Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate will be in session beginning at 10 a.m. Following morning business at 1 p.m., the Senate can be expected to consider the bill honoring our former colleague, Senator Coverdell, and also the Senate could consider a resolution relative to the energy crisis occurring on the west coast and could also consider the nominee to head the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Therefore, votes can be expected to occur.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order following the remarks of Senator Brownback.

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

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Con. Res. 12, submitted earlier today by Senator Durbin.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me take a moment, if I may, to speak on behalf of this resolution. Every day in this country we lose people because we do not have enough donated organs, and we do not have enough people who understand this problem. I applaud my colleague for introducing this resolution and join with him and the other cosponsors in asking for its passage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble be agreed to, en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statement relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, our side certainly has no objection to this. I ask unanimous consent that my unanimous consent request be modified to reflect the request of the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, we are facing a unique time in the history of U.S.-Mexico relations. Mexico's election and inauguration last year of an opposition candidate as president--Vicente Fox Quesada--has overturned 71 years of executive branch domination by the Institutional Revolutionary Party, PRI. And now, with the inauguration of our new president--George W. Bush--both nations have the unprecedented opportunity to implement positive changes and create lasting progress for our entire Western Hemisphere. Because of Mexico's critical importance to our nation and hemisphere, it is not at all surprising that President Bush has chosen to travel to Mexico for his first official foreign trip as President. It is with that in mind that I am introducing a resolution today, along with Senators Helms, Lott, Dodd, McCain, Landrieu, Grassley, Breaux, Chafee, Voinovich, and Leahy to express our bipartisan interest in America's current relationship with Mexico and to suggest several issues of particular importance that President Bush should raise during his upcoming meeting with President Fox. Our resolution acknowledges the vital nature of our relationship with Mexico and calls for policies that promote cooperation, enhance the security and prosperity of both nations, and enable both countries to establish mutually agreed-upon goals in at least four areas: one, economic development and trade; two, the environment; three, immigration; and, four, law enforcement and counter-drug policy. In each of these areas, both countries should pursue realistic and practical steps that will build confidence in our partnership and help set the stage for future discussions and future progress. No one can deny the importance of our involvement with Mexico--a nation with which we share over 2,000 miles of common borders. Additionally, over 21.4 million Americans living in this country are of Mexican heritage--that's 67 percent of our total U.S. Latino population. Indeed, many people and many issues bind our nations togther. And, it is in both nations' interest to make that bond even stronger. That is why we want to see President Fox succeed. And, he is off to a good start. For the first time in two decades, economic crisis has not marred Mexico's transition period in between presidencies. Instead, President Fox's election has been received as a positive step in Mexico's maturing economy and has fueled new investment in the country, raising expectations for better economic opportunities for the Mexican people. President Fox's election also has raised expectations here in Washington for better opportunities to improve U.S.-Mexico bilateral cooperation on a wide range of issues. An advocate of free trade in the Americas, President Fox currently recognizes that a strong, steady economy in Mexico can be the foundation to help solve many of our shared challenges, such as immigration, environmental quality, violent crime, and drug trafficking. Furthermore, thanks to the economic cooperation spearheaded by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), trade between the United States and Mexico amounts to $200 billion annually, making our neighbor to the south our second largest trading partner behind Canada. Over the last decade, U.S. exports to Mexico have increased by 207 percent. In 1999, alone, the United States exported $86.9 billion to Mexico--that is more than we exported to France, Germany, and the United Kingdom combined: $84.1 billion! Overall progress in our partnership cannot occur, though, absent continued progress in Mexico's economy. Although Mexico is in its fifth consecutive year of recovery following the 1994-1995 peso crisis, improved living standards and economic opportunities have not been felt nationwide. Lack of jobs and depressed wages are particularly acute in the interior of the country, even in President Fox's home state of Guanajuato. As long as enormous disparities in wages and living conditions exist between the United States and Mexico, our own nation will not fully realize the potential of Mexico as an export market nor will we be able to deal adequately with the resulting problems of illegal immigration, border crime, and drug trafficking. In keeping with the market-oriented approach we began