Mike DeWine

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.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. That is satisfactory and I thank the distinguished Chairman for his willingness to work with me and the members of the Ohio Congressional Delegation as we work with the University to help them carry on this important work. lorain st. joseph's facility

Mr. DeWINE. I thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee for his comments. I would ask that the Chairman of the Subcommittee take a very close look at this project as he proceeds to conference with the House on the final version of this appropriations bill. Specifically, what I am seeking is consideration for support of funds to allow for the renovation of this facility.

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I would like to take this opportunity to extend my congratulations to Chairman Bond and Senator Mikulski and other members of the appropriations subcommittee on the FY 1999 appropriations bill. The committee has faced tough budget constraints this year and I would encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. I would also like to call to the Chairman's attention an important project in Ohio that I believe is deserving of funding under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, specifically, the Economic Development Initiative funding for various community development projects. A number were listed by the Committee in its report on the bill. I am very interested in a project that has been supported by both the local community and the State of Ohio--the rehabilitation of the Medical Science Building at the University of Cincinnati's Medical Center. This facility ranks among the top in the nation for biomedical research, research which benefits both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Veterans' Administration, as well as contributing to the local economy in excess of $2 billion. Would the Senator from Missouri agree that an initiative which will rehabilitate a facility dedicated to such research be a worthy candidate for funding under the Committee's EDI provision?

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I would like to draw the attention of the distinguished Chairman of the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Bond, to the allocation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for Economic Development Initiative projects. As the Chairman may recall, we had numerous discussions last year about my interest in preventing the permanent closure of the St. Joseph's Hospital complex located in the heart of Downtown Lorain. Thanks in large part to the assistance provided Lorain in the FY 1998 VA-HUD Appropriations Conference Report, we were able to forestall closure and have now developed a solid group of tenants who wish to occupy the complex.

Mr. DeWINE. I thank my colleague for his comments, and stand ready to provide him and the conferees with documentation validating the merits of this request.

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, while I will not detail every development at the St. Joseph's site which has occurred over the past twelve months, it is worth mentioning the highlights. Based on the expression of Congressional support, Community Health Partners agreed to transfer ownership of the facility to a community-based non-profit entity incorporated as South Shore Development Corporation. Community Health Partners has also agreed to provide 12 months of utilities and security for the facility while South Shore proceeds with its plans to convert the facility for non-hospital uses. Notwithstanding the need to attract additional funds to underwrite the conversion effort, the Veterans' Administration, the Lorain Public Schools system, the Lorain County Community College and the local Community Action Agency have all signed leases to implement community services from the 400,000 square foot facility. As the distinguished Chairman may recall, earlier this year I had expressed my support to him for a request for an additional $2,000,000 for the conversion effort. These funds would be utilized for the establishment of the Community College's distance learning center at the St. Joseph's facility. It is through this facility and the downlink site at the Community College that area residents would be provided access to the job training programs which would be offered by the Community College for veterans, the unemployed and others struggling to make the transition to the information technology marketplace. Inasmuch as the Committee was not able to accommodate my request in the bill reported from Committee, could my good friend the Chairman provide me with some insights on the prospects for funding when the House and Senate meet to resolve differences between their respective bills?

