsibilities are focused a little more closer to home, and he and Laurel have decided to go back to their roots and raise Will in the Buckeye State. And while I am losing a valued member of my staff, I take great comfort in the knowledge that my friend Mike Dawson's service to the people of Ohio will continue. Mike has gone back to work for his former boss and my very dear friend, Senator Mike DeWine. I know that he will be successful in this new endeavor. I consider myself a better person and a better public servant for having the opportunity to know Michael Dawson. He has been a loyal friend and a sage counselor whom I will truly miss.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, today the Senate will resume debate on the conference report to accompany the Agriculture appropriations bill. Debate on the conference report will be limited in today's session and a short period on Wednesday morning. Therefore, those Senators with statements are encouraged to come to the floor during today's session, if possible. The vote on the Agriculture appropriations conference report is scheduled to occur at 11:30 a.m. on Wednesday. However, that vote time may be changed to accommodate those Senators who will be attending the memorial service for the sailors who died on the U.S.S. Cole. Senators will be notified as soon as possible if that change is made. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I appreciate the Chaplain of the Senate opening today's session in prayer for Missouri Governor Mel Carnahan and for his son, Randy Carnahan, and for Chris Sifford, all of whom were tragically killed last night in a plane crash in Missouri. Mel Carnahan and his wife Jean were good friends of mine and my wife Janet. We got to know them through the Governors' Association--a wonderful man, wonderful family man, one of the finest human beings I have ever met. From a personal point of view, my sympathy goes out to Jean, his wife, and to the rest of his family and to the citizens of Missouri. This country lost a great leader. On behalf of the entire Senate, I express our deepest sympathies to Governor Carnahan's wife Jean and to their sons, Russ, Robin, and Tom, and to their grandchildren, Andrew and Austin. They have lost a father, husband, grandfather, son, a brother, and an uncle. This is a terrible burden to carry, and we wish them God's strength and courage in so doing. The entire Senate joins me in expressing condolences to the citizens of Missouri who have lost the Governor N O T I C E Effective January 1, 2001, the subscription price of the Congressional Record will be $393 per year or $197 for six months. Individual issues may be purchased for $4.00 per copy. The cost for the microfiche edition will remain $141 per year with single copies remaining $1.50 per issue. This price increase is necessary based upon the cost of printing and distribution. Michael F. DiMario, Public Printer they elected to serve them at State government. We also extend our sympathies to the family of Chris Sifford. All of us involved in statewide public office know the dangers of flying across our States for different events. So when a tragedy such as this occurs, it hits especially hard. When I woke up at 6 o'clock this morning to the public radio saying Mel Carnahan and his son were killed, it reminded me how fragile life is and how so often we take life for granted. It also reminded me that each day we live, we should thank God for it and let the people with whom we come in contact know that we love them. This is a sad day for our country. As I said, Mel Carnahan was truly a great leader and made a great contribution also to the National Governors' Association. Many Senators knew Governor Carnahan and will be making remarks today and in the next few days.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I would be remiss if I did not also mention that I was asked by Senator Kit Bond and Senator Ashcroft to also publicly express their sympathies to the people of Missouri on the death of Mel Carnahan. Both Senator Ashcroft and Senator Bond served as Governors of the State of Missouri and knew Mel Carnahan quite well. We know there was a campaign going on, and I am sure this is also very heavy on John Ashcroft.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, one of Ohio's illustrious public servants, Commissioner Craig Glazer, is retiring as a member of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio after serving successfully under three Ohio governors. I extend to him my sincere congratulations and best wishes. Craig is a man with a love for Ohio. After graduating from Vanderbilt University Law School, he went directly to work for Ohio businesses as an advocate for industry at the law firm of Hahn Loeser & Parks. He worked extensively for utility and consumer interests helping them to expand their operations throughout Ohio. I personally had the opportunity to witness Craig's leadership while I was Mayor of Cleveland. Between 1979 and 1985, Craig represented the people of Cleveland before the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) as the utility rate counsel. During my time as Mayor, I worked with Craig on legislation that was ultimately passed in the Ohio Legislature as Senate Bill 378. Upon passage it reformed the structure of PUCO to ensure its accountability to its many constituencies. During this time, he additionally served as house counsel to the city of Cleveland's utility system and served over 300,000 customers through their water, sewer and electric utilities. He presently serves on the Board of Directors of the national Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, serves as vice-chair of its International Relations Committee and is a member of their electricity committee. He also chairs the National Council on Competition in the Electric Industry, an interagency policy group, and is President of Board of Directors of the Ohio Energy Project. He is chair of the Ameritech region Regulatory Coordinating Committee and serves as a member of the North American Electricity Reliability Council's Generation Adequacy Committee and Electric Power research Institute's Advisory Council. It is clear from his leadership and many efforts that Craig Glazer consistently works hard for the people of Ohio. I have immense respect for Craig. He is and always has been a true professional. And although I am sorry to see him retire, I am confident that the citizens of Ohio have not heard the last from him.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Yes, we did intend to cover radiogenic cancers. The definition of specified cancer includes those cancers covered by the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act and Bone cancer. According to the medical text ``Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention'' by Doctors Schottenfeld and Fraumeni, cancers of the bone include cancers of the cartilage, including radiosensitive cancers that originate in cartilage such as chondrosarcoma.

