George Voinovich

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. I concur with both of my colleagues, Senators Inhofe and Domenici, that prompt, retroactive renewal of the Price-Anderson program is in the best interest of the Nation. We need to do whatever we can to promote a safe and efficient nuclear energy industry and encourage the development of new nuclear reactors. Reauthorizing the Price-Anderson Act is a major step in that direction. Almost a year before the program was to expire, on August 3, 2001, I introduced S. 1360 and shortly thereafter S. 1591 to reauthorize the Act. During consideration of the Energy bill, I then proposed an amendment that included the provisions of my bills. While my colleagues recognized the importance of the amendment and passed it by a vote of 78-21, the Energy bill was ultimately not considered. Thus, I recently reintroduced my bill from last Congress as S. 156. I am pleased that this matter is finally being handled in the Omnibus Appropriations bill with the inclusion of the House and Senate compromise language of my amendment. Amendment No. 49

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, how much time do we have on this side?

Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank the Chair. First, I share the concerns of the Senator from Maryland about this problem, and I want to do everything in my power as chairman of the subcommittee on Government oversight and work toward dealing with the solution to the problem that is being presented. According to the best information I have, this amendment would circumvent the administration's prerogative in the executive branch by prohibiting the administration from managing the Federal Government's competitive sourcing process. It would repeal initiatives passed on a bipartisan basis over the past 10 years, including the Government Performance Act. The amendment would prohibit agencies from developing and implementing strategic plans allowing Federal employees to focus on high-priority activities, and it would prevent agencies from increasing efficiencies, lowering costs, implementing innovation and technology, and it would prevent agencies to meet their agency missions. Additionally, the President has said that if this provision were in the Treasury-Postal appropriations, he would veto the bill. We tried to work out a compromise based on some of these concerns that he had. We thought that it met the concerns of the Senator from Maryland. Unfortunately, it did not. I urge that we vote no on her amendment and yes on the amendment we are proposing today--understanding this will not solve the problem and that we will need to deal with it throughout the remainder of the year.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I----

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I think the arguments have been made that this is about delaying something that has been looked at for over the last 10 years. I hope my colleagues will decide this issue today on a bipartisan basis, as was the letter that we sent to Administrator Whitman, asking that she move forward with the new regulations to end some 4 or 5 years of uncertainty by businesses throughout this country, in terms of routine maintenance and repair of their facilities. This vote for the Inhofe amendment is a vote for the environment. It will allow us to move forward quickly, to do what should have been done several years ago so these repairs and the maintenance can be done. We can reduce the emissions and we can make these facilities more efficient.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. I am more than happy to yield.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks Senator Reed I be recognized for 15 minutes.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I have to preside at 4 o'clock. May I ask unanimous consent to be recognized to speak at 5 o'clock after I am finished presiding?

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the proposed amendment to stop the New Source Review reforms from moving forward, and in support of Senator Inhofe's second-degree amendment. I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak about this because there is a lot of confusion among our colleagues and throughout the country over what NSR New Source Review--means. The program is a policy that is in desperate need of reform. Reform is critical to public health and the environment, to our Nation's economy and energy supply, and to the safety of our country's workforce. The program was created back in 1977. It simply requires new facilities to install the ``best demonstrated technology'' to control emissions. The program also requires older facilities to update their equipment to ``state of the art'' when they do major modifications. I underscore ``major modifications.'' When the NSR program was created 26 years ago, Congress believed that incorporating pollution controls whenever new facilities are built or when older ones are significantly modified was the most efficient way of controlling pollution. The EPA issued their first NSR regulation, a 20-page document, in 1980. This implementing regulation excluded from the definition of modification ``routine maintenance, repair and replacement.'' Since then, the EPA has produced over 4,000 pages of guidance documents in an attempt to explain and reinterpret the regulations. I say ``attempt'' because in fact the guidance documents are very confusing. It is important for the public and Members of this body to understand that the lawsuits blossoming all over the United States for NSR violations were brought about by an EPA guidance document, not new regulations, an EPA guidance document in 1998 which changed the definition of routine maintenance. This continual reinterpretation has led to confusion, misunderstanding by the EPA, the States, and the industries affected by the regulations. This chart, which I have used at hearings before the Government Affairs and EPW Committees, shows why companies are reluctant to subject themselves to New Source Review permits. If you were a company and you were going to do routine maintenance and repair, would you ever submit yourself to this maze? I am sorry it is in such small print because my colleagues can't see it. But this is the kind of thing they are being required to do if they want to go forward with routine maintenance and repair. Not only has the situation led to costly litigation, but to a climate of uncertainty, forcing companies to forgo needed maintenance and repair work until the regulatory policies are clarified. Ironically, this uncertainty has led companies to reduce their investments in cleaner, less polluting technologies for fear that the shifting regulatory environment would declare such improvements a violation. While the goal of the Clean Air Act has been to make the air cleaner, the NSR program has at times worked against this goal and wound up having the opposite effect. I want to clarify a very important point often misconstrued by the opponents of NSR reform. All major facilities are regulated by the Clean Air Act. No plants are exempt from the Act, and no plants are ``grandfathered.'' All facilities have permit levels that they must meet for their emissions. They must abide by ozone and particulate matter standards, what we refer to as maximum achievable control technology standards, the acid rain program, the NOX SIP Call, the regional haze program, and a range of other regulatory programs that apply to each industry or facility. Furthermore, states implement source-specific emission limits through state implementation plans that can be set at more stringent emissions levels if the states deem it necessary. In fact, as this chart shows, the Clean Air Act has been extremely successful in reducing emissions of pollutants. Since the 1970s, emissions of all criteria pollutants--carbon monoxide, lead, particulate matter, nitrogen oxide, ozone, and sulfur dioxide--have been reduced by 29 percent. This is significant when you consider the fact that over the past 30 years, our population has increased by 38 percent, our Nation's energy consumption has increased by 45 percent, the number of miles our vehicles travel each year has increased by 143 percent, and our gross domestic product has increased by 160 percent. While our country has grown, emissions have decreased. However, I strongly believe that more can and should be done. I have worked tirelessly over my entire career to improve our nation's and Ohio's air quality. In the 1970s, as Mayor of Cleveland, I worked on this issue firsthand by operating a 57 megawatt municipally owned utility. I also spent considerable effort as Governor to get 28 of Ohio's counties into attainment for ozone. Through my efforts to institute an automobile emissions testing program and convince one of our major coal fired facilities to install a scrubber, all 88 of Ohio's counties met the air quality standard requirements of the Clean Air Act by the time I left office. I have continued this work here in the Senate since 1999. As chairman of the Clean Air Subcommittee, I have been working to further reduce pollution from power plants through a multi-emissions strategy. Last year, we worked on this issue in the EPW Committee. Unfortunately, the majority moved ahead on a proposal that would have been unjustifiably devastating to our economy and very costly for consumers and businesses alike. In the 108th Congress, I plan to work to craft a bipartisan multi- emissions strategy that makes real reductions possible right away. I urge my colleagues to lay politics aside and work with me to improve public health, protect our environment, provide better regulatory certainty, and ensure continued access to safe, reliable, and low-cost electricity. Mr. President, the NSR program plays an important role in reducing power plant emissions. It also--this is something that is not well understood--applies to every stationary source in the country. When people talk about this, they think it is just utilities that are involved. Rather, we are talking about refineries, chemical plants, and manufacturing facilities. NSR applies to all of them, and all of them out there today are uncertain about what they should be doing and, as a result, are doing nothing. The current confusion over NSR is actually contributing to polluting our air. When NSR is clarified, I am sure that many of these companies would move on with their programs. They would reduce emissions, and they would make their facilities more efficient. It is imperative that the NSR program be reformed