Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to make a few comments regarding the tragic shootings in Littleton, CO. Thirteen days after this tragedy occurred, our Nation is still really in shock. The hearts of my own family and all Ohio families, and, of course, all Americans families, go out to the families who have lost loved ones. There is nothing that you can say that can take the pain away. Anyone who has lost a child understands that. The loss these families have suffered cannot be repaired. But it is important that these families know that there are people--many of us far away from Colorado--whose thoughts and prayers are with them at this terrible time. What went wrong? Could the shootings have been prevented? What should we do to prevent other tragedies such as this from occurring in the future? These are all very difficult questions--difficult issues for a public official to talk about, because when you do, people will think that you are claiming to have ``the answer.'' Let me say flat out that I don't claim to have ``the answer.'' What happened in Littleton will always to some extent remain a mystery, and why it happened. Evil is a mystery that exists deep in the human heart. But that brutal fact of human existence that we can't come up with ``the answer'' does not excuse us from our moral responsibilities--our responsibilities, as legislators, as parents, as citizens. In fact, it increases our responsibilities. If we don't have ``the answer,'' we have to work harder to find answers--things we can do to make a difference child by child by child. Some of the things we have to do may not be glamorous, but they will all be helpful. They will save lives. Fred Hiatt pointed out in a powerful Washington Post article recently that 13 children a day--13 children a day--are killed by guns in this country--in effect, the Littleton massacre every day. Statistically, of these 13 children who die every day, 8 are murdered every day; 4 tragically commit suicide every day, and 1 dies accidentally every day. Mr. President, maybe we can't prevent a massacre such as the one in Colorado, but we can work on initiatives that would save some of the 13 children a day who are dying in gun-related deaths. What I would like to do this afternoon is talk briefly about a few of those initiatives that I believe would save lives. We don't know whose lives they would save, but I have had, I think, enough experience in this area to say that they would save some lives, and, therefore, we should do this. No. 1, I have a bill, which is now included in the juvenile justice bill, that we will be considering in just a few days. This provision provides incentives to local governments to coordinate the services they offer to the kids who are the most at risk in their county, or their area. I am referring, for example, to the children who have been duly diagnosed as having both maybe a psychiatric disorder and a substance abuse problem, or some other combination of problems. For too long, kids have been falling between the cracks of the court system, the children's services system, the mental health system, and the substance abuse system. Other kids are misdiagnosed or don't get access to all the services that they need. My proposal would promote an approach that has been successful in Hamilton County, OH--in the Cincinnati area--an approach that gives our most problematic kids the multiple services they need, under the overall coordination of the juvenile court system. These kids should not fall victim of bureaucratic turf conflicts. All of them are our kids. No. 2, parents, teachers and local service agencies need to explore ways to reach out and provide appropriate services to at-risk youth before they end up--before they end up--in the juvenile court system. That is the essence of prevention--to find ways to keep children from ever coming in contact with a juvenile court. That is why a renewed investment in mental health diagnosis and treatment is so vitally important with our children. We have to as a country, as a people, make a more serious investment in diagnosing and treating these kids with psychological problems. Throughout the whole system, everybody--teachers, probation officers, everyone--will tell you that we do not now have enough resources. I have talked to so many juvenile court judges who look at these kids they have in front of them, and who know they have mental health problems, and yet who do not have the resources, and try to reach these kids and turn them around, to cure them before it becomes too late. We need to get these kids early. A third suggestion of things that are, I think, practical and that we could very easily do is keep closer track of kids who have been convicted of violent crimes. The tracking provisions I, along with Senator Sessions, have written into the juvenile crime bill we will be considering in just a matter of a few days will help do that. When a young person commits a crime, and then, let us say, moves to another State and commits another crime, local law enforcement officials and judges many times do not have the available information. They do not know this person has committed a violent crime, and the reason they don't is because we don't have a good nationwide tracking system for juveniles, and we should. We should do it with juveniles who have already demonstrated that they will commit and can commit and may in the future commit a violent crime. When it comes to making key decisions about juvenile offenders, judges and probation officers need to make judgments based on the best possible information. That is what my provision would give them. No. 4, we need to get serious about background checks on gun purchases. Everybody talks about the Brady bill. But very few people realize that the Brady background checks are only as effective as the information that goes into them. That is why I have been fighting for almost 15 years for improved law enforcement information systems. That means good criminal records, knowing who has done what. Last year, I wrote a bill on crime technology. Senators Gregg and Hollings were very helpful in the appropriations process in getting the money for that. The fact is that 60 percent of the States have criminal records that are less than 80 percent complete. In other words, our criminal record system isn't as good as it should be. The Brady bill will only work as well as the underlying criminal justice system it is based on. We need to fix it and do a better job. No. 5, we need to get serious about confronting our cultural problems. I thank our colleagues, Senators McCain and Lieberman. I think they were right when they encouraged the President to call a summit meeting of the leaders in the media community--TV, radio, movies, video games and the recording industry--to talk about the responsibility in shaping the messages that we are sending kids. We can't force them not to air trash that is harmful to people. The first amendment doesn't allow that. I hope the President's summit is a success. The fact is, the President does have, as Theodore Roosevelt said, a bully pulpit, and he needs to use it on this issue. We need to be upfront about the costs of excessive violence in the media--the price paid not just in lives lost in tragic events such as the shooting in Littleton, but also in the day-to-day harm that occurs in the emotional lives of children. Many have blamed the toxic culture for the shootings in Littleton. I personally have no doubt that if the culture were not as coarsened as it is today, those kids very well may not have committed this crime. We will never be able to prove it or know for sure. It is too simplistic to say the culture caused the shootings; but to deny a connection would also be simplistic, and, I believe, naive. The culture that thrives on cruelty and hatred did not create these killers, but it offered them an outlet, a particular way of self-expression, that ended up devastating a whole community. We need to work on creating and promoting the alternative to a culture based on death and violence, a culture based, rather, on the value of life, on the principle that every human life is unique, priceless, and worth defending. We can't ban movie and video games we don't like. But there are things that we can do. I think there are positive steps the media could take to improve our culture and protect children to some extent. The most important measure of all is parental involvement. Parents are the most important teachers for their kids. They should be their most important influence. We need to reach out to our children. We need to listen to them. We need to pay attention. It is not a cliche to say that tragic events are a cry for help. It is the simple truth. In conclusion, there is no bill we can pass to make any of this happen. For this we have to look inside ourselves. In the meantime, those who are in public life need to do everything they can to make this task just a little bit easier. I mentioned five ideas that I have. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and concerned people at the local community level in Ohio and across our Nation to make sure we are doing all that we can. 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 ask unanimous consent to proceed for the next 12 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am very proud to join my distinguished colleague, Senator Santorum, in introducing this legislation to ban one of the most barbaric practices ever tolerated in a civilized society. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act is a measure we have already passed twice, only to see it overturned by Presidential vetoes. Enactment of this bill into law is long overdue. A recent tragic event in my own home state of Ohio brings home yet again the need for this ban. On April 6, a young woman went into the Dayton Medical Center in Montgomery County, Ohio, to undergo a partial-birth abortion. This is a procedure that usually takes place behind closed doors, where it can be ignored, its moral status left unquestioned. But this particular procedure was different. In this procedure, on April 6, things did not go as planned. Here's what happened. The Dayton abortionist, Dr. Martin Haskell, started a procedure to dilate her cervix, so the child could eventually be removed and killed. He applied seaweed to start the procedure. He then sent her home-- because this procedure usually takes two or three days. In fact, the patient is supposed to return on the second day for a further application of seaweed--and then come back a third time for the actual partial-birth abortion. So the woman went home to Cincinnati, expecting to return to Dayton and complete the procedure in two or three days. But her cervix dilated far too quickly. Shortly after midnight in the first day, after experiencing severe stomach pains, she was admitted to Bethesda North Hospital in Cincinnati. The child was born. After three hours and eight minutes, the child died. The cause of death was listed on the death certificate as ``prematurity secondary to induced abortion.'' True enough, Mr. President. But also on the death certificate is a space for ``Method of death.'' And it says, in the case of this child, quote, ``Method of death: natural.'' Now that, Mr. President, may well be true in the technical sense. But if you look at the events that led up to her death, you'll see that there was really nothing natural about them about them at all. The medical technician who held that little girl for the three hours and eight minutes of her short life named her Baby Hope. Baby Hope did not die of natural causes. She was the victim of a barbaric procedure that is opposed by the vast majority of the American people. A procedure that has twice been banned by act of Congress--only to see the ban repeatedly overturned by a Presidential veto. The death of Baby Hope did not take place behind the closed doors of an abortion clinic. It took place in public--in a hospital dedicated to saving lives, not taking them. It reminds us of the brutal reality and tragedy of what partial birth abortion really is. When we voted to ban partial-birth