Mr. VOINOVICH

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

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. In addition, just yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office released its report, entitled ``The Long-Term Budget Outlook.'' That report states that, ``projected growth in spending on the federal government's big health and retirement programs--Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security--dominates the long-run budget outlook. If current policies continue, spending is likely to grow significantly faster than the economy as a whole over the next few decades. By 2040, CBO projects those outlays will rise to about 17 percent of gross domestic product--more than double their current share.'' The report goes on to say, `` `saving' most or all of the budget surpluses that CBO projects over the next 10 years--using them to pay down debt--would have a positive impact on the projections and substantially delay the emergence of a serious fiscal imbalance.'' I believe that each of my colleagues should read this report because it might make them consider the consequences of all the spending that's going on in this body and help make the argument for more fiscal restraint in these last days of the 106th Congress. Therefore, Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to look up the CBO report, ``The Long-Term Budget Outlook,'' at the CBO website, www.cbo.gov. Mr. President, I am a firm believer in the phrase, ``prepare for tomorrow, today,'' and I believe that anytime we have an opportunity to enhance our future economic position, we cannot squander that opportunity. That is why I am deeply disappointed that the Senate is not going to consider the Debt Relief Lock-Box Reconciliation Act for Fiscal Year 2001, H.R. 5173. This is a bill that passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 381-3, and which would have taken 90 percent of the fiscal year 2001 surplus and used it strictly for debt reduction. As my colleagues know, the Congressional Budget Office has projected that in fiscal year 2001, the United States will have a surplus of $268 billion, including an on-budget surplus of $102 billion. Under H.R. 5173--or the ``90-10'' bill as it has been called--$240 billion of the $268 billion projected surplus would go toward paying down the national debt. By using such a substantial amount of the surplus for debt reduction, Congress would be officially ``lock boxing'' not only the Social Security surplus, but the Medicare surplus as well. Thus, some $198 billion--the amount CBO predicts--will be in surplus for those two funds. In addition to ``lock-boxing'' Social Security and Medicare, the legislation would appropriate $42 billion of the fiscal year 2001 on- budget surplus projection toward debt reduction. The remaining 10 percent--or $28 billion--would be divided and used to cover whatever tax cuts or necessary and reasonable spending increases that needed to be made. Even though it is not perfect legislation, I support H.R. 5173, because in my view, it is the best chance for Congress this year to make another significant payment on the national debt while keeping a tight lid on spending. Unfortunately, the ``90-10'' bill has never achieved the same kind of support here in the Senate as it did in the House, and therefore, the types of controls the bill would have put on spending will not be enacted in the Senate. Instead, I fear that with the end of session ``rush to get out of town,'' Congress and the President are engaged in a spending spree the likes of which we haven't seen since LBJ's Great Society. While I am concerned that the President wants additional spending, I am particularly alarmed at the fact that many of my colleagues are trying their hardest to outspend the President. Under this scenario, it's no wonder H.R. 5173 never had a chance. Although we have not yet passed all of the fiscal year 2001 appropriations bills, the amount that spending has increased in the bills that have been passed is quite disturbing: particularly when compared to the Consumer Price Index, which is 2.7 percent. For instance, the fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water appropriations bill that was just vetoed spends 12 percent more than its FY 2000 counterpart; the FY 2001 Interior appropriations bill represents a 26 percent increase; and the FY 2001 Transportation appropriations bill that we passed last Friday increased its discretionary spending by about 25 percent. So far, Congressional spending in fiscal year 2001 is on-track to make the 9.3 percent fiscal year 2000 non-defense discretionary spending increase look like ``chump change.'' I would like to say to the citizens of Ohio that there are many good things in those bills that I would have liked to support, but spending increases of this kind are just outrageous. What we should have been doing with these appropriations bills is prioritizing our spending and living within the budget resolution that we passed in the beginning of the year. Maybe I should ask my colleagues, if we are not going to live within the parameters of the budget resolution, then why did we spend to much time on it? If, when I was Governor, I had ever gone to the Ohio legislature and told them I wanted to increase the budget by 25 or 26 percent, they would have impeached me. The editorial writers would have said I had gone crazy, especially when my mantra when I came into office was, ``gone are the days when public officials are measured by how much they spend on a problem. The new realities dictate that public officials are now judged on whether they can work harder and smarter and do more with less.'' And Mr. President I hate to think what the voters would have done to me. Many of my colleagues do not seem to consider that each separate appropriations bill adds-up. There is no sense of concern that one particular appropriations bill increases its spending from FY 2000 by 20 percent, because it's only $2 billion to $3 billion more than last year. Or, some may say we need to spend an extra billion dollars or so on this or that program because we have a huge surplus and we can afford it. In a $1.7 trillion overall budget, I can see how someone may got caught up in that logic. However, in the words of Everett Dirksen: A billion here, and