with NAFTA, the United States can take a number of constructive steps to continue economic progress in Mexico and secure its support for a Free Trade Agreement with the Americas: First, we can encourage growth and development by devising, for example, a common strategy to improve the flow of credit and U.S. investment opportunities in Mexico and by increasing funding for entrepreneurial efforts of all sizes, such as microcredit and microenterprise programs and Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) projects. OPIC--a loan program that assists U.S. small business investments in foreign countries--is already developing a limited small business financing program to support U.S. investments in environmentally sound projects in Mexico. We should work to expand the availability of this kind of investment assistance. Second, we should expand the mandate of the North American Development Bank (NADbank) beyond the U.S.-Mexico border region--an idea proposed by Congressman David Dreier and M. Delal Baer, an expert in Latin American affairs for the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The NADbank has been a successful source of private-public financing of infrastructure projects along our borders. Extending its authority inland will not only bring good jobs into the interior of Mexico, but also would develop and further nationalize a transportation and economic infrastructure. Continued investments in NADBank also would facilitate greater environmental cooperation between the United States and Mexico through projects geared toward advancing the environmental goals and objectives set forth in NAFTA and would enhance the overall protection of American and Mexican natural resources. Third, both nations need to pursue a joint immigration policy that takes into account the realities of the economic conditions of both countries. At a minimum, the Bush Administration should re-evaluate the current guest worker program, which has proven burdensome for U.S. farmers and small businesses. Any calls for a liberalization of this program from President Fox should be linked to concrete programs to reduce illegal immigration into the United States. Fourth, in a quick and simple fix, the Bush Administration should eliminate the annual cap on the number of visas issued to Mexican business executives to enter the United States. Currently, the cap stands at 5,500 and will be phased out by 2004. The United States does not have such a cap for Canada. Repealing the cap now would send to President Fox and the people of Mexico a positive signal about their nation's value as an economic partner. Fifth and finally, it is important for the United States to be seen as a partner and resource when President Fox undertakes his pledge to reform Mexico's entire judicial system. With a law enforcement system plagued with inherent corruption and institutional and financial deterioration, President Fox will face numerous challenges. It is in our interest to help him upon his request, whether it be through financial or technical assistance. It is in our own interest that he succeed, because our country cannot reverse effectively the flow of drugs across our border without the full cooperation and support of Mexican law enforcement. Additionally, the Bush Administration should explore possible multilateral anti-drug mechanisms and work with President Fox to decentralize standard day-to-day border functions of the hardworking and trusted law enforcement officials from both countries. The issues that impact the United States and Mexico are numerous--all important, each interrelated with the other. Together, they present an enormous task for the presidents of both countries. Perhaps most important, they are evidence of the enormous importance of Mexico to the future prosperity and security of our country, as well as our hemisphere. The elections of Vicente Fox and George W. Bush present one of the best opportunities not only to redefine U.S.-Mexico relations for the better, but to bring all of Latin America to the top of the Administration's foreign policy agenda. We cannot underestimate, nor can we neglect our neighbors to the south. President Bush knows this. He understands this. And, in a speech last August in Miami, I think he, himself, best described our relationship with Latin America, when he said: Those who ignore Latin America do not fully understand America, itself. . . . Our future cannot be separated from the future of Latin America. . . . We seek, not just good neighbors, but strong partners. We seek, not just progress, but shared prosperity. With persistence and courage, we shaped the last century into an American century. With leadership and commitment, this can be the century of the Americas. I couldn't agree more. At this point, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution before the Senate be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and finally, that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 13 that I submitted earlier.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the adoption of S. Res. 7, the resolution be modified to reflect the following changes which I send to the desk.