abortions, we talked about this procedure in graphic detail. The public reaction to this disclosure-- the disclosure of what partial-birth abortion really is--was loud and it was decisive. And there is a very good reason for this. The procedure is barbaric. One of the first questions people ask is ``why?'' ``Why do they do this procedure? Is it really necessary? Why do we allow this to happen?'' Dr. C. Everett Koop speaks for the consensus of the medical profession when he says this is never a medically necessary procedure. Even Martin Haskell--the abortionist in the Baby Hope case--has admitted that at least eighty percent of the partial-birth abortions he performs are elective. The facts are clear. Partial-birth abortion is not that rare a procedure. What is rare is that we--as a society--saw it happen. It happened by surprise, at a regular hospital, where it wasn't supposed to. Baby Hope was not supposed to die in the arms of a medical technician. But she did. And she cannot easily be ignored. This procedure is not limited to mothers and fetuses who are in danger. It's performed on healthy women--and healthy babies--all the time. The goal of a partial birth abortion is not to protect somebody's health but to kill a child. That is what the doctor wants to do. Dr. Haskell himself has said as much. In an interview with the American Medical News, he said--and I quote--``you could dilate further and deliver the baby alive but that's really not the point. The point is you are attempting to do an abortion. And that's the goal of your work, is to complete an abortion. Not to see how do I manipulate the situation so that I get a live birth instead.'' Unquote. Dr. Haskell admitted it. Why don't we? Again, let's hear Dr. Haskell describe this procedure. Quote: ``I just kept on doing D&Es (dilation and extractions) because that was what I was comfortable with, up until 24 weeks. But they were very tough. Sometimes it was a 45-minute operation. I noticed that some of the later D&Es were very, very easy. So I asked myself why can't they all happen this way. You see the easy ones would have a foot length presentation, you'd reach up and grab the foot of the fetus, pull the fetus down and the head would hang up and then you would collapse the head and take it out. It was easy.'' It was easy, Mr. President. Easy for him. He doesn't say it was easy for the mother, and I suspect he doesn't care. His goal is to perform abortions. Is he the person we're going to trust to decide when abortions are necessary? He's got a production line going--and nothing's going to stop him from meeting his quota. Dr. Haskell continues: ``At first, I would reach around trying to identify a lower extremity blindly with the tip of my instrument. I'd get it right about 30-50 percent of the time. Then I said, `Well gee, if I just put the ultrasound up there I could see it all and I wouldn't have to feel around for it.' I did that and sure enough, I found it 99 percent of the time. Kind of serendipity.'' End of quote. Serendipity, Mr. President. Let me conclude. We need to ask ourselves, what does our toleration of this procedure say about us, as a nation? Where do we draw the line? At what point do we finally stop saying, ``I don't really like this, but it doesn't really matter to me, so I'll put up with it?'' At what point do we say, unless we stop this from happening, we cannot justly call ourselves a civilized nation? Mr. President, when you come right down to it, America's moral anesthetic is wearing off. We know what's going on behind the curtain-- and we can't wish that knowledge away. We have to face it--and do what's right. We have to make the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act the law of the land. Twice in the last three years, Congress has passed this legislation with strong, bipartisan support, only to see it fall victim to a Presidential veto. Once again, I am confident Congress will do the right thing and pass this very important bill. But that's not enough, Mr. President. Passing this legislation in Congress is not enough. It will not save any lives. For lives to be saved, the bill must become law. If something happens behind the iron curtain of an abortion clinic it's easier to pretend that it doesn't happen. But the death of Baby Hope has torn that curtain, revealing the truth of this barbaric procedure. Let people not ask about us fifty years from now, ``How can they not have known?'' and ``Why didn't they do anything?'' Because, Mr. President, the fact is: We do know. And we must take action.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am very proud to join my distinguished colleague, Senator Santorum, in introducing this legislation to ban one of the most barbaric practices ever tolerated in a civilized society. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act is a measure we have already passed twice, only to see it overturned by Presidential vetoes. Enactment of this bill into law is long overdue. A recent tragic event in my own home state of Ohio brings home yet again the need for this ban. On April 6, a young woman went into the Dayton Medical Center in Montgomery County, Ohio, to undergo a partial-birth abortion. This is a procedure that usually takes place behind closed doors, where it can be ignored, its moral status left unquestioned. But this particular procedure was different. In this procedure, on April 6, things did not go as planned. Here's what happened. The Dayton abortionist, Dr. Martin Haskell, started a procedure to dilate her cervix, so the child could eventually be removed and killed. He applied seaweed to start the procedure. He then sent her home-- because this procedure usually takes two or three days. In fact, the patient is supposed to return on the second day for a further application of seaweed--and then come back a third time for the actual partial-birth abortion. So the woman went home to Cincinnati, expecting to return to Dayton and complete the procedure in two or three days. But her cervix dilated far too quickly. Shortly after midnight in the first day, after experiencing severe stomach pains, she was admitted to Bethesda North Hospital in Cincinnati. The child was born. After three hours and eight minutes, the child died. The cause of death was listed on the death certificate as ``prematurity secondary to induced abortion.'' True enough, Mr. President. But also on the death certificate is a space for ``Method of death.'' And it says, in the case of this child, quote, ``Method of death: natural.'' Now that, Mr. President, may well be true in the technical sense. But if you look at the events that led up to her death, you'll see that there was really nothing natural about them about them at all. The medical technician who held that little girl for the three hours and eight minutes of her short life named her Baby Hope. Baby Hope did not die of natural causes. She was the victim of a barbaric procedure that is opposed by the vast majority of the American people. A procedure that has twice been banned by act of Congress--only to see the ban repeatedly overturned by a Presidential veto. The death of Baby Hope did not take place behind the closed doors of an abortion clinic. It took place in public--in a hospital dedicated to saving lives, not taking them. It reminds us of the brutal reality and tragedy of what partial birth abortion really is. When we voted to ban partial-birth abortions, we talked about this procedure in graphic detail. The public reaction to this disclosure-- the disclosure of what partial-birth abortion really is--was loud and it was decisive. And there is a very good reason for this. The procedure is barbaric. One of the first questions people ask is ``why?'' ``Why do they do this procedure? Is it really necessary? Why do we allow this to happen?'' Dr. C. Everett Koop speaks for the consensus of the medical profession when he says this is never a medically necessary procedure. Even Martin Haskell--the abortionist in the Baby Hope case--has admitted that at least eighty percent of the partial-birth abortions he performs are elective. The facts are clear. Partial-birth abortion is not that rare a procedure. What is rare is that we--as a society--saw it happen. It happened by surprise, at a regular hospital, where it wasn't supposed to. Baby Hope was not supposed to die in the arms of a medical technician. But she did. And she cannot easily be ignored. This procedure is not limited to mothers and fetuses who are in danger. It's performed on healthy women--and healthy babies--all the time. The goal of a partial birth abortion is not to protect somebody's health but to kill a child. That is what the doctor wants to do. Dr. Haskell himself has said as much. In an interview with the American Medical News, he said--and I quote--``you could dilate further and deliver the baby alive but that's really not the point. The point is you are attempting to do an abortion. And that's the goal of your work, is to complete an abortion. Not to see how do I manipulate the situation so that I get a live birth instead.'' Unquote. Dr. Haskell admitted it. Why don't we? Again, let's hear Dr. Haskell describe this procedure. Quote: ``I just kept on doing D&Es (dilation and extractions) because that was what I was comfortable with, up until 24 weeks. But they were very tough. Sometimes it was a 45-minute operation. I noticed that some of the later D&Es were very, very easy. So I asked myself why can't they all happen this way. You see the easy ones would have a foot length presentation, you'd reach up and grab the foot of the fetus, pull the fetus down and the head would hang up and then you would collapse the head and take it out. It was easy.'' It was easy, Mr. President. Easy for him. He doesn't say it was easy for the mother, and I suspect he doesn't care. His goal is to perform abortions. Is he the person we're going to trust to decide when abortions are necessary? He's got a production line going--and nothing's going to stop him from meeting his quota. Dr. Haskell continues: ``At first, I would reach around trying to identify a lower extremity blindly with the tip of my instrument. I'd get it right about 30-50 percent of the time. Then I said, `Well gee, if I just put the ultrasound up there I could see it all and I wouldn't have to feel around for it.' I did that and sure enough, I found it 99 percent of the time. Kind of serendipity.'' End of quote. Serendipity, Mr. President. Let me conclude. We need to ask ourselves, what does our toleration of this procedure say about us, as a nation? Where do we draw the line? At what point do we finally stop saying, ``I don't really like this, but it doesn't really matter to me, so I'll put up with it?'' At what point do we say, unless we stop this from happening, we cannot justly call ourselves a civilized nation? Mr. President, when you come right down to it, America's moral anesthetic is wearing off. We know what's going on behind the curtain-- and we can't wish that knowledge away. We have to face it--and do what's right. We have to make the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act the law of the land. Twice in the last three years, Congress has passed this legislation with strong, bipartisan support, only to see it fall victim to a Presidential veto. Once again, I am confident Congress will do the right thing and pass this very important bill. But that's not enough, Mr. President. Passing this legislation in Congress is not enough. It will not save any lives. For lives to be saved, the bill must become law. If something happens behind the iron curtain of an abortion clinic it's easier to pretend that it doesn't happen. But the death of Baby Hope has torn that curtain, revealing the truth of this barbaric procedure. Let people not ask about us fifty years from now, ``How can they not have known?'' and ``Why didn't they do anything?'' Because, Mr. President, the fact is: We do know. And we must take action.