Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. If I could reclaim my time, just for a moment --and the majority leader I do not think was on the floor when I made the comment--I advised my friend from Virginia, as well as the majority leader, that I do have some additional comments about a separate issue. I know the majority leader needs to do the final wrapup. I am not sure whether he is ready to do that.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, if I can turn to a much sadder topic. One of the saddest duties of public life is having to express moral truths. It is sad because it should be unnecessary. Thomas Jefferson two centuries ago enunciated some truths that he said ``we hold to be self- evident.'' We hold to be self-evident. It should be self-evident that in a country of liberty, a country of rule of law and respect for human rights that we should condemn the murder of any human being. We should, as a logical consequence of this principle, condemn the murder of people who have killed because the murderers disapprove of some aspect of the murder victim's personal life. That is why our national attitude toward the atrocity that took place in Laramie, WY, on October 7 is so very important. Let us all, as Americans, leave no doubt that the murder of young Matthew Shepard was a vicious, despicable crime. Again, it should--I repeat--should be self-evident. But Mr. President, I have seen news reports that protesters, demonstrators, hecklers went to this young man's funeral to spew hatred and venom. Some might say their demonstrations are protected by the first amendment, and that may or may not be true--and I am not going to deal with that and talk about that today --but what I wish to underscore today is that I, too, have first amendment rights--we all do--a right to tell the truth about these demonstrators' conduct. And to do so, polite phrases might not be enough. So let's make it very clear: The people who committed this crime are despicable, they are scum. And the people who intruded on the privacy of this poor family, the family of the deceased, the people who intruded on their privacy at that hour of sorrow, to mock the deceased, mock this young man, these people who did this are lowlifes--they should be condemned by all Americans. They deserve the contempt of all civilized people. Mr. President, I see that my colleague from Virginia has been on the floor for some time. I also note the majority leader may be coming back at any moment. I would advise my colleague, the majority leader, as well as my colleague from Virginia, that I have some additional comments about another topic that would be fairly extensive. I would be more than happy to yield at this point, either to the majority leader or to my colleague from Virginia, just with the understanding that I will have the opportunity before the Senate does go out of session for the year to make these comments. Mr. ROBB addressed the Chair.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate concur in the amendment of the House with a further amendment which is at the desk on behalf of Senators Murkowski and Bumpers. (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Amendments Submitted.'')

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I will now take a moment to discuss one of the most important accomplishments of this Congress. It is an accomplishment that occurred about 4\1/2\ hours ago. Back in July, I, along with a bipartisan, bicameral core group of legislators, came to the floor and introduced a bill that called for a major new effort to restore a balance to our drug interdiction and eradication efforts. Today, just this morning, after a few short months, this important effort has been included in the omnibus bill that we passed. It is included in the bill that is being sent to the President and that, with his signature, will then become law. This bill, this effort, is about restoring balance to America's antidrug efforts. Restoring balance to America's antidrug effort is a major accomplishment of this Congress. It is vitally important to the future of America's children. Our drug interdiction efforts, keeping drugs out of this country, are lagging way behind where they ought to be. Drugs are far too plentiful, far too easy to find, far too cheap, far too easy to obtain. It is so easy. The amount of drugs in our country is at an unprecedented high level. Back in the 1980s and 1990s we used to have a balanced antidrug strategy. We provided the right balance of resources to fight drugs. What do I mean by balance? I think we have to take a multifaceted approach to the drug problem. We have to have treatment for those who need that and who are willing to go into treatment. We have to have education and other methods to stop people from starting drugs. We have to have domestic law enforcement, most of which is handled at the local level but, of course, it also includes the DEA and the FBI. And, we also have to have international drug interdiction, stopping drugs from leaving the source countries--Peru, Bolivia and Colombia--stopping them on the high seas, stopping them at the border. We have to have all four components. What this bill does is restores that balance, or a better way of saying it, frankly, a more accurate way of saying it, is it begins to restore this balance. This effort is not just about providing resources. It is demonstrating, rather, the will to stop drugs before they reach our borders. This is not just about dollars. It is not just about dollars and cents. It is also about leadership. It is the Federal Government's--our--responsibility, and the Federal Government's alone to stop drugs at the source or in transit to our borders. In the other areas, where we talk about treatment, or domestic law enforcement, prevention, education, all of these are shared responsibilities of the local communities and the State and the Federal Government and the private sector and the nonprofit groups. But when we talk about drug interdiction, that is the one thing that nobody else can do but the Federal Government. That is our responsibility and the buck does, in fact, stop here. It is the Federal Government's responsibility, and the Federal Government's alone, to stop drugs at the source or in transit to our borders. I have seen it firsthand. I have been to the Caribbean, I have been to the Bahamas, I have been off the coast of Haiti and off the coast of the Dominican Republic. I have been along the border in El Paso. I have been into New Mexico. I have talked directly to the men and women of this great country who are fighting this war. We have great people who are doing that. I have seen firsthand that what we are currently providing to uphold this responsibility is simply not enough. It is, frankly, inadequate. Just as we need military readiness to defend America against war, we need drug interdiction readiness to defend America against drugs. We do know how to do it. We do know how to do it. We have great people. We got our ideas for this legislation from the experts, from men and women of key agencies such as the Coast Guard, Customs, DEA. That is where the ideas for this legislation that will now become law came from. Their resources have been dramatically reduced, tragically, in recent years. This bill begins--and I say begins--to fix this problem by providing the very resources they need. We could not be here today without their assistance. This was a bipartisan effort. We worked with both sides of the aisle. We had Gen. Barry McCaffrey's involvement and his help and cooperation and assistance. Today we certainly can be proud of this victory, but today is just the first step. We have a long way to go to restore this balance. We will be back next year to continue this war. But make no mistake about it, this bill is a major step towards keeping drugs out of our country. This bill will mean more planes in the air, more ships at sea, less drugs on the streets of America. We are back in the business of putting the drug lords out of business. I thank my good friend, Bill McCollum, Congressman McCollum from Florida, for leading this effort in the House of Representatives. I thank Denny Hastert, chairman of the Speaker's drug task force, who did a remarkable job in securing close to $700 million to get this initiative started. I also thank our bipartisan core group on drug interdiction--Senators Paul Coverdell, Bob Graham, Al D'Amato, Dianne Feinstein, Lauch Faircloth, and of course Porter Goss, Chuck Grassley and Kit Bond. The Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, and Majority Leader Trent Lott, both were absolutely instrumental in getting this included in the budget package that we just passed. But for them it simply would not have happened, and we know that. The two chairmen of the Appropriations Committees, Senator Ted Stevens and Congressman Bob Livingston, deserve our thanks for taking the lead to include our initiative in their omnibus bill. This legislation will make a huge difference in our efforts to win back America's future from the drug lords. It is just the beginning to restore the balance but it is a major, significant beginning. It is a major victory. I thank my colleagues who worked so very hard on this.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, in behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the following private relief bills: H.R. 1834 and H.R. 1794, which are at the desk; and, Calendar No. 609, H.R. 378; Calendar No. 610, H.R. 379; Calendar No. 679, H.R. 1949; Calendar No. 611, H.R. 2744.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bills be considered read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4821, which is at the desk.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Again, on behalf of the majority leader, I understand that all legislative and Executive Calendar items that can be cleared have been considered by the Senate. I thank all of my colleagues for their cooperation during the 105th Congress. As was stated earlier, the 106th Congress will convene at 12 noon on Wednesday, January 6, 1999, as provided for in House Joint Resolution 138. Following the opening prayer on January 6, the Vice President will proceed to administer the oaths of office to all returning Senators and Senators-elect in alphabetical order. Immediately following the conclusion of the oaths of office, a quorum call will commence to establish that a quorum is present for the 106th Congress to begin. All Senators will be notified as to the first day on which legislation will be permitted to be introduced as soon as that date becomes available. Again, on behalf of the majority leader, I thank all of my colleagues for what I believe was a productive 105th Congress and look forward to further success in the 106th Congress.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like now to turn the Senate's attention to a very important foreign policy, as well as humanitarian, measure, a measure that has also been passed by the Congress. I am referring to the Africa: Seeds of Hope Act. Back in July, Senator Sarbanes and I introduced legislation on the Senate floor to promote small-scale agricultural and rural development in Africa, a bill cosponsored in the House of Representatives by our colleagues, Doug Bereuter and Lee Hamilton, a bipartisan effort, a bill that will save lives, a bill that will help people help themselves. The Africa: Seeds of Hope Act represents a commitment to seek ways to help farmers in sub-Saharan Africa through sustainable agriculture, research, rural finance and extension projects. The bill will also recognize important benefits such overseas agricultural advances could hold for America's farmers. The Senate and House have both passed the bill. It is now on its way to the President. We need to sow seeds of hope in Africa. There are a vast number of people in Africa who go each day without the necessary nourishment that we in our country take for granted. In many parts of Africa, women and children struggle daily to find the food that will barely sustain them for another day. The problem in Africa has worsened over the last 30 years, and this is in spite of the fact that in many parts of the world the situation is getting better, and in Africa it is getting worse. The number of Africans who are unable to produce the food and provisions they need to lead healthy, productive lives is tragically rising. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, around 215 million people are undernourished in sub-Saharan Africa, and this number is expected to increase--increase dramatically--into the next century. Food is the basic necessity of life. It is an unfortunate reality that many of the African people lead lives of needless suffering because they don't have the skills and tools necessary to help themselves. As a result, many African countries are dependent on the outside world for humanitarian assistance and basic nutrition. These countries import a large percentage of the food they consume. Africa's food imports are projected to rise from less than 8 million metric tons in 1990, to more than 25 million metric tons by the year 2020. Mr. President, this is a very, very dangerous trend, and it must be changed, it must be reversed. The bill we just passed is based on the insight that the most effective way to improve conditions for Africa's poor is to increase the productivity of their agricultural sector. Whenever I travel to developing countries, I always like to spend time looking at that country's agricultural sector. I have seen firsthand in many countries that their rural areas can succeed through agricultural development and through the right kind of assistance, the assistance that uses the expertise that we have in this country at our universities, the expertise that we have among our farmers, to share that knowledge and that know-how. About 70 percent of Africa's poor live in rural areas. That is where the major problem is, and that is where this bill can make a difference, because not only do we want to see and help these individuals in rural areas feed themselves, we also understand that if they cannot feed themselves, what they do is move to the cities. When they move to the cities, many times the conditions are even worse than the conditions they left in the rural areas. It is a trend we see worldwide, and it is a trend that is very, very dangerous. It breeds instability, and it breeds other problems. Rural and agricultural markets play a critical role in the majority of the African workforce. It has been reported that 70 percent of African employment is in the agricultural market. If we are serious about opening up new trade relations with the continent--and we should be--then we need to be aggressive in helping to strengthen the foundation for their survival. Let me outline a few highlights of this bill. This legislation first encourages agencies and organizations to make rural development issues a priority by teaching effective farming methods to small-scale African farmers and entrepreneurs. This is people to people, farmer to farmer and not dealing with many of these governments. It provides African small farmers and entrepreneurs with improved access to credit and other resources necessary to stimulate production in microenterprise. It mobilizes new resources for investment in African agriculture and rural development through the U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation. It facilitates the coordination of national and international agricultural research and extension efforts aimed at developing the skills of African researchers, African extension agents, farmers and agribusiness people. In fact, the bill would allow American universities to play a pivotal role in this effort. Finally, this bill requires the U.S. Agency for International Development, when providing nonemergency assistance through the Public Law 480 title II programs, to include assistance programs for people who are otherwise unable to meet their basic food needs, including feeding programs for the disabled, for the orphaned, for the elderly, for the sick and for the dying. African farmers and the African people are in dire need of agricultural development. This bill can help them gain the knowledge they need for this important development. At the same time, the legislation will help our own agricultural producers by opening new export markets for American farmers, especially those who deal with value-added goods. Mr. President, as the economies in sub-Saharan Africa develop, their citizens' incomes will increase, thus raising their standard of living. In turn, they will be in a better position to purchase a new variety of goods, including American agricultural commodities and equipment. This is where our export markets can flourish. As a citizen of Ohio, I am excited at the export prospects for the hard-working farmers of my own State. Another significant point to consider is that food stability is a critical factor in preventing civil strife within nations. Our investment in international agriculture and rural development will help reduce demands for U.S. disaster and famine relief. International agricultural development assistance has depleted over time. In fact, over the past decade alone, money for this program has dropped by 70 percent. We should refocus our efforts in this important program, and this bill will do that. Under this bill, USAID will be called upon to use its resources for programs and improved food security and agricultural productivity for African farmers. This legislation has the ability to make a real difference in the lives of real people. As a compassionate Nation, we should want to aid those less fortunate to better help themselves. The bill will help these individuals make important progress in meeting human needs. In passing this bill, the U.S. Congress has done some very important work, and I congratulate my colleagues for the bill as we send it on its way to the President.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, first let me thank the majority leader for the passage of the Ricky Ray bill, which just occurred a few moments ago. This is a bill that I introduced, along with Senator Bob Graham, here in the Senate. It was introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Tauzin. It has certainly been worked on and helped immensely by Speaker Gingrich, by Congressman Hyde and by Senator Jeffords. It is a bill which I believe will do some justice in regard to a great tragedy. It is a great tragedy that has afflicted thousands and thousands of Americans through literally no fault of their own. These are hemophiliacs who received tainted blood. Many of them have died as a result of that. Many of them are suffering today, and their families are suffering. They have tremendous expenses. They have the normal expenses of being hemophiliac and on top of that they now have AIDS. The reason for this bill is to correct this injustice. The injustice was that the Federal Government was simply not vigilant, did not do what it should have done to protect the precious blood supply of this country. Those of us who have worked on this bill for the last several years, I think, have felt this was not just another bill in the Congress. We have seen and we have talked firsthand to the families who have suffered. I met in my office with a man from Ohio whose son died. His son died because of this tainted blood. As the father, one of the caregivers of this child who had hemophilia, he was the one who had to administer the blood. To talk to this father, with tears in his eyes, in my office, was something I will never forget. This bill will not bring his son back. It will not bring back those who have died. But what it will do for those families is give them some compensation, some help to deal with their medical expenses. Equally important, it will be a very clear signal to them and to the country that when a mistake is made, when the Government does not do what it should do, when people suffer as they have suffered, that justice will be done. This bill is about justice. It is now on its way to the President. Again, I thank all of those who have been involved in this: Senator Lott, Senator Jeffords, Congressman Hyde, Senator Bob Graham, Porter Goss in the House, the prime sponsor in the House, as well as Speaker Gingrich.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned sine die under the provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 353.

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. 2375) to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, to strengthen prohibitions on international bribery and other corrupt practices, and for other purposes. The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the House disagree to the Senate amendments numbered 2 through 6 of the House amendment to the bill (S. 2375) entitled ``An Act to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, to strengthen prohibitions on international bribery and other corrupt practices, and for other purposes'', and agree the Senate amendment numbered 1 with the following amendment: In lieu of the matter proposed to be stricken by such amendment strike line 8 on page 23 of the House engrossed amendments and all that follows through line 2 on page 25 and insert the following: (c) Extension of Legal Process.-- (1) In general.--Except as required by international agreements to which the United States is a party, an international organization providing commercial communications services, its officials and employees, and its records shall not be accorded immunity from suit or legal process for any act or omission taken in connection with such organization's capacity as a provider, directly or indirectly, of commercial telecommunications services to, from, or within the United States. (2) No effect on personal liability.--Paragraph (1) shall not affect any immunity from personal liability of any individual who is an official or employee of an international organization providing commercial communications services. (3) Effective date.--This subsection shall take effect on May 1, 1999. (d) Elimination or Limitation of Exceptions.-- (1) Action required.--The President shall, in a manner that is consistent with requirements in international agreements to which the United States is a party, expeditiously take all appropriate actions necessary to eliminate or to reduce substantially all privileges and immunities that are accorded to an international organization described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection (a)(1), its officials, its employees, or its records, and that are not eliminated pursuant to subsection (c). (2) Designation of agreements.--The President shall designate which agreements constitute international agreements to which the United States is a party for purposes of this section. colloquy on s. 2375

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask that the Senate recede from its amendments numbered 2 through 6. I further ask the Senate concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment numbered 1.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to our former colleague, Bill Gradison. Bill served as a highly respected member of the House of Representatives from Ohio from his election in November 1974 until his retirement from the House of Representatives on January 31, 1993. I personally was fortunate to serve with Bill in the House for eight years. As many of my colleagues know, at the end of the year Bill will be stepping down from his presidency at the Health Insurance Association of America (HIAA), where he has served with great distinction for the past 6 years. During his years at HIAA, Bill demonstrated the same knowledge, commitment and skills that he did when he served in Congress. Bill Gradison is truly an expert in health care policy. And he has worked diligently over the past few years to improve the nation's health care system and the health of the American people. Equally important, he did so at all times with great thoughtfulness and by truly being a gentleman. In Bill's 18 years representing Ohio in the House of Representatives, he had a strong influence on many areas, including health care, the budget, taxes, social security, trade, and governmental self discipline. Of all the issues which he studied and tackled, though, he found health care to be particularly absorbing and challenging. In Congress and out, Bill has worked tirelessly to ensure that all Americans have access to health care that is both high quality and reasonable in cost. In Congress, Bill worked enthusiastically to promote hospice care, an innovative, compassionate approach to caring for the terminally ill and their families. In 1982, legislation which he sponsored with then Representative Leon Panetta to allow hospices to provide care under the Medicare program, was enacted. Over the years, Bill sponsored numerous other hospice-related measures that received strong bipartisan support and were subsequently enacted. Today, this humanitarian yet cost effective end of life care is widely accepted. One of Bill's most significant non-health Congressional achievements was indexing income tax brackets and the standard deduction for inflation. Bill also was a major participant in developing the 1983 social security measures that restored the system, then teetering on bankruptcy, to solvency. Mr. Speaker/Mr. President, I invite all my colleagues to join me in congratulating Bill on his years of dedicated service to Congress and to the HIAA, and wishing him the best of luck in all of his future endeavors. I know we will continue to be enriched by Bill's contributions to the health care debate and to public policy generally for a long time to come.

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, H.R. 1023, the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Act, would authorize the establishment of a fund from which compassionate payments would be made to people with hemophilia who contracted HIV/AIDS through tainted blood products during the early 1980s. These people were victimized by the failure of the federal government to safeguard these blood products--failures included inadequate measures to screen out high-risk donors and long-delayed recalls of blood products known to pose an elevated risk of infection. During the time period specified in the legislation, approximately 7,200 victims were infected. Each victim--or the victim's family--would receive a single $100,000 payment. The total authorization is $750,000, which would have to be separately appropriated. The relief fund sunsets after 5 years. H.R. 1023 passed the House without objection on the suspension calendar in May. Similar legislation in the Senate (S. 358), which I sponsored, has 62 bipartisan cosponsors.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following treaties on today's executive calendar: Numbers 24 through 54.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the treaties be considered as having passed through their various parliamentary stages up to and including the presentation of the resolution of ratification, that all committee provisos, reservations, understandings, and declarations be considered agreed to. I further ask that two technical amendments that are at the desk to treaty documents 105-34 and 104-40 be considered as agreed to, that any statements be inserted in the Congressional Record as if read. I further ask that there be one vote to count as individual votes on each of the treaties, and further, when the resolutions of ratification are voted upon, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, that the President then be notified of the Senate's action, and following the disposition of the treaties, the Senate return to legislative session.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, also on behalf of the majority leader, Senator Lott, I ask for a division vote on the resolutions of ratification.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in support of the resolution of ratification of two treaties that are of unsurpassed importance to America's prospects in the global economy of the 21st century. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties are hardly the topics of everyday conversation in my home state of Ohio, or in any of my colleagues' home states. But they are critically important treaties. Every country that ratifies these treaties is required to update its laws against the piracy of copyrighted materials, and to extend those laws to the electronic commerce marketplace epitomized by the Internet. That outcome will be great news for Ohioans, and for all Americans. American creativity is the envy of the world today. Our music, movies, computer software, video games and published materials are in great demand in almost every country in the world. In fact, taken as a whole, the industries dependent on copyrighted are our country's single biggest export earner, with an estimated $60 billion in exports and foreign sales in 1996. No wonder studies show that the creative industries are one of most dynamic sectors of our economy, accounting for some 3.5 million U.S. jobs. The greatest single threat to this economic success story is piracy. New technology heightens this threat. The Internet and other digital media offer great potential for bringing the fruits of American creativity to new markets; but they also make it easier than ever before for pirates to make unlimited numbers of perfect copies of our creative works, and distribute them around the world--literally at the touch of a button. That's where these two new treaties come in. By requiring countries to upgrade their copyright laws, and to update them for the digital age, the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, provide critical new legal tools in the fight against piracy worldwide. That will help make overseas markets safer for the export of U.S. music, movies, software and books--and encourage the further growth of this key sector of our economy. Ratification of the WIPO treaties advances another important goal-- one that does not simply translate to dollars and cents. It helps to underscore the need for responsible conduct on the Internet. People who would never even consider shoplifting a CD or a videocassette from a store sometimes think the same rules about respecting private property should not apply in cyberspace. Ratifying these two treaties helps to dispel that illusion. That's good news, not only for the creative community--songwriters, performers, software designers, authors--but also for all our families as they explore the exciting new territory of the Internet. Mr. President, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, I worked with my colleagues to hammer out the legislation needed to implement the standards of the WIPO treaties in U.S. law. Since our copyright law is already strong, only a few provisions had to be added--but, some provisions were contentious, and I am pleased that we were able to achieve a balanced, compromise solution that commanded almost unanimous support. That legislation, which also made other important improvements to our copyright law, is on its way to the President's desk, and I urge him to sign it. Today's action complete the job, by authorizing the Administration to formally ratify the two treaties. It will also send a powerful message to our trading partners--some of whom must make many more extensive changes to their copyright laws in order to meet the standards of these treaties--that now is the time to move forward on this critical task. I commend my colleagues in the Foreign Relations Committee for moving this measure to the Senate floor so promptly after the Senate's adoption of the implementing legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support the resolution of ratification.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, in a few short minutes the curtain will fall on this Congress. Today we complete our legislative business. Yet the business of global peace and national security will continue. Issues such as our global economy, regional stability, nuclear proliferation, proliferation of biological and chemical weapons--just to name a few--determine the condition of this business. It is a business that requires the daily attention of our world leaders, including the President of the United States, including his advisors, and including, yes, this Senate. Yet today it is claimed that our national attention is not focused on the kinds of affairs that have a huge impact on our national security. It is claimed that our focus is not made on foreign affairs. Even our President, we are told, is not able to devote to foreign policy the level of commitment and leadership our country needs. We are told he is distracted. Some say he was distracted first by a lengthy independent counsel investigation, and now distracted by a congressional impeachment process. We are told he is distracted needlessly from doing the job at hand. Distracted. That is a word that has gotten quite a bit of mileage lately. It has found its way into our editorial pages and into our Sunday morning talk shows. We are told by the political columnists and TV pundits that all of us were distracted in this country--all of us-- by the Starr investigation and the Starr report. Soon it will be the House impeachment process that draws our attention. We are told that all of us are distracted--the American people, the Congress, and first of all, the President--by all of this. We are told that that distraction is dangerous--dangerous because it could send the wrong signal to a rogue nation or a terrorist group or further complicate an already complex global economic slowdown. The conclusion that seems to be reached by a number of people is that it is in our best interest, perhaps even our national security interest, to achieve an expedited resolution of the impeachment process, and to do it quickly. Some argue that what we need is an alternative to the impeachment process itself. Some have used the term ``censure'' or ``reprimand.'' I am deeply concerned that the upcoming impeachment process is perceived as a distraction, one that inhibits the kind of vision and strategic planning that we must expect from the leader of the world's sole superpower. This perception is not lost on those around the globe who have a stake in American leadership. And who doesn't have a stake in American leadership? One European Finance Minister here in Washington for the annual IMF World Bank talks was quoted in the New York Times with the following: You might find that the leader of the world's biggest economy could spend more time figuring out ways to save the world economy if he was not trying to save his job. There is no reason for the President of the United States to be distracted to the point of even remote danger to our national security. In other words, we must not let the perception of distraction dictate the reality. We can and must address our interests here and abroad in the midst of this constitutional impeachment process. For that reason, we cannot let this perceived distraction in any way undermine our constitutional duties as Members of Congress. Perhaps most important, we cannot let this argument of distraction serve as an excuse to avoid the kind of long-range planning and decisionmaking, the strategic thinking, that we need, and should expect, from our President in regard to the American foreign policy during these very difficult times. These are difficult times, perhaps the most difficult and the most challenging period in the post-cold-war era. Since the end of the cold war we have experienced a combined period of peace and prosperity probably not seen in this country since the 1920s. However, ours has not been a tranquil peace. The President had to send ground troops to Somalia, Haiti, and most recently to Bosnia. We have taken to the air with swift military action in Iran, Sudan and the hills of Afghanistan. We made a show of force in Iraq, the Taiwan Straits, and recently in Serbia. If the last 7 years have proven one lesson, it is clear that the challenges of peace do not end with its achievement. It must be protected, enforced and advanced with the same vigilance and determination we used in the past to arrive at this point in history. As Henry Kissinger reminded our young allies more than 10 years ago: History knows no resting places. What does not advance must sooner or later decline. The world has not been resting. Indeed, this has been a time of increasing restlessness. At no time since the fall of the Soviet Union has the world needed either individual or collective leadership more than it does today. We are in need of leadership that strives not just for quick fixes but solutions that look beyond the short term. When the world looks for leadership, it can only look one place, and that is to the United States. If the United States does not lead, there is no one else who can lead, no one else who will lead. We must lead. The issues we face are numerous, complex, interrelated and potentially self-destructive. As we near a new millennium, we find ourselves at a virtual crossroad in so many different areas. We stand on the brink of a nuclear arms race in Asia and the Middle East. Nationalism raised the prospect of war in several regions, from Central Europe to Asia, and most ominous, we face a worldwide economic dislocation, and perhaps a global recession, a global recession that threatens to undermine, if not overwhelm, the progress of the democracies that we have seen springing up in virtually every corner of the world. Each one of these challenges has serious economic and security consequences for our own country. Each one of these issues requires leadership from the United States. Let me expand briefly on each of these challenges. First, the threat of a nuclear arm race in Asia and the Middle East raises serious questions about the effectiveness of our own unilateral and our multilateral efforts to control the flow of materials, to control the flow of technology and information that is needed to build a nuclear weapon and the means to deliver. In May of this year, as we all recall, India and Pakistan both reinforced their status as nuclear powers. China, as we all know, has gone to great length to advance its own ballistic missile capability. And 3 years after an agreement with the Clinton administration to cease its nuclear weapons program, North Korea may still be moving forward to acquire nuclear weapons. In August, North Korea tested a two-stage ballistic missile that demonstrated its capability to deliver a nuclear payload. When the Persian Gulf war ended in 1991, both sides agreed to a U.N. Security Council resolution that required the destruction and banned future possession and development of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in Iraq. But time and time again, Iraq has demonstrated its clear resolve never to abide by this resolution. The United Nations demonstrated it has no resolve to insist on compliance. Iran continues to actively pursue a nuclear weapons program. The capability, if obtained, could fuel a nuclear arms race throughout Asia and the Middle East. Perhaps of greatest concern, nuclear proliferation in this region raises the risk that a nuclear device could end up in the hands of terrorist organizations or other elements hostile to the United States or hostile to the free world. While these nations have challenged international nuclear nonproliferation policies and agreements, others are asserting nationalism as well as ethnic prerogatives, prerogatives which have tested the United Nations and our NATO allies. Certainly we can point to the success of the stabilization forces to sustain the Dayton peace accords in Bosnia. However, when will the ultimate end game be in sight? At what point can our troops return home? At what point can real peace sustained by the Bosnians themselves ever be achieved? While we struggle to find the end game of peace in Bosnia, we are just beginning to make the opening moves and struggle to restore peace in the neighboring Serbian province of Kosovo. Milosevic has pledged to abide by U.N. demand, but only after the United States and our NATO allies started speaking with force, showing that they are ready. Bosnia has taught us hard lessons. We cannot rest on a commitment made by a war criminal, and the actions or inactions over the last week clearly reinforce that, as well. To the east, Turkey finds itself in military buildup against two adversaries, Syria and Greece. This administration now has been in a week-long struggle to revive, once again, the single issue that has kept peace and democracy bottled on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean, the peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. The regional tensions I have just described are fueled by ethnic and historic tensions that clearly go back for generations, go back centuries. It is safe to say that to achieve stability all sides have to defy the history of violence and bloodshed that preceded. While these nations attempt to reinforce their place in history, other nations are trying to save or achieve the economic and democratic success stories of recent history. Currency downturns across all of Asia now threaten the economic vitality in Latin America, particularly in Brazil. International drug trafficking from South America to the U.S.-Mexico border also undermines legitimate economic development efforts by countries in the production and transit zones. Our own efforts have to look to the larger global economic picture. For example, forcing a drop in the U.S. currency relative to the yen may make Japanese products less expensive, but it effectively makes products made by their Asian competitors more expensive, which could stall economic growth in places like Thailand or Singapore. Mr. President, I have outlined a series of challenges. Each of these challenges offers no simple solutions. Let's be very clear and honest about that. Each has long-term consequences, though, for U.S. national security. All of them are really interrelated. For example, the harder it is for Russia to right herself economically and politically, the harder it will be for Russia to avoid marketing its own destructive assets--those assets, of course, being nuclear technology. Mr. President, President Clinton is looking to leave a legacy; surely, he must be. The challenge to leave such a legacy to advance global peace and prosperity into the next century is there for the taking. Mr. President, the American people should not accept the upcoming impeachment process, or investigation--however we want to phrase it--as an identified impediment to achieving that legacy. What it would reveal instead is an administration that is lacking in the creative administrative capacity to articulate and advance a long-term foreign policy agenda. It is that failure to articulate and then stand by that agenda that poses the real risk to U.S. interests around the world. Mr. President, it is important that we put the impeachment process launched by the House of Representatives in its proper perspective. We are not faced today with a constitutional crisis. Instead, we are beginning a constitutional process. We don't know the ultimate outcome of that. It is a constitutional process designed by our Founding Fathers, designed to be a check on the potentially abusive power of a President. It is up to us in Congress to ultimately determine what ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' mean, and to ultimately determine what the facts are. It is up to us to follow that constitutional process that was laid out over 200 years ago by the founders of this country. Mr. President, for impeachment, the Constitution provides Congress a way to preserve the integrity of the President and, more to the point, to define this process and the kinds of practices that would fall into the category of high crimes and misdemeanors. Certainly a President faced with this constitutional process will have to devote time and effort to overcome the possible removal from office. We know that. But should we seek to limit or alter this process arbitrarily because it takes him away from other perhaps more pressing duties? Certainly not. Mr. President, impeachment is not the only process in our Constitution that can result in removal of a President. The Constitution provides a regular formal check on the President's powers known as ``elections''--the electoral process itself. As we all know, a President who is subjected to this constitutional process has to devote a great deal of time and attention to prevent his removal from office by the people. It is called running for election and running for reelection. Campaigns have become longer and more expensive. They demand more and more of a President's time and energy. This has taken place in the midst of challenging times. Not one time was this normal election process altered because of its potentially adverse affects on a President's ability to lead in times of difficulty, or even in times of crisis. Abraham Lincoln fought both a military war to save the union and a political war to save his Presidency in 1864. Franklin Roosevelt battled economic depression, and then Nazi and Japanese aggression, through three reelection campaigns. All of his successors, except one, from Harry Truman to George Bush had to wage and win a cold war, stop and dismantle communism, run a campaign and, at the same time, remain in office. I cite these examples because we expect our Presidents to exercise leadership even when they are being subjected to a political process that could result in their removal from office. Although the impeachment process raises very serious issues, it is no more a constitutional crisis than the very electoral process itself. Even today, in the days when Presidents are actively involved in reelection campaigns that begin almost immediately after being sworn into office, we expect our President to not let the campaign distract him from exercising leadership on the larger issues that are vital to this country. Nor have we ever postponed an election because of any fear that it would disrupt or threaten our Nation's security --not even when our Nation was at war, not even when our Nation was bitterly divided. Mr. President, with that in mind, we should not allow the current impeachment proceedings to be used as an excuse for not confronting the more important challenges we face in the world today. As I said in the beginning of my remarks, the business of national security and global peace is never-ending. This makes Presidential leadership a full time job, no matter what constitutional processes are utilized to remove the President from office by those who elected him or those tasked to protect the integrity of that office, whether it is what we consider to be the normal every-four-year reelection process or this extraordinary, unusual process that is clearly prescribed in the Constitution--the impeachment process that we are about today. Therefore, Mr. President, any process to address the charges raised by the independent counsel, short of that provided for in the Constitution, would be a grave mistake. I am confident that the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Congressman Henry Hyde, will conduct a thorough and fair hearing. Congressman Hyde will not let the process last a day longer than is needed. It is a process that will consume the time of many members of the legislative and executive branch of Government. However, it is a process put in place by the founders of this country to preserve the integrity of representative government. We have a duty to follow that process. It is not in anyone's interest to cheapen or weaken this process in a way that compromises our system of Government. With that said, the process must continue. I am confident that the House and the Senate will conduct themselves in a way that will give confidence to the American people that we are following the Constitution and that we are doing what we think is right--whatever the outcome. Mr. President, I urge the President of the United States to demonstrate that we are a country capable of following our Constitution and maintaining our position of leadership in the world. That could only occur if the President brushes aside the talk of distraction and takes on the numerous challenges before us. Ultimately, Mr. President, the truest sign of weakness is not a President focused on the constitutional process at hand, but an entire administration that is not prepared to exercise the leadership needed to work with our allies, develop sound policies, and then abide by them. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the greatest musicmakers in the history of the Buckeye State, the legenday ``Polka King,'' Frank Yankovic, who died yesterday at age 83. Frank Yankovic was from Cleveland, OH, but he had fans not just in Ohio but all over America. He brought joy to millions with his lighthearted polka hits--songs whose very titles can occasion a smile-- songs like and ``Champagne Taste and a Beer Bankroll'' and ``In Heaven There Is No Beer.'' Frank Yankovic won a Grammy Award, and was nominated for three more. With his passing, the world of music, and indeed all Americans who believe that music is supposed to be fun, have lost a true friend. The voice of Frank Yankovic resounds through the decades, asking the question that most everyone in northeast Ohio grew up with: ``Who stole the kishkes?'' Mr. President, it is my hope and strong belief that St. Peter is even now answering this question for Frank Yankovic--as he welcomes him to the polka band that used to be known as the heavenly choir. On behalf of the people of Ohio, let me say thank you to this great Ohioan--for a lifetime of entertainment.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise to hail the passage last night of the Bailey Fix Act, also known as the use or carry bill, after two Congresses. This legislation will provide enhanced mandatory minimum penalties for those criminals who use guns while trafficking in drugs or in the commission of violent crimes. When the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Bailey versus United States in 1995, the Court dealt a serious blow to law enforcement. Prior to that decision, drug traffickers who ``used or carried'' firearms during or in relation to their drug trafficking crimes were subject to mandatory minimums of five years under Section 924(c) of Title 18. With this decision, the Court significantly limited prosecutors' ability to put gun-using, drug trafficking criminals away. In Bailey, the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, announced that in order to receive the sentence enhancement for using or carrying a firearm during a violent or drug trafficking crime under Title 18 U.S.C. 924(c), the criminal must ``actively employ'' a firearm. This decision severely restricted an important tool used by federal prosecutors to put gun-using drug criminals behind bars. According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, there were 9,182 defendants sentenced nationwide from 1991 to 1995 under 924(c). The Commission notes that the vast majority, about 75% of these cases are drug trafficking and bank robbery cases. Since the Bailey decision, the number of federal cases involving a 924(c) enhancement has declined by about 17%. The question before this Congress for almost four years, two Senate hearings, and seven bills was how to restore this crime fighting tool. Across the political spectrum there is a consensus about the problem. There is also a consensus, I believe, that the purpose of this ``use or carry'' provision is twofold; to punish criminals who use guns, and to be a deterrent to would-be criminals not to use a gun. So, 924(c) comes with a message: ``If you mix guns and drugs, or guns and violence, we're going to come after you--and the price will be high.'' The final bill attempts to address the issue: ``Where do we draw the line in constructive possession cases?'' How do we address those situations when the gun is not in the direct possession of the criminal when either the crime is committed or he is caught for the crime. This legislation, however, is meant to embrace not only instances of brandishing, firing or displaying a firearm during a crime of violence or drug trafficking offense, but also to those situations where a defendant kept a firearm available to provide security for the transaction, its fruit or proceeds, or was otherwise emboldened by its presence in the commission of the offense. Many of these instances, frankly, are simply an issue of proof. To that extent we must acknowledge our limitations in addressing a solution. This bill would change the wording of Section 924(c) to add to ``uses, carries'' ``in furtherance of the crime, possesses a firearm.'' The original S. 191 did not contain this ``in furtherance language'' that modifies ``possesses. [In pertinent part, Section 924(c) would read: ``. . . any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime that provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device) for which a person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries a firearm, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm, shall . . .''] The purpose of adding the ``in furtherance'' language is to assure that someone who possesses a gun that has nothing to do with the crime does not fall under 924(c). I believe that the ``in furtherance'' language is a slightly higher standard that encompasses ``during and in relation to'' language, by requiring an indication of helping forward, promote, or advance a crime. This provision applies equally to the individual simply exercising his or her right to own a firearm, as well as the prosecutor who would bring a 924(c) action where there is, arguably, an insufficient nexus between the crime and the gun. This bill will: Provide for a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for anyone who uses, carries or possesses a firearm during a crime of violence or drug trafficking offense; Provide a seven year sentence for ``brandishing'' by making known the presence of a firearm during the commission of a crime. Raise the penalty to ten years if the gun is discharged. Mr. President, I have always believed that that this is an eminently fixable problem. Our prosecutors need full use of this provision now, and it is my hope and my belief that this legislation will accomplish that purpose. I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.