Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act of 1998. The purpose of this legislation is to address the problem of child molesters and pedophiles who use computers, and the Internet in particular, to commit crimes of sexual abuse and exploitation against our most vulnerable citizens--our children. I appreciate Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison joining me in this important effort. The Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act is a comprehensive bill that combats the growing problem of criminals who misuse our information superhighway to contact children for purposes of sexual abuse and exploitation. Not only does this legislation send a strong message that America will not tolerate the abuse of its children, it will also make it easier to put these heinous criminals out of commission. Mr. President, my wife Fran and I have eight children--ages 6 to 30. There is nothing more important to parents than protecting their children from harm. There was a time, not so long ago, when parents could feel secure when their children were at home or in a library-- that their child would at least be safe from danger in those places. But along with the tremendous benefit of the Internet, we have also unfortunately, unintentionally invited strangers into our homes, and sometime our children's rooms, just because computers may be located there. Strangers who sometimes have the immoral and criminal intent to lure our kids into deviant sexual, abusive, and illegal activity right under our noses. Not long ago, a 47-year-old Ohio man used the Internet to entice a 12-year-old girl in New Jersey to make pornographic videos of herself. He posed on-line as a 15-year-old, who promised that he would forward copies of the pornographic video to her favorite music band members. She made four sexually explicit videos before the man was apprehended by authorities. There are literally hundreds of these examples, and many even worse, occurring every day in America. It has become commonplace to hear about a child being lured across the country via the Internet by a pedophile. I hope, and believe, that through this legislation we can begin to restore the peace of mind parents should have when their children use the Internet at school, at the library, or in their home. This bill will protect children from cyber-stalkers and porn peddlers by prohibiting contacting of a minor on the Internet for the purpose of engaging in illegal sexual activity. It prohibits knowingly transferring obscene materials to a minor over the Internet. In addition, the maximum penalty is doubled for enticing a minor to travel across State lines for illegal sexual activity. Using a computer to persuade a minor to engage in prostitution or a sexual act will carry a maximum sentence of 15 years, and a minimum sentence of 3 years. Also, law enforcement is given the tools to quickly and effectively investigate sex and kidnaping crimes involving children. Pretrial detention is provided for Federal sex offenders, and administrative subpoenas are allowed in certain child exploitation investigations. In addition, the bill clarifies that kidnaping investigations do not require waiting 24 hours--they can be initiated immediately. Further, Federal jurisdiction is provided in kidnaping cases where a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce is used. Mr. President, a person today can get almost anything on the Internet. With this bill, we are trying to make sure that they cannot get our children.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act of 1998. The purpose of this legislation is to address the problem of child molesters and pedophiles who use computers, and the Internet in particular, to commit crimes of sexual abuse and exploitation against our most vulnerable citizens--our children. I appreciate Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison joining me in this important effort. The Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act is a comprehensive bill that combats the growing problem of criminals who misuse our information superhighway to contact children for purposes of sexual abuse and exploitation. Not only does this legislation send a strong message that America will not tolerate the abuse of its children, it will also make it easier to put these heinous criminals out of commission. Mr. President, my wife Fran and I have eight children--ages 6 to 30. There is nothing more important to parents than protecting their children from harm. There was a time, not so long ago, when parents could feel secure when their children were at home or in a library-- that their child would at least be safe from danger in those places. But along with the tremendous benefit of the Internet, we have also unfortunately, unintentionally invited strangers into our homes, and sometime our children's rooms, just because computers may be located there. Strangers who sometimes have the immoral and criminal intent to lure our kids into deviant sexual, abusive, and illegal activity right under our noses. Not long ago, a 47-year-old Ohio man used the Internet to entice a 12-year-old girl in New Jersey to make pornographic videos of herself. He posed on-line as a 15-year-old, who promised that he would forward copies of the pornographic video to her favorite music band members. She made four sexually explicit videos before the man was apprehended by authorities. There are literally hundreds of these examples, and many even worse, occurring every day in America. It has become commonplace to hear about a child being lured across the country via the Internet by a pedophile. I hope, and believe, that through this legislation we can begin to restore the peace of mind parents should have when their children use the Internet at school, at the library, or in their home. This bill will protect children from cyber-stalkers and porn peddlers by prohibiting contacting of a minor on the Internet for the purpose of engaging in illegal sexual activity. It prohibits knowingly transferring obscene materials to a minor over the Internet. In addition, the maximum penalty is doubled for enticing a minor to travel across State lines for illegal sexual activity. Using a computer to persuade a minor to engage in prostitution or a sexual act will carry a maximum sentence of 15 years, and a minimum sentence of 3 years. Also, law enforcement is given the tools to quickly and effectively investigate sex and kidnaping crimes involving children. Pretrial detention is provided for Federal sex offenders, and administrative subpoenas are allowed in certain child exploitation investigations. In addition, the bill clarifies that kidnaping investigations do not require waiting 24 hours--they can be initiated immediately. Further, Federal jurisdiction is provided in kidnaping cases where a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce is used. Mr. President, a person today can get almost anything on the Internet. With this bill, we are trying to make sure that they cannot get our children.

