Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution urging compliance with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Joining me in introducing this resolution are Senators Helms, Warner, Thurmond, Robb, Rockefeller, Thomas, Dodd, Landrieu, and Hatch. Congressmen Nick Lampson of Texas and Steve Chabot of Ohio have introduced a similar measure in the House. The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction sets forth the legal mechanism for returning internationally abducted children to their countries of habitual residence, where custody can then be decided. Fifty-four countries, including the United States are signatories to the Convention. According to the State Department, each year the United States sends an estimated 90% of kidnapped children back to foreign countries. But, the rate at which other nations belonging to the Convention return American children is much lower. A State Department report singles out several countries for their noncompliance with the accord, including Austria, Honduras, Mauritius, Mexico and Sweden. Notably absent from the report, however, was Germany, which also has established a disturbing pattern of noncompliance. According to ``Insight Magazine,'' State Department records show that of the 243 Hague cases filed in Germany, there were only 40 court-ordered returns. Last fall, the General Accounting Office (GAO) testified before the House International Relations Committee on their preliminary review of the federal government's response to international parental child abduction. They cited noncompliance with the Hague Convention on the part of other countries as one of the problems with our federal government's response to international parental kidnappings. According to GAO's testimony: ``The State Department acknowledges that more systematic and aggressive diplomatic efforts are needed to address problems with the Hague Convention.'' The GAO also noted that while increased diplomatic efforts are needed, recommendations developed by the State Department and Department of Justice to rectify the noncompliance problem ``seek to review, study, and explore Hague implementation issues, but fail to identify how these activities will actually help solve Hague implementation problems.'' What we have to remember in any case where a parent abducts a child is that each of these cases involves the destruction of a family. A good illustration of this is what happened to Tom Sylvester of Cincinnati, the father of a little girl named Carina, whom he has seldom seen since his ex-wife abducted her from Michigan in 1995, and took her to Austria. The day after the kidnapping, Mr. Sylvester filed a complaint with the State Department and started legal proceedings under the terms of the Hague Convention. An Austrian court heard his complaint, and the court ordered the return of Carina to Mr. Sylvester. However, this court order was never enforced and Carina's mother took the child into hiding. Eventually, though, when Carina's mother surfaced with the child, the Austrian courts reversed their decision on returning Carina to her father, finding that Carina had ``resettled into her new environment''--a decision clearly contrary to the terms of the Hague Convention. While the State Department recently has indicated some willingness to work more aggressively through diplomatic channels in individual cases, like that of Tom Sylvester, we must do more to improve compliance with the Hague Convention overall. The resolution we are introducing today encourages all of the contracting parties, 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. In order to improve compliance rates, the resolution urges all Hague signatories to educate their judges and law enforcement personnel about the Convention. And, finally, this resolution urges countries to return children under the Convention, without reaching the underlying custody dispute, and to remove barriers to parental visitations. Mr. President, as a parent and grandparent, I cannot begin to imagine the nightmare that so many American parents face when their children are kidnapped by a current or former spouse and taken abroad. But, tragically, this is a very real and daily nightmare for hundreds of parents right here in this country. That's why the resolution I have introduced is critical to encouraging the safe return of children to the United States. It gives us an opportunity to help make a positive difference in the lives of children and their families. I urge my colleagues to support it with their cosponsorship.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two pieces of legislation that would impact the lives of many at-risk children living in foster care. In an effort to move forward and figure out what Congress needs to do next to help improve the operation of the child welfare system following the 1997 enactment of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, my friend and colleague Senator Rockefeller and I, as well as Senators Landrieu, Levin, Kerry, Kerrey, Wellstone, Colins, Boxer, Chafee, Lincoln and Bingaman, are introducing the strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts Act and the Training and Knowledge Ensure Children a Risk-free Environment (TAKE CARE) Act. Before I talk about these bills, specifically, it's important to understand how we arrived at where we are today with regard to the child welfare agencies and the court system. Back in 1997, I was very involved in one of the success stories of the 105th Congress: The passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act. This subcommittee played a critical role in shaping that legislation. This law has many goals: First, it encourages safe and permanent family placements for abused and neglected children; second, it makes it clear that the health and safety of the child always must come first in any decision involving a child in abuse and neglect cases; and third, it decreases the amount of time that a child spends in the foster care system. Specifically, the law requires initiation of proceedings to terminate parental rights for any child who has been in the foster care system for fifteen (15) of the last twenty-two (22) months. The Adoption and Safe Families Act represented a significant change in child welfare laws. Perhaps more important, we were changing the way judges and child advocates looked at child welfare cases. This represented a change in the culture of child welfare, as we know it, and forced the system to stop and rethink its processes and its purposes. We all knew this law was not a quick nor a complete fix--more work would be necessary to make the law a success and to implement a new way of thinking about child welfare--a way of thinking that says that it is no longer acceptable to place a child in long-term foster care without a plan for permanent placement. We knew that a law that simply tells judges that the health and safety of the child must be paramount would not necessarily be reflected in judicial decisions. To get there, training needs to be available so the law effectively becomes a part of judge's decisionmaking process. A tragic local case--the death of twenty-three month old Brianna Blackmond--demonstrates the need for this training. Brianna had been placed in foster care at the age of four months, due to her mother's neglect. In January of this year, Brianna was killed just seventeen days after being returned to her mother from foster care. In the aftermath of this tragedy, DC Superior Court Judges told the Washington Post about the agony they feel in making child welfare decisions. One of the judges quoted in the article said this: ``These cases are, for me, the most difficult thing we do. We feel the least trained and skilled at it.'' These judges are making tough, life-changing decisions for all parties involved. We have a responsibility to make sure they are trained properly and feel confident about those decisions. When we passed the Adoption and Safe Families Act, we also knew that the imposition of reduced timelines would create additional pressure on an already overburdened court system. These timelines, however, are very important to the welfare of the children involved. Foster care, after all, was meant to be a temporary solution--not a way of life. These timelines can work only if the courts are able to process cases in a timely manner. To give you an idea of what the courts are up against, consider this: When the Family Court was established in New York in 1962, it reviewed 96,000 cases the first year. By 1997, the case load had increased to 670,000 cases. The courts must have a manageable case load so that an appropriate decision can be made in every case after all of the facts have been heard. We cannot rush decision making in these cases--a child's life is at risk. We also knew that the courts needed information to make the best possible decision for the child. This problem was demonstrated in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Until recently, the court had no central clerk's file, so there was no way of tracking the location of a particular file. If the file could not be found on the day of a hearing or review, it would result in a postponement, often adding months to a child's stay in foster care. It is undisputed that children need permanency as quickly as possible. It is simply unconscionable that children should be trapped in foster care by a bureaucratic nightmare of paperwork. We need to move forward and help improve the operation of the child welfare system, and in particular, the courts. The legislation Senator Rockefeller and I are introducing today will help move us in the right direction. Taken together, our bills would provide competitive grants to courts to create computerized case tracking systems, as well as grants to reduce pending backlogs of abuse and neglect cases so that courts are better able to comply with the timelines established in the Adoption and Safe Families Act. These bills also would allow judges, attorneys, and court personnel to qualify for training under Title IV- E's existing training provisions and would expand the CASA program to underserved and urban areas, so that more children are able to benefit from its services. Mr. President, let me conclude by saying that when Congress passed the Adoption and Safe Families Act, I believed it was a good start. Congress, however, would have to do more to make sure that every child has the opportunity to live in a safe, stable, loving and permanent home. One of the essential ingredients is an efficiently operating court system--a system that puts the principles embodied in the law into practice. After all, that's where a lot of delays occur. As well intentioned as the strict timelines of the 1997 law are, mandatory filing dates are not enough to promote child placement permanency if the court docket is too clogged to move cases through the system, or judges aren't changing their routine in a way that reflects the importance of these timelines and the necessity of placing the child's safety first. The critical next step is to help the courts improve administrative efficiency and effectiveness--goals of the Adoption and Safe Families Act. I believe that our legislation can do that. I encourage my colleagues to support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two pieces of legislation that would impact the lives of many at-risk children living in foster care. In an effort to move forward and figure out what Congress needs to do next to help improve the operation of the child welfare system following the 1997 enactment of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, my friend and colleague Senator Rockefeller and I, as well as Senators Landrieu, Levin, Kerry, Kerrey, Wellstone, Colins, Boxer, Chafee, Lincoln and Bingaman, are introducing the strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts Act and the Training and Knowledge Ensure Children a Risk-free Environment (TAKE CARE) Act. Before I talk about these bills, specifically, it's important to understand how we arrived at where we are today with regard to the child welfare agencies and the court system. Back in 1997, I was very involved in one of the success stories of the 105th Congress: The passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act. This subcommittee played