George Voinovich

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period for morning business, with Senators permitted to speak up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I understand that S. 767, which was introduced earlier by Senator Coverdell, is at the desk, and I ask that it be read for the first time.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I now ask for its second reading, and I object to my own request.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until 11:30 on Tuesday, April 13. I further ask consent that on Tuesday 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, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m. under the following limitations: Senator Sessions, 20 minutes; Senator Lugar and Senator Bayh in control of a total of 20 minutes; Senator Dodd and Senator Lieberman in control of a total of 20 minutes.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I further ask consent that the Senate stand in recess from 12:30 until 2:15 on Tuesday to allow the weekly party caucuses to meet.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendments be agreed to, the resolution, as amended, be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to this resolution appear in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Resolution 26, which was reported by the Foreign Relations Committee.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 44, House Concurrent Resolution 24.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the preamble be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution 17, which was reported by the Foreign Relations Committee.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendment be agreed to, the resolution, as amended, be agreed to, the amendment to the preamble be agreed to, and the preamble, as amended, be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to this resolution appear in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate for a hearing entitled, ``Buried Alive: Small Business Consumed By Tax Filing Burdens.'' The hearing will begin at 1 p.m. on Monday, April 12, 1999, in room 428A Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Monday, April 12, 1999, at 3 p.m. in open and closed session, to receive testimony on alleged Chinese espionage at Department of Energy laboratories.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will reconvene tomorrow at 11:30 a.m. and begin a period of morning business. At 12:30 p.m. the Senate will recess until 2:15 to allow the weekly party caucuses to meet. When the Senate reconvenes at 2:15, it is the leader's intention to begin consideration of the bill introduced earlier today by Senator Coverdell and others regarding a tax filing extension for certain members of the uniformed services. Therefore, Members should expect rollcall votes during Tuesday's session of the Senate.

Mr. VOINOVICH

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

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. 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.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on the Executive Calendar: Nos. 25 and 26. I finally ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, that any statements relating to the nominations appear in the Record, that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues as an original co-sponsor of the Regulatory Improvement Act. I commend Senators Thompson and Levin for their bipartisan work to pass legislation to enable federal regulators to do a better job of protecting public health, safety and the environment. This is the same bill that the Administration, state and local governments and the business community supported last year. I am a public servant who cares deeply about the needs of our environment and the health and well-being of our citizens. I sponsored legislation to create the Ohio Environmental Agency when I served in the state legislature, and I fought to end oil and gas drilling in the Lake Erie Bed. As Governor, I increased funding for environmental protection by over 60 percent. However, over the years, I also have become increasingly concerned about the unnecessary and burdensome costs that are imposed on our citizens and state and local governments through federal laws and regulations. Efforts to address these cost burdens began back in 1994 when I worked with Senators Roth, Glenn and Kempthorne and the state-local government coalition to draft an unfunded mandates reform bill. We succeeded in passing the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) in the 104th Congress. Following this success, I worked closely with the state-local government coalition on our next priority--passage of effective safe drinking water reforms--which was enacted with broad bipartisan support in 1996. These efforts are notable because they represent common-sense reforms that make government more accountable based on public awareness of risks, costs and benefits. These statutes set key precedents for the reforms that are envisioned in the regulatory Improvement Act. In many respects, this bill builds on these achievements. Senator Thompson has said that this bill represents phase 2 of UMRA and I strongly agree. I specifically mention the drinking water program today because of its close similarity to the Regulatory Improvement Act. In both, agencies are required to conduct an analysis of incremental costs and benefits of alternative standards, while providing those agencies with flexibility in making final regulatory decisions. If we agree that these analytical tools are good enough for the water that we drink, they certainly must be good enough for other regulations. However, both UMRA and the drinking water amendments have had limited applications. The Regulatory Improvement Act is needed to provide across-the-board cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment procedures at all federal agencies. This bill will result in greater protection of public health and the environment while alleviating cost burdens on state and local governments and the private sector. GAO reported last year that UMRA has had little effect on the way federal agencies make rulemaking decisions. The report specifically points out that the Regulatory Improvement Act would improve the quality of regulatory analysis. I think it is time that we make federal agencies--not just Congress--accountable for the decisions they make. While many federal regulations have been well intended, not all have achieved their purpose and many have unnecessarily passed significant burdens onto our citizens and state and local governments. It is crucial that federal, state and local governments work in partnership to determine how we can best allocate resources for protection of health and the environment. As a nation, we spend vast sums on regulations. A report commissioned by the U.S. Small Business Administration estimates that regulations will cost the economy about $709 billion 1999--more than $7,000 for the average American household. Unfortunately, this burden on consumers and American businesses has not always resulted in maximum health or environmental protection. At times, it has diverted scarce resources that could be used for other priorities such as education, crime prevention and more effective protection of health and the environment. The challenge facing public officials today is determining how best to protect the health of our citizens and our environment with limited resources. We need to do a much better job ensuring that regulations' costs bear a reasonable relationship with their benefits, and we need to do a better job of setting priorities and spending our resources wisely. I believe that the Regulatory Improvement Act will help achieve these goals. First, I believe this bill will increase the public's knowledge of how and why agencies make major rules. In essence, this bill asks regulatory agencies to answer several simple, but vital questions: What is the nature of the risk being considered? What are the benefits of the proposed regulation? How much will it cost? And, are there better, less burdensome ways to achieve the same goals? I am particularly pleased that the bill provides opportunities for state and local government officials to consult with agencies as rules are being developed so that regulators are more sensitive to state and local needs and the burden of unfunded mandates. This only makes sense since states and local governments often have the responsibility of implementing and enforcing these regulations. Second, requiring federal agencies to conduct cost-benefit analyses, publish those results, disclose any estimates of risks and explain whether any of these factors were considered in finalizing rules will increase government accountability to the people it serves. And finally, this bill will improve the quality of government decision-making by allowing the government to set priorities and focus on the worst risks first. Careful thought, reasonable assumptions, peer review and sound science will help target problems and find better solutions. This bill does not mandate outcomes, but it does impose common-sense discipline and accountability in the rulemaking process. I think it is time to move forward with this bipartisan measure.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, first, I want to commend the distinguished Chairman of the Budget Committee for offering a budget resolution that stays within the spending caps and--for the first time--protects Social Security surpluses. I also want to thank him for setting aside $131 billion in what I like to call a ``rainy day fund.'' This money can be used for possible contingencies in Medicare or agriculture, emergency spending, or debt reduction. I respect the view of my colleagues who want to use on-budget surpluses to give the American people a tax cut. But before we give a tax cut, I believe we should pay down our massive national debt first. My amendment would take out the tax cuts in the budget resolution and use that money to pay down the debt. If my amendment is adopted, and if the projected surpluses materialize, then we will slash the publicly-held debt from $3.6 trillion today to $960 billion in 2009. Paying down the debt is the right thing to do--it will reduce our net interest payments, expand the economy, lower interest rates for families, and reduce the need for future tax increases. Has there been a request for the yeas and nays on this?

