Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to oppose the nomination of William Fletcher to be a U.S. Circuit Court judge for the Ninth Circuit. On May 21, 1998, the Senate Judiciary Committee favorably reported out this nominee by a vote of 12 to 6. I voted against the nominee. I would like to take a moment this afternoon to explain to my colleagues in the Senate why I voted no on that date and why I intend to vote no today. I intend to vote no today, Mr. President, and I base my opposition on the fact that Mr. Fletcher's writings and statements simply do not convince me that he will help to move the Ninth Circuit closer to the mainstream of judicial thought. And that is the criteria that I applied and will continue to apply in regard to the Ninth Circuit. Although some Senators oppose this nominee because of their reading of the antinepotism statute and their concerns in that area, the fact that Mr. Fletcher's mother also serves on the Ninth Circuit, who, as my colleague pointed out, will take senior status, does not trouble me. As I said in the Judiciary Committee, I am not in favor of legislation that, based on family relationships, restricts the power of the President or the power of the Senate to either nominate or confirm judges. Having said that, Mr. President, let me restate what does concern me about this nomination. All of us--all of us--should be concerned about what has been going on in the Ninth Circuit over the last few years. Based on the alarming reversal rate of the Ninth Circuit, I have said before and I will say it again for the Record today, I feel compelled to apply a higher standard of scrutiny for Ninth Circuit nominees than I do for nominations to any other circuit. Mr. President, I will only support nominees to the Ninth Circuit who possess the qualifications and whose background shows that they have the ability and the inclination to move the circuit back towards the mainstream of judicial thought in this country. Before we consider future Ninth Circuit nominees, I urge my colleagues to take a close look at the evidence, evidence that shows that we have a judicial circuit today that each year continues to move away from the mainstream. I believe the President of the United States has very broad discretion to nominate to the Federal bench whomever he chooses, and the Senate should give him due deference when he nominates someone for a Federal judgeship. However, having said that, the Senate does have a constitutional duty to offer its advice and consent on judicial nominations. Each Senator, of course, has his or her own criteria for offering this advice and consent. However, given that these nominations are lifetime appointments, all of us take our advice and consent responsibility very seriously. We should keep in mind that the Supreme Court of our country has time to review only a small number of decisions from any circuit. That certainly is true with the Ninth Circuit as well. This means that each circuit, the Ninth Circuit in this case, in reality is the court of last resort. In the case of the Ninth Circuit, they are the court of last resort for the 45 million Americans who reside within that circuit. To preserve the integrity of the judicial system for so many people, I believe we need to take a more careful look at who we are sending to a circuit that increasingly--increasingly--chooses to disregard precedent and ultimately just plain gets it wrong so much of the time. Consistent with our constitutional duties, the Senate has to take responsibility for correcting this disturbing reversal rate of the Ninth Circuit. I think we have an affirmative obligation to do that. And that is why I will only support those nominees to the Ninth Circuit who possess the qualifications and who have clearly demonstrated the inclination to move the circuit back towards the mainstream. Mr. President, I will want to apply a higher standard of scrutiny to future Ninth Circuit nominees to help ensure that the 45 million people in that circuit receive justice, and justice that is consistent with the rest of the Nation, justice that is predictable and not arbitrary nor dependent on the few times the Supreme Court reviews and ultimately reverses an erroneous Ninth Circuit decision. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the conference report to implement the WIPO treaties. I also strongly support the copyright term extension legislation that we recently passed by voice vote. While I would like to congratulate the conferees and their staff for working out a consensus on so many controversial provisions, I feel it is necessary to express my disappointment that we are unable to pass some form of database protection this year. It is unfortunate that a consensus could not be reached on an issue that is so vital to so many people in our country. Agricultural databases, for example, are relied upon by our farmers and by others in our farming supply industry. While computers and the Internet make access to information available at our fingertips, we need to provide adequate protection for those who compile that information in such a user friendly format. Such easy access is essential to health care workers, for example, who need to have fast access to accurate information about which drugs have adverse reactions to other drugs or which antidotes are most effective in counteracting certain poisons. I see my friend from Utah, Senator Hatch, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is on the floor, and I would like to ask if he would agree that Congress should pass database legislation as early as possible next year to ensure that those who invest their time, money and effort in compiling and updating databases are protected from having their work pirated both domestically and internationally? Would the Senator from Utah agree that without such protections, database creators may decide that the risk of loss from piracy outweighs any potential gains from creating or updating databases.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my strong support for this bill offered by our distinguished colleague from Rhode Island. I want to thank Senator Chafee for all the work he has done, and especially his effort to addressing some of the concerns I had about the bill. The North American Wetlands Conservation Act, or NAWCA, is a blueprint for successful environmental protection--through voluntary cooperation among government agencies, private conservation organizations, and landowners. It is a matching fund which involves state, federal, and private partners in protecting and restoring wetlands across the country. Mr. President, this is very important for the environment. Wetlands serve a multitude of purposes. Obviously, they provide critical habitat and breeding grounds for migratory birds, fish and aquatic plants. But their benefit goes far beyond wildlife habitat. Wetlands are nature's sponges--absorbing heavy rains and minimizing the damaging effects of floods and erosion. Wetlands are also natural filters, trapping and isolating potentially damaging pollution and improving the quality of our lakes and rivers. Since 1990, there have been 9 NAWCA projects in Ohio which have protected almost 9,000 acres of critical wetlands. NAWCA has contributed $3.3 million towards these projects--and those funds were matched by $6.9 million from groups such as Ducks Unlimited and Ohio's Division of Wildlife. Last summer, I was able to visit one of these projects, Metzger Marsh in northwest Ohio. I was impressed, not only with the beauty and diversity of the wildlife at this marsh, but also with the cooperation among government, private agencies, and landowners that protected this area. While there are several partners working together on this effort, I would like to mention one organization in particular. Ducks Unlimited is a national nonprofit conservation organization with over 18,000 members in Ohio alone. It has contributed over $80 million in matching funds to support NAWCA projects across the country. This is over three times the amount contributed by any other conservation organization. In light of the longstanding commitment of Ducks Unlimited to this project, I believe they should continue to serve on the NAWCA Council-- and I would like to thank Senators Chafee, Kempthorne, Inhofe and Hutchison for insuring that the organization's membership on this council will continue. Mr. President, this is a very important piece of environmental legislation, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I yield at this point to my colleague from Nebraska.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I have several announcements on behalf of the majority leader. This morning there will be a period of morning business until 10 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate may consider any cleared executive nominations or legislation regarding judicial antinepotism. At 11:30 a.m., under a previous order, the Senate will resume consideration of the agricultural appropriations conference report, with a vote occurring on adoption of that report at 3:15 p.m. Following that vote, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 442, the Internet tax bill. Amendments are expected to be offered and debated in relation to Internet tax and, therefore, Members should expect rollcall votes into the evening during today's session. Members are reminded that at 10 a.m. on Wednesday the Senate will vote on adoption of the motion to proceed to H.R. 10, the financial services reform bill, to be followed by a cloture vote on the Internet tax bill. By unanimous consent, Senators have until the cloture vote occurs to file second-degree amendments to the Internet bill. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for the next 15 minutes in morning business.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, in a 1985 speech attended by President Ronald Reagan, the acclaimed writer and lecturer Elie Wiesel, a witness and survivor of the Holocaust, recounted the lessons he learned over the years since this dark chapter in our history. He said: I learned that in extreme situations when human lives and dignity are at stake, neutrality is a sin. It helps the killers, not the victims. I learned the meaning of solitude, Mr. President. We were alone, desperately alone. Mr. President, years from now, we may hear similar words from some of the survivors of the recent atrocities committed in the former Yugoslavia. This past week, Americans and people from all over the world have been witness to some horrific images coming from the tiny province of Kosovo in the Republic of Serbia. These images, of murdered ethnic Albanian civilians, from the very young to the very old, are the latest in a series of systematic attacks over the last 7 months by Serbian military and security forces against Albanian Kosovars--both rebel insurgents and unarmed civilians. The victims of this latest massacre included old men, women, and children. The death toll since last February is estimated to be as low as 500 and as many as 1,000 although, frankly, no one knows how many victims there have been. Homes have been firebombed. Entire villages have been bulldozed to the ground. Hundreds of thousands of Albanian Kosovars literally have run for their lives and are seeking refuge in the forests and mountains of Kosovo, or in the neighboring states of Albania, Montenegro, Macedonia, and Bosnia. Mr. President, what perhaps makes last weekend's attack more difficult to bear is that it causes us to pause and wonder if these lives could have been saved if NATO had stepped in sooner. I think we all know the answer to that. Congress has struggled with the issue of brutal violence in the Balkans for the better part of this decade. The images broadcast this week are a somber reminder of very similar pictures that came from places not far from Kosovo--places like Mostar or Tuzla in Bosnia. I can recall, as I am sure can many of my colleagues, during our many discussions on Bosnia in 1995, several of our colleagues, including our former Majority Leader, Bob Dole, warning us that tensions in Kosovo could lead to the level of outright violence and ethnic cruelty that crippled Bosnia. I am certain that this is one instance in which Senator Dole today wishes he had been wrong. It has long been thought that Kosovo was an area where America's national resolve was clear. In 1992, President George Bush warned President Milosevic that violent acts against Albanian Kosovars would lead to military intervention. President Bush's warning was prompted by President Milosevic's single-handed efforts to strip Kosovo of its autonomy in 1989, and abolish Kosovo's parliament and government 1 year later. At that time, the Albanian Kosovars, which represent 90 percent of the total population of Kosovo, chose to exercise a form of nonviolent protest against the Serbian government. A shadow government, parliament, and society emerged. Besides electing their own President and legislature, Kosovars established their own education and medical systems. Although there were scattered reports of human rights violations against Albanian Kosovars during this period, they were not connected with the reports of an extensive ethnic cleansing campaign underway in Bosnia. Many factors were involved, but perhaps most important was the threat of a larger regional war that could be sparked if the carnage in Bosnia spread to Kosovo. Besides the United States, the countries of Albania, Macedonia, Turkey, and Greece at one time or another warned that violence in Kosovo could force any one of these countries, if not all of them, to intervene. Certainly, with his resources engaged in the conflict in Bosnia, Serbian President Milosevic could not risk taking action in Kosovo. Now, with instability in Albania and Macedonia, and the growth of the pro-independence faction of Kosovars known as the Kosovo Liberation Army, or KLA, President Milosevic has engaged his security and military forces in Kosova under the guise of putting down the KLA. Mr. President, from the evidence that we have, Mr. Milosevic has gone beyond a simple police action. This has been a seven month campaign of intimidation and conquest. Our government, as well as European governments, vowed not to allow in Kosovo a repeat of the vicious war crimes we found in Bosnia. Yet, some who have recently visited the region, believe these crimes have already happened. The extent of these crimes cannot be confirmed. Relief workers and humanitarian organizations are being barred from reaching victims and refugees. Should this be a surprise to any of us? Certainly not. Slobodan Milosevic is a cold, calculating tyrant. He is a war criminal. He was not moved by diplomatic threats in Bosnia--what drove him to the Dayton peace talks was the military success of the Bosniak-Croat alliance