Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. The Senator is correct. It was the intent of the Conference Committee to allow Texas this specific flexibility with regard to intake and training providers.

Mr. DeWINE. The Senator is correct, and I, too, share your commitment to preserving the leading edge reforms Texas is implementing.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, later today, the U.S. Senate will vote on the nomination of Kim McLean Wardlaw to be a judge for the ninth circuit. The Judiciary Committee approved this nomination by a voice vote. At that time, I noted my opposition to this nomination for the record. Today, I expect the Senate will approve this nomination by a voice vote again. Again, Mr. President, I note my opposition for the record. When we vote on the nomination of a Federal district or circuit court judge, I am sure all of us do so only after deliberation and consideration. I believe that the President of the United States has very broad discretion to nominate whomever he chooses, and I believe the U.S. Senate should give him due deference when he sends us his choice for a Federal judgeship. Having said that, however, I believe the Senate has a constitutional duty, and it is prescribed in the Constitution, to offer its advice and consent on judicial nominations. Each Senator has his or her own criteria for offering this advice and consent. However, since these nominations are lifetime appointments, all of us must take our advice and consent responsibility very seriously, and rightfully so. Earlier this year, when the Senate Judiciary Committee considered the nomination of another nominee to be a judge for the ninth circuit, in this case William Fletcher, I expressed my concerns about how far the ninth circuit has moved away from the mainstream of judicial thought and how far it consistently--consistently--strays from Supreme Court precedent. At that time, considering that nomination to the ninth circuit, I also stated that when the Judiciary Committee considers nominees for the ninth circuit, I feel compelled to apply a higher standard of scrutiny than I do with regard to other circuits. I have come to this conclusion after an examination of the recent trend of decisions that have been coming out of this ninth circuit. Simply put, I am concerned that the ninth circuit does not follow Supreme Court precedent, and its rulings are simply not in the mainstream. The statistics tell the sad story. In 1997, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed 27 out of 28 ninth circuit decisions that were appealed and granted cert. That is a 96-percent reversal rate. In 1996, 10 of 12 decisions for that same circuit were reversed, or 83 percent. If you go back to 1995, 14 of 17 decisions were reversed, or an 82-percent reversal rate. In other words, what we are seeing from 1995 to the present is an escalating trend of judicial confrontation between the ninth circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court. Let's keep in mind that the Supreme Court only has time to review a small number of ninth circuit decisions. This leaves the ninth circuit, in reality, as the court of last resort for the 45 million Americans who reside within that circuit. In the vast, vast majority of cases, what the ninth circuit says is the final word. To preserve the integrity of the judicial system for so many people, I believe we need to take a more careful look; I believe this Senate needs to take a more careful work at who we are sending to a circuit that increasingly chooses to disregard precedent and ultimately just plain gets it wrong so much of the time. Consistent with our constitutional duties, the U.S. Senate has to take responsibility for correcting this disturbing reversal rate of the ninth circuit. That is why I will only support those nominees to the ninth circuit who possess the qualifications and have shown in their background that they have the ability and the inclination to move the circuit back towards that mainstream. Mr. President, as the statistics reveal, the ninth circuit's reversal rate is an escalating problem. It is not getting better, it is getting worse. So today, this Senator is drawing the line. I am providing notice to my colleagues that this is the last ninth circuit nominee that I will allow to move by voice vote on this floor. Further, until the ninth circuit starts to follow precedent and produce mainstream decisions, I will continue to hold every ninth circuit nominee to a higher standard to help ensure that the 45 million people who live in the ninth circuit receive justice that is consistent with the rest of the Nation, justice that is predictable, justice that is not arbitrary, nor dependent on the few times the Supreme Court actually reviews and ultimately reverses an erroneous ninth circuit decision. Mr. President, all this leads me back to this nominee for the ninth circuit, the nominee that we will later today be considering, Judge Kim Wardlaw. There is simply, in my opinion, no evidence that this nominee will help to move the ninth circuit closer to the mainstream. And it is largely for that reason that I rise today to oppose this nomination. On November 9, 1995, the Judiciary Committee approved Kim Wardlaw's nomination to be U.S. district judge by unanimous consent. Further, the full Senate did the same thing on December 22, 1995. Today, we are now considering her nomination for elevation to the ninth circuit. Mr. President, during Judge Wardlaw's nomination hearing last June, I asked her to explain or describe the significant cases in which the Women's Lawyers Association of Los Angeles, the WLALA, filed amicus briefs during the time Judge Wardlaw served as president of this organization from 1993 to 1994 and the role she played during that time in the selection of these cases. That was my question. Judge Wardlaw responded that when she was president there was a ``separate Amicus Briefs Committee that would take requests for writing briefs.'' She described one case she remembered from that year in which the WLALA filed an amicus brief. Our dialogue in the committee then continued as follows. I asked her to ``tell me again--you had this committee. Did you sit on the committee?'' She responded, ``No, I did not.'' Then I asked her, ``Did the president sit on the committee?'' She responded, ``No.'' In written followup questions that I sent to her, I stated--and I quote--``In further reviewing the questionnaire to the Judiciary Committee, I noticed that you responded you were Amicus Briefs Committee chair (1997-98).'' I then rephrased the question I asked her at the hearing. In her written response, Judge Wardlaw apologized, ``if my response to your question at the hearing was narrower in any way than the scope of your intended question''--she then explained she thought my question and ``ensuing colloquy'' only referred to the years 1993 and 1994 that she was president of the Women's Lawyers Association of Los Angeles, and not to the year she served as the Amicus Briefs cochair from September 1977 to 1988. Mr. President, I believe her written response was sincere. I do, however, think that she could have been more