Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today as a co-author of the ``Children's Public Health Act of 2000.'' The sad fact is that far too many children never realize success as adults or even reach adulthood because of debilitating or life-threatening disease. That is why we must build a health care system that is responsive to the unique needs of children. The ``Children's Public 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 Public Health Act'' contains several important initiatives that my colleagues and I had already introduced 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 Public 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 $50 million annually for the next five years for the Office of the Director of NIH to conduct, coordinate, support, develop, and recognize pediatric research. By doing so, we will be able to ensure that 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 should encourage new initiatives and areas of research. The ``Children's Public Health Act'' also would authorize funding through the National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)--for pediatric research training grants to support training for additional pediatric research scientists and would provide funding for loan forgiveness programs. 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 Public 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. This is a serious health concern among children--and we must address it. The ``Children's Public Health Act'' would help ensure that children with asthma receive the care they need to live healthy lives. The bill would authorize $50 million annually for five years for the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to award grants to eligible entities to develop and expand projects that would provide asthma services to children. These grants also may be used to equip mobile health care clinics that provide asthma diagnosis and asthma-related health care services; educate families on asthma management; and identify and enroll uninsured children who are eligible for, but are not receiving health coverage under Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The ability to identify and enroll children in these programs will ensure that children with asthma receive the care they need. 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. To better coordinate federal activities related to asthma, the Secretary of HHS would be required to identify all federal programs that carry out asthma research and develop a federal plan for responding to asthma. To better monitor the prevalence of pediatric asthma and to determine which areas have the greatest incidences of children with asthma, this bill would require the CDC to conduct local asthma surveillance activities to collect data on the prevalence and severity of asthma and to publish data annually on the prevalence rates of asthma among children and on the childhood mortality rate. 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. Finally, Mr. President, the bill we are introducing today 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 Public 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. I urge my colleagues to support this vital children's health care bill.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill today-- the ``Veterans Mission for Youth Initiative''--that would expand the current mission of the successful Troops to Teachers program. As many of my colleagues know, Troops to Teachers is a practical and sensible teacher recruitment program--a program that helps our veterans and retired military personnel gain the necessary certification to teach in our children's classrooms. The bill I am introducing today would build on the current program's success by expanding its mission to help veterans who want to volunteer in our schools and be role models, but do not necessarily want to become certified teachers. This bill not only will help children benefit from the knowledge and experiences of veterans, but it also will help our veterans get more involved and active in their own local communities. I am pleased that Governor George W. Bush is proposing this same idea today in Pittsburgh. Specifically, the ``Veterans Mission for Youth Initiative,'' would authorize $75 million to be used for matching federal grants to community organizations that help train and then link veterans and retired military personnel with local school volunteer opportunities to mentor and tutor students. The grant program will be administered through the Defense Department's Defense Activity for Non-Traditional Education Support division, which runs the Troops-to-Teachers program. Mr. President, the sad reality is that our schools are in crisis-- especially in the inner cities and in places like Appalachia. And, I am frustrated and saddened that far too many children simply are not getting the quality education they deserve. The current Troops to Teachers program is helping to improve educational quality in America by providing mature, motivated, experienced, and dedicated personnel for our nation's classrooms. In fact, when administrators were asked to rate Troops to Teachers participants in their schools, 54 percent of the administrators said that the former military personnel turned teachers were among the best teachers at the schools. I am pleased to say that since 1994, 3,720 retired members of the U.S. military have been hired as teachers in all 50 states. Additionally, a 1999 alternative teacher certification study found that participants in the Troops to Teachers program broaden the make-up and skills of our current teacher pool. For example, 30 percent of participants are minorities, compared to 10 percent of all teachers; 30 percent of participants are teaching math, compared to 13 percent of all teachers; 39 percent are willing to teach in inner cities compared to the current 16 percent urban teaching force; and 90 percent are male, compared to the overall current teaching force which is 26 percent male. By expanding the current mission of the Troops to Teachers program by helping to link veterans with community volunteer opportunities to tutor and mentor school children, we can strengthen our education system overall. By linking students and America's retired military personnel--men and women who have exhibited the ideals of discipline, order, courage, and civic responsibility--we can teach our children valuable lessons outside the classroom. Sadly, Mr. President, a recent survey of American youth, called the ``New Millennium Project,'' found that students chose as their three lowest-ranking priorities in life: 1. Being a good citizen who cares about the good of the country; 2. Being involved in democracy and voting; and 3. Being involved in helping make one's community a better place. Furthermore, a recent survey by the Horatio Alger Society found that 21 percent of students had no heroes. We need to change this, Mr. President. We need to change these apathetic and aimless attitudes. We need to give American youth some direction--the right direction. After all, these children are our future--we need to equip them with an arsenal of lessons--lessons they can learn in the classroom and out of the classroom by interacting with our country's heroes--our veterans. The bottom line is this: As a nation, we need to do all we can to get the best teachers available into our public schools. We are trying to do just that through the current Troops to Teachers program. Now, the ``Veteran's Mission for Youth Initiative'' is another step in that direction. I urge my colleagues to support this effort and to join me in taking an important step toward improving education in this country. We owe it to our children; we it to our veterans; and we owe it to our nation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill today-- the ``Veterans Mission for Youth Initiative''--that would expand the current mission of the successful Troops to Teachers program. As many of my colleagues know, Troops to Teachers is a practical and sensible teacher recruitment program--a program that helps our veterans and retired military personnel gain the necessary certification to teach in our children's classrooms. The bill I am introducing today would build on the current program's success by expanding its mission to help veterans who want to volunteer in our schools and be role models, but do not necessarily want to become certified teachers. This bill not only will help children benefit from the knowledge and experiences of veterans, but it also will help our veterans get more involved and active in their own local communities. I am pleased that Governor George W. Bush is proposing this same idea today in Pittsburgh. Specifically, the ``Veterans Mission for Youth Initiative,'' would authorize $75 million to be used for matching federal grants to community organizations that help train and then link veterans and retired military personnel with local school volunteer opportunities to mentor and tutor students. The grant program will be administered through the Defense Department's Defense Activity for Non-Traditional Education Support division, which runs the Troops-to-Teachers program. Mr. President, the sad reality is that our schools are in crisis-- especially in the inner cities and in places like Appalachia. And, I am frustrated and saddened that far too many children simply are not getting the quality education they deserve. The current Troops to Teachers program is helping to improve educational quality in America by providing mature, motivated, experienced, and dedicated personnel for our nation's classrooms. In fact, when administrators were asked to rate Troops to Teachers participants in their schools, 54 percent of the administrators said that the former military personnel turned teachers were among the best teachers at the schools. I am pleased to say that since 1994, 3,720 retired members of the U.S. military have been hired as teachers in all 50 states. Additionally, a 1999 alternative teacher certification study found that participants in the Troops to Teachers program broaden the make-up and skills of our current teacher pool. For example, 30 percent of participants are minorities, compared to 10 percent of all teachers; 30 percent of participants are teaching math, compared to 13 percent of all teachers; 39 percent are willing to teach in inner cities compared to the current 16 percent urban teaching force; and 90 percent are male, compared to the overall current teaching force which is 26 percent male. By expanding the current mission of the Troops to Teachers program by helping to link veterans with community volunteer opportunities to tutor and mentor school children, we can strengthen our education system overall. By linking students and America's retired military personnel--men and women who have exhibited the ideals of discipline, order, courage, and civic responsibility--we can teach our children valuable lessons outside the classroom. Sadly, Mr. President, a recent survey of American youth, called the ``New Millennium Project,'' found that students chose as their three lowest-ranking priorities in life: 1. Being a good citizen who cares about the good of the country; 2. Being involved in democracy and voting; and 3. Being involved in helping make one's community a better place. Furthermore, a recent survey by the Horatio Alger Society found that 21 percent of students had no heroes. We need to change this, Mr. President. We need to change these apathetic and aimless attitudes. We need to give American youth some direction--the right direction. After all, these children are our future--we need to equip them with an arsenal of lessons--lessons they can learn in the classroom and out of the classroom by interacting with our country's heroes--our veterans. The bottom line is this: As a nation, we need to do all we can to get the best teachers available into our public schools. We are trying to do just that through the current Troops to Teachers program. Now, the ``Veteran's Mission for Youth Initiative'' is another step in that direction. I urge my colleagues to support this effort and to join me in taking an important step toward improving education in this country. We owe it to our children; we it to our veterans; and we owe it to our nation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, now that we have passed the Transportation Appropriations bill and it heads to the conference committee, I strongly urge my colleagues to support in conference a provision in the bill that would encourage states to adopt a .08 Blood-Alcohol Concentration (BAC) level as the per se standard for drunk driving. This issue is not new to the Senate. In 1998, as the Senate considered the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, or TEA 21, 62 Senators agreed to an almost identical provision--an amendment that Senator Lautenberg and I offered to make .08 the law of the land. Sixty-two Senators, Mr. President, agreed that we needed this law because it would save lives. We made it clear during the debate in 1998 that .08, by itself, would not solve the problem of drunk driving. However, .08, along with a number of other steps taken over the years to combat drunk driving, would save between 500 and 600 lives annually. Let me repeat that, Mr. President--if we add .08 to all the other things we are doing to combat drunk driving--we would save between 500 and 600 more lives every year. On March 4, 1998--when the Senate voted 62 to 32 in favor of a .08 law--the United States Senate spoke loud and clear. This body said that .08 should be the uniform standard on all highways in this country. The United States Senate said that we believe .08 will save lives. The United States Senate said that it makes sense to have uniform laws, so that when a family drives from one state to another, the same standards--the same tough laws--will apply. But sadly, Mr. President, despite the overwhelming vote in the Senate--despite the United States Senate's very strong belief that .08 laws will save lives--this provision was dropped in conference. The conferees replaced it with an enhanced incentive grant program that has proven to be ineffective. Since this grant program has been in place, only one state--Texas--has taken advantage of the incentives and put a .08 law into effect. So, here we are again--back at square one, making the same arguments we made two years ago--the same arguments that compelled 62 United States Senators to vote in favor of .08 legislation. Let's not make the same mistake this time, Mr. President. The Senate kept the .08 provision in the Transportation Appropriations bill we passed last week--this time, we need to do the right thing and keep the provision in the conference report and make it law once and for all. The case for a .08 law in every state is as compelling today as it was two years ago when we voted on this. The fact is that a person with a .08 Blood- Alcohol Concentration level is seriously impaired. When a person reaches .08, his/her vision, balance, reaction time, hearing, judgement, and self-control are severely impaired. Moreover, critical driving tasks, such as concentrated attention, speed control, braking, steering, gear-changing and lane-tracking, are negatively impacted at .08. But, beyond these facts, there are other scientifically sound reasons to enact a national .08 standard. First, the risk of being in a crash increases gradually with each blood-alcohol level, but then rises rapidly after a driver reaches or exceeds .08 compared to drivers with no alcohol in their systems. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reports that in single vehicle crashes, the relative fatality risk for drivers with BAC's between .05 and .09 is over eleven times greater than for drivers with BAC's of zero. Second, .08 BAC laws have proven results in reducing crashes and fatalities. Back in 1998, when Senator Lautenberg and I, argued in support of a national .08 law, we cited a study that compared states with .08 BAC laws and neighboring states with .10 BAC laws. That study found that .08 laws reduced the overall incidence of alcohol fatalities by 16% and also reduced fatalities at higher BAC levels. During our debate two years ago, the accuracy of this report was called into question by opponents of our amendment. Since then, a number of different studies have verified the findings of the original Boston University study. I will talk about these new studies shortly. Third and finally, according to NHTSA, crash statistics show that even heavy drinkers, who account for a large percentage of drunk driving arrests, are less likely to drink and drive because of the general deterrent effect of .08. Right now, Mr. President, we have a patchwork pattern of state drunk driving laws. Forty-eight states have a per se BAC law in effect. Thirty-one of these states have a .10 per se standard. Seventeen have enacted a .08 level. With all due respect, Mr. President, this doesn't make sense. The opponents of the .08 level cannot convince me that simply crossing a state border will make a drunk sober. For instance, just crossing the Wilson Bridge from Virginia into Maryland would not make a drunk driver sober. This states' rights debate reminds me of what Ronald Reagan said when he signed the minimum drinking age bill: ``The problem is bigger than the individual states . . . . It's a grave national problem, and it touches all our lives. With the problem so clear-cut and the proven solution at hand, we have no misgiving about this judicious use of federal power.'' The Administration has set a very laudable goal of reducing alcohol- related motor vehicle fatalities to no more than 11,000 by the year 2005. Mr. President, this goal is going to be very difficult to achieve. But, I believe that recent history provides a road map for how to achieve this goal. Beginning in the late 1970's, a national movement began to change our country's attitudes toward drinking and driving. This movement has helped spur state legislatures to enact stronger drunk driving laws; it led to tougher enforcement; and it caused people to think twice before drinking and driving. In fact, it was this national movement that helped me get a tough DUI law passed in my home state of Ohio back in 1982. In short, these efforts have helped reverse attitudes in this country about drinking and driving--it is now no longer ``cool'' to drink and drive. The reduction in alcohol-related fatalities since that time is not attributable to one single thing. Rather, it was the result of a whole series of actions taken by state and federal government and the tireless efforts of many organizations, such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Students Against Drunk Driving, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, and many others. Despite all of our past efforts, alcohol involvement is still the single greatest factor in motor vehicle deaths and injuries. We must continue to take small, but effective and proven steps forward in the battle against drunk driving. Passage of a national .08 blood alcohol standard is one of these small, effective steps. Mr. President, how do we know that .08 is an effective measure in combating drunk driving? Earlier I cited a Boston University study which showed that, if all 50 states set .08 as a standard, between 500 and 600 lives would be saved annually. A number of my colleagues questioned that study during the Senate debate back in 1998. But, we don't need to rely on that one single study. Since we last debated .08, at least three studies have been published on this issue. The most comprehensive of these, conducted by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, concluded the following: ``With regard to .08 BAC laws, the results suggested that these laws were associated with 8% reductions in the involvement of both high BAC and lower BAC drivers in fatal crashes. Combining the results for the high and low BAC drivers, it is estimated that 275 lives were saved by .08 BAC laws in 1997. If all 50 states (rather than 15 states) had such laws in place in 1997, an additional 590 lives could have been saved.'' Let me repeat that. ``If all 50 states . . . had such laws in place in 1997, an additional 590 lives could have been saved.'' A second study, Mr. President, conducted by NHTSA, looked at eleven states with ``sufficient experience with .08 BAC laws to conduct a meaningful analysis.'' This study found that ``. . . the rate of alcohol involvement in fatal crashes declined in eight of the states studied after the effective date of a .08 BAC law. Further, .08 BAC laws were associated with significant reductions in alcohol-related fatalities, alone or in conjunction with administrative license revocation laws, in seven of eleven states. In five of these seven states, implementation of the .08 BAC law, itself, was followed by significantly lower rates of alcohol involvement among fatalities.'' Finally, the third most recent study, conducted by the Highway Safety Research Center at the University of North Carolina, evaluated the effects of North Carolina's .08 BAC law. Opponents of this amendment use this study as supposed proof that .08 does not work. But, here is what the study concluded: ``It appears that lowering the BAC limit to .08% in North Carolina did not have any clear effect on alcohol-related crashes. The existing downward trend in alcohol-involvement among all crashes and among more serious crashes continued . . .'' In other words, .08 when enacted by a state that is progressive and aggressive in its efforts to deal with drinking drivers helps to continue existing downward trends in alcohol involvement in fatal crashes. Mr. President, some skeptics still might not be convinced of the positive effects of a national .08 BAC standard. The General Accounting Office (GAO) conducted a critical review of these studies. GAO concluded that there are ``strong indications that .08 BAC laws, in combination with other drunk driving laws (particularly license revocation laws), sustained public education and information efforts, and vigorous and consistent enforcement can save lives.'' The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), in its response to the GAO report, concluded that ``significant reductions have been found in most states;'' that ``consistent evidence exists that .08 BAC laws, at a minimum, add to the effectiveness of laws and activities already in place;'' and that ``a persuasive body of evidence is now available to support the Department's position on .08 BAC laws.'' The GAO responded to DOT, stating: ``Overall, we believe that DOT's assessment of the effectiveness of .08 BAC laws is fairly consistent with our own.'' The fact is that since we last debated this issue, all of these published studies have reached the same conclusion: .08 laws will save lives. I urge my colleagues not to be fooled by the opponents' rhetoric during conference negotiations and keep the provision in tact. The opponents attempt to demean .08 laws by saying they will not ``solve the problem of drunk driving.'' These opponents--in the way they use the word ``solve''--are correct: .08 is not a silver bullet. By itself, it will not end drunk driving. However, it is exactly what proponents have always said it was--another proven effective step that we can take to reduce drunk driving injuries and fatalities. Make no mistake--.08 BAC laws will save lives. I want to conclude by thanking my friend from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, for his continued dedication to this issue. His hard work and perseverance have helped bring us to the point today where the Senate once again has passed legislation to strongly encourage states to enact this life-saving measure. I would also like to thank Senator Richard Shelby, the Chairman of the Subcommittee, for his support of the .08 measure as the Transportation Appropriations bill was being crafting; and Senator John Warner for his continued dedication to reducing drunk driving. Mr. President, .08 is definitely a legislative effort worth fighting for, and I hope we will succeed this time in retaining the provision in the conference report. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, there has been a lot of talk recently in this country about gun control. It is no secret that gun control measures are very controversial and are subject to a great deal of debate--as they should be. But, we have to remember that in the heat of this debate, we must not lose sight of the real issue at hand--and that's gun violence. There is nothing controversial about protecting our children, our families, our communities by keeping guns out of the wrong hands--keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and violent offenders--not law-abiding citizens, Mr. President, but criminals. These criminals with guns are killing our children. They're killing our young adults. They're killing our friends and our neighbors. I am here on the floor today because I am very troubled by this, Mr. President, and I am troubled by the current Administration's handling of crimes committed with guns. Let me explain. Right now, current law makes it a federal crime for a convicted felon to ever possess a firearm. So, once a person is convicted of a felony, that person can never again own a gun. It is against federal law to use a gun to commit any crime, regardless of if that crime is otherwise a state crime. And, under federal law, the sentences for these kinds of crimes are mandatory--no second chance, no parole. In the late 1980's, President Bush made enforcement of these gun laws a priority. His Justice Department told local sheriffs, chiefs of police, and prosecutors that if they caught a felon with a gun--or if they caught someone committing a crime in which a gun was used--the federal government would take the case, and put that criminal behind bars for at least five years--no exceptions. During the last 18 months of the Bush Administration, more than 2,000 criminals with guns were put behind bars. Consistent, effective enforcement ended once the current Administration took office. Between 1992 and 1998, for example, the number of gun cases filed for prosecution dropped from 7,048 to about 3,807--that's a 46 percent decrease. As a result, the number of federal criminal convictions for firearms offenses has fallen dramatically. For six years, the Justice Department refused to prosecute those criminals who use a gun to commit state crimes--even though the use of a gun to commit those crimes could be charged as a federal crime. The only cases they would prosecute were those in which a federal crime was already being committed and a gun was used in the commission of that crime. Even worse, to this very day, some federal gun laws are almost never enforced by this Administration. While Brady law background checks have stopped nearly 300,000 prohibited purchasers of firearms from buying guns, less than .1 percent have actually been prosecuted. I have repeatedly questioned Attorney General Reno and her deputies about the decline in prosecutions, and their standard response is that the Department of Justice is focusing on so-called ``high-level'' offenders, instead of ``low-level'' offenders, who commit one crime with a gun. They say that they want to prosecute the few sharks at the top rather than the numerous guppies at the bottom of the criminal enterprise. With all due respect, that's nonsense. Attorney General Reno recently said that she would aggressively prosecute armed criminals, but only if they commit a violent crime. Again, that type of law enforcement policy just doesn't make sense. Current law prohibits violent felons from possessing guns, and so we should aggressively prosecute these cases to take guns away from violent criminals--before they use those guns to injure and kill people. It's that simple. Mr. President, we have often heard that six percent of the criminals commit 70 percent of the crimes--six percent of the criminals commit 70 percent of the crimes. Well, if you have a violent criminal who illegally possesses a gun, I can bet you that he is part of that six percent! He's one of the bad guys--and we should put him away before he has a chance to use that gun again. Mr. President, we need to take all of these armed criminals off the streets. That is how we can reduce crime and save lives. Why wait for armed criminals to commit more and more heinous crimes before we prosecute them to the full extent of the law? Why wait, when we can do something before another Ohioan--or any American--becomes a victim of gun violence? We shouldn't wait, Mr. President. That's why the House of Representatives recently passed legislation that would increase gun prosecutions. And that's why, along with a number of my colleagues, including Senators Abraham, Santorum, Warner, Sessions, Helms, Ashcroft, and Hutchinson from Arkansas, we have introduced the companion to the House-passed bill--a bill that offers the kind of practical solution we need to thwart gun crimes. Our bill--called ``Project Exile: The Safe Streets and Neighbors Act of 2000''--would provide $100 million in grants over five years to those states that agree to enact their own mandatory minimum five-year jail sentences for armed criminals who use or possess an illegal gun. As an alternative, a state can also qualify for the grants by turning armed criminals over for federal prosecution under existing firearms laws. Therefore, a state has the option of prosecuting armed felons in state or federal courts. Qualifying states can use their grants for any variety of purposes that would strengthen their criminal or juvenile justice systems' ability to deal with violent criminals. This approach works, Mr. President. In Virginia, for example, the state instituted a program in 1997, also called ``Project Exile.'' Their program is based on one simple principle: Any criminal caught with a gun will serve a minimum mandatory sentence of five years in prison. Period. End of story. As a result, gun-toting criminals are being prosecuted six times faster, and serving sentences up to four times longer than they otherwise would under state law. Moreover, the homicide rate in Richmond already has dropped 40 percent! Every state should have the opportunity to implement Project Exile in their high-crime communities. The bill that we have introduced will make this proven, commonsense approach to reducing gun violence available to every state. It will take guns out of the hands of violent criminals. It will make our neighborhoods safer. It will save lives. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support and pass this legislation. It's time to protect our children, our families, and our country from armed and dangerous criminals. It's time to get guns out of the wrong hands. It's time we take back our neighborhoods and our communities from the criminals and take action to stop gun-toting criminals.