George Voinovich

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the trade legislation package which constitutes the manager's amendment to H.R. 434, the African Growth and Opportunity Act. This trade legislation will provide economic opportunity to millions of people in the United States and throughout the world. Under this package, African and Caribbean nations will be able to use trade as a tool to spur economic development where foreign aid and other means clearly have not worked. Stronger economies in these two regions of the world will, in turn, lead to bigger markets for U.S. exports, and consequently more and better paying jobs for American workers. On the issue of open foreign markets for U.S. products, I would like to express my support for an amendment on carousel retaliation being offered by my colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine. If the newly formed World Trade Organization and the promise of a rules-based system of international trade is to survive, then we cannot--and should not-- tolerate flagrant disregard for internationally agreed trading rules by other WTO members such as the European Union. We need to use the tools that are now available to us to ensure that our trading partners comply with WTO decisions. And its important to those of us who believe in free trade that the U.S. Trade Representative and the Department of Commerce use all the tools available to them to guarantee that we have fair trade. Too often we have amendments like Senator DeWine's amendment-- which I have co-sponsored--because the U.S. trade representative has not been as aggressive as they should be and they do not use the tools they have been given by Congress. This is very important, because trade is the economic lifeblood of the United States. Twelve million American jobs depend directly on exports. And exports are a major reason why our economy continues to do so well. In fact, one-third of our economic growth since 1992 can be attributed directly to exports. Ohio is a textbook example of why international trade is good for America. When I was Governor, I had four goals in the area of economic development--agribusiness, science and technology, tourism and international trade. We pursued each of these aggressively in order to maximize Ohio's business potential, especially in the trade arena. For example, Ohio has outperformed the nation in terms of the growth of exports to our NAFTA trading partners. Since 1993, U.S. exports to Canada have grown 54 percent and U.S. exports to Mexico have grown 90 percent, while Ohio exports to Canada have grown 64 percent and Ohio exports to Mexico have grown 101 percent. Thanks in part to such trade-liberalizing agreements as NAFTA and the Uruguay Round of GATT, overall Ohio exports have risen 103 percent in just the last decade. And because export-related jobs tend to require higher-skilled workers and provide higher-paying salaries, when America's exports of goods and services increase, so do the number and quality of American jobs. Just in Ohio, the increase in exports has created 182,000 jobs over the past ten years. And these export-related jobs tend to pay, on average, 15% more than a typical private sector job. Eliminating trade barriers has not only helped Ohio companies sell more overseas, but it has also allowed more foreign companies to invest in Ohio, creating more, good paying jobs for Ohioans. According to Site Selection magazine, from 1991-1997, Ohio had more growth in non-U.S. owned firms than any other state--some 300 new manufacturing facilities and plant expansions took place during that time. In addition to creating more, better-paying jobs, trade openness has an enormous impact on the earnings for average Americans who invest in companies that increase their international trade presence. These earnings help increase the amount of money people have to reinvest in the growth of our economy or to invest in their savings, retirement and education funds. This chart lists 35 of the biggest U.S. corporations as measured in market value. None of these companies is majority-owned by a family or individual. In other words, they are all in the stock market. For 25 of these 35 companies, trade makes up more than one-third of their global operations, and for 12 of these companies, international trade accounts for more than half of global sales or revenues--including Cincinnati- based Procter and Gamble, which can attribute about 51 percent of its global sales to international operations. Thus, in the case of Procter and Gamble, there is a genuine interest on the part of thousands of employees, and even more thousands of individual shareholders, in the ability to expand internationally. In my State of Ohio, there are many more companies that understand that robust two-way trade is the key to creating more jobs and increased investment. These are companies like--Cincinnati Milacron, Federated, American Electric Power, The Limited, Inc. and Intimate Brands, TRW Inc., Chiquita Brands, The Andersons, Battelle, ElectraForm, General Electric Jet Engines, Lincoln Electric, NCR, R.G. Barry Corporation and hundreds of other small businesses, many of which traveled with me when I was governor, on nine trade missions around the world. In Ohio and across America, the future of companies like these is a crucial link to the vitality of our communities because of the jobs they support and their contribution to the local tax base. In addition, these companies provide philanthropic support to local hospitals, schools and colleges and universities as well as countless charities and institutions. The support these companies provide is linked directly to the overall quality of life in many of our communities. For example, Atlanta would be a much different city without the civic and charitable contributions of a company like Coca-Cola. Companies like Coca Cola--their workers, their stockholders--know that 95% of their potential customers for their products live outside the United States, and that's why trade expansion is so fundamental to the economic future of all Americans. Many of my colleagues may ask why the average American should care about the importance of trade and the expansion of markets overseas. The reason they should care is because it's average Americans who are the stakeholders--the millions upon millions of individual investors. Indeed, according to a survey in this past Sunday's Washington Post, nearly half of all Americans are invested in the stock market. Twenty- two million American households, or roughly 22%, are invested in corporate America through employer-sponsored retirement plans. And those Americans referred to as ``Generation X''--individuals in their 20s--reportedly hold 80 percent of their assets in stocks. Baby boomers, who own about half of all outstanding stock, have about 57 percent of their assets in equities. As these figures show, international trade does matter to the average American. The economic stimulus sparked through increased international trade and investment allows millions of Americans to plan for their children's college education, for retirement nest eggs and for long- term financial security. While the passage of this legislation is important to the economic future of America's workers and citizen stock-holders, it will also provide a lasting impact on the economic and political development of our African and Central American trading partners--an impact that is sure to fulfill our hopes for world peace and prosperity. With respect to increased U.S. trade and investment in the nations of Africa and the Caribbean, it is far better to stimulate the economies of the nations of these two regions than to simply offer these nations foreign aid year after year. Increasing investment and trade opportunities in these regions means that more people can work and raise their own standard of living. It's like the old adage ``give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he will eat for a lifetime.'' International trade not only allows nations to become productive members of the world community, but it is probably the best way to ensure international stability. In fact, back in 1994, U.N. Secretary General Boutrous Boutrous-Ghali visited Columbus, Ohio and I said to him that ``nations that trade together, stay together and help sustain world peace.'' Promoting peace and prosperity through trade was one of the aspects I pursued on each of my nine foreign trade missions when I was Governor of Ohio, including trips to India, Thailand, Chile, Hungary and China. Unfortunately, that particular aspect of international trade is too often ignored. We ignore the impact of international trade on stability and peace in the world. What amazes me, Mr. President, is that so many so called protectionists lament about deplorable conditions in the world's poor nations, and this Nation, the United States of America, doesn't respond to the needs of people in Africa and other parts of the world. Yet it is these protectionists who are content to criticize free trade proponents for wanting to take down trade barriers, invest in poorer nations, and provide the tools for economic growth, jobs, and self- reliance in those countries. There is no way the U.S. Government can provide the billions of dollars needed for these countries to develop and raise the standard of living for their people. It can only be done through private investment. The leaders of 47 African nations know this fact, and that is why they want us to support this trade measure. As Senator Breaux pointed out earlier today, international trade also contributes to the political stability of the countries in the world. Think about what has happened in South America since we opened up our economic relationships with them over the last number of years. This trade legislation will help drive an economic expansion in Africa, as well as for our neighbors in the Caribbean and Central America. In addition, it will provide for the future of an energetic, export-driven American economy. It will sustain and create good-paying, high-quality jobs in Ohio and across America and allow millions of Americans to save and invest for their children's education and their retirement security. This legislative package stands on its own merits. It was unanimously reported out of the committee, and I really believe it deserves the support of our colleagues. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to address in the Senate some matters that I believe are important as we approach the end of the fiscal year 2000 appropriations cycle. Foremost among my concerns is the increasing role the Federal Government plays in our everyday lives in the area of education, and the budgetary impact on our nation that results from assuming this and other roles more properly and constitutionally the responsibilities of State and local government. I have witnessed during my first year in the Senate a number of positively amazing and enlightening experiences that have made me feel proud to be able to serve in this body and at this level of government. Yet my pride is increasingly tempered by subjects which have caused me great concern. You needn't be an experienced member of the Senate, a Governor, or public official to appreciate the dire situation our nation faces with regard to the solvency of Social Security and Medicare. However, as public officials and stewards of our Nation's finances, I believe that we must be all the more vigilant of this reality since every decision we make at this level in some way will impact whether we as a nation will be able to honor the commitments we have made. I wish to highlight some recent examples as to how we in the Senate have, I believe, erroneously prioritized with respect to our federal responsibilities. For example: Mr. President without a doubt, improvement in the quality of education is a top concern for parents, teachers, and employers across the country--in fact, improvement in the quality of education ought to be our number one priority as a nation. As with all issues, when discussing education we must ask two key questions: 1. What level of government is responsible? 