a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money. It is all real money--real taxpayer's money. Congress and the President have got to admit that we cannot fund everything that we want. We have got to make hard choices with respect to spending if we are ever going to bring our debt under control. The American people know that the spending Congress is engaged in right now must be accounted for somewhere, because they know there is no such thing as a free lunch. They know that ultimately they are the ones paying for what I like to refer to as a Congressional ``feeding frenzy.'' They want us to make the hard decisions and most of all, they want us to pay down the national debt. When I go home to Ohio my constituents say to me: Senator, we want you to pay down the national debt. On one other last note, Mr. President--if you take the 9.3 percent increase in non-defense discretionary spending from fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 2000, and the rate of increase projected in the fiscal year 2001 budget, we are blowing a big hole in the CBO 10 year projected budget surplus. The 10 year CBO budget surplus is predicated on a 2.7 percent increase in Federal spending over 10 years. We must remember that the on-budget surplus also includes the Medicare surplus, and if we are ever successful at passing Medicare ``lock box'' legislation, those funds will be off the table for spending. Consider also the Medicare giveback which we must have to stabilize this country's healthcare system which will also take part of the 10 year budget surplus; a prescription drug benefit that everyone agrees we must implement which will also take part of the 10 year budget surplus; we must spend more money to stabilize and improve our national defense which will also take part of the 10 year budget surplus. If you add up all of the numbers, including appropriations bills that have passed and those that are anticipated to pass and include the projected $200 billion worth of tax reductions for the next 10 years, as well as the additional interest costs generated by Congress' spending and reducing taxes, then Congress will have reduced the 10 year projected budget surplus by some $750 billion. Let's not let that happen. If Congress intends to spend money on implementing programs, we need to tighten our belts on our current spending and not squander our on- budget surplus on the kinds of wasteful spending included in the various fiscal year 2001 appropriations bills. We cannot forget that we are facing a Social Security and Medicare funding crisis in the near future, and if we can't prioritize our spending now, we will not be able to keep these programs solvent at their current level of benefits. The young people here who are pages will have that burden right on their backs. That's why I believe the best course of action we can take is to use whatever on-budget surplus we achieve to pay down the national debt. For three decades, we borrowed from our children, mortgaging their future for our present. And now, when times are good and we have the most ideal situation to set things right, we cannot continue down the same flawed path as before. Have we learned nothing? Our current economic situation is our second chance to pay our children what we owe and ensure fiscal solvency for future generations. We have an obligation to our children--indeed, a moral obligation--to pay down the national debt and rein-in our spending in order to give them back their competitive edge. If we do not act now, I fear we will not get another chance to do the right thing. Exhibit 1 [From the Washington Post, Oct. 11, 2000] Heedless of the Deficits Ahead (By David S. Broder) On the morning after last week's vice presidential debate, Charles O. Jones, the University of Wisconsin political scientist and scholar of the presidency, remarked that the nation had witnessed ``a great civic event,'' a civil, substantive discussion of serious policy matters between two highly competent public officials, Joe Lieberman and Dick Cheney. In fact, Jones said, ``we are having a good election, something you don't often get in good times.'' Contrast the contest being waged by Al Gore and George W. Bush, he went on, with the last race conducted in a healthy economy and at a time when no incumbent president was on the ballot. That would be 1988, when the father of the current Republican nominee squared off, as vice president, against Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis. If the winning campaign of 1988 is remembered at all, the enduring images are the flag factories the elder George Bush visited in an implicit challenge to Dukakis's patriotism and the Willie Horton ads his supporters aired. And the hapless Democratic effort was symbolized by Dukakis's tank ride and his lame, emotionless answer to Bernard Shaw's question about how he would respond if someone raped and murdered Kitty Dukakis. We've come a long way from that, with the four nominees for president and vice president arguing about such genuinely important topics as defense, education, Social Security and health care. But before we get too giddy in celebrating our good fortune, let it be noted that historians are almost certain to remark on the purposeful myopia of the candidates in this first election of the new millennium, their deliberate refusal to acknowledge and discuss one of the biggest realities of our national life: The glorious federal budget surpluses they are happily parceling out for their favorite programs and tax cuts are a short-term phenomenon, soon to be followed by crippling deficits, unless we make some hard choices in the next few years. In this respect, the 2000 campaign is reminiscent of 1988-- but worse. In that year, Dukakis and the elder Bush avoided discussing the savings and that year, Dukakis and the elder Bush avoided discussing the savings and loan crisis both of them knew was around the corner. The reason: There were no easy answers, just bad news and an expensive bailout in store. What we now confront is much, much bigger than the savings and loan bailout. Its dimensions were outlined last week in a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO)--a report that did not make the front page of any of the papers I read and that was ignored by most of the TV news shows. Here's what it said: Assuming that the new president