George Voinovich

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, America's journalism pool got a little smaller last week as David B. Cooper, one of Ohio's most respected journalists, hung up his typewriter. For almost 22 years, Dave was a powerful voice in Ohio, in charge of editorials and op-eds as the associate editor for the Akron Beacon Journal. Over the length of his career, Dave was never known to mince words or pull punches. He was brutally honest when he didn't think someone--usually a politician--was living up to expectations. And usually you didn't have to be reminded twice--you got the message. I will say that many politicians from the State of Ohio, including yours truly, worked very, very hard to live up to Dave's high expectations of us. Dave's principles always shone through in the topics he wrote about. His analysis was precise and he showed genuine care about the issues in and subjects of his columns. And he worked hard to make sure that he was easily understood. Dave's legacy is his journalistic leadership at the national, state and local level. He was outstanding. He began his career 44 years ago, writing for the Raleigh News and Observer and the Winston-Salem Journal and Sentinel during the 1950's and 1960's. In 1968, he started his association with Knight-Ridder newspapers by accepting a position with the Detroit Free Press. It wasn't until 1977 that Dave saw the light and realized his calling was in the State of Ohio with the Akron Beacon Journal. The Ohio journalism corps has truly been enhanced with his presence. I have enjoyed a wonderful relationship with Dave. He didn't always agree with me--and I certainly never expected him to--but he was always fair. In fact, I always looked forward to reading Dave's editorials just to find out how he thought my administration was doing. For the last 2 years, Dave and I have shared something in common-- we're both grandfathers, although I'm a little newer at being one than he is. There is sort of an unspoken bond between grandfathers that is readily apparent in the smiles we wear and the glint in our eye, as we regale others with the exploits of our precious little ones. Dave has four grandchildren and I know that he is more proud of them than any editorial or column he has written. In fact, Dave's best writing has been about his grandchildren! One of the great things about the relationship Dave and I have is our mutual love of fishing. Many times when we've been talking about topics of the day, we've gone off the subject talking about fly-fishing techniques, favorite streams, or the one that got away. Dave and I have done some fishing together, but not nearly enough. And even though Dave and his lovely wife Joanne are moving to California, I look forward to doing more fishing with him in the years to come. And while I prefer polka, Dave loves jazz. Dave knows more about jazz--jazz records, jazz singers, and jazz history--than anybody I know. I suspect that his knowledge of jazz surpasses all but a few journalists in America. He even has a jazz radio show in Akron! He has written about jazz extensively and he never tires of speaking about it. Mr. President, I want to close by saying I have immense respect for Dave. He is and always has been a true professional. And although I am sorry to see him retire, I am confident that the citizens of Akron have not heard the last from him. Dave and I will always be friends. I wish him well as he and his wife Joanne embark on their new life together. I notice that my colleague, Senator DeWine, is on the Senate floor, and I yield the floor to him.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I want to bring to the Senate's attention the fact that we welcomed a new citizen into Ohio last night at 11:57, and that new citizen is my second grandchild, Veronica Kay Voinovich. Veronica is our second grandchild. Her grandmother and I welcome her and so do her other grandparents, Warren and Alice Fish. I apologize for not being in Cleveland last night for her birth, but it was necessary for me to be here to do the work of the Senate and to represent the people of Ohio and, hopefully, through those votes do something for her and the rest of the citizens of our great State.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will be in a period for morning business until 11 o'clock. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of Senate bill 257, the national missile defense bill. Under the consent agreement reached yesterday, that agreement includes a limited number of amendments that may be offered to the bill and also limits debate time on each amendment. In light of this agreement, the leader is hopeful the Senate will complete action on this legislation by early this afternoon. Following disposition of the bill, the leader has indicated the Senate may begin consideration of a Kosovo resolution and/or the supplemental appropriations bill. Therefore, Members should expect votes throughout today's session and during the remainder of this week. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I stand before you today in strong support of Senator Frist's Educational Flexibility Partnership Act. But then again, most of the Senate, and all 50 Governors, Secretary Riley, and even the President want this wonderful piece of legislation to pass today. It is a big day personally for me. Some people are not aware of the fact that this effort for flexibility started in Ohio in 1981, when I commissioned a private-sector audit of the department of education to make it more friendly to our school districts. At the same time, it was command and control. The private-sector management audit came back and said it was riddled with paperwork, and the shocking thing was that half the paperwork the department had to do and the schools had to do was as a result of Federal regulations, and we were only getting 6 percent of our money from the Federal Government. I recall going to Washington at that time and sitting down with Secretary Lamar Alexander and asking him if he could do something about it. Unfortunately, he could not. Later on when President Clinton became President and Dick Riley, a former Governor, became Secretary of Education, in the Goals 2000 legislation he provided for States to take advantage of some flexibility. I want to underscore that a State cannot take advantage of this program unless they agree themselves to waive their regulations, and in some instances--for example, in Ohio--even waive statutes. This provided an opportunity for school districts to get waivers that, prior to Ed-Flex, had to go directly to Washington in order to get a waiver. It allows them to go to their superintendents of public instruction in their respective States. I am proud that we have had an opportunity to take advantage of this. In Ohio we have 186 schools using a title I waiver, with over half of these schools increasing their proficiency test scores in math and science. Those school districts have taken advantage of waivers in the Eisenhower grants. As you know, in the Eisenhower grants, 85 percent of the money is supposed to be used for math and science. But in the elementary schools, how can a kid learn math or science if they cannot read? So as a result of the waiver program, we were able to get waivers to allow the money to be spent on reading, and today in those schools we have seen a dramatic increase in the math and science scores as a result of the fact that those schools were able to take advantage of the waiver. There are some people who would argue that we need more accountability. I argue that we have accountability in most States. In Ohio, for example, we have our report cards, not only by districts but by individual buildings. With Ed-Flex, a building or a classroom that takes advantage of a waiver has to agree that within a year they will report back on how they are taking advantage of that waiver and whether it is making a difference in the classroom. I would say that if I could get every title I school in the United States of America to become an Ed-Flex waiver school, we would have a lot more accountability with that title I money that is going into those districts--for those that are concerned about title I. I think this idea is so overwhelming that last year, as chairman of the National Governors' Association, I made Ed-Flex one of my top priorities. I recall going to the White House and talking to President Clinton about it and his indicating that he thought it was a good idea. Last year, we almost got it done with the help of Tom Carper, the Democratic Governor of the State of Delaware. Again, we are bringing it back to Congress for their consideration. To my Democratic colleagues I say this: There are a lot of ideas that have been proposed here on the floor. My attitude is that they all involve money. This is not a money bill. Ed-Flex does not require one additional dime from the Federal Government. What it does do is that it allows school districts to save the paperwork and the redtape so their administrators can spend time on education, and the teachers can, and they can take more of the money that is coming in from the Federal Government and put it in the classroom to improve the education of our children. And if you want to talk about priorities: Rather than 100,000 new teachers, I would rather put the money in funding the Individuals With Disabilities Education Assistance Act or, in the alternative, my favorite: If I had the choice, instead of 100,000 teachers, I would put the money into 0 to 3, or conception to 3, a time in a child's life that is being, quite frankly, neglected in this country, not only by the Federal Government but by the local governments. We can prove that if you put money in during that period of time, when it is most important to the development of a child's ability to learn, you can get the best return on your investment. So let's debate how we want to spend this Federal money and where we ought to be spending it, but let's not make that part of the debate on Ed-Flex. We will get to that. We will have that debate. We will look at what is available and decide how it is to be spent. So today I ask the Members of the Senate to support Ed-Flex. Let's have a clean Ed-Flex bill. Let's get it done. It has made a great difference for the people of Ohio and those States that have taken advantage of it. I think it is long overdue to give the other 38 States of this Nation the same opportunities that we have. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Governmental Affairs Committee to meet on Monday, March 8, 1999, at 9:30 a.m. for a hearing on the topic of ``Deceptive Mailings and Sweepstakes Promotions.''

