George Voinovich

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. I make it clear I am a supporter of this Florida restoration plan. Second, I point out there is this representation that we have all of these Federal resources in Florida that are going to benefit from this bill. And the answer to that, yes, they are. On the other hand, as a former Governor of Ohio, the Everglades are not only a tremendous resource for the United States, but they are also a tremendous resource for the State of Florida because they bring tremendous numbers of people to Florida from which the State benefits. We don't talk about that, but that is the other side of the coin. Senator Graham from Florida mentioned page 118 of the restoration projects. I point out that none of the restoration projects mentioned include municipal water supply. This proposal benefits the municipal water supply to the extent of 20 percent of the overall cost of the project. In my State, the municipal water supply is paid for 100 percent by the people in the community. If we look at the numbers on this project and subtract the benefit to the State of Florida for the cost of paying for this public water supply that they would have to pay for entirely themselves, they are benefiting to the tune of $1.6 billion. If we take the $1.6 billion the State of Florida is benefiting from, the $3.9 non- Federal share they are putting into it, it works out to be $2.3 billion as what they are really paying out because they are saving on the $1.6 billion that they would have to spend on the public water supply. Looking at those numbers, the relationship is basically 35 percent, the State of Florida; 65 percent, the Federal Government. I want the Senators to look at the numbers: 20 percent of this overall project is for the public water supply. Fine. But the fact is that if this project wasn't being undertaken, that public water supply would have to be supplied by the State of Florida or the communities within the State of Florida. This argument that it is a 50-50 cost sharing on the construction costs does not state the facts. It is more like 35-65. Therefore, to say we are paying 50 percent of the construction costs; therefore, it should be 50-50 in operations, I don't think is a proper argument on their part. In addition, I conclude with reference to the equity to the rest of the projects throughout the United States of America. In 1986 we decided O&M would be taken care of by the restoration project beneficiaries. I point out to the other Senator from Florida that as to the St. Luci project and many others mentioned, the Federal Government is picking up 100 percent of the cost that took place before 1986. Perhaps maybe one of the reasons why the Federal Government decided not to pay 100 percent is because a lot of people thought that was not fair.

Mr. VOINOVICH. The cost sharing on municipal waters is 100 percent local. Does the Senator agree?

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I congratulate the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee and his staff, and the ranking member and members of his staff for their terrific work. I also thank Senator Graham and Senator Mack for their patience as we worked through some of the problems we had with the Florida Everglades restoration project. This Water Resources Development Act of 2000 is a product of months of hard work by the Environment and Public Works Committee. The bill provides authority for the Secretary of the Army to carry out 24 projects for water resources development, conservation, and other purposes, substantially in accordance with the Chief of Engineer reports referenced in the bill language. In addition to the projects authorized by WRDA 2000, there are a number of significant policy provisions in the bill, including a provision to enhance the Corps' ability to accomplish multiple jurisdiction watershed studies, a provision to extend the ability-to- pay provisions to all types of projects, and a provision to accelerate project deauthorizations, which is very important. The bill also provides for a facilitated role for the Corps to partner with non-Federal interests in implementing small environmental restoration projects on a regional basis including the Ohio River, the Puget Sound region, New England, the Great Lakes region, Chesapeake Bay, and the Illinois River. There are some who may question the need for a WRDA bill this year since Congress passed a WRDA bill just last year. In reality, last year's bill was actually unfinished business from 1998, and if Congress is to get back on its 2-year cycle for passage of WRDA legislation, we need to act on a bill this year. The 2-year cycle is important to avoid long delays between the planning and the execution of projects, and also to meet Federal commitments to State and local government partners who share the costs with the Federal Government. While the 2-year authorization cycle is extremely important in maintain efficient schedules for completions of important water resources projects--as I explored in a hearing I conducted in May of this year--efficient schedules also depend on adequate levels of funding. Unfortunately the appropriations for the Corps; program have not been adequate to meet the needs that have been identified. I would like to direct my colleagues' attention to Chart No. 1. This chart dramatically illustrates what has occurred. Chart No. 1 shows our capital investment in water resources infrastructure since the 1930s, shown in constant 1999 dollars, as measured by the Corps of Engineers Civil Works construction appropriations. You can see the sharp decline from the peak in 1966 of a $5 billion appropriation, and appropriations through the 1970s in the $4 billion level, to the 1980s, and then to the 1990s, where as you can see, the annual Corps construction appropriations have dropped substantially. Corps projects have averaged only around $1.6 billion during this period of time. Another dramatic thing has happened, as illustrated in the next two charts. We are asking the Corps of Engineers to do more with less. These two charts show the breakdown by mission area for the Corps' construction appropriation in FY 1965 and FY 1999. If we look at the FY 1965 chart, you will see that in FY 1965, most of the money went for flood control, navigation, and hydropower. Then we come to 1999. We find that the Corps' mission has expanded into many, many other areas: Shore protection, environmental infrastructure. So we have asked the Corps to take on a lot more responsibility than it ever had before. As the FY 1999 chart shows, there is a dramatic mission increase with environmental restoration as a significant mission area, and two new mission areas: environmental infrastructure, and remediation of formerly used Government nuclear sites. Environmental infrastructure, as contrasted with environmental restoration, includes such work as construction of drinking water facilities and sewage treatment plants. What is the point of all this? If you recall the chart, the Corps construction appropriations have been falling since 1965, and its falls sharply in the 1990s. At the same time, the Corps' mission has been growing. The result is today's huge backlog of over 500 active projects that will cost the Federal Government some $38 billion to complete. Think about it--$38 billion. These are worthy projects with positive benefit-to-cost ratios and capable non-Federal sponsors. The projects in the backlog that are being funded for construction are being funded under spread out schedules that result in increased construction costs and delays in achieving project benefits. I recognize that budget allocations and Corps appropriations are beyond the purview of this Water Resources Development Act. But the backlog issue impacted very fundamentally the way we approached WRDA 2000 by highlighting the importance of adhering to three important criteria in putting together the bill. We adhered to these criteria which made many of our colleagues unhappy because many of the projects they wanted did not fit into the criteria we laid down. First, we controlled the mission creep of the Corps of Engineers. WRDA 2000 addresses national needs within the traditional Corps mission areas: needs such as flood control, navigation shore protection, and the emerging mission area of restoration of nationally significant environmental resources such as the Florida Everglades. The second thing we did in WRDA 2000 is make sure that the projects we are authorizing meet the highest standard of engineering, economic and environmental analysis. We can only assure that projects meet these high standards if projects have received adequate study and evaluation to establish project costs, benefits, and environmental impacts to an appropriate level of confidence. This means that a feasibility report must be completed this calendar year before projects are authorized for construction. That is a requirement. Finally, we have to preserve the partnerships and cost-sharing principles of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. WRDA 1986 established the principle that water resources projects should be accomplished in partnerships with State and local governments and that this partnership would involve significant financial participation by the non-Federal partners. My experience as mayor of Cleveland and Governor of Ohio convinced me that the requirement for local funding to match Federal dollars results in much better projects than where Federal funds are simply handed out. It doesn't matter if it is parks, housing, highways, or water resources projects, the requirement for a local cost share provides a level of accountability that is essential to a quality project. Cost sharing principles were enforced in this WRDA bill. I am very proud of the discipline that the Environment and Public Works Committee exercised in putting together this bill Chairman Smith should be congratulated. I recognize, though, that not everyone, as he said has been satisfied, but I believe that our authorization actions must reflect the fiscal realities of the Corps national program. Without a doubt, the centerpiece of WRDA is the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. I want you to know, I have spent a lot of time in the Everglades on a number of different occasions. I want my grandchildren and their grandchildren to have the same experience as I have had in enjoying this wonderful national treasure. Our Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Bob Smith and his staff deserve enormous credit for making this Everglades provision a reality, particularly in the very difficult area of assuring that the benefits to the natural system are realized while the interests of other water users are adequately protected. As Senator Baucus said, this is not only the largest restoration project the Corps has undertaken, but it is the largest restoration project ever undertaken in the world. So this is really quite an undertaking. My role in putting together the Everglades title has been to assure that we moved the Everglades Restoration Plan forward while achieving consistency with the criteria that applied to all the projects in this WRDA bill. The Everglades Restoration Plan is extremely important but there are other critical water resources needs reflected in this WRDA bill. I believe the playing field should be level for the consideration of all projects. I want my colleagues to know that we spent a great deal of time making sure that the Florida Everglades restoration plan does fit into the criteria we have establishes for other projects. Originally, the administration's Everglades legislative proposal deviated substantially from Corps of Engineers and Environmental and Public Works Committee policies for other water resources projects, and would have set precedents which would have been very damaging to preserving effective Congressional oversight of the Corps of Engineers program. Our goal was to hold the Everglades project to the same standards that apply to other projects. This is really important. We have accomplished a great deal in meeting this objective. I would just like to mention a few of them to give comfort to my colleagues. First, we have reduced the level of programmatic authority for restoration projects that can be accomplished without congressional review. That is very, very important. The levels we have set are applicable to other parts of the Corps program. We have required that two primarily land acquisition projects have been earmarked to be accomplished under other programs. That was in this. We are saying, No. Those will be done someplace else. We have expressed concerns about advanced wastewater treatment and indicated that more effective ways of providing additional water must be explored. We have eliminated the provision that would have allowed reimbursement to the State of Florida for the Federal share of work accomplished by the State. However, we have retained the ability of the State to receive credit for work in-kind for up to 50 percent of the work but only as this work is accomplished proportionate to Federal expenditures based on appropriations. In other words, they cannot move ahead of Federal appropriations. We have added an incentive to encourage the completion of the modified water deliveries to the Everglades project which is essential to many aspects of Everglades restoration. I think our most important accomplishment was in assuming that individual Everglades projects receive the same level of congressional review as other water resources projects. The administration recommended 10 projects for authorization at a total cost of $1.1 billion without a traditional feasibility report level of detail and without individual project justification. These projects would have been authorized without congressional review of the detailed information normally associated with a Corps feasibility report and required of every other large Corps of Engineers project as a condition of authorization. I am pleased to have been able to add a requirement to the Everglades section of the bill that no appropriation shall be made to construct any of the 10 projects until the Secretary submits the Project Implementation Report on the individual projects. Such reports will be presented to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, and each committee will be able to approve the projects by resolution. This assures that the Everglades projects will get a similar level of congressional oversight as other Corps projects. I believe we have accomplished a great deal in making this Everglades Plan acceptable to all parties. The only question I have is the question of the operation and maintenance costs. I will be discussing that later in an amendment. As a final item, let me turn to the redevelopment of the former Homestead Air Force Base and its relationship to the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. In December of 1999, the U.S. Air Force and the Federal Aviation Administration released a draft supplemental environmental impact statement, EIS on the disposal of 1,632 acres of the former Homestead Air Force Base. About 870 acres of the Homestead Air Force Base has been retained as the Homestead Air