a critical role in shaping that legislation. This law has many goals: First, it encourages safe and permanent family placements for abused and neglected children; second, it makes it clear that the health and safety of the child always must come first in any decision involving a child in abuse and neglect cases; and third, it decreases the amount of time that a child spends in the foster care system. Specifically, the law requires initiation of proceedings to terminate parental rights for any child who has been in the foster care system for fifteen (15) of the last twenty-two (22) months. The Adoption and Safe Families Act represented a significant change in child welfare laws. Perhaps more important, we were changing the way judges and child advocates looked at child welfare cases. This represented a change in the culture of child welfare, as we know it, and forced the system to stop and rethink its processes and its purposes. We all knew this law was not a quick nor a complete fix--more work would be necessary to make the law a success and to implement a new way of thinking about child welfare--a way of thinking that says that it is no longer acceptable to place a child in long-term foster care without a plan for permanent placement. We knew that a law that simply tells judges that the health and safety of the child must be paramount would not necessarily be reflected in judicial decisions. To get there, training needs to be available so the law effectively becomes a part of judge's decisionmaking process. A tragic local case--the death of twenty-three month old Brianna Blackmond--demonstrates the need for this training. Brianna had been placed in foster care at the age of four months, due to her mother's neglect. In January of this year, Brianna was killed just seventeen days after being returned to her mother from foster care. In the aftermath of this tragedy, DC Superior Court Judges told the Washington Post about the agony they feel in making child welfare decisions. One of the judges quoted in the article said this: ``These cases are, for me, the most difficult thing we do. We feel the least trained and skilled at it.'' These judges are making tough, life-changing decisions for all parties involved. We have a responsibility to make sure they are trained properly and feel confident about those decisions. When we passed the Adoption and Safe Families Act, we also knew that the imposition of reduced timelines would create additional pressure on an already overburdened court system. These timelines, however, are very important to the welfare of the children involved. Foster care, after all, was meant to be a temporary solution--not a way of life. These timelines can work only if the courts are able to process cases in a timely manner. To give you an idea of what the courts are up against, consider this: When the Family Court was established in New York in 1962, it reviewed 96,000 cases the first year. By 1997, the case load had increased to 670,000 cases. The courts must have a manageable case load so that an appropriate decision can be made in every case after all of the facts have been heard. We cannot rush decision making in these cases--a child's life is at risk. We also knew that the courts needed information to make the best possible decision for the child. This problem was demonstrated in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Until recently, the court had no central clerk's file, so there was no way of tracking the location of a particular file. If the file could not be found on the day of a hearing or review, it would result in a postponement, often adding months to a child's stay in foster care. It is undisputed that children need permanency as quickly as possible. It is simply unconscionable that children should be trapped in foster care by a bureaucratic nightmare of paperwork. We need to move forward and help improve the operation of the child welfare system, and in particular, the courts. The legislation Senator Rockefeller and I are introducing today will help move us in the right direction. Taken together, our bills would provide competitive grants to courts to create computerized case tracking systems, as well as grants to reduce pending backlogs of abuse and neglect cases so that courts are better able to comply with the timelines established in the Adoption and Safe Families Act. These bills also would allow judges, attorneys, and court personnel to qualify for training under Title IV- E's existing training provisions and would expand the CASA program to underserved and urban areas, so that more children are able to benefit from its services. Mr. President, let me conclude by saying that when Congress passed the Adoption and Safe Families Act, I believed it was a good start. Congress, however, would have to do more to make sure that every child has the opportunity to live in a safe, stable, loving and permanent home. One of the essential ingredients is an efficiently operating court system--a system that puts the principles embodied in the law into practice. After all, that's where a lot of delays occur. As well intentioned as the strict timelines of the 1997 law are, mandatory filing dates are not enough to promote child placement permanency if the court docket is too clogged to move cases through the system, or judges aren't changing their routine in a way that reflects the importance of these timelines and the necessity of placing the child's safety first. The critical next step is to help the courts improve administrative efficiency and effectiveness--goals of the Adoption and Safe Families Act. I believe that our legislation can do that. I encourage my colleagues to support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I join my good friend from Michigan, Senator Abraham, and the rest of the Great Lakes delegation in sponsoring this very important amendment to provide funds for the construction of a new ice-breaking vessel to replace the Mackinaw. Stationed on the Great Lakes, the Mackinaw operates during the ice season, which lasts from December 15th through April 15th. My colleagues from the Great Lakes region know the importance of this vessel during those 4 months. Without this boat, regional commerce on the water would be significantly impaired. Approximately 14 million tons of cargo are moved on the Great Lakes during the ice season. This cargo includes iron ore, coal, limestone, cement, and grain. These resources are necessary to our entire country and our economy. In addition to the economic need for ice-breaking on the Great Lakes, there are national defense implications. The Mackinaw was christened in 1944 to meet our nation's wartime need for iron ore. Today, more than 70 percent of our nation's steelmaking capacity is located in the Great Lakes basin. Should our country ever become embroiled in a protracted military crisis, our ability to transit the Lakes during periods of ice cover would be crucial. Mr. President, the Mackinaw is showing signs of its age, and the time has come to replace the vessel. After several years of studying a replacement design, the Coast Guard has concluded that a multi-purpose ice-breaking vessel is the preferred option. Not only will this replacement ship perform ice-breaking services, but it also will maintain floating aids-to-navigation. Compared with the construction of a single-purpose icebreaker, the multi-mission design increases the number of available operational days by 38 percent. Constructing a multi-purpose ice-breaking vessel is a common-sense solution to address the needs of the Great Lakes. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, as my colleagues know, February is designated as ``Black History Month.'' As part of the celebration of African American achievements and contributions to our country, I would like to draw your attention to the heroic and courageous acts of the African Americans who served in the Ninth and Tenth Horse Cavalry Units of the United States Army. These units were established at the end of the Civil War and composed of former slaves. Their first charge was to maintain trails and protect settlers from Native Americans during the period of westward expansion. The units were called to combative service during the wars against the Native Americans, where they were also given the name of ``Buffalo Soldiers.'' During the Spanish American War, the Buffalo Soldiers were among Theodore Roosevelt's Rough Riders. In 1916, they crossed into Mexico under the direction of General John J. Pershing. At a time when the majority of the troops fighting in Mexico were from the South, these soldiers faced many internal obstacles and discriminatory actions, even while defending our country. The Buffalo Solders were last called into service during World War II. The soldiers went to North Africa, Iran, and Italy and held various positions as combat engineers and paratroopers, among others. When the Army feared a Japanese invasion, the Buffalo Soldiers were placed along the rugged border terrain of the Baja Peninsula and protected dams, power stations, and rail lines to ensure the safety of crucial war industries in San Diego. Currently, there are twenty-one existing chapters of the 9th and 10th Horse Cavalry associations, one in Germany and twenty in the United States. Mr. President, I am submitting a resolution today to honor these brave men through the creation of a commemorative postage stamp. This stamp is a way to pay tribute to the Buffalo Soldiers' great acts of courage and dedication to our country. It is my hope that this stamp can serve as a reminder of their valor and to help teach future generations about their contributions to our nation. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. An informative article about the Buffalo Soldiers in my home state of Ohio was recently featured in the Cincinnati Enquirer. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this article be reprinted in the Record. The article follows: [From the Cincinnati Enquirer, Feb. 9, 2000] Last of a Storied Cavalry Fights for Recognition--All-Black Unit Served in WW II After Long History (By Mark Curnutte) In 1943, Lorenzo Denson was one of about two dozen men from Cincinnati drafted to serve in an all-black cavalry unit on the Mexican border. ``The only horse I'd ever seen was the milkman's horse on Seventh Street,'' he said. Shortages of men in segregated black infantry units took Mr. Denson and other Cincinnatians overseas--without their horses--to North Africa, Iran and Italy. They worked as everything from paratroopers to combat engineers. Mr. Denson was a firefighter at an airfield. ``We did our job,'' he said. ``We did what we were told.'' These Tristate men also found their way into history as the last of the Buffalo Soldiers, members of the renowned all- black cavalry units formed during the Indian wars. The U.S. Army disbanded all horseback cavalry units in 1944. This month--Black History Month--finds Cincinnati's Buffalo Soldiers on a final ride. Like the Tuskegee Airmen and other groups of black veterans before them, the Buffalo Soldiers are trying to win recognition for contributions that they say have been overlooked for more than 50 years. Mr. Denson, now 79, retired and living in Columbia Township, will be among a group of nine living World War II- era Buffalo Soldiers scheduled to make its first Tristate appearance Thursday at the public library in Corryville. ``We helped to win World War II,'' said Linwood Greene Jr., 79, of Silverton, another Buffalo Soldier. At least 14 of Cincinnati's World War II Buffalo Soldiers are dead--none was killed in action--and chances are this piece of Tristate history would have faded away if not for George Hicks III. A retired Army veteran who's a fan of the all-black cavalry units; Mr. Hicks moved from Washington, D.C., to the Tristate a couple of years ago and immediately organized the Cincinnati-based Heartland Chapter of the Ninth and Tenth Horse Cavalry Association. ``These men are American heroes,'' said Mr. Hicks, 50. There are 20 domestic chapters of the Ninth and Tenth Association and one in Germany. About 650 black cavalry veterans from World War II are still living. ``We owe a lot to George,'' said Mr. Denson, who appeared at the Buffalo Soldiers booth at the Indiana Black Expo in July in Indianapolis. Public