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the Chairman of the Labor, Health, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Specter, and the Ranking Member, Senator Harkin, for their support of our Nation's poison control centers. Because of their help, the appropriations bill we pass will contain a sound investment in these centers. Mr. President, many of us--as parents--have experienced the terrifying situation when a child accidently swallows something potentially toxic. Fortunately, poison control centers are in place to field poison-related phone calls and to offer parents and everyone valuable medical advice when these types of emergencies arise. Additionally, the professionals at the centers provide education and training to the public to help prevent poisonings. Without a doubt, poison control centers offer vital health services. Earlier this year, Congress passed legislation that I sponsored along with 34 of my colleagues--and the President signed it into law--which authorizes $27.6 million to be used to fund a national toll-free number to ensure access to poison control center services; a nationwide media campaign to educate the public and health care providers about poison prevention; and a grant program to: (1) Help certified regional poison control centers achieve financial stability; (2) Prevent poisonings; (3) Provide treatment recommendations for poisonings; and (4) Improve poison control center services. Last year, I worked with Senator Specter, to include $3 million in FY2000 for the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to initiate planning for the national toll-free number and to begin assisting the local poison control centers' other efforts. Because of that initial investment, the national toll-free number will be fully operational by September 30th of this year. The new toll-free number will provide easy access to poison control services no matter where you are in the country by directing calls to the local poison control center closest to you. To ensure that the local centers can maintain current operations and handle increases in calls resulting from the new toll-free number, the centers must be funded at an adequate level. The investment this bill makes will help poison control centers continue providing essential services to parents and to the public now and in the future. Investing in poison control centers just makes good economic sense. Do you realize that for every dollar spent on poison control center services, we can save $7 dollars in medical costs? The average cost of a poisoning exposure call to a poison control center is $31.28. The average cost of using other health care system options, like emergency room services, for example, is $932 dollars. Each year, the Central Ohio Poison Center handles more than 66,000 calls, and the Cincinnati Poison Center handles about 78,000 calls. According to Dr. Marcel Casavant--medical director for the Central Ohio Poison Center and emergency department physician at Columbus Children's Hospital--the Central Ohio Poison Center refers callers to their doctors or to an emergency department about 10 percent of the time. The other 90 percent of cases don't usually require a trip to the emergency room and can be treated and monitored right at home with treatment advice provided by poison control professionals. Poison control centers save lives and save money by offering immediate treatment advice. They help keep patients from calling 911 or going to emergency rooms unnecessarily, while offering immediate treatment advice to callers. Throughout the United States each year, more than two million poisonings are reported to poison control centers. More than 90 percent of these poisonings happen in the home, and over 50 percent of poisoning victims are children younger than six years of age. My own personal experience with poison control centers occurred two years ago, when our granddaughter, Isabelle, who was two years old at the time, fell into a bucket of bubble solution as we were wrapping up our annual Ice Cream Social at our home in Cedarville, Ohio. We feared that Isabelle may have swallowed some of the solution, since she was covered with it from head to toe. My sister-in-law, who is a nurse, immediately called the poison control center to determine whether Isabelle had swallowed a poisonous substance. We were very lucky. The professional at the local poison control center told us immediately what to do and explained that we needed to rinse Isabelle off and have her drink several glasses of water to flush the solution through her system. But for the quick response of that local poison control center, we would probably have ended up taking Isabelle to the emergency room needlessly. My friend and colleague from Michigan, Senator Abraham, also had his own personal experience with a poison center. In 1999, he and his wife were at home and spotted their toddler son, Spencer, with an open bottle of allergy medicine. They immediately called the poison center. The Abrahams, too, were very lucky. As it turned out, little Spencer hadn't swallowed more than an ounce, so the poison center staff recommended that his parents just monitor him at home through the night. While poisonings very often affect children, adults also face situations necessitating information and help from poison control centers. The centers provide services for adults who have been exposed to potentially poisonous or toxic substances. Take the example of what occurred in Marysville, Ohio. Thirty workers in a manufacturing plant in Marysville were victims of gas exposure. Twenty of these workers went to Union Memorial Hospital. The hospital contacted the poison center, after which these patients were given oxygen and later discharged that same day. Ten others went to a different hospital which did not call a poison center. These patients were not released until the next day, even though their symptoms did not differ from the other 20 workers. Because the local poison centers cover a lot of area and handle a large number of exposure cases, they can help identify trends and patterns of exposure which might not otherwise be recognized by individual health care providers. The organized network of poison centers facilitates instant communication of public health concerns, as well as effective methods of treatment. For example, in 1993, an Oregon Poison Center staff member noticed a cluster of symptomatic callers who had all used an aerosol leather protector. Subsequent investigation revealed similar cases in the preceding four days. Immediate notification of other centers confirmed cases in other states. Contact with the manufacturer and subsequent product removal occurred within only four hours. Here's another example: On January 28, 1998, there was a nationwide recall of a popular snack cake due to possible asbestos contamination. This recall resulted in about 1000 calls to one poison center in Ohio, with similar numbers of calls to poison centers in Illinois, Indiana, and Missouri. The poison centers were able to reassure callers about the low toxicity of small oral ingestion of asbestos and referred callers to the company's customer service number. Despite their obvious value, poison control centers have been seriously under-funded. The centers have been financed through unstable arrangements from a variety of public and private sources. Over the last two decades, there has been a steady decline in the number of poison control centers in the United States. In 1978, there were more than 600 poison control centers nationwide. Today, there are fewer than 75--of which, only 53 are certified. Since 1991, six centers in Ohio have closed, leaving only three in current operation. This trend has jeopardized the ability of the remaining poison control centers nationwide to provide immediate, around-the-clock service to all Americans. As a result, more emergency rooms are likely to be visited by anxious parents who fear their children were accidentally poisoned. This is a trend that is increasing the total cost of treating poisonings and increasing the risk of accidental injury or death. Mr. President, I am pleased that my colleagues have agreed to take things to the next level and are providing a substantial investment in these centers. This investment will help bring stability to our nation's poison control centers and bring peace of mind to parents. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments from the gentleman from Pennsylvania and would ask that the Chair support the program in the upcoming conference with the House of Representatives.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Aging Subcommittee I would like to take this opportunity to compliment the Chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Specter, for his efforts to address the needs of America's aging population. At this time, I would like to engage the distinguished chairman in a colloquy. Mr. President, there is a lack of understanding of what constitutes the best outreach and professional services for our elderly population. I am pleased to report that Ohio is taking the lead in providing quality health care professionals to the provider community. In particular, the Geriatric Nursing Program at the University of Akron has been recognized as the top such program in the United States. They are most interested in identifying and developing best practices in elder care that can be disseminated nationally for use by other institutions and health care providers. Would you agree that such a program would help improve the overall quality of care of our elderly population?

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to commend my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee who have worked with me, the Senator from Georgia, Senator Coverdell; the Senator from Florida, Senator Graham; the Senator from Iowa, Senator Grassley; and so many others on the emergency supplemental provisions contained in the Conference Report to the Fiscal Year 2001 Military Construction Appropriations bill. I am especially pleased that the Conference Report contains essential funds to begin correcting resource and funding shortfalls in the U.S. Coast Guard, and vital assistance needed to reverse the deteriorating situation in Colombia--a situation I would like to discuss in just a few minutes. First, though, let me say a few words about the Coast Guard's current--and precarious--budget situation and how this Conference Report will help keep it afloat--at least for the remainder of this fiscal year. The reality is that our Coast Guard has been forced to cut back on its current services this year and could be forced to cut back even more next year. These reductions make it far more difficult for the Coast Guard to meet its many missions. They put at risk the sustainability of valuable fish stocks in the North Atlantic and Pacific Northwest. They reduce the Coast Guard's capability to stem the flow of illicit drugs and illegal immigration into the United States. And they can work against the Coast Guard's ability to respond quickly to search and rescue situations, which often in fishing grounds and high traffic migrant areas. As early as last February, the Coast Guard began reducing its operating hours in the air and at sea. In some parts of the country, operating hours have been reduced as much as 20 to 30 percent. Fortunately, Mr. President, the Conference Report we passed today will carry the Coast Guard through the current fiscal year. In total, more than $700 million is provided to help restore the Coast Guard's aircraft and vessel spare parts supply; cover the cost of rising fuel prices; pay for rising health care costs and quality of life improvements for Coast Guard personnel; and increase by six its fleet of C-130 aircraft--assets critical to the Coast Guard's counter-drug and search and rescue capabilities. Additionally, the Conference Report includes funding for the replacement of the Great Lakes Ice Breaking vessel--the Mackinaw. As my colleagues from the Great Lakes region know, this replacement vessel is invaluable to avoid disruption of winter-time commerce on the Great Lakes. This legislation is a step in the right direction, but it is only a step. Our Coast Guard still remains seriously underfunded. We must still address the overall funding problems facing the Coast Guard, which is the task that awaits the conferees to the Transportation Appropriations bill. Unless we address this funding crisis, our Coast Guard will be in the exact same boat--no pun intended--year after year. Ultimately, unless we put the Coast Guard under a far more sound financial footing, we risk compromising the entire Coast Guard apparatus, its routine and emergency operations, training and maintenance functions, and even its safety and commercial missions along our coasts and Great Lakes. Not long ago, the Senate approved a Transportation Appropriations bill for the next fiscal year that would fund the Coast Guard's operating expenses at a level $159 million less than what it needs to conduct its missions. Mr. President, I understand the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Transportation Subcommittee had to make some tough choices. They had a smaller budget to work with than their counterparts in the House. In fact, the House had $1.6 billion more in its allocation for the Transportation Appropriations Bill than the Senate. This funding disparity needs to be resolved in the upcoming conference. Mr. President, let me remind my colleagues about the unique importance of the Coast Guard. They are called ``the rescue experts,'' and for good reason. Each year, the Coast Guard responds to 40,000 search and rescue cases and saves 3,800 lives. During the devastation of Hurricane Floyd, the Coast Guard conducted search and rescue missions and delivered drinking water and critical supplies to citizens along the Eastern seaboard. And, following the dramatic floods in North Carolina that resulted from the hurricane, Coast Guard helicopters came in right behind the storm and pulled stranded survivors from rooftops and trees surrounded by the swollen rivers. The Coast Guard's rescue and response missions are often front page news, but often the untold stories are the emergencies prevented by the Coast Guard. Few people realize that before any cruise ship ever touches the ocean, Coast Guard ship inspectors from its Marine Safety Offices inspect each ship to ensure they are built not just for beauty and recreation, but for safety as well. That's good news for the approximately seven million Americans who embark on cruise ships every year. In fact, the Coast Guard doesn't just inspect cruise ships--the Coast Guard inspects all commercial ships, including cargo ships and tankers. Of course, I have spoken on the Senate floor on several occasions to highlight the Coast Guard's extraordinary contributions to keep illegal drugs from ever reaching our shores. The scourge of drugs is the primary security threat within this hemisphere. It is a cancer that destroys civil institutions and erodes the sovereignty of nations in the Caribbean and South and Central America. That is why a number of us here in the Senate and the House worked to provide additional funding in 1998 for the Coast Guard's counter-drug efforts, and that investment has paid off. The following year, the Coast Guard seized 57 tons of cocaine with a street value of $4 billion--that's more than the total operating cost of the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard's law enforcement skills extends as far as the Middle East, where Coast Guard cutters and tactical law enforcement teams enforce the continuing U.N. embargo against Iraq. Perhaps one of the Coast Guard's toughest jobs is the day to day enforcement of U.S. immigration law. It is an emotional and gut wrenching mission. It challenges Coast Guard men and women daily to carry out their responsibilities with due regard for the law, human dignity and, above all, safety of human life. It is a tough job. But, day in and day out, the Coast Guard continues to carry out its duties with professionalism and a never-ending commitment to the people it serves. These are just some of the vital missions that would be undermined if the Coast Guard is not given the resources to sustain its daily operations. In some respects, we have passed that point already. The Coast Guard is at a point that it is essentially cannibalizing equipment for parts, deferring maintenance, and working their people overtime--and this is just to sustain daily operations. This doesn't even take into account the rapidly rising fuel costs, which are exacerbating