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me turn to an event occurring to our neighbor to the south, Haiti, this very day. It is an event that has impact not just for the people of that impoverished country, but also for the United States. Today, Jean-Bertrand Aristide will be inaugurated. This is the second time that Aristide is being inaugurated as Haiti's President. Aristide, with great popularity and great expectations, will today be succeeding his hand-picked successor of Rene Preval. For Aristide, and more importantly for the Haitian people, this is a moment of great historic import and significant opportunity. Aristide's second inauguration represents a monumental opportunity because this man has the power to save his tiny nation from its own self- destruction--destruction due in large part to the collective ideas, hopes, and dreams that both President Preval and President Aristide himself have squandered over the precious years since 1994. When last many Americans tuned into Haiti, it was 1994. In 1994, our country sent 20,000 troops to Haiti as part of an internationally endorsed effort to restore Aristide to power. That did occur in 1994. Tragically, though, during these past 6 years, both President Aristide, and then President Preval, have failed to enact the necessary reforms to bring democracy, stability, and, yes, hope to Haiti. As a result, Haiti, today, still has a declining gross national product. Nobody knows what the unemployment is. Official estimates are between 60 and 70 percent unemployment. There is little to no foreign investment. In fact, there is less today than a number of years ago. They have the hemisphere's lowest per capita income and highest infant mortality rate. The Haitian National Police, HNP, a civilian police force, which the United States and the international community helped to establish 6 years ago, and that we worked very hard on and saw great success made, now, today, unfortunately, is declining in its expertise. Six years ago, there was great promise for the Haitian National Police. Today, though, the HNP has become more corrupt, more engaged in politics, and is in a state of steady decline. In 1994, when Aristide was returned to power, everyone was realistic. No one expected miracles. Haiti was, after all, a country that has been miserably governed by Haitians and non-Haitians alike for not just decades but for centuries. What could have been expected and should have been expected was the establishment of a foundation for change and the establishment of a foundation for progress that would help move that country away from its failed past and toward a hopeful and productive future. Tragically, under both President Aristide, and then President Preval, there has been no movement in that direction. Moreover, the few Haitians who comprised the economic elite have shown no interest in becoming stakeholders in their country's overall social, political, and economic progress. For them, it seems, they think it is in their best interest to stand back from the turmoil that surrounds them so as to not risk their own wealth and security. That has been true of the economic elite, and it has been true of the political elite as well. Despite this, in politics, as in theater and in life itself, there are second acts, second opportunities for redemption. President Aristide now has such an opportunity. His immense popularity and his political hold on the country give him the capability to reverse Haiti's destructive course. It is within his means to do the things that are necessary. Quite frankly, anyone who has spent any time looking at Haiti knows that there are four, five, six basic things that Haitians need to do to get their country moving in the right direction. It is within Aristide's grasp today to help Haiti begin to eliminate corruption, create free markets and new industries, to do basic things such as privatize Port-au-Prince port, which today, unbelievably, is the most expensive port in the entire hemisphere to ship anything into or out of. He has it within his power to improve the country's judicial system, to stabilize its political system, to respect human rights, and to learn to establish and sustain an agricultural system that can begin to feed its own people. It is within Aristide's means to help Haiti break out of its vicious cycle of despair, a cycle in which political stalemate stops government and judicial reforms which, in turn, discourage investment and privatization. Caught in a cycle such as this, the economy stands to shrink further and further until there is no economic investment to speak of at all. That will occur unless some action is taken. Aristide already has given some indication--at least on paper--that he is willing to make some of these changes. In a December letter to President Clinton, he said he was committed to a broad range of governmental and political reforms, including: Rapid review and rectification of 10 contested Senate seats; creation of a credible new provisional electoral council in consultation with opposition party members; substantial enhancement of cooperation with the United States to combat drug trafficking; nomination of capable and respected officials for senior security positions, including the Haitian National Police; strengthening of democratic institutions and protection of human rights; installation of a broad-based government, including members of the opposition; initiation of new dialogue with international financial institutions to enhance free markets and private investment; and negotiation of an agreement for the repatriation of illegal migrants. All of these things were spelled out in that letter from President Aristide to then-President Clinton. All of these things are readily achievable. Aristide's pledge is encouraging. But, unless he has the political will to actually carry out these reforms and create a stable and democratic government, Haiti has no hope of making real and lasting economic, political, and judicial progress. Quite candidly, there's nothing the United States can do to fix Haiti if its government isn't willing to fix itself. Since the mid-1990s, we've spent more than $2 billion--and the international community has poured in at least another $1.5 billion--to try to bring democracy and stability to Haiti. Yet if we look