Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I think it has pretty much been said. I ask my colleagues to defeat the Gregg amendment and to pass the Older Americans Act. This is a bill that needs to pass. It is a bill that is sponsored by 73 Members of this body. It is a bill that is supported by the National Governors' Association which urges us to pass the bill. I have a letter from the Southern Governors' Association, signed by all the Southern Governors, including Governor Bush from Texas, as well as Governor Bush from Florida. Governor Bush from Florida has been very instrumental in working with us on this bill and is a very strong proponent and advocate of the bill because he understands what a difference it will make. I reiterate, the concerns my colleague from New Hampshire has raised, and I know he will speak in a moment, are valid concerns. We have taken them into consideration. We have incorporated them into this bill. We congratulate him on the work he has done. This bill is a better bill because of what Judd Gregg has done. We are now, though, at the point where we have incorporated those reforms. This is a reform-minded bill. This is a bill that will make a difference. This is a bill that will change the status quo. We are now faced with the prospect of either passing this good bill and sending it on to the President of the United States or, if we adopt the Gregg amendment, killing the bill and seeing the status quo remain because that is what will happen. None of the reforms my colleague wants to see take place will take place if we kill this bill. It will not be one of them. We will continue to muck along. We will continue to move along as we have year after year with the status quo and with no reforms at all. If you are for reforms, you have to vote against the Gregg amendment and then vote for final passage. I thank the Chair and thank my colleagues. Amendment No. 4343

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Am I also correct that the legislation will not affect civil rights laws that protect young people?

Mr. DeWINE. Since the definition of ``land use regulation'' is limited to ``a zoning or landmarking law, or the application of such a law,'' am I also correct in understanding that this legislation will not affect the ability of states and localities to enforce fire codes, building codes, and other measures to protect the health and safety of people using the land or buildings, such as children in childcare centers, schools, or camps run by religious organizations?

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, just before the August recess, the Senate passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, S. 2869. I had some serious concerns about this bill as originally introduced. As my colleagues know, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch and my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, came up with a bipartisan compromise that addressed many of the concerns I had about the initial bill. Specifically, I was concerned that the bill would have unintentionally impeded the ability of states and localities to protect the health and safety of children in a variety of ways. I am relieved that the new Senate version has a much more limited scope. Because the bill that was passed applies only to zoning decisions, landmark designations and institutionalized persons, it will not have any impact on child welfare systems, including the ability of states and localities to protect the health and safety of children. I see the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts on the floor and I would ask my colleague, as one of the authors of this new legislation, if my understanding of this legislation correct?

Mr. DeWINE. I thank my friend and colleague from Massachusetts for clarifying these points, and for working to pass legislation that does not compromise the health and safety of children and their families.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the impact the Internet is having on database producers and the lack of Intellectual Property protection we provide to creators of databases, in particular. This is an issue that deserves the Senate's attention, and I will be encouraging the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, to hold hearings early next year to examine this issue in detail. Intellectual Property laws are about striking a balance between our need to encourage invention and creativity with a public policy that discourages the use of monopoly power. Our founding fathers recognized the importance of national patent and copyright laws in Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. Similarly, we have a long tradition of protecting the public from monopolistic abuses through our Antitrust laws, starting with the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. Through our copyright and patent laws, we allow artists and inventors to have monopolies of limited duration on their creations and inventions, which can have the short-term effect of limiting access by consumers. However, these exclusive rights give artists and inventors incentive to create more--ultimately to the benefit of the public at large. Our thriving economy and the success of our country's technology sector is evidence that we have reached an appropriate balance between exclusive rights and consumer access. However, the balance has shifted with the emergence of new technology. Digital technology, for example, allows an individual to copy huge volumes of data from anonymous sources and then distribute it almost immediately all over the world through the Internet. I am very concerned about the utter lack of protection for individuals and companies who invest substantial resources in gathering and organizing large volumes of data or information. These databases were, at one time, protected by our copyright laws under a legal theory known as ``sweat-of-the-brow.'' This policy protected collections of information from theft and recognized that significant resources often were spent in collecting and organizing information. In 1991, the Supreme Court overturned the sweat-of-the-brow protection and said that only ``original'' works are covered by copyright law. This ruling, coupled with the ease of copying and distributing databases over the Internet, have created a significant problem with theft or ``piracy'' of databases. The creators of stolen databases are usually left with only piece-meal protections and often have no recourse whatsoever. I share the concerns of those who believe that database protection legislation could limit the access of consumers to information, and I certainly will not support legislation that harms consumers. However, Mr. President, I believe that this is a case where our policies are out of balance. Information is a resource that becomes much more valuable when it is organized in a coherent way. Database companies devote substantial resources to collecting, organizing, and maintaining information for users. Without such investments, vast quantities of data would be incomprehensible and almost unusable. We must give the companies that create these databases some sort of exclusive right to enjoy the benefits of their hard work and investment. Without granting some exclusive right to database