2. How are we going to pay for it? Since the introduction of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 by President Johnson, the Federal Government has gradually been increasing it's involvement in education. Rather than the role of a very junior partner in education reform, the President has offered a number of initiatives throughout his term that would substitute the U.S. Department of Education for most local school boards. Mr. President, we recently spent hours and hours of debate on the subject of education in the context of the fiscal year 2000 Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations Bill. We allocated $2.3 billion more on education in this year's Senate bill compared to fiscal year 99, a more than 6% increase at a time when we have a problem balancing the budget. Yet, the primary responsibility for our nation's education doesn't and shouldn't reside in Washington. The text of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers indicate that responsibility for our Nation's education resides with State and local government--not the Federal government. And indeed, States have upheld their constitutional responsibilities and have responded to our education needs by moving forward with appropriate reforms and spending. State spending in education has increased dramatically in the past decade. According to a recent report by the National Governors' Association and the National Association of State Budget Officers entitled The Fiscal Survey of States, elementary and secondary educational now accounts for slightly more than one-third of State general funds spending and about one-quarter of State spending from all funding sources. The report goes on to say that: . . . elementary and secondary educational has been the largest state expenditure category, with almost $182 billion in total expenditures in 1998. Its growth has outpaced the growth in total state expenditures, with overall state expenditures increasing by 6 percent between 1997 and 1998 and elementary and secondary education spending increasingly by 7.2 percent. Governors' recommended budget for fiscal year 2000 include an average proposed increase for elementary and secondary education of 4.8 percent, and an average proposed 4.3 percent increase for post- secondary education. During my two terms as Governor of Ohio, we increased education spending from our General Revenue Fund by $2 billion, or 50.7 percent. The amount of Basic Aid per pupil rose during my term from $2,636 to $3,851, or 46 percent--and a 56 percent increase in per-pupil expenditures was measured for the poorest one-fourth of Ohio's schools. In addition, under my administration, State funding support for capital improvements for Ohio's primary and secondary school buildings totaled more than $1.56 billion. We have wired every classroom for voice, video, and data to the tune of $525 million. We have increased accountability and established higher classroom standards in Ohio and are implementing a more stringent set of academic requirements that students must meet to earn a high school diploma. In particular, State funding for Ohio's youngest children has grown tremendously. Child care spending alone increased by 681 percent under my administration! I am especially proud of what we have done in Ohio with the Head Start program. Ohio is now the national leader in State support for Head Start. When I began as Governor, State support for Head Start in fiscal year 1990 was $18.4 million. In fiscal year 1998, State spending for Head Start had increased to $181.3 million, making Ohio the first State in the nation to provide a slot for every eligible 3- or 4-year- old child whose family desires quality early care and education services. The first question we should ask is: whose responsibility is education--and mostly it is a State and local responsibility. The second question is: how are we going to pay for it? A few weeks ago I spoke on the Senate floor in response to the President's announcement of a $115 billion surplus in fiscal year 1999, indicating that it would be wonderful if it were only true. The President, however, neglected to mention during his remarks in the Rose Garden that OMB also projected an on-budget deficit. The only way the President could claim an on-budget surplus was by using the employee payroll taxes coming into the Social Security trust fund. During the recent debate over the Labor, HHS, Education appropriations bill, I heard a lot of talk in the Senate with respect to funding for schools, funding for 100,000 new teachers, funding for teacher training. We spent a great deal of time discussing Federal class size initiatives. Additional debate on the role of the Federal Government in providing funding for school construction is likely to follow in future debates. The reality is, however, that many States already have class size initiatives in place--I know of at least 20 States that are doing this now. Additionally, it is also reported that at least 28 States have already proposed major initiatives in the area of school construction in their fiscal year 2000 budgets. Governors of at least 13 states have already recommended using a portion of their tobacco settlement funds for education. Ohio itself would commit $2.5 billion of their tobacco settlement funds for school facilities under Governor Taft's plan. You will recall that the States fought hard to keep the President from using any of the tobacco settlement funds recovered from State- initiated lawsuits for his own priorities in his budget. Instead, many States are exercising responsible leadership by recommending these funds be used to honor a number of key state priorities and commitments such as education. My point is this: The Federal Government is not the school board of America. The Members of the U.S. Senate are not members of the school board of the United States. The responsibility for education is at the state and local level, where they are in much better financial shape than the Federal Government, as I've illustrated. We have a staggering $5.6 trillion national debt--a debt that has grown some 1,300 percent in the last 30 years. I remind my colleagues, with each passing day, we are spending $600 million a day just on interest on the national debt--$600 million a day! Most Americans do not realize that 14 percent of their tax dollar goes to pay off the interest on the debt, 15 percent goes to national defense, 17 percent goes for non-defense discretionary spending, and 54 percent goes for entitlement spending. We are spending more on interest payments today than we spend on Medicare and Congress needs to spend more money on Medicare as we all know--now! When my wife and I got married in 1962, interest payments on the dept were at 6 cents on the dollar. If we would have only had to pay 6 cents on the dollar last year, Americans would have saved $131 billion dollars. We would have saved $229 billion if we didn't have to make any interest payments on the debt last year! Meanwhile, States have been both cutting taxes and running true surpluses--a reality that does not exist here in Washington. For fiscal year 1999, my last budget as Governor, Ohio had a budget surplus of $976 million, and operates a rainy day fund containing $953 million--up from 14 cents in 1992. And because of good management and a strong economy, we provided an almost 10 percent across-the-board reduction this year for those filing their 1998 returns. As I said earlier, the States are in a much better position to spend money on education than we are, yet we continue to advocate more Federal spending--more than last year, more than the year before-- dipping into our nation's pension fund. As it is, the Federal Government does have responsibilities to the American people to uphold the promises we have given to them in Medicare, Social Security and national security--promises that we are desperately struggling to maintain. We need to begin establishing just what our priorities are as a legislative body, and where our responsibility lies. One instance in the context of the Labor, HHS, Education legislation we just completed where I believe the Federal Government has been particularly irresponsible is in the almost $1 billion decrease in funding for the Social Services Block Grant originally written into the bill. As you know, States rely on the Social Services Block Grant to provide crucial services to low-income individuals, including children, families, the elderly and the disabled. However, funding for this block grant has been cut repeatedly the last few years, despite the Federal commitment made in the 1996 welfare reform agreement with the States. Congress and the administration guaranteed that funding would be maintained at $2.38 billion each year from fiscal year 1997--fiscal year 2002. Instead, funding for the Social Services Block Grant for fiscal year 2000 has only reached the level of $1.05 billion. Yet, in the appropriations bill we have somehow managed to increase funding in a number of other areas, including a $2 billion increase above the fiscal year 1999 funding level of $15.6 billion for the National Institutes of Health. In the process of providing for the 13 percent increase in funding for the National Institutes of Health, we have cut the Social Services Block Grant, which provides for the most vulnerable and underserved in our population, by 45 percent. How do we reconcile these kinds of decisions based on our responsibilities here in Washington and with previous commitments to the States? I should add I believe many of the services provided to young children under the Social Services Block Grant serve as preventive medicine for a number of ailments they may encounter later in life-- ailments the Federal Government funds the National Institutes of Health to research. In other words, if we do not take care of those kids during that prenatal period, they will develop many of the things that the National Institutes of Health are trying to take care of, like high blood pressure and diabetes. Why not take care of it earlier? That does not make sense to me--$2 billion more, and cutting the Social Service Title 20 block grant. It does not make sense. Before we go off spending more money on new education initiatives, such as 100,000 new teachers and financing for new school construction, we should at the very least make it a top priority to honor the Federal Government's funding commitment to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act--currently the largest unfunded mandate by the Federal Government on the states. IDEA currently contains a provision authorizing the Federal Government to fund up to 40 percent of the services provided under Part B of the act. Since its enactment, however, the Federal Government has only appropriated funds for 10 percent of these services--only 10 percent. In the meantime, we must begin taking a serious look at the billions of dollars we spend on education programs to determine whether these programs are effective, and whether the Federal Government should have a role in these programs in the first place. According to GAO, there are 560 different education programs administered by 31 Federal Government agencies. I have asked GAO to formulate methodology that determines the overall effectiveness of Federal education programs. Currently, there is no methodology to do this. Wouldn't it be nice to sit down and look at what we are doing as a country in education, identify the programs definitively, look at those that are really making a difference, get rid of those that are not, and put the money in the programs that are successful? It all gets back to the fact that at each level--Federal, State and local--we all want value, which is getting the best product for the least amount of money, and we all want positive results. To this end, we must work with State governments as partners to come up with a system where we can maximize our dollars to make a difference in the lives of our children. Rather than enact more Federal mandates and raid Social Security to increase Federal spending on State and local responsibilities--we should be giving