George Voinovich

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will provide incentives to clean up abandoned industrial sites--or brownfields--across the country and put them back into productive use and preserve our greenspaces. It is time to create more certainty in the brownfields cleanup process. Parties that clean up non-Superfund sites under state cleanup laws need certainty about the rules that apply to them, particularly that their actions terminate the risk of future liability under the federal Superfund program. The bill that I introduce today, the Brownfield Revitalization Act of 2000, creates that certainty by allowing states to release parties that have cleaned up sites under state laws and programs from federal liability. This bill has strong bipartisan support from our nation's Governors who have written to me expressing their support for this legislation. I strongly believe that there should be no requirement that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pre-approve state laws and programs. State brownfields programs address sites that are not on the National Priorities List (NPL) and where the federal government has played little or no role. States are leading the way in cleaning up sites more efficiently and cost-effectively. According to state solid waste management officials, states average more than 1,400 cleanups per year. And they are addressing approximately 4,700 sites at any given time. This is helping to recycle our urban wastelands, prevent urban sprawl and preserve our farmland and greenspaces. These programs are cleaning up eyesores in our inner cities, making them more desirable places to live. Because they are putting abandoned sites back into productive use, they are the key to providing economic rebirth to our urban areas, and good-paying jobs to local residents. This bill makes sense for our environment and it makes sense for our economy. The bill I am introducing today is similar to the brownfields provisions in S. 1090, the Superfund Program Completion Act of 1999, by Senator Bob Smith and the late-Senator John Chafee. The purpose of my bill is to build upon the success of state programs by providing even more incentives to clean up brownfield sites in order to provide better protection for the health and safety of our citizens and the environment. What we don't need are delays caused by the U.S. EPA's second-guessing of state decisions. A good example of second-guessing occurred in my own state of Ohio. One company, TRW completed a cleanup at its site in Minerva under Ohio's enforcement program in 1986. Despite these cleanup efforts, the U.S. EPA placed the site on the NPL in 1989. However, after listing the site, the U.S. EPA took no aggressive steps for additional cleanup. The site has been untouched for years. In fact, it is now likely that the site will be delisted. To enhance and encourage further cleanup efforts, Ohio has implemented a private sector-based program to clean up brownfields sites. When I was Governor, Ohio EPA, Republicans and Democrats in the Ohio Legislature and I worked hard to implement a program that we believe works for Ohio. Our program is already successful in improving Ohio's environment and economy. In almost 20 years under the federal Superfund program, the U.S. EPA has only cleaned up 18 sites in Ohio. In contrast, 103 sites have been cleaned up under Ohio's voluntary cleanup program in 5 years. And many more cleanups are underway. States clearly have been the innovators in developing voluntary cleanup programs, and Ohio's program has been very successful in getting cleanups done more quickly and cost effectively. For example, the first cleanup conducted under our program--the Kessler Products facility, near Canton--was estimated to cost $2 million and take 3 to 5 years to complete if it had been cleaned under Superfund. However, under Ohio's voluntary program, the cost was $600,000 and took 6 months to complete. These cleanups are good for the environment and good for the economy. Mr. President, Ohio and other states have very successful programs that clean up sites more efficiently and cost effectively. This bill would help build on their success by providing assurances to parties that when they clean up a site correctly, they will not be held liable under Superfund down the road. The bill precludes the federal government from taking action at a site where cleanup is being conducted under a state program except under certain circumstances, such as when a state requests federal action, when the U.S. EPA determines that a state is unwilling or unable to take appropriate action, or when contamination has migrated across state lines. The bill does not take away the U.S. EPA's authority to conduct emergency removals or their authority to conduct tests at a site to determine if a site should be listed on the NPL. This legislation also ensures that Federal facilities are subject to the same environmental cleanup requirements as private sites. In 1992, Congress enacted the Federal Facilities Compliance Act (FFCA), which holds Federal facilities accountable to meet State and Federal environmental laws regulating hazardous waste. However, subsequent Federal court decisions have undermined the intent of FFCA and similar language in other statutes. We should be reminded that contamination problems at Federal facilities are largely the result of years of self- regulation by Federal agencies. It is essential that States have the authority to oversee cleanup and enforce their own laws and standards. My bill merely ensures that Federal agencies are held accountable to the same state and federal regulations that govern private entities. This bill is just plain commonsense. It provides more protection for the environment by providing incentives to clean up hazardous waste sites. It helps preserve our greenspaces. And it helps our economy by putting abandoned sites back into productive use, providing jobs and better places to live in our urban areas. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, we are approaching the one year anniversary of the end of the NATO air campaign in Kosovo. But just like a year ago, we find ourselves debating U.S. military involvement in Kosovo and what the U.S. mission in southeastern Europe should be. With respect to southeastern Europe, I believe the Byrd-Warner language that has been included in this Military Construction Appropriations bill is the wrong approach at the wrong time. In addition to our direct national security interests in Europe that would be threatened by this provision, our efforts to encourage the establishment of the rule of law, universal respect for minority rights and market economies throughout southeastern Europe would be devastated by the Byrd-Warner language. In the aftermath of the air war over Kosovo, we have an opportunity to work with the international community to integrate the nations of the region into the broader European community; an action I believe will help avoid the continuation of the bloodshed and destruction we've seen over the last decade. To effectively threaten a troop pull-out-- which the Byrd-Warner language does--jeopardizes our efforts to take advantage of the worldwide interest in the region, and our ability to make an historic positive change for the future in southeastern Europe. Mr. President, we have American military resources on the ground and in the skies in southeastern Europe with the specific intent of bringing peace and stability to the region. Unfortunately, the Byrd-Warner amendment will be viewed by friend and foe alike in the region as a unilateral troop pull-out of Kosovo and an end to the commitment the United States of America has made to our European allies to help bring peace to the war-torn Balkans. The Byrd-Warner language requires the next president to make a difficult determination on American presence in Kosovo soon after his election--a time when he should be working to establish and implement his foreign policy agenda for our nation with his senior management team including his National Security Advisor, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It will be a period when he will need to measure his allies and become intimately familiar with a myriad of foreign policy challenges. His decisions will have a wide national security impact and must not be made hastily, but that is what the Byrd-Warner language does. Mr. President, if we are to succeed in opposing aggression around the globe, we need to work with our allies. However, what the Byrd-Warner language would do is show our NATO allies that as far as peace and security in Europe is concerned, particularly in southeastern Europe, it is Congress' intention to extricate ourselves. I don't believe that is the message that the U.S. wants to convey. For those of my colleagues who are interested in seeing Europe take on more responsibility in southeastern Europe, the issue is, does the Byrd-Warner language help or hurt? I believe it would hurt, because I know that the Europeans have made the commitment, and are continuing to make the commitment, to their southeastern European neighbors. This past February, I was in Brussels to make my feelings known on the subject of fair-share burdensharing to the leadership of the European Union. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that the Europeans basically understand that unless the Balkan region is fully integrated into the broader European community, the region will ``Balkanize Europe.'' I was further pleased to see the Europeans taking the necessary steps that will eventually include the nations of the region in the EU and NATO. Of the total financial support committed to Kosovo by the international community, including humanitarian, development, economic recovery and reconstruction assistance, the U.S. has pledged 15 percent, while the rest of the world has pledged 85 percent. Of the total amount pledged for the operations of the UN Mission in Kosovo, UNMIK, the EU and its member countries have pledged 74 percent, and the U.S. 13.2 percent. In addition, at the Stability Pact conference in Brussels this past March, four dozen countries and three dozen organizations pledged $2.3 billion--well above the $1.7 billion goal to fund regional economic development and infrastructure projects in southeast Europe over the next twelve months. I believe this commitment represents one of the first positive steps that has been taken since the end of the air war towards restoring peace and stability to the region. What I am saying is: on the whole, the Europeans are meeting the challenge. They are supplying the funds and they understand the importance of involvement in the region. They are surpassing the thresholds established in the Byrd-Warner language. What the U.S. needs to do is encourage them. For those nations that are responding to the challenge, pat them on the back. And for those that aren't, coax them into contributing. We should be working with our allies in a cooperative fashion and not a confrontational one. We need to understand that while the Europeans are handling the bulk of the spending in the region, we must also be willing to come to the table to provide leadership and a little bit of a financial commitment. When I was in Brussels, the importance of the United States to provide leadership was underscored by members of NATO and the EU alike. In addition, our leadership is absolutely desired and sought by the benefactors of the Stability Pact. Just last week, I received a letter from the Bulgarian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nadezhda Mihailova, who reiterated the need for the United States to stay at the table. She said: . . . the importance of U.S. leadership in southeastern Europe during reconstruction and beyond cannot be overestimated--it is critical to the future success of the region. It is imperative that we stay focused and interested in what happens in this region of the world. We should try to imagine what actions Slobodan Milosevic will take if he knows that the United States has given up its commitment to restoring peace in Kosovo. Imagine the last U.S. plane, the last armored personnel carrier, the last U.S. soldier leaving Kosovo. How confident can we be that Milosevic will not renew his reign of terror against the people of Kosovo in an effort to solidify his power. What if he moves aggressively into Montenegro to quell the Djukanovic threat in the vacuum created by the American withdrawal. What will the United States do then? We are also trying to get the Kosovo Albanian community, especially former members of the KLA, to support the rule of law and help establish a governmental framework to make it work. Can any of my colleagues imagine the psychological blow to this cause if they believe that the U.S. is pulling the plug and leaving? There is no way they will disarm. And, as a matter of fact, without U.S. support, the moderate factions could be swept-up into the arms of the zealots. Can you also imagine what the prospect a U.S. pull-out will have on the Kosovo Serbs who have not fled; who chose to stay and try to live in peace with the Kosovo Albanians? What about those we encouraged to stay to help be a part of the interim government? With Milosevic's campaign of ethnic cleansing still fresh in the minds of many Kosovo Albanians, what will become of the Kosovo Serbs without the protection of the United States? What will become of the fragile peace and the fledgling government that we are trying to establish? It is my belief that even the possibility of departure will destroy any chance for stability in Kosovo, as well as end the prospect of reconciliation in Kosovo. And what about extremist factions throughout the region, in Bosnia, Macedonia, Croatia, etc.