problems this fiscal year. At the same time, the Coast Guard has to invest in its future. When compared to 41 other maritime agencies around the world, the ships that make up our Coast Guard fleet of cutters are the 38th oldest. Over the past four years, the Coast Guard has had to spend twice as much money to fix equipment and hull problems. This is not surprising because the older the equipment becomes, the harder it is to maintain. As the need for equipment maintenance increases, so too does the cost of operations. This is a problem that is not the result of mismanagement, but from insufficient funding. And that fact is reflected by this Congress having to use emergency supplemental funding for the Coast Guard two straight years just to sustain normal operations. I think you would agree, Mr. President, that this kind of stop-gap funding process is not the best way to keep an organization running--particularly one of such vital importance to our nation. I urge the conferees to the Transportation Appropriations bill, in both the House and Senate, to keep these facts in mind as they proceed to conference. Again, the bill we have passed today is a good first step, but it is only that--a step. Today, the United States Congress took a very important and necessary step toward bringing stability to countries in our hemisphere, and communities in our own country that are caught in the death grip of drug trafficking. Today, we are sending to the President more than just an assistance package to Colombia--we are sending a blueprint of a partnership with Colombia and other countries in the hemisphere to reduce illegal drug production and distribution. This is partnership among democracies in our hemisphere. No one denies that an emergency exists in Colombia. The country is embroiled in a destabilizing and brutal civil war--a civil war that has gone on for decades with a death toll estimated at 35,000. The once promising democracy is now a war zone. Human rights abuses abound and rule of law is practically non-existent. The situation in Colombia today bears little resemblance to a nation once considered to be a democratic success story. But today, the drug trade has threatened the sovereignty of the Colombian democracy and the continued prosperity and security of our entire hemisphere. And, tragically, America's drug habit is what's fueling this threat in our hemisphere. It is our own country's drug use that is causing the instability and violence in Colombia and in the Andean region. When drug deals are made on the streets of our country, they represent a contribution to continued violence in Colombia and in the Andean region. The sad fact is that the cultivation of coca in Colombia has doubled from over 126,000 acres in 1995 to 300,000 in 1999. Not surprisingly, as drug availability has increased in the United States, drug use among adolescents also has increased. To make matters worse, the Colombian insurgents see the drug traffickers as a financial partner who will sustain their illicit cause, which only makes the FARC and the ELN grow stronger. A synergistic relationship has evolved between the drug dealers and the guerrillas--a relationship bonded by the money made selling drugs here in the United States. Each one benefits from the other. Each one takes care of the other. This is not a crisis internal to Colombia. It is a crisis driven by those who consume drugs in our country, and a crisis that directly impacts all of us right here in the United States. It is a crisis that has flourished in part because the current Administration made a significant and unwise policy change in its drug control strategy in 1993. When President George Bush left the White House, we were spending approximately one-quarter of our total federal anti-drug budget on international drug interdiction--spending it either on law enforcement in other countries, on Customs, on the DEA, on crop eradication--basically on stopping drugs from ever reaching our shores. After six years of the Clinton presidency, that one-quarter was reduced to approximately 13 to 14 percent, a dramatic reduction in the percentage of money we were spending on international drug interdiction. Fortunately, in the last few years, Congress has had the foresight to recognize the escalating threats in Colombia, and has worked to restore our drug fighting capability outside our borders. In 1998, Congress passed the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act (WHDEA), which not only has begun to restore our international eradication, interdiction and crop alternative development capabilities, it contained the first substantial investment in Colombia for counter-narcotics activities in almost a decade. Today, we are building on that effort with a more focused plan to eliminate drugs at the source and to reduce the financial influence of drug trafficking organizations on the paramilitaries and insurgents within Colombia. In short, Mr. President, we are reversing the direction of our drug policy for the better. Congress saw what the Administration was doing. We said the policy has to change; we need to put more money into interdiction and source country programs; and that's exactly what we did. We must not lose sight of why we are providing this assistance. The bottom line is this: The assistance package we put together because Colombia is our neighbor--and what affects our neighbors affects us too. We have a very real interest in stabilizing Colombia and keeping it democratic and keeping it as a trading partner, and keeping its drugs off our streets. As we consider the great human tragedy that Colombia is today, we must not lose sight of the fact that the resources we are providing to Colombia now are an effort to stop drugs from ever coming into our country in the future. And ultimately, the emergency aid package is in the best interest of the Colombia-Andean region. It is in the best interest of the United States. And, it is clearly something we had to do.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of the Child Handgun Injury Prevention Act being introduced by my friend and colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry. I support this bill because I believe it will save lives. Recently, we have all witnessed a disturbing trend. Day after day after day, we see shocking news reports about children dying because they got their hands on a loaded, unlocked firearm. In 1999 alone, this was an almost daily occurrence. Last year, more than 300 children died in gun accidents. Most of these accidents occurred in a child's own home, or in the home of a close friend or relative--the very places where these children should feel the safest. Mr. President, the mixture of children and loaded firearms is deadly. An estimated 3.3 million children in the United States live in homes with firearms--firearms that are always or sometimes loaded and unlocked. I believe that the majority of parents with firearms believe they are being responsible about gun storage and other safety measures dealing with firearms. But, the sad fact is that some parents simply have a fundamental misunderstanding of a child's ability to access and fire a gun, to distinguish between real and toy guns, to make good judgments about handling a gun, and to consistently follow rules about gun safety. These are children, after all, and we can't expect them to understand completely what is involved with handling a gun safely. Here's a startling fact: Nearly two-thirds of parents with school-age children who keep a gun in the home believe that the firearm is safe from their children. However, another study found that when a gun was in the home, 75 to 80 percent of first and second graders knew where the gun was kept. Many gun owners, state and local governments, as well as this Senate, have started to recognize the combustible relationship between children and loaded, accessible firearms. This recognition has led many gun owners to purchase gun safety locks to ensure the safe storage of their handguns. In some states, gun locks are required at the time handguns are purchased. Seventeen states have Child Firearm Access Prevention laws that permit prosecution of adults if their firearm is left unsecured and a child uses that firearm to harm themselves or others. And, also, the Senate passed an amendment to the juvenile justice bill last year that would require the use of gun safety locks. Despite the fact that gun owners are buying more firearm safety devices and governments are rushing to mandate their use, surprisingly there are no minimum safety standards for these devices. Currently, there are many different types of trigger locks, safety locks, lock boxes, and other devices available. And, there is a wide range in the quality and effectiveness of these devices. Some are inadequate to prevent the accidental discharge of the firearm or to prevent a child access to the firearm. As governments move toward mandated safety devices, it is crucial that consumers know whether or not the devices they are buying will actually keep children from harming themselves. If states are going to prosecute adults when a child uses a firearm, these gun owners should-- at the very least--have some peace of mind that their gun storage or safety lock device is adequate. The legislation I am introducing today with Senator Kerry would help responsible gun owners and parents know that the safety devices they buy are at least minimally adequate. This legislation just makes sense. It requires the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to formulate minimum safety standards for gun safety locks and to ensure that only adequate locks meeting those standards are available for purchase by consumers. The standards to be used by the Commission require that gun safety locks are sufficiently difficult for children to deactivate or remove and that the safety locks prevent the discharge of the handgun unless the lock has been deactivated or removed. Mr. President, I would also like to note what this bill does not do. First of all, it does not give CPSC any say in standards of firearms or ammunition. In other words, it is not intended to regulate firearms, themselves, in any way whatsoever. Second, it would not mandate which type of gun lock device consumers use. As I said earlier, there are many different types of gun locks currently available. Some of these allow for easy access and use of firearms for adults should they decide that is important to them. Other devices are more cumbersome and do not provide quick and easy access. Gun owners would be free to decide what device is best for them. This legislation would have no effect on that issue. Finally, this legislation does not require the use of gun safety locks. While the Senate has already passed legislation to do this, if that language is removed in conference, this legislation will not affect that. As I have stated already, Mr. President, I believe that this legislation will save lives. But, more than that, this legislation will empower parents--parents who decide that they want to have a gun safety lock but are awash in a sea of different devices--to purchase only gun safety locks that provide adequate protection for their children. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Kerry and me in support of this bill.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my friend and colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, in introducing the Children's Research Protection Act. This bill is a logical and necessary follow-up to the Better Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, which Senator Dodd and I got passed and enacted into law in 1997 as part of the FDA Modernization Act. This law created incentives for drug manufacturers for use by children. Since the law has been in place, more children than ever before are participating in clinical trials for drug testing. Mr. President, it is imperative that we test drugs for children--on children. There are several reasons that such testing is necessary. Children have different physical make-ups from adults, which means they metabolize drugs differently. They likely need different doses and different amounts of time between doses for medications to be safe and effective. Also, because the same disease can manifest itself very differently in children and adults, we need to thoroughly test the drugs that we are using for children to treat the same illness. As I noted already, since our Better Pharmaceuticals Act was enacted, we have seen a rapid increase in the number of children being enrolled in clinical trials. More than 18,000 children will be needed just for the 300 studies that have been proposed so far. Research has been completed and exclusivity granted on 22 drugs that were previously used for children without safety information, and more than 300 pediatric studies of 127 products are currently underway. Of those 22 drugs for which studies have been completed, eight drugs have already been re- labeled to reflect, the new pediatric safety information. In contrast, in the five years prior to enactment of our Better Pharmaceuticals Act, only 11 studies to gather additional pediatric safety information about drugs already on the market were conducted-- that's 11 studies in five years versus over 125 in just two years since this legislation was enacted. The increase in pediatric studies is good news for children and parents and is certainly a welcome improvement at a time when only one in five drugs currently on the market in the United States has been approved for use by children. While we want to encourage better drug testing for children, we also need to ensure that strong federal protections are in place to protect children who participate in such research. Tragically, there are parts of the current law that do not protect children who participate in HHS federally-regulated research, unless it is also federally funded research. These federal protections for children also have not been updated since 1981, and have not been adopted by all of the federal agents that conduct research involving children. That's why the Children's Research Protection Act we are introducing would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to review the current regulations governing the protection of children participating in research and update them to ensure that the strongest federal protections exist for such children. Now, only HHS federally funded and federally regulated research has to comply with certain protections for children. Our bill also would extend research protections for children to all research regulated by the Secretary of HHS, even if it is not federally funded. Furthermore, our bill would require that all other federal agencies that conduct, support, or regulate research involving children must adopt regulations to provide greater protections for those children. Finally, our bill would address the shortage of pediatric clinical pharmacologists whose specialized expertise is essential in performing pediatric studies, because the bill would authorize grants to ensure that an adequate number of pediatric clinical pharmacologists and clinical investigators are trained and retained to meet the increased demand for expertise created by the Better Pharmaceuticals law. There are fewer than 200 academic-based clinical pharmacologists in the United States, of whom 20 percent are pediatricians. Moreover, the bill would authorize the Secretary of HHS to enter into loan repayment contracts with doctors who agree to train and practice in pediatric pharmacology. Mr. President, it is very important that we pass our legislation this year. While we have successfully encouraged better drug testing for children through the incentives in the ``Better Pharmaceuticals for Children Act,'' we must take the next step and ensure that strong federal protections are in place to protect the children who participate in such research. The children who are participating in clinical trials are medical pioneers. They will help to ensure that drugs used for children will be proven to be safe and appropriate for use in children. At the very least, we should make certain that strong federal safeguards exist to ensure their safety as they participate in these trials.