Mike DeWine

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.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I am delighted to again join with my distinguished colleague from the State of Maine to try to give some relief to colleges and universities. As she has pointed out, this burden placed by Congress was unintended. I seriously doubt if anyone thought that aspect of the legislation through or fully understood what kind of costs this would impose on our colleges. The Senator has indicated that Maine, for example, has already been hit with over $100,000 in costs. We could multiply that around the country for every university and every college. This ultimately, of course, will go where all costs go, to the students and the parents. This is something we should deal with and we should deal with very quickly. I join this morning with my colleague from Maine to introduce the Higher Education Reporting Relief Act. As she has indicated, this is the second time she and I have introduced legislation to provide some very much needed paperwork relief for the colleges and universities of our country. A compromise version of the legislation we introduced last year was passed by Congress as part of the IRS reform bill. Senator Collins and I are here today to complete that very important work and to do what has remained undone from last year. As my colleague from Maine has indicated, what prompted the need for this legislation was the Hope scholarship and the Lifetime Learning tax credit. This legislation required colleges and universities to comply with very burdensome and costly regulations. Schools were required to issue annual reports to students and the Internal Revenue Service detailing the students' tuition payments. The IRS planned to use the reports to monitor the eligibility of students who apply for the education tax credits. These reporting requirements require colleges and universities to spend millions of dollars to implement and maintain. The legislation Senator Collins and I were able to pass last year eliminated many of the most burdensome reporting requirements, yet there are burdensome requirements that still remain law. It is time, we believe, to finish the job we started last year. Our bill will further reduce the reporting requirements by making two very commonsense changes to our Tax Code. First, the IRS will be prohibited from imposing any new reporting requirements on colleges and universities prior to the year 2002. No school of higher education should have additional IRS requirements imposed while it is still developing its reporting system. Second, the IRS will be required to update its computer system by the end of 2002. The IRS computer system would be updated to make it capable of matching the IRS taxpayer identification number of the student with the person claiming this child as a dependent. This update would greatly reduce the reporting burden of the Hope scholarship. After this update, when a parent uses the Hope scholarship, the IRS will be able to electronically verify that a family was qualified to use this deduction. This process will eliminate a great deal of costly and time-consuming paperwork for the colleges and universities of our Nation. This legislation brings a simple, fair, commonsense solution to the unintentional barriers created by the reporting requirements of the Hope scholarship and the Lifetime Learning tax credit. It would represent significant savings to our colleges and to our universities. I certainly hope the Senator from Maine and I will once again be successful this year, as we were last year, in bringing relief to institutions of higher education. I invite my colleagues in the Senate to join as cosponsors. I, once again, thank my colleague from Maine for her leadership on this legislation. She is a true leader in the area of education and has done a great deal of work in this area. This bill is one more example of her true understanding of how the real world works--what happens in our home States when Congress takes actions that, frankly, result in unintended consequences. The unintended consequences in this case are added burdens on our colleges, costs that our colleges have to bear, costs that our colleges then have to turn around and impose on parents and students. Again, I thank my colleague from Maine for once again being a true leader in this area.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to thank Senator Gregg, the Chairman of the Commerce, State, Justice Appropriations Committee, as well as Senator Hollings, for their full support of the Crime Identification Technology Act in this appropriations bill. Their support represents a strong commitment to anti-crime measures that really work to reduce crime. This Act is a bipartisan law that Congress passed unanimously last year. The Crime Identification Technology Act is based on the recognition that technology is the key to the future of police work. We can no longer continue to ask law enforcement to fight increasingly mobile and sophisticated criminals with outmoded twentieth-century Technology. The Crime Identification Technology Act will help state and local justice systems update and integrate their anti-crime technology systems and support their overburdened forensic crime laboratories. CITA authorizes $250 million to states and local governments each year, for five years, for crime technology. This effort is fully funded in this appropriation bill. State and local governments are at a crucial juncture in the development and integration of their criminal justice technology. This bill provides for system integration, permitting all components of the criminal justice system to share information and communicate more effectively, on a real-time basis. This is one of the wisest investments we could possibly make. I would like to emphasize three reasons for this. First, crime technology, in itself, is crucial to making significant reductions in the crime rates in our communities. Second, we can use this opportunity to leverage the Federal Government's investments in national anti-crime systems that require state participation, such as the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System, the National Criminal Information Center 2000, and the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network. We have literally invested billions of dollars in national