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

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

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, we are debating a budget resolution in the Senate that will provide an outline for our Nation's spending for the next fiscal year. With the assurances of the Republican leadership, we will be sticking to our guns on the spending caps that we agreed to in the 1997 balanced budget agreement. And we will lock away the Social Security trust funds in a lockbox. Earlier today, the Senate reaffirmed its commitment to Social Security, voting unanimously 99 to 0 that current and future Social Security trust funds should remain only for Social Security. It was the right thing to do. But incredibly, President Clinton has threatened to veto a similar measure, the Abraham-Domenici Social Security lockbox bill. It is unconscionable for the President to undermine the efforts of Congress to save Social Security just so he can use the Social Security surplus to pay for his pet projects. As cosponsor of the lockbox legislation, I believe it represents a golden opportunity to show that Washington is serious about keeping its word to our seniors and future retirees. Since the Senate voted 99 to 0 this afternoon, I expect that all of my Democratic colleagues will vote for the Social Security lockbox bill when it comes to the floor and urge the President not to veto this legislation. The Senate meanwhile will have to make some tough budget choices in fiscal year 2000, and we will have to do more with less. It is not going to be easy, because we have so many competing demands chasing so few dollars--demands such as military pay and readiness, education, and perhaps Medicare. And, yes; now that the President has started to bomb Kosovo we may need a lot more money to pay for a brand new war. I would like to remind my colleagues this evening that the cost of that war is coming out of the Social Security surplus. The money to pay for that war is being paid for out of the Social Security surplus. I also recognize that we may have to deal with emergencies as they occur. I applaud the chairman of the Budget Committee for drafting a resolution that addresses those needs. Under his leadership, Senator Domenici has acknowledged that we must reserve $131 billion, or what I would like to call a rainy day fund, that may only be used--let me stress--may only be used for Medicare, agriculture, Federal emergencies, or debt reduction. While the chairman and I agree on that point, I do respectfully have a difference of opinion on using the onbudget surplus for tax cuts. The amendment that I am offering is a simple one. It takes the tax cuts proposed in the budget resolution and uses the money to pay down the debt. Let me say again, under my amendment, we would take the $778 billion in tax cuts and use the money to pay down the debt. If my amendment is adopted and we use the onbudget surplus for debt reduction, then publicly held debt will drop from $3.68 trillion today to $960 billion by the year 2009. Mr. President, we can't let this opportunity pass by, because if we look at this chart, we can see how vital it is to bring down our debt. This is what our debt was back in 1940. As you will notice, at the end of the Vietnam war, this debt skyrocketed, like Senator Glenn going up in the STS-95. Once we commingled the Social Security surplus with the general funds of this country, we started to use that surplus and borrow money to pay for tax reductions and spending increases. We now have increased that debt. When I was mayor of the city of Cleveland back in 1979, it was $750 billion at that time. It is $5.6 trillion today, almost a 600-percent increase in the national debt. Why should we do this rather than use this money to reduce taxes? First of all, if we pay down the debt, we are going to decrease our massive interest payments on the national debt. No. 2, we will expand the economy. No. 3, we will lower interest rates for families. No. 4, we are going to have less need for future tax hikes. It will decrease the overall interest paid on the debt. Right now, this is hard to believe, but we are spending over $600 million per day--do you hear me--per day, just to service the interest on the national debt. Let's look at what that means. Most of the American people are not aware of what is going on here. Here are the entitlements, 54 percent; net interest, look at this, 14 percent of the money going for net interest; national defense, 15 percent; and nondefense discretionary, 17 percent. Look at what has happened. When Janet, my wife, and I got married back in 1962, we were spending 6 cents per dollar on the interest. Today it is 14 cents. The next chart, let's look at what that interest is doing. The interest on the national debt, as you can see, is a little bit below defense. But look at Medicare. We are spending more money today in the United States of America on the interest on national debt than we are on Medicare. And for education, we are spending five times more money on interest than we are on