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the ``Violent Offender DNA Identification Act of 1999,'' with my colleague Senator Herb Kohl. Existing anti-crime technology can allow us to solve many violent crimes that occur in our communities--but in order for it to work, it has to be used. I have been a longtime advocate for use of the Combined DNA Indexing System (CODIS), a national DNA database, to profile convicted offender DNA. In fact, during consideration of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996, I proposed a provision under which Federal convicted offenders' DNA would be included in CODIS. Unfortunately, the Department of Justice never implemented this law, though currently all 50 states collect DNA from convicted offenders. One of the purposes of this legislation is to expressly require the collection of DNA samples from federally convicted felons, and military personnel convicted of similar offenses. Collection of convicted offender DNA is crucial to solving many of the crimes occurring in our communities. Statistics show that many of these violent felons will repeat their crimes once they are back in society. Since the Federal government does not collect DNA from these felons, however, law enforcement's ability to rapidly identify likely suspects is retarded. Collection of such data is critical. The case of Mrs. Debbie Smith of Virginia underscores the importance of collection of DNA from convicted offenders. Debbie Smith was at her home in the middle of the day when a masked intruder entered her unlocked back door. Her husband, a police lieutenant, was upstairs sleeping. The stranger blindfolded Mrs. Smith and took her to a wooded area behind her house where he robbed and repeatedly raped her. After warning Mrs. Smith not to tell, the assailant let her go. She told her husband, who reported the incident, then took her to the hospital where evidence was collected for DNA analysis. Debbie Smith's rape experience was so terrible that she contemplated taking her own life. She continued to live in constant fear until six- and-a-half years later when a state crime laboratory found a CODIS match with an inmate then serving in jail for abduction and robbery. In fact, the offender was jailed on another offense one month after raping her. There are thousands of other crimes the DNA database can solve. With CODIS we can grant countless victims, like Mrs. Smith, peace of mind and bring their attackers swiftly to justice. We need to do everything we can to make sure law enforcement has access to these tools. A major obstacle facing state and local crime laboratories are the backlogs of convicted offender samples. The Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates that there are about 450,000 convicted offender samples in state and local laboratories awaiting analysis. Increasing demand for DNA analysis in active cases, and limited resources, are reducing the ability of state and local crime laboratories to analyze their convicted offender backlogs. While I introduced, and Congress passed, the Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998 to address the long-term needs of crime laboratories, many crime laboratories need immediate assistance to address their short- term backlogs that will help law enforcement solve crime. This bill would provide about $30 million, over 4 years, to help state and local crime laboratories address their convicted offender backlogs. We are asking the FBI to work with private, state and local laboratories to organize regional laboratories to analysis backlogged State and local convicted offender samples. While we have considered many ways to address the backlog of convicted offender samples in state and local laboratories, we believe that the approach outlined in this legislation provides the fastest, most cost-effective and efficient method of eliminating the backlog. Violent criminals should not be able to evade responsibility simply because a state lacks the resources to analyze their DNA samples, or because a loophole excludes certain Federal offenders from our national database. This legislation would be a huge asset for our local law enforcers in their day-to-day fight against crime. I thank Senator Kohl for his efforts.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the ``Violent Offender DNA Identification Act of 1999,'' with my colleague Senator Herb Kohl. Existing anti-crime technology can allow us to solve many violent crimes that occur in our communities--but in order for it to work, it has to be used. I have been a longtime advocate for use of the Combined DNA Indexing System (CODIS), a national DNA database, to profile convicted offender DNA. In fact, during consideration of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996, I proposed a provision under which Federal convicted offenders' DNA would be included in CODIS. Unfortunately, the Department of Justice never implemented this law, though currently all 50 states collect DNA from convicted offenders. One of the purposes of this legislation is to expressly require the collection of DNA samples from federally convicted felons, and military personnel convicted of similar offenses. Collection of convicted offender DNA is crucial to solving many of the crimes occurring in our communities. Statistics show that many of these violent felons will repeat their crimes once they are back in society. Since the Federal government does not collect DNA from these felons, however, law enforcement's ability to rapidly identify likely suspects is retarded. Collection of such data is critical. The case of Mrs. Debbie Smith of Virginia underscores the importance of collection of DNA from convicted offenders. Debbie Smith was at her home in the middle of the day when a masked intruder entered her unlocked back door. Her husband, a police lieutenant, was upstairs sleeping. The stranger blindfolded Mrs. Smith and took her to a wooded area behind her house where he robbed and repeatedly raped her. After warning Mrs. Smith not to tell, the assailant let her go. She told her husband, who reported the incident, then took her to the hospital where evidence was collected for DNA analysis. Debbie Smith's rape experience was so terrible that she contemplated taking her own life. She continued to live in constant fear until six- and-a-half years later when a state crime laboratory found a CODIS match with an inmate then serving in jail for abduction and robbery. In fact, the offender was jailed on another offense one month after raping her. There are thousands of other crimes the DNA database can solve. With CODIS we can grant countless victims, like Mrs. Smith, peace of mind and bring their attackers swiftly to justice. We need to do everything we can to make sure law enforcement has access to these tools. A major obstacle facing state and local crime laboratories are the backlogs of convicted offender samples. The Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates that there are about 450,000 convicted offender samples in state and local laboratories awaiting analysis. Increasing demand for DNA analysis in active cases, and limited resources, are reducing the ability of state and local crime laboratories to analyze their convicted offender backlogs. While I introduced, and Congress passed, the Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998 to address the long-term needs of crime laboratories, many crime laboratories need immediate assistance to address their short- term backlogs that will help law enforcement solve crime. This bill would provide about $30 million, over 4 years, to help state and local crime laboratories address their convicted offender backlogs. We are asking the FBI to work with private, state and local laboratories to organize regional laboratories to analysis backlogged State and local convicted offender samples. While we have considered many ways to address the backlog of convicted offender samples in state and local laboratories, we believe that the approach outlined in this legislation provides the fastest, most cost-effective and efficient method of eliminating the backlog. Violent criminals should not be able to evade responsibility simply because a state lacks the resources to analyze their DNA samples, or because a loophole excludes certain Federal offenders from our national database. This legislation would be a huge asset for our local law enforcers in their day-to-day fight against crime. I thank Senator Kohl for his efforts.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to salute a truly great American on the occasion of his eightieth birthday. Carl Lindner is an important figure in the history of American business--he is also a good man and a dear friend. The Carl Lindner story is a genuine, old-fashioned American success story. He came from a modest background. He started out delivering milk--and ended up owning an ice cream company. And many other companies besides! He was born in Dayton, Ohio, on April 22, 1919. He grew up in the small town of Norwood, in Hamilton County. And he brought the values he learned there to the creation of a huge business empire--United Dairy Farmers, American Financial Corporation, Chiquita Brands, Penn Central Corporation, Great American Communications Company. And throughout all of this, Carl Lindner remains today a kind, unassuming family man--with the values of a businessman beloved by his friends in a small town. A man who cares about others--and about the welfare of his whole community. It has been said that just about everybody who grows up in southwest Ohio spends at least some time working for one of Carl Lindner's companies. He is certainly one of the key employers in the entire Tristate area, if not the country. But he doesn't just help people by employing them. He is also one of the most generous philanthropists in America. He is a quiet man with a heart of gold--and he works tirelessly to improve the health and education of the people of Ohio, our nation, and the whole world. Mr. President, America gave Carl Lindner the opportunity to work hard and achieve a great deal. And he has given a lot back to this country. His most important contribution--is his example. He proves that the most important thing in a man's life is not how much money he makes, but what he does for people. He is not a man who clamors for attention; this week, he is in the headlines because of his purchase of the Cincinnati Reds. But the real Carl Lindner--the one I know--is a man whose most important priority is helping people. To Carl Lindner, on his eightieth birthday, the people of Ohio say congratulations, and a deep and heartfelt thank you from all of us whose lives you have touched!

