George Voinovich

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on drug costs during the session of the Senate on July 18, 2000.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight of the Committee on Finance authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 18, 2000, for a public hearing on Energy Tax Issues.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Subcommittee on Production and Price Competitiveness be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 18, 2000. The purpose of this meeting will be to examine the future of U.S. agricultural export programs.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 18, 2000, to conduct a hearing on ``S. 2733, the Affordable Housing for Seniors and Families Act.''

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 18, 2000, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a hearing.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 18, 2000, for purposes of conducting a Full Committee business meeting which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this business meeting is to consider pending calendar business.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, July 18, 2000, at 9:30 a.m. on Global Warming-- National Assessment on Climate Change.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, today the Senate will immediately resume debate on the Interior appropriations bill with Senators Feingold and Bingaman in control of 15 minutes each to offer and debate their amendments. Following that debate, at approximately 9:45, the Senate will proceed to rollcall votes on the remaining amendments to the Interior appropriations bill, as well as on the final passage. Following the disposition of the Interior appropriations bill, the Senate will begin the final four votes on the reconciliation bill. Therefore, Senators should be prepared to stay in the Chamber for up to 12 votes with all votes after the first limited to 10 minutes in length. As a reminder, the Senate will recess for the weekly party conferences from 12:30 to 2:15 p.m. For the remainder of the day, it is expected that the Senate will begin consideration of the Agriculture appropriations bill. I thank my colleagues for their cooperation. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, in the year-and-a-half that I have been in the Senate, I have taken several opportunities to come to the floor to talk about the need to reduce our national debt. Every chance I get, I remind my colleagues that we cannot let the excitement of having a record-high surplus allow us to lose sight of the fact that we must keep spending in check, and use our Social Security surplus and on-budget surplus dollars to pay down our $5.7 trillion national debt. I can't help but wonder why the media is quick to report that we have such tremendous surpluses, but is virtually silent when it comes to reporting that we have such a huge national debt. I think the people need to know that we have a 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 this year, 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. This debt didn't accumulate overnight. In fact, it took decades of misguided fiscal policies on the part of the Congress and the Executive Branch to get this way. But, fortunately, we have an opportunity, with our strong economy and low unemployment, to make some headway on paying down our debt. Nearly every family in America or every business owner in America, when they come into some extra money, would use that surplus money to pay off their loans, their credit cards, etc.--whatever debt they had accumulated. And that's precisely what the U.S. government should do. I don't think our Nation is any different from our families. If we have some extra money, we ought to get rid of the debt we are carrying on our back. As my colleagues know, because of the expanding economy, CBO's April surplus estimates showed that we had attained a $26 billion on-budget surplus in fiscal year 2000. And I would like to remind my colleagues that $22 billion of that $26 billion surplus was from payroll tax overpayments to the Medicare Trust Fund. However, of that $26 billion surplus amount, the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution assumed we would spend $14 billion of it. That left $12 billion, which I felt should be used for debt reduction, and so I sought to find a legislative remedy to have those funds allocated solely for the purpose of debt reduction. On June 15th, by a vote of 95-3, the Senate passed an amendment to the Transportation Appropriations bill that Senator Allard and I sponsored, directing the remaining $12 billion on-budget surplus to be used for debt reduction. It was a tremendous victory, but, recognizably short-lived. Over the last two months, Congress has spent $13.8 billion in an ``emergency'' supplemental appropriations package that was included as part of the Military Construction Appropriations Conference Report, and an additional $5.5 billion has been allocated for payments for another ``ag bailout'' bill with the passage of the Crop Insurance Reform package. Thus, nearly all but $4 billion of the $26 billion surplus has been spent, including just about all of the $22 billion in overpayments to the Medicare Trust Fund--money that we in Congress have been talking about ``lock-boxing'' to prevent it from being spent in just such a manner. With all this added spending, I would like to remind my colleagues that we are significantly raising discretionary spending this year--a habit Congress seems reluctant to break. For example, in fiscal year 1998, Congress spent $555 billion on discretionary spending. In fiscal year 1999 we increased discretionary spending to $575 billion--a 4% increase over that one year. In fiscal year 2000, if you factor in the emergency supplemental appropriations we approved two weeks ago, discretionary spending will be $618 billion. Compared to last year's $575 billion, if my figures are right, that is a 7.5% increase so far in discretionary spending. How many people in this country can say that they received a 7.5% pay increase from last year? This is outrageous, and all the more reason we can't allow spending to grow any further in FY 2000. When given the opportunity to spend more or bring down our national debt, Congress has to learn to make the tough choices--the fiscally prudent choices. Fortunately, we will have another opportunity to curb spending and make a dent in our national debt. Today, we have received the expected news from CBO that our fiscal year 2000 on-budget surplus has grown to $84 billion--$60 billion more than was projected in January. With such a large amount of on-budget surplus dollars at stake, I fear that, again, the temptation will be enormous to spend these dollars--and with even greater zeal than before. We must ignore the allure of spending these surpluses, and remember that the best thing we could do with these funds is use them to pay down the debt. For those of my colleagues who support tax cuts, I would like to remind them that the only thing that we can do with these FY 2000 surplus funds this year is use them to increase spending or pay down the national debt. That's it. They cannot be used for tax cuts because the fiscal year is almost over. I have recently read an excellent paper written by Peter B. Sperry, who is the Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs at the Heritage Foundation, regarding our obligation to use our surplus dollars to pay down our national debt. I believe each of my colleagues should read this compelling article, and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the article be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I agree with the conclusion that Mr. Sperry reaches in his paper, and that is, Congress needs to enact legislation that will automatically take the $60 billion windfall we just received for fiscal year 2000 and use it to pay down the debt. The bill that Mr. Sperry says that Congress needs to pass is H.R. 4601, the Debt Reduction Reconciliation Act of 2000. Fortunately, on June 20th, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 4601, by a vote of 419-5. An overwhelming majority--just think of it. I have reviewed this bill, and I believe H.R. 4601 is our last hope to pass meaningful debt-reduction legislation this year. That is why I asked that this bill be held at the desk and put on the Senate's calendar, instead of being sent to Committee. We must consider this legislation now, and we need to let the American people know that Congress is serious about reducing the national debt and not merely paying lip-service towards that goal. In particular, the bill establishes