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of the Child Handgun Injury Prevention Act being introduced by my friend and colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry. I support this bill because I believe it will save lives. Recently, we have all witnessed a disturbing trend. Day after day after day, we see shocking news reports about children dying because they got their hands on a loaded, unlocked firearm. In 1999 alone, this was an almost daily occurrence. Last year, more than 300 children died in gun accidents. Most of these accidents occurred in a child's own home, or in the home of a close friend or relative--the very places where these children should feel the safest. Mr. President, the mixture of children and loaded firearms is deadly. An estimated 3.3 million children in the United States live in homes with firearms--firearms that are always or sometimes loaded and unlocked. I believe that the majority of parents with firearms believe they are being responsible about gun storage and other safety measures dealing with firearms. But, the sad fact is that some parents simply have a fundamental misunderstanding of a child's ability to access and fire a gun, to distinguish between real and toy guns, to make good judgments about handling a gun, and to consistently follow rules about gun safety. These are children, after all, and we can't expect them to understand completely what is involved with handling a gun safely. Here's a startling fact: Nearly two-thirds of parents with school-age children who keep a gun in the home believe that the firearm is safe from their children. However, another study found that when a gun was in the home, 75 to 80 percent of first and second graders knew where the gun was kept. Many gun owners, state and local governments, as well as this Senate, have started to recognize the combustible relationship between children and loaded, accessible firearms. This recognition has led many gun owners to purchase gun safety locks to ensure the safe storage of their handguns. In some states, gun locks are required at the time handguns are purchased. Seventeen states have Child Firearm Access Prevention laws that permit prosecution of adults if their firearm is left unsecured and a child uses that firearm to harm themselves or others. And, also, the Senate passed an amendment to the juvenile justice bill last year that would require the use of gun safety locks. Despite the fact that gun owners are buying more firearm safety devices and governments are rushing to mandate their use, surprisingly there are no minimum safety standards for these devices. Currently, there are many different types of trigger locks, safety locks, lock boxes, and other devices available. And, there is a wide range in the quality and effectiveness of these devices. Some are inadequate to prevent the accidental discharge of the firearm or to prevent a child access to the firearm. As governments move toward mandated safety devices, it is crucial that consumers know whether or not the devices they are buying will actually keep children from harming themselves. If states are going to prosecute adults when a child uses a firearm, these gun owners should-- at the very least--have some peace of mind that their gun storage or safety lock device is adequate. The legislation I am introducing today with Senator Kerry would help responsible gun owners and parents know that the safety devices they buy are at least minimally adequate. This legislation just makes sense. It requires the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to formulate minimum safety standards for gun safety locks and to ensure that only adequate locks meeting those standards are available for purchase by consumers. The standards to be used by the Commission require that gun safety locks are sufficiently difficult for children to deactivate or remove and that the safety locks prevent the discharge of the handgun unless the lock has been deactivated or removed. Mr. President, I would also like to note what this bill does not do. First of all, it does not give CPSC any say in standards of firearms or ammunition. In other words, it is not intended to regulate firearms, themselves, in any way whatsoever. Second, it would not mandate which type of gun lock device consumers use. As I said earlier, there are many different types of gun locks currently available. Some of these allow for easy access and use of firearms for adults should they decide that is important to them. Other devices are more cumbersome and do not provide quick and easy access. Gun owners would be free to decide what device is best for them. This legislation would have no effect on that issue. Finally, this legislation does not require the use of gun safety locks. While the Senate has already passed legislation to do this, if that language is removed in conference, this legislation will not affect that. As I have stated already, Mr. President, I believe that this legislation will save lives. But, more than that, this legislation will empower parents--parents who decide that they want to have a gun safety lock but are awash in a sea of different devices--to purchase only gun safety locks that provide adequate protection for their children. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Kerry and me in support of this bill.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my friend and colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, in introducing the Children's Research Protection Act. This bill is a logical and necessary follow-up to the Better Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, which Senator Dodd and I got passed and enacted into law in 1997 as part of the FDA Modernization Act. This law created incentives for drug manufacturers for use by children. Since the law has been in place, more children than ever before are participating in clinical trials for drug testing. Mr. President, it is imperative that we test drugs for children--on children. There are several reasons that such testing is necessary. Children have different physical make-ups from adults, which means they metabolize drugs differently. They likely need different doses and different amounts of time between doses for medications to be safe and effective. Also, because the same disease can manifest itself very differently in children and adults, we need to thoroughly test the drugs that we are using for children to treat the same illness. As I noted already, since our Better Pharmaceuticals Act was enacted, we have seen a rapid increase in the number of children being enrolled in clinical trials. More than 18,000 children will be needed just for the 300 studies that have been proposed so far. Research has been completed and exclusivity granted on 22 drugs that were previously used for children without safety information, and more than 300 pediatric studies of 127 products are currently underway. Of those 22 drugs for which studies have been completed, eight drugs have already been re- labeled to reflect, the new pediatric safety information. In contrast, in the five years prior to enactment of our Better Pharmaceuticals Act, only 11 studies to gather additional pediatric safety information about drugs already on the market were conducted-- that's 11 studies in five years versus over 125 in just two years since this legislation was enacted. The increase in pediatric studies is good news for children and parents and is certainly a welcome improvement at a time when only one in five drugs currently on the market in the United States has been approved for use by children. While we want to encourage better drug testing for children, we also need to ensure that strong federal protections are in place to protect children who participate in such research. Tragically, there are parts of the current law that do not protect children who participate in HHS federally-regulated research, unless it is also federally funded research. These federal protections for children also have not been updated since 1981, and have not been adopted by all of the federal agents that conduct research involving children. That's why the Children's Research Protection Act we are introducing would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to review the current regulations governing the protection of children participating in research and update them to ensure that the strongest federal protections exist for such children. Now, only HHS federally funded and federally regulated research has to comply with certain protections for children. Our bill also would extend research protections for children to all research regulated by the Secretary of HHS, even if it is not federally funded. Furthermore, our bill would require that all other federal agencies that conduct, support, or regulate research involving children must adopt regulations to provide greater protections for those children. Finally, our bill would address the shortage of pediatric clinical pharmacologists whose specialized expertise is essential in performing pediatric studies, because the bill would authorize grants to ensure that an adequate number of pediatric clinical pharmacologists and clinical investigators are trained and retained to meet the increased demand for expertise created by the Better Pharmaceuticals law. There are fewer than 200 academic-based clinical pharmacologists in the United States, of whom 20 percent are pediatricians. Moreover, the bill would authorize the Secretary of HHS to enter into loan repayment contracts with doctors who agree to train and practice in pediatric pharmacology. Mr. President, it is very important that we pass our legislation this year. While we have successfully encouraged better drug testing for children through the incentives in the ``Better Pharmaceuticals for Children Act,'' we must take the next step and ensure that strong federal protections are in place to protect the children who participate in such research. The children who are participating in clinical trials are medical pioneers. They will help to ensure that drugs used for children will be proven to be safe and appropriate for use in children. At the very least, we should make certain that strong federal safeguards exist to ensure their safety as they participate in these trials.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am troubled--deeply troubled. I am troubled by a report in the Washington Post that--yet again-- illustrates Germany's reluctance to return American children who have been kidnapped by a parent and taken to Germany. The Post article details the latest event in the continuing international struggle that American Joseph Cooke has endured as he seeks the return of his children. As my colleagues may recall, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder recently promised President Clinton during the President's visit to Europe that Germany would help Mr. Cooke and grant him and his family visitation rights. Well, despite this promise at the highest levels government, the Kostanz Special Service for Foster Children now is limiting the access that Joseph Cooke's mother has to visiting her grandchildren--apparently as a punishment for all the recent media attention the case has received. This is outrageous, Mr. President. And it simply cannot be tolerated. Let me take a moment to review the events that have led to where we are today on this issue. At the recent European conference on ``Modern Governance in the 21st Century,'' President Clinton met with Chancellor Schroeder to discuss several pressing international concerns. One issue, in particular--one I had urged President Clinton to raise with the Chancellor--was the tragic situation of U.S. children being abducted by a parent and taken to Germany. It was necessary to raise this issue with Chancellor Schroeder because parents--and not just American parents, either--have had a very difficult time getting their children back when they have been abducted and taken to Germany. Although Germany has signed the Hague Convention, our ally--yes, our ally--has not taken their obligations under the Convention seriously. In fact, from 1990 to 1998, only 22 percent of American children for whom Hague applications were filed were returned to the United States from Germany--and that percentage includes those who were voluntarily returned by the abducting parent. Last month, I spoke on the floor about the Joseph Cooke case--a case that illustrates perfectly Germany's reluctance to return kidnapped children. In Mr. Cooke's case, his wife took their two children to Germany, and without his knowledge, turned them over to the German Youth Authority. Despite Mr. Cooke's desperate attempts to get his children back, a German court decided that they were better off with a German foster family than with their American father. Only after President Clinton's meeting with Chancellor Schroeder and only after Mr. Cooke's case received considerable publicity and media attention, did Germany agree to help Joseph Cooke. The Germans promised to allow Mr. Cooke and his family visitation with his children. The Germans also promised to form a working group with the United States to examine pending abduction cases. Chancellor Schroeder agreed to ``think about organizational and institutional consequences to be taken'' to speed up the German court process and make changes in German law to allow visitation rights for those parents previously prevented from seeing their children at all. Although the Chancellor acknowledged that it would be difficult to reverse German custody decisions, he assured President Clinton that this soon-to-be- created commission would work on providing the so-called left-behind parents access to their children. But now, as the Washington Post reports, Germany is restricting visitation of the Cooke children's American grandmother from open, six- hour visits to supervised, two-hour visits in a psychologist's office. We must take a very tough stance against this, Mr. President. We must judge Germany by its recent actions--not its recent words--recent, empty words. We must hold Germany to its promises and see to it their government matches words with deeds and returns every single American child. Given Germany's reversal on the visitation agreement, I am even more skeptical now about the sincerity of Germany's commitment to return kidnapped children. I say that partly because German officials have repeatedly blamed their non-compliance on the independence of their judiciary system. They say that they are reluctant to challenge court rulings because the courts are separate and independent from the parliament. Chancellor Schroeder even likened such interference to the days of Nazi Germany, when he told a German newspaper that: ``We have always fought for the well-being of the children to be at the core of divorce and custody cases. That is the only standard. The times in which Germany would routinely change the decisions of the courts [during the Nazi era] are over, thank God'' (Reuters, 6/1/00). I find that argument very interesting since the United States has a very independent judiciary branch, yet we return children in 90% of all international abduction cases. And, our return rate of German children, specifically, is equally high. Even according to the German Justice Ministry's own figures, from 1995 to 1999, there were 116 cases of German parents demanding children back from the United States. Of those cases, the U.S. courts refused to return the children in only four cases. During those same five-years, there were 165 known cases in which a parent living in the United States wanted his or her children returned from Germany. Yet, in 33 of those cases, German courts declined to return the children (AP Worldstream, 6/2/00). Mr. President, I am also concerned about Germany's offer to create a ``working group'' with the United States given the result of a similar promise Germany made to France. French President Jacques Chirac, who has characterized Germany as applying ``the law of the jungle'' in abduction cases (The London Evening Standard, 6/1/00), repeatedly asked Germany to address the difficulty his country is having in getting French children returned. In response, Chancellor Schroeder agreed to create a ``working group'' between the two nations to reach some resolution. While this working group was created a year ago, results have yet to come in on its effectiveness. Given France's experience, it is crucial that we hold Chancellor Schroeder to his word and see to it that his words are not just empty promises made in an attempt to improve a tarnished image in the international community. Assistant Secretary of State for consular affairs, Mary Ryan will be in Germany this weekend where, according to the Washington Post, ``she will be raising this specific issue with every person she meets in the German government.'' I am encouraged to see that our State Department has indicated that it is outraged by Germany's action--perhaps now, they will take these kinds of cases seriously and take some type of significant action against Germany. Never-the-less, I urge her and our State Department and President Clinton to not take Germany's broken promises lightly. We must insist that the Germans reverse these restrictions on visitation, otherwise there is absolutely no reason to set up the commission. Mr. President, we cannot tolerate lip service from our allies. We must hold the German government's feet to the fire. No excuses should be accepted by the parents of these children, nor by this Senate, nor by this Congress, nor by the American people. This must be a priority.