George Voinovich

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. About 4 or 5 minutes.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, the amendment that I have submitted is a simple one. In fact, it's the same one that I offered last year, and it takes the tax cuts proposed in this fiscal year 2001 budget resolution and uses that money, instead, to pay down the debt. Let me say again: under my amendment, we would take $150 billion that is projected to accumulate as a result of our on-budget surpluses over the next five years, and use those funds, not for tax cuts, but for debt reduction instead. Why should we do this rather than use this money to reduce taxes? First of all, if we pay down the debt, we are going to decrease our interest payments on the national debt--a debt which stands at $5.7 trillion today. This fiscal year, it will cost us more than $224 billion to service our national debt--more than $600 million a day in interest costs alone! Out of every federal dollar that is spent this year, 13 cents goes to pay the interest on the national debt. In comparison: 16 cents goes for national defense; 18 cents goes for non-defense discretionary spending; and 53 cents goes for entitlement spending. We'll spend more on interest this year than we'll spend on Medicare. When I consider these numbers, it makes me determined to do all that I can to decrease our debt even further. That's why I believe that every fiscal decision we make in this Congress should be measured against the backdrop of how it will decrease our $5.7 trillion national debt. And I'm not the only one who believes that. In fact, in testimony before the Senate Budget Committee this past January, CBO Director Crippen stated 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 on the very same day, Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan said, ``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.'' Lowering the debt sends a positive signal to Wall Street and to Main Street. It encourages more savings and investment which, in turn, fuels productivity and continued economic growth. It also lowers interest rates, which in my view, is a real tax reduction for the American people. Furthermore, devoting on-budget surpluses to debt reduction is the only way we can ensure that our nation will not return to the days of deficit spending should the economy take a sharp turn for the worse or a national emergency arise. As Alan Greenspan has testified before Congress, ``a substantial part of the surplus . . . should be allowed to reduce the debt, because you can always increase debt later if you wish to, but it's effectively putting away the surplus for use at a later time if you so choose.'' Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle oppose the tax cuts, preferring instead to use the money to increase spending. I believe that spending the surplus is an even worse use of the money. Now, many have argued that putting the Social Security surplus in a ``lock-box'' will be enough to pay down our debt. However, I should remind my colleagues that in the near future, we might not have Social Security surpluses available for debt reduction, because we may need them for Social Security reform, especially if we go to a system of private accounts. We cannot keep putting off our responsibilities. If we have the ability--like we do now--we have a moral obligation to pay back our debts. We must face the fact that because of 30 years of irresponsible fiscal policies our national debt has increased 1,300%. During that time Congress and our Presidents weren't willing to pay for the things they wanted, or, in the alternative, do without those items they could not afford. 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. As most of my colleagues know, Congressional Budget Office (CBO) figures show that the United States will achieve a $26 billion on- budget surplus this current fiscal year, FY 2000. However, it is of utmost importance that we oppose the temptation to squander this surplus. In that regard, I have to commend Majority Leader Trent Lott for sticking to his guns on not moving forward on a fiscal year 2000 supplemental appropriations bill. He has stated his opposition to a separate bill, preferring instead, to include funding in the regular appropriations bills. And we need to get moving on those bills quickly, especially because of the need for money to ensure our nation's defense readiness, our Kosovo peacekeeping mission and Colombia's drug eradication efforts. All we need to do is look at the version of the supplemental that passed in the House of Representatives to see why we should not move forward with a supplemental bill. Indeed, the House started with the President's request of $5.1 billion, reported a bill out of the Appropriations Committee that was some $9 billion and passed a final bill that was $12.7 billion. Imagine the size of the supplemental once the Senate got through with it? The worst thing that Congress could do now is throw away any portion of that $26 billion on-budget surplus that was achieved in FY 2000 on non-emergency spending. And another reason that we should not pass the supplemental is that it can be argued that $22 billion of the $26 billion on-budget surplus that Congress would be tapping into comes from the Medicare Part A trust fund. Instead of squandering this surplus, let's use it to pay down the debt. It will be our first sizable on-budget surplus that we've been able to use for debt reduction in 40 years, and a truly historical accomplishment. And let's continue to make history by using future on-budget surpluses to pay down our national debt. Mr. President, I believe that if we can pass this amendment, and add it to the fine work that the Budget Committee Chairman has accomplished in this resolution--and with the promise from the Majority Leader on the supplemental--I believe we will have made a real difference. We will have provided a decent budget that should address some of our most pressing problems, and, we will take whatever on-budget surplus dollars that come in and use them to reduce the national debt. Not spending increases, not tax breaks, but simply paying down the debt. Mr. President, again, my amendment is simple: it takes the $150 billion in tax cuts assumed by this budget resolution and instead says to spend it on debt reduction. I urge my colleagues who believe that we should do all that we can to bring down our national debt to support this amendment. Thank you Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. If the Senator will yield further. One of the concerns I have is, what kind of promises have we made to these people in order to get them to turn on the oil spigot? I just heard earlier today, for example, that Iraq, who has been our enemy--

Mr. VOINOVICH. Still is. In consideration of their giving us more oil, we are shipping them some technology they say they need in order to produce more oil. This is an awful position for the United States of America to be in, that we are at the mercy of someone who has been an enemy of ours, whom we went to war against and lost American lives over, and we are negotiating with them. It underscores how vulnerable we are because of a lack of an energy policy. (Mr. ALLARD assumed the Chair.)

Mr. VOINOVICH. I yield to the Senator, my good friend from New Mexico.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I think one of the significant things about this proposal is the number of people who are opposed to it. The AAA--a very respected organization in this country which represents the folks who drive on America's highways--with the high gas price, you would think they would be saying reduce the tax, or, get rid of the tax. But the AAA is saying: No, we don't want you to reduce the tax. We know it is not going to make a lot of difference in terms of the price, and we are more concerned about having highways that are safe and well-maintained and that are repaired. They are more interested in seeing new construction projects undertaken. Last but not least, I want to correct something that was said on the floor. The Senator from Nevada indicated that Governor Bush supports the repeal of the 4.3-cent gas tax. I talked with Governor Bush yesterday or the day before. He clearly said he did not support--how did he put it? I want to be very careful about how I say this--he is not in favor of reducing the 4.3-cent gas tax. That is what he said, and it was spoken as the Governor of the State of Texas who understands how important highways are. I also point out that the National Governors' Association has said they are opposed to this proposal. The National Association of Counties, the National Council of State Legislators, all of the people who have been dealing with highways and the users are saying this is not going to make a real difference. Let's get on with dealing with this problem.

