George Voinovich

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Will the Senator from California yield for a question?

Mr. VOINOVICH. Yes. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. I am grateful to the Senator from Pennsylvania, and my colleague from Ohio, the senior Senator from Ohio, for their courageous fight to stop this barbaric procedure. Any of us who have listened to them cannot help but be moved by their eloquence in regard to the importance of banning this procedure. This tie that I have on is one that was given to me last week. It says, ``Stop Violence Against Women.'' I wish those of us who are opposed to this procedure would have had ties made saying, ``Stop Violence Against Babies.'' It is even difficult to talk about because it is a gruesome procedure, but we need to remind Members of the Senate that this is a procedure that is not done on an emergency basis. It is a little bit difficult for me to talk about it because last week my daughter delivered our fifth grandchild, a little baby girl, Emily Elizabeth. The way the procedure goes is that a woman goes through 2 days of doctor visits to get dilated; 2 days to get dilated. On the third day, the baby is positioned for delivery in the birth canal. The doctor then pulls the living baby feet first out of the womb and into the birth canal, except for the head which the abortionist purposely keeps lodged just inside of the womb. The doctor punctures the base of the baby's skull with a surgical instrument such as long surgical scissors or a pointed hollow metal tube called a trochar. He then inserts a catheter into the wound and removals the baby's brain with a powerful suction machine. This causes the skull to collapse, after which the doctor completes the delivery of the now dead baby. I can't understand how anyone can support this ghastly procedure or cannot support it being illegal. There are some who say it is hard to believe we are even talking about the question on the floor of the Senate. In an editorial today, the Washington Post called our debate in the Senate on this subject ``pointless.'' I have also heard my colleagues take the floor and state, Have we no other priorities that take precedence over this? What priority is more important than human life? It is hard for me to believe anyone would say we should not even discuss this procedure that kills a human being. It should have been banned years ago. I am glad we are moving early in the 108th Congress to go forward with something that should have been done many years ago. The subject of partial-birth abortion is not a new one for me. Eight years ago in 1995, Ohio was the first State to pass a partial-birth abortion ban. The bill prohibited doctors from performing abortions after the 24th week of pregnancy and banned completely the dilation and extraction procedure we call the partial-birth procedure in this bill, the one I just described. The bill allows late-term abortions to save the life of the mother. The women seeking abortions after the 21st week of pregnancy were required to undergo tests to determine the viability of the fetus, and if the fetus was deemed to be viable, the abortion would be illegal. I am glad the Senator from Ohio pointed out the language in this bill has been carefully drafted. It is not ambiguous. I have heard the Senator from California say this should have gone to the Judiciary Committee. The fact is this has been discussed on the floor of the Senate since 1994. While I was Governor, I watched the partial-birth abortion ban make its way through the 104th and 105th Congresses, only to be vetoed by President Clinton. It has been around a long time. After I arrived in the Senate in the 106th Congress, I gave a speech in support of banning partial-birth abortion and, quite frankly, lobbied some of my colleagues to support it. The bill passed both Chambers of the Senate and the House. It made it to conference but never came out of conference. I have listened to my colleagues quote statistics and spout off facts about medical necessity and the health of the mother. We can all quote different statistics, but the bottom line is there is no need for this procedure. My colleague from Ohio has spoken to that very clearly. Most of these partial-birth abortions are elective. They take 3 days to complete. If a mother really needs an abortion, she has alternatives available to her that are not as tortuous as partial-birth abortion. It is interesting to note that in January 2003 the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which is affiliated with Planned Parenthood, published a survey of abortion providers, showing that the number of partial-birth abortions more than tripled between 1996 and 2000. Why is the occurrence of such a procedure that is never medically necessary increasing? One of the main reasons we do not need these late-term abortions is thanks to the technology available today. It is better than it has ever been before. We can identify problems very early in the pregnancy so abortions can take place earlier. Women today are being encouraged to come in early in the first trimester for the various tests they need so that if an abortion is acceptable to them, they can have an early abortion while the baby is still not viable outside the womb. In fact, to date, the technology is so sophisticated that if they find there is something wrong with a baby, they can go in through surgery and correct it in the womb. I want to make it clear to those who believe in abortion and who face that tremendous decision in terms of whether they are going to deliver the baby, that there are other procedures available. The victims of the partial-birth abortions are human beings. I find it interesting that they are sometimes called ``living fetuses.'' They are living human beings. Whether they are called ``babies'' or ``fetuses,'' no one seems to dispute the fact that they are living. In fact, they are human babies and they can feel pain. When partial-birth abortions are performed, these babies are just 3 inches away from life and, for that matter, seconds away from life. I urge all of my colleagues in the Senate to stand up against what I refer to as ``human infanticide.'' This is not Roe v. Wade. I suspect that when the vote is taken on the floor of the Senate, there are going to be many people who will support partial-birth abortion who label themselves as pro-choice and pro-abortion. When this legislation passed in Ohio back in 1995, it passed overwhelmingly in both houses, and there were pro-life and pro-choice and pro-abortion people who supported this legislation. This is not an issue of Roe v. Wade. This is an issue of banning a procedure that is gruesome and is not medically necessary. In the State of the Union address this year, President Bush again pledged to support the legislation and said, ``We must not overlook the weakest among us. I ask you to protect infants at the very hour of their birth and end the practice of partial-birth abortion.'' I urge my colleagues to vote to ban partial-birth abortions in the United States of America and end this national tragedy.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Will the Senator yield the floor back so I can make a----

Mr. VOINOVICH. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. VOINOVICH. If you agree that the medical technology today is better than it was in 1994, can you explain to me why the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which is an affiliate of Planned Parenthood, published a survey of abortion providers, showing that the number of partial-birth abortions more than tripled between 1996 and 2000? Wouldn't you think there would be less partial-birth abortions because of the technology that we have, less cases like the ones you have presented here before my colleagues in the Senate?

Mr. VOINOVICH. I do.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Would the Senator from California agree that the technology today, in terms of the delivery of babies, in the ascertaining of a problem that a baby or a delivering mother would have, has improved substantially over what it was in 1994 when we first started the debate on this legislation?

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, March 11. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume consideration of Calendar No. 19, S. 3, the partial-birth abortion bill; that at 11 a.m., the Senate return to executive session and resume consideration of the nomination of Miguel Estrada to be a circuit judge for the DC Circuit, and that the time until 12:30 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that at 12:30 p.m., the Senate recess until the hour of 2:15 p.m. for the weekly party caucuses; and that upon reconvening at 2:15 p.m., the Senate return to legislative session and resume consideration of S. 3.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, tomorrow the Senate will resume the consideration of S. 3, the partial- birth abortion bill. It is my understanding that Senator Murray will be prepared to offer an amendment first thing tomorrow morning. The leader has indicated it is his intention to finish this important legislation by the end of the week. Therefore, I encourage any Senators who wish to offer an amendment to the bill to work with the bill managers so they can arrange time for amendment consideration. At 11 a.m., the Senate will return to the Estrada nomination and begin a critical debate on the judicial nominations process and the long-term implications the current filibuster will hold for this body. Members are encouraged to come to the Chamber and engage in this vital discussion. Following the recess, the Senate will return to consideration of the partial-birth abortion bill. Additional amendments are expected, and therefore Members should anticipate votes during tomorrow's session.