in reclaiming land once held by the Serbs. Kosovo is no different. Milosevic and his subordinates often have pledged to end the carnage in Kosova. Yet, no pledge has been followed by a clear cessation of hostilities. Mr. Milosevic has demonstrated that he will not withdraw his forces until he feels he has achieved the most from the use of violence. And he will not engage in peace talks unless he believes that no other course of action will preserve his position or advance his goals. So it should not be a surprise to any of us that now, as NATO prepares for a military response, the Serbian government has declared victory and now is making plans to reduce its military and police presence in the region. We have been witness to a brutal military and police action against unarmed civilians that was done with the expectation, if not certainty, that both Europe and the United States would not respond, or indeed would not even know how to respond. There is little to ponder about what must occur. The threat or actual use of military action by NATO, such as air strikes, is needed if some form of Serbian withdrawal or cease fire in the Kosovo province is going to occur. I believe we cannot escape the fact that, in the short term, some form of NATO or United Nations presence on the ground will be needed to police any cease fire or withdrawal, or to ensure the transport of needed food, medical and other supplies to the refugees. In addition, war crime investigators will need to be able to determine the actual atrocities committed and who is responsible. It is uncertain if ground forces will be called for by NATO. In fact, we know very little of what NATO plans to do beyond air strikes. That is of concern to me because a number of uncertainties remain-- uncertainties that if left unresolved will not deal with the root cause of the conflict between the Serbs and Albanian Kosovars. The administration needs to articulate a clear strategy or plan to address the current humanitarian crisis, and the even larger questions about the political future of the Kosovars over the long term. For example, what fate lies ahead for the estimated 300,000 Kosovars who were uprooted from their homes and villages and forced to seek refuge as far away as Albania, Macedonia, or Bosnia? And of those refugees, what lies ahead for the 50,000 or more who are in hiding in the hills within the province--without shelter, food, or medicine--with winter just around the corner? Clearly, our first and foremost goal is to achieve a cease-fire. I am hopeful NATO air strikes can ensure a cease-fire. Second, we must ensure humanitarian organizations can safely reach out to these refugee populations without fear of obstruction or even destruction by hostile Serbian forces. And once they get cared for, when can the displaced Kosovars return home? And what kind of home do they expect to see when they return? It is estimated that approximately 200 villages in the province have been completely destroyed or heavily damaged. When can they expect to see some restoration of the kind of livelihood that affords them the chance to live in peace? These are the harder questions, but right now, it seems that NATO has yet to consider how they are to be answered. These issues must be addressed and answered if this conflict is going to be contained over the long term. I'm sure we all agree that these issues must be addressed and answered not at either end of a rifle, but at a conference table. Yet, how can NATO get both sides--the Kosovars and the Serbs--to the conference table? That remains unclear. And should some kind of long-term agreement be reached, how will that be enforced? What role, if any, can we expect NATO to play to ensure long-term peace in Kosovo? That too remains unclear. What is clear is that the actions we take in the next few weeks have implications for long-term peace not just in the province but throughout the Balkans. That's why it's in NATO's interest to act, and act with resolve. Unfortunately, the only resolve we see is to strike at the Serbs by air, but nothing more beyond that. NATO needs to begin to look at these larger questions and soon if our resolve for peace will achieve results and be real over the long-term. It's in our interests to do so. We still risk the threat of a larger conflict in the region, involving Albania, Macedonia, Turkey, and Greece. We also put in jeopardy the progress we have made thus far to maintain peace in Bosnia. Mr. President, we cannot and should not dictate the terms of any agreement between the Serbs and Kosovars, but NATO can insist--through force if necessary--that peace be achieved through cooperation, not conquest. This, Mr. President, ought to be the U.S. policy. I thank the chair and yield the floor. Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I introduce the Employment Security Financing Act of 1998, a bill which seeks to reform the unemployment insurance program by giving states greater control over the management of their unemployment insurance system. Specifically, under this legislation, beginning January 1, 2000, states would begin to collect Federal unemployment taxes, or ``FUTA taxes,'' in addition to the state unemployment taxes that they currently collect. The legislation also repeals the ``temporary'' 0.2 percent FUTA surtax in 2004, restructures the accounts in the Unemployment Trust Fund and reduces paperwork for employers. Most importantly, this legislation will return to the states the funding necessary to effectively operate their employment security systems and services. Reform of the unemployment insurance program is essential to a state like Ohio which receives less than 39 cents of each employer FUTA dollar. This shortfall in funding has led to the closing of 22 local employment service offices during the past four years. In order to make up for the shortfall of FUTA dollars, the Ohio legislature has appropriated more than $50 million during the last four years to pay for employment services, something that should be funded by FUTA dollars. This appropriation of state tax dollars forces Ohio taxpayers to pay twice to fund unemployment services. Ohio is not alone--since 1990, less than 59 cents of every employer FUTA tax dollar has been returned to the states for funding employment security. As a result, $2 billion sits in Federal accounts rather than being used as it was intended--to help put people back to work. This is an important issue that Congress needs to consider. While this legislation obviously will not be considered before adjournment, I look forward to working with Representative Clay Shaw, the House sponsor of this bill, on legislation that can meet the budget rules, yet still achieve necessary reform of the unemployment insurance program.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I introduce the Employment Security Financing Act of 1998, a bill which seeks to reform the unemployment insurance program by giving states greater control over the management of their unemployment insurance system. Specifically, under this legislation, beginning January 1, 2000, states would begin to collect Federal unemployment taxes, or ``FUTA taxes,'' in addition to the state unemployment taxes that they currently collect. The legislation also repeals the ``temporary'' 0.2 percent FUTA surtax in 2004, restructures the accounts in the Unemployment Trust Fund and reduces paperwork for employers. Most importantly, this legislation will return to the states the funding necessary to effectively operate their employment security systems and services. Reform of the unemployment insurance program is essential to a state like Ohio which receives less than 39 cents of each employer FUTA dollar. This shortfall in funding has led to the closing of 22 local employment service offices during the past four years. In order to make up for the shortfall of FUTA dollars, the Ohio legislature has appropriated more than $50 million during the last four years to pay for employment services, something that should be funded by FUTA dollars. This appropriation of state tax dollars forces Ohio taxpayers to pay twice to fund unemployment services. Ohio is not alone--since 1990, less than 59 cents of every employer FUTA tax dollar has been returned to the states for funding employment security. As a result, $2 billion sits in Federal accounts rather than being used as it was intended--to help put people back to work. This is an important issue that Congress needs to consider. While this legislation obviously will not be considered before adjournment, I look forward to working with Representative Clay Shaw, the House sponsor of this bill, on legislation that can meet the budget rules, yet still achieve necessary reform of the unemployment insurance program.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the memory of former Representative Chalmers Wylie, who passed away on August 14, 1998, at the age of 77. Chalmers Wylie was elected to the House of Representatives in 1966, and went on to serve thirteen distinguished terms. His career included service as Ranking Member of the House Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs Committee. Mr. Wylie dedicated his life to public service--and especially to the service of the people of Ohio's 15th district. While serving in the Army during World War II, he received the Purple Heart for wounds sustained while aiding fallen soldiers in Germany. In addition, he was awarded the Silver and Bronze Star, the Presidential Unit Citation with two oak-leaf clusters, the French Croix de Guerre and the Belgian Fourragere. Undoubtedly, Mr. Wylie's war-time service provided him with a special understanding of the needs of veterans. This experience was particularly apparent in the House Veterans' Committee, where he fought for veterans and was instrumental in improving veteran access to medical care in Columbus, Ohio through the establishment of the Veterans' Affairs Outpatient Clinic. Along with my distinguished colleague Senator Glenn, I am introducing legislation today to name the Department of Veterans' Affairs Outpatient Clinic, located at 543 Taylor Avenue in Columbus, Ohio, the ``Chalmers P. Wylie Veterans Outpatient Clinic.'' This is a companion bill to H.R. 4602, which was introduced by our distinguished House colleague Deborah Pryce, with the support of the entire Ohio delegation. I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will support the swift passage of this fitting tribute to our friend Chalmers Wylie, for his years of dedication to veterans, to Ohio, and to America.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with over 25 of my Senate colleagues to reintroduce the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act. Our bipartisan legislation calls for an additional $2.6 billion investment in international counter-narcotic 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,'' Mr. President, 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, especially young people, is unprecedented. The facts demonstrate this sobering trend. The August 1998 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse report by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration list the following disturbing facts: In 1997, 13.9 million Americans age 12-and-over cited themselves as ``current users'' of illicit drugs--a 7% increase of 1996's figure of 13 million Americans. That translates to nearly a million new users of drugs each year. From 1992-1997, the number of children aged 12-to-17 who are using illegal drugs has more than doubled, and has increased by 27% just from 1996-1997 alone. For kids 12-to-17, first time heroin use, which can be fatal surged an astounding 875% from 1991-1996. The overall number of past month heroin users increased 378% 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 ages 10 through 12. This is nothing less than an assault on the future of our children, and the future of the country itself. This is nothing less than a threat to our national values, and yes, even our national security. All of this 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 imbalanced. To be effective, our national drug strategy must have a strong commitment in the following three areas: (1) demand reduction, which consists of prevention, treatment, and education programs. These are administered by all levels of government--federal, state and local--as well as non-profit and private organizations; (2) domestic law enforcement, which again, has to be provided by all three levels of government; and (3) international eradication and interdiction efforts, which are the sole responsibility of the Federal Government. These three components are interdependent. A strong investment in each of them is necessary for each to work individually and collectively. For example, a strong effort to destroy or seize drugs at the source or outside of the United States both reduces the amount of drugs in the country, and drives up the street price. And as we all know, higher prices will reduce consumption. This in turn helps our domestic law enforcement and demand reduction efforts. As any football fan will tell you, 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 out anti-drug strategy--all three components have to be effective if our strategy is going to be a winning effort. While I think the current administration has shown a clear commitment to demand reduction and domestic law enforcement programs, the same cannot be said for the international eradication and interdiction components. This was not always the case. In 1987, the $4.79 billion federal drug control budget was divided as follows: 29% for demand reduction programs; 38% for domestic law enforcement; and 33% 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 ended in 1993. By 1995, the $13.3 billion national drug control budget was divided as follows: 35 percent for demand reduction; 53 percent for law enforcement; and 12 percent for international and interdiction efforts. Though the overall anti-drug budget increased almost threefold from 1987 to 1995, the percentage allocated for international eradication and interdiction efforts decreased dramatically. This distribution only recently has started to change, but the imbalance is still there. In the President's proposed $17 billion drug control budget for 1999, 34 percent would be allocated for demand reduction; 52% for law enforcement; and 14% for international and interdiction efforts. Those are the numbers, but what really matters are what these numbers get you in terms of resources. The hard truth is that our drug interdiction presence--the ship, air and man power dedicated to keeping drugs from reaching our country--has eroded dramatically. Here are just a few examples: The Department of Defense funding for counter-narcotics decreased from $504.6 million in 1992 to $214.7 million in 1995, a 57% decrease in only three years. As a result, flight hours by Airborne Warning and Control Systems--known as AWACs planes--dropped from 38,100 hours in 1992 to 17,713 hours by 1996, a 54% reduction. At the beginning of the decade, the U.S. Customs service operated its counter-narcotics activities around the clock. This made sense because drug trafficking truly is a 7 day/24 hour enterprise. Today, the Customs Service does not have the resources needed to maintain around- the-clock operations. At a recent hearing on our original legislation, a representative of the U.S. Customs Service testified that the Customs service has 84 boats in the Caribbean conducting drug apprehension efforts--down from 200 vessels in 1990. The Customs Service estimates that they expect to have only half of the current fleet of 84 vessels by the year 2000. Mr. President, these are shocking statistics. And perhaps more than the budget numbers themselves, these statistics demonstrate the imbalance in our overall strategy. I have witnessed the lack of our resources and commitment in the region fisthand. This past year I traveled to the Caribbean several times to see our counter-narcotics operations there. I met with the dedicated people on the frontlines of our drug interdiction efforts. I witnessed our strategy in action, and sat down with the experts--both military and civilian--who are charged with carrying out the monitoring, detection and interdiction of drugs. On one of my recent trips I saw that in particular, Haiti has become an attractive rest-stop on the cocaine highway. 