Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Underground Railroad Educational and Cultural Act. This legislation will provide for the establishment of programs to research, display, interpret, and collect artifacts relating to the history of the Underground Railroad. Let me tell you how important the Underground Railroad is to Ohio-- and to me personally. In the 20 years prior to the Civil War, more than 40,000 slaves escaped bondage and made their way to free soil on the trails of the Underground Railroad. More than 150 key Underground Railroad sites have been identified in Ohio--sites that symbolized freedom for thousands of enslaved Americans. When I visit these places, it gives me some real cause for hope about the future of America. When we talk about race relations in this country, we would do well to remind ourselves that at one of the darkest times in our nation's history--the period of slavery--some blacks and whites took immense personal risks to work together to liberate slaves. That is the part of the American story that we should be proud of-- and build on. In Ohio, we are very proud of the part our ancestors played in this great story--and why I think this legislation is so important. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation. It is very important to recognize this period in our history. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Underground Railroad Educational and Cultural Act. This legislation will provide for the establishment of programs to research, display, interpret, and collect artifacts relating to the history of the Underground Railroad. Let me tell you how important the Underground Railroad is to Ohio-- and to me personally. In the 20 years prior to the Civil War, more than 40,000 slaves escaped bondage and made their way to free soil on the trails of the Underground Railroad. More than 150 key Underground Railroad sites have been identified in Ohio--sites that symbolized freedom for thousands of enslaved Americans. When I visit these places, it gives me some real cause for hope about the future of America. When we talk about race relations in this country, we would do well to remind ourselves that at one of the darkest times in our nation's history--the period of slavery--some blacks and whites took immense personal risks to work together to liberate slaves. That is the part of the American story that we should be proud of-- and build on. In Ohio, we are very proud of the part our ancestors played in this great story--and why I think this legislation is so important. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation. It is very important to recognize this period in our history. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me briefly state that the amendment offered by myself and Senator Collins fixes parts of the problem. It does not fix all of the problem. If we do not deal with the entire problem, this is something that every Member of the Senate is going to hear about. It is going to come back and you are going to hear about it from every college and university in your State. We need to fix the overall problem. I appreciate Chairman Roth's willingness to work with us on this. I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I want to take a minute to speak on behalf of an amendment that Senator Collins and I have introduced to H.R. 2676, the IRS Reform bill. Our amendment is common-sense legislation that will repeal certain reporting requirements placed upon colleges and universities under Section 6050 S of the Internal Revenue Code. Here is the problem: Current law relating to the Hope Scholarship and the Lifetime Learning tax credit requires all colleges and universities to comply with burdensome and costly regulations. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 contained a provision requiring colleges, universities and trade schools to begin issuing annual reports to students and the Internal Revenue Service detailing the students' tuition payments in case they apply for the new education tax credits. Preliminary analysis shows the reporting requirements will cost the 6,000 colleges in America more than $125 million to implement, and tens of millions of dollars annually to maintain. In realistic terms, if the new reporting requirement is not lifted off the backs of colleges and universities, those schools will be forced to raise tuition costs to cover the unfunded mandate. In effect, students and families will not benefit from the passage of the Hope Scholarship--because the money received from the tax credit will have to be used to pay the higher tuition. Mr. President, our amendment is simple, fair legislation that will greatly benefit any persons who want to obtain an education. In fact, similar legislation has already been introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Donald Manzullo (R-IL). The House bill is supported by a bipartisan coalition comprised of 89 Members of the House. Senator Collins and I originally wanted to introduce the entire text of our legislation, S. 1724, as an amendment to the IRS Reform bill. Under current regulations, schools are required to report information to the IRS on 100 percent of their students, even though only a minority of students are expected to be eligible for the tax credit. S. 1724 would repeal this requirement. S. 1724 has been endorsed by the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, the American Association of Community Colleges, the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, the American Council on Education, and a bi-partisan group of 19 Senators. However, because of concerns which have been raised, we have modified our amendment. While this amendment does eliminate a regulatory burden placed on universities, it is only one part of what we want to accomplish. I want to assure everyone that is concerned about the increasing costs of higher education, that we will continue to fight to eliminate unnecessary costs. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support our amendment. It is common-sense, effective legislation. I also want to thank Senator Roth for his leadership on this issue and I appreciate his work with us on this amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters from Cuyahoga Community College, Columbus State, North Central Technical College, Shawnee State University, Cleveland State University, Bowling Green State University, Belmont Technical College, and the Ohio Association of Community Colleges in support of our legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I thank the Chair. Let me again thank the chairman of the committee, Senator Jeffords, for the great work he has done on this bill, as well as Senator Wellstone and Senator Kennedy. I also thank the staff who worked on this bill. They spent a tremendous amount of time. It was a great effort. Mr. President, the Workforce Investment Partnership Act represents our commitment to the American people to recreate. Through State and especially local partnerships with business and industry, the nation's job training system will be able to identify the jobs that exist and the skills needed to fill them. Through consolidation and reform we establish a truly comprehensive workforce development system that brings together nearly 70 categorical programs and redefines the federal Job Corps program. By adding The Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998, we reauthorize the Rehabilitation Act, link the vocational rehabilitation system to States' workforce development systems and increase and simplify access for individuals with disabilities to job training services. Mr. President, this legislation is a milestone, and will no doubt prove to be one of our country's economy's greatest assets. In closing, Mr. President, I would particularly like to thank my colleagues Senators Jeffords, Kennedy, Wellstone, Frist, Collins, Harkin, and Dodd as well as the individual members of their staffs who have worked many long hours to make this bill possible: Patricia Morrissey, Sherry Kaiman, Jeff Teitz, Connie Garner, Brian Alhberg, Dave Larsen, Katie Braden, Julian Haynes, Sharon Masling, Jim Fenton, Jenny Saunders, Chas Phillips, Rick Murphy, Robin Bowen, Chad Calvert, Angie Stewart, a special thanks to Ann Lordeman and Rick Apling, from the Congressional Research Service and Liz Aldrige and Mark Sigurski, and finally my own staff--Dwayne Sattler, Aaron Grau, and Yolanda Rogers for their tireless efforts. I am confident that this bill will provide needed change and opportunities for the millions of Americans, both employers and job seekers, who need this improved job training system to help make our country more prosperous and more prepared for the next century. And I look forward to working with my friends in the House of Representatives in conference.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Jeffords for the work he has done on this bill. It is a real bipartisan bill, as we have pointed out many times on this floor; Senator Wellstone, Senator Kennedy, Senator Jeffords, myself. It is a bill that will truly change the status quo, a bill that will really make a difference. We will be voting on this bill in about half an hour. This legislation, S. 1186, will fundamentally reform our Nation's currently fragmented, duplicative and many times ineffective job training programs. I believe this bill will transform them into a coordinated, accountable, and flexible workforce investment system. Before the Senate votes, I want to spend a few minutes discussing the reasons why the Workforce Investment Partnership Act does enjoy such bipartisan support. One of the most historic, if not the most historic accomplishments of the 105th Congress was the legislation that revolutionized the American welfare system. In passing a bill to end welfare as we knew it, we were empowering the States and local communities to seek a better way to make work, not welfare, the way of life for millions of disadvantaged Americans. The bill we are considering this evening, S. 1186, is a very important extension of that basic welfare reform, continuing the devolution of Federal power to where it rightfully belongs--States, localities--and most importantly, the individuals who are voluntarily seeking training assistance. This bill, S. 1186, recognizes the leadership of States and localities which have show innovation and initiative over the last few years, even in the midst of many times onerous Federal barriers and obstacles. By eradicating outdated rules and regulations, we can remove the barriers that have stymied people in the past. We can empower States and local communities by giving them the tools, the tools and the flexibility that they need to implement real reform, reform that will allow them to provide truly comprehensive training services. This bill, S. 1186, also promotes free market competition. The Workforce Investment Partnership Act establishes an effective and accountable workforce development system, ensuring that training leads to meaningful, long-term employment. Under this bill, training services will be held accountable to high standards. This means they will have to prove training leads ultimately to meaningful, unsubsidized employment, showing how many people were placed, at what cost, and how many people remained employed 6 months, a year or 18 months later. That is true accountability. That is the true measure of whether job training works or does not work. Does the person have a job 6 months or 12 months later, and what kind of a job is it. S. 1186 also has bipartisan support because it eliminates government bureaucracy and promotes personal responsibility. The Workforce Investment Partnership Act would provide training assistance through individual training accounts or vouchers in order to allow the individual seeking assistance to have a say themselves about where, how and what training they will receive. These programs should be tailored