Reserve Station. This draft supplemental EIS presents as its proposed action the redevelopment of portions of the Homestead Air Force Base as a regional airport with a projected 150,000 annual air operations by 2015, and an estimated 231,000 air operations at maximum use. As a point of comparison, Reagan National Airport has about 300,000 air operations and Miami International Airport has over 500,000 air operations. The draft supplemental EIS presents three mixed use development plans and a commercial spaceport as alternatives to the regional airport. The draft supplemental EIS was circulated for public comment in December 1999. The Air Force is currently evaluating the comments on the EIS and plans to make a final decision on conveying the property later this year. If we look at this map, here is the Homestead Air Force Base in Homestead, FL. Ten miles away is the Everglades National Park, 2 miles away from that is Biscayne National Park, and about 10 miles away is the National Marine Sanctuary. This is the Everglades project. We can see that the use of this base will have a large impact on this very fragile area of Florida we are trying to restore. I agree with the assessment of the Natural Resources Defense Council and eight other national and local environmental groups, that the information generated in preparing the draft supplemental EIS does not support the proposed action of regional airport development. This information reinforces what common sense would dictate: the Homestead base is an inappropriate site for the proposed commercial airport. Indeed airport development would have a number of different adverse impacts: It would significantly increase the noise in Everglades and Biscayne Parks, potentially affecting wildlife and detracting from the experience of visitors. At places within Everglades Park, the amount of time that aircraft noise would be above the ambient sound levels would increase more than two hours. Portions of Biscayne Park would experience similar increases up to 2 hours. The proposed airport would be an air pollution source equivalent to a large power plant, with increases of emissions to about 392 tons per year in nitrogen oxides by 2015. The secondary and cumulative impacts of commercial airport development would result in residential and commercial growth in the surrounding area that would frustrate planned Everglades restoration activities, specifically, the Biscayne Coastal Wetland feature of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Private environmental groups are not alone in raising objections to the commercial airport development. Federal and State environmental agencies have also raised strong objections. The Department of the Interior, commenting on the EIS, indicated that the development of a commercial airport near Biscayne and Everglades National Parks could have a series of negative consequences on these nationally and internationally recognized resources including significant noise impacts, increased contaminants in Biscayne Bay and impacts on the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt also has publicly expressed his personal opposition to the airport development. The Environmental Protection Agency has serious environmental objections to the airport proposal. The National Marine Fisheries Service does not recommend the commercial airport development because of the loss of buffer areas between the airport and Biscayne Bay. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection is opposed to this development. They say it poses a threat to the protected terrestrial and marine environment within the Florida Keys' Area of Critical State Concern. The South Florida Water Management District is concerned about the impacts of off-site growth generated by the airport redevelopment plan on 40,000 acres of wetlands owned and managed by the Management District. I recognize the argument that the City of Homestead has made regarding the economic boost that the airport would provide to the city and surrounding area. When I was a member of the Ohio legislature, these same kinds of economic arguments were advanced in pressing for my support of oil and gas exploration leases in Lake Erie. However, I believed that the environmental health of Lake Erie was more important in the long run to the economic health of Ohio than the short term revenue from oil and gas exploration. I believe the same is true of redevelopment of Homestead Air Force Base. The environmental health of Biscayne Bay, the Everglades National Park and the Florida Keys are much more important to the long term economic future of Homestead than any airport proposal. There are alternative uses of the base property that are compatible with South Florida environmental restoration--uses that would also make significant contributions to the economy of the region. Clearly if it was my decision to make, I would not redevelop the Homestead Air Force Base as a commercial airport. We are approving a Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan which will involve Federal and State expenditures of $7.8 billion. I believe it would be irresponsible to approve an investment of billions of dollars in the restoration of the south Florida ecosystem, while at the same time ignoring a re-use plan for Homestead Air Force Base that is incompatible with the restoration objectives. My preference would have been to elevate the decision on Homestead redevelopment from the Secretary of the Air Force to the Secretary of Defense to make the decision in conjunction with the Department of Interior, the EPA, and the Department of Commerce. This approach was not acceptable because of perceptions that it would interfere with the process and cause a delay in the decision. I have agreed instead--and it is in this bill--to a sense-of-the-Senate provision that conveys the concern of the Senate about potential adverse impacts of Homestead redevelopment and about the need for consistency in redevelopment and restoration goals. This approach was endorsed by environmental interests, and it is my hope that it will make a difference in the ultimate decision on Homestead. I know that through all of this I have been sometimes categorized as an opponent of Everglades Restoration. Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe my efforts have helped assure that this effort can move forward. I look forward to passage of WRDA 2000 and the opportunity to get started on the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan and the other critical water resources projects contained in the bill. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. VOINOVICH. The point is, I am not referring to wastewater. I am talking about public water supply which is very important to developing any State. You have people coming in, and you need a public water supply. In order to provide it, you have to go to the local people, the ratepayers, and say: Come up with the money. And the Federal Government does not participate. In this project, we are saying to the State of Florida: If you have future municipal water needs, 20 percent of this project is for that. It is an equivalent of $1.6 billion, and you are going to be saving that cost in the future.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Yes.

Mr. VOINOVICH. As mayor of Cleveland, we had to increase water rates 300 percent in order to do the job we needed to do and we didn't get any money from the Federal Government. I think it is really important to recognize that 20 percent of this total cost is municipal water supply. We are paying for the cost of the municipal water supply. They are avoiding some $1.6 billion of cost for this municipal water. That is an enormous contribution. If you subtract out that $1.6 billion from Florida's share on it, it works out to be about 35-65, so that the argument, 50-50, and therefore we ought to do 50 percent of the operation and maintenance I do not think is as relevant as it might be if it was really 50-50.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I would like to comment on the remarks of the chairman of my committee for whom I have a great deal of respect. I would beg to differ in terms of the interpretation of what this water restoration project comes under. This is not a fish and wildlife enhancement under 906(e). This is an environmental restoration under section 103 of WRDA 1986, as amended, which basically calls for: 100 percent of the operation, maintenance, replacement and rehabilitation costs for projects are to be paid by the local participant in the project. Last, but not least--and, again, with all due respect to my chairman--as a former Governor of Ohio, I can tell you that if this amendment is adopted, the Governor of Florida is not going to walk away from this wonderful legislation that is going to help restore the Everglades and commit the Federal Government to--based on our hearing this week--half of some $14 billion. If anyone is going to vote against this amendment because they think it is a deal breaker, in my opinion, it is not a deal breaker. This bill will pass. If this amendment is adopted, the bill is still going to pass, and we will move on with this project.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the time of Senator Thomas.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, one of the primary reasons I came to the Senate, was the fact that I believed we had spent money over the years on many things that, while important, we were unwilling to pay for, or, in the alternative, do without. We had a policy of ``let the next guy worry about it'' or more precisely, ``let the next generation worry about it.'' I have said this before and I will keep on saying it until everyone realizes that we have a national debt that is costing us $224 billion in interest payments a year, and that translates into $600 million per day just to pay the interest. Out of every Federal dollar that is spent this year, 13 cents will go to pay the interest on the national debt. In comparison, 16 cents will go for national defense; 18 cents will go for non-defense discretionary spending; and 53 cents will go for entitlement spending. Right now, we spend more Federal tax dollars on debt interest than we do on the entire Medicare program. It still amazes me to think that 38 years ago, when my wife Janet and I got married, only 6 cents out of every dollar was going to pay interest on the debt. It is high time for our nation to make some headway into bringing down our national debt and lowering those interest costs. As my colleagues know, our nation currently enjoys the greatest economic expansion in our history. We have a robust economy, and across the nation, states are reporting record low unemployment rates. Congress should take advantage of this incredible opportunity to create a lasting legacy for the young people of our country, and pay down our national debt and get this burden off the backs of our children and off the backs of our grandchildren. All the experts say that paying down the debt is the best thing we could do with our budget surpluses. Indeed, CBO Director Dan Crippen said earlier this year: . . . most economists agree that saving the surpluses, paying down the debt held by the public, is probably the best thing that we can do relative to the economy. Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan also said: My first priority would be to allow as much of the surplus to flow through into a reduction in debt to the public. From an economic point of view, that would be, by far, the best means of employing it. Lowering the debt sends a positive signal to Wall Street and to Main Street. It encourages more savings and investment which, in turn, fuels productivity and continued economic growth. It also lowers interest rates, which in my view, is a real tax reduction for the American people. Furthermore, devoting on-budget surpluses to debt reduction is the only way we can ensure that our nation will not return to the days of deficit spending should the economy take a sharp turn down or a national emergency arise. In the time that I have been in the Senate, I have worked tirelessly to ensure that our on-budget surplus is used to pay down the national debt. In fact, during consideration of the fiscal year 2000 and the fiscal year 2001 budget resolutions, I offered amendments that would direct whatever on-budget surplus we received in each particular fiscal year towards debt reduction. In addition, I have been a staunch advocate of ``lock boxing'' both the Social Security and Medicare trust funds to prevent the expenditure of these funds. Further, I offered an amendment with Senator Allard this past June to direct $12 billion in FY 2000 on-budget surplus dollars toward debt reduction. By the way, it passed by a vote of 95-3. It was a great victory, but the celebration did not last long. Unfortunately, all but $4 billion of that $12 billion disappeared: used for other spending in the Military Construction Appropriations Conference Report. My disappointment was somewhat tempered by the news that the on- budget surplus that had been predicted earlier in the year was entirely too low an estimate. As my colleagues know, in July, the CBO announced that our fiscal year 2000 on-budget surplus had grown to $84 billion--$60 billion more than was projected in January. We have to be careful not to squander this windfall, because if we are able to maintain some fiscal restraint--and resist the temptation to spend it in the time we have remaining--at the end of this fiscal year, that $60 billion will be used for debt reduction. We must resist the temptation to tap it before the end of this month--particularly in light of the fact that as of the first of this month, Congress had increased non-defense discretionary spending in fiscal year 2000 to $328 billion: a 9.3 percent boost over the previous fiscal year, and the largest single-year increase in non-defense discretionary spending since 1980. If we do resist the temptation to spend it, I think we should celebrate the fact that we have made a major dent in our national debt; the most significant payment using on-budget surplus funds in more than 30 years. Think of that. But, the fiscal year 2000 budget cycle is just about over. The issue today is what are we going to do to strike a blow for fiscal responsibility in the coming fiscal year. As my colleagues are likely aware, Majority Leader Lott and Speaker Hastert have developed legislation, the Debt Relief Lock-Box Reconciliation Act for Fiscal Year 2001, H.R. 5173, that will allocate 90 percent of the fiscal year 2001 surplus towards debt reduction. What will that mean? Under H.R. 5173, both the Social Security and the Medicare surpluses will be ``lock-boxed,'' and approximately $200 billion will be protected from those who would use those funds for more spending. I think the public should know, so there is no confusion, that it is not a literal ``lock box''--like a safety deposit box--but it is an iron-clad commitment that Congress cannot touch these funds for spending. Instead, those surplus dollars could only be used to pay down the debt. It took Congress until just last year to finally stop using our Social Security surplus as a means to mask more than three decades of spending and