an off-budget account at the U.S. Treasury that would be called the Public Debt Reduction Payment Account. Any funds that are over the amount specified in CBO's January surplus estimate of $24 billion would be transferred to the Account, where they would be automatically used to reduce the debt. Thus, $60 billion in on-budget surplus funds for FY 2000 would be directed towards debt reduction. My fear is that before any of the extra FY 2000 funds actually go towards debt reduction, Congress and the President--especially the President--will say, ``well, we've got the money, let's spend it and get out of town.'' But Mr. President, that's definitely not how it should work. We have a moral obligation to use this money to pay down the debt, and I would like to read a quote from General Accounting Office (GAO) Comptroller General David Walker that hits the nail right on the head regarding that obligation. In testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee last year, Mr. Walker said: This generation has a stewardship responsibility to future generations to reduce the debt burden they inherit, to provide a strong foundation for future economic growth, and to ensure that future commitments are both adequate and affordable. Prudence requires making the tough choices today while the economy is healthy and the workforce is relatively large--before we are hit by the baby boom's demographic tidal wave. To me, the most important thing that we can do on behalf of our children and our grandchildren is to remove the yoke of this debt burden from their backs. If we do so, it will strike a blow for their future and for the future of our nation. It is the responsibility of the House and the Senate to ``stop the hemorrhaging of spending'' by agreeing to let the remaining on-budget surplus for FY 2000 go towards paying down the national debt. H.R. 4601 will meet that challenge, and it is now up to the Senate to pass this bill. Let's get it done, Mr. President, and let's get it done now. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Exhibit I [From The Heritage Foundation, June 13, 2000] How To Protect the Surplus From Wasteful Spending (By Peter B. Sperry) Although most Americans assume that a federal budget surplus in any year is automatically used to reduce the national debt, or at least the debt held by the public, this actually is not the case. The U.S. Department of the Treasury must implement specific financial accounting procedures if it is to use a cash surplus to pay down the debt held by the public. If these procedures are not followed, or if they proceed slowly, then the surplus revenue just builds up in the Treasury's operating cash accounts. This excess cash could be used in the future to further reduce the debt, but only if it is protected from other uses in the meantime. Until the excess cash is formally committed to debt repayment, Congress could appropriate it for other purposes. Consequently, the current surplus will not automatically reduce the publicly held national debt of $3.54 trillion unless Congress acts now to make sure these funds are automatically used for debt reduction and for no other purpose. There is a parallel to this in household finance. When a family with a large mortgage, credit card debt, and several student loans receives an unexpected financial windfall, it usually deposits the funds in a checking account and takes a little time to consider how best to allocate the revenue-- whether to refinance the mortgage, pay off credit cards, or establish a rainy day fund. Meanwhile, the family's debt remains, and will not be reduced until the family formally transfers funds to one or more of its creditors. If the family does not take some action in the interim to wall off the cash, it often ends up frittering away the money on new purchases, and the debt remains. The federal government faces a similar situation. Surplus revenues are accumulating in the Treasury Department's operating cash accounts faster than the Bureau of the Public Debt can efficiently dedicate them to reducing the public debt. Consequently, surplus balances in these accounts have reached historic levels, and they are likely to accumulate even faster as the size of the surplus grows. Unless Congress takes formal action to protect these funds, they are available to be used or misused at anytime in the appropriations process. Fortunately, the House soon will consider a bill (H.R. 4601) that would protect the budget surplus from being raided by appropriations until prudent decisions can be made about its use.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I also thank the Senator from West Virginia. He has done a good job of explaining why this amendment is not well taken and not good public policy. As Governor of the State of Ohio, I worked to increase our share of highway funding from 79 cents to 87 cents in ISTEA to 90.5 cents in TEA-21. As Chairman of the National Governors' Association, I helped negotiate TEA-21, which provides some substantial support for highway construction and maintenance in this country. It gave us a predictable, reliable source of revenue to get the job done. That's why this proposal really doesn't make sense: it jeopardizes that funding. If this Senate rejected the proposal earlier this year to reduce the gas tax by 4.3 cents, certainly we should reject any proposal that would reduce it by 18.4 cents. One point I would like to make is that the real problem we have in this country is that we do not, as Senator Byrd pointed out, have an energy policy. That is the problem. Reducing this gas tax by 18.4 cents really is not going to do anything to correct that problem in the long- term, and it would take the attention of the Senate away from the real issue here, which is, this country does not have an energy policy. I want to point out one other thing. Under this amendment, we would reduce the gas tax and make it up by using the general revenue fund, the surplus. If I am not mistaken, some of my colleagues would like to use that surplus for proposed tax reductions and some would like to increase spending on various programs. It has been the tradition in this country that people who use the highways pay for them through the gas tax and not with the general fund of the United States of America. It seems to me that those of my colleagues who propose to use the on- budget surplus for health care or for other things, including tax relief, would be offended by that. I think this amendment is bad public policy and I hope it will be defeated overwhelmingly. I thank the Chair.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, on June 30, the Senate passed S. 2553, the Fiscal Year 2001 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill, by a vote of 52-43. I voted against this measure because of my belief that it provides an unjustified increase in federal spending and employs a variety of gimmicks that are meant to hide the true size of its costs. As my colleague from Texas, Senator Gramm, recently pointed out, the fiscal year 2001 Labor-HHS bill increases discretionary spending by more than 20 percent when compared to last year's bill. As it is, this is incredible growth in discretionary spending; however, to truly emphasize the enormity of this increase, my colleagues should consider that this growth in spending is roughly 10 times the current rate of inflation. The bill hides this massive increase in discretionary spending by using a variety of gimmicks. First, it proposes to offset the new spending by making cuts in crucial mandatory programs, such as the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG), the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). After a number of colleagues and I expressed our concern over using these programs as spending offsets, Appropriations Committee Chairman Stevens pledged his support to vitiate these cuts when the Labor-HHS bill is considered in Conference. While I commend Chairman Stevens for his commitment to restoring these funds, it is my belief that the Appropriations Committee never should have tapped into these programs in the first place. It is my hope that the Conferees will, as they remove these offsets, look to decrease the overall level of discretionary spending in the bill rather than search for other sources. Second, the bill moves up by 3 days the first Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payment date of Fiscal Year 2001 so that it falls, instead, in Fiscal Year 2000. Although such a change sounds innocuous, the ramifications of this action are tremendous. As my colleagues know, the start of the next fiscal year begins on October 1, 2000. By moving the