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I ask unanimous consent the Senate concur in the amendments of the House with an amendment, which is at the desk.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I move that the Senate concur in the amendments of the House with the amendment I have sent to the desk.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on the bill (S. 318) to require automatic cancellation and notice of cancellation rights with respect to private mortgage insurance which is required as a condition for entering into a residential mortgage transaction, to abolish the Thrift Depositor Protection Oversight Board, and for other purposes. The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 318) entitled ``An Act to require automatic cancellation and notice of cancellation rights with respect to private mortgage insurance which is required as a condition for entering into a residential mortgage transaction, to abolish the Thrift Depositor Protection Oversight Board, and for other purposes'', do pass with the following amendments: (1)Page 1, line 5, strike [1997] and insert: 1998 (2)Page 12, after line 16 insert the following: (4) Gao report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the Congress a report describing the volume and characteristics of residential mortgages and residential mortgage transactions that, pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection, are exempt from the application of subsections (a) and (b). The report shall-- (A) determine the number or volume of such mortgages and transactions compared to residential mortgages and residential mortgage transactions that are not classified as high-risk for purposes of paragraph (1); and (B) identify the characteristics of such mortgages and transactions that result in their classification (for purposes of paragraph (1)) as having high risks associated with the extension of the loan and describe such characteristics, including-- (i) the income levels and races of the mortgagors involved; (ii) the amount of the downpayments involved and the downpayments expressed as percentages of the acquisition costs of the properties involved; (iii) the types and locations of the properties involved; (iv) the mortgage principal amounts; and (v) any other characteristics of such mortgages and transactions that may contribute to their classification as high risk for purposes of paragraph (1), including whether such mortgages are purchase-money mortgages or refinancings and whether and to what extent such loans are low- documentation loans. (3)Page 24, strike lines 15 through 23 and insert: (2) Protection of existing state laws.-- (A) In general.--The provisions of this Act do not supersede protected State laws, except to the extent that the protected State laws are inconsistent with any provision of this Act, and then only to the extent of the inconsistency. (B) Inconsistencies.--A protected State law shall not be considered to be inconsistent with a provision of this Act if the protected State law-- (i) requires termination of private mortgage insurance or other mortgage guaranty insurance-- (I) at a date earlier than as provided in this Act; or (II) when a mortgage principal balance is achieved that is higher than as provided in this Act; or (ii) requires disclosure of information-- (I) that provides more information than the information required by this Act; or (II) more often or at a date earlier than is required by this Act. (C) Protected state laws.--For purposes of this paragraph, the term ``protected State law'' means a State law-- (i) regarding any requirements relating to private mortgage insurance in connection with residential mortgage transactions; (ii) that was enacted not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act; and (iii) that is the law of a State that had in effect, on or before January 2, 1998, any State law described in clause (i). (4)Page 27, line 21 before ``Nothing'' insert: (a) PMI Not Required.-- (5)Page 27, after line 23 insert the following: (b) No Preclusion of Cancellation or Termination Agreements.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to preclude cancellation or termination, by agreement between a mortgagor and the holder of the mortgage, of a requirement for private mortgage insurance in connection with a residential mortgage transaction before the cancellation or termination date established by this Act for the mortgage.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 10 a.m. on Thursday, July 16. I further ask that when the Senate reconvenes on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and the Senate then resume consideration of S. 2159, the agriculture appropriations bill.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, again, on behalf of Majority Leader Lott, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will reconvene tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. and immediately resume consideration of the agriculture appropriations bill. It is hoped that Members will come to the floor to offer and debate any remaining amendments to the agriculture appropriations bill so that the Senate can complete action on this legislation by early afternoon tomorrow. Following disposition of the agriculture appropriations bill, the Senate may resume consideration of the VA-HUD appropriations bill, or may begin the legislative branch appropriations bill. The Senate may also consider any other legislative or executive items cleared for action. Therefore, Senators should expect rollcall votes throughout the day and into the evening during Thursday's session.