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for increased funding for Community Health Centers. These health centers offer much-needed primary and preventative health care services to hundreds of medically underserved urban and rural communities across our country. Currently, the Labor, Health and Education Appropriations bill before us would provide $100 million in Budget Year 2001 for these health centers. The amendment I have cosponsored with Senator Bond and Senator Hollings would provide an additional $50 million, bringing the total investment to $150 million. This amendment, Mr. President, is very important. It deserves the Senate's support. There are millions of Americans who rely on Community Health Centers for their health care needs. We have an obligation to ensure that those necessary services are not interrupted due to a lack of sufficient federal funds. The value of the services provided by these health centers becomes quite apparent when you consider that right now there are at least 44 million uninsured people in our nation; and of those 44 million people, Mr. President, 4 million of them receive health services from Community Health Centers. When you combine the uninsured with the under-insured, that total rises to 10 million--yes, Mr. President--10 million patients who look to these centers for health care. In my own home state of Ohio, the Third Street Community Clinic in Mansfield and the Neighborhood Family Practice in Cleveland, for example, are just two of the 69 Community Health Centers that serve more than 200,000 Ohioans each year. In just the first three months of this year, Ohio's Community Health Centers medically treated more than 29,000 uninsured people, of whom more than 31 percent--nearly one- third--were children under 18 years of age. These health centers provide critical health services to those who would otherwise not have access to health care providers. The centers offer prenatal care to uninsured or under-insured pregnant moms, and by doing so, are working to prevent undue adverse risks to the health of unborn babies. The health centers also provide immunizations so that young children can continue to be healthy, even those that live in medically underserved urban or rural areas. And, in practical terms, by providing these and other types of primary and preventive care, Community Health Centers save Medicare and Medicaid dollars, because these services significantly reduce the need for hospital stays and emergency room visits. The value of Community Health Centers should not be underestimated-- nor should they be underfunded. The challenge we face today is that we have to make sure funding keeps pace with the growing numbers of Americans who will be in need of the health care services provided by these centers. To keep pace with this rapid growth, the overall budget for Community Health Centers will need to increase from $1 billion to $2 billion by Fiscal Year 2005. This $1 billion increase would enable the health centers to provide care to an additional six to ten million people. Because of the pressing need to increase funding, I am also a cosponsor of Senator Bond's REACH Initiative, which is the ``Resolution to Expand Access to Community Health Care.'' This important Initiative would double the federal contribution for Community Health Centers over the next five years. And, the Bond/Hollings amendment to the Labor, Health, and Education Appropriations bill before us now would keep us on track of meeting this five-year plan by increasing this year's $100 million allocation to $150 million. I commend my colleagues from Missouri and South Carolina for their amendment and for their tireless commitment to Community Health Centers. I urge the rest of my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today Senators Kohl, Specter, Leahy, Grassley, Feingold, and I have introduced the ``No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act of 2000'', NOPEC. We do so to address the long- standing problem of foreign governments acting in the commercial arena to fix, allocate, and establish production and price levels of petroleum products. More than two months ago, Senators Specter, Kohl, Thurmond, Schumer, Biden, and I sent a letter to the President asking him to seriously consider legal action to put an end to the cartel behavior of OPEC nations. The White House has failed to take any action, and it appears that there are some within the Administration who believe there may be legal stumbling blocks to such a lawsuit. During the time in which the Administration has failed to take action, we have witnessed gas prices begin to rise again. Most notable are the unexplainable, sharp price increases in several Midwestern states. These price increases have harmed many in Ohio and across the Midwest. There is no relief in sight. Many are speculating about the cause of the price-spikes. One cause is indisputable--the unacceptably high price of imported crude oil set by the OPEC cartel. Nation after nation has adopted antitrust enforcement principles that recognize the illegality of price fixing and other restraints of trade. Yet OPEC is undeterred, and continues to flout broadly accepted legal principles and artificially restrains the production of oil. It is time for internationally recognized principles of competition to operate in the oil and petroleum industry--just as they do in other markets. The purpose of NOPEC is simple and straightforward. It makes clear that the U.S. enforcement agencies may bring antitrust enforcement actions against foreign states which violate antitrust laws in the production and sale of oil and other petroleum products, and it establishes that the district courts have jurisdiction and authority to consider such cases. NOPEC does this by amending the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, ``FSIA''. Under FSIA, the governmental activities of foreign governments are immune from the jurisdiction of the federal courts. A lower federal court has ruled--we believe erroneously--that the conduct of OPEC nations in relation to oil production and exportation are governmental, not commercial activities, and thus immune. NOPEC corrects this ruling, and clarifies the law, specifically removing immunity from foreign governments when they are engaged in the limitation of the production or distribution of oil and other petroleum products. NOPEC also makes clear that the federal courts should not decline to make a determination on the merits of an action brought under NOPEC based on the ``act of state'' doctrine. This legislation will send a strong signal to OPEC nations that their agreements restrain trade and harm American consumers. This will no longer be accepted. Our legislation will allow the U.S. enforcement agencies to do their jobs and enforce the antitrust laws.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today Senators Kohl, Specter, Leahy, Grassley, Feingold, and I have introduced the ``No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act of 2000'', NOPEC. We do so to address the long- standing problem of foreign governments acting in the commercial arena to fix, allocate, and establish production and price levels of petroleum products. More than two months ago, Senators Specter, Kohl, Thurmond, Schumer, Biden, and I sent a letter to the President asking him to seriously consider legal action to put an end to the cartel behavior of OPEC nations. The White House has failed to take any action, and it appears that there are some within the Administration who believe there may be legal stumbling blocks to such a lawsuit. During the time in which the Administration has failed to take action, we have witnessed gas prices begin to rise again. Most notable are the unexplainable, sharp price increases in several Midwestern states. These price increases have harmed many in Ohio and across the Midwest. There is no relief in sight. Many are speculating about the cause of the price-spikes. One cause is indisputable--the unacceptably high price of imported crude oil set by the OPEC cartel. Nation after nation has adopted antitrust enforcement principles that recognize the illegality of price fixing and other restraints of trade. Yet OPEC is undeterred, and continues to flout broadly accepted legal principles and artificially restrains the production of oil. It is time for internationally recognized principles of competition to operate in the oil and petroleum industry--just as they do in other markets. The purpose of NOPEC is simple and straightforward. It makes clear that the U.S. enforcement agencies may bring antitrust enforcement actions against foreign states which violate antitrust laws in the production and sale of oil and other petroleum products, and it establishes that the district courts have jurisdiction and authority to consider such cases. NOPEC does this by amending the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, ``FSIA''. Under FSIA, the governmental activities of foreign governments are immune from the jurisdiction of the federal courts. A lower federal court has ruled--we believe erroneously--that the conduct of OPEC nations in relation to oil production and exportation are governmental, not commercial activities, and thus immune. NOPEC corrects this ruling, and clarifies the law, specifically removing immunity from foreign governments when they are engaged in the limitation of the production or distribution of oil and other petroleum products. NOPEC also makes clear that the federal courts should not decline to make a determination on the merits of an action brought under NOPEC based on the ``act of state'' doctrine. This legislation will send a strong signal to OPEC nations that their agreements restrain trade and harm American consumers. This will no longer be accepted. Our legislation will allow the U.S. enforcement agencies to do their jobs and enforce the antitrust laws.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment that has been offered by my friend and colleague from Minnesota. I commend him for his commitment to drug use reduction. He and I serve on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. We have worked on a number of bills having to do with this very topic, including the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program. Ultimately, however, this amendment is, I am afraid, attempting to reallocate resources from one part of our antidrug strategy to another. The amendment raises important questions about the effectiveness of our entire strategy and opens, I believe, an important and necessary discussion about our drug control policy in this country. The sad fact is that since almost the beginning of the last decade, our antidrug strategy has not worked. More children are abusing drugs, and with an abundant supply, drug traffickers are seeking to increase their sales by targeting children ages 10, 11, 12, and 13. This is certainly an assault on the future of our children, an assault on our families, and an assault on the future of our country. This is nothing less than a threat to our national values and, yes, a threat to our national security. All of this, though, begs the question: What are we doing wrong? Clearly, there is not one simple answer. However, in 1998, a bipartisan group of Senators--myself; the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Coverdell; the Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham; the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley; and the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein--worked together to deal with this problem. We came to the conclusion that our overall drug strategy simply was no longer balanced. I want to talk about this because I am afraid what my colleague is doing is not helpful as we attempt to balance our antidrug strategy. We have been working together since 1998 to restore that balance. The emergency assistance antidrug package for Colombia contained in this bill is part of that effort to restore this balance, but even with this, we still have a long way to go. The fact is, to be effective, our national drug strategy must have a strong commitment in three different areas: No. 1 is demand reduction which consists of prevention, treatment, and education. The Federal Government in this area shares responsibility to reduce that demand, along with State and local governments, local community groups, nonprofit organizations, and families. When you are dealing with education, when you are dealing with treatment, you are dealing with something that is a shared responsibility between the Federal Government and the local communities. The second component is domestic law enforcement. Again, in this area, it is a shared responsibility among the Federal Government, the local communities, and the States. Again, the Federal Government has a shared responsibility to use law enforcement resources, along with the State and local governments, to detect and dismantle drug trafficking operations within our borders. We witnessed a successful return on that investment last week on what was called Operation Tar Pit, when the Justice Department announced it had worked with State and local law enforcement agencies in 12 cities, including 2 in the State of Ohio, to dismantle a major Mexican heroin trafficking organization. They did a great job, in a coordinated effort. The third component in any successful antidrug strategy is international eradication and international interdiction. This is the sole responsibility of the Federal Government. States can't help. Local communities can't help. We are the only ones who can do this. I am afraid my colleague's amendment strikes directly at our attempt to do this. Like our national defense and immigration policies, only the Federal