first SSI payment date of the year a few days earlier, it will fall in the waning days of fiscal year 2000 and be paid for out of the fiscal year 2000 on-budget surplus. The end result of this gimmick is that not only does it increase spending in FY 2000 by $2.4 billion, which is, by the way, money I would rather see go to debt reduction. But it also frees up another $2.4 billion in Fiscal Year 2001 for Congress to spend. Finally, despite the fact that the bill increases discretionary spending by a whopping 20 percent, it still fails to prioritize and target resources towards those programs that are the responsibility of the federal government, such as fully funding our commitment under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The high cost of educating disabled students continues to place a heavy burden on our local school districts. If the federal government met its obligation to fund IDEA at the level it promised in 1975, local communities would have resources left over to fund their own education priorities. Instead, this appropriations bill, while increasing funding for IDEA by $1.31 billion over last year's bill and by $984 million above President Clinton's request, does not make enough progress on IDEA. Before the federal government increases spending on new programs, it should be fully funding its promise to supply up to 40 percent of the cost of educating disabled children. Mr. President, what Congress has done in this Labor-HHS bill proves that we must face facts: Congress is addicted to spending. We will use any gimmick, any trick, any scheme we can think of to spend money. Often, it is for things that we don't need, things that are not a federal responsibility or things that we cannot afford. Instead of using cuts in mandatory programs and accounting shifts to pay for massive increases in discretionary programs, we need to prioritize our spending and make the hard choices when necessary. We have used budgetary shenanigans far too often to obfuscate the size of spending increases, and it is long past time for this practice to end. It is for these reasons, Mr. President, that I felt compelled to vote against the Labor-HHS Appropriations bill, and I do not believe that I am alone in my concerns regarding this legislation. It is my sincere hope that when the conferees meet to put together the final version of this legislation, they will consider and address the items that I have mentioned. Mr. President, I also would like to take this opportunity to voice my concern over the conference report to H.R. 4425, the Military Construction Appropriations bill, which the Senate approved on June 30 by a voice vote. If it had been the subject of a roll call vote, I would have voted against final passage of this bill. My concern with this legislation does not rest with the Military Construction portion of the conference report. Indeed, I voted for the bill when it originally came before the Senate in May. Rather, my concern lies with what was added to the bill since the time the Senate first passed it. While in conference, the Military Construction Appropriations bill became the vehicle to which Fiscal Year 2000 emergency supplemental appropriations were attached. In times of true emergency, Mr. President, I believe that Congress has an obligation to ensure that supplemental funds are provided to cover unexpected expenses. That is why I have no objection to providing emergency funds for our operations in Kosovo and to those unfortunate Americans who have been the victims of natural disasters. However, I do not believe that we should provide emergency funding for items that are not true emergencies in an effort to avoid budget rules. Unfortunately, that is precisely what H.R. 4425 does. This bill provides taxpayer dollars for such ``emergencies'' as the winter Olympic Games, a sea life center in Alaska and a new top-of-the-line Gulfstream jet aircraft for the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard. In recent years, we have seen remarkable growth in the use of emergency designations as a way to bypass the spending caps so that Congress can avoid making tough choices. Fiscal year 2000 is certainly no exception. In fact, we will be setting a new record for ``emergency'' spending in this fiscal year with a final tally of more than $40 billion. I should also add, Mr. President, that H.R. 4425 speeds up government paydays and uses other accounting shifts to move nearly $12 billion of fiscal year 2001 spending into fiscal year 2000. Just as with the Labor-HHS Appropriations Bill, the conference committee used this gimmick in order to free up an additional $12 billion for Congress to spend in Fiscal Year 2001. Mr. President, rather than devising new, more ingenious ways to avoid fiscal discipline, we should be endeavoring to restore honesty and integrity to the congressional budget process. As I have stated on previous occasions, if any American was to cook his or her books the way the federal government does, that individual no doubt would be sent to jail very quickly. We cannot continue to apply a double standard. We must live within our means, delineate responsibility between the state and local governments and the federal government and pay for those items accordingly, and for Heaven's sake, if we have any on-budget surplus funds, use those funds to pay down the National Debt. I will continue to monitor the progress of the remaining appropriations bills, and I encourage my colleagues to work with me to make sure that we spend federal tax dollars wisely. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

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

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, before I speak on this amendment I sent to the desk, I would like to say just a couple of words in regard to the point of order the Senator from Texas has just made. I was one of the Members of the Senate who worked with the Senator from Texas to place in the budget resolution certain points of order which we believed we needed to have to make sure spending did not increase more than what the budget resolution provided for. His point of order is directed at exactly what we were concerned about. It is what I might refer to, in all due respect, as a gimmick. In considering the 2001 budget, money that was put into the FY 2001 budget is being moved back into the 2000 budget in order to make available $2.4 billion more than could be spent otherwise. What does that mean? That means that when you shove the cost back into the year 2000, you are going to use $2.4 billion of the on-budget surplus that many of us recently voted to use to pay down the national debt. When we put a budget resolution together, at least--I thought it meant something. One of the things that disturbed me last year was that, at the end of the game, we did all kinds of things to exceed what we had originally anticipated to spend. So here we are today, trying to do the same kind of thing we did at the end of last year. I think this Senate should sustain the point of order; that we ought to live by the budget resolution we agreed to earlier this year, and that the committee should make the hard choices. One of the things that was brought up is that in order to pay for many of the new increases in spending in new programs, mandatory programs were cut, mandatory programs that I think are fundamental. Things such as the social services block grant, things such as the CHIP program. I have been told they will be taken care of later on. My belief is that if we have a budget resolution and we agree to spend a certain amount of money, we ought to live within that budget resolution. I hope we sustain the point of order. Mr. President, few will dispute that each and every child in this Nation deserves to be able to obtain a quality education, a fact Congress recognized 25 years ago when it passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Since that time, IDEA has helped ensure that all students, regardless of their disability, are able to receive the educational services they need in order to attend their local school. In my State of Ohio, IDEA has helped thousands of young men and women go beyond their disabilities and obtain a quality education. Thanks to IDEA, Ohio students with debilitating problems like Cerebral Palsy and autism have been able to receive help in reading and writing from special education teachers. They can use programs like Dragon Dictate--a speech recognition program that can be used to control a word processor-- in order to help them better understand their school work. Before IDEA, these children would have been virtually forgotten elements in our