states greater flexibility to innovate and tailor their education programs to the unique needs of their children. Congress has been talking about drawing a line in the sand, committing not to raid any more from the Social Security trust fund to pay for increased spending for Federal programs. Yet we recently learned from CBO Director Dan Crippen that the FY2000 spending bills that we've been laboring over are already eating up billions of the Social Security surplus--even while our promises to maintain the integrity of the trust fund still hang in the air! I have not forgotten the lockbox I had on my desk, and many other Members of the Senate, putting a firewall between spending and the Social Security trust fund. When faced with honest choices, the American people will not accept the Federal Government paying for programs that are primarily the responsibility of the States at the expense of sacrificing our commitment to Social Security and Medicare, as well as to numerous other commitments the Federal Government has made under law and under the Constitution of the United States of America. That is absolutely unacceptable, and the American people have a right to be upset. We need to be doing better. As the appropriations legislation is finalized in negotiations, I hope that we in the Senate can inject some common sense into the dialog, taking into account our priorities as a Federal legislative body, and weighing the extent to which we should or should not maintain our involvement in various programs that are more properly the responsibility of State and local government. Even now, however, I fear we are primarily driven to compete with the President for political oneupsmanship in the area of education which, while ranked first as a national priority according to polling data, is not the primary responsibility of State and local government. Medicare, Social Security, and national security--these are the primary challenges before us. As fiscal stewards of our Nation's economy, we cannot afford to continue maintaining our involvement in so many other areas, spending at such a pace as we have and it has been enormous. We must define our responsibilities. We must prioritize. We mut exercise fiscal discipline and restraint and insist that we work harder and smarter and do more with less. The current budgetary path that we are on is both dangerous and irresponsible and downright misleading. I am sad to say that many of the fiscal year 2000 appropriations bills with which we have invested so much of our time, despite our best intentions, are flawed by the use of budgetary gimmicks that I cannot help but say overshadow the labors of so many of my colleagues who are shouldered with the difficult task of constructing a budget that both meets all of the perceived demands placed on this body and keeps us out of the red. That is why we must prioritize. In the meantime, I cannot condone the sleight of hand that allows us to postpone making the kind of tough choices that are required to balance our books, and because of that I have voted against a number of these spending bills--bills that, to be sure, would benefit Ohio in a number of ways. We have committed over $17 billion in emergency spending in these bills, and that does not even count the billions of dollars of other spending that's being hidden. We are plastering--and I mean plastering--this spending over with something called directed scoring. Instead of using CBO numbers--that is, the Congressional Budget Office numbers--we have been selectively using numbers from the Office of Management and Budget, the agency for which the President is responsible, whenever they allow us to spend more. Incidentally, does anyone remember the last time we did not have an emergency for which we had to account? Let's end the charade and admit we use emergency spending to avoid the balanced budget spending caps and, while we are at it, admit we are spending every dime of the projected on-budget surplus in fiscal year 2000. When I go back to Ohio, people say to me: What about the tax reduction? You guys are having a tough time just balancing the budget. I want to say this: If we do not have substantially more revenues in fiscal year 2000 than what is currently projected, CBO will announce in January that we are using Social Security to balance the 2000 budget. We have to pray the dollars come in a lot more, but if the dollars do not come in more, then CBO is going to announce in January this budget uses Social Security. It is time to bite the bullet and make the hard choices. Nobody else but us can exercise the fiscal responsibility that is needed. If we cannot do it now, with the lowest unemployment we have had and a booming economy, the question I have is, When will we ever be able to do it? If we fail to make the tough choices now, we will soon be facing a train wreck that will make it impossible for us to respond to the needs specifically delegated in the Constitution to the Federal Government and fail to keep the sacred Social Security and Medicare covenant we have with the American people. Let's get back on track so when we return to Washington at the start of the new millennium, which is just around the corner, we can say with confidence we have, indeed, been the stewards of a government the American people deserve. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to John Chafee. Although I am a new Member of the Senate, I worked with John for many years as Governor of Ohio and as vice chairman and chairman of the National Governors' Association. I worked with him to reform Medicaid and welfare and to reform our laws to protect the environment. I always found him to be a gentleman, a thoughtful man who listened and gave a fair hearing, whether it was in his office or before his committee. I also found him to be a man of profound principle with a deep and abiding sense of care for the less fortunate and the environment. No environmental legislation emerged from this Congress without his imprint. I am sure he looked at the improving environment in this country as part of his public service legacy. In particular, I remember working closely with him on the effort to reform the Safe Drinking Water Act. I was one of the leads for the Governors of the State and local government coalition, and John, of course, was chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. John was a visionary leader insisting on enhancing protection of public health and, for the first time, requiring the use of cost- benefit analysis and risk assessment in setting environmental standards. When we in the State and local government community started out, we were told we wouldn't succeed; that the environmental community would never accept these far-reaching reforms. However, due to John's hard work and credibility, we did succeed and the enactment of the bill was celebrated at The White House. The result was that the bill was viewed as a model for environmental reform by state and local elected officials and as an advancement in the protection of public health by the environmental community. Since I arrived in the Senate earlier this year, I have been privileged to serve on John's Environment and Public Works Committee. We had many oars in the water, so to speak, bills that we were working on. I am saddened that I did not have more of an opportunity to work with John as a colleague here in the Senate, as so many others did, who have spoken so eloquently of their high regard and treasured friendship with him. However, it has been a privilege to work with him and serve with him. I have learned from him and his example. There is no one who ran a better or fairer hearing than John. When John chaired a hearing, you could count that it would start on time. In fact, I tried to get there before him to let him know that first, I respected his chairmanship and, second, to take advantage of his ``early bird'' rule. For those of you who are unaware of the chairman's ``early bird rule,'' it was his way of specially recognizing those who made the effort to show up on time for his hearings. The ``early bird rule'' provided that he would recognize Senators in the order they arrived--regardless of seniority-- although on occasion he did make exceptions if a ``late arrival'' had a special issue to bring before the committee. John reminded me of my father-in-law--if you weren't 5 minutes early for a scheduled meeting, he would be standing there waiting for you while looking at his watch. I have decided that in the future I will no longer refer to the ``early bird rule,'' but will begin a new tradition honoring the chairman by now referring to the ``Chafee rule.'' Others have spoken of John's military and civic service to his country with beautiful oratory, but I simply want to say that as a freshman he was my role model. John Chafee was an honest, hard working, decent, principled, and straight-forward man. I will miss him and the Senate will surely be the less for his loss.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. I am grateful to the Senator from Pennsylvania for his courageous fight to ban this barbaric procedure. Any of us who has listened to him today and last night cannot help but be moved by his eloquence in regard to the importance of banning this procedure. It is difficult even to talk about it because it is so gruesome, but we need to remind Members of the Senate that this is a procedure that is not done on an emergency basis. First, the woman goes through 2 days of doctor visits to get dilated. On the third day, the baby is positioned for delivery in the birth canal. The fetus is turned so that it is delivered feet first, leaving only its head in the womb. An incision is then made in the base of the skull. Finally, with a suction device, the baby's brain matter is suctioned out. The skull collapses, enabling delivery of the dead baby. I cannot understand how anyone can support this procedure or can support it being legal. There are some I have heard in this debate who say it is hard to believe we are even talking about this question on the floor of the Senate. When I think of other things that have been discussed on the floor of the Senate--for example, endangered species or animal rights--for anyone to say we ought not to be talking about this procedure on the floor of the Senate is hard for me to believe. The subject of partial-birth abortion is not a new one for me. Four years ago, in 1995, Ohio was the first State to pass a partial-birth abortion ban. The bill prohibited doctors from performing abortions after the 24th week of pregnancy and banned completely the dilation and extraction procedure which we call the partial-birth procedure in this bill. The bill allowed late-term abortions to save the life of the mother. The women seeking abortions after the 21st week of pregnancy were required to undergo tests to determine the viability of the fetus. If the fetus was deemed to be viable, the abortion would be illegal. The Ohio Senate passed that bill 28-4. The Ohio House passed it 82- 15. These were overwhelming vote majorities which included Democrats and Republicans, pro-life and pro-choice legislators. This is not an issue today of Roe v. Wade or pro-life or pro-choice. If it were, the vote in the Ohio Senate and Ohio House would not have been so overwhelming to ban this procedure. The truth is that most of these abortions are elective. According to Dr. Martin Haskell, to whom the Senator from Pennsylvania has referred, who happens to be from Dayton, OH, about 80 percent are elective. We are talking about 80 percent being elective. We are talking about 80 percent are healthy mothers and healthy babies. We can all quote different statistics, but the bottom line is that there is no need for this procedure. It is never medically necessary. If a mother really needs an abortion, she has alternatives available to her that are not as torturous as partial-birth abortion. One of the other main reasons we do not need these late-term abortions is, thanks to technology available today, we can identify problems really early in pregnancy so abortions can take place earlier. We do not need to have that type of procedure. Women today are being encouraged to come in early on, in the first trimester, for the various tests they need, so that if abortion is acceptable to them, they can have an early abortion while the baby is not viable. The Senator from California earlier today talked about the OB/GYN doctors who have expressed opposition to this legislation. I think the significant thing about her statement today is the fact that she verified that there are other procedures available besides dilation and extraction. In fact, the Senator indicated doctors were worried about the possibility that these other procedures might be banned by the language in this bill. So I want to make it clear to those who believe in abortion and have that tremendous decision in terms of whether or not they are going to deliver the baby that there are other procedures available to them. In fact, dilation and extraction are not even taught in medical school. These babies are humans. They can feel pain. When partial-birth abortions are performed, as the Senator from Pennsylvania said, they are just 3 inches away from life and, for that matter, seconds away. I urge all of my colleagues in the Senate to stand up against what I refer to as human infanticide. This is not a vote on Roe v. Wade. This is a vote about eliminating a horrible procedure that should be outlawed in this country. I urge my colleagues to vote to ban partial- birth abortion in the United States of America.