reaction there added urgency to the black troopers mission. People--black and white alike--didn't know who they were. ``They thought we were actors,'' Mr. Denson said. The men sported black hats with crossed cavalry swords and the No. 10 affixed to the front. With blue shirts they wore the cavalry's standard yellow neckerchief. ``Once people found out who we were and what we did, they wanted to have their pictures taken with us,'' Mr. Denson said. William Snow, 77, of New Burlington will appear at the library with Mr. Denson and at least three other men. ``Overseas, we did everything we were instructed to do,'' said Mr. Snow, a Walnut Hills native and retired postal worker. ``I was proud to be in the cavalry. I am proud to be part of the history.'' The black cavalry dates to post-Civil War North America. It's first recruits in 1866 were former slaves who patrolled the frontier from Texas to Montana. They guarded settlers and protected wagon trains. Buffalo Soldiers earned respect and their nickname from the Cheyenne, Arapahoe, Kiowa, Comanche and Apache Indians they sometimes fought, a story captured in the song ``Buffalo Soldier'' by the late reggae icon Bob Marley. Indians said black soldiers' hair resembled buffalo fur. Four all-black regiments, stationed throughout the western territories, were known as some of the fiercest fighters of the Indian wars. They were among Theodore Roosevelt's Rough Riders in Cuba during the Spanish-American War and crossed into Mexico in 1916 under Gen. John J. Pershing. During World War II, fearing a Japanese land invasion through Mexico's Baja Peninsula, the government placed cavalry units--first white, then black--along the rugged border terrain. Armed units on horseback protected dams, power stations and rail lines important to San Diego's war industries. Black troopers from Cincinnati were sworn in at Fort Thomas and sent to train at Camp Lockett near San Diego. ``We were trained in infantry and how to be infantry on horseback,'' Mr. Denson said. ``When you were assigned a horse, you were instructed to treat this animal like it was your best friend.'' African-Americans could not rise beyond the rank of sergeant, so all commanding officers were white. ``They treated black troopers very well,'' Mr. Denson said. Patrolling the border is how Buffalo Soldiers figured they would close out the war. But within a year of arriving in California, the cavalry troopers were put on alert to go overseas. They were put aboard a segregated train for a two- day ride to Newport News, Va. A stop in Houston showed the men that many of their white countrymen wouldn't accept them, even though the troopers would put their lives on the line for them. ``We were in cramped quarters on the train, and the colonel got us out and had us marching up and down the platform to stretch our legs,'' said Mr. Greene, the Madisonville native who lives in Silverton. ``The mayor of Houston heard we were there, and he came out and said, `Get them niggers back on the train.' And that's exactly what he said. ``So the colonel has us go back to a train car and assemble our .50-caliber machine guns. We went back out and marched until it was time to switch trains.'' Many historians consider Buffalo Soldiers unsung heroes, troopers who did jobs a lot of white soldiers didn't want to. ``Blacks were second-class citizens in the military, and blacks were second-class citizens in society,'' said Pat O'Brien, a history professor and 20th century America expert at Emporia State University in Emporia, Kan. Emporia is near Junction City, Kan., home of the Ninth and Tenth Cavalry Association, which is raising money to build a Buffalo Soldiers memorial there. ``In many ways, World War II--and the performance of the black soldiers--provided the context for the civil rights movement,'' Mr. O'Brien said. ``It readily exposed the paradox--how could you fight against one thing overseas and promote it at home.'' Mr. Greene, who joined the combat engineers and worked as a welder, landed at Normandy on D-Day. He was wounded six days later when the Jeep in which he was riding ran over a mine. He took shrapnel in the head, hand and stomach. The next 14 days were a blur. He received the Purple Heart and an honorable discharge at a Cleveland hospital on Aug. 4, 1945. Mr. Greene came home to Cincinnati and went to work as a railway mail clerk. He experienced more racism at home than he did abroad. ``I was in the same boxcars sorting the same mail, and they wouldn't let me join the union,'' he said. Paul Greene, his son, was a U.S. Marine killed in Vietnam in 1966. Paul Greene was 19. ``I'm proud of my son's service to his country,'' Linwood Greene Jr. said slowly. ``I'm proud of my service to my country.'' Mr. Snow, who also received an honorable discharge, didn't think he would live to see the United States again. ``I had as much fun as I could because I thought I would be gone at any minute,'' he said. ``God was with me. That's how I didn't get hurt.'' Mr. Denson is most proud of his honorable discharge, dated Nov. 6, 1945. He also received the American Theater Ribbon, Good Conduct Medal and Victory Medal. ``The No. 1 thing is that honorable discharge. A lot of things happen in the service, and they had a lot of ways of busting you down,'' said Mr. Denson, who retired in 1981 from Cincinnati Public Schools as a plant operator. Not far behind are his feelings for his unit. ``I liked the outfit. I liked the horses. I learned a lot,'' he said. ``We didn't come in until the tail end, but we did a good job. ``No, we weren't actors. We were the real thing.''

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to honor not only the birthday of our great nation's first president, George Washington, but all presidents who followed in his foot steps. I am introducing the Presidential Sites Improvement Act of 2000, which would create a new and innovative partnership with public and private entities to preserve and maintain Presidential birthplaces, homes, memorials, and tombs. Our Presidents have contributed so much to our country, and we have much to learn from them. It is fitting that we recognize their contributions as leaders of our country. Mr. President, there are numerous sites across the nation that pay tribute to our nation's chief executives, but the majority of these sites are not owned by the National Park Service. This means that these sites generally do not receive federal support. These sites must rely on donations, state and local assistance, and private endowments to pay for staff, maintenance, and restoration projects. Some of these sites have large endowments for operation expenses. Unfortunately, many other sites have a very difficult time making ends meet. In fact, many of these sites delay necessary capital improvement projects because site managers simply don't have the resources to pay for them. Over time, maintenance neglect will cause these historic sites to slowly fall apart. I have visited many of the Presidential historic sites throughout my home state of Ohio, a state that has been the home of eight presidents. It is disturbing to see at the Ulysses S. Grant birthplace the discoloration throughout the house and falling plaster because of water damage. At the home of President Warren Harding, the famous front porch where then candidate Harding gave his campaign speeches actually began to pull away from the house. Fortunately, we were able to obtain the funding to prevent these two historic treasures from deteriorating further. However, by providing some federal assistance for maintenance projects today, we can help prevent larger maintenance problems tomorrow. Mr. President, these Presidential sites are far too important to let them slowly decay. My legislation would authorize grants, administered by the National Park Service, for maintenance and improvement projects on presidential sites that are not federally owned or managed. A portion of the funds would be set aside for sites that are in need of emergency assistance. To administer this new program, this legislation would establish a five member committee, including the Director of the National Park Service, a member of the Trust for Historic Preservation, and a state historic preservation officer. This committee would make grant recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior. Each grant would require that half of the funds come from non-federal sources. Up to $5 million would be made available annually. With this legislation, we can do more than just set one day aside to honor our country's dedicated leaders. We can make a lasting commitment to preserve their memory and contributions for generations to come. Our children and grandchildren should have the opportunity to understand the richness of our country's history. If we do not make efforts to maintain these Presidential sites, we will lose these treasures forever. The funds given to these sites would be a great tribute to our nation's past and a lasting asset to our nation's future. Our Presidents have shaped this country, so it is fitting that we recognize their contributions as leaders. I invite my colleagues to join me, along with my colleagues from Virginia, Senators Warner and Robb, in cosponsoring this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to honor not only the birthday of our great nation's first president, George Washington, but all presidents who followed in his foot steps. I am introducing the Presidential Sites Improvement Act of 2000, which would create a new and innovative partnership with public and private entities to preserve and maintain Presidential birthplaces, homes, memorials, and tombs. Our Presidents have contributed so much to our country, and we have much to learn from them. It is fitting that we recognize their contributions as leaders of our country. Mr. President, there are numerous sites across the nation that pay tribute to our nation's chief executives, but the majority of these sites are not owned by the National Park Service. This means that these sites generally do not receive federal support. These sites must rely on donations, state and local assistance, and private endowments to pay for staff, maintenance, and restoration projects. Some of these sites have large endowments for operation expenses. Unfortunately, many other sites have a very difficult time making ends meet. In fact, many of these sites delay necessary capital improvement projects because site managers simply don't have the resources to pay for them. Over time, maintenance neglect will cause these historic sites to slowly fall apart. I have visited many of the Presidential historic sites throughout my home state of Ohio, a state that has been the home of eight presidents. It is disturbing to see at the Ulysses S. Grant birthplace the discoloration throughout the house and falling plaster because of water damage. At the home of President Warren Harding, the famous front porch where then candidate Harding gave his campaign speeches actually began to pull away from the house. Fortunately, we were able to obtain the funding to prevent these two historic treasures from deteriorating further. However, by providing some federal assistance for maintenance projects today, we can help prevent larger maintenance problems tomorrow. Mr. President, these Presidential sites are far too important to let them slowly decay. My legislation would authorize grants, administered by the National Park Service, for maintenance and improvement projects on presidential sites that are not federally owned or managed. A portion of the funds would be set aside for sites that are in need of emergency assistance. To administer this new program, this legislation would establish a five member committee, including the Director of the National Park Service, a member of the Trust for Historic Preservation, and a state historic preservation officer. This committee would make grant recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior. Each grant would require that half of the funds come from non-federal sources. Up to $5 million would be made available annually. With this legislation, we can do more than just set one day aside to honor our country's dedicated leaders. We can make a lasting commitment to preserve their memory and contributions for generations to come. Our children and