instead, use it for debt reduction. We should continue this ``hands off'' approach of the Social Security trust fund. Sadly, we have not yet been able to do the same with respect to the Medicare surplus--having used nearly all of it on spending in fiscal year 2000. Now is the time to treat the Medicare surplus the same as we have treated the Social Security surplus and make sure that it is subject to the same ``hands off'' policy as well. Putting these trust funds in a ``lock box'' doesn't mean that we will have solved the problems of Social Security and Medicare, but using them to lower our debt now gives us added flexibility in the future to address the long-term solvency of these two programs. It is about time we reform Social Security and Medicare. Also under this bill, some $42 billion of the on-budget surplus that the CBO is estimating for the next fiscal year will be used strictly for debt reduction. No smoke-and-mirrors, no gimmicks, just straight debt reduction. Therefore, under H.R. 5173, 90 percent of all fiscal year 2001 surplus funds will be used for debt reduction. I have heard the President and some of my colleagues say that this is just going to squeeze the ability to meet ``pressing needs'' in the coming fiscal year. I do not agree. If the disparity between the preliminary and supplemental surplus projections of fiscal year 2000 are any indicator, there will likely be an upward readjustment of the surplus projections in FY 2001. If our economy should slow and these projections turn out to be too optimistic, then we could cut spending--which would be fine as far as I am concerned. But in the meantime, this proposal will hold our feet to the fire with respect to spending, and our feet need to be held to the fire. My colleagues and I are not asking for a lot, simply that this body stand up and be counted. I hear people every day saying let's do something about the national debt. I hear the President of the United States say it is a problem and we need to address it. So, I say to my colleagues that if we agree that we need to bring down the debt, then let's take advantage of the chance to do so and let's enact this proposal. Reducing the national debt has been a principle of my party. It has been a principle of mine throughout my political career. First of all, you don't go into debt. But, if you do, you get rid of it. Here we have an ability to put our money where our mouths are, and say, yes, we do believe in reducing the national debt. We are going to take this money, put it aside, and pay down the national debt. And while I personally would like to see as much of the on-budget surplus used for debt reduction as humanly possible, I believe this is the best proposal we are going to see as negotiations get underway over the fiscal year 2001 budget. Nevertheless, I believe by capping spending and tax cuts for fiscal year 2001, and locking in set amounts of debt reduction, as this proposal does, we will have effectively established a good first step towards further fiscal responsibility in fiscal year 2002 and beyond. In other words, it establishes a down payment for us to do even more meaningful debt reduction in years ahead. I think GAO Comptroller General David Walker said it best when he testified last year before the House Ways and Means Committee. Here is what he said: This generation has a stewardship responsibility to future generations to reduce the debt burden they inherit, to provide a strong foundation for future economic growth, and to ensure that future commitments are both adequate and affordable. Prudence requires making the tough choices today while the economy is healthy and the workforce is relatively large--before we are hit by the baby boom's demographic tidal wave. When I came to the Senate, I had one grandchild. Today, I have three. Like all other Americans, I think about what the future has in store for them and about the legacy I want to leave to my grandchildren. We have a moral obligation to remove the debt-burden that we have placed on their backs. It is up to this Congress--in the weeks we have left--to pass the Debt Relief Lock-Box Reconciliation Act for our children and grandchildren and for the future of our Nation. The House of Representatives has already stepped up to the plate and passed this bill overwhelmingly, by a vote of--listen to this--381 to 3. It is up to the Senate to do the same. Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to improve upon the District of Columbia's process for measuring and reporting on its performance. This legislation derives directly from a letter sent to me by the Mayor of the District of Columbia, in which he requested that Congress consider making minor changes to the District's reporting requirements so that the city can take one step closer to establishing a system of performance budgeting, in which the city's budget can be linked directly to the performance goals set by the city's agencies. I am pleased that Senator Durbin joins me as an original cosponsor of this bill. Similar to the intent of Congress in passing the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, which re-engineered the management practices at federal agencies, the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Act of 1995 (DCFRMA) mandates that the District begin submitting performance accountability plans to Congress preceding each fiscal year. These plans are to establish objective, measurable performance goals for all agencies and departments within the government of the District of Columbia. The legislation also requires the District to submit to Congress a performance accountability report, following each fiscal year, that evaluates the city's ability to meet the performance goals it laid out in the performance accountability plan for that fiscal year. For the past three fiscal years since the DCFRMA legislation took effect, the performance plans and reports have provided the District with a valuable tool to establish a system of accountability in its operations. The Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring, and the District of Columbia, which I chair, has held two oversight hearings on the District's progress in improving performance, and we are scheduled to hold another hearing in the coming weeks to evaluate the District's progress in accomplishing the goals it set out in its FY2000 performance accountability plan. Although the performance accountability plan legislation has provided the District with an effective framework for establishing a system of performance budgeting, our bill proposes minor changes to the law to improve the utility and relevance of this strategic planning exercise. First, current law provides that the performance accountability plan is due no later than March 1st preceding each fiscal year. However, in order to tie together the city's budget with the performance goals for each year, the Mayor requested that we consider harmonizing the submission deadline for the performance plan with the city's budget to Congress. In order to align the submission requirements, this legislation we are introducing today would change the submission deadline for the performance accountability plan from its current March 1st deadline, to a deadline that is concurrent with the submission of the District of Columbia budget to Congress. By making this change, we hope to align the budget and the performance measures more closely, and help guide the city toward a system of performance budgeting. The second change made by this legislation is to streamline the performance goal requirements that were initially established in the DCFRMA. The current law mandates that, for every goal, the District must establish both an acceptable level of performance and a superior level of performance. Our bill proposes that the multiple levels of performance goals by replaced by one set of ambitious performance targets. This would clarify the goals District managers are expected to meet and align congressional mandates on the District with what is required of federal agencies. Senator Durbin and I hope these technical amendments to the performance plan requirements will allow the District to reform its management system more efficiently, and the subcommittee intends to actively monitor the city's progress in this regard. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 4444, legislation that will extend permanent normal trade relations status to China. In the past few days, the Senate has held a number of votes on amendments that address issues about which I care deeply. We have debated amendments that deal with such issues as ensuring religious freedom in China; organ harvesting; Tibet; and Senator Thompson's amendment dealing with Chinese nuclear proliferation--an issue that needs definite action. However, I have reluctantly voted against including these, and other amendments, to H.R. 4444. I am committed to passing PNTR, and I believe we must pass a clean bill and present it to the President for his signature as soon as possible. It is long overdue. Fortunately, as we approach a final vote on PNTR, the Senate is poised to pass a clean bill, which, in my view, will help continue the growth of our economy, and help bring us closer to realizing many of the reforms in China that my colleagues wish to see implemented. For the past several years, the United States has enjoyed one of its longest periods of economic expansion in our history. International trade has been a vital component of this remarkable economic boom. In fact, the growth in U.S. exports over the last ten years has been responsible for about one-third of our total economic growth. That means jobs for Americans and of particular concern to this Senator, jobs for Ohioans. As my colleagues know, America's trade barriers are among the lowest in the world, and as a result, American workers face stiff competition from overseas. Nevertheless, it is this competition that has made American workers the best and the most productive anywhere, and the U.S. economy the strongest and most vibrant in the world. In my state of Ohio, tearing down trade barriers has helped us become the 8th largest exporter in the United States, and part of Ohio's export-related success can be linked to passage of NAFTA. Thanks to NAFTA, historic trade barriers that once kept American goods and services out of Canadian and Mexican markets either have been eliminated or are being phased out. The positive economic effects have been astounding, including a growth in U.S. exports to Canada of 54 percent and a growth of U.S. exports to Mexico of 90 percent since 1993--the year before NAFTA took effect. My State of Ohio has outperformed the nation during that time period in the growth of exports to America's two NAFTA trading partners. Ohio exports to Canada have grown 64 percent and Ohio exports to Mexico have grown 101 percent. In the last several years, Mexico has moved from our seventh largest trading partner to fourth. Since 1994--the same year NAFTA went into effect--nearly 600,000 net new jobs were created in Ohio. Although NAFTA did not create all of these jobs, the boom in export growth triggered by NAFTA, as well as the overwhelming success of the ``New Economy'' have contributed significantly to this job growth. As in many States in America, unemployment in Ohio today is at a 25 year low; and some areas of the State are even facing worker shortages--in fact, too many. The claims that ``countless numbers of workers'' would lose their jobs due to NAFTA and become ``unemployable'' have rung hollow. According to the most recent data from the United States Department of Labor, the number of workers who have been certified by the DOL as eligible for NAFTA trade adjustment assistance benefits between January 1, 1994, and September 28, 1999, is 6,074. However, not all workers who have been certified for NAFTA trade adjustment assistance have actually collected benefits. Additional data from the Department of Labor suggests that only 20 to 30 percent of all certified workers have collected benefits. This means that most workers have moved on to other employment. It also means that NAFTA works. Building on the success of NAFTA, we have an opportunity to watch lightning strike twice. In November of last year, the U.S. signed an historic bilateral trade agreement with China, a crucial first step in China's effort to gain entry into the World Trade Organization. This agreement--a product of 13 years of negotiation--contains unprecedented, unilateral trade concessions on the part of China, including significant reductions in tariffs and other barriers to trade. In return, China would receive no increased access to U.S. markets, no cuts in U.S. tariffs and no special removal of U.S. import protections. This is because our market is already open to Chinese exports, and by signing the bilateral agreement, China has agreed to open its market unilaterally to the United States in exchange for U.S. support for Chinese membership in the World Trade Organization. If implemented, this agreement would present unprecedented opportunities for American farmers, workers and businesses. In fact, according to the Institute for International Economics, China's entry into the WTO would result in an immediate increase in U.S. exports of $3.1 billion. An analysis produced by Goldman Sachs, which took into account investment flows, estimates that China's entry into the WTO could translate into $13 billion in additional U.S. exports by the year 2005. As good as this may sound, the United States risks losing the substantial economic benefits of this agreement unless permanent normal trade relations status is extended to China. Currently, China's PNTR status is annually reviewed by the President and is conditioned on the fulfillment of specific freedom-of-emigration requirements established in 1974 by the Jackson-Vanik law. However, WTO rules require all members to grant PNTR status to all fellow members without condition. If the U.S. fails to extend PNTR status to China, then both this trade agreement and WTO rules may not apply to our trade with China. I understand that many Americans oppose PNTR for China because of China's record on a number of important issues, including trade fairness, human rights, labor standards, the environment, and China's emergence as a regional and global military power. I share those concerns, but I believe that rather than unilaterally locking the United States out of the Chinese market, the best way to address these issues is by opening China up. For years, American businesses have been repeatedly frustrated in their attempts to penetrate the Chinese market and get through numerous trade barriers used by China to protect its uncompetitive state-owned enterprises. In signing the November agreement, China has agreed to remove and significantly reduce these trade barriers. This would open up one of the world's fastest growing and potentially largest markets to American goods and services in a wide range of sectors, from agriculture to automobiles and banking to telecommunications. It would eventually allow U.S. exporters to freely distribute their products to any part of China without interference from government middlemen. This agreement also maintains and strengthens safeguards against