Mr. VOINOVICH

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

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act and the National Invasive Species Council Act. As a Senator representing a Great Lake State, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of both of these bills that are critical to the future of the Great Lakes ecosystem. In my 36 years of public service, one of my greatest sources of comfort and accomplishment has been my work to help clean up and protect the environment, particularly Lake Erie. Lake Erie's ecology has come a long way since I was elected to the state legislature in 1966. During that time, Lake Erie formed the northern border of my district and it was known worldwide as a dying lake, suffering from eutrophication. Lake Erie's decline was covered extensively by the media and became an international symbol of pollution and environmental degradation. I remember the British Broadcasting Company even sending a film crew to make a documentary about it. One reason for all the attention is that Lake Erie is a source of drinking water for 11 million people. Seeing firsthand the effects of pollution on Lake Erie and the surrounding region, I knew we had to do more to protect the environment for our children and grandchildren. As a State legislator, I made a commitment to stop the deterioration of the lake and to wage the ``Second Battle of Lake Erie'' to reclaim and restore Ohio's Great Lake. I have continued this fight throughout my career as County Commissioner, state legislator, Mayor of Cleveland, Governor of Ohio, and United States Senator. It is comforting to me that 36 years since I started my career in public service, I am still involved, as a member of the United States Senate and our Committee on Environment and Public Works, in the battle to save Lake Erie. Today in Ohio, we celebrate Lake Erie's improved water quality. It is a habitat to countless species of wildlife, a vital resource to the area's tourism, transportation, and recreation industries, and the main source of drinking water for many Ohioans. Unfortunately, however, there is still a great deal that needs to be done to improve and protect Ohio's greatest natural asset. Our current enemy is the aquatic invasive species that threaten the health and viability of the Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem. I am worried about these aquatic terrorists in the ballast water that enter the Great Lakes system through boats from all over the world. These species are already wreaking havoc in the lakes and will continue to do so until they are stopped. Since the 1800s, over 145 invasive species have colonized in the Great Lakes. Since 1990, when legislation to address aquatic nuisance species was first enacted, we have averaged about one new invader each year. Clearly, we have not closed the door to invasive species. I am deeply troubled by the surge in new invasive species in Lake Erie, because once a species establishes itself, there is virtually no way to eliminate it. As Mayor of Cleveland in the 1980s, I was alarmed about the introduction of zebra mussels into the Great Lakes and conducted the first national meeting to investigate the problem. It is a complicated situation and we are still learning how invasive species like the zebra mussel affect the ecosystem. In early August, for example, I conducted a field hearing of the Environment and Public Works Committee to examine the increasingly extensive oxygen depletion or anoxia in the central basin of Lake Erie. This phenomenon has been referred to as a ``dead zone.'' Anoxia over the long term could result in massive fish kills, toxic algae blooms, and bad-tasting or bad-smelling water. Anoxia is usually the result of decaying algae blooms which consume oxygen at the bottom of the lake. In the past, excessive phosphorus loading from point sources such as municipal sewage treatment plants were greatly responsible for algae blooms. Since 1965, the level of phosphorus entering the Lake has been reduced by about 50 percent. These reductions have resulted in smaller quantities of algae and more oxygen into the system. In recent years, overall phosphorus levels in the Lake have been increasing, but the amount of phosphorus entering it has not. Scientists are unable to account for the increased levels of phosphorus in the Lake. One hypothesis is the influence of two aquatic nuisance species the zebra and quagga mussels. Although their influence is not well understood, they may be altering the way phosphorus cycles through the system. Another way zebra mussels could be responsible for oxygen depletion in Lake Erie is due to their ability to filter and clear vast quantities of lake water. Clearer water allows light to penetrate deeper into the Lake, encouraging additional organic growth on the bottom. When this organic material decays, it consumes oxygen. The possible link between Lake Erie's ``dead zone'' problem and aquatic nuisance species like the zebra mussel should underscore the importance of our legislation, the National Aquatic Nuisance Species Act. Over the last 30 years, we have made remarkable progress in improving water quality and restoring the natural resources of our Nation's aquatic areas, and we need to prevent any backsliding on this progress. While aquatic invasive species are a particular problem because they readily spread through interconnected waterways and are difficult to treat safely, they represent only one piece of the problem. Both terrestrial and aquatic invasive species cause significant economic and ecological damage throughout North America. Recent estimates state that invasive species cost the U.S. at least $138 billion per year and that 42 percent of the species on the Threatened and Endangered Lists are at risk primarily due to invasive species. In 1999, President Clinton issued an Executive Order creating the National Invasive Species Council to develop a national management plan for invasive species and bring together the federal agencies responsible for managing them. This was a promising action that has never been fully implemented. The National Invasive Species Management Plan was issued in 2001, but agencies with responsibilities under the plan have been slow to complete activities by the established due dates and the agencies do not always act in a coordinated manner. The General Accounting Office released a report in October 2002 that claimed that implementing the Management Plan was being hampered by the lack of a congressional mandate for the Council. It is disturbing to me that this Council exists but is not making substantial progress. Make no mistake about it; these species are not waiting for the Federal Government to get all of its ducks in a row. They are continuing to take over the waters and lands of the U.S. The National Invasive Species Council Act will fix this problem by legislatively establishing the Council. Because timing is so important, I urge my colleagues to act quickly on both of these bills to ensure that the National Invasive Species Management Plan is updated and fully implemented. We must act quickly to strengthen the oversight of efforts preventing invasive species from wreaking havoc on the Great Lakes' aquatic habitat and throughout the U.S. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and Senate to move these bills forward. I understand that both bills will be referred to the Environment and Public Works Committee today, and I look forward to working with Chairman Inhofe to move them expeditiously through committee.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act and the National Invasive Species Council Act. As a Senator representing a Great Lake State, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of both of these bills that are critical to the future of the Great Lakes ecosystem. In my 36 years of public service, one of my greatest sources of comfort and accomplishment has been my work to help clean up and protect the environment, particularly Lake Erie. Lake Erie's ecology has come a long way since I was elected to the state legislature in 1966. During that time, Lake Erie formed the northern border of my district and it was known worldwide as a dying lake, suffering from eutrophication. Lake Erie's decline was covered extensively by the media and became an international symbol of pollution and environmental degradation. I remember the British Broadcasting Company even sending a film crew to make a documentary about it. One reason for all the attention is that Lake Erie is a source of drinking water for 11 million people. Seeing firsthand the effects of pollution on Lake Erie and the surrounding region, I knew we had to do more to protect the environment for our children and grandchildren. As a State legislator, I made a commitment to stop the deterioration of the lake and to wage the ``Second Battle of Lake Erie'' to reclaim and restore Ohio's Great Lake. I have continued this fight throughout my career