if we are to improve air quality because at present companies either can't or won't make the necessary changes to improve efficiency and the environment. Without NSR reform, multi-emissions legislation will not work. We need to do everything possible to encourage new investments in more efficient equipment that produces fewer noxious emissions. That is why Senator Conrad and I, along with 24 of our colleagues, sent a bipartisan letter to Administrator Whitman in May calling on her to ``complete the [NSR] review and to undertake the necessary regulatory process in the near future to clarify and reform the NSR program.'' I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Our letter was bipartisan, nine Democrats and 17 Republicans, all calling for reform. While I am sure all 26 of us would not necessarily agree on exactly what the reforms should ultimately look like, we did all agree that we ought to get moving with it. We are running out of time. In our letter to Ms. Whitman we also stated: We have heard of many situations in which confusion over the NSR program is having a dampening effect on utilities' willingness to perform energy efficiency and environmental improvement projects. Mr. President, I'd like to share just one of the examples that I am aware of. For refiners, I am aware of an incident in which tubes on a reboiler furnace failed, resulting in a fire which damaged the remaining tubes. New tubes were installed and the unit was back in production within two weeks. However, they were in violation of NSR due to the ``actual-to-potential'' emissions test. If NSR regulations were followed, the unit should have undergone the permit process, resulting in the refinery being out of commission for five to 18 months. I think my colleagues should remember that the next time a refinery closes and prices spike. Mr. President, the 26 Senators who signed this letter are not the only ones who think that NSR has prohibited reductions in emissions. This is really important. In August 2001, the National Governors Association passed a unanimous resolution calling for NSR reform. Their resolution states ``New Source Review requirements should be reformed to achieve improvements that enhance the environment and increase energy production capacity, while encouraging energy efficiency, fuel diversity, and the use of renewable resources.'' Furthermore, according to the National Coal Council study, commissioned by the Clinton administration, if the EPA were to return to the pre-1998 NSR definitions, we could generate 40,000 new Megawatts of electricity from coal-fired facilities and reduce pollution at the same time. The current NSR program threatens our energy supply due to both short-term and long-term reliability problems. According to the Department of Energy, electricity demand is projected to grow by 1.8 percent per year through 2020. At the same time, no new nuclear plants have been constructed since the 1970s and the number of new coal facilities has declined significantly since the 1980s. Our nation's use of coal will continue to increase, resulting in greater demand on our aging coal facilities. In order to meet the growing electricity demand, more frequent maintenance and repair work will be needed to keep these coal facilities on-line. Another point that needs to be made, which is often overlooked in this debate, is that the costs of NSR are passed on to the ratepayers. Somehow people forget that the customer always pays. Too often, the environment and the ratepayer get lost in the constant duel between extremist environmental groups and recalcitrant companies. Higher energy prices will have a more profound effect on low-income families and the elderly. The Department of Energy, as this chart shows, claims that those individuals or families making less than $10,000 per year will spend 29 percent of their income on energy costs, and those making between $10,000 and $24,000 a year will spend 13 percent of their income on energy costs. The NSR program not only prevents the installation of more efficient and less polluting technologies, but it also interferes with safety improvements. According to the Boilermakers Union, ``Maintenance is necessary to maintain worker safety. Electric generating facilities harness tremendous forces: superheater tubes exposed to flue gases over 2000 degrees; boilers under deteriorating conditions; and parts located in or around boilers subjected to both extreme heat and pressure.'' Failure to maintain and repair equipment creates a potential danger to the lives and safety of the men and women who work on these facilities, and they are not moving forward right now with many of these repairs. Fortunately, the EPA has responded to the bipartisan and strong call for reform of the New Source Review program. On December 31, 2002 the EPA published a rule that included five reforms of the program. Some of my colleagues might not know that the final rule was actually proposed by the Clinton administration. Let me repeat: These reforms were proposed by the Clinton administration. They are bipartisan. The reforms are the result of over 10 years of work by the EPA across three administrations and have involved over 130,000 written comments in the last year alone. The EPA has conducted a detailed environmental analysis of the rule and found that the reforms will have a net benefit to the environment, a net benefit. They are good for the environment. Again, I want to stress to my colleagues that Senator Inhofe's amendment will allow us to move forward and help the environment. This morning my colleague from North Carolina proposed an amendment to delay the implementation of these reforms for 6 months until a study is completed to assess their impact. They have been studied for a long time. On the surface this sounds like a good idea. However, if this amendment passes, we will delay reforms that have been worked on for over 10 years and would make improvements in the environment and to public health today. An EPA analysis already found that the reforms will have a net benefit to the environment. Furthermore, Mr. President, contrary to an argument put forth by critics of NSR reform, EPA has stated publicly that it deliberately wrote the rule so that current lawsuits would not be affected by the proposed NSR reforms. It is my belief that if this amendment passes, it will also seriously harm the prospects of future reforms to the NSR program. For example, EPA has proposed a rule to provide a new definition for ``routine maintenance, repair, and replacement.'' The EPA did not offer specifics but asked for public comment on a range of options. This proposal is at the crux of the issue and is imperative. I believe this amendment would not only delay the current rule from being implemented, but it would also effectively delay other very important reforms to the program. We have to get on with it. I join my colleague and friend, Senator Inhofe, today in the second- degree amendment he has proposed. This amendment would allow the reforms to be implemented while requiring the National Academy of Sciences to evaluate its impact. It allows the reforms to go forward to stop this state of limbo that exists. At present, nothing is happening. Companies will then be able to make efficiency improvements and reduce their emissions. At the same time, the Academy can study the impact of the reforms as they are being implemented. Ending the confusion surrounding the NSR reforms will allow companies to make the investments that are necessary to both increase our energy supply and environmental protections. We can reduce pollution and become more energy-efficient. We need to provide both for continued economic development and protections for public health and the environment. To meet these needs, we must move enact substantive NSR reform. I thank the administration for their work in developing this proposal and moving ahead with the Clinton era reforms. I urge them to continue these efforts. Support for these actions is strong and broad-based. The confusion about NSR regulations is pervasive throughout our Nation, from the regulated community to the regulators. It must be addressed-- and soon. Mr. President, I sincerely urge my colleagues to support Senator Inhofe's second-degree amendment to Senator Edwards' amendment. The program is broken and desperately needs to be reformed. We cannot afford further delay.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Yes.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, we had a hearing in the EPW committee last year on the rules before they were publicized, and they were savaged because many people believed the issuance would interfere with current lawsuits. The EPA claims that the reforms do not interfere with pending lawsuits for violations under the guidance that was issued back in 1998.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Nevada that the previous administration had been working on these rules. They started out during the Clinton administration. The Bush administration began looking at the recommendations from the previous administration. They subjected them to review by many organizations. By the way, these rules do not apply to utility companies. They have only proposed a rule in this regard. What I am saying to Senator Reid and others is that because the regulations have not been reformed, companies for several years have done nothing to move forward with installing controls that would reduce emissions or make their facilities more efficient. I think we have delayed long enough. It has been vetted. If someone believes yet another review is necessary, it should be done after the reforms are implemented. Any additional review should be done after implementation so that we are dealing with reality and not speculation. This is very important. I think it is time for us to go forward with the reforms to allow facilities to do their routine maintenance and repair work. This will make their facilities more efficient, reduce their emissions and, in some cases, produce more energy.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Again, I thank the Senator. I emphasize that 130,000 comments were made last year regarding those regulations that have been issued by the EPA. So it has been really vetted. People have had an opportunity to participate in this. I support the Senator's suggestion that rather than ask for a study by the Academy, we delay that and let the rules be issued, and then let the Academy look at it. That is a much sounder, more commonsense approach to dealing with this problem.

