Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today Senator Voinovich and I are introducing the Department of Defense Civilian Workforce Realignment Act of 2000. This legislation is designed to give the Department of Defense some of the administrative flexibility it needs to shape the civilian workforce to meet the tremendous national defense challenges that face our nation well into this century. My colleague from Ohio and I, along with our Ohio colleagues in the House, Mr. Hobson and Mr. Hall have been working on this issue for almost two years. What has fostered this bipartisan unity is the current workforce situation at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio. What we have seen there is a rather large microcosm of a current and growing problem that affects the civilian workforce throughout our defense infrastructure. At Wright-Patterson, this problem threatens to diminish significantly the pool of talented experts in critical research and development fields. As I have often said, Wright-Patterson is the brain power behind our air power, and is the central reason why our Air Force is second to none in technological and aeronautical superiority. Wright-Patterson has already lost a significant number of people who constituted that brain power as a result of Cold War downsizing. In the last decade alone, 8,000 positions at Wright-Patterson have been lost. For the entire Department of Defense, approximately 280,000 positions were lost during the same period. At the same time we were downsizing, hiring restrictions prevented the Defense Department from establishing a foundation of younger innovators. In short, the combination of downsizing, retirement, and a hiring freeze has left a shallow talent pool of young skilled workers. The statistics tell the story. Today, for example, nearly one out of 10 civilian workers at Wright-Patterson's Aeronautical Systems Center are under the age of 35, while more than one-third of the workforce is over the age of 50. In less than five years, more than half of this workforce will be eligible for retirement, but only 2.5 percent will be under the age of 35. This trend is typical for all civilian functions at Wright-Patterson. The Department of Defense Civilian Workforce Realignment Act would extend, revise and expand the Defense Department's limited authority to use voluntary incentive pay and voluntary early retirement. Our bill would allow for the Department to utilize the added authority to restructure the civilian workforce to meet missions needs and to correct skill imbalances. Given the significant numbers of eligible federal retirees the Department will face in just a few short years, this legislation would give the Department the ability to better manage this extraordinary transition period. Just as important, this smoother transition period would allow for better and more effective development of our younger workers, who will have a better chance to learn and gain from the expertise of the older generation of innovators. The legislation we are introducing, fundamentally for Wright- Patterson Air Force Base, is about maintaining technological superiority. That superiority is the foundation of future Air Force dominance in the skies. It's that simple. Weakening that foundation places the lives of our pilots and the security of our nation at risk. Our legislation is a positive step toward rebuilding and strengthening that foundation with an investment in those who will make tomorrow's discoveries and breakthroughs that will keep our pilots safe and our nation secure. I am pleased that the Department of the Air Force and the Department of Defense have expressed the need for workforce realignment legislation. I believe the legislation Senator Voinovich and I are introducing today will meet the concerns they have expressed not just to us, but also to other members of the House and Senate. I want to thank Senator Voinovich for his efforts and leadership on his legislation, and also want to extend my appreciation to his staff, especially Aric Newhouse and Andrew Richardson, for their hard work. The Miami Valley community also has been of great help in demonstrating the importance of this issue not just to Wright-Patterson but also to the entire region and the nation. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today Senator Voinovich and I are introducing the Department of Defense Civilian Workforce Realignment Act of 2000. This legislation is designed to give the Department of Defense some of the administrative flexibility it needs to shape the civilian workforce to meet the tremendous national defense challenges that face our nation well into this century. My colleague from Ohio and I, along with our Ohio colleagues in the House, Mr. Hobson and Mr. Hall have been working on this issue for almost two years. What has fostered this bipartisan unity is the current workforce situation at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio. What we have seen there is a rather large microcosm of a current and growing problem that affects the civilian workforce throughout our defense infrastructure. At Wright-Patterson, this problem threatens to diminish significantly the pool of talented experts in critical research and development fields. As I have often said, Wright-Patterson is the brain power behind our air power, and is the central reason why our Air Force is second to none in technological and aeronautical superiority. Wright-Patterson has already lost a significant number of people who constituted that brain power as a result of Cold War downsizing. In the last decade alone, 8,000 positions at Wright-Patterson have been lost. For the entire Department of Defense, approximately 280,000 positions were lost during the same period. At the same time we were downsizing, hiring restrictions prevented the Defense Department from establishing a foundation of younger innovators. In short, the combination of downsizing, retirement, and a hiring freeze has left a shallow talent pool of young skilled workers. The statistics tell the story. Today, for example, nearly one out of 10 civilian workers at Wright-Patterson's Aeronautical Systems Center are under the age of 35, while more than one-third of the workforce is over the age of 50. In less than five years, more than half of this workforce will be eligible for retirement, but only 2.5 percent will be under the age of 35. This trend is typical for all civilian functions at Wright-Patterson. The Department of Defense Civilian Workforce Realignment Act would extend, revise and expand the Defense Department's limited authority to use voluntary incentive pay and voluntary early retirement. Our bill would allow for the Department to utilize the added authority to restructure the civilian workforce to meet missions needs and to correct skill imbalances. Given the significant numbers of eligible federal retirees the Department will face in just a few short years, this legislation would give the Department the ability to better manage this extraordinary transition period. Just as important, this smoother transition period would allow for better and more effective development of our younger workers, who will have a better chance to learn and gain from the expertise of the older generation of innovators. The legislation we are introducing, fundamentally for Wright- Patterson Air Force Base, is about maintaining technological superiority. That superiority is the foundation of future Air Force dominance in the skies. It's that simple. Weakening that foundation places the lives of our pilots and the security of our nation at risk. Our legislation is a positive step toward rebuilding and strengthening that foundation with an investment in those who will make tomorrow's discoveries and breakthroughs that will keep our pilots safe and our nation secure. I am pleased that the Department of the Air Force and the Department of Defense have expressed the need for workforce realignment legislation. I believe the legislation Senator Voinovich and I are introducing today will meet the concerns they have expressed not just to us, but also to other members of the House and Senate. I want to thank Senator Voinovich for his efforts and leadership on his legislation, and also want to extend my appreciation to his staff, especially Aric Newhouse and Andrew Richardson, for their hard work. The Miami Valley community also has been of great help in demonstrating the importance of this issue not just to Wright-Patterson but also to the entire region and the nation. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, as my colleagues know, there has been a great deal of attention given to the sizeable problems both in recruiting and in retaining the men and women in our military services. In response, Congress last year passed a 4.8 percent across the board pay raise, reformed the pay scales, and corrected a retirement system for our soliders, sailors, airmen, and marines in the service of our country. This year, Congress is considering ways to reform and improve the strength of our military health care system. Mr. President, these measures are the least we can do to recognize the men and women of our military services for the important part they play in maintaining our nation's security and our influence around the globe. But, Mr. President, there are other members of our civilian workforce that also face recruiting and retention problems, and deserve congressional attention. Last year, Congressman Steve LaTourette and I introduced the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Nurse Appreciation Act, which is designed to correct a provision in the law that has been used in recent years to deny VA nurses the annual cost of living pay adjustments given to federal employees. In some cases, the law was used to cut the pay of some VA nurses. The law needs to be changed. Today, I am introducing legislation to address another field of critical importance to the VA--dental care, which is also facing serious personnel retention problems. Over the past five years, the Department of Veterans Affairs has experienced a decline from 830 full- time dentists to only 630, and the numbers are still declining. In addition, the turnover rate during the past 2 years have been more than 11 percent. An increasing number of young and mid-career dentists are leaving the VA. There are fewer highly qualified applicants applying to fill vacant positions, and most vacancies take several months to fill. An additional concern is the aging of the current VA dental workforce. Within 2 years, almost 50 percent of all VA dentist will be eligible for regular or early-out retirement. The legislation I am introducing today would attempt to address these challenges and ensure the availability of quality dental health care for our veterans. One of the major reasons for the decline in the numbers of VA dentists is the availability of higher paying jobs in the civilian sector. The type of work done at the VA is more challenging than that of the average hometown dentist. VA dentists frequently provide their services to homeless veterans whose dental needs are much more demanding. An additional reason is that even with the ``special pay'' and the ``responsibility pay'' that is available under current law, VA dentists' salaries still are not competitive with fellow non-VA dentists. In addition, all full-tme VA physicians receive a ``special pay'' incentive of $9,000 annually, while VA dentists receive only $3,500. The ``responsibility pay'' depends on the additional responsibilities the physician or dentist is performing. The reason for the difference is that when current law was passed nearly a decade ago, there was a shortfall of physicians, and a ready supply of dentists. The legislation I am introducing today, would correct this disparity and bring ``special pay'' for dentists to $9,000 annually and would increase the ``responsibility pay'' for dentists in management positions, so that they would be in the same responsibility pay range as physicians. This bill is similar to legislation introduced by Congressman Bob Filner of California The National Association of VA Physicians and Dentists have offered their full support for this initiative and so has the American Dental Association. As a matter of fact, a very dear longtime friend of my family, Doctor Dwight Pemberton, a friend of my parents and gransparents, was the one who brought this issue to my attention and encouraged me to introduce this legislation. I thank him for his support and advocacy for this legislation, and look forward to working toward a positive solution to this problem. I urge my colleagues to support this bill for the continued reliable dental coverage for our veterans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Department of Veterans Affairs Dentists Appreciation Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, along with my colleagues, Senators Voinovich, Lautenberg, and Torricelli, to authorize the President to present gold medals on behalf of Congress to astronauts Neil A. Armstrong, Edwin ``Buzz'' Aldrin, and Michael Collins--the heroic crew of the Apollo 11. For thousands of years, man has gazed at the moon with awe, dreaming of the day when that celestial body would no longer be out of man's grasp. On July 20, 1969, thanks to the crew of the Apollo 11, the heavens became part of man's world. The mission to the moon was a long and treacherous endeavor. It started with President Kennedy's vision to put a man on the moon before the end of the decade and concluded with a simple step and the immortal words: ``One small step for man and one giant leap for mankind.'' We owe a great deal of gratitude to the men and women of America's space program. And, I believe that presenting Congressional gold medals to the crew of Apollo 11 is a fitting tribute to them and the mission. The primary objective of Apollo 11 was simple and straightforward: ``Perform a manned lunar landing and return.'' The mission, though, was anything but simple. The historic journey began with the Eagle's fiery lift-off at Cape Kennedy at 9:32 a.m. on July 19, 1969. The world watched as astronauts Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins blasted toward outer space. While the millions who witnessed the event were excited and exhilarated, I do not think any of us truly appreciated the complexity and magnitude of the crew's responsibilities. One