George Voinovich

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today along with my distinguished colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, to submit a concurrent resolution recognizing the importance of expanding the amount of family friendly television programming, and the contributions that the Forum for Family Friendly Programming is undertaking to make this goal a reality. One of the more frustrating aspects of being a parent in the United States is the fact that we cannot always protect our children from what they see and hear. Images and descriptions of violence, sex and drug and alcohol consumption permeate our culture, but nowhere are these depicted more readily than on television. Recent studies support the theory that children exposed to violent video programming at a young age have a higher tendency to engage in violent and aggressive behavior later in life. Even more distressing is that children witness an average of five violent acts per hour on prime-time television and 200,000 acts of violence on television by the time they are 18 years old. There is no doubt that this exposure threatens the healthy development of our children. For families that have both parents working, it's becoming harder for them to keep track of what their children watch after school or during the summer months. More likely than not, a child will pick up the television clicker before he or she will pick up a book. Indeed, each week, the average child will watch 22-28 hours of television, which is more time than he or she spends on any outside activity other than sleeping. The trick for parents is to establish good viewing habits for their child--as well as the entire family--that emphasize quality programming and are suited to the age of the child. While there is generally a variety of quality children's programming throughout the morning and afternoon hours, the concern for many parents is the content of evening programming. Right now, most parents indicate that the so-called ``family viewing'' time of evening--traditionally between 8:00 and 10:00 p.m.--often contains programming that they feel is inappropriate for their children. It is important that broadcasters recognize that the daily ``family viewing'' period needs to focus more on programming that is actually family friendly; shows that parents and children can readily watch together. No one can replace the good judgment of a parent in determining what a child watches on television. However, parents can use all the help they can get in ensuring that more family oriented shows are aired during the evening hours. To help in this endeavor, a number of our nation's largest companies have joined together to establish the Forum for Family Friendly Programming. Like many American families, the members of the Forum are concerned that fewer and fewer television programs are specifically geared towards the entire family. They are concerned, also, that too many of the programs that our children view contain story-lines, language and characters to which they should not be exposed. Most of the companies that belong to the Forum are sponsors of a wide range of television programs, but they believe that more family- friendly television programming, including movies, documentaries, series or informational programs that are interesting or relevant to a broad audience, will actually appeal to more families. Right now, the members of the Forum for Family Friendly Programming are working with and in the entertainment community on a variety of initiatives on family friendly programming including: meetings with industry leaders; speeches and discussions at industry meetings and conferences; award tributes to family friendly television programs; a development fund for family friendly scripts; university scholarships in television studies departments to encourage student interest in family friendly programming; and a public awareness campaign to promote more family friendly programming. Mr. President, as a father and a grandfather, I am deeply concerned about the healthy development of all of our nation's children. Since the future of our country depends upon our children, we must do all that we can to limit their exposure to negative influences and provide them with as safe and nurturing an environment as possible. Therefore, I encourage efforts that will expand the number of quality family programs that are shown on television, and I congratulate the Forum for Family Friendly Programming on their leadership towards that goal. I believe that passage of this resolution honoring the Forum's commitment will help raise awareness and inspire others in the business world to align themselves with the goal of bringing quality television to our nation's families. I am pleased to join with my colleague, Senator Lieberman, who has been a leader in the Senate on addressing the needs of our children, and I urge my colleagues to join us in co- sponsoring this resolution, and calling for it's speedy consideration by the Senate.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. I also ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for up to 15 minutes as in morning business and that Senator Landrieu follow me.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time for Senator Sessions be reserved for use later in the day.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, there is an old saying most of us learned as children that goes: If it sounds too good to be true, then it is. The news we have been hearing about bigger than expected budget surpluses for the next 10 to 15 years is precisely that--too good to be true. Why is that? After all, our economy is strong and is still growing, unemployment is at record lows, and the strength of our economy means our Government is able to take in more revenues from taxpayers and businesses alike. Most people would say things are wonderful. Indeed, just ask anyone. Ask the President. Ask Congress. They will tell you there is money for increased spending, there is money there for tax cuts, and we will be able to meet all our needs. After all, we have these enormous surpluses for as far as the eye can see. The truth of the matter is, there is no budget surplus. Let me say it again: There is no budget surplus. The truth is, we are actually running a budget deficit this year. According to both CBO and OMB, as this chart from CBO shows, we currently have an on-budget deficit of $4 billion, and the only way the President, or anyone else, can claim a budget surplus today is by taking that surplus and accumulating the Social Security trust funds and using it to mask the deficit, just as we used Social Security to mask the deficit in 1988. I recall, as Governor of Ohio, everyone celebrating the great budget surplus. The fact of the matter is, in 1988, we were $30 billion in the hole, and what we did with that $30 billion in the hole was mask it with Social Security. For over three decades, Presidents and the Congresses have been using this gimmick: unifying the budget in order to make budget deficits smaller than they really are. It is disingenuous. It continues to jeopardize the stability of the Social Security trust fund, and it is about time we had our lockbox. The American people are smarter than Washington politicians give them credit. They know their Social Security pension funds are being raided for other Government spending programs. They are mad about it, and they want us to stop doing it. We need to get honest budget surplus numbers, and in order to do that, we need to leave Social Security alone and pay attention to creating an on-budget surplus. But here is the President's 15 years of projected surpluses. The whole bar is the unified surplus. The green part is the off-budget Social Security trust fund, and the red part is the true on- budget surplus. As the President says, there is going to be $6 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2014. But under his projections, he will have an on-budget surplus of $2.868 trillion. The rest of his projection is Social Security. Look at the line on this chart. It is not until fiscal year 2011-- fiscal year 2011--before we even see 50 percent of the projected on- budget surplus. In other words, in order to get this great surplus we are supposed to have during the next 15 years, it is not going to be until 2011 that we are actually going to have 50 percent of the on- budget surplus available to us. We will have to go into the 12th year of the President's 15-year projections to get a majority of those surplus dollars. How can we in good conscience talk about spending increases or tax cuts today when we do not even start to get the majority of the money until 12 years from now? It is inconceivable. That is the next President--8 years if he gets reelected--and then we are into a new President. The most frightening aspect of all this is numbers are just predictions. They are not real. But both the Congress and the President are treating their projections as if they are gospel truth, and each is contemplating major fiscal decisions based on their particular beliefs and projections. That is not sound public policy. In fact, last week, CBO Director Dan Crippen said in testimony before the Senate Budget Committee that ``10-year budget projections are highly uncertain'' and that ``economic forecasting is an art that no one has truly mastered.'' That is from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, the man in charge of making Congress' surplus projections. Indeed, as most economists will tell you, the only thing predictable about projections is their unpredictability. So how can we be sure that 5, 10, 15 years from now we will actually have these budget surpluses? The truth is that we cannot. In testimony before the House Banking Committee, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said: . . . it's very difficult to project with any degree of conviction when you get out beyond 12, 18 months. Twelve to 18 months--not 5 years, 10 years, 15 years. He said 12 to 18 months. In addition, he stated that . . . projecting five or ten years out is very precarious activity, as I think we have demonstrated time and time again. When the Nation's premier economist warns Congress not to invest in long-range projections, it makes sense for us to listen. If we think back, we will remember it was only 2 years ago that CBO was projecting huge increased budget deficits as far as the eye could see. In fact, in 1997, CBO projected a $267 billion budget deficit for fiscal year 2000. Think of it. But today, CBO is projecting a $14 billion surplus for fiscal year 2000--a $281 billion swing in just 2 years. If you think a 2-year swing of that magnitude is incredible, in just the last 6 months, President Clinton's budget projections put together by OMB have swung by a mind-boggling $1 trillion--a trillion dollars. That is more than 10 percent of our national gross domestic product. The important thing to remember is that a $1 trillion paper surplus can vanish just as easily as it appeared, and if we commit to spending hundreds of billions of dollars we do not even have yet, we are placing our Nation's economic future in serious jeopardy. As former Senators Sam Nunn and Warren Rudman wrote in the Washington Post: The surplus is only a projection that cannot be spent. If spending is increased or taxes are cut based on the expectation of huge surpluses and the projection turns out to be wrong, deficits easily could reappear where surpluses are now forecast. Given all that uncertainty about whether or not we will have a budget surplus next year, it makes the most sense for us to remain cautious. We should wait and see if the budget surplus we are currently projecting for fiscal year 2000 even materializes before we embark on new spending programs, as the President and the Democrats in Congress want to do, or cut taxes as Republicans are proposing. As Chairman Greenspan said: I see no reason why we have to make decisions crucially at this point until we are sure that we really have got the surplus in tow. That is Alan Greenspan who has been keeping things in pretty good shape for us the last several years. Why does the President feel the need to quickly spend the surplus we may achieve over the next 15 years? Why are we talking about cutting taxes by $800 billion over 10 years when we do not have the surplus in hand yet? I think eliminating the death tax, relieving the marriage penalty, and lowering income-tax rates are great ideas, but how are we going to pay for them? Personally, I do not think we have any business talking about new spending increases or tax cuts so long as we have this gigantic national debt. Right now, our Nation faces a whopping $5.6 trillion national debt, a debt that has risen 600 percent over the last 20 years. I remind my colleagues, with each passing day, we are spending $600 million a day just on interest on the national debt--$600 million a day. Most Americans do not realize that 14 percent of their tax dollar goes to pay off the interest on the debt, 15 percent goes for national defense, 17 percent goes for nondefense discretionary spending, and 54 percent goes for entitlement spending. Look at this pie chart: entitlements, 54 percent; interest on the debt, 14 percent out of every dollar. We are only spending 15 percent on national defense--and the President knows we need to do better in that regard--and nondefense discretionary spending, 17 percent. We are spending more on interest payments today than we spend on Medicare. We are spending five times as much on interest than we spend on education; 15 times as much as we spend on research at the National Institutes of Health. Even if the on-budget surpluses do happen to come true, then what better way to keep our economy humming and secure for the future of our children and our grandchildren than by paying down the national debt. Indeed, as Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan testified before the House Ways and Means Committee: [T]he advantages that I perceive that would accrue to this economy from a significant decline in the outstanding debt to the public and its virtuous cycle on the total budget process is a value which I think far exceeds anything else we could do with the money. I think we have a problem. Do you really think that Congress would make the tough choices we are going to need to make to get rid of $27 billion this year in order to maintain the budget caps? I do not think it is going to happen. I think many people today are saying that for defense spending, to deal with Medicare, we are probably going to have to break the caps. If we break the caps, the $14 billion surplus of next year is gone; it is gone. We need to recognize there is no surplus. And if the economic circumstances provide an on-budget surplus--and, boy, we would love to have that--we need to use that money to pay down the debt: no spending hikes, no tax cuts, just pay down the debt. If the President and Congress need an example, all we have to do is emulate what most American families do when times are good and they have extra money. They do not go out and start spending wildly. They look to pay off their debts--credit cards, loans, and mortgages. It is the responsible thing to do, and it is something that Government must do. It was interesting. I was at a meeting the other day and asked the people at the table: What do you think about reducing taxes, with this projected surplus? And they came back to me--conservative businessmen-- and said: You know, usually you reduce taxes when the economy is in trouble. One of the gentlemen said: You know, today what people are concerned about is Social Security, and they are concerned about Medicare. It doesn't make any difference whether they are old or young. If they are young, they are worrying about their parents in the future. At this stage in the game, it seems to me the best thing we can do is cool it. I urge my colleagues to stop and look at the projected numbers because they are not real. And if we continue to treat them as if they really are, the consequences of spending money we do not have will be very real and, I think, very bad for the United States of America.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I would prefer not to yield because I promised the Senator from Louisiana that she would have time. So I would rather not yield at this time. I yield to the Senator from Louisiana. Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, do I have any time remaining?