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 to the United States through Haiti jumped from 5 percent in 1996 to 19 percent by the end of 1997. In response, we initiated a US law enforcement operation called Operation Frontier Lance, which utilized Coast Guard Cutters, speedboats, 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, called Operation Frontier Shield. Both these operations were done at two different time periods. Operation Frontier Shield utilized nearly two dozen ships and aircraft; and Operation Frontier Lance utilized more than a dozen ships and helicopters. To make Frontier Lance work required that we borrow a few ships and helicopters from operations elsewhere in the Caribbean. Because of our scare resources, we had to rob Peter to help Paul. These operations produced amazing results. The six month operation in Puerto Rico resulted in the seizure of more than 32,900 pounds of cocaine and 120 arrests. The three month operation in Haiti and the Dominican Republic resulted in 2,990 pounds of cocaine seized and 22 arrests. These operations demonstrate we can make a big difference if we provide the right levels of material and manpower to fight drug trafficking. One would think that these operations would serve as a model for the entire region. 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 6 air and sea assets doing maintenance operations. In Haiti and the Dominican Republic, we have only 1 ship and 1 helicopter devoted for the drug operation. Keep in mind that since refugees remain a major problem in this area, these very few vessels are not dedicated solely to drug interdiction. Amazingly, no sooner than we build an effective wall against drug traffickers, we tear it down. While in the region, I was surprised to learn that 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 any doubt, unacceptable. 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, unfortunately, 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 capability. 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 the legislation I am introducing today is timely. We need to dedicate more resources for international efforts to help reverse this trend. Now I want to make it very clear that I strongly support our continued commitment in demand reduction and law enforcement programs! In the end, I believe that reducing demand is the only real way to permanently end illegal drug use. However, this will not happen overnight. That is why we need a comprehensive counter drug strategy that addresses all components of this problem. There's another fundamental reason why the federal government must do more to stop drugs either at the source or in transit to the United States. If we don't, no one else will. Let me remind our colleagues that our anti-drug efforts here at home are done in cooperation with state and local governments and scores of non-profit and private organizations. However, only the federal government has the responsibility to keep drugs from crossing our borders. It's not just an issue of responsibility--it's 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, such as Colombia, Peru and Bolivia, as well as countries in the transit zone, including Mexico and the Caribbean island governments. There's 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 resources necessary to make a serious dent in the drug trade. Our bill is designed to provide the resources and 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 nation, and make drugs far more costly to buy. It's clear drug trafficking imposes a heavy toll on law abiding citizens and communities across our country. It's time we make it a dangerous and costly business for drug traffickers themselves. A renewed investment in international and interdiction programs will make a huge difference--both in the flow and cost of illegal drugs. It worked before and we believe it can work again. Mr. President, as I said at the beginning, my colleagues and I are reintroducing this legislation. 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 General Barry McCaffery, the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy--otherwise known as the Drug Czar's office. Some of these suggestions were incorporated in the House bill first introduced by Congressmen Bill McCollum of Florida and Dennis Hastert of Illinois. The House passed the McCollum/Hastert bill with overwhelmingly bi-partisan support. The final vote was 384 to 39! Clearly, the overwhelming, bipartisan show of support for the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act is a wake up call for leadership--it's time the United States once again lead 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 General McCaffrey, and to my friends on the Democrat side of the aisle, on how we can work together to pass this legislation before we adjourn. I made it clear to General McCaffrey of my commitment to work with him and the Administration to strengthen our drug interdiction efforts, and our overall anti-drug strategy. Again, I received several suggestions to improve the bill from the General, but the Administration has shown no interest in getting this bill passed this year. The resources we would provide in our legislation should be of no surprise to General McCaffrey or 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 now. Many of these items are detailed, practically item per item and dollar amount, in a United States Interdiction Coordinator report, known as USIC, which was requested by the General. The bill we introduce today represents a good faith effort by the sponsors of this legislation to get something done this year. It includes almost all the changes made in the House-passed bill, and incorporates virtually every suggestion made to me by General McCaffrey. 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. The bill we introduce today 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 we are introducing today 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. Let's be frank--in this anti-drug effort--Congress is the anti-drug 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 anti-drug fighters. The dedicated men and women at these agencies are working to keep drugs out of the hands of our kids, and all we're trying to do is to give them the additional resources they have 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 three 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. The cosponsors of this bill also are requesting the assistance of Senators Stevens and Byrd--the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations committee--in obtaining funding as part of any emergency supplemental appropriations bill we may consider before we adjourn. Given that it will take some time to dedicate some of our larger assets, such as boats, airplanes, and helicopters, we need to start our investment as soon as possible. I understand a similar effort is underway in the House of Representatives. Mr. President, 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 five years ago. With more kids using drugs, we have more of the problems associated with youth drug use--violence, criminal activity and delinquency. 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's what this bill is about--it's 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. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with over 25 of my Senate colleagues to reintroduce the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act. Our bipartisan legislation calls for an additional $2.6 billion investment in international counter-narcotic 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,'' Mr. President, 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, especially young people, is unprecedented. The facts demonstrate this sobering trend. The August 1998 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse report by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration list the following disturbing facts: In 1997, 13.9 million Americans age 12-and-over cited themselves as ``current users'' of illicit drugs--a 7% increase of 1996's figure of 13 million Americans. That translates to nearly a million new users of drugs each year. From 1992-1997, the number of children aged 12-to-17 who are using illegal drugs has more than doubled, and has increased by 27% just from 1996-1997 alone. For kids 12-to-17, first time heroin use, which can be fatal surged an astounding 875% from 1991-1996. The overall number of past month heroin users increased 378% 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 ages 10 through 12. This is nothing less than an assault on the future of our children, and the future of the country itself. This is nothing less than a threat to our national values, and yes, even our national security. All of this 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 imbalanced. To be effective, our national drug strategy must have a strong commitment in the following three areas: (1) demand reduction, which consists of prevention, treatment, and education programs. These are administered by all levels of government--federal, state and local--as well as non-profit and private organizations; (2) domestic law enforcement, which again, has to be provided by all three levels of government; and (3) international eradication and interdiction efforts, which are the sole responsibility of the Federal Government. These three components are interdependent. A strong investment in each of them is necessary for each to work individually and collectively. For example, a strong effort to destroy or seize drugs at the source or outside of the United States both reduces the amount of drugs in the country, and drives up the street price. And as we all know, higher prices will reduce consumption. This in turn helps our domestic law enforcement and demand reduction efforts. As any football fan will tell you, 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 out anti-drug strategy--all three components have to be effective if our strategy is going to be a winning effort. While I think the current administration has shown a clear commitment to demand reduction and domestic law enforcement programs, the same cannot be said for the international eradication and interdiction components. This was not always the case. In 1987, the $4.79 billion federal drug control budget was divided as follows: 29% for demand reduction programs; 38% for domestic law enforcement; and 33% 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 ended in 1993. By 1995, the $13.3 billion national drug control budget was divided as follows: 35 percent for demand reduction; 53 percent for law enforcement; and 12 percent for international and interdiction efforts. Though the overall anti-drug budget increased almost threefold from 1987 to 1995, the percentage allocated for international eradication and interdiction efforts decreased dramatically. This distribution only recently has started to change, but the imbalance is still there. In the President's proposed $17 billion drug control budget for 1999, 34 percent would be allocated for demand reduction; 52% for law enforcement; and 14% for international and interdiction efforts. Those are the numbers, but what really matters are what these numbers get you in terms of resources. The hard truth is that our drug interdiction presence--the ship, air and man power dedicated to keeping drugs from reaching our country--has eroded dramatically. Here are just a few examples: The Department of Defense funding for counter-narcotics decreased from $504.6 million in 1992 to $214.7 million in 1995, a 57% decrease in only three years. As a result, flight hours by Airborne Warning and Control Systems--known as AWACs planes--dropped from 38,100 hours in 1992 to 17,713 hours by 1996, a 54% reduction. At the beginning of the decade, the U.S. Customs service operated its counter-narcotics activities around the clock. This made sense because drug trafficking truly is a 7 day/24 hour enterprise. Today, the Customs Service does not have the resources needed to maintain around- the-clock operations. At a recent hearing on our original legislation, a representative of the U.S. Customs Service testified that the Customs service has 84 boats in the Caribbean conducting drug apprehension efforts--down from 200 vessels in 1990. The Customs Service estimates that they expect to have only half of the current fleet of 84 vessels by the year 2000. Mr. President, these are shocking statistics. And perhaps more than the budget numbers themselves, these statistics demonstrate the imbalance in our overall strategy. I have witnessed the lack of our resources and commitment in the region fisthand. This past year I traveled to the Caribbean several times to see our counter-narcotics operations there. I met with the dedicated people on the frontlines of our drug interdiction efforts. I witnessed our strategy in action, and sat down with the experts--both military and civilian--who are charged with carrying out the monitoring, detection and interdiction of drugs. On one of my recent trips I saw that in particular, Haiti has become an attractive rest-stop on the cocaine highway. 