producers, investment in databases will diminish over time, as more and more databases are copied and distributed by pirates. Ultimately, the reliability of information available to consumers over the Internet would be undermined. This potential for unreliability has serious real-life implications. For example, emergency room staff and parents use databases to identify poisons and their remedies; doctors use them to find specifics about a medical procedure; farmers use them for weather and soil information; lawyers use them to find cases and precedents; pharmacists use them to detect dangerous drug interactions; chemists use them to test new compounds; workers use them to find new jobs; and home buyers use them to find the right house. If these databases are not available or are inaccurate, it is the consumer who loses. As with all of our intellectual property rights, some small limitations on consumer access in the short-term will produce significant long-term advantages and increased access to accurate information. This is not a new issue for the Senate. Two years ago, in the 105th Congress, a serious effort was made to pass legislation that would limit database piracy. Judiciary Committee Chairman Hatch hosted extensive negotiations between all interested parties. Unfortunately, a compromise on database protection could not be reached. At the last minute, the database provisions were dropped from the conference report for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). When we passed the DMCA, I came to the Floor and expressed my disappointment that we could not reach a consensus on a database provision. Judiciary Committee Chairman Hatch and the Ranking Member Leahy also expressed their disappointment. I asked, and Senator Hatch agreed, that the Judiciary Committee address the database bill early in the 106th Congress. Unfortunately, despite efforts particularly in the House of Representatives to reach an agreement, conflicts in the industry remain. We have not been able to consider such a bill during this Congress. Now, with only a few days left, it appears that we will not consider database protection at all this year. I believe that we should start fresh on database legislation early next year. I ask Chairman Hatch for his commitment that the Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on this important matter in the Spring. For my part, I will do everything I can to draw attention to this matter. I will continue working toward a solution that protects databases from piracy while protecting the rights of consumers.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the National Child Protection Act Improvement Act of 2000. This bill would amend the National Child Protection act, as amended by the Volunteers for Children Act. It is designed to facilitate the gathering of criminal history record information from both state and federal repositories for background checks of employees and volunteers for organizations providing services to children, the elderly, and the disabled. Despite the best efforts of the law enforcement community and the volunteer and child services community, many of the individuals who volunteer and are employed in these critical positions still are not subject to criminal history background checks. The bill that I am introducing today modified the National Child Protection Act to facilitate these background checks. Under my bill, with the consent of the individual, the organization with which the individual is applying would receive a copy of the full criminal history record, including relevant arrest information. Further, the bill includes an authorization to provide assistance to these volunteer and service organizations in offsetting the cost of these background checks. To help protect the privacy of individuals who volunteer and are employed in these positions, the bill also would provide a number of important privacy protections. we need to be sure that we do everything possible to facilitate these important background checks, while assuring that these background checks are not so costly that volunteer organizations and their volunteers are deterred from initiating these vital safety checks. In shaping this bill, I have worked closely with law enforcement, state officials, and other interested parties. Because of that, the legislation that I am introducing today would help accomplish the laudable goals of the national Child Protection Act and the Volunteers for Children Act--which are to facilitate national background checks initiated in states which have not adopted authorizing language, and, at the same time, assure that those checks are processed effectively and quickly. We need to give states the flexibility they need to accomplish those goals.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to clarify the definition of ``specified cancer'' as defined by this provision with my colleague from Ohio. When we drafted this definition, we intended to cover cancers that were likely to be caused by exposure to radiation, isn't that correct?

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to thank my colleagues who have worked very hard over the last several months on a proposal to compensate eligible workers in nuclear energy facilities who have been exposed to hazardous materials. Without the extraordinary effort of so many members and their staffs, including Senators Thompson, McConnell, Voinovich, Bingaman, and Kennedy, we would not have been able to create this compensation program. I especially appreciate the patience of Chairman Warner and Ranking Member Levin for working with us on the initiative and including it in the Defense Authorization bill. For more than 50 years, Ohio has been home to numerous facilities that performed work for the Department of Energy's nuclear programs. During the Cold War, hundreds of Ohioans, as well as thousands of Americans, were exposed to hazardous and radioactive materials as a result of their employment. Often, workers were unknowingly exposed to these materials, and if workers became ill, they had no relief. Our federal government directed, and even paid for, contractors and subcontractors to fight worker compensation cases. A worker had to prove his or her case on evidence that the government would not make available. A little over a year ago, things began to change. Stories started appearing in the press about what workers were exposed to and how the government ignored evidence. Several Senate Committees, such as Government Affairs; Energy and Natural Resources; and Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, have held hearings the issue of harmful exposure and proposed remedies. I believe that we have a good understanding of the problem now, as well as a solution. However, Mr. President, we all fully understand that no level of benefits can compensate these workers for what they have endured. But we are trying to reimburse them for their financial loss. The agreement in the Defense Authorization bill provides eligible victims with a lump sum payment of $150,000, plus health care coverage. This agreement also defines those workers who are eligible based on the latest scientific evidence on beryllium disease, beryllium sensitivity, and radiogenic cancers. Mr. President, we have created stringent guidelines