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to what I believe is a truly excellent decision by the baseball Hall of Fame's Veterans Committee. On the 3rd of March, one of the true greats of baseball history, Larry Doby, was elected to the baseball Hall of Fame. I think we all know the story, at least the outline of the story. On July 5, 1947, Larry Doby became the first African American to play in the American League--just 3 months after Jackie Robinson had broken baseball's color barrier in the other league, the National League. The legendary Bill Veeck was at that time, of course, the owner and had control of the Cleveland Indians. Veeck saw that Larry Doby was leading the Negro National League with a .458 batting average and had at that time 13 home runs. He and Doby, Veeck and Doby, made the historic and courageous decision to break the color barrier in the American League. It is sometimes difficult for us to remember what the situation was back in 1947 or to really truly understand it. The Jackie Robinson decision was still highly controversial. It was really at this point by no means self-evident that support for integrated baseball would take hold. Larry Doby and Bill Veeck made an act of faith in America's future and in the American people. In his autobiography, Bill Veeck wrote that he ``received 20,000 letters, most of them in violent, sometimes obscene protest.'' But then he went on to say, ``When Doby hit a tremendous home run to put us ahead in the fourth game of the Series, it could be observed that none of the people who were on their feet cheering seemed at all concerned or even conscious of Larry Doby's color.'' Mr. President, it took courage for Larry Doby to get up to the plate, but once he got there his record of accomplishment silenced his critics. In 1948, his first full season, he led the Indians to victory in the World Series batting .318 and hitting a game-winning home run. He was named to the All-Star Team every single year from 1949 to 1955. In 1952, he led the American League in home runs and runs scored. Two years later, in 1954, he led the league in home runs and RBIs. He left the Indians in 1956 to play for the Chicago White Sox, and later the Detroit Tigers. He retired in 1959, but returned to baseball in 1978 to manage the White Sox--becoming only the second African- American manager in the history of the major leagues. The first, I might add, was the great Frank Robinson--who managed the Indians from 1975 to 1977, and who played as a player, of course, for the Cincinnati Reds and then for the Baltimore Orioles. Mr. President, I join all Ohioans--and indeed all lovers of baseball nationwide--in congratulating Larry Doby on this well-deserved recognition of a truly outstanding career. (Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire assumed the Chair.)

