George Voinovich

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. I want to know on whose time?

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 90 minutes, equally divided, and that there be no second-degree amendments in order in regard to this amendment I intend to send to the desk.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, one of the things that is a little bit disturbing to me is that there is a feeling in the Senate that somehow Governors control their States: The Governors are going to do this; the Governors are going to do that. The Governors are unable to do anything unless they have the support and involvement of their State legislatures. I was a Governor from a donor State and fought for ISTEA and TEA-21. When I came in, we were at 79 cents. We are up to 90\1/2\ cents. I know how important money is for transportation. This is not an issue of Amtrak. I keep hearing Amtrak. I do not like Amtrak, and if we had the flexibility in my State, I am pretty sure we are not going to spend any money on rail. But I think the Governors should have an opportunity to have the flexibility to decide--with their legislatures--what is in the best interest of their people in dealing with their transportation problems. There is one other issue that needs to be taken under consideration when talking about transportation, and that is the environmental policy of the United States. We are in a situation today where we have high gas prices. We are in a situation today where we need to put together an energy policy. Frankly speaking, rail ought to be part of the consideration in deciding that energy policy. Some of the same people who are objecting to Governors having flexibility on rail supported welfare reform. I remember when we were down here lobbying for welfare reform. They said: If you give it to the Governors, it will be a race to the bottom. But, we got the job done. Some of the same people opposed to this are big advocates of giving Governors the opportunity to spend education dollars. That is what this is about. This is not about Amtrak. It is about flexibility. It is about States rights. It is about federalism. The only reason I offered the amendment today is that I could not get a unanimous-consent agreement to bring up the bill, S. 1144, and it was stuck with a hold on it. With all due respect to the chairman, for whom I have the highest regard and understanding--and who was a cosponsor of this legislation, this issue of flexibility needs to be aired. We ought to have a vote on it. We ought to give the Governors the opportunity to have this flexibility. To characterize the amendment as for rail or against--that is not the case. I am not here for that. I am here for flexibility for the Governors who have a big responsibility, and they ought to have an opportunity with their State legislatures to decide how they are going to spend this money. If they want to spend it on rail and debate it, fine. If they do not want it, let them decide that.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I yield to the Senator from New York.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I raise a defense of germaneness and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I yield.

Mr. VOINOVICH. That is correct.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I reserve my time.

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

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, noting the objection, in discussing this amendment, I am going to proceed to give my statement and I will send my amendment to the desk following my remarks and the remarks of my colleagues. Mr. President, when I first introduced S. 1144, the Surface Transportation Act, more than a year ago, I did so thinking that our State and local governments should have the maximum flexibility possible in implementing Federal transportation programs. I still firmly believe that our State and local governments know best which transportation programs should go forward and at what level of priority. As the only person in this country who has served as President of the National League of Cities and Chairman of the National Governors' Association, and one who has worked with the State and local government coalition, which we refer to as the Big 7, I have great faith in State and local governments, and I believe they should have maximum flexibility in determining how best to serve all of our constituents. I think one of the best examples of how state and local governments work to benefit our constituents is what we have been able to do with the welfare system in this country when we let the States and local governments take it over. That is why I am offering this amendment today--to give our State and local governments the flexibility they need to make some key transportation decisions that will best suit their needs. The amendment I am offering will give States the ability to use their Federal surface transportation funds for passenger rail service, including high-speed rail service. This amendment is identical to section 3 of S. 1144. It allows each State to use funds from their allocation under the National Highway System, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program, and the Surface Transportation Program for the following: acquisition, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, and preventative maintenance for intercity passenger-rail facilities as well as for rolling stock. As my colleagues know, under current law, States cannot use their Federal highway funding for rail, even when it is the best transportation solution for their State or region. Since States are assuming a greater role in developing and maintaining passenger and commuter rail corridors, I think it makes sense that States be given the most flexibility to invest Federal funds in those rail corridors. Part of being flexible is making sure we consider all of our options. It is similar to the 4.3-cent-per-gallon gas tax repeal effort that we faced in the Senate this past April. High gasoline prices exposed that we have no national energy policy. With prices currently over $2 per gallon in several areas in the Midwest, the fact that we still have no national energy policy is now really being felt by the American public. With the need for a national energy policy plainly evident, we need to put all our options on the table. We need to look at expanded rail transportation, conservation, exploration, alternative fuels, and so on. We need to put all of the right ingredients together that will make for a successful transportation policy. In addition to the high gas prices, I think the Senate should recognize the fact that there is an appeal pending in the Supreme Court of the United States of America on the issue of the Environmental Protection Agency's new proposed ambient air standards for ozone and particulate matter. If the Supreme Court overrules the lower court's decisions that those new standards are not justified, then we will find throughout the United States of America many communities, including communities in my State--where we have achieved the current national ambient air standards in every part of our State--that will be in nonattainment. If the new standards are implemented, we will need more tools to deal with the pollution. With the need for a national energy policy plainly evident, we need to put all of our options on the table. We need to look at expanded rail transportation and conservation