to determine eligibility. However, there are instances when the administering agency will not be able to recreate an employee's radiation dose exposure. We have reversed the burden of proof for exposure to employees at the Gaseous Diffusion Plants in Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, because their radiation exposure doses cannot be assessed. More than likely, there will be other instances of extremely poor record keeping, where it will be nearly impossible to determine employees' radiation exposure levels. Therefore, the administering agency may propose additions to the definition of ``special cohort'' under this agreement. Once a new cohort is proposed, Congress will have one hundred eighty days to act to reverse the decision to add the cohort. If Congress fails to act within that time, the cohort will be accepted and eligible for benefits. Eligible employees will have seven years from either the enactment of this bill or from the date on which the employee learned that his or her illness was related to work in which to apply and collect the benefits provided by this program. Like a traditional worker compensation program, compensation under this program will be an exclusive remedy to an employee for claims against the United States, its contractors, and subcontractors--but not against beryllium vendors. The benefits under this program are completely voluntary. Eligible individuals with beryllium disease must decide whether to litigate a claim or receive the benefits provided under this plan. Individuals who currently have pending lawsuits against beryllium vendors are eligible for benefits under this plan. Those individuals have two-and-one-half years from today to decide whether to dismiss their lawsuit and accept the benefits under this plan or to continue with litigation. During that two-and-one-half year window in which litigants must decide whether or not to drop their litigation, plaintiffs may begin an eligibility review with the agency administering this program, so the plaintiff knows whether he or she is eligible for compensation under this program. Nothing in this agreement prohibits plaintiffs or the administering agency from determining whether a plaintiff is eligible under this new program, allowing them to make an informed decision whether or not to pursue litigation. Mr. President, this is a reasonable proposal. It will help people, like Sam Ray, who worked at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Ohio as an operator and instrument mechanic. It was there that Sam was exposed to technetium, plutonium, neptunium, and heavy metals. He has consequently developed chondrosarcoma--a rare type of bone cancer. As the medical text, Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention, by Doctors Schottenfeld and Fraumeni, points out, cancers of the bone include cancers of the cartilage, including radiosensitive cancers that originate in cartilage, such as chondrosarcoma. Mr. President, let me conclude by thanking my colleagues once again for supporting this program. I also want to thank the many, many workers who came to Washington, DC, or to Columbus to testify on why a compensation measure is needed. They worked tirelessly with my office and other offices to get us to where we are today. They deserve a great deal of the credit for the program contained in this bill. I thank the Chair and yield the Floor.

Mr. DeWINE. I would also like to add that both the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and the Government Affairs Committee have heard testimony from the Department of Energy on worker exposure to ionizing radiation at the Portsmouth uranium enrichment plant in Portsmouth, Ohio, and we became aware that chondrosarcoma has afflicted some in the workforce. The chapter on bone cancer in the Schottenfeld and Fraumeni medical text should provide helpful guidance as the Administration implements this proposal. I ask for unanimous consent to include a portion of that text for the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I would like to ask the distinguished Chairman if the bill provides sufficient funding through the parent account to restore funding for critical monitoring under the Great Waters program to the fiscal year 1999 level of effort?

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, we congratulate the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Appropriations Committee for presenting the Senate with an Appropriations bill which addresses so many of the water quality issues confronting America today. We also want to reiterate our support for a program of great interest to our colleagues from the Great Lakes states.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, Senator Helms has an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its consideration.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate is considering the ``Microenterprise for Self-Reliance Act''--legislation that would ensure the continuation of international microenterprise grant and loan programs that are administered worldwide by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). This is legislation that I introduced last year, along with Senators Bingaman, Chafee, Durbin, Kennedy, Schumer, Torricelli, Boxer, Collins, Feinstein, Mikulski, and Snowe. Representatives Ben Gilman of New York and Sam Gejdenson of Connecticut introduced a similar measure, which the House approved last year. I thank the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Senator Helms, and ranking member of the committee, Senator Biden, and the committee staff for their cooperation and insistence on this legislation. My staff and I have been working closely with these offices since last fall as well as with the administration and the Microenterprise Coalition. I thank Chairman Gilman and the House International Relations Committee staff for their ongoing cooperation and support of this initiative. We believe the investment in microenterprise programs that we are now investing will reduce the need for foreign assistance in the future. By passing the Microenterprise Self-Reliance Act, the Senate has a chance to ensure the future of these very successful programs and help provide a sense of hope and a future of possibilities for the poor in developing countries. I thank my colleagues for their support of this legislation and I look forward to the continued success of the microenterprise programs. I ask unanimous consent that the substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill be read the third time and passed, as amended, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

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

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