mistakenly pulled lever, one power failure could have rendered Apollo 11 a disaster. When asked to recall his thoughts on the mission's outcome, Astronaut Michael Collins said: ``I am far from certain that we will be able to fly the mission as planned. I think we will escape with our skins, or at least I will escape with mine, but I wouldn't give better than even odds on a successful landing and return.'' On July 20, 1969, Armstrong and Aldrin began their descent to the lunar surface. The Eagle landed with less than 45 seconds worth of fuel and the buzz of several warning alarms. It was shortly after that landing when Neil Armstrong emerged from the craft and set foot on the moon's surface. Never before in the history of mankind had a human being set foot on another celestial body. The crew of Apollo 11 embodied the spirit of discovery that is so prevalent in our space program. It is this same spirit that we need to communicate to our next generation. Neil Armstrong, the commander of Apollo 11, was born on August 5, 1930, in my home state of Ohio. He developed an interest in flying at an early age. In fact, he obtained his student pilot's license before he got his driver's license. After high school, he received a scholarship from the U.S. Navy and studied aeronautical engineering. He later became an aviator in the Navy and was chosen for the space program with the second group of astronauts in 1962. He made seven flights in the X-15 program, reaching an altitude of 207,500 feet. He was the command pilot for Gemini 8 and Apollo 11. After Apollo 11, he was Deputy Associate Administrator for Aeronautics at NASA from July 1970 until August 1971, when he left to become Professor of Aeronautical Engineering at the University of Cincinnati. He served on the National Commission on Space from 1985 to 1986 and on the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident in 1986. Edwin ``Buzz'' Aldrin was born in New Jersey on January 20, 1930. He attended the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, and later entered the U.S. Air Force, where he received pilot training. He was chosen with the third group of astronauts in 1963. He was a pilot on Gemini 12, where he was one of the key figures working to improve in-space docking and was the lunar module pilot for Apollo 11. After leaving NASA in 1971, he became Commandant of the Aerospace Research Pilot's School at Edwards Air Force Base in California. He retired from the Air Force in 1972 and became a consultant for the Comprehensive Care Corporation, Newport Beach, California. He has authored two books, ``Return to Earth'' and ``Men From Earth.'' Michael Collins was born on October 30, 1930, in Rome, Italy and later moved to Washington, DC. Upon finishing high school, he attended the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. Prior to joining NASA, he was a test pilot at the Air Force Flight Center, Edwards Air Force Base. He was chosen in the third group of astronauts in 1963. He served as a pilot for Gemini 10, where he set a world altitude record; became the nation's third spacewalker; and served as the command module pilot for Apollo 11. He left NASA in 1970 and was appointed Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs. He became Director of the National Air and Space Museum at the Smithsonian Institution in April 1971 and was promoted to Under Secretary of the Smithsonian in April 1978. He retired from the Air Force with the rank of Major General. He has written numerous articles and two books, ``Carrying the Fire and Liftoff,'' as well as a children's book, ``Flying to the Moon and Other Strange Places.'' Mr. President, presenting Congressional Gold Medals to the crew of the Apollo 11 is as much about the future as it is about the past. These medals will be a reminder of the great accomplishment of Apollo 11 and her crew. Moreover, the presentation of the medals will help inspire future generations of Americans to continue striving to accomplish tasks that may seem out of reach, like putting a man on the moon. I am convinced that somewhere in our schools today are the next Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins. Before long, our children will be talking about where they were when the first man or woman set foot on Mars. Let's honor the immense achievement of the crew of Apollo 11. I urge my colleagues to support presenting Congressional Gold Medals to Neil Armstrong, Edwin E. ``Buzz'' Aldrin, Jr., and Michael Collins.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Seeing my colleague from Georgia on the floor, if he would like to proceed. I am going to be about 10 minutes.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, as you know, our colleagues in the House passed, by a vote of 237-197, legislation to establish permanent normalized trade relations with China. The vote yesterday condensed months of intense debate over economics, foreign policy, and national security concerns with regard to that relationship with China. This is significant legislation, and I look forward to a thorough Senate debate on this matter. I will have more to say about this very important issue during that debate. There are very significant economic and trade concerns, but there are also some very significant national security issues that must be discussed. Over the last several months, the current administration has invested considerable time, energy, and resources to achieving House approval of what is essentially a bilateral agreement with China. While this issue is a very important one, I also believe we need to place it in its proper context and consider whether our overall trade policies have been successful. I am concerned that over the last 4 years, the administration's pursuit of a bilateral trade agreement with China has come at the expense of missed bilateral and even multilateral trade agreements and economic opportunities right here within our own hemisphere. Regardless of what the potential economic benefits that PNTR with China could offer, the bottom line is that stability and economic opportunity within our own hemisphere always must be a top priority. To that extent, we, as a nation, stand to lose or gain, depending on the economic health and security of our own neighbors. What that means is that ultimately a strong and free and prosperous hemisphere means a strong and free and prosperous United States. The reality is that in 1997, we had an opportunity to move forward to give the President greater authority to negotiate new trade agreements with countries in our own hemisphere. Sadly, that did not happen. Now it will be up to our next President to pursue new markets in this hemisphere. If we as a country do not lead, other nations and their businesses will take our place. No country is waiting for us to act first. In the end, the longer we wait to pursue more trade opportunities in our own hemisphere, the more we stand to lose. Take, for example, my home State of Ohio. The future of Ohio's economy is linked to our ability to send our products abroad. Given the chance, Ohio's businessmen and women and Ohio's farmers can and do compete effectively on the world stage. For example, in most years, one-third to one-half of Ohio's major cash crops--corn, wheat, and soybeans--are found in markets and meals outside our country. In 1998, the city of Cincinnati increased its exports by slightly more than $1 billion. It was the fourth-biggest such increase in the country. Columbus, OH, boosted its exports by $92.5 million, ranking 36th in the country and second in the State in terms of percentage growth. Open trade opportunities have allowed Ohio's and the Nation's economy to continue thriving. This argument has been used to support granting permanent normal trade relations with China. Much of the public debate has focused on the potential of more than 1 billion Chinese consumers. Yet, we are ignoring another very sizable market--the market within our own hemisphere. Right here in our hemisphere, with a combined gross domestic product (GDP) of more than $10 trillion--a hemisphere encompassing 800 million people--trade with our hemispheric neighbors represents vast opportunities. These are opportunities that we must not ignore. Right now, Europe, Asia, and Canada are securing their economic fortunes throughout Latin America and Central America. Take the example of Brazil--the world's eighth largest economy. In 1997, the European Union--the EU--exported to Brazil more than they did to any other country, and between 1990 and 1998, their exports grew 255 percent. Also, although United States exports to Argentina are double that of Asia's, our growth rate is less than half of Asia's incredible 1664 percent increase from 1990 to 1998. As my colleagues can see, other nations are riding the tides of change--of free-market economics and openness--and integrating into the world economy. The region's ``Mercosur'' or common market--which includes Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, and associate member Chile--is the world's largest growing trading bloc, experiencing trade growth of 400 percent between 1990 and 1998. In 1990, they bought less than $7 billion worth of U.S. products. In 1997, their U.S. purchases had grown to $23 billion. The Europeans aren't asleep at the wheel either. As of now, the European Union is the largest trading partner with the Mercosur countries. Trade between the EU and the Mercosur countries totaled $42.7 billion in 1996 compared to $31 billion for the United States. Additionally, between 1990 and 1998, the EU's market share of all Mercosur imports increased from 23 percent to 27 percent. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the European Union is not going to sit idly by and let the United States gain any market share in our own hemisphere, our own region. In fact, the EU recently has intensified negotiations with the Mercosur toward consolidating the two regional blocs. Moves like this represent more than just a loss of export opportunities for our Nation--they represent a lack of leadership to aggressively pursue new markets in our own hemisphere. This is the hemisphere we live in. Those should be our markets. To lose them through neglect would be a truly shameful outcome for our country. There is enough of a consciousness in Latin America of the benefits of economic liberalization that we will see more and more trade barriers go down--to somebody's benefit. The question that remains is: Will we in the United States be in on that market, or not? I am optimistic, though, that our Nation can capture a larger share of markets in our hemisphere now that the Senate passed and the President signed into law the Caribbean Basin Trade Enhancement Act. This act will bring tremendous benefits to the United States and to the Caribbean Basin. It will enhance our economic security, both by opening new markets for American products and by strengthening the economies of our closest neighbors. And, it would create new hope for those left jobless by Hurricanes Mitch and Georges. The CBI law will extend duty-free treatment to apparel assembled in the Carribean Basin--or assembled and cut in the region--using U.S. fabric made from U.S. yarn. This will help strengthen existing U.S.-CBI partnerships in the apparel industry, because the duty-free treatment will help U.S. apparel manufacturers maintain their competitiveness with the Asian market. CBI is a good law. It is a good law that was long, long overdue. In the context of our overall trade policy, it represents a modest step forward. To do more toward further expanding market opportunities abroad will require strong leadership both in the Congress and from the President. Despite the success of CBI, plenty of unfinished business remains with regard to our hemispheric trading partners and our hemispheric trading policies, as well as our overall trading strategy. It will be incumbent upon our next President and this Congress to deal with this unfinished business of our country. I am hopeful that several important initiatives will, in fact, be pursued. That is why I believe the next administration and the next Congress needs to approve fast track trading authority. It is not a stretch to say that America's continued leadership in the global economy is fundamentally dependent on our ability to secure new markets abroad. By giving the President greater flexibility to negotiate trade agreements, and by giving the President the ability to set the pace and the timing of many of our most important trade negotiations, Congress would be giving the President the authority to negotiate trade deals very quickly, but also the ability to assert and protect the continued international economic supremacy of the United States. And that--that is key to our economic future. Finally, ultimately, our Nation's ability to aggressively promote free and fair trade and enter into trade agreements with countries within our hemisphere is critical. The more we pursue economic initiatives with our neighbors, the more we, as a nation, stand to gain and in ways that go beyond economic growth. In a region that is largely Democratic, a hemispheric commitment to free and fair trade will strengthen Democratic principles and the rule of law. Such pursuits are good for the Caribbean Basin; they are good for Central America; they are good for Latin America; and they are good for agriculture and business right here at home in the United States. Overall, it just makes good sense. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I will.