George Voinovich

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.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, prior to being elected to the Senate, I served the people of Ohio for two terms as governor. Before that, I served for 10 years as the mayor of Cleveland. I have also been Lieutenant Governor, a County Commissioner, a County Auditor and a State Legislator. I have 33 years of experience at every level of government, which I believe gives me wonderful insight into the relationship of the federal government with respect to state and local government. It is the main reason why, over the length of my service to the people of Ohio, I have developed a passion for the issue of federalism--that is, assigning the appropriate role of the federal government in relation to state and local government. That passion remains with me to this day, and I vowed when I got to the Senate that I would work to sort out the appropriate roles of the federal, state and local governments. I have committed myself to find ways in which the federal government can be a better partner with our nation's state and local governments. One of my concerns has been the overreaching nature of the federal government into areas I have always felt properly belong under the purview of state and local government. Another of my concerns has been the propensity of the federal government to pre-empt our state and local governments. In many cases, the federal government mandated responsibilities to state and local governments and forced them to pay for the mandates themselves. In regard to unfunded mandates, I, and a number of other state and local elected officials finally got fed up enough to lobby Congress to do something about it, and in 1995, Congress passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. I was pleased to be at the Rose Garden representing our state and local governments at the signing ceremony by the President. And while we now know the cost of what the federal government is imposing on the state and local governments, Congress has still got to do more to reverse the tide of ``command and control'' policies in areas intrusive which are the proper responsibility of state and local governments. Indeed, as syndicated columnist David Broder pointed out in a January 11, 1995 article, ``the unfunded mandate bill is a worthy effort. But in the end, the real solution lies in sorting out more clearly what responsibilities should be financed and run by each level of government.'' I wholeheartedly agree. It is imperative that we delineate the proper role of government at the federal, state and local level. Our forefathers referred to this differentiation as federalism, and outlined this relationship in the 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. The importance of the 10th Amendment was inherent to the framers of the Constitution, who sought to preserve for the states their ability to pass and uphold laws that were specific to each individual state. In this way, states would keep their sovereignty over what we consider the ``day to day'' running of society, reserving the more comprehensive functions of the nation to the federal government. This was envisioned by James Madison, who defined the various roles of government in Federalist Paper #45. He wrote: The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce . . . The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and property of the people and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the state. In a speech before the Volunteers of the National Archives in 1986 regarding the relationship of the Constitution with America's cities and the evolution of federalism, I raised a concern about the trend in American government that I had witnessed since the 1960's. I said: 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 pre-empt 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. Mr. President, we have made progress since I spoke those words 13 years ago. Not to the level sought by Madison, but progress just the same. As I mentioned earlier, Congress has passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. We've also passed Safe Drinking Water Act reforms in 1996. In addition, states are making the difference in Medicaid reform and because of the efforts of state leaders working with Congress, we now have comprehensive welfare reform. Also, just this year, we've seen the passage and signing into law of the ``Ed-Flex'' bill, which gives our states and school districts the freedom to use their federal funds for identified education priorities and today we passed legislation preventing the federal government from recouping the tobacco settlement funds back from the states. But we must still do more. Today, we are voting on juvenile justice legislation that would impose certain new federal laws on what is now and has traditionally been a jurisdiction of our state and local governments. I have great respect for the managers of this legislation; they have worked incredibly hard to put together this bill which contains a number of good provisions meant to fight juvenile crime and a smorgasbord of other things that on the surface look very appealing. Unfortunately most of them deal with things that are the proper responsibility of state and local government and violate in spirit and in substance my interpretation of the 10th Amendment and frankly, the interpretation of Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton, who was the greatest proponent in his day of a strong national government, saw law enforcement as a state and local concern. If Hamilton were alive today, he would be appalled at the use of the police power by federal agencies. And to emphasize Hamilton's view, we need only look at Federalist Paper #17: There is one transcendent advantage belonging to the province of the state governments, which alone suffices to place the matter in a clear and satisfactory light. I mean the ordinary administration of criminal and civil justice. Crime control is a primary responsibility of local and state officials. They are on the front lines and they are best suited to tackle the specific problems in their jurisdictions. Juvenile crime control measures are being enacted and carried out in the various states across the country. And sometimes it does take a tragedy such as the one that occurred in Littleton, Colorado or the shooting this morning in Atlanta to spur states on, but they fully recognize their responsibility to provide for the safety of their citizens. The states understand their role and the need to prevent any further increase in juvenile crime. They are responding to that need. Involvement by the federal government in this matter often duplicates the efforts of our state and local governments. I'll never forget, in 1996, when I was Governor and I went to a crime control conference in Pennsylvania with then-Majority Leader Bob Dole. He was running for President at the time. The head of the conference suggested 5 things the federal government should do to reduce juvenile crime. It made sense to me, but when I looked at the recommendations, I realized that in Ohio, we were already doing the things that were recommended. In 1994, we instituted a program called ``RECLAIM Ohio'' which is an innovative approach to juvenile corrections. This program stresses local decision-making and the creation of more effective, less costly community-based correction alternatives to state incarceration. Under ``RECLAIM Ohio,'' local juvenile court judges are given the flexibility to provide the most appropriate rehabilitation option. Since 1992, the population of juvenile offenders in Ohio's youth correction facilities has dropped 20% as a result of this and other innovative local and state programs. Mr. President, the success we have had in Ohio might never have come about if we had to divert our resources towards a federally mandated program. We have seen results with ``RECLAIM Ohio;'' it is best suited for us. In fact, our ``RECLAIM Ohio'' program was selected as one of the top ten innovative programs in government by the JFK School of Government at Harvard University--worthy of replicating elsewhere in the United States. In 1995, Ohio crafted its own comprehensive juvenile crime bill. This bill imposed mandatory bind-over provisions for the most heinous crimes and longer minimum sentences. I believe we should heed the words of Senator Fred Thompson, who gave an eloquent speech about this bill last Wednesday. He said ``Among other things, [this bill] makes it easier to prosecute juveniles in Federal criminal court. We have about 100 to 200 prosecutions a year of juveniles in Federal court. It is a minuscule part of our criminal justice system.'' To put that in perspective, Senator Thompson pointed out that in 1998, there were ``58,000 Federal criminal cases filed involving 79,000 defendants.'' Think about what Senator Thompson says--58,000 total federal criminal cases filed; some 200 prosecutions a year of juveniles in Federal court. Do we honestly think that we'll have an extraordinarily dramatic increase in juvenile prosecutions under this bill? I have to ask: why on earth are we doing this? He further stated, ``[This bill] would allow juveniles as young as 14 years of age to be tried as an adult for violent crimes and drug offenses--drug offenses, again, that are of the street crime category, where we have laws on the books in every State of the Union.'' In a letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, the leaders of the National Governors' Association said ``the nation's governors are concerned that attempts to expand federal criminal law. . .into traditional state functions would have little effect in eliminating crime but could undermine state and local anti- crime efforts.