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. My amendment would have leveled the playing field by empowering average Americans over special interests in their ability to participate in the electoral process. I believe the bill before us doesn't do that. I think it further tilts the balance toward a handful of powerful individuals, individuals who have the ability to determine how to spend the dues of some 16 million hard-working men and women. I am quite surprised we haven't heard more about that. The good thing about this bill is that it will end the enormous corporate donations to political parties, donations that reach into six figures. I was glad the Senator from Michigan made a point of the fact that soft money from corporations does not go only to the Republican Party but goes to the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. Editorially, I suggest the invitations to join the Democratic National Committee or the Republican Committee, in terms of belonging to the club, regardless of what happens to McCain-Feingold, ought to be something to which all of us stand up and object. I recall, being Governor of Ohio, I never had a fundraiser in the Governor's residence. I tried not to use my office to take money out of the pockets of people who were encouraged to contribute either to my campaign, someone else's campaign, or to the Republican Party. I hope after this is over, all of us will indicate to our parties that the days of the clubs and the rest of it should be over so that people such as Senator Levin can't get up and show the ways people are being asked to contribute. I think that is horrible. It sends a bad message to the American people. It certainly adds to the cynicism and is one of the reasons we have fewer people show up on election day. Unfortunately, a soft money ban without other reforms has the potential to severely impact the ability of our parties to continue their worthwhile activities, including grassroots mobilization and party building. Banning party soft money is an objective I support. However, I am concerned about the devastating impact it could have on the ability of our national parties to cover operating expenses and grassroots activities. Current contribution limits must be updated. Under current law, an individual can give up to $25,000 per year total in campaign contributions, with a sublimit of $20,000 of that amount to the parties. If we ban soft money contributions to the parties without adjusting total contribution limits, the parties will have to compete with their own candidates for a limited supply of money. My amendment would fix the problem. It would eliminate soft money and would create two separate aggregate limits for yearly hard dollar contributions--I am talking about hard dollar individual contributions--a $25,000 limit to candidates and a $25,000 limit to parties. These limits would be indexed to inflation, so once they went into effect, they would go up each year. In addition to creating new aggregate limits, my amendment would adjust individual campaign contribution limits. As my colleagues know, our current campaign contribution limits are not indexed to inflation; they have remained the same since the law was enacted 25 years ago. Under current law, an individual cannot give more than $1,000 to the general election campaign of a particular Federal candidate in a given year. If this limit had been indexed to inflation, it would be approximately $3,000 today. Adjusting the individual contribution limits is important for three reasons. That is what my amendment would have done. It would have increased it from $1,000 to $3,000, and then it would have indexed it up each year. First of all, it would reduce the amount of time candidates spend raising money. The people in this country should know about the hours and hours candidates running for national office and local office spend dialing for dollars. I have already started to raise money for my next campaign for the Senate because I know if I don't spread it out over a long period of time, I will be unable, during my last 2 years in this body, to do the job the people of the State of Ohio have asked me to do. We need to increase that campaign contribution limit. Second, it would level the playing field for candidates competing against wealthy opponents who are bankrolling their own campaigns. With all due respect to many Members of this body, if we keep going the way we are, people such as George Voinovich will not be able to be in the Senate because we are seeing more and more campaigns bankrolled by individuals who can win primaries and, once the primary is over, they can put their own money into the campaign. Money does have an impact on the results of an election. Third, it also would relieve the pressure for groups to seek out loopholes to circumvent the campaign finance laws. In fact, many experts believe the reason we have the increase in sham issue ads in the past few years is the tightening of the amount individuals can give in hard dollars. My amendment would address these concerns by increasing the individual campaign contribution limit from $1,000 to $3,000 per election and then adjust it, as I say, each year. Lastly, one of the greatest areas of abuse in the current campaign finance system is the involuntary use of membership dues by union leaders for political purposes. In addition to making soft money contributions to parties and engaging in issue advocacy, labor leaders also spend millions of unauthorized dollars each election cycle in order to explicitly advocate for labor's preferred candidates among its rank and file, a rank and file which is over 16 million. That doesn't include the millions more that are in their families. These express advocacy activities include phone banks, get-out-the- vote drives, newsletters, and scorecards. In my State, the Democratic Party does not do it; it is the labor unions that do it. No one, not even union members, is exactly sure how much union leaders spend for these campaign activities because this money is unregulated and thus soft. It is all soft money. Under McCain-Feingold, party soft money would be prohibited, just as it should be. However, McCain-Feingold would allow this key form of union money to remain entirely unchecked. I just can't understand why those who are promoting McCain-Feingold haven't been willing to take on this particular issue that seems to be put over on the side as not being something that is very important. It is really important to many of us around this country, particularly individuals such as myself who have been the victim of that soft money effort. Union leaders would be allowed to continue spending millions of dollars of membership dues to support the candidates of their choice and to influence elections, thereby tilting the playing field in favor of union-backed candidates. We have heard this over and over again today. According to AFL-CIO president John Sweeney, some $46 million in union funds is going to be used to influence this coming election. In the 1996 cycle alone, $30 million was spent. This $46 million is a 53-percent increase in spending from just a few years ago. Think of it, a 53-percent increase in the use of union dues for political purposes. McCain-Feingold would not regulate any of that incredible amount of money--$46 million. That is just for the Federal candidates. It doesn't talk about the money that is going to be used at the State and local level. I believe an effective and constitutional way to address this issue is by requiring union leaders to get written authorization from each of their members before they use any portion of their dues for political activities. I heard earlier about the codification of the Beck decision. While the Beck codification contained in McCain-Feingold bill is a step in the right direction, it would only protect a very small group of people: dues-paying, nonmembers in non-right-to-work States. However, no one should be compelled to give campaign contributions without explicit approval. I do not come from a right-to-work State. I have people in my State who, in order to get a job, must join the union. Many of those individuals complain to me that they have no control over how their union dollars are being spent. I think those individuals, those hard- working men and women, ought to have the opportunity to say whether or not they want their union dues to be used for political purposes. I can't help but believe that, if they did that, it would not be the great problem some think it would be. But it would cause the unions to go out and really get their people involved and let them make their own decision as to whether or not they want their dues to be used for political purposes. My amendment would give them the right to know where their hard- earned dollars are being spent. Unfortunately, I have been denied the opportunity to offer that amendment. The proponents of this bill have utilized parliamentary tactics designed to tie up the Senate without any meaningful discussion of some of these alternatives. That is their right. However, if we don't have a full discussion of this bill--with the ability to amend and make the bill stronger--the proponents of this legislation should not expect Senators to support its passage. We can debate this bill, amend this bill, and pass this bill in the hope we can get some real change in our current campaign finance system. Unfortunately, it appears that some of my colleagues--and we see this a lot in this body--are interested in scoring political points. This is a problem, and I respect those who have tried to do something about it. But, from my perspective, if we don't allow working men and women who belong to labor unions, the opportunity to decide how their union dollars should be spent, this bill is flawed to the extent that I would vote against it. I thank the Chair.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank the Senator from Kentucky. While I am in this body, I am going to continue to try to work with other people to see if we can't come up with something to ban soft money and deal with some of the problems I discussed, which would have been in my amendment.