Mr. VOINOVICH. First of all, I thank the Senator from Virginia for relieving me in my responsibility of presiding over the Senate, and thank him also for his very kind words about my involvement in this issue that I think is very important to our fellow Americans. I commend the Senator from Virginia for his ability to stand up on an issue that is fairly controversial, and to speak from his heart. I also appreciate the kind words from the Senator from Nevada. I speak today as a Senator from Ohio, and also as a lucky freshman who is chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee in the Environment and Public Works Committee of the Senate. I also speak from a perspective as a former Governor of the State of Ohio, and the former chairman of the National Governors' Association, the chairman of the association when we negotiated TEA 21 with this Congress and the President; one of the most significant pieces of legislation that this Congress passed. As the Senator from Nevada has pointed out, it was a piece of legislation that responded to the tremendous infrastructure needs that we have throughout this great country of ours. Even in spite of that wonderful piece of legislation, we still have some great needs to fill in order to really have a transportation system that will allow us to compete in this 21st century. One of the things we were concerned about in that legislation was the issue of being able to depend upon a flow of money for a certain period of time so that we could properly plan for new highway construction in our States. We needed something that was dependable and something that we could work with our contractors and others that do work in our States, so we could say we are going to be doing this program over a period of years and not have these peaks and valleys that so many States experience. We were pleased Congress decided to take the 4.3-cent gas tax that had been used for deficit reduction and use it for our highways. I might say, in 1993 I was not in favor of Congress using the gas tax for deficit reduction because it was a user's tax. From a federalism point of view, our feeling was that that was a tax that should be earmarked for the user--the user being the people who use our highways--in order to repair and maintain and build new highways, to allow them to move goods, and also to eliminate some of the traffic problems and the pollution problems created by traffic jams that we have throughout the country. I was pleased that Congress decided to take that and say: We are going to make it a user tax. We all felt good about that and we felt relieved. We now have before us the situation where our gas prices have increased substantially. I am not going to go into all the reasons for it. A 4.3-cent reduction in the gas tax, frankly, may have some short- term political benefits. But when people consider the fact that if they drive 15,000 miles per year, and they average 15 miles per gallon, that they will save $43 with our 4.3-cent reduction in the gas tax. They will be very cynical about Congress' response to a problem that they are confronting at the gas pump--particularly when they come to realize that it will have, even on a short-term basis, an interruption in some of the highway projects that are underway throughout this country. As the Senator from Virginia said, in the State of Ohio, we are talking about, over 3 years, $650 million. That 4.3 cents is the construction money that Ohio needs to move forward with their new highway construction. I would suspect in Nevada and Virginia it is the same thing. Other money is used just for maintenance and repair. This is the money we are using for new construction. In addition--this is something that has not been even spoken about-- that 4.3 cents, when Congress agreed to allow it to be used for the highway trust fund, was the money that guaranteed donor States, such as Ohio--and I do not know whether the Presiding Officer's State is a donor State or not--but it was the thing that allowed us to be guaranteed 90.5 cents on every $1 we sent to Washington. I want you to know this is a big deal because one of the first things I did when I became Governor of Ohio in 1990 was to say, we are a donor State. At that time, we were only getting back 79 cents per $1. So one of the first things I did was to try to lobby, through the National Governors' Association, an increase for the donor States. You may remember, ISTEA brought up a lot of the donor States. I think we went from 79 cents up to 87 cents. With TEA 21, we are now at 90.5 cents. That is very important in terms of our guaranteed funding. It is also very important in terms of our new construction program. I know there are some who suggest that we use the budget surplus to make up for the money we would lose from reducing the highway gas tax. But the fact of the matter is, if you want to look at the big picture, what we are saying is, we are going to use the budget surplus that could be used to reduce taxes or reduce the national debt, or be used for prescription drug benefits in Medicare, and so many other things--we're going to use that general pot of money to fund highways, which are used by a certain select group of people in this country, mainly, highway users. We are basically saying to the highway users: You are having a problem at the pump. Therefore, we are going to reduce your taxes by 4.3 cents, and we are going to find the money from the general fund of the United States. So we will make everybody in the United States subsidize that 4.3 cents we are reducing on the gas tax. In spite of the fact that I am not happy about the high cost of gasoline, I think the people who use the highways ought to be the ones who pay for the new highways, and the repairs, and for new construction. This bill would say we are going to open up the general fund of the United States and use it to make up the difference. I think from an equitable point of view, that is not fair. I think this proposal, from a public policy point of view, is one that is not well taken. The passage of this reduction may take away from the fact that we have a real problem in this country. The problem in this country is that we have no energy policy. The reason we have the increase in the price of gasoline in this country, in my humble opinion, is the fact that this administration was asleep at the switch. They didn't do their homework. As a result of that, the price of oil crept up. Now they are cramming in every way possible to try to influence the people who supply the oil to bring the price down. What we should be doing is following the leadership of Senator Frank Murkowski and others who have come to the floor of the Senate, and work conscientiously to develop an energy policy for the United States of America. We should be concerned about the fact that we are relying too much upon foreign oil. Last week, Senator Thompson had a hearing of the Governmental Affairs Committee which included people from the administration. I asked them: Do you believe we should be less reliant on foreign oil? Their answer came back: Yes. I said: Statistics show we are going to become more reliant on foreign oil. I then asked the question: Do you have a number where you want to be; i.e., 50-percent reliant, 45-percent reliant? They didn't have an answer. They didn't have a number. Then I said to them: Logically, one would say that if you wanted to reduce your dependence on foreign oil, you would set a goal and say we are going to reduce it to 45 percent, and we are going to reduce it by X year, and here is the way we are going to achieve that goal. That would involve opening up more opportunities--ANWR, for example. That would also mean looking at alternative fuels. That would mean looking at our Tax Code to encourage our small oil strippers who can't afford to be in the business, to get back in the business. That would mean having a national policy, that puts all of these things on the table, and that looks at environmental concerns. Yes, we want to protect the environment. Yes, we want to protect our national defense, which is something we're not talking about. The national defense of our country is in jeopardy. Reports have said that. We can't be reliant on these other nations, particularly those who are our enemies. We have been at war with one of them for 10 years now. I think this situation with these high gas prices should be an opportunity, on a bipartisan basis, to bring everybody to the table to develop and start talking about what should be the energy policy of the United States. It should not to be like so many instances around this country where, when something happens, we treat it like a barking dog. You give it a bone, the price will go down, everybody will continue to do the same thing they did before, and we will have another crisis. It is time to get this problem out of the drawer and onto the table, and deal with it in a responsible fashion. We need to set out a plan we can feel confident in that will reduce our reliance on foreign oil and protect our national economy and our national defense. We should not be participating in a short-term proposal to reduce the gas tax which will not make a whole lot of difference and may indeed take the focus away from the real problem; that is, that the United States of America does not have an energy policy. (Mr. SMITH of Oregon assumed the Chair.)