--factions that have remained relatively dormant due to the U.S. presence? I think about Mr. Arber Xhaferi in Macedonia, one of the key leaders of the Albanian community there, who's working with President Boris Trajkovski to create a truly multi- ethnic Macedonia. President Trajkovski's democratically elected government has made it clear that the ethnic Albanian community, which makes up roughly 25 percent to 30 percent of the population, is an integral and respected component of society. However, there is evidence of an extremist element within the ethnic Albanian community. These individuals are willing to resort to violence in order to destabilize the government of Macedonia, and put in its place a government run by Albanians, for Albanians. There is genuine concern in Macedonia, as well as other nations, that if the United States leaves southeastern Europe, the deterrent factor on the extremist elements will have been removed, allowing for further regional instability. Mr. President, I have the greatest respect for my distinguished colleagues, Senators Warner and Byrd, but their amendment to this bill puts us on a course that will unravel the prospect of a peaceful integration of southeastern Europe into the whole of Europe. We have the ability to help keep the peace in southeastern Europe, and I believe we should continue to provide our leadership and our fair share of the costs during the next several years as we deal with the transition in Kosovo and the fall from power of Slobodan Milosevic. We should ensure the countries of the region that we do care about their future, and that we understand how fragile the political situation is in countries like Bulgaria, Macedonia, Romania and Croatia. We need to let them know that we understand how important it is to support their new democratic leadership as they transition to multi-ethnic societies that respect human rights, the rule of law and which embrace market economies. A commitment on the part of the United States to the Balkans on all of these items will help ensure stability for generations to come. I believe by working together--Congress and the White House--we can come up with a solution that will allow for the United States to continue to live up to such a commitment in southeastern Europe. Our allies are willing to stay the course; they have made a commitment to southeastern Europe and have put their money where their mouth is. It's no time for us to leave them high and dry. It is not in the interest of our national security, our economic interests or the cause of peace in the world. I urge my colleagues to support the Levin amendment. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Today, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 11 a.m. with Senators Murkowski, Kennedy, and Dorgan in control of the time. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 2521, the military construction appropriations bill. Senators who have general statements on the bill are encouraged to come to the floor during this morning's session. As a reminder, votes are possible throughout the day's session and throughout the remainder of the week. Notification will be given as votes are scheduled. Senators can expect votes on Mondays and Fridays during the consideration of the appropriations bills. I thank my colleagues for their cooperation. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, over the last half century, and at facilities all across America, tens of thousands of dedicated men and women in our civilian federal workforce helped keep our military fully supplied and our nation fully prepared to meet any potential threat. Their success is measured in part with the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, for many of these workers, their success came at a high price; the sacrifice of their health, and even their lives, for our liberty. I believe we have a federal obligation to live up to our responsibilities with these Cold War veterans. The bill I am introducing today, along with Senators Reid, DeWine, Kennedy, McConnell, Bryan, Harkin, Thompson, Frist, and Bunning is titled the ``Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act of 2000.'' This bill will provide financial compensation to Department of Energy workers whose impaired health has been caused by exposure to beryllium, radiation or other hazardous substances while working for the defense of the United States. The bill will also provide compensation to survivors of workers who have died while suffering from an illness resulting from exposure to these substances. Many will express concern that it will be hard to prove if someone was made chronically ill by their work environment, however, such concerns can be refuted. For example, beryllium disease is a ``fingerprint'' disease, in that it leaves no doubt as to what caused the illness of the sufferer. Additionally, the only processing of the materials that cause Chronic Beryllium Disease is unique to our nuclear weapons facilities. Skepticism is understandable in many cases of radiation exposure at DoE facilities because the records may not generally reflect employee exposure to radioactive materials. However, concerns have been raised that the DoE destroyed or altered workers' records. Additionally, dosimeter badges, which record radiation exposure, were not always required to be worn by workers. When they were required to be worn, they were not always done so properly or consistently. DoE plant management would even ``zero'' dose badges. Therefore, many records do not exist, and where they do exist, there is adequate reason to doubt their accuracy. That is why this bill places the burden of proof on the government to prove that an employee's illness was not caused by workplace hazards. As one who believes we should rely on sound science, I would certainly support a method for compensation based on this principle if it was available. Unfortunately in this case, sound science either does not exist in DoE facility records, or it cannot be relied upon for accuracy. That's precisely what happened in my state of Ohio. In a series of newspaper articles from the Columbus Dispatch, it was shown that for decades, some workers at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon, Ohio--a plant which processes high-quality nuclear material--did not know they had been exposed to dangerous levels of radioactive material. That's because until recently, proper safety precautions were rarely taken to adequately protect workers' safety. Even when precautions were taken, the application of protective standards was inconsistent. In addition, workers at the Piketon plant have stated that plant management not only did not keep adequate dosimetry records, in some cases, they changed the dosimetry records to show lower levels of radiation exposure. If consistent, reliable and factual data is not available, then it will be quite difficult to utilize sound science. Similar occurrences have been reported at the Fernald Feed Materials Production Center in Fernald, Ohio and the Mound Facility in Miamisburg, Ohio as well as other facilities nationwide. The DoE has admitted that at some facilities, workers were not told the nature of the substances with which they were working, nor the ramifications that these materials may have on their future health and quality of life. It is unconscionable that DoE managers and other individuals in positions of responsibility could be so insensitive and uncaring about their fellow man. Last year, the Toledo Blade published an award-winning series of articles outlining the plight of workers suffering from Chronic Beryllium Disease (CBD). While government standards were met in protecting the workers from exposure to the beryllium dust, many workers still were diagnosed with CBD. The stories of these workers who are suffering from this often debilitating disease are heart-wrenching. It is estimated that 1,200 people have contracted CBD, and hundreds have died from it, making CBD the number one disease directly caused by our Cold War effort. Title one of this bill provides compensation to individuals suffering from Chronic Beryllium Disease (CBD). Beryllium, which is a toxic substance, can cause major health problems if proper precautions are not taken while it is being handled. Individuals who suffer from Chronic Beryllium Disease experience a loss of lung function, and in many cases face a painful death. While there is a blood test that can detect CBD, and there are treatments for it, there is no cure. Under this bill, if the disease is confirmed, it is presumed work-related and workers compensation at benefit levels established under the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA) is paid--roughly two- thirds of six years worth of wages and health care coverage. Alternatively, a claimant can elect a one-time lump sum payment of $200,000 (with healthcare benefits related to their disease) in lieu of wage replacement payments. Employees at DoE sites and DoE beryllium vendors would be covered under the bill. Title two of this bill covers illnesses related to radiation and other hazardous substances. The first part of this title covers workers at all DoE sites who contract cancer that has been potentially caused by exposure to radiation (radiogenic cancer), worked at the site for at least one year and wore a radiation dosimeter badge or should have worn one. Causation is presumed if the covered cancer is a primary cancer. Again, benefits are paid at FECA levels, or in the alternative, a claimant can elect a one-time lump sum payment of $200,000 (with healthcare benefits) in lieu of wage replacement payments. The presumption is modeled after the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. This proposal incorporates all DoE sites across the nation, plus four vendor facilities. The second part of this title covers workers at DoE sites for illness, impairment, disease or death, using a FECA level of benefits. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is required to create a panel of occupational doctors to review the claims for the Department of Labor, and the threshold for eligibility is whether exposure was a significant contributing factor to a worker's illness. The bill allows claimants to seek a second medical opinion. Further, the bill directs the HHS to empanel occupational physicians to develop additional presumptions for use in guiding future HHS and Labor Department decisions. To obtain restitution under the bill, claimants would file with the Department of Labor's Office of Worker Compensation Programs under a FECA-like program but not FECA itself. The claims reviewer, after obtaining all the necessary information, would have 120 days to render a decision. If a denial is issued, the claimant can appeal to an administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ has 180 days to render an opinion. If an opinion is not rendered, the appeal can be brought to the federal Benefits Review Board (BRB). The BRB has 240 days to render an opinion, after which appeals can be brought to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Failure to meet deadlines by the DoL results in a default in favor of the claimant. This approach is intended to remedy the major defects in FECA, which excludes any rights to the Courts and results in years of delay in many cases. Mr. President, there may be some who will say that this bill costs too much, or we can't afford it so we shouldn't do it. I strongly disagree. Congress appropriates billions of dollars annually on things that are not the responsibility of the federal government. And here we have a clear instance where our federal government is responsible for the actions it has taken and the negligence it has shown against its own people. This is an issue where peoples' health has been compromised and lives have been lost. In many instances, these workers didn't even know that their health and safety was in jeopardy. It is not only a responsibility of this government to provide for these individuals, it is a moral obligation. Mr. President, it is unfortunate that a bill establishing this type of compensation program is necessary; it is little consolation for the pain, health problems and diminished quality of life that these individuals have suffered. These men and women who won the Cold War have only asked that the United States government--the government of the nation that they spent their lives defending--acknowledge that they were made ill in the course of doing their job and recognize that the government must take care of them. Sadly, because of the government's stonewalling and denial of responsibility, the only way many of these employees believe they will ever receive proper restitution for what the government has done is to file a lawsuit against the Department of Energy or its contractors. That should not have to happen and it is my hope that this legislation will preclude any perceived need for such lawsuits. I believe that all those who have served our nation fighting the Cold War deserve to know if the federal government was responsible for causing them illness or harm, and if so, to provide them the care that they need. I encourage my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this legislation and I urge the Senate to consider this bill during this session of Congress.