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, this legislation before us today has presented me a dilemma, and that dilemma is that I have been publicly in favor of banning soft money. At the same time, I understand, in my State particularly, our labor unions would not be impacted by this legislation, and for all intents and purposes, they are the Democratic Party in terms of things a party would do traditionally. I also recognize the fact that we need to raise money for our own campaigns and we need to also support our parties so they can do the job a party should be doing in our respective States and nationally. I recall during my campaign for the Senate, I raised my money the hard way, hard dollars. But I kept worrying, toward the end of the campaign, whether or not soft money would appear from somewhere and whether or not I would be able to counteract that soft money coming into our State. In my particular case, it didn't. I suspect maybe it didn't because they thought I was going to win. The fact is, I thought about this last weekend. I had intended to come here today and present an amendment that I think would improve the McCain-Feingold piece of legislation. Unfortunately, I understand no amendments are going to be accepted. I was going to ask that the Daschle amendment be laid aside, but I understand such requests have been objected to. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment I was going to send to the desk be printed in the Record and I be given a few minutes to explain what the amendment would have accomplished.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend and colleague from Ohio, Senator Mike DeWine, to introduce legislation that will remove the limit on the amount of federal Medicaid disproportionate share (DSH) payments for hospitals in Ohio. In 1993, Congress passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) in an effort to curb the rate of growth of federal Medicaid DSH spending to hospitals. Section 1923(g) of that bill placed maximum payment caps on hospitals. Subsequently, Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) in 1997, in which Section 1923(f) placed funding caps on states. With the implementation of the aggregate state DSH spending limits, hospital-specific caps are no longer needed to assure the financial integrity of the program. I have often spoken on the floor of the Senate in support of federalism. When the federal government makes overly prescriptive laws and regulations, it can erode the ability of state governments to protect consumers, promote economic development, and generate the revenue streams that fund education, public safety, infrastructure and other vital services. This is especially true in the case of Medicaid. Hospitals that provide care to indigent patients provide an invaluable service to their communities, often at great expense. DSH payments are intended to help reimburse those expenses. Congress should allow individual states to administer their DSH program in a way that provides the most funding for the most hospitals as possible. Without such leeway, we are imposing what is effectively an unfunded mandate on the private sector--telling these hospitals to treat Medicaid and uninsured patients without helping them pay for it. This is not good policy. This legislation is federalism at its best. Section 1923(g) fails to recognize that each state implements its DSH program differently, and thus fails to recognize that the hospital-specific caps adversely affect Ohio hospitals. This legislation is budget neutral, yet it gives my state the flexibility to implement the Medicaid DSH program in the fairest and most equitable manner. Under Ohio's DSH program, the Hospital Care Assurance Program (HCAP), all necessary hospital services are provided free of charge to persons below the federal poverty line. Generally, under HCAP, hospitals are taxed and those funds are used as the state's share to draw matching federal Medicaid DSH funds. The total pool is then distributed back to hospitals based on the level of each hospital's indigent care. Ideally, the DSH dollars should follow the indigent patients. However, partly because of the hospital-specific caps that were enacted in 1993, there are many HCAP hospitals that are reimbursed far less than the amount that would actually cover their indigent care expenses. The bill will give Ohio the ability to implement a new formula to correct this inequity within Ohio's overall spending limit. Mr. President, Ohio deserves the authority to make health care decisions that are in the best interest of her citizens and their local hospitals. Ohio is not seeking additional federal dollars, merely the flexibility to allocate reimbursement funds under the DSH program where the funds are needed most. I urge passage of this legislation that will give relief to our hospitals and allow them to continue to provide quality care to each and every citizen in my state. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend and colleague from Ohio, Senator Mike DeWine, to introduce legislation that will remove the limit on the amount of federal Medicaid disproportionate share (DSH) payments for hospitals in Ohio. In 1993, Congress passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) in an effort to curb the rate of growth of federal Medicaid DSH spending to hospitals. Section 1923(g) of that bill placed maximum payment caps on hospitals. Subsequently, Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) in 1997, in which Section 1923(f) placed funding caps on states. With the implementation of the aggregate state DSH spending limits, hospital-specific caps are no longer needed to assure the financial integrity of the program. I have often spoken on the floor of the Senate in support of federalism. When the federal government makes overly prescriptive laws and regulations, it can erode the ability of state governments to protect consumers, promote economic development, and generate the revenue streams that fund education, public safety, infrastructure and other vital services. This is especially true in the case of Medicaid. Hospitals that provide care to indigent patients provide an invaluable service to their communities, often at great expense. DSH payments are intended to help reimburse those expenses. Congress should allow individual states to administer their DSH program in a way that provides the most funding for the most hospitals as possible. Without such leeway, we are imposing what is effectively an unfunded mandate on the private sector--telling these hospitals to treat Medicaid and uninsured patients without helping them pay for it. This is not good policy. This legislation is federalism at its best. Section 1923(g) fails to recognize that each state implements its DSH program differently, and thus fails to recognize that the hospital-specific caps adversely affect Ohio hospitals. This legislation is budget neutral, yet it gives my state the flexibility to implement the Medicaid DSH program in the fairest and most equitable manner. Under Ohio's DSH program, the Hospital Care Assurance Program (HCAP), all necessary hospital services are provided free of charge to persons below the federal poverty line. Generally, under HCAP, hospitals are taxed and those funds are used as the state's share to draw matching federal Medicaid DSH funds. The total pool is then distributed back to hospitals based on the level of each hospital's indigent care. Ideally, the DSH dollars should follow the indigent patients. However, partly because of the hospital-specific caps that were enacted in 1993, there are many HCAP hospitals that are reimbursed far less than the amount that would actually cover their indigent care expenses. The bill will give Ohio the ability to implement a new formula to correct this inequity within Ohio's overall spending limit. Mr. President, Ohio deserves the authority to make health care decisions that are in the best interest of her citizens and their local hospitals. Ohio is not seeking additional federal dollars, merely the flexibility to allocate reimbursement funds under the DSH program where the funds are needed most. I urge passage of this legislation that will give relief to our hospitals and allow them to continue to provide quality care to each and every citizen in my state. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Clean Water Infrastructure Financing Act of 1999, legislation which will reauthorize the highly successful, but undercapitalized, Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) Program administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As many of my colleagues know, the Clean Water SRF Program is an effective and immensely popular source of funding for wastewater collection and treatment projects. Congress created the SRF in 1987, to replace the direct grants program that was enacted as part of the landmark 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, or as it is known, the Clean Water Act. State and local governments have used the federal Clean Water SRF to help meet critical environmental infrastructure financing needs. The program operates much like a community bank, where each state determines which projects get built. The performance of the SRF Program has been spectacular. Total federal capitalization grants have been nearly doubled by non-federal funding sources, including state contributions, leveraged bonds, and principal and interest payments. Communities of all sizes are participating in the program, and approximately 7,000 projects nationwide have been approved to date. Ohio has needs for public water system improvements which greatly exceed the current SRF appropriations levels. According to the latest state figures, more than $7 billion of improvements have been identified as necessary. In recent years, Ohio cities and villages are spending more on maintaining and operating their systems than in the past, which is an indication their systems are aging and will soon need to be replaced. For example, the City of Columbus recently requested SRF assistance amounting to $725 million over the next five years. While the SRF program's track record is excellent, the condition of our Nation's environmental infrastructure remains alarming. A 20-year needs survey published by the EPA in 1997 documented $139 billion worth of wastewater capital needs nationwide. This past April, the national assessment was revised upward to nearly $200 billion, in order to more accurately account for expected sanitary sewer needs. Private studies demonstrate that total needs are closer to $300 billion, when anticipated replacement costs are considered. Authorization for the Clean Water SRF expired at the end of fiscal year 1994, and the failure of Congress to reauthorize the program sends an implicit message that wastewater collection and treatment is not a national priority. The longer we have an absence of authorization of this program, the longer it creates uncertainty about the program's future in the eyes of borrowers, which may delay or in some cases prevent project financing. The bill that I am introducing today will authorize a total of $15 billion over the next five years for the Clean Water SRF. Not only would this authorization bridge the enormous infrastructure funding gap, the investment would also pay for itself in perpetuity by protecting our environment, enhancing public health, creating jobs and increasing numerous tax bases across the country. Additionally, the bill will provide technical and planning assistance for small systems, expand the types of projects eligible for loan assistance, and offer disadvantaged communities extended loan repayment periods and principal subsidies. At the local level, there are numerous areas like the town of Glenn Robbins in Jefferson County, Ohio, which cannot afford a zero percent loan to build the cost-effective facilities they need. Estimates indicate that among towns of less than 3,500 population in Ohio, there are $1.5 billion in needs. The health and well-being of the American public depends on the condition of our Nation's wastewater collection and treatment systems. Unfortunately, the facilities that comprise these systems are often taken for granted because they are invisible absent a crisis. Let me assure my colleagues that the costs of poor environmental infrastructure are simply intolerable. Recent flood disasters have been a stark reminder of the human costs that stem from the contamination of our Nation's water supply. The Clean Water SRF Program has helped thousands of communities meet their wastewater treatment needs. My legislation will help ensure that the Clean Water SRF Program remains a viable component in the overall development of our Nation's infrastructure for years to come. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation, and I urge it's speedy consideration by the Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m. Following morning business, the Senate will begin consideration of the Federal Aviation Administration reform bill. By previous consent, the Senate will also begin debate on three judicial nominations with votes scheduled to occur on those nominations at 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday in a stacked sequence. Also by previous consent, the Senate will conduct a rollcall vote at 5:30 today on the adoption of the Transportation appropriations conference report. Following that vote, Senators can also expect votes with respect to the FAA bill. For the remainder of the week, the Senate will continue debate on the FAA reform bill, complete action on the Labor-HHS bill, and consider nominations and conference reports that are available for action. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a joint resolution that will prevent the implementation of an initiative in the District of Columbia that would allow the use of marijuana for medical treatment. As many of my colleagues know, the voters of the District of Columbia passed a ballot initiative--Initiative 59--last November that would legalize marijuana use for ``medicinal'' purposes. Supported by the Mayor and many elected officials in the District, Initiative 59 would permit marijuana use as a treatment for serious illness including ``HIV/AIDS, glaucoma, muscle spasms, and cancer.'' Because physicians are not allowed to prescribe marijuana under federal law, Initiative 59 would allow individuals to use marijuana based on a doctor's ``written or oral recommendation.'' The initiative would also allow the designation of up to four ``caregivers'' who would be able to cultivate, distribute and possess marijuana for the purpose of supplying an individual with marijuana for medicinal purposes. Proponents of the D.C. initiative, and similar initiatives elsewhere in the country, have argued that marijuana is the only way that individuals can cope with the effects of chemotherapy and AIDS treatments. However, according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), individuals who are using marijuana for AIDS, cancer or glaucoma may actually be doing damage to themselves: AIDS: Scientific studies indicate marijuana damages the immune system, causing further peril to already weakened immune systems. HIV-positive marijuana smokers progress to full-blown AIDS twice as fast as non-smokers and have an increased incidence of bacterial pneumonia. Cancer: Marijuana contains many cancer-causing substances, many of which are present in higher concentrations in marijuana than in tobacco. Glaucoma: Marijuana does not prevent blindness due to glaucoma. In addition, Dr. Donald R. Vereen, Jr., Deputy Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (commonly referred to as the office of the ``Drug Czar''), in an article titled, ``Is Medical Marijuana an Oxymoron?'' and printed in Physicians Weekly on February 1, 1999, stated: No medical research has shown smoked marijuana to be safe, effective, or therapeutically superior to other substances. Synthetic tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the primary psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, has been available for fifteen years in pill form (Marinol) to treat HIV Wasting Syndrome and chemotherapy-induced nausea. A legal drug, Marinol is the real ``medical marijuana.'' It is available in measured doses and guaranteed purity without the adverse side-effects of smoking tars, hydrocarbons, and other combustibles. Furthermore, newer drugs like ondansetron and grenisetron work better than Marinol, as clinical practice has demonstrated. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire article by Dr. Vereen be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. VOINOVICH

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

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, first of all, all of us welcome back our Chaplain, Lloyd Ogilvie. We are thankful to Almighty God that the Holy Spirit inspired the medical providers so that he could be back with us to continue to inspire us and keep our feet to the ground and our eyes to the heavens.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a joint resolution that will prevent the implementation of an initiative in the District of Columbia that would allow the use of marijuana for medical treatment. As many of my colleagues know, the voters of the District of Columbia passed a ballot initiative--Initiative 59--last November that would legalize marijuana use for ``medicinal'' purposes. Supported by the Mayor and many elected officials in the District, Initiative 59 would permit marijuana use as a treatment for serious illness including ``HIV/AIDS, glaucoma, muscle spasms, and cancer.'' Because physicians are not allowed to prescribe marijuana under federal law, Initiative 59 would allow individuals to use marijuana based on a doctor's ``written or oral recommendation.'' The initiative would also allow the designation of up to four ``caregivers'' who would be able to cultivate, distribute and possess marijuana for the purpose of supplying an individual with marijuana for medicinal purposes. Proponents of the D.C. initiative, and similar initiatives elsewhere in the country, have argued that marijuana is the only way that individuals can cope with the effects of chemotherapy and AIDS treatments. However, according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), individuals who are using marijuana for AIDS, cancer or glaucoma may actually be doing damage to themselves: AIDS: Scientific studies indicate marijuana damages the immune system, causing further peril to already weakened immune systems. HIV-positive marijuana smokers progress to full-blown AIDS twice as fast as non-smokers and have an increased incidence of bacterial pneumonia. Cancer: Marijuana contains many cancer-causing substances, many of which are present in higher concentrations in marijuana than in tobacco. Glaucoma: Marijuana does not prevent blindness due to glaucoma. In addition, Dr. Donald R. Vereen, Jr., Deputy Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (commonly referred to as the office of the ``Drug Czar''), in an article titled, ``Is Medical Marijuana an Oxymoron?'' and printed in Physicians Weekly on February 1, 1999, stated: No medical research has shown smoked marijuana to be safe, effective, or therapeutically superior to other substances. Synthetic tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the primary psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, has been available for fifteen years in pill form (Marinol) to treat HIV Wasting Syndrome and chemotherapy-induced nausea. A legal drug, Marinol is the real ``medical marijuana.'' It is available in measured doses and guaranteed purity without the adverse side-effects of smoking tars, hydrocarbons, and other combustibles. Furthermore, newer drugs like ondansetron and grenisetron work better than Marinol, as clinical practice has demonstrated. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire article by Dr. Vereen be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak up to 5 minutes on the pending resolution.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, this morning President Clinton announced we have set a new record budget surplus. It now stands at $115 billion, according to the President. That would be absolutely wonderful, if it were true. The President says our prosperity now gives us an unprecedented opportunity and an unprecedented responsibility to shape America's future by putting things first, by moving forward with an economic strategy that is successful and sound, and by meeting America's long-term challenges. He continues to operate as if he has a $2.9 trillion surplus over the next 10 years to take care of every problem and pay for every program over the next decade. However, the numbers the President is relying on are nothing but a mirage, pure speculation. The $2.9 trillion surplus everyone seems to be talking about in the next 10 years is based on 10- year projections. As 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 that: . . . projecting five or ten years out is a very precarious activity, as I think we have demonstrated time and time again. Again, the President continues to play games with the numbers and continues to use Social Security to puff up his inflated budget surplus numbers. How much of this $115 billion so-called surplus is actually offset, using our Nation's pension fund, Social Security? With today's pronouncement, he continues to perpetuate the myth that we have a huge, honest-to-goodness surplus. But he is using Social Security. Just this last year--and I think this is really important for the American people to understand--there was a great celebration here about having a surplus. But the fact of the matter is that in 1998, when everybody celebrated, there was no on-budget surplus; actually, there was a $30 billion deficit. That is, the expenses exceeded the revenues, and we glossed it over with the Social Security surplus. We have to stop playing games as if we had all this money to spend. I think the President is doing the American people a disservice. But it is the only way the President is going to be able to fund his expansion of the Federal Government--by claiming the surplus is bigger than it really is and that we are flush with cash. This is not how we should run the Government. It is just plain wrong. When I was Governor of Ohio, if somebody had come to me from the schools, or from the cities, and said, ``Governor, we want to spend $100 billion on a program,'' and then they said to me, ``I want to use the pension funds from the State of Ohio to pay for it,'' I would have thrown them out of the office. That is what we have been doing in this country, and continue to do, is to pay for programs, frankly, that are the responsibilities of State and local government, by taking the money out of Social Security. If the President was still the Governor of Arkansas, this wonderful program I have heard about from my Democratic colleagues, all this money for schools, and for all these other new programs, would be appropriate. But the President is not the Governor of the United States of America and this Senate is not the school board of America. The responsibility for education is at the State and local level. Today in this country, with our $5.7 trillion debt, with a deficit that has gone up 1,300 percent, with an interest payment of 14 cents out of every dollar --we are spending more money on interest today than we are on Medicare--we have a terrible financial problem. I have listened to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about the President's vision. I listen to them every day. I watch them on C-SPAN. They are talking about school construction, 100,000 teachers--they are all great priorities, but they are the responsibility of State and local government. One of the things this Senate has to face up to, and this country has to face up to: There are certain responsibilities on the Federal Government and there are certain responsibilities on State and local government. I am going to vote against the Democratic leader and his resolution which continues to raid the pension funds of the United States of America. Does everybody hear me? There is no surplus. Let's stop talking about it. We have a Social Security surplus, and it is time we stop using the pension funds of the people of this country to pay for programs that are the responsibility of State and local government, particularly in terms of where the States are a lot more flush than we are on the Federal level. Today I will vote against that resolution. I will support the Republican resolution which advocates giving the most amount of flexibility to our State and local school districts and in programs where we do have a proper role.