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, as a newcomer to the Senate, I have been perplexed by the great debate over Ed-Flex. I would like to say that Ed-Flex is not the beginning and the end in terms of education. When we first talked about Ed-Flex early on in this session, the thought was that we would move it out early before we got into the great debate over the reauthorization of elementary and secondary education and to understanding that there are a lot of things we needed to discuss --more teachers, school construction; on our side of the aisle, block granting all the money into the classroom, and many other things. It was a bipartisan effort. As chairman of the National Governors' Association a year ago, I was at the White House. I said to the President, ``We would like to see Ed- Flex for all the States.'' By the way, we don't need it in Ohio. We were one of the first States to get Ed-Flex. I thought it would be wonderful if the other States had the same opportunities we had in Ohio. The President said, ``I am for Ed-Flex.'' Tom Carper, now the chairman of the National Governors' Association, Governor Carper, was at the White House. Again, the President said, ``I am for Ed-Flex.'' This bill is just aimed at giving the other 38 States in the United States of America the opportunity to use these waivers the way we have in Ohio. We believe they have helped us do a better job with the money that has been made available under various Federal programs. We can show, for example, where we have been able to get waivers under title I, and how it has improved the performance of our children in our title I schools. We have been able to show that by getting waivers to the Eisenhower professional grants that the money has been used better than it was before. One of the things we all ought to be concerned about here in the Senate is you can't get an Ed-Flex waiver without putting a kind of Goals 2000 plan together, getting a State to waive their regulations and some of their statutes, and allowing a school district to look at all of these programs and come up with a plan that is going to do a better job of taking care of their boys and girls in their respective school districts. I was saying to one of the Senators yesterday that in terms of Ed- Flex I wish every school district that was title I would ask for a waiver, because at least you would then be able to go back a year later and find out whether or not that title I money is really making a difference in the lives of those children. I just think the issue of--a lot of these great things have been talked about, Senator Kennedy and others have--but I think the thought was that we need to spend the time discussing those things as we move through the reauthorization of elementary and secondary education. There were a lot of people on my side of the aisle who didn't want to go along with Ed-Flex because they thought it would spoil their bills that block grant money into the classroom. So I just think that all of us who really care about the kids ought to get on with Ed-Flex and talk about these other programs as we move through this session as we had originally anticipated. As I say, the President agrees. All the Governors agree. It is an opportunity for the Federal Government to become a better partner to States and local governments to do a better job in providing help for our children. I just think this concept of ``one size fits all'' coming out of Washington doesn't work. We don't have a national school board. I must tell you that in Ohio what came out of Columbus, ``one size fits all,'' did not work. ``One size fits all'' doesn't work in individual school districts because of the fact that those districts are different. This legislation gives all of the States an opportunity to take advantage of Federal money and meld it with money they are spending on the local and State level and make a real difference in the lives of our boys and girls in this country and achieves measurable improvement in the classroom. That is what people want--accountability. I urge my colleagues to end the debate. Let's get on with it. Some of these other issues that are so very, very important which are near and dear to their hearts--I am not going to get into the argument about whether class size or the Federal Government should hire more teachers, and so forth; I will not get into that. I have feelings about that. But I think we need to do that later on and not on this piece of legislation. One other thing that I think needs to be pointed out, Ed-Flex does not cost one dime--not one dime. What we should think about is that I think it will allow us to use--I don't think--I know it will be able to use the money we are getting from the Federal Government in a more effective way of helping our children in the classroom. Some of the other things that have been talked about here are the amendments to this legislation are going to cost money. The question is, Where is the money going to come from? That ought to be taken into consideration when we are looking at the whole smorgasbord of educational priorities and look at the dollars that are available, and then conclude that is it better to, say, fund IDEA rather than putting the money into new teachers or into new classroom construction? As Senator Kennedy notes, I am very interested in zero to 3. We would be better off taking money from new classrooms and for hiring new teachers and focusing it on zero to 3 where we know that a lot more needs to be done, and where we know that if we invest early on in the child's life we are going to get a better return. I ask my colleagues to vote for cloture. Let's get Ed-Flex done. Let's get on with the debate over how we are going to spend the money available to make the biggest difference in the lives of our children in this country.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I have devoted more than 30 years of my life to public service. I have held elected office as mayor of the city of Cleveland, and I served as Governor of the State of Ohio. Now I am privileged to serve the citizens of Ohio as one of their U.S. Senators. I am deeply honored by the confidence they have bestowed upon me. They have placed their faith in my ability and my judgment to consider and vote upon and bring to the forefront issues of national significance. It is for this reason that I have come to the Senate floor to discuss what I consider to be the most serious financial and economic threat facing our Nation today. Through the tough choices made by Congress in passing the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, and through our continued strong economy, the days of escalating, crushing budget deficits appear to be coming to an end. In Washington, politicians are saying we have turned the corner, and for the first time in 30 years, we have a budget that shows a surplus. If it is true, it would be brand new territory for many Americans. Tens of millions were not even born yet when we had our last surplus. However, it is my contention that we do not yet have honest budget surpluses, and unless we take bold steps, our actions will continue to leave our younger citizens and future generations liable for three decades of massive deficits and a national debt that has made us the greatest debtor nation in the world. Prior to 1968, surpluses were not uncommon. But through President Lyndon Johnson's expansion of the Vietnam war and the implementation of the Great Society, we started to lose fiscal restraint. A budget trick was implemented by the Johnson administration. It took the off-budget Social Security trust funds, which were in true surplus, and commingled them with the regular budget which at that time was showing a deficit. In this manner, Congress and subsequent Presidents were able to mask annual budget deficits that contributed to a rising national debt. I would just like to point out, however, the years Social Security has masked the true budget deficit that we have had and how it has improved our budget situation. If you go back to 1995, we reported that we had a budget deficit of $164 billion. The fact of the matter is we had a budget deficit of $226 billion. And what we did was we reduced it by using the Social Security surplus of $62 billion. In 1996, we reported that we had a deficit of $107 billion. The fact is our budget deficit was $174 billion, and again we used Social Security to reduce that deficit. Then, in 1997, we reported, oh, it is wonderful news, we had just a minus $22 billion deficit. The fact of the matter is we had a $103 billion deficit, and we plastered it over with $81 billion of Social Security money. Then, in 1998, we had the great celebration, the great surplus that we talked about. The fact of the matter is that even in 1998, when we reported the first unified budget surplus, we still had a real deficit of $30 billion. Again, we used the $99 billion Social Security budget surplus to hide the fact that we had a $30 billion deficit. Again, this year, we are reporting we will have a $111 billion surplus. The fact of the matter is, even this year, we will have a $16 billion deficit; and again that has been covered over by the using of Social Security. And for the year 2000--the budget we are working on right now--we are reporting we will have a $133 billion surplus. The fact of the matter is, even this year, we are going to have a $5 billion deficit on budget. We have covered that $5 billion up with $138 billion of surplus in the Social Security trust fund. And next year we are celebrating the idea that maybe we are going to have our first real honest to goodness on-budget surplus of $11 billion. The fact of the matter is--and we will report a unified budget surplus of $156 billion--but the truth is that we only have a real-- real--surplus of $11 billion. Rather than attempting to enact policies that would bring us back to surpluses, 30 years of financial gimmicks have ensued, so much that we ran up a debt of $5.6 trillion in those intervening years from the time of Lyndon Johnson. Since the time my wife and I got married in 1962, interest payments on the debt have gone from 6 cents on the dollar to 14 cents on the dollar this past year. If we had had the same 6-percent interest payment when we got married in 1962, Americans would have saved $140 billion this year. As the debt grew during the 1970s and 1980s, attempts were made to bring it under control. In 1985, Congress passed the Gramm-Rudman- Hollings Act which required the unified budget to be split and the Social Security trust funds kept separate. When Gramm-Rudman passed, I was encouraged that finally we were going to get some truth in budgeting. At that time, I was mayor of Cleveland and I was serving as president of the National League of Cities. In 1985, the debt was $1.8 trillion. We mayors felt the need to do our part to help reduce the debt. We did our share when we lost the CETA program, revenue sharing, one half of our community development block grant, and a complete loss of the Urban Development Action Grant Program. When I left office after 10 years as mayor of the City of Cleveland, we had $79 million less a year from the Federal Government than we had when I came into office in 1979. In order to make up that difference, first of all we did everything we could to reduce costs. In many instances, cities across this country had to increase their local income taxes or local taxes by over 50 percent to compensate for the loss of these Federal dollars. Much to our chagrin, our sacrifice did little to help reduce our annual deficits or shrink our national debt. Indeed, the debt was $1.8 trillion in 1985; today it is $5.6 trillion. If you go back to when I became mayor in 1979, the national debt was $780 billion; today, 20 years later, it is $5.6 trillion. Listen to this: A 700-percent increase in the country's national debt in a 20-year period. We have a law that says Social Security trust funds are supposed to be off budget, and we have the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 that removes Social Security from deficit targets and other enforcement calculations. But it was another law, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, that forced tough spending choices on Congress and on the administration, making them live within their means for the first time in decades. I congratulate the Members of Congress, those who supported the balanced budget agreement of 1997. It is this law more than any other that has given us the tools to help us now put our financial house in order. As a result, we are seeing a decrease in the on-budget deficit, we are cutting down on spending, people are projecting surpluses, and the Social Security trust funds are growing. There is a light at the end of the tunnel. But to get there, we must maintain our discipline and continue doing those things that will bring down our debt and honor our commitments to our citizens. As this chart shows, if we stick to our guns, if we honor the caps in the 1997 budget agreement, we might have an on-budget surplus starting in the year 2001 and a growing surplus thereafter. Here is what it looks like: In 1999, if we stick to the balanced budget agreement, if we don't invade the budget caps we have for the first time in 30 years, we can begin the new century by having a true, real budget surplus that will continue to grow. But along comes the President with his fiscal year 2000 budget and projections for 15 years into the future. In one fell swoop, he proposes a continuation of the ill-conceived policies that got us in trouble in the first place. Under his budget, we still have unified budget totals and the President has proposed to continue to use Social Security to pay for other government programs for at least the next 15 years. We can't even show the 5 years beyond 2009 because there are no hard numbers from the administration so the Congressional Budget Office can make projections. This is not truth in budgeting that the American people expect or deserve, and I think it will lead to disastrous consequences. This chart shows what will happen if we follow the President's proposal to deal with the unified budget. In 1999, we will start developing annual budget deficits that will take us down this crimson path to where we have been for the last 5 or 6 years. Let me point out where we are going: The red line on the chart is the deficit; this is the real deficit. Because we have had self-discipline, because we are honoring the budget agreement, we are seeing these red deficit numbers get smaller. If the President's proposal goes into effect, we are going to go back to the old days. Instead of having this scenario at the beginning of the next decade, this scenario will be had under the President's program. Why is this important? First, the President says we have a budget surplus in fiscal year 2000. This is simply not true. If you look at the chart titled ``Real Budget Surplus,'' you will see again that fiscal year 2000 shows a real budget deficit of $5 billion. In fact, if you look at the chart, we don't have a surplus this year--rather, a $16 billion deficit. What the President does is take the off-budget Social Security trust funds and continue to use them to mask the deficit while saying he is saving Social Security. It is a fraud. The President's surplus for this fiscal year, the next fiscal year, in fact, and for 14 fiscal years after that, continues the gimmick of using the unified budget. It is disingenuous. It continues to use billions of dollars of the Social Security trust fund to mask the true size of the budget and allows the President to put off making those tough budget decisions that we must make. If we allow this to happen--the tough budget choices we have to make today--we are in deep trouble. We have a growing economy and we have the lowest unemployment we have seen at any time. If we can't as a nation make the tough decisions that we need to make to turn things around and to have an on-budget surplus, if we can't do it now, we will never do it. Second, the President not only busts the spending caps agreed upon in the 1997 budget deal, he destroys them. These targeted caps are meant to keep our spending in check. But even before we debate a budget resolution for the coming fiscal year, we learn from Congressional Budget Office Director Dan Crippen that the President proposes to increase, or ``blast,'' the caps by $30 billion--$30 billion. In fiscal year 2000, we are supposed to face budget caps that will force us to cut $28 billion. It will take tough choices to meet these caps, but we must show restraint if we are ever to bring our finances in order. This is why I am pleased that the Republican leadership has given