forthcoming in this response. I believe she could have been more forthcoming in her response during the hearing in order to clarify that she had, in fact, served as one of the chairs of the Amicus Briefs Committee during another point of her entire membership of the WLALA, which by the way, began in 1983. Mr. President, further, in Judge Wardlaw's 1995 responses to the Judiciary Committee's questionnaire for her nomination to be U.S. district court judge, she noted she was a member of the California Leadership Council for the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, California Leadership Council. However, she omitted this information from her 1998 questionnaire. When recently asked orally to explain this omission, she noted that the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund's California Leadership Council ``was not an organization''--it ``was not an organization.'' So she said that she should not have even noted her affiliation with the organization in her original district court nomination questionnaire. Mr. President, I think, again, this, in my view at least, reflects a reluctance to be totally forthcoming with the committee. It is required of a nominee to include all information that is requested in the committee's questionnaire. And it is up to each committee member to weigh the importance, then, of the nominee's responses. Let me make it clear, Mr. President, people can make mistakes on questionnaires. I believe, however, the evidence shows--the totality of the evidence shows she has not been as forthcoming to this committee as, frankly, we should expect. This nominee has a 12-year affiliation--12-year affiliation--with the Women's Lawyers Association of Los Angeles. She has not only been a member, but has served as an officer. She has served as Amicus Briefs Committee chair and as vice president. She was elected as president of the organization, and served as chair of the Nominations Committee, which selects the officers of the organization. During the time she served in a leadership capacity, this organization filed amicus briefs in the Supreme Court in cases such as William Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, the case of Rust v. Sullivan, and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. I only cite these cases as further examples of her position as a leader of an organization that, in fact, took public stands on issues that were contrary to what the Supreme Court ultimately decided. For me, this serves as evidence that Judge Wardlaw would not help move the circuit more to the mainstream. This is not simply a matter of this nominee being a mere member of an organization that took these positions. Rather, this is a matter of her being a recognized leader of this organization who states, however, that she was not aware of the legal positions taken by this organization. In response to Senator Thurmond's written questions, Judge Wardlaw stated that ``Once a position was voted upon . . . it was the position of the organization as a whole, not necessarily the view of any individual member.'' That may be, Mr. President, but she did not offer to the Judiciary Committee any details on the role she may or may not have played in the development of these positions. Judge Wardlaw also stated that she ``would not have publicly opposed a position taken by the organization.'' I believe anyone who voluntarily holds numerous leadership positions in an organization-- leadership positions ranging from president to secretary to chair of various committees--I believe that person adopts, helps shape, or at the very least condones the positions taken by that organization. After all, our committee asked all nominees if they belong to any organization that discriminates on the basis of race, sex or religion; and if so, we ask what the nominee has done to try to change these policies. These are not exactly comparable, but the point simply is, when we ask the questions about membership, we asked it for a reason. It does not mean we hold someone accountable for everything, every position that a committee or organization took that they belong to. No. We weigh the totality of the circumstances, and we try to be fair. But the evidence is overwhelming of her leadership positions. Frankly, quite candidly, this is not the first nominee who has come before our committee who has been involved with amicus briefs, who has been in an organization that files these briefs, who has held a leadership position, and who then says, ``Oh, no, really, I didn't have anything to do with the formulation of those briefs or the decision about filing them.'' That is a troubling position. And it is a position that we keep hearing from nominee after nominee. Let me put future nominees on notice that, at least for this U.S. Senator, that type of response is not acceptable. Mr. President, considering all of these factors, I oppose this nomination. I recognize the reality that this nominee would have been approved if a vote had been taken on the floor. One of the things we learn to do in this business, Mr. President, is to count. And I can count. Therefore, I do not want to put my colleagues, as we begin to leave for the August recess, through the necessity of a rollcall which would slow this process down or inconvenience them. But I felt I had to come to the floor this morning and state my position. Mr. President, 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 that each year moves farther and farther from the mainstream and more and more in a confrontational role with the U.S. Supreme Court and with Supreme Court precedents. For that reason, Mr. President, I intend in the future to seek rollcall votes on all nominees for the ninth circuit. Until we reverse this disturbing trend, I believe the Senate needs to be on the record as either part of the problem or part of the solution. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for the next 20 minutes in morning business.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee for his remarks, and I look forward to working with him as well. pulsed fast neutron analysis (PFNA) cargo inspection systems (cis) operational field demonstration