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I have been very impressed with the words of my colleagues, the two Senators from Massachusetts, the Senator from Alaska, the Senator from Vermont, and now the Senator from Missouri. One of the things I decided on doing when I came to the Senate was to bring my passion for early childhood development to the Senate and to encourage my colleagues to give a much higher priority to children age prenatal to 3 than we have been giving in this country. Early childhood development, especially covering children age prenatal to 3, is fundamental if this Nation is to achieve the first of our eight national education goals, and that is, ``all children in America will start school ready to learn.'' There are great programs for children, such as Head Start, which Congress has supported for 35 years. I am proud that when I was Governor of Ohio, we increased spending for Head Start by 1,000 percent. So in our State today, every eligible child whose parent wants them in a Head Start Program has a slot for that child. Even though Head Start has made a tremendous impact on our children, we must recognize that the program is designed for 3- and 4-year-olds. The period in a child's life in which we have not invested enough in this country, and the period on which we need to start concentrating, is the period in a child's life from prenatal to age 3. It is the time in a child's life that has the most impact on their overall development. Thanks to decades of research on brain chemistry, and through the utilization of sophisticated new technology, neuroscientists are now telling us that within the first 3 months in the womb, children start to develop the 100 billion neurons they will need as adults. By the time they reach the age of 3, children have all the necessary connections--what we call synapses--between brain cells that cause the brain to function properly. What I am saying is almost frightening. If we do not create an appropriate environment for our children prenatal to age 3, they physically do not develop these synapses in their brains, and they are incapable of using what God has given them in the most efficient way possible. In terms of priorities, the experiences that fill a child's first days, months, and years have a critical and decisive impact on the development of the brain and on the nature and extent of their adult capacities--in other words, who they are going to become. The window of opportunity can be impacted by things that are within our control. We found, for example, children who lack proper nutrition, health care, and nurturing during their first years tend also to lack adequate social, motor, and language skills needed to perform well in school. That is why all young children, parents, and care givers of those children should have access to information and support services appropriate for promoting healthy early childhood development in the first years of life, including child care, early intervention services, parenting education, health care, and other child development services. This new revelation requires that States streamline and coordinate healthy early childhood development systems. It also necessitates that the Federal Government reorder its education priorities to reflect the importance of a child's learning and growing experiences from prenatal to age 3. This amendment responds to the obvious shortcomings of the Federal Government's partnership with State governments and encourages States to coordinate and galvanize all public and private assets on the State and local level. The amendment authorizes the expenditure of some $3.2 billion over the next 3 years to make grants available to our States, and subsequently to the counties, in order to provide or improve early learning services for young children. I want to underscore, this is not a new entitlement. I want to emphasize, what we are trying to do is prioritize money we are already spending for education and put more of it into early development programs where it is going to make the biggest difference for our children. In order to receive this money, it does one other thing I think is very important. In too many communities in the United States, local social service, public, and private agencies do not cooperate and combine their resources. They do not collaborate enough to deliver services to children in their community. This amendment will require that: A State shall designate a lead State agency . . . to administer and monitor the grant and ensure State-level coordination of early learning programs. For their part, localities must also follow guidelines to be eligible to receive funds. Again, from the bill, ``a locality shall establish or designate a local council, which shall be composed of--representatives of local agencies directly affected by early learning programs; parents; other individuals concerned with early learning issues in the locality, such as individuals providing child care resource and referral services, early learning opportunities, child care, education and health services; and other key community leaders.'' This could also include faith-based community organizations. We are saying that unless a State gets its act together and gets its agencies that deal with families and children into a lead state agency in order to coordinate activities, and unless local communities come together in collaboratives, the money will not flow to those collaboratives. In a way, it is an inducement for local private-public agencies to get together to talk about how they can look at the early period in a child's life and make a difference and galvanize all the resources in the community. It will help eliminate some of the turf problems throughout this country where agencies do their own thing without working with other agencies. It will encourage agencies to understand they have a symbiotic relationship with each other, and by working together, they can make a difference on behalf of the children in their respective communities. In Ohio, we established the Ohio Family and Children First Initiative which was driven by locally based providers and not bureaucrats. The initiative developed a plan to meet the health, education, and social service needs of disadvantaged children and families and develop an action plan to meet those needs by eliminating barriers, coordinating programs, and targeting dollars. We started out in Ohio with only 9 programs in 13 of our 88 counties. We put out an RFP and said those counties that get their act together can participate in the program. It was such a success that today all 88 counties that have these collaboratives that are making a difference in the lives of our children. In my own county, we have a wonderful example of what can happen when agencies work together. The Cuyahoga County Early Childhood Initiative has undertaken a 3-year $40 million pilot program to promote and improve effective parenting, healthy children, and quality child care in order to assure the well-being of all children in the county from birth through age 5. Under this collaborative partnership, which began last July, $30 million comes from a combination of local, State, and Federal sources, and $8.5 million has thus far been committed by 18 local foundations. In other words, this is a program where we are combining local, State, and Federal resources and private resources to make an impact on these youngsters. One of the more innovative aspects of this initiative is that it guarantees a visit by a registered nurse, if requested, to every first- time and teen mother in the county. These nurses help identify health and social service needs of both moms and babies, and link families with services that underscore and highlight the importance of a child's first 3 years. I will never forget when I was Governor, for my 1998 State of the State Address, I invited people who were benefiting from some of the programs we instituted. One of the individuals I invited was a woman from one of our rural counties. I asked her before the State of the State Address: What did this program do for you? This may sound elementary, but she said: I had my baby, I came home, I put the baby in the crib, and I watched television. When the nurse came out, she said that I should hold my baby, I should sing to my baby, I should read to my baby. She taught me how to use Ziploc bags to make picture books so that I could look at those pictures with my baby. I was told the more I stimulated and spent time with that baby, the more that baby would develop the brain power that God had given her. Another program we put in place was Help Me Grow, which gives new mothers in Ohio a wellness guide, an informational video, and access to a telephone helpline so that, right from the beginning, new mothers can get the information they need and know where they can turn for help. Again, it is a private sector initiative that came about as a result of the Family and Children First Initiative. In other words, a woman has a baby at the hospital. She gets a 30-minute video which tells her how to be a better mother. A nurse spends time with her. It is a ``how to do it'' initiative. This may be hard to believe, but women all over this country are having babies and need help in what to do when that child is born. This program is going to help make that possible. The amendment from the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Vermont will expand the collaborative effort nationwide. This amendment conditions the Federal dollars that localities receive through the lead State agency on the ability of communities to come together and establish collaborative efforts. That means, as I said, putting aside the ``turf battles'' and galvanizing the resources. I want to emphasize how important this is. These Federal dollars will be what I refer to as ``the yeast that raises the dough.'' In other words, these funds will act as seed money generating additional local and State resources, and better use of Federal resources, as well as private sector and foundation funds, all to help our children. I know this program is going to work because of the way it has worked in the State of Ohio. Early childhood has been a passion of mine since my four children were enrolled in a storefront Montessori school when they were just out of diapers. On the Federal level, the Governors understand how important this program is. In 1998, some 42 Governors chose to highlight early childhood development as a major portion of their State agendas. With this amendment, we will make the Federal Government become a more effective partner with State governments. It will kick start the local and State agencies to better coordinate and collaborate so we can maximize all the resources that are available in the community. More important, this will give us the opportunity to take the God- given qualities of our most important resource in this country--our children--and provide them the environment they need to fully develop during their most crucial period in life. Finally--and again I underscore for my colleagues--this is not a new entitlement. It is my hope that my colleagues on the Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee will reprioritize some of the funds we currently spend on education and other health and social services toward early childhood development. To track what happens with these Federal funds, the amendment requires that States report back on what they have been able to accomplish, ensuring there is accountability for these resources. This amendment is about our children's future. It is about our country's future. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment on a bipartisan basis. Of all of the things we can do for children in this country, the most important thing we can do is impact on them during this most important period in their life, and what we do during this period in a child's life, in my opinion, is going to be the best investment we can make in our children. All the research shows that for every dollar we invest during a child's earliest years, we save $4 and $5 later on in their lives. I thank the Chair.