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 to the United States through Haiti jumped from 5 percent in 1996 to 19 percent by the end of 1997. In response, we initiated a US law enforcement operation called Operation Frontier Lance, which utilized Coast Guard Cutters, speedboats, 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, called Operation Frontier Shield. Both these operations were done at two different time periods. Operation Frontier Shield utilized nearly two dozen ships and aircraft; and Operation Frontier Lance utilized more than a dozen ships and helicopters. To make Frontier Lance work required that we borrow a few ships and helicopters from operations elsewhere in the Caribbean. Because of our scare resources, we had to rob Peter to help Paul. These operations produced amazing results. The six month operation in Puerto Rico resulted in the seizure of more than 32,900 pounds of cocaine and 120 arrests. The three month operation in Haiti and the Dominican Republic resulted in 2,990 pounds of cocaine seized and 22 arrests. These operations demonstrate we can make a big difference if we provide the right levels of material and manpower to fight drug trafficking. One would think that these operations would serve as a model for the entire region. 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 6 air and sea assets doing maintenance operations. In Haiti and the Dominican Republic, we have only 1 ship and 1 helicopter devoted for the drug operation. Keep in mind that since refugees remain a major problem in this area, these very few vessels are not dedicated solely to drug interdiction. Amazingly, no sooner than we build an effective wall against drug traffickers, we tear it down. While in the region, I was surprised to learn that 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 any doubt, unacceptable. 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, unfortunately, 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 capability. 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 the legislation I am introducing today is timely. We need to dedicate more resources for international efforts to help reverse this trend. Now I want to make it very clear that I strongly support our continued commitment in demand reduction and law enforcement programs! In the end, I believe that reducing demand is the only real way to permanently end illegal drug use. However, this will not happen overnight. That is why we need a comprehensive counter drug strategy that addresses all components of this problem. There's another fundamental reason why the federal government must do more to stop drugs either at the source or in transit to the United States. If we don't, no one else will. Let me remind our colleagues that our anti-drug efforts here at home are done in cooperation with state and local governments and scores of non-profit and private organizations. However, only the federal government has the responsibility to keep drugs from crossing our borders. It's not just an issue of responsibility--it's 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, such as Colombia, Peru and Bolivia, as well as countries in the transit zone, including Mexico and the Caribbean island governments. There's 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 resources necessary to make a serious dent in the drug trade. Our bill is designed to provide the resources and 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 nation, and make drugs far more costly to buy. It's clear drug trafficking imposes a heavy toll on law abiding citizens and communities across our country. It's time we make it a dangerous and costly business for drug traffickers themselves. A renewed investment in international and interdiction programs will make a huge difference--both in the flow and cost of illegal drugs. It worked before and we believe it can work again. Mr. President, as I said at the beginning, my colleagues and I are reintroducing this legislation. 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 General Barry McCaffery, the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy--otherwise known as the Drug Czar's office. Some of these suggestions were incorporated in the House bill first introduced by Congressmen Bill McCollum of Florida and Dennis Hastert of Illinois. The House passed the McCollum/Hastert bill with overwhelmingly bi-partisan support. The final vote was 384 to 39! Clearly, the overwhelming, bipartisan show of support for the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act is a wake up call for leadership--it's time the United States once again lead 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 General McCaffrey, and to my friends on the Democrat side of the aisle, on how we can work together to pass this legislation before we adjourn. I made it clear to General McCaffrey of my commitment to work with him and the Administration to strengthen our drug interdiction efforts, and our overall anti-drug strategy. Again, I received several suggestions to improve the bill from the General, but the Administration has shown no interest in getting this bill passed this year. The resources we would provide in our legislation should be of no surprise to General McCaffrey or 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 now. Many of these items are detailed, practically item per item and dollar amount, in a United States Interdiction Coordinator report, known as USIC, which was requested by the General. The bill we introduce today represents a good faith effort by the sponsors of this legislation to get something done this year. It includes almost all the changes made in the House-passed bill, and incorporates virtually every suggestion made to me by General McCaffrey. 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. The bill we introduce today 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 we are introducing today 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. Let's be frank--in this anti-drug effort--Congress is the anti-drug 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 anti-drug fighters. The dedicated men and women at these agencies are working to keep drugs out of the hands of our kids, and all we're trying to do is to give them the additional resources they have 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 three 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. The cosponsors of this bill also are requesting the assistance of Senators Stevens and Byrd--the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations committee--in obtaining funding as part of any emergency supplemental appropriations bill we may consider before we adjourn. Given that it will take some time to dedicate some of our larger assets, such as boats, airplanes, and helicopters, we need to start our investment as soon as possible. I understand a similar effort is underway in the House of Representatives. Mr. President, 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 five years ago. With more kids using drugs, we have more of the problems associated with youth drug use--violence, criminal activity and delinquency. 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's what this bill is about--it's 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. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my strong support for the Child Custody Protection Act of 1998, which would make it a crime to transport a child across state lines to circumvent a state law requiring parental involvement or a judicial waiver for a minor to obtain an abortion. Twenty-two states have laws saying a parent or guardian has to be notified or their consent given if a child is trying to get an abortion. What's happening now--far too often--is that people who aren't parents or guardians are taking the children across state lines, secretly, to get abortions in another state where parental notification isn't required. It is my hope that this bill will achieve two important goals--to protect the health of children and to protect the rights of parents. In fact, Mr. President, I believe that empowering parents is the single biggest investment we can make in ensuring the health of our children. Parents have the right and duty to be involved in the moral and medical decisions that affect their children's welfare. When it comes to parental notification on abortion, the American people have reached a clear consensus. By a huge majority--80 percent-- they favor parental notification. And 74 percent favor not just parental notification, but parental consent. This is a clear expression of the national wisdom. This legislation is an effort to make that kind of informed decision possible. Earlier this year, we worked on another bill, one that is now law. In that bill, the Administration and the Congress mandated that the flight of a parent to another state to avoid paying child support is a Federal crime. I worked with Senator Kohl to champion the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act in order to protect the interests of America's children. We have to pursue zealously those who would harm our children, either by omission or by commission. Mr. President, the very same principle is embodied in the Child Custody Protection Act. There are those living among us who would place our children in harm's way by transporting them across state lines to achieve dangerous goals, both physically and emotionally. One such goal is abortion. The right of citizens to pass and enforce laws regarding the rights of parents is completely violated by the ability of others to transport children to another state to obtain an abortion. As a nation, we must use all the resources available to us in order to protect our children, and our families, from this conduct. That is our purpose here today. I thank Senator Abraham for his strong leadership in bringing this legislation forward. I am sorry that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have rejected our unanimous consent agreement. It was a fair agreement that provided unlimited debate on germane amendments to this bill. Unfortunately, the vote that we will take shortly to invoke cloture to end debate on the bill, may really be a vote to kill the bill if it fails. Let's be frank those voting to continue debate are really voting against the health of our children and the rights of parents. I would implore my colleagues on the other side to vote for cloture--for our kids.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me begin by thanking my friend and colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig, the chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, for arranging this opportunity to address some of the key accomplishments of the 105th Congress. In just a matter of weeks, we will close the curtain on a productive and arguably historic Congress. Certainly, our most significant achievement was passage of the first balanced budget plan in a generation. Few pundits took us seriously when the Republican Congress came to power pledging to balance the budget by 2002. We were not only serious, but we're on the verge of success. A strong U.S. economy, spurred in part by a Congress committed to ending runaway deficit spending, has brought us to a balanced budget four years ahead of schedule. Now, for the first time, we're having debates on government surpluses, not government deficits. We've changed the debate on taxes as well. Last year, we passed the first real tax cut in 16 years. We provided a $500-per-child tax credit for working families; inheritance tax relief; capital gains tax relief; flexible individual retirement accounts (IRAs) to encourage savings; and Alternative Minimum Tax relief for all businesses--large and small. And we're far from finished. We're on the verge of putting an end to the marriage penalty, and giving small business owners and family farmers the ability to fully deduct health insurance--something that is long, long overdue. And I know the current occupant of the Chair has been very much involved with that throughout the years. We've not only changed the Tax Code, we've also reformed the tax collector. Our IRS reform bill will put a stop to IRS abuses against law-abiding citizens, create an improved management structure for the IRS, and establish new protections and rights for all taxpayers. Ours has been an agenda designed to make a difference in the lives of ordinary Americans. I'd like to talk about three achievements I have focused on--issues that will improve and save lives, and further move our country forward. Job Training Let me begin with our long-overdue--and far-reaching--reform of our job training system. Since coming to the Senate in 1995, I have devoted a great deal of my time to job training reform. Last month, these efforts paid off when the President signed our bill into law. I am convinced that its enactment came not a moment too soon. Our economic future depends on a well-trained workforce. Employers at every level are finding it increasingly difficult to locate and attract qualified employees for high-skilled, good-paying jobs--as well as qualified employees for entry-level positions. Right outside Washington, DC, in northern Virginia, 19,000 high-tech jobs remain unfilled because individuals lack the skills to fill them. However, even with this shortage here, I hear radio ads during my morning drive urging people to move to North Carolina to fill high-tech jobs there. My home state of Ohio faces a similar challenge. Manpower Incorporated recently released a poll which indicated that the Dayton area had a bright future in terms of job growth: 42 percent of area companies plan on hiring more manufacturing workers. However, the availability of skilled workers to fill those jobs remains low. And, according to the Manufacturers Alliance's Economic Report published in January, the mismatch between available jobs and available skilled workers is growing. While wages have increased for those who have the skills in demand, many jobs still go unfilled and the median duration of unemployment for those who lack the skills remains at recession levels. Nationwide, the number of unfilled high-tech jobs is estimated to be 350,000. The increasing labor shortage threatens our Nation's economic growth and productivity. Clearly, we need to do much more to prepare America's workers for tomorrow's jobs. The problem is our job training system is not simply up for the challenge. That is what our bill aims to address. The current system is a fragmented and duplicative maze of narrowly focused programs, administered by numerous Federal agencies that lack coordination, lack a coherent strategy to provide training assistance, and lack the confidence of the two key consumers who use these services--workers seeking training, and businesses seeking to hire them. That's why our reform bill is so important. It will fundamentally reform our ineffective job training