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, one of the key virtues of living in a free society such as our own is that it's harder for injustice to remain hidden and unreported. Unlike Communist and fascist countries--countries where the government can control access to information, and cover up genocide and war crimes for years--in our country, people are allowed to stand up and tell the truth. They can reveal inconvenient and unpleasant facts about moral evils that are taking place in our society. To speak the truth--to distinguish right from wrong, you don't have to be a President, or a Senator, or a famous human rights crusader like Martin Luther King, Jr. You can be anybody. You can be a medical technician in Cincinnati, OH. Mr. President, let me tell you a story about how--very recently, in my home State of Ohio--some disturbing truths were revealed that many Americans simply wish would go away. On April 6, a young woman went into an abortion clinic in Montgomery County, OH, to undergo a procedure known as partial-birth abortion. This is a procedure that usually takes place behind closed doors, where it can be ignored, its moral status left unquestioned. But this particular procedure was different. In this procedure, on April 6, things did not go as planned. Here's what happened. The Dayton, OH, abortionist, Dr. Martin Haskell, started a procedure to dilate her cervix, so the child could eventually be removed and killed. He applied seaweed to start the procedure. He then sent her home--because this procedure usually takes 2 or 3 days. In fact, the patient is supposed to return on the second day for a further application of seaweed--and then come back a third time for the actual partial-birth abortion--a 3-day procedure. So the woman went home to Cincinnati, expecting to return to Dayton and complete the procedure in 2 or 3 days. But her cervix dilated far too quickly. Shortly after midnight on the first day, after experiencing severe stomach pains, she was admitted to Bethesda North Hospital in Cincinnati. The child was born. After 3 hours and 8 minutes, this little girl died. The cause of death was listed on the death certificate as ``prematurity secondary to induced abortion.'' True enough, Mr. President. But also on the death certificate is a space for ``Method of death.'' And it says, in the case of this child, ``Method of death: natural.'' I do not mean to quarrel, talk about whether this is true in the technical sense. But if you look at the events that led up to her death, you'll see that there was really nothing natural about them at all. The medical technician who held that little girl for the 3 hours and 8 minutes of her short life named her Baby Hope. Baby Hope did not die of natural causes. She was the victim of a barbaric procedure that is opposed by the vast majority of the American people. A procedure that has twice been banned by act of Congress--only to see the ban repeatedly overturned by a Presidential veto. The death of Baby Hope did not take place behind the closed doors of an abortion clinic. It took place in public--in a hospital dedicated to saving lives, not taking them. Her death reminds us of the brutal reality and tragedy of what partial-birth abortion really is. When we voted to ban partial-birth abortions, we talked about this procedure in graphic detail. The public reaction to this disclosure-- the disclosure of what partial-birth abortion really is--was loud and it was decisive. And there is a very good reason for this. The procedure is barbaric. One of the first questions people ask is ``why?'' ``Why do they do this procedure? Is it really necessary? Why do we allow this to happen?'' Dr. C. Everett Koop speaks for the consensus of the medical profession when he says this is never a medically necessary procedure. Even Martin Haskell--the abortionist in the Baby Hope case--has admitted that at least 80 percent of the partial-birth abortions he performs are elective. The facts are clear. Partial-birth abortion is not that rare a procedure. What is rare is that we--as a society--saw it happen. It happened by surprise at a regular hospital where it wasn't supposed to happen. Baby Hope was not supposed to die in the arms of a medical technician. But she did. And this little baby cannot be easily ignored. We cannot turn our back on this reality. This procedure is not limited to mothers and fetuses who are in danger. It is performed on healthy women--and healthy babies--all the time. The goal of a partial-birth abortion is not to protect somebody's health but to kill a child. That is what the abortionist wants to do. Dr. Haskell himself has said as much. In an interview with the American Medical News, he said: You could dilate further and deliver the baby alive but that's really not the point. The point is, you are attempting to do an abortion, and that is the goal of your work, is to complete an abortion, not to see how do I manipulate the situation so I get a live birth instead. Now Dr. Haskell has admitted what the reality is. Why don't we? Again, let's hear Dr. Haskell in his own words, a man who performed this abortion on Baby Hope. This is what Dr. Haskell says about this ``procedure.'' These are Dr. Haskell's words: I just kept on doing the D&E's [dilation and extraction] because that is what I was comfortable with, up until 24 weeks. But they were very tough. Sometimes it was a 45-minute operation. I noticed some of the later D&Es were very, very easy. So I asked myself why can't they all happen this way. You see the easy ones would have a foot length presentation, you'd reach up and grab the foot of the fetus, pull the fetus down and the head would hang up and then you would collapse the head and take it out. It was easy. It was easy, Mr. President. Easy for Dr. Haskell. He does not say it was easy for the mother, and he certainly does not say it was easy for the baby. I suspect he doesn't care. His goal is to perform abortions. But is he the person we are going to trust to decide when abortions are necessary? Dr. Haskell has a production line going in Dayton, OH. Nothing is going to stop him from meeting his quota. Dr. Haskell continues. Again, the words of Dr. Haskell: At first, I would reach around trying to identify a lower extremity blindly with the tip of my instrument. I'd get it right about 30-50 percent of the time. Then I said, ``Well, gee, if I just put the ultrasound up there, I could see it all and I wouldn't have to feel around for it.'' I did that and sure enough, I found it 99 percent of the time. Kind of serendipity. Serendipity, Mr. President. Let me conclude. We need to ask ourselves, what does our toleration in this country of this ``procedure'' say about us as a nation? Where do we draw the line? At what point do we finally stop saying, ``Well, I don't really like this, but it doesn't really matter to me, so I will put up with it''? When do we stop saying that as a country, Mr. President? At what point do we say, ``Unless we stop this from happening, we cannot justly call ourselves a civilized Nation''? When you come right down to it, America's moral anesthetic is wearing off. It really is. We know what is going on behind the curtain, and we cannot wish that knowledge away. We have to face it, and we have to do what is right. This week, some of my colleagues and I will be reintroducing the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Twice in the last 3 years, Congress has passed this legislation with strong bipartisan support, only to see it fall victim to a Presidential veto. Once again, I am confident Congress will do the right thing and pass this very important legislation. But that is not enough. Passing this legislation in Congress is not enough. For lives to be saved, the bill must actually become law. Mr. President, if something happens behind the iron curtain of an abortion clinic, it is easier to pretend it simply did not happen. But the death of Baby Hope in Cincinnati, OH, in the last few days has torn that curtain, revealing the truth of this barbaric procedure. Let people not ask about us 50 years from now: How could they not have known? or ask: Why didn't they do anything? because, Mr. President, the fact is, we do know and we must take action. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I join with my colleague, Senator Durbin, in introducing the ``Children's Asthma Relief Act of 1999.'' This bill would authorize $50 million for each of 5 years for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to award grants to eligible entities to develop and expand projects to provide asthma services to children. These grants may also be used to equip mobile health care clinics that provide asthma diagnosis and asthma-related health care services, educate families on asthma management, and identify and enroll uninsured children who are eligible for but not receiving health coverage under Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The ability to identify and enroll children in these programs will ensure that children with asthma receive the care they need. Research supported by the NIH has shown that the combination of cockroach waste, house dust mites, molds, tobacco smoke, and feathers (among other allergens) contribute to asthma-related illness and hospitalization. Children living in urban areas are especially susceptible. Asthma is the most common chronic illness that forces children to miss school. From 1979 to 1992, the hospitalization rates among children due to asthma increased 74 percent. Estimates show that more than 7% of children now suffer from asthma. Hospitalization rates were highest for individuals 4 years old and younger. According to 1998 data from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) my home state of Ohio ranks about 17th in the estimated prevalence rates for asthma. Nationwide, the most substantial prevalence rate increase for asthma occurred among children aged 4 years old and younger. I believe that an important component of this bill is that it requires those receiving grants to coordinate with current children's health programs such as the Maternal and Child Health Program, Medicaid, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, supplemental nutrition programs, and child welfare, foster care and adoption assistance programs. This type of coordination with other children's programs will help to ensure not just a better targeting of funding, but also will help to identify children in these programs who are asthmatic and may otherwise remain undetected and untreated. This bill would authorize $5 million for each of 5 years for the Secretary of HHS to award matching grants to states that develop plans to carry out asthma-related programs for children according to NIH guidelines through the state children's health insurance programs. Since research shows that children living in urban areas suffer from asthma at such alarming rates and that allergens such as cockroach waste contribute to the onset of asthma, this bill adds urban cockroach management to the current preventive health services block grant which can currently be used for rodent control. To reduce roach allergens, this block grant could be used to cover the costs of structural rehabilitation of public housing, schools, and other public facilities to control roach infestation, while minimizing or avoiding the use of pesticides. This bill would require that NIH give the National Asthma Education Prevention Program (within NIH) an additional $5 million for each of 5 years to develop a federal plan for responding to asthma and to submit recommendations to Congress on ways to strengthen and better coordinate federal asthma-related activities. To better monitor the prevalence and determine which areas have the greatest incidences of children with asthma, this bill would require CDC to conduct local asthma surveillance activities to collect data on the prevalence and severity of asthma and to annually publish data on the prevalence rates of asthma among children and on the childhood mortality rate. This surveillance data will help us better detect asthmatic conditions so that more children can be treated and we can ensure that we are targeting our resources in an effective and efficient way to reverse the disturbing trend in the hospitalization and death rates of children who suffer from asthma. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this very important initiative to help the nearly 5 million children who have been diagnosed with asthma and to help those who suffer from asthma but who remain untreated.