to individual needs, not to Washington bureaucrats and what Washington bureaucrats think is best. This bill provides program coordination and simplification. The Workforce Investment Partnership Act incorporates nearly 70 categorical programs, eliminating numerous Federal requirements and mandatory set- asides. This bill authorizes and expands a modified work-flex program which allows States to approve requests for waivers of Federal statutory and regulatory requirements submitted by their local communities. The bill provides States with the option to submit a unified plan or a single-State plan for the numerous programs incorporated into the legislation. Further, this bill removes income eligibility requirements. States will be allowed to provide all adults who voluntarily seek assistance the comprehensive services available through the one-stop customer service system--services such as job search, placement assistance, skill assessment, and case management. Just like welfare reform, job training reform depends on participation of the business community, the local business community. This bill not only allows for business community involvement, but business community leadership, as well. The private sector must outline its employment needs and assist in the design of training programs so that individuals that receive training assistance obtain long-term, meaningful employment. To summarize, job training reform is needed. It is needed because we can no longer afford the Washington-knows-best attitude that created the current maze of training and related programs. With a few notable exceptions, the evidence on the one-size-fits-all approach reveals far more failures than successes. However, because of Congress' inability to enact reform in the past, States and localities have begun the task of creating their own comprehensive systems which meet the unique needs of their States and local communities. Frankly, they have been frustrated. They have been frustrated by the Federal laws and regulations which prevent them from developing more responsive and more effective workforce investment systems. This bill, the Workforce Investment Partnership act, is designed to reform the Federal Government's role in providing job training assistance to Americans. For too long, that role has been to foster confusion, frustration, and complication. With this bipartisan bill, we offer a new foundation and a positive framework for success. Instead of rules that tie the hands of States and localities, this bill provides the tools, the tools to empower them to develop comprehensive work force investment systems that address the needs of job seekers and employers alike. This morning's Cleveland Plain Dealer, in an editorial, I think, gets it exactly right. ``A Bill That Works. Consolidation could produce job- training programs that do their own jobs better.'' ``A Bill That Works.'' This bill is a road map, a road map to a better system. If we are to achieve the goals we have set--stronger economy, a better trained workforce, true and meaningful welfare reform--we need to begin that journey today. I want to thank all my colleagues who have worked so hard to pass this important bill. I also want to thank all the concerned individuals and groups who have offered their support, including the National Alliance of Business, City of New York, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Council of Chief State School Officers, Society for Human Resource Management, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Cleveland Growth Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Association of Private Industry Councils, the National Association of Counties, the American Vocational Association and the National Association of State Directors of Vocational Education Consortium. All of these groups have worked to put this bill together. We have a comprehensive bill that brings about the reform that we all need. In summary, we will be voting in a little over 20 minutes on a bill that will fundamentally reform job training in this country. This reform is long overdue. It is a reform that will bring about more accountability. We will be able to measure success and failure better. It is a bill that will give more authority to the local communities. It will be a bill that will empower the recipients to have more choices in regard to the job training that fits their needs. And it will work. It will work because we are incorporating, as never before, the local business community--not just in the implementation of the plan, but rather in the design of the plan. The one thing that we have seen as we have held hearings across this country, time and time and time again, is how important it is to include the local business community because, ultimately, they are the consumers, along with the people who need the jobs and the people who need the job training. They are all the consumers. It doesn't do any good to design a job training program and train someone for a job and that job does not exist in the local community. That is why the enclosure and inclusion of the business community, making them a part of this process from the very beginning, is such an essential part of this bill. Let me again thank Chairman Jeffords for his work on the bill, along with Senator Kennedy, Senator Wellstone, and the other members of the committee. This bill was passed out of our committee by a unanimous vote. Several of my colleagues have already noted on the floor that this is a committee that has a very wide divergence of points of view. This committee has many members that have opinions that many times do not always agree. But the fact that we were able to pass this bill unanimously out of the committee, I think, shows its bipartisan support and also shows that the status quo was not acceptable, and this bill makes a significant change and improvement in that status quo. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Georgia for holding this session where we have a chance to talk about the problems connected with the IRS. He has been a true leader in this issue. This is a matter of great importance and interest to the taxpayers across this country. Mr. President, it is becoming clearer every day that we simply have to reform the IRS. The facts of IRS abuse are, by now, well known. As the hearings continue, we get more information every single day. The essential facts are very disturbing. In 1996, the IRS answered only 20 percent of its phone calls. An IRS report released in January of this year showed that one out of every four IRS revenue officers and supervisors felt pressured to achieve enforcement goals. Tax collection statistics were used to evaluate the performance of employees--and the district offices were ranked on how much taxes they collected--collected from us. In 1993, the IRS gave incorrect information to taxpayers a stunning 8.5 million times. In 1987, the GAO said that 47% of the calls to the IRS resulted in incorrect information. A recent survey actually found that one out of two Americans would rather be mugged than audited. maureen schaeffer I recently held a hearing in Toledo on the issue of IRS reform and tax reform. One of the witnesses was Maureen Schaeffer, from Lakewood, Ohio. Maureen told us she was married for twenty years to an abusive, alcoholic husband. He was the sole wage earner and handled all of their tax matters, and she signed all of their joint tax returns. She worked in the home, raising their seven children and caring for his invalid mother. After twenty years of marriage, Maureen realized the negative impact that he was having on their children--so she filed for divorce. At the time of the divorce, Maureen knew that her ex-husband was being audited by the IRS, and in the settlement agreement reached between them the ex-husband assumed responsibility for all back taxes. In the summer of 1996, the ex-husband filed for bankruptcy. His only creditors were his ex-wife--Maureen--and the IRS. Shortly after the filing of the bankruptcy, Maureen was notified by the IRS that she owed $150,000 to the IRS. One week later, the IRS gave her another notice--this time to inform her that she owed an additional $100,000. She contacted the IRS's taxpayer advocate's office in the Northern District of Ohio. She was told that they would contact her after they looked into her case. When she did not hear back from them, she called back, only to be told that they were not allowed to work on her case. In February 1997, the IRS seized the funds in Maureen's Individual Retirement Account. Seizing this money would settle the back taxes and penalties owed--but it would also create an additional tax liability for Maureen--because she will now owe taxes on the early, although forced, withdrawal of her IRA funds. Last year, Maureen attended the Problem Resolution day in Cleveland, sponsored by the IRS. Problem Resolution Day was an effort on the part of the IRS to be more taxpayer-friendly--an opportunity for taxpayers to discuss their problems with IRS employees who had the power to take care of the problems. But when she asked the IRS, ``Why did you let my ex-husband get away with this for all of these years?'' the IRS representative responded that ``you are easier to get money from.'' Mr. President, that response by the IRS reflects an attitude we need to change. We need an IRS that shares the values held by hard-working tax-paying Americans. And that's what the bill developed by the Chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Bill Roth, would accomplish. If Congress passes Chairman Roth's bill, future spouses would not have to face the kind of nightmare experience Maureen Schaeffer had to deal with. The bill provides for proportionate liability for spouses. Innocent spouses could choose to avoid joint and several liability--and be liable only for tax attributable to their own income. The bill also includes a provision to waive the 10% addition to tax for early withdrawal from an IRA or other qualified plan when it is used to address tax liability. james sulewski At our hearing in Toledo, we also heard the testimony of James Sulewski. Mr. Sulewski is a former IRS criminal investigator who is now a tax attorney in private practice--and he is a man with tremendous insight into the workings of the IRS. He was particularly concerned with some of the criteria on which IRS employees are evaluated. One of the criteria is how long a particular case is in their hands. In his opinion, this causes many employees to develop what he called a ``hot potato response.'' In this case, the employee gathers the minimal amount of information necessary to move the case off of his or her desk. As a result, cases are often passed on three to five times before they are resolved, when--in many cases--they could have been resolved by the first employee to see the file. This is a major problem, because when these cases are not resolved at an early stage, they end up going to Tax Court. In Mr. Sulewski's practice, he has had approximately 100 cases that have gone to Tax Court, yet only one case has gone to trial. Clearly, these are--very often--matters that do not need to go to Tax Court. Fifty percent of the cases going to Tax Court could have been settled beforehand--if employees did not have this pressure to move the file off of their desk. Joseph welton Now let me describe the testimony of Joseph Welton. He and his wife filed their taxes on time for tax year 1995. Two months aftr filing, the Weltons received a refund check in the amount of $1,943.00 and a letter from the IRS stating that they had overpaid their taxes. Mr. Welton was surprised to receive the refund so he called the IRS to check on it. The IRS employee told him that they were in fact, due a refund, so the Weltons cashed the check and spent the money. Several months later they received a letter from the IRS stating that the refund was erroneous and that they needed to repay the money within 30 