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, over the last half century, and at facilities all across America, tens of thousands of dedicated men and women in our civilian federal workforce helped keep our military fully supplied and our nation fully prepared to meet any potential threat. Their success is measured in part with the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, for many of these workers, their success came at a high price; the sacrifice of their health, and even their lives, for our liberty. I believe we have a federal obligation to live up to our responsibilities with these Cold War veterans. The bill I am introducing today, along with Senators Reid, DeWine, Kennedy, McConnell, Bryan, Harkin, Thompson, Frist, and Bunning is titled the ``Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act of 2000.'' This bill will provide financial compensation to Department of Energy workers whose impaired health has been caused by exposure to beryllium, radiation or other hazardous substances while working for the defense of the United States. The bill will also provide compensation to survivors of workers who have died while suffering from an illness resulting from exposure to these substances. Many will express concern that it will be hard to prove if someone was made chronically ill by their work environment, however, such concerns can be refuted. For example, beryllium disease is a ``fingerprint'' disease, in that it leaves no doubt as to what caused the illness of the sufferer. Additionally, the only processing of the materials that cause Chronic Beryllium Disease is unique to our nuclear weapons facilities. Skepticism is understandable in many cases of radiation exposure at DoE facilities because the records may not generally reflect employee exposure to radioactive materials. However, concerns have been raised that the DoE destroyed or altered workers' records. Additionally, dosimeter badges, which record radiation exposure, were not always required to be worn by workers. When they were required to be worn, they were not always done so properly or consistently. DoE plant management would even ``zero'' dose badges. Therefore, many records do not exist, and where they do exist, there is adequate reason to doubt their accuracy. That is why this bill places the burden of proof on the government to prove that an employee's illness was not caused by workplace hazards. As one who believes we should rely on sound science, I would certainly support a method for compensation based on this principle if it was available. Unfortunately in this case, sound science either does not exist in DoE facility records, or it cannot be relied upon for accuracy. That's precisely what happened in my state of Ohio. In a series of newspaper articles from the Columbus Dispatch, it was shown that for decades, some workers at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon, Ohio--a plant which processes high-quality nuclear material--did not know they had been exposed to dangerous levels of radioactive material. That's because until recently, proper safety precautions were rarely taken to adequately protect workers' safety. Even when precautions were taken, the application of protective standards was inconsistent. In addition, workers at the Piketon plant have stated that plant management not only did not keep adequate dosimetry records, in some cases, they changed the dosimetry records to show lower levels of radiation exposure. If consistent, reliable and factual data is not available, then it will be quite difficult to utilize sound science. Similar occurrences have been reported at the Fernald Feed Materials Production Center in Fernald, Ohio and the Mound Facility in Miamisburg, Ohio as well as other facilities nationwide. The DoE has admitted that at some facilities, workers were not told the nature of the substances with which they were working, nor the ramifications that these materials may have on their future health and quality of life. It is unconscionable that DoE managers and other individuals in positions of responsibility could be so insensitive and uncaring about their fellow man. Last year, the Toledo Blade published an award-winning series of articles outlining the plight of workers suffering from Chronic Beryllium Disease (CBD). While government standards were met in protecting the workers from exposure to the beryllium dust, many workers still were diagnosed with CBD. The stories of these workers who are suffering from this often debilitating disease are heart-wrenching. It is estimated that 1,200 people have contracted CBD, and hundreds have died from it, making CBD the number one disease directly caused by our Cold War effort. Title one of this bill provides compensation to individuals suffering from Chronic Beryllium Disease (CBD). Beryllium, which is a toxic substance, can cause major health problems if proper precautions are not taken while it is being handled. Individuals who suffer from Chronic Beryllium Disease experience a loss of lung function, and in many cases face a painful death. While there is a blood test that can detect CBD, and there are treatments for it, there is no cure. Under this bill, if the disease is confirmed, it is presumed work-related and workers compensation at benefit levels established under the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA) is paid--roughly two- thirds of six years worth of wages and health care coverage. Alternatively, a claimant can elect a one-time lump sum payment of $200,000 (with healthcare benefits related to their disease) in lieu of wage replacement payments. Employees at DoE sites and DoE beryllium vendors would be covered under the bill. Title two of this bill covers illnesses related to radiation and other hazardous substances. The first part of this title covers workers at all DoE sites who contract cancer that has been potentially caused by exposure to radiation (radiogenic cancer), worked at the site for at least one year and wore a radiation dosimeter badge or should have worn one. Causation is presumed if the covered cancer is a primary cancer. Again, benefits are paid at FECA levels, or in the alternative, a claimant can elect a one-time lump sum payment of $200,000 (with healthcare benefits) in lieu of wage replacement payments. The presumption is modeled after the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. This proposal incorporates all DoE sites across the nation, plus four vendor facilities. The second part of this title covers workers at DoE sites for illness, impairment, disease or death, using a FECA level of benefits. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is required to create a panel of occupational doctors to review the claims for the Department of Labor, and the threshold for eligibility is whether exposure was a significant contributing factor to a worker's illness. The bill allows claimants to seek a second medical opinion. Further, the bill directs the HHS to empanel occupational physicians to develop additional presumptions for use in guiding future HHS and Labor Department decisions. To obtain restitution under the bill, claimants would file with the Department of Labor's Office of Worker Compensation Programs under a FECA-like program but not FECA itself. The claims reviewer, after obtaining all the necessary information, would have 120 days to render a decision. If a denial is issued, the claimant can appeal to an administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ has 180 days to render an opinion. If an opinion is not rendered, the appeal can be brought to the federal Benefits Review Board (BRB). The BRB has 240 days to render an opinion, after which appeals can be brought to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Failure to meet deadlines by the DoL results in a default in favor of the claimant. This approach is intended to remedy the major defects in FECA, which excludes any rights to the Courts and results in years of delay in many cases. Mr. President, there may be some who will say that this bill costs too much, or we can't afford it so we shouldn't do it. I strongly disagree. Congress appropriates billions of dollars annually on things that are not the responsibility of the federal government. And here we have a clear instance where our federal government is responsible for the actions it has taken and the negligence it has shown against its own people. This is an issue where peoples' health has been compromised and lives have been lost. In many instances, these workers didn't even know that their health and safety was in jeopardy. It is not only a responsibility of this government to provide for these individuals, it is a moral obligation. Mr. President, it is unfortunate that a bill establishing this type of compensation program is necessary; it is little consolation for the pain, health problems and diminished quality of life that these individuals have suffered. These men and women who won the Cold War have only asked that the United States government--the government of the nation that they spent their lives defending--acknowledge that they were made ill in the course of doing their job and recognize that the government must take care of them. Sadly, because of the government's stonewalling and denial of responsibility, the only way many of these employees believe they will ever receive proper restitution for what the government has done is to file a lawsuit against the Department of Energy or its contractors. That should not have to happen and it is my hope that this legislation will preclude any perceived need for such lawsuits. I believe that all those who have served our nation fighting the Cold War deserve to know if the federal government was responsible for causing them illness or harm, and if so, to provide them the care that they need. I encourage my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this legislation and I urge the Senate to consider this bill during this session of Congress.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. I think I will probably be finished in 10 minutes.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I am sorry, I can't hear the Senator.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, in the last couple of days I have had an opportunity to preside over the Senate. I feel compelled to make some overall comments about what I have heard and the difference between the Republican approach and the Democratic approach on this education reauthorization bill. First of all, I think it is important everyone understand that the Federal Government only provides about 7 percent of the money for education in the United States of America. Sometimes when I listen to my colleagues, I think they think they are members of the ``School Board of America'' and do not understand that the overwhelming majority of contributions for education come from State and local government. I have also listened to Senators depicting the Republican approach as a ``revolution'' that will change the way the Federal Government is going to be dealing with our schools. In fact, it was depicted by one Member of the Senate as giving ``a blank check to the States to conduct business as usual.'' I want to let you know that the States are not conducting ``business as usual.'' As the former chairman of the National Governors' Association, I worked with my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans--to reform education in this country. I think it would be wonderful if the Members of the Senate would really become familiar with what is going on throughout this country as State and local government change the way they deliver education and recognize the improvements that have been made. The Republican approach that has been titled as ``revolutionary'' is the Straight A's Program. So that everyone understands, it basically says: Straight A's, of which I am a cosponsor, builds on Ed-Flex and allows up to 15 States to enter into a 5-year agreement with the Secretary of Education where the State can consolidate their formula grant programs, including title I, and use them for the educational priorities set by the State. In return for this flexibility, States will be held accountable for academic results. States that reduce the achievement gap will receive additional funds. In effect, this is a waiver, given by the Department of Education, to 15 States that want it, for 5 years, to use education money differently from what is provided in the current categorical programs. Now, another issue is title I portability. It applies to 10 States plus 20 school districts. The States and districts will apply if their education communities desire it. No district will be required by the Federal Government to have this portability. In other words, these are voluntary programs where States would come to the Department of Education and say: We would like to use this money differently from how it is now allocated under the categorical titles. This is not what I would refer to as ``revolutionary.'' This sounds to me like the waiver program we had many years ago where the States could go to the Department of Health and Human Services and say: We want a waiver to do welfare a little