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the ``Safe Seniors Assurance Study Act of 1999.'' I am joined in this effort by my colleague, Senator Reid from Nevada. This bill would require that the Secretary of Health and Human Services conduct a study and analyze the impact of physician supervision, or lack of physician supervision, on death rates of Medicare patients associated with the administration of anesthesia services. Since the Medicare program began, the Health Care Financing Adminstration's (HCFA) standards for hospitals and ambulatory surgical centers have required that a physician either provide the anesthesia care or supervise the anesthesia care provided by nurse anesthetists. This requirement has also applied to the Medicaid program. The very old and the very young, both covered by these two federal insurance programs, represent the segments of our population that, on average, face the highest anesthesia risks. The two programs cover over 40 million Americans. In December 1997, HCFA proposed changes to its standards for hospitals and surgical centers. Included in these proposed changes was the elimination of the physician supervision requirement, leaving to state governments the decision whether physician supervision of nurse anesthetists was necessary. In issuing its proposed changes, HCFA offered no scientific data indicating that anesthesia safety would not be impaired as a result of the changed rule, and has offered no such data to this day. In 1992, HCFA considered a similar change, but rejected it. After reviewing the studies available at the time showing anesthesia outcomes, HCFA concluded: ``In consideration of the risks associated with anesthesia procedures, we believe it would not be appropriate to allow anesthesia administration by a non-physician anesthetist unless under supervision by an anesthesiologist or the operating practitioner.'' HCFA also declined to adopt as a ``national minimum standard of care, a practice that is allowed in only some states.'' In the only comparative anesthesia outcome study published since 1992, researchers found that outcomes were better in hospitals having Board-certified anesthesiologists on staff. In the Fall of last year, an abstract of a University of Pennsylvania study of 65,000 Medicare surgical cases indicated that mortality and `failure to rescue' rates significantly improved when a nurse anesthetist was supervised by an anesthesiologist rather than the operating surgeon. This latter study is expected to be published in final form later this year. The Conference Report on the Fiscal Year 1999 Omnibus Appropriations measure recommended that HCFA ``base retaining or changing the current requirement of physician supervision. . .on scientifically valid outcomes data.'' The Report suggested ``an outcome approach that would examine, using existing operating room anesthesia data, mortality and adverse outcomes rates by different anesthesia providers, adjusted to reflect relevant scientific variables.'' A bill was introduced in the House in early February by Representatives Dave Weldon and Gene Green that would require HCFA to undertake the congressionally-recommended outcome study of Medicare patients, and complete it by June 30, 2000. That bill currently has about 37 cosponsors--Republicans and Democrats. This is not a partisan issue, but an issue about safety. The bill that I am introducing with my colleague, Senator Harry Reid today, is very similar to the Weldon/ Green bill in the House. Our Senate version would only require that the Secretary of HHS consider the results of the June 2000 study in deciding whether or not to implement its 1997 proposal. Physician anesthesiologists personally provide, or supervise anesthesia administration by a qualified non-physician, 90% of the anesthesia care in this country. In the rest of the cases, supervision is provided by the operating practitioner. Under the Medicare program, there is no additional cost for having an anesthesiologist provide or supervise the anesthesia care versus having a non-physician provide the anesthesia under the supervision of the operating practitioner. The proposed HCFA rule change does not, therefore, generate any cost savings. Anesthesiologists are physicians who, after four years of pre-medical training in college, have completed eight years of medical education and specialized residency training. This is in contrast to the 24 to 30 months of training received by nurse anesthetists after nursing school--in fact, about 37% of nurse anesthetists have not graduated from college. The American Medical Association's House of Delegates last December approved a resolution supporting legislation requiring that an appropriately licensed and credentialed physician administer or supervise anesthesia care. National surveys of Medicare beneficiaries performed by the Tarrance Group in January 1998 and 1999 show that 4 out of 5 seniors oppose the elimination of the current physician supervision requirement. Let's err on the side of safety and caution by requiring that the Secretary of HHS conduct a study on the mortality and death rates of Medicare patients associated with the administration of anesthesia care by different providers. Analyzing the impact of physician supervision on anesthesia care and requiring the Secretary to simply consider the results of that study in determining whether or not to change current regulations to allow unsupervised nurse anesthetists to administer anesthesia services, is the very least we can do to ensure that we are making safe changes to existing regulations--changes that HCFA rejected in 1992 when studies of anesthesia outcomes were up-to-date and available. If HCFA is going to now change its policy in 1999, we should ask HCFA to show us the scientific and clinical data behind its decision to ensure that the safety of our most vulnerable populations--our children and our elderly--are adequately protected. None of us--including HCFA-- is in a position to judge the merits of this proposed rule change without first gathering and then analyzing up-to-date scientific evidence. Only then can patients be confident in the safety and quality of their anesthesia care. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I join with my colleague, Senator Durbin, in introducing the ``Children's Asthma Relief Act of 1999.'' This bill would authorize $50 million for each of 5 years for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to award grants to eligible entities to develop and expand projects to provide asthma services to children. These grants may also be used to equip mobile health care clinics that provide asthma diagnosis and asthma-related health care services, educate families on asthma management, and identify and enroll uninsured children who are eligible for but not receiving health coverage under Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The ability to identify and enroll children in these programs will ensure that children with asthma receive the care they need. Research supported by the NIH has shown that the combination of cockroach waste, house dust mites, molds, tobacco smoke, and feathers (among other allergens) contribute to asthma-related illness and hospitalization. Children living in urban areas are especially susceptible. Asthma is the most common chronic illness that forces children to miss school. From 1979 to 1992, the hospitalization rates among children due to asthma increased 74 percent. Estimates show that more than 7% of children now suffer from asthma. Hospitalization rates were highest for individuals 4 years old and younger. According to 1998 data from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) my home state of Ohio ranks about 17th in the estimated prevalence rates for asthma. Nationwide, the most substantial prevalence rate increase for asthma occurred among children aged 4 years old and younger. I believe that an important component of this bill is that it requires those receiving grants to coordinate with current children's health programs such as the Maternal and Child Health Program, Medicaid, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, supplemental nutrition programs, and child welfare, foster care and adoption assistance programs. This type of coordination with other children's programs will help to ensure not just a better targeting of funding, but also will help to identify children in these programs who are asthmatic and may otherwise remain undetected and untreated. This bill would authorize $5 million for each of 5 years for the Secretary of HHS to award matching grants to states that develop plans to carry out asthma-related programs for children according to NIH guidelines through the state children's health insurance programs. Since research shows that children living in urban areas suffer from asthma at such alarming rates and that allergens such as cockroach waste contribute to the onset of asthma, this bill adds urban cockroach management to the current preventive health services block grant which can currently be used for rodent control. To reduce roach allergens, this block grant could be used to cover the costs of structural rehabilitation of public housing, schools, and other public facilities to control roach infestation, while minimizing or avoiding the use of pesticides. This bill would require that NIH give the National Asthma Education Prevention Program (within NIH) an additional $5 million for each of 5 years to develop a federal plan for responding to asthma and to submit recommendations to Congress on ways to strengthen and better coordinate federal asthma-related activities. To better monitor the prevalence and determine which areas have the greatest incidences of children with asthma, this bill would require CDC to conduct local asthma surveillance activities to collect data on the prevalence and severity of asthma and to annually publish data on the prevalence rates of asthma among children and on the childhood mortality rate. This surveillance data will help us better detect asthmatic conditions so that more children can be treated and we can ensure that we are targeting our resources in an effective and efficient way to reverse the disturbing trend in the hospitalization and death rates of children who suffer from asthma. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this very important initiative to help the nearly 5 million children who have been diagnosed with asthma and to help those who suffer from asthma but who remain untreated.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Sessions, to reintroduce legislation that would close the loopholes that permit civilians accompanying the Armed Forces and those serving with the Armed Forces from evading punishment for crimes they committed while abroad. Under current law, many illegal acts committed abroad by dependents, civilian employees, and those servicing with the Armed Forces go substantially unaddressed by either military or civilian courts. Administrative punishments have proven equally inadequate to address this problem. When civilians accompany the Armed Services outside the United States, they are not subject to prosecution under Federal criminal law or the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This has proven to be a double-edged sword. While foreign nations frequently have no interest in vindicating crimes committed by American civilians against other Americans, despite the extreme seriousness of the offense, there have been instances where the United States has had to turn over American civilians to host countries for potentially harsh punishment because of the absence of appropriate enforcement action. Unfortunately, this problem is likely to worsen as there are a large number of dependents overseas, and the number of civilian employees of the Armed Services overseas is increasing. As for those serving with the Armed Forces, criminal prosecutions by the military court or administrative alternatives sometimes simply discharge the individual and send them home, rather than imposing any serious punishment for a crime. The case that has united Senator Sessions and me behind this legislation is that of an Ohio resident, Amy McGough, who was stationed in Germany, along with her husband who is from Alabama. Mrs. McGough's 8-year-old son and 5-year-old daughter were repeatedly raped and molested by a neighbor boy who was supposed to be baby-sitting them. While the Criminal Investigations Division of the Army found sufficient facts, neither the Army nor Federal prosecutors had jurisdiction to prosecute the case, and the German government would not intervene because of the age of the perpetrator. In such cases, our bill would guarantee that civilians, or those serving with the Armed Forces in certain circumstances, who commit an illegal act punishable under the Federal law by more than a year's imprisonment, will be subject to the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States for prosecution by a military court or for Federal criminal prosecution. Neither civilians connected with the Armed Forces nor those serving with the Armed Forces abroad accused of rape, child molestation or some other serious felony will simply be allowed to resign or leave the foreign country to avoid punishment. They will be subject to Federal prosecution. We need to make sure that an appropriate criminal process exists in these circumstances. Letting these individuals back on America's streets does little to hold them accountable, and nothing to protect our communities here at home. I appreciate the efforts of my colleague, Senator Sessions, who is also a member of the Armed Services Committee, in working with me to introduce this legislation to address our mutual concern.