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to extend my congratulations to Mr. Bruce Akers on the occasion of his retirement as senior vice president for Civic Affairs at KeyBank in Cleveland, OH. Bruce's accomplishments are not limited to his 40 years of service in the banking industry, but extend to the difference he has made in the lives of countless citizens. His decades of leadership and generosity have helped make Cleveland the great city it is today. Bruce has served the public at many levels--in government, the private sector, and in civic organizations. From 1975 to 1977, he served as executive secretary to Cleveland Mayor Ralph Perk. Today Bruce continues to show his dedication to civic responsibility and action in local government through his service as mayor of Pepper Pike, OH. Bruce is also committed to a number of Cleveland's cultural, educational, charitable and civic institutions including service as chairman of the KeyFoundation, a trustee of the Cleveland Council on World Affairs and president of the Cleveland Opera. I don't believe I will ever forget Bruce's ``cameo'' appearance in the Cleveland Opera's rendition of Aida in 1984. He gave a tremendous performance that is still talked about to this day. Bruce's community commitment also extends to service as a trustee of the Citizens League Research institute, membership on the Executive, Central, and Policy Committee's of the Cuyahoga County Republican Party, membership on the Advisory Council of the Alzheimer's Association, membership on the Cleveland Leadership Prayer Breakfast Steering Committee, and chairman of Cleveland's Promise, the local branch of America's Promise which strives to create an environment for a better future. Bruce's belief in volunteerism was recently celebrated in ``Cleveland Live,'' a news and information ``on-line'' publication serving the Cleveland community, where he shared his philosophy on volunteering. Bruce stated, ``volunteering is a four-way win: a win for the organization benefitting from the volunteers' services; a win for the volunteers who gain new perspectives and feel self-fulfilled; a win for the employer because the employee-volunteer is a better-rounded employee; and a win for the community whose quality of life is improved, thanks to effective, dedicated volunteers.'' I could not agree more with Bruce's assessment. In 1975, Bruce's outreach to others earned him the Big Brother of the Year Award from Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Greater Cleveland. In 1993, he received the Volunteer of the Year Award from Leadership Cleveland for his dedication to making Cleveland a better place. Bruce has supported the Salvation Army in a variety of initiatives throughout the years, and for donating his time and energy, in 1997, he received the General William Booth Award, the Salvation Army's highest award to a civilian. Bruce's career is an inspiration to those who look to form a better future through active participation in the community. While I know Bruce Akers will enjoy his retirement with his wife Barbara, I also know that he will not cease giving of himself in service to his fellow man. On behalf of the citizens of Cleveland and of Ohio, I would like to congratulate Bruce Akers and thank him for all he has done for his community and his State.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, in 1975, Congress passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which was designed to ensure that all students with disabilities would receive the educational services they needed in order to attend ``mainstream'' schools. This legislation has been effective in increasing access to quality education for disabled students all across the nation. In my state of Ohio, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act has meant so much to thousands and thousands of young men and women over the last 25 years. It has opened up whole new worlds and shown them that their disabilities cannot bind the limitless possibilities that are provided by the gift of education. IDEA has helped students like John Hook, from Elgin High School in Marion, Ohio. IDEA has given John's school the resources to hire a special education teacher who is able to help John with his reading and writing. Before IDEA, students with learning disabilities like John might have dropped out, but now, many are thriving. And because of the help he's received and his hard work, John is on his school's honor roll and is ``on track'' for college. IDEA has also been a tremendous help to Todd Carson, an 18 year old student from Highland High School in Highland Local School District outside Medina, Ohio. Todd has Cerebral Palsy and is confined to a wheelchair. Todd is unable to write and he cannot use a keyboard to communicate. Through IDEA, Highland District was able to purchase a speech recognition program called ``Dragon Dictate'' which can be used to control a word processor. This has been like a ray of sunshine for Todd. Now, Todd has the ability to take class notes and write papers. Dragon Dictate also lets him use the Internet and send e-mail. This program has been a big difference for Todd, allowing him to read, write and participate in class. I am pleased with what we've been able to do with IDEA in Ohio. Before its passage, there were close to 25,000 children who were institutionalized in Ohio because of conditions like Cerebral Palsy and autism. Now, according to the Ohio Coalition for the Education of Children with Disabilities, there are no kids institutionalized in Ohio. IDEA is a big factor in this success because instead of being hidden-away and forgotten about, these kids are in school--learning and thriving--preparing to add their contributions to society. However, even with all the success of IDEA, the thousands and thousands it has benefitted, there is a startling reality to this program that no longer can be ignored: IDEA is crushing our schools financially. Many of our state and local governments have found that the costs of serving handicapped students are typically 20% to 50% higher than the average amount spent per pupil. This, in itself, is not the problem; state and local governments understand that students with disabilities require different, and many times, expensive needs. Congress, too, understood the expense involved when it passed IDEA, promising that the federal government would pay up to 40% of the costs associated with the program. Congress said, we think IDEA is so needed as a national priority, that we will pay up to 40% of the costs. The problem rests in the fact that the federal government has not provided nearly as much funding as they told state and local leaders they would provide, and which our children need. Indeed, in fiscal year 2000, the federal government only provides enough funds to cover 12.6% of the educational costs for each handicapped child, not the 40% it promised. As in past years, our State and local governments will be forced to pay the leftover costs. That is what is going to happen. They are going to have to pay that leftover cost. Because the Federal Government has not lived up to its expectations, IDEA amounts to a huge unfunded mandate. When I was Governor of Ohio, I fought hard for passage of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act so that circumstances such as this could be avoided. I was one of only a handful of State and local leaders who lobbied Congress to pass legislation that would provide relief to our State and local governments. I felt so strongly about this that in 1995 I asked Senator Dole to make unfunded mandate relief legislation S. 1. I was privileged to be in the Rose Garden 5 years ago this month when the President signed S. 1 into law. I will never forget the President saying how opposed he was to unfunded mandates since he had been a Governor for a number of years and had seen the effects of such unfunded mandates. Unfortunately, the President has done nothing--nothing--to address one of the most costly unfunded mandates; that is, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The President's fiscal year 2000 budget contains $40.1 billion in discretionary education funding. That is more than a 37-percent increase over the fiscal year 2000 discretionary education total, including advanced funding, and nearly double the $21.1 billion in discretionary education spending allocated by the Federal Government in 1991--just 10 years ago. Think about that for a moment. The President is looking to increase federal education discretionary spending so that it will have grown by almost 100% in ten years. And that's at a time when inflation will have grown only 20.7% during the same ten years. That's incredible! What's even more incredible is what we're doing to our states and localities. Of the discretionary total for fiscal year 2000, we allocated $4.9 billion for IDEA. If we had funded IDEA at the 40% level that Congress had promised in 1975, we would have allocated $15.7 billion in fiscal year 2000. In essence, we have passed along a $10.8 billion mandate on our state and local governments. Think about it--a $10.8 billion mandate. For anyone who thinks about it, they are asking, What does that mean? That is more than we spent on the entire budget for the Department of the Interior. Think of it. When our Nation's Governors were in Washington recently for the annual Governors' Association winter meeting, one of their more prominent issues--I would say the most prominent issue they brought up with Congress and the President--was the need to fully fund IDEA. The Governors made it patently clear that if the Federal Government paid their 40-percent share of IDEA, it would free up $10.8 billion across America and would allow them to better respond to the education needs in their respective States. They also pointed out that many of them were building schools, hiring teachers, and doing most of the things Washington wants to do with that $10.8 billion that should have gone to the States to fund IDEA. With the help of the Ohio School Boards Association and the Buckeye Association of School Administrators, I am contacting superintendents of education, leaders from urban, suburban, and rural districts in every part of Ohio--I have a letter going out to all of them--asking them about their experience with the fiscal impact of IDEA and their advice on what would be the best way the Federal Government could be a better partner. The main question I have asked Ohio's educators is: What will help you more--fully funding the Federal commitment to IDEA, or funding at the Federal level programs that, by their very nature, are the responsibility of our State and local governments, such as hiring new teachers, building new schools, and a host of other programs that may or may not be needed in school districts across America? I am going to be reporting back later this spring with the results of that survey. In the meantime, I believe it is incumbent on the Senate, as it considers the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, to find money to fully fund IDEA. This body for sure should not support expensive new Federal education programs until IDEA is fully funded. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my letter to Ohio's education leaders be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion on the nomination, which the clerk will state.