Mr. VOINOVICH

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

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, to my colleagues who have known me and who have heard me speak on spending issues before, what I am about to say may be very shocking, and it shocks me as well. I am going to vote for this appropriations bill. It contains only a 3-percent increase in total spending--can you believe that; that is mandatory and nondiscretionary domestic spending, a 3-percent increase--and a 2.4- percent increase in discretionary spending. All of us should congratulate the President for sticking to his guns and keeping his promise that he was going to restrain spending while he was President. We also should thank Appropriations Chairman Ted Stevens and his colleagues on the committee who have done a good job in putting this package together. It is time for us to move on. I would first like to comment on why we are here. Why are we here today? We would not be here today if we had passed a budget last year and had not wasted so much time debating bills on the floor of the Senate that should have been taken care of properly in committee. Last year was the first time the Senate did not pass a budget resolution since the Budget Act of 1974. Think of that. For 29 years we passed a budget, but last year we were not able to muster up the votes to get a budget passed. In addition, we have spent so much time debating bills on the floor of the Senate that should have been handled properly in the committees where those bills originated. In so many instances where the leader was unhappy with the results of the committee work, he yanked the bills out of committee, took it into his office, rewrote the bill, put it on the floor, and we debated it. For example, the energy bill, where we spent 8 weeks debating it, when it could have been taken care of in the Energy Committee. The energy bill, the farm bill, the economic stimulus bill, we spent so much time last year dealing with things that should have been done in committee. I am hoping the new leader gives more emphasis to the importance of committees in the Senate. I cannot understand why the previous majority party's committee chairmen were not up in arms about so many bills that should have been handled in their committees, but were pulled. We wasted a lot of time last year, and the chickens have now come home to roost. We have operated on a continuing resolution for 4 months-- October, November, December, and January. The executive branch is already one-third through the fiscal year, and the President wants us to finish our work. The American people want us to finish our work. There are so many Federal agencies today that are providing services not knowing what their budget is going to be for this year. Starting this week, executive branch agencies must absorb a 3.1-percent pay raise within fiscal year 2002 funding levels. I know what that is like. I know, as a former governor and mayor, the pressure that puts on agencies. Many agencies will be unable to effectively allocate funds, particularly competitive grant funds, prior to the end of the fiscal year without a final appropriation in the next 20 to 30 days. In other words, consider the many agencies that have competitive grant programs. These agencies will not be able to get their requests for grant applications out this year, nor the grant applications back in unless we get things done in the next few days. Also thousands of people, like my nephew, are out of work because companies they work for that have government contracts don't know if the projects that are being funded by the Federal Government will continue. Government programs have been on hold for the past 4 months and won't move forward until we pass an appropriations bill. One of the things hurting our economy today is uncertainty. We have contributed to it because we haven't been doing our work. My constituents ask me: Do you guys in Washington get it? Do you get it? Do you understand what is going on? We are at war. The President of the United States has more on his plate than perhaps any President in my memory. Some say FDR; some say Abraham Lincoln. The economy is sputtering. Our constituents believe we are behaving like Nero, fiddling around while Rome is burning. They continue to ask, don't you get it? We have to understand that we cannot tolerate business as usual. In fact, business as usual looks pretty good compared to what we have been doing the last year or so, and the way we have been behaving. If corporate executives in the private sector took this much time to implement their budgets, they would never bring any projects to market or create any new jobs and our economy would collapse. Let's get appropriations done now. None of us are happy with everything in it, and everyone would like to add something, a pet project, a pet constituent request. All of us have them. Hopefully, some will be taken care of and smoothed out in conference. But if not, they will have to be handled in the 2004 budget. Remember we are in this pickle because we did not do our work last year. Let's get it over so we can begin to do our work this year. Let's get on with the budget, so that we can have an aggressive effort to do the 2004 appropriations bills and the other urgent business of the American people. God only knows what the budget environment will be if we go to war with Iraq. As all of us in this body understand, even if we do not go to war, there are likely to be supplemental expenditures for whatever the final settlement with Iraq will be. Let's look at this proposal before us. This bill represents a compromise between true fiscal discipline and Congress' desire to spend. It is made up of 11 bills. Passage of this bill will bring non- defense discretionary spending up to $385 billion, an increase of 2.4- percent over the fiscal year 2002 level. It provides everything the President asked for except the $10 billion defense contingency fund. Although this low number is something to rejoice about, we had better understand that one of the reasons it is low is that we have had a continuing resolution for the past 4 months and we have been spending money at FY 2002 levels. Included in the package is a 1.6-percent across-the-board cut in all domestic spending, in order to accommodate some high-priority items. Let's not forget about that. Some are talking about amending this bill. The bill already contains an across-the-board reduction so we could provide $3.1 billion for drought aid for farmers in counties that have been declared disasters. In my particular case, we have 88 counties in Ohio that have been declared disasters. Mr. President, the bill includes $1.5 billion for election reform; which is not as much as we promised the states when we passed the election reform legislation, but it is a substantial amount of money that will help the states. And the bill includes $1.6 billion for a Medicare physician's fee fix. All of us have heard from our physicians in terms of the Medicare situation they are confronted with, when every year the amount of reimbursement is going down and down. Inflation this year is only about 2.4 percent, nevertheless, all but two appropriations bills in this package are getting increases above that rate. The Labor-HHS appropriation has grown an average of 12.4 percent every year since I have been here and will grow another 5.4 percent in this bill. So this bill does not represent draconian restrictions on Federal spending. In fact, the proposed $750 billion budget the President wants can fund critical priorities within the limits of fiscal discipline. That $750 billion represents an increase of over 11 percent in discretionary spending in just the last 2 fiscal years. I don't know anybody who has had those kinds of increases. If you look at our spending during the last 5 years, you see we have increased spending in most of the 13 annual appropriations bills by about 7.1 percent each year. That is about a 43-percent increase in spending since I came to the Senate. During the same period of time we have had inflationary growth of only about 11.4 percent. The projected deficit for fiscal year 2002 was $314 billion, which included using Social Security, and the projected deficit for 2003 is already $315 billion. Someone said at a meeting I attended yesterday that it could go up to about $370 billion because we are going to have to borrow more money than what we originally expected. We just increased the debt ceiling last June and will probably need to increase it again before the end of this year. Therefore, we need to endorse this fiscally responsible approach presented to us by the Appropriations Committee today. All these amendments proposed in the last couple days would keep adding money and adding money to the deficit. That is what it is about. I cannot understand it. I hear arguments on the other side expressing concern about the deficit, and these same people are on the floor