differently in our State. What I am hearing on the floor of the Senate is ``block grants are awful.'' I will tell you something. As a former mayor, I fought for the CDBG Program, Community Development Block Grant Program, which is one of the most successful block grants in the United States of America. I hear some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say some of the same things I heard when I was Governor and I was down here with six or seven other Governors to reform the welfare system. I heard ``it's going to be a race to the bottom. The Governors do not care. The local government doesn't care. We in Washington, we in the Senate, care more about the people than the Governors and the local government officials.'' I would like to remind this body that on October 4, 1998, the President of the United States said: This great new experiment that we launched 2 years ago has already shown remarkable signs of success. Two years ago, we said welfare reform would spark a race to independence, not a race to the bottom. And this prediction is coming true. Many Members of this Senate said it would be a race to the bottom, that this was not the right thing to do. Again, on December 4, 1999, the President said: Seven years ago, I asked the American people to join me in ending welfare as we know it. In 1996, with bipartisan support, we passed a landmark welfare reform bill. Today, I am pleased to announce we have cut the rolls by more than half. Fewer Americans are on welfare today than at any other time since 1969. We are moving more than a million people a year from the welfare rolls to payrolls, 1.3 million in 1998. He goes on to say what a great program it is. How did it come about? It came about because we gave the people closest to the problem the opportunity to use money in a different way. We ended the entitlement, and we had a block grant for the States and said: You use the money the best way you can to make a difference in the lives of our welfare recipients. That is fundamentally what we are asking for in our approach to education reform. We want to try something different. We have had Title I for years and in the title I schools, we are not getting the job done. That is one of the reasons we passed Ed-Flex early this year. We want to build on that, give the schools the flexibility to use those dollars in the way they can make the most difference for our boys and girls. I have heard: ``Build new schools, hire more teachers.'' We are building more schools. We are providing more teachers on the local level. I heard about ``a digital divide.'' In almost every State in the Union, the States have put fiber optics out to the schools, and put computers in the schools that the States have paid for. In my State, we have wired classrooms for voice, video, and data. Parents ought to know how their child's school is doing. Most States have report cards now, so people can compare their kids' performance in their school versus another school down the block. Let's take the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards. We are talking about rewarding teachers. I am a former member of the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards. In our State, people who apply and receive their certificate from the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards receive another $3,000 a year from the State of Ohio to recognize their extra professional competence. In the State of North Carolina, Governor Jim Hunt gives them $5,000. We've talked about all kinds of new things Members of this Senate would like to see happening at the local level. I am saying most of it is happening on the local level. We talk about building new schools. Let me say that once you get started with building new schools, it is a never ending process. The American public ought to understand that the backdrop of what we are doing here is shown on this chart. We are paying 13 percent of each federal dollar on interest; we are paying 16 percent on national defense; nondiscretionary is 18 percent; mandatory spending is 53 percent. We have some real problems in this country. We have to take care of Social Security and Medicare. We have a problem with readiness in our Defense Department. And we have people saying: Let's get into new programs. Let's get into areas that are not the responsibility of the Federal Government. I am saying that the States have more of a capacity to deal with it. I went through the numbers. The National Governors' Association says there isn't one State in debt like we are--not one. Most of them have surpluses. If you talk about capacity to get the job done, they have more capacity to get it done than we have. It is hard for me to believe that when you are in debt this much, when you are paying out 13 cents in interest on every dollar, you are saying we are going to get involved in some programs that fundamentally are the State's responsibility, and where the States have more capacity to deal with the problems. So what I am saying today is that we must change our approach to education. All we are saying is give the States an opportunity to apply for a waiver, to use the money differently than what is in the categorical programs. They can use it for teachers. In my State, we have reduced class size in urban districts down to 15 students per class, and we have done a lot of the things in the states that we are talking about here. Let's just fund IDEA and make the money available so States can do that on their own. We need to understand we have a role to play in education, but fundamentally it is a State and local responsibility. Our job is to become a better partner to the State and local governments, give them the flexibility to get the job done and then hold them accountable. That is what this is all about. I think that should be the debate. I hope that maybe by the time we get through with this bill, we can come together on a bipartisan basis and do something so we walk out of here and say to the American people that we have done something this year in education.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. The deeds of the Kosovar Albanians are not matching the rhetoric of the Albanian leadership. As recent press reports have made clear, NATO is facing another potential crisis in Kosovo. Extremist members of the ethnic Albanian community--some have argued under the direction of Hashim Thaci--have refused to put down their arms, put aside their desire for revenge against the Serbs, and work towards peace. Rather, they are intent on pushing the Serbs, with bombings, assassinations, threats, etc. to force a response from Slobodan Milosevic in Belgrade. Today, Kosovo Serbs are being killed, their monasteries are being burned, and they are afraid to leave their homes. This is not KFOR's fault. This is not UNMIK's fault. Radical elements within the Kosovo Albanian community are responsible for continued attacks against the dwindling Serb community in Kosovo. I am concerned that many in the Kosovo Albanian community want to force another confrontation between NATO and Milosevic so Kosovo can finally be rid of the Serb community and establish itself as an independent nation. Let me be clear. The same group our State Department once called a terrorist organization--the KLA--whom we embraced as our friends and allies when NATO was bombing, are again becoming terrorists. They are working against the healing of Kosovo. Our message must be clear to Thaci, Rugova, Qosja and their Kosovo Albanian followers--stop this violence against the Serb community or the U.S. will pull out our troops. I said this directly to Thaci, Rugova and Qosja when I met them. As much as I want southeast Europe, including Kosovo and Serbia, to be integrated into the European community, I will work against it if the cycle of violence continues. The Kosovo Albanians have a historic opportunity to choose between two very different paths for the future-- integration or continued isolation. The choice is theirs to make and the world will be watching. Let me now turn to the Kosovo Serbs. They have suffered a great deal since the end of the Kosovo bombing campaign at the hands of certain elements within the Albanian community seeking revenge. However, the Kosovo Serbs' continued refusal to participate in UNMIK's Interim Administrative Council is unacceptable. I took the same message I made to the Albanians to the Serbs--stop the cycle of violence and move ahead towards reconciliation. Decisions are going to be made regarding the future of Kosovo with or without Serbian participation. It is in their best interest to become involved. I am somewhat heartened that Bishop Artemjie's visit to the U.S. has prompted some progress towards getting the Kosovo Serbs to participate in the Interim Administrative Council. I understand that as a result of his visit, discussions are taking place that would allow the development of several media outlets within Kosovo. I am hopeful that this will serve as the impetus to get the Serb community in Kosovo involved in the Interim Administrative Council. It will require diligence and co-operation on a multi-ethnic approach, but I believe it will ultimately serve to draw the whole of Kosovo society together and stop the killing and violence and fear for life, limb and property that permeates the minority community in Kosovo. Meanwhile, NATO continues to struggle with Milosevic's meddling hands in Kosovo. He has a group of extremist Kosovo Serbs, mainly situated around Mitrovica, agitating the situation in Kosovo whenever possible in an effort to encourage NATO to pack up and go home. He must not succeed. NATO must stand strong and refuse to accept any more provocations. They should seize illegal weapons and jail law-breakers and agitators. NATO forces should take the enemies of peace off the streets and shut-down the extremists of both sides. De-fusing the situation will lower tensions and allow the mainstream people of Kosovo to move forward with their future. Last month, I introduced S. Res. 272 which I believe effectively addresses this issue, and many more. On Milosevic, the Resolution makes it clear that he continues to be the heart of the problem in the region. In order to encourage democratic change, the Resolution: Expresses the readiness of the Senate, once there is a democratic government in Serbia, to review conditions for Serbia's full reintegration into the international community; Expresses its readiness to assist a future democratic government in Serbia to build a democratic, peaceful, and prosperous society, based on the same principle of respect for international obligations, as set out by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the United Nations, which guide the relations of the United States with other countries in southeastern Europe; and Calls upon the United States and other Western democracies to publicly announce and demonstrate to the Serbian people the magnitude of assistance they could expect after democratization. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of S. Res. 272 be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. VOINOVICH. We need to understand that while the Europeans are handling the bulk of the spending in the region, we must also be willing to come to the table to provide leadership. The importance of the United States to provide leadership was underscored by members of NATO and the EU, particularly those countries benefitting from the Stability Pact. One of the highlights of my trip was the opportunity I had to spend time with our troops in Macedonia and Kosovo. There are few things that make me more proud of being an American than seeing the pride, professionalism, sense of duty and commitment in the faces of our young people in uniform. I was especially happy to spend time with the 321st Psychological Operations Company, Task Force Falcon, which was deployed from Ohio and stationed at Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo. It gave me the chance to interact with these fine men and women from Ohio and hear their views on their mission in Kosovo. It also gave me the opportunity to visit with my friend, Major Wendell Bugg, whom I've known since my days as Governor. He is with the 321st and is doing a wonderful job. It was great to see him and get reacquainted. And, Mr. President, I can't forget the unsung heroes of Kosovo--the men and women of the various humanitarian missions. I had the opportunity to meet with representatives from all of the major humanitarian aid organizations involved in Kosovo and Macedonia. I truly admire the service these people provide their fellow man. They are on the front lines daily, helping people, making a difference. To all of them I say, keep up the good work. Their efforts are key to stability in southeastern Europe and in responding to basic human needs. While I encountered many encouraging prospects for regional peace and prosperity during my trip, I also identified a number of challenges the region and the international community are facing. While there is ample reason to be optimistic about the future of Croatia under the leadership of President