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Sessions, to reintroduce legislation that would close the loopholes that permit civilians accompanying the Armed Forces and those serving with the Armed Forces from evading punishment for crimes they committed while abroad. Under current law, many illegal acts committed abroad by dependents, civilian employees, and those servicing with the Armed Forces go substantially unaddressed by either military or civilian courts. Administrative punishments have proven equally inadequate to address this problem. When civilians accompany the Armed Services outside the United States, they are not subject to prosecution under Federal criminal law or the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This has proven to be a double-edged sword. While foreign nations frequently have no interest in vindicating crimes committed by American civilians against other Americans, despite the extreme seriousness of the offense, there have been instances where the United States has had to turn over American civilians to host countries for potentially harsh punishment because of the absence of appropriate enforcement action. Unfortunately, this problem is likely to worsen as there are a large number of dependents overseas, and the number of civilian employees of the Armed Services overseas is increasing. As for those serving with the Armed Forces, criminal prosecutions by the military court or administrative alternatives sometimes simply discharge the individual and send them home, rather than imposing any serious punishment for a crime. The case that has united Senator Sessions and me behind this legislation is that of an Ohio resident, Amy McGough, who was stationed in Germany, along with her husband who is from Alabama. Mrs. McGough's 8-year-old son and 5-year-old daughter were repeatedly raped and molested by a neighbor boy who was supposed to be baby-sitting them. While the Criminal Investigations Division of the Army found sufficient facts, neither the Army nor Federal prosecutors had jurisdiction to prosecute the case, and the German government would not intervene because of the age of the perpetrator. In such cases, our bill would guarantee that civilians, or those serving with the Armed Forces in certain circumstances, who commit an illegal act punishable under the Federal law by more than a year's imprisonment, will be subject to the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States for prosecution by a military court or for Federal criminal prosecution. Neither civilians connected with the Armed Forces nor those serving with the Armed Forces abroad accused of rape, child molestation or some other serious felony will simply be allowed to resign or leave the foreign country to avoid punishment. They will be subject to Federal prosecution. We need to make sure that an appropriate criminal process exists in these circumstances. Letting these individuals back on America's streets does little to hold them accountable, and nothing to protect our communities here at home. I appreciate the efforts of my colleague, Senator Sessions, who is also a member of the Armed Services Committee, in working with me to introduce this legislation to address our mutual concern.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer an amendment along with Senators, Abraham, Coverdell, Burns, Santorum, Smith of Oregon, Grams, Baucus, and Ashcroft to the budget resolution on the importance of counter-narcotic funding. I offer this amendment because I want to make it crystal clear that this budget, and this Congress, should make a serious investment in anti-drug activities. This amendment expresses a Sense of Senate that funding for federal drug control activities should be at a level higher than that proposed in the President's Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2000 and that funding for federal drug control activities should allow for investments in programs authorized in the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act and in S.5, the proposed Drug Free Century Act, which I introduced earlier this year. Mr. President, history has proven that a successful anti-drug strategy is balanced and comprehensive in three key areas: demand reduction--such as education and treatment; domestic law enforcement; and international supply reduction. This is why last year, I introduced the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act, a $2.6 billion authorization initiative over three years for enhanced international eradication, interdiction and crop alternative programs. Two factors motivated me to launch this bi-partisan effort: a significant rise in teen drug use and a significant decline in our investment to seize drugs outside our borders. This dramatic decrease in our international efforts is one of the reasons why drugs have become more available and more affordable. This wasn't always the case. The budget numbers tell an alarming and undeniable story. In 1987, the federal government's drug control budget of $4.79 billion was divided as follows: 29% for demand reduction programs; 38% for domestic law enforcement; and 33% for international supply reduction. This funding breakdown was the norm during the Reagan and Bush Administrations' efforts against illegal drugs, from 1985-92. And during that time, our investment paid off. From 1988-1991, total drug use was down 13%. Cocaine use dropped by 35%. Marijuana use was reduced by 16%. After President Clinton took office in 1993, this Administration pursued an anti-drug strategy that upset this careful funding balance. And by 1995, the federal drug control budget of $13.3 billion was divided as follows: 35% for demand reduction programs; 53% for domestic law enforcement, and only 12% for international supply reduction. The share of our anti-drug investment dedicated to stopping drugs outside our country dropped from 33% in 1987 to 12% in 1995. Mr. President, our country is paying the price for this unfortunate change in strategy. Since 1992, overall drug use among teens aged 12 to 17 rose by 70 percent. Drug-abuse related arrests more than doubled for minors between 1992 and 1996. And the price of drugs also decreased during this time period. Last year we passed the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act and also provided a down payment of $829 million to get this initiative started. Today, however, it is clear that the Administration is not yet ready to exercise the leadership Congress demanded on this Act. First, the Administration's Fiscal Year 2000 budget would invest less in our anti- drug efforts than what Congress provided this year. Second, regardless of repeated efforts to work with the Administration to get serious about eradication and interdiction, not one of the top priorities outlined in our bi-partisan Act were funded in the Administration's proposed budget. So, once again, it is up to us in Congress to set the example and provide the leadership to ensure we implement a serious and balanced drug control policy. Let me conclude by thanking the Chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, and his staff, for their efforts to make sure this budget resolution represents the commitment we must make if we are truly serious about reducing drugs. It will take that kind of commitment to help us achieve once again a comprehensive and balanced drug control strategy. Most important, it will put us back on a course toward ridding our schools and communities of illegal and destructive drugs. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this important and timely amendment.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my distinguished colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, to introduce this amendment, which would once again put this Senate on record in support of restoring our nation's military science and technology base. Specifically, our amendment expresses the Sense of the Senate that the budgetary levels for the Defense Science and Technology program should be consistent with the 2% real increases in the budget request called for by Congress in last year's Defense Authorization Act. Without question, our nation has built the most technologically superior military force in the history of mankind. During our recent demonstration of resolve against Saddam Hussein, the men and women who participated in Operation Desert Fox were virtually untouchable. The results of their efforts were amazing: we attacked over 100 separate targets in an effort to degrade Saddam Hussein's military infrastructure. We totally destroyed 85 percent of these targets, and partially damaged the remainder, all without so much as a scratched airplane. Why are our aircraft so overwhelmingly dominant and untouchable on the battlefield? The answer: the Air Force made an investment many years ago in science and technology research and we are now reaping the returns of that investment. Unfortunately, in recent years, the Air Force, as well as our other service branches, have made significant reductions in its investment in scientific research which may cast a long, dark shadow on the success of tomorrow's military. Over the last 10 years, the Air Force, for example, has reduced the S&T workforce by 2,375 people. A large number of these talented individuals came from Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio. And unless we in Congress take action, Wright- Patterson and other similar bases across our country will continue to lose this unrivaled expertise. Mr. President, this should be of great concern to all of us. Continued investment in Defense S&T research is crucial if we are to meet the challenges ahead. Yes, our nation's central security concern of the past half century--the threat of communist expansion--is gone. However, the world is far from being a safe place. Every day, our nation faces more and more diverse and complex challenges--as highlighted by recent events in the Middle East, Kosovo, international terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them, and the flooding of illegal drugs into our country. These threats to stability and security require an enduring commitment to diplomatic engagement and military readiness. In both instances, science and technology research plays a critical role. Today we lead the world in virtually every measure of technological development, but we can't rest on our recent successes. To remain the best we have to continue to offer the best technology and employ the best scientists, engineers, technicians, and innovators. The brave men and women of tomorrow's military will have to fight with the technology we invest in today--what we do today will have a direct impact on our success tomorrow. Since the founding of our great nation, scientific discovery and technological innovation have advanced our military capabilities and economic prosperity, ensuring the United States' position as a world leader. I must confess a great deal of personal pride in the dedicated men and women at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base--the Defense Department's largest research site--who play no small part in this endeavor. Wright-Patterson, founded in 1917 and formerly known as McCook Field, has given the nation technological advancements too numerous to count. These include advanced lightweight aerodynamic designs, advanced jet engines, hypersonic lifting bodies, development of the first ``smart weapons,'' and many, many others. It is doubtful we will see that kind of achievement in the near future. My colleagues and I are here offering this amendment because we are very concerned that the proposed level of funding for Defense S&T programs for next year is nearly $400 million below the level Congress provided this year. I am very troubled about the Air