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1143, and the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to talk about comments that have been made, both on the floor and off the floor, with regard to the job that the distinguished Senator from Utah, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Hatch, has been doing in regard to judicial nominations. I rise today to commend my colleague for the outstanding work he has done in regard to these nominations. Make no mistake about it, this is tough work. No one who has not had the opportunity to watch this from a close point of view, to see it up close and personal, really has any idea what kind of effort Senator Hatch has made to make sure nominees who come to this floor have been examined very closely and very carefully. It is proper; it is correct that this be done. No one can do a better job at this than Senator Orrin Hatch. I have watched him, day after day, in his examination and his staff's examination and work on people who have been nominated to the judicial bench. I must say he does a tremendous job. Senate consideration of judicial nominations is always difficult. It is always contentious. That is just the nature of the business. Yet in this Congress, under the guidance of Chairman Hatch, the Senate has confirmed 69 Federal judicial nominations--69, for those who offer criticism. Mr. President, 35 of these nominees have been confirmed earlier this year, and we have just confirmed 4 more. Yet not only has the chairman been criticized for nominees who are still pending in the Judiciary Committee, he has even been criticized for nominees who have already been confirmed; that is, nominees who are now serving, today, this very day, as Federal judges. Chairman Hatch has been criticized for not moving those nominees fast enough. I strongly disagree. I believe the chairman has done an outstanding job, a fine job. I wanted to come to the floor this afternoon to say that. I would like to talk about the confirmation process for a moment because, again, I think many times people really don't understand what this process entails--or at least what it entails when the chairman is doing a good job. I think an explanation of the process may help those who are listening to the debate today understand why some of the delays in confirmation of judicial nominees occur. The President has very broad discretion, as we know, to nominate whomever he chooses for Federal judicial vacancies. The Senate, in its role, has a constitutional duty to offer its ``advice and consent'' on judicial nominations. Each Senator, of course, has his or her own criteria for offering this advice and this consent on these lifetime appointments. The Judiciary Committee, though, is where many of the initial concerns about nominees are raised and arise. Often these concerns arise before a hearing is even scheduled. Judicial nominees are required to respond to a very lengthy and a very detailed questionnaire from the Judiciary Committee. They must submit copies of every document they have ever published, any writing they have ever published, and provide copies of every speech they have ever given. If they have previously served as a judge, they must provide information regarding opinions they authored. There are various background checks conducted on each nominee. Sometimes outside individuals or organizations provide the committee with information about a nominee. Sometimes that information from outside groups comes very early in the process. But sometimes, quite candidly, it comes later on. Each time it comes in, the committee, committee staff, and ultimately the chairman must review that information. All of this information is, of course, available to every member of the Judiciary Committee and must be thoroughly reviewed before the nominee is granted a hearing by the committee. If questions about a nominee's background or qualifications arise, further inquiry may be necessary. The chairman will schedule a hearing for a nominee only after thorough review of a nominee's preliminary information. At the hearing, a nominee has an opportunity to respond to any remaining concerns about his or her record. But even after a hearing, sometimes followup questions are necessary to properly examine issues regarding the nominee's qualifications. Obviously, this is a long process, as it should be--as it must be. After all, these are lifetime appointments. These judges will have a tremendous impact on how our laws are interpreted and enforced. Some nominees, of course, have clear records of achievement and superb qualifications. These nominees often move through the committee and to the Senate floor very quickly. Other nominees have records that are really not quite so clear. These nominees take more time for additional investigation and careful consideration. If a nominee is nominated late in a Congress, and that nominee has questions raised about his or her background or qualifications, it is more likely that his nomination will not be considered by the Senate. If nominees were only considered in the order they were nominated, the process would, of course, grind to a halt. We have heard some comments about that. Some people have argued this is a queuing up process; we just queue up whoever is next in line; they should go next on the Senate floor. But we know that cannot happen. If nominees were only considered in the order they were nominated, the process would grind to a halt as more qualified nominees would back up behind questionable nominees. I believe, if it were not for Orrin Hatch's efforts, there would have been far fewer judges confirmed during this session of the Congress. But I am also sure that if Orrin Hatch had not been chairman, other questionable nominations would have been made. Because of this man's integrity, because of this man's honesty, because of this man's proven track record, and because he takes his job so seriously, I am convinced that certain nominations this White House might have considered making simply were never made and were never submitted. I commend Senator Hatch for his efforts in moving the nominees along, but also for his efforts in doing a thorough and complete job. I am very proud to have Orrin Hatch as chairman of this committee. We are very honored to have him serve in that capacity. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today as a co-author of the ``Children's Health Act of 2000.'' This bill is essential in enabling us to build a health care system that is responsive to the unique needs of children. The ``Children's Health Act of 2000'' is a big step in the right direction, and I commend my colleagues, Senators Frist, Jeffords, and Kennedy for their efforts to construct a bill that can really make a positive difference in the health and the lives of children. Mr. President, I am especially pleased that the ``Children's Health Act'' contains several important initiatives that my colleagues and I had introduced already as separate bills. One such initiative--the Pediatric Research Initiative--would help ensure that more of the increased research funding at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is invested specifically in children's health research. While children represent close to 30 percent of the population of this country, NIH devotes only about 12 percent of its budget to children, and, in recent years, that proportion has been declining even further. We must reverse this disturbing trend. It simply makes no sense to conduct health research for adults and hope that those findings also will apply to children. A ``one size fits all'' research approach just doesn't work. The fact is that children have medical conditions and health care needs that differ significantly from adults. Children's health deserves more attention from the research community. That's why the Pediatric Research