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I understand that S. 2316, introduced earlier today by Senator McConnell, is at the desk and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I now ask for its second reading, and I object to my own request.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise tonight to talk about health care, managed care, and the several proposals in Congress that attempt to address these issues. Mr. President, just this morning, the assistant Republican leader, Senator Nickles, and his Republican working group, unveiled an outline of a bill they are developing, a bill that they intend to shortly introduce. This is clearly an issue that affects all Americans. Back home in Ohio, I hear constantly from my constituents about the issues involving managed care and the new world of health care that we all live in. Mr. President, I recognize and share the concerns that many Americans have with the cost and the quality of health care and of managed care. As the father of eight children, I visited emergency rooms and I visited pediatricians' offices. I hear and I understand parents' concerns about all the new hurdles in health care. I understand the problems of parents struggling to try to get a doctor's appointment for their children, the difficulty in trying to get managed care plans to authorize care, and the concern that their children will not get needed care if that care is not authorized. Mr. President, these are problems shared by millions of American families. They are problems Congress must deal with. But as we look at this issue, and all the problems and concerns that go with them, we need to be careful. We need to be careful that we do not create solutions that are really worse than the problems. For example, as we look at regulating managed care, we have to be careful about the impact of proposed regulations on the availability of that care. Certainly I do not believe any of us wants to see fewer people being able to get health insurance as a result of our good intentions. That is why we need to be sure that whatever Congress does, we do not cause health care costs to significantly increase. We know that the only result of higher costs will be a health care system that many companies and individuals will simply not be able to afford, meaning more Americans will be denied quality health insurance. So where do things stand right now? Obviously, several health care proposals already have been introduced and talked about, such as the Patient Access to Responsible Care Act, or PARCA, and also the Democrat's Patients' Bill of Rights. Other options are being developed. I already mentioned the legislation being developed by my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Nickles, and a Republican working group. The House of Representatives is considering their own proposals as well. The bottom line is this: It is clear that Congress needs to consider managed care reform legislation. I am eager to work with my colleagues to make sure some crucial issues, particularly the issues that face America's children, are in fact addressed. Mr. President, while I would like to see specific language--after all, as we always say, the devil is always in the details--I believe that the legislation unveiled today by the Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Nickles, and the rest of the working group, represents a positive--a positive--start on the road to reform. I am particularly pleased that the bill includes a guarantee that children will have direct access to pediatricians. I have said it many, many times on this floor, but let me say it again this evening-- children are not just little adults. Their health care needs are unique. When a child goes to a doctor's office, that child needs to see someone who has been specifically trained to deal with the unique issues of pediatric care; that child needs to see a pediatrician. I am very pleased that my discussions with Republican task force members on pediatric issues has helped produce a provision in the working group bill that would guarantee our children will be, in fact, treated by pediatricians. Mr. President, there are several additional ways that we can further improve the quality of children's health care as a part of this overall managed care reform effort. I would like to talk about these additional ways right now. Specifically, Mr. President, I believe there are three key issues that would go a long way to addressing the health care needs of our children: No. 1, additional pediatric protections beyond what is already now in the bill. In addition to guaranteeing access to pediatricians, other basic protections for children should be addressed to help make sure that health plans are addressing specific pediatric needs. The most important of these is making sure that when a child faces a serious health problem that calls for specialty care, that that child has access to a health care provider with pediatric training or experience. This could mean that a child with a heart murmur would be guaranteed access to a pediatric cardiologist. It could also mean that a baby in need of intensive hospital care and monitoring has access to a children's hospital, a children's hospital to make sure that pediatrics-specific equipment and care is available for that baby. Mr. President, my wife Fran and I have personal experiences with our children and with children's hospitals. When your child--my child--has a serious medical problem, you want the best care, you want the best specialists. Many times, quite bluntly, that means going to a children's hospital. Specialists trained to treat adults often do not have the expertise that children need. That is not their specialty. I