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, we observe, this month, National Child Abuse Prevention Month. On this occasion, I would like to give the Senate an update about the fate of a little girl about whom I testified previously before the Senate Finance Committee. In my testimony on October 8, 1997, I told the story of a little 2- year-old girl from Ventura County, CA, a little girl by the name of Joselin Hernandez. This poor little girl was beaten, bitten and slowly tortured to death by her parents. She first was taken into foster care when she was 6 weeks old, hospitalized with six fractured ribs, broken legs and burns to her hands and feet. She was also malnourished and dehydrated. The little girl, little Joselin, was placed at that time with her grandmother. But when her grandmother died, Joselin was returned to her parents, and 3 months later, as I testified before, she was dead. Now, after a 6-week trial, Joselin's father has been convicted of first-degree murder and torture, and her mother of second-degree murder. The judge sentenced Joselin's father to life in prison. He will be eligible for parole in 42 years. The judge sentenced her mother to 15 years to life, and she will be eligible for parole in 13 years. The judge, after listening to the evidence, after listening to this horrible story, this horrible tragedy, told Joselin's father: I have been in court with literally scores of people--some brutal, sadistic killers, but none of them were treated by society as Joselin was treated by her father. Joselin's mother's attorney asked the judge to take into consideration the mother has lost two children--Joselin and a 3-year- old son who was placed in foster care. The judge replied, I think correctly: She hasn't lost two children. She killed one and lost the other. And it seems the reason she did it was not a pretty one. She was getting what she needed, so it was acceptable. It was not unacceptable enough for her to lift a hand to make it end. These killers have been brought to justice. We, as Americans, I don't think, can truly believe that justice has been done when any child has been left to the mercy of people like this. The bill that we passed--my colleague in the chair helped pass last year--to reform the foster care system in this country to help liberate children from abusive parents, is just the beginning, just the beginning of a strong struggle to reduce the number of lives lost in this kind of senseless tragedy. We need to move children into safe, stable, loving and permanent homes. Just about a year ago, on April 30, 1997, I told the Senate about another little girl, and her story has a happier ending. This is a little Ohio girl. She was less than 4 months old when she was hospitalized in critical condition, suffering from shaken-baby syndrome. When she was released from the hospital she went to her first foster home. By the time this little girl was 4, she had been shuttled through eight separate foster homes in 4 short years of life. By the time she finally got out of foster care, she became hysterical whenever she saw a full black garbage bag. Why? That's because that was the luggage that was used whenever she had to be moved from one foster home to another. They always put her belongings in a plastic garbage bag. She knew when she saw that that she was going to be moved again. Last week this little Ohio girl finally got permanent adoptive parents. That is what she and every child in this country needs and deserves. I'm sure all my colleagues join me in wishing her well in her new home and her healing process. I'm sure all of my colleagues also join me in pledging that we will redouble our common efforts to help all of America's children find safe, stable, loving and permanent homes. In short, and in conclusion, the bill that we passed last year is doing some good. It will continue to do good. But it is only the first step. As long as there are half a million children in this country, as there still are today, who are in foster care at any one given moment, as long as children are in some abusive homes, as long as we continue to lose children every week who are killed by their caregivers, this Senate and legislative bodies across this country must remain vigilant. We must continue to examine this issue. We must do all that we can to make sure that every child has what we all want for our own children, and that is a permanent and loving home.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, we are concluding National Organ Donor Week. I think as we conclude our week here in the U.S. Senate, it will be appropriate to pause for a moment and discuss the importance of this week. This is one of the few times when the mere talking about an issue actually will, in fact, make a difference. Why do we celebrate or why do we call attention to National Organ Donor Week? We do it because of a tragedy. The tragedy is that 7, 8, 9, in some weeks 10, of our fellow citizens die, die every week, because there aren't enough organs available. They don't die because medical science can't save them--medical science can save them. They die waiting on a list, waiting for an organ to become available, and seven, eight, or nine of them every week die. What can be done about this? What we can do is talk about this issue. As we talk about it, we can encourage people and their families around the kitchen table to talk about it. Talking about it does make a difference. Too many families, when faced with life's most horrible tragedy, which is the unexpected, usually sudden, loss of a loved one-- a daughter, son, mother, father, wife, husband--when