Initiative is such an important part of the ``Children's Health Act.'' It would provide the federal support for pediatric research that is so vital to ensuring that children receive the appropriate and best health care possible. The Pediatric Research Initiative would authorize at least $50 million for each of the next five years for the Office of the Director of the National Institute of Health (NIH) to conduct, coordinate, support, develop, and recognize pediatric research. In doing so, we will be able to ensure researchers target and study child-specific diseases. With more than 20 Institutes and Centers and Offices within NIH that conduct, support, or develop pediatric research in some way, this investment would promote greater coordination and focus in children's health research, and hopefully encourage new initiatives and areas of research. The ``Children's Health Act'' also would authorize the Secretary of HHS to establish a pediatric research loan repayment program for qualified health professionals who conduct pediatric research. Trained researchers are essential if we are to make significant advances in the study of pediatric health care, especially in light of the new and improved Food and Drug Administration (FDA) policies that encourage the testing of medications for use by children. Additionally, the ``Children's Health Act'' includes the ``Children's Asthma Relief Act,'' which Senator Durbin and I introduced last year. The sad reality for children is that asthma is becoming a far too common and chronic childhood illness. From 1979 to 1992, the hospitalization rates among children due to asthma increased 74 percent. Today, estimates show that more than seven percent of children now suffer from asthma. Nationwide, the most substantial prevalence rate increase for asthma occurred among children aged four and younger. Those four and younger also were hospitalized at the highest rate among all individuals with asthma. According to 1998 data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), my home state of Ohio ranks about 17th in the estimated prevalence rates for asthma. Based on a 1994 CDC National Health Interview Survey, an estimated 197,226 children under 18 years of age in Ohio suffer from asthma. We need to address this problem adequately. The ``Children's Health Act'' would help do that by ensuring that children with asthma receive the care they need to lead healthy lives. The bill would authorize funding for fiscal years 2001 through 2005 for the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to establish state and local community grants to be used for asthma detection, treatment, and education services; require coordination with current children's health programs to identify children who are asthmatic and may otherwise remain undetected and untreated; require NIH to direct more resources to its National Asthma Education Prevention Program to develop a federal plan for responding to asthma; and require the Center for Disease Control to conduct local asthma surveillance activities to collect data on the prevalence and severity of asthma. This surveillance data will help us better detect asthmatic conditions, so that we can treat more children and ensure that we are targeting our resources in an effective and efficient way to reverse the disturbing trend in the hospitalization and death rates of asthmatic children. Since research shows that children living in urban areas suffer from asthma at such alarming rates and that allergens, such as cockroach waste, contribute to the onset of asthma, this bill also adds urban cockroach management to the current preventive health services block grant, which currently can be used for rodent control. The ``Children's Health Act'' also includes a bill I introduced separately with Senator Dodd. This section would require that the Secretary of HHS ensure that all research that is conducted, supported, or regulated by HHS complies with regulations governing the protection of children involved in research. Children who participate in clinical trials are medical pioneers. It is just common sense that we update and apply the strongest federal guidelines to ensure the safety of these young people as they participate in clinical trials that will ensure that medicines will be safe and appropriate for use in all children. Finally, Mr. President, the ``Children's Health Act'' includes language that I strongly support to re-authorize funding for children's hospitals' Graduate Medical Education (GME) programs for four additional years. Last year, as part of the ``Health Care Research and Quality Act,'' which was signed into law, we authorized funding for two years for children's hospitals' GME programs. The teaching mission of these hospitals is essential. Children's hospitals comprise less than one percent of all hospitals, yet they train five percent of all physicians, nearly 30 percent of all pediatricians, and almost 50 percent of all pediatric specialists. By providing our nation with highly qualified pediatricians, children's hospitals can offer children the best possible care and offer parents peace of mind. They serve as the health care safety net for low-income children in their respective communities and are often the sole regional providers of many critical pediatric services. These institutions also serve as centers of excellence for very sick children across the nation. Federal funding for GME in children's hospitals is a sound investment in children's health and provides stability for the future of the pediatric workforce. Mr. President, as the father of eight children and the grandfather of five, I firmly believe that we must move forward to protect the interests--and especially the health--of all children. The ``Children's Health Act of 2000'' makes crucial investments in our country's future--investments that will yield great returns. If we focus on improving health care for all children today, we will have a generation of healthy adults tomorrow.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today the Senate will immediately begin the final 3 hours of debate on H.R. 4444, the China PNTR legislation. Under the previous order, the Senate will recess from 12:30 until 2:15 p.m. for the weekly party conferences to meet. When the Senate reconvenes at 2:15, the Senate will have two back-to-back votes. The first vote is on the final passage of the PNTR bill, and the second vote is on the cloture motion to proceed to the H-1B visa legislation. Following the votes, it is expected that the Senate will begin debate on the H-1B visa bill, with the water resources development bill, or any appropriations conference report available for action.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, for the benefit of my colleagues, I yield myself 30 minutes. I candidly don't expect to take 30 minutes. For those Senators who wish to speak after me, it will probably be a shorter period of time than 30 minutes. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the legislation before us-- H.R. 4444, the legislation extending Permanent Normal Trading Relations to the People's Republic of China or PNTR. As we approach's today's final vote, I want to make it clear that I believe strongly in free and fair trade. And, I support efforts aimed at increasing free and fair trade with China. However, as we approach the vote, I think we must take a few minutes and try to put the current debate into its proper perspective. That is what I intend to do. Passing PNTR will result in lower trade barriers and more U.S. sales to China. We know that. But, the extent of our increased sales will depend on factors beyond our control. Our ability to send more exports to China depends largely on China's continued economic growth, its compliance with the bilateral agreement, and its development of a middle-class. While increasing trade with China certainly is important, we must put this current debate into its proper context. We need to view this debate as it relates to both our worldwide trade policy and to our foreign policy and national security interests. With this broader perspective in mind, it becomes very clear that passing the PNTR legislation is just one part of our overall relationship with China and one part of our overall global trade policy. There remain other pressing foreign policy issues and other trade issues that await our next President, the next Congress, and the American people. Let me explain. The fact is, as we all know, the United States is a leader in the area of free trade. If we fail to pass the PNTR legislation, we would be sending a signal to the world that the United States wants to isolate China. That's a signal we don't want to send. Both by word and deed, the United States must be the world's leader in promoting free trade. At the same time, though, we also don't want to send China--and the world--a signal that we will tolerate the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction--a practice China engages in openly. In terms of our overall trade policy, we also cannot send a signal to our neighbors in the Western Hemisphere that says we are only interested in concentrating on the Chinese market. Since so much time and energy and resources has been directed to liberalizing trade in China, it may be a surprise to some that China represents only two percent of our foreign sales. To keep it in proper perspective, there was no one who estimates that percentage will go beyond 2\1/2\ or 3 percent in the immediate future. Two percent of our total foreign markets is only $13 billion in U.S. sales to China. Now, compare that to markets closer to home. Last year, Canada was our number one export destination, with $167 billion in U.S. sales, while Mexico was our second largest export market with $87 billion in sales. Further, our exports to Brazil ($13.2 billion) last year exceeded our sales to China. And what's more, forty-four percent of our exports remained right here in our own hemisphere. Those $13 billion in sales to China pale in comparison to trade within our hemisphere. Yet, the Administration and the business community have made granting PNTR to China their single-minded trade focus. This narrow agenda has not come without cost. Because the Administration has not emphasized expanding free trade in our hemisphere, other nations are taking the lead in seizing the economic opportunities that are right in our backyard. Our inaction in this hemisphere has essentially made it easier for Europe, Asia, and Canada to significantly expand their exports throughout Latin America. The European Union (EU), for example, is now Brazil's largest trading partner. The EU's exports to Brazil have grown 255 percent from 1990 to 1998. Additionally, during that same period, Asia experienced an incredible 1664 percent increase in its growth of exports to Argentina. The next administration and the business community need to pay attention to our own hemisphere. That means that the next administration and the next Congress need to pass fast-track trading authority and move toward a hemispheric free trade area. It is imperative that we do this. That means that we will need to expand the North American Free Trade Agreement, which, over this last decade, has advanced economic cooperation and growth between the United States and Mexico, increasing U.S. exports to Mexico by 207 percent. And, that means that we must abandon this very narrow focus with which the current administration has viewed trade policy and start widening the lens to be more inclusive of the markets right here in our own backyard. This is significant unfinished business that our next President and our next Congress and the American people will have to address. But, even more significant in terms of our unfinished business are the considerable national security issues at stake regarding our overall relationship with China. I say that because this is China we are talking about. China is different. China, as my colleagues all know, is unlike any other country in the world. China is a major power--a nuclear power--and China is the world's major proliferator of weapons of mass destruction. Sadly, this administration has failed to stop the Chinese government's weapons proliferation. Sadly, this administration has not demonstrated the kind of leadership necessary to prevent China from manufacturing and selling weapons technology worldwide. Like the United States, China is a co-signator of the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty, yet over the last decade, its government has violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty willingly, openly, and egregiously. Their actions are well documented. For example, Washington Times National Security reporter, Bill Gertz, writes in his recent book: [f]or at least a decade, China has routinely carried out covert weapons and technology sales to the Middle East and South Asia, despite hollow promises to the contrary. The PRC has shown no remorse for its past actions--and certainly no inclination to change them. Rather, China has flaunted--openly--its violations. At the beginning of the last decade, Pakistan was believed to possess a very modest nuclear weapons program--one that was inferior to India's program. Our own laws effectively banned U.S. government assistance to Pakistan because of its decision to go nuclear, and our sanctions laws contained tough penalties for any nation attempting to feed Pakistan's nuclear hunger. That was then. Today, China has single-handedly worked to change the balance of power in South Asia and, in turn, has made the region far more different and far more dangerous. Today, according to news reports, Pakistan possesses more weapons than India and has a better capability to deliver them. President Clinton stated earlier this year that South Asia has now become the most dangerous place in the world. We have China to thank for that. The significant change in the balance of power between Pakistan and India was engineered by China, which provided Pakistan with critical technology to enrich and mold uranium, M-11 missile equipment and technology, and expertise and equipment to enable Pakistan to have its own missile production capability. What has this Administration done to change this behavior? Essentially nothing. Time after time, as reporters, like Bill Gertz, uncovered extraordinary information on proliferation activities, this Administration failed to impose even the mildest sanctions against China as required by law. For example, in 1995, at the same time this Administration was aware of China's transfer of sensitive