days. The Weltons entered an installment agreement with the IRS and they are now repaying the IRS at a rate of $55 As of July 1997 they have paid the IRS $330.00. Of that amount, $79.33 was applied for penalty, $124.17 was applied to interest and $126.50 was applied to principal. Mr. Welton, understandably, objects to the penalty that he is charged every month. Let me note, Mr. President, that his complaint has been addressed in Chairman Roth's legislation. Specifically, there is a provision in the bill that would eliminate the failure to pay penalty while the taxpayer is in an installment agreement. tax reform Mr. President, my hearing in Toledo focused not just on reforming the way the IRS does business, but on fundamental reform of the tax code itself. Let me say that as I travel my home State of Ohio--I am sure my colleague from Georgia has the same experience in Georgia--there is a tremendous amount of interest in meaningful and true and legitimate, fundamental Tax Code reform. I was pleased to hear from a number of Ohioans who offered their views on how to make the tax code simpler, and less burdensome on families. We heard from Terry McClure, a thirty-five year old farmer from Paulding County, Ohio. With his father, he operates a 2,500 acre farm raising soybeans, corn and wheat. The farm has been in his family for five generations. Terry and his family are understandably concerned with the difficulty of passing the farm on to future generations without losing large parts of it to the estate tax. They, like so many family farmers, would like to pass the farmland on to their children and their grandchildren. However, because the farm acreage is their largest asset, the effect of the estate tax will be devastating. We also heard the testimony of Robert Koerner, the former president and general manager of Koerner Farms--a 300-cow dairy farm in Williams County. Robert Koerner and his brother owned the farming operations jointly, until his brother's family wanted to sell their half of the business. Most of the land had been held for a long time, so there were appreciable capital gains on the property. As a result of the tax consequences of the sale, Mr. Koerner was unable to purchase the half of the business being sold by his brother. Mr. Koerner testified that his family would still be in the farming business if not for the tax code. This is nothing less than a tragic situation--one that will only be repeated unless we in Congress take further steps to reform inheritance taxes. Edd Auld is the Vice President and General Manager of ROCO Courier & Delivery, Inc. in Toledo. He testified that the tax code is so complicated and time-consuming that he finds he is unable to comply with it on his own. As a result, he is required to hire an outside accountant each year so that the business can be in compliance. The amount that he has spent on accounting firms over the years would have paid for an additional two delivery trucks that would generate an additional $75,000 to $100,000 in income each year--which would have created new jobs and additional tax revenue for the government, new jobs for Ohio and for our country would have been created. The Reform Bill Mr. President, I found our Toledo hearing both valuable and informative. The witnesses told us what it's like for hard-working, tax-paying families to live with the IRS and under today's tax code. They want change, and we owe it to them to get the process of change under way. The first installment of this process of change is represented by the important legislation sponsored by Chairman Roth. But let me stress that it's just the beginning. There are a number of very interesting ideas on how to reform the tax code. We should continue to explore these ideas, and discuss them with the American people. The taxpayers of this country know that the tax code is too complex and too costly--and they want to replace it with a tax code that is fair, simple, and honest. Perhaps the simplest way to overhaul the IRS would be to overhaul the tax code itself. Taxpayers spend nearly $157 billion a year to comply with the tax code. The tax code also costs the taxpayer a great deal of time not to mention a great deal of anguish, and a great deal of worry--it costs Americans an estimated 5.4 billion hours just to comply with the code. The 1040 EZ form--the least complicated of all tax forms--requires 31 pages of instructions! The Internal Revenue Code has over 5.5 million words of law and regulations--and the IRS sends out 8 billion pages of forms and instructions each year. And the tax code keeps getting more complicated. The bottom line is we have a tax code that Americans rightly believe is complex, unfair, confusing and perhaps even dishonest. These are some of the reasons I am a cosponsor of the Tax Code Termination Act-- which would sunset the tax code at the end of 2001, permitting the Congress to write a tax code that is simple--fair--and honest. I look forward to working on this issue throughout this session, and in the years ahead, in the hope that the result will be a tax system that truly represents the values of the American people. Let me again thank my colleague from Georgia for putting this block of time together so that we can come to the floor today in the U.S. Senate to talk about an issue that genuinely concerns all Americans, concerns the people of the State of Ohio, and the people of Georgia. It is something, Mr. President, that I think Congress should heed the words of the American people on --``It is time for change.'' Thank you very much. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me first again just congratulate my colleague from Georgia on a great statement and echo what he has been saying this morning. He is the true leader in drawing the Senate's attention and public attention to the need for true reform in the IRS. The stories that he referenced, that I was talking about earlier today, that we have heard about in Toledo, superficially, may sound funny, but as he pointed out when he and I were talking about it, they are not funny, they are tragedies. They are real human tragedies. It is just hard to believe that the IRS has gone on for so long in this country unchecked. And I say to Senator Coverdell, if these are any demonstration of the need for congressional oversight, if there ever was an example of what hearings will really accomplish, it is the hearings that Chairman Roth held several months ago starting off with, when we saw the acting head of the IRS come in to that hearing and in 5 minutes, the first 5 minutes of testimony, he changed more IRS policy than has been changed in the last decade. That was a result of oversight hearings. Frankly, this Congress needs to do more of that, not just in regard to the IRS but in regard to all Federal agencies. It is part of our charge. It is part of our responsibility. It is what we ought to do. So I just again commend my friend and colleague from Georgia for taking the time this morning to talk about an issue that really affects the American people and that the American people are really interested in. We spend a lot of time on this floor talking about things that are important, but I am not sure the average American really thinks it affects their lives. Let me tell you, the IRS affects people's lives, virtually everybody in this country. So I salute and congratulate my colleague from Georgia.

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

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, we begin debate this morning on an important piece of legislation, which we have all been working on for the last few years--legislation that I believe is vitally important to the economic future of our country. As Senator Jeffords and Senator Kennedy have so eloquently pointed out, this is a bipartisan bill. It is a bipartisan bill that will truly make a difference. Let me thank the full committee chairman, Senator Jeffords, the ranking minority member of the committee, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Wellstone, who is the ranking member of our subcommittee. I also thank all the members of the Labor Committee who unanimously approved and voted in favor of this legislation--Senators Coats, Gregg, Frist, Enzi, Hutchinson, Collins, Warner, McConnell, Dodd, Harkin, Mikulski, Bingaman, Murray, and Reed of Rhode Island--a truly bipartisan bill, in a committee that, as my chairman has pointed out so very well, has a great divergence of philosophical backgrounds and beliefs. We all came together because we new this bill would make a difference. We knew the status quo was simply not acceptable. Mr. President, S. 1186, the Workforce Investment Partnership Act, which we are considering this morning, will bring much-needed and overdue reform to our job training system. Mr. President, as chairman of the employment and training subcommittee, I have come to this Senate floor on numerous occasions to stress the immediate need to reform the Federal job training system. This need increases each day that Congress does not act. The status quo is simply not acceptable. In writing this bill, our subcommittee held a number of important oversight hearings on this issue over the last 3 years. Let me just pause for a moment to say how much I have enjoyed working with the ranking minority member of that committee, Senator Wellstone, as we have held these hearings and worked on this important piece of legislation. Mr. President, at 2 hearings in Washington, DC, we heard from officials from Los Angeles, from the State of Oregon, from Hennepin County, Minnesota. We heard from business groups, such as the Cleveland Growth Association. At a hearing in Cleveland, Ohio, we heard from concerned groups like the Akron Regional Development Board, the Lorain County Workforce Institute, the Lake County Employment and Training Administration, Cuyahoga County Community College, and Cleveland State University. What we heard, Mr. President, is that today's system is a fragmented and duplicative maze of narrowly focused job training and job training- related programs, administered by numerous Federal agencies that lack coordination, lack a coherent strategy to provide training assistance, and lack the confidence of the two key consumers who utilize these services--namely, those seeking the training, and those businesses seeking to hire these individuals. Mr. President, probably one of the most historic accomplishments of the 104th Congress was our legislation that transformed the American welfare system. In passing a bill to end welfare as we knew it, we were empowering the States, empowering the local communities, and private businesses to seek a better way--to replace welfare with opportunity. Mr. President, what the Senate is considering this morning is a bipartisan bill that would provide States and localities with another tool--a very important tool--to make work, not welfare, the way of life for millions of our fellow citizens. People on welfare need to know they have a real future, a bright future, a future based on opportunity and economic advancement for themselves and their families. They need to know that when they leave the welfare rolls, there is a job out there--a job for them. Mr. President, this is one major reason that our bipartisan job training legislation is so important. This really was the unfinished business of the last Congress. This really is the unfinished business of welfare reform. This bill--the Workforce Investment Partnership Act--that we are considering this morning, which again I point out passed unanimously out of the Labor Committee--would help States and local communities succeed in this crucial task of making welfare reform truly work. It would help make work, not welfare, a reality in the lives of America's disadvantaged workers. Mr. President, to achieve this goal, individuals need to be provided the opportunity to receive the education and skills and training necessary to obtain