systems. That is a key reason why so many organizations have applauded the appropriators' support of anti-crime technology, including the International Association of Police Chiefs, National Governor's Association, National League of Cities, American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors, the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, and our states' information repository directors in the National Consortium of Justice & Information Statistics. Third, but certainly not last, there is a tremendous need to consolidate the patchwork of Federal programs, which have funded specific areas of anti-crime technology to the exclusion of others. A recent GAO report identified more than $1.2 billion in direct and indirect support to state and local governments; however, the absence of coordination and integration of both systems and funding means that if we continue the current system of disparate funding streams, there will never be enough money or integration. Too many existing Federal programs mandate specific technology spending, instead of allowing states the flexibility to meet their respective anti-crime technology needs within the type of broad framework which the Crime Identification Technology Act. CITA offers a dedicated, coordinated stream of funding to help states develop and upgrade their anti-crime technology from the patchwork of existing programs, and utilize the technical assistance of agencies who have developed technological expertise. I believe that this will greatly increase accountability and efficiency. The bottom line for me, based on my more than 25 years in law enforcement, is that fully employing our anti-crime technology today will help law enforcement solve more crime, more rapidly, and pursue increasingly sophisticated, mobile criminals. Again, I want to thank Chairman Gregg, and Senator Leahy and Senator Hatch for their strong support of the Crime Identification Technology Act and its appropriation. I would also like to extend my personal thanks to Senator Gregg's staff, particularly Jim Morhard and Eric Harnschteger for making the best of a very difficult funding situation. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his time. In the state of Ohio the Bureau of Criminal Justice Services uses aircraft for drug eradication efforts. Under current law Ohio is forced to use private planes for this mission at a considerable cost, rather than their own surplus aircraft. Mr. Chairman is it your assessment that current law defining public aircraft places unnecessary restrictions and costly burdens on law enforcement agencies who operate public aircraft?

Mr. DeWINE. I want to thank Senators McCain and Hollings for their support on this issue. I look forward to working with them on this issue.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, as the Senate reaches the conclusion of the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations bill, I would like to speak a moment about an important US law enforcement agency funded in this bill--an agency dedicated to keeping drugs off our streets. I am specifically talking about the Drug Enforcement Administration. Mr. President, in 1998, the DEA seized more drugs and arrested more traffickers than ever before. With limited funding, and unlimited hard work and dedication, DEA human resources are a vital source not just for our law enforcement activities, but for other nations as well. The DEA does its job without a heavy reliance on big ticket items like ships and aircraft. On the contrary, this agency relies primarily on manpower. Their manpower and skill are what makes them such an effective organization both inside and outside our borders. Fortunately after 2 years of almost stagnant funding levels, the Republican Congress has been working to increase its investment in the DEA. Last year Congress provided the DEA with $1.4 billion in Fiscal Year 1999, an increase of roughly $60 million. This increase was possible largely through legislation Senator Coverdell and I introduced and Congress passed last year--the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act. However, we need to do more. Congress should continue its support of the DEA. Increasing our investment in DEA, which will in turn increase the strength and ability of our counter-narcotics strategy, is the only way to continue to increase the numbers of drug arrests and seizures. Let me give you some examples of where more DEA resources have and can continue to make a difference. Mr. President, I have visited Haiti numerous times and have visited the Dominican Republic as well. It is truly unfortunate that roughly twenty per cent of the drugs entering the United States travel through these two countries. The Haiti- Dominican Republic transit route has become increasingly popular for drug traffickers because both governments do not present a real threat to drug traffickers. What makes matters worse is that our resources devoted to preventing drugs from reaching this island have been minimal at best. When I visited Haiti back in March 1998, I was astonished to find out that there was only one DEA agent stationed in Haiti. When I visited the Dominican Republic on the same trip, I was disappointed to find out there were only two DEA agents stationed there. How can our government keep drugs from entering our country if we do not make a commitment to seize drugs along a major international route on the drug trafficking highway? When I returned from that trip, I worked with the DEA and the Attorney General to get additional agents assigned to both countries. I received a commitment to station seven DEA agents in Haiti and six agents in the Dominican Republic. The process has been slow in getting the agents to Haiti--because of language training in particular--but the increase in agents has already made a tremendous difference. Since that trip back in March 1998, I have returned to Haiti and the Dominican Republic, and visited with the DEA agents stationed there. As a result of our increased DEA presence on the island, the DEA, in conjunction with the US Customs and with the Haiti and Dominican governments, has pursued several counter-drug operations. Their presence also has helped increase cooperation between the two nations. I had the opportunity to visit the Haitian-Dominican border last November to observe a DEA-Customs counter-drug