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the Levin amendment which would strike the Byrd-Warner provision regarding U.S. troop withdrawal from Kosovo. As my colleagues know, the Byrd-Warner provision includes language designed to ensure our allies in NATO provide their fair share of the peacekeeping burden in Kosovo. This certainly is an important goal, and I understand the Europeans right now are meeting the requirements outlined in the Byrd-Warner provision. Frankly, I believe a great deal of the credit for this great accomplishment goes to my friend and colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner. He has demonstrated unfailing dedication and commitment to this very important burdensharing issue. Senator Warner traveled to Kosovo in January of this year and saw firsthand that the Europeans needed to share a larger portion of the burden in the Balkans. Because of his efforts in the short time since his visit to Kosovo, the proportion of European involvement has changed considerably. In fact, currently U.S. troops now make up 5,900 of the 39,000-member NATO peacekeeping force. U.S. involvement accounts for 15 percent of the overall peacekeeping effort, and the Europeans are carrying the bulk of the effort on the civilian side. This is a victory for Senator Warner. I believe we have to pause for a moment today to congratulate him on a job very well done. I also agree with the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, and the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, that Congress needs to assert itself more in foreign affairs. Congress can and Congress should engage more in the kinds of debate over foreign policy issues such as the one we are having today and should work harder to shape U.S. defense and foreign policy. The last 7 years of drift in foreign affairs has demonstrated the need for Congress to reassert its constitutional role in shaping American foreign policy. I also share the very legitimate concerns expressed by the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, about the way the current administration funds our peacekeeping activities. We find ourselves repeatedly in a situation in which the administration draws funds and resources away from important defense activities to pay for its peacekeeping operations. For example, the administration knew before the end of last year when we were negotiating the remaining appropriations bills that they were planning to keep our forces in Kosovo for the duration of the fiscal year. They knew it but did nothing in the budget about it, except to put a number of readiness and operational projects on hold at reduced funding levels. That practice has become the standard practice in recent years. That practice needs to change. We should debate the cost of operations before the operations. We should debate the cost before the beginning of each fiscal year and not do this back-door funding. I do understand the motives of the proponents of this provision. I understand what they are trying to accomplish. They have good reason to be frustrated, but this is not a debate about motive but, rather, one about method. It is the method that will be employed under this language that deeply troubles me. What concerns me most about this provision is that it sets an arbitrary deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Kosovo. The deadline is not based on any goals that would make it possible for the reduction of forces in the region. This arbitrary deadline signals to the Albanians the limits to our commitment for providing for their protection. This, in turn, could give them cause to rearm and prepare to protect themselves from what they would view as an inevitable Serbian reentry. In essence, this provision would undermine our current efforts to achieve stability in the region and could give the despotic Milosevic the victory he could not achieve on the battlefield. The fact is, in the delicate and complex world of foreign affairs, one thing should always be clear: As a nation, we should demonstrate to our allies the certainty of our resolve, and we must demonstrate that same resolve to our enemies, while at the same time making our enemies uncertain as to how and when we will exercise that resolve. Unfortunately, what this provision does is just the opposite. It makes our allies uncertain and signals to our adversaries what we will do and what we will not do. The proponents of this provision have argued this is really all about process. Respectfully, I disagree. This debate is about whether Congress will use sound judgment in the exercise of power. I believe the Byrd-Warner provision is not a wise use of congressional power. By voting for this provision, we will be exercising our power arbitrarily and setting ourselves on a course toward the removal of U.S. troops in Kosovo in 14 months. The next President would be placed in the position of having to convince Congress to change the policy, to act. We have sadly found many times that to get this Congress to act is very difficult. The current administration, for example, could not convince the House of Representatives to authorize airstrikes over Serbia. There simply are no guarantees that Congress will act in 14 months. Congressional inaction over the next year could result in a dramatic change in policy that would create uncertainty and undermine our credibility with NATO and with our own troops. Fostering that kind of uncertainty about U.S. resolve is not what is intended but that, sadly, could be the result. That result, that uncertainty, will, I believe, create a more dangerous situation for our troops for the next 14 months. The fact is that our credibility as a leader in the international community is predicated on a shared commitment to the stability and growth of democracy and free markets on the European continent. We cannot reach these goals through arbitrary, unilateral deadlines. We cannot reach these goals by placing the next administration in the position of shaping foreign policy in response to a congressionally imposed deadline rather than on current and future world events. In essence, we cannot allow our foreign policy to run on autopilot. I say to my colleagues, if they believe we should withdraw our troops, there is ample opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on that at any time. We could do it today. We could do it in 14 months. We could do it in July of the year 2001. That is the right way for us to exercise our power. I believe this is the wrong action because what this does is, in essence, say that Congress may never directly vote on this issue. Members can vote for this language which would provide that our troops would automatically have to come out in July of the year 2001 if Congress took no action. Members could vote for this, and then Congress could take absolutely no action and we would never have a direct vote on the issue. I believe that is the wrong way to approach this issue. I believe that if Members believe our troops should be withdrawn, they have ample opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on this at any time they wish to do it. I believe the uncertainty that will be created over the next 14 months by the insertion of this language into law will create a very difficult and untenable position for our troops and for our country in the conduct of American foreign policy. I thank my colleague for the time and yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, as we prepare to begin the debate concerning the provisions within the fiscal year 2001 foreign ops appropriations bill, I would like to call my colleagues' attention to an event scheduled to take place this Sunday, May 21, referring to the parliamentary elections of Haiti. The openness, the fairness, the transparency of these elections that will be held on Sunday are critical to Haiti, and really place the country and its people at a crossroads. These are the elections that have been postponed, postponed, postponed, and postponed. Finally, it appears as if they will actually take place this Sunday. The world is watching to see how Haiti conducts these elections. The international community and the United States will be judging Haiti based on these elections. I think it is a fair statement to say that future assistance, future aid from the international community, from the private sector, private organizations, as well as governments, as well as the United States, will depend certainly to some extent on how these elections are conducted. Not how they turn out but how they are conducted. The world will be looking on Sunday to see the amount of violence connected with these elections; to see whether or not the elections are fair, transparent, and open; to see what kind of participation takes place among Haitian people. We have every right to be concerned about these elections. We have a right to be concerned because of the investment the United States has made in Haiti, which I will discuss in a moment. We have a right to be concerned because these elections have been postponed, postponed, and postponed. We have a right to be concerned because we want to see whether or not this fledgling democracy is, in fact, making progress. So, yes, the world will be watching. We are concerned, quite candidly, about these elections because of the action and because of the inaction of Haiti's political elite, its upper class, what they have not done and what they have done during the past 5 years. We all had high expectations for Haiti when the United States sent 20,000 U.S. troops to that island in 1995 to restore President Aristide to power. At that time, we understood it would take time for Haiti to become politically stable. We understood it would take time to establish a free and open market system in that country. We understood it would take time to invoke the rule of law and privatization of government-run-and-owned industries. And we understood it would take a while to establish a fair and impartial and functioning judicial system. Quite tragically, time has passed and very little, if anything, has changed. The phrase ``Haitian Government'' is an oxymoron, given President Preval has been ruling by decree without a democratically elected Parliament since January 1999. Political intimidation is rampant, with violence and killings increasing as the elections approach. Furthermore, the Haitian economy is, at best, stagnant. Haiti remains the poorest nation by far in our entire hemisphere, with a per capita income estimated at $330 per year per person, where 70 percent of the people are either without jobs or certainly underemployed. When we deal with Haiti, the statistics don't matter. We are not even sure how reliable they are. Anyone who has visited Haiti--and I have had occasion to visit Haiti nine different times in the last 5\1/2\ years--sees where that economy is and sees the years of wrenching, unbelievable poverty in Haiti, a country that is just a short trip from Miami. Absent a stable and democratic government, Haiti has no hope of achieving real and lasting economic nor political nor judicial reforms. That is why Haiti is finding itself stuck in a vicious cycle of despair. It is a cycle in which political stalemate threatens the government and judicial reforms, which, in turn, discourages investment and privatization. Caught in this cycle, the economy stands to shrink further and further until there is no economic investment to speak of at all. With no viable law enforcement institutions in place, and given the island's weak political and economic situation, drug traffickers operate with impunity. I have talked about this on this floor on several different occasions in the last few years. I predicted several years ago that we would see the amount of drug transportation in Haiti, the amount of drugs flowing through that country, go up and up and our own Government has estimated today that prediction has, tragically, come true. Our Government estimates Haiti accounts for 14 percent of all cocaine entering the United States today. Haiti is now the major drug transshipment country in the entire Caribbean. We estimate 75 tons of cocaine moved through Haiti in 1999. That represents a 24-percent increase over the previous year. Quite frankly, Haiti has become a great human tragedy. While the decade of the 1980s witnessed unbelievable changes in Central America, with countries moving from totalitarian regimes to democracies, that was the great success story of the 1980s. Many of us hoped in the 1990s, and into the next century, we would see that same progress made in Haiti. Tragically, that has not taken place. Haiti now stands as a missed opportunity for reform, a missed opportunity for progress, for growth, and for development. The true casualties, the real victims of all the turmoil and instability are the children. They are the victims because the small band of political elite in Haiti has not moved forward and taken seriously the need for reform. They have missed their opportunity. The economy is worse, human rights are being violated, and there is very little optimism today in Haiti. These dire conditions are every day killing children. Haiti's infant mortality rate is approximately 15 times that of the United States. Because Haiti lacks the means to produce enough food to feed its population, the children who are born suffer from malnutrition, malnourishment. They rely heavily on humanitarian food aid. Additionally, because of the lack of clean water and sanitation, only 39 percent of the population has access to clean water. It is estimated only 26 percent have access to sanitation. Diseases such as measles and tuberculosis are epidemic. Given this human tragedy, we can't turn our backs on these children as mad as we may get at the political leaders of that country, as frustrated as we may become with the political leaders of that country. Haiti is part of our hemisphere, and what happens in our hemisphere, what happens in our own backyard, is very much our concern. If we ignore the situation, we risk another massive refugee exodus for our shores, and drug trafficking through Haiti will continue to increase and increase and increase. We must seek ways to foster democracy building in Haiti and promote free markets in the rule of law. We also must fight drug trafficking through Haiti and expand agricultural assistance through nongovernmental organizations. Let me say there are good nongovernment organizations that are in Haiti working to make a difference in spite of the Haitian Government. I must also say I have personally seen and visited a number of Americans in church groups who are down in Haiti risking their lives, making a difference every day to save the lives of children. Finally, most important, I believe we must ensure that humanitarian and food assistance continues to reach the Haitian people, especially the children. We cannot just sit back and let the political elite in Haiti starve these orphan children as well as the elderly and the destitute. Ultimately, though, Haiti will not really progress until its political leaders and the elite of the country take responsibility for the situation and commit to turning things around. The tragedy of the last 5 years is that the elite in Haiti has not made a decision that it is in their interests and in