as County Commissioner, state legislator, Mayor of Cleveland, Governor of Ohio, and United States Senator. It is comforting to me that 36 years since I started my career in public service, I am still involved, as a member of the United States Senate and our Committee on Environment and Public Works, in the battle to save Lake Erie. Today in Ohio, we celebrate Lake Erie's improved water quality. It is a habitat to countless species of wildlife, a vital resource to the area's tourism, transportation, and recreation industries, and the main source of drinking water for many Ohioans. Unfortunately, however, there is still a great deal that needs to be done to improve and protect Ohio's greatest natural asset. Our current enemy is the aquatic invasive species that threaten the health and viability of the Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem. I am worried about these aquatic terrorists in the ballast water that enter the Great Lakes system through boats from all over the world. These species are already wreaking havoc in the lakes and will continue to do so until they are stopped. Since the 1800s, over 145 invasive species have colonized in the Great Lakes. Since 1990, when legislation to address aquatic nuisance species was first enacted, we have averaged about one new invader each year. Clearly, we have not closed the door to invasive species. I am deeply troubled by the surge in new invasive species in Lake Erie, because once a species establishes itself, there is virtually no way to eliminate it. As Mayor of Cleveland in the 1980s, I was alarmed about the introduction of zebra mussels into the Great Lakes and conducted the first national meeting to investigate the problem. It is a complicated situation and we are still learning how invasive species like the zebra mussel affect the ecosystem. In early August, for example, I conducted a field hearing of the Environment and Public Works Committee to examine the increasingly extensive oxygen depletion or anoxia in the central basin of Lake Erie. This phenomenon has been referred to as a ``dead zone.'' Anoxia over the long term could result in massive fish kills, toxic algae blooms, and bad-tasting or bad-smelling water. Anoxia is usually the result of decaying algae blooms which consume oxygen at the bottom of the lake. In the past, excessive phosphorus loading from point sources such as municipal sewage treatment plants were greatly responsible for algae blooms. Since 1965, the level of phosphorus entering the Lake has been reduced by about 50 percent. These reductions have resulted in smaller quantities of algae and more oxygen into the system. In recent years, overall phosphorus levels in the Lake have been increasing, but the amount of phosphorus entering it has not. Scientists are unable to account for the increased levels of phosphorus in the Lake. One hypothesis is the influence of two aquatic nuisance species the zebra and quagga mussels. Although their influence is not well understood, they may be altering the way phosphorus cycles through the system. Another way zebra mussels could be responsible for oxygen depletion in Lake Erie is due to their ability to filter and clear vast quantities of lake water. Clearer water allows light to penetrate deeper into the Lake, encouraging additional organic growth on the bottom. When this organic material decays, it consumes oxygen. The possible link between Lake Erie's ``dead zone'' problem and aquatic nuisance species like the zebra mussel should underscore the importance of our legislation, the National Aquatic Nuisance Species Act. Over the last 30 years, we have made remarkable progress in improving water quality and restoring the natural resources of our Nation's aquatic areas, and we need to prevent any backsliding on this progress. While aquatic invasive species are a particular problem because they readily spread through interconnected waterways and are difficult to treat safely, they represent only one piece of the problem. Both terrestrial and aquatic invasive species cause significant economic and ecological damage throughout North America. Recent estimates state that invasive species cost the U.S. at least $138 billion per year and that 42 percent of the species on the Threatened and Endangered Lists are at risk primarily due to invasive species. In 1999, President Clinton issued an Executive Order creating the National Invasive Species Council to develop a national management plan for invasive species and bring together the federal agencies responsible for managing them. This was a promising action that has never been fully implemented. The National Invasive Species Management Plan was issued in 2001, but agencies with responsibilities under the plan have been slow to complete activities by the established due dates and the agencies do not always act in a coordinated manner. The General Accounting Office released a report in October 2002 that claimed that implementing the Management Plan was being hampered by the lack of a congressional mandate for the Council. It is disturbing to me that this Council exists but is not making substantial progress. Make no mistake about it; these species are not waiting for the Federal Government to get all of its ducks in a row. They are continuing to take over the waters and lands of the U.S. The National Invasive Species Council Act will fix this problem by legislatively establishing the Council. Because timing is so important, I urge my colleagues to act quickly on both of these bills to ensure that the National Invasive Species Management Plan is updated and fully implemented. We must act quickly to strengthen the oversight of efforts preventing invasive species from wreaking havoc on the Great Lakes' aquatic habitat and throughout the U.S. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and Senate to move these bills forward. I understand that both bills will be referred to the Environment and Public Works Committee today, and I look forward to working with Chairman Inhofe to move them expeditiously through committee.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. I had intended to finish my remarks this evening by reading an editorial from the Washington Post. I have listened patiently to the distinguished Senator from Vermont, and I would like very much to quote from the Post editorial because it is looked upon as one of the most objective papers in the United States of America. Some of my colleagues think it has a liberal tilt to its editorial policies. This is a February 18th editorial from the Washington Post: The Senate has recessed without voting on the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Because of a Democratic Filibuster, it spent much of the week debating Mr. Estrada, and, at least for now, enough Democrats are holding together to prevent the full Senate from acting. The arguments against Mr. Estrada's confirmation range from the unpersuasive to the offensive. He lacks judicial experience, his critics say--though only three current members of the court had been judges before their nominations. He is to young--though he is about the same age as Judge Harry T. Edwards was when he was appointed and several years older than Kenneth W. Starr was when he was nominated. Mr. Estrada stonewalled the Judiciary Committee by refusing to answer questions--though his answers were similar in nature to those of previous nominees, including many nominated by Democratic presidents. The administration refused to turn over his Justice Department memos--though no reasonable Congress ought to be seeking such material, as a letter from all living former solicitors general attests. He is not a real Hispanic and, by the way, he was nominated only because he is Hispanic--two arguments as repugnant as they are incoherent. Underlying it all is the fact that Democrats don't want to put a conservative on the court. Laurence H. Silberman, a senior judge on the court to which Mr. Estrada aspires to serve, recently observed that under the current standards being applied by the Senate, not one of his colleagues could predictably secure confirmation. He's right. To be sure, Republicans missed few opportunities to play politics with President Clinton's nominees. But the Estrada filibuster is a step beyond even those deplorable games. For Democrats demand, as a condition of a vote, answers to questions that no nominee should be forced to address--and that nominees have not previously been forced to address. If Mr. Estrada cannot get a vote, there will be no reason for republicans to allow the next David S. Tatel--a distinguished liberal member of the court--to get one when a Democrat someday again picks judges. Yet the D.C. Circuit-- and all courts, for that matter--would be all the poorer were it composed entirely of people whose views challenged nobody. Nor is the problem just Mr. Estrada. John G. Roberts Jr., Mr. Bush's other nominee to the D.C. Circuit, has been waiting nearly two years for a Judiciary Committee vote. Nobody has raised a substantial argument against him. Indeed, Mr. Roberts is among the most highly regarded appellate lawyers in the city. Yet on Thursday, Democrats invoked a procedural rule to block a committee vote anyway--just for good measure. It's long past time to stop these games and vote. We all know of Mr. Estrada's illustrious background. I will not rehash his stellar credentials. We have already heard many of our colleagues come to the floor and tell what I refer to as the ``only in America'' story about Estrada's unprecedented rise from his home in Honduras to his current position as a partner with one of Washington's distinguished law firms. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have leveled many complaints against Mr. Estrada, including that he has not had enough judicial experience. I note the following: 26 circuit judges had no judicial experience when they were nominated by President Clinton; they were all confirmed. Of the 108 individuals who have served on the Supreme Court, 43 had no judicial experience at all. In fact, in the entire history of the Supreme Court of the United States, 8 of the 16 chief justices in America's history had no prior judicial experience. Of those justices appointed in the last 50 years, Justices William Rehnquist, Lewis Powell, Jr., Abe Fortas, Arthur Goldberg, and Byron White had no prior judicial experience when appointed to the Supreme Court. On the circuit court to which Mr. Estrada has been nominated, five of the eight judges had no previous judicial experience before taking the bench, including two Clinton nominees and one Carter nominee. On the other hand, Miguel Estrada has a combined level of appellate and trial experience that far exceeds that of the average court of appeals nominee. Mr. Estrada's experience even exceeds that of many Supreme Court nominees. He has argued 15 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, both criminal and civil. He has tried 10 cases as a prosecutor, argued 7 cases before the U.S. court of appeals for the second district, as assistant U.S. attorney for the southern district of New York. I emphasize to my colleagues the American Bar Association has rated Estrada well qualified, a rating that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have called the gold standard. I heard before: Your nominees, Mr. President, are going to have to reach the gold standard of the American Bar Association. Judge Estrada has met the gold standard of the American Bar Association. My colleagues have also launched criticism at Mr. Estrada for not turning over documents--I heard that this evening several times--that he worked on while he was employed by the Office of the Solicitor General. What they do not mention is that these documents are confidential. These confidential memos were not requested of the seven previous nominees to the court of appeals who had worked in the Solicitor General's Office. In addition, and I think this is very important, every living Solicitor General, both Democrat and Republican, signed a joint letter to former Judiciary Committee chairman, Senator Leahy, stating that fulfilling this request would have a debilitating effect on the ability of the Department of Justice to represent the United States before the Supreme Court.

Mr. VOINOVICH. This is a very bad time to delay the appointment of judicial nominees. Our Federal courts are in crisis. The U.S. courts of appeals are currently 15 percent vacant, even as case filings in those courts reached an all-time high in 2002. Chief Justice Rehnquist has warned that this high vacancy level, coupled with the rising caseload, threatens the proper functioning of the Federal courts. Currently, there are 14 courts of appeals pending nominees, 12 of whom were nominated in 2001 and have been waiting for over a year for a vote in the Senate. The most egregious example is the Sixth Circuit, which includes Ohio, where 6 of the 16 seats are open and classified as judicial emergencies. Of these six vacancies, two, Jeff Sutton and Deborah Cook, have been pending since May 2001, nearly 2 years, and three others have been pending since November 2001, over 2 years. The fact is, we do have a crisis in the judiciary in the United States of America. Now, let's look at the record. When Senator Hatch was chairman during the Clinton administration, he considered more than one circuit nominee at 11 different hearings. But not once during the 107th Congress did the Democrats hold a hearing on more than one circuit court nominee at a time. The result is we fell behind in the confirmation of circuit nominees. Presidents Clinton, Reagan and the former President Bush all received confirmations for their first 11 circuit nominees well within 1 year of the nominations. This is in stark contrast with the treatment afforded to President George W. Bush. Only 3 of his first 11 circuit nominees were confirmed within 1 year of their nomination. And only 5--fewer than half--were confirmed during the entire 107th Congress. That's terrible. My friend Senator Hatch is an extraordinary man. After so much repetition of the same arguments, I'm amazed that he can even stand up. As Senator Hatch has highlighted in the past, during Democrat control of the Senate in 2001-2002, only 17 Bush circuit court nominees reached the floor for votes. In three of the cases in which they did go to the floor--the nominations of Julia Smith Gibbons, Richard B. Clifton, and Lavenski R. Smith--cloture motions were filed and the motions easily carried. However, and this is very important, none of those cloture votes was in response to a genuine effort to filibuster a nominee. Rather, cloture petitions were filed as a Senate time-management device. If the Estrada nomination is permanently blocked by a filibuster, the political baseline shifts forever. To understand just how extraordinary the current situation is, one only needs to examine the Senate's record of judicial confirmations. The first filibuster of a judicial nominee that resulted in a cloture vote was in 1968. Since then, the Senate has confirmed approximately 1,600 judicial nominations--the vast majority of these, nearly 1,500, occurred without even a roll call vote, as most are confirmed by unanimous consent. Indeed, of those 1,600 judicial nominations confirmed by the Senate since 1968, only 14 were subject to a cloture vote. And with the exception of the bipartisan 1968 filibuster of Abe Fortas' nomination to be Chief Justice of the United States, the Senate has never blocked by filibuster a judicial nominee to any court--Never. The rejection of Abe Fortas to serve as Chief Justice of the United States marked the first and only time the Senate has rejected a President's judicial nominee by way of a filibuster. Yet Miguel Estrada presents none of the concerns that caused a bipartisan coalition of Senators to block Justice Fortas' elevation to chief justice. Given the Senate's historical unwillingness to filibuster nominees-- even Supreme Court nominees--it is not surprising that the Senate has never blocked by filibuster a nominee to any lower court. Furthermore, the Senate has never blocked--by a partisan filibuster--any judicial nominee. As I noted, the only rejection-by-filibuster was the case of Justice Fortas, which was bipartisan. There is no precedent in the Senate of a filibuster conducted solely by one Party to deny the President his judicial nominee. The stakes here are much greater than the fate of a single judicial nominee. At issue is whether the Senate should reinterpret its constitutional advise and consent obligation to require 60 rather than 51 votes to confirm a judicial nominee. This is a position the Senate has never taken in the context of lower court nominees, and one which Republicans have avoided. To adopt a new standard would fundamentally alter the balance of power between the administration and the Senate in the judicial confirmation process. It also would seriously erode the comity that has existed between the two branches in the past. In effect, we're playing games with the administration of justice, acting without regard for the problems of the Judiciary. If Senators filibuster Mr. Estrada's nomination to the DC Circuit, and if that filibuster results in the rejection of the nomination, Democrats will have forced a permanent change to the political and constitutional landscape. This in essence, would create a completely new process and would, in effect, allow Senators to deny any judicial nominee their right to a vote. Due to the numerous delays in the Estrada vote, the crisis in the Federal courts continues and the Senate can't attend to our pressing legislative business. Our country has serious problems today and they require serious and thoughtful consideration in the Senate. The stalling games that are being played here are really hurting the judicial process and to a larger and greater extent the Nation itself. While we wait for the minority