and all the rest. As States are more able to turn towards passenger rail service as a safe, reliable, and efficient mode of transportation, we will relieve congestion on our Nation's highways. With fewer cars on the road, contributions to air quality improvements and lower gas consumption will be realized. Again, the idea behind my amendment is simple. States understand their particular transportation challenges better than the Federal Government. I believe it is the States' right and obligation to use whatever tools are available to efficiently meet the transportation needs of their citizens. In this instance, the Federal Government should not stand in their way but work as a partner to give them the flexibility they need to develop a successful policy. S. 1144 had 35 bipartisan Senate cosponsors. This particular amendment we are offering today is endorsed by the National Governors' Association, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the Council of State Governments, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association of Rail Passengers, and the Friends of the Earth. I have yet to convince some of my colleagues that this amendment will give our States and localities the latitude they need to make proper and cost-effective transportation decisions. First and foremost, this amendment does not mandate that any portion of a State's highway dollars be used for rail. If a State wants to use all their highway dollars the same way they have been doing for the past few years under TEA-21, then they will be able to do that. It does not establish a percentage of how much is set aside for rail. If a State wants to use highway dollars for rail, then the State decides the amount to meet the particular needs. Governors will have to work with legislators to decide if they want to use it for rail and how much can be used for rail. So often when we talk about such issues--``the Governors are going to use this money for rail''--my colleagues and I know that Governors recommend and the legislatures then decides whether they are going to follow the recommendations. In my State, looking back on my years as Governor, I think Ohio probably will not use this flexibility provision. But the fact is, it ought to be available to any State if it thinks it is in its best interest. There is very strong support from outside the Beltway for each State's right to spend its Federal transportation funds on passenger rail. States understand their particular transportation challenges better than the Federal Government and therefore should be given the flexibility to use their highway dollars for rail transportation. There are no mandates on the States to do this. It is totally at the discretion of the States. We face a historic opportunity today to provide the States with the flexibility they need to meet their growing transportation needs. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment. I thank the Chair.

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

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

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Allard, in offering this amendment. It is an important amendment if we are ever going to make a dent in our tremendous national debt. Like all of my colleagues, I am thrilled that the United States is in the midst of the greatest economic expansion in the history of our nation. It has provided opportunity and prosperity for millions of Americans. However, even with all of our good fortune, we cannot ignore the tremendous debt that we owe, and we certainly cannot allow the booming economy to blind us to this reality. For nearly a year and a half now, Mr. President--throughout my service in this body--I have made it my mission to remind my colleagues of the size of our national debt. Right now, the debt of the United States of America stands at $5.7 trillion. Right now, it costs us more than $224 billion a year to service that debt--which is more than $600 million a day in interest costs alone. Thirteen cents out of every Federal dollar goes to pay interest on the national debt, at a time when 16 cents goes for national defense, 18 cents goes for nondefense discretionary spending and 53 cents goes for entitlement spending. We currently spend more on interest to the national debt than we spend on Medicare. I agree with General Accounting Office (GAO) Comptroller General David Walker, who, in testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee last year, 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. That is a wonderful quote. We should also listen to other experts, such as CBO Director Dan Crippen, who, earlier this year, testified before the Senate Budget Committee that ``most economists agree that saving the surpluses, paying down the debt held by the public, is probably the best thing that we can do relative to the economy.'' And then there is Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who has testified that ``my first priority would be to allow as much of the surplus to flow through into a reduction in debt to the public. From an economic point of view, that would be, by far, the best means of employing it.'' Logic dictates that the money we are spending for our debt interest payments could be better spent elsewhere, and in my view--as well as the experts' view--the sooner we can pay down that debt, the sooner we will be able to use tax dollars where they are most needed. In other words, if we pay down the debt and get rid of the interest, we can use that money to reduce taxes or to address some of the priorities that we continue to talk about every day on the floor of the Senate. That is why I believe our top fiscal priority should be reducing the national debt. It is the best thing we could do with our on-budget surplus. And as I have said a number of times on the Senate floor, if families and businesses use their surplus cash to pay off debts, then our Nation should do the same thing. If I have big credit card debt, or if I am in business and I owe debt, and I have an opportunity to pay off that debt, most families and most businesses would do so. It is also interesting to note that if you look at the companies today on the New York stock exchange, the ones whose values have held up are those companies that do not have a substantial amount of debt. I think we know that if families in America were in the same position we are in, they would pay off that debt and get rid of that interest cost. The amendment that Senator Allard and I propose would take the first step in putting us on a course of fiscal responsibility. According to the latest estimates put forth by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the United States is projected to achieve an on- budget surplus of $26 billion in fiscal year 2000. We are talking about fiscal year 2000 money. For my colleagues who want to cut taxes, we are talking about the on-budget surplus for the year 2000. We can't use it to reduce taxes. The only thing we can do with it is to spend it or use it to pay down the debt. There is no other alternative. We have already set aside $14 billion in the budget resolution to pay for military operations in Kosovo, natural disaster relief in the U.S., Colombian drug eradication assistance, and other supplemental spending. Under the Allard-Voinovich amendment, the remaining $12 billion on- budget surplus would be applied towards debt reduction, not more spending. In addition, when the CBO releases its re-estimates