uses the expected surplus in Social Security of $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years to pay down the national debt, as Gore and Bush say they will do, the government may be able to balance its books until about 2020. But then the retirement and health care costs of the huge baby boom generation and the shrinkage in the number of Americans working and paying taxes will once again create a serious imbalance--and push us back into debt. In the estimate of the CBO, ``If the nation's leaders do not change current policies to eliminate that imbalance, federal deficits are likely to reappear and eventually drive federal debt to unsustainable levels.'' A chart accompanying the report shows the public debt in 2040 rising to 60 percent of the estimated size of that year's economy--creating a burden on the next generation of Americans half again as large as the accumulated debt of the past is on us. As The Post's Glenn Kessler noted in his news story, ``The report underscores how campaign rhetoric has become increasingly separated from the budget reality that will face the next president.'' While Bush pushes his trillion-dollar tax cut and tries to keep up with Gore's promises of new prescription drug benefits, 100,000 teachers and 50,000 cops, neither one is preparing the public for the steps that are needed to rein in runaway health care costs--the largest single force driving us back into deficits. By 2040, according to the best available data, the percentage of Americans over 65 will rise from 13 percent to almost 21 percent. The share of working-age Americans, between 20 and 64, will decline by 3 points of slightly over 55 percent. The ratio of workers to retirees will drop from almost 5 to 1 down to less than 3 to 1. Unless we begin now to reorganize our dysfunctional health care system and take steps to rationalize provisions for retirement income, the demographic wave will sink us. Someone has to force the candidates to confront that reality. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, in a few short weeks, it will have been two years since the people of Ohio elected me to represent them in the United States Senate. One of the main reasons I wanted to serve in this body was to have an opportunity to bring fiscal responsibility to the nation's capital and eliminate the gigantic debt burden that we have put on the backs of our children and grandchildren. As my colleagues know, for decades, successive Congresses and Presidents spent money on things that, while important, they were unwilling to pay for, or, in the alternative, do without. In the process, Washington ran up staggering debt, and mortgaged our future. Today, we have a $5.7 trillion national debt that is costing us $224 billion in interest payments a year, and that translates into $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. Think of that. 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. As the end of the 106th Congress draws near, I look back with mixed feelings at the actions that this Congress has made towards bringing our financial house in order. While we have made some strides in paying down the national debt, there is a lot more that we could have done. For example, we could have done a much better job of reining-in federal spending. Regretfully, we have done the opposite. What many Americans don't realize is the fact that Congress increased overall non-defense domestic discretionary spending in fiscal year 2000 to $328 billion. That's a 9.3 percent boost over the previous fiscal year, and the largest single-year increase in non-defense discretionary spending since 1980. In an effort to bring spending under control, my friend, Senator Allard, and I offered an amendment this past June to direct $12 billion of the FY 2000 on-budget surplus dollars toward debt reduction. While that amendment passed by a vote of 95-3, the victory did not last long--all but $4 billion of that $12 billion was used for other spending in the Military Construction Appropriations Conference Report. Nevertheless, we have had reason to celebrate some good news. Just last year, many of us fought to ``lock box'' Social Security. In spite of the fact that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle defeated the bill, Congress did, though, for the first time in three decades, not spend a dime of the Social Security surplus. I have to say that I take great offense at the fact that the Vice President is out there taking credit for ``lock boxing'' Social Security and Medicare. My colleagues--and indeed the American people-- should be aware that, in fact, it was this administration--the Clinton- Gore administration--that sent a veto threat to the Senate regarding the Abraham/Domenici Social Security ``lock box'' amendment that we considered in April of 1999. Here is the direct quote from that 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 veto the bill.'' I would presume that the term ``Senior Advisors'' would include the Vice President. Although Congress has agreed by consensus not to use the Social Security surplus for more spending, Congress, still has not been able to pass ``lock box'' legislation. And because Congress has not passed a ``lock box'' bill, I am fearful that if things get tight in the future, Congress will revert to its old ways. Probably the best news from fiscal year 2000 is that despite spending roughly $20 billion of the on-budget surplus this past summer, Congress did not touch the additional $60 billion on-budget surplus that CBO announced in July. In other words, when fiscal year 2000 came to an end on September 30th, that $60 billion on-budget surplus had not been spent nor used for tax cuts. Instead, it will go towards reducing the national debt. When on-budget surplus funds are used to lower the debt, it sends a positive signal to Wall Street and to Main Street that the federal government is serious about fiscal discipline. It encourages more savings and investment which, in turn, fuels productivity and continued economic growth. All the experts say that paying down the debt is the best thing we could do with our budget surpluses. Indeed, CBO Director Dan Crippen said earlier this year: ``most economists agree that saving the surpluses and paying down the debt held by the public is probably the best thing that we can do relative to the