would hope that our efforts of managed care reform include making sure children have access to the necessary pediatric expertise, whether that be from the initial treating physician being a pediatrician, or whether it means ultimately going to a children's hospital. Mr. President, it is important that these basic protections are in place for children, because pediatric care is probably the part of managed care that we really know the least about. The truth is, we just don't know how well managed care takes care of our kids. The measures of quality and studies we have that evaluate managed care simply have not looked at children. In the absence of this evidence, I think that some basic protections for children are required, and they certainly make sense. I also don't believe the cost of these pediatric protections will amount to a great deal. As we all know, children comprise about 30 percent of our population, but a much smaller part of the cost of health care, a much smaller. I don't believe that making sure children can see pediatricians and pediatric specialists will have an increase on health care costs. In fact, it should have the opposite effect. It could and should reduce costs. This kind of access could cut down on unnecessary trips to doctors, emergency rooms, and work as a good avenue for preventive medicine. Preventive medicine is important for all of us, but nowhere is it as important as it is in dealing with our children. Let me say that again. As the father of eight, I think anyone who has had children knows that and understands that preventive care is the key. Let me move to the second point and the second suggestion, that is pediatric quality-related research. One important trend we have seen lately in our health care system is the effort to measure quality and improve the science of health care quality. The ability to measure this is vitally significant. But as with many parts of our health care system, not enough attention has focused on children. It is reported that only about 5 percent of this research is aimed at our kids. What is the result? We just haven't had the same type of advances and quality improvements for our children that we have seen for adults. I have introduced a bill that tries to fix this by focusing attention on pediatric quality-related research. Among other things, our bill includes dedicated funding to make up for the lack of health care outcomes and quality-related information for children. The legislation being developed by the Republican working group already includes a significant focus on health care quality research. My friend from Tennessee, Senator Bill Frist, has worked very hard on this part of the bill and he has done an excellent job. I believe we should build on that effort to focus specifically on children. I believe that would be an excellent and an important addition to managed care reform. Let me turn to the third item. The third area where I believe we can improve this bill, the third item with which I think this Congress must deal, the other improvement I would like to see considered, is language to strengthen the services provided by our Nation's poison control centers. Other than preventive care, much of the health care our children receive is based on emergencies, occurs when emergencies happen. One of the more common emergencies in children, of course, is poison. Each year more than 2 million poisonings are reported--2 million--over half of which occur in children younger than 6 years of age. While our Nation's poison control centers do a very good job, a very good job responding to these crises, they do face funding problems. Many of these centers have been financed through unstable arrangements from a variety of public and private sources. Funding difficulties are the primary reason that about half of our poison control centers are not certified, meaning that they may not be operating at all times or that fully qualified experts may not be available around the clock. I have written legislation that would deal with this problem by providing Federal supplemental assistance to poison control centers. In addition, the bill that I have sponsored, and is cosponsored by Senator Abraham, would create a single, simple, toll-free number so parents will always know who to call in the event of a poisoning emergency, so that they always know what number they can call. These measures not only would improve the quality of health care services available for children's health, they would be lifesavers as well. We have before the Senate a very important debate dealing with the quality and availability of health care. As always, when we talk about health care, we need to be sure we are meeting the needs of children as well as adults. So, as we begin the debate and consider the legislation, we have a great opportunity, a great opportunity to take action that improves the lives of our young people. This Congress already has enacted a number of important pieces of legislation that will save lives, that will save young lives. Last year, for example, we passed important bipartisan legislation to improve the quality and the availability of health care for low-income children. We also passed bipartisan legislation to reform our foster care system, vitally important legislation to reform our foster care system that will save lives and is saving lives. This Congress clearly has taken the opportunity to improve the lives of our children. I am hopeful we will take advantage of this opportunity that we face this week and next week, the opportunity that is before us, to find the solution that best provides for health care quality for our children and for all Americans.