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, as the Senate continues consideration of the Fiscal Year (FY) 1999 Defense appropriations bill, I would like to take a moment to express my concerns regarding the funding and administration of the Air Force's Financial Information Resources System (FIRST) program. This is a controversial program for a number of reasons. First, legitimate questions have been raised about the necessity of this program. It is my understanding that even though all the military departments and agencies were to move toward a single system for program, budgeting and accounting (PBAS), the Air Force has not moved in that direction. The Air Force intends for the FIRST program to perform the functions intended for PBAS, which would make the program duplicative. This issue was raised by the house National Security Committee, which zeroed out funding for the FIRST program in its version of the Fiscal Year 1999 Defense Authorization Bill. The House National Security Committee also noted in its Committee report that the Air Force has chosen to utilize the Global Combat Supply System-Air Force (GCSS-AF) contract for the program, rather than competitively bid for the program. This decision raises both fiscal and policy concerns because this would be work outside the scope of the GCSS-AF contract. The GCSS-AF contract was advertised and awarded for ``base-level systems modernization.'' In contrast, the FIRST program involves a budget system modernization plan that would impact all Air Force functional levels: base level, wholesale level, major air command, and headquarters. Clearly, the FIRST program would exceed the scope of the GCSS-AF contract. I should also point out that the Air Force's decision to utilize GCSS-AF for the FIRST program was made after the Air Force announced an open competition, and after eighteen companies acted in good faith and submitted qualification applications for evaluation and screening. This course reversal, and the rational behind it has not been made clear to me or others that are concerned about this decision. Mr. President, I also believe the Air Force's decision merits close review because it's not clear to me that it would be wise for the Air Force to place a disproportionate amount of its systems modernization work all in one contract. Finally, the entire process raises policy concerns with respect to organizational planning within the Air Force. Currently, the development and execution of corporate information management systems for combat support is, in my view, not conducted in a coordinated and integrated fashion. In other words, the way the FIRST program is being administered is a symptom of a much larger organizational issue that deserves review by Congress and the Air Force. In short, given all the issues that I have briefly described, I believe we should withhold going forward with the FIRST program until we can sort these and any other related issues that others may have. In fact, I had intended to offer an amendment that would allow for the Defense Department to use these funds for drug interdiction programs, but I have worked with the chairman and the ranking member to find other ways to help our drug interdiction strategy. Mr. President, we cannot understate the importance of information technology programs to the future of our armed services. Thousands of people at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and in the surrounding Miami Valley area play a leading role in the development of these programs. However, these programs have to be pursued with an eye toward fiscal soundness and effective coordination with similar systems defense-wide. I see the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee on the floor and I hope that he will take the issues and concerns I have raised into consideration as he proceeds to conference with the House of Representatives.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank the chairman of the committee, Senator Jeffords, for yielding to me and thank him also for the tremendous work he has done on this bill. He has been working on this for a number of years. This is the culmination of a great deal of work. We are about to pass the conference report. Once the bill is sent on to the President and signed by the President, it will represent a major accomplishment of this Congress. This bill consolidates over 70 federally funded job training related programs--over 70 of them consolidated. This bill will make job training, federally funded job training, in this country much more accountable. It will also involve the business community much more in the development and design of job training. The one thing Chairman Jeffords and I have learned as we have held hearings on this matter over the years is that if you want job training to work, it has to be run locally and it has to have great input from the local business community. This bill will make sure that we have that local input. We have to remember who the consumers are. When you are talking about job training, there are two consumers. One is the person who wants the job and wants to be trained for the job. But the other, equally as important, is the company or the individual who wants to hire that person, and so you have to involve them both in the design of job training. That is what this bill does. This bill also dramatically reforms Job Corps. Job Corps is a Great Society-era job training program, residential, that is run by the Federal Government. It costs over $1 billion a year. It is targeted at our most at-risk young people in this country, people who desperately need our help, desperately need our assistance. What this bill does is make sure that $1 billion will be correctly spent. And again, we do that by measuring the results. One of the things that Chairman Jeffords and I, I think, and the rest of the committee, were so shocked about when we held hearings several years ago on this--actually former Senator Kassebaum was chairman--was that Job Corps did not really measure success or failure of the young people. It didn't measure the success or failure of a particular job training program. They looked at it and saw whether or not a person had a job for 2 weeks. If they kept a job for 2 weeks after graduating from the program--and it didn't matter what the job was--the program was considered a success. The contractor who was in charge of getting that person a job got paid, and then no one ever looked back. What we do with this bill is say we are going to measure success or failure after 6 months. We are going to measure success or failure after 12 months. And then we are going to be able to tell which programs work and which do not work in regard to Job Fair. Another change we are making in Job Corps is to involve the local business community. Too often Job Corps has herded young people from 500, 600, 700 miles a way. They go to the Job Corps. They stay there for awhile, they complete their program, and then they go back home, and it is very difficult to involve the local business community when they know that person is not going to be there to work for them. And so we change those priorities in regard to Job Corps as well. We also in this bill make a major step forward to link the regular job training programs of this country with vocational rehabilitation. We do that by closing the gap. We do that by preserving the dedicated flow of money that will go for this targeted population, targeted population that is in need of our assistance, who wants to help themselves. We preserve that dedicated fund, those dedicated funds. But we give that recipient, that client, more resources. We empower that client to go to the vocational rehabilitation site or, if the services are not there, to make sure that the client has the legal right to go across the street or across the county, wherever that is, to get help and assistance from the regular system as well. It integrates the two. In conclusion, let me say this bill is a bill for workers. It is a bill for people who want to be workers. It is a bill for young people. It is a bill that literally empowers the person who is seeking the job training. It gives