of the FY 2000 on-budget surplus in July, Senator Allard and I intend to offer another amendment that will allocate any additional on-budget surpluses to debt reduction. I remind my colleagues that this money can't be used to reduce taxes. It can only be spent. We want to get it off the table before it is spent. Of the $26 billion on-budget surplus that we have today, $22 billion of that is overpayment into Part A of Medicare. This extra money we have is Medicare money that has been paid into Part A. The concern that I have is if we don't pay down the national debt with whatever on-budget surplus we achieve, Washington will spend the money. Ever since the CBO first projected we would have a budget surplus back in 1998, Congress and the administration have looked for every possible way to spend the money. I remind my colleagues, if you include the supplemental appropriations, fiscal year 2000 discretionary spending will increase by $37 billion, a 6.4 percent increase over fiscal year 1999. When compared to the Consumer Price Index, that is nearly three times the rate of inflation. This is tremendous growth in Government spending. We have to stop it. We have to put a lid on our spending. Our amendment strikes a fair balance that allows us to use a portion of the on-budget surplus for debt reduction instead of just spending the entire on-budget surplus for the sake of spending. We have to show discipline and use our on-budget surplus to pay down our debts. I am proud we have worked in the last couple of years in the Senate to rein in spending. I believe we must use whatever on-budget surplus that we have to pay down the debt. When we reduce the national debt, we send a positive signal to Wall Street and Main Street. Lowering the debt encourages more savings and investment, the kind that fuels productivity and continued economic growth. It also lowers interest rates, which is a real tax reduction. In addition, it ensures we won't return to deficit spending. If we can't at this time with the economy booming do something about reducing the national debt, we will have missed a golden opportunity. We will have said to the young people of this country: We don't care about your future; we are going to let you pay for those things that we weren't willing to pay for or do without during the last number of years.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I yield.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the Department of Defense appropriations bill, with Senator Reid to be recognized to offer his amendment regarding computers, and following debate on the Reid amendment, Senator Boxer will be recognized to offer an amendment regarding medical privacy. As a reminder, the Senate will recess from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 for the weekly party conference meetings. Upon reconvening, there will be 2 minutes of debate on the Boxer amendment regarding pesticides, with a vote scheduled to occur at approximately 2:20 p.m. It is hoped that consideration of the Defense appropriations bill can be completed by this evening, and therefore Senators can expect votes throughout the afternoon. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, according to the latest estimates put forth by the Congressional Budget Office, the United States is projected to achieve an on-budget surplus of $26 billion in fiscal year 2000, the current fiscal year. What many Americans do not realize is that Medicare Part A, that portion of every person's paycheck that is deducted for hospital insurance, is the largest component of our Nation's on-budget surplus. It accounts for approximately $22 billion of the $26 billion fiscal year 2000 surplus. Of the on-budget surplus of $26 billion, $22 billion is actually money that has been paid into Medicare that is not being used for Medicare recipients today. It is overpayment. Of that $26 billion on-budget surplus, the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution assumed that $14 billion of that on-budget surplus would be used to pay for military operations in Kosovo, natural disaster relief in the United States, Colombian drug eradication assistance, and other supplemental spending. Fourteen billion of the $26 billion has been spoken for, and for all intents and purposes, it is off the table. It is gone. That leaves approximately $12 billion in on-budget surplus dollars available and unallocated--quite a tempting target. If we don't use this $12 billion to pay down the national debt, I am concerned Congress will just spend the money. However, there is another option. In the very near future, Senator Allard and I and several of our other colleagues will propose an amendment that will direct the remaining $12 billion to be used for debt reduction instead of allowing it to be squandered on additional spending. We have given a lot of lipservice to being in favor of reducing the national debt. We have heard it in the House and the Senate. This will be a wonderful opportunity for everybody to vote to put $12 billion of the on-budget surplus into debt reduction. In addition, once the CBO releases its revised baseline this summer, we will come back again and propose another amendment that will allocate whatever additional fiscal year 2000 on-budget surplus dollars are achieved towards debt reduction. We know in July we will have new numbers so there will be more money. At that time, we will come back and say: Let us use that additional money to pay down the debt. Ever since the Congressional Budget Office first projected we would have a budget surplus back in 1998, Congress and the administration have been falling all over themselves to spend our on-budget surplus dollars. Indeed, if we include the supplemental appropriations, fiscal year 2000 discretionary spending will increase $37 billion, or 6.4 percent, over fiscal year 1999. Again, when we use the $14 billion of the on-budget surplus and add it to what we have already allocated for 2000, we are now talking about a 6.4-percent increase in spending in the year 2000 over 1999. That is tremendous growth in Government spending. On another note, we hear that Vice President Gore now supports a Medicare lockbox, a lockbox similar to the one we created. As I stated earlier, Medicare Part A is the largest component of our Nation's on-budget surplus, accounting for approximately $22 billion. Because of our strong economy and high employment, more money has come into the Medicare program via the payroll tax than has been spent in benefits. Again, we are either going to spend those on-budget surplus dollars on unrelated Government spending, or we can use it to reduce the national debt. Last November, Senator Ashcroft introduced the Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Act to wall off both the Social Security and Medicare Part A trust fund surpluses; in essence, to put them in a lockbox so the only other purpose for which they could be used would be to pay down the national debt. That is what we were going to do with it. The Senate had a chance this year to vote on a Medicare lockbox on April 7, when Senators Ashcroft, Brownback, Grams, and I offered an amendment to the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution. Unfortunately, Senator Ashcroft had only 2 minutes to speak on the subject. I didn't get a chance to speak on it at all because no one was very interested at that time. I remind my colleagues, the vote on the Medicare lockbox amendment was opposed by 43 Members of this Senate on the opposite side of the aisle; that is, 43 Democratic Members of the Senate voted ``no'' on the Medicare lockbox amendment. I thought the Medicare lockbox was a good idea then; I think it is still a good idea. Now, apparently, the Vice President thinks it is a good idea. We need to lockbox Medicare to make sure that the excess money paid into Medicare Part A goes for debt reduction and is not going to be used for more spending or tax cuts. We need to use it for debt reduction, period, just as all the experts have said. Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board; Daniel Crippen, head of CBO; David Walker, head of the GAO--all have said we should take the on- budget surplus and use it to pay down debt. I am pleased the Vice President is on board with a Medicare lockbox. I hope he will be able to convince Senators on the other side of the aisle that we need to make sure the on-budget surplus funds coming into the Treasury, which are mostly Medicare Part A dollars, are used to pay down the debt. If my colleagues on the other side agree with the Vice President that we need to lockbox the Medicare surplus, which comprises $22 billion of the on-budget surplus, then they should have no problem supporting using $12 billion to pay down the debt. We are going to have an opportunity twice this year--once perhaps this week on the Defense appropriations bill--to use the remaining on- budget surplus to reduce the national debt or to pay for more spending. I think it will be one of the best budget votes my colleagues will have all year long. Not only will it keep down spending, it will help bring down our publicly held debt. We have to make sure we make the right decisions in terms of our on-budget surplus. I would like to also take advantage of this opportunity to quote the Vice President. This quotation was in the Washington Post: The temptation has always been to treat Medicare the way Social Security used to be treated--as a source of money for spending or tax cuts. And now that we have succeeded in taking Social Security off budget and using it to pay down the debt, we need to do the same thing with Medicare and put it in a lockbox. I remind my colleagues that when the issue of the Social Security lockbox came up on the floor of the Senate, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, on six occasions, all 45 of them voted against-- voted against--the Social Security lockbox. My feeling is that we will find out this year whether or not the administration is in favor of lockboxing Social Security and lockboxing Medicare. I think it is time we level with the American people and let them know that the on-budget surplus we have been talking about is primarily made up of overpayment of Medicare Part A payroll taxes, and that what we have been doing is proposing to use that for more spending or for reducing taxes. Let's lock it up. Let's put it in a lockbox. Let's make sure that the money that is being paid into Medicare is money for insurance for the elderly and is not used for tax reductions or, in the alternative, used to pay for other Federal spending. Now is the time to make that point. Now is the time to be counted. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, for purposes of the statement I am about to give, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to display a small safe.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senators DeWine, Thompson, Frist, Thurmond, Murkowski, Bingaman, Reid, Bryan, Kennedy, Harkin, and Murray in support of an important amendment that will provide financial and medical compensation to Department of Energy workers who have been made ill while working to provide for the defense of the United States. Since the end of World War II, at facilities all across America, tens of thousands of dedicated men and women in our civilian federal workforce helped keep our military fully supplied and our nation fully prepared to face any threat from our adversaries around the world. The success of these workers in meeting this challenge is measured in part with the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, for many of these workers, their success came at a high price. They sacrificed their health, and even their lives--in many instances without knowing the risks they were facing--to preserve our liberty. I believe these men and women have paid a high price for our freedom, and in their time of need, this nation has a moral obligation to provide some financial and medical assistance to these Cold War veterans. Last month, I introduced legislation, along with many of the Senators who have co-sponsored this amendment, that would provide financial compensation to Department of Energy workers whose impaired health has been caused by exposure to beryllium, radiation or other hazardous substances. Our bill, S. 2519, the ``Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act of 2000,'' also provides that compensation be paid to survivors of workers who have died and suffered from an illness resulting from exposure to these substances. Need for this type of legislation was further solidified when on May 25th, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson released a Department of Energy report on safety and management practices at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon, Ohio. The report, which was based on an independent investigation authorized by Secretary Richardson, highlighted unsafe conditions at Piketon and deemed past management practices as shoddy and in many cases, inadequate to protect the health and safety of Piketon's workforce. The report confirmed many of the fears that these workers have quietly faced for years, and it is why it is imperative that we pass legislation this year that will compensate these cold war heroes. Mr. President, the amendment that is being offered today by my distinguished colleague Senator Thompson is similar to S. 2519 except for minor differences. Under S. 2519, a federal program is created for all workers who are due compensation because of an illness suffered due to the nature of a person's job. This amendment creates a federal program for workers suffering from beryllium disease, silicosis and cancer due to radiation exposure. Workers suffering from illnesses due to other chemical exposures would be covered under state workers compensation programs. The Department of Energy's Office of Workers' Compensation Advocate-- created by this amendment--will help employees apply for compensation with their particular state's worker compensation program. In addition, S. 219 allows a broad burden of proof to be placed on the government, one that provides a greater number of Department of Energy workers who have cancer related to radiation exposure to receive federal compensation benefits. This amendment maintains that burden of proof for workers at the nation's three Gaseous Diffusion Plants, but, the amendment assumes that other workers will be able to find records showing whether or not their federal service made them sick. If it is not possible for the Department to find an employee's records, or, adequately estimate dose history, then the burden of proof threshold established for workers at the Gaseous Diffusion Plants will apply to that particular employee. Some of my colleagues may question whether or not the Federal Government should be making an expenditure of this amount of money. Some may ask how we will know which worker or family member