nuclear technology to Pakistan, the Administration was seeking to weaken our non-proliferation laws against Pakistan. And, rather than aggressively use the sanctions laws on the books to try to bring about a change in China's behavior, this Administration sought to find ways to show it had reached a common understanding with China to prohibit these activities and thus avoid sanctions. However, according to the Central Intelligence Agency's unclassified bi-annual report to Congress on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, China remained a ``key supplier'' last year of weapons and missile assistance to Pakistan. In the Middle East, it's the same story. News reports have documented China's contributions to Iran's nuclear development and ballistic and cruise missile programs, including anti-ship missiles that are a threat to our naval presence and commercial shipping in the Persian Gulf. Further, the CIA's bi-annual report also confirmed that Chinese government multi-nationals are assisting the Libyan government in building a more advanced missile program. As it stands, international rules of conduct and pledges to our government to forego its proliferation activity have not deterred China's arms-building practices. Further, this administration has not enforced U.S. non-proliferation laws adequately nor effectively. The Chinese government certainly does not take our government seriously on the question of weapons proliferation--and frankly, why should they? The current Administration hasn't been a leader in encouraging nations to honor international non-proliferation agreements. Consequently, weapons of mass destruction are in more questionable hands than ever before. Last year, a bipartisan commission headed by former CIA Director, John Deutch, concluded that our Federal Government is not equipped to fight nuclear proliferation. What does that say about our international credibility? What does that say about our ability to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction? What it says is that our diminished credibility may oblige other countries who are adversaries of Pakistan, Iran, and Libya to build their own weapons capabilities to counter these emerging threats. In simple terms, the current administration has not led on these proliferation issues. That is why we should have passed Senator Thompson's amendment last week. The Thompson amendment was important because it would have given us the ability to hold the People's Republic of China, and any nation, accountable for proliferating weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. The bottom line is that if we are going to sacrifice our annual review of normal trade relations with China, then our next President and the next Congress will need new tools to pursue our national security objectives. Candidly, the next President will also have to use the tools that we have now given him. So, where are we? When we put this whole debate in perspective--when we put the debate into its proper economic and national security contexts--where does this leave us? Realistically, approval of PNTR does not change the disagreements we have with China on weapons proliferation. It certainly will not change China's behavior. China will continue to proliferate. China will continue to pursue policies that will destabilize two critical regions of the world, placing our soldiers and our allies in serious danger. Now that we are about to pass this legislation--now that we are about to advance our free trade policy--what do we intend to do to advance our non-proliferation policy and our own national security? Does this Administration have an answer? No, I do not think they do. Quite candidly, they never have. We need an answer. And, from the vantage point of our national security strategy, I believe that if we fail to show vigilance in the enforcement of non-proliferation policy, we will place this nation at a terrible disadvantage. If we fail to show vigilance, we will effectively continue a de facto policy that has worked to undermine our national non-proliferation policy and is working to make our world a more dangerous place. Had this administration pursued a non-proliferation policy with the same amount of intensity, creativity, and vigor it showed in advancing our commercial relationship with China, this would have been a far easier vote to cast. Had the Senate done the right thing and adopted the Thompson amendment, that too would have made today's vote easier to cast. I fear if we do not act soon to change the current course of our weapons proliferation policy--if we do not revisit the Thompson amendment, and we will revisit the Thompson amendment--we will be sending a signal to China and to the world that says our trade interests are more important than the security of our Nation, more important than the security of our children and grandchildren. I intend to vote for the PNTR legislation before us because I believe strongly in the power of fair and free trade. The United States has been the world's most outspoken advocate for free trade. We are the world's free trade leader. We believe free trade is a cornerstone of a free society and a free people. We believe it can be a step toward helping closed nations become open and democratic. No one here can say with certainty that it will work in China, but as the world's leader in free trade, I believe we have to try. With this vote today, we are keeping our word as that leader, and we are moving forward. To do otherwise, to go back on the agreement this country negotiated last November, would send the wrong message to the world. It would say that the United States cannot be counted on to practice what we preach, and the implications of that message will extend far beyond our ability to negotiate trade agreements with China. A message such as that will affect our credibility worldwide. Further, I have concluded that a ``no'' vote will do nothing to wean China from its weapons-building addiction. But that is why we must not stop here with today's vote. We should move forward and show clear leadership and clear direction in regard to our nonproliferation policy. With this vote, I pledge to work with our next President to change the current state of affairs and to work toward maintaining our place as the world's model for free and fair trade. I will continue to push for free trade opportunities, both within and beyond our hemisphere. Much more important, I also pledge to work toward making our world a safer and more secure place for our children, our grandchildren, and our great grandchildren. I will continue to insist that China and other weapons-proliferating nations abide by international agreements, and I will continue to insist again, again, and again that our Nation take the lead in this area. This is not the last time I will be on this floor talking about the problems with China. This Senate will regret if we do not return to this issue. The Thompson amendment will come back, and we will insist that it be voted on. This country has to stand strong and firm against China and their proliferation policies. Their proliferation policies threaten the security of our children and our grandchildren, and we will ignore their actions at our peril. I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleagues.