the interests of their country to change things. Until the elite of Haiti decides to make these changes, it is going to be very difficult, no matter what we do, to have any significant progress made in that very poor country. Haiti can succeed as a democracy if, and only if, the elite has the resolve to hold open elections, create free markets, reduce corruption, improve its judicial system, respect human rights, and learn how to sustain an agricultural system that can feed its people. Nothing the United States does with regard to Haiti can provide long-term permanent solutions unless and until the Haitians take democratic and societal reforms seriously and work in earnest to create a stable political system in a free and democratic market economy. That is why the world is watching to see how these elections are conducted this Sunday. Let me turn to another portion of the foreign operations appropriations bill. There is language, as I have just talked about, in regard to Haiti in this bill. I wanted to speak about Haiti this evening on the Senate floor because of that language in the bill but also because of the upcoming elections. There is another provision in the foreign operations appropriations bill we hope we will be taking up shortly. This provision has to do with our neighbor to the south, Colombia. Let me first commend the chairman and ranking member on the subcommittee, Senator McConnell and Senator Leahy, and also the chairman and ranking member of the full committee, Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd, for working with me, for working with Senator Coverdell, Senator Grassley, Senator Graham of Florida, and so many others on the Colombia/Andean emergency antidrug assistance package which is now part of this bill. This assistance to Colombia would provide approximately $934 million to support Colombian efforts to eliminate drugs at the source, to improve human rights programs, to improve rule of law programs, and to increase economic development--$934 million is what is contained in this bill. Passage of this assistance package is crucial to helping keep drugs off our streets here at home and to bring stability to our hemisphere. No one questions there is a real emergency that currently exist in Colombia. Colombia is a democratic success story that is now in crisis. Thanks largely to the growing profits from illicit drug trafficking, Colombia is embroiled in a destabilizing and brutal civil war, a civil war that has gone on for decades with a death toll that continues to rise and that we estimate is at least 35,000 people. We have seen and continue to see the tragedy of Colombia unfold in our newspapers; we see the violence that is occurring there. Members of the army, members of the police are killed on a daily basis at an unbelievably alarming rate. Just this week we saw a graphic, horrible picture in our newspapers of a bomb necklacing, where one of the terrorist groups, one of the guerrilla groups, placed a bomb around a woman's neck, asked her family for money, locked the bomb so it could not be removed, and told the family the bomb would go off at 3 in the afternoon. The bomb squad came in, the army. For 8 hours they tried to get the bomb off. Tragically, the bomb went off. The bomb killed the woman and killed the young man who was working to try to free her. That is just a graphic example of what is occurring, in one form or the another, in Colombia every single day. Many of us on the floor were in Congress in the 1980s when we worked so hard to give assistance to the countries in this hemisphere, particularly in Central America, to drive communism out to allow these countries to become democratic. The 1980s are a true success story for this hemisphere. We paid a very heavy price, but I think most of us believe that was a price worth paying. We brought democracy, we brought opportunity to our hemisphere. Today the drug trade has emerged as the dominant threat to peace and freedom in the Americas. Communism was the threat in the 1980s. Today the drug trade is the threat. It threatens the sovereignty of the Colombian democracy and the continued prosperity and security of our hemisphere. We have devoted a good portion of this week to discussing the threat that is involved in the whole situation in the Balkans, specifically in regard to Kosovo. I think we should have; it is very important. But I believe what we are seeing right here in our own hemisphere, what is happening in Colombia, is certainly equally important and maybe more important than what is going on in the Balkans. Tragically, it is America's own drug habit that is fueling this threat in our hemisphere. It is our own drug habit that is causing the instability and violence in Colombia and in the region. Let's just look at what is happening in my own home State of Ohio, in Cincinnati, OH. In 1990, there were 19 heroin-related arrests in Cincinnati--1990, 19 heroin-related arrests. Last year, there were 464 arrests. Law enforcement officers in Cincinnati understand the reason for this surge. Colombia produces low-cost, high-purity heroin, making it more and more the drug of choice. And because of our Government's inadequate emphasis on drug interdiction and eradication efforts, that Colombian heroin is making its way across our borders and in my case, to the State of Ohio. We may say, sure, Cincinnati is just one urban area, one metropolitan area. But if there is a heroin problem in Cincinnati, you can bet there is a heroin problem in New York City and Chicago and Los Angeles and throughout our country. The fact is that drugs from Colombia are cheap and plentiful in this country, so our children across America are using them. In fact, more children today are using and experimenting with drugs than 10 years ago--many more than did 10 years ago. The facts and statistics are startling. According to the 1999 Monitoring the Future Study, since 1992 overall drug use among tenth graders has increased 55 percent, heroin use among tenth graders has increased 92 percent, and cocaine use among tenth graders has increased 133 percent. The ability of our law enforcement officers to succeed in keeping drugs off our streets and away from our children is clearly, directly linked to our ability to keep drugs produced in places such as Colombia from ever reaching our shores. To be effective, our drug control strategy needs to be a coordinated effort that directs and balances resources and support among three key areas: Domestic law enforcement, international eradication and interdiction efforts, and demand reduction. This means we must balance the allocation of resources towards efforts to stop those who produce drugs, those who transport illegal drugs into this country, and those who deal drugs on our streets and in our schools. The sad fact is, the cultivation of coca in Colombia has skyrocketed, doubling from over 126,000 acres in 1995 to 300,000 in 1999. Poppy cultivation 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 also has increased. To make matters worse, these Colombian insurgents see the drug traffic as a financial partner to sustain their illicit cause, only making the FARC and ELN grow stronger. The sale of drugs today not only fuels the drug business, but also the antidemocratic insurgents in Colombia. Why does Colombia matter? It matters to us, first of all, because of what I just talked about, and that is the drugs Colombia ships into the United States. Why else does it matter? The drug trade in Colombia is a source of rampant lawlessness and violence in Colombia. It has destabilized that country and stands to threaten the entire Andean region. Fortunately, in the last few years, Congress has had the foresight to recognize the escalating threats, and we have taken the lead to restore our drug- fighting capability beyond our borders off our shores. Many of my colleagues who have worked so hard on this Colombia assistance package also worked with me just a few short years ago to pass the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act, a $2.7 billion, 3- year authorization initiative aimed at restoring international eradication, interdiction, and crop alternative development funding. With this law, we already have made an $800 million downpayment. We have appropriated and spent $800 million, $200 million of which represented the first substantial investment in Colombia to counternarcotics activities. I stress to my colleagues that the emergency assistance package before us is based on a blueprint that Senator Coverdell and I developed and introduced last October, 3 months before the administration unveiled its proposal. Like our plan, the emergency assistance package before us this evening goes beyond counternarcotics assistance and crop alternative development programs in Colombia. This plan targets Latin American countries, including Bolivia, Peru, Panama, and Ecuador. This is a regional approach, and a regional approach is crucial. Peru and Bolivia have made enormous progress to reduce drug cultivation in their countries, and they have done it with our assistance. What has taken place in those two countries has been a success story. An emphasis only on the Colombian drug problems risks the spillover effect of Colombia's drug trade shifting to other countries in the region. That is why resources are needed and provided in this bill for countries such as Bolivia, Panama, Ecuador, and Peru. I also note the positive contributions to our antidrug activities made by the chairman and ranking member, Senator Burns and Senator Murray, of the Military Construction Subcommittee. We passed today the military construction bill which includes investments in equipment and support activities as part of our Colombia-Andean region antidrug strategy. That bill also includes funding for the Coast Guard to provide supplies, reduce the maintenance backlog, and for pay and benefits for Coast Guard personnel. Funding in that bill also was provided for six C-130J aircraft, which give critical support to our counternarcotics efforts. That bill also contains funding for forward operating locations which will provide the logistic support needed for our aircraft to conduct detection and monitoring flights over the source countries. The closure of Howard Air Force Base in Panama, as part of the Panama Canal transfer treaty, severely diminished this capability. That is why we need these forward operating locations, and that is why the money provided in this bill is so important. As I stated a moment ago, a balanced approach is critical to the success of our counterdrug policy. We must continue to invest resources in our law enforcement agencies--Coast Guard, Customs, and the Drug Enforcement Agency. They are our front line of defense against drugs coming into the United States. They also work with law enforcement agencies of other countries to eradicate and interdict drugs. These agencies need additional resources to ensure the increase in illicit drug production in Colombia does not result in a corresponding increase in drugs on the streets and in the schools of our country. Addressing the crisis in Colombia is timely and necessary. It is in the national security interest of Colombia and the United States to work together and with our other partners in the hemisphere to curb the corroding effects of illicit drug trafficking. The bottom line is that an investment in the Andean region to help stop the drug trade and preserve democracy is a direct investment in the peaceful future of our entire hemisphere. It is in our national interest. I know there are some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle who have expressed some hesitancy and reluctance about the provision in this bill concerning Colombia. I want to take a moment to direct my comments specifically to them. The Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act that Congress passed several years ago was an attempt to change the direction of our drug policy. What do I mean? I consistently said during this speech and other speeches on the floor that we need a balanced drug policy. We have to have treatment, education, domestic law enforcement, and we have to have international law enforcement and interdiction. We have to do all these things. We have to have a balanced approach. We found 3 years ago when we looked at what had happened in our antidrug effort over the last decade that beginning with the Clinton administration, that administration began to reduce the percentage of the money we were spending on international drug interdiction. When George Bush left the White House, we were spending approximately one-third of our total Federal antidrug budget on international drug interdiction, basically on stopping drugs from ever getting inside the United States--spending it either on law enforcement in other countries, on Customs, on DEA, on crop eradication, stopping drugs from ever reaching our shores. That was about one-third of our budget. That is what we were spending when George Bush left the White House. As of 2 years ago, after 6 years of the Clinton administration, that one-third has been reduced to approximately 8 to 10 percent, a dramatic reduction in the amount of money we were spending on international drug interdiction. Some of us in this body--Senator Coverdell, myself, and others-- decided we had to change that, so we introduced the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act. A corresponding bill was introduced in the House of Representatives. Then Congressman Hastert, now Speaker Hastert, played a major role in working on that bill, as did others. The bottom line is, we passed the bill, it became law, and we have begun to change that direction. The initiative for that came from this side of the aisle. We saw what the administration was doing. We said the policy has to change; we need to put more money into interdiction, and we need to begin to do that. We did do that. Fast forward a couple more years as the crisis in Colombia continued to get worse and worse. Again, Senator Coverdell, Senator Grassley, myself, and others put together a new package. It was a package aimed specifically at dealing with the crisis in Colombia. We introduced that package last October. After we introduced that package, a few months later the administration finally came forward and said: Yes, we have to do something about Colombia. But it was our initiative that started it. It brings us now to where we