unfair Chinese imports. It preserves a tougher standard in identifying illegal dumping. What's more, with this agreement, we will have better protections from import surges than under current U.S. law. Most importantly, this agreement sets the stage for China to join the WTO and, hence, become subject to both its trade rules and its binding punishments for breaking these rules. The United States has worked for more than a decade to secure freer access to the Chinese market. If the U.S. does not capitalize on this agreement by giving China PNTR status, America's competitors in Europe and Asia most certainly will. Like most Americans, I am deeply concerned about human rights, labor and environmental conditions in China. Some opponents argue that granting PNTR status would somehow remove pressure on China to improve its poor record on these issues. I don't agree. It is important to remember that China already has the privilege of full access to the U.S. market. Let's get that clear. They already have the privilege of full access to the U.S. market. While Congress has repeatedly criticized China's record on these issues, it has never once revoked China's trade status in an annual review. Furthermore, granting China PNTR status would not prevent Congress or the administration from continuing to speak out on any and all issues of concern that have been raised, nor would it preclude sanctioning China in the future. In addition, I regard the expansion of our economic relationship as a far more effective method of influencing change in Chinese behavior than the status quo. If China joins the WTO, the United States will have an unprecedented opportunity to not only export more of our goods and services to China, but also our culture and values. This increased interaction will allow the United States to expose the Chinese people to Western standards of political freedom, human rights, business practices and environmental protection. No one can predict with any degree of certainty the path China will ultimately choose for itself. But I firmly believe that opening China economically to the rest of the world can only help efforts to open up its political system and improve the lives of its people. Some argue that China has become a major military rival to America and that increased trade would finance China's military buildup, thereby enhancing China's threat to our national security. I think this logic as inherently wrong. History has shown that economic integration diminishes military tension and the threat of war, even among historical enemies. The European Union, which brought together two longtime adversaries, France and Germany, is a prime example of this phenomenon. Nations that trade together share a common interest in remaining at peace and preserving the mutual benefits of free trade. Conversely, rejecting opportunities for economic cooperation would only play into the hands of the old hard-line elements in China who are already hostile to both free trade and the United States. As the final vote on PNTR approaches, the question that this body must consider is not whether China deserves to enjoy the benefits of WTO membership. At this point, that is not a decision the U.S. can make wholly on our own, because China will be able to join the WTO if it has the support of its other major trading partners. Nor does the Senate need to determine whether China needs to improve its record on human rights, labor standards and the environment. It is already clear that these issues need to be addressed. What the Senate needs to do is to decide whether our Nation will be able to benefit from a hard-fought agreement that unilaterally opens China's markets to American products, and whether the United States should use this trade relationship to advance democratic reform, build a trusting relationship, and address grievances without hostility. In my view, granting China permanent normal trade relations status is the first step in that process. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. The United States must not now--nor ever--condone this revenge approach in Kosovo in either thought, word or deed. We must maintain and promote our values as a nation--a respect for human rights, freedom of religion, freedom from harassment, intimidation or violence. If this administration, and the next, does not acknowledge and seriously address the plight of Kosovo Serbs and other minorities in Kosovo, then I think that within a year's time there will not be any minorities still in Kosovo. To prevent this, I believe we should be more aggressive towards protecting minority rights in Kosovo immediately. If we do not, I am concerned that the extremist members of the Kosovo Albanian community will continue to push out all minority groups until they have achieved their dream of an Albanian-only Kosovo. In other words, if we do nothing, there will be many who will argue that the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo was tacitly endorsed by the lack of leadership in the international community. It is important to note that the problem does not rest with our KFOR troops, for they have been restricted in what they can and cannot do. These men and women are doing a terrific job under difficult circumstances. I know what they're going through because, last February, I walked through the village of Gnjilane with some of our soldiers, and saw first-hand the restrictions they were under. While I was in Kosovo over the 4th of July recess, I had the opportunity to visit our troops at Camp Bondsteel. Every soldier that I spoke with talked of their commitment to their mission and ensuring the safety of the citizens of Kosovo. I fully believe that it is because of these troops that there is not further violence. I do have hope that we can bring an end to the bloodshed in Southeastern Europe, and I believe that there are some within the Kosovo Albanian community who can prevail upon the better instincts of their fellow man in a commitment towards peace. Earlier this year, at the headquarters of the United Nations Mission in Kosovo, UNMIK, in Pristina, Kosovo, I had the opportunity to sit down and meet with several key leaders of the Kosovo Albanian community and representatives on the Interim Administrative Council--Dr. Ibrahim Rugova, Mr. Hashim Thaci, and Dr. Rexhep Qosja. All three leaders made a very clear promise to me that they were committed to a multi-ethnic, democratic Kosovo, one that would respect the rights of all ethnic minorities. I was heartened to hear these comments. This commitment could serve as the basis for long-term peace and stability in Kosovo. I said that they could go down in history as truly great men were they to make this commitment a reality. I explained that the historic cycle of violence in Kosovo must end and minority rights must be respected--including the sanctity of churches and monasteries. I also point out to them that ``revenge begets revenge'' and unless Albanians and Serbs learned to live in peace with one another, violence would continue to plague their children, their grandchildren and generations yet unborn. It is my hope that they will realize that they and their actions will be keys to the future of Kosovo. We all want peace to prevail in the Balkans, but we have a long way to go for that to happen. I believe we should listen to the words of His Holiness, Patriarch Pavle, the head of the Serbian Orthodox church, who states, ``in Kosovo and Metohija there will be no victory of humanity and justice while revenge and disorder prevail. No one has a moral right to celebrate victory complacently for as long as one kind of evil replaces another, and the freedom of one people rests upon the slavery of another.'' The Patriarch's call for leadership in protecting all citizens in Kosovo is one that this nation should heed if peace and stability in Kosovo is our goal. At the OSCE meeting in Bucharest, I introduced a resolution on Southeastern Europe that had the support of several of my legislative colleagues from the U.S. The main point of the resolution that I offered was to call to the attention of the OSCE's Parliamentary Assembly the current situation in Kosovo and Serbia, and made clear the importance of removing Slobodan Milosevic from power. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire text of the resolution, as passed by the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, the Balkans, with Gavrilo Princip's assassination of Austrian Archduke Francis Ferdinand in Sarajevo, Bosnia in 1914, started the devastation of World War I. World War II had deep ties to the region as well. The Truman doctrine, the basis of American policy throughout the cold war, began with President Truman's decision to support anti-Communist forces in Greece and Turkey, again, in the Balkans. To deal with the historic threat to peace, security and prosperity the Balkans poses, the United States and Europe made a commitment in the aftermath of the Kosovo crisis to integrate the region into the broader European community. This commitment is consistent with the pillar that has bound the United States and Europe since the end of World War II--a belief in the peaceful influence of stable democracies based on the rule of law, respect for human rights and support for a market economy in Europe. However, the Balkans continue to be unstable. Slobodan Milosevic constantly stirs trouble in Kosovo and Montenegro. The minority communities of Kosovo are suffering under a systematic effort by extremist ethnic Albanians to force them out. Moderate Albanians in Kosovo are threatened for simply selling bread to a member of the Serb community. As long as this instability remains, the shared European and American goal of a whole and free Europe will not become a reality. Inclusion of the Balkans in the European community of democracies would promote our Nation's strategic interests. By providing a series of friendly nations south from Hungary to Greece and east from Italy to the Black Sea, we would be in a much better position to deter regional crises and respond to them should they occur. The link to the Black Sea would also provide a link into central Asia in the event that the protection of our national security interests were ever threatened in this area. The U.S. and the EU account for more than 30 percent of world trade. The EU receives nearly 25 percent of our total exports and is our largest export market for agricultural products. The nations of the Balkans, due to their proximity to the EU's common market, have tremendous potential for American investors and businesses to expand these trading ties. Additionally, many in the Balkans have excellent educational backgrounds and work experience that would be invaluable to an American investor. Many nations currently being considered for EU membership began their transition from command economies in a much worse position than the nations of southeastern Europe. If these nations can make enough progress to be considered for EU membership in the short-term, surely Croatia, Macedonia, Romania, and Bulgaria can as well. While we have done much as a country to respond to human suffering around the world in recent years, these efforts are made after the fact. This is a mistake that reflects the Clinton administration's lack of foresight. In Kosovo, for example, our lack of preparation for the refugees created by Milosevic's aggression was inexcusable. To prevent this type of tragedy in the Balkans again--the refugees, the homelessness, the starvation--we must remain involved in the region. I believe that the following steps should be taken to advance our goal of an integrated, whole, and free Europe: NATO and EU membership--The nations of southeastern Europe must be involved in these institutions to ensure their long-term peace, security, and prosperity. However, invitations for membership should only be offered once the nations have met the established membership criteria; Implementation of the Stability Pact--The Pact, initiated by the Europeans to encourage democracy, security, and economic development in the region, must be fully implemented. There has been much talk and promises made about the Pact. Now is the time for action. The Europeans must begin to build the infrastructure projects they have promised in the region. Open European markets--The Europeans have made a commitment to integrate the region into the broader European community. Lowering tariffs on the import of goods from the region would do much to encourage needed foreign investment. Investment, in turn, would speed development which would lead to the integration for which the Europeans have called. To make these initiatives work, the Clinton administration must show more leadership than they have since the Kosovo crisis began. With the debacle of Bosnia in its background, coupled with the failed policies for the region over the last 18 months, our record in the region has been dismal. Implementing the above plan will begin to better this record. the situation in the balkans Mr. President, over the Fourth of July recess, I traveled with a delegation of my House and Senate colleagues to Southeast Europe where I attended the annual Parliamentary assembly Meeting of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in Bucharest, Romania. In addition, while I was in Southeast Europe, I joined several of my House colleagues on a trip to Kosovo and Croatia to get an update on the situation there. I met with UN officials, Serb and Albanian leaders, KFOR commanders, and our American troops, and particularly soldiers from Ohio who are stationed in Kosovo. I have traveled to the Balkans region three times this year to assess the situation in the region from a political, military and humanitarian point of view. Besides my most recent trip, I traveled to Croatia, Macedonia, Kosovo and Brussels, Belgium in February and in May, I attended the annual meeting of the NATO Parliament Conference in Budapest, Hungary, and visited Slovenia as well. Based on the observations that I made, I would like to bring the Senate up to date on the current situation in southeastern Europe, particularly in Croatia and Kosovo. While I was in Croatia this past February, I had the privilege to be the first Member of the United States Congress to personally congratulate Mr. Stipe Mesic on his being elected President of Croatia. During my trip earlier this month, I had a chance to spend time with President Mesic, along with my colleagues from the House of Representatives, and, again, hear his vision for the future of Croatia. We also had an opportunity to meet with Prime Minister Racan, who along with President Mesic, is committed to providing to the Croatian people, a government that abides by the rule of law; respects human rights--particularly minority rights; adheres to the goals of a market economy; seeks the ultimate entrance into the European Union and NATO; and pledges to return minority refugees that were ethnically cleansed out of Croatia. This commitment was supported by members of the Croatian Parliament and acknowledged by members of the Serb minority, who are anxious to see the commitment carried out. I am optimistic about the future of Croatia with its new leadership. Following the December, 1999 death