trying to amend this appropriations bill. That would be fiscally irresponsible and would add to the deficit. The Appropriations Committee proposal is the lowest increase in spending I have seen since I have been in the Senate. As I said, I have to take my hat off to the President for holding the line on spending, and I take my hat off to my friend, Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens. He and I have had some strong words over the last several years. But as Humphrey Bogart said in ``Casablanca'': ``This could be the start of a beautiful friendship.'' I want the Appropriations chairman to know I look forward to working with him and his colleagues on the committee on the 2004 budget and hope by the end of this year we can point to another set of appropriation bills with the same type of responsible and restrained growth. Over the last 2 days, some people have come to the floor and said we need more money for various good programs. As I mentioned before, these programs are on hold until we pass an appropriations bill. In other words, nothing is happening in some of these programs until we pass an appropriations bill. I agree that there are many things we all want money for, but I want to point out to my colleagues what we have done during the past few years in terms of the money we have put in the pipeline--I will repeat it so everybody gets it. Since I have been in the Senate, we have increased discretionary spending by 10 percent in 1999, 15 percent in 2001, and 9 percent in 2002. We have allocated so much additional money to Federal agencies that many of them have had difficulty spending all of it. For example, the Department of Housing and Urban Development has consistently recaptured $1.5 billion to $2 billion in unallocated section 8 housing vouchers. Mr. President, what we are doing here is fiscally responsible. Let's get it done. Let's get on with it. Let's finish the work of the 107th Congress so we can get on with the work of the 108th, starting with the 2004 budget. And we need to move aggressively with the appropriations bills, so that we can get on with an energy bill, and do something about some of the other pressing issues facing the American people.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to correct some inaccuracies that were stated by my colleague from Nevada during last night's session regarding nuclear security and Senator Byrd's amendment to increase funding for homeland security. My friend from Nevada came to the floor and argued that this body should support Senator Byrd's amendment because our Nation's nuclear facilities are ``inadequately protected.'' After hearing this statement, I felt it was my duty as the chairman of the Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee to set the record straight on the security of our Nation's nuclear facilities. This is an area that I have worked hard to investigate and fully understand. I urge my colleagues to also spend time carefully reviewing the existing security controls at our Nation's nuclear facilities before they rush to any judgments. The best way to do this is to go and visit the facilities in order to see the security measures in practice. Last August, I visited the Davis Bessie Nuclear facility in Oak Harbor, OH, for the purpose of reviewing the operations of the plant. I was extremely impressed with security measures in place to gain entrance and access to the facility. Also this last April, I had the opportunity to spend a half day at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant in Perry, OH to specifically review their security systems. I received a classified security briefing at the facility, which I highly recommend to all of my colleagues. In addition, I participated in personnel and vehicle searches, and I reviewed the external security systems, including meeting with the Coast Guard which patrols Lake Erie off the coast of the Perry facility. My tour of the security operations confirmed for me that every security measure is being taken to protect our energy supply from terrorist attack and the members of the surrounding community should be very comfortable with the level of security that protects them and the facility. In fact, if I were a terrorist the last place I would try and take over or attack would be a nuclear powerplant with the security measures at Perry and Davis Bessie. This past fall, I visited the EU Headquarters at The Hague in Brussels. I was impressed with the security required to gain entrance to the facility, but it didn't compare to the security at Perry and Davis Bessie nuclear plants. In addition to these visits, I have participated in several committee hearings on nuclear plant security and Nuclear Regulatory Commission, including a classified security briefing. While I have found the security measures to be impressive, this does not decrease my resolve to remain at the forefront of this issue and ensure the safety of these facilities. Last Congress, I supported the Nuclear Security Act of 2002 in the EPW Committee. In the 108th Congress, I will continue to look for ways to improve our excellent security at our Nation's nuclear powerplants. Nuclear energy is important to our Nation's economy and environment. America's nuclear energy industry currently provides approximately 20 percent of our energy. It is a safe, reliable, and zero-emission source of energy that is an important part of our energy future. I agree with my colleague that we have an obligation to the American people to ensure the safety of these facilities. I have and will continue to scrutinize the security at our Nation's nuclear plants. However, I disagree that this is an appropriate argument for this debate on homeland security funding. I urge my colleagues to look at the facts and go and see for yourself the efforts of these plants.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, if there is one thing that this Senate can agree on wholeheartedly is that we, as a Nation, need to invest in our children's educational future. There is no other issue that hits closer to home for America's families. But even as we recognize the importance of education, we must realize that close to home is where education works best in America, and simply spending more and more Federal dollars on more and more Federal ``one size fits all'' education directives will not, by itself, make our education system perform better. When this body voted to pass the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, I did not vote for this bill. I could not vote for this bill in good conscience for two reasons. One, the bill fundamentally usurped control over education from those closest to the students. Education has been and should continue to be a State and local responsibility. Additionally, the excessive spending within the bill provided unrealistic expectations. Over the course of my 36 years of public service to the people of Ohio, I have developed a passion for the issue of federalism, that is, assigning the appropriate role of the Federal Government in relaxation to State and local government. Our forefathers outlined this relationship in the 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Education is one such responsibility. And this was the tradition in America for 200 years. Only in the last 35 years has the Federal Government played a prominent role in education in America. And even then, the most we sent to our State and localities is 7 percent of the education spending in America. In my view, the No Child Left Behind Act not only violated that principle of federalism, it puts us on a fast-track towards thoroughly federalizing education and violates local control of schools. Some of my colleagues think that the Congress is the national school board. Well, we are not the national school board here in this Congress. With the expansion of education programs that the Federal Government undertook in that bill, I have a genuine concern that in ten or fifteen years, Washington will be dictating what is happening in every school house in America. In spite of the limited contribution of the Federal Government, under the No Child Left Behind Act, Washington will be mandating annual tests for elementary and middle school children in America regardless of how the kids are doing or whether or not the States already have sophisticated testing regimes in place. States as Ohio, where the Governor signed a new testing system into law on June 12, 2002, detailed testing systems are already in place. And no one understands how onerous additional testing programs will be. Principals, local school boards, parents and especially teachers in Ohio are saying, ``Here we go again.'' We are already seeing the results of Federal intrusion into our Nation's schools. It is an unworkable, unflexible plan that is punitive to our children. Simply spending more Federal dollars on more Federal ``one size fits all'' education directives will not make our education system