them a lot more, many more rights. It gives them a lot more flexibility. It puts them into the ball game as far as choosing what is the job training that is best for them. So it makes a significant difference. This bill also has a very significant component aimed directly at children. We set aside a significant sum of money for those young people between the ages of 14 and 21. We do it; we target it; we say it is important. There is nothing, I think, more important in this country than what we do with our young people and the assistance we try to provide for them. We have many young people in this country who we call at-risk youth. This bill will go a long way to give them direct assistance. However, even though we target it in this bill and say these funds are dedicated for these young people, we also at the same time give all the flexibility to the local community, States and local communities to allow them to design the specific program that will actually work for their young people in their local communities. This is a revolutionary bill. It is a bill that dramatically changes the status quo. It is a bipartisan bill. It is a bill that Senator Wellstone worked on with me in the subcommittee. It is a bill on which Senator Kennedy worked with Senator Jeffords. It is a bill that Secretary Alexis Herman has been very, very much involved in. She has been involved in it up until the last 10 minutes, as we have negotiated the final portions of this bill. So, it is a bipartisan bill. It is a bill we can all be very proud of. It is a bill that will truly make a difference for our young people and for those who need to be trained in this country. Again, I thank my chairman for the tremendous work that he has done; for his persistence. One of the qualities I think you have to have in the U.S. Senate is perseverance and persistence, as well as patience. He has demonstrated all three very well. The culmination is what we see tonight, which is a bill we are about to send to the President of the United States for his signature. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DeWINE. I will be more than happy to yield the floor for the Senator from Utah.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I believe my amendment is already at the desk. I call up my amendment in regard to Federal employees.

Mr. DeWINE. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Utah.

Mr. DeWINE. No objection.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to offer an amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Abraham, Senator Sessions, Senator Brownback, and Senator Santorum. This is an amendment that would maintain in force--and let me emphasize that--would maintain in force the current law, the status quo. This amendment would remain and keep in force the current Federal law restricting Federal employee health insurance coverage for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of a mother. This is the same amendment that was accepted by voice vote during the debate for fiscal year 1998, the Treasury-Postal appropriations. This is the same amendment that was accepted by this body during the debate for fiscal year 1996. And, in fact, this is the same language that has been consistently supported by a bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives from 1983 to 1998, with the exception of only 2 years. So from 1983 to 1998, that has been the law of the land with the exception of only 2 years. Mr. President, I mention this to you and to my colleagues to make it clear that this amendment stakes out no new ground. It merely confirms what the status quo is today, what this body and what the other body have consistently voted in favor of. The principle that we are dealing with today is a very simple one, one that goes beyond the conventional pro-life, pro-choice boundaries. I think everyone in this Chamber knows that I am pro-life and, therefore, wish to promote the value of protecting innocent human life. I point out that the vast majority of Americans on both sides of the abortion issue--on both sides of the abortion issue--strongly agree that they should not pay for someone else's abortion, and that is what we are talking about today. Fairly stated, this amendment is not about abortion, it is not about the morality of abortion, or the right of women to choose abortions. This is a narrowly focused amendment that answers a key question: Should taxpayers pay for these abortions? Mr. President, Congress has consistently agreed that we should not ask the taxpayers to promote a policy, in essence, of paying for abortion on demand for a Federal employee. Again, this amendment would maintain the status quo. It limits Federal employee health plans to cover abortions only in the case of rape, incest, or threats to the life of the mother. The vast majority of Americans oppose subsidizing abortions. That is clear. Employers, as a general principle, determine the health benefits their employees receive. Taxpayers are the employers of our Federal workforce, and a large majority of taxpayers simply do not want their tax dollars to pay for these abortions. Taxpayers provide a substantial majority share of the funds to purchase health insurance for the Federal civilian workforce. Over three-quarters of that premium on an average is paid for by taxpayers. This amendment addresses the same core issue. It simply says that the Federal Government is not in the business of funding abortions. Abortion is a contentious issue, and we simply should not ask taxpayers to pay for them. Mr. President, this issue has been debated time and time and time again on this floor. I will say the identical language has been debated time and time and time again. Everyone in this Chamber has voted on this issue. Current law limits abortion availability in Federal employee health care plans to cases, again, of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother. That is set in law. This has been the bipartisan position of the Senate and the bipartisan position of the House, and it has been approved by the President last year and the year before. We should not voluntarily take the money of many Americans who find abortion wrong to pay for those abortions. We should not go against the will of the people of this country. We should uphold the current law, and that is what this amendment would simply do. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE. I certainly would.