education. And for medical research, we are spending 15 times more money on interest than on the National Institutes of Health. That is what is going on today. No. 2, it will expand the economy. No. 3, it will lower the interest rate for individual families. As Alan Greenspan attests, a decreasing national debt will bolster a strong economy and allow individual interest rates to fall. Everybody who is an expert--talk to Dan Crippen, of the Congressional Budget Office, or David Walker, who is the new Comptroller General at GAO. Ask them: If you have a surplus, what should you do with it? They will come back and say, ``Reduce the national debt.'' These lower interest rates give middle-class Americans the ability to purchase homes. That is what keeps interest rates down. They are able to refinance mortgages and buy automobiles. The savings gives them some real money to either save, invest, or put it back into the economy. With the low-interest rates that we have enjoyed, over 17 million Americans have refinanced their homes since 1993. Just think of the people that you know who have refinanced their homes because we have kept interest rates down. If we pay off or reduce the national debt, those rates will continue to come down. These homeowners have saved millions of dollars in mortgage payments per year. In fact, one of my staff members refinanced his modest duplex home in 1998. By refinancing, his yearly savings will be $2,160 a year. That is more than $50,000 he is going to save over the 25 years left on his mortgage. If we could lower interest rates by 1 percentage point, an average family buying a home could save over $25,000 on a typical mortgage. Mr. President, that is a win-win for the American people. We will have less debt over our heads, and Americans will have more of their own money in their pockets in order to be able to buy things that they need for their families. Finally, the fourth reason is that if we reduce the national debt, it will lower the amount of taxes necessary to run the Government. As the debt decreases, so does the overall cost of running the Government. This would allow us to maintain the current level of Government services and accommodate an increase in the use of those services by the baby boomers. It would also lessen the demand for future tax hikes that would result in a de facto tax cut for American people. Just think if we could bring the amount of the net interest payments down, that money would be available for other things we need to spend money on. Or, in the alternative, the opportunity to reduce taxes. From a public policy point of view, let's be serious in terms of our debt. You have a 10-year projection on an $800 billion reduction in taxes. We are going to have a tough time balancing the budget this year. We may not have a surplus. Next year we will be lucky to have a surplus. One thing we do know is if we use the money to reduce the debt and we do not spend it on more programs, or we do not use it to reduce taxes, we will not be in the position, if the economy doesn't go the way we expect it to, to have to go back to the American people and say: Folks, we gave you a tax cut, but we are going to have to take it back because our projections were wrong. Folks, we are spending money on programs, and by the way, we are going to have to cut those programs because these 10-year projections we have are not working out. I want to say one thing and I think it is important. Mr. President, 5-year projections may be reasonable; 10-year projections, if you talk to CBO, they would tell you they could swing $300 billion over this period of time. I think what we need to do is understand we have a tough budget situation that, if we lock up Social Security and do not touch it as we have in the past, we are going to have a couple of tough years ahead of us. Rather than projecting out 10 years and talking about what we are going to be doing with the money, I think if we do have that additional money, let's pay down the national debt. The last thing I would like to say is this: I just had a new granddaughter last week, Veronica Kay Voinovich. While I was campaigning in Ohio last year I talked about my first grandchild, Mary Faith. Her gift, when she was born on December 26, 1996, from this Government, was a bill for $187,000, interest on a debt that was racked up before her life, on something that she had nothing to do with. And we are asking her to pay for it. I think it is criminal. I think it is criminal that we have not been willing to pay for the things that we wanted, that we borrowed the money, and we have had an attitude: We have ours, let them worry about theirs. That is not the legacy that was left to me and I do not want that legacy for my granddaughters or for the other grandchildren here in the United States of America. We have a wonderful opportunity. For the first time, we can see the light to really do something that is responsible in dealing with this budget to get ourselves back on track, so going into the next century, the next 10 years are going to be good years for our country.