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the legislation offered by our distinguished friend from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, to ensure that the Energy Department has the resources to address an important public health issue and is not saddled with a massive unfunded mandate in the wake of the privatization of the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC). This privatization will entail the purchase of nuclear material from the Russians--material which it is clearly in our national security interest to have removed from the international market. There is currently a fund within USEC which deals with the ``disposition of depleted uranium hexafluoride''--and this fund contains an estimated $400 million. If no changes are made, this money will go to the U.S. Treasury when the Initial Public Offering occurs, possibly as soon as next week. This fund was created explicitly to handle the disposition of this kind of material. But if the law isn't changed, the Department of Energy (DOE) would have to find new funding sources in order to treat the material--and it may not be able to come up with the money. This would be a vary undesirable result. The material under discussion is highly toxic--and disposing of it is and should remain an important national security priority. That $400 million is needed to stabilize this material, and to process it so that parts of it can be recycled and other parts can be safely secured. This bill would provide that, ``the Secretary of Energy shall prepare, and the President shall include in the budget request for fiscal 2000, a plan and proposed legislation to ensure that all amounts accrued on the books of the United States Enrichment Corporation for the disposition of depleted uranium hexafluoride will be used to commence construction of, not later than January 31, 2004, and to operate, an onsite facility at each of the gaseous diffusion plants at Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio, to treat and recycle depleted uranium hexafluoride.'' The bill will address this key challenge. And it will also prevent a major economic dislocation in two communities--Portsmouth, OH (whose USEC plant has 2,400 employees) and Paducah, KY (whose USEC plant has 2,000 employees). This bill will support new decontamination and decommissioning jobs at these plants, which may experience limited job loss through the privatization. It is an important investment in these two communities--and in a sensible toxic-materials disposal policy for America. I thank Senator McConnell for his leadership on this legislation, and I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this effort.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the legislation offered by our distinguished friend from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, to ensure that the Energy Department has the resources to address an important public health issue and is not saddled with a massive unfunded mandate in the wake of the privatization of the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC). This privatization will entail the purchase of nuclear material from the Russians--material which it is clearly in our national security interest to have removed from the international market. There is currently a fund within USEC which deals with the ``disposition of depleted uranium hexafluoride''--and this fund contains an estimated $400 million. If no changes are made, this money will go to the U.S. Treasury when the Initial Public Offering occurs, possibly as soon as next week. This fund was created explicitly to handle the disposition of this kind of material. But if the law isn't changed, the Department of Energy (DOE) would have to find new funding sources in order to treat the material--and it may not be able to come up with the money. This would be a vary undesirable result. The material under discussion is highly toxic--and disposing of it is and should remain an important national security priority. That $400 million is needed to stabilize this material, and to process it so that parts of it can be recycled and other parts can be safely secured. This bill would provide that, ``the Secretary of Energy shall prepare, and the President shall include in the budget request for fiscal 2000, a plan and proposed legislation to ensure that all amounts accrued on the books of the United States Enrichment Corporation for the disposition of depleted uranium hexafluoride will be used to commence construction of, not later than January 31, 2004, and to operate, an onsite facility at each of the gaseous diffusion plants at Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio, to treat and recycle depleted uranium hexafluoride.'' The bill will address this key challenge. And it will also prevent a major economic dislocation in two communities--Portsmouth, OH (whose USEC plant has 2,400 employees) and Paducah, KY (whose USEC plant has 2,000 employees). This bill will support new decontamination and decommissioning jobs at these plants, which may experience limited job loss through the privatization. It is an important investment in these two communities--and in a sensible toxic-materials disposal policy for America. I thank Senator McConnell for his leadership on this legislation, and I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this effort.