George Voinovich

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. If the Senator will yield?

Mr. VOINOVICH. The Senator yields back his time. Thank you. I have enjoyed the discussion we have had. Obviously, there is a difference of opinion between the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from Ohio. Based on all of the research work that I have done, and the options that are available to us, to me this is the most practical way, Mr. President, to deal with the problem that we have had for too long in this country. I believe that with the passage of this lockbox legislation, we are going to go a long way in making sure that this money is not being used for spending programs that we are unwilling to pay for and have not been willing to pay for in the past. The real beginning of the deficits that we have had began when we merged the Social Security surplus in with the unified budget and started to spend it. In fact, in 1979 the national debt was something like $860 billion. Today it is $5.7 trillion. I believe that this is the first step that we need to take to restore trust in those people in this country who are worried about Social Security, understanding that it is not perfect--understanding that it is not perfect--and understanding that this Congress needs to come together, on a bipartisan basis, hopefully with the leadership of the President, and tackle the problems that we have with the Social Security system in terms of guaranteeing its viability for the future. And that is something that hopefully we will get to this year; and if not then, hopefully next year; and if we do not then, when we elect a new President. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH. We are spending $600 million a day on interest costs.

Mr. VOINOVICH. It is going to take the money, and instead of spending it, at least we are going to get the benefit of reducing the debt which brings down the interest rate. It is a worthy alternative to the current situation.

Mr. VOINOVICH. If the Senator will yield, the problem that we have is that currently under the law, my understanding is that you need to buy the special Social Security Treasury bills with this money, and when you do that, the Federal Government has those dollars. What they have been doing with those dollars is paying for programs that they would not be able to pay for if they had not been using those special bills. This legislation at least stops that from occurring.

Mr. VOINOVICH. They have used that money to provide for tax reductions. Can you imagine that, tax reductions?

Mr. VOINOVICH. If the Senator will yield, you know and I know, we have had all that language in there, and they keep doing it. They have used that money to pay for new programs.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I have been working with Senator Domenici since the day I came here to figure out something, and it is not easy to put that lockbox in place. Based on all of the information that I have, the best thing that we could do at this stage of the game, if we really want to block it off, is this legislation. It may not be perfect, but the fact of the matter is that it is much better than the current situation which allows the Social Security surplus to be used for spending programs.

Mr. VOINOVICH. If the Senator will yield, one of the things I have learned, and this is my 33rd year in the business, is that you crawl and you walk and you run. You tried with Senator Heinz to come up with something you thought was going to lock it up.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I say to the Senator, in all due respect, that is a whole lot better than doing nothing at this time, when he knows and I know if it is there to be taken--let's just take what the President did. The President said, ``I want to protect Social Security,'' and said, ``but I want to use 38 percent of it for other spending programs.'' This would eliminate this money being used for those other spending programs. This would allow the money to be used to pay down the debt and give us a little time in the meantime to come up with a real reform of that Social Security program. We know that is something this Congress is going to have to do if we really want to guarantee to the next generation that there will be something there for them.

Mr. VOINOVICH. If the Senator will yield, that is correct. But the alternative to that, from my perspective, is that the money, the Social Security money, would then be used for spending programs that could be used to pay for the war or to pay for education or pay for a lot of other things.

