Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of this concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 5. This resolution expresses the strong disapproval of the U.S. Senate to any proposed or contemplated Palestinian state that is created, not through negotiation, but rather through unilateral declaration on the part of the Palestinian Authority. I strongly support and have cosponsored this resolution because I believe in the Middle East process. Brave Israeli leaders have taken great risks for peace. So have Arab leaders. And so, importantly, have the people of the Middle East. I believe this process still offers the most promising approach for an enduring peace in the region. Palestinian Chairman Arafat made a fundamental commitment at Oslo that, in his words, ``all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.'' I am here on the Senate floor today to call for a reassertion of that very policy. To move away from the Oslo process and take refuge in unilateralism would put the whole region at risk of destabilization. That is simply the wrong direction. I do not believe that a lasting peace can be built on the basis of unilateral declarations. Negotiations remain the single best way to secure the two pillars of a secure peace--addressing Israel's security concerns and creating a sustainable framework for preserving the human rights and political self-determination of the Palestinians. The American people want security for Israel in the context of human rights for Palestinians. A unilateral declaration of independence by the Palestinian Authority would only delay the fulfillment of these goals. So I am proud to join my colleagues today in supporting this very important resolution.

Mr. DeWINE. I yield time to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of S. 280, the Education Flexibility Act. This legislation will give greater responsibility, flexibility, and control to local schools. That's where the students, parents, and teachers are. That's where the education happens. That's where the control ought to be. I have been fighting for our teachers and local school administrators for many years, and I think one of the most important things we can do for them is liberate them from Federal red tape--so they can do what they do best: Teach our kids. In offering this bill, our distinguished colleague from Tennessee, Senator Frist, is striking a blow for freedom in American education. This bill would expand an existing pilot program to all eligible states. It is a good deal for the states--in this bill we offer to free the states from the burden of unnecessary, time-consuming Federal regulations. In return, all states have to do is comply with certain core principles, such as civil rights, and establish a system of accountability. The bill also would require states to have a system of waiving their own regulations. My own home state of Ohio has been one of the pilot programs and has provided over 200 waivers for local schools. For example, the Eisenhower teacher training program only supported math and science training. Using ed-flex, Ohio waived this requirement--and today schools can use this program for training teachers in other subjects such as reading and social studies. The Ohio Department of Education, in its annual report to the Secretary of Education, reached the following conclusion, and I quote: ``The greatest benefit to having Ed-Flex authority is that it, combined with the ability to waive State rules and statutes, establishes a school-planning environment unencumbered by real or perceived regulatory barriers. This environment encourages creativity, thoughtful planning, and innovation.'' Mr. President, that's as true everywhere else in America as it is in Ohio. And that's why this Ed-Flex bill has such strong bipartisan support. But I should note that while Ed-Flex is an important step forward, it is just a single step. We need to do more. Over the next year, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, on which I serve, will be working on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1999-- which will deal with almost all of the federal programs that impact K- 12 grade education. When the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was passed in 1965, it was 30 pages long, today it is more than 300 pages long. As a member of that committee, I will be looking to empower parents, support local control, promote effective teacher training programs, recognize and reward excellent teachers, and send more money back to the states and local schools with no strings attached. Remember: The Federal Government provides only 6 percent of local school funding, but demands 50 percent of the paperwork that burdens local teachers and administrators. That burden demands nearly 49 million hours each year--or the equivalent of 25,000 school employees working full time--on paperwork, not kids. There are over 700 separate federal education programs spread across 40 separate federal bureaucracies. Mr. President, I am concerned about the quality of our children's education. The Third International Math and Science Study recently reported that out of 21 countries, the U.S. ranked 19th in math and 16th in science, barely ahead of South Africa. Verbal and combined SAT scores are lower today than they were in 1970. Businesses spend more than $30 billion annually in retraining employees who cannot read proficiently. Nearly 30 percent of college freshmen need remedial classes. Mr. President, these are disturbing statistics. As we move forward to improve our children's education, I urge my colleagues to remember that the most important education tool in any classroom is a qualified, highly trained teacher. After parents and families, America's teachers play the most important role in helping our children realize their potential. Our current teachers are doing a good job--indeed, a great job--given the resources they have to work with. Clearly, it's time to change the way we allocate resources. It's time that today's teachers get more support and training and less paperwork from the federal government. I want to thank the sponsor of the Ed-Flex legislation, Senator Frist, for his work with all members to improve this bill. The manager's amendment that we accepted last week addresses many of the concerns that have been raised about this legislation. Without going into the details of the amendment, I would simply point out that it will strengthen accountability measures currently in the bill, require states to coordinate their Ed-Flex applications with state comprehensive plans, emphasize school and student performance as an objective of Ed-Flex and add additional provisions for public notice and comment regarding Ed-Flex proposals. Ultimately, our children's success in education depends on the support they receive at home and in the classroom. Our focus in Washington should be to take every opportunity to empower parents and then free local schools from regulations that prevent improvements and innovations in local schools. Mr. President, that's why I strongly support this bill. prevention of truancy act

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the ``Antitrust Merger Review Act'' (S. 467), a bill that I introduced with Senator Kohl, the ranking minority member of the Antitrust, Business Rights and Competition Subcommittee. S. 467 is, plain and simple, a bill that imposes time limits on the FCC review of telecom mergers. This bill will not limit the scope of the FCC review, or attempt to dictate to the FCC how to evaluate these mergers; instead, it will simply impose a deadline for FCC action. As I have stated before, telecommunications mergers have a major impact on competition, and they require careful scrutiny from the FCC. However, careful scrutiny does not mean endless scrutiny. These mergers must be evaluated in a timely fashion, so that the merging parties and their competitors can move forward. The longer these deals remain under review the longer the market remains in limbo, and the longer it will be before we see vigorous competition. Accordingly, Senator Kohl and I have introduced S. 467, and plan to work with our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee and with Senator McCain and Senator Hollings and the rest of the Commerce Committee, to move this bill forward and help increase the pace of competition in the telecommunications industry.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Veterans' Education Benefits Equity Act. A similar bill has already been introduced in the House of Representatives by my distinguished Ohio colleague, Congressman Ney. This legislation would fix an unintended oversight in veterans' educational benefits. Currently, the law stipulates that qualified veterans can receive their monthly educational assistance benefits when they are enrolled at educational institutions during periods between terms, if the period does not exceed 4 weeks. This time period was established to allow enrolled veterans to continue to receive their benefits during the December/January holidays. The problem with the current time period is that it only covers veterans enrolled at educational institutions on the semester system. Obviously, many educational institutions work on the quarter system, which can have a vacation period of eight weeks between the first and second quarters during the winter holiday season. Consequently, many veterans unfairly lose their benefits during this period because of the institution's course structures. It is my understanding that some educational institutions which have a sizable veteran enrollment frequently create a one credit hour course on military history or a similar topic specifically geared towards veterans in order for them to remain enrolled and eligible for their educational benefits. Consequently, the cost of extending the current eligibility period to eight weeks would have a minimal, if not negligible, cost. The Department of Veterans' Administration has recognized the need to correct this oversight and assisted in the drafting of this legislation and fully supports this bill. I urge my colleagues to support this common sense fix and allow all veterans to received the uninterrupted educational assistance they earned. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Veterans' Education Benefits Equity Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Veterans' Education Benefits Equity Act. A similar bill has already been introduced in the House of Representatives by my distinguished Ohio colleague, Congressman Ney. This legislation would fix an unintended oversight in veterans' educational benefits. Currently, the law stipulates that qualified veterans can receive their monthly educational assistance benefits when they are enrolled at educational institutions during periods between terms, if the period does not exceed 4 weeks. This time period was established to allow enrolled veterans to continue to receive their benefits during the December/January holidays. The problem with the current time period is that it only covers veterans enrolled at educational institutions on the semester system. Obviously, many educational institutions work on the quarter system, which can have a vacation period of eight weeks between the first and second quarters during the winter holiday season. Consequently, many veterans unfairly lose their benefits during this period because of the institution's course structures. It is my understanding that some educational institutions which have a sizable veteran enrollment frequently create a one credit hour course on military history or a similar topic specifically geared towards veterans in order for them to remain enrolled and eligible for their educational benefits. Consequently, the cost of extending the current eligibility period to eight weeks would have a minimal, if not negligible, cost. The Department of Veterans' Administration has recognized the need to correct this oversight and assisted in the drafting of this legislation and fully supports this bill. I urge my colleagues to support this common sense fix and allow all veterans to received the uninterrupted educational assistance they earned. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Veterans' Education Benefits Equity Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would designate the Fallen Timbers Battlefield and Fort Miamis as National Historic Sites. Mr. President, the Battle of Fallen Timbers is an early and important chapter in the settlement of what was then known as the Northwest Territory. This important battle occurred between the U.S. army, led by General ``Mad'' Anthony Wayne, and a confederation of Native American tribes led by Tecumseh, in 1794. More than 1,000 Indians ambushed General Wayne's troops as they progressed along the Maumee River. Despite an unorganized defense, U.S. troops forced the tribes to retreat. The Treaty of Greenville was signed in 1795, and it granted the city of Detroit to the United States as well as secured the safe passage along the Ohio River for frontier settlers. The Battle of Fallen Timbers began Ohio's rich history in the formation of our country. And the citizens of Northwest Ohio are committed to preserving that heritage. The National Register of Historic Places already lists Fort Miamis. In 1959, the Battle of Fallen Timbers was included in the National Survey of Historic Sites and Buildings and was designated as a National Historic Landmark in 1960. In 1998, the National Park Service completed a Special Resource Study examining the proposed designation and suitability of the site and determined that the Battle of Fallen Timbers Battlefield site meets the criteria for affiliated area status. So it remains only for Congress to officially recognize the national significance of these sites. My legislation would recognize and preserve the 185-acre Fallen Timbers Battlefield site. It would uphold the heritage of U.S. military history and Native American culture during the period of 1794 through 1813. It would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide assistance in the preparation and implementation of the Plan to the State, its political subdivisions, or specified nonprofit organization. Mr. President, the people of Northwest Ohio are committed to preserving the heritage of their community, the State of Ohio, and the United States. Therefore, the Fallen Timbers Battlefield and Fort Miamis sites deserve national historical recognition for the history that they represent. For these reasons, I am proposing this important piece of legislation today. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, on behalf of myself and Senators Cochran and Voinovich, to introduce the ``Employment Security Financing Act of 1999.'' As you may know, our nation's employment security system was established as a federal-state partnership more than 60 years ago. This system has not undergone major restructuring since its inception; however, a ``temporary'' .2% surtax was enacted in the 1970's. Today, this system overtaxes and overburdens employers, shortchanges states, and, most importantly, underserves those who need it most--the involuntarily unemployed. Two separate payroll taxes fund the employment security system. The most onerous and inefficient of these is the FUTA (Federal Unemployment Tax Act) tax. FUTA is a payroll tax collected by the IRS, dedicated to provide administrative funding for states through allocation from the Department of Labor (DOL). Unfortunately, FUTA taxes sent to Washington rarely find their way back to the states. In Fiscal Year 1997, DOL estimated that states sent more than $6 billion in FUTA taxes to Washington, but received only $3.1 billion in return. Mr. President, reform of the unemployment insurance program is essential to a state like Ohio, which receives less than 39 cents of each employer FUTA dollar. This shortfall in funding has led to the closing of 22 local employment service offices during the last four years. In order to make up for the shortfall of FUTA dollars, the Ohio legislature has appropriated more than $50 million during the last four years to pay for the administration of employment services, something that should be funded by FUTA taxes. This appropriation of state tax dollars forces Ohio taxpayers to pay twice to fund these services. Ohio is not alone. Since 1990, less than 59 cents of every FUTA dollar has been sent back to the states. In fact, in 1997, states received a paltry 52% return on their FUTA tax dollars. As a result, many states are being forced to make up the shortfall from their own general funds, and cut back on other services provided to the unemployed. For businesses, the system's consequences are equally severe. Employers are forced to pay two separate taxes. The current FUTA net tax rate is .8%, or a maximum of $56 per employee. In addition, employers must pay a similar state payroll tax to finance unemployment benefits. It is estimated that the nation's 6 million FUTA-paying employers spend a total of $1 billion annually simply complying with FUTA reporting requirments. Mr. President, the Employment Security Financing Act is designed to address the problems the current system has imposed on the states and FUTA taxpayers. Specifically, it would: reduce the tax burden by repealing the ``temporary'' .2% FUTA surtax; streamline filings by transferring responsibility for collection of the FUTA tax from the IRS to the states; improve administration by ensuring that states get a greater return on their employers' FUTA tax dollars; improve services with an emphasis on reemployment; and combat fraud and abuse. This is an important issue that Congress needs to consider. I look forward to working with others on legislation that can meet the budget rules, yet still achieve necessary reform of the unemployment insurance program. I ask unanimous consent that letters of support from the National Federation of Independent Business, and Strategic Services on Unemployment & Workers' Compensation be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr President, over the course of the last year, we have heard more and more evidence that the readiness of our nation's military force is slipping. It became a key issue when our military leadership began to warn of shortages of personnel in key specialties, gaps in weapons maintenance, disparities between military and civilian pay, and a high pace of military operations. These and other similar issues have a serious effect on our ability to respond quickly and effectively to military conflicts. In my view, the time has come to restore our nation's military readiness, starting with the morale of our troops. When the military talks about readiness, it is referring in part to the weapons, equipment, bases and support infrastructure needed to carry out its missions. A declining defense budget since 1989 is the prime source of today's problem; it forces our military commanders to make some tough choices. For example, underfunding of real property maintenance and facility operations has often led commanders to reallocate funds meant for training to meet urgent repair needs. Weapons maintenance requirements have also been underestimated on a regular basis. Finally, our continued presence in the Persian Gulf, Bosnia, and potential new responsibilities in Kosovo, to name just a few, have stretched our military forces and our military budget even further. But readiness isn't just about hardware and property. It's about manpower and morale. The men and women who make up our armed forces represent the best fighting force ever assembled in human history. But shortfalls in personnel recruitment and retention have made it increasingly difficult to ensure full manning of deployed units. Reversing these negative trends in military pay, retirement benefits, and recruitment must be a top priority in the 106th Congress. Fortunately, the U.S. Senate is off to a good start. One of the first bills we will pass this year is S. 4, the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of Rights Act which was offered by my friend and colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner, the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill. The purpose of S. 4 is simple: to improve the readiness and morale of the troops who so selflessly defend our country. The first, and most needed, reform included in this bill is a pay raise of 4.8% beginning January 1st, 2000. The bill also would institute an annual pay raise equal to the Employment Cost Index plus 0.5%. This will help close a military to civilian