grandchildren should have the opportunity to understand the richness of our country's history. If we do not make efforts to maintain these Presidential sites, we will lose these treasures forever. The funds given to these sites would be a great tribute to our nation's past and a lasting asset to our nation's future. Our Presidents have shaped this country, so it is fitting that we recognize their contributions as leaders. I invite my colleagues to join me, along with my colleagues from Virginia, Senators Warner and Robb, in cosponsoring this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here today with my friend and colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, to introduce legislation that would authorize the issuance of the organ and tissue donation awareness ``semi-postal'' stamp. With 67,000 people on the organ donation waiting list, we have no time to lose in educating the public about the importance of life-giving organ and tissue donations. In August 1998, as a result of strong public and congressional interest, the U.S. Postal Service issued a 32-cent organ and tissue donation commemorative stamp. But, just five months later, the postal rate increased to 33-cents. To use the stamp, that meant purchasers would have to buy an additional one-cent stamp to make up the postage difference. Yet, despite this hassle, more than 47 million of the 50 million stamps originally printed have been purchased, demonstrating the strong demand for an organ and tissue donation awareness postage stamp. Since the U.S. Postal Service does not re-issue commemorative stamps, we are seeking authorization for a ``semi-postal'' stamp. This stamp would sell for up to 25 percent above the value of a first-class stamp, regardless of the price of the first-class stamp, itself. The surplus revenues would be directed to programs that increase organ and tissue donation awareness. The decision to donate an organ or tissue is a life-saving one. However, it is frequently one that family members and loved ones fail to communicate to one another. Every effort we make to remind people that this is a decision that should be communicated before a tragedy strikes is an effort toward saving lives. Whether it is an organ and tissue donation postage stamp or a box that drivers can mark as they renew their drivers' licenses, they are steps that raise awareness of the importance of communicating to family and friends the decision to become an organ or tissue donor. I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Durbin, for joining me in introducing this legislation, and Senators Abraham, Baucus, Cleland, Dodd, and Levin for their co-sponsorship. I have appreciated their support for this bill and for their tremendous work on behalf of organ and tissue donation awareness. I would also like to thank a number of organ and tissue donation groups who support this legislation--the Minority Organ Tissue Transplant Education Program (MOTTEP); the National Kidney Foundation (NKF); the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS); Transplant Recipients International Organization, Inc. (TRIO); the Coalition on Donation; Hadassah; the Eye Bank Association of America; the American Society of Transplantation; the American Society of Transplant Surgeons; LifeBanc; and the Association of Organ Procurement Organizations. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this important legislation. Time is of the essence. The waiting list for organs includes 67,000 people, with a new name added to that list every 16 minutes. Moreover, ten to twelve people die every day waiting for an organ to become available. There is simply no time to lose. Every effort we make to increase, and in this case help generate, funds for organ and tissue donation awareness will help to save someone's life. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here today with my friend and colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, to introduce legislation that would authorize the issuance of the organ and tissue donation awareness ``semi-postal'' stamp. With 67,000 people on the organ donation waiting list, we have no time to lose in educating the public about the importance of life-giving organ and tissue donations. In August 1998, as a result of strong public and congressional interest, the U.S. Postal Service issued a 32-cent organ and tissue donation commemorative stamp. But, just five months later, the postal rate increased to 33-cents. To use the stamp, that meant purchasers would have to buy an additional one-cent stamp to make up the postage difference. Yet, despite this hassle, more than 47 million of the 50 million stamps originally printed have been purchased, demonstrating the strong demand for an organ and tissue donation awareness postage stamp. Since the U.S. Postal Service does not re-issue commemorative stamps, we are seeking authorization for a ``semi-postal'' stamp. This stamp would sell for up to 25 percent above the value of a first-class stamp, regardless of the price of the first-class stamp, itself. The surplus revenues would be directed to programs that increase organ and tissue donation awareness. The decision to donate an organ or tissue is a life-saving one. However, it is frequently one that family members and loved ones fail to communicate to one another. Every effort we make to remind people that this is a decision that should be communicated before a tragedy strikes is an effort toward saving lives. Whether it is an organ and tissue donation postage stamp or a box that drivers can mark as they renew their drivers' licenses, they are steps that raise awareness of the importance of communicating to family and friends the decision to become an organ or tissue donor. I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Durbin, for joining me in introducing this legislation, and Senators Abraham, Baucus, Cleland, Dodd, and Levin for their co-sponsorship. I have appreciated their support for this bill and for their tremendous work on behalf of organ and tissue donation awareness. I would also like to thank a number of organ and tissue donation groups who support this legislation--the Minority Organ Tissue Transplant Education Program (MOTTEP); the National Kidney Foundation (NKF); the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS); Transplant Recipients International Organization, Inc. (TRIO); the Coalition on Donation; Hadassah; the Eye Bank Association of America; the American Society of Transplantation; the American Society of Transplant Surgeons; LifeBanc; and the Association of Organ Procurement Organizations. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this important legislation. Time is of the essence. The waiting list for organs includes 67,000 people, with a new name added to that list every 16 minutes. Moreover, ten to twelve people die every day waiting for an organ to become available. There is simply no time to lose. Every effort we make to increase, and in this case help generate, funds for organ and tissue donation awareness will help to save someone's life. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I object to further proceedings on this bill at this time.

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

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk due its second reading.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, on behalf of Majority Leader Lott, I make the following announcements: Today, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m. Following morning business, it is hoped that consent will be given to begin consideration of S. 1287, the nuclear waste disposal bill. However, if no agreement can be made, cloture on the committee amendment will be scheduled to occur at 2:15 p.m. By previous consent, the Senate will recess from 12:30 to 2:15 so the weekly party conferences may meet. Senators can expect votes in relation to the nuclear waste bill throughout today's session of the Senate. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, last November, Akezhan Kazhegeldin, who served as Prime Minister of Kazakhstan from 1994 to 1997, was the featured speaker at the City Club of Cleveland. His remarks summarize the many challenges and struggles in Kazakhstan and how the United States can be a partner for progress and democracy in Central Asia. I have a copy of Mr. Kazhegeldin's remarks, as well as a copy of the story on his visit that appeared in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, and I ask that both appear in the Record following the conclusion of my remarks. The material follows: Remarks of the Honorable Akezhan Kazhegeldin Ladies and Gentlemen! First of all, I would like to thank those who arranged this radio forum and asked me to appear before you. This is not only an honor for me, but also a great responsibility. At this rostrum I have been preceded by many respected politicians, among them presidents of the United States. Now the chance to be heard here, in Ohio--the very heart of the United States, has been given not only to me, Akezhan Kazhegeldin, economist and politician, but through me to all of Kazakhstan. My country lies in the very center of Asia between Russia and China, between Siberia and the great deserts. Poets say that Kazakhstan is the very heart of Asia. For me, therefore, this appearance before the citizens of Ohio represents a conversation between two hearts, a true heart-to-heart talk. American society needs first-hand knowledge about what is happening in the countries which were formerly parts of the Soviet Union. American corporations, working in Kazakhstan, may have knowledge and understanding of geological resources, but no more than that. I am sure that the oil companies which worked in Iran under Shah Pahlevi had the most detailed and accurate geophysical maps. But these maps could not have predicted that the Shah would be replaced by the Khomeini regime. In many of the former Soviet republics one can clearly see the possibility or the actual threat of new anti-democratic regimes arising. They are not necessarily linked to religious extremism. And even less to Islam. The Serbian leader Milosevich is not an Islamic extremist. He is a Christian extremist, a nationalist. But that does not make him any less dangerous.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, as original co-sponsors of the Safe Senior Assurance Study Act of 1999 (S. 818), Senator Reid and I wish to express, for the record, our gratification for the language contained in the conference report on H.R. 3194 concerning physician supervision of anesthesia services under Medicare's Conditions of Participation. We read the report as calling upon the Secretary of Health and Human Services to base her determination as to appropriate supervision standards on sound scientific outcome data--a principle which is at the core of S. 818, which was to assure that Medicare beneficiaries will continue to receive the highest quality medical care--one which I am sure is shared by every member of this body--and the Senator from Nevada and I think adoption of the report will help us attain this objective. Preliminary data from recent outcome research has suggested that supervision of anesthesia care by physicians trained in that discipline represents an important factor in anesthesia safety, and we want to be certain that the Secretary takes the final results of this research into account. Medicare beneficiaries have resoundingly said, in response to recent national surveys, that they favor retention of the current supervision rule, and in our view, any change in that rule must be supported by scientific data showing that anesthesia safety for our nation's seniors would not be impaired. We congratulate the committees with jurisdiction over Medicare in the House and Senate for their clear commitment to this view.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, for the past several months I have served as a member of the House-Senate conference on H.R. 1554, the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999, which has been reported as a part of H.R. 3194, the District of Columbia Appropriations Act. The Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act is a complicated and technical bill, but at its heart lies a simple premise--to protect interests of consumers by allowing more choices in the market for television providers. The conference agreement does this by allowing satellite companies the same opportunity to provide local signals that cable providers currently enjoy--and this increased competition should lead to better prices and better services for consumers. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the act. As is to be expected in any complex piece of legislation, there were a number of difficult issues, and many public policy goals to be considered. The most important of these public policy goals is to protect the interests of consumers, and we needed to consider two factors in that regard--enhancing consumer choice in television service, and protecting the local television stations that so many rely on for their news, traffic, weather and sports. Accordingly, the conference agreement features a number of compromises that aim to protect both of these consumer interests. Perhaps the best example of this is the so-called ``must carry'' provision. This provision requires that if a multi-channel video provider (for example cable, or satellite) is carrying any broadcast signals in a given market, that provider must carry all broadcast signals in a given market. This requirement protects local television stations by assuring that their signals will be carried, whether consumers are purchasing satellite service or cable service. At first this may limit the number of markets that satellite providers can reach, but as technology and satellite capacity increase we are confident that satellite service, and the benefits of local signal competition, will reach more and more markets. This provision does not go into effect until January 1, 2002, in order to give the satellite companies time to further develop their technology and improve their product for consumers. In the meantime, this act offers a number of other benefits to consumers. It sets the copyright rate for local signals at zero, and cuts the copyright rate for the so-called ``distant local signals'' by as much as 45 percent. It provides a ``grandfather'' clause for a large group of consumers already receiving satellite service, who might otherwise be cut off by a federal court ruling. And it makes it easier for consumers to determine what type of satellite service they are eligible for, a process which in the past has been somewhat difficult. As many of my colleagues have noted, this act may not completely cure the competitive problems faced by consumers in the marketplace for video services. Certain provisions will require further action by the Federal Communications Commission and by Congress. But it is a good step in the right direction. I believe the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 will increase competition in these markets, and it will increase consumer choice. In the short run, and in the long run, this act is good for competition, and good for consumers.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999, which is incorporated into the Satellite Home Viewers Act Conference Committee Report. I am a Member of that Conference Committee. Ultimately, the Satellite Home Viewers Act Conference Committee Report will be included in this year's omnibus appropriations bill, the District of Columbia Appropriations Act of 2000. With regard to the American Inventors Protection Act, I am particularly pleased with the Act's inclusion of the first inventor or ``prior user'' defense, created by Subtitle C. Unfortunately, the fact that this Act is being considered by the Senate in the closing days of the legislative session has limited the Judiciary Committee's ability to include a complete legislative history on the Act. As a Member of the Judiciary Committee, my intent is that this statement supplement the Senate's legislative history with regard to Subtitle C of the American Inventors Protection Act. The prior user defense to patent infringement is of great importance to the financial services industry. For years, the financial services industry developed ``back office'' methods and processes that are fundamental to the delivery of many financial services. The House Judiciary Committee Report refers to the breadth of the types of methods and processes used by the financial services industry: ``These financial services may embody methods or processes incorporated into any number of systems including, but not limited to, trading, investment and liquidity management, securities custody and reporting, balance reporting, funds transfer, ACH, ATM processing, on-line banking, check processing and compliance and risk management. In each of these systems, multiple processing and method steps are acting upon a customer's data without its knowledge.'' Minor changes in the bill since it was reported by the House Judiciary Committee do not affect the scope of methods to be considered under this Title. Virtually no one in the industry believed that these methods or processes were patentable. Instead, the only legal protections believed to be available were those granted under trade secret laws. Last year, in State Street Bank & Trust Company v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., the financial services industry was dealt a blow when the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that business methods can be patented. Early this year, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in that case, making it official. After State Street, methods and processes that were developed by the financial services industry years ago are subject to patent. Some of these methods and processes are transparent to the end user of the services and can be ``reverse engineered'' and then easily copied. A later user of the method can now patent a method or process that another inventor had developed and put into use first. The actual inventor would then be prohibited from using his own invention, or be required to pay royalties to the subsequent inventor. This situation is clearly unfair. Fortunately, Subtitle C of the American Inventors Protection Act partially corrects the unfortunate consequences of the State Street decision by adding a new section to the patent code establishing the ``prior user'' defense. Specifically, this provides a defense to a claim of patent infringement where a person has commercially used or made serious preparations to commercially use a process that later becomes the subject matter of a patent issued to another. Under this subtitle, an ``internal commercial use or arm's length commercial transfer of a useful end result'' includes a method or process, the subject matter of which may be directed to an information or data processing system providing a financial service, whether in the form of physical products, or in the form of services, or in the form of some useful results. The term ``method'' should be interpreted broadly so that it includes any ``method of doing or conducting business,'' including a process. The method that is the subject matter of the defense may be an internal method of doing business, a method used in the course of doing or conducting business, or a method for conducting business in the public marketplace. It can be a method used in the design, formulation, preparation, application, testing, or manufacture of a product or service. A method is any systematic way of accomplishing a particular business goal. The defense should be applicable against patent infringement claims regarding methods, and to claims involving machines or articles of manufacture used to practice such methods (if such apparatus claims are included in the asserted patent). In the context of the financial services industry, methods would include financial instruments (e.g., stocks, bonds, mutual funds), financial products (e.g., futures, derivatives, asset-backed securities), financial transactions, the ordering of financial information, any system or process that transmits or transforms information with respect to eventual investments or financial transactions, and any method or process listed as examples by the House Judiciary Committee in its report. Of course, the defense is not a general license; it extends only to the specific subject matter claimed in the patent. A person asserting the defense under this new section has the burden of establishing it by clear and convincing evidence. As used in this title ``person'' includes each parent, subsidiary, affiliate, division, or other entity related to the holder of the defense when they are accused of infringement of the relevant patent. If the defense is asserted by a person who is ultimately found to infringe a patent, and subsequently fails to demonstrate a reasonable basis for asserting the defense, then the court must award attorneys fees under section 285 of Title 35. The first inventors defense is not available if a person has abandoned commercial use of the subject matter. In the context of this Act, abandonment means cessation of use with no intent to resume. In the financial services industry, certain activities are naturally periodic or cyclical. Intervals of non-use because of factors such as seasonal needs, or reasonable intervals between contracts, should not be considered abandonment. Mr. President, subtitle C strikes a balance between the rights of the later inventor who obtains patent protection to enjoy his exclusive rights in the claimed subject matter, and the inherent fairness to the earlier user to continue to use its methods and processes to conduct and, even expand, its business. Thus, by creating a personal, prior user defense, subtitle C would give the patent owner its statutory patent rights enforceable against all except the earlier inventor and commercial user of common subject matter.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, each day, we entrust our lives and the safety of our families, friends, and neighbors to the capable hands of the brave men and women in our local police and fire departments. These individuals have decided that they are willing to risk their lives and safety out of a dedication to their citizens and their commitment to public service. In Congress, we have recognized the dangers inherent in police work by dedicating federal resources to help local police departments. In fact, this year, Fiscal Year (FY) 1999, the federal government spent $11 billion on law enforcement initiatives, such as the COPS program, to help local law enforcement face the daily challenges of their communities. In contrast, though, the federal government spent only $32 million on fire prevention and training. We ask local firefighters to risk no less than their lives every time they respond to a fire alarm. We ask them to risk their lives responding to the approximately two million reports of fire that they receive on an annual basis. We expect them to be willing to give their lives in exchange for the lives of our families, neighbors, and friends once every 71 seconds while responding to the 400,000 residential fires--fires which represent only about 22% of all fires reported. We count on them to protect our lives and the lives of our loved ones. I believe the Federal Government needs to show a greater commitment to the fire services. So, today, along with my colleague and friend from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, I rise to introduce the Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement Act--or, FIRE bill. This bill is very simple. It authorizes, over five years, $5 billion in grants to local fire departments. These grants can be used for just about any purpose--training, equipment, hiring more firefighters, or education and prevention programs. A new office, established by this bill under the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), would be responsible for distributing grants to local departments based on a competitive process, involving needs assessment. To ensure that the funding is not spent solely on brand new state-of-the-art fire trucks, it mandates that no more than 25% of the grant funding can be used to purchase new fire vehicles. Finally, it requires that at least 10% of the funds are used for fire prevention programs. Our bill is supported by the National Safe Kids Campaign, the International Association of Fire Fighters, International Association of Fire Chiefs, national Volunteer Fire Council, International Association of Arson Investigators, International Society of Fire Service Instructors, and the National Fire Protection Association. It is also a companion measure to legislation introduced in the House by Congressmen Pascrell and Weldon, where almost 200 members of the House of Representatives have cosponsored it. I am proud to introduce this bill with my friend from Connecticut and look forward to working to ensure that the federal government increases its commitment to the men and women who make up our local fire departments. We owe it to them.