at where Haiti is today versus where it was 6 years ago, a casual observer going through that country would come to the conclusion that virtually nothing has changed, that nothing has happened. Candidly, Mr. President, the fact is that extraordinary amounts of financial assistance and the good intentions behind them are no substitute for the political will and leadership necessary to rescue an unstable country in an economic freefall. Unless Aristide and his Family Lavalas Party take responsibility for the situation and commit to turning things around, history will repeat itself. Unless President Aristide, his political party, and the leadership of Haiti take responsibility for the situation and commit to turning things around, history will once again tragically repeat itself. Unless Aristide makes concrete changes, we will once again be seeing makeshift boats and rafts overflowing with Haitians who want a better life trying to get to Florida. We will begin to see that again--people risking their lives as they float towards Miami for a chance of freedom and democracy and food for their children. But should Aristide begin to demonstrate a legitimate commitment to change, the United States and the international community stand ready to resume our efforts to help the Government of Haiti. But it will take action, and it will take action from the President, President Aristide, and from the Haitians. Until then, until we see that kind of commitment, U.S. commitment will remain limited to directly helping the children of Haiti, the people of Haiti, and not the Government. The United States, irrespective of what Aristide does, must remain involved in humanitarian efforts--efforts such as Public Law 480, the Food Assistance Program, a food assistance program that is helping tens of thousands of Haitian children every day, giving them the one meal a day they have, and for many of them giving them an incentive to go to school and become educated. We must continue to do that. One of the bright spots of what has been going on in Haiti, and one of the things of which I think this country should be very proud, is how many Americans are in Haiti every single day working to make a difference. Many of them are religious. Many of them belong to church groups. Many of them belong to other nonprofit organizations or groups. Some go for a week, some go for 2 weeks, and some have gone to live and stay. But there are thousands and thousands of Americans every day who are making a difference in Haiti. We must continue as a U.S. Government to assist them as they try to assist the children of Haiti because it is the children who are the true casualties in Haiti. It is the children who have suffered the most from the lack of progress over the last 6 years. It is the children who have suffered the most from the inability and the unwillingness of the Haitian Government to move to make real changes in Haiti. So the real victims have been the children. They are the victims of the turmoil. They are the victims of the instability. They are the victims of a lack of political will. We as a country and as a people simply cannot and will not turn our back on them. This is a country where the infant mortality rate is approximately 15 times that of the United States. It has the highest infant mortality rate in our hemisphere. Of those Haitian children under 5 years of age, 129 of every 1,000 never make it to the age of 6. Because Haiti lacks the means to produce enough food to feed its population, the vast majority of Haitian children who survive are malnourished and rely heavily on our humanitarian food aid. Additionally, because of the lack of clean water and sanitation, only 39 percent of the population has access to clean water and 26 percent has access to decent sanitation. Because of that, diseases such as measles and tuberculosis are epidemic, and children die from the simplest thing as diarrhea. That happens every single day in Haiti. The future of Haiti's children ultimately is in Aristide's hands. It is time for President Aristide to match his words with his deeds and uphold his recent pledge to place his country and its people on a path of significant democratic societal reform. Lip service and piecemeal efforts, actions temporarily to appease the United States and the international community, frankly, will get Haiti nowhere. This is Aristide's second act. The curtain comes up on that act today. He and the political rulers have a simple choice: To break with recent history and create a stable political system and a free and democratic, market-driven economy, or to perpetuate the status quo and the needless bloody tragedy that confines future generations of Haitians to lives of distress, disillusionment, and despair. It is, quite candidly and quite bluntly, up to President Aristide to make that determination. This is the second act. This is the second opportunity. History will judge whether or not he takes that opportunity for the people of Haiti or whether that opportunity is squandered. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate will begin the day with a period of morning business. At 11 a.m. the Senate will proceed to the consideration of the pipeline safety legislation. Relevant amendments are in order under a previous agreement, and Senators who have amendments are encouraged to inform the managers of that fact. It is hoped a vote on final passage can occur as early as tomorrow afternoon.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader be recognized at 11 a.m. tomorrow for up to 15 minutes for a tribute.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment immediately following my remarks.