has a bona fide claim for compensation. These are legitimate concerns. However, the nature of the illnesses involved suggests more than a coincidental relationship with their victims. For example, beryllium disease is a ``fingerprint'' disease. That means it is particularly identifiable and cannot be mistaken for any other disease, leaving no doubt as to what caused the illness of the sufferer. Additionally, the processing of the beryllium metals that cause Chronic Beryllium Disease is singularly unique to our nuclear weapons facilities. In cases of radiation exposure at DoE facilities, it is understandable that some may question whether a person was exposed to radioactive materials from another source, primarily because records may not reflect that an employee was exposed to such materials. The Department of Energy's independent investigation at Portsmouth showed that, in some cases, the destruction and alteration of DoE workers' records occurred. There have been anecdotes indicating similar occurrences at other DoE facilities around the nation. Additionally, dosimeter badges, which record radiation exposure, were not always required to be worn by DoE workers. And when they were required, they were not always worn properly or consistently. Workers at the Piketon plant also have stated that plant management not only did not keep adequate dosimetry records, in some cases, they chanted the dosimetry records to show lower levels of radiation exposure. There have been reports that DoE plant management would even change dosimeter badges to read ``zero''--which means the level of exposure to radiation would be officially recorded as zero, regardless of the exposure level that actually registered on the badge. In too many instances, records do not exist, and where they do exist, there is adequate reason to doubt their accuracy. The amendment recognizes that this is the case at the Department of Energy's three Gaseous Diffusion Plants--Piketon, Ohio, Paducah, Kentucky and Oak Ridge, Tennessee--and takes the unusual step of placing the burden of proof on the government to prove that an employee's illness was not caused by workplace hazards. This amendment allows for sound science where it is available, specifically, if it is possible to adequately and accurately estimate radiation doses, and scientifically assure that a worker's cancer is work-related or not. However, if it is not reasonably possible to adequately and accurately reconstruct doses, then ill workers covered under this amendment would be eligible for compensation that is based on criteria that exists for workers at our nation's Gaseous Diffusion Plants. To be clear, Mr. President, under normal circumstances, I am not one who would advocate a ``guilty until proven innocent'' approach. I firmly believe that we should use sound science to determine exposure levels and relationship to illness. Yet, these are not normal circumstances, and the reason we are offering this amendment today is because in too many instances, sound science either does not exist in DoE facility records, or it cannot be relied upon for accuracy. For example, in my own state of Ohio, at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant--a plant that processes high-quality nuclear material-- workers had little or no idea that they had been exposed to dangerous levels of radioactive material. As the Department of Energy's own independent investigation has shown, such exposure went on for decades. The independent investigation at Portsmouth, also demonstrated that until recently, proper safety precautions at Piketon were rarely taken to adequately protect workers' safety. Even when precautions were taken, the use of protective standards was inconsistent and in some instances were deemed only ``moderately effective.'' If consistent, reliable and factual data is not available, Mr. President, then it will be quite difficult if not impossible to utilize sound science in order for employees to prove their claims. Similar situations like those that have been documented at Piketon have been reported at other Ohio facilities including the Fernald Feed Materials Production Center in Fernald, Ohio and the Mound Facility in Miamisburg, Ohio, not to mention a host of other facilities nationwide. At this time, the Department of Energy is only acknowledging these situations at the Gaseous Diffusion Plant. In addition to shoddy or non-existent record keeping, the DoE has admitted that at some facilities, workers were not told the nature of the substances they were handling. They weren't told about the ramifications that these materials may have on their future health and quality of life. It is truly unconscionable that DoE managers and other individuals in positions of responsibility could be so insensitive and uncaring. Last year, the Toledo Blade published an award-winning series of articles outlining the plight of workers suffering from Chronic Beryllium Disease (CBD). While government standards were met in protecting the workers from exposure to beryllium dust, many workers still were diagnosed with CBD. Were the standards too low? Was the protective equipment faulty? Whatever the cause, it is estimated that 1,200 people across the nation have contracted CBD, and hundreds have died from it, making CBD the number-one disease directly caused by our cold war effort. Mr. President, there may be some who think that this amendment costs too much, so we shouldn't do it. I strongly disagree. Congress appropriates billions of dollars annually on things that are not the responsibility of the federal government--and I have voted against most of the bills that include this kind of funding. Here we have a clear instance where the actions of the federal government is responsible for the actions it has taken and the negligence it has shown against its own people. Peoples' health has been compromised and lives have been lost. In many instances, these workers didn't even know that their health and safety were in jeopardy. It is not only a responsibility of this government to provide for these individuals, it is a moral obligation. My belief that we have a moral obligation to these people was strengthened last October when I attended a public meeting of workers from the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant. I learned an incredible amount about the integrity of the hard-working men and women and what they have been through. I heard heart-wrenching stories from people like Ms. Anita George, a 23 year employee at Piketon who testified that ``I only know of one woman that works in my department that has not had a hysterectomy and other reproductive problems.'' Ms. George described a situation where she and two of her colleagues were exposed to an ``outgassing'' on a ``routine'' decontamination job. After the exposure, the women started to experience health problems, including heavy bleeding, elevated white blood cell counts and kidney infections. Plant physicians told them that they should ``just lie down and rest'' if they had any problems while they were working. Three years after the exposure, all three women had had hysterectomies. The plant denied their workers' compensation claims. I also heard from people like Mr. Jeff Walburn, another 23-year plant employee and former councilman and vice mayor of the city of Portsmouth, who testified that while working in one of the buildings, he became so sick that his lungs ``granulated.'' When he went to the infirmary, they said