programs, transforming them into a coordinated, accountable, and flexible workforce investment system. The historic 1996 welfare reform bill was based on the principle that power ought to be devolved to States, communities, and individuals. It should go back to the local community. Our job training bill represents the final, essential chapter of welfare reform, by empowering States and localities--giving them the tools and flexibility they need to implement real reform, reform that will allow them to move people off welfare and into good-paying permanent jobs. The bill promotes free market competition, eliminates government bureaucracy and promotes personal responsibility. It provides training assistance through individual training accounts or vouchers, in order to allow individuals seeking assistance to have a say about where, how, and what training they will receive. These programs should be tailored to individual needs, not to Washington bureaucracies. This legislation will help real workers and real businesses build America's economy. One major Ohio newspaper called it ``a bill that works.'' That's exactly right. The Congress can be very proud of this legislation. saving kids Let me now turn to a second piece of very important legislation this Congress can be proud of. I might say this is a piece of legislation that my colleague from Idaho, Larry Craig, was so very instrumental in getting passed. I don't think it is really a stretch at all to say that but for Larry Craig this bill would not have been law--would not have been passed by this Congress, and would not have been signed by the President. Let me tell the Members a little bit about it. Last November, we passed a bill that will enable more of America's children to grow up in safe, stable, loving, and permanent homes. Far too many children are spending their most important, formative years in a legal limbo that denies them their chance to be adopted-- that denies them what all children should have--the chance to be loved and cared for by parents. We are also sending too many children back to dangerous and abusive homes. We send them back to the custody of people who have already abused and tortured them. Every day in America, three children actually die of abuse and neglect at the hands of their parents or caretakers. That's over 1200 children every year. And almost half of these children are killed after their tragic circumstances have come to the attention of child welfare agencies. Why is this happening? Obviously, many factors are to blame. There are many excuses. But as we were working on our bill, it became increasingly clear that some of the tragedies in the child welfare system are the unintended consequences of a small part of a 1980 Federal law. Under this law, for a state to be eligible for federal matching funds for foster care expenditures, the state must have a plan providing that ``reasonable efforts will be made (A) prior to the placement of a child in foster care, to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child from his home, and (B) to make it possible for the child to return to his home.'' These are ``reasonable efforts.'' In other words, no matter what the particular circumstances of a household may be--the state had to make reasonable efforts to keep it together, and to put it back together if it falls apart. There is strong evidence to suggest that in practice, reasonable efforts have become extraordinary efforts. Efforts to keep families together at all costs. Our bill changed the law in order to change this practice, to make it absolutely clear that the best interests of the child come first. This new law simply states: ``In determining reasonable efforts, the best interests of the child, including the child's health and safety, shall be of primary concern.'' With this new law, Congress put children first. This is a law that I believe will truly save young lives. It is a law that Congress should be very proud of. War on Drugs Finally, let me turn to the third item of which I think this Congress can be very proud. I would like to talk about the progress Congress has made in saving young lives from the often fatal scourge of illegal drugs. Last year, I joined with my friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley, and my Ohio House colleague, Congressman Rob Portman to introduce and pass the Drug-Free Communities Act which supports community-based initiatives to educate children about the dangers of drugs. Youth substance abuse has more than doubled in the past five years. We must do more to protect our children from this threat to their health and safety. We believe that this bill will strike a major blow for our children's interests by empowering the people who work with our children on a daily basis, at the grass roots, at the community level in our neighborhoods. Drug prevention is an important element of any comprehensive children's health policy. And in the long run, treatment and education is our best investment in getting serious users off drugs. However, to be successful now and over the long term, we need a balanced anti-drug strategy. We must have a strong commitment in each of the following areas: prevention, treatment, education, domestic law enforcement, and international eradication and interdiction efforts. Over the last few years, our efforts to keep drugs from coming into the country have been lagging seriously behind the other components of our drug strategy. And the results of this imbalance--this lack of emphasis in international eradication and interdiction--has been devastating: A decline in cocaine seizures, a decline in the price of cocaine, and an increase in drug use. This alarming trend has to change, and requires leadership here in Washington. While drug education, treatment and domestic law enforcement are efforts done at the federal, state, and local levels, the Federal government is solely responsible to keep drugs from entering our country. That is our responsibility solely, and it cannot be shared. And if we in Washington fail to do our job outside the country, we're making it far more difficult and far more costly for state and local governments to do their part. This past July, Congressmen McCollum and Hastert, and Senators Coverdell, Graham, Grassley, and I introduced the Western hemisphere Drug Elimination Act--legislation designed to restore a balanced drug control strategy, and revive our sole responsibility to stop drugs from reaching our borders. This legislation calls for an additional $2.6 billion investment in international counter-narcotic efforts over 3 years. Specifically, the bill calls for a comprehensive eradication, interdiction and crop substitution strategy. The objective is to dramatically reduce the flow of drugs into the United States by driving up the price of drugs and hence reducing drug consumption. I believe that through this legislation, we can accomplish this very important goal. We have to make it far more difficult for drug lords to bring drugs to our nation, and make drugs far more costly to buy. We need to raise the cost of doing business for drug traffickers. Our bill would do this. It was passed by the House of Representatives just last week, and I have been working with my fellow cosponsors here in the Senate to increase funding for drug interdiction programs during the current appropriations process. This effort is one key example of how this Congress has made a huge difference in the lives of America's children. Mr. President, all of the measures I have just discussed have one thing in common: They are components of an overall vision of what our country can be--the kind of country our children deserve. I am very proud to have been a part of all these efforts, and I look forward to making further progress on these and other issues as we continue to make a positive, lasting difference in the lives of all Americans in the 106th Congress. Again, I thank my colleague from Idaho for arranging the time, and I congratulate him for the role he has played in all three of these bills and these efforts. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, in approximately 40 minutes, this Senate is going to cast a historic vote. We are going to have the opportunity to, again, define who we are as a people. I urge my colleagues, as I have in the past, to vote to override the President's veto. I ask unanimous consent that a letter which I have be printed into the Record. This is a letter dated May 8, 1997. This is a letter that is signed by a number of law professors.

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

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak and have my time allocated to the opposition.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, this letter addresses a lot of the concerns that were expressed on the floor yesterday about the constitutionality of this piece of legislation. I call Members' attention to portions of this letter. They will have an opportunity to, of course, read the entire letter. This is what, in part, the letter says: We write to you as law professors in support of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban. . . . We do not write as partisans. We are both Democrats and Republicans, and we are of different minds on various aspects of the abortion issue. We are concerned, however, that baseless legal arguments are being offered to oppose a ban on partial-birth abortions, and we are unanimous in concluding that such a ban is constitutional. The destruction of human beings who are partially born is, in our judgment, entirely outside the legal framework established in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. No Supreme Court decision, including these, ever addressed the constitutionality of forbidding the killing of partially born children. In fact, Roe noted explicitly that it did not decide the constitutionality of that part of the Texas law which forbade --and still forbids--killing a child in the process of delivery. Even should a court in the future decide a law banning the partial-birth procedure is to be evaluated within the Roe/ Casey ``abortion'' framework, we believe such a ban would survive legal scrutiny thereunder. The partial-birth procedure entails mechanical cervical dilation, forcing a breech delivery, and exposing a mother to severe bleeding from exposure to shards of her child's crushed skull. Before viability, an abortion restriction is unconstitutional only if it creates an ``undue burden'' on the judicially established right to have an abortion. A targeted ban of single, maternal-health-endangering procedure cannot constitute such a burden. The letter goes on to quote C. Everett Koop, who has been quoted on this floor before on this issue. Partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect the mother's health or future fertility. On the contrary, this procedure could impose a significant threat to both her immediate health and future fertility. It is abundantly clear that this law is constitutional. I again ask my colleagues to vote in favor of the override. I first had the opportunity to listen to this debate several years ago when a nurse from my home State of Ohio, nurse Brenda Shafer, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. She is the first person, really, to draw public attention to this procedure. She was pro-choice. She was called in on a temporary basis to go to Dr. Haskell's abortion clinic in Dayton, OH. What she saw and what she described, I think, has shocked the Nation. This pro-choice nurse became a person adamantly opposed to partial-birth abortion. She described it in detail, as has been described on this floor many, many times. It is something that no civilized society should tolerate. This vote that we are going to cast in a moment is about who we are as a people, what we tolerate, and what we do not tolerate. It is time for this country, for the Senate, and this Congress, to say this barbaric procedure we simply will no longer tolerate. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, first, let me congratulate my colleague and friend from Pennsylvania. Senator Domenici said it very, very well: Keep trying and keep trying, and eventually we will succeed, because I believe what we are trying to do is right. The vast majority of the American people agree with us. We will succeed. I congratulate Senator Santorum, my friend from Pennsylvania, who has fought so hard, who has argued so eloquently on this floor. I would also like to associate myself with the Senator from New York, the Senator from New Mexico, and the Senator from Arkansas, who just in the last few minutes so eloquently argued in favor of our override of this veto tomorrow morning. Mr. President, I think it is truly regrettable that we still have to debate this after so many years. We are talking about a procedure that is morally wrong. The facts are really not at issue. No one denies this procedure is designed to kill, to kill a living, partially delivered baby, a baby that is usually 5 to 6 months old, 5 to 6 months in gestation. No one denies that only a few inches separate this barbaric practice from outright murder. Partial-birth abortion is perhaps the only legal procedure where live birth and death become virtually simultaneous. The vote we will cast tomorrow morning will be a clear moral decision about life and about death. It is a decision really about who we are as a people, our moral identity as a people. Banning this procedure represents the moral consensus of the American people by an overwhelming margin. Dr. LeRoy Sprang and Mark Neerhof stated in the Journal of the American Medical Association: Partial-birth abortion should not be performed because it is needlessly risky, inhumane and ethically unacceptable. Mr. President, I strongly agree with this characterization, as do the American people. It is no secret that America has been experiencing a moral crisis, and we have reached a crossroads. The questions which I asked on this floor just about a year ago, I guess, about partial-birth abortion really remain unanswered. These questions are more profound than ever. What does our toleration for this immoral practice say for us as a country? What does it say about us as a people? I believe one judges a country by what it is for but also you judge a country by what it is against. We judge a country by what it tolerates. We tolerate too much in this country. We tolerate a lot in this Nation. But at some point we simply have to draw the line. We have to stop hiding behind the phrase, ``Oh, I really don't like this but it's someone else's private matter and I don't want to interfere. We will put up with it. It's not my business.'' We have to stop hiding behind that. In a country that is based on respect for freedom, this is, of course, a very important principle. But it does have limits, limits that are based on the same respect for human rights that is the very foundation for freedom itself. Why, after all, is the argument based on personal freedom so powerful in our political debates? It is because we all have in our hearts the immortal words of Thomas Jefferson, the words that we hold these truths to be self-evident, that we have the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is our profound moral conviction. But what does it say about our moral convictions when we continue to allow in this country this barbaric practice? What does it say about us as a people? Does allowing this practice bespeak a commitment to the sanctity of human life, of a human person? No, if we do not say at some point that our tolerance draws the line on a practice so brutal and so inhumane, we run the severe risk of eroding this moral foundation that really lies at the base of all our other freedoms. A country that allows this barbaric procedure to be inflicted on innocent human lives is a country that cannot be trusted when it proclaims a respect for other freedoms. What freedom will such a country not discard in the name of mere convenience? For me, the decision is clear. This is where we draw the line. Now is the time that we draw it. We must ban this uncivilized, this barbaric, this immoral procedure, and we must do it tomorrow morning. Many people agree that this procedure is closer to infanticide than it is to abortion. One of the reasons banning this procedure has been supported by doctors, including the American Medical Association, the Physicians' Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth, and even by otherwise pro- choice individuals, including even some abortionists, is because it is a procedure that is never a medical necessity. It is never a medical necessity. The evidence is overwhelming. It is done for sheer convenience. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, while it does not support this bill, could nevertheless not identify any circumstances in which this procedure would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of a mother. Most people in America oppose this procedure. And they oppose it for the simple reason they know what it is. For those who do not or who need to be reminded of what it is, let me again describe it. And I know this is a procedure that has been described on this floor many, many times, but it goes to the heart of this debate. Partial-birth abortion involves the partial delivery of a baby by its feet. The head is left inside the mother's womb. The head remains in the uterus while the abortionist kills the baby by stabbing scissors into the base of the child's head, suctioning out the baby's brain with a small tube, then completing the delivery of a now dead child. In this barbaric procedure, Mr. President, the abortionist does not even administer an anesthesia to the fetus. A moment ago, the Senator from Arkansas pointed out that dogs are treated better than this. The dogs that are used in medical research are required to be given pain management therapy under Federal standards. The treatment of these human fetuses that we are talking about would not even meet the bare minimum Federal standards for dogs used in medical research. Knowing that, why then have we not banned this procedure? Why are we still here debating again what should be self-evident, that this practice is a crime against our common humanity? The answer, I am afraid, is very simple. My friend from Pennsylvania spent a good amount of time in this Chamber outlining the reason. The case supporting this procedure is built on misinformation. It is built on lies, and they are intended to poison the public debate and obscure the truth. That is the fact. In the beginning of the partial-birth abortion controversy, many people were misled to believe that this procedure was rare. We were told it was rare. Now, today, we know that simply is not true. Almost everyone is aware by now that Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Providers, admitted that he lied. He said, ``I lied through my teeth''--when he said partial-birth abortions were performed rarely and only in extreme medical circumstances. He admitted later after the debate that that was a lie. In the interest of medical accuracy, let me emphasize and be specific about how Mr. Fitzsimmons lied. He lied plainly and, in his own words, he ``lied through his teeth.'' We were misled again when we were told that this procedure was the only late-term abortion procedure that could be used in certain instances to save the life of the mother. Again, that is not true. It is simply not true. This procedure is not medically necessary. It is not medically indicated ever, nor is it the only option available. That is not based on what Mike DeWine says or what Rick Santorum says. That is based on the American Medical Association. Mr. President, we were told yet another falsehood--lie. We were told that this procedure was to preserve the health of the mother. We were misled about that as well. This is simply not true. Dr. Martin Haskell, the man who invented this procedure, said that 80 percent of the abortions he performs are elective --80 percent. This is the abortionist. This is the man who invented this procedure. He said 80 percent of the ones he performed are elective. A survey which asks women who had late-term abortions why they waited found that 71 percent did not know they were pregnant or misjudged the age of the baby. This procedure is being performed for convenience, pure and simple. We have also been told the procedure is appropriate because the baby is not viable anyway. But even this is certainly not always true. Many times it is not true. Research in a recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine found 56 percent of babies are viable outside their mother's womb at 24 weeks. At 25 weeks, 79 percent of them are viable. I am sure many of my colleagues have had the same experience that I have when we have gone home to our home States, visited neonatal intensive care units at children's hospitals or other hospitals, and we have seen 22-week-old children, 23-week-old children that have been born prematurely who are fighting for life. Many of them do, in fact, make it. We have seen that with our own eyes. We have all talked with doctors who are frantically trying, working so hard every day to save them, and many can be saved. Unfortunately, the President of the United States, in vetoing this legislation, as in his veto of the previous legislation, has justified his position precisely on these types of falsehoods. In fact, if you look at his veto message last time, what you find is all these facts that are outlined there, that he says are facts, are simply not true. The President, tragically, is wrong. While it is true that everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, none of us is entitled to our own facts. And the facts clearly indicate that what the President put down in his veto message is wrong. The falsehoods spread by defenders of partial-birth abortion are, frankly, offensive. But even more offensive than some of these lies is when the proponents of partial-birth abortion tell the truth. For example, when they say the partial-birth abortion procedure is needed in order to get rid of ``defective'' infants. The late Dr. James McMahon, who had performed thousands of these partial-birth abortions, said he performed some of these abortions because the baby had a cleft lip. That is right, a cleft lip. Maybe it is time to rewrite our sacred documents to say, ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that most of us are endowed with inalienable rights, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but people with cleft lips or other problems, other ``defectives,'' are to be the victims of a painful and barbaric murder.'' No, that is not the moral attitude of the America that I want to believe in or that I do believe in. That is the moral attitude of another civilization, one that arose in this vicious century only to vanish from the face of the planet by the force of American arms and, more important, American values. It is in our power to say no to this throwback to the days of the Nazis, to say no to the selection of the fittest, to say no to infanticide. That is what we are about today on the floor of the Senate. That is what we will be about tomorrow morning when we cast our vote. I would like to note briefly that a number of State statutes have sought to ban these partial-birth abortions. Some States have had success and others have not. Many of those statutes which have been struck down, however, are very distinguishable from this legislation. I would like to talk about this constitutional aspect of this bill, because the issue has been raised time and time again on the floor of the Senate. So let me turn to an examination of the bill, based on our Constitution, based on Roe v. Wade and Casey and the other Supreme Court decisions. First, let me say of the cases, of the statutes that have been struck down, the proposed statute that is before us is clearly distinguishable. For example, the first law to ban the partial-birth abortion procedure was enacted in my home State of Ohio. Unfortunately, this law was recently struck down as vague, as overbroad, particularly as it banned more than just partial-birth abortion. But the bill we are voting on today has, frankly, none of these problems. Partial-birth abortion bans are fully in effect in seven States of the Union. Several State and district courts have enjoined State statutes attempting to ban partial-birth abortion. However, no appellate court has ruled on the constitutionality of any of these laws. Unfortunately, in the decisions that I have reviewed, none squarely confront the constitutional issue that this Federal bill presents; namely, the constitutionality of forbidding the killing of a partially born child. Because that is what this legislation is truly about, what the issue is, is the constitutionality of forbidding the killing of a partially born child. Roe v. Wade explicitly avoided deciding that issue, so it cannot be cited and should not be cited as an argument against this piece of legislation. Roe v. Wade explicitly avoided deciding that issue, which was actually part of the Texas law in question in that case, a law that prohibited ``killing a child in the process of delivery.'' In fact, Texas case law is consistent with both Louisiana and California law. An early California court aptly said: It should equally be held that a viable child in the process of being born is a human being within the meaning of the homicide statutes, whether or not the process has been fully completed. While many of the State court decisions have relied on Planned Parenthood v. Casey, that case does not reach the question of the constitutionality of forbidding the killing of a partially delivered baby either. However, under the Casey analysis, an abortion restriction is unconstitutional only, only if it creates an ``undue burden,'' on the legal right to abortion. Banning a single dangerous procedure such as we are doing in this case, when there are other alternatives available--which is true--should not constitute a burden under this Casey analysis. Doctors, those who are for, as well as those, some of whom are against this legislation--agree that partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother's health or future fertility, and is never the only option. Over 30 legal scholars who have looked at this question agree that the United States Supreme Court is unlikely to interpret a postviability health exception to require the Government to allow a procedure that gives zero weight to the life of a partially born child and is itself a dangerous procedure. The bottom line is that there is no substantive difference between a child in the process of being born and that same child if she is born. No difference, really, between a child that is in the process of being born and a child that is born. A current illustration, I think, is very helpful. This is a true story, one that occurred in our minority leader's home State, South Dakota. On January 5 of this year, Sarah Bartels was pregnant with twins. She was 23 weeks into her pregnancy. Doctors were unable to delay the birth of one of the twins, Sandra, who was born at 23 weeks old. Sandra weighed 1 pound, 2 ounces--23 weeks. Mr. President, 88 days later Sandra's sister Stephanie was born. Both children are alive and well today. Yet Stephanie was not a ``legal person,'' and could have been the victim of a partial-birth abortion any time after that 23-week period. Stephanie's life had zero worth until she was completely born, though Sandra was alive and well outside the same womb that held her sister. Mr. President, the delivery of 80 percent of a child--the child is almost all the way out--a living baby certainly should have some value, some rights, some respect under our law. There is no moral justification for killing a live, partially delivered baby using a procedure that is neither medically necessary nor safer than childbirth. I believe we must make it the national policy to prohibit the partial-birth abortion procedure. My friend, Henry Hyde, who you quoted and cited a few moments ago, Mr. President, is one of the most eloquent--the most eloquent really-- defenders of human rights in this country today, one of the most eloquent defenders of human rights, frankly, who has ever been in this country. Henry Hyde likes to say in defending these powerless humans, we are ``loving those who can't love us back.'' I think he is absolutely right. I will add the phrase, ``those who can't love back'' includes not just fetuses in the womb, but also the future generations who will live in this country and the moral climate we are choosing to build for them. The vote we cast tomorrow morning will help determine, Mr. President, that moral climate. Banning partial-birth abortion is the just, it is the right thing to do, and we should do it now. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, this week, Americans across the country will be participating in events to pay tribute to Americans Missing in Action and former Prisoners of War (MIAs/POWs). With that in mind, I would like to talk about an event that took place on February 12th, 1973. On that date, a United States Air Force C-141 landed at the Gia Lam Airport in Hanoi, North Viet Nam. The crew's mission was to pick up and return to the United States the first American POWs from Viet Nam. This historic mission signaled the beginning of the end of a period of uncertainty for many American POWs and their families. The flight for freedom from captivity came to a joyous conclusion when the aircraft carrying these soldiers landed at Hickham Air Force Base, Hawaii, where for the first time in many years, the former POWs once again stepped proudly and honorably onto American soil. On that day in February 1973, the tail number of the aircraft dispatched to Gia Lam was 660177. As the primary cargo aircraft for the Air Force at that time, the C-141, and specifically aircraft 660177, had flown cargo missions in support of U.S. operations in Viet Nam. To this day, many of the former POWs that were on board that first freedom flight still remember the tail number--660177. In tribute to the historic mission competed by this particular aircraft, flight crew members informally named the aircraft the ``Hanoi Taxi.'' Following the conclusion of activities in Viet Nam, the ``Hanoi Taxi'' continued to serve the Air Force as a cargo aircraft. Throughout the years, the role this aircraft played in our military history went largely unnoticed. In 1992, aircraft 660177, was assigned to the 445th Airlift Wing of the United States Air Force Reserve at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio. At that time, members from the maintenance squadron of the 445th Airlift Wing noticed the words ``Hanoi Taxi'' on a label above the flight engineer's panel. M/Sgt. Dave Dillon became very interested in this unusual appearance and with the assistance of T/Sgt Henry Harlow, S/Sgt. Jeff Wittman and T/Sgt. Susan Denlinger, they worked to piece together the story behind the name. When they learned of the historic mission that gave aircraft 660177 the name ``Hanoi Taxi'', personnel from the 445th Airlift Wing began the process of transforming the aircraft into a flying tribute to honor those former Prisoners of War and those that are still Missing in Action. Today, nose art on the ``Hanoi Taxi'' represents the emblem of the 4th Allied Prisoner of War Wing and a plaque adorns a position of high visibility near the flight deck honoring the first 40 individuals that made that first flight from Hanoi on February 12, 1973. In addition, photographs of the historic mission are placed throughout the aircraft to allow those passing through the cabin to see those brave individuals who were forced to surrender their own freedom to protect ours. For many of the POW's that were on board the ``Hanoi Taxi'', some of the memories of their captivity have faded over the years, but today the number 660177 is the number of freedom--the number of the aircraft that reunited them with their friends and families. Notable passengers on board the ``Hanoi Taxi'' include retired Navy Rear Admiral Jeremiah Denton, who later served as a United States Senator. Then Air Force Captain Ed Mechenbier also was a passenger. Today, Brigadier General Ed Mechenbier still serves his country in the United States Air Force Reserve. The significance of the ``Hanoi Taxi'' is best illustrated by the following comments General Mechenbier provided in a recent interview: This airplane is more than a tribute to the POW's that were fortunate to be released in 1973. It reminds us of the service of more than a million Viet Nam era veterans, and it says to those POW/MIAs who did not share in our joy, you are not forgotten. This week our Nation honors the sacrifices and dedication to duty, honor and country that those Missing in Action and former Prisoners of War have provided. As we remember the sacrifice that has been made, let us not forget the continuing sacrifice that our present members of our armed forces have made as we forge pathways of peace in an ever changing environment of world events.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, the purpose of this legislation is very simple: It is to make it a crime to transport a child across State lines if this circumvents State laws requiring parental involvement or if it circumvents State laws requiring a judicial waiver for a minor to obtain an abortion. It is that simple. Many States, as we know, have laws saying a parent or guardian has to be notified if a child is trying to get an abortion. But not all States have these laws. What is happening now, far too often in this country, is that people who aren't parents, who aren't guardians, are taking these children across State lines, secretly, to get abortions in another State where parental notification is not required. It is that simple. What we are addressing in this bill, and what Senator Abraham is addressing, is an obvious circumvention of these State parental consent and notification laws. This bill, then, has two purposes: to protect the health of children and to protect the rights of parents. In fact, it might not be much of an exaggeration to say that these two purposes really boil down to just one purpose, because, Mr. President, empowering parents is the single biggest investment we can make in ensuring the health of our children. What we are saying with this legislation is that, yes, parents have the right to be involved in a moral and medical decision that affects their children's welfare. They have the right to do this. They have the duty to do this. When it comes to parental notification on abortion, the American people have reached a clear consensus. By a huge majority, 80 percent, favor parental notification; 74 percent favor not just parental notification but parental consent, as well--74 percent. This is a clear expression of the national wisdom. This legislation is an effort to make that kind of informed decision possible. Now, earlier this year, we in Congress worked on another bill, one that is now law. In that bill, the President and the Congress mandated that the flight of a parent to another State to avoid paying child support would be a Federal crime. I worked with Senator Kohl to champion the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act in order to protect the interests of America's children. We have to pursue very vigorously those who would harm our children, either by omission or by commission. Mr. President, the very same principle is embodied in the Child Custody Protection Act that we are considering today. There are those living among us, Mr. President, who would place our children in harm's way by transporting them across State lines to achieve dangerous goals, both physically and emotionally. One such goal is abortion. The right of citizens to pass and enforce laws regarding the rights of parents is completely violated by the ability of others to transport children to another State to obtain an abortion. As a Nation, we must use all the resources available to us in order to protect our children and our families from this conduct. That is our purpose here today. Senator Abraham has shown strong leadership in bringing this legislation forward. I thank him for his work on this important bill, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, this morning the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 11:30 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate may consider any available appropriations bills or other legislative or executive items cleared for action. Rollcall votes are expected throughout Thursday's session as the Senate continues work on appropriations bills. The majority leader would like to remind all Members that there are four remaining appropriations bills that the Senate must act on in the next several weeks. Continued cooperation of all Members will be necessary for the Senate to successfully complete the appropriations process. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, this amendment reflects a significant change in course on how we administer U.S. assistance in Haiti. From a practical standpoint, the amendment will not decrease our total commitment to the people of Haiti. However, it does place very clear restrictions on assistance to the Haitian government. To best understand the reasons for this amendment--and why we have chosen to place more conditions on direct aid to the government of Haiti--it is important to first talk about the current situation in Haiti. Mr. President, I have visited Haiti six times in the past three years. I have taken a great interest in assisting the people of Haiti as they establish, develop and sustain democracy, economic stability and a better quality of life. Through these visits, I have had the opportunity to see what changes have taken place and the general direction of events in Haiti. My colleagues may recall that on April 3, 1998, I provided the Senate an update on the current economic, and political state of Haiti. At that time, I stated that Haiti's political system was not stable. Little has changed for the better since then. This continued instability is of direct concern to the United States. The concern of course is that this unstable democracy could descend into outright chaos. If this occurs, the result could be an exodus of boat people coming to our shores. Mr. President, let me mention a few key facts to describe the current situation there. First, it has been over 14 months since then Haitian Prime Minister Rosny Smarth resigned due to his frustration with the government's inability to resolve an electoral dispute and implement his economic modernization plan. Since then, a Prime Minister has not been confirmed by the Parliament. The Prime Minister is designated as the Chief Executive of the Government. He appoints the Cabinet and basically runs the government. Without a Prime Minister, the country simply cannot function. Bills that may be passed by the Haitian Parliament cannot be signed into law and the privatization of any government industries cannot be fully implemented. It is truly unfortunate, that to date, this vacancy has not been filled. The current Education Minister has been nominated for the position. It is, however, unclear if he will be confirmed by the Haitian Senate. One of the main reasons for this continued delay stems from the Haitian government's inability to resolve the serious discrepancy surrounding the April 1997 elections. This current political impasse stems from pervasive fraud and improper vote tabulation regarding elections held in April of 1997. Not only have the Haitian opposition political parties demanded that the April 1997 elections be annulled, the international community, including the United Nations, has also deemed the elections--which produced only a meager five percent turnout--fraudulent. The opposition political parties continue to insist that they will not move forward to confirm a Prime Minister until the April 1997 electoral dispute is resolved. This paralysis in government is being felt everywhere: economic reform efforts have stalled. The legislature still has not passed a budget. It has not enacted structural reforms needed to free up over $100 million in foreign assistance, nor has it approved loans for millions in technical assistance. The process of privatizing key government industries is dramatically slow, as are plans to downsize the public sector. With progress impeded by a political stalemate it is no surprise that potential investors who could play a key role in uplifting Haiti's economic development are discouraged from going forward. Complicating matters even more was an upcoming national/municipal election in Haiti slated for November 1998. Hundreds of seats were up, including the entire lower chamber of the Haitian Parliament, up to two-thirds of the Senate and all municipal seats. Since there continues to be no resolution to the irregularities surrounding the previous election, however, the elections that constitutionally should be held in November have not been scheduled nor is there reason to believe that they will occur any earlier than next spring. All of this raises even more questions and concerns on Haiti's ability to administer future elections, including the presidential elections scheduled for the year 2000. Democracy literally is at a standstill in Haiti. And it will remain stagnant until previous electoral disputes are resolved, and a credible, nonpartisan, competent electoral commission to oversee elections is established. The composition of the electoral commission is the key source of controversy. A number of opposition parties in Haiti would like to have some representation on the commission, or at least make sure that the commission is neutral and not biased. Mr. President, I understand that Haitian President Preval recently said he will move forward with naming a provisional electoral council. There is concern that he intends not to consult with all opposition parties--meaning that the interests of other political parties will likely be excluded. This step would not seem to be an effective way to resolve the current political impasse. When I spoke about Haiti last April, I urged that no U.S. assistance be used to underwrite the proposed November elections until a settlement of the April 1997 electoral dispute is reached--and until a fair and independent Electoral Council is established in accordance with the constitution. I am pleased that these conditions on funding are currently in the pending Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill, as well as in the House version. Even if the electoral disputes are resolved and an electoral commission appointed, democracy cannot be sustained as long as lethal violence is seem as an effective tool to achieve political goals. To date, not one single case of the dozens of political killings that have occurred in Haiti since the early 1990's have been resolved. As a result, no one has been convicted and sentenced for any one of these crimes. Mr. President, according to a House International Relations Committee staff report released just last week, fears of a new wave of political killings are on the rise following the recent murder of a Catholic priest who was a vocal critic of the current government, as well as of former President Aristide. The report also states that ``A key opposition leader expressed concern that three other political figures may be targeted for assassination.'' Not only have opposition political leaders been allegedly threatened, Haitians working for democratic institutions such as the International Republican Institute have also been targeted for intimidation and threats on their lives. One Haitian IRI employee was even held at gunpoint for his involvement in democratic activities in Haiti. Mr. President, I also am concerned about new reports of drug corruption within the Haitian government. Specifically, there have been numerous reports in Haitian newspapers that Haitian National Police employees were arrested for involvement in drug trafficking. Haiti has become increasingly attractive as a transit point for international drug traffickers. Unless we address this situation soon, Haiti could turn into a full-fledged narco-state. And that means more and more illegal drugs coming through Haiti to the United States. Mr. President, I have given you a brief outline and assessment of the current political situation in