Mr. DeWINE. I yield to my colleague.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I certainly will not object to the request of the chairman of the committee. I have enough respect for my colleague, if that is what my colleague thinks is absolutely necessary to not object.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Thompson- Torricelli amendment. This amendment will give us more of a chance to hold the People's Republic of China, or any nation, accountable for proliferating weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. This amendment would not have been necessary had this administration shown effective leadership in nonproliferation policy. When the administration sat down with China last year to negotiate an agreement on China's admission to the World Trade Organization, that was an extraordinary opportunity to discuss China's weapons proliferation practices. It was a once in a lifetime opportunity to insist that China change its ways on proliferation once and for all and advance the security of all nations. That opportunity, sadly, was lost. The bilateral agreement reached between China and the United States last November is the price China has to pay for our Nation to agree to PNTR and China's admission into the WTO. So the fundamental question is this: Have we imposed a high enough price on the Chinese Government? Sadly, I think the answer is clearly no. Yes, the bilateral agreement arguably is a good economic document for both countries. However, it is by no means an acceptable document for our own national security. If we are going to sacrifice our annual review of normal trade relations with China, then our next President and the next Congress must have new tools in place to pursue our national security objectives. It is that simple. And that is why we need to adopt the Thompson amendment. As my colleagues know, China is a signator of the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty. Article VI of that treaty states that nuclear powers are to: . . . pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date. . . . No nation has violated that specific article in the NPT more egregiously, more openly, and more willingly in the last decade than the People's Republic of China. That is the truth. In Asia and the Middle East, our Nation and China hold two fundamentally different visions of the future direction of these two regions. Right now, China has used its expertise in nuclear and missile technology to effectively advance their interests and destabilize the region. For example, at the beginning of the last decade, Pakistan possessed a very modest nuclear weapons program inferior to India's. That was then. Now the balance of nuclear power has shifted, and it is a far more different and far more dangerous region today. In the Middle East, it is the same story. News reports have documented China's contributions to Iran's nuclear development, and ballistic and cruise missile programs, including anti-ship missiles that are a threat to our naval presence and commercial shipping in the Persian Gulf. And published news reports say a CIA report issued last month confirmed that Chinese Government multinationals are assisting the Libyan Government in building a more advanced missile program. China certainly does not see our Government as a serious enforcer of nonproliferation policy--and why should they? As a result, weapons of mass destruction are in far more questionable hands and the world is a far more dangerous place. The high priority China placed on WTO membership certainly presented our Government with an opportunity to reassert its nonproliferation credentials.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, we can make up for this lost opportunity by passing this amendment. It is vitally important, I believe, that we do this and we move forward. This amendment is not just about holding other nations accountable as proliferators, it is also about holding our President accountable as the world's principal nonproliferation enforcer. With this amendment, Congress would receive a comprehensive report each year from the President about the proliferation practices of other nations. This report would require comprehensive information on proliferation practices, how these acts threaten our national security, and what actions are being taken by the President in response to these violations. This reporting requirement will prevent future administrations from repeating the approach taken by the current administration, which ran and hid from our nonproliferation laws and responsibilities. The amendment of the Senator from Tennessee would dramatically improve the PNTR legislation. I say this because PNTR is not just about trade--it is about U.S. foreign policy. We cannot let our trade policy with China supercede our national security policy. The lessons learned from the Cox Commission were clear: foreign policy and national security policy must drive trade policy and not the other way around. I ask my colleagues: Have we asked enough of China? Has this administration done enough to advance our foreign affairs with China? I believe the answer to both is a resounding ``no.'' The Thompson- Torricelli amendment gives the Senate a chance to insist on more from China and more from this administration. If both China and future administrations are going to take this Senate seriously as a clear and strong voice in our national security policy, we should stand together to support this amendment. I thank my colleagues, I thank my colleague from Tennessee, and I yield the floor.