are today. The initiative that Senator Coverdell, Senator Grassley, and others introduced has now been wrapped into this bill. The good news is that the administration is on board. The administration also came forward with a proposal to deal with Colombia and has stated their understanding of the severity of this problem. So that is where we are today. I ask my colleagues to look at the big picture and to think about what is in the best interests of the United States. This package is not put together for Colombia. It is not put together for the Colombians. It is put together for us. It is put together because Colombia is our neighbor, and what happens to our neighbor, in our neighbor's country, affects us. Why? Trade. Colombia is a major trading partner of the United States. What happens in that country affects our trade. The drugs that come into this country, as I have already demonstrated in this speech, come from Colombia to a great extent. The drugs that are killing our young people come from Colombia. So we have a very real interest in stabilizing that country, keeping that country democratic, keeping that country a trading partner of the United States, and to help that democratically elected government in Colombia help themselves to beat back the drug dealers, to beat back the guerrillas. They face a crisis that is different than any crisis that any other country has probably ever faced. Many countries have faced guerrilla movements throughout history. But I do not know any other country that ever faced a guerrilla movement that was fueled with so much money. There is this synergistic relationship now that has been created between the drug dealers and the guerrillas. Each one benefits the other. Each one takes care of the other. The end result is that the guerrillas are emboldened and enriched by the drug dealers' money. So it is a crisis that Colombia faces, but it is a crisis that directly impacts the United States. I ask my colleagues to remember how we got here, to remember what role this side of the aisle played in trying to deal with the Colombia problem and deal with the problem in Central America, South America, what role we played in trying to increase the money that we are spending and resources we are spending on stopping drugs from coming into this country. If we recall that history, and recall what the situation is in Colombia today, we will be persuaded that this is the right thing to do and that this provision in this bill that deals with an aid package for the Colombia-Andean region is clearly in the best interests of the United States and is something that we have to do. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the conference report to the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act. This legislation contains important measures that not only will help spur the economies of developing nations in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean Basin, but also will strengthen our ability to retaliate against countries who refuse to comply with WTO trade decisions won by the United States. Sub-Saharan Africa is enmeshed in great economic, human, and political turmoil. The countries of this region are among the poorest in the world. The per capita income averages less than $500 annually, and the average life expectancy is the world's shortest. We have all seen pictures of the desperate conditions--images of starving babies, homeless families, and needless bloodshed seem to be everywhere. And, just today, news stories about the situation in Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe remind us of how truly bleak life in Africa can be. But, Mr. President, despite the killings, despite the political unrest, despite the poverty--the future offers the people of Africa great opportunities for increased trade and investment--opportunities that can restore hope and bring about positive change on the Continent. With a population of more than 700 million, Sub-Saharan Africa represents one of the largest economic markets in the world. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, my own home state of Ohio was the tenth largest exporting state to the region, with $148 million in exports in 1998. Although U.S. exports to Africa are more than 45 percent greater than U.S. exports to all the countries of the former Soviet Union, this export market still represents only about one percent of our nation's total trade. It is time that we establish a new economic framework on which we can build increased trade with Africa. The Africa Growth and Opportunity Act establishes just such a framework by encouraging increased trade and investment by reducing trade barriers. Mr. President, as I said earlier, the legislation before us today, not only affects African nations, but also those within our own hemisphere through the Caribbean Basin Initiative. Over the last decade, the United States has played a vital role in the spread of democracy and the growth of free enterprise throughout the Western Hemisphere. Today, every nation in our hemisphere--except Cuba--has moved toward establishing a democratic government and is opening their economies to free trade. Democratic elections have become the norm--not the exception--and hemispheric trade integration is a common goal. To further consolidate democracies and economic gains in the region, we must move forward to integrate economically with our neighboring countries. The Caribbean Basin Trade Enhancement Act is part of our effort to consolidate democracy and economic stability in our hemisphere. This Act would bring tremendous benefits to the United States and to the Caribbean Basin. It would enhance our economic security, both by opening new markets for American products and by strengthening the economies of our closest neighbors. And, it would create new hope for those left jobless by Hurricanes Mitch and George. The CBI enhancement legislation would extend duty-free treatment to apparel assembled in the Carribean Basin (or assembled and cut in the region) using U.S. fabric made from U.S. yarn. This would help strengthen existing U.S.-CBI partnerships in the apparel industry, because the duty-free treatment will help U.S. apparel manufacturers maintain their competitiveness with the Asian market. The CBI enhancement also would take steps toward creating a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), by promoting the anti-corruption and protection of intellectual property, as well as other forms of cooperation with matters such as counter-narcotics programs. Specifically, the legislation would link CBI benefits more explicitly to the fulfillment of specific obligations in beneficiary countries in such areas as WTO compliance, intellectual property rights, investment protection, market access, worker rights, narcotics enforcement, corruption, government procurement, customs valuation and comparable tariff treatment. Mr. President, trade integration will occur in this hemisphere, whether or not we are a part of it. So, it is in our national interest to shape that integration process by bringing more countries into bilateral and multilateral trade agreements with the United States. If we fail to seize trade opportunities in Africa and within our own hemisphere, others will take our place of leadership. No country is waiting for us to act first. In the end, the longer we wait, the more we stand to lose. And speaking of losing, currently, our nation continues to be injured by the refusal of the European Union (EU) to comply with WTO rulings in the beef and banana trade disputes. In addition to denying American farmers access to the European market, the EU's actions are undermining the entire WTO Dispute Settlement process. If they are successful in ignoring such decisions, how can we expect other countries to follow trade dispute settlement rulings? How can we expect anyone in the United States to have faith in the WTO? Repeatedly, I have come to the floor to raise my concerns about the EU's flagrant disregard for dispute settlement rulings in the beef and banana cases, which have clearly shown the ``Fortress Europe'' mentality against free and fair trade. Last Fall, during the Senate floor debate on the Africa trade bill, I successfully amended the legislation to create a powerful mechanism--tariff retaliation--to fight ``fortress'' mentalities and to protect our nation from illegal foreign trade practices. Today, I am pleased to say that the conference report before us now still contains my provision to strengthen the one and only weapon in our arsenal to fight WTO noncompliance. The purpose of the provision is simple--to make our retaliation more effective and to compel compliance with the WTO rulings. The measure would specifically require the U.S. Trade Representative to periodically ``carousel''--or rotate--the list of goods subject to retaliation when a foreign country or countries have failed to comply with a WTO ruling. The retaliation list would be carouseled to affect other goods 120 days from the date the list is made and every 180 days, thereafter. The U.S. Trade Representative would retain ample discretion and authority to ensure that retaliation implemented by the United States remains within the levels authorized by the WTO. Also, the provision makes it clear that our Trade Representative is to structure the retaliation lists to maximize the likelihood of compliance by the losing side in trade disputes. Mr. President, the WTO is one of the most important means for American businesses and producers to open foreign markets, liberalize commerce, resolve disputes, and ensure more open and fair trade. American farmers and agribusiness, for example, are major net exporters, posting exports of more than $57 billion in 1997. Of the nearly 50 complaints filed by the United States in the WTO, almost 30 percent involved agriculture. If a country or countries fail to comply with WTO rulings, American agriculture and other U.S. sectors in need of trade relief will suffer greatly. It's time to fight back. While carousel retaliation is tough, it is the right response to chronic non-compliance with WTO rulings. It is the kind of response that will do more to encourage compliance with WTO rules, giving Ohio's farmers and businesses the level-playing field they deserve. Overall, Mr. President, the trade bill before us is a good bill--it is good for Sub-Saharan Africa; it is good for the Caribbean Basin; and it is good for agriculture and business right here at home in the United States. In the end, this bill just makes good sense.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business for the next 20 minutes.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I have come to the floor this evening because I want to draw my colleagues' attention to a very important editorial that appeared in this morning's Washington Post. This editorial concerns international parental kidnapping. I also call my colleagues' attention to a feature article that appeared on the same subject in Sunday's Washington Post. Both Sunday's article and today's editorial are very critical of the way the Federal Government has been handling international parental abduction cases. In fact, the editorial today characterizes the Government's response to these cases as ``incomprehensibly lackadaisical.'' I could not have said it better myself. This is an issue that I have spoken on this floor about on several different occasions. It is a matter on which our committee has held several hearings. But despite those hearings and despite those speeches, I do not think there has been anything that has explained it in as great a detail and in as heartbreaking a way as the article that appeared in Sunday's Washington Post. That story involves the heartbreaking story of Joseph Cooke, who, for the last 7 years, has been unable to retrieve his three children from a German foster home. In Mr. Cooke's case, his German-born wife had taken their three children on what was supposed to be a 3-week vacation to her homeland to visit her parents. One day, though, during the trip, Mrs. Cooke took her children, boarded a German train, and essentially disappeared. She called her husband and only gave him a cryptic explanation as to where she was going and what she was doing with their children. Joseph contacted his wife's parents in Germany, but they gave him little help or information. What Joseph eventually discovered was that his wife had checked into a German mental health facility and had placed their children in the care of the German Youth Authority, who, in turn, put the children in a foster family. And even though Mrs. Cooke eventually left the mental health clinic and returned to the United States, the children remained with the German foster family. With very little information as to the whereabouts of his children, Mr. Cooke tried desperately to get his children back. But despite the fact that the children are U.S. citizens, and were living in the United States when they were taken--despite the fact that Joseph was awarded eventual custody of the children by a U.S. court, and despite the very plain terms of the Hague Convention, an international treaty setting forth a process for the timely return of children wrongly removed or retained from their home country--German courts, in spite of that, ruled that the children were to remain in Germany. The Cooke case is a perfect example of how the Hague Convention, of which I point out Germany is a signatory, just isn't working. It isn't working because the nations that have agreed to it, including the United States, refuse to make it work. The United States complies with the Hague Convention. When another country makes an order, the United States, in over 80 percent of the cases, complies. That is not what I am talking about. What I am talking about is we make no attempt to enforce it. It isn't working--let me repeat--because the nations that have agreed to it, including the United States, refuse to make it work. Member countries are not complying, and, tragically, our State Department and our Justice Department are not doing anything about it. The State Department is too reluctant to use the appropriate diplomatic channels to encourage foreign nations to comply with the treaty. As the Washington Post article pointed out on Sunday: The State Department says it cannot enforce the Hague convention or interfere in decisions overseas. ``There are no consequences