to make up its mind, we cannot accomplish any meaningful debate on the country's pressing problems. These are hard times for Americans and my constituents ask me: Do you guys in Washington get it? Do you get it? Do you understand what is going on? We are involved in a war on terrorism abroad and at home. The economy is sputtering. The President of the United States has more on his plate than perhaps any President in my memory. Some say he has more on his plate than FDR, some say Abraham Lincoln. Our constituents believe we are behaving like Nero, fiddling around while Rome was burning. They continue to ask, don't you get it? Is the Emperor wearing any clothes? All of us in this body have priority concerns, yet during this stalemate, no one's legislation is moving ahead. Consideration of urgent matters that I would like to be addressed, such as prescription drugs/Medicare reform, medical lawsuit abuse reform, asbestos litigation reform, human capital, the energy bill at a time when the cost of natural gas is skyrocketing, or the accelerating deficit. I know I am not the only Senator who is concerned about these issues and I know some of my colleagues have other priority concerns. At present, no one is winning anything by this stalemate and the important concerns of the American people are being held hostage. This is bigger than a delayed vote on Miguel Estrada. As U.S. Senators we need to act like adults. We need to come together and create a unanimous consent agreement on how we will handle the approval of judges from now on. We have to find a way to reach agreement. If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle persist in opposing Mr. Estrada, they will have a hard time explaining to their constituents why they voted against him since he has met, and I dare say surpassed, the ``gold standard'' they asked for by the American Bar Association. They also would be hard-pressed to explain why his nomination has been held up for so long without a vote. I've been receiving letters from my constituents who think the U.S. Senate is holding up this vote because Mr. Estrada is Hispanic. My Hispanic constituents think he is being used as the whipping boy and they are furious. I don't think some of my colleagues realize what this means to a minority community. In Ohio, I appointed Jose Feliciano as the first Hispanic police commissioner because he was the best candidate, but the Hispanic community was very proud and excited. The Hispanic community was so proud that one of their boys made it. Can you think of what an impact it had on the young people that a Hispanic made it to be the police commissioner. I remember when I appointed Ken Blackwell to be the treasurer of the State of Ohio, the first African American to serve as the treasurer of the State of Ohio, a constitutional office, and how much it meant to African Americans in our State that someone could hold a constitutional office. They had an inspiration. I came up during the years of Carl Stokes, the first African American mayor of the city of Cleveland, and I remember the impact it had on young people in Cleveland and all over America that an African American could be a mayor of a major city. I remember Frank Lousche, who was the mayor and Governor of the State of Ohio, and Senator, who was a Slovenian--when I was 12 years old, how much it meant to me to see Frank Lousche, Slovenian, get to be mayor, and then Governor. By that time he wasn't even a Senator. But it inspired me and other people of my nationality to say if he can do it, I can do it. There is more to it here. In this case I think my colleagues should understand, particularly my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, this is a good man. He has the qualifications. There is not any reason why we should not allow a vote on this particularly wonderful human being who will make a difference if he has a chance to serve on the bench here in the DC District. In addition to that, it will mean so much to Hispanics all over the United States that one of our boys made it.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, in accordance with Rule XXVI.2 of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Rules of Procedure of the Select Committee on Ethics, which were adopted February 23, 1978, and revised November 1999, be printed in the Congressional Record for the 108th Congress.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will allow States to finally obtain relief from the seemingly endless stream of solid waste that is flowing into States like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Michigan, Virginia and many others. My bill, ``the Municipal Solid Waste Interstate Transportation and Local Authority Act,'' gives State and local governments the tools they need to limit garbage imports from other States and manage their own waste within their own States. Ohio receives more than 1.5 million tons of municipal solid waste annually from other States and this number has been increasing regularly. In fact, estimates for 2001 indicate that Ohio imported almost 2 million tons of municipal solid waste, which is almost 600,000 more tons of waste than Ohio imported in 1997. While I am pleased that these shipments have been reduced since our record high of 3.7 million tons in 1989, I believe it is still entirely too high. Because it is cheap and because it is expedient, communities in other States have simply put their garbage on trains or on trucks and shipped it to be landfilled in States like Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Virginia. This is wrong and it has to stop. Many State and local governments in importing States have worked hard to develop strategies to reduce waste and plan for future disposal needs. As Governor of Ohio, I worked aggressively to limit shipments of out-of-state waste into Ohio through voluntary cooperation of Ohio landfill operators and agreements with other States. We saw limited relief. Ohio has no assurance that our out-of-state waste numbers won't rise significantly, particularly in light of the closure of the Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island in 2001. Unfortunately, the Federal courts have prevented States from enacting laws to protect our natural resources from being utilized as landfill space. What has emerged is an unnatural pattern where Ohio and other States--both importing and exporting--have tried to take reasonable steps to encourage conservation and local disposal, only to be undermined by a barrage of court decisions at every turn. Quite frankly, State and local governments' hands are tied. Lacking a specific delegation of authority from Congress, States that have acted responsibly to implement environmentally sound waste disposal plans and recycling programs are still being subjected to a flood of out-of-state waste. In Ohio, this has undermined our recycling efforts because Ohioans continue to ask why they should recycle to conserve landfill space when it is being used for other States' trash. Our citizens already have to live with the consequences of large amounts of out-of- state waste--increased noise, traffic, wear and tear on our roads and litter that is blown onto private homes, schools and businesses. Ohio and many other States have taken comprehensive steps to protect our resources and address a significant environmental threat. However, excessive, uncontrolled waste disposal from other States has limited the ability of Ohioans to protect their environment, health and safety. I do not believe the Commerce Clause requires us to service other States at the expense of our own citizens' efforts. A national solution is long overdue. When I became Governor of Ohio in 1991, I joined a coalition with other Midwest Governors--Governor Bayh, now Senator Bayh, of Indiana, Governor Engler of Michigan and Governor Casey, and later Governors Ridge and O'Bannon, of Pennsylvania--to try to pass effective interstate waste and flow control legislation. In 1996, Midwest Governors were asked by Congress to reach an agreement with Governors Whitman and Pataki on interstate waste provisions. Our States quickly came to an agreement with New Jersey-- the second largest exporting State--on interstate waste provisions. We began discussions with New York, but these were put on hold indefinitely in the wake of their May, 1996 announcement to close the Fresh Kills landfill. The bill that I am introducing today reflects the agreement that my State, along with Indiana, Michigan and Pennsylvania, reached with then-Governor Whitman. For Ohio, the most important aspect of this bill is the ability for States to limit future waste flows. For instance, they would have the option to set a ``permit cap,'' which would allow a State to impose a percentage limit on the amount of out-of-state waste that a new facility or expansion of an existing facility could receive annually. Or, a State could choose a provision giving them the authority to deny a permit for a new