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, last year, EPA finalized the NOX SIP call, forcing 22 states to submit plans to meet mandated reductions of nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions. Our nation's mayors are concerned that the SIP call will have adverse effects on brownfields redevelopment and economic growth. Earlier this year, the National Conference of Black Mayors and the U.S. Conference of Mayors held their annual conferences. Over 100 mayors from around the country signed a petition calling on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to provide utility energy providers with maximum flexibility and the leadtime necessary to avoid higher energy costs to municipalities and local communities, including industrial and residential consumers. The mayors are asking U.S. EPA to reconsider how the deadlines set in the NOX SIP call could affect electricity reliability in urban and rural areas. In essence our mayor's are saying that any new programs to control NOX emission must be weighed against potential economic adverse implications. Mr. President, the U.S. Court of Appeals issued a stay of EPA's NOX SIP call pending a decision on the lawsuit brought by states. Nonetheless, the Mayors' petition represents a commonsense plea to EPA that, should the agency move forward to implement NOX reductions, that it do so in a way that allows for compliance in a cost-effective manner that does not adversely impact economic growth or significantly increase utility prices to consumers. I ask unanimous consent that the petition be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Certainly, I would be happy to clear up the misconceptions that this bill might endanger firefighters and nursing home patients. Some have claimed that this bill would encourage fraud or abuse of elderly nursing home patients by allowing a penalty waiver for those who violate rules regulating their care. Still others have claimed that the bill would threaten the lives of firefighters by allowing a waiver for businesses that violate rules regulating hazardous substances in the workplace. Neither of these claims is substantiated. Like the Senator from Arkansas, I care very much about the health and safety of all Americans and would not dream of putting seniors or firefighters in obvious jeopardy. Clearly, this is not the kind of negligent misbehavior this bill aims to reward with a civil penalty waiver for a first-time paperwork violation. And this is not the kind of violation covered by this bill.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I would be happy to discuss the bill with my distinguished colleague.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Allow me to explain. Nursing homes that do not keep proper medical and treatment records for their patients are clearly endangering human health and safety. Small businesses that do not keep the required records of hazardous chemicals are also endangering human health and safety. As such, neither is covered by this bill.

Mr. VOINOVICH. This bill goes even further than that. The language states that any violation that has ``the potential to cause serious harm to the public interest'' is exempt from this bill and cannot receive a penalty waiver. Where there is a potential to cause serious harm to the public, the agencies will be able to impose, in addition to all of their other remedies, an appropriate civil fine.

Mr. VOINOVICH. My colleague raises a good point. This bill does not preempt state laws regarding collection of information. What it does say is that states my not impose a civil penalty on small businesses for a first-time violation under Federal laws that the State may administer. Again--I want to make clear--this bill does not preempt state laws. Instead it provides consistency that a small business will not be fined under Federal laws whether the laws are being carried out by Federal or State government.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Small Business Paperwork Reduction Act, legislation that will give small businesses across the nation the time they need to correct first-time paperwork violations before federal fines are assessed When enacted, the provisions of this law would apply as long as the violations do not cause serious harm or threaten public health or safety. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleague from Arkansas, Senator Blanche Lambert-Lincoln. To own one's business is, for many, the epitome of the American dream, knowing that you are your own boss and that you alone are responsible for the success of your business. It's what motivates thousands of individuals each week to take that initial leap of faith and it is their effort and their perseverance to succeed that constitute the economic and entrepreneurial backbone of this country. Small business owners are reponsible for the employment of millions of individuals, providing the roots for families to settle in small towns and large cities all across America. Through their payroll contributions and their tax base, small businesses--whether it's a shoe store in Cleveland, Ohio or a diner in Arkadelphia, Arkansas--make up the final nucleus of many a community. However, even with their many contributions, small business owners face a number of obstacles to success. One of the larger obstacles they face is the daunting task of meeting federal paperwork requirements. Small business owners spend an inordinate amount of their time filling out various forms to comply with a myriad of government requirements. In fact, small business owners spend about $229 billion per year on compliance costs and some 6.7 billion hours are used annually to fill out the expected paperwork. In addition, according to the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), small business owners are subjected to 63% of the nation's regulatory burden, and the paperwork regulations they are subjected to cost more than $2,000 per employee. I believe whatever we can do to relieve the burden on the small business men and women of our nation will help increase productivity, save money and create more jobs. Obviously, to obtain these benefits necessitates a review of our paperwork requirements on our nation's small businesses. When Congress passed the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, many small business owners believed they would finally obtain relief from the blizzard of paper to which they are subjected. Unfortunately, it has done too little to stem the tide of Federal paperwork requirements. In 1996, the Act was supposed to reduce the amount of paper by 10%. Instead, it was only a 2.6% * * * . When Congress passed the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, many small business owners believed they would finally obtain relief from the blizzard of paper to which they are subjected. Unfortunately, it has done too little to stem the tide of federal paperwork requirements. In 1996, the Act was supposed to reduce the amount of paper by 10%. Instead, it was only 2.6% reduction. In 1997, the Act was supposed to provide another 10% reduction in the amount of paper. Instead, there was a 2.3% increase. In 1998, the Act was supposed to provide another 5% reduction in the amount of paper. Instead, there was another 1% increase. In addition, under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, federal agencies were required to submit plans to Congress by March of 1998 for waiving and/or reducing fines as deemed appropriate for small business. However, a large majority of federal agencies, including at least half-a-dozen cabinet departments, did not even submit their plans by the March 1998 deadline. In addition, of the plans submitted, most are settlement policies, which force small businesses into negotiations to reduce or eliminate penalties rather than to help small businesses comply with paperwork reductions. Mr. President, even with all the forms that they are required to fill out, and all the time it takes to complete them, small business owners want to comply with the laws of our nation. Their biggest concern, though, is the Sword of Damocles that hangs over them should they send in an incorrect form, or worse, not send one in at all. In the latter instance, it is almost always because they didn't know that they were supposed to fill out any paperwork, and unfortunately, it is such situations that generally bring about hefty fines for small business owners. Clearly, we have an opportunity to help these business owners, and, in turn, help continue the growth of our strong U.S. economy, maintain stable and productive jobs and create new jobs and opportunities. The legislation that Senator Lincoln and I are introducing, the Small Business Paperwork Reduction Act, is a companion bill to H.R. 391, which passed the House on February 11, 1999 by a vote of 274-151. Like the House-passed bill, our legislation will give small business owners a ``grace period'' to make amends for first-time paperwork violations before fines are assessed. The only exceptions would be for violations that cause harm, affect internal revenue laws or involve criminal activity. If a violation threatens public health or safety, each affected agency of jurisdiction would have the discretion to levy a fine as usual, or provide a 24-hour window to correct the infraction. In addition, our bill would establish a multi-agency task force to study how to streamline reporting requirements for small business; establish a point of contact at each federal agency that small businesses could contact regarding paperwork requirements; and require an annual comprehensive list of all federal paperwork requirements for small business to be placed on the Internet. So there is no confusion--our bill does not give small business owners carte blanch to skip their record keeping and reporting requirements. Thus, firefighters will not be threatened with injury on the job because a business doesn't have records of the toxic substances it has on its premises, or an elderly patient in a nursing home will be secure in the knowledge that their medical records will be maintained. As I stated earlier, the men and women of America who own small businesses do not embark on a course of flagrantly violating the laws of our nation. If they did, they would soon be out of business and probably in jail. They just want an opportunity to make up what they didn't do or correct what they've done wrong. Mr. President, compliance through cooperation should be the way our federal agencies do business, however, in many instances, federal agencies are all too eager to ``fine first, ask questions later.'' This legislation will give our nation's small business owners the time they need to correct small, non-threatening paperwork mistakes without having to pay a penalty that could jeopardize their very business. Our legislation is a sensible approach that has the support of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), the voice of small business owners across the country, who have written to me in support of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to co-sponsor our bill and I encourage the Senate to act expeditiously. I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the NFIB in support of this legislation be inserted into the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize the achievements of the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program. Now in its third school year, this program, which is one of only two school choice experiments in the country, continues to offer hope and promise to nearly 3,700 inner city children and their parents by making private schools, including religious schools, affordable. I have been a longtime supporter of the Scholarship Program, as well as the school choice concept in general. Believing that competition fosters improvement, I made the implementation of this pilot school scholarship plan one of my education reform priorities by signing a 2-year budget package that included $5 million for the introduction of the program in 1995. The Cleveland Scholarship Program is the first of its kind in the country that offers state-funded scholarships for use at both secular and religious private schools, giving low-income students access to an otherwise unattainable private school education in Cleveland, where schools graduate a mere 36 percent of its high school seniors. In September of 1996, during it's first school year, the program provided scholarships to approximately 1,855 students for the public, private, or religious school of their choice. Recent growth of the program's budget enabled the parents of nearly 3,700 students to use vouchers to enroll in 59 participating area schools during the 1998-1999 school year. Two separate studies by Harvard University on the Cleveland Scholarship Program found parents of voucher recipients were more satisfied with many aspects of their school than were parents of students in Cleveland public schools. That satisfaction included the school's academic program, school safety, school discipline, teacher skills, the teaching of moral values, and class size. A separate study found that test score results in mathematics and reading show substantial gains for Cleveland Scholarship Program students attending the Hope schools, two non-sectarian schools which were created in response to the establishment of the program. Additionally, parents of voucher recipients reported lower levels of disruption in their child's school--including fighting, racial conflict, and vandalism. The results of these studies further underscore the success of this program. Time and again, data and surveys from the state have confirmed the Cleveland Scholarship Program meets the one true test of any taxpayer-supported program--it works. Although the program is not without its critics, I believe the best way to put these criticisms to rest is to continue demonstrating the program's effectiveness in Cleveland as we continue to look beyond the conventional and pursue creative and imaginative approaches to education. I applaud the achievements of the Cleveland Scholarship Program and its contributions to the education of our children, and am proud to say that my hometown serves as a model for the rest of the Nation.