for noncompliance,'' said a U.S. official with the embassy in Germany. ``I look at it as a voluntary compliance sort of thing.'' ``I look at it as a voluntary compliance sort of thing.'' With that kind of attitude on behalf of our State Department, is it any wonder no country pays any attention to us? ``. . . a voluntary compliance sort of thing.'' As a Senator and as a parent and as a grandparent, I find that kind of approach to treaty enforcement appalling and unacceptable. The fact of the matter is, international parental abduction goes far beyond Joseph Cooke's tragic situation. Currently, the State Department has on file at least 1,100 cases of international parental kidnapping, when one parent illegally takes his or her child out of the United States and right out of the life of the parent left behind. These kidnappings and ensuing custody battles devastate families. They are devastating not only for the left behind parent but also for the child who is denied what every child should have; that is, the love of one of his or her parents. Equally devastating is that during the media hype surrounding the Elian Gonzalez case, the State Department tried to use that case as a public relations opportunity to boost their own miserable record on getting our kids back from international parental abductions. Amazingly, in one media account a State Department official actually said that in cases of international parental kidnappings: ``We don't take no for an answer.'' That is simply not true. The sad reality is that both our State Department and our Justice Department are, in fact, taking no for an answer. Their actions or inactions are speaking a lot louder than their words. For example, the Justice Department rarely pursues prosecution under the International Parental Kidnapping Act, and, in the last 5 years, just 62 indictments and only 13 convictions have resulted from thousands and thousands and thousands of cases of abductions. Every parent who has been left behind when a spouse or former spouse has kidnapped their children knows that our Government is not making the return of those children a top and immediate priority. The message this Government--our Federal Government--continues to send to these parents is that once their children are abducted and taken out of the United States, they just don't matter anymore. When I have asked the State and Justice Departments about this, when I have asked repeatedly about why they are not doing more to help these parents get their kids back, all I get are excuses. Contrast that message and that inaction toward American children with the dramatic and very different message that those same officials sent by forcing, at gunpoint, the reunion of Elian Gonzalez with his dad. That, indeed, paints a very different picture. The excuses are endless. State and Justice blame their inaction on complicated extradition laws. Other times, they say these cases are private disputes between parents so the Federal Government should be left out of such matters. They figure, too, that these children are really not being kidnapped by strangers --they are with a parent, after all, so what is the big deal? Taken all together, these factors suggest that the State Department is more interested in maintaining positive relationships and diplomatic ties with foreign governments than in helping American parents. In essence, these agencies are saying: You may steal American kids and get away with it. Quite frankly, when it comes to a stolen child, there should be no excuses. Our Federal agencies must make these abductions a top priority. They need to coordinate efforts to offer more assistance to distraught parents seeking a safe return of their children from abroad. They should begin a training program for U.S. attorneys and designate one attorney in each of their offices across our country to be responsible for these international abduction cases. Additionally, I am writing to President Clinton about his upcoming meeting with the German Chancellor and am encouraging him to discuss Joseph Cooke's case, and the other cases that we have pending in Germany, as well as the overall pattern of German noncompliance with the Hague Convention. Further, with regard to the Hague Convention, specifically, in March, I submitted a resolution which now has the support of 35 Senate cosponsors to encourage all of the countries that have signed the Hague Convention, particularly those countries that consistently violate the convention--namely, Austria, Germany, and Sweden--to comply fully with both the letter and the spirit of their obligations under the convention that they signed. This resolution we have introduced urges countries to return children under that convention without reaching the underlying custody dispute and to remove barriers to parental visitation. I am pleased to report that the resolution has been approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and is awaiting floor consideration. Governance is about setting priorities. Policymaking is about setting priorities. Yes, our State Department has a lot to do and, yes, our Justice Department has a lot to do and, yes, there is no real teeth in the Hague Convention, other than international opinion, other than good, hard negotiations between countries. What I am asking the State Department and the Justice Department to do is begin to prioritize these cases. The Attorney General of the United States should say to every U.S. attorney across this country that parental kidnapping cases should be at the top of the list of your priorities. Pay attention and deal with these cases. The Secretary of State should say to our embassies overseas, to our ambassadors, yes, trade is important; yes, immigration issues are important; yes, whatever is the topic of the day is important as you sit down and discuss these issues with the President of the country you are dealing with, or the Prime Minister; these are all important things; but also don't forget the children who have been stolen from their parents in the United States are important, also, and they should have a high priority. So it is not an excuse that should be accepted by the parents of these children, nor by this Senate, by this Congress, nor by the American people, that we just don't have time to do this, or it just can't be enforced or other things are going on. This should be a priority. I am calling on our Government today to make judgments and set priorities. Our children should always be our first priority. I think it is ironic that it is easier today to get our ambassadors and our State Department engaged on a trade matter than it is on a matter regarding the stealing of one of our children. The stealing of our children is important, and it is equally as important, I hope, and would be so considered by the Justice Department and by the State Department as a trade matter or the enforcement or the prosecution of any number of other types of cases. In the end, we are succeeding in bringing parentally abducted children back to their homes in the U.S. Our Federal Government must take an active role in their return. Ultimately, our Government has an obligation to these parents and, more important, to the children who have been kidnapped. It is time our Government agencies put American parents and their children first. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I would like to make the following announcement. Today, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 12 noon. At noon, the Senate will proceed with a cloture vote on the pending amendment to the marriage tax penalty bill. As a reminder, second-degree amendments to the substitute amendment must be filed at the desk by 11 a.m. today. If cloture is invoked, the Senate will begin debate on the bill. If cloture is not invoked, the Senate will resume debate on the motion to proceed to the victims' rights constitutional amendment in anticipation of proceeding to that resolution today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the time that had been allotted to the leader, or his designee, be extended to 10:15 today.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I yield myself 15 minutes.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, before my colleague speaks, it is our intention at this point to not only read some comments of the majority leader but also to begin some discussion today under the leader's half hour of time. Senator Gorton and I want to talk a little bit about the education bill we will be taking up tomorrow. That was our intention.

Mr. DeWINE. I have no objection if my colleague wants to speak.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, next week we begin the debate on the Education Opportunities Act. I had the opportunity yesterday to come to the Senate floor and talk about one aspect of that bill. That had to do with the whole issue of supporting our teachers, attracting the best teachers to education. Today I would like to talk about a second component of that bill having to do with safer schools. Good teachers, safe schools: It is really getting back to basics. We have a drug crisis in this country. Drugs are readily available and, tragically, children are using them. In fact, more children today are using and experimenting with drugs than 10 years ago--many, many more. Let's look at the facts. According to the 1999 Monitoring the Future study, since 1992, overall drug use among 10th graders has increased 55 percent. Marijuana and hashish use among 10th graders has increased 91 percent. Heroin use among 10th graders has increased 92 percent. That is just since 1992. And cocaine use among 10th graders has increased 133 percent. With an abundant supply, drug traffickers are looking to increase their sales by targeting younger and younger children, creating a whole new generation of addicts. Drug dealers are now targeting children not only in our urban areas but in every community in our land. The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University issued a disturbing report earlier this year. It had to do with the rapidly rising rate of drug use among youth in the rural areas of our country. The figures are astounding. If anyone thinks it cannot happen in your community--``it can't happen in my community''--take a look at these figures. Their study found that eighth graders in rural America are 34 percent more likely to smoke marijuana than those in urban areas; 50 percent more likely to use powder cocaine; and 83 percent more likely to use crack cocaine. These statistics represent an assault on our children, on our families, and on the future of our country. Let me point out what is happening on the streets of Cincinnati in my home State. In 1990, there were 19 heroin-related arrests in Cincinnati, OH. Last year there were 464 arrests. Law enforcement officers in Cincinnati understand the reason for this surge. Colombia produces low-cost, high-purity heroin, making it more and more the drug of choice. And because of our Government's inadequate emphasis on drug interdiction and eradication efforts, that Colombian heroin is making its way across our borders, into our country, and into Cincinnati, OH, and Cleveland, OH, and Detroit and Los Angeles. Sure, this is just one urban area we are talking about, Cincinnati, but if there is a heroin problem in Cincinnati, there is a heroin problem in New York and LA and every metropolitan area across our great country. I believe what is happening in Cincinnati and across all parts of America is a result of a national drug control approach that has not emphasized the importance of a balanced attack against drug use. To be effective, our drug control strategy needs to be a coordinated effort that directs and balances resources and support among three areas of attack: domestic law enforcement, international drug interdiction, and demand reduction. When we talk about demand reduction, we are talking about several things. Demand reduction needs to consist of drug prevention, drug treatment, and drug education. We need to involve all levels of government in this three-pronged attack--the Federal, State, and local--as well as nonprofit private organizations, charitable groups, community groups. What all this means is that to effectively stop our kids from getting and using illicit drugs we must balance the allocation of resources towards efforts to stop those who produce drugs, those who transport illegal drugs, and those who deal drugs on our streets, and, yes, even in our schools. Because the threat of violence and drug abuse in our schools is all too real, we must get to our kids before the drug dealers do. We can do this. We can give America's kids a fighting chance through coordinated efforts between our schools and our communities. Next week, when the Senate begins debating the education reform legislation that I referenced a moment ago, we will have a great opportunity to enhance a very important program designed to educate our kids and our communities about the dangers of drug use. This bill includes a section that I helped write to make much needed improvements, the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Program. This program, which was originally part of Ronald Reagan's 1986 Drug- Free Schools and Communities Act, is intended to assist every single school district in the country to develop an antidrug program in their respective schools. While well intentioned, this program has been far from perfect. I had the opportunity a few years ago when I served in the House of Representatives to be on the National Commission for Safe and Drug-Free Schools. We looked at how this program had worked. We found many problems connected with it. The bill we have written and will be on the floor next week I believe will go a long way to solving the problems that the national commission pointed out in 1990 and that we have seen since then. These problems need to be corrected, and I believe this bill will go a long way to do that. Since the inception of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Program in 1986, we have pumped $6 billion into this program, despite the fact the program has lacked accountability, giving us no real mechanism to determine its effectiveness. Instead, we have seen some of our tax dollars pay for questionable drug use ``prevention'' and ``education'' activities, such as puppet shows, tickets to Disneyland, dunking booths, and magic shows. No matter