of Croatia's ultra-nationalist President, Franjo Tudjman, Croatia's future was uncertain as far as the West was concerned. However, the changes that have occurred since the establishment of a new government less than six months ago are stunning. I believe that the new government of President Mesic and Prime Minister Racan will ultimately be successful in guiding Croatia to EU and NATO membership. However, the legancy of Tudjman and his ruling elite--who we are just now learning were a bunch of thieves--poses some serious challenges for the ``new'' Croatia. Tudjman drove Croatia deep into debt to a variety of international financial institutions while he and his henchmen ``cleaned-out'' the national treasury for their own personal gain. Because of Tudjman's mismanagement, President Mesic and Prime Minister Racan are facing a situation where their nation's economy is struggling, and they have little help available from outside creditors because of Tudjman's action. These economic problems have an impact on another major challenge the new government is facing--the return of refugees. As my colleagues may remember, the Balkan wars of the 1990s created hundreds of thousands of refugees. These refugees left their homes, abandoned nearly all of their possessions and took to the roads to avoid the bloodshed of ethnic hatred. In order for these people to go back and reclaim their homes and get on with their lives, there must be something to go back to-- jobs, especially. There are few areas of Croatia today where jobs are plentiful enough to absorb thousands of returning refugees, which underscores the importance of reinvigorating the Croatian economy. Despite these problems, I am very optimistic about the future of Croatia if President Mesic and Prime Minister Racan continue to lead their nation towards European integration. I am pleased that the United States is supporting the new Croatian leadership with financial, diplomatic and military assistance. I am also pleased that NATO has invited Croatia to become a member of the ``Partnership for Peace'' program. Mr. President, as I think back to last year, to the time when this nation was engaged in an air war over Kosovo, the President, the Secretary of State, world leaders and the international media all brought to our attention the ethnic cleansing that was being perpetrated by Slododan Milosevic's Serbian military and paramilitary forces against the Albanian people in Kosovo. During the height of the air war, President Clinton, in the Times of London, was quoted as saying ``we are in Kosovo because Europe's worst demagogue has once again moved from angry words to unspeakable violence.'' Further, the President stated, ``the region cannot be secure with a belligerent tyrant in its midst.'' Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee claimed ``there is a butcher in NATO's backyard, and we have committed ourselves to stopping him. History will judge us harshly if we fail.'' Words such as these were meant to back-up our actions in Kosovo and explain to the American people the moral imperative of engaging in a U.S.-led NATO air war over Kosovo. In this effort to protect the innocent civilian Kosovo Albanian community from the devastation of Slobodan Milosevic and his Serb forces, few realized at the time that the United States had stumbled across a civil war in progress. A minority of Kosovo Albanians, under the leadership and flag of the Kosovo Liberation Army, the KLA, were pursuing their dream of an ethnically pure Kosovo, dominated by Albanians and independent from Serbia. These extremists were willing to resort to violence to achieve this dream. On the other hand, Serbia and Slobodan Milosevic did not want to let this province break away, because Kosovo is very important to their history, culture, and religion. Let me be clear on this. None of these circumstances in any way excuses the devastation the Serb forces brought to the ethnic Albanian community of Kosovo. The systematic plan, hatched by Milosevic, his wife and their inner circle of thugs, to instill fear through rape, torture, and murder was designed to drive the ethnic Albanian community out of Kosovo. Their plan was evil in its inception and execution. The United States and our NATO allies vowed to put an end to this tragedy. Through our combined military strength, we were able to force Milosevic to withdraw his troops from Kosovo, making it safe for Kosovar Albanians to return to their homes. And now that the air war in the Balkans has been over for a little more than a year, most Americans assume that the situation in Yugoslavia is now under control and that Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo have put aside their differences, declared peace and are working towards establishing a cooperative society. How I wish that was true. In fact, the reason I have come to the floor today is to make my colleagues and this nation aware what many in the European community already know, and that is, ethnic cleansing is being carried out in Kosovo today. In the wake of the air war, a backlash of violence is now being perpetrated against minority groups in Kosovo, including Serbs, Romas, and moderate Albanians who are now trying to rebuild Kosovo. They have been attacked and killed by more radical, revenge-driven elements in the Albanian community, their homes and businesses have been burned and Serbian Orthodox churches and monasteries--some hundreds of years old-- have been desecrated and destroyed. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a document which summarizes the incidents of arson and murder that have occurred in recent months in Kosovo. These numbers were prepared by the OSCE, which is known for its independence.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, in addition, Bishop Kyr Artemije, a leader of the Kosovar Serbs, presented similar statistics documenting the violence and bloodshed that has been carried out in Kosovo since the end of the war in testimony he gave before the Helsinki Commission this past February. His statistics were updated and verified at a recent meeting that I and several of my House colleagues had with the Bishop over the Fourth of July recess in Kosovo. I ask unanimous consent that Bishop Artemije's February testimony be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. VOINOVICH. My resolution put the OSCE, as a body, on record as condemning the Milosevic regime and insisting on the restoration of human rights, the rule of law, free press and respect for ethnic minorities in Serbia. I was pleased that the resolution passed--despite strong opposition by the delegation from the Russian Federation--and I am hopeful that it will help re-focus the attention of the international community on the situation in the Balkans. In conclusion, Mr. President, I believe that we are approaching a crossroads in Kosovo with two very different directions that we can choose. The first direction--the wrong direction--involves more of the same of what we have seen in recent months. More bloodshed, more grenade attacks on elderly minorities as they sit on their porch. More land- mines on roads traveled by parents taking their children to school. More intimidation, threats and harassment of minorities walking the streets in mixed villages and towns. All this would lead to the continued fleeing of minorities from Kosovo and the establishment of an Albanian-only Kosovo. Again, ethnic cleansing carried-out under the nose of NATO and the U.N. The second direction--the right direction--involves the international community, led by the United States, protecting the human rights of the minority communities of Kosovo. With this protection, the minority groups would feel safe in their homes and be comfortable enough to be involved in UNMIK municipal elections this fall, a key priority for UNMIK. Places of historical significance, especially Serbian Orthodox monasteries, would be safe from destruction from extremists. Minorities would be safe to travel to the market in their own communities without needing KFOR protection, something that does not happen today. Kosovo Albanians who sell goods to minorities would not be threatened, harmed or killed, again, something that does not happen today. In short, bloodshed would stop under the watch of the international community. And there is encouraging news. Just this last weekend, at Airlie House in Virginia, leaders of Kosovo's Serb and Albania communities met under the auspices of the United States Institute for Peace. Among other provisions, the representatives agreed to launch a new initiative--a Campaign Against Violence--whereby the representatives of both communities agreed to a Pact Against Violence to promote tolerance, condemn violence, prevent negative exploitation of ethnic issues, and enable physical integration and political participation by all. In addition, the communities agreed on two key provisions to help reduce the power of extremist elements by calling on KFOR and UNMIK to guard and control more effectively all entry into Kosovo, and requesting that UNMIK move immediately to start-up a functioning court and prison system. Also, the Serb and Albanian representatives agreed on several items regarding the return of displaced persons and refugees to their homes, including the recognition that the return of such individuals is a fundamental right and essential to the future of Kosovo. In order to facilitate such returns, the parties insist that UNMIK and KFOR pursue fresh efforts to provide greater security for individuals to return to their homes, and to expand aid for reconstruction and economic revitalization in those communities. They further agreed that a new model of security and law enforcement is needed, and that the international community must overcome its differences to that UNMIK and KFOR can take much stronger measures to carry out their security and law enforcement responsibilities. Last but not least, the representatives recognize that the international community will not support a Kosovo cleansed of some of its ethnic communities. Rather, all these communities must work together to build a multi-ethnic Kosovo respecting the rights of all its citizens. I say ``Amen and Hallelujah'' to the fact that these two communities can come together and develop such an outline for peace. There should be a loud voice coming out from this administraiton--the same loud voice that we heard last year--to the United Nations, to the UNMIK, and to our NATO Allies that we cannot allow ethnic cleansing of any kind to continue. And I just want the administration to know that I am holding them responsible to make the same commitment to Kosovo now that they made during the war, specifically, to go in and make sure that NATO, UNMIK, and KFOR give the same priority to protecting minority rights today. It is up to the United States to provide the leadership to make sure that the items that the representatives at Airlie House identified as important are actually carried out by the UNMIK and by KFOR in cooperation with the Serb and Albanian communities in Kosovo. Individually, none of these entities can guarantee peace and stability in Kosovo. It is only by working together that peace will occur, and it is the primary reason that the U.S. needs to re-commit itself to Kosovo. We, the United States, with our strength and commitment to the protection of human rights, can largely determine which direction is taken in Kosovo. It is in our hands to live up to that potential. It is in our national security interest. It is in our economic interest in Europe. It is in the interest of peace in the world that we make that commitment. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Statement of Bishop Artemije, Helsinki Commission, Hearing, February 28, 2000, Washington, DC Mr. Chairman, respected members of Congress, ladies and gentlemen. It is my distinct pleasure and privilege to be here with you today and speak about the latest developments in Kosovo. The last time I spoke here was in February 1998, just before the war in Kosovo began and on that occasion I strongly condemned both Milosevic's regime and Albanian extremists for leading the country into the war. Unfortunately the war came and so many innocent Albanians and Serbs suffered in it. Many times we have strongly condemned the crimes of Milosevic's regime in Kosovo while our Church in Kosovo supported suffering Albanian civilians and saved some of them from the hands of Milosevic's paramilitaries. After the end of Kosovo war and return of Albanian refugees the repression of Milosevic's undemocratic regime was supplanted by the repression of extremist Kosovo Albanians against Serbs and other non-Albanian communities in full view of international troops. Freedom in Kosovo has not come for all equally. Therefore Kosovo remains a troubled region even after 8 months of international peace. Kosovo Serbs and other non-Albanian groups in Kosovo live in ghettos, without security; deprived of basic human rights--the rights of life, free movement and work. Their private property is being usurped; their homes burned and looted even 8 months after the deployment of KFOR. Although Kosovo remained more or less multiethnic during the ten years of Milosevic's repressive rule, today there is hardly any multiethnicity at all--in fact the reverse is true. Ethnic segregation is greater now than almost at any other time in Kosovo's turbulent history. Not only are Serbs being driven out from the Province but also the Romas, Slav Moslems, Croats, Serb speaking Jews and Turks. More than 80 Orthodox churches have been either completely destroyed or severely damaged since the end of the war. The ancient churches, many of which had survived 500 years of Ottoman Moslem rule, could not survive 8 months of the internationally guaranteed peace. Regretfully, all this happens in the presence of KFOR and UN. Kosovo more and more becomes ethnically clean while organized crime and discrimination against the non-Albanians is epidemic. Two thirds of the pre-war Serb population (200,000 people) fled the province under Albanian pressure. In addition more than 50,000 Romas, Slav Moslems, Croat Catholics and others have also been cleansed from Kosovo. More than 400 Serbs have been killed and nearly 600 abducted by Albanian extremists during this same period of peace. Tragically, this suffering of Serbs and other non-Albanians proportionally (with respect to population) represents more extensive suffering in peacetime than the Albanian suffering during the war. This is a tragic record for any post war peace mission, especially for this mission in which the Western Governments and NATO have invested so much of their credibility and authority. Despite the sympathy for all of the suffering of Kosovo Albanians during the war, retaliation against innocent civilians cannot be justified in any way. It is becoming more and more a well-orchestrated nationalist ideology directed towards achieving the complete ethnic cleansing of the Province. The extremists believe that without Serbs and their holy sites in Kosovo independence would then become a fait accompli. The present repression against non-Albanians is carried out with the full knowledge of the Albanian leaders. Sometimes these leaders