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, today, the Senate will cast a very important vote on whether we will stand up and honor our commitments to United States trade policies, or enact protectionist trade measures on steel imports that will have little or no favorable effect on the steel industry, yet will ultimately harm many segments of our nation's economy. Let me first stipulate one point--I am now, and I always have been, a strong supporter of Ohio's steel industry. In fact, I believe my actions prove that I have been ``standing up for steel'' for two decades. My support for Ohio's steel industry goes back to the days when I was Mayor of Cleveland. In the early 1980s, when steel imports peaked at nearly 27% and U.S. steelmakers were losing billions of dollars in revenue, I lobbied President Reagan for Voluntary Restraint Agreements (VRAs) in order to give the domestic industry five years of breathing room to modernize and restructure. I rallied with the steelworkers in Cleveland's Public Square to tell America about how our steel industry was being dumped on. A year before the VRA program was set to expire, I began lobbying then-Vice President Bush for a temporary extension, to give the steel industry some protection while the Administration attempted to negotiate a multilateral steel agreement aimed at eliminating unfair foreign practices. All throughout 1988, I fought for the VRA extension. My efforts were successful, because in 1989, President Bush agreed to extend the VRAs two and a half years. And two years later, after I was elected Governor, I was back to lobby the Bush Administration to ensure that all of our trade laws would be vigorously enforced after the extended VRAs finally expired in 1992. In 1991, I was the first Governor in the United States to set up a Steel Industry Advisory Commission--a public-private partnership designed to strengthen ties among the steel industry, the state of Ohio, and its citizens. I also worked to bring steel companies, such as North Star Steel, to Ohio in order to create more, good-paying jobs. I have been there to lead the fight--to make sure that the federal government did not run roughshod over our steel industry. In May 1992, I attended the opening of the U.S. Steel/Kobe Blast Furnace in Lorain, Ohio--a $100 million investment with 2,800 jobs that almost didn't happen. The EPA was going to halt the project, but I went straight to the White House and let them know that what the EPA was proposing in Ohio was ridiculous. Ohio is now the largest steel-producing state in the country, a development I'm proud to say occurred during my tenure as Governor. Last year, a building where state agencies were going to be located was built, and foreign steel was used in place of domestic steel in violation of state law. State law called for a fine of $3,000, but I insisted that the entity responsible for building this facility pay $50,000. I doubt there are very few other public officials in the country who would enforce an existing law so vigorously. When imports of steel shot up last year, and Ohio steel producers started to suffer, I was one of the first elected officials to speak out. I wrote the President several times, twice on my own and once with other governors, urging him to take all appropriate action under our trade laws to combat steel dumping. I also supported a resolution in the Ohio legislature urging the President to take action. My support for the steel industry has been long-standing, and I dare say it is matched by few individuals. That's why I look seriously upon any proposal that purports to help this important industry. The bill that is before the Senate today would impose a monthly limit on steel imports for the next 3 years. The quotas would apply to all steel mill products from all countries, regardless of whether they have engaged in dumping or not. I have given this legislation much thought and careful consideration, and on its merits, I cannot vote in favor of this bill. Mr. President, I have dedicated my entire 33-year public career to serving the people of Ohio. I am the last person who would want to see the Ohio steel industry and good-paying jobs dry up and go away. I would not vote against this Quota Bill if I believed it was a productive solution that would save jobs in my state. It is because I care about Ohio's workers that I must oppose the Quota Bill today. I wish I could tell Ohio's and our nation's steelworkers that the Quota Bill would save steel jobs. I cannot. I wish I could tell them that the Quota Bill would give the industry a quick fix. It will not. Not only is the Quota Bill bad policy, but voting for it today would be an exercise in futility, because we already know that the President will veto it. In addition, I am concerned that too much emphasis has been placed on this legislation as being some sort of panacea that will help address all of the steel industry's problems. The fact of the matter is, if this legislation becomes law, it will only serve to compound the industry's problems. Passage of this bill will provide a false sense of relief, when what we should really be doing is concentrating our efforts on a long-term solution--one that will make a difference in addressing the viability of our nation's steel industry within the framework of existing law. I have often said that in Ohio, we are no longer the ``Rust Belt'' we are the ``Jobs and Productivity Belt.'' We made this transition thanks in part to the efforts of the steel industry to modernize and become more efficient and competitive. And, it's easy to do when you have good labor-management relations which promotes empowerment, when you have businesses willing to invest in training and advanced manufacturing technology, and when you have partnerships with government and education. It's amazing what you can get. It's what has helped contribute to the importance and significance of steel in Ohio. Overall, the American steel industry is succeeding. It produced record levels of steel in 1997 and 1998, and is now more efficient than it ever has been. It is strong. Its workers are strong. And it can compete in the world marketplace, if the playing field is level. That is why it is so important that we continue to work to get other countries to follow the American example: to open their markets to American goods, to stop subsidizing their national steel industries and to stop dumping steel on our market at unfair prices. We need all of Ohio's 35,400 steelworkers fighting for this approach, and applying the appropriate pressure to get other nations to change their protectionist ways. However, the minute we succumb to the sort of trade practices that we so vehemently oppose, we lose all credibility in the international community. Most every trade expert will attest that this Quota Bill violates World Trade Organization (WTO) rules--rules that are treaty-based and to which the United States is bound. Even supporters of this legislation must acknowledge that fact. Since the bill does violate international trade rules, it would invite our largest trading partners to launch major trade cases against us, cases that, based on our treaty obligations, we would most surely lose. This would give our trading partners the right to take retaliatory trade actions against us. They could slap high tariffs on all manner of American-made products in order to limit our access to their markets or kick us out altogether. Such actions would result in job losses in American industries that rely heavily on exports, such as agriculture, technology and telecommunications and a host of others. One industry that would be particularly hard-hit by a trade war is agriculture. America's farmers grow and export more food than any other farmers in the world. They would be dealt a devastating blow by retaliatory action taken against them--probably the most affected segment regarding American jobs. In my state of Ohio that's crucial because we have some 80,000 farmers. It's also important to farmers across the rest of the country. In fact, just yesterday, I received a letter from 20 major agriculture associations, including American Farm Bureau, outlining their opposition to the Quota Bill. Moreover, for nearly 60 years the United States has been the primary advocate of a free--and, rules-based--system of international trade. The United States is constantly urging other countries to respect international trade agreements and to comply with WTO decisions. The United States has set the example of being the one nation that consistently complies with the WTO. Indeed, the United States has won 19 of the 21 trade cases it has brought to the WTO for dispute resolution, such as the recently settled banana case the U.S. brought against the European Union. How can we expect other countries to abide by international trade rules if the United States, the main advocate of those rules, flagrantly disregards them itself? If we want a rules-based system of international trade to work, so that we can have a level playing field across the board on all goods, America must continue to lead by example. Proponents have argued that even if the Quota Bill violates WTO rules, it would take years for any cases filed against us at the WTO to run their full course. In the meantime, quotas on steel products would give the domestic steel industry some temporary relief from imports in order to recover from last year's import surge. There are two flaws in that logic. First, imports have dropped off dramatically, and are now below the levels that the proponents of the Quota Bill seek to establish. Second, analysts are predicting that the U.S. will actually have steel shortages this summer. This means that the industries that need steel to make their products--like the automakers--will not have enough steel to build new cars in order to meet consumer demand. At the moment, the domestic steel industry can only make enough steel to meet 75% of the domestic demand. Not too many people realize that the remaining 25% must now be imported from overseas, and of that amount, the steel industry imports 25% for its own capacity. In fact, there are steel products that many Ohio manufacturers need that aren't even made in the United States. In short, regardless of what is said, the United States must import steel right now in order to meet domestic demand. So, what happens under the Quota Bill, when there are steel shortages in the United States, while an oversupply of cheap steel remains in the rest of the world? It means that America's manufacturers will have to pay a comparatively higher price for the steel they need to make their finished products, such as cars, machine tools and dish washers. As a result, the cost of American-made finished products will be higher, while the prices for the same goods made overseas will remain low. So what will consumers in the United States and around the world do? They will do the logical thing: buy cheap, foreign-made goods, and at the end of the day, America's manufacturers and workers will lose out, and we will be right back at square one. Except this time, even more American jobs in a variety of other job sectors will be on the line, especially in Ohio. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 465,000 Ohio workers in downstream industries that use steel. This means that for every Ohioan employed in the steel industry, there are 12 other Ohioans who work in steel-using industries and whose jobs would be directly jeopardized by the Quota Bill. I cannot, in good conscience, vote in favor of a piece of legislation that would have the effect of jeopardizing the jobs of more than half- a-million Ohioans--including 80,000 farmers I previously mentioned--for a Quota bill that will have no long-term positive benefits. All in all, this bill could have extremely serious consequences for jobs in Ohio. When I was Governor of Ohio, one of my four economic development initiatives was exports. Because of our actions in the state, Ohio's exports increased by more than 62% during the time that I was Governor. And as most Americans know, as exports increase, so do jobs. Our economy is intertwined with the international marketplace, and it becomes even more so on a daily basis. As one who has argued vigorously to have others take down their trade barriers so we could get our goods into their countries, how can I talk about closing down our borders and keeping other products out? We have also increased investment in Ohio by foreign companies. According to Site Selection magazine, from 1991-1997, Ohio had more growth in non-U.S. owned firms than any other state--some 300 new manufacturing facilities and plant expansions. For me to come out in favor of quotas and trade barriers in today's marketplace would be detrimental to the economic well-being and growth of Ohio as well as jeopardize jobs in my state. What we ought to do is improve the situation that we already have within the framework of current law and WTO rules. I don't think anyone will deny the fact that the steel industry was affected by last year's surge in imports, and this surge was partly the result of a series of financial crises in Asia and Russia that precipitated a collapse in global demand for steel. Naturally, imports were drawn to the United States, where the economy and demand for steel remained strong in comparison to the rest of the world. Unfortunately, the collapse in global demand was exacerbated last summer by the 54-day strike at General Motors, the largest consumer of American-made steel. However, the oversupply of steel on world markets is not a new problem facing the U.S. steel industry. It has been a persistent problem that has plagued American steel producers for decades, and it is the legacy of 60 years of foreign government intervention in domestic steel industries. Since the 1930s, other countries have undertaken policies to expand their domestic steel-making capacity and employment, regardless of market conditions. These policies have included tariffs, quotas, heavy government subsidies, state ownership, and government toleration of cartel-like behavior. The end result has been that foreign steel manufacturers are able to produce and sell steel under circumstances that would drive a U.S. steel manufacturer out of business. Quotas will do nothing to address this fundamental problem. We learned from our experience with voluntary restraint agreements (VRAs) in the 1980s that restricting steel imports--be it through VRAs or quotas--will do little to discourage other countries from subsidizing their industries or engaging in other market-distorting practices. That's why we ended the VRA's. After trying to match our competitors step for step, the United States determined that only through sound economic and trade policies would we ever overcome the protectionist tendencies of other steel producing nations. That's why we continue to press for fair competition before the WTO and why we continue to win our cases. A good majority of our American steel industry has modernized, restructured, and become more efficient in order to compete in the global marketplace. They are to be commended for making the decisions that make them the best steel industry and the most productive workers in the world. As I have said earlier, smart business decisions have made Ohio the number one steel state in the nation. What we need to do now is level the playing field by going after the unfair, market-distorting practices that have insulated foreign steel producers from the same market pressures our American steel producers face. We need to win our fights in the proper venues and with the facts on our side. If it is our intention to pass legislation in the Senate, we should look at solutions that will truly address problems that exist and that will not provoke an all-out ``trade war.'' To that end, I have been working with the Chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, to develop a legislative solution to deal with the global overcapacity of steel that we believe will more reasonably address the concerns of America's steel industry. I believe the legislation will get to the root of the steel import problem, and is the type of solution we should be pursuing, not this Quota Bill. The Roth bill, the Steel Trade Enforcement Act, would direct the U.S. Trade Representative to start an investigation of the unfair practices that have protected foreign steel manufacturers from the capital market pressures that the American steel industry faces and have protected them from true competition. Once we identify those countries and practices, the proposal would then require the Administration to develop a comprehensive, government- wide strategy to eliminate those practices. There is a follow-up mechanism to make sure that action is taken. The Roth bill would also establish a monitoring program to facilitate the timely release of data on steel imports. This monitoring program could serve as an early warning system for future steel import surges, giving industry and the Administration more time to respond. It will also put our competitors on notice that the United States is watching. The Roth bill also would require the U.S. representatives to the international financial institutions--such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund--to oppose any financing to steel industries abroad. It's not fair to use U.S. taxpayer dollars to subsidize the steel industries of our foreign competitors. Finally, the Roth bill has a provision dealing with so-called ``suspension agreements.'' Under current law, when an antidumping or countervailing duty case is under way, the Administration has the authority to go out and negotiate a ``suspension agreement'' with the offending country. If the Administration is able to reach such an agreement, the pending antidumping or countervailing duty case is suspended. Many steel companies and workers feel like they have been undercut by the recent suspension agreements that the Administration has negotiated with Brazil and Russia on hot-rolled steel imports. The industry would have much preferred that the pending antidumping cases be taken to their full conclusion so that the full antidumping duties could be imposed. The suspension agreement provision would require that the Administration get the support of at least 50% of the industry before finalizing any future suspension agreements. I am particularly pleased that this provision was added to the bill. Mr. President, I believe that Senator Roth's legislation is a rational approach to the dumping that the United States has been subjected to over the years and is our best bet to effectively deal with those nations that subsidize their steel industries. However, passage of this quota bill before us today will do nothing to assist our domestic steel industry--it will be ruled GATT illegal, which will draw retaliatory actions from other nations. In addition, it will not prevent future job losses in the steel industry and, in fact, could cause job losses in other employment sectors--some with no ties to steel whatsoever such as agriculture. We must do all that we can to ensure continued economic growth in our nation. This legislation does not. Therefore, I cannot support this bill.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, 11 days ago, the American people were relieved to hear that the air war against Yugoslavia was ending. Yesterday, the air war was officially declared over. In the end, I believe it was prayer and the Holy Spirit that brought enlightenment to our leaders that the death and destruction in Kosovo and Serbia must stop. Enough was enough. I rise today to commend our men and women in uniform for their honorable, valiant and courageous service over the last several months in the campaign to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Conventional military wisdom has long held that a military victory could not be achieved without the deployment of troops on the ground. Indeed, television pundits, newspaper editors and even some of my colleagues, advocated the introduction of ground troops to Kosovo based on this widely-held belief. However, the incredible work of our pilots, logistics and support staff during the bombing has proven the conventional wisdom wrong--it is possible to achieve limited military objectives on the ground using air power alone given the quality of the American soldier using our technical superiority. When I traveled to Southeast Europe last month to learn more about the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's campaign, I was struck by the commitment and professionalism of our forces throughout the region. Faced with incredibly long working hours, the stress of a combat environment, isolation from family and loved ones and difficult living conditions, each soldier I spoke with strove to do their best in service to their grateful nation. We can ask no more. The American people, and Congress, should especially be proud of these fine men and women in uniform. We should also thank God that we have such soldiers as Chief Warrant Officer David Gibbs, from Massillon, Ohio, and Chief Warrant Officer Kevin Reichert of Wisconsin--two brave Apache helicopter pilots who gave their lives in service to their nation in the Kosovo conflict. A few weeks ago, my wife Janet and I went to Arlington Cemetery to pay our respects to the David Gibbs' family. I shared our appreciation for the sacrifice that he made and that they will continue to make. I get upset when I hear our leaders say we did not have any combat casualties--a euphemism to mean no soldier died in ``actual'' combat. Tell that to David Gibbs' widow, Jean Gibbs. Or to their three children--Allison, Megan, or David. Or his mother, Dorothy. Their lives will never be the same. Since 1991, when I was Governor of Ohio, there have been 32 men and women from Ohio who have died serving their nation, not counting the 19 that died in the Persian Gulf War. Tell the families of those who did not die in combat that their loss is any less significant because their loved one didn't die in battle. We must thank God that we have brave men and women who choose to serve our country, and we must never forget those soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice for this nation and the ongoing sacrifice of the families. Mr. President, as you know, I opposed the bombing from Day One. We should have done all that we could to negotiate a diplomatic solution. I was also violently opposed to sending in U.S. ground troops to Kosovo based on my belief that it would instigate an all-out war in southeastern Europe with tremendous repercussions throughout the world. Just in the limited actions of the air war, we have witnessed several potential crises, the ramifications of which will be with us for who knows how long--China, Russia. But I believe we must congratulate President Clinton for sticking to his guns and not letting others pressure him into getting the United States involved in a ground war; he no doubt saved the lives of hundreds, or even thousands, of American soldiers. the bombing Even though I was opposed to the bombing, I had confidence that the bombing campaign would ultimately bring Milosevic back to the table. I just wonder why it took us so long to read his signals. Indeed, according to the June 6th edition of the New York Times, it was reported that Milosevic was ready to make a deal as early as the beginning of May. The Times said: That it took another month may have been due less to his unwillingness to make a deal than to the West's slowness to grasp that he was serious. The signs were everywhere. I have been concerned that very few people have fully grasped the relevance of Serbian history and culture as it relates to this war. As I have said on the floor previously, it is crucial to remember that Kosovo is the cultural and historical heartland of the Serbian people, and to the Serbs, it is a holy place. It is the scene of the most important event in Serbian history--the battle of Kosovo in 1389 between the Turks and the Serbs. History, pride and heritage are deeply-seeded in Serb culture. That's why it is significant that Milosevic started his rise to political power in Kosovo and probably the most important event in his political career was when he spoke to one million citizens on the 600th Anniversary of the Battle of Kosovo--at the very site of the battle! Given the importance of Kosovo to Milosevic politically and to the Serbs historically, I knew that he would not sign the Rambouillet agreement. The agreement called for a referendum on the future of Kosovo's independence after three years. Which, considering the overwhelming Albanian majority, would have guaranteed an independent Kosovo. I also knew that once we started the bombing, it would, unfortunately, fan nationalistic flames causing the Serbian people to galvanize and rally around him. Prior to the war, I was privy to a Gallup poll that showed some 70% of people wanted him out. rambouillet In addition to the historical and political reasons for Milosevic not to sign, the agreement called for other items that no one has talked about in any detail that would have had a tremendous impact on Yugoslavia's sovereignty. Here are a couple of the parts of that proposed agreement: NATO personnel shall enjoy, together with their vehicles, vessels, aircraft and equipment, free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout the FRY including associated airspace and waters. This shall include, but not be limited to, the right of bivouac, maneuver, billet and utilization of any areas or facilities as required for support, training and operations.'' Summary.--NATO will have the ability to station troops and/or equipment anywhere through-out the FRY at its discretion. This would give NATO the ability to take control of the country. NATO and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), through its Implementation Mission, shall have its own broadcast frequencies for radio and television programming in Kosovo. The FRY shall provide all necessary facilities, including frequencies for radio communications, to all humanitarian organizations responsible for delivering aid in Kosovo. Summary.