Mr. VOINOVICH. It is my understanding what we would do with this lockbox money is to use it to pay down the public debt, which would lower the interest costs to our Federal budget every year. But at the same time it would mean that money ultimately would have to be paid back to the Social Security trust fund.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Certainly.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Lott-Domenici Social Security lockbox amendment. This is the first real step in the effort to save Social Security. I thank the Senator from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, and Senator Abraham for their hard work in drafting this legislation and ensuring it comes to this Senate floor. During my campaign last year for the Senate, I visited almost every region of the State of Ohio. During those visits, I asked the question of those in attendance, How many in this room pay a payroll tax? Every hand went up. Then I asked, How many of you expect to receive Social Security? Only those close to retirement raised their hands. It was perplexing to me because it verified something my son George said to me--George, the summa cum laude graduate, undergraduate law school, CFE of a corporation--``Dad, I'm not going to see a dime of Social Security.'' What a terrible thing, in a country like ours, where about two-thirds of the people who pay more into the Social Security funds than they do in taxes don't believe when the time comes for them to retire there is going to be anything there for them. I said during those visits that I was going to do everything I could to put a firewall between the Social Security trust fund and the general fund of the United States of America. I think we all recognize that part of the problem that we have had in this country since the Vietnam war is that after that war we didn't have the money to pay for it, nor did we have the money to pay for the great society. So we took the trust funds and placed them into the general fund, using them to mask a deficit. In other words, we weren't willing to pay for those things that we were spending our money on. Today, we have a chance to pass some legislation which gives honor to the sacred trust between the Federal Government and every American. I believe we need to get away from treating the Social Security trust fund as a part of the budget and wall it off from any temptation to use it for tax cuts or for new spending. We have been playing games with Social Security for too long. It is time to stop. The Senator from Idaho in his remarks today mentioned the fact that the President will be sending up a request for some $6 billion to pay for the war in Kosovo. The American people should know that that money is going to come from Social Security. Because the Social Security surplus is all there is. That is the surplus that we have today. There is not any onbudget surplus. There will not be any onbudget surplus until the year 2001, if we are lucky. So it seems to me that one way we can guarantee to my son and to all those other people I visited during that campaign, and to the American people, that one way we can at least begin to guarantee there will be something there when they retire is to put that money away so it cannot be touched. I wish there was a way you could put it into Fort Knox, so it could not be touched. But the fact of the matter is, the way this Government works today is that money in the Social Security trust fund is used to buy Treasury bills that are then used to pay for a lot of things that we do not have money to pay for. The thing about this lockbox proposal is that it takes all the Social Security trust fund and uses it to pay down the public debt, which means instead of it being used for spending programs, at least we are going to get the benefit for a period of time of paying down that public debt. I think it is real important that we are candid with the American people and tell them this is not the end of the solution, we have to tackle reform of Social Security. But one step, one gigantic step is for the first time saying we are no longer going to use it to pay for spending programs. In all due respect to the President of the United States, when this debate started several months ago, he said: I want to protect Social Security and I am going to use 62 percent of the unified budget, as Senator Hollings just said here this afternoon, to protect Social Security. The fact of the matter is the only surplus we have is Social Security, so he is going to take 62 percent of the Social Security surplus to protect it and use the other 38 percent of it for spending programs or whatever. On my side of the aisle, they talked about using the 38 percent to reduce taxes. On the other side of the aisle, we are going to use it for a little tax reduction, we are going to use it for spending programs, protect this and protect that. But it was a fraud. The only surplus we have is Social Security. So I am really quite concerned that today we hear the President saying: I am going to veto this legislation. Either you are for taking the first step to protect Social Security or you are not. You also ought to be in favor of putting all of this in the lockbox because you know what it is going to do? It is going to force us, if we want to keep the budget agreement, or if we want to maintain the budget caps, to find some other money; either reprioritize the dollars that are being spent on other programs or perhaps raise the dollars, raise more money to pay for these programs on which people want to spend money. I repeat, all of this started back after the Vietnam war. We will have a big decision here one of these days to decide whether or not we are going to get involved in an all-out war with Serbia. That is going to cost a whole lot of money and the American people ought to know that one of the considerations is how are we going to pay for it? Are we going to pay for it with the Social Security surplus? Are we going to borrow the money? Think about it. I have a great deal of respect for Senator Hollings. I think he and I are the only ones who had amendments to use the onbudget surplus to reduce the debt. I concur in that. I think that is what we ought to do. I just had my second grandchild and my grandchildren's gift from the Federal Government was a bill for $187,000 to pay interest on a debt they had nothing to do with. I think it is horrible that this debt keeps going up. Senator Hollings is right; the debt is going to continue to go up.