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, each day, we entrust our lives and the safety of our families, friends, and neighbors to the capable hands of the brave men and women in our local police and fire departments. These individuals have decided that they are willing to risk their lives and safety out of a dedication to their citizens and their commitment to public service. In Congress, we have recognized the dangers inherent in police work by dedicating federal resources to help local police departments. In fact, this year, Fiscal Year (FY) 1999, the federal government spent $11 billion on law enforcement initiatives, such as the COPS program, to help local law enforcement face the daily challenges of their communities. In contrast, though, the federal government spent only $32 million on fire prevention and training. We ask local firefighters to risk no less than their lives every time they respond to a fire alarm. We ask them to risk their lives responding to the approximately two million reports of fire that they receive on an annual basis. We expect them to be willing to give their lives in exchange for the lives of our families, neighbors, and friends once every 71 seconds while responding to the 400,000 residential fires--fires which represent only about 22% of all fires reported. We count on them to protect our lives and the lives of our loved ones. I believe the Federal Government needs to show a greater commitment to the fire services. So, today, along with my colleague and friend from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, I rise to introduce the Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement Act--or, FIRE bill. This bill is very simple. It authorizes, over five years, $5 billion in grants to local fire departments. These grants can be used for just about any purpose--training, equipment, hiring more firefighters, or education and prevention programs. A new office, established by this bill under the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), would be responsible for distributing grants to local departments based on a competitive process, involving needs assessment. To ensure that the funding is not spent solely on brand new state-of-the-art fire trucks, it mandates that no more than 25% of the grant funding can be used to purchase new fire vehicles. Finally, it requires that at least 10% of the funds are used for fire prevention programs. Our bill is supported by the National Safe Kids Campaign, the International Association of Fire Fighters, International Association of Fire Chiefs, national Volunteer Fire Council, International Association of Arson Investigators, International Society of Fire Service Instructors, and the National Fire Protection Association. It is also a companion measure to legislation introduced in the House by Congressmen Pascrell and Weldon, where almost 200 members of the House of Representatives have cosponsored it. I am proud to introduce this bill with my friend from Connecticut and look forward to working to ensure that the federal government increases its commitment to the men and women who make up our local fire departments. We owe it to them.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce ``America's Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project. This bill is designed to address the impact that the increased deinstitutionalization of America's mentally ill has had on our criminal justice system. This is a serious problem affecting both the health and safety of our Nation. Essentially, the situation we have today in our prisons and jails is the result of over thirty years of cuts in the budgets of mental health institutions, as well as the outlawing of involuntary commitments. Faced with fewer dollars and greater legal requirements, these mental health care facilities began de-institutionalizing America's mentally ill in record numbers. According to one estimate, the number of persons finding treatment in mental health facilities plummeted from 560,000 in 1955 to just 100,000 in 1989. A recent Justice Department study revealed that 16 percent of all inmates in America's State prisons and local jails today are mentally ill. The American Jails Association estimates that 600,000 to 700,000 seriously mentally ill persons each year are being booked into local jails alone. In my own home State of Ohio, 18 percent of all prison inmates were in mental health programs last year. That's the highest percentage in the country. Far too many of our nation's mentally ill persons have ended up in our prisons and jails. In fact, today, the Los Angeles County Jail is the largest mental health care institution in our country. It treats 3,200 seriously mentally ill people every day. The impact on law enforcement has been significant. Institutions and agencies designed to fight crime have had to spend valuable time and scarce resources providing mental health services to prisoners. In Ohio, nearly 1 in 5 prisoners need special psychiatric services or accommodations. Tragically, many mentally ill inmates could have received proper treatment from a variety of private and public sources before they ended up in the prison system. Part of the problem is a serious lack of coordination between our local law enforcement and social service systems. The interaction within law enforcement--between our courts and prisons--is even worse. All too often, the mentally ill act out their symptoms on the streets. They are arrested for minor offenses and wind up in jail, where appropriate treatment simply does not exist. They serve their sentences or are paroled, but find themselves right back in the system after committing further crimes--often more serious--only a short time later. The Justice Department has found that over 75 percent of mentally ill inmates are repeat offenders. In some States, the problem is even worse. California's Department of Corrections, for example, recently reported that 94 percent of mentally ill parolees returned to prison within two years, versus 57 percent of the parolee population at large. Throughout this destructive cycle, law enforcement and corrections spend time and money trying to cope with the unique problems posed by these individuals. Certainly, some mentally ill offenders must be incarcerated because of the severity of their crimes. Many others who commit very minor offenses could receive appropriate care early on, reducing recidivism and unnecessary burdens on our police and corrections officials, as well as many mentally ill offenders, themselves. That's why, Mr. President, I am introducing America's Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project (LAMP), to begin to identify--early--those who are mentally ill within our justice system and to use the power of the court to assist them in obtaining the treatment they need. This will be a step toward making some of the changes necessary to effectively address the issues surrounding the mentally ill in our justice system. This bill would establish a federal grant program to help states and localities develop ``Mental Health Courts'' in their jurisdictions. These courts would be specialized courts with separate dockets. They would hear cases exclusively involving nonviolent of- fenses committed by mentally ill or retarded individuals. Fundamentally, Mental Health Courts would enable state and local courts to offer alternative sentences or alternatives to prosecution for those offenders who could be served best by mental health services. To deal with the separate needs of mentally ill offenders, these Mental Health Courts would be staffed by a core group of specialized professionals, including a dedicated judge, prosecutor, public defender and court liaison to the mental health service community. The courts would promote efficiency and consistency by centrally managing all outstanding cases involving a mentally ill defendant admitted to the Mental Health Court. The Mental Health Court judge ultimately would decide whether or not to hear each case referred to the court. The Mental Health Court would not deal with defendants unless they are deemed mentally ill by a qualified mental professional or the mental health court judge. Similarly, participation in the court by the mentally ill would be completely voluntary. Once the defendant volunteers for the Mental Health Court, however, he or she would be expected to follow the decision of the court. For instance, in any given case, the Mental Health Court judge, attorneys, and health services liaison may all agree on a plan of treatment as an alternative sentence or in lieu of prosecution. The defendant must adhere strictly to this court-imposed treatment plan. The court must then provide supervision with periodic review. This way, the court could quickly deal with any failure of the defendant to fulfill the treatment plan obligations. In this sense, the Mental Heath Court would function similar to drug courts. Mr. President, the idea of Mental Health Courts is innovative, but not untested. Broward County, Florida, established the nation's first Mental Health Court almost two years ago. This court hears an average of 69 cases per month. Remarkably, Broward's Mental Health Court has been able to link over one-third of all its defendants with community health care providers or private psychiatric help. Notably, less than ten percent of all defendants were deemed inappropriate for mental health court and only eight percent refused community health services. Although a voluntary system, Broward has found that many mentally ill persons do choose to have their cases heard in the Mental Health Court. These defendants don't always know what treatment options are available to them before they fall into the hands of the criminal justice system. A judicial program offering the possibility of effective treatment-- rather than jail time--gives a measure of hope and a chance for rehabilitation to defendants. Other jurisdictions across America have studied the Broward County model and have established their own Mental Health Courts or seek to do so, such as Butler County in my state of Ohio. King County, Washington, also has developed a more expansive Mental Health Court this past year. Our nation's communities are trying desperately to find the best way to cope with the problems associated with mental illness. Law enforcement agencies and correctional facilities simply do not have the means, nor the expertise, to properly treat mentally ill inmates in general. Mental Health Courts offer an alternative. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join in support of this legislation.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise to commend the services of David Sweet, who is ending his term of the Northeast-Midwest Institute's Board of Directors. David is a distinguished Ohioan, who has helped to enhance the economic vitality and environmental quality of my State and the Northeast-Midwest region. Dr. Sweet has been dean of the Levin College of Urban Affairs at Cleveland State University since 1978. He has expanded that institution and developed it into a well-respected research center that focuses on public service. Before joining Cleveland State, David served in several high-ranking positions within Ohio's State government. He was a member of the Public Utilities Commission, director of the Department of Economic and Community Development, chairman of the Ohio Energy Emergency Commission, and secretary of the Ohio Developmental Financing Commission. David actually served four 3-year terms on the Northeast-Midwest Institute's Board of Directors, and he was elected chairman from 1995 to 1998. He has provided stable leadership, offered a wealth of ideas, and advanced the Institute's credibility. The Northeast-Midwest Institute provides policy research for the bipartisan Northeast-Midwest Senate Coalition and its Great Lakes Task Force, which I co-chair with Senator Carl Levin of Michigan. Mr. President, I again want to commend David Sweet for his service on the board of the Northeast-Midwest Institute. He has provided valued counsel and helped increase that organization's reputation and effectiveness.