economy.'' I would like to say Mr. President, in the last month or so, I have had the opportunity to meet with director Crippen in my office a couple of times, including, most recently, this morning. He said that the only way we were going to be able to deal with the wave of Social Security and Medicare benefits that we will have to pay when the ``baby boomers'' start to retire, is to reform Social Security and Medicare, and most important, we should undertake policies that encourage a robust, growing economy. And as far as I'm concerned, paying down the national debt is the best way that we can foster a robust growing economy. Mr. President, in today's Washington Post, columnist David Broder, touched on this same theme in reporting about the need to exhibit fiscal responsibility. In case my colleagues have not read the article, I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 4 p.m. with Senators Durbin and Thomas in control of the time. Following morning business, the Senate is expected to consider the VA-HUD appropriations bill. It is hoped that legislation can be completed in short order and without a rollcall vote. However, if a rollcall vote is requested, the vote will occur tomorrow at a time to be determined. On Wednesday, there will be up to 7 hours of debate on the conference report to accompany the sex trafficking victims bill. Senator Thompson will make a point of order against the report, and a vote is expected relative to appealing the ruling of the Chair. Senators can also expect a vote on the adoption of the sex trafficking conference report. The Senate may also begin consideration of the Agriculture appropriations conference report during tomorrow's session. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object and I shall not object, but I would like to engage in a discussion with the Senator from Arizona. I have some substantive concerns about this bill and I and my staff need some time to review the bill. I have concerns that if we are going to impose criminal penalties in this area, that standard for triggering these penalties is a clear bright line. I am also concerned that the reporting requirements as outlined presently are over broad and unworkable. I am very concerned about safety and want to ensure that we enact solid workable legislation to protect people. I am not trying to stop this bill, just ensure that it is solid, clean, well thought through legislation.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, as my colleagues are well aware, I have a keen interest in what happens in the Balkans because I believe what happens in Southeastern Europe impacts on our national security, our economic well-being in Europe, the stability of Europe and yes, world peace. For the better part of the 20th Century, Western Europe and the U.S. have had an enormous stake in what has occurred in Southeastern Europe. However, we have not done enough to pay attention to what is happening there, dating back to the time when former Secretary of State, Jim Baker, said of Yugoslavia that ``we don't have a dog in this fight.'' Unfortunately, that line of thinking has prevailed, and we've allowed Slobodan Milosevic to wreak havoc. Over the last decade, he has spread death and destruction to the people of Serbia, Kosovo and Croatia and we all know that U.S. troops now are in Kosovo and Bosnia because of him. Even a U.S. and NATO led air war last year was not sufficient to bring an end to the Milosevic regime. Since the end of the war, I have been working hard on three essential items that I believe will bring peace and stability to the region. First, I have been working with leaders here and abroad to help stop the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo; second, to try and make sure that we keep our promises to the Stability Pact of Southeast Europe. To that end, I recently met with Bodo Homback, the head of the Stability Pact to underscore the importance of the Stability Pact; and third, I have been working tirelessly to support democracy in Serbia, a cause I took on when I was governor of the State of Ohio. When I was in Bucharest at the Organization for the Security and Cooperation of Europe, OSCE, in July of this year, I introduced a resolution on Southeastern Europe that called to the attention of the OSCE's Parliamentary Assembly the situation in Kosovo and Serbia, and made clear the importance of democracy in Serbia. I pointed out to my OSCE colleagues in that resolution that Milosevic was a threat to the stability, peace and prosperity of the region. I argued that in order for the nations of that region to become fully integrated into Europe--for the first time in modern history-- Milosevic's removal from office was absolutely essential. My resolution put the OSCE, as a body, on record as condemning the Milosevic regime and insisting on the restoration of human rights, the rule of law, free press and respect for ethnic minorities in Serbia. I was pleased that my resolution passed, despite strong opposition by the delegation from the Russian Federation. Many people had become resigned to the fact that if the NATO bombing and the hardships that followed the end of the air war did not produce widespread anti-Milosevic sentiment, the prospect for Milosevic's removal from office by the Serbian people would not happen any time soon. Even Milosevic himself felt confident enough in his rulership of Yugoslavia to call for general elections nine months earlier than they were supposed to occur. On Sunday, September 24th, historic elections took place in Yugoslavia in spite of the worst type of conditions that could possibly hamper free and fair elections, including military and police presence at polling places; ballots counted by Milosevic appointees; reports of ``ballot stuffing;'' intimidation of voters during the election process; and the refusal to allow independent observers to monitor election practices and results. In spite of all that, the people won. They won because of the old Serbian slogan--Samo, Sloga, Srbina, Spasava--which translates into ``only unity can save the Serbs'', or, ``in unity there is strength for the Serbs.'' And I might say the opposition finally got its act together with prayers to St. Sava, and with enlightenment from the Holy Spirit. It was the political force of the people that propelled law professor, and