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 279 regarding the membership of the Joint Economic Committee. Further, I ask that the bill be read the third time and passed, with the motion to reconsider laid upon the table.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, February 8. I further ask consent that on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and then the Senate proceed to a period for morning business until 11 a.m., to be divided in the following manner: Senator Torricelli, in control of the time between 9:30 a.m. and 10 a.m.; Senator Durbin, or his designee, controlling the time between 10 a.m. and 10:15 a.m.; Senator Thomas, or his designee, controlling the time between 10:15 and 11 a.m.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that at 11 a.m. on Thursday, the Senate proceed to S. 235, the pipeline safety bill and all amendments be relevant to the subject matter of pipeline safety or energy policy in California or a study relative to energy.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, in light of this agreement, I announce to the Members of the Senate that there will be no further votes today.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Major General Timothy P. Malishenko, USAF, upon his retirement from the United States Air Force after more than 32 years of distinguished and dedicated service to our Nation. A son of Ohio, Tim Malishenko grew up not far from my Greene County neighborhood, where his mom and dad were customers of my family's seed, grain, and lumber business. After graduating from Fairborn High School, he went on to The Ohio State University, where he earned a degree in business and honors as a distinguished ROTC graduate. This marked the beginning of what developed into an extraordinary Air Force career, in which Tim rose to the pinnacle of the complex and demanding world of Defense acquisition. As a young officer, Tim Malishenko served in a variety of contracting and contract-administration assignments related to major programs, including the Polaris and Poseidon missiles and the F-15 Radar. His organizational and crisis-management skills came to the fore during the 1974 oil embargo, when, as a charter member of the Air Force Energy Management Division, he worked tirelessly to mitigate the effects of the supply disruption and safeguard America's military readiness. From there, Tim went on to work in classified space and satellite programs. He graduated from the Armed Forces Staff College, and, with family in tow, headed for Brunssum, The Netherlands, where he was chief of contracting and acquisition for the NATO Airborne Early Warning and Control Programme Management Agency. In the NATO assignment, Tim demonstrated remarkable tact and diplomacy in reconciling the diverse views and priorities of 13 countries. Returning stateside in 1982, Tim again served in a variety of contracting and contract-administration positions, including high-level management assignments at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, and at Air Force headquarters in Washington, DC. Of particular note during this period was his extensive involvement in the research-and- development contracting for the advanced tactical fighter, integrated avionics, and high-speed integrated circuitry--programs that set the stage for the information technologies and advanced avionics we know today. Four years ago, General Malishenko was named commander of the Defense Contract Management Command, an organization of more than 14,000 people responsible for the management of 375,000 contracts cumulatively valued at $100 billion. As commander, he was the standard bearer for a revolution in business affairs that led to the conversion of more than 300 business sectors to ISO 9000, to dramatic advances in paperless contracting, and to the design and introduction of the DoD standard procurement system. The capstone of Tim's military career came on March 27, 2000, when he became the first director of the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), the position he holds at the time of his retirement. In successfully spearheading the establishment of DCMA, Major General Malishenko brought to fruition a recommendation put forth in 1963 by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara's Project 60, which called for the eventual creation of a separate Defense agency responsible for contract management. Under the general's direction, DCMA has emerged as a Combat Support Agency--one that has markedly transformed contractor battlefield support, as fully evidenced by DCMA's role in facilitating optimal support to our troops in Bosnia and Kosovo. He also left an indelible mark on DoD's continuing Revolution in Business Affairs, ushering DoD into an era of paperless contracting and electronic business processes. The inception of DCMA is a living testimonial to Tim Malishenko's exemplary leadership, professionalism, and unbounded energy. It is indeed a magnificent example of what can happen when well-tempered foresight converges with present-day diligence. Whether he was behind the desk in a major program office, on a contractor's plant floor, in a NATO council room, or ``in the door'' about to parachute into the open skies, Tim Malishenko served with valor, loyalty, and integrity. On the occasion of his retirement from the Air Force, I offer my congratulations and thanks to this esteemed son of the Buckeye state, and wish him and his wife, Jane, well in their future pursuits.