facility if it is determined that there is not a local or in-state regional need for that facility. These provisions provide assurances to Ohio and other States that new facilities will not be built primarily for the purpose of receiving out-of-state waste. For instance, in 1996, Ohio EPA had to issue a permit for a landfill that was bidding to take 5,000 tons of garbage a day--approximately 1.5 million tons a year--from Canada alone, which would have doubled the amount of out-of-state waste entering Ohio. Thankfully this landfill lost the Canadian bid. Ironically though, the waste company put their plans on hold to build the facility because there is not enough need for the facility in the State and they need to ensure a steady out-of-state waste flow to make the plan feasible. In addition, this bill would ensure that landfills and incinerators could not receive trash from other States until local governments approve its receipt. States could also freeze their out-of-state waste at 1993 levels, while some States would be able to reduce these levels to 65 percent by the year 2008. This bill also allows States to reduce the amount of construction and demolition debris they receive by 50 percent in 2014 at the earliest. States also could impose up to a $3-per-ton cost recovery surcharge on out-of-state waste. This fee would help provide States with the funding necessary to implement solid waste management programs. Unfortunately, efforts to place reasonable restrictions on out-of- state waste shipments have been perceived by some as an attempt to ban all out-of-state trash. On the contrary, I am not asking for outright authority for States to prohibit all out-of-state waste, nor am I seeking to prohibit waste from any one State. I am merely asking for reasonable tools that will enable State and local governments to act responsibly to manage their own waste and limit unreasonable waste imports from other States. Such measures would give substantial authority to limit imports and plan facilities around each States' needs. I believe the time is right to consider and pass an effective interstate waste bill. The bill I am introducing today is a consensus of importing and exporting States--States that have willingly come forward to offer a reasonable solution. Congress must act this year to give citizens in Ohio and other affected States the relief they need from the truckloads of waste that daily pass through their communities. We have waited too long for a solution. Congress must act now to prevent this problem from spreading further to our neighbors out West and to help our neighbors in the East better manage the trash they generate. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will allow States to finally obtain relief from the seemingly endless stream of solid waste that is flowing into States like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Michigan, Virginia and many others. My bill, ``the Municipal Solid Waste Interstate Transportation and Local Authority Act,'' gives State and local governments the tools they need to limit garbage imports from other States and manage their own waste within their own States. Ohio receives more than 1.5 million tons of municipal solid waste annually from other States and this number has been increasing regularly. In fact, estimates for 2001 indicate that Ohio imported almost 2 million tons of municipal solid waste, which is almost 600,000 more tons of waste than Ohio imported in 1997. While I am pleased that these shipments have been reduced since our record high of 3.7 million tons in 1989, I believe it is still entirely too high. Because it is cheap and because it is expedient, communities in other States have simply put their garbage on trains or on trucks and shipped it to be landfilled in States like Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Virginia. This is wrong and it has to stop. Many State and local governments in importing States have worked hard to develop strategies to reduce waste and plan for future disposal needs. As Governor of Ohio, I worked aggressively to limit shipments of out-of-state waste into Ohio through voluntary cooperation of Ohio landfill operators and agreements with other States. We saw limited relief. Ohio has no assurance that our out-of-state waste numbers won't rise significantly, particularly in light of the closure of the Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island in 2001. Unfortunately, the Federal courts have prevented States from enacting laws to protect our natural resources from being utilized as landfill space. What has emerged is an unnatural pattern where Ohio and other States--both importing and exporting--have tried to take reasonable steps to encourage conservation and local disposal, only to be undermined by a barrage of court decisions at every turn. Quite frankly, State and local governments' hands are tied. Lacking a specific delegation of authority from Congress, States that have acted responsibly to implement environmentally sound waste disposal plans and recycling programs are still being subjected to a flood of out-of-state waste. In Ohio, this has undermined our recycling efforts because Ohioans continue to ask why they should recycle to conserve landfill space when it is being used for other States' trash. Our citizens already have to live with the consequences of large amounts of out-of- state waste--increased noise, traffic, wear and tear on our roads and litter that is blown onto private homes, schools and businesses. Ohio and many other States have taken comprehensive steps to protect our resources and address a significant environmental threat. However, excessive, uncontrolled waste disposal from other States has limited the ability of Ohioans to protect their environment, health and safety. I do not believe the Commerce Clause requires us to service other States at the expense of our own citizens' efforts. A national solution is long overdue. When I became Governor of Ohio in 1991, I joined a coalition with other Midwest Governors--Governor Bayh, now Senator Bayh, of Indiana, Governor Engler of Michigan and Governor Casey, and later Governors Ridge and O'Bannon, of Pennsylvania--to try to pass effective interstate waste and flow control legislation. In 1996, Midwest Governors were asked by Congress to reach an agreement with Governors Whitman and Pataki on interstate waste provisions. Our States quickly came to an agreement with New Jersey-- the second largest exporting State--on interstate waste provisions. We began discussions with New York, but these were put on hold indefinitely in the wake of their May, 1996 announcement to close the Fresh Kills landfill. The bill that I am introducing today reflects the agreement that my State, along with Indiana, Michigan and Pennsylvania, reached with then-Governor Whitman. For Ohio, the most important aspect of this bill is the ability for States to limit future waste flows. For instance, they would have the option to set a ``permit cap,'' which would allow a State to impose a percentage limit on the amount of out-of-state waste that a new facility or expansion of an existing facility could receive annually. Or, a State could choose a provision giving them the authority to deny a permit for a new facility if it is determined that there is not a local or in-state regional need for that facility. These provisions provide assurances to Ohio and other States that new facilities will not be built primarily for the purpose of receiving out-of-state waste. For instance, in 1996, Ohio EPA had to issue a permit for a landfill that was bidding to take 5,000 tons of garbage a day--approximately 1.5 million tons a year--from Canada alone, which would have doubled the amount of out-of-state waste entering Ohio. Thankfully this landfill lost the Canadian bid. Ironically though, the waste company put their plans on hold to build the facility because there is not enough need for the facility in the State and they need to ensure a steady out-of-state waste flow to make the plan feasible. In addition, this bill would ensure that landfills and incinerators could not receive trash from other States until local governments approve its receipt. States could also freeze their out-of-state waste at 1993 levels, while some States would be able to reduce these levels to 65 percent by the year 2008. This bill also allows States to reduce the amount of construction and demolition debris they receive by 50 percent in 2014 at the earliest. States also could impose up to a $3-per-ton cost recovery surcharge on out-of-state waste. This fee would help provide States with the funding necessary to implement solid waste management programs. Unfortunately, efforts to place reasonable restrictions on out-of- state waste shipments have been perceived by some as an attempt to ban all out-of-state trash. On the contrary, I am not asking for outright authority for States to prohibit all out-of-state waste, nor am I seeking to prohibit waste from any one State. I am merely asking for reasonable tools that will enable State and local governments to act responsibly to manage their own waste and limit unreasonable waste imports from other States. Such measures would give substantial authority to limit imports and plan facilities around each States' needs. I believe the time is right to consider and pass an effective interstate waste bill. The bill I am introducing today is a consensus of importing and exporting States--States that have willingly come forward to offer a reasonable solution. Congress must act this year to give citizens in Ohio and other affected States the relief they need from the truckloads of waste that daily pass through their communities. We have waited too long for a solution. Congress must act now to prevent this problem from spreading further to our neighbors out West and to help our neighbors in the East better manage the trash they generate. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I rise today to express my support for the ethanol legislation that is being introduced today. I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senators Hagel, Lugar, Daschle, and Johnson, in this effort to develop an ethanol package that addresses the concerns of a variety of stakeholders in the energy debate while providing a tangible benefit for the American people. I believe that increasing our use of renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel is a key element in our effort to construct a viable energy policy. As I have often stated, we face an incredible challenge in putting together an energy policy for our Nation. In my view, the Senate has a responsibility to develop a policy that harmonizes energy and environmental policies, and to acknowledge that the economy and the environment are vitally intertwined. As I has to be a policy that broadens our base of energy resources to create stability, guarantee reasonable prices, and protect America's security. It has to be a policy that will keep energy affordable. Finally, it has to be a policy that won't cripple the engines of commerce that fund the research that will yield future environmental protection technologies. I believe the passage of an ethanol bill will protect our energy independence, our economy, and our environment. Increasing the use of renewable fuels such as ethanol will protect our energy independence. Given the current situation in the Middle East, perhaps our greatest energy challenge is to reduce our reliance on foreign sources to meet our energy needs. As my colleagues know, the United States currently imports about 58 percent of our crude oil. President Bush has stated repeatedly that energy security is a cornerstone for national security and it is crucial that we become less dependent on foreign sources of oil and look more to domestic sources to meet our energy needs. Ethanol is an excellent domestic source--it is a clean burning, home-grown renewable fuel that we can rely on for generations to come. Creating a greater market for ethanol will protect our economy. Ethanol is good for our Nation's economy and, in particular, good for Ohio's economy. Ohio is sixth in the Nation in terms of corn production, and an increase in the use of ethanol across the Nation means an economic boost to thousands of farm families across my State. Ohio is one of the Nation's leading consumers of ethanol, with 40 percent of the gasoline consumed in the State containing ethanol. Because of the economic benefits of increasing consumption of ethanol, Ohio has placed a tremendous emphasis on expanding its use and is actively pursuing opportunities to build ethanol production plants. Expanding the use of ethanol will protect our environment. Increasing the use of ethanol will help reduce auto emissions, which will clean the air and improve public health. The language that is being introduced today is identical to the ethanol title passed by the Senate in last year's comprehensive energy bill. It is important to note that while this body overwhelmingly supported inclusion of an ethanol title in that bill, there were some significant issues raised during debate on this provision. As chairman of the Clean Air Subcommittee, I intend to hold hearings on, and to mark up, this legislation so that it can be included in this Congress' version of comprehensive energy legislation. I know that Senator Inhofe, Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, has some strong issues with the way that MTBE is dealt with in this legislation, and I intend to work closely with him to see that those issues are resolved before we move forward with this bill. I was delighted that the Senate was able to come together and craft a bipartisan agreement on ethanol during the last Congress. It is my hope that that spirit of bipartisanship will continue throughout this Congress and that we can finally enact a comprehensive national energy policy that includes ethanol as one of its key provisions.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, it will be ten years ago this October that Americans watched in horror as a U.S. humanitarian effort went terribly askew. As frightening pictures from U.S. troops in Somalia came back to the Untied States, a group of students at Riverside High School in Painesville, OH watched in shock as a U.S. soldier was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. These students, concerned with the lack of a memorial in our Nation's Capital to honor members of our armed forces who lost their lives during peacekeeping missions such as the one in Somalia, felt compelled to take action. The motivation and vision of these young people propelled them to spearhead a campaign to establish a Pyramid of Remembrance in Washington, DC, which would honor U.S. service men and women who have lost their lives during peacekeeping operations, humanitarian efforts, training, terrorist attacks, or covert operations. The student not only proposed the memorial, they created a private non-profit foundation to raise the money to construct it. Along with the support of their community, who provided legal counsel for the students and private donations to help fund the project, their hard work and dedication has facilitated a Pyramid of Remembrance which would be built at little or no cost to the taxpayer. In April 2001, the National Capital Memorial Commission, charged with overseeing monument construction in Washington, DC, held hearings about the proposed Pyramid of Remembrance. The Commission recommended that the memorial be constructed on Defense Department land, possibly at Fort McNair. The commissioners also noted that such a memorial would indeed fill a void in our Nation's military monuments. On May 6, 1999, I spoke on the Senate floor in honor of two brave American soldiers, Chief Warrant Officer Kevin L. Reichert and Chief Warrant Officer David A. Gibbs, who lost their lives when their Apache helicopter crashed into the Albanian mountains during a routine training exercise on May 5, 1999, as U.S. troops joined with our NATO allies in a military campaign against Slobodan Milosevic. As I remarked at the time, the United States owes Kevin, David and so many other service members a debt of gratitude that we will never be able to repay, for they have paid the ultimate sacrifice. As the Bible says in John, chapter 15:13, ``Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.'' We must also remember and honor the lives of brave men and women who have lost their lives while defending our freedom during the global campaign against terrorism. Tragically, ten service members, including three men from the State of Ohio, lost their lives on February 21, 2002, when a CH-47 Chinook helicopter crashed in the Philippines. They are Army Captain Bartt Owens of Franklin, OH; Army Chief Warrant Officer Jody Egnor of Middletown, OH; and Air Force Master Sgt. William McDaniel of Fort Jefferson, OH. As our Nation continues to engage in the war against terror, we must not forget the sacrifice that these men have made for their country and the freedom of all Americans. The patriotism, dedication, and vision of the students at Riverside High School are commendable. I support and applaud the work they have done to make the Pyramid of Remembrance a reality and I believe it is our duty to honor American men and women in uniform who have lost their lives while serving their country, whether in peacetime or during war. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, it will be ten years ago this October that Americans watched in horror as a U.S. humanitarian effort went terribly askew. As frightening pictures from U.S. troops in Somalia came back to the Untied States, a group of students at Riverside High School in Painesville, OH watched in shock as a U.S. soldier was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. These students, concerned with the lack of a memorial in our Nation's Capital to honor members of our armed forces who lost their lives during peacekeeping missions such as the one in Somalia, felt compelled to take action. The motivation and vision of these young people propelled them to spearhead a campaign to establish a Pyramid of Remembrance in Washington, DC, which would honor U.S. service men and women who have lost their lives during peacekeeping operations, humanitarian efforts, training, terrorist attacks, or covert operations. The student not only proposed the memorial, they created a private non-profit foundation to raise the money to construct it. Along with the support of their community, who provided legal counsel for the students and private donations to help fund the project, their hard work and dedication has facilitated a Pyramid of Remembrance which would be built at little or no cost to the taxpayer. In April 2001, the National Capital Memorial Commission, charged with overseeing monument construction in Washington, DC, held hearings about the proposed Pyramid of Remembrance. The Commission recommended that the memorial be constructed on Defense Department land, possibly at Fort McNair. The commissioners also noted that such a memorial would indeed fill a void in our Nation's military monuments. On May 6, 1999, I spoke on the Senate floor in honor of two brave American soldiers, Chief Warrant Officer Kevin L. Reichert and Chief Warrant Officer David A. Gibbs, who lost their lives when their Apache helicopter crashed into the Albanian mountains during a routine training exercise on May 5, 1999, as U.S. troops joined with our NATO allies in a military campaign against Slobodan Milosevic. As I remarked at the time, the United States owes Kevin, David and so many other service members a debt of gratitude that we will never be able to repay, for they have paid the ultimate sacrifice. As the Bible says in John, chapter 15:13, ``Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.'' We must also remember and honor the lives of brave men and women who have lost their lives while defending our freedom during the global campaign against terrorism. Tragically, ten service members, including three men from the State of Ohio, lost their lives on February 21, 2002, when a CH-47 Chinook helicopter crashed in the Philippines. They are Army Captain Bartt Owens of Franklin, OH; Army Chief Warrant Officer Jody Egnor of Middletown, OH; and Air Force Master Sgt. William McDaniel of Fort Jefferson, OH. As our Nation continues to engage in the war against terror, we must not forget the sacrifice that these men have made for their country and the freedom of all Americans. The patriotism, dedication, and vision of the students at Riverside High School are commendable. I support and applaud the work they have done to make the Pyramid of Remembrance a reality and I believe it is our duty to honor American men and women in uniform who have lost their lives while serving their country, whether in peacetime or during war. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, as many of my colleagues may be aware, I am a strong advocate of NATO enlargement to include Europe's new democracies. As such, I was thrilled to have the opportunity to join President George W. Bush at the NATO Summit in Prague last November, at which time invitations for NATO membership were extended to Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. I remain deeply grateful to the President for inviting me to join him as a member of the Congressional delegation to the NATO Summit, along with my colleague Senator Bill Frist, and Congressman Tom Lantos, Congressman Elton Gallegly and Congressman Doug Bereuter. I appreciate that the President has recognized my lifelong passion for the inclusion of the former Captive Nations as members of the NATO Alliance, and I was proud to be in the room on November 21, 2002, when NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson officially announced the decision to invite seven countries to become part of the Alliance. As Lord Robertson articulated on that historic day, the decision to include these new members will serve to strengthen the Alliance as it prepares to confront new challenges to global security. After working with the NATO aspirant countries on comprehensive domestic reforms in preparation for membership in the Alliance, the Secretary General concluded that, ``We can therefore say with complete confidence that this round of enlargement will maintain and increase NATO's strength, cohesion and vitality.'' I share his belief that these countries will make significant contributions to the NATO Alliance. As Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers have also expressed, these countries will bring niche capabilities, as well as energy, freshness and enthusiasm, to the Alliance. I sincerely believe that although the newly invited countries still have work to do on their Membership Action Plans, their reforms will be swifter and more complete as they are brought into the Alliance, rather than left out. Upon our arrival in the Czech Republic, we were informed that we were invited to attend a mock NATO Summit for students, which included young people representing all 19 members of the NATO Alliance, as well as the aspirant countries. The students were scheduled to discuss and debate the same issues that were to be addressed by the Heads of States of the NATO member countries. President Bush was the keynote speaker at their event. I was pleased that Senator Frist and I had the opportunity to introduce ourselves to the various delegations, and I enjoyed the chance to share common experiences with the delegations from Macedonia, Croatia, Italy and Lithuania on an informal basis. President Bush gave a most inspiring speech to the young people, emphasizing the fact that NATO has become more than simply a military organization, and is in fact an organization composed of people who share common values. With these common ties, he remarked, those countries who have been traditional adversaries will no longer go to war against one another. Instead, as Article V of the NATO Charter clearly states, an attack against one is an attack on all. Following the President's speech, we proceeded to a reception with Secretary of State Colin Powell. I was delighted to talk with him about NATO's changing role, as well as the many perspectives from which he has viewed the formulation of our foreign policy. On Wednesday evening, November 20, 2002, members of the U.S. delegation attended a dinner with other delegates to the NATO Summit, which was hosted by the Aspen Institute. I was glad to have the opportunity to visit with President Mesic of Croatia, President Trajkovski of Macedonia, Prime Minister Dzurinda of the Slovak Republic, President Kucan of Slovenia, and our host, President Vaclav Havel of the Czech Republic. Thursday, November 21, 2002 was a thrilling day for me. I have longed to be present when Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia were invited into NATO, and I was pleased to be there to see President Havel begin the program and to hear Lord Robertson formally invite seven countries to join the Alliance. With no objections, the consensus among the Allies was to invite these young democracies into NATO. Each delegation, through its President or Prime Minister, made a statement to express their support for these seven countries and their strategic importance to the NATO organization. It was inspiring to hear country give their enthusiastic endorsement, and it gave me some comfort that they would help to move the approval of these countries' membership through their respective legislatures. On Thursday afternoon, I joined other members of the U.S. delegation at a small luncheon in honor of the NATO aspirant countries. I enjoyed the chance to visit with President Vaira Vike-Freiberga of Latvia, Foreign Minister Mircea Geoana of Romania, President Moisiu of Albania, Prime Minister Drnovsek of Slovenia, as well as Prime Minister Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha of Bulgaria. It was a wonderful celebration of the invitations extended to Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia, as well as the ongoing reforms in Macedonia, Albania and Croatia to prepare for membership in the Alliance. Later that day, my wife Janet and I were happy to talk further with Czech President Vaclav Havel at a dinner held in his honor at the Prague Castle. Following dinner, at 1:30 a.m. Prague time, I placed a call to Cleveland to talk with individuals with ties to NATO aspirant countries who were gathered at the Lithuanian Hall of Our Lady of Perpetual Help at a rally to celebrate the historic events that had taken place that day. I enjoyed the opportunity to share with them the experiences that I was having in Prague. It was truly a capstone to an unbelievable day that I will never forget. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate as we begin to discuss the merits of NATO enlargement during this session of Congress.