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Massachusetts. I rise to support approval of the conference report on Ed-Flex. However, I would be remiss if I didn't respond to the remarks of Senator Schumer and Senator Ashcroft in terms of the tragedy that took place in Colorado and expressing the sympathy of the people of the State of Ohio to those families who are suffering today as a result of that tragedy. As one who has lost a child from a tragic automobile situation--instant death--I can understand the trauma those families are experiencing right now. I think it is a sad commentary on our society that this happened in Colorado, as well as other States, as mentioned by Senator Ashcroft and Senator Schumer. There is something wrong with our society and I am not sure we can solve it here on the floor of the Senate. I think it has to be solved in the hearts and the minds of the people who reside in our country. I think a lot has to do with turning back to our family and our moral values that are so important and which inculcate in us respect for our fellow man. I grew up in a family where I was taught to respect all individuals. It wasn't a man's color of skin, their religion, or their socioeconomic status that mattered; it was their character. I think there may be lots of responses to this tragedy, but I cannot help but think if they go back to the Boy Scout motto, the Girl Scout motto, and some of the basic fundamental organizations that build character, that this country will be far better off. In spite of everything we do, in my State I was ridiculed because we made a major capital improvement to put metal detector devices into our high schools. Many people said we shouldn't have to do that in our high schools, and that money went that quick. We wanted to guarantee that at least when kids were in school, they knew their classmates didn't have some kind of weapon. I am sure that perhaps in that school district, nobody even gave any thought that that kind of a situation could occur. The other area I think we need to recognize is that, unfortunately, youngsters today aren't getting the kind of moral and family and religious training at home and the responsibilities are falling more on our schools. In Ohio, we aggressively pursued a mediation and dispute resolution program in kindergarten and first grade to try to teach children that when they have differences of opinion with other individuals, they sit down and talk them out; they don't use physical force to resolve their problems. We have recognized in our State that social service agencies have to be connected. We are locating them now in our schools. If we identify a youngster with a problem, that student can get the help they need. More important than that, most of the time the family gets the help they need so that they don't participate in antisocial behavior. There are a number of things that need to be done. I hope we don't, as a response to this, think there is just one approach that will make a difference. It will require a multifaceted approach, and again, looking into our own heart and soul. Ed-Flex, which I have worked on as well as the Presiding Officer, Senator Frist, might also help because it will give school districts around this country the opportunity to take money which is available to them through the Federal Government, and if they feel there is a better way that money can be spent to make a difference in the lives of children, they are going to be able to do that. Many children who don't do well early on in school become frustrated; as a result of that frustration, they turn to antisocial behavior. One of the things that stands in the way is that they are unable to read. Because of Ed-Flex, school districts that are title I schools, school districts that can take advantage of the Eisenhower Professional Grant Program, are going to have the opportunity to change the use of those dollars and put them into reading. We found that in the State of Ohio, when we have taken the Eisenhower professional grant money that says you have to use it for science and math and it has allowed us to take that money and use it for reading. We did that because in the early grades, if a kid cannot read, he cannot do math, he cannot do science. If I had my way, every title I school, every Eisenhower grant in the primary and secondary grades that are eligible for those programs would take advantage of Ed-Flex, would come back to their State school organizations and say, we could use this money better so we can make a difference in the lives of these kids. Just think what a difference that will make in America today. We have in Ohio now what we have called a fourth grade guarantee. No child will go to the fifth grade unless they are able to read at that fourth grade level. That in itself, I think, would help a great deal with some of the problems we have in our schools today. I would like to finish my remarks by giving some people some credit for this work on Ed-Flex: The majority leader who helped make this a priority for this Senate; you, Senator Frist, for the terrific work that you have done; Senator Jeffords, Senator Wyden, and everyone who has come together; the National Governors' Association, on a bipartisan basis, that supported this legislation. I just want it known, I do not know what is going to happen with elementary and secondary education. I do not know whether our Republican block grant is going to work or Senator Kennedy's various education programs are going to work. But one thing I do know is going to work: Ed-Flex is going to work. I think if we let it work for the next couple of years we will prove, just like we have with our welfare reform system, if you give people on the local level the flexibility to use the dollars and to use the brains that God has given them, they can really make a difference in the lives of people. That is the thing about which we really should feel very, very good. I am glad I had a little part of it. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