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, the administration released its budget for fiscal year 2001--its last and its biggest, totaling $1.8 trillion and proposing a whole host of new programs. So begins our annual budget process. From now until September 30, Congress will conduct dozens of hearings and hold countless meetings, while members of both Houses deliver innumerable speeches and spend long hours of debate over every subtle nuance of the Federal budget process. Over the next 8 months, Congress will consider a budget resolution, a budget reconciliation package and as many as 13 separate appropriations bills--the latter only if we do not combine those appropriations bills into one massive spending bill, as has been the practice in recent years. By the time Congress adjourns--currently scheduled for October 6--a majority of votes taken in the Senate will relate to the budget process. Indeed, as my colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, has pointed out, 73% of the Senate's votes in 1996 were budget-related, 65% in 1997, and 51% in 1998. It is no wonder--each year, it is quite common for the same subject to be voted upon 3 or 4 times during the course of the entire budget process. Despite the inordinate amount of time and effort that Congress will put into fashioning a budget that will meet our Nation's spending needs in a fiscally responsible way, a veto threat still looms on each of the appropriations bills if spending does not approach what the President wants. At that point, high-stakes negotiations between the Congress and the President will ensue. In an effort to avoid a Government shutdown--and the blame that goes with it--these negotiations inevitably yield a spending compromise that neither Congress nor the President particularly likes, but both agree is necessary. It is a heck of a way to run a railroad, but what is really unbelievable is this whole process is repeated each year. I say enough is enough. It's time to bring rationality to our nation's budget process. It's a fact that Congress spends too large a portion of its time debating and voting on items related to the Federal budget. Meanwhile, most other Congressional functions are not given proper attention. We need to reestablish our priorities so we may effectively do the work of the people, make sure that the Federal Government is running at peak efficiency and deliver value, which is quality service for the least amount of money. I believe we have an excellent opportunity to do that this year. One of the first bills I cosponsored when I became a Senator was a measure introduced by Senator Pete Domenici that would establish a 2- year budget--just like we have in about 20 States including the State of Ohio. I believe enactment of this bill, S. 92, will provide an important tool in the efficient use of Federal funds while strengthening Congress' proper oversight role. Because Congress produces annual budgets, Congress does not spend nearly as much time as it should on oversight of the various Federal Departments and agencies due to the time and energy consumed by the budget resolution, budget reconciliation, and appropriations process. Not only is this a problem for Congress, but each executive branch agency and department must spend a significant amount of its time on each annual budget cycle. Again, as my colleague, Senator Domenici, pointed out in his statement on S. 92, the executive branch spends 1 year putting together a Federal budget, 1 year explaining that Federal budget before Congress, and 1 year implementing the budget eventually passed by Congress. Even the most diligent Cabinet Secretary cannot keep track of all the oversight he or she is supposed to accomplish if they are trapped in this endless budget cycle. A biennial budget will help Congress and the executive branch avoid this lengthy process. Since each particular Congress lasts only 2 years, a biennial budget would allow us to consider a 2-year funding proposal during 1 year, while reserving the second year for the Government oversight portion of our job. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management and Restructuring in the Governmental Affairs Committee, I have noted that even though the General Accounting Office conducts numerous reports documenting Government inefficiencies that need to be corrected, most GAO reports sit on the shelf because there is no time to conduct detailed hearings. When oversight hearings are held, nearly everyone in the executive branch knows--from career bureaucrats to Cabinet Secretaries--that they need only weather the immediate storm when they are asked to come to the Hill to testify. That is because once they answer the criticisms that have been leveled in these GAO reports, and explain how they are going to improve the situation, it is over; the worst has passed. Rarely do they have to worry about followup hearings to make sure they have implemented the proper remedies because they know Congress just will not have the time to conduct future hearings. Unfortunately, that reality can lead to problems later on that impact public safety or national security. Last year, the Governmental Affairs Committee held hearings regarding Dr. Wen Ho Lee and the security situation at the Los Alamos National Lab. I was shocked to learn that for 20 years we have had a problem with security at the Department of Energy, and no one did anything about it. But GAO knew: they had released 31 major reports on nuclear- security problems at the Department since 1980. Congress needs the time to conduct proper oversight--including followup investigations--in order to make sure that situations like this do not repeat. Without having to devote the majority of its time and energy to annual budget bills, Congress will be able to make sure that the Federal Government operates harder and smarter and does more with less. I am confident that the Senate will pass S. 92--biennial budget legislation--during this session of Congress. Regardless of the Senate's actions on passing this bill, I believe the House of Representatives needs to be more engaged in this process. Unfortunately, the news reports that I have seen indicate that there is not much support at the leadership level in the House for such a bill. I urge my colleagues in the House to reconsider their views on biennial budget legislation, or in the alternative, pass a better legislative proposal. Congress should not continue to come up with reasons why budget reform can't pass, but find ways to make sure that it can. It should be plainly obvious to my colleagues in both Houses-- including those on the Appropriations Committees--that the annual appropriations process is not working. As I stated earlier, each year Congress ends up negotiating a spending deal that is higher than Congress wants in order to avoid the Presidential veto pen. If we are ever going to get a handle on our debt, we have to end this bad public policy. It would definitely be in the best interest of our Nation. I believe this biennial budget legislation, S. 92, is one of the most important pieces of legislation we could consider this year. I will continue to press for its passage. For my colleagues who are tired of the seemingly endless budget and appropriations cycles and are frustrated at the inability to devote enough time to the oversight duties of their committees, I urge them to join in cosponsoring this legislation. I also urge my House colleagues to review the merits of the biennial budget process and act upon legislation as expeditiously as possible for the good of America. The point I am making is this. It is time for this Congress to adopt a 2-year budget cycle instead of the one we have had for too many years. It will help us do a better job in terms of budgeting and certainly get us to do the oversight that is so badly needed by this Congress.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, released figures last week showing that the United States is on track to achieve a $23 billion on-budget surplus this fiscal year. If CBO's figures hold up, then the United States will have achieved a true, on- budget surplus for the first time in 40 years. In addition, the United States could enjoy an on-budget surplus ranging somewhere between $11 billion and $69 billion in fiscal year 2001, depending on which set of figures you use. But what I find truly amazing is what CBO reports could occur over the next 10 years. Under the most realistic assumptions about discretionary spending, CBO estimates we could achieve an on-budget surplus of nearly $900 billion. As good as this sounds, we must remember not to get ahead of the game. Just because we could obtain an on-budget surplus, does not mean we have obtained an on-budget surplus. Whatever on-budget surplus we actually achieve this year--and the years that follow--is predicated on the ability of Congress and the President to resist the urge to spend it. Unfortunately, with an amount of unobligated money that large, there will be calls from all segments of society and Government to increase funding for this program, or create that program, or institute massive tax cuts. That is why the very first priority for this year must be to oppose the temptation to squander this year's surplus on a pork-laden supplemental appropriations bill. I implore my colleagues to maintain the necessary discipline that will let these surpluses grow. Even though I am cautiously optimistic about the on-budget surpluses projected for this year and the next, I still do not believe we should treat CBO's projections as the gospel truth as we plan 10 years, or even 5 years, down the road. That is because, as most any economist will tell you, the only thing certain about projections is their uncertainty. In testimony before the House Banking Committee last year, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said: . . . it's very difficult to project with any degree of conviction when you get out beyond 12, 18 months. In addition, he stated: Projecting five or ten years out is a very precarious activity, as I think we have demonstrated time and time again. Last July, CBO Director Dan Crippen said, in testimony before the Senate Budget Committee that ``10-year budget projections are highly uncertain'' and that ``economic forecasting is an art that no one has truly mastered.'' And that is from the Director of CBO--the man in charge of making Congress' surplus projections. More alarming, as we all know, these surplus projections don't reflect the ticking time bomb of Social Security and Medicare costs that will explode when the baby boomers begin to retire--something that Congress and the President must address now. More importantly as we bask in the euphoria of these projected surpluses, we must not forget the sobering fact that we still have a $5.7 trillion national debt--a national debt that costs us more than $224 billion a year to service. That is more than $600 million a day in interest costs alone. Out of every Federal dollar spent, 13 cents goes to pay the interest on the national debt. In comparison: 16 cents goes for national defense, 18 cents goes for nondefense discretionary spending, and 53 cents goes for entitlement spending. Here is the chart. I think most people are not familiar with it. This shows where the Federal dollar goes: net interest, 13 percent; national defense, 16 percent; nondefense discretionary spending, 18 percent; and 53 percent for mandatory spending. Think about it. We spend more on interest each year than we spend on Medicare. It is easy to understand