initiative called Operation Genesis. Until that time, there was virtually no cooperation between the two nations at the border. This lack of cooperation is a major reason why the island became a popular drug trafficking route. The objective of Operation Genesis was to help both countries better coordinate and cooperate with each other to prevent drugs from transiting the border. The enhanced Haitian-Dominican cooperation through overall DEA efforts has proven successful. For example, last February, the Haitian National Police in coordination with the DEA, arrested relatives of the Coneo family--a well known Colombian drug trafficking family with connections in Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Heriberto Coneo's wife, son and his brother-in-law were arrested in Haiti for carrying false Dominican passports. Haiti later expelled them to the Dominican Republic, where they were arrested and placed in prison. This was a major victory. Another example of this enhanced cooperation was the recent arrest of a Haitian National Police Division Chief who had fled to the Dominican Republic after his involvement in the deaths of more than 11 Haitians. The coordinated efforts by the DEA with these two countries resulted in the Dominicans arresting the police official and expelling him to Haiti. The DEA also has helped train the Haitian National Police counter- drug unit. With DEA assistance, our Embassy in Port-au-Prince reports that the Haitian police has seized more than $1 million in money being smuggled out of the country in large sums. I also have seen the DEA in action in South America, specifically in Peru and in Colombia. I walked through poppy fields in Neiva, Colombia where I saw first hand the source of the serious heroin problem plaguing our country today. We were in a region only 20 miles from the Colombian demilitarized zone. The DEA has been instrumental in working and training the Colombian National Police to seize drugs and arrest drug lords. While, I have described a few success stories, I need to remind my colleagues that the DEA is producing incredible returns on a very small investment. Imagine what more the DEA could do if they had more personnel. The fact is the DEA simply does not have the resources to meet their demanding and necessary tasks. With more resources, border initiatives like the one in Haiti and the Dominican Republic could be expanded, allowing for a greater reduction in the heavy trafficking that occurs between the two countries. With more resources, additional DEA agents can be sent overseas to assist law enforcement officials in learning ways to stop drug trafficking. That kind of investment--to build anti- drug operations in other countries--will build even more barriers to drugs outside our borders. Mr. President, last March, Senator Coverdell and I, along with a number of our colleagues--Republican and Democrat--sent a letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings, calling for building on this year's investment in the DEA and requesting additional funding for 300 additional DEA agents, analysts and support personnel, and for other DEA initiatives. This request would enable the DEA to carry out specific initiatives outlined in the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act, a three year initiative for enhanced international drug eradication and interdiction efforts. I recognize the serious budget challenges facing this Subcommittee and other Appropriations subcommittees as well. Chairman Gregg and Senator Hollings were extremely gracious in accommodating our request. Specifically, the Subcommittee earmarked $17.5 million for new DEA agents, analysts, and support staff for both international and domestic posts. Mr. President, this is an important first step. It is my hope that as this bill moves to a conference with the House, the conferees will work to increase our overall investment in the DEA, so that specific priority requirements are not funded at the expense of other important DEA programs. Again, Mr. President, since 1995 Congress has made great progress last year to increase our investment to revive our international counter narcotics strategy. Last year's passage of the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act was the latest example of this progress. Not only did Congress pass legislation, but we also provided an $800 million down payment for the bill. Unfortunately, the Clinton Administration is not showing a similar commitment. The President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2000 provided zero funding for provisions outlined in the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act. In fact, it calls for more than $100 million less than our total anti-drug funding for 1999. The Coast Guard received zero funding for the acquisition of air/maritime assets; the Drug Enforcement Agency received zero funding for new agents; our Customs Service received zero funding for procurement of maritime/air assets and zero increases for U.S. Customs inspectors. This Administration has not demonstrated a commitment to fund a real, coherent international counter-drug strategy. What good is it to have tough drug laws here at home and a tough international counter narcotics policy at and beyond the border if you do not have the resources to enforce them? Mr. President, I have repeatedly expressed my concerns that the Administration has not been doing enough in the fight against drugs. When the Clinton Administration took over, the DEA workforce dropped from 7,277 in 1992 to 7,066 in 1994. However, since the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, we have fought to boost the workforce from 7,066 to more than 9,000. The Administration's latest action, or lack of action, only reinforces my belief that more can be done. There has been an increasing number of reports of outrageous amounts of drugs being distributed throughout our country that originates internationally and domestically. Why is that? Only the federal government can devote the resources to seize drugs outside our country. It is unfortunate that the Clinton Administration continues to fail to fully support this exclusive federal responsibility. With increased DEA funding, we have the opportunity to eliminate one of the most glaring omissions in the President's budget. It is my hope that we will continue to search for additional