pay gap of over 13 percent. Amazingly, there are members of our military whose paycheck is so low they qualify for food stamps. For them, S. 4 would provide a monthly ``special subsistence allowance'' of $180. This initiative is designed to dramatically improve the ``quality of life'' for the youngest and most economically vulnerable military families. Mr. President, when I visit Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, I often hear concerns about ``eroding benefits,'' especially concerning retirement pay. Currently, our military personnel fall under several separate retirement plans depending upon the date they initially entered active service. The original military retirement plan called for retirement pay, after 20 years of service, of 50 percent of their basic pay per month. This percentage would then increase by 2.5 percent for each additional year of service up to a maximum of 75 percent of basic pay at 30 years of service. However, in 1986, a new retirement plan was adopted that was intended to increase the incentive for our troops to remain longer on active duty. This plan, commonly called ``Redux'', lowered the percentage from 50 percent after 20 years to 40 percent, but increased the yearly increases for years of service above 20 years, from 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent per year up to a maximum of 75 percent after 30 years of service. The ``Redux'' retirement plan is very unpopular among our military personnel. S. 4 would try another approach. It would give military personnel on ``Redux'' the opportunity of accepting a one-time bonus of $30,000 to remain on the ``Redux'' retirement plan, or to elect to revert to the original retirement system. Finally, S. 4 would create a Thrift Savings Plan. This plan allows for a ``before tax'' contribution of up to 5 percent of the member's basic pay. The member can also elect to add any part of any special or incentive pay to their Thrift Saving Plan. In addition, the Service Secretaries would be authorized to make contributions to a member's Thrift Savings Plan if that member serves in a specialty designated as critical to the service. These contributions require the member to remain on active service for an additional six years. Mr. President, since the end of the Cold War, our military forces have been stretched to the limit, having to manage their resources and mission with an ever tightening budget. Our single most important resource always has been our troops, and like any resource, we have to continue to invest in them. I would like to commend the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, for bringing S. 4 before the Senate. It is bipartisan legislation. It is legislation that literally puts people first; in this case I'm referring to the men and women in our military. The Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of Rights Act represents a much-needed, long-overdue investment in the people who are asked to do so much for our country and make such dramatic sacrifices while defending our country. I plan to see that Congress makes good on this vital readiness investment in 1999 by working to ensure enactment of this important legislation.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, on behalf of myself and Senators Cochran and Voinovich, to introduce the ``Employment Security Financing Act of 1999.'' As you may know, our nation's employment security system was established as a federal-state partnership more than 60 years ago. This system has not undergone major restructuring since its inception; however, a ``temporary'' .2% surtax was enacted in the 1970's. Today, this system overtaxes and overburdens employers, shortchanges states, and, most importantly, underserves those who need it most--the involuntarily unemployed. Two separate payroll taxes fund the employment security system. The most onerous and inefficient of these is the FUTA (Federal Unemployment Tax Act) tax. FUTA is a payroll tax collected by the IRS, dedicated to provide administrative funding for states through allocation from the Department of Labor (DOL). Unfortunately, FUTA taxes sent to Washington rarely find their way back to the states. In Fiscal Year 1997, DOL estimated that states sent more than $6 billion in FUTA taxes to Washington, but received only $3.1 billion in return. Mr. President, reform of the unemployment insurance program is essential to a state like Ohio, which receives less than 39 cents of each employer FUTA dollar. This shortfall in funding has led to the closing of 22 local employment service offices during the last four years. In order to make up for the shortfall of FUTA dollars, the Ohio legislature has appropriated more than $50 million during the last four years to pay for the administration of employment services, something that should be funded by FUTA taxes. This appropriation of state tax dollars forces Ohio taxpayers to pay twice to fund these services. Ohio is not alone. Since 1990, less than 59 cents of every FUTA dollar has been sent back to the states. In fact, in 1997, states received a paltry 52% return on their FUTA tax dollars. As a result, many states are being forced to make up the shortfall from their own general funds, and cut back on other services provided to the unemployed. For businesses, the system's consequences are equally severe. Employers are forced to pay two separate taxes. The current FUTA net tax rate is .8%, or a maximum of $56 per employee. In addition, employers must pay a similar state payroll tax to finance unemployment benefits. It is estimated that the nation's 6 million FUTA-paying employers spend a total of $1 billion annually simply complying with FUTA reporting requirments. Mr. President, the Employment Security Financing Act is designed to address the problems the current system has imposed on the states and FUTA taxpayers. Specifically, it would: reduce the tax burden by repealing the ``temporary'' .2% FUTA surtax; streamline filings by transferring responsibility for collection of the FUTA tax from the IRS to the states; improve administration by ensuring that states get a greater return on their employers' FUTA tax dollars; improve services with an emphasis on reemployment; and combat fraud and abuse. This is an important issue that Congress needs to consider. I look forward to working with others on legislation that can meet the budget rules, yet still achieve necessary reform of the unemployment insurance program. I ask unanimous consent that letters of support from the National Federation of Independent Business, and Strategic Services on Unemployment & Workers' Compensation be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of important legislation that would create an endowment for a public- policy institute in Columbus. This institute will embody the spirit of our recently-retired U.S. Senator, the Honorable John Glenn. The bill would create an endowment fund for the John Glenn Institute for Public Service and Public Policy at the Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio. The bill also creates endowment funds for the Mark O. Hatfield School of Government at Portland State University, the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University, and the Howard Baker School of Government at the University of Tennessee. Mr. President, I have long believed that the study of politics would benefit greatly if more statesmen were to contribute their hands-on expertise. And not only that; it is the example of their supremely practical idealism that we really need if we are to understand and solve the problems confronting tomorrow's America. We in Ohio are proud to host the Glenn Institute, which will serve many purposes: (1) ``To sponsor classes, internships, community service activities, and research projects to stimulate student participation in public service, in order to foster America's next generation of leaders.'' (2) ``To conduct scholarly research in conjunction with public officials on significant issues facing society and to share the results of such research with decision-makers and legislators as the decision- makers and legislators address such issues.'' (3) ``To offer opportunities to attend seminars on such topics as budgeting and finance, ethics, personnel management, policy evaluations, and regulatory issues that are designed to assist public officials in learning more about the political process and to expand the organizational skills and policy-making abilities of such officials.'' (4) ``To educate the general public by sponsoring national conferences, seminars, publications, and forums on important public issues.'' (5) ``To provide access to Senator John Glenn's extensive collection of papers, policy decisions, and memorabilia, enabling scholars at all levels to study the Senator's work.'' All of these, Mr. President, are valuable goals. I understand the center plans to address specifically the consequences of media coverage on public service; analyze the effectiveness of civics education classes in our K-12 schools; design training programs for public officials on issues such as policy evaluation, communications strategies and ethics; and create an undergraduate major in public policy. Senator Glenn himself recently underscored the mission of the Institute, saying, and I quote: ``What we do today will determine what kind of country our kids will live in tomorrow. And that's worth working for.'' He also said, ``You can go to the National Archives in Washington, D.C., and it's almost a religious experience to look at the U.S. Constitution. But that piece of paper is not worth a thing without people to make it real. I look at public service as being the personnel department for the Constitution. People in public service are the ones who make it work.'' Mr. President, I could not agree more, and that is why I'm backing this bill. The bill provides an authorization of $10 million for the Glenn Institute, and the Ohio State University must match that endowment with an amount equal to one third the endowment. It's a good investment in the future of our public life.