education system. With IDEA, these children are in school, they are learning and they are growing. And IDEA doesn't just help disabled students. Alexandra Shannon, a 16 year old student from Beavercreek, OH, believes that ``enhanced educational opportunities help everyone.'' In a meeting with one of my staff members just a few months ago, she told of her friend, Peter, who had learned to walk at school with the help of his schoolmates. The entire school was brought closer together by the experience that Alexandra called, the ``joy of the year.'' However, even with all the success of IDEA across the Nation, the fact remains that the cost to implement this program is draining money from our schools and significantly impeding the ability of State and local educators to fund their own priorities--priorities that include some of the items my colleagues here in the Senate think should be funded at the Federal level. The cost of serving a handicapped student is typically twice as much as the average amount spent per pupil, while in some school districts, the cost is higher still. Think of this. In Centerville, OH, Centerville High School superintendent, Frank DePalma estimates that in his school, special education services cost 4 to 5 times as much as do services for nonhandicapped students. He said: Costs for services such as occupational therapy, speech therapy and physical therapy continue to skyrocket. Indeed, the Cincinnati Post wrote in an editorial just 2 months ago that the city's public schools spend: $40.3 million a year on disabilities education. That's nearly 11% of its $365 million budget. That is 11 percent of their budget. Many school districts recognize that students with disabilities require different, and often, expensive needs. They want to help their students, but they also need and want the financial help that the Federal Government has promised. As many of my colleagues may recall, when IDEA was passed in 1975, 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. To date, the most that Washington has provided to our school districts under IDEA is 12.6 percent of the educational costs for each handicapped child; and that was in fiscal year 2000. The remainder of the cost for IDEA still falls on State and local governments. Because the Federal Government has not lived up to its commitment, IDEA amounts to a huge unfunded Federal mandate. When I was Governor of Ohio, I fought hard for passage of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act in 1995 so that circumstances like this could be avoided in the future. And just how large an unfunded mandate has IDEA become? In fiscal year 2000, Congress allocated almost $5 billion for special education for school-age children. If we had funded IDEA at the 40 percent level that Congress had promised in 1975, we would have allocated $15.6 billion in fiscal year 2000 rather than $4.9 billion. In essence, a $10.7 billion unfunded mandate was passed along to our State and local governments for IDEA. And that is on top of the 60 percent--or $23.3 billion--for which they are already responsible. So, for a federally created program, our State and local governments' ``share'' in this fiscal year will amount to $34 billion out of a total of $38.9 billion. Indeed, Mr. R. Kirk Hamilton from Southwestern City School, Grove City, OH has written to me, stating that IDEA is: an enormous, unfunded mandate which is so expensive and so cumbersome that the funds are not available to deliver needed services to children. Mr. President, that is just wrong. For all programs under IDEA, the President of the United States assumes an expenditure of $6.3 billion in fiscal year 2001. That is only a $332 million increase from the $6 billion level of funding in fiscal year 2000. However, the President's fiscal year 2001 budget contained a whopping $40.1 billion in discretionary education spending. 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. Where is that money going? Think of that. Where is it going? It is important to understand that the White House and some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are very good at reading polls. They see that education is of high interest to the American people. Even though the Federal Government only provides 7 percent of the funds for education in this country, the White House and these same colleagues consider themselves, sometimes, I think, to be members of a national school board. They have other, new priorities that they believe Washington should fund instead of providing additional funding for the federally created IDEA--programs like school construction, afterschool programs, hiring more teachers, improving technology and training in schools, and creating community learning centers. They are all great ideas. They are important initiatives, but they are the responsibility of our States and local communities. Of course, the politically expedient thing to do is to support funding for all these programs at the federal level; it makes us look as if we are ``for'' education. They are high in the polls. Nevertheless, I believe in the delineation of Federal and State responsibility, and increased funding for IDEA is a Federal responsibility. It is one that we mandated on the school districts. It is part of our responsibility. We said we would pay for 40 percent of it. It is about time we paid for 40 percent of it, rather than going off on a lot of new initiatives. During our debate on the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution, I offered, and this body adopted, by a vote of 53-47, an amendment stating that before we fund new education programs, we should make funds available for IDEA. The amendment that I am offering today makes good on the commitment we made in the budget resolution. Specifically, my amendment would give local education agencies the flexibility to take $2.7 billion of Federal money under title VI of this appropriations bill and spend it on IDEA, if they choose. In other words, we are saying that school districts, if they choose, can use new money for IDEA. If the Federal Government was fully funding IDEA, most of the education initiatives my colleagues are proposing--school construction, afterschool programs--could be and likely would be taken care of at the State and local level. That is how our State and local education leaders want it. In February, with the help of the Ohio School Board Association and the Buckeye Association of School Administrators, I contacted Ohio teachers, superintendents, and educational leaders from urban, suburban, and rural districts in every part of Ohio to ask what they would prefer: a full Federal commitment to IDEA or new Federal funding initiatives. More than 90 percent of the responses I received so far have shown that Ohio's education community leaders prefer a full commitment to IDEA over new programs. I am confident this same poll conducted in other States would produce a similar result. Let me read a few responses I received. Mr. Philip Warner, Superintendent of Ravenna City School wrote: I believe school districts would benefit the most if Congress met its obligations under IDEA, therefore allowing school districts to fund programs that would be specific in each school district. David VanLeer, Director of Pupil Services, Euclid City Schools, right across the street from where I live: Congress should honor that pledge to provide 40 percent of the cost of IDEA before any new programs are funded. Doreen Binnie, speech language pathologist at Colombia local School District responded, ``Absolutely,'' to the question of whether Congress should fund IDEA before new programs. We must stop acting as if we are the Nation's school board, trying to fund every education program possible. The truth is, many of the programs that Members of Congress and the President want to enact should be funded at the State and local level. In my view, those programs would have a better chance of being funded if State and local governments didn't have to divert such a large percentage of their funds to pay for IDEA. The Federal Government has a commitment to IDEA and that commitment should be fully honored. I believe our State and local leaders should be given the flexibility they need to spend new Federal education dollars that are allocated under this bill to honor the commitment of IDEA. I appreciate the fact that the appropriations committee provided increased money for IDEA in this budget. The fact is, we should say to our local school districts that with the $2.7 billion which is allocated in title VI one of the options we should give them is to fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank the Senator.