Mesic and Prime Minister Racan, there are also reasons to be concerned. The Croatian economy has been struggling for years. Unemployment and inflation rates are high. The country is deep in debt internationally. Many skilled, well- educated young people have left the country for better job prospects elsewhere. This has effectively created a ``brain drain,'' which, unless it is stemmed, will have a negative impact for decades. For Croatia to continue on its new path, away from its nationalist past, the economy must improve. If a solid market economy cannot take hold, there is a very real possibility that the Croatian people will grow impatient with President Mesic and Prime Minister Racan and seek to replace them; possibly with individuals who would rule the country under nationalist communist ideology. The other problem facing the Croatian economy is in the area of refugee returns. As my colleagues may know, the majority of the civilians forced out of their homes during the conflicts of the early 1990's still have not returned to their homes. Even as President Mesic works to implement his campaign commitment to create a legal environment where minority rights are protected, people will not return to their homes--if their home still exists--if there is no work for them when they return. Thus, Croatia's struggling economy does impact and will continue to impact the entire region. Current trends in Macedonia suggest the existence of an extremist element within the ethnic Albanian community. These individuals are willing to resort to violence in order to destabilize the sitting democratically-elected government of Macedonia, and put in its place a government run by Albanians, for Albanians. These extremists are beginning to make their presence felt with the government in Macedonia. It will take a tremendous commitment on the part of the current government to maintain a democratic, multi-ethnic form of government in Macedonia in the face of this threat. A major impediment to peace and prosperity in southeastern Europe is the rise in organized crime. There have been a number of recent reports indicating that the Balkans region is being used more and more frequently as a transshipment point for illegal narcotics and arms. These reports were echoed by nearly everyone I spoke with on the trip. With this illicit trade comes violence, corruption, a lack of foreign investment and general societal havoc. As the nations of the region work to establish the rule of law, a functional judicial system and prosperous economies, I believe America and European nations must offer their crime-fighting expertise in order to help the Balkan nations shape their own future and steer clear from the menace of organized crime. A tremendous concern that Dr. Bernard Kouchner, civilian head of the UNMIK operation, brought to the forefront was that the international community must be more active in their dispersal of aid-money pledged to the region, and in particular, the EU needed to be a more active participant in this area. Indeed, the EU has only dispersed 13.3 percent of the money they have pledged to UNMIK thus far. The EU has a number of strong arguments to explain their delay, including the nature of their fiscal cycle, the various mechanisms in place to prevent fraud and abuse, the unwieldy nature of the body, etc. Regardless, the fact is that the money has to be put on the table. As I mentioned before, the U.S. is doing its fair share given the role we played during the course of the bombing campaign. Now is the time for the Europeans to do theirs. Throughout my trip to the Balkans, all signs pointed to the fact that the Stability Pact was not being implemented to the benefit of the region. I believe that the Stability Pact represents one of the few good things that resulted from the Kosovo bombing campaign. Under the Stability Pact, the Europeans, with the leadership of the Germans and the French, agreed to work towards the gradual integration of the nations of southeastern Europe into the broader European community. In practice, this means EU and NATO membership. In exchange, the nations of the Balkan region must agree to put aside the ethnic divisions and nationalism that has caused so much death and destruction in recent years. This compact, if implemented, would be a gigantic leap forward. Unfortunately, so far, not much has happened with the Pact. Meetings and conferences between government bureaucrats have been held. There have been a lot of speeches, studies, conversations, debates, and the like, but nothing has really happened ``on the ground'' in the region. I believe the Pact must move ahead with infrastructure projects that benefit the economies of the region. Start building bridges. Start cleaning the Danube River. Start building ``Corridor Eight,'' which will create an East-West railway/roadway travel corridor to stimulate commerce. Just start doing something! I am somewhat heartened by the results of the Stability Pact conference in Brussels 2 weeks ago. There, 4 dozen countries and 3 dozen organizations pledged 2.4 billion Euros to fully-finance a 1.8 billion Euro ``Quick Start'' package of regional economic development and infrastructure projects and initiatives in southeast Europe over the next twelve months. I believe this commitment represents one of the first positive steps that has been taken since the end of the air war towards restoring peace and stability to the region. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record at the end of my remarks a statement that was made by the Honorable Nadezhda Mihailova, Foreign Minister of the Republic of Bulgaria, regarding Bulgaria's perspective on southeastern Europe prior to the Stability Pact Conference.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, when the bombing ceased, and Serbian military forces withdrew from the Kosovo province, most Americans believed that the end of the air war meant the end of the United States' involvement in the Balkans. Such a misconception is due primarily to the fact that the political and military situation in the Balkans, as well as U.S. foreign policy towards the region, remains largely unknown to the vast majority of Americans. Because of my belief that the Balkan region is key to our strategic interests in Europe, earlier this year, I traveled to the Republic of Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Kosovo and Brussels, Belgium in order to examine the humanitarian, economic, political and security situation in Southeastern Europe. Today, I would like to take this opportunity to share some of my observations with my colleagues and the American people. Before I proceed further, I would like to publicly thank U.S. Ambassador to Croatia, William Montgomery, U.S. Ambassador to Macedonia, Michael Einik, Chief of the U.S. Mission to Kosovo, Larry Rossin, U.S. Ambassador to NATO, Sandy Vershbow and U.S. Ambassador to the EU, Richard Morningstar. They are fine representatives of our nation, and they are doing an outstanding job to help bring peace and stability to this sensitive part of the world. I would also like to thank our U.S. embassy staff in Croatia, Macedonia, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union (EU). In addition, I would like to thank the personnel who comprise the U.S. Mission in Kosovo, the Department of State, the Department of Defense, and the U.S. Army--especially Colonel Timothy Peterson, who accompanied me on this trip and also provided his valuable insight and expertise on the region. I would further like to thank Senator Fred Thompson, my chairman on the Governmental Affairs Committee, for giving me the opportunity and the Committee authorization to take this trip. Finally, I would like to thank our men and women in uniform who provided such invaluable assistance during my travels in the region. They have my gratitude, and I believe the gratitude of our nation should go out to our peacekeeping force in Kosovo. We have a tremendous team working on our behalf in the region, and all Americans should be proud of their tireless efforts to help promote peace and protect the interests of the United States in southeastern Europe. Mr. President, one of the more encouraging developments I observed in my trip to the Balkans was a new positive spirit that seems to be emerging in a number of nations in the region. In my visit to Croatia, I had the opportunity to meet with the newly- elected president of Croatia, Stipe Mesic. President Mesic is a bright, engaging, well-spoken gentleman with a tremendous understanding of the varied and complex issues facing his country. More importantly, he has a clear concept--supported by his electorate--of the direction his country should take for the future. President Mesic is pleased that the region finally seems to have abandoned the two terrible ideas that have caused so much bloodshed over the last decade--the dream of a ``Greater Serbia'' and the dream of a ``Greater Croatia.'' In an indication of his commitment to ending these disastrous notions, he expressed to me his support for sending individuals responsible for war crimes that have taken place over the last decade to the International Criminal Tribunal for prosecution. He is also committed to fully returning to Croatia those refugees who were displaced after conflict swept the nation in the 1990's. He understands that a functional economy, the establishment of private property rights and the rule of law are key to the return of these refugees. President Mesic appeared to understand that the future of southeastern Europe is linked to minority rights and that redrawing international boundaries along ethnic lines is fundamentally unworkable--we need only witness the ongoing debacle in Bosnia for such an example. With this realization on the need to consider minority rights, he plans on appealing to the best instincts in his people to put aside ethnic hatred, so that they and their nation may move ahead. He has stated that he looks forward to serving as the President of all of the Croatian people, regardless of their ethnicity. If lines are not going to be redrawn, then a major hurdle to domestic peace in Croatia will have been removed. It is my understanding that Prime Minister Racan, who I did not have the opportunity to meet since he was out of the country during my visit, seems committed to these principles as well. I'm also encouraged that Parliamentary President Zlatko Tomcic, Deputy Parliamentary President Zdravko Tomac, Serbian Member of Parliament Milan Djukic and Serbian Democratic Forum President Veljko Dzakula--all of whom I met in Croatia--appear to be supportive. I was also pleased to meet with Macedonia's President Boris Trajkovski, the Macedonian Prime Minister, Ljubco Georgievski, and Arben Xhaferi, the leader of Macedonia's ethnic Albanian community. They seem to have been able to successfully bridge the domestic ethnic problems that have been at the heart of the various conflicts that have decimated southeastern Europe over the last ten years. As many of my colleagues may recall, Macedonia was seen as another potential flashpoint during the course of the Kosovo bombing campaign as the Macedonian people became polarized either in favor, or against, NATO's actions. This possibility seems to have been successfully averted because Macedonians do not generally possess the same kind of ethnic hatreds towards their minority community that have plagued other nations in the region. Domestic peace and stability has been achieved in Macedonia by appealing to the best instincts in people, rather than the worst. The elected leadership has made it clear that the ethnic Albanian community, which makes up roughly 25% to 30% of the population, is an integral and respected component of society. Because of this, minority rights are, by and large, protected, and the rule of law is, for the most part, very well respected. The importance of these trends cannot be understated. I was particularly interested to hear President Trajkovski discuss the amazing recovery of Macedonia's economy. When the nation separated from the FRY in 1991, Macedonia's per capita income immediately started sliding downward, dropping 40 percent. This decline was clearly exacerbated by the Kosovo bombing campaign. Nevertheless, in recent months, the economy has staged a dramatic turnaround because of stable and progressive leadership, market reforms and economic activity as a result of Macedonia's serving as a staging point for KFOR. Macedonia is beginning the slow process of returning to its pre-independence level of economic activity. More importantly, the EU, as a part of its new focus on the Balkans region, has established a relationship with Macedonia intended to lead to its eventual membership in the European Union, a commitment that had never been made before the Kosovo war. Given my belief that integration of the nations of the region into the broader European community is essential to long-term peace and stability, this is a dramatic development. 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. This was an extraordinary meeting given the historical animosity between these leaders. 