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, it is no secret that drugs and violence destroy lives and families. They also can destroy entire neighborhoods and communities. More and more, our young people--our children--are being exposed to the evils of drugs and the dangers of violence. That is why I am introducing legislation today, along with my colleagues Senators Dodd and Murray, that would reauthorize the Safe and Drug Free Schools program. This program funds a wide range of drug education and prevention activities. Our bill, which was drafted with the assistance of community anti-drug organization representatives, would give states greater flexibility on targeting assistance to schools in need; increase accountability measures to ensure that assistance is targeted to programs that work; and improve coordination of Safe and Drug Free programs with other community-based anti-drug programs. Mr. President, I have dedicated a great deal of time, both in the House and the Senate, to fighting illegal drug use in this country. Way back in 1990, as a Member of the House of Representatives, I was on the National Commission on Drug Free Schools. From my experience on this Commission, and through my work on drug prevention when I was Lieutenant Governor of Ohio, I learned that school-based prevention efforts must be coordinated and consistent during a child's school years. Programs must not have gaps that leave our children vulnerable to the lure of drugs. Throughout my efforts, I always have emphasized the importance of a balanced attack against drug use. We must win the fight against people who manufacture and grow drugs, we must put a stop to those who transport illegal drugs into, and through, this country, and we must fight against the dealers who their trade drugs on our streets and yes, even in our schools. There are many fronts in the important battle against drugs. The Safe and Drug Free Schools program is one area where I think we can improve our efforts. I believe we should continue the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program, but increase the accountability of federally funded programs and focus limited resources on programs that demonstrate an actual reduction in drug use. We must provide parents, schools, and local communities with the resources and flexibility they need to reduce drug use among kids. Every child deserves to live and go to school in a drug and violence- free community. Our bill helps ensure that our children have this opportunity. Congress first passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act--the precursor to the Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Act--in 1986. This legislation was the product of an aggressive, ambitious, and comprehensive anti-drug effort, which contributed to a 25% overall reduction in adolescent drug use from 1988 to 1992. Unfortunately, over the course of this decade, much of that success was lost. Youth drug use increased dramatically, including an 80% increase in marijuana use by high school seniors, an 80% increase in cocaine use, and a 100% increase in heroin use. We must reverse this trend. We have an obligation to our kids to reverse this trend. I believe that our children's disturbing acceptance and experimentation of life-destroying drugs is due in large part to the Administration's national anti-drug strategy, which has been neither balanced nor comprehensive. Reinvesting in an improved Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities program is a critical part of restoring effectiveness in and purpose to our national drug policy. Our legislation would be a major assault against drugs and violence in our schools and communities, by coordinating school-based programs with the broader community anti-drug effort. Children spend more time at school than at any single place. A quality education starts with a quality educational environment. Congress can show its commitment to this goal by continuing--and improving--our investment in the Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Program. Specifically, our bill would increase the accountability within the program and ensure that only effective, researched-based programs receive federal funding. Also, it would provide States and Governors with greater flexibility in targeting their grants to prevent youth violence and drug use. Each state has unique drug prevention challenges and this bill provides the states with the flexibility to target funds to all of their schools, focus on those schools with the greatest drug/violence problems, or a combination of these two groups. Our bill would increase community participation in the development and implementation of drug and violence prevention programs. Drug abuse and violence among young people is a community problem and requires a community-based solution. That's why when we drafted this bill, we worked closely with the Community Anti-Drug Coalition of America. Thanks to their input, this bill ensures that the entire community is involved in the creation and execution of programs to fight youth drug abuse and violence. It would maintain a viable program for all schools willing to conduct research-based violence and drug abuse prevention programs. Mr. President, the threat of violence--and the reality of drug abuse--in our schools are all too real. If we get to our kids before the drug dealers do--if we have a policy of zero tolerance on drugs-- America's children have a chance. I believe that the Safe and Drug Free Schools program empowers America's families and teachers with the information, training, and resources they need to help our children resist the temptation of drugs. Over the coming months, we will be reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The Safe and Drug Free is an important part of that legislation. I look forward to working on this bill and making this country's schools safer and drug free for our kids. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be entered into the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, it is no secret that drugs and violence destroy lives and families. They also can destroy entire neighborhoods and communities. More and more, our young people--our children--are being exposed to the evils of drugs and the dangers of violence. That is why I am introducing legislation today, along with my colleagues Senators Dodd and Murray, that would reauthorize the Safe and Drug Free Schools program. This program funds a wide range of drug education and prevention activities. Our bill, which was drafted with the assistance of community anti-drug organization representatives, would give states greater flexibility on targeting assistance to schools in need; increase accountability measures to ensure that assistance is targeted to programs that work; and improve coordination of Safe and Drug Free programs with other community-based anti-drug programs. Mr. President, I have dedicated a great deal of time, both in the House and the Senate, to fighting illegal drug use in this country. Way back in 1990, as a Member of the House of Representatives, I was on the National Commission on Drug Free Schools. From my experience on this Commission, and through my work on drug prevention when I was Lieutenant Governor of Ohio, I learned that school-based prevention efforts must be coordinated and consistent during a child's school years. Programs must not have gaps that leave our children vulnerable to the lure of drugs. Throughout my efforts, I always have emphasized the importance of a balanced attack against drug use. We must win the fight against people who manufacture and grow drugs, we must put a stop to those who transport illegal drugs into, and through, this country, and we must fight against the dealers who their trade drugs on our streets and yes, even in our schools. There are many fronts in the important battle against drugs. The Safe and Drug Free Schools program is one area where I think we can improve our efforts. I believe we should continue the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program, but increase the accountability of federally funded programs and focus limited resources on programs that demonstrate an actual reduction in drug use. We must provide parents, schools, and local communities with the resources and flexibility they need to reduce drug use among kids. Every child deserves to live and go to school in a drug and violence- free community. Our bill helps ensure that our children have this opportunity. Congress first passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act--the precursor to the Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Act--in 1986. This legislation was the product of an aggressive, ambitious, and comprehensive anti-drug effort, which contributed to a 25% overall reduction in adolescent drug use from 1988 to 1992. Unfortunately, over the course of this decade, much of that success was lost. Youth drug use increased dramatically, including an 80% increase in marijuana use by high school seniors, an 80% increase in cocaine use, and a 100% increase in heroin use. We must reverse this trend. We have an obligation to our kids to reverse this trend. I believe that our children's disturbing acceptance and experimentation of life-destroying drugs is due in large part to the Administration's national anti-drug strategy, which has been neither balanced nor comprehensive. Reinvesting in an improved Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities program is a critical part of restoring effectiveness in and purpose to our national drug policy. Our legislation would be a major assault against drugs and violence in our schools and communities, by coordinating school-based programs with the broader community anti-drug effort. Children spend more time at school than at any single place. A quality education starts with a quality educational environment. Congress can show its commitment to this goal by continuing--and improving--our investment in the Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Program. Specifically, our bill would increase the accountability within the program and ensure that only effective, researched-based programs receive federal funding. Also, it would provide States and Governors with greater flexibility in targeting their grants to prevent youth violence and drug use. Each state has unique drug prevention challenges and this bill provides the states with the flexibility to target funds to all of their schools, focus on those schools with the greatest drug/violence problems, or a combination of these two groups. Our bill would increase community participation in the development and implementation of drug and violence prevention programs. Drug abuse and violence among young people is a community problem and requires a community-based solution. That's why when we drafted this bill, we worked closely with the Community Anti-Drug Coalition of America. Thanks to their input, this bill ensures that the entire community is involved in the creation and execution of programs to fight youth drug abuse and violence. It would maintain a viable program for all schools willing to conduct research-based violence and drug abuse prevention programs. Mr. President, the threat of violence--and the reality of drug abuse--in our schools are all too real. If we get to our kids before the drug dealers do--if we have a policy of zero tolerance on drugs-- America's children have a chance. I believe that the Safe and Drug Free Schools program empowers America's families and teachers with the information, training, and resources they need to help our children resist the temptation of drugs. Over the coming months, we will be reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The Safe and Drug Free is an important part of that legislation. I look forward to working on this bill and making this country's schools safer and drug free for our kids. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be entered into the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Minnesota for his courtesy. I say to him and the Senator from California, I plan on speaking probably 12 minutes. Yesterday, I filed an amendment to H.R. 434, the African Growth and Opportunity Act, which amendment would improve our Nation's ability to retaliate against illegal trade practices by foreign governments. Despite efforts to reduce European trade barriers against American agriculture, despite repeated rulings by international trade bodies that European trade barriers are illegal, there still remains a ``fortress Europe'' mentality against free and fair trade. The amendment I have filed is designed to strengthen the one and only allowable weapon in our arsenal against WTO noncompliance, the only weapon we have when a country is found to be in violation of the WTO and repeatedly refuses to comply. The only weapon we have, the only method of forcing compliance, is tariff retaliation. The amendment I filed enjoys widespread bipartisan support. In fact, the bill I filed is similar to the amendment and now has 24 sponsors. It is bipartisan. This amendment has strong backing by our very diverse agricultural community, and this is certainly no surprise. Ask any corn grower or cattle producer or pork producer. They know and understand their well- being depends on expanding our export markets. We have the greatest agriculture in the world. We do it more efficiently and cheaper and better than anyone in the world today. All our farmers say is: Give us a chance to sell; give us a chance to compete. That is what this amendment is about. It is my hope the Senate, by adopting this amendment, will take a stand for our farmers and ranchers and send a strong signal to the European Union that their gross violations of international trade law simply must stop. Specifically, the European Union, despite years of efforts to find a fair solution, continues to defy the World Trade Organization's rulings against its ban on U.S. beef imports and its banana import rules. Both cases are important not just for the specific producers and the distributors impacted by these two cases, but it is important for every American business, particularly small businesses, seeking a fair shot at the European market. To appreciate the magnitude of Europe's current actions against American agriculture, it is important to put it in the context of recent history. Both these specific trade cases took several years to work through the WTO and were undertaken at great expense to the U.S. Government, and the producers in the businesses are at the heart of this dispute. Here are the essential facts. This is the story. The E.U. first imposed their ban on U.S. beef with growth hormones in 1985 and officially banned all U.S. beef in 1989. When the United States sought rulings on this ban, either through the WTO or the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade process, the result was the same: The E.U.'s ban was found to be without merit and in violation of international trade rules. That was the ruling repeatedly, time after time. First through the GATT process and then through the WTO, the results were the same. In other words, the WTO, and before that the GATT, found against the European Union for violating trade laws. However, in spite of these repeated rulings, the E.U. has refused to comply, and to this very day, to this hour, to this minute, they continue to refuse to comply. In spite of these rulings, the E.U. has refused to change its practices. In spite of these rulings, they continue to thumb their nose at the WTO decision. The real question is whether or not the WTO rulings are enforceable, do they mean anything, and every nation that is a member of the WTO has a vested interest in making sure the rulings are enforceable, they do mean something, and they do matter. That is what this amendment is about. In the face of noncompliance by the E.U., the United States only has one remedy, and that remedy is tariff retaliation. We have no other way to go. This is prescribed, it is allowed, and it is provided for in the WTO rules. This is the only recourse a country has when another country refuses to comply. Under current WTO rules, the United States can retaliate against a beef ban by imposing tariffs on European imports at a total amount equal to the amount of financial pain being inflicted on our U.S. beef industry. The WTO determined in this particular case that the E.U. beef ban was inflicting $116.8 million per year in economic damages to U.S. farmers. Although the WTO's $116 million figure is significant, our cattle industry strongly believes this is a very conservative estimate. They believe the actual impact is closer to $1 billion annually. Let me talk for a few moments about the other case, the banana case. With bananas, the E.U. imposed import quotas and licenses in the early 1990s. While the United States produces bananas in Hawaii, we also have a significant stake in the distribution and sale of bananas domestically and internationally. Seven times, the WTO ruled that the European Union's attempts to obstruct U.S. banana distribution violated WTO rules--seven different rulings. The WTO determined that the banana policy of the E.U. is resulting in $191.4 million worth of economic damage annually to U.S. interests. Again, the impacted U.S. companies believe the actual damage is more than $1 billion annually. Again, the United States, with regard to bananas, as was the case with beef, has the authority to impose retaliatory tariffs against E.U. products. Let me recap where we are in the story. With both bananas and beef, the European Union repeatedly has been in violation of the WTO rulings. The European Union has refused, in spite of these rulings, to change its policies. The WTO procedures provide a waiting period of 15 months for a nation that is found to be in violation of rules to comply. In other words, nothing happens--even as the ruling comes out, nothing happens for 15 months. What happened here in 15 months was nothing, absolutely nothing. The European Union, again, continued for that 15-month period of time not to comply. On the beef and banana cases, we waited these 15 months, and the European Union still didn't comply. So at that point, the United States simply had no choice but to impose tariffs in retaliation--tariffs that are fully allowed under the WTO. The purpose for allowing the United States to impose tariffs is, of course, to compel compliance with the WTO rulings. It has been 6 months since tariffs on European imports were imposed in response to the banana case, and it has been 3 months since tariffs were imposed in response to the beef ban. So we had the 15-month waiting period. We had some other time that elapsed, and then we had the 6 months and the 3 months in the banana and beef cases. After all this, are the Europeans making any effort to comply with either ruling? We know the answer. The answer is, no, on both counts. They still are not in compliance, and they still give absolutely no indication that they are going to come into compliance. This is not just about beef. It is very important. It is not just about bananas. It is about whether the WTO is going to mean anything. And it is whether or not the rulings of the WTO are going to mean anything. I think we have to look at the big picture and put this in perspective. While the European Union, the E.U., continues its fortress mentality and thumbs its nose at the WTO rulings, other WTO member nations finding themselves on the wrong side of a WTO ruling have acted responsibly. Members of the Senate may ask: Well, what has happened in other cases when other countries have been found to be in noncompliance, to have violated the WTO, and the ruling has come down, and they lost their case and they have lost their appeal? What have they done? The answer is, they have done what you would expect them to do. They have complied. The United States has lost four separate WTO cases. In each case, after losing, we complied. Canada has lost and they complied. Korea lost and Korea complied. Japan lost and Japan complied. Everybody but the E.U.--all of these countries that lost their cases came into compliance. In fact, every nation found in violation of a WTO ruling has come into compliance--every nation--except for the nations of the European Union. Retaliation is the only authorized tool to bring a country into compliance with WTO rulings. That is the point of this amendment, to make this authorized retaliation more effective and to get the job done. What is a nation to do if its current list of imports subject to retaliatory tariffs is not working to move the offender such as the E.U. into compliance? The solution, I believe, is to seek other products to target and at tariff levels that will impose the kind of pain that will cause the European Union to see compliance as the remedy. This is a process known as ``carouseling.'' That is what this amendment is about. In both the case with bananas and the case with beef, we came forward with a list of products that we were retaliating against and the duties were imposed. Nothing has happened. What our amendment provides--and I will discuss this in greater detail later when I formally offer this amendment--is that if the first list of items on which we are imposing tariffs to retaliate against the E.U., quite candidly, does not inflict enough pain to get their attention, then we need to carousel or change the list. The amendment provides that at least one of the items must be changed. It provides that many can be changed, but at least one has to be changed. The whole idea is, if this is the only way we can get their attention, the only remedy we have, the only tool we have, the only stick we have is this type of retaliation, we must make sure it is effective and we must make sure the correct products are being chosen on which to inflict the pain to get the attention of the E.U. That is what this amendment is all about. It is a rather modest amendment, but it is an amendment that we believe will significantly make a difference. To date, the administration has refused to carousel products in either case. They do have, currently, the authority to do it, although they are not compelled to do it. As long as the E.U. remains unwilling to comply with WTO rulings, it becomes more imperative that the tool of retaliation be used effectively. Our amendment would do that by requiring the United States to change retaliation lists periodically to inflict pressure, pain, on the noncomplying party to comply--in this case, the E.U. The ramifications of the E.U.'s noncompliance with the entire WTO dispute settlement process is staggering. If the E.U. is successful, if they get away with this, then we can expect them to continue this tactic on other products and other commodities, and the entire WTO process will mean nothing, at least as far as the E.U. is concerned. The issue today is beef and bananas, but tomorrow it could be grains, apples, peaches, potatoes, perhaps even computers. Who knows? A lot is at stake. We must ensure our retaliation does, in fact, result in compliance. We must ensure that it works. This amendment would require the carouseling--or the rotating--of products on a list of goods subject to retaliation when a foreign country or countries have failed to comply with a previous WTO ruling. This amendment would help ensure the integrity of the WTO dispute settlement process because it would provide the U.S. Trade Representative with a powerful mechanism to place considerable pressure on noncomplying countries to actually comply. In conclusion, it is my hope that in the near future, my fellow cosponsors and I will have an opportunity to have a more detailed discussion of this amendment and the issues involved and that the Senate will overwhelmingly approve our amendment. It is time, frankly, to break down the barriers of fortress Europe in the name of fairness for American farmers. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. And I do thank my colleague from Minnesota for his courtesy. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Let me also ask, then, what is the meaning of the word ``intact,'' as used in the amendment where it refers to an ``intact'' living fetus? Intact?