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of important legislation that would create an endowment for a public- policy institute in Columbus. This institute will embody the spirit of our recently-retired U.S. Senator, the Honorable John Glenn. The bill would create an endowment fund for the John Glenn Institute for Public Service and Public Policy at the Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio. The bill also creates endowment funds for the Mark O. Hatfield School of Government at Portland State University, the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University, and the Howard Baker School of Government at the University of Tennessee. Mr. President, I have long believed that the study of politics would benefit greatly if more statesmen were to contribute their hands-on expertise. And not only that; it is the example of their supremely practical idealism that we really need if we are to understand and solve the problems confronting tomorrow's America. We in Ohio are proud to host the Glenn Institute, which will serve many purposes: (1) ``To sponsor classes, internships, community service activities, and research projects to stimulate student participation in public service, in order to foster America's next generation of leaders.'' (2) ``To conduct scholarly research in conjunction with public officials on significant issues facing society and to share the results of such research with decision-makers and legislators as the decision- makers and legislators address such issues.'' (3) ``To offer opportunities to attend seminars on such topics as budgeting and finance, ethics, personnel management, policy evaluations, and regulatory issues that are designed to assist public officials in learning more about the political process and to expand the organizational skills and policy-making abilities of such officials.'' (4) ``To educate the general public by sponsoring national conferences, seminars, publications, and forums on important public issues.'' (5) ``To provide access to Senator John Glenn's extensive collection of papers, policy decisions, and memorabilia, enabling scholars at all levels to study the Senator's work.'' All of these, Mr. President, are valuable goals. I understand the center plans to address specifically the consequences of media coverage on public service; analyze the effectiveness of civics education classes in our K-12 schools; design training programs for public officials on issues such as policy evaluation, communications strategies and ethics; and create an undergraduate major in public policy. Senator Glenn himself recently underscored the mission of the Institute, saying, and I quote: ``What we do today will determine what kind of country our kids will live in tomorrow. And that's worth working for.'' He also said, ``You can go to the National Archives in Washington, D.C., and it's almost a religious experience to look at the U.S. Constitution. But that piece of paper is not worth a thing without people to make it real. I look at public service as being the personnel department for the Constitution. People in public service are the ones who make it work.'' Mr. President, I could not agree more, and that is why I'm backing this bill. The bill provides an authorization of $10 million for the Glenn Institute, and the Ohio State University must match that endowment with an amount equal to one third the endowment. It's a good investment in the future of our public life.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. Chief Justice, my friends in the Senate, each of the articles before us contains numerous examples of conduct, any of which as alleged would constitute grounds for the President's removal from office. I have determined that most of these allegations have not been proven by clear and convincing evidence. Let me now turn to the three, at least for me, remaining allegations. First is the allegation that the President obstructed justice. When? After his Paula Jones deposition, he had his two, by now very famous, conversations with Betty Currie. The facts are familiar, but they are telling. On January 17, 1998, the President gave his deposition in the Paula Jones case. The Jones lawyers zeroed in on the relationship between Monica Lewinsky and the President. It was clear that the Jones lawyers had specific knowledge of the details of this relationship. In the President's answers, he referred repeatedly to Betty Currie. Further, counsel for Ms. Jones questioned the President in detail about Betty Currie, about her job, her hours at work, et cetera. I submit that any first year law school student who attended that deposition would know that Paula Jones was a prospective witness or would know that Betty Currie was a prospective witness. In fact, 5 days after the deposition Betty Currie was subpoenaed by the Jones lawyers. When the President returned to the White House after the deposition, he knew Betty Currie was a prospective witness. Sure enough, within 3 hours of the conclusion of the deposition, the President called Betty Currie at home on a Saturday night and asked her to come to the White House the next afternoon, Sunday. During the course of that Sunday afternoon meeting, the President informed Betty Currie that Monica's name came up during the deposition. According to Betty Currie's testimony, the President said to her--and we are all, of course, familiar with this--``You were always there when Monica was there, right?'' ``We were never really alone, right?'' ``Monica came on to me and I never touched her, right?'' ``You could see and hear everything, right?'' ``She wanted to have sex with me and I couldn't do that.'' We are all familiar with that, but I think most significantly, and to me the most telling thing, is that 2 or 3 days later the President again spoke to Betty Currie and again made the same statements and used the same demeanor. The President does not dispute that he made these statements to Betty Currie. He explained he was just trying to refresh his memory about what the facts were. The President's explanation is simply not credible. It defies logic. Why would the President make five declarative statements to Betty Currie to ``refresh his memory'' when he knew that Betty Currie could not possibly know whether most of these statements were true? In fact, we know and the President knew that the statements were false. Betty Currie was a key potential witness who could contradict the President's sworn testimony in the Paula Jones deposition. She was also the President's subordinate. On two separate occasions the President made blatantly false statements to her to try to corrupt the due process of justice and with the intent to corruptly persuade her with the intention to influence her testimony. This charge of obstruction of justice, I believe, has been proven by clear and convincing evidence, and I might add it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Let me now turn to the second allegation, the allegation that the President committed perjury on August 17, 1998, when he testified about these two post-deposition meetings with Betty Currie. I know there may be some who are still struggling with the perjury charge. I simply say this: If you believe, as I do, that the obstruction of justice charge is made based on the statements made to Betty Currie, then any fair reading of the grand jury testimony will indicate to you that you also have to find he committed perjury. Here is what he said: What I was trying to determine is whether my recollection was right and she [Betty Currie] was always in the office complex when Monica was there and whether they thought she could hear any conversation we had, or did she hear any. I thought what would happen is it would break in the press, and I was trying to get the facts down. I was trying to understand what the facts were. He also says, the President: I was not trying to get Betty Currie to say something that was untruthful. I was trying to get as much information as quickly as I could. I submit if the President is guilty of obstruction of justice in his statements to Betty Currie, then clearly, clearly, he also must be guilty of perjury in his account of these events to the grand jury. The two findings are inextricably connected. One cannot reach the first conclusion without reaching the second. I believe it has been proven by clear and convincing evidence that the President committed perjury. And I might also add, I believe it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence clearly shows that the President obstructed justice and then lied under oath about this obstruction in his grand jury testimony. Now, on the third charge, I believe the evidence shows that the President further perjured himself in the grand jury to avoid a perjury charge in his prior deposition. This perjury had to do with the nature and details of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. I know that many people have come to the well and have expressed concern about how we got here, what brings us here today. I share some of those concerns. Congresses, beginning with this one, will have to deal with the aftermath of this sorry affair: court cases that have weakened the Presidency, a discredited independent counsel law. You will forgive me if I point out that I was one of the 80-some Members of the House who voted against the independent counsel law when it came up--please forgive me for that aside. I voted against it because I share some of the same concerns we have heard expressed here today and yesterday. We also will have to deal with the Secret Service that is now vulnerable to subpoenas and Presidents who are vulnerable to civil right suits while in office. These are important issues, but I submit they are issues not for today but rather for another day. None of us wanted to be here, but we are where we are, the facts are what they are, and we know what we know. What we know is that the President obstructed justice and committed perjury. What must we do with this President who has obstructed justice and then committed perjury? Obstruction of justice and perjury strike at the very heart of our system of justice. By obstructing justice and committing perjury, the President has directly, illegally, and corruptly attacked a coequal branch of Government, the judiciary. It has been proven by clear and convincing evidence that the President of the United States has committed serious crimes. But while I have found specific violations of law, it is not insignificant, in my final decision, that these specific criminal acts were committed within a larger context, a larger context of a documented pattern of indefensible behavior--behavior that shows a reckless disregard for the law and for the rights of others. I have concluded that the President is guilty of behaving in a manner grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of his office. In 1974, the House Judiciary Committee used those precise words to define an impeachable offense. I have also concluded that the President is guilty of the abuse or violation of a public trust. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 65, used those precise words to define an impeachable offense. What the President did is a serious offense against our system of government. It undermines the integrity of his office and it undermines the rule of law. Here is what Thomas Paine said about the rule of law: Let a crown be placed on the law by which the world may know that, so far as we approve of monarchy, in America the law is king. The law is indeed king in America. There isn't one law for the powerful and one for the meek. That is what we mean when we say we are a ``nation of laws.'' We elect a President to enforce these laws. In fact, the Constitution commands that the President ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' How can we allow a man who has obstructed justice and committed perjury to remain as the chief law enforcement officer of our country? How can we call ourselves a nation of laws and leave a man in office who has flouted those laws? We define ourselves as a people not just by what we hold up, not just by what we revere, but we also define ourselves by what we tolerate. I submit that this is something we simply, as a people, cannot tolerate. Mr. Chief Justice, I will vote to convict the President on both counts and to remove him from office. I ask unanimous consent that my full statement be included in the Record immediately following these remarks.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today, it is with distress that I rise to submit and seek the Senate's approval on a concurrent resolution to express the deep concern of Congress over the deteriorating situation in Haiti. My colleagues from Florida, Senator Graham; North Carolina, Senator Helms; and Georgia, Senator Coverdell have joined me in co-sponsoring this important and timely resolution. The Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, Benjamin Gilman and Chairman of the House Select Intelligence Committee, Porter Goss intend to introduce this same resolution in the House very soon. Mr. President, twelve days ago, Haiti's drawn out crisis took a very troubling turn when Haitian President Rene Preval announced that the Haitian National Assembly's term had expired and he would proceed to install a government by ``executive order.'' What he means, of course, is to ignore Haiti's parliament and rule by decree. To understand the present situation, one must first comprehend the series of events in the past year and a half which have led to this unfortunate circumstance. The seriously flawed April 6, 1997 elections, which attracted less than 5 percent of the Haitian electorate, provoked the resignation in June 1997 of Prime Minister Rosney Smarth. For twenty months, a political deadlock has existed between President Preval and the majority party in parliament over the contested April elections and recently over President Preval's nominee for Prime Minister, Jacques Edouard Alexis. The political crisis has virtually paralyzed the government and delayed millions of dollars in international aid to Haiti. During this period, the President dispatched a series of high-level emissaries, including the Secretary of State and the First Lady, to help defuse the crisis. Former National Security Advisor Anthony Lake has undertaken many missions to help mediate among the parties; most recently in the days leading up to the January 11 announcement. Only on December 16 did the Haitian Senate ratify Mr. Alexis' credentials. On December 18, the Chamber of Deputies followed suit. Negotiations for the final approval of Mr. Alexis as Prime Minister, however, proved fruitless. President Preval and Mr. Alexis either failed or refused to secure agreement on a cabinet that would allow the prime minister to present his program to parliament for a vote of confidence. This much is clear: Despite the extraordinary efforts of the Administration's emissaries, President Preval refused to accept any solution to this crisis that left Haiti's parliament in place. The present moment in Haiti is fraught with danger. Micha Gaillard, a Haitian social democrat who was closely associated with the internal efforts to restore then President Aristide to power in the early 1990's following the coup attempt against him wrote on January 16 that: What is going on today, according to those who were there, is the same as happened in the years 1963-64 when Francios Duvalier was maneuvering to be proclaimed president-for-life. [This] . . . formula has been reviewed and updated. Here it is important that we . . . disavow and condemn far and wide the means employed--usurpations of power, intimidation, violence, and corruption--to subvert the functioning of all the democratic institutions, which are the sole guarantee against dictatorship. The resolution I submit today puts the United States Congress on record that the irregular interruption of the democratic political institutional process in Haiti must, without further delay, be addressed through Organization of American States Resolution 1080. In 1991 at Santiago, Chile, the Organization of American States approved Resolution 1080 specifically to deter irregular interruptions of the democratic political institutional process within countries having democratically elected governments. When invoked, a meeting of the Permanent Council of the OAS and the foreign ministers of the OAS member countries is in order to consider joint actions to bring about a return to democracy in that country. Resolution 1080 has been invoked several times in the past decade. The OAS invoked the resolution in 1991 to determine appropriate actions in response to the coup d'etat against Haiti's elected President Aristide. It was also invoked in Guatemala in 1993 when Guatemala President Jorge Serrano dissolved the Parliament and the courts; in Paraguay in 1996 when a Paraguayan general attempted a coup d'etat against Paraguayan President Wasmosy; and in 1992 in Peru after President Alberto Fujimori announced the dissolution of the Congress and the courts. Mr. President, I have visited Haiti seven times in the past three years. I am extremely concerned about the current situation there. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support and pass this important resolution.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I join with Senators Abraham, Santorum, Specter, Hollings, Byrd, Hutchinson and others to introduce the Continued Dumping or Subsidy Offset Act. This legislation is designed to ensure that our domestic producers can compete freely and fairly in global markets. This bill is a top priority for me and my fellow cosponsors--not only because we believe it is good policy, but also because it is needed to respond to the current import dumping crisis in our steel industry. As my colleagues know, the Tariff Act of 1930 gives the President the authority to impose duties and fines on imports that are being dumped in U.S. markets, or subsidized by foreign governments. Our bill would take the 1930 Act one step further. Currently, revenues raised through import duties and fines go to the U.S. Treasury. Under our bill, duties and fines would be transferred to injured U.S. companies as compensation for damages caused by dumping or subsidization. We believe this extra step is necessary. Current law simply has not been strong enough to deter unfair trading practices. In some cases, foreign producers are willing to risk the threat of paying U.S. antidumping and countervailing duties out of the profits of dumping. Current law also does not contain a mechanism to help injured U.S. industries recover from the harmful effects of foreign dumping and subsidization. These foreign practices have reduced the ability of our injured domestic industries to reinvest in plant, equipment, people, R&D, technology or to maintain or restore health care and pension benefits. The end result is this: continued dumping or subsidization jeopardizes renewed investment and prevents additional reinvestment from being made. The current steel dumping crisis is the latest sobering example of why our legislation, among others, is needed to better enforce fair trade. Because of massive dumping, steel imports are at an all-time high. According to the American Iron and Steel Institute, 4.1 net tons of steel were imported in the month of October--that's the second highest monthly total ever, and is 56% higher than the previous year. This surge in imports is having a direct impact on our own steel industry. In November, U.S. steel mills shipped nearly 7.4 million net tons of steel in November of last year--more than one million tons below what was shipped one year earlier. We have seen U.S. steel's industrial utilization rate fall from 93.1% in March of 1998 to 73.9% in January of 1999. And most troubling of all, approximately 10,000 jobs have been lost in our steel industry since last year. More layoffs are certain. Whether these jobs will ever be restored is uncertain. This is a genuine crisis for the communities in the Ohio River Valley and in other communities across the country. This is not a case of being on the wrong side of a highly competitive market. Today's U.S. steel industry is a lean, efficient industry--a world leader thanks to restructuring and millions of dollars in modernization. U.S. steelworkers are the best and most productive in the world. In fact, America's workers devote the fewest manpower hours per ton of steel. Simply being the best is not enough against foreign governments that either erect barriers to keep U.S. steel out, or subsidize their exports to distort prices. That's why we have trade laws designed to promote fair trade. However, it's clear that our current trade policies aren't working. Current law