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, the American Bar Association's Task Force on the Federalization of Criminal Law in its report issued at the end of last year stated that ``more than 40% of the federal criminal provisions enacted since the Civil War have been enacted since 1970.'' As a footnote, the report indicates that more than a quarter of the federal criminal provisions were enacted over the sixteen year period of 1980-1996. Some change in the responsibility is legitimate, based upon the scope of particular offenses. However, many changes have simply evolved from current state and local laws that the federal government has either co- opted or the Congress has directed federal agencies to carry-out. As we continue to assign a greater involvement for the federal government in law enforcement, the impact on other resources is also strained, primarily the federal court system. And for those who understand the traditional role of state and local law enforcement, it becomes increasingly frustrating to see the shift in prosecuted crimes. Earlier this month in testimony before the Governmental Affairs Committee, Federal Appeals Court Judge Gilbert S. Merritt said that his Court's docket and the case load of the U.S. Attorney's office for his jurisdiction consists of ``mainly drug and illegal possession of firearms cases and other cases that duplicate state crimes'' and that ``federal prosecution of drug and firearms crime is having a minimal effect on the distribution of drugs and illegal firearms.'' Most compelling, Judge Merritt said ``our law enforcement efforts would be much more effective if Congress repealed most duplicate federal crimes and tried to help local and state street police, detectives, prosecutors and judges do a more effective job.'' Judge Merritt suggested that before we federalize crime enforcement, we should ``concentrate federal criminal law enforcement in only the following core areas: (1) Offenses against the United States itself; (2) Multi-State or international criminal activity that is impossible for a single state or its courts to handle; (3) Crimes that involve a matter of overriding federal interest, such as violation of civil rights by state actors; (4) Widespread corruption at the state and local levels; and (5) Crimes of such magnitude or complexity that federal resources are required.'' Mr. President, based on what I can see, this legislation does not meet these criteria. So, if we are truly concerned about lowering the incidences of violent crime in America, I believe our focus should be not only on the symptoms of juvenile crime, but on the root causes as well. We have to act first, and not react later, if we wish to benefit our kids. To be sure, there are just plain, bad juveniles who need to be locked up. And, we need better information about juvenile offenders, profiles that will help our courts deal with rough kids and get them off the streets. But, I think part of the problem is youngsters aren't getting the moral and family and religious training at home, responsibilities that are falling more and more on our schools. In Ohio, we established a mediation and dispute resolution program in our kindergartens and first grades to get kids to talk out their problems so they don't resort to violence. We did this because I am concerned, Mr. President, about how we can reach our kids, to help make them become decent, productive members of society. What we need to do is draw a line in the sand, and proclaim that we are not going to allow another generation of children to fall by the wayside. We have to say ``This is where it stops.'' We need to become a better partner with state and local government and invest in our children at the most critical juncture of their lives--pre-natal to three--the time when parents and young children are forming life-long attachments and when parents and other care-givers have an opportunity to construct lasting values. I believe putting our efforts towards creating this powerful, enduring impact on a young child's physical, intellectual, emotional and social development will do more to end the cycle of crime and violence in America than anything else the Senate could do. Mr. President, once more, I would like to congratulate the managers of this bill for the time and energy that they have put into this bill, but juvenile crime control is not the responsibility of the federal government. Again, we need only look as far as the Constitution to determine which crimes fall within the purview of the federal government-- 1. Article 1, Section 8--To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States; 2. Article 1, Section 8--To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; and 3. Article 3, Section 3--To declare the punishment for treason. For the remainder of crime that impacts our nation, the 10th Amendment spells out quite clearly how we should deal with it: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Mr. President, we should follow the wisdom of our forefathers. Exhibit 1 National Governors Association, Washington, DC, May 14, 1999. Hon. Orrin G. Hatch, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman and Senator Leahy: As the Senate considers juvenile crime legislation, the nation's Governors believe that the federal government should improve its support of states in combating youth violence. This endeavor requires the development and implementation of programs and policies that strive to prevent delinquency, eliminate the presence of violence wherever children congregate, and ensure strong punishment for those responsible for exposing young people to delinquency, drugs, and violence. The first line of defense against youth violence is responsible parenting. Having recognized this fact, the states' priority in this area should be to establish comprehensive services and programs that prevent youth from committing crime. Prevention programs that build self-esteem through achievement of worthwhile goals and offer an alternative to violent and criminal activity are critical to the successful reduction of juvenile crime. There should be a safe environment for children to grow and develop. This includes schools, parks, playgrounds, and any place youth congregate. The rise in handgun violence especially in and around schools is of concern to Governors. There should be swift and certain punishment for individuals who illegally provide a firearm to a minor, or knowingly provide a firearm to a minor for illegal use. Furthermore, there must be immediate seizure of guns illegally possessed by minors. Also, there should be strict penalties for children below the age of eighteen who illegally possess a firearm. S. 254, the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act of 1999 will be among the legislative initiatives considered regarding juvenile crime. We would like to address some of the provisions in this legislation. Federalization: The nation's Governors are concerned that attempts to expand federal criminal law (Title I of S. 254) into traditional state functions would have little effect in eliminating crime but could undermine state and local anticrime efforts. Further, the Governors are concerned that federal concurrent jurisdiction in criminal justice efforts can be used by the federal government as a means to impose undue mandates on state and local crime control and law enforcement officials. Another federalism issue is raised by section 1802 the ``Juvenile Criminal History Grants.'' It needs language clarifying what information will be contained in the national data bases, who will have access to the data, how the data will be used, and to affirm states' right to ultimately control access to their own data under our federal system. Waiver: The formula in the accountability block grant of S. 254 (Part R--Juvenile Accountability Block Grants, Subtitle B) requires states to pass-through money to local units of governments handling juvenile justice functions. In many states, including Utah and Vermont, the juvenile crime function is administered at the state level of government, working with the locals. S. 254 would allow the Attorney General to waive the pass-through requirement for these states. We support this provision. Flexibility: The current language in S. 254 offers some discretion to Governors over appointments to state advisory boards overseeing implementation of state programs under the Juvenile Justice Act. Governors should have sole discretion over creation, make-up and appointments to state advisory boards. Some states have existing boards that can fulfill this requirement. Furthermore, states should be given maximum flexibility to implement the spirit and purposes of the statute for the goals of delinquency prevention, intervention, and protection of juveniles from harm. Also, S. 254 eases the monitoring requirements for state implementation of the Juvenile Justice program. Program participation with core requirements: Governors believe that rules, regulations, definitions, responsibilities, and reporting requirements authorized in the legislation should be reasonable and not impede states' ability to effectively administer the programs promoted in the legislation. Further, the statute should be designed to encourage full participation in the program by all the states, but not penalize states that choose not to participate in some or all programs. The recent tragic events in Colorado, Oregon, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Mississippi and other areas of the country have focused the nation's attention on the need for juvenile justice reform. We appreciate your taking our concerns under consideration as you debate S. 254. Sincerely, Governor Thomas R. Carper, Chairman. Governor Michael O. Leavitt, Vice Chairman. Governor James B. Hunt, Jr., Chairman, Human Resources Committee. Governor Mike Huckabee, Vice Chairman, Human Resources Committee.