Mr. VOINOVICH. That is correct.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, and I am pleased that my colleagues Senator Bob Smith, Environment and Public Works Committee chairman and Senator Max Baucus, ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee have joined as co-sponsors of this bill. The Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA2000) is the culmination of four hearings that the Committee on Environment and Public Works has held regarding a number of different water resources development issues and projects. The cornerstone of this year's WRDA bill will be the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, however, the bill that I am introducing today does not contain an Everglades Restoration Title. That title will be added as an amendment to this bill by Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Bob Smith when the full Committee marks-up WRDA 2000 on Wednesday, June 28, 2000. Some of my colleagues may question the need for a water resources bill this year since Congress passed a WRDA bill just last year. In reality, last year's bill was actually unfinished business from the 105th Congress, and if Congress is to get back on its two year cycle for passage of WRDA legislation, we need to act on a bill this year. The two year cycle is important to avoid long delays between the planning and execution of projects and to meet Federal commitments to state and local governments partners who share the costs of these projects with the Federal government. While the two year authorization cycle is extremely important in maintaining efficient schedules for completion of water resources projects, efficient schedules also depend on adequate appropriations. The appropriation of funds for the Corps' program has not been adequate and, as a result, there is a backlog of over 500 projects that will cost the federal government $38 billion to complete. I believe these are worthy projects with positive benefit-to-cost ratios and capable non-Federal sponsors. Nevertheless, the inability to provide adequate funding for these projects means that project construction schedules are spread out over a longer period of time, resulting in increased construction costs and delays in achieving project benefits. Mr. President, I recognize that budget allocations and Corps appropriations are beyond the purview of the authorization package that I am introducing today, but I believe that the backlog issue should impact the way we approach WRDA2000 in three very important ways. First, we need to control the mission creep of the Corps of Engineers. I am not convinced that there is a Corps role in water and sewage plant construction, and I am pleased to report that the bill that I am introducing today contains no authorizations for environmental infrastructure, such as wastewater treatment plants or combined sewer overflow systems. Another example is the brownfields remediation authority proposed by the White House for the Corps. Brownfield remediation is a very important issue. It is a big problem in my state of Ohio and I am working to remove federal impediments to State cleanups. Having said that, I do not believe this is a mission of the Corps of Engineers, and the bill that I am introducing today does not contain authority for the Corps to be involved in brownfields remediation. We need to recognize and address the large unmet national needs within the traditional Corps mission areas: needs such as flood control, navigation and the emerging mission area of restoration of nationally significant environmental resources like the Florida Everglades. The second thing that we need to do is to make sure that the projects Congress authorizes meet the highest standard of engineering, economic and environmental analysis. We must be sure that these projects and project modifications make maximum net contributions to economic development and environmental quality. We can only assure that projects meet these high standards if projects have received adequate study and evaluation to establish project costs, benefits, and environmental impacts to an appropriate level of confidence. This means that a feasibility report must be completed before projects are authorized for construction. Thus, WRDA 2000 only contains projects which have completed feasibility reports. Finally, we have to preserve the partnerships and cost sharing principles of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. WRDA '86 established the principle that water resources project should be accomplished in partnerships with states and local governments and that this partnership should involve significant financial participation by the non-federal sponsors. This bill contains no cost share changes. My experience as Mayor of Cleveland and Governor of Ohio convinced me that the requirement for local funding to match federal dollars results in much better projects than where Federal funds are simply handed out. Whether it's parks, housing, highways, or water resources projects, the requirement for a local cost share provides a level of accountability that is essential to a quality project. Cost sharing principles must not be weakened, and I am pleased to report that they are not in this legislation. Mr. President, the bill that I am introducing today ensures that we only commit to those projects that are properly within the purview of the Corps of Engineers, it provides that each project meets the necessary criteria for federal involvement and it preserves the cost- sharing arrangement with state and local sponsors that has been in place for more than a decade. It is a responsible approach to meeting our nation's water resources needs, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance the goals of this legislation. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, and I am pleased that my colleagues Senator Bob Smith, Environment and Public Works Committee chairman and Senator Max Baucus, ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee have joined as co-sponsors of this bill. The Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA2000) is the culmination of four hearings that the Committee on Environment and Public Works has held regarding a number of different water resources development issues and projects. The cornerstone of this year's WRDA bill will be the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, however, the bill that I am introducing today does not contain an Everglades Restoration Title. That title will be added as an amendment to this bill by Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Bob Smith when the full Committee marks-up WRDA 2000 on Wednesday, June 28, 2000. Some of my colleagues may question the need for a water resources bill this year since Congress passed a WRDA bill just last year. In reality, last year's bill was actually unfinished business from the 105th Congress, and if Congress is to get back on its two year cycle for passage of WRDA legislation, we need to act on a bill this year. The two year cycle is important to avoid long delays between the planning and execution of projects and to meet Federal commitments to state and local governments partners who share the costs of these projects with the Federal government. While the two year authorization cycle is extremely important in maintaining efficient schedules for completion of water resources projects, efficient schedules also depend on adequate appropriations. The appropriation of funds for the Corps' program has not been adequate and, as a result, there is a backlog of over 500 projects that will cost the federal government $38 billion to complete. I believe these are worthy projects with positive benefit-to-cost ratios and capable non-Federal sponsors. Nevertheless, the inability to provide adequate funding for these projects means that project construction schedules are spread out over a longer period of time, resulting in increased construction costs and delays in achieving project benefits. Mr. President, I recognize that budget allocations and Corps appropriations are beyond the purview of the authorization package that I am introducing today, but I believe that the backlog issue should impact the way we approach WRDA2000 in three very important ways. First, we need to control the mission creep of the Corps of Engineers. I am not convinced that there is a Corps role in water and sewage plant construction, and I am pleased to report that the bill that I am introducing today contains no authorizations for environmental infrastructure, such as wastewater treatment plants or combined sewer overflow systems. Another example is the brownfields remediation authority proposed by the White House for the Corps. Brownfield remediation is a very important issue. It is a big problem in my state of Ohio and I am working to remove federal impediments to State cleanups. Having said that, I do not believe this is a mission of the Corps of Engineers, and the bill that I am introducing today does not contain authority for the Corps to be involved in brownfields remediation. We need to recognize and address the large unmet national needs within the traditional Corps mission areas: needs such as flood control, navigation and the emerging mission area of restoration of nationally significant environmental resources like the Florida Everglades. The second thing that we need to do is to make