they are asked by the medical personnel at the hospital, ``Can we use your loved one's organs to help save someone else?'' they don't know what to say. They are faced with horrible trauma, something they have not expected. Too many of our fellow citizens say no, not because they don't want to help people, but they say no because they never thought of it. I am convinced if people talk about this issue, if they talk among the members of their family, that we will increase the number of people, when they are faced with that horrible tragedy, to in fact say yes, and we will save lives. That is why we set aside a week as National Organ Donor Week. The ribbon I am wearing symbolizes that. One of our great pages who was out in the hallway a moment ago asked me, ``Senator DeWine, what does that stand for?'' And I was able to tell her what this stands for. I think it is something that we want to share with all our fellow Americans. The Postmaster General and his committee will issue a postage stamp next August to remind us all as we put postage on our letters, as we receive letters, of how important it is to encourage people to become organ donors. I appreciate, Mr. President and Members of the Senate, having an opportunity to talk about this issue this afternoon.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I have, with few exceptions, been very careful not to comment about the ongoing investigation, the Starr investigation, the independent investigation--however you want to characterize it. I have refrained from doing that for many reasons. I want to speak this afternoon about a very limited aspect of that investigation. I speak as a former county prosecuting attorney. I bring, I guess, to the Senate floor today that particular perspective. This past week, there have been news stories--and again I emphasize ``news stories;'' we don't know whether it is true or not true--news stories about the possible subpoena into the grand jury here in Washington of Secret Service agents. That has been the report. Before I go any further, let me say I don't know what the facts are. I don't know whether that is true or not true; nor do I know what the facts are underlying this investigation; nor do I know what Mr. Starr and his prosecutors have uncovered so far; nor, obviously, do I know what has occurred inside the grand jury. So my comments have to be qualified, and that fact has to be taken into consideration. My comments must be understood in that light, and they are given in that light. Former President Bush was quoted in the Washington Post in what was described as a private letter--it was in the Washington Post of Thursday, April 23, yesterday. This was a letter that apparently was privately sent to, directly to, the Secret Service Director, Lewis C. Merletti. And the Washington Post quotes the letter from former President Bush as saying, in part, the following: ```I can tell you, sir, that I am deeply troubled by the allegations swirling around there in Washington and what all this might do to the office I was so proud to hold,'' Bush wrote Merletti. Continuing the quote: ``Regardless of all that, I feel very strongly that the United States Secret Service agent should not be made to appear in court to discuss that which they might or might not have seen or heard.'' Mr. President, I hope that this issue about the potential subpoenaing of Secret Service agents into a grand jury, if it's true, to testify about things they observed involving the President of the United States would be resolved not in the courts and not by legislation. As a former prosecutor, I hope that this matter will be resolved by the sound, good judgment of the special prosecutor in this case. It should be resolved by the proper use, the measured use, the reasoned use of what we refer to as ``prosecutorial discretion.'' Mr. President, the prosecutor in our system has a unique role. I don't know of any other country where the prosecutor has quite this distinctive a role. The prosecutor, really, in many respects, is the most important player in the criminal justice system. It is because of prosecutorial discretion the prosecutor must decide whether the evidence that has been gathered is sufficient to even summon a grand jury, to even present a case to a grand jury. A prosecutor carries a very, very heavy burden. It is a burden that is not carried by the defense attorney, whose job it is to present the defense. It is a burden that is really not even carried by the judge, who is not the principal acting force because, under our system, nothing really happens until a prosecutor says it happens. Nothing goes into play, so to speak. The game doesn't start until the prosecutor makes that decision. So the burden on the prosecutor of summoning people to a grand jury, of asking a grand jury to indict someone is an awesome, awesome responsibility. Let me talk for a moment--and again, I am talking in the abstract without all of the information. At least from this Senator's perspective, I can express my point of view as to how I hope and expect that prosecutorial discretion to be exercised in a very unique situation when we are dealing with the Secret Service that is sworn to protect the lives of the President of the United States and his family and when we are dealing with the President of the United States. Frankly, I am not concerned about an individual President; I am concerned about the office, and I am concerned about what precedent we may or may not be in the process of setting. It seems to me that some reasonable standards would be as follows: If the prosecutor has reasonable belief and reasonable evidence