formally condemn repressive actions but in reality have not done anything to stop the ongoing ethnic violence and discrimination. Even more, some of them are instigating rage against Serbs developing the idea of collective Serb guilt and branding all remaining Serb civilians as criminals. There is much evidence that the KLA leaders bear direct responsibility for the most of the post- war crimes and acts of violence committed in Kosovo. As soon as KFOR entered the Province KLA gunmen took over the power in majority of cities and towns and immediately organized illegal detention centers for Serbs, Romas and Albanian ``collaborators.'' They began killing people listed as alleged criminals and seized a large amount of property previously owned by Serbs and other non-Albanians. KLA groups and their leaders are directly linked with Albanian mafia clans and have developed a very sophisticated network of organized crime, drug smuggling, prostitution, white slavery, and weapons trading. According to the international press Kosovo has become Colombia of Europe and a main heroin gateway for Western Europe. The strategy behind the KLA purge of Serbs was very simple--quarter by quarter of a city would be cleansed of Serbs and their property would be either burned or sold for a high price to Albanian refugees (including Albanians from Albania and Macedonia who flowed into the province through unprotected borders along with the hundreds of thousands of Kosovo refugees). The KLA, although officially disbanded is still active and their secret police are continuing their intimidation and executions. Now more and more of their victims are disobedient Kosovo Albanians who refuse to pay their ``taxes'' and ``protection money'' to extremists. The Albanization of Kosovo is proceeding in a way many ordinary Albanians did not want. The gangsters have stepped into the vacuum left by the slowness of the West to adequately instill full control over the Province. Kosovo is becoming more like Albania: corrupt, anarchic, and ruled by the gun and the gang. Serbs and many non-Albanians still do not have access to hospitals, the University and public services, simply because they cannot even freely walk in the street. They are unemployed and confined to life in poverty of their rural enclaves out of which they can move only under the KFOR military escort. The Serbian language is completely banished from the public life. All Serb inscriptions, road signs and advertisements have been systematically removed and the usage of Serbian language in Albanian dominated areas is reason enough for anyone to be shot right on the spot. Thousands of Serb books in public libraries have been systematically burned while all unguarded Serb cultural monuments and statues have been torn down and destroyed. The Serbs who remain in major cities are in the worst situation of all. Out of 40,000 pre-war Serb population in Pristina today there remain only 300 elderly people who live in a kind of house arrest. They cannot go into the street without military protection and only thanks to KFOR soldiers and humanitarian organizations do they receive food and medicines, which they are not allowed to buy in Albanian shops. Almost all Serb shops are now in Albanian hands. In other areas Albanians are greatly pressuring Serbs to sell their property under threats and extortion. Those who refuse usually have their houses torched or are killed as an example to other Serbs. Grenade attacks on Serb houses; on few remaining Serb shops and restaurants force more and more Serbs to leave Kosovo. If this repression and persecution is continued unabated it is likely that soon most of the remaining Serbs will also be forced to flee Kosovo. On one hand, KFOR's presence in Kosovo has given Albanian extremists free hands to do what that want because one of KFOR priorities has been so far to avoid direct confrontation with the extremists in order to escape possible casualties. On the other hand we cannot but say that if KFOR had not been in Kosovo during this rampage of hatred, not a single Serb or Serb church would have survived. We sincerely appreciate the efforts of many men and women from all over the world who are trying to bring peace to Kosovo even with in a rather narrow political framework in which KFOR must act. An especially volatile situation is in Kosovska Mitrovica the only major city where a substantial number of Serbs remain. During the most intensive wave of ethnic cleansing in June and July many Serb internally displaced persons from the south found refuge in the north of the province in the Mitrovica area. In order to survive they organized a kind of self-protection network and prevented the KLA and mafia to enter the northern fifth of the city together with civilian Albanian returnees. KFOR, aware that the free access of Albanian extremist groups of Mitrovica would cause a Serb exodus, blocked the bridge connecting the southern and northern part of the city. Albanian extremists have since then made many attempts to make their way into the northern part of Mitrovica saying that they wanted undivided and free city. Serbs on the other hand state that they are ready for a united city only if Serbs would be allowed to go back to their homes in the south and elsewhere in Kosovo. Serbs also hold that only Kosovo residents be allowed to return to their homes. A few weeks ago, after two terrorist attacks against a UNHCR bus and a Serb cafe, in which a number of Serbs were killed and injured, radicalized Serbs began retaliatory actions against Albanians in the northern part of the city causing the death of several Albanian innocent citizens and served to broaden the crisis. The Mitrovica crisis is not playing out in a void by itself and must be approached only in the context of the overall Kosovo situation. The fact remains that after the war extremists Albanians have not been fully disarmed and have continued their repression and ethnic cleansing of Serbs and other non-Albanians wherever and whenever they have had opportunity to do so. Unfortunately, such a situation as we have now in Kosovo has opened a door for the Belgrade regime, which is ow trying to profit from this situation and consolidate the division of Mitrovica for their own reasons. Each Serb victim in Kosovo strengthens Milosevic's position in Serbia. Albanian extremists on the other hand want to disrupt the only remaining Serb stronghold in the city in order to drive the Serbs completely out of Kosovo. Regretfully, the international community seems not to be fully aware of the complexity of the Mitrovica problem and has despite all Albanian crimes and terror in the last 8 months one-sidedly condemned Serbs for this violence. This skewed view of the problem will only serve to encourage Albanian extremism, confirm Milosevic's theory of anti-Serb conspiracies that he uses to solidify his hold on power and will eventually lead to final exodus of the Serb community in Kosovo. Milosevic obviously remains at the core of the problem but he is not the greatest cause of the current round of violence and purges--the international community must find ways for controlling Albanian extremists. We maintain our belief that the present tragedy in Kosovo is not what Americans wanted when they supported the policy of the Administration to intervene on behalf of suffering Albanians. In fact international community now faces a serious failure in Kosovo because it has not managed to marginalize extremist Albanians while at the same time Milosevic has been politically strengthened by the bombing and sanctions (which ordinary Serbs understand as being directed against innocent civilians). Therefore we expect now from the international community and primarily from United States to show more determination in protecting and supporting Kosovo Serbs and other ethnic groups who suffer under ethnic Albanian extremists. A way must be found to fully implement UNSC Resolution 1244 in its whole. We have a few practical proposals for improving the situation in Kosovo: 1. KFOR should be more robust in suppressing violence, organized crime and should more effectively protect the non- Albanian population from extremists. This is required by the UNSC Resolution. 2. More International Police should be deployed in Kosovo. Borders with Macedonia and Albania must be better secured, and UNMIK should establish local administration with Serbs in areas where they live as compact population. Judicial system must become operational as soon as possible. International judges must be recruited at this stage when Kosovo judges cannot act impartially due to political pressures. 3. International community must build a strategy to return displaced Kosovo Serbs and others to their homes soon while providing better security for them and their religious and cultural shrines. Post war ethnic cleansing must not be legalized nor accepted--private and Church property has to be restored to rightful owners. Law and order must be established and fully enforced. Without at least an initial repatriation of Serbs, Romas, Slav Moslems and others Kosovo elections would be unfair and unacceptable. 4. The International Community, especially, US, should make clear to Kosovo Albanian leaders that they cannot continue with the ethnic cleansing under the protectorate of Western democratic governments. Investment policy and political support must be conditioned to full compliance by ethnic Albanian leaders with the UNSC Resolution 1244. KLA militants must be fully disarmed. The ICTY should launch impartial investigations on all criminal acts committed both by Serbs and Albanians. 5. The international community should also support moderate Serbs in regaining their leading role in the Kosovo Serb community and thus provide for the conditions for their participation in the Interim Administrative Kosovo Structure. Since the cooperation of moderate Serb leaders with KFOR and UNMIK has not brought visible improvement to the lives of Serbs in their remaining enclaves, Milosevic's supporters are gaining more confidence among besieged and frightened Serbs, which can seriously obstruct the peace process. Moderate Serbs gathered around Serb National Council need their own independent media; better communication between enclaves and other forms of support to make their voice better heard and understood within their own community. International humanitarian aid distribution in Serb inhabited areas currently being distributed more or less through Milosevic's people who have used this to impose themselves as local leaders, has to be channeled through the Church and the Serb National Council humanitarian network. 6. The last but not least, the issue of status must remain frozen until there is genuine and stable progress in eliminating violence and introducing democratization not only in Kosovo but also in Serbia proper and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It is our firm belief that the question of the future status of Kosovo must not be discussed between Kosovo's Albanians and Serbs only, but also with the participation of the international community and the future democratic governments of Serbia and FRY and in accordance with international law and the Helsinki Final Act. We believe in God and in His providence but we hope that US Congress and Administration will support our suffering people, which want to remain where we have been living for centuries, in the land of our ancestors. Exhibit 2 U.N. Official Warns of Losing the Peace in Kosovo (By Steven Erlanger) As the humane ``pillar'' of the United Nations administration in Kosovo prepares to shut down, its job of emergency relief deemed to be over, its director has some advice for the next great international mission to rebuild a country: be prepared to invest as much money and effort in winning the peace as in fighting the war. Dennis McNamara, the United Nations special envoy for humanitarian affairs, regional director for the United Nations high commissioner for refugees and a deputy to the United Nations chief administrator in Kosovo, Bernard Kouchner, leaves Kosovo proud of the way the international community saved lives here after the war, which ended a year ago. Mr. McNamara helped to coordinate nearly 300 private and government organizations to provide emergency shelter, food, health care and transport to nearly one million Kosovo Albanian refugees who have returned. Despite delays in aid and reconstruction, including severe shortages of electricity and running water, no one is known to have died here last winter from exposure or hunger. Up to half of the population--900,000 people a day--was fed by international agencies last winter and spring, and a program to clear land mines and unexploded NATO ordnance is proceeding apace. But Mr. McNamara, 54, a New Zealander who began his United Nations refugee work in 1975 with the exodus of the Vietnamese boat people, is caustic about the continuing and worsening violence against non-Albanian minorities in Kosovo, especially the remaining Serbs and Roma, or Gypsies. He says the United Nations, Western governments and NATO have been too slow and timid in their response. ``There was from the start an environment of tolerance for intolerance and revenge,'' he said. ``There was no real effort or interest in trying to deter or stop it. There was an implicit endorsement of it by everybody--by the silence of the Albanian political leadership and by the lack of active discouragement of it by the West.'' Action was needed, he said, in the first days and weeks, when the old images of Albanians forced out of Kosovo on their tractors were replaced by Serbs fleeing Kosovo on their tractors, and as it became clear that the effort to push minorities out of Kosovo was continuing and organized. ``This is not why we fought the war,'' Mr. McNamara said. He noted that in recent weeks there had been a new spate of comments by Western leaders, including President Clinton, Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and the NATO secretary general, Lord Robertson, warning the Albanians that the West would not continue its support for Kosovo if violence against minorities continued at such a pace and in organized fashion. But previous warnings and admonitions have not been followed by any action, Mr. McNamara noted. In general, he and others suggested, there is simply a tendency to put an optimistic gloss on events here and to avoid confrontation with former guerrillas who fought for independence for Kosovo or with increasingly active gangs of organized criminals. ``This violence against the minorities has been too prolonged and too widespread not to be systematic,'' Mr. McNamara said, giving voice to views that he has made known throughout his time here. ``We can't easily say who's behind it, but we can say we have not seen any organized effort to stop it or any effort to back up the rhetoric of tolerance from Albanian leaders with any meaningful action.'' In the year since NATO took over complete control of Kosovo and Serbian troops and policemen left the province, there have been some 500 killings, a disproportionate number of them committed against Serbs and other minorities. But there has not been a single conviction. The judicial system is still not functioning, and local