our difficulty in reforming Medicare or providing a prescription drug benefit or funding countless other beneficial programs when the money we could use to pay for such programs or activities is being spent on interest. That is why I believe every fiscal decision we make from here on must be measured against the backdrop of how it will decrease our $5.7 trillion national debt. In fact, in testimony before the Senate Budget Committee last week, CBO Director Crippen stated: 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. On the very same day, Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan said, 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. Lowering the debt sends a positive signal to Wall Street and to Main Street. It encourages more savings and investment which we really need in the country, and, in turn, it fuels productivity and continued economic growth. It also lowers interest rates, which in my view, is a ``bird-in-the-hand'' cost reduction for most Americans, and better than the ``two-in-the-bush'' tax-reduction proposals floating around this Congress. Furthermore, devoting on-budget surpluses to debt reduction is the only way we can ensure that our Nation will not return to the days of deficit spending should the economy take a sharp turn for the worse or a national emergency arise. As Alan Greenspan recently testified: A substantial part of the surplus. . .should be allowed to reduce the debt, because you can always increase debt later if you wish to, but it's effectively putting away the surplus for use at a later time if you so choose. Even as most economists agree that the best use of any surplus is to apply it against the debt, the bad news is, the President and some of my colleagues believe the best use of this possible surplus is to increase spending and provide tax expenditures. By merely proposing his plan, as he outlined at his State of the Union Address, the President has assured a path of confrontation both with this Congress and within this Congress. I believe that Congress and the President need to avoid such partisan politics and work together on reaching an agreement as to how best to utilize these surpluses. Further, I believe the best option available to us is to agree on a realistic adjustment to the 1997 budget caps, do the best we can to respond to the needs of the American people within that limit, and use the balance of the surplus to pay down the national debt. If we can't start paying down our national debt now, with the longest period of economic growth in the history of our Nation, with record low unemployment and low inflation, when will we ever be able to do it? We have a moral obligation to do it now. I am ashamed, and so should my colleagues be ashamed, that because of 30 years of irresponsible fiscal policies our national debt has increased 1,300 percent. My granddaughters, Mary Faith and Veronica, and my 2-week-old grandson, John, have each inherited a debt of nearly $21,000 because Members of Congress and our Presidents weren't willing to pay for the things they wanted, or, in the alternative, do without those items they could not afford. I agree with General Accounting Office Comptroller General David Walker, who, in testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee 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. Fortunately, that message is starting to be heard. Last month, Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, announced his goal of eliminating all federal debt held by the public by 2015. Not soon enough, but Speaker Hastert gets it. And I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle join us in supporting debt reduction as our primary fiscal goal because it is in the best interest of this nation. In order to ensure fiscal discipline and prevent us from ``backsliding'' into the fiscal mess we've been in for the past 30-plus years, I am introducing today a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, or what I like to refer to as the ``backbone budget amendment.'' I believe it is the only guarantee that we will never return to the days of deficit spending and the accumulation of debt, and we should do it now. Now! The time is right, and those of my colleagues who have championed this in the past should seize upon this opportunity to join me in this effort, because, as they know, or should know, a Balanced Budget Amendment is the most effective method of keeping a handle on spending. My proposal is a departure from previous proposals by stipulating that Social Security surpluses be exempt from deficit calculations. That is, a true balanced budget must be achieved without using off- budget Social Security surpluses to finance spending in other areas. A federal balanced budget constitutional amendment will help Congress and the President make the hard decisions because they will no longer be able to tap the Social Security surplus. It is a simple matter of fact that without constitutional and statutory balanced budget provisions at the state and local level, many of our state and local governments would be in the same degree of debt as the federal government. And let me just touch on my own personal experience, because I've had to deal with very real financial problems in my state. Without a charter provision and a constitutional requirement, it would have been virtually impossible for me to bring the City of Cleveland out of the default I inherited when I was Mayor, and to deal with Ohio's $1.5 billion deficit when I was Governor. Think about it--if we had a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment, and if we were to have a President who didn't want to make tough budget choices on his or her own, the Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment would give the President the backbone he or she needs to make those tough choices. And believe me, I've discovered after just 1 year in the Senate, this Congress needs the ``Backbone Budget Amendment'' to force us to make those tough choices. If we pass the amendment, I'm confident that three-fourths of our state legislatures would ratify it without question, because most of them are required by laws in their respective states to balance their budgets. And there is one other thing we need to do now, and that is enact Senator Domenici's biennial budget legislation. I am a co-sponsor of this legislation because I believe it is an important tool to help use federal funds more efficiently and strengthen Congress' proper oversight role. Right now, we spend far too much time debating the federal budget, particularly discretionary spending. Conversely, we don't devote nearly as much time as we should on oversight of the federal agencies because of the time and energy consumed by the budget resolution, budget reconciliation and the appropriations process. Indeed, when he introduced his legislation last year, Senator Domenici pointed out in his statement that in 1996, 73% of the votes taken in the Senate that year were related to the budget--often the same subject is voted upon 3 or 4 times a year. A biennial budget will help Congress and the Executive Branch avoid the annual, lengthy budget and appropriations process and allow us to increase our attention on the government oversight portion of our job. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management and Restructuring, I have noted that GAO report after GAO report sits on the shelf and no one does anything about them because no one has the time to conduct the follow-up. And from career bureaucrats to Cabinet Secretaries, nearly everyone in the Executive branch knows that when they're asked to come up to the Hill for an oversight hearing, once it's over, it's over--rarely do they have to worry about any follow-up hearings because Congress just doesn't have the time. Unfortunately, that reality can create problems that impact public safety or national security. As a freshman Senator, I was shocked to learn when we had hearings this past year regarding Dr. Lee and the situation at the Los Alamos National Lab that for 20 years we've had a problem with security at the Department of Energy, and no one did anything about it. But GAO knew: they've released 31 major reports on nuclear-security problems at the Department since 1980. That's just incredible! We need the time for oversight, and the 2-year budget cycle will make that possible, just like it did when I was Governor of Ohio. There is an old saying, ``prepare for tomorrow, today.'' The President and Congress must make a real commitment to fiscal responsibility, and if we need an example, all we have to do is emulate what most American families do when they have extra money. They don't go out and start spending wildly. They look to pay off their debts-- their credit cards, their loans and their mortgages. With our booming economy and with inflation and unemployment at historically low levels, there exists the best opportunity in a generation to pay down the national debt, reform and preserve Social Security and Medicare and ensure that our Nation meets its constitutional obligations. Such a legacy of fiscal responsibility would be the best possible gift we could give to our children and grandchildren, and to our Nation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print a copy of my legislation in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following treaties transmitted to the Senate on February 2, 2000, by the President of the United States: Treaty with Egypt on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (Treaty Document No. 106-19). Further, I ask unanimous consent the treaty be considered as having been read for the first time, that it be referred with accompanying papers to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed, and that the President's message be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Governmental Affairs Committee reports S. 1977, the bill then be sequentially referred to the Committee on Finance for a period of up to 45 days during which the Senate is in session. I further ask unanimous consent that if the bill is not reported by the end of that period, it be discharged from the Finance Committee and placed back on the calendar.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 10:30 a.m. on Thursday, February 3. I further ask consent that on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of the proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination of Alan Greenspan to be chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve system.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, when the Senate convenes tomorrow, it will immediately proceed to a vote on the Greenspan nomination. Therefore, Senators can expect the first vote to occur at approximately 10:30 a.m. tomorrow. Following that vote, the Senate will proceed to a period of morning business for general floor statements and bill introductions. Further, to accommodate the Democratic conference, the Senate will not be in session this Friday, February 4. On Monday, it is expected that the Senate will begin consideration of S. 1052, the Mariana Islands legislation, and on Tuesday the Senate should begin debate on the nuclear waste bill. Senators can expect votes throughout next week's session.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order following the remarks of Senator Murray.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote with respect to the nuclear waste legislation be vitiated.