to indicate that a Secret Service agent has seen a direct violation of criminal law, then I think it is clearly correct that that Secret Service agent should be questioned, and it's clearly correct that that Secret Service agent should be brought into the grand jury. If a Secret Service agent, it is alleged, is credible enough that the prosecutor believes that person should be called in and that he or she, as an agent, has seen in the course of duties, or outside of the course of duties, a direct violation of criminal law, I would find it very difficult to make any kind of case that that person should not be brought in and questioned and should not be compelled to testify in front of a grand jury. However, short of that set of facts, I believe there must be a compelling reason to subpoena a Secret Service agent into a grand jury on facts less than that. I think the reason for this, Mr. President, and the reason for my statement and the reason for this rationale is very obvious. Again, we are not so concerned, really, about one President. What we ought to be concerned about, however, is the precedent. We should not worry about what is in the best interest of a particular President, but we should be very much concerned about what is in the best interest of our country. We look to the Secret Service to protect the President of the United States. It is not just in the President's interest that the President be protected; it is obviously in our national interest that the best security precautions be taken to protect our President and his family. If the President has to be concerned about the Secret Service being called in to a grand jury for less than compelling reasons, I think the consequences are not good. I think you could make a very legitimate argument that that would, in fact, intrude on the very special relationship that we expect the Secret Service agents to have with the President of the United States. Again, I do not know the facts of this case, but I think it is important, and I felt compelled, frankly, to outline on the floor today at least what this Member of the Senate, as a former prosecutor, thinks the proper use of prosecutorial discretion would indicate. It is a very high standard. It is a very awesome responsibility. It is a sacred trust. Whether it be in Greene County, OH, where I prosecuted cases, or whether he be the independent counsel appointed to look into allegations about the President of the United States, we expect the same standard, we expect the same discretion, and we expect the same responsibility. In summary, in my opinion, if there has been evidence, substantial allegations, credible allegations that the Secret Service has seen something criminal, I have no problem; in fact, they should be brought into a grand jury to help in the investigation. Short of that, there should be a compelling reason for that person to be subpoenaed by the prosecutor. It is difficult to write legislation to deal with this. It is difficult for the courts to make decisions in regard to this. Frankly, the best person to make that decision is the independent counsel. We should expect a great deal of discretion, a great deal of good, common sense and judgment to be exercised by the independent counsel before he or she exercises the awesome responsibility of subpoenaing someone into the grand jury, particularly when we might be dealing with a Secret Service agent who would be testifying about what he or she overheard in connection with the President of the United States.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I ask that I be allowed to proceed under the previous order for 60 minutes.

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

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this time to extend that to 75 minutes.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to bring my colleagues up to date on the situation in Haiti. Two weeks ago, I traveled once again to this troubled country. While I knew little about Haiti before becoming a Senator, this was my fifth trip to Haiti in the last 3 years. So I have had the opportunity to see what changes have taken place and the general direction of events. Later today, the Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, will visit Haiti. She will find when she arrives a troubled country, but a country in which the United States does have a major national interest. Mr. President, let me begin by pointing out that wile Haiti is not of strategic importance to the United States, what happens there does have a impact on our country and on our citizens. Haiti's current political system is not stable. It is a struggling democracy in its infancy. If this unstable democracy descends into outright chaos, the result could be an exodus of boat people coming to our shores. It has, of course, Mr. President, happened before. Remember, Haiti is just 700 miles from Florida. During the early 1990s, after President Jean Bertrand Aristide was ousted from power, tens of thousands of Haitians risked their lives by boarding small boats, even rafts, hoping to reach the United States or other countries. Between 1991 and 1994, 67,000 Haitians were interdicted at sea--67,000. Our Government was forced to house more than 25,000 Haitians in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, at a cost of more than $400 million. Historically, our countries have important ties. Haiti is the second oldest republic in the hemisphere. Their defeat of Napoleon's army in 1804 led the French to sell us the Louisiana Territory. In 1915, the United States intervened militarily to restore order to Haiti, and we remained