and international officials here say that witnesses are intimidated or killed and are afraid to come forward, pressure has been put on some judges to quit and many of those arrested for murder and other serious crimes have been released, either because of lack of prison space or the inability to bring them to trial. Only recently has the United Nations decided to bring in international prosecutors and judges, but finding them and persuading them to come to Kosovo has not been easy. And foreign governments have been very slow to send the police officers they promised to patrol the streets. Now, some 3,100 of a promised 4,800 have arrived, although Mr. Kouchner wanted 6,000. The big problem, Mr. McNamara said, is the generally poor quality of the police officers who have come, some of whom have had to be sent home because they could neither drive nor handle their weapons. And coordination between the police and the military has been haphazard and slow. ``The West should have started to build up institutions of a civil society from Day 1,'' Mr. McNamara said. ``And there should have been a wide use of emergency powers by the military at the beginning to prevent the growth of this culture of impunity, where no one is punished. I'm a human rights lawyer, but I'd break the rules to establish order and security at the start, to get the word out that it's not for free.'' Similarly, the NATO troops that form the backbone of the United Nations peacekeeping force here were too cautious about breaking down the artificial barrier created by the Serbs in the northern Kosovo town of Mitrovica, Mr. McNamara said. Northern Mitrovica is now inhabited almost entirely by Serbs, marking an informal partition of Kosovo that extends up to the province's border with the rest of Serbia, creating a zone where the Yugoslav government of President Slobodan Milosevic exercises significant control, infuriating Kosovo's Albanian majority. ``Having allowed Mitrovica to slip away in the first days and weeks, it's very hard to regain it now,'' Mr. McNamara said. ``Why wasn't there strong action to take control of Mitrovica from the outset? We're living with the consequences of that now.'' In the last two months, as attacks on Serbs have increased again in Kosovo, Serbs in northern Mitrovica have attacked United Nations aid workers, equipment of offices, causing Mr. McNamara to pull aid workers temporarily out of the town. After promises from the effective leader of the northern Mitrovica Serbs, Oliver Ivanovic, those workers returned. Another significant problem has been the lack of a ``unified command'' of the peacekeeping troops, Mr. McNamara said. Their overall commander, currently a Spanish general, cannot order around the troops of constituent countries. Washington controls the American troops, Paris the French ones and so on. And there are no common rules of engagement or behavior in the various countries' military sectors of Kosovo. ``The disparities in the sectors are real,'' Mr. McNamara said. And after American troops were stoned as they tried to aid French troops in Mitrovica last spring, the Pentagon ordered the American commander here not to send his troops out of the American sector of Kosovo. While the Pentagon denies a blanket ban, officers in the Kosovo peacekeeping operation support Mr. McNamara's assertion. They say no commanders here want to risk their troops in the kind of significant confrontation required to break down the ethnic barriers of Mitrovica. The United Nations has had difficulties of organization and financing, Mr. McNamara readily acknowledges. ``but governments must bear the main responsibility,'' he said, ``Governments decide what the United Nations will be, and what resources governments commit to the conflict they won't commit to the peace.'' Governments want to dump problems like Kosovo onto the United Nations to avoid responsibility, he said. The United Nations should develop ``a serious checklist'' of requirements and commitments from governments before it agrees to another Kosovo, Mr. McNamara said, ``and the U.N. should be able to say no.'' U.N. Chief in Kosovo Takes Stock of Tough Year (By Steven Erlanger) Bernard Kouchner, the emotional chief of the United Nations administration in Kosovo, has made it through a tumultuous year. Last November, when the province's water and power were almost nonexistent, the West was not providing the money or personnel it promised and the cold was as profound and bitter as the ethnic hatred, Mr. Kouchner was in a depression so deep that his staff thought he might quit. He spoke darkly then of ``how hard it is to change the human soul,'' of the quick fatigue of Western leaders who prosecuted the war with Serbia over Kosovo and had no interest in hearing about its problematic aftermath, of the impenetrability of the local Serbs and Albanians, with their tribal, feudal passions. ``I've never heard an Albanian joke,'' he said sadly, looking around his dreary office, the former seat of the Serbian power here. ``Do they have a sense of humor?'' Now, in a blistering summer, Mr. Kouchner's mood has improved. A French physician who founded Doctors Without Borders because he became fed up with international bureaucracy, he is not an international bureaucrat, sometimes uneasy in his skin. He still goes up and down with the vagaries of this broken province, with its ramshackle infrastructure, chaotic traffic and lack of real law or justice. And without question, he admits, some of those problems can be laid at his door. ``Of course I'm not the perfect model of a bureaucrat and an administrator,'' he said. ``But we have succeeded in the main thing'': stopping the oppression of Kosovo's Albanians by Belgrade, bringing them home and letting them restart their lives in freedom. And yet, he said, ``I have not succeeded in human terms'' with a traumatized population. ``They still hate one another deeply.'' He paused, and added: ``Here I discovered hatred deeper than anywhere in the world, more than in Cambodia or Vietnam or Bosnia. Usually someone, a doctor or a journalist, will say, `I know someone on the other side.' But here, no. They had no real relationship with the other community.'' The hatred, he suggested, can be daunting and has plunged him and his colleagues into despair. ``Sometimes we got tired and exhausted, and we didn't want a reward, not like that, but just a little smile,'' he said wanly. ``I'm looking for moments of real happiness, but you know just now I'm a bit dry.'' But he is proud that everyone has persisted nonetheless. As for himself, he said, ``my only real success is to set up this administration,'' persuading Albanian and some Serbian leaders to cooperate with foreign officials and begin to share some executive responsibility. When the head of the local Serbian Orthodox Church, Bishop Kyr Artemije, and the leaders of perhaps half of Kosovo's Serbs decided to join as observers, ``we were very happy then,'' he said. ``We were jumping in the air. We believed then that we were reaching the point of no return. But even those Serbs left the executive council set up by Mr. Kouchner, only to return after securing written promises for better security that have prompted the Albanian Hashim Thaci, former leader of the separatist Kosovo Liberation Army, to suspend his own participation. Bishop Artemije's chief aide, the Rev. Sava Janjic, said carefully: ``Kouchner has not been serious in his promises, and the efforts to demilitarize the Kosovo Liberation Army are very inefficient. But he is sincere, and this written document is important on its own.'' A senior Albanian politician said Mr. Kouchner was ``the wrong man for the job,'' which he said required more forcefulness and less empathy. ``After a year, you still can't talk of the rule of law.'' Still, the politician said, ``Kouchner's instincts are good--he knew he had to co-opt the Albanians, that the U.N. couldn't run the place alone.'' Less successful, most officials and analysts interviewed here said, is Mr. Kouchner's sometimes flighty, sometimes secretive management of the clumsy international bureaucracy itself in the year since Secretary General Kofi Annan sent him here to run the United Nations administration in Kosovo. Alongside the bureaucrats are the 45,000 troops of the NATO-led Kosovo Force, known as KFOR, responsible to their home governments, not to Mr. Kouchner or even to the force's commander. And while Mr. Kouchner was able to persuade the former commander, Gen. Klause Reinhardt of Germany, to do more to help the civilian side, they were both less successful with Washington, Paris, Bonn, Rome and London. The affliction known here as ``Bosnian disease''--with well-armed troops unwilling to take risks that might cause them harm--has settled into Kosovo, say Mr. Kouchner's aids and even some senior officers of the United Nations force. Consequently, some serious problems--like the division of the northern town of Mitrovica into Serbian and Albanian halves that also marks the informal partition of Kosovo-- appear likely not to be solved but simply ``managed,'' no matter how much they embolden Belgrade or undermine the confidence of Kosovo Albanians in the good will be of their saviors. It was on the bridge dividing Mitrovica--not in Paris--that Mr. Kouchner chose to spend his New Year's Eve, making a hopeful toast, so far in vain, to reconciliation. Nor will the peacekeeping troops do much to stop organized crime or confront, in a serious fashion, organized, Albanian efforts to drive the remaining Serbs out of Kosovo and prevent the return of those who fled, the officials say. The discovery last month of some 70 tons of arms, hidden away by the former Kosovo Liberation Army and not handed over as promised to the peacekeepers, took no one here by surprise. ``It was a success,'' Mr. Kouchner said, ``not a surprise.'' In fact, senior United Nations and NATO officials say, the existence of the arms cache was known and the timing of the discovery was a message to the former rebels, who had recently used some of the weapons, to stop their organized attacks on Serbs and moderate Albanian politicians. But few here expect the arrest of former rebel commanders who are widely suspected of involvement in corruption or political violence. The reaction may be volatile, officials say: troops could be attacked and the shaky political cooperation with the Albanians undermined. Is the United Nations peacekeeping force too timid? Mr. Kouchner paused and shrugged. ``Of course,'' he finally said. ``But what can we do? Everything in the international community works by compromise.'' Foreign policemen are also too timid and take too long with investigations that never seem to be finished, Mr. Kouchner says. But at least now, more than 3,100 of the 4,800 international police officers he has been promised--even if not the 6,000 he wanted--are here, and a Kosovo police academy is turning out graduates. One of Mr. Kouchner's biggest regrets is the slow arrival of the police, which bred a culture of impunity. More than 500 murders have taken place in the year since the United Nations force took complete control of the province, and no one has yet been convicted. There are still only four international judges and prosecutors in a province where violence and intimidation mean neither Serbs nor Albanians can administer fair justice. What depresses him most, Mr. Kouchner says, is the persistence of ethnic violence even against the innocent and the caregivers. One of his worst moments came last winter, he said, when a Serbian obstetrician who cared for women of all ethnic groups was murdered by Albanians in Gnjilane, in the sector of Kosovo patrolled by American units of the United Nations force. ``He was a doctor!'' Mr. Kouchner exclaimed, still appalled. ``It was the reverse of everything we did with Doctors Without Borders.'' While Mr. Kouchner says he has put himself alongside ``the new victims,'' the minority Serbs, he carries with him his visit to the mass graves of slain Albanians. ``I'm angry that world opinion has changed so quickly,'' he said. ``They were aware before of the beatings and the killings of Albanians, but now they say, `There is ethnic cleansing of the Serbs.' But it is not the same--it's revenge.'' He does savor the international military intervention on moral and humane grounds. ``I don't know if we will succeed in Kosovo,'' he said. ``But already we've won. We stopped the oppression of the Albanians of Kosovo.'' Mr. Kouchner paused, lost in thought and memory. ``It was my dream,'' he said softly. ``My grandparents died in Auschwitz,'' he said, opening a normally closed door. ``If only the international community was brave enough just to bomb the railways there,'' which took the Nazis' victims to the death camp. ``But all the opportunities were missed.'' That, he said, is why he became involved, early on, in Biafra, the region whose secession touched off the Nigerian civil war of 1967-70, in which perhaps one million people died. And it was what drives him in Kosovo. Mr. Kouchner, now 60, holds to the healing power of time. He points to the reconciliation now of Germany and Israel, and of France and Germany. ``Working with Klaus Reinhardt is a good memory,'' he said. ``He called me his twin brother.'' They both came of age in the Europe of 1968. ``I'm a Frenchman and he's a German,'' and 50 years ago, he said, ``no one could imagine this.'' ``It's much easier to make war than peace,'' Mr. Kouchner said. ``To make peace takes generations, a deep movement and a change of the spirit.'' He smiled, looked away. ``It's why I sometimes want to believe in God.'' Exhibit No. 3 Resolution on Southeastern Europe The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, 1. Recalling that conflicts in the former Yugoslavia since 1991 have been marked by open aggression and assaults on innocent civilian populations, have been largely instigated and carried out by the regime of Slobodan Milosevic and its supporters, and have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people; the rape, illegal detention and torture of tens of thousands; the forced displacement of millions; and the destruction of property on a massive scale, including places of worship; 2. Viewing the overall rate of return of refugees and displaced persons throughout the region to their original, pe-conflict homes, especially where these persons belong to a minority ethnic population, has been unacceptably low; 3. Reaffirming the necessity of fulfilling in good faith UNSC resolution 1244 for the settlement of the situation in Kosovo, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; 4. Condemning the continuing violence in Kosovo against members of the Serb and other minority communities, including hundreds of incidents of arson and damaged or destroyed Serbian Orthodox church sites, and dozens of aggravated assaults and murders; 5. Reaffirming the commitment to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, as stipulated by UNSC resolution 1244; 6. Noting that the OSCE and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) have jointly reported that a lack of security, freedom of movement, language policy, access to health care and access to education, social welfare services and public utilities are