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, last week I introduced legislation that would bring a new, comprehensive strategy to America's effort against illegal drugs. The Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act would support enhanced drug interdiction efforts in the major transit countries, and support a comprehensive supply eradication and crop substitution program in source countries. This legislation has 16 other Senate cosponsors. Mr. President, this is a $2.6 billion authorization initiative over 3 years for enhanced international eradication, interdiction and crop substitution efforts. This important counter-drug initiative would restore a balanced drug control strategy by renewing our nation's commitment to international eradication and interdiction efforts-- efforts that have proven successful in reducing the trafficking and use of illegal drugs. I believe that this is an important investment in the future of America--and the future of our children. The day after the new drug initiative was introduced, I offered an amendment to the Transportation appropriations bill to provide much- needed resources for the U.S. Coast Guard--resources that will increase their drug interdiction capability. Other cosponsors of this amendment included Senators Coverdell, Graham, Bond, Faircloth, and Grassley. This amendment, which was agreed to by voice vote, accomplishes two goals: First, it increases funds available for equipment devoted to drug interdiction by approximately $37.5 million. Second, the amendment sets aside resources needed to restore a much-needed drug interdiction operation in the Caribbean--an operation which I had the opportunity to visit earlier this year. Today, I rise again with Senators Coverdell, Graham, Bond, Faircloth, Grassley, and Mack to introduce an amendment to the Treasury, Postal appropriations bill. Specifically, we seek $15 million for enhanced drug interdiction efforts for the U.S. Customs Service in South Florida and the Caribbean. Mr. President, in May, I traveled to the Caribbean for a very short-- 36-hour--visit to look at our interdiction operations there. I visited with U.S. Customs officials in Key West, Florida. It was on this very trip that I gained a greater appreciation of the actual difficult task of drug interdiction. I learned that it is far from an easy task--it is in fact highly dangerous. U.S. Customs officials showed me video tapes of U.S. Customs go-fast boats pursuing Colombian go-fast boats in the middle of the night in high waves--waves that reached 5 or 6 feet. The videos showed Colombian boats ramming into our boats. One of the key problems I learned about on that trip was that U.S. Customs has very few go-fast boats--and the ones they have lack 1990's technology. Our boats have a top speed of 70 mph--while Colombian boats can reach 80 or 90 mph. I rode in one of our go-fast boats in Key West during a mock chase--and I can tell you that even during the day and in low waves, this is dangerous work. There can be no doubt that our U.S. Customs agents in Florida and the Caribbean need more equipment, better equipment dedicated to drug interdiction, and more personnel. Since 1986, the number of U.S. Customs vessels has decreased from 77 to 30. There has also been a significant decrease in maritime officers, from 124 to 23. In fact, U.S. Customs no longer runs a 7-day, 24-hour drug interdiction operation. Mr. President, the amendment I offer today would provide U.S. Customs with more go-fast boats and more manpower for South Florida and the Caribbean. Let me tell you what this amendment would accomplish. First, it would refurbish 22 interceptor and Blue Water Platform Boats. The interceptor boats are what is known as ``go-fast boats.'' The Blue Water Platform Boats are for deep waters and have command and control capability--these vessels can accommodate satellite communications equipment and radar to communicate with the interceptor boats to enable them to better interdict the drug traffickers. Right now, these 22 vessels cannot be used because of lack of funding for refurbishment. This small amount of money will make a huge, huge difference. The amendment would also appropriate money for 9 new interceptor go-fast boats. The amendment would also provide money for the hiring and training of 30 special agents--criminal investigators--for maritime operations. Finally, the amendment would provide resources for overhead coverage and operation and maintenance in the Caribbean. Mr. President, this is a very important amendment which will accomplish a lot with a small amount of resources. The amendment has bipartisan support. Mr. President, I see the distinguished Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Subcommittee, Senator Campbell and Senator Kohl. I thank them for their cooperation with this bipartisan amendment. First, I want to make clear that I intend to work with the conferees and the Treasury Department on alternatives to fund this amendment. While an offset has been identified in order to pay for this amendment, I want to work with them to find alternatives.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I have an amendment I send to the desk.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to commend the Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Senator Shelby, for the work he has done on this bill. It is not easy to balance the competing interests in any appropriations bill, but I think it is even more difficult on transportation appropriations. I would also like to call attention to one area of the Senate's bill which is very different than the House version. The Federal Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS) Program, which began in the late 1980's, is sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the National Weather Service (NWS), and the Department of Defense (DoD) and currently includes over 860 ASOS units. For its part, as of December 2, 1997, the FAA had procured 569 ASOS units. Yet only 297 of these units had been commissioned as of June 16, 1998. The current Senate bill provides $20.97 million for the Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS). This amount is $11 million more than the Administration request. According to the Committee report, $9.9 million is to be used to commission systems that have already been purchased. This only makes sense. After all, the Federal government purchased these systems. They might as well be used. Last year, Congress appropriated $10 million more than the Administration request to procure nearly 30 more ASOS units. If the past is an accurate indicator, these units will sit idle until FAA finds the funds to commission them. In essence, what we are doing is purchasing technology with great potential but fraught with high maintenance costs and are going to be unusable for a number of years when, it is my understanding that there are other alternatives that cost less and can be used immediately. In fact, I understand that one of these alternatives, the Automated Weather Observing System (AWOS) is very popular in many states, including the Chairman's home state of Alabama. I would draw my colleague's attention to the action taken yesterday by the House Committee on Appropriations. In its companion to the bill before us, that panel declined to fund any of these systems for the coming fiscal year but noted the Senate Committee's action. The House report language says that both systems (AWOS and ASOS) are ``meritorious'' and takes the strong position that if additional funding beyond the Administration's request is provided in the final conference action, that ``an equitable distribution'' of the additional funding should be provided for both systems. I strongly support the action taken by our House colleagues and urge my good friend, the Chairman of the Subcommittee to join me to inject fairness, cost-effectiveness and competition into this program.