perform better. Besides the dangerous increase in Federal control of education, I want to point out the real increase in funding the Department of Education has received over the past several years, during which deficits have only grown. From 1998 to 2002, we have increased total funding for the Department of Education by 57 percent or $20.3 billion. Specifically following the passage of the No Child Left Behind legislation, according to the Congressional Research Service, funding for ESEA in Fiscal Year 2002 increased more by than $3 billion, 17 percent, from fiscal year 2001. Unfortunately, because the majority of No Child Left Behind does not provide actual monetary guidelines for its authorization--instead utilizing ``as such sums''--we have no idea of the potential costs of the bill. However, we can look at Title I, one of the largest accounts within the No Child Left Behind Act. In the Omnibus bill before us, the base text already includes an increase for Title I funding of $1 billion, a 10 percent increase from fiscal year 2002. Senator Kennedy has brought an amendment to the floor that seeks to appropriate the entire amount of the authorization for Title I--$16 billion for fiscal year 2003. His one amendment alone would cost $6 billion. If we follow the argument that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle make, that the authorization level is a mandate to fully fund these account, in this case Title I, this body will vacate any fiscal responsibility we have. Just look at the increases for Title I if we were to fully fund them: from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2003, an increase of 18.5 percent; from fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2004, an increase of 15.6 percent; from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2005, an increase of 11 percent; from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2006, an increase of 11 percent; from fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2007, an increase of 10 percent; where is this money coming from? We are spending money we don't have. The projected deficit for fiscal year 2003 is already $315 billion, and don't forget, folks, we have a $6.2 trillion national debt. According to CBO projections that I recently requested, if we continue spending at the rate we have been spending and extend the tax cut, we could rack up an additional $5.4 trillion in debt by fiscal year 2012. This means that by fiscal year 2012, our national debt could stand at a whopping $11.6 trillion. Leaving this sort of burden on our children and grandchildren is simply wrong. We need to make hard choices now so that this doesn't happen. We just increased the debt ceiling in June 2002, and we will probably need to increase it again before the end of this year. We are looking at oceans of red as far as the eye can see. This entire omnibus process is indicative of how the entire budget process has slipped. While the House passed a budget resolution in March 2002, the Senate never did. That was the first time in the history of the budget process that the Senate failed to enact a budget resolution. Not only did we not pass a budget, the Democrat leadership did not even bring a resolution to floor for consideration. This only precipitated what has become modus operandi for the Senate--not getting our appropriations bills out in time. This body cannot go back in time to correct our past mistakes. We need to move forward and we need to move forward now. The executive branch is already one-third through the fiscal year. Starting this week, executive branch agencies must absorb a 3.1 percent pay raise within Fiscal Year 2002 funding levels. Many agencies will be unable to effectively allocate funds prior to the end of the fiscal year without a final appropriation in the next 20 to 30 days. Let's get on with the business at hand. This Congress has much work to do, not the least of which is providing our Nation's seniors with a prescription drug benefit and an economic growth package to stimulate the sagging economy. The Congress and the administration have already agreed on a $750 billion cap for fiscal year 2003. This amount meets President Bush's request and will fund critical priorities. And let me remind my colleagues who seek to spend additional money; $750 billion represents an increase of over 12 percent in discretionary spending in just the last two fiscal years. We need to be real in our assumptions and our spending habits. If Congress doesn't wake up and smell the coffee, we are going to wake up with enormous deficits--by CBO's most recent projections, $866 billion in fiscal year 2012. Enough is enough. (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Clean Water Infrastructure Financing Act of 2003, legislation which will reauthorize the highly successful, but undercapitalized, Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund, SRF, Program administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. As many of my colleagues know, the Clean Water SRF Program is an effective and immensely popular source of funding for wastewater collection and treatment projects. Congress created the SRF in 1987 to replace the direct grants program that was enacted as part of the landmark 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, or, as it is also known, the Clean Water Act. State and local governments have used the Federal Clean Water SRF to help meet critical environmental infrastructure financing needs. The program operates much like a community bank, where each State determines which projects are built. The performance of the Clean Water SRF Program has been spectacular. Total Federal capitalization grants have been nearly doubled by non- Federal funding sources, including State contributions, leveraged bonds, and principal and interest payments. Communities of all sizes are participating in the program, and approximately 11,000 low-interest loans totaling more than $34.3 billion have been approved to date. As in many States, Ohio has needs for public wastewater system improvements which greatly exceed typical Clean Water SRF funding levels. For instance, in fiscal year 2002, a level of $1.35 billion was appropriated for the Clean Water [SRF program nationwide. However, according to the EPA's 1996 Clean Water] Needs Survey, Ohio's 20-year capital investment needs for publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities are $7.4 billion. Of that amount, over $4 billion of improvements have been identified as necessary to address combined serve overflow, CSO, problems in over 100 communities in Ohio. The city of Akron, for example, has proposed to spend $377 million over 30 years to fix the city's CSO problems. Due to the CSO problem, many Ohio communities face millions of dollars worth of wastewater infrastructure improvements and the likelihood of increased sewer rates without receiving outside funding. In recent years, Ohio cities and villages also have been spending more on maintaining and operating their systems in order to postpone the inevitable upgrades. Nevertheless, their systems are aging and will soon need to be replaced. While the Clean Water SRF Program's track record is excellent, the condition of our Nation's overall environmental infrastructure remains alarming. A 20-year needs survey conducted by the EPA in 1996 documented $139 billion worth of wastewater capital needs nationwide. In 1999, the national assessment was revised upward to nearly $200 billion, in order to more accurately account for expected sanitary sewer needs. Private studies demonstrate that total needs exceed $300 billion, when anticipated replacement costs are considered. EPA's most recent Clean Water Gap Analysis projected a $6 billion per year capital payments gap for clean water over the next two decades. Authorization for the Clean Water SRF expired at the end of fiscal year 1994, and the failure of Congress to reauthorize the program sends an implicit message that wastewater collection and treatment is not a national priority. The longer we wait to re-authorize this program, the longer it creates uncertainty about the program's future in the eyes of borrowers, which could delay or in some cases prevent project financing. In order to allow any kind of substantial increase in spending, reauthorization of the Clean Water SRF program is necessary. The bill that I am introducing today will authorize a total of $15 billion over the next five years for the Clean Water SRF. Not only would this authorization help bridge the enormous infrastructure funding gap, the investment also would pay for itself in perpetuity by protecting our environment, enhancing public health, creating jobs and increasing numerous tax bases across the country. Additionally, the bill will provide technical and planning assistance for small systems, expand the types of projects eligible for loan assistance, and offer financially-distressed communities extended loan repayment