Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business for 15 minutes.

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me first thank my friend from Missouri, Senator Bond, and my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski. They have produced, I believe, under some very tough, difficult circumstances, a very excellent, very fair, and very balanced bill. Members of the Senate are certainly indebted to them for the tremendous work they have put in and the product they have produced. The amendment I have just sent to the desk is a very commonsense amendment. In fact, I believe it really builds upon the very commonsense language included in the VA-HUD appropriation bill committee report. That part of the committee report states the committee is concerned about the duplication of work being performed throughout the NASA field centers. It instructs NASA, by April 15 of the year 2000, to produce a preliminary action plan to map out what each of the field center's future roles and responsibilities will be. The most important part of this report language states: NASA should identify where a center has or is expected to develop the same or similar expertise and capacity as another center, including justification for this need. I do not believe, at a time when NASA's overall funding is increasing, NASA should be duplicating any capabilities that already exist at one center at a different center. It just makes no sense. This really defies logic. My amendment would simply prevent NASA from spending any money to duplicate capabilities that already exist. Let me say in conclusion, I appreciate that the authors of this bill are willing to accept this amendment. Let me pledge to the authors of the bill, I will continue to work with them and continue to work with NASA to resolve this issue.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Senator Voinovich be added to this amendment and the subsequent amendment I will offer in a moment.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, again the chairman and ranking member have indicated they accept this amendment. I appreciate their consideration very much. I want to say in regard to the previous amendment, I appreciate the comments. I am sure this is a matter that can be resolved in consultation with NASA. We are all trying to achieve the same thing. I fully expect this will be done.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon on behalf of my colleague, Senator Hagel, as well as Majority Leader Lott, Senator Akaka, Senator Inouye, Senator Roberts, Senator Bunning, Senator Voinovich, Senator Dorgan, and Senator Conrad, to introduce the Carousel Retaliation Act of 1999. This bill would create a powerful mechanism to protect our Nation from illegal foreign trade practices. These are the facts. Today, our Nation is being injured by the refusal of some foreign countries to comply with World Trade Organization, WTO, dispute settlement rulings. Let me repeat that. Other countries are failing to comply with the rulings of the WTO. As many of my colleagues know, the WTO has a very detailed process for handling trade disputes between member nations. Unfortunately, some member nations are simply undermining this entire process by refusing to comply with the final dispute settlement decision, even after losing their cases on appeal. Noncompliance with dispute settlement rulings severely undermines open and fair trade. As many of our farmers, cattle ranchers, and large and small businessowners know firsthand, this is having a devastating impact on their efforts and attempt to maintain or gain access to important new international markets. In an effort to secure compliance, the dispute settlement process provides the winning nation the authority to retaliate. The winning nation, after a decision has been made, can legally retaliate. That is what the provision is; they can retaliate against that losing nation. They can do so if, at the end of a reasonable period of time, the losing country does not abide by the final decision. Retaliation usually begins with the estimation of damages caused by the refusal, followed then by WTO authorization to impose penalty duties on the offending country's exports. However, even with retaliation, some nations are still refusing to comply. The European Union has made it clear that it is willing to live in perpetuity with the present U.S. retaliation lists, which is why the WTO ruled in both the pending beef and banana trade cases that the United States can impose retaliatory tariffs on European imports. We are doing that. Moreover, they are entertaining the possibility of subsidizing their affected domestic targets to counter our WTO- authorized action. Not only are they ignoring what the ruling was, not only are they ignoring our retaliation, now they are turning around and preparing to subsidize these particular products. Both of these trade cases that I have mentioned took several long years to work through the dispute settlement system and were undertaken, frankly, at great expense to the U.S. Government and to the private sector in our country. The European Union's actions are establishing a very dangerous precedent. If they are successful, then other nations can be expected to follow a similar course. Something simply must be done. Something must be done to increase the likelihood of compliance, or we risk losing more than a WTO case; we risk losing American jobs. Therefore, it is important that the WTO's dispute settlement process be strengthened. That is what this bill does, and that is what we are talking about today. Our proposed Carousel Retaliation Act will help ensure the integrity of the WTO settlement dispute process because it will provide a powerful mechanism that will place considerable pressure on noncompliant countries to comply. The measure will shake these noncompliant countries up and it will complicate any effort they undertake to counter U.S. retaliatory measures. Specifically, our bill would amend the U.S. Trade Act of 1974 by requiring the U.S. Trade Representative to periodically carousel--or rotate--the list of goods subject to retaliation when a foreign country or countries have failed to comply with a WTO ruling. Let me add that this is very clearly consistent with WTO rules. Under our bill, the retaliation list would be carouseled, or rotated, to affect other goods 120 days from the date the first list is made, and then every 180 days thereafter. The bill provides the U.S. Trade Representative the authority to make exceptions. The representative would not have to do this if, 1, it could be determined that compliance is imminent; or, 2, if both the U.S. Trade Representative and the affected petitioners agree that carouseling in that particular case is not necessary. Currently, the U.S. Trade Representative has the authority to carousel retaliation lists, but is not required to do so. What our bill does is change the law and requires the Trade Representative to do this. The WTO is one of the most important means for American businesses and producers to open foreign markets, liberalize commerce, resolve disputes, and ensure more open and fair trade. American farmers and agribusiness, for example, are major net exporters, posting exports of more than $57 billion in 1997. But frankly we can do more and better, and we must. Of the nearly 50 complaints filed by the United States in the WTO, almost 30 percent involved agriculture. If countries fail to comply with WTO rulings, American agriculture and other U.S. sectors in need of trade relief will suffer greatly. The American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the American Meat Institute, the U.S. Meat Export Federation, and the Hawaii Banana Industry Association support the bill. The ``Carousel Retaliation Act,'' candidly, is tough, but it is meant to be tough. It is the right response to chronic noncompliance with WTO rules. Again, I commend my colleague, Senator Hagel, who is on the floor at this moment, and Senators Lott, Akaka, Inouye, Roberts, Bunning, Voinovich, Dorgan, and Conrad for their dedication to this issue. I urge my colleagues to join this effort to protect our Nation from illegal foreign trade practices and cosponsor the ``Carousel Retaliation Act.'' I thank the Chair. I see my colleague from Nebraska is on the floor. I suspect he would like to talk about this bill as well. Thank you very much. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon on behalf of my colleague, Senator Hagel, as well as Majority Leader Lott, Senator Akaka, Senator Inouye, Senator Roberts, Senator Bunning, Senator Voinovich, Senator Dorgan, and Senator Conrad, to introduce the Carousel Retaliation Act of 1999. This bill would create a powerful mechanism to protect our Nation from illegal foreign trade practices. These are the facts. Today, our Nation is being injured by the refusal of some foreign countries to comply with World Trade Organization, WTO, dispute settlement rulings. Let me repeat that. Other countries are failing to comply with the rulings of the WTO. As many of my colleagues know, the WTO has a very detailed process for handling trade disputes between member nations. Unfortunately, some member nations are simply undermining this entire process by refusing to comply with the final dispute settlement decision, even after losing their cases on appeal. Noncompliance with dispute settlement rulings severely undermines open and fair trade. As many of our farmers, cattle ranchers, and large and small businessowners know firsthand, this is having a devastating impact on their efforts and attempt to maintain or gain access to important new international markets. In an effort to secure compliance, the dispute settlement process provides the winning nation the authority to retaliate. The winning nation, after a decision has been made, can legally retaliate. That is what the provision is; they can retaliate against that losing nation. They can do so if, at the end of a reasonable period of time, the losing country does not abide by the final decision. Retaliation usually begins with the estimation of damages caused by the refusal, followed then by WTO authorization to impose penalty duties on the offending country's exports. However, even with retaliation, some nations are still refusing to comply. The European Union has made it clear that it is willing to live in perpetuity with the present U.S. retaliation lists, which is why the WTO ruled in both the pending beef and banana trade cases that the United States can impose retaliatory tariffs on European imports. We are doing that. Moreover, they are entertaining the possibility of subsidizing their affected domestic targets to counter our WTO- authorized action. Not only are they ignoring what the ruling was, not only are they ignoring our retaliation, now they are turning around and preparing to subsidize these particular products. Both of these trade cases that I have mentioned took several long years to work through the dispute settlement system and were undertaken, frankly, at great expense to the U.S. Government and to the private sector in our country. The European Union's actions are establishing a very dangerous precedent. If they are successful, then other nations can be expected to follow a similar course. Something simply must be done. Something must be done to increase the likelihood of compliance, or we risk losing more than a WTO case; we risk losing American jobs. Therefore, it is important that the WTO's dispute settlement process be strengthened. That is what this bill does, and that is what we are talking about today. Our proposed Carousel Retaliation Act will help ensure the integrity of the WTO settlement dispute process because it will provide a powerful mechanism that will place considerable pressure on noncompliant countries to comply. The measure will shake these noncompliant countries up and it will complicate any effort they undertake to counter U.S. retaliatory measures. Specifically, our bill would amend the U.S. Trade Act of 1974 by requiring the U.S. Trade Representative to periodically carousel--or rotate--the list of goods subject to retaliation when a foreign country or countries have failed to comply with a WTO ruling. Let me add that this is very clearly consistent with WTO rules. Under our bill, the retaliation list would be carouseled, or rotated, to affect other goods 120 days from the date the first list is made, and then every 180 days thereafter. The bill provides the U.S. Trade Representative the authority to make exceptions. The representative would not have to do this if, 1, it could be determined that compliance is imminent; or, 2, if both the U.S. Trade Representative and the affected petitioners agree that carouseling in that particular case is not necessary. Currently, the U.S. Trade Representative has the authority to carousel retaliation lists, but is not required to do so. What our bill does is change the law and requires the Trade Representative to do this. The WTO is one of the most important means for American businesses and producers to open foreign markets, liberalize commerce, resolve disputes, and ensure more open and fair trade. American farmers and agribusiness, for example, are major net exporters, posting exports of more than $57 billion in 1997. But frankly we can do more and better, and we must. Of the nearly 50 complaints filed by the United States in the WTO, almost 30 percent involved agriculture. If countries fail to comply with WTO rulings, American agriculture and other U.S. sectors in need of trade relief will suffer greatly. The American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the American Meat Institute, the U.S. Meat Export Federation, and the Hawaii Banana Industry Association support the bill. The ``Carousel Retaliation Act,'' candidly, is tough, but it is meant to be tough. It is the right response to chronic noncompliance with WTO rules. Again, I commend my colleague, Senator Hagel, who is on the floor at this moment, and Senators Lott, Akaka, Inouye, Roberts, Bunning, Voinovich, Dorgan, and Conrad for their dedication to this issue. I urge my colleagues to join this effort to protect our Nation from illegal foreign trade practices and cosponsor the ``Carousel Retaliation Act.'' I thank the Chair. I see my colleague from Nebraska is on the floor. I suspect he would like to talk about this bill as well. Thank you very much. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to talk for a few moments about the Transportation appropriations bill we just passed and about one major component of that bill, and that is the U.S. Coast Guard. I rise this afternoon to make one point very clear. The U.S. Coast Guard needs our help and needs our support. The future of the Coast Guard depends on a continued congressional commitment to provide adequate resources to the Coast Guard to carry out its very important mission. Now, Congress--only in the last few years, with the leadership of a number of my colleagues--has begun to devote resources toward rebuilding the readiness of the Coast Guard. But we have to understand that this is a continuous process. These investments we have made have come at a time when we have seen the missions of this important agency increase and expand. Let me pause to congratulate Senators Shelby, Lautenberg, and the rest of the committee. They have been very supportive of the Coast Guard and have worked very hard to come up with the very scarce dollars that are needed for the Coast Guard. I appreciate their work. I understand very well that they know and understand the challenges the Coast Guard faces. They have supported investments in the Coast Guard and understand the important role it plays in fighting drug trafficking. I also know that in crafting the Transportation appropriations bill, my colleagues were faced with very difficult budget constraints. It is essential, however, that our overall investment in the Coast Guard keeps pace with the demands we are now placing on the Coast Guard and that we build on the recent successes we have seen in regard to the Coast Guard. We simply, as a Congress and as a Nation, in very tough and difficult budget times, must make funding for the Coast Guard a top priority. It is obvious why a Senator from Ohio would have an interest in the Coast Guard. In my home State of Ohio, the Ninth Coast Guard District performs many vital functions critical to human safety and economic development. With more than 2.3 million of America's 11.5 million recreational boaters residing in the Great Lakes region, the Ninth Coast Guard District search and rescue units handle close to 7,500 cases annually, saving hundreds and hundreds of lives. Further, to facilitate commerce on the Great Lakes during the winter months, Coast Guard cutters work closely with the Canadian Coast Guard to clear the way for approximately $62 million worth of commercial cargo annually. This Ninth District also maintains more than 3,300 buoys, navigational lights, and fixed aids throughout this critical shipping region. In addition to this role of the Coast Guard in my State of Ohio, it plays a significant role in the international drug fight. This may not be what people have historically thought about regarding the Coast Guard, but let me tell you, based on my own experience in going out with the Coast Guard and seeing what they do, if we give them the money, if we give them the resources, they are not only capable but they are willing and eager to go out and fight our antidrug battle for us. To quantify it, because of the Coast Guard, each year close to $3 billion worth of drugs never reach our neighborhoods, never reach our schools, and never reach our children. They are stopped before they get there, and they are stopped by our Coast Guard. I have spoken on the Senate floor on several occasions in the past about U.S. counternarcotics policy. I have spoken about the Coast Guard's ability to enforce that policy. As I have said before, I believe we need a balanced program to attack the drug problem on all fronts. We need to invest in domestic reduction and law enforcement programs. But we also need to invest in international programs to increase interdiction and reduce production of illegal narcotics, and we need to do our best to stop drugs from ever reaching our shores. A balanced program means international drug interdiction. It means domestic law enforcement. It also means prevention, education, and treatment. We have to do all of these, and we have to do all of them all the time. Sadly, though, for the last 7 years this administration has pursued an antidrug strategy that I believe is clearly out of balance--a strategy that has failed to reverse a dramatic rise in youth drug use and a strategy that has allowed drug trafficking organizations to become a dominant source of political instability in Latin America and countries to our south. Before the Clinton administration took office, almost a third of our entire antidrug Federal budget was committed to stopping drugs from ever getting into our borders--international drug interdiction and eradication. We invested in a 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week antidrug operation in the Caribbean. It worked. Drug prices increased and drug consumption went down. But tragically this all changed in 1993 when the Clinton administration came into power and began to change things. Our counternarcotics budget dedicated to international eradication and interdiction efforts went from one-third of the total budget in the late 1980s and early 1990s to less than 14 percent by 1995. This change in policy meant significant cuts in the Coast Guard. In fact, Coast Guard funding for counternarcotics decreased from $443 million in 1992 to $301 million in 1995, almost a one-third reduction. As a consequence, the number of ship days that were devoted to overall counterdrug activities declined from 4,872 in 1991 to 1,649 in 1994--a huge decrease. As a result, with the reduced Coast Guard presence, more and more drugs are making their way into our country through the Caribbean. That is the main reason why drugs are more affordable. It is also one of the reasons why youth drug use in this country is dramatically higher now than at the beginning of the Clinton administration. Last year, as I have shared with Members of the Senate before, I saw firsthand what the Coast Guard can do. I went with the Coast Guard to see the counterdrug operations off the coast of Haiti, off the coast of the Dominican Republic, and off the coast of Puerto Rico. These personal visits convinced me that the Coast Guard can do more if we simply provide the right levels of material and manpower to fight drug trafficking. They are ready to do it. They just need the resources. These visits also convinced me that this Congress had to address the state of drug-fighting readiness in our country. Thanks to the majority leader, Senator Lott, thanks to the Senate Appropriations Committee, and thanks to my colleagues, Senator Coverdell, Senator Graham of Florida, Congressman McCollum, and Speaker Hastert, who all share my dedication to fighting drugs, we passed, last year, the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act. This act authorizes a $2.7 billion, 3-year investment to rebuild our drug-fighting capability outside our borders to stop drugs, quite frankly, where it is easiest to stop them--at the source and in transit. This new law that Congress passed is about reclaiming the Federal Government's sole responsibility to prevent drugs from ever reaching our borders. Last year, Congress made an $800 million downpayment for this initiative, including $375 million for the Coast Guard. Why is it significant? It is significant because international drug interdiction--stopping drugs at the border, stopping them on the high seas, stopping them at the source--is the sole responsibility of the Federal Government. It is not a shared responsibility with the States or the local communities. Every other facet of our antidrug effort-- whether it is treatment, prevention, education, or domestic law enforcement--are all shared responsibilities between us in Congress, the President, the Federal