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, this week in the Senate, we are discussing legislation that is meant to address the seemingly ever- growing problem of juvenile crime. Before we despair, let us recognize that the overwhelming majority of young people in America are good kids and don't get into trouble with the law and are making a substantial contribution to our society. In fact, in my State of Ohio, the adjudications of young people are down as well as incarceration of young offenders. However, most Americans cannot turn on television, read a newspaper, or pick up a magazine without being told about the crisis facing our society because of young people who have turned violent. The fact that this problem exists at all is a sad commentary on our modern society. However, it is a reality, and we have got to deal with it. The question is, How do we deal with it? As we in Congress try to answer that question we have to make sure that we take the time to deal with juvenile crime from the proper perspective. We cannot expect there to be a silver bullet or a quick fix that will solve our problems, although the recent tragedy in Littleton, CO, has intensified the urgency and our search for answers. Naturally, part of the solution to juvenile crimes is traditional crime prevention, penalties and sentences. However, these remedies, while important, only treat the symptoms of the disease and not the disease itself. I believe our focus should not only be on the symptoms of juvenile crime, but on the root causes as well. Two or three years ago, Princeton University Professor John DiIulio lamented over the upcoming ``predator generation'' because projected demographics showed a marked increase in the amount of young people who were going to become violent in our society. Professor DiIulio commented that we would have a real problem around 2010 to 2015 As Professor DiIulio stated, we have a generation, it seems, growing up in moral poverty. And that is the poverty of being without loving, capable, responsible adults who teach kids right from wrong. Concerned about his pronouncement, I convened a juvenile crime summit in 1997 in Ohio and again in 1998, as Governor. We found that it wasn't longer sentences or boot camps or harsher penalties that were required. What we found we needed to do was to get into the lives of our children at an early age, including while they are in their mother's womb, to give them the positive influences they need. Within the next two weeks, I will be introducing legislation along with Senator Bob Graham from Florida that will help us address the needs of our children in the most critical times of their lives--pre- natal to three. When I was Governor, I often said that if I had a magic wand to solve Ohio's problems, I would reconstitute the family. It's the dysfunction of the family and the lack of moral and religious values that causes so many problems in our nation today. Too often our children are groundless--they have no honor nor fear of the Lord, nor any understanding of the 10 Commandments. I believe the best place to catch problems and prevent them from ever occurring is when children are at their youngest, when parents and young children are forming life-long attachments and when parents and other care-givers have an opportunity to construct lasting values. Government is a lousy substitute for the family. Unfortunately, there are circumstances where the government is the only alternative because there is no family in place. In these situations, we must look for the most effective way to give them our assistance. I truly believe there is something we can do to help in that respect. Today, thanks to decades of research on brain chemistry and through the utilization of sophisticated new technologies, neuro-scientists are telling us that the experiences that fill a baby's first days, months, and years have a decisive impact on the development of the brain and on the nature and extent of one's adult capacities. As a result of the research, we know that throughout the entire process of development, beginning before birth, the brain is affected by environmental conditions such as nourishment, nurturing and sensory stimulation; early childhood care has a decisive and long-lasting impact on how people develop their ability to learn, and their capacity to regulate their own emotions; there are times when negative experiences--or the absence of appropriate stimulation--are more likely to have serious and sustained effects, the period of prenatal to three is such a time in a child's development; the human brain has a remarkable capacity to change, but timing is crucial and the first three years of life appear to be the most influential period for growth and change. To ensure that children prenatal to three have the best possible start in life, we must establish specific support mechanisms to help parents and other adult care-givers. We have to become better partners. These include health care, nutrition programs, childcare, early intervention services, adoption assistance, education programs, and other support services. We must also reach out to parents--our children's first teachers and caregivers--to help them understand that the day-to-day interaction with children helps them to develop cognitively, socially and emotionally. A mother comforting her crying baby, a father holding and reading to his toddler and a care-giver singing and playing with an infant are not just involved in ``feel-good'' interactions. They are involved in biological activities that exert a powerful, enduring impact on the young child's physical, intellectual, emotional and social development. Mr. President, you know, with your large family, that these positive early childhood experiences give children a jump-start or a life-long learning opportunity. It is imperative that our nationwide education agenda be geared toward ensuring that children enter school ready to learn. Otherwise, we put our children at a grave disadvantage of not being well-rounded and productive members of society. In 1991, in my first State of the State Address, I drew a line in the sand in Ohio and said that this was going to be the last generation of children to go on welfare, go to jail, to get pregnant while they are teenagers. We make a commitment to Head Start, to enroll as many eligible children as possible and increasing the funding for that program from $18.4 million in fiscal year 1990 to $181.3 million in fiscal year 1998. And, the fact of the matter is that today in Ohio, we have a slot for every child who is eligible for Head Start, public school, pre-school or special needs. Ohio leads the nation--and does so primarily with state tax dollars. In addition, we established Early Start, which was designed to provide early intervention services for children from pre-natal to three who are at significant risk of abuse, neglect or future developmental delay. It's just a fantastic program. I believe a Federal investment in our children at the most critical juncture of their lives--pre-natal to three--will do more to end the cycle of crime and violence in America than anything else the Senate could do. Studies looking at resiliency in adolescents are finding that a stable beginning contributes significantly to the youth's ability to take control and turn their life around. During consideration of this juvenile justice legislation, we have considered, and may still consider, controversial proposals associated with this bill that elicit either solid support of deep opposition. Yet, when it comes time to consider our legislation to provide enhanced prenatal-to-3 services, I am hopeful that proposal will receive support from both sides of the aisle. I will speak again on this issue when I introduce our legislation in the next 2 weeks. However, with the context of the floor debate, I could not pass up this opportunity to express my views on how best we can get to the root of juvenile crime in this country. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. For the information of all Senators, it is expected that the Senate will resume debate on the juvenile justice bill on Monday afternoon. On Monday, it may be the intention of the leadership to postpone or vitiate the cloture vote with respect to Y2K, if an agreement can be reached regarding proceeding to the bill. However, until or if that vote is canceled, all Senators should be prepared to vote beginning at 9:45 on Tuesday. Senators who have amendments on the list with respect to juvenile justice should be prepared to offer their amendments on Monday. However, no votes will occur on Monday. As previously announced, the majority leader would like to consider the Y2K legislation later in the week, as well as the supplemental appropriations conference report and the bankruptcy reform bill. Therefore, next week, beginning Tuesday, it will be a busy week with rollcall votes throughout each day and evening, if necessary. Consequently, all Members' cooperation will be greatly appreciated.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Baucus and Senator Wyden.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until 12 noon on Monday, May 17. I further ask that on Monday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and the Senate then proceed to 1 hour of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, today I am pleased to recognize Boston Mills/Brandywine Ski Resort in Peninsula, OH. Boston Mills/ Brandywine recently was awarded the Times Mirror Company's Silver Eagle Award for Environmental Excellence for their efforts in the area of energy conservation. In response to the local community's increasing energy demands during seasonal snowmaking operations, Boston Mills recently installed a $1.5 million advanced snowmaking system which monitors data from a nearby pumping station, weather stations, and snowmaking machines to provide for maximum snow production at maximum power efficiency. This effort has enabled the area to produce the same amount of snow in less time, and at a savings of 962,000 kilowatt hours of electricity, which represents 69.5 percent of the community's electricity consumption. In addition, by leasing new grooming vehicles which operate on 33 percent less fuel and reduce grooming time, the area was able to reduce diesel fuel consumption by 46.9 percent, or 9,404 gallons. I am proud to report on the positive impact that the Boston Mills/Brandywine Ski Resort has had on the local community in Peninsula and commend them for the example they have set in civic leadership on this front. I congratulate them on their award and believe the praise they have received for their efforts in environmental stewardship is well deserved.