Mr. VOINOVICH. They are on the front lines and should be given every opportunity to make decisions that are most appropriate for their children. Earlier this year, we passed Ed-Flex in a bipartisan effort. I even went to the Rose Garden when the President signed it. We need more programs similar to Ed-Flex which give local officials flexibility, and we ought not to be funding State and local programs with our pension funds. I thank the Chair.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment to the Veterans' Affairs-HUD appropriations bill that was submitted by the Senator from Minnesota. This morning, I had the privilege of presiding over the Senate to hear the presentation of the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Maryland in what they tried to do to put together a very fair VA-HUD appropriations bill. One of the things that was emphasized was the fact that after reviewing the needs of this country, particularly the health care needs of our veterans, they inserted in the appropriations bill another $1.1 billion for health care for our veterans. Subsequent to that, Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens came to the floor with an amendment to provide another $600 million for emergencies. The reason I rise to oppose the request of the Senator from Minnesota for another $1.3 billion is the fact that we are reaching the end of the appropriations cycle. We are getting down to the nitty-gritty. The fact is, when anyone comes to this floor and asks for additional money over and above what the appropriators have appropriated, they should stand and point out where the money is going to come from to fund whatever it is they are asking for. First of all, in this particular case, I think the committee did its very best to deal forthrightly with the needs of our veterans' health. It seems to me from a logic point of view, the person who proposed this amendment should have laid out clearly where the money, the $1.3 billion, was coming from, what programs would be cut in order to come up with the money or, in the alternative, to explain which taxes will have to be raised to pay for the funding of the program. Last but not least, explain that it is not coming from Social Security. I have noticed around here so many of the spending programs ultimately would be paid for out of Social Security. I believe anyone who looks at what the Appropriations Committee did in terms of this issue would think they did the very best they could under the circumstances. No one advocates taking money out of Social Security to pay for another $1.3 billion for health care for our veterans. I think we have reached the point where we have to come clean on the fact that we will have a difficult time dealing with this budget. If we are not going to dip into Social Security, if we are not going to raise taxes, if we are not going to be fiscally irresponsible, we need to explain how we will be paying for these additional programs. I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota for the additional $1.3 billion because the money to pay for that is just not there. If we don't find the money, it means we will end up using our Social Security pension funds. I remind Members we have a $5.7 trillion debt. Part of that is because over the years we continued to use our Social Security funds to pay for things for which we weren't willing to pay. Today in this country out of every $1 we are spending, 14 cents is being paid for interest. In fact, we are spending more money in this country on interest than we pay for Medicare. It is time to be fiscally responsible. It is time for truth in budgeting. We have a wonderful opportunity in this session of Congress to forthrightly deal for the first time in anyone's memory with the financial responsibility of the fiscal things we need to do in this country to enter the new millennium, in what I refer as an ``intellectually honest'' way in terms of our budget.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to proceed as in morning business.

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

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, now that the tax cut bill will assuredly be vetoed, it is time to turn our attention to passing a budget that will respond to the needs of our citizens, keep our spending under control, maintain the integrity of the Social Security trust funds, and not increase our terrible national debt. When I was back in Ohio during the August break, almost everybody I talked to said they were glad that I opposed the tax cut that was based on the 10-year rosy projections, which I referred to as a mirage. Every expert in America said that to base tax cuts or new spending on such projections was fiscally irresponsible. The people who I spoke with told me that if it was not a mirage, then Congress should use the money to pay down the $5.6 trillion national debt and get out of dealing with the problems of Social Security and Medicare. They also said if we got to a point down the road where we got real money for a tax cut, we should do it when the economy needs stimulation and not right now. Quite a few of these same Ohioans said to me: For goodness sakes, Congress should not sit down with President Clinton and negotiate a tax reduction for spending increases--just pass an honest budget. As my colleagues know, the President has hinted that he may be willing to strike a deal for small tax cuts in exchange for a few spending increases. That would be an absolute disaster for our country's financial health, and I am pleased the majority leader has firmly rejected this approach. I have no doubt that the President will promise future tax cuts while insisting on immediate spending. The problem will be, I fear, that the tax cuts will never materialize, and the spending will fund programs that will become entrenched. And what's worse, he will use the so- called surplus to pay for this new spending. Let's get back to basics: There is no surplus. I have said it before and I will say it again: The only surplus we have is made up of Social Security funds. Let me just say right here that I really wish the President, the Congress, and the media would start giving an accurate portrayal of the surplus and call it what it is--either the ``Social Security'' surplus or the ``on-budget'' surplus. And right now, the only surplus we have is a Social Security surplus. I want to show a chart I have used in other speeches on the floor. It basically shows that even in 1999, when we are talking about a surplus, we are actually running a budget deficit of some $4 billion. The first time we are going to have the real on-budget surplus in approximately 30 years is next year, as projected by CBO. We have not yet accumulated, this year, all of the tax revenues necessary to meet and exceed our spending in fiscal year 1999. The only way we can claim a budget surplus today is by taking the surplus that is accumulating in the Social Security trust fund and using it to mask the deficit, just as has been done in previous years. The $14 billion projected ``on-budget" surplus for next year--which would be the first on-budget surplus, as I said, in over 30 years--is by no means secure. In fact, CBO Director Dan Crippen has already warned us that if we stay on the current path with the appropriations bills, we could turn the $14 billion projected ``on-budget'' surplus into an $11 billion deficit. And by doing so, we would be breaking our word with the American people to never again raid the Social Security trust funds. That would be outrageous given all the promises we have made to them and given all the debate I have heard on the Senate floor over Social Security lockbox legislation. Right now, our primary responsibility is to be as conscientious as possible and come up with the best budget plan for fiscal year 2000. We also need to resist the President's push to expand current programs and to create new entitlements. The President has consistently been bringing his case directly to the American people, proposing new spending programs wherever he goes. At the same time, he says he is for debt reduction and saving Social Security. That is plain hogwash. What most people don't know is the President's latest budget proposal would boost spending in 81 Government programs, create budget deficits, and as a result, raid billions of dollars from the Social Security trust funds over the next 10 years. This year, in accordance with the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, which Congress passed and President Clinton signed, we are supposed to spend $27 billion less than last year. In other words, when the budget agreement was put together by Congress, they anticipated we would spend $27 billion less this year than last year. Let's face the facts. The only way we are going to deal with the budget and handle all of these items that need to be addressed is one of four ways: One, we can tighten our belts by finding places to cut spending in current Federal programs and reallocate those resources; two, we can raise taxes in order to provide services --a course of action I don't favor; three, we can use whatever on-budget surplus we may have next year, although in all likelihood it has already been spoken for; four, we can use the Social Security surpluses by raiding the trust funds. Those are the alternatives. All in all, these are four difficult choices, but I think most Americans would agree that the most responsible choice is to cut unnecessary spending. For example, we could start by eliminating the Welfare-to-Work Program. This program, which was initiated by the President, has had a total of $3 billion appropriated to it over the last 2 years. However, in the same period, the States and territories that chose to participate--and not all of them did--have only spent $182 million of those funds. That's because the money comes with too many strings attached for States and because it is a complete duplication of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, or, TANF. Last year when I was governor, Ohio and five other States didn't even apply for the money under Welfare-to-Work. In Ohio, we rejected $88 million. I believed that Ohio and the Federal Government had made a deal; that we were going to take care of our responsibilities