meaningful, long-term employment. However, tragically, the current job training programs have been unable to provide quality service on a consistent enough basis. Employers at every level are finding it increasingly difficult to locate and attract qualified employees for high-skilled, high paying, good jobs, as well as finding it difficult to attract qualified employees for level-entry positions. Let me provide my colleagues with a couple of examples. In northern Virginia, not far from here, 19,000 high-tech, high-paying jobs remain unfilled because individuals lack the basic skills to fill them. My home State of Ohio faces a similar predicament, as I am sure the Chair's home State of Georgia does as well. A Cleveland Growth Association survey recently showed that employers are becoming increasingly concerned about the quality and availability of the skilled labor which may ultimately impede their future growth plans. Nationwide, the number of unfilled high-tech jobs is estimated to be at about 350,000. The increasing labor shortage threatens our Nation's economic growth and our productivity and our ability to compete in the world. This, in turn, also threatens our historic welfare reform. Mr. President, it is clear that we must act immediately. S. 1186, the Workforce Investment Partnership Act, must pass the U.S. Senate and become law so that individuals may have the opportunity to increase their skills and to obtain meaningful, long-term employment. As a Member of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Employment and Training, I have spent the last few years examining our Federal job training programs. What we all have found is alarming. During our examination of these programs, it has become clear to all of us that these programs are in dire need of reform. As a result, Mr. President, the business community is frustrated because the current programs fail to meet their employment needs. States, localities and community activists are frustrated because the programs are many times confusing and duplicative. Individuals seeking assistance are frustrated because the system is so confusing they often don't even know where to begin, where to start. We need to reform the current job training programs. We need to provide States with the tools necessary to develop their own comprehensive system that works for workers and works for the States. Our bill, S. 1186, provides States and localities with the tools and the flexibility to implement real reform. It is the only way they will be able to provide comprehensive services to those individuals who are seeking training and education assistance. Our bill provides States and localities with the framework to establish a truly comprehensive workforce development system. The bill brings together nearly 70 categorical programs--including adult education, vocational education, training, welfare to work, the Wagner-Peyser Act, the Older Americans Act, the Rehabilitation Act, Trade Adjustment Assistance, and other job training programs. All in all Mr. President, nearly 70 categorical programs. Further, this bill that the Senate is considering this morning offers a reborn Federal Job Corps program--the oldest program of over 30 years, and the most expensive in the Federal system. We make this system anew, and we link it to local communities really for the first time in its over 30-year history. Further, our bill provides States with the option to submit a ``Unified Plan'' or a single State plan for the numerous education and training programs incorporated into the bill. And it establishes a ``no wrong door'' approach to training and education assistance. Under today's system, people have difficulty knowing where to begin to look for training assistance--because there are no clear points of entry and no clear paths from one program to another. Our bill makes sure that whatever ``door'' people go through-- whatever agency they approach--they will receive comprehensive information about all the programs available to them. They will learn about the availability, eligibility, and quality of the programs through a ``one-stop customer service system.'' The bill also gives States and localities the flexibility they need to design their own workforce development systems. It authorizes and expands a modified ``Work-Flex'' program for all States, flexibility that is currently limited to only six demonstration States. Under ``Work-Flex,'' in our bill, the States have the authority to approve requests for waivers of statutory and regulatory provisions submitted by their local workforce areas. The bill allows States to consolidate the 15 percent ``State Reserve'' funds from each funding stream--adults, dislocated workers, and youth--in order to target their own State's priorities. Our bill provides Governors and local elected officials with the ability to designate local service areas, increasing the population threshold to 500,000. It increases the States' authority over the development of State performance measures--giving Governors the authority to set additional core measures of performance, and negotiate the expected levels of performance--more accountability. And finally, Mr. President, our bill eliminates numerous Federal requirements and mandatory set-asides. This is a very important measure giving States the flexibility, authority, and funding to design their systems.

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

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise at this point today to discuss the pending amendment, the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998. This is bipartisan legislation, which I am presenting as an amendment, has the strong support for the work that has been done by our chairman, Senator Jeffords. It has the support of the work that has been done by the ranking member, Senator Kennedy, and also the distinguished ranking member of the Employment and Training Subcommittee, Senator Wellstone. The work product also has the support of our distinguished colleagues, Senators Harkin, Frist, Collins, Reed, Chafee, and Bingaman. Mr. President, this amendment is the result of open and extensive negotiations that have earned it widespread and deep support both here in Washington, but more importantly at the State and local community level. The rehabilitation act I have submitted as an amendment is the country's only Federally funded program that provides job training and job placement services to individuals with disabilities. I believe the reauthorization of this Act gives us a perfect opportunity to build on and develop the positive changes that were made when it was last reauthorized, in 1992. The Subcommittee on Employment and Training began the reauthorization process last year by holding two hearings: the first in Washington, and the second in Columbus, OH. the Subcommittee listened carefully to the suggestions of vocational rehabilitation clients and their counselors, to administrators, and to service providers. We found many opportunities to build on the positive changes Congress made in 1992. I would like now to discuss some of the most important improvements we believe we have made to the 1992 Act. First of all, the amendment would link the Rehabilitation Act to the underlying job training reform bill that is before the Senate this morning. One of the problems we heard over and over again in our hearings was one we have already tried to address in the Workforce Investment Partnership Act. The fact is, there is a large disconnect between the vocational rehabilitation system and the rest of the country's job training systems. Too many disabled individuals are not receiving the basic job training information they need because they fall through the gap between the two job training systems. For example, a disabled individual may not meet the current legal definition of ``disabled'' and thus not qualify for services from their State's vocational rehabilitation system, yet that same individual could be turned away from his or her State's generic job training system because that person is seen as being disabled. They literally fall between the two systems, not technically qualifying for either one. We need to change that, and this amendment does that. Therefore, the most important change we undertake is to link the vocational rehabilitation system to the states' new workforce systems under the Workforce Investment Partnership Act. No one should underestimate the importance of cooperation and mutual awareness between the two systems, and the strong statutory links that are necessary to ensure such cooperation. However, let me make it very clear, as Senators Kennedy and Jeffords have point out: Under no circumstances will the vocational rehabilitation system's integrity be compromised. That is the last thing we intend to do. Its funding will not be redirected to other populations. Our goal is clear. It is to improve vocational rehabilitation, not deplete its resources. Once these programs are joined, state vocational rehabilitation agencies will provide more people with either the basic information they need to begin their road to employment, or a referral to the state's new job training system. What makes this referral so much better than the current system is that employees in the state's new job training program will now be trained specifically to address the unique employment needs of disabled individuals. This simple solution will be achieved by the cooperative agreements and contracts required by this bill--between state workforce systems and state vocational rehabilitation systems. It will result in providing more disabled individuals with better jobs. These agreements or contracts may include the following: Arrangements for interagency staff training; arrangements for electronic sharing of labor market information and information on job vacancies; arrangements to use common intake procedures, forms, and referral procedures; and agreements to share client databases. However, let me be clear again. Vocational rehabilitation agencies will not be required to spend any of their federal allotment on activities other than those that help provide jobs for disabled individuals. This legislation also streamlines the vocational rehabilitation system, and allows state vocational rehabilitation agencies to save millions of dollars. They will now be able to use these dollars for job training and referral services instead of administration. For example, current law's so-called ``strategic plan,'' which really was duplicative, is eliminated. In Ohio, this means a savings of close to $3 million--and other states can expect the same kind of savings. Our bill also simplifies eligibility procedures--a common complaint we heard as we held hearings. For example, a person who qualifies for benefits or assistance under another program, such as Social Security Disability Insurance, Supplemental Security Income, or the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, under our bill may use that qualification instead of having to go through a whole new process to receive vocational rehabilitation services. State agencies no longer will have to redo lengthy administrative procedures to determine a person's eligibility when they know that person clearly qualifies. This, too, will save valuable resources. Based on the information we gathered at our hearings and the suggestions we heard from the people who deal with vocational rehabilitation programs on a daily basis, we will reauthorize the Rehabilitation Act for 7 years. A longer period will allow states the opportunity to properly and effectively implement these positive changes and needed improvements. The witnesses who testified at our Washington hearing described their serious concerns about vocational rehabilitation clients' ``independence,'' their lack of opportunity for ``self-assertion,'' and they strongly emphasized that clients should have meaningful roles in developing their own ``Individualized Rehabilitation Employment Plans.'' We believe we have in this legislation taken care of these concerns. Empowered clients, who will always have the opportunity of working as a team with a VR counselor, may now exercise more consumer choice as to what employment goals they want to reach and how they want to reach them. Finally, one of the most positive changes our bill makes is to emphasize the value of self-employment. If a vocational rehabilitation client wants to be self-employed, there is no reason why he or she should not receive the training and assistance they need to reach their employment goal. At our Columbus hearing, I was surprised to learn that under current law, self employment is hardly, if ever, promoted. It is discouraged many times. Now, clients, together with their vocational rehabilitation counselors, have more flexibility and can develop plans to achieve self-employment. Mr. President, let me conclude my comments about this amendment by thanking once again the Chairman of the Labor Committee, Senator Jeffords; the Ranking Member of the Committee, Senator Kennedy; the Ranking Member of the Employment and Training Subcommittee, Senator Wellstone, Senator Collins, Senator Chafee, Senator Bingaman, and my colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin, for all the work they and their staffs put into this process. I would also like to thank my colleague from Tennessee, Senator Frist, and his staff for their contribution not only in the 105th Congress, but also for his contributions to developing links to our previous workforce bill in the 104th Congress. This bill streamlines the vocational rehabilitation system's administration allowing millions of dollars to go to job training services. This bill improves the lives of individuals with disabilities and provides opportunities for more jobs and better jobs. It creates a more user-friendly, consumer-driven program--and promotes the creation of a seamless job training program that will be able to serve more people more efficiently. Mr. President, I ask for the support of my colleagues on this amendment. At this time I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I will be brief but I would like to rise at this point to speak in strong support of the amendment of Senator Ashcroft to S. 1186. This amendment prohibits the use of funds to carry out activities authorized under the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994. Let me state it was never--I repeat never--my intention to include funds for School-to-Work activities in S. 1186. The bill we are currently debating, I believe, reflects this intent. In fact, section 316(d)(2) of the bill clearly states: Funds . . . shall not be used to carry out activities that duplicate federally funded activities available to youth. This provision prohibits States and localities from using S. 1186 funding in any way to expand School-to-Work. The Ashcroft amendment-- let me state I thank my friend and colleague from Missouri for this contribution to the bill--will simply clarify this language. It will clarify it by adding, quoting from Senator Ashcroft's amendment: None of the funds made available under this Act may be used to carry out activities authorized under the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994. This amendment is simple and it is straightforward. The Ashcroft amendment emphasizes, I believe, what the bill already clearly states. There has been opposition to S. 1186, driven by, I believe, a lack of understanding of this piece of legislation and a fear that our schools are going to be turned into training facilities that force children into career tracks. This is simply not true. This is the last thing-- let me repeat, as I have stated on the floor before--this is the last thing this U.S. Senator would seek to do. This is the last thing this Member of the Senate would ever propose, would ever push, would ever write or, frankly, would ever even vote for. S. 1186 does not expand the School-to-Work Act. School-to-Work is a completely separate program that is in no way part of or linked to S. 1186. I repeat, School-to-Work is in no way part of or linked to S. 1186. I would never support an expansion of School-to-Work. We do not need a Federal program directing students how to make the transition from School-to-Work. It is not an appropriate Federal role. Furthermore, School-to-Work's prescription will not solve the problem that too many kids are graduating today without the basic academics needed to succeed on the job, to succeed in postsecondary education, or to succeed in life. I support inclusion of the Ashcroft amendment in S. 1186. I thank my colleague from Missouri for proposing it. I believe it simply clarifies what is already in the bill, which is that funds in this legislation cannot be used to carry out activities authorized under the School-to- Work Opportunities Act of 1994. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to discuss and explain that portion of the Workforce Investment Partnership Act that deals with States' ``Service Delivery Areas.'' As I have stated before, the current system of Federal job training programs is no system at all. Consumers, individuals seeking assistance, and businesses seeking to hire them face a fragmented and duplicative maze of narrowly focused programs that lack coordination, a coherent strategy to provide training assistance, and the confidence of the consumers who need to use the services. These problems are the result of numerous shortcomings that have developed over time and become part of a dated and neglected job training system that no longer considers the needs or resources of the States and localities it serves. One of the current system's largest shortcomings is its ineffective designation of over 600 Service Delivery Areas. These 600 plus regions are a tremendous burden on the country's job training system and one of the greatest contributors to ``a complex patchwork of overlapping bureaucratic responsibilities.'' Over the past 15 years, it has been the Federal government deciding where these Service Delivery Areas would be. Over the past 15 years, the Federal government used a general federal mandate and chose the number ``200,000'' to represent what it thought the appropriate population of Service Delivery Areas should be. Over the past 15 years, the Federal government's Service Delivery Area criteria remained stagnant while States continued to grow and change. The number 200,000 no longer adequately reflects the needs or resources of each and every State. It does not allow States to take their economic development or empowerment zones into account. It does not flex to reflect the ever-changing populations of cities and counties. In many urban areas it fragments a much larger labor market making coordination among State and local employment agencies difficult if not impossible. The ``Washington-knows-best'' ``one-size-fits-all'' approach no longer works and we have the past 15 years to prove it. To fix this problem--to clear out this bureaucracy--and to create a cleaner more accountable and more efficient job training system, we must do away with the paternalistic Washington mentality, return the Service Delivery Area designation decisions to the States and localities, and ultimately lower the number of Service Delivery Areas. To do this, the bill outlines four criteria to be followed in selecting the State's Service Delivery Areas: The States and their localities must ensure that there is a link between participants in workforce investment activities and local employment opportunities; The States and their localities must ensure that a significant number of people who live in the proposed area also work in the area; The States and their localities must ensure that neighboring Service Delivery Areas cooperate with each other and coordinate their activities; and finally The States and their localities must ensure that the State economic development areas are taken into consideration. Currently, it is the Federal Government that decides what regions will become Service Delivery Areas and what regions will not. Under this new law, this cleaner, more accountable, and more effective system, it is the States and local communities that will make these decisions; it is the States and local communities that will have a true understanding of how to best apply these four new criteria; and it will be the States and local communities that determine how their job training dollars will best be used. Mr. President, we can no longer afford the ``Washington knows best'' mentality. That is the thinking that created the current maze and bureaucratic patchwork of job training programs. That is the thinking that brings us here today--needing to change the system and fix its problems. We must put the decisions, such as Service Delivery Area designation, in the hands of those who are closest to their needs and resources. This bill, and the positive changes it makes to the way Service Delivery Areas are currently designated, will help eliminate the ``Washington one-size-fits-all mentality'' and allow States, their Governors, their cities, and their municipalities--through a consensus process--to change the status quo and develop a more effective and locally controlled job training system. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE. The Senator is correct. Under the bill, the Secretary would have the discretion to continue grants to improve farmworker housing.

Mr. DeWINE. I thank the Senator. Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers

Mr. DeWINE. Would the Senator agree that a County Community College, which functions as an integral part of the county's welfare-to-work initiative, and whose President who has won national awards and is the driving force in virtually every job training initiative in the region, addresses the bill's ``expertise in employment and training programs?

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a brief colloquy with the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Employment and Training, Senator Wellstone, concerning the initiatives covered by section 367 of the bill. Mr. President, I strongly feel that clarifying the intent of this section will be helpful in my efforts to ensure that a very worthwhile initiative in Northeastern, Ohio receives favorable consideration by the Department of Labor. As I understand it, section 367 authorizes the Secretary of Labor to carry out demonstration projects to develop new techniques, different approaches, and specialized methods to address communities; employment and training needs. This section also requires the community or entity to substantially contribute to their project's funding, have expertise in undertaking national demonstration projects, or have expertise in overseeing employment and training programs. The Ohio initiative I referred to establishes an Engineering and Training Center which will provide employers, employees, students, and the underemployed access to job training services and course work germane the region's existing manufacturing base as well as its fledgling information technology industries. For example, the Center would provide welders, who recently lost their jobs when Ford Motor Company closed its Thunderbird and Econoline plants, computer software instruction for new computer controlled welding equipment. The Engineering and Training Center would also contain working laboratories where employees would receive custom training on the latest technology equipment. Would the Senator agree that the establishment of such an Engineering and Training Center, whose principal focus is to provide job training to workers in a community suffering from the closure of auto and steel plants, is the type of activity section 367 encourages? And would the willingness of local foundations to provide half the cost of such an initiative satisfy the bill's substantial funding equipment?