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

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, yesterday 15 of my colleagues and I introduced the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act, legislation that would restore balance to our comprehensive antidrug strategy. My friend from Florida, Congressman Bill McCollum, is leading a similar effort in the House of Representatives. This legislation is a $2.6 billion effort--$2.6 billion over the next 3 years. This is an outline. It is a blueprint to really restore balance to our antidrug effort. Unfortunately, over the years, the effort that we are putting in in regard to interdiction has gone down significantly as a percentage of our total budget. And we need to restore that balance. This legislation is a $2.6 billion, 3-year investment to reduce the amount of drugs coming into this country and to drive up the cost of drug trafficking. Taken together, this strategy will drive up the price of drugs and, most importantly, then drive down the incidence of the use of drugs in our country. This is an important investment in the future of America and the future of our children. Today, one day later, after having introduced this bill, the Senate will, I hope, take the first step towards realizing that investment. I am pleased to have just sent to the desk an amendment offered along with Senator Coverdell, Senator Graham of Florida, Senator Bond, and Senator Grassley, an amendment that will provide much needed resources for the U.S. Coast Guard, resources that will increase their drug interdiction capability. Specifically, Mr. President, our amendment would accomplish two goals. One, it would increase the funds available for equipment devoted to drug interdiction by approximately $37.5 million. Second, the amendment would set aside resources needed to restore a much needed drug interdiction operation in the Caribbean. Mr. President, I see the distinguished chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee, Senator Shelby, on the floor. I would like to engage in a colloquy with him to go over the particulars of the bipartisan amendment that I have offered. First, I would like, before I do that, to discuss the $37.5 million secured for additional resources. Specifically, Mr. President, with respect to sea-based resources, our amendment would enable the Coast Guard to reactivate one T-AGOS vessel and acquire two additional T-AGOS vessels. These vessels, originally Navy submarine hunters, have proved to be quite valuable for counterdrug operations because they have the room needed for command and control equipment, such as sensors and communications equipment. In addition, the amendment also would enable the Coast Guard to acquire a maritime interdiction patrol boat and satellite communications equipment for patrol boats. With respect to Coast Guard air operations, our amendment would allow for the reactivation of three maritime control aircraft. These are jet aircraft that would be used by the Coast Guard to track and pursue drug traffickers. Finally, our amendment would allow for the acquisition of forward- looking infrared systems. This technology enables the Coast Guard to track heat signatures in the water. Why is this important? Well, drug traffickers, drug runners in the Caribbean, use what we call, and they call, ``go-fast'' boats, boats that are too fast for detection in tracking using conventional radar. The infrared systems can detect ``go-fast'' boats and thus allow for more effective aerial surveillance. Mr. SHELBY addressed the Chair.