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Mike DeWine, Representative Ralph Regula, and myself, I wish to honor a distinguished Ohio company celebrating its 100th anniversary this year. I ask that the following statement recognizing the achievements of this fine Ohio company be printed into the Record. The statement follows: In Recognition of the Timken Company on the Celebration of 100 Years of Manufacturing in 1999 Expressing the sense of Congress congratulating The Timken Company, headquartered in Canton, Ohio, on the celebration of 100 years of manufacturing in 1999. Whereas The Timken Company's life spans 100 years of manufacturing anti-friction bearings and more than 80 years of producing specialty alloy steel; Whereas it has ranked among the 250 largest U.S. industrial corporations since the 1920's; Whereas the company is the world's largest manufacturer of tapped roller bearings and mechanical seamless steel tubing with more than 50 plants and 100 sales, design and distribution centers in 25 countries with over 21,000 associates; Whereas Timken has invested millions of dollars to protect the earth's air, water and land; in Canada the company recycles 30 million gallons of water daily; its steel plants recycle the equivalent of 5,600 cars every operating day; Whereas the official company policy, and company practice, is that all Timken associates are expected to work consistently to the highest standards of ethical conduct; Whereas the distinctiveness and the strength of the company's character has been derived from the sustained role of its founding family which has provided leadership over four generations to this day; Whereas the corporate culture of The Timken Company is a fast-paced, team-oriented organization where decisions are made by people closest to the issues and its comprehensive strategic plan is structured to build on emerging trends and respond quickly to major fluctuations in today's marketplace; We, the undersigned, are resolved that we (1) extend our appreciation and recognition to The Timken Company for its significant contributions to the technological and institutional developments that have shaped our age; (2) offer our congratulations for the significant achievement of attaining 100 years of continuous operations and growth since its founding as The Timken Roller Bearing Axle Company in 1899 in St. Louis, Missouri; (3) acknowledge that the Timken name is not just as a trademark, but is a focus of pride for the company's associates around the world and a synonym for quality within the bearing and steel industries; and (4) state our intent and desire that The Timken Company continues its successes as it moves into its second century, providing leadership to U.S. manufacturers and our nation for another 100 years. Mike DeWine, United States Senator, Ohio. George V. Voinovich, United States Senator, Ohio. Ralph Regula, United States Representative, Ohio, 16th District.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Chair and I thank the Senator from Texas for letting me talk about the tragic death of two great Americans.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, yesterday, our Nation suffered our first casualties in the war of Yugoslavia. An Apache helicopter crashed in the Albanian mountains on what has been called a ``routine training mission.'' Two brave American soldiers--Chief Warrant Officer Kevin L. Reichert and Chief Warrant Officer David A. Gibbs--lost their lives for our Nation. They are heroes. Kevin Reichert, 28 years old, was born in Chippewa Falls, WI, and David Gibbs hailed from Massillon, OH, which is west of Canton and about an hour or so south of Cleveland. He was 38 years old, married and had three children. David joined the Marine Corps right out of Washington High School back in 1980. After 4 years of service, he left the Marines, only to enlist in the Army 18 months later. His mother, Dorothy Gibbs, said he enlisted in the Army so he could fly helicopters. She said it was ``his dream'' and ``he was so happy when he flew.'' She also said he hoped to retire in 2 years to pursue a career in airport management. From all accounts, David had accepted the dangers of flying military aircraft. He knew there was a chance there could be a problem. David told his mother that he was so concerned about his mission in Kosovo, and she is quoted as saying: He didn't feel prepared enough because he didn't know enough about the terrain. She also said: He hadn't gotten the terrain map and he was concerned about that. A couple of weeks ago, I spoke to the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Senator Warner, and I expressed my concern to him about the number of Ohioans who have been killed in helicopter accidents. To illustrate, since 1991, 32 men and women from Ohio have died serving their Nation, not counting the Persian Gulf war. Of this number, 11 died in helicopter crashes. That is 34 percent of them. Why so many deaths from helicopters? All these deaths, but for one, were in noncombat situations. Our military operates sophisticated machinery. Our mechanics are the best trained in the world. Our pilots are trained to meet and respond to all contingencies. Again, the question is: Why so many deaths due to helicopter accidents? Remember, this is the second such accident in 9 days involving Apache helicopters in Albania. Are we giving our pilots specific and correct intelligence so they can avoid accidents or, worse, possible enemy fire? Mr. President, I will not go into what is right or wrong about being in Yugoslavia, but we are at war and we have to ensure that our men and women have all the necessary tools to do their job and that the equipment they use is the best and we have the finest maintenance. In the investigation that will follow the accident, I think it is imperative--in fact it is essential--that we find out whether there was a problem with the equipment in the helicopter or, in the alternative, whether it had proper maintenance. War is serious business. People's lives are on the line, and there can be no room for error. If faulty equipment, lack of equipment, lack of communications, or improper information led to the death of these two men, it is critical that our military take necessary steps to correct such errors. I am heartened in the knowledge that a peaceful settlement of this war appears to be in the works. However, I am saddened that it could not have come sooner to prevent the deaths of these two brave men and the destruction of Yugoslavia. The United States owes David and Kevin a debt of gratitude that we will never be able to repay for they have paid the ultimate sacrifice. As John says in chapter 15:13, ``Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.'' Our thoughts and our prayers go out to David's family and especially to his wife Jean and three children, Allison, Megan, and David, and also his mother Dorothy, who lost David's father just this past Christmas. As one who has lost a child, I know the days and months ahead will be difficult as the family deals with their grief and the absence of the physical presence of their father. I pray that the words of Matthew 5:4, ``Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted,'' apply to their family. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. VOINOVICH

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

Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank the Chair.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President. I rise today to oppose the McCain Resolution. First, I congratulate Reverend Jesse Jackson, Congressman Rod Blagojevich, Joan Brown Campbell and religious leaders for the release of our three servicemen. I am particularly proud that Joan Campbell, the Secretary General of the National Council of Churches and the mother of County Commissioner Jane Campbell, and Father Irinej Dobrijevic, a Serbian-American Priest from St. Sava Orthodox Cathedral in Cleveland, were major participants in the release. I pray that the letter from Jesse Jackson to President Clinton and other diplomatic moves this weekend with President Yeltsin of Russia will bring all parties to the table so we can end the bombing, death and destruction that is going on in Serbia and Kosovo. Mr. President, I am astonished at the negative reaction. In fact, Elizabeth Sullivan in today's Cleveland Plain Dealer pointed out that ``the alliance sneers at Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic's latest offer, to accept a lightly armed U.N. peace force, refusing to treat it as the basis for further talks.'' In my opinion, our State Department, President and NATO are allowing their egos to get in the way of their common sense and good judgment. It was this hubris--which is defined as ``excessive pride or self- confidence; arrogance''--and their miscalculation of the importance of Kosovo to the Serbian people and Milosevic that got us into this mess. It appears that they are ``hell bent'' to get us into a major war that will have catastrophic impact on our domestic and international responsibilities for years to come and may well ignite destabilization of southeast Europe, a new cold war with Russia and the creation of new alliances by this country's adversaries who we have been working to bring into the international community. I believe it is time to stop the bombing, reduce hostilities on both sides and resume negotiations to bring about peace and restore stability to the region. I agree with the sentiments expressed yesterday by Majority Leader Trent Lott who said ``let's see if we can't find a way to get the bombing stopped, get Milosevic to pull back his troops, find a way to get the Kosovars to go back in a secure way. Short of that, I see a quagmire that is going to go on. It's going to get bloodier.'' So, before we vote on this resolution and continue down the path to a further escalation and a greater involvement, there are three things that we have to ask ourselves: (1) What is the price? (2) What is the risk? (3) What is the prize? The main price that will be paid will be done so in human lives. There will be casualties--American and NATO troops, Kosovar civilians and refugees, Serb civilians as well as civilians in neighboring countries where we've already mistakenly dropped bombs. We have to remember the experience of World War II, where 700,000 German troops were held-off by 150,000 Serb guerrillas. Are we willing to make such a commitment? We also have to consider the financial impact of this war so far. Thus far, it is being paid for by Social Security. If the war