Government has the authority, only the Federal Government has the responsibility to keep drugs from ever crossing our borders. If we do not do it, no one else will. No one else can. The buck stops in this Chamber. These three components are all interdependent. We need to have them all. A strong investment in each is necessary for them to work individually and to work collectively. For example, a strong effort to destroy or seize drugs at the source or outside the United States both reduces the amount of drugs in the country and drives up the street price. As we all know, higher prices do in fact reduce consumption. This, in turn, helps our domestic law enforcement and demand-reduction efforts. As any football fan knows, a winning team is one that plays well at all three phases of the sport: Offense, defense, and the special teams. The same is true with our antidrug strategy. All three components have to be supported if our strategy is to be a winning one. While I think the current administration has shown a clear commitment to demand-reduction and domestic law enforcement programs, the same, sadly, cannot be said for our international eradication and interdiction components. This was not always the case. I think these charts I have will show how our commitment has changed. In 1987, a $4.79 billion Federal drug control budget was divided as follows: 29 percent for demand-reduction programs, 38 percent for domestic law enforcement, and 33 percent--one-third--for international eradication and interdiction efforts. This is the way it should be. This is a balanced program. This is what we had in 1987. Now we fast forward to 1995, and you will see that this balance goes out of whack. We no longer had that balance. We no longer had that balance today. The balanced approach worked. It achieved real success. Limiting drug availability through interdiction drove up the street price of drugs, reduced drug purity levels, and as a result reduced overall drug use. From 1988 to 1991, total drug use declined by 13 percent, cocaine use dropped by 35 percent, and overall drug use by American adolescents dropped by 25 percent--results. We began to see results. This balanced approach, however, ended in 1993. By 1995, the $13.3 billion national drug control budget was divided as follows: 35 percent for demand reduction, 53 percent for domestic law enforcement, but only 12 percent for international interdiction efforts. International interdiction efforts have gone down to 12 percent from 33 percent. Though the overall antidrug budget increased almost threefold from 1987 to 1995, the percentage allocated for international eradication and interdiction efforts decreased dramatically. This disruption only recently has started to change. We have put together, on the floor of the Senate and in the House of Representatives, a bipartisan group--a bipartisan group of Senators-- who have said: We cannot have this imbalance. We must begin to restore the balance we had a few years ago in 1987. We have to do it. Let me go forward, if I may, to this current budget year, the budget year 2000. In the budget year 2000, 34 percent has been allocated for demand reduction, 51 percent for domestic law enforcement, and 14.4 percent for international interdiction efforts. We are slowly moving in the right direction. Even in this year's budget we have a long way to go, with only 14.4 percent for international interdiction efforts. We have more work to do, more work, such as the assistance package for the Colombians that we are debating on the floor today. But we are starting to see some modest progress. But what really matters is what these numbers get you, what they buy us as a country, what they buy in terms of resources. The hard truth is that our drug interdiction presence--the ships, the air, and the manpower dedicated to keeping drugs from reaching our country--has eroded dramatically over the course of the last decade. We are just now starting to restore those valuable resources. In fact, with the modest improvements we have made in our international drug fighting capability, we have seen progress. In 1999, for example, the U.S. Coast Guard seized 57 tons of cocaine with a street value of $4 billion. By the way, that is more than the total operational costs of the Coast Guard. These operations demonstrate we can make a big difference, a very big difference, if we provide the right levels of material and the right levels of manpower to fight drug trafficking. It worked before. It can work again. The emergency assistance package we are talking about today, along with investments included in the Senate-passed military construction appropriations bill, is designed to build on that success. The amendment of the Senator from Minnesota, while it is very well intentioned, simply, effectively robs Peter to pay Paul just as Paul is getting back on his feet again. Just look at the example I mentioned earlier. Through my visits to the Caribbean, Colombia, and Peru in the last several years, I have seen firsthand the dramatic decline in our eradication and interdiction capability. The results of this decline have been a decline in cocaine seizures, a decline in the price of cocaine, and an increase in drug use in the United States. We have to turn this around. This is why we need emergency assistance to Colombia. We need to dedicate more resources for international efforts to help reverse this trend. We have to restore the balance. I want to make it very clear, as I have time and time again, that I strongly support our continued commitment to demand reduction and to law enforcement programs in the United States. No one is a stronger supporter of these. It has to be a balanced program where we have money for treatment, where we have money for education, where we have money for domestic interdiction and law enforcement. My concern is not that this amendment is not well intentioned, not that we should not be putting more resources in this area. My concern is what this does to the other side of the component, and that is international drug interdiction. Let me make it clear. We do need this balanced program. I believe that reducing demand is the only real way to permanently end illegal drug use. However, this is not going to happen overnight. That is why we need a comprehensive counterdrug strategy that addresses all components of this problem. Let me say again, if the United States does not make an effort to stop drugs before they reach our borders, no one else will. It is the Federal Government's responsibility. I remind my colleagues that our antidrug efforts here at home are done in cooperation with a vast number of public and private interests. Only the Federal Government has the ability and the responsibility to help deal with the problem at the source level overseas. Only the Federal Government has the ability to stop drugs in the transit routes. This is our responsibility; the buck stops with us. It is not only an issue of responsibility. It also is an issue of leadership. The United States has to demonstrate leadership on an international level, especially in our own hemisphere, if we expect to get the full cooperation of source countries where the drugs originate, countries such as Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, as well as countries in the transit zones, including Mexico and Haiti. In conclusion, ultimately what we are striving for is a balanced, effective antidrug strategy. I agree with the Senator from Minnesota; we can and should do more to reduce demand but not at the expense of our sole responsibility to stop drugs abroad. That would not result in the balanced approach we are looking for today. That is what we need to aim for, balance and effectiveness. It worked before; I believe it can work again. If my colleague from Kentucky will indulge me, I will respond to a couple comments that have been made by my colleague from Minnesota. This bill is full of human rights, if I may say it that way. It is full of attempts by the U.S. Government to condition the money we send to Colombia and the money that will be spent in the antidrug effort. We have doubled the money for human rights monitoring. We have established conditions before the money can be released, including the fact that human rights violations must be prosecuted in civilian courts pursuant to Colombia law; troops will be vetted for abuse. Ultimately, the question my colleague from Minnesota is raising is a fundamental question: Will we back away from our responsibilities in this hemisphere--our responsibility to a fellow democracy, our responsibility to our own citizens to protect us from drugs coming from Colombia into the United States? Will we back away from that, wash our hands of it and say we don't want to get involved in this, or will we become involved only in the sense that we condition the money that we send to Colombia on very tough conditions, great respect for human rights, and see what we can do in that arena? I think we are better off staying. We can have more impact; we can have more influence; and it is the right thing to do. It is in our national interest. With this bill, my colleague from Kentucky brings to the floor a balanced approach, a logical approach, an approach that is very concerned about human rights, a bill that is concerned about our obligations to ourselves and our obligations in this hemisphere. I thank the Chair and 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. President, I ask unanimous consent that my time come off of the time of the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, we will be voting in just a few moments in regard to the Gorton amendment. I rise to talk about the bill but also to oppose, with due respect, the Gorton amendment. What is at the heart of this debate on the emergency aid package to Colombia, the very essence of why we need to help restore stability in Colombia and help combat the violent insurgents, is the urgent need to keep drugs off our streets in the United States and out of the hands of our children. That is what this debate is all about; that is what this vote on the amendment is all about. As my colleagues know, this emergency package would provide $934 million to support Colombian efforts to eliminate drugs at the source, improve human rights programs, improve rule of law programs, and increase economic development. The fact is, there is an emergency in our neighbor to the south, in the country of Colombia. This country, this democracy, is embroiled in a destabilizing and brutal civil war, a civil war that has gone on for decades with a death toll reaching at least 35,000. Today, we have heard a lot of speeches about human rights abuses in Colombia and what has taken place in the past. In that context, I remind my colleagues of the fact the current aid package that the Senator from Kentucky has put together is based on legislation Senators Coverdell, Grassley, Graham, and I introduced last fall, which was developed with the protection of human rights in mind. It is an integral part of this bill. Our colleagues have a right to be concerned with past human rights abuses. The way to deal with this is through the conditions that are written all through this bill. My office met with numerous human rights organizations. We worked closely with Senator Leahy's office, and many others, to ensure that safeguards were put in place to prevent U.S. assistance from being used by those in Colombia who do not respect human rights. Many of those original provisions have been incorporated into the package before us, such as funds to monitor the use of U.S. assistance by the Colombian armed forces and Colombian national police; funds to support efforts to investigate and prosecute members of both the armed forces and the paramilitary organizations involved in human rights abuses. It also contains funds to address the social and economic needs of the displaced population in Colombia. Our provisions were not only developed to punish human rights abuses in Colombia but, more importantly, they were developed to prevent those abuses. The fact is that this Congress places such a strong emphasis on the protection of human rights that the legislation before us today would provide more funding for human rights--$25 million to be exact--than was in the President's requested budget. It is more than the President requested. This Congress is committed to the protection of human rights and will continue to monitor the assistance we provide to ensure that every penny is used for its intended purpose, which is the respect for and protection of human rights. Many of us on the floor today, and those watching in their offices, have spent a lot of time and energy to expel communism and bring democracy to this hemisphere and to bring a rule of law and human rights protection to this hemisphere. The 1980s were a true success story for the ideals we believe in and for our attempt to spread those ideals and beliefs in democracy throughout this great hemisphere. The people of this hemisphere paid a very heavy price, but I think that price was worth paying to achieve the spread of democracy throughout the hemisphere. We brought democracy and we brought opportunity to our neighbors. Today, the drug trade--not communism--is now the dominant threat to peace and freedom in the Americas. It threatens the sovereignty of the Colombian democracy and the continued prosperity and security of our entire hemisphere. Tragically, our own drug habit--America's drug habit--is what is fueling this threat in our hemisphere. It is our own country's drug use that is causing the instability and violence in Colombia and in the Andean region. The sad fact is that the cultivation of coca in Colombia has doubled, from over 126,000 acres in 1995 to 300,000 in 1999. Poppy cultivation also has grown to such an extent that it is now the source of the majority of heroin consumed in the United States. Not surprisingly, as drug availability has increased in the United States, drug use among adolescents has also increased. To make matters worse, the Colombian insurgents see the drug traffickers as a financial partner who will sustain their illicit cause, which only makes the FARC and ELN--these guerrillas--grow stronger and stronger day by day. So the sale of drugs in the United States today not only promotes the drug business, but it also fuels the antidemocratic insurgents in Colombia. Some may ask, why does Colombia matter? Why are we taking good tax dollars to help our neighbors to the south? I think the answer is simple. It matters because Colombia is shipping their drugs into the United States. It matters because the drug trade is a source of rampant lawlessness and violence within Colombia itself--violence and lawlessness, which has destabilized that country and now threatens the entire Andean region. Fortunately, in the last few years, Congress has had the foresight to recognize the escalating threats, and we have been working to restore our drug-fighting capability beyond our shores. Many of us who have worked very tirelessly on the Colombian assistance package this year also worked together just a few short years ago to pass the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act, which is now the law of the land. This 3-year plan is designed to restore international eradication, interdiction, and crop alternative development funding. With this law, which we passed on a bipartisan basis, we have already made a $800 million downpayment--$200 million of which represents the first substantial investment in Colombia for counternarcotics activities. The emergency assistance package that we have before us this afternoon is based on a blueprint that Senator Coverdell and I developed and introduced last October--3 months before the administration unveiled its proposal. As our plan, the emergency assistance package the Senator from