political unknown, Vojislav Kostunica, to victory. This monumental victory over an indicted war criminal proves that the Serb people strongly desire positive change. They want to see their country move beyond the angry rhetoric and nationalistic fires fanned by Milosevic. And let me make this point clear: Mr. Kostunica's victory and his support are not the result of Western influence. And although Milosevic had previously acknowledged that Mr. Kostunica had more votes, we learned yesterday afternoon that his pawns on the constitutional court declared that the September 24th elections were unconstitutional. This latest and most blatant attempt by Milosevic to thwart the will of the people is the final insult to the citizens of Yugoslavia. The citizens of Yugoslavia--through a constitutional election--have spoken. They have elected a new President. The Serb people, driven by a desire to live free from the dictatorship of Milosevic, have been pushed to take their election mandate by force. They are, at this very moment, engaged in a struggle to throw off the shackles of oppression. In light of these developments, I am prayerful that the Serb people will be able to enforce their will, and that they will remember their slogan--Samo, Sloga, Srbina, Spasava--and remain united at this very important time for freedom. I also pray that the Serb military and police forces will avoid bloodshed, recognizing that their brothers and sisters only seek the freedom that a tyrant has denied them. Let me be clear, Mr. President: this is not a revolution. The Serb people are enforcing the mandate of their election because this man who has been beaten refuses to relinquish power. He ought to understand that he's either going to walk out of there or go out on a stretcher or in a body bag. Mr. President, we in the United States must render our support to the Serb people immediately, and convince our allies and the nations of the world that Vojislav Kostunica is the new and legitimately elected leader of Serbia, and we need to convince Russia that they should immediately tell Milosevic that the game is over; it's time to go. Mr. President, we also need to assure the Serbian people--who have been long-standing friends of this nation and also our allies in World War II--that we are still their friends and that it is Milosevic who has been the problem, not the Serbian people. The Serb people need to know that with their new leader, Vojislav Kostunica, we will remove our sanctions against Serbia and help them re-invigorate their economy and re-establish their self-respect and the United States will welcome them into the light of freedom and a bright new chapter in Serbian history. Thank you Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to thank Senator Bob Smith of introducing the Environmental Streamlining Improvement Act today. Last month several of my colleagues on the Environmental and Public Works Committee, following a full committee hearing on the issue, requested that the Administration revise its proposed rules on environmental streamlining and transportation planning, taking into consideration comments already submitted on the proposed rules, and publish them in the Federal Register for an additional 120-day comment period. This legislation is being introduced today because the Administration has not responded to our request. In addition to requiring the Administration to consider public comments and to revise and re-propose rules on environmental streamlining and transportation planning, this legislation would prevent the Secretary of Transportation from finalizing the rules until May 1, 2001, and require a report on changes that were made to the revised rules. When I was Governor of Ohio, I witnessed first-hand the frustration of many of the various state agencies because they were required to complete a myriad of federally-required tasks on whatever project they initiated. With my background as a local and state official, I bring a unique perspective to this issue. While environmental review is good public policy, I believe that there are more efficient ways to ensure adequate and timely delivery of construction projects, while still carefully assessing environmental concerns. Congress recognized the frustration of the states and enacted planning and environmental provisions to initiate environmental streamlining and expedite project delivery. These programs are embodied in Sections 1308 and 1309 of TEA-21. Section 1308 calls for the integration of the Major Investment Study, which had been a separate requirement for major metropolitan projects, with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. Section 1309 of TEA-21 calls for the establishment of a coordinated review process for the Department of Transportation to work with other federal agencies to ensure that transportation projects are advanced according to cooperatively determined time-frames. This is accomplished by using concurrent rather than sequential reviews, and allows states to include state-specific environmental reviews in the coordinated process. Last year, I conducted two hearings as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure on streamlining and project delivery. During those hearings I stressed how important it is that the planning and environmental streamlining provisions of TEA-21 be implemented in a way that will streamline and expedite, not complicate, the process of delivering transportation projects. A year after these hearings and nearly two years after the passage of TEA-21, the Department of Transportation finally published its proposed planning and NEPA regulations on May 25, 2000. Frankly, I am very disappointed with how long it took to propose these rules, and I believe many of my colleagues feel the same way. More importantly, there is a lot of disappointment with the proposed rules in general. I strongly believe these proposed regulations are inconsistent with TEA-21 and Congressional intent and do little, if anything, to streamline and expedite the ability of states to commence transportation projects. The proposed rules create new mandates and requirements, add new decision-makers to the process, and provide endless fodder for all kinds of lawsuits, especially with regard to environmental justice. In Ohio, the process of highway construction has been dubbed: ``So you Want a Highway? Here's the Eight Year Hitch.'' My hope has been that in the future we could say ``So you Want a Highway? Here's the Five Year Hitch.'' I don't see that happening with the proposal we have before us. For that reason, I am very pleased Senator Smith has introduced this legislation today.