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

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to introduce, along with my good friend Senator Tim Hutchinson of Arkansas, the Asthma Inhaler Protection Act. This bill is designed to protect the millions of Americans who use medical inhalers for diseases such as asthma and cystic fibrosis. This Asthma Inhaler Protection Act is needed to make sure that the Food and Drug Administration is extremely--extremely--careful in how it phases out the use of asthma inhalers that contain chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs. This bill that Senator Hutchinson and I are introducing today makes sure that as FDA phases out the use of inhalers with CFCs, adequate replacements are available that meet all patients' needs. That is the key. Mr. President, there are 15 million Americans who have asthma, almost all of whom regularly use asthma inhalers such as this one, 15 million Americans who have asthma, many of whom use inhalers just like the one I took out of my pocket. They use these inhalers to help them control their disease. Without having access to a drug that meets his or her specific needs, each of these Americans would be adding much greater risk of having an asthma attack or, if they have an asthma attack, not being able to control it short of going to the emergency room in a hospital, which is where many people had to go before they had access to these inhalers. I had the personal experience with our daughter Becky a number of years ago when she was small and she had asthma. The doctor finally, after we had been to the emergency room time after time, said I think she needs to use these new inhalers that are on the market, even though they had not been prescribed for children at that time. He said go ahead and use it. So Becky started using these and it made her life a lot easier, certainly the life of her parents, as well. Without access to a drug that meets these specific needs, each of these asthma sufferers would be in greater danger. Without an appropriate medication, they also would have a much worse chance of stopping an asthma attack once it has begun. What is the problem? The problem is almost all asthma inhalers currently on the market contain CFCs. Almost every single one of them changes this. Under international agreement, this country has agreed to the goal of eventually eliminating all uses--all uses--of CFCs. What this means for asthma patients is that over a period of many years new inhalers that don't use CFCs will be brought to the market, and use of the old inhalers that contain CFCs will be phased out. But as we do this, as we comply with this international agreement--and this, of course, is something that was agreed to because of the concern for the environment, and I understand that--I think as we do this we must make sure this transition process is done very, very carefully and that we do it with the utmost attention to those individuals whose quality of life may depend on the use of these inhalers. We must be absolutely sure that if and when we take an inhaler that contains CFCs off the market there are adequate replacements that meet the needs of each and every person that currently uses the old-time inhaler. My one and only goal when it comes to this transition is to make sure that all people, all people who rely on these drugs, continue to have access to inhalers that have been proven, already proven to meet their needs. All other issues are secondary to making sure that these patients are, in fact, protected. In March of 1997 the FDA released its first proposal on how to go about this transition. Now, simply put, the FDA's initial response does not meet the goal of fully protecting asthma patients. The medical and patient communities have been unanimous in expressing concern that the FDA's proposal, when it goes into effect, could take existing medications away from patients without adequate replacements being at that time available. The bottom line is that the FDA's proposal could and will put patients at risk. What do we do about it? Where do we go from here? I understand that many people believe the FDA has seen the light. Some people tell me they plan to correct the problems in their initial proposal during the next step of the process, the next step of the process being the proposed rule. Now, I would like to believe that this will happen, but I am not sure it will. It is now over a year since the FDA released its earlier proposal, but despite all the public criticism which has ensued there has never been a single public statement by that agency that it intends to change the policy to address these very legitimate medical concerns. That is why I feel congressional action is necessary. That is why Senator Hutchinson and I are introducing this bill today. We need to be sure that the FDA, as it pursues this transition, writes its policy so that all patients are protected. Because of this, I am pleased to cosponsor this legislation, S. 1299, a bill that Senator Hutchinson introduced last year. Let me say that Senator Hutchinson has been someone who has taken the lead in this crusade. That bill lets the FDA know in the clearest of terms that its initial proposal was unacceptable and that bill further gives the FDA guidance on how it should proceed with the rules for this transition. Let me again congratulate my colleague from Arkansas for his leadership on this issue and for the introduction of his work on that bill. Since last year, Mr. President, I have continued to work on this issue. I have had my staff explore various options and various proposals. We have identified several additional ideas I believe are important to make sure that patients are protected and that should be included in any legislation on the phaseout of CFC inhalers. Recently, I have worked with Senator Hutchinson to develop these thoughts into this piece of legislation that we are introducing today, the Asthma Inhaler Protection Act. Our bill does these things: First, it makes sure that the FDA, before it takes the next step of publishing a proposed rule, has looked at several issues that are necessary for the agency to make informed choices in this area. Second, our bill gives the FDA the broad outline of what the transition policy should look like so that all patients' needs are protected. Finally, our bill will help save FDA resources by telling the agency to not review any new drug applications for products that contain CFCs unless the new product represents a significant new medical advance. I want to make clear that this bill is not necessarily a finished product. We are open to additional ideas and suggestions. We will consider any additional thoughts and ideas on how to improve the bill to make sure that people who use asthma inhalers are truly protected. I hope my colleagues and anyone interested in the safety of Americans with asthma could look at this bill and consider supporting it. I believe this bill is crucial to get FDA back on the right course. It is absolutely necessary so that no asthma patients are ever put in a situation where they can't get the best inhalers that fit their very specific medical needs. Again, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill, which I believe is a matter of good common sense, and a bill that will help protect the asthma sufferers of this country.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to introduce, along with my good friend Senator Tim Hutchinson of Arkansas, the Asthma Inhaler Protection Act. This bill is designed to protect the millions of Americans who use medical inhalers for diseases such as asthma and cystic fibrosis. This Asthma Inhaler Protection Act is needed to make sure that the Food and Drug Administration is extremely--extremely--careful in how it phases out the use of asthma inhalers that contain chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs. This bill that Senator Hutchinson and I are introducing today makes sure that as FDA phases out the use of inhalers with CFCs, adequate replacements are available that meet all patients' needs. That is the key. Mr. President, there are 15 million Americans who have asthma, almost all of whom regularly use asthma inhalers such as this one, 15 million Americans who have asthma, many of whom use inhalers just like the one I took out of my pocket. They use these inhalers to help them control their disease. Without having access to a drug that meets his or her specific needs, each of these Americans would be adding much greater risk of having an asthma attack or, if they have an asthma attack, not being able to control it short of going to the emergency room in a hospital, which is where many people had to go before they had access to these inhalers. I had the personal experience with our daughter Becky a number of years ago when she was small and she had asthma. The doctor finally, after we had been to the emergency room time after time, said I think she needs to use these new inhalers that are on the market, even though they had not been prescribed for children at that time. He said go ahead and use it. So Becky started using these and it made her life a lot easier, certainly the life of her parents, as well. Without access to a drug that meets these specific needs, each of these asthma sufferers would be in greater danger. Without an appropriate medication, they also would have a much worse chance of stopping an asthma attack once it has begun. What is the problem? The problem is almost all asthma inhalers currently on the market contain CFCs. Almost every single one of them changes this. Under international agreement, this country has agreed to the goal of eventually eliminating all uses--all uses--of CFCs. What this means for asthma patients is that over a period of many years new inhalers that don't use CFCs will be brought to the market, and use of the old inhalers that contain CFCs will be phased out. But as we do this, as we comply with this international agreement--and this, of course, is something that was agreed to because of the concern for the environment, and I understand that--I think as we do this we must make sure this transition process is done very, very carefully and that we do it with the utmost attention to those individuals whose quality of life may depend on the use of these inhalers. We must be absolutely sure that if and when we take an inhaler that contains CFCs off the market there are adequate replacements that meet the needs of each and every person that currently uses the old-time inhaler. My one and only goal when it comes to this transition is to make sure that all people, all people who rely on these drugs, continue to have access to inhalers that have been proven, already proven to meet their needs. All other issues are secondary to making sure that these patients are, in fact, protected. In March of 1997 the FDA released its first proposal on how to go about this transition. Now, simply put, the FDA's initial response does not meet the goal of fully protecting asthma patients. The medical and patient communities have been unanimous in expressing concern that the FDA's proposal, when it goes into effect, could take existing medications away from patients without adequate replacements being at that time available. The bottom line is that the FDA's proposal could and will put patients at risk. What do we do about it? Where do we go from here? I understand that many people believe the FDA has seen the light. Some people tell me they plan to correct the problems in their initial proposal during the next step of the process, the next step of the process being the proposed rule. Now, I would like to believe that this will happen, but I am not sure it will. It is now over a year since the FDA released its earlier proposal, but despite all the public criticism which has ensued there has never been a single public statement by that agency that it intends to change the policy to address these very legitimate medical concerns. That is why I feel congressional action is necessary. That is why Senator Hutchinson and I are introducing this bill today. We need to be sure that the FDA, as it pursues this transition, writes its policy so that all patients are protected. Because of this, I am pleased to cosponsor this legislation, S. 1299, a bill that Senator Hutchinson introduced last year. Let me say that Senator Hutchinson has been someone who has taken the lead in this crusade. That bill lets the FDA know in the clearest of terms that its initial proposal was unacceptable and that bill further gives the FDA guidance on how it should proceed with the rules for this transition. Let me again