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

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will convene at 9:30 a.m., and immediately resume debate on the Social Security lockbox legislation, with a vote on cloture at approximately 11:30 a.m. If cloture is not invoked, it is the intention of the leader to proceed to the important Y2K legislation following the vote. Interested Senators should be prepared to stay for the debate. The Senate may also consider other legislative or executive items cleared for action.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, April 22. I further ask that on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate begin 2 hours of debate, equally divided, on the lockbox amendment, with a vote taking place on cloture at 11:30 a.m.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on the Executive Calendar: Nos. 1 through 4, Nos. 37 through 43, and all nominations on the Secretary's desk in the Public Health Service. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements relating to the nominations be printed at the appropriate place in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a field hearing on ``Teaching Teachers'' during the session of the Senate on Monday, April 19, 1999, at 9 a.m.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps, Narcotics and Terrorism be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, April 19, 1999 at 3:45 p.m. to hold a closed Members' briefing.

Mr. VOINOVICH

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

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 4:30 the Banking Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 531 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration under the following limitations: One hour for debate equally divided between Senator Abraham and the ranking member. No amendments or motions will be in order. I further ask consent that following the use or yielding back of time, the bill be read for a third time at 5:30 this afternoon and that the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. VOINOVICH

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

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to vehemently oppose sending American ground forces into Kosovo and to demand that if the President contemplates sending in ground troops, that decision be deliberated and authorized by the Congress of the United States. I am an American of Serbian-Slovenian ancestry. My father's family is from southern Croatia, which is known as Krijna, and my mother's family is from Ljubljana and Stranje in Slovenia. I want to make it clear--I don't oppose sending ground troops into Kosovo because I am Serbian. I oppose it because it is bad policy. However, my ethnic heritage does give me a special insight into the situation that someone else might not have. I have always opposed the leadership of Slobodan Milosevic. Like most Americans, I consider him to be a war criminal. However, Mr. President, I was 1 of 41 Senators who voted against the bombing because I was concerned that this bombing would not achieve our end of bringing Slobodan Milosevic to the negotiating table as contemplated by the Clinton Administration and NATO. These negotiations were designed to get Milosevic to sign the Rambouillet agreement or something very similar, thereby guaranteeing the basic human rights of the Albanian Kosovars and avoiding ethnic cleansing. I also feared the bombing would only solidify Milosevic's leadership with the Serbian people and ruin any chance of cultivating alternative leadership within Serbia. I have to say that our problem has not been with the Serbian people, but with their ruthless leader. The main thing this bombing campaign has managed to do is fan the flames of centuries-old Serbian nationalism. Individuals who until the bombing campaign had little support for Milosevic and his activities in Kosovo, now firmly believe their national pride is at stake. They have thrown their support behind Milosevic and have expressed a willingness to follow his leadership and fight for their country. It is extremely important to remember--this is very important--Kosovo is to the Serbian people what Jerusalem is to Jews, Christians and Muslims. To the Serbians, it is a holy place. It is the scene of the most important event in Serbian history--the battle of Kosovo in 1389 between the Turks and the Serbs, led by Tsar Lazar. The battle of Kosovo has lived for centuries in Serbian literature. To this day, Serbian children sing songs and read epic poems celebrating this event. The interesting thing about the battle of Kosovo is how outnumbered the Serbian people were--and they knew it. And even though they lost, it is considered a glorious defeat because they fought valiantly against overwhelming odds. To quote from the epic poem ``The Battle of Kosovo'': Then the Turks overwhelmed Lazar, And the Tsar, Lazar, was destroyed, With him was destroyed his army of seven and seventy thousand soldiers. All was holy, all was honorable and the goodness of God was fulfilled. History, pride and heritage are deeply-seeded in Serb culture. That's why it is significant that Milosevic started his rise to political power in Kosovo and probably the most important event in his political career was when he spoke to 1 million citizens on the 600th Anniversary of the Battle of Kosovo--at the very site of the battle! I want you to also know, Mr. President, the most sacred Serbian Orthodox monasteries are located in Kosovo. Considering Serbian history, and where Milosevic started his career, American and NATO leaders should have known that Milosevic couldn't give in without losing face. Especially when he was told ``either sign this or we'll bomb you''. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration presented Milosevic with an ultimatum which foreclosed all other options that could have led to a negotiated settlement. Our bombing campaign has given Milosevic cover to move forward expeditiously with his policy of ethnic cleansing--precisely what we were trying to avoid in the first place. Now, because he and his forces are not being tightly monitored--and that's because all the observers were kicked out as soon as the bombing started--they can do as they wish. Therefore, we hear evidence of massacres and rape, and we have witnessed the forced relocation of hundreds of thousands of people and the total devastation of Kosovo. To me there is no question that the decision to bomb Kosovo and Serbia was a terrible mistake in the first place, but now we face three bad choices--stop the bombing, continue the bombing, or go in with bombing and ground troops. Although I disagreed with bombing in the first place, of the three, I believe the least objectionable is to continue the bombing campaign in hopes of securing the