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a sense-of- the-Senate resolution today to congratulate the people of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) for embracing democracy and the rule of law in the September 24, 2000 municipal, parliamentary and presidential elections. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Biden, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Hagel, Lugar, and Gordon Smith in this bipartisan effort. This resolution makes it clear that the Senate is eager to embrace a democratic government in Serbia that respects the rule of law, human rights, and a market economy. Milosevic's bloodletting, ethnic cleansing, and human rights violations have forced the international community, including the United States, to impose a number of crippling sanctions on the FRY. In the wake of the courageous September 24 vote, it is important to send a clear message to the Serbian people that the Senate intends to assist a democratic government and reintegrate it into the global marketplace. This resolution sends that message. The historic friendship between the American and Serbian people have suffered for too long. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues in the Senate to reestablish this important relationship by assisting a new government in Serbia recover from the destruction of Milosevic's rule.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Today the Senate will begin 45 minutes of debate on the H-1B visa bill, with a cloture vote on amendment No. 4178 scheduled to occur at 10:15. As a reminder, Senators have until 10:15 a.m. to file second-degree amendments at the desk. If cloture is invoked, the Senate will continue debate on the amendment. If cloture is not invoked, the Senate is expected to resume debate on the motion to proceed to S. 2557, the National Energy Security Act of 2000. Also this week, the Senate is expected to take up any appropriations conference reports available for action. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, in a few minutes we will vote on final passage of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. The bill is a product of months of hard work by the Committee on Environment and Public Works and the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure. I thank those Senators and staff members whose efforts have brought us where we are today. First, I thank Ellen Stein, Rich Worthington, and Karen Bachman of my staff for their dedicated effort on this bill. The number of hours they put in on this is unbelievable. I also thank my chairman, Bob Smith, and his staff for all their efforts in making this bill a reality, particularly in the very difficult negotiations on the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. My thanks to staff director Dave Conover, Tom Gibson, Stephanie Daigle, and Chelsea Henderson Maxwell for all the hard work they put in on this piece of legislation. As most successful bills in the Senate--and I am learning this pretty quickly as a new Member of the Senate--ours has been a product of bipartisanship. Senator Max Baucus and his staff, in putting this bill together, have put in long hours. I recognize the efforts of minority staff director Tom Sliter, Jo-Ellen Darcy, and Peter Washburn for the good work they did in putting this legislation together. I also acknowledge the work of Senator Bob Graham and Senator Connie Mack and their staff in helping to forge a consensus on the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. I suspect they looked at some of the things I was involved in as maybe getting in the way and holding things up, but I want them and their staff to know we were conscientiously trying to make this something we could all be proud of and get the support of the Senate. I particularly thank C.K. Lee of Senator Mack's staff and Catherine Cyr Ranson of Senator Graham's staff for their work. We know the essential role of the Senate Legislative Counsel's Office in helping to draft legislation. I thank Janine Johnson for her invaluable help. Again, I think so often we take for granted the terrific work these folks do in putting these bills together. Further, any water resources development bill involves the evaluations of hundreds of projects and proposals. We depend on the Corps of Engineers in supplying information and expertise in this process. Larry Prather and his staff at the Legislative Management Branch at the Corps have provided invaluable assistance to the Committee on Environment and Public Works and to this Senator. I give them the recognition they deserve. As I stated in my opening remarks, when we began debate on this legislation, I am proud of the work our committee and subcommittee have accomplished in putting together this bill. This is a disciplined bill that maintains the committee's commitment to the principles of high standards of engineering, economic, and environmental analysis, and adherence to cost-sharing principles and resistance to mission creep. This has not been an easy process, and we have not always agreed on the content of the legislation. But this effort has been marked throughout by cooperation and compromise. To me, this was highlighted dramatically in the negotiation over the bill's discussion of the relationship between Homestead Air Force Base and Everglades restoration. I particularly thank the environmental groups-- specifically, the National Resource Defense Council and the Sierra Club--for their critical roles in this effort. All in all, I think this is a well-balanced bill that provides authorization to a number of needed water development projects across this Nation. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 4188

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. I have many areas of my State that need to upgrade their water supply. They would love to have the Federal Government pick up the tab for part of it.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. VOINOVICH. Will the Senator from Montana yield for a question?