Mr. VOINOVICH

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

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

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, released figures last week showing that the United States is on track to achieve a $23 billion on-budget surplus this fiscal year. If CBO's figures hold up, then the United States will have achieved a true, on- budget surplus for the first time in 40 years. In addition, the United States could enjoy an on-budget surplus ranging somewhere between $11 billion and $69 billion in fiscal year 2001, depending on which set of figures you use. But what I find truly amazing is what CBO reports could occur over the next 10 years. Under the most realistic assumptions about discretionary spending, CBO estimates we could achieve an on-budget surplus of nearly $900 billion. As good as this sounds, we must remember not to get ahead of the game. Just because we could obtain an on-budget surplus, does not mean we have obtained an on-budget surplus. Whatever on-budget surplus we actually achieve this year--and the years that follow--is predicated on the ability of Congress and the President to resist the urge to spend it. Unfortunately, with an amount of unobligated money that large, there will be calls from all segments of society and Government to increase funding for this program, or create that program, or institute massive tax cuts. That is why the very first priority for this year must be to oppose the temptation to squander this year's surplus on a pork-laden supplemental appropriations bill. I implore my colleagues to maintain the necessary discipline that will let these surpluses grow. Even though I am cautiously optimistic about the on-budget surpluses projected for this year and the next, I still do not believe we should treat CBO's projections as the gospel truth as we plan 10 years, or even 5 years, down the road. That is because, as most any economist will tell you, the only thing certain about projections is their uncertainty. In testimony before the House Banking Committee last year, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said: . . . it's very difficult to project with any degree of conviction when you get out beyond 12, 18 months. In addition, he stated: Projecting five or ten years out is a very precarious activity, as I think we have demonstrated time and time again. Last July, CBO Director Dan Crippen said, in testimony before the Senate Budget Committee that ``10-year budget projections are highly uncertain'' and that ``economic forecasting is an art that no one has truly mastered.'' And that is from the Director of CBO--the man in charge of making Congress' surplus projections. More alarming, as we all know, these surplus projections don't reflect the ticking time bomb of Social Security and Medicare costs that will explode when the baby boomers begin to retire--something that Congress and the President must address now. More importantly as we bask in the euphoria of these projected surpluses, we must not forget the sobering fact that we still have a $5.7 trillion national debt--a national debt that costs us more than $224 billion a year to service. That is more than $600 million a day in interest costs alone. Out of every Federal dollar spent, 13 cents goes to pay the interest on the national debt. In comparison: 16 cents goes for national defense, 18 cents goes for nondefense discretionary spending, and 53 cents goes for entitlement spending. Here is the chart. I think most people are not familiar with it. This shows where the Federal dollar goes: net interest, 13 percent; national defense, 16 percent; nondefense discretionary spending, 18 percent; and 53 percent for mandatory spending. Think about it. We spend more on interest each year than we spend on Medicare. It is easy to understand our difficulty in reforming Medicare or providing a prescription drug benefit or funding countless other beneficial programs when the money we could use to pay for such programs or activities is being spent on interest. That is why I believe every fiscal decision we make from here on must be measured against the backdrop of how it will decrease our $5.7 trillion national debt. In fact, in testimony before the Senate Budget Committee last week, CBO Director Crippen stated: 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. On the very same day, Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan said, 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. Lowering the debt sends a positive signal to Wall Street and to Main Street. It encourages more savings and investment which we really need in the country, and, in turn, it fuels productivity and continued economic growth. It also lowers interest rates, which in my view, is a ``bird-in-the-hand'' cost reduction for most Americans, and better than the ``two-in-the-bush'' tax-reduction proposals floating around this Congress. Furthermore, devoting on-budget surpluses to debt reduction is the only way we can ensure that our Nation will not return to the days of deficit spending should the economy take a sharp turn for the worse or a national emergency arise. As Alan Greenspan recently testified: A substantial part of the surplus. . .should be allowed to reduce the debt, because you can always increase debt later if you wish to, but it's effectively putting away the surplus for use at a later time if you so choose. Even as most economists agree that the best use of any surplus is to apply it against the debt, the bad news is, the President and some of my colleagues believe the best use of this possible surplus is to increase spending and provide tax expenditures. By merely proposing his plan, as he outlined at his State of the Union Address, the President has assured a path of confrontation both with this Congress and within this Congress. I believe that Congress and the President need to avoid such partisan politics and work together on reaching an agreement as to how best to utilize these surpluses. Further, I believe the best option available to us is to agree on a realistic adjustment to the 1997 budget caps, do the best we can to respond to the needs of the American people within that limit, and use the balance of the surplus to pay down the national debt. If we can't start paying down our national debt now, with the longest period of economic growth in the history of our Nation, with record low unemployment and low inflation, when will we ever be able to do it? We have a moral obligation to do it now. I am ashamed, and so should my colleagues be ashamed, that because of 30 years of irresponsible fiscal policies our national debt has increased 1,300 percent. My granddaughters, Mary Faith and Veronica, and my 2-week-old grandson, John, have each inherited a debt of nearly $21,000 because Members of Congress and our Presidents weren't willing to pay for the things they wanted, or, in the alternative, do without those items they could not afford. I agree with General Accounting Office Comptroller General David Walker, who, in testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee 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. Fortunately, that message is starting to be heard. Last month, Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, announced his goal of eliminating all federal debt held by the public by 2015. Not soon enough, but Speaker Hastert gets it. And I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle join us in supporting debt reduction as our primary fiscal goal because it is in the best interest of this nation. In order to ensure fiscal discipline and prevent us from ``backsliding'' into the fiscal mess we've been in for the past 30-plus years, I am introducing today a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, or what I like to refer to as the ``backbone budget amendment.'' I believe it is the only guarantee that we will never return to the days of deficit spending and the accumulation of debt, and we should do it now. Now! The time is right, and those of my colleagues who have championed this in the past should seize upon this opportunity to join me in this effort, because, as they know, or should know, a Balanced Budget Amendment is the most effective method of keeping a handle on spending. My proposal is a departure from previous proposals by stipulating that Social Security surpluses be exempt from deficit calculations. That is, a true balanced budget must be achieved without using off- budget Social Security surpluses to finance spending in other areas. A federal balanced budget constitutional amendment will help Congress and the President make the hard decisions because they will no longer be able to tap the Social Security surplus. It is a simple matter of fact that without constitutional and statutory balanced budget provisions at the state and local level, many of our state and local governments would be in the same degree of debt as the federal government. And let me just touch on my own personal experience, because I've had to deal with very real financial problems in my state. Without a charter provision and a constitutional requirement, it would have been virtually impossible for me to bring the City of Cleveland out of the default I inherited when I was Mayor, and to deal with Ohio's $1.5 billion deficit when I was Governor. Think about it--if we had a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment, and if we were to have a President who didn't want to make tough budget choices on his or her own, the Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment would give the President the backbone he or she needs to make those tough choices. And believe me, I've discovered after just 1 year in the Senate, this Congress needs the ``Backbone Budget Amendment'' to force us to make those tough choices. If we pass the amendment, I'm confident that three-fourths of our state legislatures would ratify it without question, because most of them are required by laws in their respective states to balance their budgets. And there is one other thing we need to do now, and that is enact Senator Domenici's biennial budget legislation. I am a co-sponsor of this legislation because I believe it is an important tool to help use federal funds more efficiently and strengthen Congress' proper oversight role. Right now, we spend far too much time debating the federal budget, particularly discretionary spending. Conversely, we don't devote nearly as much time as we should on oversight of the federal agencies because of the time and energy consumed by the budget resolution, budget reconciliation and the appropriations process. Indeed, when he introduced his legislation last year, Senator Domenici pointed out in his statement that in 1996, 73% of the votes taken in the Senate that year were related to the budget--often the same subject is voted upon 3 or 4 times a year. A biennial budget will help Congress and the Executive Branch avoid the annual, lengthy budget and appropriations process and allow us to increase our attention on the government oversight portion of our job. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management and Restructuring, I have noted that GAO report after GAO report sits on the shelf and no one does anything about them because no one has the time to conduct the follow-up. And from career bureaucrats to Cabinet Secretaries, nearly everyone in the Executive branch knows that when they're asked to come up to the Hill for an oversight hearing, once it's over, it's over--rarely do they have to worry about any follow-up hearings because Congress just doesn't have the time. Unfortunately, that reality can create problems that impact public safety or national security. As a freshman Senator, I was shocked to learn when we had hearings this past year regarding Dr. Lee and the situation at the Los Alamos National Lab that for 20 years we've had a problem with security at the Department of Energy, and no one did anything about it. But GAO knew: they've released 31 major reports on nuclear-security problems at the Department since 1980. That's just incredible! We need the time for oversight, and the 2-year budget cycle will make that possible, just like it did when I was Governor of Ohio. There is an old saying, ``prepare for tomorrow, today.'' The President and Congress must make a real commitment to fiscal responsibility, and if we need an example, all we have to do is emulate what most American families do when they have extra money. They don't go out and start spending wildly. They look to pay off their debts-- their credit cards, their loans and their mortgages. With our booming economy and with inflation and unemployment at historically low levels, there exists the best opportunity in a generation to pay down the national debt, reform and preserve Social Security and Medicare and ensure that our Nation meets its constitutional obligations. Such a legacy of fiscal responsibility would be the best possible gift we could give to our children and grandchildren, and to our Nation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print a copy of my legislation in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 12 noon, with Senator Voinovich in control of the first 30 minutes and Senator Durbin in control of the second 30 minutes. For the information of all Senators, the final appropriations items were filed last night and are expected to be considered in the House throughout the day. Therefore, following morning business, it is expected that the Senate will begin consideration of the final appropriations items as they are received. Members will be notified as the schedule for consideration becomes clearer. The Senate may also consider any legislative or executive items cleared for action during today's session. I thank my colleagues for their attention. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, as the first session of the 106th Congress comes to a close, I want to remind my colleagues that the aftermath of our nation's largest foreign policy initiative this year and a 78-day air war, will be our nation's biggest foreign policy concern next year. As my colleagues are aware, I opposed our nation's ``sign or we'll bomb'' diplomacy that ultimately led to the decision to conduct the air war over Kosovo and Serbia earlier this year. Instead, I believed that we should have done all that we could to negotiate a real diplomatic solution. Nevertheless, at the conclusion of the conflict, I came to the Senate floor and commented that ``some good always blows in an ill wind.'' The ``good'' that I saw in the ill wind of the bombing campaign was the opportunity for NATO and the United States to provide the impetus for a lasting peace throughout Southeastern Europe. Since that time, my staff and I have spent hours working hard to ensure that some good does blow in and that we do not lose this opportunity to promote peace, stability and prosperity in that region of our world. To ensure the future of Southeast Europe, it is important to understand its past. Every student of history is well aware that this century's two most horrific wars had deep roots in the Balkans, but few people are aware of the level of violence, bloodshed, hatred and destruction that has been commonplace in the region for centuries. Indeed, the Balkans have been the site of numerous wars and countless battles, and have been fought over by every major regional power since the days of the Roman legions. Over the last 10 years, regional ethnic tensions have resulted in yet another nightmare for the people of the Balkans. And for the third time this century, Europe, reluctantly, has turned its attention to their southern neighbors. Their concern can be attributed to self-interest; an attempt to get Southeast Europe to settle down so as to avoid any possible spillover that could bring unrest to their nations, and a genuine concern over the ethnic cleansing and human rights violations in the region. To do this, Europe has involved the international community, and in particular, the United States, which, for the first time in our history, has immersed itself politically and militarily in the region. Our willingness to get involved and lead should have come earlier. Indeed, when conflicts began in Bosnia in the early 1990's, it was reported that a key foreign policy official of the Bush Administration made the statement that ``we have no dog in this fight.'' History records that nothing could have been further from the truth. According to Ambassador Richard Holbrooke in his book, ``To End A War'': Europe believed it could solve Yugoslavia without the United States; Washington believed that, with the Cold War over, it could leave Yugoslavia to Europe. Europe's hour had not dawned in Yugoslavia; Washington had a dog in this particular fight. The overconfidence of Europe and the disengagement of the United States contributed greatly to the tragedy of Slavonia, Krijna and Bosnia-Herzegovina. When we finally realized it was important for the U.S. to get involved, we dealt with, and thus, legitimatized three war criminals--Slobodan Milosevic, Franco Tudjman and Alija Izetbegovic--at the Dayton Peace Accords. Unfortunately, the legitimitization of Milosevic caused us to continue to have a relationship with him at a time when we should have been working with opposition leaders to get rid of him. Then, when he showed his true colors, we were reluctant to be as aggressive as we should have been. We misjudged him, we underestimated him, and now we're paying the price for our mistake. As a result, we have spent at least $18 billion in operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Serbia and elsewhere. We will, no doubt, spend billions more. In addition, we have placed a tremendous strain on the equipment and personnel of our Armed Forces due to our past and present involvement in peacekeeping missions in Southeast Europe. Also, the State Department has paid an incredible amount of attention to the Balkans. And finally, we have complicated our relations with other nations on the international scene--primarily, Russia and China. A November 1 article written by Elizabeth Sullivan, foreign-affairs correspondent for the Cleveland Plain Dealer, indicates that the Russians harbor resentment and incredulity towards the United States over our assuming an air of moral superiority regarding their actions in Chechnya. They see our attitude as a double standard, which affects our ability to appeal to their better instincts. She writes: The Kremlin is resolutely turning a deaf ear to U.S. admonitions for restraint in Chechnya. The criticisms have inflamed anti-U.S. feelings in Russia where it's bitterly recalled that NATO's unpopular bombing killed hundreds of Yugoslav civilians. It is the first big display of lost U.S. influence after Kosovo. It is clear that instability in Southeast Europe has the potential to threaten America's overall interests throughout the rest of Europe. However, a full-fledged integration of Southeast Europe into the whole European community would remove the burden and expense of maintaining a constant peacekeeping force, end years of diplomatic wrangling and political posturing, and more important, end the death and destruction that has plagued the region. Recently, I met with a number of Ambassadors from the Balkans region in the LBJ room here in the Capitol. They made it very clear to me that they are ready to work together. I was pleased that they realized they have a symbiotic relationship--a relationship that must be cultivated in order to bring about peace and implement a modern, free-market economy. The Holy Spirit was definitely present in that room. There was an aura of enlightenment among those leaders, and we must capitalize on the momentum of this cooperative spirit if we are to successfully bring the region into the broader European fold. Consider that not so many years ago, no one would have thought that European political and economic cooperation, let alone union, was possible. After all, two world wars had been fought in the trenches and on the fields of Europe, fostering tremendous ill-will among many nationalities. Today, those feelings have largely dissipated. Germans, French, Italians--all share the same currency. They cross national boundaries freely. They work cooperatively to solve economic problems because it is in their collective best interest. We are seeing that in terms of competition right now. The Ambassadors I met with see this cooperation and wish it for their nations, but, they are also quite frustrated with the lack of speed by the international community in responding to the humanitarian and economic needs of the region. The NATO air war triggered immense human suffering which has not yet been fully remedied. Here are some facts: The refugee exodus from Kosovo decimated the economies of surrounding nations, especially in Macedonia. Macedonia's reaching out to help their fellow man was done at a great sacrifice to their economy and the quality of life of their people. In the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), there are still 500,000 refugees from Slavonia, Krijna, and Bosnia. Another 150,000 were displaced during the Kosovo bombing. In Kosovo, the international community has had to deal with 700,000 refugees who have returned after the conflict. 