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to compliment my colleagues for the unanimous passage of the Crime Victims with Disabilities Awareness Act of 1998. When I introduced this legislation, S. 1976, I wanted to increase public awareness of the plight of crime victims with disabilities--by developing a research and statistical basis from which to understand the nature and extent of crimes against people with developmental disabilities. Gauging from the favorable response of my colleagues, the press, and people in the disability community itself, public awareness of the crime victims with developmental disabilities has increased by the very introduction of this legislation. But we recognize that this is only the tip of the iceberg--the larger problem is crimes against people with many other kinds of disabilities as well. Passage of this legislation comes not a moment too soon. It is time that we began a new, hopeful chapter in the lives of the many disabled individuals who live quietly in fear of crime and violence. There are too many victims who cannot communicate what has happened to them--who find it more difficult than most crime victims to seek comfort, counseling, reassurance, and protection. These victims must relive the violence for the rest of their lives. Today, as a governing body, the United States Senate has spoken collectively on this increasing challenge. We know that for a number of reasons, more people are being born developmentally disabled. Among the factors are poor prenatal nutrition, increases in child abuse, and substance abuse issues, including fetal alcohol syndrome. It is my hope that the Department of Justice will engage the Committee on Law and Justice of the National Research Council to produce seminal, multi-disciplinary research that will encourage further academic research in this area, and develop useful new strategies to reduce the incidence of crimes against the disabled. America should not have to rely upon foreign countries to infer research and statistics about our own citizens. Passage of this legislation is an important recognition of the severity of the impact crime has on these people's lives. It is an attempt to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. We will not let the disabled suffer alone and in silence any longer. As a country we must understand them, learn to communicate with them, and reassure them. This is a very important step forward for American society. I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleague from Maryland, Senator Sarbanes, Senator Moynihan, Senator Murray, and Senator Johnson, to introduce the ``Africa: Seeds of Hope Act''-- legislation to promote small-scale agricultural and rural development in Africa. The bill also would recognize the important benefits such overseas agriculture advances could hold for our own farmers here in the United States. Mr. President, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization, around 215 million people are undernourished in sub-Saharan Africa. This number is expected to increase dramatically in the next century. Similarly, the number of Africans who are unable to produce the provisions they need to lead healthy, productive lives is rising. Food is the most basic necessity of life. Yet, millions of Africans lead lives of needless suffering because they don't have the skills and tools necessary to provide for themselves and others. As a result, many African countries are dependent on the outside world for humanitarian assistance and basic nutrition. Africa's food imports are projected to rise from less than 8,000,000 metric tons in 1990 to more than 25,000,000 metric tons by the year 2020. Mr. President, I believe that the most effective way to improve conditions for Africa's poor is to increase the productivity of their agricultural sector. Whenever I travel to developing countries, I try to spend time looking at the countries' agriculture. I have seen firsthand that rural areas can succeed through innovative agricultural development. It does in fact work. Mr. President, about 70 percent of Africa's poor lives in rural areas. That's where the major problem is, and that's where this bill can make a difference. This legislation has an important link with another bipartisan trade bill--the African Trade Growth and Opportunities Act, which I cosponsored and hope the Senate will pass sometime in the near future. That legislation is also an important step in aiding a continent in need of strong economic leadership. Before we can have effective trade, however, there needs to be a reciprocal market--a springboard from which we can foster substantive trade relations. This is why this bill we are introducing today is so critical to American interests in that region. Mr. President, let me outline a few highlights of this bill: First, it would encourage Federal agencies and international organizations to make rural development issues a priority--by teaching effective farming methods to small-scale sub-Saharan African farmers and entrepreneurs; Second, it would provide African small farmers and entrepreneurs with improved access to credit and other resources necessary to stimulate production and micro-enterprise; Third, it would mobilize new investments in African agriculture and rural development through the US Overseas Private Investment Corporation; and Fourth, it would facilitate the coordination of national and international agricultural research and extension efforts aimed at developing the skills of African researchers, extension agents, farmers, and agribusiness people--in fact, the bill would allow American universities to play a pivotal role in this effort. Mr. President, African nations are in dire need of agricultural development. This bill can help them gain the knowledge they need to succeed. At the same time, as a Senator from a State with a rich agricultural tradition, I believe we must be sensitive to the needs of our own American farmers. I believe the United States and our farmers could benefit from the passage of the bill. This bill could open new export opportunities for American farmers, especially those who produce value-added goods. As the economies in sub-Saharan