Government, and the local communities. But when we are talking about stopping drugs on the high seas, when we are talking about funding the Coast Guard, that is solely the responsibility of this body, the House, and the President of the United States. This year, thanks to this added investment that Congress made last year for the Coast Guard, we are seeing results. Just this week, the national media has focused, highlighted, and put considerable attention on the Coast Guard's successful use of force capability to disable the drug trade's ``go-fast'' boats. These are boats I have talked about before on the Senate floor. These ``go-fast'' boats are souped-up motorboats capable of outrunning most ships in the Coast Guard fleet. They now carry more than 85 percent of all maritime drug shipments--85 percent goes in these ``go-fast'' boats. These boats typically carry drug shipments from the northern coast of Colombia, for example, to the southern tip of Haiti, to the southern tip of that great island, Hispaniola. Drug traders use the boats along the coasts of the United States to pick up drugs dropped into the ocean by small aircraft. The Coast Guard traditionally has been cautious in using lethal airpower to stop these boats due to the high likelihood of casualties. But thanks to a combination of technology and funding from this Congress, the Coast Guard has now demonstrated success in being able to target precisely the engines of ``go-fast'' boats and forcibly disable them, thus allowing the capture of the perpetrators and the ceasing of the illicit cargo, all while minimizing the risk to human life. It is because of these and other operations that cocaine seizures are now at an all-time high of 53 tons, with a street value of $3.7 billion. We must continue to invest in Coast Guard readiness if we are to see this kind of success over the long run. It has been a challenge for Congress, given the fact the administration has not made readiness and well-being of the Coast Guard a national priority. The fact is, despite the recent successes, readiness remains a problem. According to Adm. James Loy, Commandant of the Coast Guard, the Coast Guard is being stretched very thin. Aircraft deployments have more than doubled, with helicopter deployments increasing by more than 25 percent. These increases did not happen with extra manpower and resources. These increases were achieved by working existing crews harder. In some cases, crews were working continuous 72-hour shifts. The Pacific area alone increased its temporary duty travel by 70 percent just to maintain the pace of routine operations. So what we are saying is that we are asking the Coast Guard to do more. We began to give them significant resources last year. They are doing more. They are having successes. But unless we continue to support the Coast Guard, unless we continue to give them the resources they need, they will not be able to do the job we are asking them to do. It is as simple as that. In placing these additional demands upon our service members, we have to worry about safety. I understand lost workdays and shore injuries are up 29 percent and aircraft ground mishaps are up almost 50 percent from previous years. This is something we need to be concerned about. We are talking about human lives. Further, downtime of air and marine craft is on the rise. The demands on the Coast Guard are simply not decreasing; they are increasing. They have to have our support. This is why I will continue to call for the strongest investment possible for our Coast Guard. I applaud my colleagues who worked with me, including the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Coverdell, and the Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham, who stepped up to the challenge to gain additional investments last year. They and others in the House and the Senate and our Appropriations Committee particularly in the Senate deserve a great deal of the credit for the recent successes we are seeing in drug interdiction. These successes simply would not have happened but for what Congress did last year. However, this is not a one-shot deal. This is not something we can do in 1 year and think it is done. We have to continue year after year. The additional 1999 funding is simply not the sole cure. It is just the downpayment. We must have a sustained, multiyear effort if we expect our Coast Guard to be able to meet daily challenges and if we expect them to provide the critical services the American people expect and demand. Unless we continue with the investments we began least year, we will be sending a signal to the drug lords that this is just a temporary, maybe even a headline-grabbing effort, a politically expedient exercise. In fact, the writing is on the wall. If we fail to maintain and build on our support for the Coast Guard, these drug dealers will not believe we are serious and the Coast Guard will not be able to continue the current level of counterdrug operations in the future. The bottom line is we need to continue more resources. I applaud the efforts of my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee. I know they tried to allocate a more sizable portion of the budget. They were faced with daunting challenges. As a Congress and as a people we must do more. We have to. As further opportunities in this Congress present themselves, we must take those opportunities and try to provide additional funds. As I said, adequate funding for the Coast Guard should be a top national priority. So much hinges on it. I urge my colleagues to join me in sending a message to all of the hard-working men and women of the U.S. Coast Guard that we do not take them for granted. We will continue to make sure they have the tools necessary to accomplish the many demanding missions we ask of them on behalf of our country.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am troubled today. I am troubled because I find myself standing on the Senate floor once again raising an issue that cuts to the very core of human cruelty and moral disregard. I have stood here before, many of my colleagues have stood here before, repeatedly speaking about my strong belief that the partial-birth abortion procedure is wrong. Not only is it wrong, it is evil. The procedure is a reprehensible act of human violence, violence against a human being. I recently stood here not too many weeks ago and told Members of the Senate about a helpless baby named ``Hope.'' On April 6, 1999, Baby Hope's mother entered a Dayton, OH, abortion clinic with the intention of having her pregnancy terminated through a partial-birth abortion. However, the abortion did not succeed. Here is what happened: Dr. Haskell, who we have heard so much about on the Senate floor, the infamous Dayton abortionist, started the procedure as usual by inserting instruments known as laminaria into the woman and by applying seaweed. This process is supposed to slowly dilate the cervix so the child eventually can be removed and killed. That is the procedure. That is what they do. After this initial step, in this particular instance, Dr. Haskell sent the woman home because it usually takes 2 or 3 days before the baby can be removed from the womb and the abortion completed. Expecting to return in 2 or 3 days, this woman followed the doctor's orders and went home to Cincinnati. Soon after she left the abortion clinic, her cervix started dilating too