--At the discretion of NATO, OSCE and humanitarian groups, the FRY loses control of its radio and television stations. With a leader as worried about his political survival as much as Milosevic, it's understandable that he would reject an agreement with such provisions. The White House and NATO political strategists should have anticipated that he would not sign, and should have prepared counter- options based on actions that he might take. I think it's quite interesting to point out that the day before the Senate vote to authorize the air campaign, my office was contacted by a staff member of the National Security Council who, when asked if there was a ``Plan B'' should the bombing campaign fail, assured my office that Milosevic would come to the peace table within two weeks of the bombing campaign. The staff member said that Milosevic was about to be subjected to such ``devastating'' punishment that he would come running back. That was exactly the same impression that I got from Defense Secretary Cohen, National Security Advisor Berger, Secretary of State Albright, and NATO General Clark--this guy is going to fold. And what was Milosevic doing while this Security Council staff member and our other leaders were making these pronouncements? He was laying the groundwork to start his policy of ethnic cleansing. Our intelligence community should have known that he was getting ready to move into Kosovo at the first sight of NATO bombers. We should have had a Plan B and a Plan C in case the ``sign or bomb'' approach didn't work. Where was our intelligence? Why didn't they anticipate such a massive outpouring of refugees? Or more chilling, maybe our intelligence did have the answer, and no one listened to them! The whole impetus for the Rambouillet agreement was to prevent ethnic cleansing, to prevent murder and genocide, to prevent an escalation of a wider war, to prevent an outpouring of refugees, reduce the likelihood of xenophobia and to prevent regional destabilization. Everything Rambouillet was supposed to prevent from happening, happened because we misjudged Milosevic with our ``sign or bomb'' diplomacy. Now look at what we have. Before the air war there were 45,000 refugees outside of Kosovo. Now there are more than 850,000 refugees outside of Kosovo and probably more than half a million more inside Kosovo. We've had ethnic cleansing and we're now seeing mass graves. It was as if the floodgates of death and destruction opened up once the air war started. Initial projections are that over ten thousand Kosovars died due to ethnic cleansing; and another 1,200 civilians were killed in Serbia due to the bombing. The infrastructure of Kosovo and Serbia is destroyed and the most vulnerable--women, children and the elderly--are in jeopardy. In addition, Serb monasteries have been desecrated, religious icons destroyed, and there are further reports that clergy members were kidnapped by men of the KLA. Hopefully the KLA will be brought under control to prevent any further ethnic cleansing of people in Kosovo. This war has been a humanitarian disaster. As I just mentioned, we've destroyed the infrastructure in Kosovo and in Serbia--bridges, roads, industry, water purification and electricity--and in Kosovo alone, the European Union estimates run at about $30 billion to rebuild. In Serbia, estimates run anywhere from $50 billion to $150 billion. One thing that no one talks about is the ecological disaster facing the entire region. We've destroyed an oil and petrochemical refinery complex in Pancevo, which has sent benzo-pyrene into the atmosphere, there are toxic substances released from oil and chemical plants along the Danube River into the river. We've bombed other chemical plants and oil refineries that have sent toxic substances into the environment, which has caused acid rain to fall in southwestern Romania and has caused air contaminants to be registered in Hungary. In addition, it is believed that some of our tank-piercing shells used depleted uranium in order to penetrate the hulls of Serbian tanks. The full effects of these shells are still unknown. There have been reports of increased numbers of stillborn babies, birth defects, childhood leukemia and other cancers in the children born to soldiers who served in the Iraq war; where depleted uranium was used as well. In addition, depleted uranium is believed to contribute to Gulf War syndrome--a debilitating chronic sickness that a number of our Gulf War veterans suffer. This war has also had a disastrous impact on the economies of Serbia's neighbors. The Danube River flows through Belgrade on its way to the sea. The Danube starts in West Germany and flows through Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Croatia, Serbia (and Vojvodina), Romania and Bulgaria. The Danube is a major economic thoroughfare for these nations, but because of our bombing campaign, river traffic has been curtailed. And until we clean up the river and rebuild the bridges, the passage of ships will be blocked and both truckers and shippers will find it difficult to move their goods to market. By our bombing, we have put a tourniquet on the economic lifeblood of many nations in the region. I've met with the Bulgarian President Stoyanov, Foreign Minister Mihaylova and Ambassador Philip Dimitrov and I've spoken with several Romanian leaders--all have asked if they are going to be part of the economic recovery plan for Southeast Europe. They also want to know if the United States and NATO recognize that the infrastructure damage in Serbia is directly impacting their economic well being. I don't believe too many people realize the economic ripple effect on Serbia's neighbors that the air war has caused. Tourism, a main economic boost to the entire region at this time of year, has been seriously affected. The agriculture planting season in Yugoslavia has been disrupted which will likely result in food shortages and high prices in the coming months as the area struggles to feed everyone. As I said earlier, shipping goods is more hazardous and shippers must use more circuitous routes to avoid conflict and destroyed infrastructure, which raises costs. The economic uncertainty because of the war (not to mention the destruction of plants and jobsites) has caused a tremendous increase in unemployment in the region--which adds to the refugee problem; as people go elsewhere looking for work. The diversion of economic resources by Serbia's neighbors to address the problems raised by the war (e.g. refugees, environmental damage), particularly Albania and Macedonia. Last month I was with the Deputy Foreign Minister of Macedonia, Boris Traijkovski, who said this war had had a $400 million (and growing) impact on their economy. We need to recognize and respond to this regional economic crisis. We have also suffered a tremendous blow to our nation's image. We've damaged our relations with the Russians. A recent public opinion poll in Russia indicated that 72% of the Russian people have an unfavorable view of the United States, whereas before the war it was at 28%. I can't help but wonder if the war would have been over sooner--or averted--had we worked with the United Nations and Russia from the beginning and not asked them to come in as an afterthought. And what about the Chinese? With the bombing of their embassy in Belgrade, we've harmed nearly 30 years of good relations with China and destroyed the leg-up we had with them. We've had rioting in front of the U.S. Embassy in China and we've had the humiliating image of our Ambassador in Beijing trapped inside. We've lost prestige with a number of Europeans, who look upon this war as a giant American bombing ``video game''--a sort of Star Wars-- complete with a daily score card of target ``hits.'' There are reports of anti-Americanism happening throughout Europe. Mr. President, I will be attending the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia in two weeks. I am curious to hear, first hand, what these parliamentarians think about the United States, and how the people in their respective nations feel about the United States. I look forward to sharing my observations with my colleagues upon my return. Like Bosnia, this country will be in Kosovo as one diplomat has told me ``for as far as the eye can see,''and it will have a lasting impact on our finances. It is being paid for right now with Social Security. I believe the war over there has been a disaster--one of our worst foreign policy decisions of the century, and no amount of plastering over of the Clinton Administration can cover it up. Let me be clear--we must get rid of Milosevic. He is a war criminal. And I am glad we are reportedly finally trying to help those in Serbia who want democracy. I've been working with Serbs in diaspora for almost two years to find alternative leadership to Milosevic. This group is still willing to help if given support from our State Department. There are Serbs from all over the world who want to help-- doctors, engineers, accountants, architects. We need to encourage the Serbian people to pursue new leadership. We should publicly applaud Serb Orthodox Patriarch Pavle, for calling for Milosevic's removal. The Orthodox Church has been opposed to Milosevic from the beginning, and the Serbian Orthodox Church last week called for the ouster of Milosevic. The Holy Synod, the Church's highest body, said: We demand that the Federal President and his government resign in the interest and the salvation of the people, so that new officials, acceptable at home and abroad, can take responsibility for the people and their future as a National Salvation Government. I thoroughly believe that Milosevic should heed the call from the Church and do what is right--he must put his country's needs and his people's needs ahead of his own. He has put his nation through enough death, destruction and shame. The time is now to step down and I echo the call for his resignation. However, Mr. President, I am concerned that there seems to be a consensus that very little will be done to respond to the needs in Serbia until Milosevic is gone. Mr. President, we must remember that there are more than 500,000 refugees in Serbia and over 250,000 that were ethnically cleansed from southern Croatia in 1995 and reports are that they could have 50,000 more coming out of Kosovo. And though I am somewhat comforted that the President and the European Community have said they will respond to the humanitarian needs, I am really interested in how they define ``humanitarian.'' I am certainly hopeful that humanitarian means things like repairing the bridges and cleaning the Danube, so people can go to work and receive necessary goods, bringing power back on-line, so people's essential needs can be met, or mending the basic infrastructure, to provide clean water and sanitation. However, based on news reports from this weekend, that does not seem to be the entire case; the West is only considering food, medicine and basic humanitarian aid, including, hopefully, electricity. Nevertheless, I believe we should listen to Russian Prime Minister Sergei Stepashin who, according to the Washington Post, says the West is taking a short-sighted attitude on aid, which will foment resentment among the Serb people and make it hard to be a part of restoring peaceful relations in the region. Stepashin said, ``You must not penalize 10 million Serbs for the conduct of one man.'' We all know that part of our post-war objective in Yugoslavia is to get rid of Slobodan Milosevic. The best way to do that is to present an olive branch, not to him, but to the people of Serbia. If we help the people, if we give them the humanitarian assistance they need directly, we speed up the process to his ouster. However, if we don't help, Milosevic will continue to keep his political hold by appealing to his constituents' worst instincts about NATO and the U.S. In addition, our actions to help the Serbian people re-build will have a ripple effect on the rest of the region, such as Bulgaria and Romania, which have a great need to revitalize their respective economies. We should support infrastructure programs that respond to the greater economic vitality of the entire region no matter where they are located. As the international community continues to examine its options and alternatives for the redevelopment of the region, they should consider removing the outer wall of sanctions to allow the IMF and the World Bank into Serbia to promote its long-term reconstruction, understanding that the Serbian people will know that this cannot happen with Milosevic's vice-grip on all the institutions in the country. There is a responsibility on the part of the countries of NATO to recognize that the Balkan nations are European, and they must be brought aggressively into the European fold. The fact that the Europeans are taking on the lion's share of rebuilding the infrastructure and economy is the best guarantee that Southeast Europe will join the European and world economies, and presents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make lasting and significant changes in that part of Europe. For that challenge to become a reality, the people of Southeastern Europe, including the people of Slovenia and Croatia, must understand that they all have a symbiotic relationship. By working together, their economies will improve, their standard of living will increase and the nationalism and ethnic cleansing that has plagued them for centuries will end. I have often said that ``there is some good that blows in an ill wind,'' and I consider this war to be an ``ill wind.'' However, the good that is blowing is the opportunity for the United States and NATO, to provide the impetus for a lasting peace to prevail throughout Southeastern Europe. We can provide the reconstruction assistance that righted the economies of the rest of Europe after World War II and which has made them economically prosperous and willing defenders of the rights of all men and women. We have had two world wars that have sprung from Europe in this century. We have a chance to guarantee that there will be no such wars in the 21st Century by helping restore Southeast Europe. It is important to the world, and its important to the strategic and national interests of the United States of America. I have two mottoes: ``Together, we can do it'' and the other is our state motto, ``With God, all things are possible.'' I am confident that working together with our allies and with God's help, we can get the job done. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 1 p.m. Following morning business, the Senate will begin consideration of S. 1133, the agriculture appropriations bill. Amendments are expected to that legislation, and it is hoped that Members will coordinate with the managers of the bill to offer their amendments. In addition, the Senate may resume consideration of the State Department authorization bill during today's session. Any votes ordered with respect to either of these bills will occur at 5:30 this evening. It is the intention of the leader to complete action on the State Department authorization bill and to make significant progress on the agriculture appropriations bill. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank the Chair.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, no one cares about our Nation's steelworkers and steel industry more than I. Since 1979, I have been at the forefront in support of Ohio's steel industry. As Mayor of Cleveland and Governor of Ohio, I pressured the Reagan and Bush Administrations to enforce the voluntary restraint agreements, VRAs, on steel and to make sure that all U.S. trade laws were enforced as soon as those agreements expired. In 1991, I set up the first Ohio Steel Industry Advisory Council as a public-private partnership to strengthen ties among the steel industry, the state of Ohio and its citizens. And last year, when steel imports reached record levels, I was one of the first elected officials to pressure the Clinton administration to stop the illegal dumping of steel in our country. Since October of 1998, I have written the President three letters urging him to take action on behalf of the steel industry. Ohio is now the largest steel producing state in the Nation--a development that occurred during my term as governor. Many have assumed that because steel is so important to the state of Ohio that I would vote in favor of this legislation. But it is because steel is so important that I cannot vote in favor of this legislation. There are three fundamental reasons why. First, this bill does not provide industry-wide assistance. The legislation as it has been presented to the Senate provides loan- guarantee assistance to a few steel companies, and not all companies. In fact, the vast majority of steel companies in Ohio have not approached me indicating that my vote in favor of this legislation was crucial. Some steel companies in my state are opposed to this bill. It does not make sense that in an economy as strong as ours, with steel production in the United States at record, all-time highs, with all the construction that is occurring in our nation, and all the cars that are being made and the record unemployment, that we should pass a package that is meant to assist only a handful of companies. Which brings me to my second point: the government should not be in the position of picking winners and losers. What this legislation does is tell those companies that may have made poor business decisions that they will be given help. Meanwhile, we ignore those companies that have done the right actions to make themselves competitive. This is not the spirit of American enterprise. Indeed, I have to ask if we are going to make it the business of the federal government to help companies inside particular industries on a regular basis. We could be here in the Senate spending every taxpayer dollar bailing out specific businesses inside specific industries whenever we saw an economic threat or whenever we desired. Where will we draw the line? How will we decide which failing companies we'll bail out? What criteria will we use? Every time a company has a bad quarter or a bad year, should the federal government provide them with financial assistance? How are we different from those foreign countries we criticize for subsidizing their companies that are struggling to compete? These are the kinds of questions we need to ask if this is going to be the policy our government pursues. Third, the history behind such loan programs points to a high default rate. The proponents of this legislation have indicated that they expect a default rate on the loans of 14%. That means of the $1 billion worth of loans that the government will guarantee for steel manufacturers, $140 million of that is expected to never be repaid. For the oil and gas industry, the expected default rate is higher, 25%, or $125 million on a loan guarantee of $500 million. In essence, what Congress wants to do is allow the federal government to simply write off $265 million of taxpayer funds. That money has to come from somewhere, whether it's the Social Security trust fund, tax increases, or cuts in essential programs for our children. The last time this nation established a steel loan guarantee program in 1978, the default rate was 77%. Five companies took out loans--all five companies defaulted and the U.S. taxpayer was forced to pick-up the tab for $222 million. The U.S. Commerce Department's Economic Development Administration said at the time, ``By any measurement, EDA's steel loan program would have to be considered a failure.'' In addition, EDA said, ``the program is an excellent example of the folly inherent in industrial policy programs.'' Now, I cannot guarantee that the companies today, if given these loan guarantees, will default at such a high rate, but I do not believe we should be making the same mistakes twice at the expense of other federal programs. Mr. President, there have been scant few instances where the Federal Government getting involved in market decisions has been productive. I do not believe that we should do so here.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the Federalism Accountability Act of 1999, along with my colleagues Senator Fred Thompson and Senator Carl Levin. Our legislation is the culmination of months of bipartisan effort that we believe will restore the fundamental principles of federalism. In my 33 years of public service, at every level of government, I have seen first hand the relationship of the federal government with respect to state and local government. The nature of that relationship has molded my passion for the issue of federalism and the need to spell-out the appropriate role of the federal government with respect to our state and local governments. It is why I vowed that when I was elected to the Senate, I would work to find ways in which the federal government can be a better partner with these levels of government. I have long been concerned with the federal government becoming involved in matters and issues which I believe are best handled by state and local governments. I also have been concerned about the tendency of the federal government to preempt our state and local governments and mandate new responsibilities without the funding to pay for them. In a speech before the Volunteers of the National Archives in 1986 regarding thee relationship of the Constitution with America's cities and the evolution of federalism, I brought to the attention of the audience my observations since my early days in government regarding the course American government had been taking: We have seen the expansion of the federal government into new, non-traditional domestic policy areas. We have experienced a tremendous increase in the proclivity of Washington both to preempt state and local authority and to mandate actions on state and local governments. The cumulative effect of a series of actions by the Congress, the Executive Branch and the U.S. Supreme Court have caused some legal scholars to observe that while constitutional federalism is alive in scholarly treatises, it has expired as a practical political reality. We have made great progress since I gave that speech more than a dozen years go. An outstanding article last year written by Carl Tubbesing, the deputy executive director of the National Council of State Legislatures, in State Legislatures magazine, outlined what he called the five ``hallmarks of devolution''--legislation in the 1990's that changed the face of the federal-state-local government partnership and reversed the decades long trend toward federal centralization. These bills are the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, the Safe Drinking Water Reform Act Amendments, Welfare Reform, Medicaid reforms such as elimination of the Boren amendment, and the establishment of the Children's Health Insurance Program. Also, just this year, Congress has passed and the President has signed into law two important pieces of legislation which enhance the state, local and federal partnership. Those initiatives are the Education Flexibility Act, which gives our states and school districts the freedom to use their federal funds for identified education priorities, and the Anti-Tobacco Recoupment provision in the Supplemental Appropriations bill that prevents the federal government from taking any portion of the $246 billion in tobacco settlement funds from the states. Although these achievements have helped revive federalism, it is clear that state and local governments still need protection from federal encroachment in state and local affairs. It is equally clear that the federal government needs to do more to be better partners with our state and local governments. As Congress is less eager to impose unfunded mandates, largely because of the commitments we won through the Unfunded Mandates law, there is a growing interest in imposing policy preemptions. The proposed federal moratorium on all state and local taxes on Internet commerce is just one striking example that could have a devastating effect on the ability of States and localities to serve their citizens. The danger of this growing trend toward federal preemption is the reason the Federalism Accountability Act is so important. The legislation makes Congress and federal agencies clear and accountable when enacting laws and rules that preempt State and local authority. It also directs the courts to err on the side of state sovereignty when interpreting vague Federal rules and statutes where the intent to preempt state authority is unclear. I am particularly gratified that this legislation addresses a misinterpretation of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act as it applies to large entitlement programs. The Federalism Accountability Act clarifies that major new requirements imposed on States under entitlement authority are to be scored by the Congressional Budget Office as unfunded mandates. It also requires that where Congress has capped the Federal share of an entitlement program, the accompanying committee and CBO reports must analyze whether the legislation includes new flexibility or whether there is existing flexibility to offset additional costs incurred by the States. This important ``fix'' to the Unfunded Mandates law is long overdue and I am pleased we are including it in our federalism bill. The Federalism Accountability Act is a welcome and needed step toward protecting our States and communities against interference from Washington. It builds upon the gains we have already made in restoring the balance between the Federal Government and the States envisioned by the Framers of our Constitution. I am proud to have played a role in crafting it, and I hope all my colleagues will lend their support to this worthy legislation.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the Federalism Accountability Act of 1999, along with my colleagues Senator Fred Thompson and Senator Carl Levin. Our legislation is the culmination of months of bipartisan effort that we believe will restore the fundamental principles of federalism. In my 33 years of public service, at every level of government, I have seen first hand the relationship of the federal government with respect to state and local government. The nature of that relationship has molded my passion for the issue of federalism and the need to spell-out the appropriate role of the federal government with respect to our state and local governments. It is why I vowed that when I was elected to the Senate, I would work to find ways in which the federal government can be a better partner with these levels of government. I have long been concerned with the federal government becoming involved in matters and issues which I believe are best handled by state and local governments. I also have been concerned about the tendency of the federal government to preempt our state and local governments and mandate new responsibilities without the funding to pay for them. In a speech before the Volunteers of the National Archives in 1986 regarding thee relationship of the Constitution with America's cities and the evolution of federalism, I brought to the attention of the audience my observations since my early days in government regarding the course American government had been taking: We have seen the expansion of the federal government into new, non-traditional domestic policy areas. We have experienced a tremendous increase in the proclivity of Washington both to preempt state and local authority and to mandate actions on state and local governments. The cumulative effect of a series of actions by the Congress, the Executive Branch and the U.S. Supreme Court have caused some legal scholars to observe that while constitutional federalism is alive in scholarly treatises, it has expired as a practical political reality. We have made great progress since I gave that