very negotiated settlement that has eluded us so far. Many public officials and foreign policy experts are loudly advocating the introduction of ground troops to Kosovo in an effort to force Milosevic to yield his grip on the Kosovar Albanians and to ultimately ``win the war''. They claim it's the only way. Let me say that I support the goal of restoring peace and stability to the region, returning to Kosovo those refugees that want to go back, negotiating a new agreement that will guarantee their safety and self- determination and establishing a multinational force to monitor the negotiated settlement. I support all this--but I absolutely oppose the use of American ground troops to implement this goal. I oppose using American troops in this manner not because I don't think they can get the job done. Far from it. I believe our armed forces have performed magnificently, and I wholeheartedly admire the effort that each of them has been giving during the campaign in Kosovo. They are doing the job we have asked them to do. However, I see a situation developing in the Balkans that could be just as brutal as that which developed in Vietnam. As opposed to the flat deserts of the Persian Gulf area, the Balkans are a very mountainous region that is ideal for a sustained campaign of guerrilla warfare. A smaller, and less well-armed force could have the ability to use this natural terrain to impede the progress and mobility of a NATO invasion force for an extended period of time while racking up vast numbers of casualties. Remember that in World War II, more than 500,000 Nazi soldiers thought that they could just roll through Yugoslavia. They did not, due in large part, to the determination of the Serbian people. It has been reported that it will take 6 to 8 weeks to even prepare for a ground invasion. And I believe it will probably take even more than that because we don't even have the troops in the region, we haven't even mobilized and we haven't established a staging area. This will give the Serbs ample time to disperse, fortify defensive works, stockpile their arms, and so on. The steps the Serbs take now will allow them to later harass the invasion force at every conceivable opportunity. It will make it that much more difficult for NATO to secure a victory without incurring heavy losses. The most important thing I think the American people should know--if we put ground forces in Kosovo, we will go to war with Serbia. Period. We will have to accept the fact that we will be at war, and that we will have to take out Milosevic. And that means a long, extended war with loss of life and a total destruction of the infrastructure in Serbia, in Kosovo, and what about Montenegro? And another thing--we have to be seriously concerned about igniting the entire southeast Europe region with our actions. What will the neighboring nations do? What will Russia do? Will NATO's action perhaps cause the radical elements in Russia to come into power? These are serious questions that may not be of concern now, but the consequences of our actions today may come back to haunt us tomorrow. We must remember--our goal is to bring peace and stability to this region. I am concerned that the introduction of ground troops may have just the opposite effect and destabilize the region over the long term. And what happens after we win that war? And it will be won, although at a high cost in terms of lives and infrastructure. What will happen? What will be the disposition of the Kosovar Albanians, hundreds of thousands of whom are now refugees? Are we going to have a greater Albania? Who will monitor the ``peace'' and who will pay for the rebuilding of the infrastructure in Serbia and Kosovo? What kind of commitment will NATO have to ``Pick up the pieces'' and rebuild Serbia? Will it fall on the United States? Make no mistake: the introduction of ground troops guarantees that we as a nation are committing to be involved for an extended period of time and the expenditure of many billions of dollars. In order to compare, my colleagues should remember that we have already spent--we have already spent--over $12 billion in Bosnia. I can't help but feel touched at times like these, in the face of situations of national importance, to contemplate the times that I have visited the Vietnam Memorial. All of us who have done that cannot help but be moved. And I know on my part, tears always well up in my eyes. Seeing the names carved on that wall, knowing that each name represents an individual who had loved ones and friends and had hopes, dreams and aspirations, is a poignant reminder of what it means to send young men and women into harm's way. But let me just say that while I disagreed with the policy pursued to stop the humanitarian abuses in Kosovo, those abuses cannot be overlooked by the international community. You just can't turn your head and forget about it. This morning, I participated in a commemoration of the Holocaust here in our Nation's Capitol. Let us remember so that we never forget. I believe that in addition to pursuing our strategic interests and our trade interests, we must not forget that our status as a world power gives us a moral responsibility to defend human rights. I call upon my colleagues and all Americans to work toward a consensus on how we as a nation respond to acts of genocide internationally. Looking away in Croatia was a failure when 250,000 Serbs were driven out. As President Clinton acknowledged, looking away in Rwanda was a mistake where almost a million people were killed between the Tutsi's and the Hutu's. And what about the Kurds in Iraq and Turkey, and all the other areas of the world where such troubles exist? We have it in many, many places in the world. Thus far, full engagement through bombing has been a failure in Kosovo. Our moral responsibility is to identify the means and the goals available to us to deal with such incidents before they escalate beyond peaceful resolution. We would be well-served--we would be well-served-- to have a coherent policy to guide us in the future as to when we go in and when we do not go in. Mr. President, what this country does in the name of NATO over the next several weeks in regard to Serbia and Kosovo will have a dramatic impact on this country's future. It is our obligation to the American people to exercise our due diligence before we commit to a course of action from which we cannot extricate ourselves. This is very, very serious business that we are now considering. We should pray to the Holy Spirit for the enlightenment to make the right decision for our country, for southeast Europe, and for the world. Let us be constantly reminded of Jesus's exhortation on the Sermon on the Mount that ``blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.'' Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.