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

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, as a former Governor, I introduced my own tobacco recoupment legislation. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of Senator Hutchison's and Senator Graham's bipartisan legislation. Under this settlement, the tobacco companies agreed to pay 46 States, including Ohio, $206 billion over 25 years. Four other States previously won a $40 billion settlement. Ohio was slated to receive $9.8 billion over 25 years, beginning with $400 million in 2000 and 2001. I just want you to know that the Nation's Governors are adamantly opposed to imposing restrictions on State funding. I have distributed a letter from the chairman and vice chairman of the National Governors' Association. It will be on the desk of all of the Senators expressing their adamant opposition to the amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH. The proposition is clearly unsupportable, for the following reasons: First of all, States filed complaints that included a variety of claims--consumer protection, racketeering, antitrust, disgorgement of profits and civil penalties for isolations of State laws. Medicaid was just one of the many issues in many cases. Furthermore, State-by-State allotments were determined by the overall health care costs in each State and not based on Medicaid expenditures--not based on Medicaid expenditures. Medicaid was not even mentioned in some cases. As a matter of fact, in Ohio the Medicaid claim was thrown out of court. The Federal Government was invited to participate in the lawsuits, but the Federal Government declined. States bore the risk of initiating the suits and the burden of the unprecedented lawsuits against a well-financed industry. It was not until after the States prevailed that the Federal Government became interested. The tobacco settlement negotiated between attorneys general and the tobacco companies is completely different from the agreement that failed to pass in the 105th Congress. With the failure of that legislation, the States were forced to proceed with their own State-only lawsuit and settlement. States must be given the flexibility to tailor their spending to the unique needs of their citizens. And States will spend their funding on a variety of local needs--health, education, welfare, smoking cessation programs. Many Governors, through their state-of-the-State speeches or proposed legislation, have already committed publicly to spending these funds for the health and welfare needs of their citizens. The majority of the Governors have already made commitments to create trust funds and escrow accounts that will ensure that the tobacco settlement funds are spent on health care services for children, assistance for growers in the States that will be affected, education, and smoking cessation. Two major programs--this is really important--in the settlement are already dedicated to reducing teen smoking and educating the public about tobacco-related diseases. Two hundred and fifty million dollars will create a national charitable foundation to support the study of programs to reduce teen smoking and substance abuse and prevent diseases associated with tobacco use. An additional $1.5 billion will create a National Public Education Fund to counter youth tobacco use and educate consumers about tobacco-related diseases. In addition, the settlement agreement has significant restrictions on advertising and promotion--such as bans on advertising and lobbying against local, State, and Federal laws--which will have an impact on youth smoking. In other words, the tobacco companies can no longer lobby against legislation that will deal with cessation of use of tobacco. States are already spending State funds on smoking cessation. They don't need the Federal Government to put a mandate in place. There is simply no way that States can spend 20 percent of these funds on smoking cessation programs. These programs cannot absorb this level of funding. As smoking levels decline, as expected under the settlement, it will become impossible for States to spend this level of funding effectively. This amendment forces States to spend an incredible--listen to this-- $49 billion on just one objective: Denying them the ability to use these funds to best meet the needs of their citizens. The notion that the compassion and wisdom of Washington exceeds that of our State capitals is not only wrong, it is offensive. The Governors and the local government officials in this country care as much about smoking cessation as the Members of this Congress. I will never forget during welfare reform the people who were telling us that we didn't care as much about people as the people in Washington. They said it would be a race to the bottom. The fact of the matter is, it is a race to the top. Mr. President, I think we should overwhelmingly defeat this amendment. It is not appropriate for this piece of legislation.