Africa develop, the overall standard of living will increase. In turn, the people of Africa will be in a better position to purchase a variety of goods, including American agricultural commodities and equipment. This is where our export markets can flourish. Another significant point to consider is that food stability is a critical factor in preventing civil strife within nations. Our investment in international agriculture and rural development will help reduce demands for U.S. disaster and famine relief. Also, the most rapidly increasing markets for U.S. products are in developing countries. Hence, helping these economies grow through their agricultural sector will in the end help our own economy. Mr. President, international agricultural development assistance has decreased over time. In fact, in the past decade alone, U.S. AID money for this program has dropped by 70 percent. We should re-focus our efforts in this important program and this bill will do that. I want to commend my House colleagues, Doug Bereuter and Lee Hamilton, for their work on the companion bill, H.R. 3636. Through their vision and leadership, they are building bipartisan support for this initiative as well. Mr. President, this legislation has the ability to make a real difference in the lives of millions of people. Doing so serves our humanitarian and economic interests. This bill would help these countries make important progress in meeting basic human needs. I encourage and urge my colleagues to support this important and timely measure.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Continued Dumping or Subsidy Offset bill. I am pleased that Senators Hollings, Ford, Dodd, Byrd, and Rockefeller have joined me as original cosponsors of this legislation. My friend and colleague from Ohio, Congressman Ralph Regula already has introduced similar legislation in the House. This bill represents a strong step towards creating a more level playing field for domestic producers. It strengthens the Tariff Act of 1930, which currently imposes duties and fines for dumping and subsidization. This new bill takes the 1930 Act a step further, by transferring the duties and fines to injured U.S. companies to compensate for damages. This approach is designed to discourage foreign companies from dumping and subsidization, since it would actually assist U.S. competitors at their expense. In order to counter the adverse effects of foreign dumping and subsidization on U.S. industries, the Senate should pass this bill. Current law has simply not been strong enough to stop harmful trading practices. It is an unfortunate truth that foreign producers have continued to engage in dumping to increase or maintain unfair market shares. This dumping occurs in the face of existing U.S. trade laws and international agreements within the WTO. Specifically, the problem with the law is that foreign producers are willing to pay current U.S. antidumping and countervailing duties out of the profits of dumping. In other words, there is no real disincentive to stop dumping. It's still good business for foreign companies. Furthermore, since some foreign producers receive continued subsidization, this enables them to maintain market share that unsubsidized prices would not sustain. As a result, U.S. companies are continually injured by the actions of these foreign producers. The law also does not contain a mechanism to help injured U.S. industries recover from the harmful effects of foreign dumping and subsidization. The foreign practices have reduced the ability of our injured domestic industries to reinvest in plan, equipment, people, R&D, technology or to maintain or restore health care and pension benefits. The end result is this: continued dumping or subsidization jeopardizes renewed investment and prevents additional reinvestment from being made. Unless we act, domestic firms will face continued price depression. This is an unfair and unacceptable trading practice by foreign firms. Under current law, any fines and duties imposed on foreign traders for illegal dumping practices go directly into U.S. Treasury coffers. It is important to note that U.S. trade laws are not intended to raise revenue for the Treasury. Rather, such laws are intended to see that U.S. companies face conditions of fair trade in the market. The bill I am introducing today would further that good by helping create a more level playing field and two ways mentioned earlier: First, the legislation would award duties and fines to injured domestic companies, and provide businesses relief from adverse effects of foreign dumping and subsidization. Second, this transfer of funds from foreign companies to their U.S. competitors may provide the disincentive to dump, which is a fundamental problem with current law. This would reduce the economic benefits of dumping and subsidizing. Many companies and workers are currently not being given the level playing field intended by our trade laws and international trade agreements. The Continued Dumping or Subsidy Offset bill is the first strong step to correct his real problem by assisting domestic companies and further discouraging unfair trading practices by foreign traders.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me first join my colleagues, Senator Lugar and Senator Gramm, in support of the African Trade Group and Opportunities Act, and the reasons they have stated this is the right thing to do. It is in our national self-interest. It will do a lot of good. (The remarks of Mr. DeWine pertaining to the introduction of S. 2283 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, how much time remains on this side?

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a member of my staff, Jason Small, be granted floor privileges for the day.