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a brave and hard-working Ohioan by the name of Terry Bragg. Terry has been a life- long resident of McConnelsville, where he has spent the last 39 years as a member of the Malta-McConnelsville Fire Department. During nearly 40 years of tireless dedication to his community, Terry has served as a firefighter, Assistant Fire Chief, and for the last 32 years, as the department's Fire Chief. I recognize Terry today for his commitment to protecting his community from devastating fires. People like Terry Bragg, who risk their lives daily on our behalf, command great respect and deserve our deep and sincere thanks. I cannot overstate just how important Terry's job of fire fighting and prevention education is to our families and communities. Overall, fire is responsible for killing more Americans than all natural disasters combined. Every 18 seconds, a fire department responds to a fire somewhere in the United States. In 1998, there were 4,035 civilian fire deaths--that's one death every 130 minutes. And sadly, many of those who die each year in fires are children. To help support Terry and every firefighter in Ohio and across America as they work to protect our families and children, I sponsored the Firefighter Investment Act, which provides a vital federal investment to the courageous men and women who make up our local fire departments. I am please do report that we successfully included my bill as a provision in the recently-passed Fiscal Year 2001 Department of Defense Appropriations bill. The funding that will be made available as a result will help local fire departments and firefighters, just like Terry Bragg and the Malta-McConnelsville Fire Department, to continue carrying out their life-saving missions. Over the years, Terry Bragg has received many, many awards and special recognitions. He has received three medals for bravery, and in 1997, the Ohio Department of the Veterans of Foreign Wars named him ``Ohio Firefighter of the Year.'' He received the Bob and Delores Hope ``Good Samaritan Award,'' the ``M&M Firefighter of the Year Award,'' and the Ohio Masonic Grand Master's ``Community Service Award.'' Not only is Terry a dedicated Fire Chief, he is a strong community leader; volunteer; businessman; and loving husband, father, and grandfather. Indeed, Terry Bragg is a role model for whom we all can be proud. I thank him for his past, present, and future service to his community, to Ohio, and to our nation.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of John Ashcroft. I have had the opportunity, for the last several weeks, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, to listen to the testimony and to listen to what has turned out to be fairly extensive hearings. The John Ashcroft I have known for 6 years, and whom most of us have known for 6 years--some have known a lot longer--does not really bear much resemblance to the individual who has been described by those who have attacked him during this process. I must say, he does not bear much resemblance to the individual whom some of my colleagues have pictured, both in debate on the Senate floor and in the Judiciary Committee. The truth is that the John Ashcroft on whom we are going to vote, whose nomination we are taking up, whose nomination we will vote on tomorrow, is the same John Ashcroft we have known for 6 years. He is a man of integrity, a man of honesty, and a man of courage. He is also a man who has taken controversial positions, a man who has cast in his lifetime thousands of votes. I don't think it should come as a shock to us that someone who has been in public office for a quarter of a century would have taken controversial positions. We would worry if he had not. This is a man who served as assistant attorney general of the State of Missouri, who served for 8 years as their elected attorney general, who served for 8 years as Missouri's elected Governor and then, for 6 years, as Missouri's elected U.S. Senator. He is a man who served as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It should come as no surprise that he has taken positions on many issues. It should come as no surprise that he has cast thousands of votes. And, yes, he clearly does have a long track record. It should not come as a surprise that a record of a quarter of a century would generate criticism, or that it would generate a lot of criticism. I said, when the Judiciary Committee hearing started, I sometimes get the feeling that the longer someone is in office, the more positions they have taken and, frankly, the better qualified they are, the more controversial their nomination probably is. And if you wanted someone with no controversy, the President would find someone to nominate who had virtually no track record to shoot at. The fact is, this Attorney General nominee, this individual, John Ashcroft, after he is confirmed, will ultimately be judged as Attorney General not by any one particular position he will take or any one particular decision he will make. If you look back over the last half a century, look at the Attorneys General and look at how history judges them. It is not the day-to-day decisions. It is probably a handful of big decisions to which we look. But even more important than that is probably the perception that we have about what type of person the Attorney General was: How did they conduct their office? What kind of respect did they have? Did they bring honesty and integrity and courage to that job? The job of Attorney General is different. It is different in many respects than any other Cabinet position. It is different because this individual has to be adviser to the President, has to be able to give the President confidential, good advice. But he or she is more than that. He or she is the person who stands for law enforcement and, in a sense, is the chief law enforcement officer of this country. The Attorney General has to be someone who can tell the President yes when the President needs to be told yes, but also, much more importantly, can look the President in the eye and tell the President