their assurance to maintain the caps so that we may demonstrate to the American people that we are serious about the commitment. The Republicans have also--this is really important, folks--committed to restoring truth in budgeting by ensuring that 100 percent of Social Security trust funds are protected and not used for additional spending or tax cuts. In other words, the Social Security trust fund is off, it is off. We are locking it up. There will not be any tax reductions or new spending with Social Security surpluses. Third, the President is skirting a moral obligation that has been made to our seniors and all future generations to fully preserve the sanctity of the Social Security system. Social Security is a sacred trust between the Federal Government and every American. That is why I firmly believe we need to get away from treating Social Security funds as part of the budget and wall it off from any temptation to use it for purposes other than Social Security. As I say, we need to ``put it in a lockbox.'' The President, on the other hand, wants to use the Social Security trust funds to show that he has a budget surplus. As I said, there are billions and billions of dollars meant for the Social Security trust fund that are supposed to be off budget. But he can't resist trying to make those funds a part of the budget so he can mask the size of the deficit and use any so-called surplus to pay for his agenda. We have been playing games with Social Security for far too long. Do you know what? It is time to stop. Under the President's plan, only 62 percent of the unified surplus would be devoted to Social Security. In fact, recently, the head of the Senate Budget Committee said only 58 percent of the unified surplus is going to be used to protect Social Security. This represents an actual decrease from what we would allocate to Social Security if we were to treat it as an off-budget item. This is budgetary sleight of hand, and the President knows it. It is unconscionable for him to say that he is ``protecting and preserving'' Social Security, when in reality he is taking money away from it and using it to pay for other programs. No matter how well intentioned those programs are, it is not the right thing to do. Fourth, the President hinges his plan on budget surpluses that are calculated far into the future. As our Nation's premier economist, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, testified before the Senate Budget Committee: We cannot confidently project large surpluses in our unified budget over the next 15 years, given the inherent uncertainties of budget forecasting. Greenspan goes on to say: How can we ignore the fact that virtually all forecasts of the budget balance have been wide of the mark in recent years? In a January 1999 report to Congress, the Congressional Budget Office wrote that an error on the projection of the budget surplus in 2009, and based on previous averages, could be ``equal to 13 percent of projected outlays [and] would produce a swing of $300 billion.'' The Cincinnati Post, in an editorial on February 10, said: ``There's one thing wrong with budget forecasts: they are inevitably wrong.'' Is it prudent to take that kind of risk with our children's future? I don't think so. If we go along with these four points, we will have no credibility with the American people. And to regain credibility, we must put an end to the game playing and restore truth in budgeting. When we--the Congress and the administration--are forced to make the hard choices that we were sent here to make, we often try to do what we believe our constituents want us to do. However, what they want, I think, is quite simple; they want us to tell the truth. They want us to stop using smoke and mirrors to say that the Nation's financial house is in order. They want us to give them enough credit to know the distinction between what we do and what we say. The American people want us to make the tough choices. Two weeks ago, I was faced with one of those tough choices. The Senate debated legislation that would expand the pay and retirement benefits of our men and women in uniform. I want you to know that there is nobody who supports our Armed Forces more than I, and no one believes more than I that we should provide as many incentives as possible to retain these quality troops in our military. However, we cannot continue to pass legislation without first dealing with its consequences. That bill would have authorized an increase in our country's financial liabilities by approximately $55 billion over the next 10 years. Because we had no idea how to pay for it or if it would fall within the budget caps, I felt it necessary to vote ``no.'' It was a tough choice, but I felt it was necessary. When I became mayor of Cleveland, the city was in default. It was the first city in America to go into default since the depression. To get the city out of its financial abyss, I had to make tough choices. As a result of our actions, we were able to turn the city's default into a surplus, and Cleveland now enjoys an economic renaissance it has not seen in generations. As Governor, I again had to make hard choices in each and every budget in order to meet our constitutional obligation to balance our budget. When I became Governor of Ohio in 1991, our State faced an over $1 billion budget deficit. In order to balance the budget, I had to make four cuts over 2 years totaling $711 million. I was picketed by college students--5,000 of them outside the State House, who were told by the university people that I was cutting higher education and their tuition costs were going to go up. And I was picketed, at the same time, by welfare recipients who marched on the capitol because we cut out general assistance for able-bodied people. But we had to get our financial house in order. Somebody had to make the tough decisions. As a result, today Ohio is spending a record amount of money on programs to help children. In addition, we have been able to cut State income taxes for 3 straight years, including an almost 10-percent across-the-board tax cut this year. In other words, when the taxpayers of Ohio, this year, file their 1998 returns, their income tax will be almost 10 percent less than it would have been without our good management. Ohio has a general revenue rainy day fund of over $935 million and a Medicaid rainy day fund of $100 million, so in the future we can avoid deep cuts in vital services or tax increases just in case there is a downturn in the economy. Ohio is in better shape today because we were able to make the hard choices. Every day, millions of Americans have to make hard spending choices, too. They have to pay their bills, pay their mortgages, put food on the table, and buy clothes for their children. They have budgets and they know they have to live within their means. Unlike the administration, when most people have extra money, they don't go out and start to spend it wildly. They tend to their finances, they save, they pay off their credit cards and loans, and they invest in homes and businesses. That brings us back to what we would do with whatever on-budget surplus we achieve. What are we going to do with it if we get it? The first thing is, I will believe it when I see it. I am a ``doubting Thomas'' about whether we really will see it. But if we do get an on- budget surplus, what we need to do is be wise and leave it alone. Why the rush to spend it? Why the rush to lower taxes? We don't even know if we have it. If we do get it, we should leave it alone and give it a chance to accumulate. If we cannot guarantee--and we cannot--that we are going to have an on-budget surplus, then we have no right to start committing dollars that we don't have. If and when we get an on-budget, or ``real,'' surplus, it is our moral obligation to our children to pay them back by using any such surplus to pay down our current debt. We have stuck these pages who are standing in front of me with a big bill. We have an obligation to pay that debt down so part of the income taxes they pay in the future aren't to pay off the interest on debts they had nothing to do with during their time of growing up. I want you to know that this isn't just my opinion about paying down the debt. It is the opinion of experts like Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, CBO Director Dan Crippen, and GAO