did not deter foreign steel producers from dumping their products in our country. These foreign producers have done the math. They have made a calculated decision that the risk of duties is a price they are willing to pay in return for the higher global market share they have gained by chipping away at the size and strength of our nation's steel industry. It's time we impose a heavier price on dumping and subsidization. The Continued Dumping or Subsidization Offset Act would accomplish this goal. It would transfer the duties and fines imposed on foreign producers directly to their U.S. competitors. Under our bill, foreign steel producers would get a double hit from dumping: they would have to pay a duty, and in turn, see that duty go directly to aid U.S. steel producers. In order to counter the adverse effects of foreign dumping and subsidization on U.S. industries, Congress should pass this bipartisan bill. The steel crisis also has amplified the need for additional improvements in our trade laws, as well as tougher enforcement of existing laws. Last October, many of us in Congress came together to offer an early New Year's resolution for 1999: to stand up for steel. Any crisis requires leadership. That's why Congress asked the President to make a New Year's Resolution of his own--one that would honor a pledge he made in 1992 to strongly enforce U.S. antidumping laws. Specifically, Congress asked the President for an action plan no later than January 5th--a plan that would end the distortion and disruption in global steel markets, as well as the disappearance of jobs and opportunity in U.S. steel plants. It was a call for presidential leadership. On January 8th, the President released a plan that fell far short of what we hoped. It was a plan that showed a reluctance to fully utilize our laws to ensure free and fair trade. It did not recommend any trade legislation to better protect U.S. industry from dumping. As a result, it sends a dangerous signal to foreign governments that dumping will not meet with a swift response from the United States. I am concerned the President has not fully grasped the magnitude of this problem. In the past few months, I have visited with Ohio Valley steel producers and workers, including a number of the hundreds laid off because of foreign dumping. Their message was the same: the surge in steel imports represents a crisis of historic proportions. The root of the current import crisis is the financial distress that plagues Asia and Russia, which has created a worldwide oversupply of steel. While foreign consumption of steel has nearly dried up, America's strong economy and open markets have made the United States a prime target for exporters. We are dedicated to assisting these economies--so we can avoid a global downturn. But turning a blind eye toward our steel workers is the wrong way to do it. We simply cannot afford to sacrifice the US steel industry and thousands of American jobs in a desperate attempt to prop up faulty foreign economies. This approach simply will not work. Although the Commerce Department has initiated an investigation that could result in duties imposed against foreign steel, the President could pursue a number of options to reduce steel imports: He could begin serious and aggressive bilateral negotiations with countries that dump steel; initiate a ``201'' petition with the International Trade Commission if he believes steel imports pose a substantial threat to domestic industry; or take unilateral trade action, including quotas and tariffs, under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act. The President's plan does not take any of these options. Instead, it treats the symptoms of dumping--declining profits and unemployment-- rather than attack the disease itself. The damage from this disease has already been done. Absent tough action to address this dumping directly makes it more difficult for U.S. producers to regain their declining market share, and most important, to restore the jobs that have been lost. Congress can insist on tough action by the President by passing legislation that will further discourage unfair trade practices. Passing the Continued Dumping or Subsidization Offset Act would be a good start. In addition, I will be joining with Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania to introduce legislation that would lower the statutory threshold for the International Trade Commission (ITC) to find injury caused by imports and establish a steel import permit and licensing program, allowing domestic industry access to critical import data more quickly. Ultimately, we cannot achieve free and fair markets on a global scale unless our laws work to encourage all competitors to play by the rules. And ultimately, congressional action alone is no substitute for presidential leadership. That's why Congress and the American steel community need to keep the pressure on. In fact, thousands of steel workers from the Ohio Valley are arriving in our nation's capitol in a massive call for presidential leadership. It's time our President took a stand for fair trade. It's time for our President to stand up for steel. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. DeWine pertaining to the introduction of S. 5 and S. 61 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, it is an honor for me, today, to be introducing the Drug Free Century Act. This bill is cosponsored by Senator Abraham, Senator Ashcroft, Senator Coverdell, Senator Craig, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, and the chairman of the Caucus on International Narcotics Control, Senator Grassley. This legislation is truly a team effort. There are over a dozen Members of the Senate who have worked very extensively on this bill and I appreciate very much their work. This is really a team effort. This bill is a comprehensive approach to our antidrug effort, and it really is a continuation of the great work that was begun by Congress last year. This legislation represents the continuation of those efforts that we began last year, a continuation of the efforts to reverse the dangerous trend of rising drug use in our country, particularly among our young people. According to data prepared as part of the Monitoring the Future Program funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, from 1992 to 1997 we saw an 80-percent increase in cocaine use among high school seniors, and a 100-percent increase in heroin use among high school seniors. Other very serious trends related to drug use highlight the problems that have increased over the course of the last decade. Drug abuse related arrests for minors doubled between 1992 and 1996. Emergency room admissions related to heroin jumped 58 percent between 1992 and 1995. And, in the first half of 1995, methamphetamine related emergency room admissions were 321 percent higher compared to the first half of 1991. This increase in drug use and criminal activity virtually wiped out the gains made in the previous decade. Just in the 4 years prior to 1992, the Office of National Drug Control Policy--the drug czar's office--reported a 25-percent reduction in overall drug use by adolescent Americans, and a 35-percent reduction in overall drug use. Last year, Congressman Bill McCollum and I and other Members of the Senate and House took a close look at why our increasing investment in antidrug programs was not resulting in a decline in drug use among young people. One immediate problem that we found was a clear decline in resources and manpower devoted to reducing illegal drug imports by our Customs Service, the Coast Guard, and the Defense Department. In other words, our drug interdiction effort had been falling farther and farther behind. It had become less and less a percentage, a smaller percentage of our budget year after year. As we all know, reducing drug use is a team effort at all levels of government: the Federal Government, the State government, the local government. However, international drug reduction, seizing or disrupting the flow of drugs before these drugs reach our country, is solely our responsibility. It is solely the Federal Government's responsibility. Over a 5-year period beginning in 1993, the Federal Government solely abdicated this responsibility. Fewer and fewer resources and man-hours were devoted to stopping drugs at the source or stopping them in transit. As a result, the volume of drugs coming into our country has never been higher, making illegal drugs too easy to find and too easy to buy. To reverse this trend and to correct the imbalance, Congressman McCollum and I last year led a bipartisan, bicameral effort to pass the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act. We passed it and the President signed it. We were joined in this initiative by Congressman and now Speaker Denny Hastert, by Senator Coverdell, Senator Graham of Florida, and many, many others. This new law provides a 3-year, $2.6 billion investment in our drug-fighting capabilities abroad. Through crop eradication and drug interdiction we will reduce the amount of drugs entering our country and, in turn, increase the price of drugs on the streets of America. An even larger goal of this new law is to restore a balanced antidrug strategy, one that makes a clear commitment to all the elements of our strategy--treatment, education, domestic law enforcement, and drug interdiction. A balanced drug control strategy worked before, and we are ready to make it work again. The Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act that we passed last year was one of several key initiatives passed by the Republican Congress. There is no doubt we are determined to turn the corner on drug use. Congressman Rob Portman of Cincinnati, Senator Chuck Grassley, myself, and others worked to pass the Drug Free Communities Act, which directs Federal funds to community coalitions that educate children about the dangers of drugs. The 105th Congress also passed the Drug Demand Reduction Act, which will streamline existing Federal education and treatment programs and make these programs more accountable. We also passed the Drug Free Workplace Act, which provides grants to assist nonprofit organizations in promoting drug-free workplaces, and encourages States to adopt cost-effective financial incentives, such