no when the President has to be told no. The Attorney General is ultimately someone who on certain occasions will disagree with the President. How that person conducts the office under those circumstances may define that person's tenure as Attorney General and how history judges that individual. It ultimately comes down to is the person a person of integrity, someone of honesty, someone of courage, someone who brings honor to the office, someone who cares passionately about justice. My experience with John Ashcroft over the last 6 years is that clearly he is such an individual. I have not always agreed with John. John and I have voted differently on certain issues--some high profile; some not so high profile. I don't think that is relevant. What is relevant is, does this President have the right to have his nominee--I think he does--and is this a nominee who will conduct the office with integrity and with honesty. I have no doubt that history will judge John Ashcroft in a favorable light. As they look back on his tenure as Attorney General of the United States, people will say: I may have agreed with him; I may have disagreed with him on different issues. He may not always have been right, but I think he was a man of honesty, a man of goodwill, and he brought honor to the office. I conclude by urging my colleagues to vote for John Ashcroft, a man who I believe will be a very excellent Attorney General at a time in our country's history when we need someone who will carry out the duties of that job with all the problems that we face as a country, all the challenges that we have, and who will, in fact, bring the expertise that that particular job needs. I believe John Ashcroft has the experience, has the background, and has the integrity to be a very excellent Attorney General. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I notice my colleague from Ohio, Senator Voinovich is on the floor as well as the majority leader. I think I speak for my colleague when I say we are extremely disappointed that our bill, S. 2955, was not able to be passed in this Congress. That bill is very important to asbestos victims and two of our State's largest employers. As we all probably know, our nation is facing an asbestos litigation crisis. A crisis for which the federal government, in my opinion, shares responsibility. From World War II through the Vietnam war, the government mandated the use of asbestos to insulate our naval fleet from secondary fires. This mandate is the cause of many tragic disabilities. Unfortunately, while the federal government would be one of the largest asbestos defenders due to this mandate, an aggressive and successful litigation strategy to assert sovereign immunity has allowed them to evade any monetary culpability. Since the federal government is not paying their fair share of the costs, the former asbestos manufacturers are burdened with asbestos claims. Of the approximately 30 original core defendants, over two dozen have gone bankrupt, in large part due to asbestos claims. The situation has reached the crisis stage. Good companies, providing good jobs, and providing payments to victims, are in significant peril. The recent bankruptcies of several former asbestos manufacturers have placed an even more overwhelming burden on the remaining defendants. Due to joint and several liability, the remaining defendant companies are now paying an even higher share of asbestos claims. The markets have taken note. Stock market values are declining, making it more and more difficult for these companies to receive the financing they need to survive. The very future of these companies, the very future of these jobs are at stake. But, it is not just the companies who are suffering. Asbestos victims are also suffering greatly. They are not receiving the awards to which they are entitled. If something is not done to correct this situation, good companies will continue to go bankrupt, good jobs will continue to be lost, and asbestos victims will not receive any compensation. We must act now to do this. I understand the majority leader understands and appreciates the urgency of this situation. I would ask that the bill that Senator Voinovich and I have introduced would be one of the first bills considered when we return for the 107th.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would be pleased to clarify aspects of this legislation for my colleagues.

Mr. DeWINE. I can assure my colleague from Montana that nothing in this legislation is intended to prevent or slow the implementation of existing statutory mandates under the FQPA and SDWA. In fact, the EPA is currently exercising its discretion to submit test methods to be used in the EDSP to the ICCVAM for assessment of validation. Nothing in this legislation challenges a Federal agency's authority to choose which screens and tests to send to ICCVAM for review, and an agency's decision whether to refer a test to ICCVAM and whether to follow ICCVAM recommendations is within the agency's discretion. Furthermore, the bill will not have an impact on existing animal tests in existing federal regulatory programs. Its goal is to facilitate the appropriate validation of new, revised and alternative test methods for future use. using the ICCVAM to assess validation of these test methods can streamline individual assessment by multiple agencies and enhance the scientific validity of these programs, thereby better protecting public health, and ensuring that laboratory animals used in these programs are not used in vain.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I thank the chairman for this clarification. I understand the Senator from California also would like to clarify several points in title VIII, so I yield to her.