he was ``okay for work.'' Later that day, he went to the hospital because in his words, ``my face was peeling off.'' According to Mr. Walburn, he couldn't speak, his hair started falling out, his lungs started ``coming out'' and his bowels failed to function for more than 6 days. When he went to get his records to file his worker's compensation claim, he was told that his diagnosis had been ``changed, been altered.'' The Department of Energy has held similar public meetings at facilities across the nation--these stories are not unique to the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant. Mr. President, it is unfortunate that this amendment is necessary in the first place; the compensation it will provide is little consolation for the pain, health problems and diminished quality of life that these individuals have suffered. These men and women won the cold war. Now, they simply ask that their government acknowledge that they were made ill in the course of doing their job and recognize that the government must take care of them. Until recently, the only way many of these employees believed they would ever receive proper restitution for what the government has done to them is to file a lawsuit against the Department of Energy or its contractors. But, in the time that I have been involved in this issue in the Senate, the Department of Energy has come a long way from its decades-long stance of stonewalling and denial of responsibility. Today, they admit that they have wronged our cold war heroes. Still, we must do more. I believe that all those who have served our nation fighting the cold war have a right to know if the federal government was responsible for causing them illness or harm, and if so, to provide them the care and compensation that they need and deserve. That is the purpose of our amendment, and I am pleased to join with my colleagues in support of its acceptance in this bill.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. I rise today to support the amendment offered by my distinguished colleagues, Senator McCain and Senator Levin. Between fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001, defense spending in our Nation will increase by more than 6 percent, nearly three times the rate of inflation. Under normal circumstances, I would likely oppose legislation that would increase defense spending at such a rate. However, we have a crisis in the military right now with respect to readiness, recruitment, retention, procurement, modernization; and the crisis must be met immediately. I will support more money for defense. Having said that, I believe in the long term the Defense Department must focus on those activities that will help bring down their overall costs. Part of the problem we run into in this body is our inability to admit that priorities can and should be established by the Department of Defense. We need to focus on ways in which the Department can cut back on some of its expenditures and use the moneys allocated more wisely. In other words, we need to get a bigger bang for our buck. We need to work harder and smarter, and we need to do more with less. One of the ways we can do that is to eliminate those military facilities that no longer serve a useful purpose. I know that is not easy. We have experienced the pain of closing bases in Ohio with the closure of Newark Air Force Base, Rickenbacker Air National Guard Base, and the Defense Electronic Supply Center. Even with the closures and the pain we went through, we understood that it was necessary if we were going to allocate resources where they were really needed in the Department of Defense. According to a 1998 Department of Defense report, and as stated by Secretary of Defense William Cohen, our Armed Forces currently have 23 percent more military base capacity than is needed in this Nation. Think of that, 23 percent. Keeping this much extra capacity adds up. Right now, we spend billions of dollars annually. We will keep on spending that money until we acknowledge that we have excess capacity and exercise the will to shut it down. As difficult as this may sound, we have been through this process before. We know that. The Department of Defense reports that because of the base closings that have been conducted, we will have saved $14 billion a year by the end of 2001. The projected net savings, annual savings, for the first four rounds have been estimated at nearly $5.7 billion in fiscal year 2001, a savings that should occur annually. We have that money, and it has been reallocated. This amendment initiates another two rounds of base closings in 2003 and 2005. In his testimony earlier this year before the Armed Services Committee, Secretary Cohen stated that if we initiate two more rounds of base closings, this will save about $3 billion per year that we can use for some of the needs we have today in our Defense Department. I am here today to urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I think there are those who say we ought not to do it at this time. I think we all know that if we don't get started now and start the procedure and do it today, do it this year, we are not going to be able to move forward in 2003 and 2005 when we project the base closings will occur. I say again, I know this is a tough amendment to support for some of my colleagues, but for the good of our Nation I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, the Federal Government is facing a little-known, yet serious problem that jeopardizes its ability to provide services to the American people--a crisis in human capital. The federal workforce has endured years of downsizing, hiring freezes, and inadequate investment in the dedicated men and women who comprise the federal civil service. As a result, the Federal Government is ill- equipped to compete with the private sector for a new generation of technology-savvy workers to replace the nearly 900,000 ``baby boomers'' who will be eligible for retirement from the civil service in the next 5 years. To meet that challenge, I rise today to introduce legislation, along with my friend and colleague from Ohio, Senator Mike DeWine, that will help one critical department of our Federal Government--the Department of Defense--get a head start in addressing its future workforce needs. Our bill, the ``Department of Defense Civilian Workforce Realignment Act of 2000,'' provides the Department of Defense with greater flexibility to adequately manage its civilian workforce and align its human capital to meet the demands of the post-cold-war environment. During the last decade, the Department of Defense 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; the men and women who serve a vital role in the management and development of our nation's military. 