how well intentioned, these are not effective antidrug education tools. Because there has been little effort to ensure program accountability through research-based measures, the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program has not been as effective as it could have been, or as it should be. It is critical the Senate pass education reform legislation that includes improvements to the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Program, improvements that will empower America's families and America's teachers with the information, with the training, with the resources they need to help our children resist the temptation of drugs. That is why our section in this bill would, first and most importantly, increase accountability measures to ensure that assistance is targeted to effective research-based programs. That means programs that actually work and have been tested and measured and we know work. My language will make sure schools and communities assess local problems accurately, apply research-based solutions, measure outcomes with reliable tools, and evaluate program effectiveness. Second, my language would improve the effectiveness of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program by requiring schools to directly work with parents, with local law enforcement agencies, local government agencies, local faith-based organizations, and other community groups to develop and implement antidrug and antiviolence strategies. As we all know, drug abuse and violence among young people is a community problem, it is a local problem, and it requires a local community-based solution. That is why the entire community needs to be involved in the creation and execution of programs to fight youth drug abuse and violence. Our bill requires the schools to reach out to the local community, to work with other people who are fighting drugs, to have a true community-based approach. Speaking of fighting youth drug abuse and violence, no one is fighting harder than the first lady of the State of Ohio, Hope Taft. Hope has been very instrumental in the creation of this section of our bill. I publicly thank her for her great work. She was really instrumental in creating a voice for community-based antidrug organizations. Hope Taft's efforts have raised awareness of the dangers of youth drug abuse and violence in our schools. Also, I am pleased several community groups have indicated their support for our provision in title IV of the bill we will be debating next week. I will name a few: The American Counseling Association, the American School Health Association, the Community Antidrug Coalition of America, the National Network for Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities, and Ohio Parents for Drug Free Youth. These are just a few of the organizations that have helped us craft this bill. Third and finally, our language in title IV would give States greater flexibility on targeting assistance to the schools particularly in need. Each State has unique drug prevention challenges, and this bill provides the States with flexibility to target funds to all of their schools but focus on those schools with the greatest drug violence problems. This flexibility is very significant and very important. Contrast the administration's proposal with our proposal: They want each State to cut by half the number of school districts that benefit from the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Communities Act. Let me make it clear; under the administration's proposal which they sent up to Capitol Hill, half the school districts in the country would lose their funding. I think that is a mistake. Reinvesting in an improved Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Program is a critical part of restoring effectiveness and purpose to our national drug policy. Ultimately, if we do not restore effectiveness, more and more children will use drugs, leading to greater levels of violence, criminal activity, and delinquency. Unless we take action now, unless we take the necessary steps to reverse these disturbing trends, unless we restore balance to our drug control policy, we will be sacrificing today's youth and our country's future, and that is just plain wrong. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I yield the remainder of my time to my colleague, Senator Gorton.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, following morning business, it is expected the Senate will receive the veto message on the nuclear waste bill from the White House. Under the rule, when that message is received, the Senate will immediately begin debate on overriding the President's veto. It is hoped an agreement can be made with regard to debate time so that a vote will be scheduled. As a reminder, the cloture motion on the substitute amendment to the marriage tax penalty bill is still pending. That vote will occur immediately following the adoption of the motion to proceed to the victims' rights resolution. Therefore, votes are possible during this afternoon's session of the Senate. Senators will be notified as those votes are scheduled. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

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

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, on behalf of Majority Leader Lott, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period for morning business until 12 noon today, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Lott, or his designee, 40 minutes; Senator Helms, 20 minutes; Senator Daschle, or his designee, 60 minutes.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, we have a great opportunity ahead of us. Next week, the Senate will begin floor debate on the Education Opportunities Act--a bill that will help America's children by improving the quality of their education. While education policy is primarily a local and State responsibility, the Federal Government does have a role to play. I am looking forward to discussing just what the Federal Government can do to improve the quality of the education our children receive. Few things are more important to our children's future than the quality of their education. Every child in this country, regardless of race, economic status, or where that child lives, deserves the opportunity for a quality education. Yet far too many children, especially in our inner cities and Appalachia, simply are not getting the quality education they deserve. We need more good teachers. We need safer schools. We need college access for all students who want to go to college. We must, as a nation, attract the smartest and the most dedicated of our students to the profession of teaching. Yes, we certainly have to invest in computers, new books, and new buildings. But we cannot ignore the single most important resource in any classroom--the teacher. I have recalled before on this Senate floor something that my own high school principal, Mr. John Malone, told me 37 years ago. We were about to go into a new building. Everyone was excited; everyone was happy. Mr. Malone came in and said to our class: We are about ready to go into this new building. We are all excited about it. It is a great thing. We have prepared for this for a long time. I want you to always remember one thing: In education, there are only two things that really matter. One is a student who wants to learn; the other is a good teacher. Everything else is interesting, maybe helpful. The only thing that really matters is that teacher and that student. What Mr. Malone told our class 37 years ago was right then, and it is still correct today. We all know a good teacher has the power to fundamentally change the course of our life. Each one of us, if we are lucky, can recall one teacher or two or maybe three or many teachers who fundamentally changed our life, who we think about when we do things, whose voice still comes back to us, whether that is an English teacher telling us how to write or maybe something our history teacher, maybe later on a professor, told us. Each of us can recall that teacher who changed our life. Those of us who are parents know how important a good teacher is. We know what happens when occasionally our child gets a teacher who just doesn't want to teach or who is not so good. We know what impact that has on a child as well. When you get right down to it, good teachers are second only to good parents in helping children to learn. Therefore, any effort to restore confidence and improve quality in education must begin with a national recommitment to teaching as a profession. This bill does that. First, we must recommit ourselves to attracting the best, the most motivated of our students to the teaching profession. That means offering teachers the salaries and, yes, the respect they deserve. Second, we must insist our colleges and our university education departments aggressively reexamine how they prepare our future teachers. Some are doing it; some are changing. But all need to reexamine what they are doing. Third, our teachers must have the resources available to allow them to continue their education after they enter the profession. The teaching profession is no different than any other profession. You continue to learn throughout the years. For example, in my home State of Ohio, in Cincinnati, teachers have access to the Mayerson Academy, which is a partnership with area businesses and the school system to provide teachers with additional training and additional professional development. This kind of support should be available to teachers in every community in this country. That is why, in the bill we will begin debating next week, I have included a provision that would authorize funding for the creation and expansion of partnerships between schools and communities to create teacher training academies such as the Mayerson Academy in Cincinnati. It works in Cincinnati. It will work in other communities. This is the kind of initiative that will help our teachers and our communities work together to improve the quality of teaching and, ultimately then, to improve the quality of education. There are other things we need to do and other things this bill does address. This is a good bill. When Members begin to hear the debate next week, I think they will understand how much work has gone into it and how it will impact the quality of education in this country. We need to make it easier to recruit future teachers from the military, from industry, and from research institutions, people who have had established careers, who have had real-world experience, and then who decide, at the age of 40 or 45 or 50, that they are going to retire from that profession and enter the teaching profession. We need to make it easier for them to do it. Getting this kind of talent in the classroom is easier said than done. For example, if Colin Powell wanted to teach a high school history class or if Albert Einstein were alive today and wanted to teach a high school physics class, requirements in some States would keep these professionals--I would say in most States--from immediately going into the classroom, despite their obvious expertise in their fields. That is why we have included language in this bill to allow the use of Federal funds under title II for alternative teacher certification programs. This provision will allow States to create and expand different types of alternative certification efforts. Additionally, the committee approved a separate amendment that I offered--and that is now part of the bill--that would ensure the continuation of a specific program designed to assist retired military personnel who are trying to enter the teaching profession. This is a great program. It is called Troops to Teachers. It simply helps retiring members of the military gain the State certification necessary to teach. It also helps them to find the school districts in greatest need of teachers. It is a program that has worked. It is a program that is improved in this bill, and it is a program that is continued in this bill. Troops to Teachers has succeeded in bringing dedicated, mature, and experienced individuals into the classroom. In fact, when school administrators were asked to rate Troops to Teachers participants in their own schools, most of the administrators said the former military personnel turned teachers were well above the average and were among the best teachers in their schools. Since 1994, over 3,600 service members, by going through the Troops to Teachers program, have made the transition from the military into the classroom. When we analyze who those people are, who is going into the classroom, who is going through the Troops to Teachers program, what we find is they are just the people we need. They are people with real-world experiences. They are people with expertise many times in math and science, something we desperately need in our schools. They are disproportionate to the population as far as the minority population, so it means we are putting more minority teachers into our classrooms. We are also doing something many professionals tell us we need to do; that is, try to get more males into the primary schools. Troops to Teachers is doing that as well. It is an exciting program that is continued in this bill. It is improved in this bill. It is one of the things that makes this bill a very solid bill. We need to ensure this kind of program, one with proven results, continues well into the future. Separate from the difficulties of the teacher certification process I have described, I am also concerned about the fact that many of our most experienced teachers, the teachers who in many cases are the most senior, are about to retire. The fact is, these experienced teachers are also the best resources in our schools. It is very important that we benefit from their experience before it is too late, before they leave the teaching profession. That is why I included language in the bill that will allow the use of Federal funds for new and existing teacher mentoring programs. New teachers benefit greatly by learning from the knowledge and the experience of veteran teachers. By pairing new teachers with our schools' most experienced and most respected teachers, those who have years of knowledge and expertise and experience in this profession, we can help retain our brightest and talented young teachers. Finally, the bill contains my language to expand the mission of the Eisenhower National Clearinghouse, a national center located at Ohio State University that provides teachers with the best teacher training and curriculum materials on the subjects of math and science. The clearinghouse, which screens, evaluates, and distributes the multiple training and course materials currently available, makes it easy for teachers to quickly and efficiently access material for the classrooms. My provision in title II expands the clearinghouse's mission to go beyond math and science, to now, under this bill, include subjects such as history and English. The bill we will consider next week takes a number of positive steps towards improving the quality of those who make the commitment to teach. What this bill is about is expanding the support network available to our teachers: support for people in other professions seeking a second career as a teacher; support for teachers seeking to improve subject knowledge or classroom skills; support for teachers seeking new ways to teach math or science or history; and finally, support for new teachers from experienced teachers. In short, with this bill, we provide the kinds of resources that enable the teaching profession to build upon its commitment to teaching excellence. Mr. President, as we debate the merits of the Educational Opportunities Act, the bottom line, I believe, is that we need to get back to basics: good teachers, safe schools. That is what this bill is about--good teachers, safe schools. Parents will not have peace of mind unless they know their children's teachers are qualified to teach, that they are good teachers, and that their children's schools provide safe learning environments. It is that simple. That is what parents expect. Today, I have talked about teaching and what this bill does to assist the teaching profession. Tomorrow, I hope to have the opportunity to talk about the second component of this bill which is safe schools. Good teachers, safe schools. We need to get back to the basics, and that is what this bill does. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 15 minutes and also ask unanimous consent for Senator Gorton to proceed then immediately following me for 10 minutes.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that I follow the Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I come to the floor today because I am troubled. Guns are falling into the wrong hands. It's killing our children. It's killing our friends and our neighbors. It's creating mayhem in communities across America. That's why I'm introducing Project Exile: The Safe Streets and Neighborhoods Act of 2000. It's no secret that gun control measures are very controversial and are subject to a great deal of debate--as they should be. But, in the heat of that debate, we must not lose sight of the real issue--gun violence. There is nothing controversial about protecting our children, our families and our communities by keeping guns out of the wrong hands--the hands of armed criminals--not law-abiding citizens, Mr. President, but criminals. The Safe Streets and Neighborhoods Act offers a simple, commonsense approach to fighting gun violence. My bill would provide $100 million in grants over 5 years to those states agreeing to impose mandatory minimum 5-year jail sentences on 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 having armed felons prosecuted in state or federal courts. Qualifying states can use their grants for any purpose that would strengthen the ability of their criminal or juvenile justice systems to deal with violent criminals. Back in 1991, the Federal Government implemented a program to aim antigun violence efforts at the root of the problem--at criminals. This program--known as project Triggerlock--directed every U.S. attorney to coordinate with federal, state, and local investigators to bring federal weapons charges against armed criminals. Sentences for these prosecutions wee generally more severe than they would have been under state laws. The program was hugely successful. In fact, simply by making gun prosecutions a federal priority, starting in 1991, Project Triggerlock took away over 2,000 guns from violent felons in just 18 months. Tragically, Mr. President, despite the success of Project Triggerlock, the current administration has not aggressively prosecuted all armed criminals. 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 have fallen dramatically. Even worse, some federal firearms 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 one-tenth of one percent have been prosecuted. Similarly, federal criminal prosecutions for possession of a firearm on school grounds numbered just eight in 1998, despite the fact that 6,000 individuals were caught carrying guns to school. There's something wrong with this picture, Mr. President, something terribly wrong. I believe most Americans would agree that we should take guns out of the hands of armed criminals. I believe that most Americans would agree that criminals who possess a firearm or use a firearm during the commission of a violent crime or a serious drug trafficking offense should face severe penalties. And, Mr. President, I also believe that most Americans would favor legislation that offers a single, noncontroversial, commensense approach to fighting gun violence. So, today, I, along with my colleagues, introduce Project Exile: The Safe Streets and Neighbors Act, which builds on the previous success of programs like Project Triggerlock and offers the kind of practical solution we need to thwart gun crimes. This approach works, Mr. President. For example, in 1997, Virginia revived Project Triggerlock under the name ``Project Exile.'' Specifically, the city of Richmond and the U.S. attorney implemented a program based on one simple principle: any criminal caught with a gun serves a minimum mandatory sentence of 5 years in federal 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. It is clear that programs like Project Triggerlock and Virginia's Project Exile work, while at the same time being very simple. But still, federal gun prosecutions have declined considerably during this administration because it has not emphasized these programs. Why? I have repeatedly questioned Attorney General Reno and her deputies about this decline, 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 a crime with a gun. With all due respect, I consider that response to be bureaucratic nonsense. One thing I learned as Greene County Prosecutor in my home state of Ohio is that any criminal who commits a crime with a gun is a high-level offender. And, I'm willing to bet that any citizen who has ever been a victim of a gun-crime would agree. Furthermore, the idea that there are a lot of so-called ``low-level'' offenders, who commit only one crime with a gun, is just plain wrong. The average armed criminal commits 160 crimes a year; that is an average of three crimes per week. These people are, by themselves, walking crime waves. Along the same lines, 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 does not make sense. Current law prohibits felons from possessing guns--we should enforce the law. We should aggressively prosecute armed criminals before they use those guns to injure and kill people. We need to take all of these armed criminals off the streets. That is how we will prevent crime and save lives. Why wait for armed criminals to commit more heinous crimes before we prosecute them to the full extent of the law? Why wait when we can do something that will make a difference now, before another Ohioan--or any American--becomes a victim of gun violence. Every state should have the opportunity to implement Project Exile in their high-crime communities. The bill that we are introducing today will make this proven, commonsense approach to reducing gun violence available to every state. Programs like Project Triggerlock and Project Exile will take guns out of the hands of violent criminals. They will make our neighborhoods safer. They will save lives. We can take concrete steps toward making our streets and neighborhoods safer from armed criminals by passing the ``Safe Streets and Neighborhoods Act.'' I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support and pass this legislation. It's time to protect our children and our families. 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 crimes.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I come to the floor today because I am troubled. Guns are falling into the wrong hands. It's killing our children. It's killing our friends and our neighbors. It's creating mayhem in communities across America. That's why I'm introducing Project Exile: The Safe Streets and Neighborhoods Act of 2000. It's no secret that gun control measures are very controversial and are subject to a great deal of debate--as they should be. But, in the heat of that debate, we must not lose sight of the real issue--gun violence. There is nothing controversial about protecting our children, our families and our communities by keeping guns out of the wrong hands--the hands of armed criminals--not law-abiding citizens, Mr. President, but criminals. The Safe Streets and Neighborhoods Act offers a simple, commonsense approach to fighting gun violence. My bill would provide $100 million in grants over 5 years to those states agreeing to impose mandatory minimum 5-year jail sentences on 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 having armed felons prosecuted in state or federal courts. Qualifying states can use their grants for any purpose that would strengthen the ability of their criminal or juvenile justice systems to deal with violent criminals. Back in 1991, the Federal Government implemented a program to aim antigun violence efforts at the root of the problem--at criminals. This program--known as project Triggerlock--directed every U.S. attorney to coordinate with federal, state, and local investigators to bring federal weapons charges against armed criminals. Sentences for these prosecutions wee generally more severe than they would have been under state laws. The program was hugely successful. In fact, simply by making gun prosecutions a federal priority, starting in 1991, Project Triggerlock took away over 2,000 guns from violent felons in just 18 months. Tragically, Mr. President, despite the success of Project Triggerlock, the current administration has not aggressively prosecuted all armed criminals. 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 have fallen dramatically. Even worse, some federal firearms 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 one-tenth of one percent have been prosecuted. Similarly, federal criminal prosecutions for possession of a firearm on school grounds numbered just eight in 1998, despite the fact that 6,000 individuals were caught carrying guns to school. There's something wrong with this picture, Mr. President, something terribly wrong. I believe most Americans would agree that we should take guns out of the hands of armed criminals. I believe that most Americans would agree that criminals who possess a firearm or use a firearm during the commission of a violent crime or a serious drug trafficking offense should face severe penalties. And, Mr. President, I also believe that most Americans would favor legislation that offers a single, noncontroversial, commensense approach to fighting gun violence. So, today, I, along with my colleagues, introduce Project Exile: The Safe Streets and Neighbors Act, which builds on the previous success of programs like Project Triggerlock and offers the kind of practical solution we need to thwart gun crimes. This approach works, Mr. President. For example, in 1997, Virginia revived Project Triggerlock under the name ``Project Exile.'' Specifically, the city of Richmond and the U.S. attorney implemented a program based on one simple principle: any criminal caught with a gun serves a minimum mandatory sentence of 5 years in federal 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. It is clear that programs like Project Triggerlock and Virginia's Project Exile work, while at the same time being very simple. But still, federal gun prosecutions have declined considerably during this administration because it has not emphasized these programs. Why? I have repeatedly questioned Attorney General Reno and her deputies about this decline, 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 a crime with a gun. With all due respect, I consider that response to be bureaucratic nonsense. One thing I learned as Greene County Prosecutor in my home state of Ohio is that any criminal who commits a crime with a gun is a high-level offender. And, I'm willing to bet that any citizen who has ever been a victim of a gun-crime would agree. Furthermore, the idea that there are a lot of so-called ``low-level'' offenders, who commit only one crime with a gun, is just plain wrong. The average armed criminal commits 160 crimes a year; that is an average of three crimes per week. These people are, by themselves, walking crime waves. Along the same lines, 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 does not make sense. Current law prohibits felons from possessing guns--we should enforce the law. We should aggressively prosecute armed criminals before they use those guns to injure and kill people. We need to take all of these armed criminals off the streets. That is how we will prevent crime and save lives. Why wait for armed criminals to commit more heinous crimes before we prosecute them to the full extent of the law? Why wait when we can do something that will make a difference now, before another Ohioan--or any American--becomes a victim of gun violence. Every state should have the opportunity to implement Project Exile in their high-crime communities. The bill that we are introducing today will make this proven, commonsense approach to reducing gun violence available to every state. Programs like Project Triggerlock and Project Exile will take guns out of the hands of violent criminals. They will make our neighborhoods safer. They will save lives. We can take concrete steps toward making our streets and neighborhoods safer from armed criminals by passing the ``Safe Streets and Neighborhoods Act.'' I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support and pass this legislation. It's time to protect our children and our families. 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 crimes.