Mr. VOINOVICH. Yes.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise to support the Warner-Voinovich- Inhofe amendment regarding operation and maintenance of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. I join my colleagues in rejecting the current language contained in the legislation which unfairly grants the State of Florida a 50-percent non-Federal and 50-percent Federal cost share on the operation and maintenance of the Everglades project. I note this is even more generous than the administration's bill which provided for a 40-percent Federal share. This amendment is an issue of equity among all of the 50 States, where, to date, operation and maintenance has been a State and local responsibility. I remind my colleagues that the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers was that the operation and maintenance of the Everglades restoration project be 100-percent non-Federal, consistent with WRDA 1986 and national policy, as pointed out by my colleague from Virginia. The annual operation and maintenance costs for the construction features of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan currently contained in S. 2796 are $172 million per year. These operation and maintenance costs would be shared on a 50-50 basis, which means the Federal share of these costs would be almost $90 million. The current operation and maintenance appropriation nationally is about $1.8 billion. This means the Everglades operation and maintenance responsibility of the Corps could represent 5 percent of the total current national appropriation for operation and maintenance. The stark reality is that the Corps of Engineers is in no position to assume a large additional maintenance burden. By 2001, the Corps will have a backlog of critical maintenance nationwide of $450 million. Chart 1, which I have before the Senate, shows a breakdown of that backlog by project purposes. As my colleagues will note, 61 percent of the maintenance backlog is in navigation, both inland navigation on our rivers and maintenance dredging of our coastal harbors. The Corps is not meeting its critical needs today for the infrastructure we depend on for our increasingly trade-based economy. My colleagues should realize these unmet needs are in each of our States, not only in Florida but throughout the United States. Further, my colleagues can also see that maintenance of the flood control projects that are essential in protecting lives and property makes up a significant part of the backlog at 18 percent. Finally, I want to highlight recreation which is especially important to my colleagues from the West. The Corps is second among Federal agencies in recreation visitation to the land and water resources it manages. Many people associate the Corps with its lake projects, and yet the Corps does not have the resources it needs to meet its maintenance responsibilities at these projects. This next chart shows the maintenance shortfall by State as a percentage of the maintenance backlog. As one can see, California has the largest, followed by Florida and Louisiana. It is ironic to me that Florida is among the States already most severely impacted by the maintenance backlog whose situation is likely to become much more severe if the Corps takes on a larger portion of the operation and maintenance responsibility for the Everglades. I ask my colleague, Senator Graham, how do you believe the Corps will be able to meet the maintenance needs in Florida, such as dredging its harbors, maintaining its waterways, and operating portions of the central and south Florida project while taking on this additional $90-million-a-year maintenance burden? This last chart I have before the Senate shows a few examples of maintenance needs that are not being addressed in some of the other 49 States. The reason I bring these charts to my colleagues' attention is that this maintenance problem is not in a few States; it goes across the United States of America. Every Senator in some way is impacted because we do not have enough money for paying for the operation and maintenance on these projects. Operation and maintenance activities to accommodate the large influx of recreation visitors to Corps projects along the route of the Lewis and Clark exploration during its bicentennial celebration is underfunded. It deals with the Missouri River basin--the Dakotas, Montana, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska. How about the dredging in New York Harbor? That needs to be done. How about seismic studies on projects throughout the New England States which are not able to be done because we do not have enough money? How about recreation facilities in Oklahoma or flood protection in North and South Dakota? The point is, it is not a Florida issue. Adding to a maintenance burden that the Corps already cannot meet will impact all of us who have Corps-managed resources in our States. This is a matter of equity. The Senator from Virginia has spoken to that eloquently. We had it right in WRDA 1986. The operation and maintenance responsibility for new Corps of Engineers investments must rest with the non-Federal sponsors. We cannot afford at this time to deviate from principle. This is my first term in the Senate, but I have been here long enough to know that if we begin to make exceptions, there will be no end to it. We must stick to our principles, and that is why I am asking my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. VOINOVICH. We do not agree on that.