Comptroller David Walker. They agree that it is the best use of these funds--pay down the national debt. Not only is it a moral obligation, but this course of action makes great economic sense for four reasons. I think this is really important because a lot of people say: ``Reduce the taxes'' and ``This is really going to be the thing that is going to make a big difference.'' I say: Reduce the deficit, bring it down, and here are the reasons why. First of all, it will decrease the overall interest paid on the debt, and that is important because paying off the debt lowers the interest. When you lower the interest, what do you do? You lower the cost of Government, and that makes more money available for other purposes. No. 2, Alan Greenspan will tell you that it helps allow the economy to expand. No. 3, it lowers the interest rate for individual citizens, which is a big deal. According to Alan Greenspan, it lets people afford to buy homes or refinance their mortgages, and it puts real money into the pockets of tens of millions of Americans. Just think about it. As we got our house in order and interest rates came down, think of the millions of Americans who have refinanced their homes, and those who are able to buy automobiles today because interest rates are down. If we bring the national debt down and don't follow what the President wants to do, to use the unified surplus, we will keep those interest rates down. That is real money in your pocket. Last but not least, paying down the debt lowers the amount of taxes the Government would need from the American people, according to the Business Roundtable. Using only on-budget surplus funds for debt reduction prevents us from making false promises to the American people. One of the biggest assumptions associated with the treatment of surplus funds is an indefinite continuation of our current period of economic growth. Blending that assumption with the use of a unified budget surplus is a volatile mix since no one can predict how long this period of growth will last. Optimistic surplus estimates could fluctuate wildly over the next few years, with unknown consequences. As most of my colleagues know, within ten years, the ``baby-boomers'' will start to become eligible for Social Security and the sheer size of their numbers will present a challenge to maintain the viability of the Social Security system. In order to honor the contract we entered into with these individuals, it is our obligation to ensure that we have the necessary funds. A unified budget surplus raids the ``offbudget'' Social Security funds and replaces them with hundreds of billions of dollars worth of IOU's for our children and grandchildren. This is not the legacy we should leave. We are bankrupting the futures of generations yet unborn because we have a hard time saying no. Well, it is time to start owning-up to our obligations and meeting our responsibilities, because ladies and gentlemen, Social Security is a sacred trust. Unfortunately, too many people have become cynical that we don't have a commitment to Social Security. For example, citizens like my son, George--people in their 20's, their 30's and even their 40's--don't ever expect to see a dime of Social Security in their lifetime. What they know is that Uncle Sam has been taking money out of one pocket via payroll taxes, and taking money out of the other pocket via income taxes and the Government just puts it all together and uses it for what it wants. They've been told that their money is ``in there'' for them when they retire, but when Congress and the Administration play shell games with the trust funds, no one believes it. It is a sad commentary that there is such little faith in the promises made by our government. However, this cynicism is given credence when we continue to use Social Security trust funds to hide our excesses. I firmly believe that it is our moral obligation to honor the commitments we have made to our citizens on Social Security, instill truth-in-budgeting, clean up the financial messes we have made and provide for all of the generations that follow, a nation that is better than we received. Behind my desk on my computer, I have a screen-saver picture of my 2- year-old granddaughter, Mary Faith. She is the joy of our lives. She is a wonderful little girl. We have lots of hope and promise for her. But she has no idea the decisions we are making now are going to affect her financial future. And those decisions are being made by her grandfather, other Members of the Senate and Congress and the administration. She has no idea that on the day she was born--Mary Faith was born on December 29, 1996--she immediately became responsible for a whopping $187,000 bill from the Federal Government on interest that she is going to have to pay over her lifetime. And that is on a debt her grandfather's generation ran up for our own benefit. I prefer the picture of Mary Faith on my screen saver, this picture right here, which says ``Sentenced to Repay.'' That is the next generation of Americans--``Sentence to Repay'' the debt we didn't have the guts to pay for during our lifetime. Any day this week Mary Faith is going to have a new brother or sister. And, Mr. President, we are actually expecting her brother or sister on Friday of this week, and I want to let you know that for sure I will not be here if we have any rollcall votes on Friday. While nothing can surpass the joy our family will feel on this special day, I can't help but think that like my granddaughter, Mary Faith, he or she is going to receive a bill from this Government for the interest on the debt that he or she had nothing to do with. And that bill is going to be even larger than the one we gave to Mary Faith 2 years ago. We have been reaping all the benefits and putting the future of all our children and grandchildren in jeopardy through a ``we buy now, you pay later'' philosophy. I cannot convey how wrong I think it is to saddle them with such an excessive financial burden that we now, this Congress, have the ability to correct. That is why I feel debt repayment is the wisest use of any on-budget surplus. It is plain common sense, and it would be the greatest gift we could ever give to our future generations. Mr. President, each year, on the anniversary of President George Washington's birthday, a U.S. Senator is given the privilege of reading Washington's Farewell Address on the floor of this Senate. It is a tradition that dates back nearly 100 years. This year, I had the distinct honor to read this wonderful document, the first Ohioan who has had the privilege of reading that farewell address since Bob Taft gave it back in 1939, 60 years ago. As I prepared for the speech and I read through his words, Washington's words, I was particularly taken by the relevance today of one of President Washington's admonitions to a young United States of America. Here is what he said 200 years ago. [avoid] the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. Those were very, very wise words of President Washington, and they ring true today as well as they rang true during his day. I believe it is our duty to heed them. We owe that to all our Nation's children and our grandchildren. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I share the concerns about the dropout rate in this country with the Senator from Nevada. I am very familiar with the dropout rate in the State of Ohio and what we tried to do to deal with the problem. I contend that the passage of Ed-Flex will allow many States today to better utilize the money coming into their State to do a better job in those early years with youngsters so that they will be successful and they will stay in school. For example, in the State of Ohio, we have used the Ed-Flex waiver on the Eisenhower Professional Grant Program to allow teachers to learn how to do a better job of teaching and helping children to learn. We have also allowed some of that money to be used in areas where kids are having the biggest problem, for example, in reading. We have seen that by using Ed-Flex, we have been able to do a much better job helping youngsters to learn, the same way with the waivers that we received in Ohio under Ed-Flex under title I, to be able to use those dollars in a more efficient way so that we can really make an impact in the lives of the children where the teachers feel that it will do the most good. Again, we have seen the statistics from 1996 and 1998. Where we have had Ed-Flex, the kids are doing better, because they have had a waiver on the Eisenhower Professional Grant Program under title I. There is no silver bullet in terms of the issue of dropout rates. When I became Governor of Ohio, I went to the head of the Department of Corrections and said to him, What can we do to keep down the prison population in the State of Ohio? His answer was, Head Start; we have to get involved with these youngsters earlier. So we went to town on the issue of Head Start, and today my State is the only State where every eligible child whose parents want them to be in preschool or Head Start is in the program. That is the responsibility, I believe, of the Governor of the State and the people involved in the State in education. They need to make these early childhood programs. For example, you will be hearing from me later on in this session in terms of the use of TANF money. We have a very good program in our State called Early Start, where we are going to families as soon as that baby is born and intervening and trying to make sure that during those first 3 years of a child's life, they develop those learning capacities that they need to be successful in school. Too often these dropout programs are dealing with the end of the line, and that is what we, as a government, ought to be doing, making a commitment to intervene early on. That is where you can really make a difference in terms of having a program that deals with birth to 3, zero to 3, intervening earlier in the lives of our children to make that difference. In addition, I think people should understand that there are lots of dropout programs in this country. I have been chairman of a group called Jobs for American Graduates for a couple of years. As a matter of fact, Senator Robb from Virginia at one time was head of Jobs for American Graduates, and Senator Jeffords is very familiar with the Jobs for American Graduates Program. It is a program that has been in existence for 19 years and has served over 250,000 young people. What we do is, we identify kids in the 12th grade who are in need of help. We get them into a job club. We intervene, and 90 percent of them stay in school. Then we follow them a year afterwards to find out what has happened to them, and they are either in secondary posteducation or they are in the service or they have a job. This program is in existence in about 28 States and territories in the United States. I say to Senator Reid of Nevada, we tried to get the program into the Las Vegas school system and they turned us down. Governor Miller tried to also do the same thing, and they turned us down. I suggest to Senator Reid that he ought to talk with the people in the Las Vegas school system and ask them why they are not part of the Jobs for American Graduates Program, the most successful dropout program in the United States.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I point out that today our Jobs for American Graduates Program is utilizing--listen to the Federal programs that we are already utilizing. We are utilizing the Joint Training Partnership Act. We are using School to Work Opportunities Act. We are using the Wagner-Peyser Act. We are using the Carl Perkins Vocational Education Act funds. We are using the title IV Safe and Drug Free Schools funds. We are using the Criminal Justice Crime Prevention funds. We are using welfare reform funds. The point I am making is that, No. 1, the dropout issue is a national problem, but it is primarily the responsibility of State and local governments. It is up to the Governors and to the local people, local education people to respond to the problem. For example, in the JAG program, when I came in as Governor, we were spending about $4 million. Today we are spending $22 million in the State of Ohio, because we understand how important it is to try to identify these youngsters who are going to drop out of school and keep them in school. That is just a phase of it. When you talk about dropout, you have to look at the entire specter of the cause of the dropout program. I will go back to what Senator Jeffords has just said. It starts out with Early Start. It starts with Head Start. It starts out with technology in the schools. An interesting story. I went to our prisons and visited those where they are ready to come out into society. I went in and I asked a question, How many of you graduated from high school? Not one hand went up. They were there working with these computers. I asked them what they were doing, and they pointed out to me that they were getting ready to get their GED. I remember after leaving there--it was about 7 or 8 years ago--I said to myself, we have computers in our prisons to help people get their GED and prepare them to go out, and we didn't have computers in our schools in Ohio. So we undertook a program to wire every classroom for voice, video and data. We brought computers into every classroom. It is amazing what is happening in elementary school. What you have to recognize is the reason why a lot of these youngsters drop out of school is they are not doing well. They have not had Head Start. When they get to school, they do not have the tools that are necessary to get the job done. For example, in our State now, we have reduced the class size for first, second, and third grade to no more than 15 because we know those years are so important. So to stand here and say we need a program for dropouts, it seems to me that if we really want to get at the dropout problem in this country, this Congress should sit down and look at all these programs that we have and figure out how we can do a better job with the money we have to really make a difference. And we also ought to understand it is not our primary responsibility. It is the responsibility of the Governors; it is the responsibility of those local school superintendents and those local school boards and the people that are there to get this job done. And for them to send money to Washington and then turn around and have it go back, I do not think is the best way to get the job done. On the other hand, the Federal Government should be trying to figure out how they can be a better partner. I suggest a nice little task force that we could undertake in this Senate could sit down and look at these various programs, how do they fit together, how can we better maximize those dollars, and maybe look at some programs that we already have and say, if we put a little bit more money into this--for example, if we allow the States to use more of their TANF money to deal with this big problem, if they do not have education--they will not go on welfare. There are a lot of things that we can do, I think, if we just sat down and looked at what we were doing. And one of the things that we can do, Mr. President, I think, is to pass Ed-Flex because Ed-Flex will give us a little better opportunity to take the Federal money that is coming in and really make a difference in the lives of kids. And one of the things that I heard when I sat in your chair, Mr. President, during the debate earlier on was about accountability. In those school districts that are getting waivers for Eisenhower Professional Grants, getting waivers for title I, what have we found out? We are finding out if the programs are working. The ones that have not asked for waivers, we do not know what they are doing in terms of making a difference in the lives of children. I say to Senator Jeffords, I think one of the great benefits of the Ed-Flex program is that when you make application you agree, first of all, to waive a lot of State statutes and also rules and regulations, but you also agree that you are going to meet certain standards; and you are held accountable toward those standards. So I am saying to you that the schools in this country, in our 12 States that have taken advantage of Ed-Flex, at least we know whether or not some of this Federal money is really making a difference in the lives of children. And the more our schools can go to get waivers, I think the more accountability we are going to have. And it is one aspect I do not think has been talked about enough here on the floor of the Senate. Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I would be glad to have the Senator answer that, sure.