under the new welfare law with the money that Congress allocated to us in the welfare reform legislation. After Welfare-to-Work, we should take the time, do the hard work and make the tough choices by determining what other Federal programs and pork-barrel spending we can trim in order to find the money necessary to meet our Nation's priorities. We should be just as enthusiastic, in my opinion, in terms of reducing taxes as we are just as conscientious in terms of finding ways we can cut funding. Most importantly, we need to instill truth-in-budgeting. The last thing we want to do is ruin our credibility by being dishonest. We need to end all the accounting gimmicks, such as extending the calendar to 13 months in order to accommodate excess spending, or ``forward funding'' certain programs to avoid having to pay for them this year. In fact, as I understand from Senator Domenici, Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, the President has $19 billion in his budget that encompasses forward funding. We should let the American people know that we're doing such things. It's their money; they have a right to know. But, we should strive at all times not to use ``smoke and mirrors'' to make the debt look smaller or the budget appear balanced on paper when in reality, it is not. They are onto it. We shouldn't be ``mixing and matching'' to give us the numbers that will give us the best budget results. We need to agree on a set of numbers exclusively. If we're going to use CBO numbers, then we should consistently use CBO's numbers. Same thing with OMB. It is intellectually dishonest to constantly change numbers --picking and choosing as we go along. Well, we will use CBO's numbers and next we will use OMB's figures. When I was Governor of Ohio, the first thing we did was sit down with the legislature and we said let's agree on the numbers. We agreed on the numbers. That is what we dealt with. In addition, if we want to avoid dipping into Social Security, then we should be prepared to make the hard choices and not declare everything an emergency. As every Member of this body knows, ever since the statutory spending caps were first enacted in 1990 to rein in runaway discretionary spending, Congress has used the ``emergency'' loophole to get around them. Mr. President, we have to stop these gimmicks! It's game playing! It's smoke and mirrors! And our constituents know it and they want us to put an end to it. It's high time we start to give serious consideration to a two year budget cycle like many states have, including Ohio. It doesn't make sense that we go through this budget exercise each year; a process that just exhausts this body and prevents us from being able to work towards down-sizing government and lowering our expenses. If we had 2-year budgets, we could spend some time on the oversight that this body has a responsibility to be doing. Until then, if something is truly an emergency, then Congress should be more than willing to come up with the money to pay for it. Only in times of war or severe economic crisis should we even be talking about dipping into Social Security. As I have said before, Social Security is the Nation's pension fund, and no responsible citizen would tap into their retirement fund unless it was an absolute last resort--and they would certainly look to pay it back. Congress must act accordingly. Mr. President, all of us in Congress should take the equivalent of a blood oath that we are not going to touch Social Security. Period. It would be the most important thing we could possibly do to bring fiscal accountability to this country because we've been using the social security trust funds and public borrowing to fund tax reductions and spending for the last 30 years and in that same period of time, we've seen our national debt increase over 1,300 percent. Think of that--1,300 percent. We have to remember that there is no such thing as a free lunch, but there are such things as hard choices. That is what we should be about--making the hard choices. I know that first hand because as Governor, I have been there; I had to make the $750 million in spending cuts, but because of the fiscally responsible choices we made, we had the lowest growth in 30 years and had 17% fewer employees--excluding prison workers. In addition, we ultimately gave Ohio a general revenue rainy day fund of over $935 million--after it had been depleted to 14 cents. Think of that. It was at 14 cents--a Medicaid rainy day fund of $100 million and real tax cuts. I am talking about real tax cuts for the last 3 years, including last year for all Ohioans who had an across- the-board reduction in their State income tax of almost 10 percent. That is why I came to Washington--to try and bring fiscal responsibility to our nation and this Congress so that my children and my grandchildren as well as all children and grandchildren are not saddled with the cost of those things that my generation did not want to pay for, and guarantee our covenant to the American people in regard to Social Security and Medicare. I would like to remind my colleagues that with each passing day, we're paying $600 million in interest payments just to service the national debt--a national debt that is $5.6 trillion. Most Americans do not realize that 14 percent of their tax dollar goes to pay off the interest on the debt. Fifteen percent goes for national defense. Seventeen percent goes to non-defense discretionary spending. And 54 percent goes for entitlement spending. So how much is our interest payment in comparison to other federal spending? It is more than we spend on Medicare. It's five times more than the federal dollars we spend on education. And it's 15 times more than we spend on medical research at NIH. If we are fortunate enough that the projections of an on-budget surplus actually occurs--I would like to see that --the best possible course of action that we could take is to use those funds and pay down the debt. With debt reduction you get lower interest rates, a continued strong economy and lower government interest costs. Indeed, as Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan testified before the House Ways and Means Committee ``(T)he advantages that I perceive that would accrue to this economy from a significant decline in the outstanding debt to the public and its virtuous cycle on the total budget process is a value which I think far exceeds anything else we could do with the money.'' Mr. President, we must avoid using Social Security to meet our financial obligations. Instead, we should greet the millennium with a promise to our citizens that we will engage in truth-in-budgeting, not use gimmicks and re-order our spending to reflect our national priorities. Mr. President, I believe that a statement I made in my 1991 Inaugural Address as Governor of Ohio is relevant today: Gone are the days when public officials are measured by how much they spend on a problem. The new realities dictate that public officials are now judged on whether they can work harder and smarter, and do more with less. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today along with my friend and colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, to submit a resolution recognizing the importance of expanding the amount of family friendly television programming, and to saluting the contributions that the Family Friendly Programming Forum is undertaking to make this goal a reality. As nearly any parent will attest, it can be a very difficult task to keep track of what their children watch after school. It is particularly hard for working parents. Each week the average child watches 22 to 28 hours of television, which is more time than is spent on nearly any other activity, except sleeping. The trick for parents is to establish good family viewing habits that emphasize quality programming and which are suited to the age of these young viewers. Many parents have indicated their desire to have more program choices for family friendly viewing during the evening hours when everyone is home together. To help in this endeavor, a number of our nation's leading companies have joined forces to establish the Family Friendly Programming Forum. The Forum's members, which includes some of the nation's largest television advertisers, are encouraging the production of more television programs geared toward the entire family. As sponsors of a wide range of programs, the Forum's members believe that there is a definite call for more family friendly movies, documentaries, series and other programs that are relevant and interesting to a broad family audience. The members of the Forum are working on a variety of initiatives in an effort to promote more family friendly programs. They are: engaging in constructive dialogue with industry leaders, presenting awards to family friendly television programs, establishing a development fund for family friendly scripts, awarding university scholarships in television studies that highlight family television themes, as well as embarking on a public awareness campaign. Mr. President, as a father and a grandfather, I am deeply concerned about the healthy development of all our nation's children. The future of our nation depends to a great degree on the safe and nurturing environment that will give children a positive outlook on life. Therefore, I encourage efforts that will increase the number and quality of family TV programs. I congratulate the Family Friendly Programming Forum on their leadership toward that goal. I believe that the passage of the resolution that Senator Lieberman and I are introducing honors the Forum's commitment and helps raise the awareness of others in the business community to align themselves with the goal of bringing quality television to our nation's families for the benefit of our children. I encourage my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this resolution and I urge the Senate to provide it's quick approval.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. I will be happy to respond to the Senator from California.

Mr. VOINOVICH. The Senator from California is correct. We have provided important improvements for the flood protection for Sacramento. However, we can do better, and I think we should consider increased protection in the future.