Haiti. It has been the policy of this Congress for three years that until the Haitian government is able to meet specific economic, political and social reforms, our assistance to that government should be extremely limited. The money, instead should go to benefit Haitians directly. That was the fundamental purpose of an amendment originally offered by our former Majority Leader, Bob Dole in 1995. Under the original Dole amendment, benchmarks for reform had to be met if assistance was to be provided. If these conditions were not met, government assistance would be transferred to non-governmental organizations, of NGOs. In the end, the President called for and received from Congress the power to waive these conditions and allow aid to go forward if he believed restricting aid to the Haitian government posed a national security concern to the United States. Congress included this national security waiver with the hope that things would improve in Haiti. Each year for the past three years, we have renewed the Dole amendment with some marginal modifications. Each year, the President has exercised his waiver authority to keep U.S. aid flowing to the Haitian government. And each year we hope the Haitian government will finally get its act together. Well, Mr. President, three years have gone by. And the situation remains bleak. Based on a review of that situation, I now believe that it is necessary to go back to the original Dole proposal by removing the national security waiver. We have tried--patiently--for three years to work with the Haitian government to establish and sustain democracy there. Yet, I find it extremely difficult to invest in a government that is not willing to make changes to advance democracy and its economic health. We have spent well over $2 billion in the past four years in Haiti. We should continue to fund programs through NGOs that will benefit Haitians. But giving the government money for programs if they are not willing to implement needed political and economic reforms is wasted money. Mr. President, let me turn now to an explanation of my amendment to the this bill. Let me first make it clear that this amendment does not prohibit assistance to Haiti. Just like current law, this amendment conditions our assistance to the Government of Haiti--but not the Haitian people. That means that any funds distrtibuted to Haiti through NGOs for the benefit of Haitians will not be threatened nor compromised in any manner. Let me first outline the important general conditions that the Haitian government must meet before we believe it receives any additional funding from the US government. These conditions are outlined--almost verbatim--in the pending Senate and House Foreign Operations Approprations bill. These general conditions include: First, the Haitian government must re-sign the Agreement on Migration Interdiction and Operations with the United States and must cooperate with the US in halting illegal emigration from Haiti. It has been nearly four years since this agreement expired and the US government has been waiting for Haiti to resign this agreement. The second condition is that the Haitian government must conduct thorough investigations of extrajudicial and political killings and that it must cooperate with US authorities in these investigations. There have been dozens of political murders in Haiti over the past several years. Not a single one has been solved. That has got to change. Third, the Haitian government must take action to remove from the Haitian National Police, and other national palace and ministerial guards, individuals who are credibly alleged to have engaged in or conspired to conceal gross violations of human rights or to have engaged in narcotics trafficking. Fourth, that the Haitian government must complete privatization of at least three major public entities. The Haitian government is now years behind its own drafted scheduled in privatizing several key public entities. The final condition is that the Haitian government must implement the counter-narcotics agreements recently signed between both countries last October. There are a total of six counter-narcotics agreements including the Ship Rider and Maritime Pursuit Agreements which allow US law enforcement to patrol Haitian waters for drug interdiction matters. These agreements basically allow for instantaneous implementation of drug enforcement activities between the two countries. These are very important and reasonable conditions that must be met before the US government releases any general assistance directly to the government of Haiti. Many of them are not new. Let me now address a more controversial question--whether the Administration can waive these conditions for national security reasons, and allow funding to go forward. For the past three years, the Administration has exercised its waiver authority to allow funding to go to the government. The pending bill before us continues this waiver; the pending House bill does not. My amendment would adopt the House version on this point. We must send a message to the government of Haiti that we cannot continue to give them money if they lack political will to make necessary reforms. Mr. President, while my amendment would remove the national security interest waiver; there are several important exceptions to this amendment as well as in the pending bill that would enable the US government to continue funding certain important government programs. Taken together, these exceptions include--counter-narcotics assistance; support for the Haitian National Police's Special Investigative Unit; the International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program; customs assistance; anti-corruption programs; urgent humanitarian assistance; and education. There is also a separate provision on conditioning electoral and administration of justice assistance to the government of Haiti under a separate set of conditions. One additional point I want to make is while I have included several additional exceptions to the Limitation of Assistance provision to the government of Haiti--I intend to explore during the conference of this bill the possible need to limit the total amount of money the Haitian government can receive if conditions set for in this amendment are not met while assistance to the government in these areas continues to flow. Mr. President, before I conclude, I would like to mention two essential assistance programs that we provide to Haiti through NGO's. First and foremost, US assistance through P.L. 480 Title II feeding programs to the poor is absolutely critical and should be continued. There are impoverished people in Haiti--particularly children--who desperately need help. They are not responsible for the country's political crisis. They should not have to suffer because of it. Mr. President, there has been a proliferation of facilities in Haiti which must care not only for a vast number of orphans but also for an increasing number of abandoned and neglected children. The capital city, Port-au-Prince, has seventy orphanages--all of these which are run by only one relief organization, Christian Relief Services (CRS). There are many other orphanages throughout the entire country which take care of thousands and thousands of orphaned and abandoned children in Haiti. I have visited these facilities in Haiti and I can give you a first- hand account of the heart breaking stories. The flow of desperate children into these orphanges is constant and these institutions face an increasing challenge in accommodating all of these needy children. The sad part is that these many of these orphanages get no other means of support other than the food administered to them through CRS, which in turn receives its resources through AID. Last year and again this year, I have worked with Senators Cochran and Bumpers--the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee--to ensure we continue the emergency feeding programs in Haiti through the PL 480 Title feeding program. I thank Chairman Cochran and Senator Bumpers for their assistance in funding this program last year and for doing so again in this year's bill. Similarly, I have worked with Chairman McConnell and Senator Leahy to include up to $250,000 to support a pilot program to assist Haitian children in orphanages. The objective behind the program is to find ways to help orphanages better organize and manage themselves to seek outside help for resources for these children. I thank the Chairman, and Senator Leahy for funding this initiative last year and for doing so again in the pending bill. Another very important assistance program that should be maintained, if not expanded, is agricultural assistance programs. Agricultural production in Haiti is extremely low. In the long run, agricultural production is necessary if Haiti is to provide jobs and food for its population. Haiti today imports two thirds of its food. Every day, thousands of Haitians leave rural areas where they are unable to provide for themselves, and flood into the cities which are unable to sustain the population pressures. In the long run, agricultural and rural development is crucial to the goal of providing jobs, income and food for Haiti's people. To further develop the rural and agricultural sectors of Haiti, attention needs to be given to a decentralized development strategy. I believe that continued focus on non-governmental organizations is appropriate. In fact, current USAID funding for agriculture and environmental programs in Haiti is all administered through NGOs. I believe that we should be promoting regional development and that associations linking private sector interests with local government need to be established. One way to do this is to link our own successful foundations and institutions of higher education together with local Haitians interested in pursuing this goal. Given the importance of developing and expanding sound agriculture and environment programs in Haiti, I intend to work with Chairman McConnell and Senator Leahy to ensure that at least 20% of our total assistance for Haiti be for the promotion of agriculture and environment programs in Haiti. It is my hope that they will accept this request in conference report language. Mr. President, I cannot overestimate enough the need to continue assistance programs to Haiti through the NGO community. We want to help Haitians in terms of feeding programs, agriculture and environment programs, and other initiatives such as basic health and education. Mr. President, as you can see from the specifics of my speech, I have given serious thought to our assistance policy toward Haiti. U.S. policy toward Haiti is complicated. As I said at the beginning of these remarks, establishing, developing and sustaining democracy in Haiti is an important national interest. One thing is clear: The U.S. cannot do for Haiti what it will not do for itself. The Haitians first have to realize the need to solve their political crisis. They clearly have not yet hit rock bottom; maybe that's what it will take to create the political will to move forward. Unfortunately, I do not yet see the requisite political will and determination in Haiti. In the meantime, we cannot just walk away from Haiti completely. We must find ways to help the Haitian people, primarily through NGO's-- since the Haitian Government has proven itself to be incapable of providing for its own people. There's a tough road ahead for Haiti. With this amendment, we are helping to set some realistic conditions whereby that country can succeed.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I thank my distinguished friend from Kentucky, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like to express my strong support for the Child Survival and Disease Program Fund. I understand that the House Committee on Appropriations, as a part of its Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Bill, has recommended that $650 million be allocated to the Fund's programs for fiscal year 1999. On the House side, Subcommittee Chairman Callahan has taken the lead in protecting these child survival programs and I commend him for his leadership on this issue. The Clinton administration, however, has reduced direct funding for child survival programs. In order to preserve the benefits of these important programs for children worldwide, I believe the Senate should accept in conference the House language that was agreed to in Committee for this Fund. It is a tragedy that millions of children die each year from disease, malnutrition, and other consequences of poverty that are both preventable and treatable. The programs of the Child Survival Fund, which are intended to reduce infant mortality and improve the health and nutrition of children, address the various problems of young people struggling to survive in developing countries. It places a priority on the needs of the more than 100 million children worldwide who are displaced and/or have become orphans. The Fund includes initiatives to curb the resurgence of communicable diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis. In the underdeveloped world, the Fund works towards eradicating polio as well as preventing and controlling the spread of HIV/AIDS. Aside from addressing issues of health, the Fund also supports basic education programs. An investment in education yields one of the highest social and economic rates of return--because it gives children the necessary tools to become self-sufficient adults. Each additional year of primary and secondary schooling results in a 10-20% wage increase and a 25% net increase in income. The programs supported by the Child Survival Fund are effective because they save three million lives each year through immunizations, vitamin supplementation, oral rehydration therapy, and the treatment of childhood respiratory infections, which are the second largest killer of children on earth. This year the Kiwanis International are leading a global campaign to raise seventy-five million dollars toward the elimination of Iodine Deficiency Disorder which is the world's most prevalent cause of preventable mental retardation in children. Eliminating the symptoms and causes of this poverty is not only the humane thing to do--it is also a necessary prerequisite for global stability and prosperity. In my view, Congress needs to maintain its support for these valuable programs. It is my hope that the Senate Foreign Operations Subcommittee will accept the House language. The Child Survival and Disease programs are effective and are important. They should be continued. I would like to commend Representatives Tony Hall of Ohio and Sonny Callahan of Alabama for their tireless leadership in the effort to eliminate global hunger. I see the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Operations Subcommittee on the floor.