funding to the DEA so that they can hire these new agents, analysts, and support personnel without having to sacrifice other important programs. These agents would work hand-in-hand with international law enforcement authorities to provide the intelligence, expertise, and even the manpower required to arrest the drug traffickers. Mr. President, I have seen the DEA at work throughout the region. The agency is a group of hard-working dedicated individuals who risk their lives to create a healthy environment for democracies to flourish, while at the same time get the drugs off the streets of America. They do so much good with the limited resources they have. It is now time for us to pass this amendment, give the DEA additional resources and once again watch the number of arrests and seizures increase causing the flow of narcotics into our country to sharply decrease. Mr. President, it is time to renew drug interdiction efforts; time to provide the necessary personnel and equipment to our drug-enforcement agencies, and time to make the issue a national priority once again. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I am delighted to again join with my distinguished colleague from the State of Maine to try to give some relief to colleges and universities. As she has pointed out, this burden placed by Congress was unintended. I seriously doubt if anyone thought that aspect of the legislation through or fully understood what kind of costs this would impose on our colleges. The Senator has indicated that Maine, for example, has already been hit with over $100,000 in costs. We could multiply that around the country for every university and every college. This ultimately, of course, will go where all costs go, to the students and the parents. This is something we should deal with and we should deal with very quickly. I join this morning with my colleague from Maine to introduce the Higher Education Reporting Relief Act. As she has indicated, this is the second time she and I have introduced legislation to provide some very much needed paperwork relief for the colleges and universities of our country. A compromise version of the legislation we introduced last year was passed by Congress as part of the IRS reform bill. Senator Collins and I are here today to complete that very important work and to do what has remained undone from last year. As my colleague from Maine has indicated, what prompted the need for this legislation was the Hope scholarship and the Lifetime Learning tax credit. This legislation required colleges and universities to comply with very burdensome and costly regulations. Schools were required to issue annual reports to students and the Internal Revenue Service detailing the students' tuition payments. The IRS planned to use the reports to monitor the eligibility of students who apply for the education tax credits. These reporting requirements require colleges and universities to spend millions of dollars to implement and maintain. The legislation Senator Collins and I were able to pass last year eliminated many of the most burdensome reporting requirements, yet there are burdensome requirements that still remain law. It is time, we believe, to finish the job we started last year. Our bill will further reduce the reporting requirements by making two very commonsense changes to our Tax Code. First, the IRS will be prohibited from imposing any new reporting requirements on colleges and universities prior to the year 2002. No school of higher education should have additional IRS requirements imposed while it is still developing its reporting system. Second, the IRS will be required to update its computer system by the end of 2002. The IRS computer system would be updated to make it capable of matching the IRS taxpayer identification number of the student with the person claiming this child as a dependent. This update would greatly reduce the reporting burden of the Hope scholarship. After this update, when a parent uses the Hope scholarship, the IRS will be able to electronically verify that a family was qualified to use this deduction. This process will eliminate a great deal of costly and time-consuming paperwork for the colleges and universities of our Nation. This legislation brings a simple, fair, commonsense solution to the unintentional barriers created by the reporting requirements of the Hope scholarship and the Lifetime Learning tax credit. It would represent significant savings to our colleges and to our universities. I certainly hope the Senator from Maine and I will once again be successful this year, as we were last year, in bringing relief to institutions of higher education. I invite my colleagues in the Senate to join as cosponsors. I, once again, thank my colleague from Maine for her leadership on this legislation. She is a true leader in the area of education and has done a great deal of work in this area. This bill is one more example of her true understanding of how the real world works--what happens in our home States when Congress takes actions that, frankly, result in unintended consequences. The unintended consequences in this case are added burdens on our colleges, costs that our colleges have to bear, costs that our colleges then have to turn around and impose on parents and students. Again, I thank my colleague from Maine for once again being a true leader in this area.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to address a little known but very important issue within the Department of Veterans Affairs. The legislation would correct an injustice suffered throughout this decade by a workforce of 39,000 dedicated nurses who devote their careers toward the caring of our nation's veterans. Due to an unintentional use of federal law, the VA has allowed nurses to go up to five years in a row without a single raise. In some cases, VA nurses have received pay cuts by as much as eight percent in a single year, or received a token raise of one-tenth of one percent. I am today, along with Senators Dodd, Snowe, Landrieu, Reid, Boxer, Inouye, Sarbanes and Kennedy, calling on Congress to put an end to this practice by passing the VA Nurse Appreciation Act. We find ourselves in this situation because of unintended consequences. In 1990, Congress passed the Nurse Pay Act, which allowed VA medical center directors to give VA nurses higher annual pay raises than other federal employees on the General Schedule (GS). At the time, this well intentioned bill was needed to address a national nursing shortage in VA hospitals. However, after the shortage eased, many medical center directors used the discretion given to them by the law to provide minimal raises and even pay cuts. In my own state of Ohio, from 1996 to 1998, VA nurses in Columbus took a 2.8% pay cut, while federal employees in the same area received pay raises ranging from 2.4% to 3%. This clearly was not what Congress had in mind when it passed the 1990 Nurse Pay Act. Unfortunately, the problem is widespread and knows no geographic boundaries. From 1996-1999, nurses at sixteen different VA medical centers had their pay rate cut by as much as eight percent, while other federal employees received annual GS increases ranging from 2.4% to 3.6% or more. In addition, from 1996-1999, no raises were given to Grade I, II or III nurses at approximately 80 VA medical centers around the country. To address this wrong, the VA Nurse Appreciation Act. This bill would ensure that Title 38 nurses would be eligible to receive the same annual GS increase plus locality pay provided to all other federal employees in their area. The bill would preserve the essential purpose of the 1990 Nurse Pay Act by giving the VA Secretary the discretion to increase pay, or delegate this authority to VA medial center directors if they have trouble recruiting or retaining quality nurses. Mr. President, what message are we sending to our veterans when we are not willing to pay the nurses that provide their daily care the same pay increases that every federal employee now receives. Congress should be dedicated to providing our veterans the best possible health services, and putting an emphasis on top quality nursing care is a right step in that direction. This bill would end the practice of discriminatory pay cuts by directors of VA medical facilities and provide the assurance of at least the GS raise received by all other federal employees. This bill is really about fairness. It would help those dedicated workers who have not been receiving regular pay raises for years. If we can pass this bill quickly, we can insure all VA nurses will receive a much-deserved pay raise in January 2000. This bill is companion legislation to H.R. 1216, introduced by my colleague and friend from Ohio, Congressman LaTourette. It has the support of the American Nurses Association (ANA), the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE) along with various veterans groups, including the Disabled American Veterans and the Paralyzed Veterans of America. The LaTourette bill has bipartisan support from more than 70 House members, including 11 members of the House committee on Veterans' Affairs. Congress now has the chance to right a wrong and show VA nurses that their compassion and dedication are appreciated. I urge my colleagues to support and cosponsor the VA Nurse Appreciation Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the VA Nurse Appreciation Act and letters in support of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to address a little known but very important issue within the Department of Veterans Affairs. The legislation would correct an injustice suffered throughout this decade by a workforce of 39,000 dedicated nurses who devote their careers toward the caring of our nation's veterans. Due to an unintentional use of federal law, the VA has allowed nurses to go up to five years in a row without a single raise. In some cases, VA nurses have received pay cuts by as much as eight percent in a single year, or received a token raise of one-tenth of one percent. I am today, along with Senators Dodd, Snowe, Landrieu, Reid, Boxer, Inouye, Sarbanes and Kennedy, calling on Congress to put an end to this practice by passing the VA Nurse Appreciation Act. We find ourselves in this situation because of unintended consequences. In 1990, Congress passed the Nurse Pay Act, which allowed VA medical center directors to give VA nurses higher annual pay raises than other federal employees on the General Schedule (GS). At the time, this well intentioned bill was needed to address a national nursing shortage in VA hospitals. However, after the shortage eased, many medical center directors used the discretion given to them by the law to provide minimal raises and even pay cuts. In my own state of Ohio, from 1996 to 1998, VA nurses in Columbus took a 2.8% pay cut, while federal employees in the same area received pay raises ranging from 2.4% to 3%. This clearly was not what Congress had in mind when it passed the 1990 Nurse Pay Act. Unfortunately, the problem is widespread and knows no geographic boundaries. From 1996-1999, nurses at sixteen different VA medical centers had their pay rate cut by as much as eight percent, while other federal employees received annual GS increases ranging from 2.4% to 3.6% or more. In addition, from 1996-1999, no raises were given to Grade I, II or III nurses at approximately 80 VA medical centers around the country. To address this wrong, the VA Nurse Appreciation Act. This bill would ensure that Title 38 nurses would be eligible to receive the same annual GS increase plus locality pay provided to all other federal employees in their area. The bill would preserve the essential purpose of the 1990 Nurse Pay Act by giving the VA Secretary the discretion to increase pay, or delegate this authority to VA medial center directors if they have trouble recruiting or retaining quality nurses. Mr. President, what message are we sending to our veterans when we are not willing to pay the nurses that provide their daily care the same pay increases that every federal employee now receives. Congress should be dedicated to providing our veterans the best possible health services, and putting an emphasis on top quality nursing care is a right step in that direction. This bill would end the practice of discriminatory pay cuts by directors of VA medical facilities and provide the assurance of at least the GS raise received by all other federal employees. This bill is really about fairness. It would help those dedicated workers who have not been receiving regular pay raises for years. If we can pass this bill quickly, we can insure all VA nurses will receive a much-deserved pay raise in January 2000. This bill is companion legislation to H.R. 1216, introduced by my colleague and friend from Ohio, Congressman LaTourette. It has the support of the American Nurses Association (ANA), the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE) along with various veterans groups, including the Disabled American Veterans and the Paralyzed Veterans of America. The LaTourette bill has bipartisan support from more than 70 House members, including 11 members of the House committee on Veterans' Affairs. Congress now has the chance to right a wrong and show VA nurses that their compassion and dedication are appreciated. I urge my colleagues to support and cosponsor the VA Nurse Appreciation Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the VA Nurse Appreciation Act and letters in support of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, as debate draws to a close on managed care reform, I want to talk about a few of the key provisions that I strongly support in the comprehensive legislation developed by the Republican Health Care Task Force and my colleagues on the Senate Health Committee. All throughout the process of developing responsible managed care reform legislation, I have shared the same overall policy goal held by most of my colleagues: to reform the managed care system without reducing quality, without increasing cost and without adding to the ranks of Americans who cannot afford health insurance. These are important issues for individuals and families. Just as important to them, and to me, is the impact of managed care on the quality of health care provided to children. That issue, perhaps more than any other, governed how I examined and worked on this very important legislation. Working with my friend and colleague from Tennessee, Senator Bill Frist, I worked to ensure that the bill approved earlier this year by the Senate Health Committee protected the interests of families with children. The bill approved by the Committee and included in the Task Force bill provides for direct access to pediatricians. For any family, this is common sense. Pediatricians are general practitioners for children. Why should parents have to take their child to a primary care physician in order to be given permission to have the child see a pediatrician? This ``gatekeeping'' role is just not necessary. That's why Senator Frist and I worked to include language in the Committee-passed bill that lets parents bypass the gatekeeper. Under this bill, parents can take their child straight to the pediatrician. The Task Force bill also includes this language. The larger debate concerns pediatric specialists. My view on this, based, I might add, on considerable personal experience, is that children are not simply a smaller version of adults. Fortunately, for the most part, children are proportionately healthier than adults. This means that for the small number of children who suffer from illnesses and conditions, they are the exception to the rule. To a parent who loves them, however, this is no consolation. Not only is their child suffering, but treatment can also be extremely expensive. Children who suffer from cancer, to take one example, should be able to see a pediatric oncologist, not an oncologist who was trained to treat adults. That is why Senator Frist and I worked to include in the Committee-approved bill an amendment that would require the practitioner, facility or center to have, and I quote from our amendment, ``adequate expertise (including age-appropriate expertise) through appropriate training and experience.'' By requiring age- appropriate expertise, we are saying that a child will see a pediatric specialist and an elderly patient will see a geriatric specialist. We are ensuring that the most vulnerable people--the youngest and the oldest--within our population are referred to the specialists who are trained to treat their particular age group. We have also clarified this language to ensure ``timely'' access to such specialty care. Mr. President, let's not lose sight of our bottom line goal: to ensure quality health care without compromising access to care. We already have 43 million Americans who are without any health care coverage. Excessive mandates on the quality of care will only drive up the cost of providing care, and could price health care out of the range of affordability. Our legislative efforts must not add to the uninsured. Mr. President, employer-provided health insurance is strictly voluntary--employers do not have to offer health insurance to their employees. So, we are walking a fine line between ensuring that our nation's health care quality remains high, while still keeping such care affordable. In my home state of Ohio alone, 1.3 million of 11 million Ohioans are uninsured--they have no health care coverage at all. Worse still, in Ohio we have 305,000 children who have no health insurance coverage. With health care costs estimated to increase by 7-8 percent due to inflation alone, it is clear that we should not add to this cost increase. On this score, there is serious cause for concern. A Lewin Group study found that for every one percent rise in premiums, 300,000 more people become uninsured. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the Daschle-Kennedy Patients' Bill of Rights bill would increase health care premiums by 6.1 percent. That means an additional 1.8 million Americans would lose health insurance if that particular bill becomes law. Based on data provided by the CBO, that bill would add $355 each year to the average worker's health care premium. If that is not enough to drive Americans to the ranks of the uninsured, it will certainly add to the cost of living for American families. I support the Task Force legislation, which CBO estimated would raise premiums by only 0.8 percent--that's eight-tenths of one percent. This legislation also would provide direct access to pediatricians and access to specialty care. This legislation would provide for an independent external review process for all adverse coverage decisions that are based on a lack of medical necessity or investigational or experimental nature of the treatment. This process will better protect everyone, including children and the elderly, because it would ensure that the independent external reviewer assigned to review an adverse coverage determination has expertise (including age-appropriate expertise) in the diagnosis or treatment under review. All of these patient protections are included, while still keeping health care affordable. I also support this legislation because it would help 317,000 Ohioans and close to 9 million other Americans nationwide who are self- employed, but can only currently deduct 45 percent of their health care costs. The self-employed are mainly farmers, family-owned and operated businesses, and independent business people and entrepreneurs. They represent the heart and soul of our economy, but the tax code treats these first-class workers like second-class citizens. Mr. President, in the last several years, I have voted for legislation that would move this important tax break to full deductibility, which large corporations already have. By making such health care costs 100 percent deductible for the self-employed, we have the opportunity to reduce the ranks of the uninsured. We would be making health insurance more affordable, and more accessible for our country's self-employed workers and their families. These are just some of the provisions that would improve our managed care system--improvements that would not compromise affordability and accessibility. That is why I will vote for the Task Force bill later today.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. The answer is no.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise to offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Senators Abraham, Brownback, Santorum, Helms, Ashcroft, McCain, Nickles, and Hagel. This amendment would maintain in force the current law restricting Federal funding for abortions only to cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother. Specifically, my amendment would maintain the status quo that limits Federal employee health plans to cover abortions only in the case of rape, incest, and threat to life of the mother. This is the same amendment that was accepted during the debate for fiscal year 1999 Treasury-Postal appropriations, the same amendment agreed to by this body during the debate for fiscal years 1996 and 1997. In fact, this is the same language that has been consistently supported by a bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives from 1983 to 1999, with the exception of only 2 years. I mention all of this to make it very clear to the Members of the Senate that this amendment stakes out no new ground. This amendment maintains the status quo. This amendment has been voted on time and time again by this body, and time and time again this body has accepted it. The principle is a very simple one--one that goes beyond the conventional pro-choice/pro-life debates that we hear on this Senate floor. I think my colleagues know I am pro-life and, therefore, I wish to promote the values protecting innocent human life. However, I point out that the vast majority of Americans on both sides of the abortion issue strongly agree that they should not pay for someone else's abortion. That really is what this debate is about. Fairly stated, this amendment is not about the morality of abortion or the right of a woman to choose abortion. Rather, this is a very narrowly focused amendment that answers a key question: Should taxpayers pay for these abortions? This Senate, this Congress, has consistently answered no. Congress has consistently agreed that we should not ask taxpayers to promote a policy, in essence, of paying for abortion on demand by a Federal employee. My amendment would maintain the status quo that limits Federal employee health plans to cover abortions only in the case of rape, incest, and threat to the life of the mother. The vast majority of Americans oppose subsidizing abortions. Employers, as a general principle, determine the health benefits employees receive. Taxpayers are the employers of Federal employees, and a large majority of taxpayers simply do not want their tax dollars to go to pay for abortions. Taxpayers provide a majority share of the funds to purchase health insurance for the Federal civilian workforce. This provision addresses the same core issue and simply says that the Federal Government, as the employer, is not in the business of funding abortions. Abortion is certainly a contentious issue, and we should not ask the taxpayers to pay for it. In conclusion, this issue has been debated time and time again on the Senate floor. Current law limits abortion availability in Federal employee health care plans to cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother. That has been the position of the Senate, that has been the position of the House, and that was approved last year and the year before as well. We should not involuntarily take the money of Americans--many of whom find abortion abhorrent--to pay for abortions. We should not go against the will of the people of this country. We should uphold current law, and that is very simply what this amendment does. I reserve the remainder of my time. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Mr. DeWINE. Two seconds? Mr. President, this matter has been debated out, and I believe everyone knows what the issue is. It is really not a question, though, of taking anything away from Federal employees. As I pointed out earlier, my amendment simply maintains the status quo. It keeps the current law. It keeps the law that has been in effect virtually for the last decade, with the exception of a 2-year period of time. It does not take anything away. It simply says taxpayers' dollars will not be used to subsidize the payment for abortions. The vast majority of the American people do not believe their tax dollars should be used to pay for someone else's abortion. Poll after poll has disclosed that. That is all this amendment does. My amendment would maintain the status quo that limits Federal employee health plans to cover abortions only in the case of rape, incest and threats to the life of a mother. That is what the amendment does. It is very simple. We have voted on it time and time again. I simply ask my colleagues to follow the will of the American people. The American people are the employer in this case. As my colleague from Utah pointed out so very eloquently a moment ago, that is the way every other health plan is determined. The taxpayers of this country have the right to determine this plan, and they have the right to say their tax dollars will not be used to fund abortions.

Mr. DeWINE. I yield myself such time as I may consume. How much time is available?

Mr. DeWINE. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. DeWINE. I yield the Senator from Utah 3 minutes.

Mr. DeWINE. I see no speakers on our side. I am not prepared to yield back, but we are getting down to the closing at this point.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me just briefly respond to some of the comments that have been made. This matter has been debated many times on the Senate floor. I seriously doubt there will be any new points that I or anyone else will raise. Sometimes the obvious must be stated: This amendment does not stop abortions. This amendment does not say to any woman what she can or cannot do. This simply says taxpayers are not going to pay for it. It is that simple. It is that basic. We have to understand, on the average health plan in the Federal Government, 73 percent of the cost is paid for by the Government, which means 73 percent of the cost is paid for by the taxpayers. We get back to the issue, should the American people, on an involuntary basis, through their taxes, have money taken out of their pay to be used to pay for abortions when many people believe very adamantly that this is wrong? I think the answer is absolutely not, we should not have this money involuntarily taken from taxpayers to pay for abortions, which violates the conscience of many taxpayers. This is one Senator who doesn't quote polls too often on the Senate floor, but I think it has some relevance about what the American people expect us to do as far as how their taxes are spent. A Fox poll in 1998 asked: Do you think health care plans should pay for any of the cost of an abortion? That answer? Sixty percent said no. The question specifically had to do with the Federal Government paying for these Federal health care plans. Sixty percent said no; 28 percent said yes. I think it is very clear, with the Federal Government paying almost three-fourths of the cost of these plans and taxpayers paying three- fourths of the cost, we understand what is at stake and what the issue is. It has nothing to do with whether or not a person has a legal right to an abortion. That is a debate for a different day.

Mr. DeWINE. I yield.

Mr. DeWINE. I yield the Senator from Oklahoma 5 minutes.

Mr. DeWINE. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. DeWINE. I thank my colleague for his comments. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. DeWINE. If the Senator wants to yield back her 2 seconds, I am willing to yield back the several minutes I have left.

Mr. DeWINE. I yield the Senator 30 seconds.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I thank my friend. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Lautenberg amendment. This is a commonsense amendment. What are the essential facts? The essential facts are that underage drinking is a huge problem in this country. If you are worried about your child dying, this is a good place to start. Statistics are absolutely unbelievable. The life expectancy of those between the age of 16 and 24 or 25 is not good. One of the main reasons it is not good is underage drinking. Most of the fatalities are connected with underage drinking. Let me also state some other essential facts. Advertising works. We all know it works. We know it works on campaigns. Where does the majority of the money that we raise for our campaigns go? It goes to advertising. Advertising is how we communicate with people. We know it works. If we are serious about dealing with this problem, then we need to spend the money and we need to do the advertising. One of the statistics that has been cited on this floor is very telling. It goes back to my question. If you are serious about this problem, if you are serious about protecting your kids, what do you do? Here is one statistic. One study indicates that underage abuse of alcohol certainly has serious consequences. According to the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, underage drinking killed an estimated 6,350 young people between the age of 12 to 20. That was for the year 1994. All other illicit drugs killed 980 youth. If these statistics are true--based on my experience as county prosecutor and someone who has been involved in this issue for many years, I think it is true--alcohol kills six times as many children than all other illicit drugs combined. This is a very modest proposal because it does not compel the drug czar to spend money. What it simply says is that the drug czar spend some of the money that they have that has been set aside for advertising. They can, in fact, spend it on this horrendous problem. All you have to do to see this problem is to go to the hospital and talk to an emergency room physician. Ask an emergency room physician how often alcohol is related to what they see. They will tell you that on any Friday night, or any Saturday night, it dominates the emergencies; that the vast majority of the emergencies they see, particularly the serious ones, are alcohol related. This is a leading killer of our young people. To say that we are not going to use this money that is available for advertising, which we know is effective, for this horrendous problem, frankly, makes absolutely no sense. I appeal to my colleagues. While reasonable minds can differ--and I think my colleagues on the other side of this issue have made some very interesting and some good arguments--I believe that the statistics clearly indicate that alcohol is the drug of choice among young people. For those who are underage, alcohol is the drug of choice. It is the most serious drug in this country, and it is also a gateway drug, which simply means it is the drug that most young people start with, and then they ``advance'' to other drugs. To be able to mount a successful and a good advertising campaign--to take the words from the amendment, the message of ``discouraging underage alcohol consumption,'' that is what this amendment would allow. I urge my colleagues to allow this permissive use of the money. I believe it will save lives. I believe it is the right thing to do.