devastating the minority communities of Kosovo; 7. Expressing concern for the situation of missing Albanians, Serbs and people of other nationalities in Kosovo and for ethnic Albanians kept in prisons in Serbia; 8. Noting that reports indicate that hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of ethnic Albanians, transferred from Kosovo to jails in Serbia proper around the time of the entry of international forces into Kosovo, have not been released in the year since, that several have received harsh sentences in show trials, and that problems regarding access to and treatment of such prisoners continue; 9. Recalling that the people and governments of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Slovenia have positive records of respect for the rights of persons belonging jto national minorities, the rule of law and democratic traditions since independence; 10. Welcoming the commitment of the newly elected leadership of Croatia to progress regarding respect for human rights, refugee returns and the elimination of corruption; 11. Believing that the people of Serbia share the right of all peope to enjoy life under democratic institutions; 12. Viewing democratic development throughout Serbia and Montenegro as essential to long-term stability in the region, including the implementation of agreements regarding Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo; 13. Noting that the regime of Slobodan Milosevic has been engaged in a planned effort both to repress independent media, and to crush political opposition, in Serbia, through the use of unwarranted fines, arrests, detentions, seizures, blackouts, jamming, and possibly assassination attempts, and also engaged in an effort to stop student and other independent movements; 14. Recognizing the importance of the Stability Pact to the long-term prosperity, peace and stability of southeastern Europe; 15. Supporting OSCE Missions throughout the region in their efforts to ensure peace, security and the construction of civil society; and 16. Recalling the legally binding obligation of States to cooperate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, contained in UN Security Council Resolution 827 or 25 May 1993, including the apprehension of indicted persons present on their territory and the prompt surrender of such person to the Tribunal; 17. Insists that all parties in the region make the utmost effort to ensure the safe return and resettlement of all displaced persons and refugees, regardless of ethnicity, religious belief or political orientation, and to work towards reconciliation between all sections of society; 18. Encourages members of all ethnic groups in southeastern Europe, especially in Kosovo, Bosnia and Serbia, to respect human rights and the rule of law; 19. Reiterates its call upon all authorities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, in accordance with international humanitarian law, to continue to provide for the ICRC ongoing access to all ethnic Albanians kept in prisons in Serbia, to ensure the humane treatment of such prisoners, and to arrange for the release of prisoners held without charge; 20. Encourages the newly elected leadership of Croatia to continue their efforts to reform and modernize their country in a manner that reflects a commitment to human rights, the rule of law, democracy and a market-based economy; 21. Condemns the repressive measures taken by the regime of Slobodan Milosevic to suppress free media, to stop student and other independent movements, and to intimidate political opposition in Serbia, all in blatant violation of OSCE norms; 22. Urges the regime of Slobodan Milosevic to immediately cease its repressive measures and to allow free and fair elections to be held at all levels of government throughout Serbia and monitored by the international community; 23. Calls upon Slobodan Milosevic to respect human rights and other international norms of behaviour in Montenegro; 24. Calls upon the international community to fully implement the Stability Pact, under OSCE auspices, in an effort to integrate the nations of South-Eastern Europe into the broader European community, and to strengthen those countries in their efforts to foster peace, democracy, respect for human rights and economic prosperity, in order to achieve stability in the whole region; 25. Encourages all representatives of the international community operating in southeastern Europe, including the OSCE, the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and other non-governmental organizations to actively promote respect for human rights and the rule of law; 26. Urges participating States to provide sufficient numbers of civilian police to those international policing efforts deployed in conjunction with peacekeeping efforts in post-conflict situations such as Kosovo; 27. Calls upon the international community to target assistance programmes to help those persons returning to their original homes have the personal security and economic opportunity to remain; 28. Calls upon the participating States to organize, including through the OSCE and its Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) programmes that can assist and promote democratic change in Serbia, and protect it in Montenegro; and 29. Reiterates its condemnation of any effort to provide persons indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and its support for sanctioning any State which provides such persons with any form of protection from arrest.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, in addition, a July 3 article written by Steven Erlanger for the New York Times, discusses the observations Dennis McNamara, the U.N. special envoy for humanitarian affairs in Kosovo, had regarding the status of the situation in Kosovo today, particularly how minorities have been treated since the end of the air war and how minorities are being pushed out of Kosovo in a continuous and organized manner. McNamara is quoted as saying that: (this) violence against the minorities has been too prolonged and too widespread not to be systematic. McNamara goes on to say; We can't easily say who's behind it, but we can say we have not seen any organized effort to stop it or any effort to back up the rhetoric of tolerance from Albanian leaders with any meaningful action. The genocide that was inflicted upon thousands of Albanians is absolutely inexcusable and totally reprehensible. Crimes that are perpetrated against innocent civilians must always be condemned and those who carry out such acts must be prosecuted. That is why I do not understand why the President, the Secretary of State, and others in this administration have not been as vocal about the ethnic cleansing that is now being perpetrated as they were last year. In fact, the condemnation for the ethnic cleansing that is now occurring in Kosovo is virtually nonexistent on the part of this administration. I am deeply troubled by their silence. Because I have been following this matter so closely since the conclusion of the air campaign, I have had the opportunity to have a number of off-the-record, informal conversations with people both inside and outside of our Government. While I am reluctant to share this with my colleagues, I feel that I must. There is a feeling by many who are following the ongoing ethnic cleansing in Kosovo that there are some in our Administration who believe that the Serb community in Kosovo is simply getting what they are due. In other words, the murders, arson, harassment and intimidation that extremist members of the Kosovo Albanian community are committing against the Kosovo Serb community should be expected and accepted given what the Serbs did to the Albanians. A July 17 article written by Steven Erlanger of the New York Times makes this point as well. It describes how U.N. director of Kosovo administration, Bernard Kouchner, has been working to foster peace and stability among Albanians and Serbs in Kosovo. He points out that no one is paying much attention now that the tables have turned. Kouchner says: I'm angry that world opinion has changed so quickly. They were aware before of the beatings and the killings of Albanians, but now they say, ``There is ethnic cleansing of the Serbs.'' But it is not the same--it's revenge. And McNamara makes the same point. He says: There was from the start an environment of tolerance for intolerance and revenge. There was no real effort or interest in trying to deter or stop it. There was an implicit endorsement of it by everybody--by the silence of the Albanian political leadership and by the lack of active discouragement of it by the West. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these two New York Times articles be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I could not help but hear the words of Senator Wyden and Senator Domenici about the terrible situation we have across this country today in regard to HMOs dropping senior citizens off the Medicare Plus Choice Program. While I was Governor of the State of Ohio, we had several instances where people were thrown off the rolls of their HMO and forced to be without any kind of supplemental insurance or prescription drug benefits. It is a growing epidemic today in the United States of America. I want to go on record in support of the legislation of Senator Wyden and Senator Domenici. In fact, earlier today I asked Senator Domenici if I could be a cosponsor of this legislation. It is important to point out that some of the on-budget surplus that we now have in the year 2000 and the projected $102 billion in 2001 is generated by the fact that projected Medicare costs are coming in far below what they anticipated because of the formula that was adopted in 1997. It seems to me we ought to look at the situation as it really is, increase the reimbursement to those HMOs so individuals can stay in those programs, and so they don't have to buy Medigap insurance to cover out-of-pocket expenses and prescription drugs. It seems to me it should be our responsibility to make sure those who are now covered remain covered and not be thrown out on the street. I have read so often: Don't worry about those people, somebody else will pick them up, or they can go to fee for service. When they go to fee for service, they don't get their 20 percent out-of-pocket paid for, nor does Medicare pick up prescription drugs. It is time for this Congress to step in and change the system, increase the reimbursement, keep those individuals who are on Medicare Plus Choice Programs so they can maintain coverage for out-of-pocket expenses and maintain the prescription drug coverage they have.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I could not help but hear the words of Senator Wyden and Senator Domenici about the terrible situation we have across this country today in regard to HMOs dropping senior citizens off the Medicare Plus Choice Program. While I was Governor of the State of Ohio, we had several instances where people were thrown off the rolls of their HMO and forced to be without any kind of supplemental insurance or prescription drug benefits. It is a growing epidemic today in the United States of America. I want to go on record in support of the legislation of Senator Wyden and Senator Domenici. In fact, earlier today I asked Senator Domenici if I could be a cosponsor of this legislation. It is important to point out that some of the on-budget surplus that we now have in the year 2000 and the projected $102 billion in 2001 is generated by the fact that projected Medicare costs are coming in far below what they anticipated because of the formula that was adopted in 1997. It seems to me we ought to look at the situation as it really is, increase the reimbursement to those HMOs so individuals can stay in those programs, and so they don't have to buy Medigap insurance to cover out-of-pocket expenses and prescription drugs. It seems to me it should be our responsibility to make sure those who are now covered remain covered and not be thrown out on the street. I have read so often: Don't worry about those people, somebody else will pick them up, or they can go to fee for service. When they go to fee for service, they don't get their 20 percent out-of-pocket paid for, nor does Medicare pick up prescription drugs. It is time for this Congress to step in and change the system, increase the reimbursement, keep those individuals who are on Medicare Plus Choice Programs so they can maintain coverage for out-of-pocket expenses and maintain the prescription drug coverage they have.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator DeWine be recognized to speak in morning business immediately following the remarks of Senator Harkin.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period for morning business until 10:30 a.m., with Senators Durbin and Thomas in control of the time. Senators should be aware that cloture was filed on the motion to proceed to the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill and on the motion to proceed to the intelligence authorization bill. Under the provisions of rule XXII, those votes will occur on Wednesday, 1 hour after the Senate convenes. During Thursday morning's session, there will be a time set aside for those Members who have not had the opportunity to make their statements in memory of our former colleague, Paul Coverdell. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the hour of 12:30 p.m, the Senate stand in recess until the hour of 2:15 p.m. in order for the weekly party caucuses to meet.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Paul Coverdell, our friend and colleague. Paul was an extraordinary human being who really cared. He looked at his opportunity to serve in the Senate as a way to make a difference in the lives of his fellow man. I will never forget Paul Coverdell. He was one of the first people who reached out to me when I first came to this body, greeting me with a warm welcome and caring advice. Although he was in leadership and had many demands on his time, he always had time for me and truly listened to what I had to say. He had common sense and a common touch. I have truly enjoyed working with him on several legislative initiatives, particularly education and the Ed-Flex bill we passed last year. Paul had a wonderful knack for being able to work with people and to get things done. He led by example. He understood that to be a leader one had to serve. There was no job so small that he would not take it. His commitment and ability always made you want to be on his team. His enthusiasm was contagious. He made you feel good just being around him. My regret is that because of my short tenure in the Senate, I did not get to know Paul or spend as much time with him as many of my colleagues. He gave witness to his Christian faith every day. He will continue to be my role model in the Senate. Paul Coverdell will be missed by all of us, but my faith tells me that he is eternally happy with our Father in Heaven. I pray that thought will give comfort to his wife Nancy and the members of his family.

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

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 18, 2000, at 3 p.m., to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.