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 military threats to our nation. The need to address the pending human capital crisis in the federal workforce is increasingly apparent, as more and more leaders acknowledge that our past policies did not consider future federal workforce needs. Indeed, in testimony before the Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee, which I chair, the head of the General Accounting Office, Comptroller General David Walker, stated, ``(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.'' The bill that Senator DeWine and I are introducing today will help respond to these concerns by giving the Department of Defense the assistance it needs to shape the ``skills mix'' of the current workforce in order to address shortfalls brought about by years of downsizing. Our bill will also help the Department meet its needs for new skills in emerging technological and professional areas. Another area of concern for the Department of Defense--as well as many other federal agencies--is the serious demographic challenges that exist in its workforce. The average Defense Department 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 in Dayton, OH, is an excellent example of the demographic challenge facing military installations across the country. Wright-Patterson is the headquarters of the Air Force Materiel Command, and employs 22,700 civilian federal workers. By 2005, 60 percent of the Base's civilian workforce will be eligible for either regular retirement or early retirement. Although a mass exodus of all retirement-eligible employees is not anticipated, there is a genuine concern that a significant portion of the Wright-Patterson civilian workforce, 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 begin to 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 the legislation we are introducing today. The Department of Defense Civilian Workforce Realignment Act addresses the current imbalance between the federal workforce and the skills needed to run the Federal Government in the 21st century, as well as the age imbalance between new employees and the potential mass retirement of senior public employees in the next 5 years. If we wait for this ``retirement bubble'' to burst before we begin to hire new employees, then not only will we be woefully understaffed in a number of key areas, but we will have fewer seasoned individuals left in the federal workforce who can provide training and mentoring. The provisions in our bill will allow the Defense Department to conduct a smoother transition by bringing new employees into the Department over the next 5 years. 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. While this proposal does not address all of the human capital needs of the Defense Department, it 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 legislation. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in full in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, the Federal Government is facing a little-known, yet serious problem that jeopardizes its ability to provide services to the American people--a crisis in human capital. The federal workforce has endured years of downsizing, hiring freezes, and inadequate investment in the dedicated men and women who comprise the federal civil service. As a result, the Federal Government is ill- equipped to compete with the private sector for a new generation of technology-savvy workers to replace the nearly 900,000 ``baby boomers'' who will be eligible for retirement from the civil service in the next 5 years. To meet that challenge, I rise today to introduce legislation, along with my friend and colleague from Ohio, Senator Mike DeWine, that will help one critical department of our Federal Government--the Department of Defense--get a head start in addressing its future workforce needs. Our bill, the ``Department of Defense Civilian Workforce Realignment Act of 2000,'' provides the Department of Defense with greater flexibility to adequately manage its civilian workforce and align its human capital to meet the demands of the post-cold-war environment. During the last decade, the Department of Defense 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; the men and women who serve a vital role in the management and development of our nation's military. 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 military threats to our nation. The need to address the pending human capital crisis in the federal workforce is increasingly apparent, as more and more leaders acknowledge that our past policies did not consider future federal workforce needs. Indeed, in testimony before the Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee, which I chair, the head of the General Accounting Office, Comptroller General David Walker, stated, ``(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.'' The bill that Senator DeWine and I are introducing today will help respond to these concerns by giving the Department of Defense the assistance it needs to shape the ``skills mix'' of the current workforce in order to address shortfalls brought about by years of downsizing. Our bill will also help the Department meet its needs for new skills in emerging technological and professional areas. Another area of concern for the Department of Defense--as well as many other federal agencies--is the serious demographic challenges that exist in its workforce. The average Defense Department 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 in Dayton, OH, is an excellent example of the demographic challenge facing military installations across the country. Wright-Patterson is the headquarters of the Air Force Materiel Command, and employs 22,700 civilian federal workers. By 2005, 60 percent of the Base's civilian workforce will be eligible for either regular retirement or early retirement. Although a mass exodus of all retirement-eligible employees is not anticipated, there is a genuine concern that a significant portion of the Wright-Patterson civilian workforce, 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 begin to 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 the legislation we are introducing today. The Department of Defense Civilian Workforce Realignment Act addresses the current imbalance between the federal workforce and the skills needed to run the Federal Government in the 21st century, as well as the age imbalance between new employees and the potential mass retirement of senior public employees in the next 5 years. If we wait for this ``retirement bubble'' to burst before we begin to hire new employees, then not only will we be woefully understaffed in a number of key areas, but we will have fewer seasoned individuals left in the federal workforce who can provide training and mentoring. The provisions in our bill will allow the Defense Department to conduct a smoother transition by bringing new employees into the Department over the next 5 years. 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. While this proposal does not address all of the human capital needs of the Defense Department, it 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 legislation. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in full in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, this Sunday, May 28th, the Catholic diocese of Cleveland will observe the 50th anniversary of the ordination of Bishop A. Edward Pevec into the priesthood. I rise today to pay tribute to this wonderful man and to offer my thanks for the spiritual guidance he has given to Catholics throughout the City of Cleveland and northeastern Ohio. Born in Cleveland, Ohio on April 16, 1925, Bishop Edward Pevec is the oldest of four children born to Anton and Frances Pevec, immigrants from Slovenia. On April 29, 1950, at the age of 25, Edward Pevec was ordained into the priesthood. Over the fifty years since his ordination, Bishop Pevec has served northeastern Ohio in a number of capacities. He has been the Associate Pastor at St. Mary Church in Elyria and at St. Lawrence Church in Cleveland. He has been a teacher, assistant principal/vice rector and principal/rector at Borromeo Seminary High School in Wickliffe and a graduate instructor at St. John College in Cleveland. During his service at Borromeo Seminary High School, Bishop Pevec continued his own education at two well-respected Cleveland institutions, earning a Masters degree from John Carroll University and Ph.D. from Western Reserve University. In 1975, he became pastor of his home parish, St. Vitus Church in Cleveland, and four years later, became the President-Rector of Borromeo College of Ohio. In 1982, Edward Pevec was ordained Auxiliary Bishop of Cleveland by His Holiness, Pope John Paul II. Over the years, I have personally come to know Bishop Pevec, not only as a devout Christian, but as a man of deep caring for all mankind. I still remember the first time that my wife, Janet, and I saw Bishop Pevec celebrate mass. We were so impressed at the manner in which he conducted himself, that I said to my wife on our way out of the church that there's a priest who ought to be a Bishop! We were both grateful that the Holy Father recognized his good work for the diocese of Cleveland by appointing him Bishop. Bishop Pevec's warmth and compassion have been felt by many in the City of Cleveland over the past half-century, and I am certain his light shall shine upon us for many years to come. I join all my fellow Cleveland parishioners, and all who have come to know Bishop Pevec in congratulating him on his 50 years of service to the Lord and to his fellow man. He is a true inspiration to us all.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will provide incentives to clean up abandoned industrial sites--or brownfields--across the country and put them back into productive use and preserve our greenspaces. It is time to create more certainty in the brownfields cleanup process. Parties that clean up non-Superfund sites under state cleanup laws need certainty about the rules that apply to them, particularly that their actions terminate the risk of future liability under the federal Superfund program. The bill that I introduce today, the Brownfield Revitalization Act of 2000, creates that certainty by allowing states to release parties that have cleaned up sites under state laws and programs from federal liability. This bill has strong bipartisan support from our nation's Governors who have written to me expressing their support for this legislation. I strongly believe that there should be no requirement that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pre-approve state laws and programs. State brownfields programs address sites that are not on the National Priorities List (NPL) and where the federal government has played little or no role. States are leading the way in cleaning up sites more efficiently and cost-effectively. According to state solid waste management officials, states average more than 1,400 cleanups per year. And they are addressing approximately 4,700 sites at any given time. This is helping to recycle our urban wastelands, prevent urban sprawl and preserve our farmland and greenspaces. These programs are cleaning up eyesores in our inner cities, making them more desirable places to live. Because they are putting abandoned sites back into productive use, they are the key to providing economic rebirth to our urban areas, and good-paying jobs to local residents. This bill makes sense for our environment and it makes sense for our economy. The bill I am introducing today is similar to the brownfields provisions in S. 1090, the Superfund Program Completion Act of 1999, by Senator Bob Smith and the late-Senator John Chafee. The purpose of my bill is to build upon the success of state programs by providing even more incentives to clean up brownfield sites in order to provide better protection for the health and safety of our citizens and the environment. What we don't need are delays caused by the U.S. EPA's second-guessing of state decisions. A good example of second-guessing occurred in my own state of Ohio. One company, TRW completed a cleanup at its site in Minerva under Ohio's enforcement program in 1986. Despite these cleanup efforts, the U.S. EPA placed the site on the NPL in 1989. However, after listing the site, the U.S. EPA took no aggressive steps for additional cleanup. The site has been untouched for years. In fact, it is now likely that the site will be delisted. To enhance and encourage further cleanup efforts, Ohio has implemented a private sector-based program to clean up brownfields sites. When I was Governor, Ohio EPA, Republicans and Democrats in the Ohio Legislature and I worked hard to implement a program that we believe works for Ohio. Our program is already successful in improving Ohio's environment and economy. In almost 20 years under the federal Superfund program, the U.S. EPA has only cleaned up 18 sites in Ohio. In contrast, 103 sites have been cleaned up under Ohio's voluntary cleanup program in 5 years. And many more cleanups are underway. States clearly have been the innovators in developing voluntary cleanup programs, and Ohio's program has been very successful in getting cleanups done more quickly and cost effectively. For example, the first cleanup conducted under our program--the Kessler Products facility, near Canton--was estimated to cost $2 million and take 3 to 5 years to complete if it had been cleaned under Superfund. However, under Ohio's voluntary program, the cost was $600,000 and took 6 months to complete. These cleanups are good for the environment and good for the economy. Mr. President, Ohio and other states have very successful programs that clean up sites more efficiently and cost effectively. This bill would help build on their success by providing assurances to parties that when they clean up a site correctly, they will not be held liable under Superfund down the road. The bill precludes the federal government from taking action at a site where cleanup is being conducted under a state program except under certain circumstances, such as when a state requests federal action, when the U.S. EPA determines that a state is unwilling or unable to take appropriate action, or when contamination has migrated across state lines. The bill does not take away the U.S. EPA's authority to conduct emergency removals or their authority to conduct tests at a site to determine if a site should be listed on the NPL. This legislation also ensures that Federal facilities are subject to the same environmental cleanup requirements as private sites. In 1992, Congress enacted the Federal Facilities Compliance Act (FFCA), which holds Federal facilities accountable to meet State and Federal environmental laws regulating hazardous waste. However, subsequent Federal court decisions have undermined the intent of FFCA and similar language in other statutes. We should be reminded that contamination problems at Federal facilities are largely the result of years of self- regulation by Federal agencies. It is essential that States have the authority to oversee cleanup and enforce their own laws and standards. My bill merely ensures that Federal agencies are held accountable to the same state and federal regulations that govern private entities. This bill is just plain commonsense. It provides more protection for the environment by providing incentives to clean up hazardous waste sites. It helps preserve our greenspaces. And it helps our economy by putting abandoned sites back into productive use, providing jobs and better places to live in our urban areas. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.