Mr. VOINOVICH

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

Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Voinovich pertaining to the introduction of S. 468 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of Senate 280, a bill to extend educational flexibility to all of the 50 States. One of the nice things about becoming a Member of the U.S. Senate is that I am going to have an opportunity as a Member of Congress to promote some of the programs I lobbied for while I was mayor of the city of Cleveland and president of the National League of Cities, and programs that I promoted as Governor and chairman of the National Governors' Association. Way back in 1991, we did a study in the State of Ohio in regard to our department of education to find out if there were ways we could change its direction. One of the things we discovered was that there were all kinds of reports that needed to be filed. What was astounding is that half the reports that were being filed by school districts were to the Federal Government and the Federal Government was only participating to the extent of about 6 percent of the money that was being spent in those school districts. So at that time I came to Washington and I met with Lamar Alexander, who was at that time the Secretary of Education, and said to him that something had to be done about this. At that time he started to put some things together. I think he may have coined the word ``Ed-Flex.'' Also, Secretary Riley, an enlightened former Governor, realized that the Department of Education could be of help to the States. They extended the right to local State secretaries to grant waivers to local school districts where they wanted to use certain Federal programs for different purposes. Prior to--we have to put this in perspective--Ed-Flex, if a local school district had a Federal program and they wanted to use it differently, they had to go to their respective State capital, kiss the ring of the superintendent of education, and then that superintendent of education would have to go to Washington and do the same thing. So Ed-Flex basically says to those States that want to participate, if you put together an overall plan of how you are going to in your own State eliminate a lot of excess regulations, if you will put together an overall plan on how you intend to take these Federal dollars and use them better to really make a difference for the kids in the classroom, we will allow you the authority that we have in Washington to grant those waivers to the local school districts--in Ohio, 611 of them. One of the really unique things that came about as a result of Ed- Flex in our State was that every school district had to prepare eight reports to the State department of education for Federal money, and then they would submit eight to the Federal Government. Today, they only provide one report to the State, and the State provides one to the Department of Education. I think it is important also to point out that Ed-Flex is just the beginning of education reform in the 106th Congress. I would like to congratulate my colleagues on the Republican side and on the Democratic side for their willingness to allow Ed-Flex to be the first step in education reform in this session of Congress. We all know that there are different ideas on how we need to reform education. The President has his ideas and some of us have a little different idea. You have heard from Senator Bond of Missouri about his program. Many of us believe that the first thing we ought to do before we reauthorize elementary and secondary education is to inventory the 550 education programs that the GAO says we have or the 760 that the Congressional Research Service says we have and figure out what we are doing there, get rid of the ones that are not working, consolidate the money or save it, put it into a block grant, and send it back to the States and local governments so they can do a better job with the money we are making available to them. In other words, be a better partner with State and local government because they have the major responsibility for education in this country. I am looking forward to working with my colleagues to see if we can't come up with a program that is really going to make a difference for our boys and girls throughout the United States of America. In Ohio, this program has only really been in existence for 2 or 3 years, and there are some who say, why aren't you doing a lot more with it? One of the things that needs to be emphasized is that school districts are interested in moving forward and taking advantage of Ed- Flex, but they are being very careful about when they ask for a change in the waivers and use the money differently because they want to make sure, if they ask for a change in the waiver, in fact they are really going to make a difference for the kids. They don't want to do this just to go through the motions. In our State, we have testing in the fourth, sixth, and ninth grades, and we have a tough high school proficiency test. One of the things we are trying to do is to bring up the test scores in those first two tests, fourth and sixth grade. Through the use of Ed-Flex, we have been able to allow a local school district to use the Eisenhower professional grant money in a different way than is required under the Federal statute, and they are taking that money and putting it into emphasizing reading and social studies. We have seen, as a result of reallocating those resources, a marked improvement in the students' performance on their fourth- and sixth-grade proficiency tests. I would love to see the rest of this country take advantage of this Ed-Flex Program so that they can do the same thing for their boys and girls. So I strongly urge that we pass this Ed-Flex legislation, as I say, the first phase of our education reform program. I would like to underscore one other thing. One of the most important things the Congress of the United States did was to reform the welfare program in the United States of America. Prior to that reform, it was an entitlement program. We came and we lobbied Congress and said change it to a block grant, give us the flexibility so we can make a difference for our customers, the recipients of the welfare program. We have seen a dramatic change in what is happening in our welfare program. For example, in my State we have 560,000 fewer people on welfare--a 60-percent reduction since 1992--because we have given the people closest to the customer the power and the authority to make a difference in their lives. We never would have had welfare reform in the United States if it had not been for the fact that waivers were granted to the States prior to welfare reform and, as a result of that, Governors were able to show that with flexibility we can really make a difference in people's lives. Ed-Flex will give Governors and local school district people that authority to change some of these Federal programs, these one-size- fits-all programs, change them and make a difference for our youngsters, and it will be a way we can show America that if you give people closest to the kids, the parents, the teachers in the classroom, give them the power and the authority to take those dollars and utilize them in a way that is really going to make a difference in the lives of our children, we will see the most revolutionary change and measured improvement we have seen in this country in terms of our public education system. Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the ``Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999'', legislation that was championed in the previous Congress by my friend and predecessor, Senator John Glenn. As a Governor, I supported this bill as an important step toward detangling the web of duplicative federal grants available to States, localities and community organizations. As a Senator, I am pleased to pick it up where Senator Glenn left off. I would also like to thank Senator Thompson, Senator Lieberman and Senator Durbin for joining me as original cosponsors of this bill. Scores of programs, often administered by the same federal agency, have similar purposes but are subject to different application and reporting requirements. This unnecessary duplication of effort wastes time, paper, and does nothing to improve program performance for the benefit of our constituents. The Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act is intended to streamline the grant application process, allowing those who serve their communities to focus on the job at hand--not on page after page of paperwork. The legislation directs federal agencies to simplify and coordinate the application requirements of related programs. The result, I hope, will be service to the public which is better, faster and more effective than before. In other words, today in this country, if you want to apply for Federal assistance, every agency has a different form. If you have to report on what you are doing with that Federal assistance, every agency has a different form. We want to make those forms uniform across the board, which we know will relieve a lot of pressure and paperwork on the folks who are involved in these programs. Another important component of this bill is the requirement that agencies develop a process to allow State and local governments and non-profit organizations to apply for and report on the use of funds electronically. Using the Internet as a substitute for cumbersome paperwork is a welcome innovation in the way the federal government does business, and I am pleased that the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act is leading the effort. We need to bring technology into the Federal Government and allow people to do the same thing that they do when they are dealing with the private sector. This bill was crafted in the last Congress by Senator Glenn after bipartisan, bicameral negotiations with the Administration, and while I was sorry that it was not enacted before the end of the 105th Congress, I am pleased to be able to introduce it today. The legislation is supported by the National Governors' Association and others in the State and local government and non-profit community because of the real potential it has to reduce red tape and improve services to our communities. I urge all my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support from State and local government organizations be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the ``Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999'', legislation that was championed in the previous Congress by my friend and predecessor, Senator John Glenn. As a Governor, I supported this bill as an important step toward detangling the web of duplicative federal grants available to States, localities and community organizations. As a Senator, I am pleased to pick it up where Senator Glenn left off. I would also like to thank Senator Thompson, Senator Lieberman and Senator Durbin for joining me as original cosponsors of this bill. Scores of programs, often administered by the same federal agency, have similar purposes but are subject to different application and reporting requirements. This unnecessary duplication of effort wastes time, paper, and does nothing to improve program performance for the benefit of our constituents. The Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act is intended to streamline the grant application process, allowing those who serve their communities to focus on the