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. In response, 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 revenge in Kosovo must end and minority rights must be respected--including the sanctity of churches and monasteries. This would be the key to the future of Kosovo. I traveled to Brussels to make my feelings known to the leadership of the European Union (EU) regarding their lack of leadership and commitment to the problems facing southeastern Europe. I met with U.S. Ambassador to the EU, Richard Morningstar and U.S. Ambassador to NATO, Alexander Vershbow and with other leaders of NATO and the EU. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that the Europeans basically ``get it.'' That is, they understand that unless the Balkan region is fully integrated into the broader European community, the region will ``Balkanize Europe.'' This is the same message I have been saying for months. I was pleased to see the Europeans taking the necessary steps that will eventually include the nations of the region in the EU and NATO. I think it is important to highlight the level of support the Europeans are providing the region. They have budgeted six billion euros (basically $6 billion) over the next six years to help bring Romania and Bulgaria into the EU. They have also prepared to provide 5.5 billion euros (again, roughly $5.5 billion) over the same time period to implement the three initiatives of the Stability Pact-- democratization, security, and regional infrastructure development. Of the total financial support committed to Kosovo by the international community, including humanitarian, development, economic recovery and reconstruction assistance, the EU has pledged 35.5 percent. The U.S. has pledged 15.4 percent. Of the total amount pledged for the operations of UNMIK, the EU has pledged 41.4 percent, the U.S. 13.2 percent. I ask unanimous consent that a document detailing these burden- sharing numbers be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, the NATO KFOR troops are in Kosovo to provide a secure environment for all citizens while civic institutions develop. The UNMIK structure, which I will address momentarily, has been charged with this civic development--this nation building. One of the key elements in this process is the establishment of a functional judicial system, including a functional police force. It is hoped that once properly trained, this police force will eventually take the responsibility for domestic law enforcement from the KFOR troops. The international community has promised to supply 4,433 police for this UN force in Kosovo. Our European friends have committed the bulk of this total. However, only 2,359 police are in place in Kosovo. This is appalling. As a rule, our European allies have national police systems rather than state or provincial police forces like we do in the U.S. This matters because it gives the national governments--governments that have promised to put their police in Kosovo to serve in the UN body-- the ability to simply direct redeployments to meet their commitments. This lack of will and action is truly appalling. To provide context, I think it is important to note that we have had to recruit the American men and women serving with the UN in Kosovo from our state and local police departments. The best information I have shows that we have put 481 people, out of our total commitment of 550, in place in Kosovo. If we can meet our promises through recruitment, surely our European friends can meet theirs through directives. This all matters because the sooner the UN police force and a judicial system is operational in Kosovo, the sooner our troops can come home. One of the issues hardly considered when NATO became involved in Kosovo was the development of an end game. Well, now we know why. We are, in fact, building a nation. I understand no one is willing to say this publicly but we need to be truthful: the international community-- using UNMIK as its tool on the ground--is building a new nation in Kosovo. It's all-encompassing. From schools, to roads, to power grids, to taxation, to local elections, to municipal councils, to the judicial system--it is all now our responsibility because we won the war. In conclusion, I would like to address those cynics who believe we should immediately pull out of Kosovo and the Balkans because they believe we will never successfully bring about peace in the region. These cynics often point to the historical hatred between the ethnic groups in the region as an indication that NATO and the UN are doomed to fail. I disagree. We can make a difference and history supports my view. Consider the centuries of animosity and hatred between the nations of western Europe. Few would have thought that the bitter adversaries at the heart of two world wars last century could be looking to a new century where borders are crossed without passports, where there is freedom of labor movement, and where there is no military presence on the borders. It happened because the nations of western Europe were willing to put aside centuries of hatred, revenge and ethnic prejudice and break the cycle of violence. If it could happen there, it can happen in southeast Europe. One of the Beatitudes states that ``blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God'' (Matthew 5:9). With these words in mind, our efforts must be redoubled so that we may help bring peace, stability and prosperity to southeastern Europe. Exhibit 1 Southeastern Europe Funding Southeastern Europe (includes humanitarian, development, economic recovery and reconstruction assistance-- military, security and assessed expenditures are not included) The international community, led by the United States, the European Union and international financial institutions, has pledged $4.033 billion in support for southeastern Europe for the year 2000. A complete list of the nations involved in this effort appears below: [In billions of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank Senator Byrd for yielding time. I speak against the repeal of the 4.3-cent-a-gallon gas tax for the third time on the floor of the Senate. Although I disagree with my colleague from Alaska in regard to this matter, I do agree this debate has given us an opportunity to identify the real problem of why we have high gas prices in this country, and that is, we lack an energy policy. Our reliance on foreign oil could increase to 65 percent or more by the year 2020. As a matter of fact, a couple of weeks ago in the Committee on Governmental Affairs, we had a representative from the Energy Department appear before the committee and I asked him: Just how reliant should we be on foreign oil? What is the number? He was unable to give a number. I mentioned that, as a former Governor, if I had a problem, I would identify what the goal was to solve that problem and put in place strategies to achieve that goal. The fact is, we are here today because we have no energy policy in this country. That is the main issue. The other issue is whether or not reducing the gas tax by 4.3 cents a gallon is going to make any real difference. I argue it may not bring down the price of gas at the pump. In some States, if the gas tax is reduced, their State laws provide that the state gas tax is increased to make up for the loss of the Federal gas tax. I point out that in terms of the traveling public, the motoring public, getting rid of the 4.3 cent gas tax is only going to save about $43 a year. This is one of the factors which I think adds to the cynicism of the American public in regard to some of the things we do in the Senate. We argue this is going to make a difference, and then the people realize all we are talking about over a year's period, if they drive 15,000 miles a year, at 15 miles-per-gallon is about $43. I have been involved in this matter as a Governor and as the former chairman of the National Governors' Association. The Governors were opposed to the 4.3-cent-a-gallon gas tax in 1993 because it was used for deficit reduction and we thought it should be used for building highways. In 1998, when TEA-21 was negotiated, everyone agreed to put that 4.3 cents a gallon into the highway trust fund so we can use it for new construction of highways and to maintain and repair highways. It also guaranteed to many of the donor States--that is, a State that sends more money to Washington than they get back, like Ohio--that they will get at least 90.5 cents per dollar back every year. It gave us a predictable, reliable source of revenue to get the job done. We thought we had resolved this issue once and for all. Today we have the issue before us of reducing the gas tax by 4.3 cents a gallon. Someone said: Do not worry about it because we will make up the lost funding from the surplus. I argue, if I have listened carefully to my colleagues on the floor, there are lots of other good things that they want to do with our surplus. If one looks at it from an equity point of view, the tradition in this country is, the people who use the highways pay for them. We are saying reduce their tax and make it up by hitting everybody else in the country and taking it out of the general fund, which can be used for other things that would benefit the rest of America. I cannot buy the argument: Do not worry about it, we will make it up from the surplus. I also point out the National Governors' Association, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, all the major State and local organizations are opposed to repealing the 4.3-cent-a-gallon gas tax. I do not care what the polls say, the one organization I listen to in Ohio which represents the motoring public is the American Automobile Association. This is the premier organization representing the people who drive in this country. One would think they would be for reducing the gas tax, wouldn't they? The fact is, they are opposed to it because they know that repair and maintenance of our highways and new construction are important to the motoring public, particularly to their safety. They also realize that this country, in so many areas, has turned into a gigantic parking lot, with gridlock, bottlenecks, and hours wasted in America on the highways because our infrastructure is in such bad shape. Gasoline is being wasted sitting in these traffic jams, polluting the air, let alone the stress and strain on the drivers and their loss of time. Today, the only good thing I can say about the fact we are debating this 4.3-cent-a-gallon gas tax reduction is the fact that it is bringing to the American people's attention that we do not have an energy policy. As I have said over and over on this floor, gas prices are going to come down. They are going to come down because the administration is going to make sure they come down before the November election. The real question is: Are we just going to treat it as we have in the past? Do my colleagues remember 1973 when we had the crisis and the prices went up? Are we just going to treat this like we treat a barking dog and say: Give it a bone, it'll stop barking and we will go back to doing things the way we've always done in this country? I hope not. What we should resolve--Republicans and Democrats, Congress and the administration--is to put together a real energy policy for the United States of America before the end of this year so we can bring down our reliance on foreign oil, which is a threat not only to our nation's economy, but it is a threat to our national security. So I urge my colleagues, please, today, on the cloture vote, please vote against cloture so that we can get on with other business. And part of that ``other business'' should be, let's put together a bipartisan energy policy. I thank the Chair.

Mr. VOINOVICH

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

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, my amendment is easy to understand. Rather than reduce taxes by $150 billion over the next 5 years, about $13.5 billion in this particular budget, my amendment would use those dollars to reduce the national debt. Most families and businesses that finally had a surplus of funds like we have would be paying off their debt. Today, 13 cents out of every dollar we spend goes to pay interest on the debt. That is almost as much as we spend on defense, and more than we spend on Medicare. All of the leading economists in this country say we should take the on-budget surplus and use it to pay down the debt. It encourages more savings and investment, and it lowers interest rates, which is a real tax savings. Last, but not least, it fulfills a moral obligation to our children and grandchildren to remove the debt Congress has put on their backs because Congress did not have the courage to either pay for the things it wanted, or do without. We have the resources now. We ought to use those resources to pay down the national debt.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the Jeffords amendment to the desk.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I send to the desk a second-degree amendment to the Jeffords amendment.