escalates to include ground forces and if we're totally honest with the American people, we have to tell them that one of three things will happen to pay for this war-- (1) we'll continue to use Social Security to pay for it and the deficit will go up; (2) we'll reduce spending for domestic programs; or (3) we'll increase taxes. In addition, each passing day further diminishes the readiness of our armed forces. We already have a terrible readiness problem--this campaign is only making it worse. Indeed, comments made by General Richard Hawley, head of the U.S. Air Combat Command indicate that we could run out of the state-of-the-art satellite-guided Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) for our B-2 Stealth bombers sometime this month. He is quoted as saying ``it's going to be really touch-and-go as to whether we'll go Winchester on JDAM's.'' That's pilot jargon for ``running out of bullets.'' He also indicated that because more crews are being called up for this campaign, fewer crews are available should another crisis appear elsewhere in the world (North Korea, Iraq, etc.) Our main military goal should be to ensure our readiness to the extent that our adversaries know we are prepared. There are projections indicate that it will take at least $30 billion to address readiness effectively. The longer we continue our current efforts, the greater the opportunity that one or more of our NATO allies may decide enough is enough. This could leave the U.S. holding the bag! We could also stir regional resentment among Serbia's neighbors, leading to further political instability and the possibility of a wider war. There are already groups promoting a greater Albania that would include parts of Montenegro, Macedonia, and Greece. This war could also undermine U.S. and NATO credibility and erode our ability to deter aggression globally. If we suffer significant casualties, equipment failures, morale loss, etc. potential adversaries in North Korea, China, Iran and Iraq will take note and could react; Our experience in the Persian Gulf bolstered our credibility but this situation is very different--different terrain, there was an international consensus that Iraqi aggression against a sovereign nation must be reversed, threat of weapons of mass destruction. And finally--the Prize When we win--and I am confident we would win--what do we get? First there is the need to put in a long-term occupation force to oversee the peace. I am concerned that such a force could be subject to continual guerrilla attacks which would incur casualties. Then we would have to rebuild the infrastructure and economy of Kosovo and Serbia and that could cost as much as $100 billion. We would also have to build a new, Western-oriented and democratic state with whatever existing civic institutions there are available. This could lead to a period of ``growing pains'' where there is considerable political uncertainty for a number of years. Mr. President, as our colleague from Kansas, Senator Roberts, has pointed out, there would be a precedent for U.S. to intervene militarily when there are widespread humanitarian abuses. We have a lot of questions to answer before we find ourselves in a war from which we cannot extricate ourselves. Fundamentally, what Senator McCain's resolution does is give our President carte blanche, and when you look at the price and the risk and the prize, you can understand why I am opposed to this resolution. We should not give the President blanket authority to get us into another Viet Nam that could very well have much greater negative impact nationally and internationally than Viet Nam. Two weekends ago I visited Arlington Cemetery, the Vietnam and Korean memorials and I'm going to do everything in my power to make sure that we do not have a Kosovo Memorial here in Washington. If the Senate passes anything, it ought to be what the House did this last weekend when they had the courage to stand up and be counted. Congress must exert its Constitutional authority in foreign policy matters and demand that the President seek a declaration of war or formal authorization before he deploys ground troops. Again, should the Senate decide to offer alternative legislation to the McCain measure, it should include such considerations. The way we have conducted ourselves with NATO in regard to Kosovo has created an environment that has allowed Slobodan Milosevic and the Serbs to do exactly what those responsible for bombing did not want to happen regarding human rights and ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. It has resulted in the destruction of the infrastructure in Kosovo to the extent that thousands of Kosavars will never return to their destroyed homeland. The decision also has resulted in death and destruction in Serbia that is also unconscionable when one realizes that the alleged purpose is to force Slobodan Milosevic to sign an agreement which is tantamount to the Serbs and giving up their sovereignty. Think about it, Mr. President. If we had not engaged in ``sign-or- bomb'' diplomacy, we could still be at the negotiating table with 1,600 observers in Kosovo. The time has come, Mr. President, where NATO needs to get off its high horse, restrain its ego and instead of trying to save face over a major foreign policy blunder and start thinking about saving lives. It's time to stop the bombing and put everyone's efforts into finding a diplomatic solution that will quickly result in the removal of Serbian troops from Kosovo, end the ethnic cleansing, return the Kosavars to Kosovo and commit to rebuilding both physical and political infrastructure of Kosovo. We need to fully protect all minority rights including the Serbs and other minorities who live in Kosovo and full participation of all in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia including the Serbian Parliament. Last but not least an international force to guarantee in the beginning that the agreement provisions are fully implemented and abided by all parties. Mr. President, let's get to the peace table. Let's all of us get down on our knees and pray that the Holy Spirit will inspire us to remember Jesus' exultation to us--``Bless are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God.'' This nightmare has to end now. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 11:30 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will begin debate on S. 96, the Y2K bill, with amendments expected to be offered. Order for Recess I ask unanimous consent that at 12:30 p.m. the Senate stand in recess until 2:15 p.m. for the weekly party caucus luncheons.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, following the policy lunch, at 2:15 the Senate will resume consideration of the Y2K bill. Rollcall votes on amendments to the bill are expected during today's session. Votes are also possible on any other legislative or executive item cleared for action. I thank my colleagues for their attention. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, today, my dear friend, and one of Ohio's and America's most successful businessmen, Carl Lindner, is celebrating his 80th birthday. I extend to him my sincere best wishes. Carl got his business start in 1940, founding United Dairy Farmers along with his father and his brothers, Bob and Dick and his sister Dorothy. From that first beginning, Carl Lindner fine-tuned his business acumen and has never looked back. As he says, ``only in America.'' Today, he is chairman of the board and chief executive officer and founder of American Financial Group, one of our Nation's largest insurance firms. He is also chairman of the board and CEO of Chiquita Brands International as well as the Great American Group of Insurance Companies. He is active in a number of organizations and institutions in the Cincinnati area and in Washington. He is the recipient of numerous awards and accolades--and there are a number of them--including the Golden Plate Award by the American Academy of Achievement in 1978. He is also a 33rd degree Mason and is the recipient of the Van Rensselaer Medal--one of only 14 people worldwide to receive such a distinction. In 1998, he was awarded the Gourgas Medal, which is the most distinguished honor given by the Supreme Council of the Scottish Rite ``in recognition of notably distinguished service in the cause of Freemasonry, country or humanity.'' A religious man, Carl Lindner has given of himself to those of faiths other than his own. In 1989, the Hebrew Union College awarded Carl the Jewish Institute of Religion Interfaith Award. In 1995 he received the Jewish National Fund's International Peace Award--the highest international honor and award given by the Jewish National Fund. Carl's civic and business accomplishments run the gamut, from the Friars Club's Centennial Award in 1985 to the National Council of the Boy Scouts of America's ``Silver Beaver'' award in 1995 to the Distinguished Service Citation by the National Conference of Christians and Jews. He has also been inducted into the Greater Cincinnati Business Hall of Fame and the Junior Achievement National Business Hall of Fame. Further, in 1997, he received the Heritage Award from the Cincinnati Urban League. Carl Lindner is also a great believer in quality education, and has devoted his time, energy and resources to encourage students and provide them with institutions in which to learn. His service and generosity have earned him three honorary doctorates from Judson College in 1983, the University of Cincinnati in 1985 and Xavier University in 1991. He was also presented with the Lincoln Award from Northern Kentucky University in 1993. In addition, the College of Business Administration at the University of Cincinnati is housed in Carl Lindner Hall and the school has established the Carl Lindner Annual Medal for Outstanding Business Achievement and a new honors program--the Carl Lindner Honors-Plus program. Xavier University has dedicated the Carl Lindner Family Physics Building. Carl and his wife Edyth are also major benefactors of Cincinnati Hills Christian Academy, a school founded by their son, Carl Lindner III. The generosity of Carl and Edyth Lindner has been felt by the Cincinnati Zoo with its Lindner Family Center for Reproduction