Mr. DeWINE. I thank my friend from Alabama very much for his very kind words and for his leadership in assisting with this amendment. There is one additional component, Mr. President, of this amendment that I would like to discuss briefly this evening, and that is the set- aside that will enable the Coast Guard to restore a very effective drug interdiction program in the Caribbean. My interest in drug interdiction activities in the Caribbean stems, in part, from my interest in the island nation of Haiti. The hard reality is that the Caribbean--from Haiti to the Bahamas--is fast becoming once again a major illegal drug transit route. On one of my recent trips, Mr. President, I saw that, in particular, Haiti is becoming an attractive rest-stop on the cocaine highway. It is strategically located about halfway between the source country, Colombia, and the destination country, the United States. Haiti law enforcement, though slowly getting better, is, at this point, utterly unequipped, unprepared to put a dent in this drug trade. What is more, the Coast Guard fleet consists of a handful of boats. They are making progress. They have certainly a long way to go. As the poorest country in the hemisphere, Haiti 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 now through Haiti has dramatically increased. According to a U.S. Government interagency assessment on cocaine movement, in 1996 between 5 and 8 percent of the cocaine coming into the United States passed through Haiti. By the third quarter of 1997, the percentage jumped to 12 percent, and increased yet again to 19 percent by the end of that year. Accordingly, we responded to this crisis with an interdiction strategy called Operation Frontier Lance--Operation Frontier Lance-- which utilized Coast Guard cutters, speedboats, and helicopters, all to detect and capture drug dealers on a 24-hour-per-day basis. Incidentally, this operation was modeled after another successful interdiction effort that took place off the coast of Puerto Rico called Operation Frontier Shield. Mr. President, last May I boarded the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Dallas and observed Operation Frontier Lance and observed the men and women who are on the front line--and were on the front line--carrying out our antidrug operation. And I came away thinking that this is the kind of effort, the kind of coordination of resources, that we need not just off the coast of Haiti and the Dominican Republic but also throughout the drug trafficking routes throughout the entire Caribbean. Mr. President, unfortunately--unfortunately--funding for Frontier Lance ran out last month. This once effective roadblock on the cocaine highway is no more. With our amendment, we can get that operation and/ or similar operations in the region back up and running. Specifically, our amendment secures operations funding that will allow Operation Frontier Lance or similar operations to resume. And with the additional resources I described earlier, the Coast Guard has an even greater ability to flex its drug interdiction muscle in the entire region. Mr. President, I express my thanks again to the chairman and the ranking member of the Transportation Subcommittee, Senator Shelby and Senator Lautenberg, for their very effective efforts to assist me and the distinguished list of cosponsors of this amendment. I also send my thanks to the staff of the subcommittee for their effort. Their effort was great and it was first rate. This would not have happened without them. As I said at the beginning of my statement, Mr. President, this amendment today is a first step. I expect that there will be many more steps in the future, steps that are needed if we are going to restore a truly balanced, truly effective drug control strategy. This amendment represents a bipartisan effort to make a targeted and very specific investment, an investment in stopping drugs before-- before--they reach America. It will take similar efforts over the course of the next 3 years to bring our drug strategy back into balance and, most important, back on the course of reducing drug use in our homes, our schools, and our communities. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.

Mr. DeWINE. That is correct.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me thank both of my colleagues, the ranking member and the chairman, for their great cooperation. I understand my colleague has expressed his concerns about the money situation. I look forward to working with both Members in regard to that. I appreciate your concern for the Coast Guard. I believe this is money very well spent. I think the Coast Guard knows what to do with its money. They know how to get the job done. I have been out literally in the field or on the sea with them to see what they can do. They do a good job getting it done. I understand the concerns with regard to the money. I don't know if there is any further debate.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation proposing a new and comprehensive strategy to deal with one of the central challenges facing America's young people--the plague of illegal drugs. Recently, President Clinton and House Speaker Newt Gingrich unveiled the latest investment in our war against illegal drug use: a $2 billion-dollar advertising campaign to send our children a hard-hitting message about the life-destroying dangers of drugs. Anti-drug ad campaigns like this one are important. But we should remember that the creative minds on Madison Avenue are not our best or only weapon to get people off drugs. History has proven that a successful anti-drug strategy is balanced and comprehensive in three key areas: demand reduction (such as education and treatment); domestic law enforcement; and international supply reduction. Today, though, we are on the wrong side of history. Our overall drug strategy is neither balanced nor comprehensive. That's because Washington has not done its part. It has not carried out its sole responsibility--to reduce the illegal drug imports, either by working with foreign governments, or by seizing drugs or disrupting drug trafficking routes outside our borders. That is why, today, I rise to introduce this legislation. It is a bill that will fix our current drug strategy deficit. I, along with Senators Coverdell, Graham and 11 other Senators will introduce the ``Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act''--a bill to support enhanced drug interdiction efforts in the major transit countries, and support a comprehensive supply eradication and crop substitution program in source countries. Mr. President, this is a $2.6 billion authorization initiative over three years for enhanced international eradication, interdiction and crop substitution efforts. Let me mention a few highlights of what this bill would accomplish, very specifically. It would improve our aircraft, maritime and radar coverage of both drug-source and drug-transit countries. It would do this by (1) authorizing funds for construction, operation and maintenance of additional U.S. Customs/Defense aircraft, Coast Guard cutters and patrol vessels, and Customs/Coast Guard ``go-fast'' boats for drug interdiction efforts; (2) authorizing funds to establish an airbase to support counter-narcotics operations in the Southern Caribbean, Northern South America, and the Eastern Pacific; and (3) authorizing funds to the Department of Defense to restore, operate, and maintain critical radar coverage in these regions. It would enhance drug-eradication and interdiction efforts in source countries--by authorizing funds to the Departments of State and Defense to provide necessary resources, equipment, training and other assistance needed for the support of eradication and interdiction programs in Bolivia, Colombia, Peru and Mexico. It would enhance the development of alternative crops in drug-source countries, by authorizing funds to the United States Agency for International Development to support alternative development programs designed to encourage farmers to substitute for narcotic producing crops in Bolivia, Colombia, and Peru. It would support international law enforcement training--by (1) establishing three separate international law enforcement academies operated by the Department of Justice, to provide training assistance in Latin America, Asia, and Africa; (2) establishing a training center for maritime law enforcement instruction, including customs-related ports management; and (3) authorizing funds for the promotion of law enforcement training and support for Caribbean, Central American and South American countries. It would enhance law enforcement interdiction operations by authorizing funding to the Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Coast Guard, and Department of Defense for the support of counter-narcotics operations and equipment in drug transit and source countries. Mr. President, as you can see, this is a very targeted and specific investment. And it is necessary. The budget numbers tell an alarming-- undeniable--story: In 1987, the federal government's drug control budget of $4.79 billion was divided as follows: 29% for demand reduction programs; 38% for domestic law enforcement; and 33% for international supply reduction. This funding breakdown was the norm during the Reagan and Bush Administrations' war on drugs, from 1985-92. During that time, drug interdiction was serious business. President Bush even tasked the Defense Department to engage in the detection and monitoring of drugs in transit to the U.S. As a member of the House of Representatives at that time, I can recall very well the major commitment we made to reduce the amount of drugs going into the U.S. After President Clinton took office in 1993, his administration immediately pursued policies that upset the careful balance in drug funding. For example, in 1995, the federal drug control budget of $13.3 billion was divided as follows: 35% was allocated for demand reduction programs; 53% for domestic law enforcement, and 12% for international supply reduction. Think of it--only 12% of our drug control budget was dedicated to stop drugs from coming to our country--down from 33% in 1987. Though the overall drug budget increased threefold from 1987 to 1995, the piece of the drug budget pie allocated for international and interdiction efforts had decreased. Key components of our drug interdiction strategy were slashed. For example, Coast Guard funding for counter-narcotics fell 32% from 1992 to 1995. Not surprisingly, Coast Guard drug seizures dropped from 90,335 lbs in 1991 to 28,585 lbs in 1996. In addition, interdiction no longer remains a priority within the Department of Defense, which currently ranks counter narcotics dead last in importance in its Global Military Force Policy. What were the results of these two clearly different approaches? The Reagan-Bush approach achieved real success. From 1988 to 1991, total drug use was down 13 percent. Cocaine use dropped by 35 percent. Marijuana use was reduced by 16 percent. In contrast, under the Clinton approach, since 1992 overall drug use among teens aged 12 to 17 rose by 70 percent. Drug-abuse related arrests more than doubled for minors between 1992 and 1996. Since 1992, there has been an overall 80 percent increase in illicit drug use among graduating high school seniors. Further, in 1995 number of heroin related emergency room admissions jumped 58% since 1992. And in the first half of 1995, methamphetamine related emergency room admissions were 321% higher compared to the first half of 1991. The price of drugs also decreased during this time period. For instance, the price of a pure heroin gram in 1992 was $1,647--and in February 1996 it was only $966 per gram. These negative effects have sent shockwaves throughout our communities and our homes. The rise of drug use is not at all surprising. With the Clinton administration's decline in emphasis on drug interdiction, it has become easier to bring drugs into the U.S. This makes drugs more available and more affordable. The Office of National Drug Control Policy reported that small ``pieces'' or ``rocks'' of crack, which once sold for ten to twenty dollars, are now available for three to five dollars. No question, continued investments to deal with the ``demand side'' of the drug situation are necessary. We have to find ways to persuade Americans, particularly young people, that doing drugs is wrong--that it destroys lives, families, schools and communities. As long as there is a demand for drugs, education and treatment remain essential long- term components of our anti-drug efforts. Casual drug users also are influenced by price, which is why a balanced anti-drug strategy includes fighting drugs beyond our borders. The drug lords in South America are well aware that the U.S. is no longer pursuing a tough interdiction strategy. I have seen Coast Guard operations first hand, and while the Coast Guard and other agencies can detect and monitor drug trafficking operations, they usually stand by helpless because they lack necessary equipment to turn detection into seizures and arrests. Of the total drug air events in the Bahamas from April 1997 to April 1998, there was only an 8% success rate in stopping drug air flights that have been detected. That means over 92% got away. Without doubt, the drug lords can get a larger flow of drugs into the U.S. With additional resources, we can make it more difficult to import illegal narcotics, and drive up the cost for the drug cartels to engage in this illicit and immoral practice. Interdiction drives up the price--and drives down the purity--of cocaine on the street. Also, seizing or destroying a ton of cocaine outside our borders is more cost effective than trying to seize the same quantity of drugs at the point of sale. Mr. President, that is why I think that this bill is absolutely essential. The bill can get us back on the right track. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge Representative Bill McCollum's tireless efforts and dedication to this initiative. He has shown tremendous leadership on anti-drug efforts. Mr. President, it is time to reverse the current administration's policy and get right with history. It is time we returned to a comprehensive, balanced drug control strategy that will put us back on a course toward ridding our schools and communities of illegal and destructive drugs. The evidence clearly shows that with a balanced strategy, we were making great progress. We significantly reduced drug use. For the sake of our children, it is time for us to embrace the lessons of history, and stop trying to escape them.