periods and principal subsidies. The bill also will allow states to give priority consideration to financially-distressed communities when making loans. The health and well-being of the American public depends on the condition of our nation's wastewater collection and treatment systems. Unfortunately, the facilities that comprise these systems are often taken for granted absent a crisis. Let me emphasize to my colleagues that the costs of poor environmental infrastructure cannot be ignored. Last year marked the 30th Anniversary of the Clean Water Act. We have come a long way since the Clean Water Act's implementation in 1972. Yet, we still have a long way to go. After 30 years since the passage of the Clean Water Act approximately 45 percent of U.S. waters are still not clean enough for fishing or swimming. The 30th Anniversary of the Clean Water Act is cause for celebration of our accomplishments. It is also an opportunity to recommit ourselves to achieving the goals of the Clean Water Act. The Federal Government must maintain a strong partnership with States and local communities and share in the financial burden of sustaining hard-won water quality gains and making additional improvements to the quality of the Nation's waters. In just over a decade, the Clean Water SRF Program has helped thousands of communities meet their wastewater treatment needs. My bill will help ensure that the Clean Water SRF Program remains a viable component in the overall development of our Nation's infrastructure for years to come. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation, and I urge its speedy consideration by the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Clean Water Infrastructure Financing Act of 2003, legislation which will reauthorize the highly successful, but undercapitalized, Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund, SRF, Program administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. As many of my colleagues know, the Clean Water SRF Program is an effective and immensely popular source of funding for wastewater collection and treatment projects. Congress created the SRF in 1987 to replace the direct grants program that was enacted as part of the landmark 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, or, as it is also known, the Clean Water Act. State and local governments have used the Federal Clean Water SRF to help meet critical environmental infrastructure financing needs. The program operates much like a community bank, where each State determines which projects are built. The performance of the Clean Water SRF Program has been spectacular. Total Federal capitalization grants have been nearly doubled by non- Federal funding sources, including State contributions, leveraged bonds, and principal and interest payments. Communities of all sizes are participating in the program, and approximately 11,000 low-interest loans totaling more than $34.3 billion have been approved to date. As in many States, Ohio has needs for public wastewater system improvements which greatly exceed typical Clean Water SRF funding levels. For instance, in fiscal year 2002, a level of $1.35 billion was appropriated for the Clean Water [SRF program nationwide. However, according to the EPA's 1996 Clean Water] Needs Survey, Ohio's 20-year capital investment needs for publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities are $7.4 billion. Of that amount, over $4 billion of improvements have been identified as necessary to address combined serve overflow, CSO, problems in over 100 communities in Ohio. The city of Akron, for example, has proposed to spend $377 million over 30 years to fix the city's CSO problems. Due to the CSO problem, many Ohio communities face millions of dollars worth of wastewater infrastructure improvements and the likelihood of increased sewer rates without receiving outside funding. In recent years, Ohio cities and villages also have been spending more on maintaining and operating their systems in order to postpone the inevitable upgrades. Nevertheless, their systems are aging and will soon need to be replaced. While the Clean Water SRF Program's track record is excellent, the condition of our Nation's overall environmental infrastructure remains alarming. A 20-year needs survey conducted by the EPA in 1996 documented $139 billion worth of wastewater capital needs nationwide. In 1999, the national assessment was revised upward to nearly $200 billion, in order to more accurately account for expected sanitary sewer needs. Private studies demonstrate that total needs exceed $300 billion, when anticipated replacement costs are considered. EPA's most recent Clean Water Gap Analysis projected a $6 billion per year capital payments gap for clean water over the next two decades. Authorization for the Clean Water SRF expired at the end of fiscal year 1994, and the failure of Congress to reauthorize the program sends an implicit message that wastewater collection and treatment is not a national priority. The longer we wait to re-authorize this program, the longer it creates uncertainty about the program's future in the eyes of borrowers, which could delay or in some cases prevent project financing. In order to allow any kind of substantial increase in spending, reauthorization of the Clean Water SRF program is necessary. The bill that I am introducing today will authorize a total of $15 billion over the next five years for the Clean Water SRF. Not only would this authorization help bridge the enormous infrastructure funding gap, the investment also would pay for itself in perpetuity by protecting our environment, enhancing public health, creating jobs and increasing numerous tax bases across the country. Additionally, the bill will provide technical and planning assistance for small systems, expand the types of projects eligible for loan assistance, and offer financially-distressed communities extended loan repayment periods and principal subsidies. The bill also will allow states to give priority consideration to financially-distressed communities when making loans. The health and well-being of the American public depends on the condition of our nation's wastewater collection and treatment systems. Unfortunately, the facilities that comprise these systems are often taken for granted absent a crisis. Let me emphasize to my colleagues that the costs of poor environmental infrastructure cannot be ignored. Last year marked the 30th Anniversary of the Clean Water Act. We have come a long way since the Clean Water Act's implementation in 1972. Yet, we still have a long way to go. After 30 years since the passage of the Clean Water Act approximately 45 percent of U.S. waters are still not clean enough for fishing or swimming. The 30th Anniversary of the Clean Water Act is cause for celebration of our accomplishments. It is also an opportunity to recommit ourselves to achieving the goals of the Clean Water Act. The Federal Government must maintain a strong partnership with States and local communities and share in the financial burden of sustaining hard-won water quality gains and making additional improvements to the quality of the Nation's waters. In just over a decade, the Clean Water SRF Program has helped thousands of communities meet their wastewater treatment needs. My bill will help ensure that the Clean Water SRF Program remains a viable component in the overall development of our Nation's infrastructure for years to come. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation, and I urge its speedy consideration by the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today, as the Chairman of the Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, to introduce a bill to reauthorize the Price-Anderson Act. While the Act was first passed in 1957 and has been renewed three times, the current authorization expired on August 1, 2002 for Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensees. The growth of nuclear power depends greatly on the reauthorization of this Act, which provides liability for damages to the general public from nuclear incidents. It is important for the American public to understand how the Price- Anderson liability program works. The nuclear industry actually funds the program; it is not a Federal subsidy. Each nuclear power plant purchases liability insurance from private insurers to cover the first $200 million for immediate response in the case of an accident. If the damages amounted to more than this amount, a second level of financial protection would apply. In these cases, each of the U.S. licensed nuclear units would pay up to $10 million annually into a collective fund to cover the damages, with a maximum payment of $88.1 million per accident. This, together with the $200 million in insurance money, provides a total of about $9.3 billion in insurance coverage to compensate the public in the case of a nuclear accident. If more than this amount is needed, Congress could then go back to the industry and demand a larger contribution. This is an incredible system. I am not aware of any facility in the country or world that is insured for up to $9.3 billion. Neither do I know of any other industry in which all of the competitors agree up front to pay for the mistakes or acts of God that affect any one company. Furthermore, instead of fighting claims in court, the industry waives its traditional tort defense so that the fund begins making payments immediately. This means that if there were a nuclear disaster somewhere, the insurance companies would immediately start paying out claims. In fact, after the Three Mile Island incident, claims offices were on the site within 24 hours. This program provides extensive insurance coverage and provides it up front. The expiration of this program affects only new NRC licenses, not existing licensees. Without the program, a new nuclear facility would be unable to obtain the liability insurance that this program provides, making new licenses very improbable, if not impossible. Nuclear energy is important to our Nation's national security, economy, and environment. America's nuclear energy industry currently provides approximately 20 percent of our energy. It is a safe, reliable, and zero-emission source of energy. This has had a tremendous positive effect on the environment and public health. Since 1973, nuclear energy has prevented 62 million tons of sulfur dioxide, a key component of acid rain, and 32 million tons of nitrogen oxide, a precursor to ozone, from being released into the atmosphere. Arguably, nuclear power has contributed more to achieving a reduction in emissions than any other source of energy, except possibly solar, wind, and hydropower. Our Nation needs to do whatever it can to promote a safe and efficient nuclear energy industry and encourage the development of new nuclear reactors. Reauthorizing the Price-Anderson Act is a major step in that direction. During the previous administration, both the Department of Energy and the NRC issued reports to Congress recommending the reauthorization of Price-Anderson. Last Congress, I introduced legislation to reauthorize Price-Anderson, S. 1360, and included these provisions in an amendment that I proposed to the energy bill. My amendment, S. Amdt. 2983, was agreed to by a vote of 78-21 on March 7, 2002. This amendment reauthorized the program for both DOE contractors and NRC licensees. The amendment falls under the shared jurisdiction of both the Energy Committee for contractors and the Environment and Public Works Committee for NRC licensees. I look forward to working with the EPW Committee to pass this bill to reauthorize the Price-Anderson Act for 10 years for NRC licensees. I thank Senator Inhofe for joining me in cosponsoring this bill. The Price-Anderson Act is so vital to the future expansion of our nuclear energy industry. I urge the speedy consideration and passage of this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today, as the Chairman of the Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, to introduce a bill to reauthorize the Price-Anderson Act. While the Act was first passed in 1957 and has been renewed three times, the current authorization expired on August 1, 2002 for Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensees. The growth of nuclear power depends greatly on the reauthorization of this Act, which provides liability for damages to the general public from nuclear incidents. It is important for the American public to understand how the Price- Anderson liability program works. The nuclear industry actually funds the program; it is not a Federal subsidy. Each nuclear power plant purchases liability insurance from private insurers to cover the first $200 million for immediate response in the case of an accident. If the damages amounted to more than this amount, a second level of financial protection would apply. In these cases, each of the U.S. licensed nuclear units would pay up to $10 million annually into a collective fund to cover the damages, with a maximum payment of $88.1 million per accident. This, together with the $200 million in insurance money, provides a total of about $9.3 billion in insurance coverage to compensate the public in the case of a nuclear accident. If more than this amount is needed, Congress could then go back to the industry and demand a larger contribution. This is an incredible system. I am not aware of any facility in the country or world that is insured for up to $9.3 billion. Neither do I know of any other industry in which all of the competitors agree up front to pay for the mistakes or acts of God that affect any one company. Furthermore, instead of fighting claims in court, the industry waives its traditional tort defense so that the fund begins making payments immediately. This means that if there were a nuclear disaster somewhere, the insurance companies would immediately start paying out claims. In fact, after the Three Mile Island incident, claims offices were on the site within 24 hours. This program provides extensive insurance coverage and provides it up front. The expiration of this program affects only new NRC licenses, not existing licensees. Without the program, a new nuclear facility would be unable to obtain the liability insurance that this program provides, making new licenses very improbable, if not impossible. Nuclear energy is important to our Nation's national security, economy, and environment. America's nuclear energy industry currently provides approximately 20 percent of our energy. It is a safe, reliable, and zero-emission source of energy. This has had a tremendous positive effect on the environment and public health. Since 1973, nuclear energy has prevented 62 million tons of sulfur dioxide, a key component of acid rain, and 32 million tons of nitrogen oxide, a precursor to ozone, from being released into the atmosphere. Arguably, nuclear power has contributed more to achieving a reduction in emissions than any other source of energy, except possibly solar, wind, and hydropower. Our Nation needs to do whatever it can to promote a safe and efficient nuclear energy industry and encourage the development of new nuclear reactors. Reauthorizing the Price-Anderson Act is a major step in that direction. During the previous administration, both the Department of Energy and the NRC issued reports to Congress recommending the reauthorization of Price-Anderson. Last Congress, I introduced legislation to reauthorize Price-Anderson, S. 1360, and included these provisions in an amendment that I proposed to the energy bill. My amendment, S. Amdt. 2983, was agreed to by a vote of 78-21 on March 7, 2002. This amendment reauthorized the program for both DOE contractors and NRC licensees. The amendment falls under the shared jurisdiction of both the Energy Committee for contractors and the Environment and Public Works Committee for NRC licensees. I look forward to working with the EPW Committee to pass this bill to reauthorize the Price-Anderson Act for 10 years for NRC licensees. I thank Senator Inhofe for joining me in cosponsoring this bill. The Price-Anderson Act is so vital to the future expansion of our nuclear energy industry. I urge the speedy consideration and passage of this bill. 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 pay tribute to Steve Young, the National President of the Fraternal Order of Police, who passed away on January 9, 2002. One of the most rewarding things about serving in the government is having the opportunity to meet some very special people, and Steve was one of them. Every so often in life a person is fortunate enough to cross paths with someone who makes them feel good about being in their presence, someone who is caring, genuine, sincere and who brings a special life to the lives of others. That was Steve Young and I feel blessed to have known him. Steve, a native of Upper Sandusky, OH and graduate of upper Sandusky High School, is survived by his wife, Denise; his two sons, Steven David and Staten Daniel; ;his three sisters Gloria Steurer, Kay Baker, and Deborah Smith and his mother, Lillian Heffelfinger. Serving as a member of the Fraternal Order of Police, F.O.P., for 26 years, Steve dedicated his life and career to law enforcement. His distinguished membership included eleven years as President of the Ohio State lodge, four years as National Vice President, and 17 months as National President. Steve's understanding of the rigorous demands placed on law enforcement officers who protect our citizens each and every day made him an extremely effective and well-respected leader. His innovative leadership style produced a list of accomplishments that set a new standard for success. During his career, Steve helped to create the Ohio Labor Council, with more than 8,000 members, to improve the effectiveness of labor- management negotiations within police forces. Remarkably, fourteen States across our Nation are using this methodology as a model for improving labor-management relations. He also implemented the Critical Incident Response program, to rapidly assist officers psychologically damaged in the line of duty, a program that has been implemented across the country. It came as no surprise that Steve's numerous accomplishments led to his overwhelming election as the National President of the F.O.P. in August 2001. During his tenure, Steve's enthusiasm, spirit, and love of law enforcement never diminished. In fact, he continued to dedicate his career to the citizens of Ohio serving as Lieutenant in the Marion City Police Department, until his passing. One would not know by looking at his achievements, but his term as President of the F.O.P. was all too brief. Under his Presidency, the F.O.P. developed a close relationship with the Bush Administration, which led to Steve's appointment to the Homeland Security Advisory Council. Thanks to Steve, the F.O.P. will now play an important role in the transition as the various law enforcement agencies are folded into the new Department of Homeland Security. Under Steve's presidency and at the request of the Administration, the F.O.P. was asked to serve as a Charter member of the National Citizens Corps Council. This group is dedicated to bringing together national leaders from first responder groups, emergency management agencies, volunteer service organizations, State and local governments, and the private sector in an effort to engage citizens in homeland security and promote community and family safety practices across the country. Recognizing the importance of family and the commitment that law enforcement officers make each day, Steve worked with Secretary Elaine Chao to obtain a $2 million grant from the U.S. Department of Labor so that the F.O.P. could design and administer a scholarship program for the spouses of fallen officers. It is evident that Steve Young served our country and his community with honor, courage, and distinction. However, in times of great loss, words often fail to comfort the anguish loved ones feel for their departed. I can only hope that the entire Young family will find solace in the thoughts and prayers of loved ones, friends, and the countless other lives that Steve touched. May God bless Steve Young and his entire family.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to again join my friend and colleague, Senator Feinstein, to reintroduce legislation which will encourage young teachers to go into early childhood education, encourage further learning and credentialing of early learning educators, and lead to better education for our Nation's youngest children. There is no more important time in a child's life than their earliest years. Scientific research tells us that babies are born with 100 billion neurons, or brain cells, that are waiting to make connections, or synapses, with one another. These synapses empower the brain and dictate healthy development and future learning. By the time a baby is three, 1,000 trillion connections have been made, twice as many synapses as most adults have. However, at age 11, children start eliminating those brain connections that have not been used, thus decreasing their potential for learning and development. To maximize their learning potential, we must begin to teach our children the necessary skills before they reach kindergarten. Researchers have found that focusing on these earliest years can make the greatest difference in a child's development and learning, and I know of few other programs that provide the same focus as Head Start. Our bill, the Loan Forgiveness for Head Start Teachers Act of 2003, is designed to encourage currently enrolled and incoming college students working on a Bachelor's or a Master's degree to pursue a career as a Head Start teacher. In exchange for a 5-year teaching commitment in a qualified Head Start program, a college graduate with a minimum of a bachelor's degree could receive up to $5,000 in forgiveness for their Federal Stafford student loan. I was pleased that in the 107th Congress, during debate over the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, this bill was offered as an amendment and was overwhelmingly passed by the Senate. Unfortunately, the amendment was not included in the final version of the No Child Left Behind Act. However, the support our bill received in the Senate gives me great hope that this legislation will be enacted in the 108th Congress. When I was Governor of Ohio, we invested heavily in Head Start so that there was room for every eligible child in Ohio. Because of our efforts, Ohio is 4th in the nation in terms of children served by Head Start with nearly 38,000 students served in the year 2000. I have carried my passion for early childhood education with me to the U.S. Senate. I continue to believe that it is absolutely critical that we do more to help our young people prepare to begin school and it is why I was pleased to work with Senators Jeffords and Stevens to help pass the Early Learning Opportunities Act of 2000. Still, we must now do more to help those teachers who educate our youngest children. The results of a survey undertaken by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services over the past two years has shown a significant correlation between the quality of education a child receives and the amount of education that child's teacher possesses. That is, the more education a teacher has, the more effectively they teach their students cognitive skills, and the more likely that students are to act upon those skills. Current Federal law requires that 50 percent of all Head Start teachers must have an associate, bachelor's, or advanced degree in early childhood education or a related field with teaching experience by 2003. Under Ohio law, by 2007, all Head Start teachers must have at least an associates degree. The more education our teachers have, the better off our children will be. Unfortunately, as we all know, education is expensive. In Ohio today, only 11.3 percent--242--of the 2,126 Head Start teachers employed in the state have a bachelor's degree. Additionally, less than 1 percent--20--of Ohio's Head Start teachers have a graduate degree. We must do more to help our teachers afford the education that will be used to help educate our children. Recruiting and retaining Head Start and early childhood teachers continues to be a challenge for Ohio and other states. The Loan Forgiveness for Head Start Teachers Act of 2003 will help communities, schools and other funded Head Start providers to meet the challenge of recruiting and retaining high quality teachers. It is one of the best ways that I know of where we can make a real difference in the lives of our most precious resource--our children. I am pleased to have been able to work with the National Head Start Association and Ohio Head Start Association, and my colleague Senator Feinstein, on this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join as cosponsors of this bill.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today as an alumnus of Ohio State University and a Senator filled with pride for our 2002 national champions, the Ohio State Buckeyes. I congratulate my home team and their outstanding coach, Jim Tressel, on a spectacular win and the best season ever in the history of Ohio State University--14 wins and no losses. Throughout the season, the Buckeyes showed a remarkable spirit of determination, cooperation, and the best teamwork that I have seen in a football team, frankly, during my lifetime. The Buckeyes have good people and a great leader who inspired his team to do their best--as athletes and young men with character, determination, pride, and loyalty to each other and to their alumni. On the night of the game, some of the sports pundits said that the other team had more talent than the Ohio State Buckeyes. But throughout this season, we utilized our talent more fully than any other opponent. The Buckeyes have that special ingredient--sticking together and working together--a true symbiotic relationship. They understood that the more they cooperated on behalf of the team as a whole the better off all of them would be. That is the spirit that shone through during the whole season--unselfish determination and genuine teamwork. That is what it was about. Their lesson is a good one for us in the Senate. It is the same kind of spirit that we are going to need on the floor of the Senate and in our country if we expect to win the war on terrorism and to become national champions for our hard-working citizens who put their trust in us. We would all do well to emulate the 2002 Ohio State Buckeyes. I congratulate our 2002 national champions and again underscore that if we can maintain the spirit they have of working together, teamwork, and bipartisanship, we are going to have an outstanding season here in the 108th Congress. I suggest the absence of quorum.