quickly, causing her to go into labor. Shortly after midnight, on the first day of the procedure, she entered the hospital and gave birth to a very much alive but very tiny baby. The neonatologist determined that Baby Hope's lungs were too underdeveloped to sustain life without the help of a respirator. Baby Hope, however, was not placed on a respirator. Instead, the poor, defenseless creature was left to die only a little more than 3 hours after birth. I am back on the floor again today because we now, tragically, have another example of a partial-birth abortion in Ohio that did not go according to the abortionist's plan, this one occurring on August 19, a couple of weeks ago. The Dayton Daily News reported this incident. The procedure was again at the hands of Dr. Haskell. Here, too, he started the barbaric procedure by dilating the mother's cervix. Similarly, this woman went into labor only 1 hour later, was admitted to Good Samaritan Hospital, and gave birth to a baby girl a short time later. This time, however, a miracle occurred. This little baby lived. A medical technician appropriately named this precious little ``Baby Grace.'' After her birth, she was transferred to a neonatal intensive care unit at Children's Hospital in Dayton. The Montgomery County Children's Services Board has temporary, interim custody of little Baby Grace. She likely will face months of hospitalization and possible lifelong complications, we don't know, all resulting from being premature and the induced abortion. I am appalled and sickened by the fact that both of these partial- birth abortions occurred anywhere. I am particularly offended by the fact they occurred in my home State of Ohio. But wherever they occur, it is a human tragedy. I have said this before and I will say it again; the partial-birth abortion should be outlawed. Partial-birth abortion should be outlawed in our civilized society. When we hear about the brutal death of Baby Hope and we think about the miracle of Baby Grace, we have to stop and ask, to what depths have we sunk in this country? Partial-birth abortion is a very clear matter of right and wrong, good versus evil. It is my wish there will come a day, I hope and pray, when I no longer have to come to this Senate floor and talk about partial-birth abortions. Until that day arrives, the day when the procedure has been outlawed in our country, I must continue to plead for the protection of unborn fetuses threatened by partial-birth abortions. In the name of Baby Hope, let's stop the killing. In the name of Baby Grace, let's protect the living. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

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

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

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Michigan. I join in his comments. We have heard talk on the floor about the environment. I want to talk, though, about another aspect of this, and it is the aspect my friend from Michigan has just been talking about. That is the question of highway safety. I vehemently oppose this amendment. We are dealing with a question of lives. The basic facts are that heavier cars, heavier vehicles are safer, and the statistics are absolutely abundantly clear. I will share some statistics with the Members of the Senate so everyone knows exactly on what we are voting. An analysis by the Insurance Institute shows that cars weighing less than 2,500 pounds had 214 deaths per million vehicles per year. That is almost double the rate of vehicles that weigh 4,000 pounds or more. For vehicles that weigh 4,000 pounds or more, the death rate was 111 per million. For cars weighing less than 2,500 pounds, that was 214 deaths per million. It is double, absolutely double the figure. The reality is that the majority of car fatalities in this country today occur in single vehicle crashes. To determine what costs lives and what does not, it is essential and important to look at single car weights and death rates. I share another statistic with my colleagues, again, to emphasize what we are saying. This is not just an ``environmental issue.'' This is not just an ``easy environmental vote.'' This is a question of life and death that we can measure. Among utility vehicles, the results are even more pronounced. For those weighing less than 2,500 pounds, the death rate per million was 83. That was almost double the rate of 44 for cars weighing 4,000 pounds or more. So again, under 2,500 pounds for utility vehicles, the death rate was 83 per million; but for cars weighing 4,000 pounds or more, it was only 44 per million. Again, it is double the rate. In the lightest utility vehicles, the occupant death rate was 199; again, in this case, more than 3 times the rate of 65 for utility vehicles weighing 4,000 pounds or more. In conclusion, I join my colleague from Michigan. He is absolutely correct. This vote is about a lot of different things. I am sure we can talk about the environment, we can talk about many things, but the one thing we know is that lighter vehicles mean more people die; heavier vehicles mean more people live. It is as simple as that. So if the Congress makes this decision and says we should artificially mandate and tell the American consumer, you need to be driving in lighter cars because Washington knows best, when we do that, when the arm of the Federal Government comes in and does that, it is not an academic exercise. It is not just the freedom to choose a car or a vehicle that people lose; what we lose are human beings. Make no mistake about it. If this resolution prevails, ultimately, through the Congress, more people will die. The statistics are absolutely abundantly clear. And that is exactly what this vote is about. It is not an academic exercise. It is not an academic vote. It is not a free environmental vote one way or the other. This is about people living. This is about people dying. I thank my colleague from Michigan and yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE. I ask unanimous consent that Arthur Menna, a congressional fellow on my staff, be given floor privileges for the remainder of the debate on the Transportation appropriations bill.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. The Senator from Missouri is exactly right. It is perhaps difficult to imagine just how concerned parents must be when they discover that their child has been exposed to a substance that might have damaging health effects. They don't know what type of harm might happen to their child--or whether any harm will happen. But the possibility is there--and to a parent, that threat can truly be frightening. In these emergency situations, the poison control center experts can quickly help parents determine the appropriate response. They might tell the parents that whatever substance that child has been exposed to doesn't pose a health threat at all. Other times, that threat is real, and the poison control center can help parents administer immediate treatment at home or provide treatment advice until the parents can get the child to the nearest emergency room. Either way, the poison control center is absolutely essential in responding to the emergency by providing immediate treatment advice when the emergency is real and providing peace of mind for the parents and reducing unnecessary healthcare and hospitalization when the exposure does not pose a health threat to the child.

Mr. DeWINE. This bill makes clear that the establishment of a national toll-free number to access poison control centers should not be interpreted as prohibiting the establishment or continued operation of any privately funded nationwide toll-free number used by agricultural pesticide companies, consumer products companies, pharmaceutical companies, and other groups who fund their own toll-free customer service numbers in the event of a poisoning or accidental exposure involving one of their own products. We also make clear that none of the funds that this bill authorizes may be used to help private companies fund their own toll-free numbers. We just want to clarify that this bill neither funds nor prohibits private entities from funding their own toll-free customer service numbers. I thank my colleague for his comments and for his strong support of this bill.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am very pleased to introduce The Older Americans Act of 1999--a bill that will reauthorize some of the most important, vital, and successful programs the Federal government provides to senior citizens. The Older Americans Act created and is responsible for: Programs that provide nutrition both at home and at senior community centers; Programs that protect the elderly from abuse, neglect, and unhealthy nursing homes; Programs that offer valuable jobs to seniors; Programs that furnish transportation; and Programs that render in-home services such as assistance with house- hold tasks. As we approach the new millennium, these services and many others become more and more important--in fact, essential--to the continued well-being and prosperity of our nation's senior community. We are an aging nation. Today, 12.7% of the United States' population is over the age of 65. By the year 2030, that number will grow to 20%, and there is no indication that this trend will subside. Americans are living longer; many of them are healthier, wealthier, and better educated than Americans from two generations or even one generation ago. The Older Americans Act is a key component in ensuring not only valuable supportive services to lower-income older Americans, but also in establishing new and reliable services from which every older American can benefit. First, I want to focus on the services this reauthorization guarantees will continue--and for which, we hope, it will secure additional funding. The largest, and one of the most important, portions of the Older Americans Act has always been nutrition programming. There are two essential and equally important parts of the Act's nutrition programming: meals served in senior citizens centers, and meals delivered to individuals' homes. Providing meals in congregate settings allows people to eat with friends, take advantage of other social or informative opportunities, and be assured of a healthy diet. Home delivered meal programs give homebound individuals similar assurances of a healthy diet. Additionally, programs such as Meal-On- Wheels also often give homebound seniors their only contact with the community. Those who deliver meals will also often help with minor chores and make sure that the senior they are visiting is in good general health. Under this reauthorization, congregate meal funding is protected by maintaining the law's language allowing a State to transfer no more than 30% of its congregate meal funding to home-delivered programs. Likewise, States will receive increased flexibility, through a waiver process, to request that any necessary amount be moved from congregate meal funds to meet the growing needs of homebound seniors. Another established service that would be improved by this bill is advocacy and protection. After a hearing that the Subcommittee on Aging dedicated to the issue of elder abuse, we made sure to include protection for elders not only from physical abuse and neglect, but also from financial abuse and exploitation. We also tied State and local advocacy and protection services directly to State and local law enforcement agencies as well as to the court system. During another of the Subcommittee on Aging's several hearings, we discussed the Senior Community Employment Service Program--the only Federally funded jobs program geared specifically for older Americans. The bill makes sure that the initial focus of the program, to provide seniors opportunities in community service jobs, stays intact. However, in light of the changing demographics among many senior communities and more and more seniors staying very active and capable for longer periods of time, the bill creates another focus: employment in the private sector and in a wider array of jobs. To do this, the bill creates strong links between the recently passed Workforce Investment Act and the Senior Community Employment Service Program. This will allow qualified seniors easy access to their State's workforce investment system and enhance their opportunity to choose which jobs they want. Likewise, these links will provide seniors in the State workforce investment systems easy access to the Senior Community Employment Service Program. Mr. President, as I mentioned, in addition to highlighting and improving the essential services that the Older Americans Act has provided so well for so long, this reauthorization also establishes new and equally reliable services from which every older American will be able to benefit. I thank Senator Grassley, and the Senate's Special Committee on Aging, for all his work, hearings, research, and help in developing two such services. The first is the National Family Caregiver Support Act, and the second is the Older Americans Act's new Pension Counseling program. The National Family Caregiver Support Act, through a network of Area Agencies on Aging and service providers, will provide family members-- nonprofessional or informal caregivers--valuable information and assistance about how to begin and continue caring for an aging relative. During another of our Subcommittee hearings, we heard moving testimony from a woman who decided that instead of placing her mother in a costly nursing home that would provide questionable care, she would bring her mother home and give her the care and attention she believed her mother needed and deserved. She did this at no small cost to herself. She had to discontinue her doctorate program. She had to find a job that had more accommodating hours and unfortunately with lower pay. She found that the State agency on aging and other bureaucratic ``assistance'' were more trouble than they were worth. She needed advice about lifting her mother, feeding her mother, medications, and many other challenges. Most of all, however, she said she just needed a break. The critical part of the National Family Caregiver Support Act would give her that break in the form of respite care; someone to take over for her for a weekend, a day, even a few hours so she could shop for herself, complete some overtime work, or just rest. The Caregiver Support Act also introduces an inter-generational element. During the Subcommittee's field hearing in Cleveland, we heard from grandmothers who, for any number of reasons, were now caring for their grandchildren. In some cases, their own children were addicted to drugs or in prison. Rather than relinquish their grandchildren to foster care, they took on the responsibilities of raising them. These women, and many other older Americans who now are raising children for the second time around, also need help. They need guidance, information, and respite care. Our bill would do that. Another new initiative is the Pension Counseling program. This program would provide desperately needed assistance to retirees who are in jeopardy of losing their pensions or are having difficulty receiving their pensions payments. As more and more individuals retire with more complicated pension, cost sharing, and IRA retirement plans, this will become an invaluable service. Mr. President, the Older Americans Act of 1999 will accomplish some long overdue changes. Reauthorizing this Act is a key step toward preparing this nation for the aging boom of the next few decades. However, I want to emphasize that as promising as this legislation is-- and as encouraged as I am by its introduction--it is still a work in progress. There are outstanding issues that need further attention and that require additional compromise. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to resolve these issues throughout the August recess. I would like to thank Senator Milkulski, the Subcommittee's ranking member, for all her work, expertise, and assistance in developing this bill. I would also like to thank Senator Gregg for establishing the ground work as the Subcommittee's previous Chairman and for his expertise and input. Thank you also to Senators Hutchinson, Jeffords, McCain, Kennedy, and Wyden for all they and their staffs have contributed to the bill. I look forward to continuing our work on this bill, to quickly resolving any outstanding concerns, and moving on to final passage of a new and long awaited Older Americans Act.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank Senator Gorton and Senator Byrd, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations for their hard work. As they both know, last year I sponsored the authorizing legislation for the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom. This new law directs the National Park Service to review hundreds of Underground Railroad sites in Ohio and around the country, identify the most notable locations, and produce and disseminate appropriate educational materials. I believe the history of the Underground Railroad is a part of the American story that we should be proud of. Last year, the Chairman and Ranking Member worked with me to fully fund the program in Fiscal Year 1999. I made a similar request this year. I would like to ask for clarification of some language contained in the Committee Report. Specifically, the Committee provided $1,245,891,000 to the National Park Service for park management. Is it the Chairman's intent that this figure includes $500,000 for the implementation of the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom?

Mr. DeWINE. I appreciate the clarification from my colleague from Washington and thank him and Senator Byrd for their continued support for this program. benjamin franklin national memorial disabled access improvements

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am very pleased to introduce The Older Americans Act of 1999--a bill that will reauthorize some of the most important, vital, and successful programs the Federal government provides to senior citizens. The Older Americans Act created and is responsible for: Programs that provide nutrition both at home and at senior community centers; Programs that protect the elderly from abuse, neglect, and unhealthy nursing homes; Programs that offer valuable jobs to seniors; Programs that furnish transportation; and Programs that render in-home services such as assistance with house- hold tasks. As we approach the new millennium, these services and many others become more and more important--in fact, essential--to the continued well-being and prosperity of our nation's senior community. We are an aging nation. Today, 12.7% of the United States' population is over the age of 65. By the year 2030, that number will grow to 20%, and there is no indication that this trend will subside. Americans are living longer; many of them are healthier, wealthier, and better educated than Americans from two generations or even one generation ago. The Older Americans Act is a key component in ensuring not only valuable supportive services to lower-income older Americans, but also in establishing new and reliable services from which every older American can benefit. First, I want to focus on the services this reauthorization guarantees will continue--and for which, we hope, it will secure additional funding. The largest, and one of the most important, portions of the Older Americans Act has always been nutrition programming. There are two essential and equally important parts of the Act's nutrition programming: meals served in senior citizens centers, and meals delivered to individuals' homes. Providing meals in congregate settings allows people to eat with friends, take advantage of other social or informative opportunities, and be assured of a healthy diet. Home delivered meal programs give homebound individuals similar assurances of a healthy diet. Additionally, programs such as Meal-On- Wheels also often give homebound seniors their only contact with the community. Those who deliver meals will also often help with minor chores and make sure that the senior they are visiting is in good general health. Under this reauthorization, congregate meal funding is protected by maintaining the law's language allowing a State to transfer no more than 30% of its congregate meal funding to home-delivered programs. Likewise, States will receive increased flexibility, through a waiver process, to request that any necessary amount be moved from congregate meal funds to meet the growing needs of homebound seniors. Another established service that would be improved by this bill is advocacy and protection. After a hearing that the Subcommittee on Aging dedicated to the issue of elder abuse, we made sure to include protection for elders not only from physical abuse and neglect, but also from financial abuse and exploitation. We also tied State and local advocacy and protection services directly to State and local law enforcement agencies as well as to the court system. During another of the Subcommittee on Aging's several hearings, we discussed the Senior Community Employment Service Program--the only Federally funded jobs program geared specifically for older Americans. The bill makes sure that the initial focus of the program, to provide seniors opportunities in community service jobs, stays intact. However, in light of the changing demographics among many senior communities and more and more seniors staying very active and capable for longer periods of time, the bill creates another focus: employment in the private sector and in a wider array of jobs. To do this, the bill creates strong links between the recently passed Workforce Investment Act and the Senior Community Employment Service Program. This will allow qualified seniors easy access to their State's workforce investment system and enhance their opportunity to choose which jobs they want. Likewise, these links will provide seniors in the State workforce investment systems easy access to the Senior Community Employment Service Program. Mr. President, as I mentioned, in addition to highlighting and improving the essential services that the Older Americans Act has provided so well for so long, this reauthorization also establishes new and equally reliable services from which every older American will be able to benefit. I thank Senator Grassley, and the Senate's Special Committee on Aging, for all his work, hearings, research, and help in developing two such services. The first is the National Family Caregiver Support Act, and the second is the Older Americans Act's new Pension Counseling program. The National Family Caregiver Support Act, through a network of Area Agencies on Aging and service providers, will provide family members-- nonprofessional or informal caregivers--valuable information and assistance about how to begin and continue caring for an aging relative. During another of our Subcommittee hearings, we heard moving testimony from a woman who decided that instead of placing her mother in a costly nursing home that would provide questionable care, she would bring her mother home and give her the care and attention she believed her mother needed and deserved. She did this at no small cost to herself. She had to discontinue her doctorate program. She had to find a job that had more accommodating hours and unfortunately with lower pay. She found that the State agency on aging and other bureaucratic ``assistance'' were more trouble than they were worth. She needed advice about lifting her mother, feeding her mother, medications, and many other challenges. Most of all, however, she said she just needed a break. The critical part of the National Family Caregiver Support Act would give her that break in the form of respite care; someone to take over for her for a weekend, a day, even a few hours so she could shop for herself, complete some overtime work, or just rest. The Caregiver Support Act also introduces an inter-generational element. During the Subcommittee's field hearing in Cleveland, we heard from grandmothers who, for any number of reasons, were now caring for their grandchildren. In some cases, their own children were addicted to drugs or in prison. Rather than relinquish their grandchildren to foster care, they took on the responsibilities of raising them. These women, and many other older Americans who now are raising children for the second time around, also need help. They need guidance, information, and respite care. Our bill would do that. Another new initiative is the Pension Counseling program. This program would provide desperately needed assistance to retirees who are in jeopardy of losing their pensions or are having difficulty receiving their pensions payments. As more and more individuals retire with more complicated pension, cost sharing, and IRA retirement plans, this will become an invaluable service. Mr. President, the Older Americans Act of 1999 will accomplish some long overdue changes. Reauthorizing this Act is a key step toward preparing this nation for the aging boom of the next few decades. However, I want to emphasize that as promising as this legislation is-- and as encouraged as I am by its introduction--it is still a work in progress. There are outstanding issues that need further attention and that require additional compromise. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to resolve these issues throughout the August recess. I would like to thank Senator Milkulski, the Subcommittee's ranking member, for all her work, expertise, and assistance in developing this bill. I would also like to thank Senator Gregg for establishing the ground work as the Subcommittee's previous Chairman and for his expertise and input. Thank you also to Senators Hutchinson, Jeffords, McCain, Kennedy, and Wyden for all they and their staffs have contributed to the bill. I look forward to continuing our work on this bill, to quickly resolving any outstanding concerns, and moving on to final passage of a new and long awaited Older Americans Act.