congratulate my colleague from Arkansas for his leadership on this issue and for the introduction of his work on that bill. Since last year, Mr. President, I have continued to work on this issue. I have had my staff explore various options and various proposals. We have identified several additional ideas I believe are important to make sure that patients are protected and that should be included in any legislation on the phaseout of CFC inhalers. Recently, I have worked with Senator Hutchinson to develop these thoughts into this piece of legislation that we are introducing today, the Asthma Inhaler Protection Act. Our bill does these things: First, it makes sure that the FDA, before it takes the next step of publishing a proposed rule, has looked at several issues that are necessary for the agency to make informed choices in this area. Second, our bill gives the FDA the broad outline of what the transition policy should look like so that all patients' needs are protected. Finally, our bill will help save FDA resources by telling the agency to not review any new drug applications for products that contain CFCs unless the new product represents a significant new medical advance. I want to make clear that this bill is not necessarily a finished product. We are open to additional ideas and suggestions. We will consider any additional thoughts and ideas on how to improve the bill to make sure that people who use asthma inhalers are truly protected. I hope my colleagues and anyone interested in the safety of Americans with asthma could look at this bill and consider supporting it. I believe this bill is crucial to get FDA back on the right course. It is absolutely necessary so that no asthma patients are ever put in a situation where they can't get the best inhalers that fit their very specific medical needs. Again, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill, which I believe is a matter of good common sense, and a bill that will help protect the asthma sufferers of this country.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of expanding the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to include Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. It is the right thing to do, right now. Fifty years ago, President Harry Truman perceived the very real threat to our national interest posed by the rise of Soviet Communism in liberated Western Europe. He understood that although turning a blind, isolationist's eye to trans-Atlantic affairs may have seemed attractive in the short term, it could prove far more dangerous and costly to American interests in the long term. Therefore, it was absolutely in our national interest to promote and defend abroad our values of democracy and opportunity against an aggressive and oppressive Soviet regime. To that end, we fashioned the North Atlantic Treaty Organization--a collective security agreement with fifteen of our allies. With NATO, insuring that Western Europe's democracies flourish--and that its economies grow--became a top U.S. priority, and rightly so. Fifty years later, the results are impressive and worth examining. By instituting collective security among its member nations, NATO achieved collective stability. This stability allowed Western Europe to enjoy one of its longest periods of sustained peace and economic development ever. It has recovered remarkably from the scourge of two World Wars, and free markets have thrived inside of democratic institutions. NATO not only deterred the Soviets from aggression, but so strong is our alliance that since its inception no NATO country has ever been attacked. Of course, this success has not been achieved without sacrifice or without cost. However, the price of peace is a mere fraction of the cost of war. Clearly, the mission of NATO needs to be adapted to the post-Cold War world. The threat is no longer the clearly defined ominous shadow of Communism; but the threat of instability is just as real. The Cold War has ended, and the Warsaw Treaty Organization has been dismantled, but now is not the time for passive complacency. Just as the war-torn countries of Western Europe did fifty years ago, the emerging democracies and economies of today's Eastern Europe need NATO security to rebuild and to thrive. And now, like then, it is in the national interest of the United States that this occur. Expanding NATO to include Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic will sustain current and future economic reforms. It will promote cooperation and peace among neighbors. NATO's presence also will fill a dangerous military and political vacuum in Central and Eastern Europe, and further cement European security by uniting East with West. As well as increasing global security, NATO expansion will have tangible economic benefits. Free but untapped markets in this part of the world hold tremendous economic potential for U.S. exporters. And undoubtedly, the prestige, the security, and the validation that comes with NATO membership will have a profoundly positive psychological impact on the minds of foreign investors. Throughout this process it was important that the invited nations demonstrate that they are willing to make the sincere commitment required of NATO members, and it seems to me that they have. Politically, economically, and diplomatically, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland show great promise that they will become strong partners in our alliance. Poland, for example, has just witnessed its second democratic change of government since 1989 as a result of fully free and fair elections. Its new democratic constitution was approved last year by national referendum. Economically speaking, Poland is sound. Its economy has been one of the fastest-growing in Europe since 1993, and the private sector now accounts for two-thirds of its gross domestic product. Poland has also codified civilian control and parliamentary oversight of its military. On the diplomatic front, Poland has resolved outstanding differences with its neighbors, including Ukraine, with whom it recently signed a declaration of reconciliation. These diplomatic efforts would not have been possible but for the promise of NATO expansion. After forty years of dictatorship, democracy now reigns in Hungary. All six of its parliamentary parties support entry into NATO. The Hungarian government upholds human rights, freedom of expression, rule of law, and an independent judiciary, and it too has twice held free elections since the fall of Communism. While attracting almost $16 billion of direct foreign investment, Hungary has engaged in a strict stabilization program and cut its budget deficits substantially. And on the diplomatic front, Hungary has recently signed treaties with Romania and Slovakia, thus ending territorial disputes that had existed for generations. And the government has agreements with its neighbors, including Ukraine, to cooperate against organized crime, terrorism, and drug trafficking. The story is much the same in the Czech Republic, which has a constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of the press. Two national elections were held in 1996 for the legislature, and they were free and fair. Since 1989, the Czech Republic has engaged in tight fiscal policy, liberal trade practices, and privatization of state enterprises. As a result, unemployment is low and inflation is controlled. It maintains strong relations with its neighbors, especially Germany--its leading foreign investor--and with Poland, as the two countries have harmonized their approaches to European Union and NATO membership. I would now like to make some comments about some of the amendments we have voted on. First, I want to say that I opposed the amendment which would have linked admission of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to admission to the European Union. While NATO and the EU have overlapping membership, they have different missions. NATO is a collective defense organization designed to protect and defend the territory of its member states. The EU is not a military but an economic alliance of European states which does not include the United States. It also does not include Canada, Iceland, Norway--which by the way rejected EU membership--nor does it include Turkey. The question I have is why would we want to allow an organization of which the US is not a member, to dictate our security interests? Another concern I have about this amendment is that it would ultimately--and unnecessarily--delay NATO enlargement, since Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary are not members and have only recently been invited to begin the process of joining. Second, I opposed the amendment which would have mandated a three year pause on new members. Article 10 of the NATO charter provides a mechanism to enlarge the alliance. This article has successfully worked for 50 years in bringing new member states into NATO. I strongly feel that this amendment would not have helped NATO, but rather have added an additional and unnecessary layer of bureaucracy to the process. The amendment also would have dampened the spirits of other countries who eagerly want to join NATO. Many of these countries have made significant sacrifices--both political and economic--to prepare themselves for future NATO membership. Enacting this amendment would have reduced the incentives of these countries to continue these important reforms. I would like to point out, however, that there is no commitment at this time to invite other nations to join NATO. Let me conclude. Through democratic and economic reforms, these three nations have invested in long-term stability. NATO membership promotes confidence in this regional stability, thus making it even stronger. If this century has taught us anything, it is that European instability ultimately becomes our problem. By admitting these committed and deserving nations to NATO, we will strengthen our alliance and expand the dividends of peace and prosperity to a level unprecedented in modern history. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998. More than 20 years of experience working in the criminal justice system have taught me that information is absolutely crucial to successful law enforcement. As a prosecutor in Greene County, Ohio; as Lieutenant Governor overseeing Ohio's anti-crime and anti-drug efforts; and later as a member of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, I have seen first-hand the importance of information and record-keeping to criminal justice. Our state and local law enforcement organizations--as well as our courts--need to develop and upgrade their criminal information and identification systems. The Federal Government has already invested billions of dollars in information and identification systems whose benefits will go largely unrealized--unless states receive the resources to be able to participate in these systems. Our national data bases are only as good as the information in which the states provide by their participation. Unfortunately, there is still a wide disparity between the criminal identification systems that are available--and the ability of state and local law enforcement to develop and use them. For example, while computer technology exists that allows law enforcement to match fingerprints electronically with criminal history databases, most states lack the equipment and resources necessary to connect on any broad scale with the databases operated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Too many States lack the resources to contribute state criminal histories to the FBI criminal history database in a timely manner or in a computer-ready format, and have inadequate equipment to retrieve information from the database quickly or on a widespread geographic basis. While we may disagree about the Brady Act, it funded the National Criminal History Improvement Program (N-CHIP), administered by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, which has successfully helped states prepare to perform background checks. Unfortunately, N-CHIP expires this year--but not all states are fully operational. In addition, the FBI, the National Criminal Center (NCIC) 2000, and the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System will be fully operational--and ready for states to participate--soon. Also, DNA casework testing has more than doubled in the last three years because of demand by law enforcement to provide DNA analysis in violent crime cases. In 48 states convicted offender DNA analysis is mandated by statute. Further, advances in the use of DNA to solve crimes based on automated searches of State and National