as a reduction in worker's compensation premiums for drug-free workplaces. Today, with the Drug Free Century Act that we are introducing, we will continue to make oversight and reform of our antidrug policies a top priority of this Congress. This bill is the beginning of a critical and comprehensive examination of our entire antidrug strategy. While we devoted most of last year to correcting the resource imbalances that we found in this strategy, we intend to devote the next 2 years to looking at the effectiveness of the very programs themselves. We also need to change current laws to crack down on the elements within the illegal drug industry. The Drug Free Century Act is the first phase of this effort. It addresses all elements of our antidrug strategy, and it is a comprehensive strategy that we are presenting today--education, treatment, law enforcement, and drug interdiction. It is my hope that as we examine our drug strategy through meetings and hearings, we will build on the foundation of the legislation that we are introducing this morning. First, the Drug Free Century Act contains much-needed reforms in our international criminal laws. It would improve extradition procedures for those who flee justice for drug crimes by prohibiting fugitives from benefiting from fugitive status. It would crack down on illegal money-transmitting businesses. It would punish money launderers who conduct their business through foreign banks. And it would enable greater global cooperation in the fight against international crime. Mr. President, these provisions, advocated by the chairman of our caucus on international narcotics control, Senator Grassley, are designed to disrupt and dismantle the drug lords' criminal infrastructure. And like the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act we passed in the last Congress, these provisions would make the drug business far more costly and far more dangerous. Our legislation also authorizes additional funding for our eradication and interdiction operations and calls on the administration to meet the funding goals we set last year in the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act. The new interdiction initiatives outlined in this bill are designed to supplement last year's legislation and came about as a direct result of my visits and the visits of other Members of the Senate and the House to the transit zones in the Caribbean, as well as the source countries--Peru and Colombia. These visits reconfirmed, in my mind, what statistics had already told us: Seizing or destroying a ton of cocaine outside our borders is more cost effective than seizing the same quantity at the point of sale. It just makes good common sense. Our legislation also addresses domestic reduction efforts. It would increase penalties for certain drug offenses committed in the presence of a child. It would call on the Drug Enforcement Administration to develop a plan for the safe and speedy cleanup of methamphetamine laboratories in the United States. I know this latter issue is of great concern to my colleague from Missouri, Senator Ashcroft, who was successful last year in increasing penalties for those involved in meth labs here in the United States. Mr. President, the bill also includes Senator Abraham's legislation to increase mandatory minimum sentencing requirements for powder cocaine offenses. Our bill sets a foundation for what I hope will be a comprehensive initiative to reduce the demand for drugs, especially among our young people. The bill includes Senator Coverdell's initiative to protect children and teachers from drug-related school violence and Senator Grassley's legislation to strengthen the parent and family movement to teach children and society about the dangers of drugs. This bill, frankly, is a first step. I expect we will see other important antidrug bills that we would want to roll into this larger comprehensive bill, and we will do that as the time comes. For example, I am working on legislation to clarify that juvenile facilities should be eligible for jail-based and aftercare drug treatment programs and provide coordinated services for early mental health and substance abuse screening for juveniles. The latter initiative is based on an effort underway in Hamilton County, OH, an initiative and effort I have personally looked at on a number of occasions. In Hamilton County, OH, the courts are working with all the relevant county agencies to offer a coordinated service delivery system for at-risk youth. By bringing these resources together, Mr. President, we can ensure that young people in need of help will get the right kind of assistance. I believe in a balanced counterdrug strategy. I made it clear in the past Congress that I strongly support our continued commitment in demand reduction and law enforcement programs. We need to invest in all these elements to have success, and that is why we are today introducing this bill--to demonstrate that we intend to find ways to improve all elements of our comprehensive antidrug strategy. Combined with the efforts begun last year, the Drug Free Century Act represents a turning point in a decade of increased youth delinquency and drug use. With this legislation, we are sending a clear signal that we intend to change course and begin the next decade and, yes, the next century, on the road to eliminating the scourge of illegal drugs in this country. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Drug Free Century Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, it is an honor for me, today, to be introducing the Drug Free Century Act. This bill is cosponsored by Senator Abraham, Senator Ashcroft, Senator Coverdell, Senator Craig, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, and the chairman of the Caucus on International Narcotics Control, Senator Grassley. This legislation is truly a team effort. There are over a dozen Members of the Senate who have worked very extensively on this bill and I appreciate very much their work. This is really a team effort. This bill is a comprehensive approach to our antidrug effort, and it really is a continuation of the great work that was begun by Congress last year. This legislation represents the continuation of those efforts that we began last year, a continuation of the efforts to reverse the dangerous trend of rising drug use in our country, particularly among our young people. According to data prepared as part of the Monitoring the Future Program funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, from 1992 to 1997 we saw an 80-percent increase in cocaine use among high school seniors, and a 100-percent increase in heroin use among high school seniors. Other very serious trends related to drug use highlight the problems that have increased over the course of the last decade. Drug abuse related arrests for minors doubled between 1992 and 1996. Emergency room admissions related to heroin jumped 58 percent between 1992 and 1995. And, in the first half of 1995, methamphetamine related emergency room admissions were 321 percent higher compared to the first half of 1991. This increase in drug use and criminal activity virtually wiped out the gains made in the previous decade. Just in the 4 years prior to 1992, the Office of National Drug Control Policy--the drug czar's office--reported a 25-percent reduction in overall drug use by adolescent Americans, and a 35-percent reduction in overall drug use. Last year, Congressman Bill McCollum and I and other Members of the Senate and House took a close look at why our increasing investment in antidrug programs was not resulting in a decline in drug use among young people. One immediate problem that we found was a clear decline in resources and manpower devoted to reducing illegal drug imports by our Customs Service, the Coast Guard, and the Defense Department. In other words, our drug interdiction effort had been falling farther and farther behind. It had become less and less a percentage, a smaller percentage of our budget year after year. As we all know, reducing drug use is a team effort at all levels of government: the Federal Government, the State government, the local government. However, international drug reduction, seizing or disrupting the flow of drugs before these drugs reach our country, is solely our responsibility. It is solely the Federal Government's responsibility. Over a 5-year period beginning in 1993, the Federal Government solely abdicated this responsibility. Fewer and fewer resources and man-hours were devoted to stopping drugs at the source or stopping them in transit. As a result, the volume of drugs coming into our country has never been higher, making illegal drugs too easy to find and too easy to buy. To reverse this trend and to correct the imbalance, Congressman McCollum and I last year led a bipartisan, bicameral effort to pass the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act. We passed it and the President signed it. We were joined in this initiative by Congressman and now Speaker Denny Hastert, by Senator Coverdell, Senator Graham of Florida, and many, many others. This new law provides a 3-year, $2.6 billion investment in our drug-fighting capabilities abroad. Through crop eradication and drug interdiction we will reduce the amount of drugs entering our country and, in turn, increase the price of drugs on the streets of America. An even larger goal of this new law is to restore a balanced antidrug strategy, one that makes a clear commitment to all the elements of our strategy--treatment, education, domestic law enforcement, and drug interdiction. A balanced drug control strategy worked before, and we are ready to make it work again. The Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act that we passed last year was one of several key initiatives passed by the Republican Congress. There is no doubt we are determined to turn the corner on drug use. Congressman Rob Portman of Cincinnati, Senator Chuck Grassley, myself, and others worked to pass the Drug Free Communities Act, which directs Federal funds to community coalitions that educate children about the dangers of drugs. The 105th Congress also passed the Drug Demand Reduction Act, which will streamline existing Federal education and treatment programs and make these programs more