of Endangered Wildlife, the Museum Center with its Lindner Ice Age Exhibit, the Health Alliance of Cincinnati with its Lindner Center for Clinical Cardiovascular Research Center, and the Scottish Rite with its Lindner Learning Center. Carl Lindner's success in business is only surpassed by his outstanding service to his fellow man. He is not a man to point to his achievements; people only know a fraction of what he has contributed to the community. He has given to scores of charities that no one knows about, and he gives because he has a tremendous heart. In fact, he goes out of his way to avoid publicity. I will never forget that when in 1996 the gambling interests in the country were trying to bring casino gambling into Ohio. As the Governor, I didn't think it was in the best interest of the State to have casino gambling, that the liabilities far outweighed the benefits. Those in favor of gambling were spending money like water on advertising. I wanted to oppose it, but I didn't have the money to match even a fraction of what they were spending. I called upon Carl Lindner. I explained to him the other side of the story on gambling and why we needed to keep it out of Ohio. Fortunately, I didn't have to convince him. He, too, agreed that gambling was not the way for Ohio and he offered whatever assistance we needed to ensure that gambling did not come to our state. The proponents of gambling fought hard, but we fought back thanks to Carl. And we won--two-thirds of the voters rejected casino gambling in Ohio. I will say today on the Senate floor, without Carl Lindner's help we would not have won that battle. It is because of his selflessness and humility that I felt it important to rise on the Senate floor today to pay tribute to this great American. There are few people in this nation who have the kind of strength of their beliefs that Carl Lindner has, and usually they end at people's wallets, but Carl backs up his beliefs with his support both in time and money. We need more people in this country like Carl Lindner. And one more thing that impresses me about Carl is his relationship with his wonderful family. Carl rejoices in his marvelous family, his children and particularly his wife, Edyth. Edyth has been a wonderful partner of his over the years, and they have a great marriage. And I know Carl is especially proud of his sons. As a father, I understand that so often the successes of our children surpasses anything we do in our own right. Mr. President, there are few Americans I know who have done as much and have given as much to their nation as Carl Lindner. I have been truly blessed with his friendship and I am inspired by his warmth and humility, and Mr. President, if you look up humility in the dictionary, there should be a picture of Carl Lindner. May Carl and his beloved family celebrate many more birthdays together. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation along with my colleague, Senator Bayh, that will allow states to finally obtain relief from the seemingly endless stream of solid waste that is flowing into states like Ohio and Indiana and many others. Our bill, ``the Municipal Solid Waste Interstate Transportation and Local Authority Act,'' gives state and local governments the tools they need to limit garbage imports from other states and manage their own waste within their own states. Ohio receives about 1.4 million tons of municipal solid waste annually from other states. While I am pleased that these shipments have been reduced since our record high of 3.7 million tons in 1989, I believe it is still entirely too high. Because it is cheap and because it is expedient, other states have simply put their garbage on trains or on trucks and shipped it to states like Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Virginia. This is wrong and it has to stop. Many state and local governments have worked hard to develop strategies to reduce waste and plan for future disposal needs. As Governor of Ohio, I worked aggressively to limit shipments of out-of- state waste into Ohio through voluntary cooperation of Ohio landfill operators and agreements with other states. We saw limited relief. But honestly Mr. President, Ohio has no assurance that our out-of-state waste numbers won't rise significantly with the upcoming closure of the Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island in 2001. However, the federal courts have prevented states from enacting laws to protect our natural resources. What has emerged is an unnatural pattern where Ohio and other states--both importing and exporting--have tried to take reasonable steps to encourage conservation and local disposal, only to be undermined by a barrage of court decisions at every turn. Quite frankly, state and local governments' hands are tied. Lacking a specific delegation of authority from Congress, states that have acted responsibly to implement environmentally sound waste disposal plans and recycling programs are still being subjected to a flood of out-of-state waste. In Ohio, this has undermined our recycling efforts because Ohioans continue to ask why they should recycle to conserve landfill space when it is being used for other states' trash. Our citizens already have to live with the consequences of large amounts of out-of- state waste--increased noise, traffic, wear and tear on our roads and litter that is blown onto private homes, schools and businesses. Ohio and many other states have taken comprehensive steps to protect our resources and address a significant environmental threat. However, excessive, uncontrolled waste disposal in other states has limited the ability of Ohioans to protect their environment, health and safety. I do not believe the commerce clause requires us to service other states at the expense of our own citizens' efforts. A national solution is long overdue. When I became Governor of Ohio in 1991, I joined a coalition with other Midwest Governors--Governor Bayh (now Senator Bayh), Governor Engler and Governor Casey, and later Governors Ridge and O'Bannon--to try to pass effective interstate waste and flow control legislation. In 1996, Midwest Governors were asked to reach an agreement with Governors Whitman and Pataki on interstate waste provisions. Our states quickly came to an agreement with New Jersey--the second largest exporting state--on interstate waste provisions. We began discussions with New York, but these were put on hold indefinitely in the wake of their May, 1996 announcement to close the Fresh Kills landfill. The bill that Senator Bayh and I are introducing today reflects the agreement that our two states, along with Michigan and Pennsylvania, reached with Governor Whitman. For Ohio, the most important aspect of this bill is the ability for states to limit future waste flows. For instance, they would have the option to set a ``permit cap,'' which would allow a state to impose a percentage limit on the amount of out-of-state waste that a new facility or expansion of an existing facility could receive annually. Or, a state could choose a provision giving them the authority to deny a permit for a new facility if it is determined that there is not a local or in-state regional need for that facility. These provisions provide assurances to Ohio and other states that new facilities will not be built primarily for the purpose of receiving out-of-state waste. For instance, Ohio EPA had to issue a permit for a landfill that was bidding to take 5,000 tons of garbage a day-- approximately 1.5 million tons a year--from Canada alone, which would have doubled the amount of out-of-state waste entering Ohio. Thankfully this landfill lost the Canadian bid. Ironically though, the waste company put their plans on hold to build the facility because there is not enough need for the facility in the state and they need to ensure a steady out-of-state waste flow to make the plan feasible. With the announcement to close the Fresh Kills landfill, it is even more critical to Ohio that states should receive the authority to place limits on new facilities and expansions of existing facilities. The Congressional Research Service estimates that when Fresh Kills closes, there will be an additional 13,200 tons of garbage each day diverted to other facilities. However, CRS also points out that there is only about 1,200 tons per day of capacity available in the entire state of New York. Even if New York handles some of that 13,200 tons a day in-state, it is estimated that about 4 million tons per year will still need to be managed outside the state from that landfill alone. In addition, this bill would ensure that landfills and incinerators could not receive trash from other states until local governments approve its receipt. States also could freeze their out-of-state waste at 1993 levels, while some states would be able to reduce these levels to 65 percent by the year 2006. This bill also allows states to reduce the amount of construction and demolition debris they receive by 50 percent in 2007 at the earliest. States also could impose up to a $3-per-ton cost recovery surcharge on out-of-state waste. This fee would help provide states with the funding necessary to implement solid waste management programs. And finally, the bill grants limited flow control authority in order for municipalities to pay off existing bonds and guarantee a dedicated waste stream for landfills or incinerators. Flow control is important to states like New Jersey, which has taken aggressive steps to try to manage all of its trash within its borders by the year 2000. New Jersey communities have acted responsibly to build disposal facilities to help meet that goal. However, if Congress fails to protect existing flow control authorities, repayment of the outstanding $1.9 billion investment in New Jersey alone will be jeopardized. I am deeply concerned that responsible decisions made by Ohio, New Jersey and other states have been undermined and have put potentially large financial burdens on communities and have encouraged exporting states to pass their trash problems onto the backs of others. Twenty-four Governors, including Governor Whitman, and the Western Governors' Association have sent letters to Congress strongly supporting the provisions that are in our bill. Unfortunately, efforts to place reasonable restrictions on out-of- state waste shipments have been perceived by some as an attempt to ban all out-of-state trash. On the contrary, Senator Bayh and I are not asking for outright authority for states to prohibit all out-of-state waste, nor are we seeking to prohibit waste from any one state. We are asking for reasonable tools that will enable state and local governments to act responsibly to manage their own waste and limit unreasonable waste imports from other states. Such measures would give substantial authority to limit imports and plan facilities around our own states' needs. I believe the time is right to move an effective interstate waste bill. The bill we are introducing today is a consensus of importing and exporting states--states that have willingly come forward to offer a reasonable solution. Congress must act this year to give citizens in Ohio and other affected states the relief they need from the truckloads of waste passing through their communities. We have waited too long for a solution. Congress must act now to prevent this problem from spreading further to our neighbors out West and to help our neighbors in the East better manage the trash they generate. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill and a letter from Governors O'Bannon, Taft, Engler and Whitman and one from Governor Ridge be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. I further ask unanimous consent that Senator Bingaman be recognized to speak following my remarks, but that before I speak, Senator Stevens be recognized for a couple of minutes.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 15 minutes each.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, on Friday, the official recognition of the 50th anniversary of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, will begin. And even as the participants acknowledge 50 years of NATO achievements, a cloud of war hangs over the proceedings. No doubt NATO's involvement today in Yugoslavia will be the most talked about topic among the attendees. And as I have stated on this floor, I oppose the introduction of ground troops. I reiterate that opposition today. As the members gather, it is my fervent hope that they will give their full devotion to those actions that can be done to prevent further bloodshed. I believe there is no greater challenge facing the United States, NATO, and the United Nations than finding a peaceful solution to this current crisis. NATO must also look to the future to determine what its role will be in the world and what will be the responsibility of its respective members. And, Mr. President, I would like to draw attention to a recent Washington Post article that gives an excellent historical reference for my colleagues and NATO on the perils of introducing ground troops into the Balkan region. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Today we have three new members in NATO--Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. I have long been an ardent supporter of what we use to call ``the Captive Nations.'' There are many events that I remember as mayor of Cleveland and Governor of Ohio where we celebrated the resolve of these people to one day taste the freedoms that we have here in America. In those days, I often wondered if I would ever witness a free Poland or a free Hungary or other nations hat used to be dominated by the then-Soviet Union. This morning I attended a reception sponsored by the Polish American Congress where Prime Minister Buzek shared with me that the wondered if it would happen in his lifetime that the would see a free and independent Poland--going from the iron curtain to solidarity to NATO. And let me say--it's just wonderful that these nations now have self- determination and they are making great progress politically and economically from where they were 20 or even 10 years ago. I am very proud that I was one of those who encouraged the inclusion of these three nations into the NATO alliance. And as NATO opened its arms to these three nations, I hope NATO will open its arms to take-in the Republic of Slovenia as a member. This would be an additional of particular importance considering the events happening in Kosovo today. slovenia I strongly support the NATO membership of the Republic of Slovenia. As many of my colleagues know, a large number of the countries of central and eastern Europe who formerly were considered ``Warsaw Pact'' nations have struggled economically and politically in the years since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The former Yugoslavia, with whom we are now at war with, has been one of our greatest foreign policy challenges in recent years. However, despite facing many of the same challenges that have hampered other states, Slovenia has emerged as the one state in the Balkans that has established itself as the model of our democratic ideals. Slovenia possesses a stable political system, has committed to free market principles and has modernized their armed forces. It is clearly a beacon in the region. I believe that Slovenia's involvement in NATO would powerfully underscore to the other nations of the region that reforms bring rewards, and that full acceptance by the international community is a real and attainable goal. Further, and I think this is important, I believe that the Alliance would be strengthened by Slovenia's participation. And let me just add that I know that my colleague, Senator Roth has been a champion for the inclusion of Slovenia in NATO and I would be remiss if I did not mention his efforts in that respect. Candidacy for NATO NATO's 1995 Study on Enlargement laid out the general guidelines to be used by NATO member governments during the consideration of additional members. Candidates must have five qualifications: (1) free-market economies; (2) a democratic political system based on the rule of law; (3) a commitment to the norms of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), including resolution of ethnic and territorial disputes with neighboring countries; (4) civilian control over militaries; and (5) the ability to contribute to NATO's collective defense as well as to NATO's new missions. Since gaining independence from Yugoslavia in 1991, Slovenia has met all of these obligations and has surpassed the standard set for NATO membership established with the invitation of Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary to the NATO Alliance. (1) Free-Market Economy Slovenia has committed to a market economy and enjoys the highest per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in central and eastern Europe. This has given them the highest international credit rating in the region. In a further indication of Slovenia's economic development, the European Union, EU, began membership talks with Slovenia in March of 1998. A November 1998 Commission report indicated that Slovenia ``can be regarded as a functioning market economy.'' Clearly, Slovenia has met this candidacy requirement. (2) Democratic Political System Slovenia has a vibrant parliamentary democracy characterized by peaceful and meaningful political debate. Elections are free, fair, and open. There is an independent judiciary. As the U.S. State Department's Report on Human Rights Practices for 1998 mentioned, ``the press is a vigorous institution'' and ``in theory and practice, the media enjoy full freedom in their journalistic pursuits.'' Further, the Report states that ``the Government respects the human rights of its citizens, and the law and judiciary provide adequate means of dealing with individual instances of abuse.'' Slovenia has met the NATO candidacy requirement. (3) Commitment to OSCE With regards to Slovenia's role in the international community thus far, it is a member of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE, the Council of Europe, NATO's Partnership for Peace and Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund as well as the World Bank. Property rights concerns that had existed with Italy were resolved in 1996 with the Association Agreement between Slovenia and the European Union. Slovenia has again met the NATO candidacy requirement. (4) Civilian Control Over Military Since Slovenia had not fielded a military prior to its independence, ensuring civilian control was not as problematic as it might have been otherwise. Specifically, the armed forces are controlled by the civilian defense minister while the legislative branch plays an oversight role. The NATO candidacy requirement has been met. (5) Ability to Contribute to NATO's Collective Defense and Missions While Slovenia has more than exceeded the other requirements for NATO membership, there have been some criticisms regarding its ability to contribute to NATO's collective defense as well as future NATO missions. Slovenia's population is just under 2 million people. This reality limits the viable size of its armed forces. In response to this challenge, Slovenia has focused on developing a professional force that is smaller in size than many of the NATO aspirants but which may be more effective in the field. To that end, Slovenia has set defense spending at 1.89 percent of its GDP--which I might add is a higher percentage than a number of current NATO member countries. Plans are in place to raise this to 2.3 percent by the year 2003. Thus far, these monies have largely been spent on air defense, antiarmor weapons and communications equipment that are designed to be interoperable with existing NATO forces and equipment. While Slovenia's forces are comparatively small in size, they have been actively involved in a variety of international operations over the years. Slovenia is involved in peacekeeping missions in Albania, the NATO-led Stabilization Force in Bosnia (SFOR) and United Nations efforts in Cyprus. Finally, Slovenia has expressed its willingness to participate in any NATO deployment initiated to promote peace in Kosovo. Again, Slovenia has met difficult challenges to achieve NATO membership and has responded creatively and positively. economic interest to america Let me point out that in addition to these strategic foreign policy concerns, there is a very real economic interest for the United States in bringing Slovenia further into the international community. During the 1992 through 1997 time period, U.S. exports to Slovenia increased by 197 percent. Over the same period, Ohio's exports have increased a staggering 220 percent. trade with ohio In an effort to further develop these trade ties, as Governor of the State of Ohio, I had the opportunity to lead two trade missions of business leaders to Slovenia in 1993 and 1995. Soon after these missions, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company of Akron, OH, made the largest direct U.S. investment in Slovenian history. The inclusion of Slovenia in the NATO community would provide an important incentive for this type of trading relationship in the future. conclusion Our nation is on a path to enlarge NATO and ensure that the freedom and prosperity that western Europe has enjoyed for decades spreads to the nations of central and eastern Europe. With those goals in mind, we must support Slovenia's entrance into NATO. And there is no perfect time than this, the 50th Anniversary of ANTO summit to let the people of Slovenia, as well as the rest of Europe, know that their democratic changes, economic reforms and military modernization will be rewarded with full participation in the international community. Mr. President, with your permission, I will make a statement in regard to one of Ohio's outstanding citizens who is celebrating his 80th birthday.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation along with my colleague, Senator Bayh, that will allow states to finally obtain relief from the seemingly endless stream of solid waste that is flowing into states like Ohio and Indiana and many others. Our bill, ``the Municipal Solid Waste Interstate Transportation and Local Authority Act,'' gives state and local governments the tools they need to limit garbage imports from other states and manage their own waste within their own states. Ohio receives about 1.4 million tons of municipal solid waste annually from other states. While I am pleased that these shipments have been reduced since our record high of 3.7 million tons in 1989, I believe it is still entirely too high. Because it is cheap and because it is expedient, other states have simply put their garbage on trains or on trucks and shipped it to states like Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Virginia. This is wrong and it has to stop. Many state and local governments have worked hard to develop strategies to reduce waste and plan for future disposal needs. As Governor of Ohio, I worked aggressively to limit shipments of out-of- state waste into Ohio through voluntary cooperation of Ohio landfill operators and agreements with other states. We saw limited relief. But honestly Mr. President, Ohio has no assurance that our out-of-state waste numbers won't rise significantly with the upcoming closure of the Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island in 2001. However, the federal courts have prevented states from enacting laws to protect our natural resources. What has emerged is an unnatural pattern where Ohio and other states--both importing and exporting--have tried to take reasonable steps to encourage conservation and local disposal, only to be undermined by a barrage of court decisions at every turn. Quite frankly, state and local governments' hands are tied. Lacking a specific delegation of authority from Congress, states that have acted responsibly to implement environmentally sound waste disposal plans and recycling programs are still being subjected to a flood of out-of-state waste. In Ohio, this has undermined our recycling efforts because Ohioans continue to ask why they should recycle to conserve landfill space when it is being used for other states' trash. Our citizens already have to live with the consequences of large amounts of out-of- state waste--increased noise, traffic, wear and tear on our roads and litter that is blown onto private homes, schools and businesses. Ohio and many other states have taken comprehensive steps to protect our resources and address a significant environmental threat. However, excessive, uncontrolled waste disposal in other states has limited the ability of Ohioans to protect their environment, health and safety. I do not believe the commerce clause requires us to service other states at the expense of our own citizens' efforts. A national solution is long overdue. When I became Governor of Ohio in 1991, I joined a coalition with other Midwest Governors--Governor Bayh (now Senator Bayh), Governor Engler and Governor Casey, and later Governors Ridge and O'Bannon--to try to pass effective interstate waste and flow control legislation. In 1996, Midwest Governors were asked to reach an agreement with Governors Whitman and Pataki on interstate waste provisions. Our states quickly came to an agreement with New Jersey--the second largest exporting state--on interstate waste provisions. We began discussions with New York, but these were put on hold indefinitely in the wake of their May, 1996 announcement to close the Fresh Kills landfill. The bill that Senator Bayh and I are introducing today reflects the agreement that our two states, along with Michigan and Pennsylvania, reached with Governor Whitman. For Ohio, the most important aspect of this bill is the ability for states to limit future waste flows. For instance, they would have the option to set a ``permit cap,'' which would allow a state to impose a percentage limit on the amount of out-of-state waste that a new facility or expansion of an existing facility could receive annually. Or, a state could choose a provision giving them the authority to deny a permit for a new facility if it is determined that there is not a local or in-state regional need for that facility. These provisions provide assurances to Ohio and other states that new facilities will not be built primarily for the purpose of receiving out-of-state waste. For instance, Ohio EPA had to issue a permit for a landfill that was bidding to take 5,000 tons of garbage a day-- approximately 1.5 million tons a year--from Canada alone, which would have doubled the amount of out-of-state waste entering Ohio. Thankfully this landfill lost the Canadian bid. Ironically though, the waste company put their plans on hold to build the facility because there is not enough need for the facility in the state and they need to ensure a steady out-of-state waste flow to make the plan feasible. With the announcement to close the Fresh Kills landfill, it is even more critical to Ohio that states should receive the authority to place limits on new facilities and expansions of existing facilities. The Congressional Research Service estimates that when Fresh Kills closes, there will be an additional 13,200 tons of garbage each day diverted to other facilities. However, CRS also points out that there is only about 1,200 tons per day of capacity available in the entire state of New York. Even if New York handles some of that 13,200 tons a day in-state, it is estimated that about 4 million tons per year will still need to be managed outside the state from that landfill alone. In addition, this bill would ensure that landfills and incinerators could not receive trash from other states until local governments approve its receipt. States also could freeze their out-of-state waste at 1993 levels, while some states would be able to reduce these levels to 65 percent by the year 2006. This bill also allows states to reduce the amount of construction and demolition debris they receive by 50 percent in 2007 at the earliest. States also could impose up to a $3-per-ton cost recovery surcharge on out-of-state waste. This fee would help provide states with the funding necessary to implement solid waste management programs. And finally, the bill grants limited flow control authority in order for municipalities to pay off existing bonds and guarantee a dedicated waste stream for landfills or incinerators. Flow control is important to states like New Jersey, which has taken aggressive steps to try to manage all of its trash within its borders by the year 2000. New Jersey communities have acted responsibly to build disposal facilities to help meet that goal. However, if Congress fails to protect existing flow control authorities, repayment of the outstanding $1.9 billion investment in New Jersey alone will be jeopardized. I am deeply concerned that responsible decisions made by Ohio, New Jersey and other states have been undermined and have put potentially large financial burdens on communities and have encouraged exporting states to pass their trash problems onto the backs of others. Twenty-four Governors, including Governor Whitman, and the Western Governors' Association have sent letters to Congress strongly supporting the provisions that are in our bill. Unfortunately, efforts to place reasonable restrictions on out-of- state waste shipments have been perceived by some as an attempt to ban all out-of-state trash. On the contrary, Senator Bayh and I are not asking for outright authority for states to prohibit all out-of-state waste, nor are we seeking to prohibit waste from any one state. We are asking for reasonable tools that will enable state and local governments to act responsibly to manage their own waste and limit unreasonable waste imports from other states. Such measures would give substantial authority to limit imports and plan facilities around our own states' needs. I believe the time is right to move an effective interstate waste bill. The bill we are introducing today is a consensus of importing and exporting states--states that have willingly come forward to offer a reasonable solution. Congress must act this year to give citizens in Ohio and other affected states the relief they need from the truckloads of waste passing through their communities. We have waited too long for a solution. Congress must act now to prevent this problem from spreading further to our neighbors out West and to help our neighbors in the East better manage the trash they generate. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill and a letter from Governors O'Bannon, Taft, Engler and Whitman and one from Governor Ridge be printed in the Record.