500,000 of these refugees are still officially considered ``internally displaced persons,'' without any place to call their own. Kosovo has turned into an armed camp where soldiers from numerous countries are forced to keep the peace and prevent further bloodshed. The lack of an effective internal police force has led to virtual chaos, where organized crime and illegal drug trafficking is said to be rampant and a cause of great concern among its citizens. On this last point, a senior official from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE, told me that the reason there is no effective police force in Kosovo is because there aren't enough qualified or even interested individuals willing to join the force. The official told me that if the crime problem in Kosovo isn't checked, it will spread to the entire region and into the rest of Europe. Indeed, this point was illustrated again in the November 1 Elizabeth Sullivan article for the Cleveland Plain Dealer. She wrote: The scope of the gun, drug and prostitute trade fanned by the Kosovo conflict is also becoming clear. [Last week] Italian and Swiss police busted a ring that allegedly smuggled millions of dollars in Swiss weapons to Kosovo, and Albanian prostitutes out to Italy, using humanitarian aid as a cover. The growing crime problem was definitely a topic of concern for the Ambassadors I met with. I was amazed that they considered organized crime and drugs their No. 1 or No. 2 concern to be addressed. Think of that, organized crime and drugs as their No. 1 or No. 2 concern in the region. The fact of the matter is, the bombing has had a terribly destabilizing effect on the region, and a very real impact on the humanitarian situation and basic human existence as well, one that has not been widely reported to the American people. The T.V. cameras are gone now. You know how it is: out of sight, out of mind, and we have moved on to other issues. Although it's hard to grasp the extent of the problem, for the last several months, the U.S. has been working through the United Nations and the International Committee for the Red Cross to deal with the needs of the region. Both the UN and the Red Cross claim that they will be able to keep people fed, clothed and sheltered through the upcoming winter. Yet, I have received a number of credible reports in recent weeks which indicate that in fact we will witness a humanitarian catastrophe in the region in the months ahead because of a lack of shelter, heat, food and medical care. I am aware that there are individuals in the foreign policy community who are opposed to providing significant assistance to the people of Serbia. They believe that humanitarian suffering will lead to political discontent which will, in turn, lead to a popular movement that will bring about the removal of Slobodan Milosevic. I disagree. With the exception of South Africa, crippling sanctions have not successfully brought about a change in political leadership. Just look at Saddam Hussein in Iraq. We don't know what is going on there anymore. To emphasize this point, Professor Julie Mertus of the Ohio Northern University wrote an excellent piece which was recently published in the Washington Post. Professor Mertus specializes in international law. Here is what she has to say: How does a freezing and hungry Yugoslavia advance U.S. policy goals? Certainly Milosevic will not be hungry this winter. The idea is that the pain and suffering among the lowest strata of society will ``trickle up'' to the higher echelons. Protests by discontented citizens will lead to policy changes and perhaps even the removal of Milosevic. The problem is that humans do not behave this way. Cold, dispirited citizens do not take to the streets. Rather, they draw up inside their own homes and try to survive. If the going gets tough, they try to exit, often leaving the country. Only the few with hope continue to fight, and even they cannot persist for long when they are isolated from supportive networks. Our sanctions policy has allowed Milosevic to blame Serbia's faltering economy, declining humanitarian situation and international isolation on the West. He has been able to deflect the ire of the Serbian people who have little access to independent media. We must pursue specific courses of action that will help us get rid of Milosevic once and for all. No. 1, we must continue to squeeze Milosevic so that his allies inside and outside the Serbian government will see that he is vulnerable and his hold on power is tenuous. Milosevic is an indicted war criminal, and we have to make his allies understand that his fate is their fate. In other words, leave now, or pay later. No. 2, we should work with our allies to announce a detailed humanitarian and economic aid package that would be available to the people of Serbia once Milosevic is removed. The importance of this kind of package to the success of democratization was underscored recently when several of us met with the leaders of the anti-Milosevic force right here in the Capitol. They talked about how important it was we have a clear, defined package that says, if he goes, here is what we are willing to do. No. 3, we should provide as much assistance as we can, including such things as heating oil, food, clothing and direct financial assistance, as soon as possible to the Serbian opposition groups, particularly the mayors, who are struggling to bring about democratic change. No. 4, we should continue to support President Djukanovic of Montenegro with whom I met two weeks ago. He is a bright and energetic leader and a key ally for peace and prosperity in Southeast Europe. No. 5, we must undertake a massive effort to overrun Milosevic's monopoly control on Serbia's mass media. Milosevic's distorted information must be countered with the truth; a commodity we must get to the Serb people whatever way possible. As I mentioned earlier, I held a meeting recently with a number of ambassadors and senior embassy staff from the nations of Southeast Europe to get their reaction to the Stability Pact initiative. And they were honest; they said things were not going well. They were very clear that it was essential that the United States be at the table to provide leadership and contribute our fair share. Without our presence, they are not confident that our NATO allies will make good on the promises they made at the end of the war. And, quite frankly, I think it is up to us to make it clear to our European allies that we expect them to adhere to their commitment. We are going to be at the table. We are going to have leadership. We are anteing up, and it is time for you to ante up and make good on your promises. The best way I can summarize the attitude at the meeting I had with the ambassadors, and the meeting I had with the Serbian opposition leaders is a word in Serbo-Croatian--``edemo''--which means, ``let's get going!'' On balance, I believe there has been some real progress made on a number of fronts in our policy towards Southeast Europe in recent months. The Stability Pact is moving ahead--albeit slowly and indeed need of some additional leadership, particularly ours. The policy toward sanctions seems to be finessed a bit and real work finally is being done on the ground in the region to deal with humanitarian concerns. I am pleased the administration is starting to soften up on this a little bit. The administration is meeting with Serbian opposition leaders and financial support is beginning to trickle into the movement. Southeastern European nations are beginning to think regionally with the understanding they have a symbiotic relationship in their efforts to promote and develop their economies. That is wonderful. Although in many respects, things are much better off today than they were after the war, the momentum has to be increased significantly, and that is the challenge of this Congress and this administration. The administration, working through the State Department, bears the responsibility of bringing about real change in Serbia and honoring the commitments the United States has made to friendly governments in Southeast Europe. Congress has an obligation to provide oversight and support to the administration's policies towards the restoration of peace and stability in the region. To that end, I look forward to working with my colleagues in the next session of Congress to loosen some of the restrictive language that was placed in the Foreign Operations appropriations bill, language that the State Department claims has made it difficult, and continues to make it difficult, for them to do the kinds of things they would like to be doing in Southeast Europe. The Senate has already made a positive start with the recent unanimous passage of the Serbia Democratization Act. I believe we need to build on that progress. Southeast Europe is strategic to our national interests and key to our efforts to maintain peace in the world. Until the nations of Southeast Europe are welcomed into the broader European community, those efforts will remain unfulfilled. The United States must provide the leadership because we do ``have a dog in this fight.'' I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to read an editorial from today's Columbus Dispatch. I want to read it in its entirety because I believe it strongly makes a point that needs to be made. The editorial is entitled: ``Cooked books--That big federal budget surplus? It isn't.'' The editorial reads as follows: The president and members of Congress should all be kept after school to write this on the blackboard 123 billion times: There is no federal budget surplus. The $123 billion surplus that the president and Congress are crowing about last week really is a $1 billion deficit, hidden by $124 billion in excess Social Security tax revenue that shouldn't even be counted in the general budget because it is meant to be set aside in a trust fund to cover retirement-benefit payments later. Put that Social Security money aside as intended and the truth about the federal surplus becomes evident: The government spent $1 billion more than it took in last year. Certainly, a $1 billion deficit is a vast improvement over years past, when the government was running in the red to the tune of $200 billion or more annually and creating a national debt approaching $6 trillion. But it is still a deficit. And it is patently dishonest for the president and Congress to pretend that all that red ink is black. Even the $124 billion in excess Social Security revenues is really not a surplus for the retirement program. Yes, Social Security took in more last year than it paid out, but that surplus is a drop in the bucket of the program's $8 trillion unfunded liability. That's the amount of money the program ultimately is obligated to pay out to current retirees and workers above and beyond what those participants have paid or will pay into the system. The $124 billion cushion that Social Security has right now puts a mere 1.6 percent dent in that massive obligation. Congress and the president each pay lip service to the idea of balancing the federal budget and preserving the Social Security surpluses for Social Security, but a genuine commitment to these goals would begin with honest bookkeeping. Until then, it is back to the blackboard: There is no federal budget surplus. There is no federal budget surplus. There is no federal budget surplus. Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VOINOVICH

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