accountable. We also passed the Drug Free Workplace Act, which provides grants to assist nonprofit organizations in promoting drug-free workplaces, and encourages States to adopt cost-effective financial incentives, such as a reduction in worker's compensation premiums for drug-free workplaces. Today, with the Drug Free Century Act that we are introducing, we will continue to make oversight and reform of our antidrug policies a top priority of this Congress. This bill is the beginning of a critical and comprehensive examination of our entire antidrug strategy. While we devoted most of last year to correcting the resource imbalances that we found in this strategy, we intend to devote the next 2 years to looking at the effectiveness of the very programs themselves. We also need to change current laws to crack down on the elements within the illegal drug industry. The Drug Free Century Act is the first phase of this effort. It addresses all elements of our antidrug strategy, and it is a comprehensive strategy that we are presenting today--education, treatment, law enforcement, and drug interdiction. It is my hope that as we examine our drug strategy through meetings and hearings, we will build on the foundation of the legislation that we are introducing this morning. First, the Drug Free Century Act contains much-needed reforms in our international criminal laws. It would improve extradition procedures for those who flee justice for drug crimes by prohibiting fugitives from benefiting from fugitive status. It would crack down on illegal money-transmitting businesses. It would punish money launderers who conduct their business through foreign banks. And it would enable greater global cooperation in the fight against international crime. Mr. President, these provisions, advocated by the chairman of our caucus on international narcotics control, Senator Grassley, are designed to disrupt and dismantle the drug lords' criminal infrastructure. And like the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act we passed in the last Congress, these provisions would make the drug business far more costly and far more dangerous. Our legislation also authorizes additional funding for our eradication and interdiction operations and calls on the administration to meet the funding goals we set last year in the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act. The new interdiction initiatives outlined in this bill are designed to supplement last year's legislation and came about as a direct result of my visits and the visits of other Members of the Senate and the House to the transit zones in the Caribbean, as well as the source countries--Peru and Colombia. These visits reconfirmed, in my mind, what statistics had already told us: Seizing or destroying a ton of cocaine outside our borders is more cost effective than seizing the same quantity at the point of sale. It just makes good common sense. Our legislation also addresses domestic reduction efforts. It would increase penalties for certain drug offenses committed in the presence of a child. It would call on the Drug Enforcement Administration to develop a plan for the safe and speedy cleanup of methamphetamine laboratories in the United States. I know this latter issue is of great concern to my colleague from Missouri, Senator Ashcroft, who was successful last year in increasing penalties for those involved in meth labs here in the United States. Mr. President, the bill also includes Senator Abraham's legislation to increase mandatory minimum sentencing requirements for powder cocaine offenses. Our bill sets a foundation for what I hope will be a comprehensive initiative to reduce the demand for drugs, especially among our young people. The bill includes Senator Coverdell's initiative to protect children and teachers from drug-related school violence and Senator Grassley's legislation to strengthen the parent and family movement to teach children and society about the dangers of drugs. This bill, frankly, is a first step. I expect we will see other important antidrug bills that we would want to roll into this larger comprehensive bill, and we will do that as the time comes. For example, I am working on legislation to clarify that juvenile facilities should be eligible for jail-based and aftercare drug treatment programs and provide coordinated services for early mental health and substance abuse screening for juveniles. The latter initiative is based on an effort underway in Hamilton County, OH, an initiative and effort I have personally looked at on a number of occasions. In Hamilton County, OH, the courts are working with all the relevant county agencies to offer a coordinated service delivery system for at-risk youth. By bringing these resources together, Mr. President, we can ensure that young people in need of help will get the right kind of assistance. I believe in a balanced counterdrug strategy. I made it clear in the past Congress that I strongly support our continued commitment in demand reduction and law enforcement programs. We need to invest in all these elements to have success, and that is why we are today introducing this bill--to demonstrate that we intend to find ways to improve all elements of our comprehensive antidrug strategy. Combined with the efforts begun last year, the Drug Free Century Act represents a turning point in a decade of increased youth delinquency and drug use. With this legislation, we are sending a clear signal that we intend to change course and begin the next decade and, yes, the next century, on the road to eliminating the scourge of illegal drugs in this country. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Drug Free Century Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, recently Major General Richard C. Alexander of Ohio retired as the Adjutant General of the Ohio National Guard. I rise today to pay tribute to this remarkable individual and dedicated public servant. General Alexander's military career began in 1954 when he joined the Marine Corps and served honorably until 1958, when he was discharged with the rank of Sergeant. As a native of Cleveland, General Alexander returned to Ohio and enlisted in the Ohio National Guard and served in Battery C, 1st Missile Battalion, 137th Artillery. Continuing his career, General Alexander completed the National Guard State Officer School and was commissioned a Second Lieutenant on May 6th, 1965. Following the completion of many advanced military education courses including graduating from the U.S. Army War College and U.S. Army Command and General Staff Course, General Alexander rose through the ranks within the Ohio National Guard and was selected to serve as the Ohio Adjutant General in December 1987. When I was the Lieutenant Governor of Ohio, I became aware of how fortunate the citizens of Ohio were to have an individual such as Richard Alexander serving as the Adjutant General of the Ohio National Guard. During his tenure as the Adjutant General, he has met many challenges that have tasked the full scope of his ability to manage a citizen soldier force in a world environment of uncertainty and changing global priorities. The Ohio National Guard has found itself a witness, participant and beneficiary to the many changes and successes that occurred under the leadership of General Alexander. During the Persian Gulf War, more than 1,600 Ohio National Guard members were activated in support of military operations. In 1993, the Ohio National Guard was called upon to respond to an inmate riot at the Lucasville Prison. Since that time Ohioans repeatedly have called upon the services of the Ohio National Guard to respond to various natural disasters involving flood recovery and various levels of snow emergencies. I have seen first hand the tremendous service and professionalism of the National Guard when I toured areas of the state that were damaged by the rain and flooding in the Spring of 1997. In addition to assistance at the local level, defense officials repeatedly have called upon the services of Ohio National Guard members to supplement and support our national military defense in a variety of missions throughout the world. The strong leadership that has been provided by General Alexander has benefitted not only the Ohio National Guard, it has benefitted all Ohioans and our Nation. These leadership skills were recognized by the National Guard Association of the United States, which appointed General Alexander to the position of President of the association in 1996. It is with a degree of sadness that I find myself saying ``farewell'' to such a strong leader and personal friend. General Alexander has served his country ably and honorably for the past forty-four years. The positive impact he has had on the lives of Ohioans is immeasurable and his compassion for people and pride in serving in the military epitomize the true meaning of the words--Duty, Honor, Country. I join with all Ohioans in expressing my appreciation for a job well done to Major General Richard C. Alexander. I wish General Alexander, his wife, LaVera, and his entire family all the very best. Indeed, General Alexander deserves the very best because he gave the very best--to his family, his state, and his country.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. On behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume consideration of the articles of impeachment at a time to be determined by the majority leader after consultation with the Democratic leader.

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on the bill (S. 2117) to authorize the construction of the Perkins County Rural Water System and authorize financial assistance to the Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc., a nonprofit corporation, in the planning and construction of the water supply system, and for other purposes. The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 2117) entitled ``An Act to authorize the construction of the Perkins County Rural Water System and authorize financial assistance to the Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc., a nonprofit corporation, in the planning and construction of the water supply system, and for other purposes'', do pass with the following amendment: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert: