Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, almost everyone has heard of the impending ``Year 2000'' or ``Y2K'' problem, also commonly known as the ``millennium bug.'' The problem itself is fairly simple. In the early years of computers, programmers set aside only two digits to denote the year in dates. To the ``minds'' behind computers and other technology- driven devices, the year 2000 is indistinguishable from the year 1900. The problem is present in billions of lines of software as well as billions of small computer chips embedded in electronic devices used by Americans every day. Without the necessary checks to ensure that electronic devices can operate by January 1, 2000, the impact of this computer bug could be wide-ranging and even disastrous. Household gadgets like garage door openers or VCRs could break down. Traffic delays could be caused by non-complaint traffic lights. Stock exchanges and nuclear reactors could shut down. Although the problem is easy to describe, it has proven difficult and time-consuming to solve. To make the necessary corrections, each line of computer code must be hand-checked by a computer programmer, and all computer chips must be tested. In the United States alone, it is estimated that it will cost over $600 billion to correct the millions of lines of computer program code. Not only are these corrections expensive, the process of analyzing, correcting, testing and integrating software and hardware has become a heavy management burden on all levels of government as well as the private sector. Although the federal government has been working to meet the time constraints of the Y2K deadline, the General Accounting Office has found that problems still remain with computer systems at every federal agency they examined. Overall, it is estimated that the federal government must check at least 7,336 mission critical computer systems. Some larger systems, those used by the Internal Revenue Service, for example, have more than 60 lines of code per system. The Office of Management and Budget has established an interagency committee to facilitate federal efforts to instruct each federal agency on the best possible solutions. Some federal agencies are closer to achieving Y2K compliance than others. The Treasury Department's Financial Management Service, responsible for paying Social Security disability and retirement benefits, Veterans' benefits, and IRS refunds, installed two new Y2K compliant systems earlier this month. Treasury Department officials are confident they will be ready and checks will arrive on time. The Federal Aviation Administration is among the agencies furthest behind in this process. This is of particular concern to me. A recent survey by the Air Transport Association of America shows that 35 percent of our nation's airports surveyed do not yet have a Y2K plan and that only 20 of 81 of our country's larger airports are on schedule to fix their Y2K problems. Although FAA officials testified that they will, in fact, be fully compliant by the end of June 1999, this will not give their administrators much time for testing the updated systems. The Transportation Department is prepared to shut down unsafe aviation systems domestically and will be working with the State Department to access the safety of international systems so they will be ready to stop flights to unsafe airports. Unless we can accelerate Y2K compliance at our airports, the rippling Y2K effect on air travel could make air travel inconvenient and costly to the American traveler. During this session of Congress, we have devoted a great deal of attention to the Y2K challenge. A special Senate Subcommittee on Y2K, headed by our colleague from Utah, Senator Robert Bennett, held several hearings to raise awareness of this problem and to discuss possible solutions. To expedite the federal government's efforts to correct all agency computer systems, last year Congress provided $86 million to perform Y2K updates at the Federal Aviation Administration, the Treasury Department and the Health Care Financing Administration. This fall, Congress is expected to provide another $3.25 billion in emergency funding to ensure the federal government can fully meet the Y2K challenge. We also need to encourage companies, large and small, to meet this challenge. During congressional hearings, representatives from the private sector discussed hesitancy to disclose any information about their own Y2K progress. Companies are reluctant to work together based almost entirely on fears of potential litigation and legal liabilities. For example, in my state of Ohio, NCR, a world-wide provider of information technology solutions, has been working on Y2K solutions since 1996. NCR made valuable progress in research on its own preparedness for Y2K and in finding solutions to help other businesses prepare for the millennium. Unfortunately, they were hesitant to deliver these statements for fear that they would be sued. In order to encourage the private sector to share valuable information and experiences, these lines of communication need to be open. Congress recently passed legislation, S. 2392, to encourage companies to freely discuss potential Y2K problems, solutions, test results and readiness amongst themselves. This law will provide businesses the temporary protection from lawsuits regarding statements made about Y2K. As the chairman of the Antitrust, Business Rights and Competition Subcommittee, I am usually reluctant to support any exemption from our antitrust laws. As a general proposition it is very important that these laws apply broadly to all sectors of the economy to protect consumers and allow businesses to operate in an environment of fair and rigorous competition. However, I do support the narrow, temporary exemption passed by Congress as a part of our overall effort to address the Y2K problem. This exemption does not cover conduct such as price fixing or group boycotts. Even with these important limitations this antitrust exemption should provide significant protection for those who might otherwise be reluctant to pool resources and share information. S. 2392 is crucial to opening the lines of communication between companies, particularly those in the utility and telecommunications industries, which were cited by the Senate Y2K Subcommittee as its top priority for review. This legislation will be a giant step in implementing Y2K solutions. Not only will the bill promote discussion, it will also establish a single government website for access to Y2K information. Mr. President, both the supplemental spending and information sharing bills represent the kind of effort we need to meet the Y2K challenge. Without question, we are in an era of rapid communication and innovation, and the role computer technology plays in our daily lives is a constant reminder of this fact. Now, with this technology at risk of disrupting our lives as we usher in a new century and millennium, our ability to both communicate and to innovate will be put to the test over the next 14 months. It will take a combined effort from the public and private sector to pass this test.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I may have to object at this point. It is my understanding that there are speakers coming over on our side. Maybe we can work an arrangement out to alternate back and forth.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I will not object.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, if I could make a suggestion that we have the three Senators who are on the floor now, lock that time in, but with the understanding that, beyond that, we would then begin to go back and forth.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I thank my colleagues and I thank the Chair. Some of these suggestions we incorporated in the House bill first introduced by Congressman Bill McCollum of Florida and Congressman Dennis Hastert of Illinois. The House passed the McCollum-Hastert bill with overwhelming bipartisan support. The final vote was 384-39. Clearly, the overwhelming bipartisan show of support for the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act is a wake-up call--a wake-up call--for leadership. It is time the United States once again led the way in a comprehensive and balanced strategy to reduce drug use; and the time for leadership is now. Since House passage of the bill, I have reached out once again to the drug czar and to my friends on the Democrat side of the aisle to try to determine how we can work together to strengthen our drug interdiction efforts and our overall antidrug strategy. Again, we have received very constructive suggestions, and I am hopeful this dialogue will yield positive results in the future. Mr. President, the resources we would provide in our legislation should be of no surprise to anyone involved in our drug control policies. The vast majority of the items in this bill are the very items which the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Coast Guard and Customs Service have been requesting for quite some time. Many of these items are detailed, practically item per item and dollar amount, in the United States Interdiction Coordinator report, known as USIC, which was originally requested by the drug czar. The new drug bill that we have introduced represents a good-faith effort by the sponsors of this legislation to get something done this year. It includes almost all of the changes made in the House-passed bill and incorporates virtually every suggestion made by the drug czar. Of central concern to the general, as he expressed in his recent testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was the need for greater flexibility. And I agree and I understand. Our new bill provides flexibility for the agencies to determine and acquire the assets best needed for their respective drug interdiction missions. It also provides more flexibility for the administration in providing needed resources to Latin American countries. Mr. President, thanks to the suggestions we have received, the bill is a better bill. It has far more bipartisan support than the first version. Again, the growing support for this legislation is not surprising. This is not a partisan issue. We need to do more to fight drugs outside our borders. But let's be frank. In this antidrug effort, Congress is the antidrug funder but the agencies represented here--the Drug Enforcement Administration, Customs, Coast Guard, State and Defense Departments, and the Drug Czar's Office--they are the antidrug fighters. They are the ones who are doing the job. The dedicated men and women of these agencies are working to keep drugs out of the hands of our children. And all we are trying to do is to give them the additional resources they requested to make that work result in a real reduction in drug use. This bill is just the first step in our efforts to work with the agencies represented here. I expect to do more in the future. Finally, Mr. President, I want to make it clear that while this bill is an authorization measure, I have already started the process to request the money needed for this bill over 3 years. Even though we introduced the bill for the first time in late July, we have already secured $143 million through the Senate passed fy 1999 appropriation measures. Senators Coverdell, Graham of Florida, Grassley, Bond, Faircloth, and myself requested these funds through the various appropriation measures. Given that it will take some time to dedicate some of our larger assets, such as boats, airplanes, and helicopters, we need to start investing in these resources as soon as possible. I recognize that even as we finally are beginning to balance our budget, we still have to exercise fiscal responsibility. I believe effective drug interdiction is not only good social policy, it is sound fiscal policy as well. It is important to note that seizing or destroying a ton of cocaine in source or transit areas is more cost-effective than trying to seize the same quantity of drugs at the point of sale. But more important, are the short and long term costs if we do not act to reverse the tragic rise in drug use by our children. Let me remind my colleagues that there are more than twice the number of children aged 12 to 17 using drugs today than there were 5 years ago. With more kids using drugs, we have more of the problems associated with youth drug use--violence, criminal activity, and delinquency. Children are dying--either from drug use or drug-related violence. We will have more of the same unless we take action now to restore a balanced drug control strategy. We have to have all the components of our drug strategy working effectively again. We did it before and we succeeded. If we pass the Western Hemisphere drug elimination bill we can take the first step toward success. We can provide the resources, and most importantly, the leadership to reduce drugs at the source or in transit. In the end, Mr. President, that is what this bill is about--it is about leadership--effective leadership. We have an opportunity with this legislation to show and exercise leadership. I hope we can seize this opportunity to stop drug trafficking, and more important, to save lives.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago we introduced the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act. This bipartisan legislation, which now has over one-third of the Senate as cosponsors, calls for an additional $2.6 billion investment in international counternarcotics efforts over the next 3 years. With the additional resources provided in this legislation, we can begin to restore a comprehensive eradication, interdiction, and crop substitution strategy. I say ``restore.'' I say restore because we currently are not making the same kind of effort to keep drugs from entering the United States that we used to. Drugs are now easy to find and easy to buy. As a result, the amount of drugs sold on our streets and the number of people who use drugs, particularly our young people, is at an unprecedented high level. The facts demonstrate the sobering trends. The August 1998 National Survey of Drug Abuse report by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration lists the following disturbing facts: One, in 1997, 13.9 million Americans age 12 and over cited themselves as ``current users'' of elicit drugs, a 7 percent increase over 1996's figure of 13 million Americans. That translates to nearly a million new users of drugs each year. Second, from 1992 to 1997, the number of children age 12 to 17 who were using illegal drugs has more than doubled and has increased by 27 percent, just from 1996 to 1997 alone. For children age 12 to 17, first-time heroin use--which as we all know can be fatal--surged an astounding 875 percent, from 1991 to 1996. The overall number of past-month heroin users increased 378 percent from 1993 to 1997. We cannot in good conscience and with a straight face say that our drug control strategy is working. It is not. More children are using drugs. With an abundant supply, drug traffickers now are seeking to increase their sales by targeting children age 10, 11, 12. This is nothing less than an assault on the future of our children, on our families, and on the future of our country itself. This is nothing less than a threat to our national values and, yes, even our national security. All of this, though, begs the question: What are we doing wrong? Clearly there is no one, simple answer. However, one thing is clear: our overall drug strategy is no longer balanced; it is imbalanced. To be effective, our national drug strategy must have a strong commitment in the following three areas. One is demand reduction, which consists of prevention, treatment and education programs. These are, of course, administered by all levels of government: Federal level, State level, and the local community as well as nonprofit and other private organizations. The second component is domestic law enforcement which, again, has to be provided by all three levels of government. And finally, No. 3, international eradication and international interdiction efforts, which is the sole responsibility of the Federal Government, our sole responsibility. These three components are really all interdependent--you need them all. A strong investment in each of them is necessary for each to work individually and to work collectively. For example, a strong effort to destroy or seize drugs at the source or outside the United States, both reduces the amount of drugs in the country and drives up the street price. As we all know, higher prices will in fact reduce consumption. This, in turn, helps our domestic law enforcement and demand reduction efforts. As any football fan can tell us, a winning team is one that plays well at all three phases of the game--offense, defense, and special teams. The same is true with our antidrug strategy. All three components have to be effective if our strategy is going to be a winning effort. Mr. President, while I think the current administration has shown a clear commitment to demand reduction and domestic law enforcement programs, the same, sadly, cannot be said for the international eradication and interdiction components. This was not always the case. Let me turn to a chart. In 1987, a $4.79 billion Federal drug control budget was divided as follows: 29 percent for demand reduction programs; 38 percent for domestic law enforcement; and 33 percent, one-third, for international eradication and interdiction efforts. This balanced approach worked. It achieved real success. Limiting drug availability through interdiction drove up the street price of drugs, reduced drug purity levels and, consequently, reduced overall drug use. From 1988 to 1991, total drug use declined by 13 percent, cocaine use dropped by 35 percent, and there was a 25-percent reduction in overall drug use by adolescent Americans. This balanced approach, however, ended in 1993, and by 1995 the $13.3 billion national drug control budget was divided as follows: 35 percent for demand reduction, 53 percent for law enforcement, but only--only-- 12 percent--only 12 percent for international interdiction efforts. Though the overall antidrug budget increased almost threefold from 1987 to 1995, the percentage allocated for international eradication and interdiction efforts decreased dramatically. This disruption only recently has started to change. Unfortunately, the imbalance is still there, and the figures still show that. In the President's proposed $17 billion drug control budget for 1999, 34 percent will be allocated for demand reduction, 52 percent for law enforcement, and 14 percent for international and interdiction efforts. Those are the numbers. But what really matters is what these numbers get you, what they buy, in terms of resources. The hard truth is that our drug interdiction presence --the ship, the air, and the manpower dedicated to keeping drugs from reaching our country--has eroded dramatically, and here are just a few examples. One, the Department of Defense funding for counternarcotics decreased from $504.6 million in 1992 down to $214 million in 1995. That is a 57- percent decrease in only a period of 3 years. As a result, flight hours by our AWACS planes dropped from 38,100 hours in 1992 down to 17,713 hours by 1996, a 54-percent reduction. Another example: At the beginning of the decade, the U.S. Customs Service operated counternarcotics activities around the clock. This made sense because drug trafficking is a 7-day, 24-hour enterprise. Today, the Customs Service does not have the resources to maintain these around-the-clock operations. In a recent hearing on our legislation, the original piece of legislation we introduced, a representative of the U.S. Customs Service testified that the Customs Service has 84 boats in the Caribbean in drug apprehension efforts, and that is down from 200 vessels in 1990--200 down to 84. The Customs Service estimates that they expect to have only half of the current fleet of 84 vessels by the year 2000, if present trends and projections continue--half again. These, I believe, are shocking statistics, and, perhaps more than the budget numbers themselves, these statistics demonstrate the imbalance in our overall drug strategy. We have to have a balanced strategy. All portions are needed. I have witnessed the lack of our resources and commitment in the region firsthand. This past year, I traveled to the Caribbean several times to see our counternarcotics operations there. I met with the dedicated people on the front lines of our drug interdiction efforts. I witnessed our strategy in action and sat down with the experts, both military and civilian--our experts who are charged with carrying out the monitoring, the detection, and the interdiction of drugs. On one of my recent trips, I saw, in particular, Haiti has become the attractive rest stop on the cocaine highway. You can tell, when looking at the map, why that would be. It is strategically located about halfway between the source country, Colombia, and the United States. As the poorest country in the hemisphere, it is extremely vulnerable to the kind of bribery and corruption that the drug trade needs in order to flourish. Not surprisingly, the level of drugs moving through Haiti has dramatically increased. A U.S. Government interagency assessment on cocaine movement found that the total amount of cocaine coming from the United States through Haiti jumped from 5-percent in 1996 now up to 19 percent by the end of 1997. In response to that, we initiated a U.S. law enforcement operation called Operation Frontier Lance. Operation Frontier Lance utilized Coast Guard cutters, speed boats, and helicopters to detect and capture drug dealers on a 24-hour-per-day basis. This operation was modeled after another successful interdiction effort that was first done off the coast of Puerto Rico, and that operation was called Operation Frontier Shield. Both these operations were done in two different time periods. Operation Frontier Shield utilized nearly 2 dozen ships and aircraft, and Operation Frontier Lance utilized more than a dozen ships and helicopters. To make Operation Frontier Lance work ultimately required that we borrow a few ships and helicopters from operations elsewhere in the Caribbean. Because of our scarce resources, frankly, we had to rob Peter to pay Paul, as they say. But these operations produced amazing results. The 6-month operation in Puerto Rico resulted in the seizure of more than 32,000 pounds of cocaine and 120 arrests. The 3-month operation in Haiti resulted in 2,990 pounds of cocaine seized and 22 arrests. Mr. President, these operations demonstrate we can make a big difference--a big difference--if we provide the right levels of material and the right levels of manpower to fight drug trafficking. They worked. Having had this success, one would think that these operations would serve as a model for the entire region, that we would be able to duplicate them, replicate them. Instead of maintaining these operations, we ended them. This potential roadblock on the cocaine highway is no more. Now in Puerto Rico, we only have a combined total of six air and sea assets doing maintenance operations. So this figure, Mr. President, represented by these helicopters and ships has been dramatically changed. That is what has happened. That has been the change--down to six in that region. In Puerto Rico today, we only have a combined total of six air and sea assets doing maintenance operations. In Haiti and the Dominican Republic--off the coast of Haiti and the Dominican Republic--we only have one ship and one helicopter devoted for the drug operation. That is what we are down to here--just one. So we can take all of these off at once. We should keep in mind also that since refugees remain a major problem in this area, these very few vessels are not dedicated solely and exclusively to the antidrug effort. Amazingly, no sooner than we built an effective wall against drug traffickers we tore it down. While in the region, I was surprised to learn in the eastern Pacific, off the coast of Mexico and Central America, the coast is literally clear for the drug lords to do their business. This is, without a doubt, unacceptable. That whole region--that whole region--is literally clear for the drug lords, the entire eastern Pacific. Again, we have no presence there because we lack the resources. An interdiction plan does exist for the region which would involve the deployment of several ships and planes in the region. This operation, however, unfortunately, was canceled. It was canceled before it even got started because the resources were needed elsewhere. To date, the coastal waters in the eastern Pacific remain an open sea expressway for drug business. Mr. President, through my visits to the region I have seen firsthand the dramatic decline in our eradication and interdiction capacity. The results of this decline have been a decline in cocaine seizures, a decline in the price of cocaine, and an increase in drug use. This has to stop. It is a clear and imminent danger to the very heart of our society. That is why this legislation is timely. We need to dedicate more resources for international efforts to help reverse this trend. I want to make it very clear, as I think I have time and time again, that I strongly support our continued commitment in demand reduction and in law enforcement programs. In the end, I believe that reducing demand is the only real way to permanently end illegal drug use. However, this is not going to happen overnight. That is why we need a comprehensive counterdrug strategy that addresses all components of this problem. There is another fundamental reason, why the Federal Government must do more to stop drugs, either at the source or in transit, as they are coming into the United States. If we do not, no one else will. Let me remind my colleagues that our antidrug efforts here at home are done in cooperation with State and local governments and scores of nonprofit and private organizations. However, only the Federal Government has the ability and the responsibility to keep drugs from crossing into this country. Only the Federal Government has the ability to help deal with the problem at the source level. Only the Federal Government has the ability to stop drugs in the transit routes. That is our responsibility, and the buck should stop here. But, it is not just an issue of responsibility. I think it is an issue of leadership. The United States has to demonstrate leadership on an international level if we expect to get the full cooperation of source countries, where the drugs originate, countries such as Colombia, Peru and Bolivia, as well as countries in the transit zone, including Mexico and the Caribbean island governments. There is little incentive for these countries to invest their limited resources and risk the lives of their law enforcement officers to stop drug trafficking unless we provide the leadership and the resources necessary to make a serious dent in the drug trade. Our bill is designed to provide resources and to demonstrate to our friends in the Caribbean and in Central and South America that we intend to lead once again. With this legislation, we can once again make it difficult for drug lords to bring drugs to our country and make drugs far more costly to buy. It is clear drug trafficking imposes a heavy toll on law-abiding citizens and communities across our great country. It is time we make it a dangerous and costly business once again for drug traffickers themselves. A renewed investment in international and interdiction programs will make a huge difference, both in the flow and the cost of illegal drugs. It worked before and we believe it can work again. As I said at the beginning, my colleagues and I reintroduced this legislation a few weeks ago. Since we introduced our original bill in July, we have received a number of suggestions on ways to improve the legislation, including several provided in conversations I personally had with Gen. Barry McCaffrey, the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes to conclude my remarks.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me first congratulate my colleague from Wyoming for a very eloquent and very thoughtful statement about a very serious issue, a very serious problem.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be agreed to en bloc and the bill be read a third time.

Mr. DeWINE. I finally ask consent that H.R. 2863 be placed back on the calendar.

Mr. DeWINE. I further ask unanimous consent that the Environment Committee be immediately discharged from consideration of H.R. 2807, and the Senate proceed then to its consideration. I further ask that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of H.R. 2863 be inserted in lieu thereof, 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 appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendment be agreed to. And Senator Chafee has two amendments at the desk. I ask that they be considered en bloc.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 699, H.R. 2863.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, let me make the following statement. This morning the Senate will begin a period of morning business lasting until 12 noon. Following morning business, the Senate may consider any legislation that may be cleared by unanimous consent. All Members should be aware that yesterday the Senate passed a 2-day continuing resolution that will keep the Government operating until midnight Wednesday, allowing the Congress to continue negotiations on the omnibus appropriations bill. If good progress can be made today, the spending bill may be ready for Senate action as early as Wednesday afternoon. As a reminder to all Members, it is hoped that the remaining legislation of the 105th Congress can be cleared by unanimous consent. However, if a rollcall vote is needed on the omnibus bill, all Members will be given ample notice in order to plan their schedules accordingly.

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the distinguished career of Walter G. Sellers of Wilberforce, Ohio--who has recently completed his term as president of Kiwanis International. Mr. Sellers is the first African-American to serve as Kiwanis International President. For 32 years, he was a member of the Kiwanis Club in Xenia, Ohio. In 1990, he was elected to the Kiwanis International Board of Trustees. He served as Vice President and Treasurer before becoming President. All Ohioans are proud of Mr. Sellers' outstanding stewardship of one of the largest service clubs in the world. But we also know that his service to our community extends beyond his work with the Kiwanis organization. He has served as President of the Xenia Board of Education and President of the Ohio School Boards Association. And he has done great work on many other public-service boards in Ohio. Walter Sellers has dedicated his life to improving the lives of the people of Ohio, especially in the field of education. We are all extremely grateful for his efforts--and I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing him all the best in his next endeavors. Mr. President, on a personal note, I have known Walt Sellers for many, many years as a community leader in my home county of Greene County. I also have known Walt for the great work he has done at Central State. I know when I served on the Board of Trustees at Central State in the late 1970s, Walter was there to help guide. So he has been a great asset to that wonderful institution as well.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a landmark report released a week ago about asthma, and about how well we as a Nation are dealing with it. The report, called ``Asthma in America'', frankly concludes that we are doing a poor job. Asthma is a disease that we know how to treat and that we know how to manage. But every year, thousands of Americans die from asthma--and millions more have to be rushed to hospitals to treat emergency asthma symptoms. Let me repeat--we have people dying from asthma--even though we know how to treat this disease. This really is something that we as a nation must address. Mr. President, there's been enough public attention about asthma that I would hope we all know the basics by now. But let me restate some basic facts. Asthma is a chronic lung disease caused by inflammation of the lower airways. During an asthma attack, these airways narrow-- making it difficult and sometimes impossible to breathe. Nearly 15 million Americans have asthma--and 5 million of them are children. for some reason, the prevalence of asthma is rising--in the last two decades, the number of asthma cases have doubled. The good news for the 15 million Americans with asthma is that we know a lot about how to treat and manage the disease. We know how to handle asthma attacks once they occur. The most common way, of course, is to use one of the types of asthma inhalers, inhalers such as the one I carry with me just about every day. Millions of Americans use this type of inhaler. Importantly, we now know a lot about how to prevent asthma attacks. Through drug therapy and through avoiding many well- known triggers that cause asthma attacks, we know enough to make sure these attacks and other complications from asthma are rare indeed. In fact, our knowledge is comprehensive enough that the National Institutes of Health have set some ambitious--but reachable--goals for asthma treatment. For example, one of the NIH goals is zero missed days of school or work. Given what we know, we should be able to reach this and the other goals NIH has set. At a minimum, we should be able to come close. But the bad news for Americans with asthma is that we are not managing this disease well--and we are not coming anywhere close to meeting the NIH goals. This is the bad news that was spelled out very clearly in the Asthma in America report. Let me go over a few of the findings from the report. The NIH goal is that Americans with asthma miss zero days of work or school. But the report tells us that 49 percent of children with asthma and 25 percent of adults with asthma missed school or work because of the disease last year. The NIH goal is that the sleep of people with asthma should not be disrupted by difficulty to breathe. But the report tells us that almost one in three asthma patients awaken with breathing problems at least once a week. The NIH goal is that we have only a small need for emergency room visits or hospitalizations due to asthma attacks. But the report tells us that nearly six million Americans were hospitalized, treated in emergency rooms, or required other urgent care for asthma in the last year. One out of every three children with asthma--about 1.5 million of them--had to go to an emergency room because of asthma. The NIH goal is that individuals with asthma should be able to maintain normal activity levels. But the Asthma in America survey shows that 48 percent of asthma patients say that asthma limits their ability to participate in sports and recreational activities, and 36 percent have difficulty maintaining their usual levels of physical activity. Mr. President, all of this is simply unacceptable. If we know how to do better, we must do better. As a nation, we need to seriously evaluate why these shortcomings in the treatment of asthma remain-- despite the fact that we do know better. All of us--policymakers; doctors; health insurance companies and HMOs; people with asthma and parents of children with asthma--all of us need to look at this report and try to figure out what's going wrong. The report released Tuesday should be viewed as a wake-up call. We knew there were some problems with how well we deal with asthma, but I don't think anybody realized it was this bad. We must and can do better. For example, Asthma in America suggests that one of the reasons we are not meeting the national goals for asthma is lack of knowledge among patients. Many of the survey participants were not able to state what the underlying cause of asthma is, how asthma medication should be used, and how to prevent asthma attacks from occurring. It is clear that we should be doing a better job of educating patients, their families and health care providers about the importance of properly managing asthma. As a United States Senator, as an American with asthma, and as the father whose children have had asthma, I intend to look at this issue to see what I can do personally and what the federal government can do to address the shortcomings in asthma treatment this report reveals. We only have a day or two left in the 105th Congress. But if we need legislation--if we need greater resources to deal with this problem--I will do everything I can to make sure the 106th Congress addresses this issue and does what is necessary.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, as my colleagues well know, my distinguished colleague from Ohio, John Glenn, is busily preparing for his extraordinary and inspirational return to space. As our best wishes are with him and his wife Annie as they begin the next chapter in their wonderful lives, I would like to take a moment to read a fine tribute to Senator Glenn by those who also dedicated their lives to public service--as members of John Glenn's staff. I am honored to read the following letter addressed to him: October 9, 1998. The Hon. John Glenn, U.S. Senator, Washington, DC. Dear Senator: As your four terms in the United States Senate come to a close and as you prepare to return to space for the first time since your historic 1962 orbital flight, those who have had the honor and the privilege to serve as members of your Senate staff would like to express our gratitude to you. Although there have been many staff changes over the years, you have allowed us to pursue extraordinary careers in government and experience opportunities that few can ever know. Some of us have been on your staff since 1975 and many more have served well beyond the average tenure. Beyond our professional careers, you and Annie have made us feel welcome. You generously shared your time with us as our families and children have grown. Your commitment to family is evident in your 55 years of marriage to Annie and that example must have contributed to the eight office marriages in which both spouses first met as staff members. We have always been proud to assist a public servant who is held in such high regard. We witnessed that admiration and respect firsthand as we accompanied you in your travels throughout the country and around the world and when we see the many people who come to your offices to conduct business. Your patriotic service in war and peace, in space and in the Senate is an inspiration to us. While you remind us that there may be no cure for the common birthday, you have proven time and again that with determination and hard work dreams do come true. Thank you for helping our dreams come true, too. Godspeed John Glenn. Mary Jane Veno, 1975; Christine S. McCreary, 1975; Patricia J. Buckheit, 1975; Ernestine J. Hunter, 1975; Barbara Perry, 1975; Diane Lifsey, 1975; Kathy Connolly, 1975; Linda K. Dillon, 1977; Dale Butland, 1980; Peggy McCauley, 1980. Ron Grimes, 1984; Kathleen Long, 1984; Don Mitchell, 1984; Michael Slater, 1985; Rosemary Matthews, 1985; Peter McAlister, 1987; Jack Sparks, 1989; Micole C. Dauray, 1989; Shannon L. Watson, 1989; Tonya McKirgan, 1990. Suzanne McKenna, 1990; Sebastian O'Kelly, 1990; Vicki Butland, 1991; Nathan Coffman, 1992; Holly Koerber, 1993; Mike Entinghe, 1993; Vickie Eckard, 1993; Bryce Level, 1993; J.P. Stevens, 1994. Kevin Cooper, 1995; Alberta Easter, 1995; Holly Kinnamon, 1996; Jan Papez, 1995; Ayris Price, 1996; David McCain, 1997; Yolanda Brock, 1997; Jill Jacobs, 1997; Dan Emerine, 1997. Marc Saint Louis, 1997; Coleen Mason, 1997; Rochelle Sturtevant, 1997; Elizabeth Stein, 1997; John Hoctor, 1997; Rob Mosher, 1997; Mary Goldberg, 1998; Maggie Diaz, 1998; Christopher Davis, 1998. Mr. President, all of us share the sentiments expressed in this heart-warming tribute. It is a reminder of how fortunate we are to have the opportunity to work with dedicated staff who share our pride in representing our fellow citizens in the United States Senate.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the distinguished career of Walter G. Sellers of Wilberforce, Ohio--who has recently completed his term as president of Kiwanis International. Mr. Sellers is the first African-American to serve as Kiwanis International President. For 32 years, he was a member of the Kiwanis Club in Xenia, Ohio. In 1990, he was elected to the Kiwanis International Board of Trustees. he served as Vice President and Treasurer before becoming President. All Ohioans are proud of Mr. Sellers' outstanding stewardship of one of the largest service clubs in the world. But we also know that his service to our community extends beyond his work with the Kiwanis organization. He has served as President of the Xenia Board of Education and President of the Ohio School Boards Association. And he has done great work on many other public-service boards in Ohio. Walter Sellers has dedicated his life to improving the lives of the people of Ohio, especially in the field of education. We are all extremely grateful for his efforts and I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing him all the best in his next endeavors.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I would like 8 minutes.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I thank my colleague. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss two important provisions in this bill--provisions that honor two distinguished Ohioans who are retiring from public service this year--Lou Stokes and John Glenn. Mr. President, the bill before us would name the Veterans Administration Medical Center in Cleveland, Ohio, the Louis Stokes VA Medical Center. That is a fitting tribute for a number of reasons. First, Lou Stokes is a veteran, serving our country in the U.S. Army during the Second World War. Second, as ranking member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Veterans' Affairs, Lou Stokes has demonstrated that he is a true champion on behalf of his fellow veterans. Third, Lou Stokes in recent years has dedicated his attention to improving the quality of care at the facility that will bear his name. He has been working tirelessly with me to provide funds to improve this facility for our veterans in northeast Ohio. This bill in fact contains $20.8 million to improve the ambulatory care unit at the Stokes Medical Center. This is the latest of a lifetime of examples of how Lou Stokes has made a difference--a difference for veterans and for all his constituents. I also am pleased and proud that the bill before us contains a provision that, in my view, represents the deepest feelings of the people of Ohio regarding our senior Senator John Glenn. Mr. President, it would be fair to say that the imagination of Ohio, and indeed of all America, has been captured by Senator Glenn's impending space voyage. It is an inspiring odyssey. It is exiciting--it reminds us of the spirit of American possibility we all thrilled to when John Glenn made his first orbit back in 1962. Senator Glenn's return to space as a member of the crew of the space shuttle Discovery marks the culmination of an incredible public career. This is man who flew 149 heroic combat missions as a Marine pilot in World War II and the Korean war--facing death from enemy fighters and antiaircraft fire. And none of us who were alive back in 1962 can forget his historic space flight. I was in Mr. Ed Wingard's science class, at Yellow Springs High School in Yellow Springs, Ohio--we were glued to the TV. Our hearts, and the hearts of all Americans, were with him that day. John Glenn reassured us all that America didn't just have a place in space. At the height of the cold war, he reassured us that we have a place--in the future. And that, Mr. President, brings me to the purpose of the legislation I am introducing. Even as we speak, in Cleveland, Ohio, there are some hardworking men and women of science who are keeping America strong, who are keeping us on the frontier of the human adventure. They are the brilliant, persevering, and dedicated workers of the NASA-Lewis Space Research Center. People who understand aviation know how crucially important the cutting-edge work of the NASA-Lewis scientists is, for America's economic and technological future. Mr. President, what more fitting tribute could there be to our distinguished colleague, Senator Glenn, than to rename this facility-- in his honor? That, Mr. President, is the purpose of this legislation. It recognizes not just a man's physical accomplishments--but his spirit. It inspired us in 1962. It inspires us this year. And it will remain strong in the work of all those who expand America's frontiers. The facility would be renamed the National Aeronautics and Space Administration John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field--to honor our distinguished colleague, and also the aviation pioneer for whom it is currently named. George Lewis became Director of Aeronautical Research at the precursor to NASA in 1919. It was then called the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics, or NACA. Lewis visited Germany prior to World War II. When he saw their commitment to aeronautic research, he championed American investment in aeronautic improvements--and created the center which eventually bore his name. He and John Glenn are pioneers on the same American odyssey. Ohio looks to both of them with pride--and with immense gratitude for their leadership. And I am proud, today, that we were able to include this in the bill. I thank my colleagues for that, and I also want to thank our good friend, Louis Stokes, who has been instrumental in shepherding this measure honoring Senator Glenn in the other body. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I thank the Senator from Utah for his comments. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. DeWINE. I again commend the Senator from Utah and the other WIPO conferees and their staff, especially Senator Leahy, for their tireless efforts to reach consensus on so many complex issues. I would simply like to ask my friend from Utah to work with those of us on the Judiciary Committee to introduce and seek passage of legislation early next year that protects our databases.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, final passage of this bill--S. 2022, comprising the Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998 and the National Criminal History Access and Child Protection Act of 1998--is truly a historic achievement. I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and in both Houses of Congress, for their hard work on this legislation. S. 2022 is based on the principle that technology is the future of police work. It is the number one edge our law enforcement officers are going to have in the struggle against criminals, well into the 21st century. The Crime Identification Technology Act (CETA) authorizes $1.25 billion over the next five years in grants administered by the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) in the Department of Justice, with reliance upon the expertise of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), also in the Department of Justice, to help every state to establish or upgrade its use of information and identification and forensics technologies across the entire criminal justice system. Title II of the Act, the National Criminal History Access and Child Protection Act, establishes an Interstate Compact which binds the Federal Bureau of Investigation and, upon approval by the state legislatures, the states to participate in the non-criminal justice access program of the Interstate Identification Index (III) in accordance with the Compact and established system policies. I would like, first, to address Title I of this legislation. National Criminal History Improvement Program In a certain sense, Title I of the Act, The Crime Identification Technology Act, replaces the National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP) which expired at the end of fiscal year 1998. NCHIP monies, totaling almost 200 million dollars, were provided to the states by BJS and the Department of Justice and have been enormously successful in helping states to enhance their automated criminal history records and to identify and develop other relevant information systems for instantaneous firearms eligibility determinations. Because more needs to be done and because it is important not to lose momentum in building a fast, comprehensive and reliable National Instant Check System for firearms eligibility, S. 2022 will permit the federal government and the states to continue to build upon this important work. Systems Integration S. 2022, however, does much more. In particular, Title I provides for systems integration, permitting all components of criminal justice (law enforcement, courts, correction and prosecution) to share information and communicate more effectively and on a real-time basis. Revolutionary improvements in information and identification and communications technologies have created opportunities and, indeed, responsibilities, for all of our nation's criminal justice agencies to build integrated information and identification systems. This bill will provide leadership and, in partnership with state and local governments, the resources necessary to build these important systems. S. 2022 will also support the courts and their use of information and identification technology. The courts are a critical part of the criminal justice information system. Not only are the courts a supplier of information on disposition, they are also an all-important consumer of information on arrest and conviction. The courts require state-of- the-art, integrated information identification systems for both functions. Until now, the courts have lagged behind in their use of technology--and this bill will help them to catch up. Interstate Identification Index S. 2022 addresses virtually every technology-based, information identification and forensics need of state and local criminal justice agencies. Title I of S. 2022, for example, will support participation by all states in the Interstate Identification Index, which is the decentralized federal system that permits state, local and federal criminal justice agencies to exchange arrest and conviction information on a reliable, national and real-time basis. IAFIS and NCIC 2000 S. 2022 will also help state and local agencies to take advantage of two important FBI initiatives which are nearing completion. The FBI's Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) and the FBI's NCIC 2000 (National Criminal Information Center) will create a platform for the FBI to use state-of-the-art identification and information and technology, both internally and to communicate with state and local agencies. Obviously, state and local agencies must also be able to upgrade their information identification technologies in a way that is compatible with the FBI's new systems if the FBI and the Nation are to obtain full benefit from these FBI initiatives for which the Congress has appropriated several hundred million dollars over the last few years. Employment and Licensing S. 2022 will also support faster, more complete and more reliable state and local responses to employment and licensing background check requests. Over the last decade, employers and non-criminal justice government agencies have emerged as the largest group of consumers of arrest and conviction record information for background checks for child care workers, school bus drivers, private security guards and a host of other individuals seeking employment and licensing in sensitive positions of trust. We simply must do a better job of providing appropriate arrest and conviction information on a fast and reliable basis. S. 2022 will go a long way toward helping our state and local law enforcement agencies to achieve this capability. Aggregate Statistical Data S. 2022 will also support statistical and research systems, which can together provide community-relevant information to support smarter decisions and more cost efficient and effective administration of criminal justice resources. Sex Offender Registries S. 2022 will permit state and local criminal justice agencies to continue to build more useful and effective sexual offender identification registration systems, as well as domestic violence identification and information systems. Communications Technologies S. 2022 will also help our criminal justice agencies to acquire and implement communications systems which are compatible with neighboring police systems, compatible with systems operated by other components of the criminal justice system and compatible among federal, state and local criminal justice agencies. Every criminal justice agency should be able to communicate with other criminal justice agencies in an instantaneous and reliable way in order to respond to emergency situations and to promote the routine and appropriate sharing of information. Forensics Finally, S. 2022 provides a 20 percent set-aside for forensic science and Medical Examiner programs. New forensics technologies are creating a truly remarkable potential to solve crimes that previously could not have been solved and to convict offenders who previously could not have been convicted. Implementing and using this technology across the nation takes leadership and resources. S. 2022 will provide both. The 20 percent set-aside applies to the amount actually funded under S. 2022 and is not a requirement which is made mandatory for each state. In other words, a state which does not wish to draw down 20 percent of its funding under this Act for forensic science and medical examiner purposes is not required to do so. We will be monitoring the states' use of funding for forensic science and Medical Examiner purposes, with an eye to reexamining whether this kind of earmark is necessary and, if so, at what level. Overall Impact The Crime Identification Technology Act does more than provide support for critical information, identification, communications and forensic technology applications. S. 2022 creates a vision and makes a commitment. The Act envisions a criminal justice system in which all parts of the system--law enforcement, courts, prosecution and correction--use state-of-the-art, information, identification, communication and forensics technologies in a compatible and integrated manner, so as to mount the most effective and cost efficient challenge yet to crime. The Act also represents a federal commitment that every criminal justice agency in this country should have the resources, in partnership with state and local funding, to obtain and use state-of- the-art technology in the war against crime. Matching Requirement In this regard, the Act requires a 10 percent match to be borne by the states. As a practical matter, we expect that the states will spend state monies far in excess of 10 percent of the funding under this Act in the acquisition, implementation and use of crime fighting technologies. Because of this, it is expected that OJP will take into account all relevant costs borne by the state, regardless of the nature or character of these costs, so long as they truly support the application of technology for the administration of criminal justice. Furthermore, it is expected that OJP, working through the Bureau of Justice Statistics, will publish guidelines regarding the criteria for waiving a match, which will assure that states or components of the criminal justice system within a state which are deserving of a grant but which cannot meet the match requirement, are not disadvantaged. It is further expected that the match will not apply to grants made pursuant to Subparagraph (2)(B) of Subsection (d) which provides grants and funding for technical assistance, training, evaluations and other support for this technology initiative. BJS Expertise Title I, while vesting grant administration authority in the Office of Justice Programs, directs the Office to rely principally upon the expertise of BJS in administering the program. This is important because the structure of the grant program is modeled after the National Criminal History Improvement Program, which was very successfully administered by BJS. Under that program, every state was required to receive a grant. Moreover, while the program was discretionary, it was administered by BJS in a manner that has permitted the states wide discretion in the purposes for which NCHIP grant monies were applied. A similar approach should be taken in the S. 2022 grant program. The identification, information, communications and forensics programs which are identified in S. 2022 are purposefully broad, so that each state can use grant monies for its own particular technology needs. At the same time, the discretionary approach and requirements in the bill that each state develop a statewide strategy for information sharing, with an emphasis on the integration of all criminal justice components, assures that the needs of all components of criminal justice, including the courts, are taken into account and assures that adequate planning and implementation strategies have been developed so that the use of technology is compatible and integrated. OJP's role is important because the Department of Justice administers several justice assistance programs which can be and are being used for important, criminal justice identification, information and communications purposes. None of these programs are repealed, and funding should and will continue under these programs. Accordingly, coordination is important and OJP is expected to provide that coordination. Contributions to NICS S. 2022 also requires, by way of assurances, that states assure the Attorney General that the state ``has the capability to contribute pertinent information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.'' This language does not mean that states are required to operate their own Instant Check Systems or to otherwise be a ``point- of-contact'' or intermediary between licensed firearms dealers and the FBI's National Instant Background Check System. Rather, this assurance requires that states are contributing criminal history information and, if practicable and required by the FBI, other pertinent information to the national system. States which are participating in III or working actively toward participating in III are presumed to meet this assurance. Interstate Identification Index System Compact Finally, Title II, the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact of 1998, establishes a uniform standard for the interstate and federal- state exchange of criminal history records for non-criminal justice purposes. In addition, Title II permits each state to continue to enforce its own record dissemination laws within its own borders. The Compact facilitates the interstate and federal-state exchange of criminal history information by clarifying the obligations and responsibilities of participating parties, streamlining the processing of background search applications, and eliminating record maintenance duplication at federal and state levels. Finally, the Compact provides a mechanism for establishing and enforcing uniform standards for record accuracy and for the confidentiality and privacy interests of record subjects. This is a landmark piece of legislation, and I thank my colleagues for helping to move it toward enactment.