Force's proposal to use Air Force S&T resources to fund the Space Based Laser and Discoverer II (space- based radar) program beginning in FY 2000. It is our understanding that these previously non-S&T programs were inserted into the FY 2000 Air Force late in the budget process, while providing no additional funding to cover the costs of current S&T programs. This represents a significant reduction in our Air Force S&T investment in FY 2000 and the outyears, and unless Congress acts, will result in drastic cuts in critical Air Force research programs, severe reductions in force, and weaken our overall Air Force technology base. In fact, earlier this month, the Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (WPAFB) announced it would lose 163 civilian positions as a result of the Air Force's proposed FY 2000 S&T budget. Now that Congress has agreed to address emerging readiness issues and increase our investment in our national defense, our long term readiness requires Congress to reverse the dangerous decline in S&T funding. Last year, Congress recognized this downward trend in our S&T investments and passed legislation that called for an increase in the budget for Defense S&T programs in all the Services by at least two percent above the rate of inflation for each year for the next nine years. Rebuilding Defense S&T is more than in investment in programs, but in people as well. Simply restoring funding for S&T will not automatically bring that lost expertise back. It has to be built up over time. In order to take advantage of next generation technology, we need to begin recruiting the next generation of innovators. For these reasons, it's important that we pass a long-term budget plan that is consistent with the goal we set last year to rebuild our Defense S&T programs and personnel. We can start that effort by passing the amendment offered by the Senator from New Mexico. If we abide by the commitment embodied in this amendment, we will give tomorrow's military the tools it needs to ensure our national security needs are met. In addition, by investing in highly qualified personnel, we are making it possible to devote the best minds toward developing the best technology. We must invest now so our children can enjoy the peace and prosperity that comes with being second to none in military technological superiority. I thank the Chair.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts Act of 1999, a bill to improve the administrative efficiency and effectiveness of the juvenile and family courts, as well as the quality and availability of training for judges, attorneys and guardian ad litems. I am joined in this introduction by Senator Rockefeller, and I thank him for all of his hard work on behalf of abused and neglected children and I look forward to working with him as we move forward with this legislation. I have been involved with children's issues for over two decades, not just as the father of eight, but also as a local county elected official. I know the kinds of problems that exist at the ground level, and I think it's very important that we work together to address them. This is especially true today, as opposed to a couple of years ago, because the child welfare agencies and the courts have an important new task--the implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act. Almost one and a half years ago, Congress passed this historic piece of legislation, which was designed to encourage safe and permanent family placements for abused and neglected children--and to decrease the amount of time that a child spends in the foster care system. With this law, we make it clear that the health and safety of the child must come first when making any decision for a child in the abuse and neglect system. This law shortens the time line for children in foster care. Specifically, the law requires initiation of proceedings to terminate parental rights for any child who has been in the foster care system for 15 of the last 22 months. These timelines are very important. Foster care was meant to be a temporary solution--but for too many children foster care has become a way of life. However, the institution of these timelines has created additional pressure on an already overburdened court system. To give you an idea of the burden that already exists, consider this: When the Family Court was established in New York in 1962, it reviewed 96,000 cases the first year. By 1997, the case load had increased to 670,000 cases. A September 1997 report by the Fund for Modern Courts found that Family Court judges were overburdened and forced to provide, quote, ``assembly line justice''--because they only had a few minutes to review each case. The report found that in Brooklyn, cases receive an average of 4 minutes before a judge on a first appearance and little more than 11 minutes on subsequent appearances. The report concluded that, quote: ``It is easy to understand how a tragedy can result from decisions made based on so little actual time in court.'' End of quote. And that's not the only problem in the system. In Cuyahoga County, Ohio, the juvenile court identified 3,000 cases that were open, but inactive. In most of these cases, the child had been charged with a minor crime, but never had his or her case scheduled for trial. But more than 100 of these cases involved children who remained in foster care for months or even years, despite the fact that a judge had ordered them to be returned home to their parents. Another problem faced in Cuyahoga County, and in many other places, is the missing file. Until recently, the court had no central clerk's file, so there was no way of tracking the location of a particular file. If the file could not be found on the day of a hearing or review, it would result in a postponement, adding months to a child's stay in foster care. It is undisputed that children need permanency as quickly as possible. It is simply unconscionable that children should be trapped in foster care by a Dickensian nightmare of paperwork. And you also have to wonder where the lawyers, case workers and guardians for these children were--and what they were doing as these cases dragged on for months or even years longer than necessary. It is a symptom of the overburdened child welfare system and the lack of resources available for everyone involved --the child welfare agencies, the attorneys, the guardians, the courts. It's not their fault, but it's not tolerable either. We, collectively--as public servants, and as a society--must do better. Some abuse and neglect courts have already found innovative ways to eliminate their backlog of cases and move children toward permanency. One example is in Hamilton County, Ohio, where the Juvenile Court, under the leadership of Judge David Grossmann, has instituted a system that successfully has reduced the amount of time a child spends in care. Hamilton County added hearing officers so that more time could be spent on each case--leading to better quality decision making and reduced case loads. The court also developed a computer tracking system so that the judge could have essential information on each case at his or her fingertips, and the ``missing file'' would no longer be a bar to permanency. The state of Connecticut has also created an innovative way of dealing with the backlog of cases in its child welfare system. The Child Protection Session is a court dedicated to settling the most difficult abuse and neglect cases--contested cases of abuse and neglect and termination of parental rights proceedings. Connecticut has recognized that these types of cases need to be handled expeditiously, and as a result of the special session, these cases are now being handled in months, rather than years, to the benefit of all of the children involved. The General Accounting Office (GAO) recently reported to Congress the results of its review of juvenile and family courts performance in achieving permanence for children. GAO identified three elements that are essential to successful court reform. (1) Judicial leadership and collaboration among the child welfare participants. (2) Timely information regarding the court's operations and processing of cases; and (3) Sufficient financial resources to initiate and sustain reform. The Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts Act of 1999 incorporates all of these elements. The bill provides competitive grants to courts to create computerized case tracking systems and to encourage the replication and implementation of successful systems in other courts. The bill also provides grants to courts to reduce pending backlogs of abuse and neglect cases so that courts are able to comply with the time lines established in the Adoption and Safe Families Act. The bill also includes a provision to allow judges, attorneys and court personnel to qualify for training under Title IV-E's existing training provisions. Finally, the bill includes a provision that would expand the CASA program to underserved and urban areas so that more children are able to benefit from its services. When Congress passed the Adoption and Safe Families Act, I said that the bill is a good start, but that Congress will have to do more to make sure that every child has the opportunity to live in a safe, stable, loving and permanent home. One of the essential ingredients in this process is an efficiently operating court system. After all, that's where a lot of delays occur. As well-intentioned as the strict time lines of the Adoption and Safe Families Act are, mandatory filing dates won't be enough to promote permanency if the court docket is too clogged to move the cases through the system. We need to provide assistance to the courts so that administrative efficiency and effectiveness are improved and the goals of the Adoption and Safe Families Act will be more readily achieved. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation and I am committed to pushing for its timely consideration. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution on El Salvador along with Senators Coverdell, Graham and Dodd. This resolution congratulates the government and the people of El Salvador on successfully completing free and democratic elections on March 7, 1999. On March 7, 1999 the Republic of El Salvador successfully completed its second democratic multiparty election since the signing of the peace accords in 1992. These elections, like the legislative elections in 1997 and the Presidential elections in 1994, were deemed free and fair by domestic and international observers. Moreover, the elections were conducted in an environment of peace, where all parties contested for the right to govern in a spirited political campaign. This resolution today commends the government of El Salvador and most importantly the people of the country, who thought their participation in the political process have demonstrated the strength and diversity of El Salvador's democratic expression. It also congratulates Mr. Francisco Flores, President-elect, and Vice President-elect, Mr. Carlos Quintanilla-Schmidt for their electoral victory and for their commitment to democracy and to the continued progress of El Salvador. This election further consolidates El Salvador's dramatic transformation in the seven short years since the signing of the peace accords. Today, El Salvador has moved from a country racked by civil war into a stable multiparty democracy. The country has attained a balance of power among the Executive, Judicial and Legislative Branches. It has enacted measures to guarantee the full respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and has adopted policies that strengthen municipal governments and provide much-needed social services to local communities. The country has also undergone an equally dramatic economic transformation. Its economy, which suffered decades of decline, has become one of the fastest growing economies in the region. For the past eight years, the GDP in El Salvador has averaged 5.3 percent. Inflation, which averaged above 20 percent prior to 1992, now tops at 1.5 percent. El Salvador's privatization program is one of the most successful in the