sure that the projects Congress authorizes meet the highest standard of engineering, economic and environmental analysis. We must be sure that these projects and project modifications make maximum net contributions to economic development and environmental quality. We can only assure that projects meet these high standards if projects have received adequate study and evaluation to establish project costs, benefits, and environmental impacts to an appropriate level of confidence. This means that a feasibility report must be completed before projects are authorized for construction. Thus, WRDA 2000 only contains projects which have completed feasibility reports. Finally, we have to preserve the partnerships and cost sharing principles of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. WRDA '86 established the principle that water resources project should be accomplished in partnerships with states and local governments and that this partnership should involve significant financial participation by the non-federal sponsors. This bill contains no cost share changes. My experience as Mayor of Cleveland and Governor of Ohio convinced me that the requirement for local funding to match federal dollars results in much better projects than where Federal funds are simply handed out. Whether it's parks, housing, highways, or water resources projects, the requirement for a local cost share provides a level of accountability that is essential to a quality project. Cost sharing principles must not be weakened, and I am pleased to report that they are not in this legislation. Mr. President, the bill that I am introducing today ensures that we only commit to those projects that are properly within the purview of the Corps of Engineers, it provides that each project meets the necessary criteria for federal involvement and it preserves the cost- sharing arrangement with state and local sponsors that has been in place for more than a decade. It is a responsible approach to meeting our nation's water resources needs, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance the goals of this legislation. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Jim Collins, editor of the Willoughby, Ohio, News-Herald newspaper on the occasion of his 50 years in journalism. From an early age, Jim had newspaper ink flowing through his veins. By the time he was 12, he was working as a paper boy for the News- Herald, delivering the twice-weekly paper to homes all over town. It's hard to imagine today, but subscribers paid just six cents a week for the News-Herald back in 1941. After graduating from Kent State University in 1950, Jim was hired as a full-time reporter for the News-Herald. He served in this capacity until 1952, when Jim answered the call of his government and served a two-year tour of duty in the Army. When Jim returned to Willoughby, he resumed his duty as a reporter for the News-Herald until 1959. That year, the News-Herald's owners asked Jim to manage two other papers that they owned, the Parma News and the Brooklyn News. Jim became the one-person operation for both papers for 15 months whereupon he returned to the News-Herald. By 1967, Jim had worked his way up to become editor of the newspaper. In fact, throughout his tenure with the News-Herald, Jim has held a variety of editorial positions including assistant editor, city editor, managing editor and executive editor. All throughout his career, Jim has accumulated a number of well- deserved awards, including the Associated Press of Ohio's first place award for commentary in 1982, the first place award for column writing in 1991, and the first place award for editorial commentary just two years ago. Jim has also been named the 1987 Willoughby Chamber of Commerce's Distinguished Citizen of the Year and received the Lake Parks Foundation award in 1994. I have always said that the measure of a person can be determined by the work he or she does individually, or through the organizations to which he or she belongs, that benefit others. Jim has given of himself to numerous organizations having served as the chairman of the West End-YMCA board of managers and president of the Lake County YMCA. He is also a member of the Willoughby Rotary Club, Willoughby School of Fine Arts, the Lake County Blue Coats, the Willoughby Jaycees and several area chambers of commerce. Jim is also the first person to become an honorary lifetime member of the Lake County Police Chiefs Association and is a member of the Cleveland Foundation Lake-Geauga Fund Committee. Jim is a true man of integrity, and it is his integrity that has earned him the respect of journalists and politicians across the state. He can be brutally honest, but he is always fair and he is never afraid to tell the truth. It is his character that has allowed him to remain in journalism for five decades. Throughout his years with the News-Herald, he has worked to put together one of the most competitive papers in northeastern Ohio. Jim provides his readers a broader level of reporting than most regional papers, paying attention not only to local news, but to state and national news as well. Because of his leadership, circulation has grown. In addition, Jim's initiative has allowed for the creation of a forum for candidates--in conjunction with Lakeland Community College-- that makes available to the public where candidates stand on particular issues. While some may think that 50 years in the newspaper business is enough for any person, Jim is not slowing down and is by no means even close to retiring. That's good news, because I would have a very hard time imagining the News-Herald without Jim. I have enjoyed working with Jim and I look forward to working with him for many more years to come. Mr. President, Jim Collins has been a real friend to me in all the years that I have known him. He has been an inspiration to me and so many others throughout his life and his career. I congratulate him for his dedication to the citizens of Ohio and for his 50 years of accomplishments in journalism. He has much to be proud of, and I consider myself very lucky to know him. I wish him many more years of success. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, on June 6th, Senator DeWine and I introduced legislation to help the Department of Defense move ahead towards addressing their future workforce needs. Our bill, the Department of Defense Civilian Workforce Realignment Act of 2000, gives the Department of Defense the necessary flexibility to adequately manage its civilian workforce and align its human capital to meet the demands of the post-cold war environment. The amendment that Senator DeWine and I are offering today adds the modified language of our bill to this DOD authorization bill so that the U.S. military can more adequately prepare for tomorrow's challenges. Mr. President, before I speak on the amendment itself, I would like to discuss the human capital crisis that is confronting the Federal Government. Since July of last year, the Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee, which I chair, has held six hearings on federal workforce issues. Some of the issues we have examined include management reform initiatives, Federal employee training needs and the effectiveness of employee incentive programs. One point that I have emphasized at each of these hearings is that the employees of the Federal Government should be treated as its most valued resource. In reality, Mr. President, Federal employees and human capital management have been long overlooked. In fact, this past March, Comptroller General David Walker testified before the Oversight Subcommittee that the government's human capital management systems could earn the GAO's ``high-risk'' designation in January 2001. While there are several reasons why the Federal Government's human capital management is in such disarray, there are suggestions that an improper execution of government downsizing has played a larger role than has been previously recognized. Walker stated that ``(GAO's) reviews have found, for example, that a lack of adequate strategic and workforce planning during the initial rounds of downsizing by some agencies may have affected their ability to achieve organizational missions. Some agencies reported that downsizing in general led to such negative effects as a loss of institutional memory and an increase in work backlogs. Although [GAO] found that an agency's planning for downsizing improved as their downsizing efforts continued, it is by no means clear that the current workforce is adequately balanced to properly execute agencies' missions today, nor that adequate plans are in place to ensure the appropriate balance in the future.'' Furthermore, the Comptroller General testified that it appeared that many Federal agencies had cut back on training as they were downsizing; the very time they should have been expanding their training budgets and activities to better ensure that their remaining employees were able to effectively do their jobs. While the problems associated with the downsizing of the last decade are becoming more apparent, the United States is faced with an even greater potential threat to the Government's human capital situation in this decade--massive numbers of retirements of Federal employees. By 2004, 32 percent of the Federal workforce will be eligible for regular retirement, and an additional 21 percent will be eligible for early retirement. That's a potential loss of over 900,000 experienced employees. Mr. President, any other public- or private-sector manager who faced the loss of more than half of his or her workforce would recognize that immediate action was necessary to ensure the long-term viability of their business or organization. And over the next few years, the United States must seriously address this growing human capital crisis in the Federal Government workforce. It will not be easy--years of downsizing and hiring freezes have taken their toll, as will a pending retirement- exodus for ``baby boomer'' Federal employees. Add to that the lure of a strong private sector economy drawing more young workers away from government service, and the Federal Government will only find it harder to attract and retain the technology-savvy workforce that will be necessary to run the government in the 21st Century. To meet this challenge, Senator DeWine and I are offering this amendment that will help one critical department of our Federal Government--the Department of Defense--get a head start in addressing their future workforce needs. As I stated earlier, this amendment gives the Department of Defense the latitude it needs to manage its civilian workforce as well as re-shape its human capital for the 21st century. What the Defense Department is able to accomplish via this amendment may serve as a model for use throughout the government. During the last decade, the Defense Department underwent a massive civilian workforce downsizing program that saw a cut of more than 280,000 positions. In addition, the Defense Department--like other Federal departments--was subject to hiring restrictions. Taken together, these two factors have inhibited the development of mid-level career, civilian professionals within the DOD. The extent of this problem is exhibited in the fact that right now, the Department is seriously understaffed in certain key occupations, such as computer experts and foreign language specialists. The lack of such professionals has the potential to affect the Defense Department's ability to respond effectively and rapidly to threats to our national security. Our amendment will assist the Department in shaping the ``skills mix'' of the current workforce in order to address shortfalls brought about by years of downsizing, and to meet the need for new skills in emerging technological and professional areas. In testimony before the Oversight Subcommittee, Comptroller General Walker recognized the need for such actions, noting that, ``(I)n cutting back on the hiring of new staff in order to reduce the number of their employees, agencies also reduced the influx of new people with the new competencies needed to sustain excellence.'' So what will workforce shaping mean to the Department of Defense? In the United States Air Force, workforce shaping will allow the Air Force research labs to meet changing requirements in their mission. For example, at Brooks Air Force Base in San Antonio, they need fewer psychologists and more aerospace engineers; at Rome Air Force Base in Rome, New York, they need computer scientists rather than operations research analysts; and at Wright-Patterson Air Force Based in Dayton, Ohio, they need more materials engineers rather than physicists. Also, at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, there is a need to move from the mechanical/aeronautical engineering skills that their senior engineers possess to skills that are more focused on emerging technologies in electrical engineering, such as space operations, lasers, optics, advanced materials and directed energy fields. Changing the skills requirements at Wright-Patterson will help the Base meet their needs for the next 10 to 15 years. The U.S. Army Materiel Command determined that employees at two of its locations--St. Louis, Missouri and Chambersburg, Pennsylvania-- possessed the wrong computer skills to meet the Army's new information technology requirements. Switching from COBAL to a more commercially- oriented computer language, the Army found that their employee's skills did not match the new requirements, nor were their skills readily transferable. Subsequently, this mission was contracted to a private company. Almost 450 Federal jobs were eliminated with many of those scheduled for involuntary separation by reduction in force. If Voluntary Separation Incentive Pay (VSIP) had been available for reshaping and realignment, the Army may have been able to save some of these employees from involuntary separation by using VSIP to increase voluntary separations. The use of VSIP also could have allowed for the retention of Federal jobs since the Army could have provided separation incentives to the COBAL-trained workers and hired new, commercially- oriented technology workers in their place. Instead, the Army contracted with a private company to meet the mission requirement in a timely manner, and the existing workforce was involuntarily separated. Even so, the most immediate problem facing the Defense Department is the need to address its serious demographic challenges. The average Defense employee is 45 years old and more than a third of the Department's workforce is age 51 or older. In the Department of the Air Force, for example, 45 percent of the workforce will be eligible for either regular retirement or early retirement by 2005. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base is an excellent example of the demographic challenge facing many military installations across the country. Wright-Patterson is the headquarters of the Air Force Material Command, and employs 22,700 civilian federal workers. By 2005, 40 percent of the workforce will be age 55 or older. Another 19 percent will be between 50 and 54 years of age. Thirty-three percent will be in their forties. Only six percent will be age 35 to 39, and less than two percent will be under the age of 34. According to these numbers, by 2005, 60 percent of Wright-Patterson's civilian employees will be eligible for either early or regular retirement. Although a mass exodus of all retirement-eligible employees is not anticipated, there is a genuine concern that a significant portion of the civilian workforce at Wright-Patterson and elsewhere in the Department of Defense, including hundreds of key leaders and employees with crucial expertise, could decide to retire, leaving the remaining workforce without experienced leadership and absent essential institutional knowledge. This combination of factors poses a serious challenge to the long- term effectiveness of the civilian component of the Defense Department, and by implication, the national security of the United States. Military base leaders, and indeed the entire Defense establishment, need to be given the flexibility to hire new employees so they can develop another generation of civilian leaders and employees who will be able to provide critical support to our men and women in uniform. That is the purpose of our amendment. It addresses the current skills and age imbalance in the federal workforce before the increase in retirements of senior public employees begins in the next five years. If we wait for this ``retirement bubble'' to burst before we start to hire new employees, then we will have fewer seasoned individuals left in the federal workforce who can provide adequate training and mentoring. Our amendment will allow the Defense Department to conduct a smoother transition by not waiting for these retirements before bringing new employees into the Department over the next five years with the skills the U.S. needs for the future. As they are hired, the new employees will have the opportunity to work with and learn from their more experienced colleagues, and invaluable institutional knowledge will be passed along. As I was drafting this proposal, I wanted to make sure that those who would be most impacted by it--Department of Defense civilian employees--would have an opportunity to comment on it. I contacted the American Federation of Government Employees and asked them to provide their opinion of this proposal. After thoroughly reviewing it, AFGE informed me that they did have concerns that the Defense Department might believe this bill authorized them to hire outside contractors to perform work that is currently being done by government employees. I want to state--emphatically--that this is not the purpose or intent of this amendment. Let me repeat: it is not the intent of this amendment, nor should any intent be construed, to allow the Defense Department to circumvent their obligations to our civilian workforce. The purpose of this amendment is to help the Department ``rightsize and revitalize'' its civilian workforce, not reduce the number of federal full-time equivalent employees. I encourage management officials at the Department of Defense to work closely with the Department's union representatives on the implementation of this measure. In addition, this amendment allows the early retirement and separation pay authorities to be exercised only for workforce realignment, or for purposes specified in this amendment, or as they exist in current law. We are not seeking to establish a program to address problems of individual employees' performance. Employee performance problems will continue to be handled by managers, who must use the performance