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

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, the budget resolution provides a generous increase in spending in education, just as the FY 2000 education appropriations bill did. Basically, this amendment says that within the framework of the budget resolution, IDEA should be given priority. We have increased discretionary spending on education 100 percent during the last 10 years, but during that same period, the most we have spent is 12.6 percent of the cost of IDEA, and we are supposed to be spending 40 percent. This amendment gives priority to IDEA without spending another $31 billion over the next 5 years, as suggested in the underlying amendment. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today with my distinguished colleague from Louisiana, Senator Breaux, to introduce a bill that will provide a commonsense approach to promulgating regulations under the Clean Air Act. We are pleased that Senators Inhofe and Landrieu have joined us as original cosponsors. We introduce this bill today in a bipartisan manner to increase public health, safety and environmental protection. As a father and grandfather, I understand the importance of ensuring a clean environment for our future generations. Throughout my 33 years of public service, I have demonstrated a commitment to preserving our environment and the health and well-being of all Ohioans. I sponsored legislation to create the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency when I served in the state legislature, and I fought to end oil and gas drilling in the Lake Erie bed. As Governor, I increased funding for environmental protection by over 60 percent. While in the Ohio House of Representatives, I was responsible for creating the Environment and Natural Resources Committee and was honored to serve as the first vice chairman of that committee. In addition, the state of Ohio has made significant improvements in air quality in recent years. When I first entered office as Governor in 1991, most of Ohio's urban areas were not attaining the 1-hour ozone standard. By the time I left, all but one city was in attainment. However, the Cincinnati community has worked together, through a variety of programs, to attain the 1-hour standard and is now awaiting final action by the EPA to redesignate it as in attainment. Overall, the ozone pollution level in Ohio has gone down by 25%, and in many urban areas, it has gone down by more than 50% in the past 20 years. Ohio is doing its part to provide cleaner air. Nevertheless, over the years, I have become more and more concerned that just in order to comply with federal laws and regulations, our citizens, businesses and state and local governments must pay costs that can be inordinately burdensome or totally unnecessary. In the 104th Congress, I worked closely with a coalition of state and local government officials and members of the House and Senate to pass effective safe drinking water reforms. The results of our efforts culminated in the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments, legislation which was enacted with broad bipartisan support in 1996. In addition, the bill had the support of environmental organizations, and I was pleased to attend the President's bill-signing ceremony when these reforms were signed into law. In fact, at that time the President praised the bipartisan work and said, ``Today we helped ensure that every family in America will have safe, clean drinking water to drink every time they turn on a faucet or stop at a public water fountain. From now on our water will be safer and our country will be healthier for it.'' This cooperative effort is notable because it showed that a law could include commonsense reforms that make the government more accountable based on public awareness of risks, costs and benefits. I believe it set a key precedent for reform of other environmental regulations. I specifically mention the drinking water program because it is the model for the bill we are introducing today. This bill includes the very same risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis provisions that govern our drinking water. This bill clarifies EPA's obligation to identify risks, consider costs and benefits of a proposed rule and consider incremental costs and benefits of alternative air quality standards. However, EPA would retain flexibility in making final regulatory decisions. If we can agree these tools improve rulemakings for something as important as the water we drink, where a regulatory mistake could endanger millions of lives, they certainly must be good enough to protect the air that we breathe. When I was Governor of Ohio, I became more and more concerned that the EPA was not taking into consideration sound science, costs and benefits during the rulemaking process. I was particularly concerned about the standards for ozone and particulate matter. In fact, I was very concerned that the costs to this country to implement the new National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and particulate matter far outweighed the benefits to public health and the environment. In fact, according to EPA's own estimates, the costs for implementing the NAAQS standard for ozone exceeded the benefits. The President's own Council of Economic Advisors predicted that the benefits would be small, while the costs of reaching full attainment could total $60 billion. Just last spring, a U.S. appeals court remanded EPA's ozone and PM2.5 standards, ruling that EPA did not justify its decision with sound scientific evidence. Ohio was a party to this lawsuit, which began when I was Governor. The court didn't say that EPA couldn't regulate at these levels, but that EPA didn't give sufficient justification for doing so. That has been my point all along. I have argued that the NAAQS standards were going to be costly and that we didn't even know if making those investments was going to make a difference. I believe this bill would help us avoid some of the legal and legislative wrangling that has occurred in the past few years with respect to how we achieve clean air. Federal agencies should not force businesses and consumers to throw billions of dollars at a problem without knowing if they're hitting the right target. Yet, the EPA is asking all of America to pay for these new regulations simply because the EPA said it is the right thing to do and that it has the authority to do so. However, they have failed to adequately determine the effects of changing the ozone and particulate matter standards. The challenge facing public officials today is determining how best to protect the health of our citizens and our environment with limited resources. We need to do a much better job of ensuring that regulations' costs bear a reasonable relationship with their benefits, and we need to do a better job of setting priorities and spending our resources wisely. I believe the bill we introduce today will help achieve these goals in air regulations. First, I believe this bill will increase the public's knowledge of how and why the EPA makes air regulations. In essence, this bill asks EPA to answer several simple, but vital questions: What science is needed to help us make good decisions? What is the nature of the risk being considered? What are the benefits of the proposed regulation? How much will it cost? And, are there better, less burdensome ways to achieve the same goals? It will also improve the quality of government decision-making by allowing the EPA to set priorities and focus on the worst risks first. Careful thought, reasonable assumptions, peer review and sound science will help target problems and find better solutions. Mr. President, Executive Order 12866 already requires agencies to conduct risk assessment and cost benefit analysis. What this bill will do is clarify that EPA must conduct risk assessment and cost benefit analysis. This bill does not mandate outcomes. In fact, it does nothing to circumscribe the EPA Administrator's ability to propose and implement regulations to protect public health. Quite simply, it imposes commonsense discipline and accountability in the rulemaking process by confirming that EPA has the flexibility to take risks and costs into consideration when setting standards that are going to affect public health or the environment. I want to make very clear that this bill does not mandate how EPA sets standards. The Administrator will have discretion to set appropriate standards to protect human health. EPA would be required to conduct an analysis of incremental costs and benefits of alternative standards, but would have the flexibility to choose between a standard where the benefits justify its cost or, when health considerations dictate, the maximum feasible standard. In addition, this bill does not keep information about air quality from the public. To the contrary, this bill is a public right-to-know bill that requires EPA to tell the public what information it considered before making a final decision. Nor does the bill ``gut'' the Clean Air Act, as some contend. In fact, it strengthens it by asking EPA to tell the public what the risks are that warrant regulation and what options are available to most efficiently and effectively reduce those risks. This bill will ensure that the Agency sets priorities and it makes sure that our limited resources are being spent to address the real risks to public health and the environment. While many air regulations set by EPA are well intended, we want to ensure that these regulations are going to achieve their purpose and not unnecessarily pass significant burdens onto our citizens and state and local governments. I strongly believe our challenge is to determine how best to meet our obligation of protecting the environment and health of our citizens with the limited financial resources we have available and with the scientific evidence to back up our actions. It should not be the government's policy to initiate or enact regulations simply because it sounds like a good idea. It should be because the evidence shows that it is the right thing to do. I have spoken to my colleague and chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee's Clean Air Subcommittee, Senator Inhofe, and he has agreed to include this bill in a package of bills that will be introduced in the near future to advance discussions on Clean Air Act reauthorization. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for offering this amendment. He knows and the rest of us know that repeal of the 4.3-cent gas tax is not going to solve the problem of high gasoline prices which today confronts this country. In my opinion, the administration's lack of an energy policy and total inability to react to OPEC's production cut has pushed gasoline prices to $2 per gallon in some places in the nation. The fact of the matter is, the American people are angry, and I share their frustration. The real problem we have today is that we do not have an energy policy in this country. Two weeks ago, when Department of Energy officials testified before the Governmental Affairs committee, I asked them whether or not they had an energy policy. I asked them if we were too reliant upon foreign oil. Their answer to that was yes we are too reliant on foreign oil. I said: Your department is predicting that in the next 10 years we are going to be 65-percent reliant on foreign oil. How reliant should we be? Is it 45, 50 percent? They had no answer. I said: As a former Governor, if I had a problem, I would set a number and say it is going to be 45 or 50 and then put a plan together and move forward and get it done. I hope in this debate over whether or not we ought to reduce the gas tax, the administration and Members of Congress take advantage of this wonderful opportunity to come together to look at the environmental concerns, look at the issue of exploration, look at the problems of the stripper well producers in this country who are out of business because the cost of a barrel of oil has been too low. We need to get it all on the table so that we do not have a repeat performance, and so that we are not at the mercy of foreign oil producing nations, some of whom are actually avowed enemies of the United States of America. I've said many times the price is going to go down because the administration is going to put the pressure on these nations. But what I would like to know is, what are the promises they are going to be making in order to get the price down? We ought not to be in this position. I happen to have been chairman of the National Governors' Association when Congress did TEA-21. Most Governors were opposed to the 4.3-cent gas tax in 1993 but we came back and said: If you move that from deficit reduction to the highway trust fund, we will support it. I want everyone to understand that for the donor States--and Ohio is a donor State--without that 4.3 cents, we would not have a guarantee of 90.5 percent of the money we are sending to Washington. This is the way we helped get some of our money back into our State. I think if you ask most of the highway directors of the States in this country, they will tell you that without that 4.3-cent gas tax, they are not going to have any new construction programs. All of the rest of our gas tax money goes for the maintenance and repair of our highways. The new construction is being paid for by that 4.3-cent gas tax. There are some people who say: Don't worry about it because the money will come from the on-budget surplus or from someplace else. My answer to that is, we have a users' tax. The people who use the highways pay the tax for the highways. I do not think it is fair that we should say to the people of the country what we are going to do is reduce the highway users' tax and we are going to make everyone else pay to make up for the tax reduction. I would like to say I am just prayerful that this amendment passes, that it passes overwhelmingly, that we send the message that we are not for repealing the 4.3-cent gas tax and that we take advantage of this wonderful opportunity to come together and develop an energy policy for this great Nation of ours.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, as many of my colleagues know, earlier I offered an amendment to provide for a tax reduction. At this time, I speak on behalf of the Allard-Enzi-Grams amendment because I believe it is a responsible way in which to deal with the problem of reducing the national debt. First, we need to pay down our national debt so we can decrease our interest payments on that debt, a debt which stands at $5.7 trillion. The way I calculate it, the interest we'll pay this year comes out to over $224 billion. We pay about $600 million a day on interest costs alone. Out of every Federal dollar we spend, 13 cents goes to pay interest on the national debt compared, for example, with 16 cents for national defense and 18 cents for nondefense discretionary spending. We will spend more money on interest this year than we do on Medicare. These numbers make me determined to do all I can to decrease our debt even further. I believe every fiscal decision we make in Congress should be measured against the backdrop of how it will decrease our national debt. And I am not the only one who believes that. In fact, in Congressional testimony in January of this year, CBO Director Dan Crippen stated: Most economists agree that saving the surpluses, paying down the debt held by the public, is probably the best thing we can do relative to the economy. On that same day, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan 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 Main Street and encourages more savings--and we need more savings in this country--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 our Nation will not return to the days of deficit spending should the economy take a sharp turn for the worse or a national emergency arise. As Alan Greenspan has testified before Congress: A substantial part of the surplus . . . should be allowed to reduce the debt, because you can always increase debt later if you wish to, but it's effectively putting away the surplus for use at a later time if you so choose. Many in the Senate have argued that putting the Social Security surplus in the lockbox will be enough to pay down the debt. I remind my colleagues, we will have to use some of the surplus everybody is talking about for paying down the national debt in order to fund reform of the Social Security system, if we are going to solve the problems of Social Security. We cannot keep putting off our responsibilities. If we have the ability, as we do now, we have a moral obligation to pay down the debt. When I go back to Ohio, people say: we're not asking for more tax cuts; I want you to do something about Social Security, Medicare, health care, and if you have some money, for goodness sake, pay down the debt. That is what we do in our own families. If we get a little extra money and we are in debt, we pay down the debt. That is what the people want this Government to do. That is the message I am getting from the people in the State of Ohio. I am sure my colleagues who are supporting this amendment are hearing from the people in their states. Last but not least, I agree with GAO Comptroller General David Walker. In testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee last year, he said something that is really very important to those of us who have children and grandchildren, as most of us in this body do, about our obligation to future generations. David Walker 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-- We have to make 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. We should support this amendment. It makes sense. It is good for America, and it is good for fiscal responsibility.