Kentucky has crafted goes beyond counternarcotics assistance and crop alternative development programs in Colombia. It goes beyond Colombia and targets other Latin-American countries, including Bolivia, Peru, Panama, and Ecuador. This regional approach is the only approach, it is the right approach, and it is critical. Both Peru and Bolivia have made enormous progress in reducing drug cultivation in their respective countries, and they have done it with the help, candidly, of our assistance, and it has worked. Now, an emphasis only on the Colombian drug problems risks the obvious ``spillover'' effect of Colombia's drug trade shifting to adjacent countries in the region. Some of my colleagues have taken the floor today to express hesitancy and reluctance and opposition to this assistance package. I wish to take a moment to direct my comments specifically to them and specifically to some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle. Our Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act was an attempt to change the direction of our national drug policy--a drug policy that clearly was not working. We took that first step. Today, we must take the second step. We passed that very important legislation because we had to; we had to because the current administration, unfortunately, had presided over the literal dismantling of our international drug- fighting capability. Let me explain. When President George Bush left the White House, we were spending approximately one-quarter of our total Federal antidrug budget on international drug interdiction, either on law enforcement in other countries, on our own Customs, on the DEA, and on crop eradication. Basically, it was taking that huge chunk of the Federal antidrug budget and spending it to try to stop drugs from ever reaching our shores. It was a balanced approach and it made sense. After 6 years of the Clinton Presidency, that percentage of our budget--that one-quarter of our total budget--was reduced to 13 to 14 percent, which is a dramatic reduction in the percentage of money we are spending on international drug interdiction. That is why many of us in this body--on a bipartisan basis, in both the House and here in the Senate--worked to pass the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act. Speaker Hastert, before he was Speaker, played a major role in working on the House version of this bill, as did many, many others. We passed that bill. It became law. It has made a difference. We have begun to at least reverse the direction of our foreign policy. We need to get back to that balanced approach, where we spend money on international interdiction, domestic law enforcement, treatment, and education. It has to be a balanced approach. We passed the bill, it became law, and we started to reverse that policy. The initiative for that came, quite candidly, from this side of the aisle, with support from the other side of the aisle. We saw what the administration was doing and we said that the policy had to change. We said we needed to put more money into interdiction, and that is exactly what we did. We said, candidly, we needed a balanced policy and we began to move in that direction. Now, today, we need to build on that effort. We need to build on that effort, which today is focused primarily on the current crisis that we see in Colombia. Senators Coverdell, Grassley, Feinstein, and others worked with me to put together a package specifically dealing with the situation in Colombia. I ask my colleagues to look at the big picture. Step back from the debate about this amendment and look at where we are going as a country. Think about what is in the best interest not of Colombia, but of the United States. This assistance package before us, which my colleague from Kentucky has put together, was put together because Colombia is our neighbor, and what affects our neighbor to the south affects us. We have a very real interest in helping to stabilize Colombia and keeping it democratic, keeping it as our friend, keeping it as our trading partner, and keeping its drugs off our streets. Colombia faces a crisis that is different than any crisis that any country has ever faced before in the history of the world. Many countries have faced guerrilla movements in the past few decades, but no country has ever faced guerrillas with as much money as the Colombian guerrillas have. I don't know of any country that has ever faced a guerrilla movement supported by so much illegal drug money. A synergistic relationship is involved between the drug dealers and the guerrillas; each one benefits from the other; each one takes care of the other. While this is a crisis that Colombia faces, it is a crisis driven by those who consume drugs in our country, and we must admit that it is a crisis that directly impacts all of us in the United States. It directly impacts you; it directly impacts me, our children, and our grandchildren. I ask my colleagues to really consider the great human tragedy that Colombia is today. I ask my colleagues to remember how we got here, and to remember what role this side of the aisle, with help from the other side, played in trying to deal with the Colombian problem, and what role we played in trying to increase the money we were spending and the resources we were providing to stop drugs from ever coming into to our country. The emergency aid package before us today is in the best interests of the Colombian-Andean region. There is no doubt about that. But, more importantly, and more significantly for this body and for the vote we are about to cast, it is in the best interest of the United States. It is clearly something we have to do. It may be tempting on the Gorton amendment to say: Look. Why don't we just take that money? We don't need to send it to Colombia. We don't need to send it down there. What do we care about what goes on in Colombia? Let's keep it here, spend it here, and apply it to the national debt. I understand how people may come to the floor and say that. I understand how people may come to the floor and think that and maybe even vote that way. But I think in the long run it would be a tragic mistake. If we are trying to make an analogy, let me be quite candid. The analogy isn't any long-term involvement in the United States. The analogy shouldn't be to Bosnia; it shouldn't be to Vietnam; It shouldn't even be Kosovo. The analogy is what happened in the Central Americas in the 1980s. Quite candidly, many people on this side of the aisle and on the other side were directly involved in trying to make sure democracy triumphed in Central America. We were successful because people took chances. People cast tough votes. People said we care. Today, when you travel through Central America, you find democracies. I have had the opportunity within the last several years to do that, and to travel to most every Central American country. No, things are not perfect. But each of those countries is moving towards more democracy. Each of those countries is moving towards more market-driven economies. Each of those countries has a chance to develop a middle class. That is the analogy. The United States cared. We were involved. The people there got the job done. Colombia faces a very difficult challenge. Will this be the only time Members of the Senate are asked to vote on this and to send money to deal with this? Of course not. We all know that. This is a commitment, and it is probably going to be somewhat of a long commitment. But I think it is clearly in our national interest. We vote today not to assist Colombia. We vote today really to assist ourselves because what happens in Colombia directly impacts the United States--whether it is trade, whether it is illegal immigration, or whether it is drugs coming into this country. What happens in that region of the world has a direct impact on people in Cleveland, on people in Cincinnati, or any other State, or any city in the United States. We vote in our self-interest today for this package. We vote in our national self-interest, I believe, to vote down the Gorton amendment. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, earlier today, I voted to table Senator Murray's amendment to the FY2001 Department of Defense authorization bill. This amendment, which was successfully tabled, would have allowed for the performance of abortion services on our military bases. It is clear to me, Mr. President, that this amendment would have violated the spirit of the Hyde law, which prohibits Government-funded abortions. Proponents of the amendment attempted to get around this prohibition by requiring that women receiving abortions on military installations pay for their own abortions. But, Mr. President, this simply does not eliminate government involvement in the delivery of abortion services. Military doctors would have to perform the abortions voluntarily, or our Armed Forces would have to contract with private doctors to perform the abortions. Mr. President, we cannot turn our military bases into abortion clinics. Clearly, the federal government is prohibited from the provision of abortions, and should not be in the business of facilitating any abortion services on our military bases. Our federal government has no role to play in providing abortion services. It is that simple.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I began my public career prosecuting individuals who committed violent crimes against our fellow citizens. And, that's why I believe that people who commit violent crimes should be punished. The debate about hate crimes legislation is about fighting crime. It is about fighting violence. It is about taking a stand against crime and violence. The amendments that we're debating here today would permit states to take full advantage of the investigative resources of the federal government in prosecuting these cases. And, should a state be unwilling or unable to prosecute a case itself, the federal government is there to make sure that these kinds of violent criminals are brought to the bar of justice. A country that so righteously protects free speech, even when such speech is abhorrent, must vigorously act as a nation, so that when vicious speech is turned into despicable acts--acts that lead to violence and to death--such acts do not go unpunished.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, the amendment I have offered is designed to ensure the continued viability of and effectiveness in a vital Air Force asset--the Air Force Institute of Technology, known as AFIT. AFIT, located at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, provides defense-focused graduate and continuing education, research, and consultation to the Air Force and the Department of Defense. The U.S. Army established AFIT in 1919, as the Air School of Application. This school, located at historic McCook field in Dayton, Ohio, provided technical training to pilots. In 1926, the Army Air Corps relocated the engineering school to Wright Field. In 1947, when the Air Force became a separate service, the school assumed its current name. Under the guidance of Theodore Von Karman, AFIT developed a graduate education program to support the vision of a technologically superior Air Force. Today, the AFIT Graduate School of Engineering and Management offers Masters of Science degrees in 20 areas of defense-focused specialization, and Doctors of Philosophy (PhD) in 13 of these areas. At any one time, AFIT has 400 full-time graduate students, including officers and civilians from the Air Force, sister services, and allied and foreign services. International students from more than 50 countries have participated since 1961, and 21 international students are currently enrolled. AFIT has awarded more than 13,000 Masters and 300 PhD degrees since it became accredited in 1954. Among AFIT's illustrious graduates are 11 current and former astronauts, including Steve Lindsay, the pilot of the shuttle mission of our former colleague, retired Senator John Glenn. Mr. President, AFIT is critical to the Air Force's long-term ability to retain technological superiority. AFIT trains the mid-career officers and civilians required to provide the expertise necessary to act as informed, technically astute buyers in our acquisition corps and skilled innovators in our laboratories. AFIT graduates eventually progress through their careers to become senior level leaders with the technical backgrounds needed to provide the vision for the Air Force to retain its ability to provide air superiority well into this century. I have long said that Wright-Patterson is the brain power behind our air power. AFIT is the source of a great deal of that air power. Despite this past success, AFIT's future is uncertain. AFIT's Board of Visitors completed a troubling report on the long-term viability of the school. The report states that the Institute is ``in passive, but inexorable shutdown mode'' due to an attitude of ``studied inaction by the Air Force at all levels.'' In response to this report, I joined with Senator Voinovich and Congressmen Hobson and Hall in a letter to Air Force Secretary Peters, calling on the Air Force to respond to the Board of Visitors' disturbing findings. The amendment I have offered today is designed to reinforce the importance of AFIT by giving it a statutory designation in the U.S. Code. My amendment also contains a sense of the Senate that details the issues that need to be reviewed by the Air Force leadership if AFIT is to continue to be a significant contributor to our nation's aeronautical dominance. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment. amendment no. 3396 to amendment no. 3237 (Purpose: To make a technical correction) On page 2, line 15, strike ``$1,500,000'' and insert ``$1,500,000''.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I think we all recognize that the Medicare Program is outdated. The bill introduced by the Senator from Washington would modernize Medicare's coverage to include new biotechnology innovations. Currently, the Medicare program covers physician- administered therapies that are given in an office by infusion or injection, but not those that are injected by a patient or a caregiver at home. Biotechnology has brought us new innovative biologics that are made with large proteins that are so unlike other drugs that they must be formulated as injectables. Science has allowed us to make many of these new products in the form of simple injections that do not have to be given by a health care professional in a clinical setting. The bill I have cosponsored today would bring Medicare up to date with these developments by ensuring that new biological therapies are available to Medicare beneficiaries. It just does not make sense to continue Medicare's bias toward treatments that are more expensive and less convenient for patients. I would like to add one point about the bill's cost. We do not know yet what the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] will determine the estimated cost of this change in Medicare policy will be. I understand the cosponsors of this legislation have requested an estimate from CBO. An analysis by the Lewin Group found that this legislation would not result in increasing the cost to the Medicare program. This finding is not surprising given that the bill would reduce certain costs, such as physician office visits and other expensive services, which would no longer be needed. I am hopeful that the CBO will reach the same conclusion. While it is important to modernize Medicare, it is equally important that we do so in a way that does not weaken the financial strength of the program. I commend Senator Gorton for his leadership on this legislation. It represents the kind of constructive reform that is needed in the Medicare program; reform that would advance and modernize Medicare without imposing additional costs to the program.