management system under existing law--a system that gives affected employees particular procedural and substantive rights. Further, our amendment stipulates that the offer of early retirement or separation pay may only be used under a consistent and well- documented application of relevant, objective non-personal criteria. Thus, under the amendment, as in existing law, an individual employee may not be ``targeted'' for early retirement or separation pay for the purpose of providing benefits to or affecting the removal of that employee. Mr. President, our amendment would also require that, no later than six months after this bill becomes law, the Secretary of Defense shall develop a strategic plan for the exercise of the authorities provided by this amendment, and that these authorities cannot be exercised until that strategic plan has been submitted to Congress. This plan shall be consistent with the strategic plan developed by the Department pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Act. We further expect that the Department's annual Results Act performance reports will include an assessment of the effectiveness and usefulness of these authorities and how the exercise of these authorities in helping the Department achieve its mission, meet its performance goals, and fulfill its strategic plan. Senator DeWine and I included this section because during the 1990s, many Federal agencies downsized their workforces without first determining their human resources requirements. The purpose of this section is to make sure that the authorities provided by this act are not exercised haphazardly, but in the context of the Department's strategic plan and future requirements. As a fiscal conservative, I believe that the monetary cost of this amendment pales in comparison to the costs we will incur if we do not begin to address our human capital issue immediately. We cannot forget that within five years, hundreds of thousands of federal employees will begin to retire. Most of these future retirees have decades of expertise and vital institutional knowledge, and once they are out of the workforce, so too is their ability to train a new generation of federal workers. It would be incredibly short-sighted if, in an attempt to save money, we simply wait for these hundreds of thousands of defense employees to retire before we even start to consider hiring their replacements. If we do nothing, I believe we will be left in a position where the civilian component of the Defense Department will be subject to an ``experience gap'' that will take years to overcome and which would be measured not in dollars but in diminished national security. We must give the Department of Defense the tools it needs to bring in new federal employees, with the skills necessary to meet the challenges of tomorrow. While this amendment does not address all of the human capital needs of the Defense Department, it is an important first step and will help ensure that the Department of Defense recruits and retains a quality civilian workforce so that our armed forces may remain the best in the world. It is extremely important to the future vitality of the Department's civilian workforce and the national security of the United States that we address the human capital crisis while we have the opportunity. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. I do not object.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I would be more than happy to do so.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I object. I want to know----

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, my colleague from the State of Colorado did a very good job outlining for us how important it is that we address our national debt. There is a euphoria in America today over the fact that we have a tremendous surplus. Unfortunately, the fact that we have a surplus reminds me of a Dean Martin song that went something like ``Money burns a hole in my pocket.'' Everyone is trying to figure out how to spend this money. No one seems to be making an issue of the fact that today we have a $5.7 trillion national debt which is costing Americans approximately $600 million a day in interest. Most Americans do not understand that 13 cents out of every Federal dollar we spend goes to pay interest. National defense gets 16 cents per dollar. Nondefense discretionary spending is 18 cents per dollar. They do not understand that we are spending more money on interest each year than we spend on Medicare, five times as much on interest as we do for education, and 15 times more than we spend on medical research. This debt was racked up over a number of years. At a time when our economy is better than it has ever been before, when unemployment is at the lowest we have seen in anyone's memory, we should do like you, Mr. President, would do in your family and I would do in my family, or what a business person would do, and that is, in times of plenty, get rid of debt, get out from under debt. We have an excellent opportunity to do that. Because of the expanding economy, we have a $26 billion on-budget surplus in fiscal year 2000. Think of that, $26 billion. We already allocated $14 billion of that on-budget surplus when we passed the budget resolution to deal with what I consider to be, for the most part, emergency situations. In order to guarantee we do not spend the rest of that money, we need to stand up and be counted and pay more than lipservice to reducing our national debt. We need to pass legislation that says the remaining on- budget surplus, this $12.2 billion, is to be used to pay down the national debt. It is something that all of us should think about as being a moral responsibility. One of the reasons I came to the Senate, was the fact that I believed we had spent money over the years on many things that, while important, we were unwilling to pay for, or, in the alternative, do without. We had a policy of ``let the next guy worry about it''; ``let the next generation worry about it.'' When I came to the Senate, I had one grandchild. Today, I have two more. Like all other Americans, I think about my grandchildren and about the legacy I want to leave to them. I remember a long time ago, almost 38 years ago, when my wife Janet and I got married. At that time, only 6 cents out of every dollar was going to pay interest on our debt. Think of it. Today it has gone up over 100 percent. I think about the legacy we are leaving our children, and Congress, during this wonderful time of a great economy, with a low unemployment rate, should take advantage of this opportunity to take our on-budget surplus and pay down our national debt and get this burden off the backs of the young people in our country; off the backs of our children and off the backs of our grandchildren. The other thing we need to point out to the American people is something we have kept kind of a secret. It is a secret about which nobody is talking; it has been kept quiet, and that secret is we have been spending money like drunken sailors. In fiscal year 1998, we spent $555 billion on discretionary spending. That is before I came to the Senate. In fiscal year 1999 we increased spending to $575 billion. In this year's budget, if we spend the entire on-budget surplus, discretionary spending will be $624 billion. Think about it, $624 billion, compared to last year's $575 billion. If my figures are correct, that is an 8.5-percent increase in discretionary spending. I want to know how many people in this country had an 8.5-percent increase in their paycheck last year. Why is it that the Federal Government is different than most of the families in this Nation? Families should understand, the citizens of this country should understand, if we spend all of this money--and it looks like we could-- and if we do not adopt this amendment that we are suggesting be adopted today, we will have increased spending by 8.5 percent. It is time for this Congress to be willing to make tough decisions. The cynicism that I hear so often is: We need the money to get out of town. We need to talk about our kids. We need to talk about this national debt. We need to talk about the moral responsibility that we have to America's families. We are not asking for a lot here today. We are asking that this body stand up and be counted. I hear people every day talking about: Let's do something about the national debt. It is a problem. We should do it. Reducing the national debt has been a principle of my party. It has been a principle of mine throughout my political career. First of all, don't go into debt. If you are in debt, get rid of it. Here is a chance to stand up and put our actions where our mouths are, and say, yes, we do believe in reducing the national debt. We are going to take this money, put it aside, and pay down the national debt, and we are going to do it now. We are going to do it now because we know if we do not do it now, the temptation will be to spend every dime of it. One other thing we ought to remember; and that is, in July CBO will be coming back with some new numbers and the on-budget surplus will be even higher, perhaps maybe $20 billion, $25 billion more. The question is, What are we going to do with that on-budget surplus? Are we going to keep that around so we can get out of town? It is time to make the tough decisions. It is time to stand up and be counted. I thank the Chair.