speech more than a dozen years go. An outstanding article last year written by Carl Tubbesing, the deputy executive director of the National Council of State Legislatures, in State Legislatures magazine, outlined what he called the five ``hallmarks of devolution''--legislation in the 1990's that changed the face of the federal-state-local government partnership and reversed the decades long trend toward federal centralization. These bills are the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, the Safe Drinking Water Reform Act Amendments, Welfare Reform, Medicaid reforms such as elimination of the Boren amendment, and the establishment of the Children's Health Insurance Program. Also, just this year, Congress has passed and the President has signed into law two important pieces of legislation which enhance the state, local and federal partnership. Those initiatives are the Education Flexibility Act, which gives our states and school districts the freedom to use their federal funds for identified education priorities, and the Anti-Tobacco Recoupment provision in the Supplemental Appropriations bill that prevents the federal government from taking any portion of the $246 billion in tobacco settlement funds from the states. Although these achievements have helped revive federalism, it is clear that state and local governments still need protection from federal encroachment in state and local affairs. It is equally clear that the federal government needs to do more to be better partners with our state and local governments. As Congress is less eager to impose unfunded mandates, largely because of the commitments we won through the Unfunded Mandates law, there is a growing interest in imposing policy preemptions. The proposed federal moratorium on all state and local taxes on Internet commerce is just one striking example that could have a devastating effect on the ability of States and localities to serve their citizens. The danger of this growing trend toward federal preemption is the reason the Federalism Accountability Act is so important. The legislation makes Congress and federal agencies clear and accountable when enacting laws and rules that preempt State and local authority. It also directs the courts to err on the side of state sovereignty when interpreting vague Federal rules and statutes where the intent to preempt state authority is unclear. I am particularly gratified that this legislation addresses a misinterpretation of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act as it applies to large entitlement programs. The Federalism Accountability Act clarifies that major new requirements imposed on States under entitlement authority are to be scored by the Congressional Budget Office as unfunded mandates. It also requires that where Congress has capped the Federal share of an entitlement program, the accompanying committee and CBO reports must analyze whether the legislation includes new flexibility or whether there is existing flexibility to offset additional costs incurred by the States. This important ``fix'' to the Unfunded Mandates law is long overdue and I am pleased we are including it in our federalism bill. The Federalism Accountability Act is a welcome and needed step toward protecting our States and communities against interference from Washington. It builds upon the gains we have already made in restoring the balance between the Federal Government and the States envisioned by the Framers of our Constitution. I am proud to have played a role in crafting it, and I hope all my colleagues will lend their support to this worthy legislation.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, today the Senate will resume consideration of the defense appropriations bill with a vote ordered on the pending Grassley amendment to occur at 9:45 a.m. As a reminder, first-degree amendments to the bill must be offered by 2:30 p.m. today. Therefore, additional amendments and votes are expected throughout today's session, with the expectation of finishing the bill this evening. Cloture was filed on the motion to proceed to the Y2K legislation yesterday. Thus, a cloture vote will take place on Wednesday. I thank my colleagues for their attention. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Surface Transportation Act of 1999 along with my colleagues, Chairman Chafee of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Senators Moynihan, Jeffords, Reid, Warner, Hutchison, Reid, Lautenberg and Leahy. The purpose of this bill is to provide additional flexibility to the States and localities in implementing the Federal transportation program. Let me briefly describe the three most significant provisions of the bill. (1) State infrastructure banks--the bill authorizes all 50 states to participate in the State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) program. SIBs are revolving funds, capitalized with Federal and State contributions, which are empowered to make loans and provide other forms of non-grant assistance to transportation projects. Before TEA-21 was enacted, transferring Federal highway funding to a State Infrastructure Bank was an option available to all 50 states, with 39 states actively participating. Regrettably, TEA-21 limited the SIB program to just four states. This section would restore the program as it existed prior to TEA-21. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the National Association of State Treasurers, and numerous industry groups, including the American Road & Transportation Builders (ARTBA), strongly support legislation giving all states the opportunity to participate in the SIB program. The availability of SIB financial assistance has attracted additional investment. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, SIBs made 21 loans and signed agreements for another 33 loans as of November 1, 1998. Together, these 54 projects are scheduled to receive SIB loan disbursements totaling $408 million to support project investments of more than $2.3 billion--resulting in a leverage ratio of about 5.6 to 1 (total project investment to amount of SIB investment). (2) High priority project flexibility--the bill includes a provision that allows States the flexibility to advance a ``high priority'' project faster than is allowed by TEA-21, which provides the funding for high priority projects spread over the six-year life of TEA-21. This provision would allow States to accelerate the construction of their ``high priority'' projects by borrowing funds from other highway funding categories (e.g., NHS, STP, CMAQ). The flexibility is particularly important for states who are ready to construct some of the high priority projects in the first few years of TEA-21, and without this provision, may need to defer completion until the later years of TEA-21. (3) Funding flexibility for Intercity passenger rail--the bill also gives States the option to use their National Highway System, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funds, and Surface Transportation Program funds to fund capital expenses associated with intercity passenger rail service, including high-speed rail service. The National Governors' Association, has passed a resolution requesting this additional flexibility for states to meet their transportation needs. In testimony before the committee, the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National Council of State Legislatures also requested this additional flexibility. In closing, I would like to encourage my colleagues to support this bill, especially for members whose states who are supportive of the State Infrastructure Bank program, have high priority projects that are ready-to-go, or would like the option of using available Federal transportation funding to support intercity passenger rail needs in their state. I encourage my colleagues to support this important legislation. I ask that a section by section description of the bill be printed into the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Surface Transportation Act of 1999 along with my colleagues, Chairman Chafee of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Senators Moynihan, Jeffords, Reid, Warner, Hutchison, Reid, Lautenberg and Leahy. The purpose of this bill is to provide additional flexibility to the States and localities in implementing the Federal transportation program. Let me briefly describe the three most significant provisions of the bill. (1) State infrastructure banks--the bill authorizes all 50 states to participate in the State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) program. SIBs are revolving funds, capitalized with Federal and State contributions, which are empowered to make loans and provide other forms of non-grant assistance to transportation projects. Before TEA-21 was enacted, transferring Federal highway funding to a State Infrastructure Bank was an option available to all 50 states, with 39 states actively participating. Regrettably, TEA-21 limited the SIB program to just four states. This section would restore the program as it existed prior to TEA-21. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the National Association of State Treasurers, and numerous industry groups, including the American Road & Transportation Builders (ARTBA), strongly support legislation giving all states the opportunity to participate in the SIB program. The availability of SIB financial assistance has attracted additional investment. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, SIBs made 21 loans and signed agreements for another 33 loans as of November 1, 1998. Together, these 54 projects are scheduled to receive SIB loan disbursements totaling $408 million to support project investments of more than $2.3 billion--resulting in a leverage ratio of about 5.6 to 1 (total project investment to amount of SIB investment). (2) High priority project flexibility--the bill includes a provision that allows States the flexibility to advance a ``high priority'' project faster than is allowed by TEA-21, which provides the funding for high priority projects spread over the six-year life of TEA-21. This provision would allow States to accelerate the construction of their ``high priority'' projects by borrowing funds from other highway funding categories (e.g., NHS, STP, CMAQ). The flexibility is particularly important for states who are ready to construct some of the high priority projects in the first few years of TEA-21, and without this provision, may need to defer completion until the later years of TEA-21. (3) Funding flexibility for Intercity passenger rail--the bill also gives States the option to use their National Highway System, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funds, and Surface Transportation Program funds to fund capital expenses associated with intercity passenger rail service, including high-speed rail service. The National Governors' Association, has passed a resolution requesting this additional flexibility for states to meet their transportation needs. In testimony before the committee, the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National Council of State Legislatures also requested this additional flexibility. In closing, I would like to encourage my colleagues to support this bill, especially for members whose states who are supportive of the State Infrastructure Bank program, have high priority projects that are ready-to-go, or would like the option of using available Federal transportation funding to support intercity passenger rail needs in their state. I encourage my colleagues to support this important legislation. I ask that a section by section description of the bill be printed into the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with several of my Senate colleagues that will address the physical, cognitive and social development of an often-overlooked segment of our nation's population--children from prenatal to three years old. Our bill, the ``Prenatal, Infant and Child Development Act of 1999,'' will give states the necessary tools to help children cultivate the basic learning patterns and abilities that they will use throughout their lives. We need to do all that we can to create healthy, early childhood development systems across the country, and Senator Graham and I believe it is within the most important years of a child's life-- prenatal to three--that the most beneficial influence can be provided by parents, grandparents and caregivers. Every field of endeavor has peak moments of discovery, when past knowledge converges with new information, new insights and new technologies to produce startling opportunities for advancement. For the healthy development of young children--we are faced with one such moment. Today, thanks to decades of research on brain chemistry and sophisticated new technologies, neuroscientists have the data that tells us the experiences that fill a baby's first days, months, and years have a decisive impact on the architecture of the brain and on the nature and extent of one's adult capabilities. It is the education, the love and the nurturing that our children receive during the years prenatal to three that will help determine who they become 10, 20 and 30 years down the road. Consequently, a tremendous opportunity exists to assist those individuals and families most at risk in the area of prenatal care through age three. We must work to create systems that support and educate families expecting a baby and those already with young children. We must present a message that is perfectly clear--education does not and cannot begin in kindergarten, or even in a quality preschool. Mr. President, in 1997, I served as Chairman of the National