job at hand--not on page after page of paperwork. The legislation directs federal agencies to simplify and coordinate the application requirements of related programs. The result, I hope, will be service to the public which is better, faster and more effective than before. In other words, today in this country, if you want to apply for Federal assistance, every agency has a different form. If you have to report on what you are doing with that Federal assistance, every agency has a different form. We want to make those forms uniform across the board, which we know will relieve a lot of pressure and paperwork on the folks who are involved in these programs. Another important component of this bill is the requirement that agencies develop a process to allow State and local governments and non-profit organizations to apply for and report on the use of funds electronically. Using the Internet as a substitute for cumbersome paperwork is a welcome innovation in the way the federal government does business, and I am pleased that the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act is leading the effort. We need to bring technology into the Federal Government and allow people to do the same thing that they do when they are dealing with the private sector. This bill was crafted in the last Congress by Senator Glenn after bipartisan, bicameral negotiations with the Administration, and while I was sorry that it was not enacted before the end of the 105th Congress, I am pleased to be able to introduce it today. The legislation is supported by the National Governors' Association and others in the State and local government and non-profit community because of the real potential it has to reduce red tape and improve services to our communities. I urge all my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support from State and local government organizations be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, let me begin by commending the work of Secretary Cohen, General Shelton, and the rest of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for recognizing the serious issues of recruitment and retention that S. 4 is written to address. Let me also thank Chairman Warner, Ranking Member Levin, Personnel Subcommittee Chairman Allard and his Ranking Member Cleland, as well as the other members of the Armed Services Committee. This legislation is a tremendous effort to address one of the most critical issues currently facing our men and women in uniform. While I support much of the content of S. 4, I have some real problems with the process we are pursuing to meet the requirements of our armed forces. Specifically, why are we considering this legislation now before a budget resolution has been passed? Are we not tying the hands of both the Budget Committee as well as the Appropriations Committee with this legislation? Why did we take the pay and pension provisions out of the defense authorization bill? Passing this legislation would commit the Senate to spending an additional $55 billion between fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2009. Is this a step we are ready to take? Let me point out that these concerns are not limited to this legislation alone. I will apply the same scrutiny to any bill, no matter how well-intentioned, in the future as well. Which leads me to my second main concern about S. 4--its cost. $55 billion is a significant amount of money, even in Washington, D.C. Nevertheless, we have taken the opportunity during the course of debate on this bill to add a number of costly amendments. While I have supported some of these efforts, they have been added to this legislation in an ad hoc manner without any discipline. I understand that this is often the nature of debate in this body, but I have a great fear we are forgetting our commitments to the budget caps, paying down the national debt and general fiscal responsibility. The $55 billion cost for the base text of the bill, plus the costs of all the adopted amendments, must come from somewhere which begs the question--from where? The answer I have been getting from my colleagues supporting this bill is that the money will come from somewhere and the details will be worked out. I am not willing to accept that explanation at this point--I need to know details, the framework for moving ahead with this kind of spending before I would be ready to support it. Do we plan on increasing the allocation in the budget resolution for military spending? Further, once an allocation level has been established, will this effort force us to put other readiness and modernization efforts aside? These questions have not been answered. I understand that Secretary Cohen has echoed these concerns. They should and must be addressed before I can support this measure. Let me be clear. I strongly support the intent of this bill and would like to support its content in a different package down the road. However, now is not the time to make these type of spending decisions. Regrettably, I will join several of my colleagues in voting against S. 4 for budgetary reasons.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. We are not here today because the President had a relationship that he himself has described as inappropriate and wrong. As House Manager James Rogan appropriately noted, ``Had the President's bad choice simply ended with this indiscretion, we would not be here today. Adultery may be a lot of things, but it is not an impeachable offense. Unfortunately, the President's bad choices only grew worse.'' It is not the President's inappropriate relationship, but his deliberate and willful attempts to conceal and mislead that brings us to this point. The very foundation of this nation is the rule of law not of men. The framers of our Constitution specifically provided Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution which states, ``The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' On January 7, 1999, as one of my first official duties as a United States Senator, I took an oath to consider the evidence and arguments in the impeachment case against the President. We answered in the affirmative when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court administered the following oath: Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help you God? I understood that the private inappropriate conduct of the President alone did not then and does not now rise to a level necessitating his removal from office. My responsibility is to fulfill the oath I took to determine impartially based on the facts, evidence and testimony whether the President committed high Crimes and Misdemeanors as outlined in the Constitution. During my 33 years in public office, I have had to make some very difficult decisions. As governor, I had to make determinations on hundreds of requests for commutations and pardons. To my recollection, in no case have I labored more than I have over the Articles of Impeachment of our President. After an exhaustive study, which included reading volumes of transcripts, watching the taped testimony and listening to the able arguments made by the House Managers, the White House counsel and my colleagues in the Senate, I have reached the conclusion that, beyond a reasonable doubt, the President committed both perjury and obstruction of justice as outlined in Articles I and II in the Articles of Impeachment. I also have concluded that the President's obstruction of justice was premeditated and undertaken over a long period of time beginning when he learned that Monica Lewinsky was placed on the witness list in the Jones case. It is particularly disturbing that he used his brilliant mind and superb interpersonal skills to sweep other people into his scheme, thereby impairing their credibility, all to extricate himself from taking responsibility for his conduct. But for a conclusive DNA analysis, he may have succeeded in that scheme. By committing perjury and obstructing justice, the President is guilty of high Crimes and Misdemeanors. As constitutional scholar Charles Cooper said, ``The crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice, like the crimes of treason and bribery, are quintessentially offenses against our system of government, visiting injury immediately on society itself.'' He violated his oath of office and failed to fulfill his responsibility under the Constitution, which provides that the President ``shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.'' Judge Griffin Bell has correctly noted, ``A president cannot faithfully execute the laws if he himself is breaking them.'' The President has undermined the fundamental principle that we are a nation ruled by laws and not by men. There is no way in good conscience that we as a nation can have a lawbreaker remain as President of the United States when his conduct in office has included the very same acts that have resulted in the impeachment of Federal judges and have sent hundreds of people to prison. Ours is a nation of equal justice under the law. I believe the framers of the Constitution had a President like Bill Clinton in mind when they drafted the impeachment provisions in Article II, Section 4--a very popular, brilliant communicator with extraordinary interpersonal skills who abuses his power, violates his oath of office, and evades responsibility for his actions because he believes he is above the law. One who has committed high Crimes and Misdemeanors disqualifies himself from serving as President, Commander-in-Chief, and chief law enforcement officer. The President also represents much more than these titles and responsibilities. He is a symbol of the greatness of the American people. Presidential scholar Clinton Rossiter observed that the president of the United States is ``the one-man distillation of the American people.'' And, President William Howard Taft described the president as ``the personal embodiment and representative of their dignity and majesty.'' By virtue of his own conduct, William Jefferson Clinton has forfeited his elected right to hold the office of president. I sincerely believe that this country can survive the removal of a popular president who has forfeited public trust. But, our country cannot survive the abandonment of trust itself.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will begin a period of morning business until 1 p.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the articles of impeachment. It is the majority leader's hope that today's presentation by the White House can be concluded by early evening so that Members may attend the lecture series which begins at 6 p.m. That lecture series will be in the Old Senate Chamber. The guest speaker this evening will be former President George Bush. I remind all Senators that upon recessing this evening, the Senate will reconvene on Thursday at 1 p.m. to resume consideration of the articles. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 11 which was received from the House.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. I understand that S. 254, introduced by Senator Hatch and others, is at the desk, and I ask that it be read for the first time.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I would now ask for its second reading.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, Senator Helms has seven bills at the desk that are due for their second reading, and I now ask unanimous consent that they be considered as read a second time and placed on the calendar en bloc.