region. Moreover, it is considered today one of the best sovereign credit risks in Latin America. All of these accomplishments are testament to the will of the Salvadoran people to put their past behind them and focus on creating a future of social stability and economic prosperity. It is also a testament to the political leadership of the Salvadoran government. When President Calderon Sol took office five years ago, he had the responsibility to assure full compliance with the peace accords, as well as keep the economy of El Salvador on the path of economic reform. He deserves today to be applauded by this body of Congress for his accomplishments and for leading his country successfully into the 21st century. El Salvador's dramatic transformation is not unlike the changes that have taken place across Central America. Today marks the first time in the history of the region that all of Central America is at peace, implementing free market reforms and led by Democratic governments. For those of us who were in Congress during the 1980s, we know what a remarkable feat this is and how significant it is that we can today, in a bipartisan fashion, applaud the consolidation of democracy in El Salvador. We should not take the strides that the region has taken for granted. The devastation brought by Hurricane Mitch has dealt a severe blow to the fortunes of the region. History has shown that natural disasters can be the breeding grounds for civil and political unrest and the erosion of civil liberties. I urge my colleagues to support the emergency aid package to the region that is currently on the Senate floor for debate. In addition, IO ask that we also pass the CBI enhancement bill so that these countries also have the opportunity to help themselves. Mr. President, I congratulate and commend the people of El Salvador for continuing to move forward in a way that will bring our hemisphere together--and increase the likelihood that for all of us, the 21st century will be a time of peace, freedom, and prosperity.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senators Coverdell, Breaux, and Grams in introducing the Federal Facilities Clean Water Compliance Act of 1999. This legislation would hold the Federal Government accountable under the Nation's Federal water laws. Today, states, local governments and the private sector must all comply with each and every Federal, State, and local water requirement. The Federal Government does not. Although Congress included provisions requiring Federal facilities to comply with the Nation's water pollution laws in 1972, the United States Supreme Court ruled that State governments could not impose certain fines and penalties against Federal agencies for violations of the Clean Water Act. While other legislation has forced the Federal Government to comply with other environmental statutes, Congress has not yet brought Federal facilities into compliance with the requirements on the prevention and control of water pollution. This legislation, however, guarantees that the Federal Government is (1) held to the same enforcement mechanisms under the Clean Water Act as private entities, states, and localities; (2) complies with all of the Federal, State, and local requirements on the prevention and control of water pollution; and (3) is responsible for the payment of reasonable service charges. The Clean Water Act celebrated its twenty-fifth anniversary two years ago. As a result, the entire nation has benefitted from cleaner water. In the interests of fairness, the Federal Government should not be granted immunity from the Nation's clean water laws any longer. For the sake of fairness, public safety and health, and environmental protection, the Federal Government should be held to the same standards for water pollution prevention and control as states, local governments and the private sector.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senators Coverdell, Breaux, and Grams in introducing the Federal Facilities Clean Water Compliance Act of 1999. This legislation would hold the Federal Government accountable under the Nation's Federal water laws. Today, states, local governments and the private sector must all comply with each and every Federal, State, and local water requirement. The Federal Government does not. Although Congress included provisions requiring Federal facilities to comply with the Nation's water pollution laws in 1972, the United States Supreme Court ruled that State governments could not impose certain fines and penalties against Federal agencies for violations of the Clean Water Act. While other legislation has forced the Federal Government to comply with other environmental statutes, Congress has not yet brought Federal facilities into compliance with the requirements on the prevention and control of water pollution. This legislation, however, guarantees that the Federal Government is (1) held to the same enforcement mechanisms under the Clean Water Act as private entities, states, and localities; (2) complies with all of the Federal, State, and local requirements on the prevention and control of water pollution; and (3) is responsible for the payment of reasonable service charges. The Clean Water Act celebrated its twenty-fifth anniversary two years ago. As a result, the entire nation has benefitted from cleaner water. In the interests of fairness, the Federal Government should not be granted immunity from the Nation's clean water laws any longer. For the sake of fairness, public safety and health, and environmental protection, the Federal Government should be held to the same standards for water pollution prevention and control as states, local governments and the private sector.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I join my colleague and friend, Senator Voinovich, in paying tribute to one of the leading figures in the history of journalism in the State of Ohio. My good friend Dave Cooper is retiring after 22 years as editor of the editorial and opinion pages of the Akron Beacon Journal. David B. Cooper began as a reporter with a genuine love for political journalism. After reporting for the Raleigh (North Carolina) News and Observer and Winston-Salem Journal and Sentinel, he joined the Detroit Free Press--where he moved over to the writing of editorials. In 1977, the Akron Beacon Journal hired Dave to run its editorial and opinion pages. In that capacity, he has been more than just a principled observer and commentator on the political life of Ohio and America--he has also been a powerful force in the cultural life of his community. Indeed, some of his best writing has been on music. In fact--since 1994--he has hosted a weekly jazz program on radio station WAPS. The same feeling that infuses his writing and commentary on jazz is present in his political writing. Dave knows that if all you want is accuracy, you have merely to know your subject. And believe me, Dave knows the stuff he writes about! But he also knows that if you want to go beyond that--beyond mere accuracy toward the kind of deep understanding that goes to the heart of an issue--you must not just know, but love, your subject. That's the kind of work that creates positive change in a community. It is the type of work that Dave has done. Dave Cooper says his pet peeve is ``politicians who are pompous.'' And that really reflects Dave's personality--he doesn't do what he does for his own ego; he does it to help people understand things. He does it to make a real difference. And that's why he holds people in public life to the same high standard. I am proud to call Dave Cooper my good friend, and I wish him and Joanne well as they begin a new life. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, for quite some time, I have worked with the organ and tissue donation community to help educate others about donation and transplant issues. With each organ that is successfully transplanted, a gift of new life is given to the recipient. Today I rise to offer the Immunosuppressive Drug Coverage Act of 1999 to help ensure that those receiving Medicare covered transplants will be able to afford the drugs necessary to keep their bodies from rejecting their new organs. The current 36-month Medicare coverage limit is arbitrary, and frankly, sorely inadequate. We are not talking about a car lease, but about a new lease on life. This coverage can mean the difference between life and death for some, and at the very least, the difference between a Medicare transplant recipient having to experience the pain of an organ rejection, a return to dialysis--for kidney recipients--and the return to a very long waiting list for another organ. These organs are a precious investment, and it simply defies logic that Medicare covers the initial transplant, the life-long extensive medical treatment that is needed if the organ is rejected, and a second transplant (if that person is fortunate enough to find a second organ)--but not the drugs that can help prevent the rejection of the initial transplanted organ beyond 36 months. Many Medicare transplant recipients are not able to afford these immunosuppressive drugs, so they may ration their use of the drugs or they may stop taking them altogether. Let's give them a third alternative--to keep taking the drugs and to keep their organs.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Poison Control Center Enhancement and Awareness Act of 1999. These poison control centers need our help. The unstable sources of funding for these centers have resulted in many of them having to close. This unfortunate decline can be reversed and cost savings can be achieved by the efficient use of these centers. I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Abraham, for his efforts on behalf of this bill and I'd also like to thank my colleagues on the Congressional Prevention Coalition, Senators Chafee and Graham of Florida, for their support of this legislation. This bill establishes and authorizes funding for a national toll-free number to ensure that all Americans have access to poison control center services. This number will be automatically routed to the center designated to cover the caller's region. By having to only remember one national phone number, parents will be able to call this number in the event their child accidentally swallows a poisonous substance while they are away from home on vacation, and be routed to the closest poison control center for treatment advice. This system will improve access to poison control center services for everyone. It will simplify efforts to educate parents and the public about what to do in the event of a poisoning exposure. Each year, more than 2 million poisoning are reported to poison control centers throughout the United States. More than 90% of these poisonings happen in the home--and over 50 percent of poisoning victims are children under 6 years of age. By providing expert advice to distraught parents, babysitters, poisoning victims, and health care professionals, poison control centers decrease the severity of illness and prevent deaths. These centers serve cost-effective public health services. For every dollar spent on poison control center services, $7 in medical costs are saved by reducing the inappropriate services. Most importantly, we can save lives by ensuring that stabilizing funding sources for these centers. My home state of Ohio, for example, has 3 poison control centers--one in Columbus, Cincinnati, and Cleveland--that rely on an uncertain patchwork of federal, state, local, and private funding sources. The federal dollars that will be provided by this legislation may be used to supplement, NOT replace, existing federal, state, local, and private funds that are invested in these centers. For those states that have recently experienced the closure of the only existing poison control center in the area, this grant funding can be used to open a new center--provided it can meet certification requirements. It is essential for us to act now to prevent further closures of such valuable resources.

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, could I inquire how much time is remaining on this side?