CODIS DNA profile databases are producing DNA matches, generating even more demand for rapid testing of convicted felon DNA samples for database input. The demand for casework results and the need for convicted offender database analysis continues to grow at a rate that outstrips the capacities and capabilities of state and local crime laboratories. We need to make sure the states are able to make the fullest possible use of this breathtaking technology. That's the idea behind the bill I am introducing today. It would provide $250 million in each of the next five years for grants to the states. The Attorney General, through the Bureau of Justice Statistics, is directed to make grants to each state to be used in conjunction with units of local government, and other states, to develop, update, or upgrade technologies, including the following: Centralized, automated criminal history record information systems, including arrest and disposition reporting. Automated fingerprint identification systems that are compatible with the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Finger imaging, live scan and other automated systems to digitize fingerprints and to communicate prints in a manner that is compatible with systems operated by states and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Systems to facilitate full participation in the Interstate Identification Index (III). Programs and systems to facilitate full participation in the Interstate Identification Index National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact. Systems to facilitate full participation in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) for firearms eligibility determinations. Integrated criminal justice information systems to manage and communicate criminal justice information among law enforcement, courts, prosecution, and corrections. Court-based criminal justice information systems to promote reporting of dispositions to central state repositories and to the FBI, and to promote the integration of court systems with other criminal justice information systems. Ballistics identification programs that are compatible --and integrated--with the National Integrated Ballistics Network (NIBN). Information, identification and communications programs for forensic purposes, including for crime laboratory accreditation. DNA programs for forensic and identification purposes. Sexual offender identification and registration systems. Domestic violence offender identification and information systems. Criminal justice information systems with a capacity to provide statistical and research products including incident-based reporting systems and uniform crime reports. Online and other state-of-the-art communications technologies and programs. Mr. President, all these proposals have one thing on common: they are based on the principle that technology is the future of police work. It is the number one edge our law enforcement officers are going to have in the struggle against criminals, well into the 21st century. In this sense, crime-fighting is a lot like baseball. It's a game of percentages--and everything we can do to boost the average helps the team. We can continue to pursue increasingly sophisticated criminals with outmoded twentieth century technology--or we can substantially boost our team's average by providing states the Federal assistance required to effectively participate in these programs. If we are serious about reducing crime in America, the Federal Government has to step up to the plate on this key issue of promoting state and local use of available crime-fighting technology. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I will turn to another issue I have spoken about on the floor a number of times. It is a question, in my opinion, of life or death. It is legislation that was approved by this body with an overwhelming--virtually a 2-to-1--vote. It is a matter presently subject to the conference committee between the Senate and the House. That issue, of course, is the issue of the .08 national DUI standard. Members of the conference committee are working on this, or preparing to work on this matter, so I think my comments are timely and I think it is important to emphasize what this whole question is all about. I believe that one of the most important provisions of the Senate version of this service transportation bill was a provision that we approved by an overwhelming majority of 62 in favor and 32 opposed. That division, if this Senate approved it, would move our country forward to a national .08 blood alcohol standard. As my colleagues know, the House Rules Committee voted, I think very unfortunately, to stop the House from even considering this matter on the House floor. Mr. President, the facts are that if this does not become law, there will be lives that will be lost that would have been saved if we would have enacted this very reasonable national standard. The need for this legislation will not go away, it will only increase. How did such a clearly valuable measure, a life-saving measure, end up being blocked in the House and remain in such legislative peril today? I think one major reason is an effort outside this Congress, a well financed campaign of what I believe are half-truths. There was a full-page ad that appeared in the Washington Times before the Rules Committee voted. It said that reducing the blood alcohol limit to .08 would transform the average American into a lawbreaker. Here is what it said. I quote. Reducing the limit to .08 would increase the number of law violators by about 60 percent. Mr. President, that is simply not true. That is wrong. It is not true. That is not what our bill does. Our amendment's purpose is not to get more people arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol but, rather, to get more people to change their behavior so that fewer of them drive under the influence. One might be asked: How do we know that would happen if our legislation passed? How do we know the results will be fewer people actually arrested? The answer comes from our largest State, the State of California. In 1989, the last year California had a .10 blood alcohol content limit, the highway patrol in California made 138,000 DUI arrests. In the first year after the law was changed, the first year of the new .08 limit, that number did jump almost 14 percent, to 158,000--138,000, 158,000. But every year since then, Mr. President, that number has declined, all the way down to the last available figures, which were 1997, and that figure was 91,014. Every year, it went down. That is the lowest level of DUI arrests in California since 1971. The efforts from our largest State could not be more clear. A .08 standard does not turn Americans into lawbreakers. It does not turn the average American into lawbreakers. That is simply not true. It takes impaired drivers off our streets. Because precious lives depend on keeping impaired drivers off the road, I promise that we will fight to keep this legislation in the final transportation bill. We will work to pass the legislation, because the facts are on our side. The facts tell a very disturbing story. During the recent break, when Members of the House and the Senate had a chance to be in their home States, on April 13 the Washington Post had an important, I think, revealing article laying out the facts. Fact: According to a Boston University study, passing this legislation would save, at a minimum, 500 lives a year. In fact, the majority says it is no more than between 500 and 1,000. But even to take a minimum of this Boston University study, it would be 500 families that would not be destroyed--500 families that would not have to bury a son, or a daughter, or a loved one. That is the fact. The only debate on this fact is, Is 500 lives a lot or a little? Is it worth doing something ``just to save'' 500 lives? I happen to think it is. This is an easy question, I think, to answer. If by making a minor adjustment in the law--this is a minor adjustment--we can save at least 500 lives across this country, I think it is very, very important and very significant, and I think we ought to do it. This legislation clearly would save at least 500 lives. The second fact, again, as contained in this what I think is a very well balanced argument: The blood streams of .08 drivers ``carry enough alcohol to measurably impair the symphony of neurological responses necessary to drive a car well.'' This is the conclusion of the Washington Post article based on the current state of research and based on their interviews with numerous experts, scientific experts, and medical experts in the field. The third fact, again from this article: ``There is no question that nearly everything you can think of in terms of driving impairment is evident by a .08.'' That is a quote from UCLA Professor Herbert Moskowitz, the president of the Southern California Research Institute. Science tells us that at .08, drivers have a lot of trouble dividing their attention between different visual stimuli. They also have trouble processing new information as fast as driving requires. Mr. President, these are absolutely critical driving skills, crucial skills, when you are driving a car. At .08, a person's ability to do both of these things is seriously impaired. That is a fact. I had a chance to talk to an old friend of mine, ``KO'' Martin, who used to be a highway patrolman. In fact, ``KO'' and I prosecuted a number of cases together. He brought a number of cases to me while I was a county prosecutor. He was a highway state trooper for many, many years. He told this story. Once he pulled over a motorist who was so impaired that ``KO'' had to literally carry him to the patrol car. He literally couldn't get him there, he was so impaired. That particular motorist tested at .05 blood alcohol level. Apparently, this man had received a promotion at work. They had just thrown a party for him. He wasn't used to drinking. He was clearly unable to drive a car after the drinks he had. He tested .05. Clearly, he should not have been behind the wheel. Someone who is so under the influence that he can't even walk is not going to be able to react fast enough to drive a car safely. That is the simple fact. My fourth fact: According to a study published in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol, ``Drivers with readings between .08 and .05 had 1.4 times the risk of dying compared to people who had no alcohol in their blood. For people between .05 and .09, that risk was 11 times higher.'' Again, Mr. President, that is a fact, a tragic fact that costs human lives. Another fact: There is evidence that a .08 standard will have a deterrent effect on the whole range of impaired drivers. Allen F. Williams of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety says, ``There seems to be a deterrent effect all across the whole range of blood alcohol concentrations, including the very high levels,'' the very high ones all the way across on all drivers. Mr. President, let me mention in this regard that this last fact doesn't surprise me at all. In fact, in 1982, as a member of the Ohio State Senate, I wrote a law toughening Ohio's standard on impaired driving. That law went into effect March 17 of 1983. In the first year after our bill became law, we saw an across-the-board change in public attitude towards driving under the influence. The biggest impact our bill had was not who was being arrested but, rather, in the public perception of drunken driving, the public perception of driving under the influence. It happened all across Ohio. We saw auto fatalities from drinking and driving going down. We sent a very strong message. That message could be sent across this country in all 50 States by this Congress by approving what the Senate approved by a 2 to 1 margin, and that is to go to a very reasonable standard of a .08 national blood alcohol standard. No matter where someone was driving, whether they were driving in your great State of Kansas or my great State of Ohio, or Indiana or Kentucky or Maine or California, they would have some assurance that the law would be uniform; that when they put their child in a car, got behind the wheel, that whatever State they were in, the standard would be at .08. America needs this legislation, and I will make sure we keep returning to this issue until we get the job done. I urge the transportation bill conferees to consider these basic facts and to include what the Senate did, and that is the .08 legislation in the final transportation bill. (The remarks of Mr. DeWINE pertaining to the introduction of S. 1987 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')