Governors' Association (NGA). My focus during my tenure as Chairman, was the National Education Goal One, that by the year 2000, all children in America will start school ready to learn. We developed goals, model indicators, and measures of performance of child and family well-being in order to impact school readiness. The results-oriented goals focused states on the improved conditions of young children and their families. We encouraged state and local governments to look across a variety of delivery systems--health care, child care, family support, and education--to make sure these systems would work together effectively for young children and their families. Based on that effort, between 1997 and 1998, 42 governors made early childhood development a keynote issue as they outlined their state agendas. Improving education is really about the process of ``lifelong learning,'' which includes efforts based on what doctors and researchers have said about the importance of positive early childhood learning experiences. The traditional primary and secondary education community needs to recognize that investments in early childhood aid their ultimate goal--that is, a classroom that can continue to move the learning process forward. To achieve that goal, a significant tenet of our education agenda must be to ensure that our children enter school ready to learn. Thus, we must support parents and caregivers, to help them understand that day-to-day interaction with young children helps children develop cognitively, socially and emotionally. To ensure that children have the best possible start in life, supports must exist to help parents and other adults who care for young children. Supports that are critical for young children from prenatal through age three include health care, nutrition programs, childcare, early development services adoption assistance, education programs, and other support services. There are three ways we can enhance these supports and create new ones. The first is to build on existing programs well underway in the states and the local communities by protecting and increasing federal commitments to worthwhile programs such as WIC (Women, Infants, and Children), CCDBG (Child Care and Development Block Grant), and S-CHIP (State-Children's Health Insurance Program). The second is to improve coordination among federal agencies in the administration of early childhood programs. As Chairman of the Senate Government Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring, and the District of Columbia. I am taking steps to ensure, for example, that the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services communicate with each other about the early childhood programs for which they are responsible in order to determine which are duplicative and which are most successful. The Results Act contemplates that agencies should be using their Performance Plans to demonstrate how daily activities, including coordination, contribute to the achievement of strategic goals. GAO evaluated the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services 5-year Strategic Plans, and FY 1999 and FY 2000 Annual Performance Plans with regard to their coordination efforts. GAO found that both departments' plans are not living up to their full potential. While they address the issue of coordination, the plans provide little detail about their intentions to implement such coordination efforts. I met with both departments and asked that they submit an amended Performance Plan that provided a more detailed compilation of coordination activities and examples. We should emerge from this exercise with a consensus on the most promising programs for our children. The third way to improve support services is to encourage states to make prenatal to three development a priority. Our bill gives state and local governments additional resources to provide these necessary support services. At the same time, it recognizes that tight spending restraints limit available resources. Consequently, it is a modest, incremental bill that encourages collaboration and integration among existing programs and services and provides additional flexibility to states and local governments if they implement programs to provide coordinated services dedicated to meeting the needs of young children. Most child advocacy groups rank collaboration on the local level as fundamental and essential to successful programs for healthy childhood development. Under the bill, funds will be provided through the CCDBG program and will reward states that initiate such collaboration in creating state and local councils. It will also encourage states with existing collaboratives to help them expand their focus to social, emotional and cognitive development so that children have the best possible start in life. Funds could be used for a variety of coordinated services, such as child care, child development, pediatric literacy, parent education, home visits, or health services. States will lay out plans that identify ways to further promote the importance of early childhood care and education. Plans should also identify existing supports available for these children and ways that state and local councils can work with already established early development programs. In addition, the bill focuses on three particular areas to increase public awareness and enhance training opportunities for parents and other adults caring for young children. The first would provide funding to expand a satellite television network nationally. In order to help parents and caregivers do a better job of creating an environment where kids can learn, the legislation provides funds to support satellite television network services directly connected to child care centers, preschools, colleges, Early Head Start sites and the Internet. These services include high quality training, news, jobs and medical information dedicated to the specific needs of the Head Start staff and others in the early childhood community. In my state of Ohio, we already have networks in place at 1,500 sites. The bill provides for a partnership between at least one non-profit organization and other public or private entities specializing in broadcast programs for parents and professionals in the early childhood field. The goal is to blend the latest in satellite technology with sound ``prenatal to three'' information and training principles, potentially reaching more than 140,000 caregivers and parents each month. The second would provide financial incentives for child-care workers to pursue credentialing or accreditation in early childhood education. Although many states do not have formal credentialing standards, there are several national organizations with accreditation curricula. The legislation encourages caregivers to pursue skills-based training (including via satellite or on the Internet) that leads to credentialing or accreditation by the state or national organization. Whatever qualified incentive program is initiated, employers would be required to match each dollar of the Federal contribution. The third would reauthorize and expand the multimedia parenting resources through video, print and interactive resources in the PBS ``Ready to Learn'' initiative. These resources include: Expanded Internet offerings that enable parents to reinforce PBS' ``Ready to Learn'' curriculum at home. ``Ready to Learn'' material would be directly accessible from the web for parents to utilize in reinforcing their child's appreciation of public television programs prior to and after program viewing. Expanded national programming, such as Mr. Rogers and Sesame Street. Formalized and expanded ``Ready to Learn Teachers'' training and certificate programs using ``The Whole Child'' video courseware, collateral print materials and the development of new video and print courseware. Expanded caregiver/parent training which would include workshops, distribution of material, and broadcasting of educational video vignettes regarding developmentally appropriate activities for young children. Deployment of a 24-hour channel of Ready to Learn-based children's programming and parenting training through digital technology. Our bill would also allow the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program to serve young children in a more effective manner by allowing states the ability to transfer up to 10 percent of a state's TANF grant to the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG). Originally, the 1996 welfare reform bill allowed states this flexibility. However, this was restricted in 1998 to allow states to transfer just 4.25 percent of their TANF grant as an offset to help pay for new highway investments in TEA-21. Social Services Block Grants (Title XX of the Social Security Act) are a flexible source of funds that states may use to support a wide variety of social services for children and families, including child day care, protective services for children, foster care, and home-based services. The bill would also allow an additional 15 percent transfer of TANF money to the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) for expenditures under a state early childhood collaboration program. Currently, states are permitted to transfer up to 30 percent of TANF to a combination of the CCDBG and SSBG. The Welfare Reform Act restructured federal childcare programs, repealed three welfare-related childcare programs and amended the Child Care Development Block Grant (CCDBG). Under current law, states receive a combination of mandatory and discretionary grants, part of which is subject to a state match. These funds would allow states to create or expand local early childhood development coordination councils (10 percent of the transfer authority), or to enhance child care quality in existing programs (5 percent of the transfer authority). Using these new resources, states can implement coordinated programs at the local level, such as ``one-stop shopping'' for parents with young children. Under this particular program, parents could have a well-baby care visit, meet with a counselor to discuss questions and concerns about the baby's development or receive referrals for help in enrollment in child-care. Further, the legislation would alter the high performance bonus find within TANF to include criteria related to child welfare. The current criteria are based upon the recommendations of the National Governors' Association (NGA) high performance bonus fund work group. The bonus fund currently provides $200 million annually to states for meeting certain work-related performance targets, such as improvement of long- term self-sufficiency rates by current and former TANF recipients. The performance targets should be expanded to include family- and child- related criteria, such as increases in immunization rates, literacy and preschool participation. Finally, our bill encourages States to use their Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant to target activities that address the needs of children from prenatal to three. The Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant funds a broad range of health services to mothers and children, particularly those with low income or limited access to health services. Its goals are to reduce infant mortality, prevent disease and handicapping conditions among children and increase the availability of prenatal, delivery and postpartum care to mothers. States are required to use 30 percent of their block grant for preventive and primary care services for children, 30 percent for services to children with special health care needs, and 40 percent at the states' discretion for either of these groups or for other appropriate maternal and child health activities. Using this existing funding, this legislation encourages states to design programs to address the social and emotional development needs of children under the age of five. It encourages states to provide coordinated early development services, parent education, and strategies to meet the needs of state and local populations. It does not mandate any specific model, nor does it require that states set- aside a specific amount of money from this block grant. Rather, it is intended to give states flexibility in finding money to devote more resources to existing or new healthy early childhood development systems. Mr. President, the pace at which children grow and learn during the first three years of life makes that period the most critical in their overall development. Children who lack proper nutrition, health care and nurturing during their early years tend to also lack adequate social, motor and language skills needed to perform well in school. I believe that all children, parents, and caregivers should have access to coordinated information and support services appropriate for healthy early childhood development in the first three years of life. The changing structure of the family requires that states streamline and coordinate healthy early childhood development systems of care to meet the needs of parents and children in the 21st century. The Federal Government's role in the development of these systems of care is minimal; it must give states the flexibility to implement programs that respond to local needs and conditions. Although it's just a modest step, that's exactly what our bill does. Our children are our most precious natural resource. They are our hope and they are our future. Therefore, I encourage my colleagues to co-sponsor our legislation, and I urge the Senate during the 106th Congress to make prenatal to three a priority for the sake of our children. Thank you, Mr. President, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.