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would authorize the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods, otherwise known as ``ICCVAM.'' This bill would permanently establish ICCVAM, which currently only exists as a ``standing'' committee--so, it could be dismantled at any time. This bill would make it more permanent, thus giving companies and Federal agencies a sense of certainty, and encourage them to make the long term research investments that are required to develop alternative animal toxicology test methods for ICCVAM to review. This will decrease, and may ultimately lead to the end of, the use of animals in testing cosmetics, shampoos, detergents, and other products. ICCVAM was created pursuant to the 1993 National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act's mandate that the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) recommend new processes for Federal agencies' acceptance of alternative toxicology tests using animals. ICCVAM is composed of representatives of 13 Federal agencies that use animals in toxicology research. ICCVAM evaluates and recommends improved testing methods and makes it possible for more uniform testing to be adopted across Federal agencies. This legislation maintains the current practice of leaving the ultimate decision of whether or not to adopt the new test method up to each individual Federal agency. For example, a new lab test using a skin substitute has been evaluated and accepted by ICCVAM so that potentially toxic substances can first be tested on this ``substitute skin'' rather than on an animal. The test is a measure of the ability of a chemical to burn the skin. If the substance tests positive (i.e., burns or irritates the ``substitute skin''), then it could be considered to produce skin burns and no animal would be used in further testing. If the substance does not irritate the ``artificial skin,'' then the substance might then be tested on an animal. Ultimately, ICCVAM streamlines the test method validation and approval process by evaluating methods of interest to multiple agencies. By having the same method in place in multiple agencies, it aids in reducing the need to perform multiple animal tests to meet the requirements of various federal agencies. This bill and ICCVAM do not apply to regulations related to medical research. This bill is supported by the Humane Society of the United States, the Doris Day Animal League, Procter & Gamble, the American Humane Association, Colgate-Palmolive Company, the Gillette Company, and the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would authorize the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods, otherwise known as ``ICCVAM.'' This bill would permanently establish ICCVAM, which currently only exists as a ``standing'' committee--so, it could be dismantled at any time. This bill would make it more permanent, thus giving companies and Federal agencies a sense of certainty, and encourage them to make the long term research investments that are required to develop alternative animal toxicology test methods for ICCVAM to review. This will decrease, and may ultimately lead to the end of, the use of animals in testing cosmetics, shampoos, detergents, and other products. ICCVAM was created pursuant to the 1993 National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act's mandate that the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) recommend new processes for Federal agencies' acceptance of alternative toxicology tests using animals. ICCVAM is composed of representatives of 13 Federal agencies that use animals in toxicology research. ICCVAM evaluates and recommends improved testing methods and makes it possible for more uniform testing to be adopted across Federal agencies. This legislation maintains the current practice of leaving the ultimate decision of whether or not to adopt the new test method up to each individual Federal agency. For example, a new lab test using a skin substitute has been evaluated and accepted by ICCVAM so that potentially toxic substances can first be tested on this ``substitute skin'' rather than on an animal. The test is a measure of the ability of a chemical to burn the skin. If the substance tests positive (i.e., burns or irritates the ``substitute skin''), then it could be considered to produce skin burns and no animal would be used in further testing. If the substance does not irritate the ``artificial skin,'' then the substance might then be tested on an animal. Ultimately, ICCVAM streamlines the test method validation and approval process by evaluating methods of interest to multiple agencies. By having the same method in place in multiple agencies, it aids in reducing the need to perform multiple animal tests to meet the requirements of various federal agencies. This bill and ICCVAM do not apply to regulations related to medical research. This bill is supported by the Humane Society of the United States, the Doris Day Animal League, Procter & Gamble, the American Humane Association, Colgate-Palmolive Company, the Gillette Company, and the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would ensure the future success of international micro-enterprise grant and loan programs. Many members of Congress have seen the success of micro-enterprise programs around the world. These programs reach the poorest of the poor with small loans to help them work their way out of poverty. These have proven to be very worthwhile and successful programs administered worldwide by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Unlike other assistance programs, we do not give funds away. Instead, we lend these funds to people once considered credit risks. The record of these programs boasts a client repayment rate of between 95% to 98%. Micro-enterprise programs are proof that with access to credit, the poor can and do better their lives while repaying their loans. To ensure the future of these programs and provide continued hope to others seeking to build out of poverty, I introduce today the Micro- Enterprise for Self Reliance Act of 1999. I am pleased to be introducing the legislation along with Senators Snowe, Torricelli, Collins, Durbin, Feinstein, Mikulski, Schumer, Bingaman, Chafee and Kennedy. This bill would strengthen the foundations of these programs to ensure their survival and provide the mechanisms necessary for their continued success as financial institutions. First, it would provide grant assistance to micro-enterprise programs to increase availability of credit and other services. We also target half of all micro- enterprise resources to support programs that serve the poorest of the poor with loans of $300 or less. This is a key provision of the bill and would give strong direction to USAID to work with sections of society that respond best to micro-lending programs. Second, this bill would authorize credits to micro-lending programs. These credits generally are used to expand already successful programs. Further, we seek to guarantee these programs' survival by establishing a facility to help rescue micro-lending institutions that are imperiled by war, currency movements or natural disasters. The facility would provide for loans to successful institutions to help them get back on their feet. Finally, we are interested in encouraging the future development and stability of these programs. Our bill calls for a report by USAID that would recommend other steps that could be taken to further the development of micro-lending institutions such as networks, regulations, a federal charter, financial instruments and coordination with multilateral institutions. We believe that this investment in micro-enterprise programs now will reduce the need for foreign assistance in the future. Congress now has the chance to ensure the future of these very successful programs, and help provide a sense of hope and a future of possibilities for the poor in developing countries. I thank my fellow cosponsors for their support for this legislation and look forward to working with them to gain congressional approval. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Micro- Enterprise for Self-Reliance Act be printed in the Record.