there until a new government was installed in 1934. So our interest in Haiti is not new--it is rooted in our history. Hundreds of thousands of Haitians live in the United States. In fact, there are more Haitians in the United States than any other country outside of Haiti, and thousands of U.S. citizens live in Haiti, either permanently or temporarily, for humanitarian purposes. I am amazed, as I travel throughout Haiti, at the number of Americans I meet. They can be found all over that small country. Haiti's troubles have a direct effect on the United States, and impact. Haiti's current political power vacuum already is being filled by dangerous drug lords. Today, 8 percent of the drugs on our Nation's streets come from Haiti or through Haiti. This is a clear example of how the current crisis in Haiti has a clear and direct impact on the people of my home State of Ohio, your home State of Washington, and the rest of this country. Geographic proximity has dictated U.S. interest in Haiti over the course of this century. It will continue to do so. In September 1994, the United States--in conjunction with the international community-- sent over 20,000 troops, at a cost of over $1 billion, to restore President Aristide to power. This figure does not include the additional $120 million the United States provided the United Nations for peacekeeping operations. In addition, since then, the United States has invested well over $2 billion in nonmilitary assistance to establish and help sustain democracy in Haiti. Mr. President, I would now like to update my colleagues on where things stand in Haiti with regard to a number of specific topics. Let me first start with American civilian police presence there. One cause for optimism in Haiti is the American civilian police, who participate in the United Nations civilian police presence. Their mandate recently shifted from mentoring the cops on the streets, the Haitian police officers on the streets, to mentoring the mid-level management of the Haitian National Police. I had the distinct pleasure, when I was in Haiti several weeks ago, of accompanying American civilian policemen on duty in Cite Soleil--a slum in Port-au-Prince with probably the highest degree of violence in this whole country. Surprisingly, several of these American cops told me they had no problem moving through Cite Soleil both during the day and at night. We have, today, 31 dedicated U.S. police officers, Haitian-born U.S. citizen veteran U.S. cops, who are down in Haiti on a contract basis, mentoring the Haitian police. These 31 dedicated police officers from New York, New Jersey, Florida, L.A.--they are all creole speakers. This enables them to communicate well with the Haitian population. In fact, the majority of these 31 Americans were born or have relatives in Haiti. These U.S. police officers told me they feel their work with the Haitian police is helping. It is beneficial. It is important. Mr. President, I commend them and I support the efforts of these fine Americans. Let me turn now to the Haitian police. One of the main missions of the United States after President Aristide was restored to power was to help train a brand new Haitian police force. This was a daunting, and remains a daunting, task. I don't know that it has ever been undertaken in the world at such a magnitude as we tried and have been doing in Haiti. We have trained over 5,000 new Haitian police recruits. Our men and women who travel to Haiti to do this did, and continue to do, an excellent job. The Haitian National Police, or HNP, are doing fairly well and have taken strides to professionalize the institution. Continued concerns of some human rights violations are being addressed in the newly formed inspector general's office. The United States has spent considerable money and effort in training the police force. In conjunction with other interested international donors, this training must continue. Furthermore, efforts should be made to address the lack of resources needed by this police force. When the international community restored Aristide to power in 1994, the Haitian military and police were then totally dismantled. A new police force was formed from scratch. Although a very young force, the Haitian National Police has been described as the only functioning institution in Haiti. When the U.S. Government decided to train the new Haitian police through the International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program--this is our U.S. Government program known as ``ICITAP''--we laid down three conditions: No. 1, that the old armed forces must be and were disbanded; No. 2, that the new police force must be civilian; and, No. 3, that the police must have reasonable means to overcome their historic corruption. While the Haitian police are generally doing a good job, some Haitians continue to fear HNP, the Haitian National Police. These Haitians particularly fear the crowd control/riot squad unit. This unit, which dresses in all black uniforms, including reflective sunglasses, is extremely intimidating and reminiscent of the previous military regime. Further, serious human rights abuses by the HNP officials continue, tragically, to occur. There is really only one solution, and that is to continue to work to help professionalize the police. That is what we are doing. A newly installed inspector general's office within the HNP is looking at these human rights violation cases. We will not see real progress in this area until and unless the IG moves these cases forward--and until and unless the judicial system successfully prosecutes policemen involved in these crimes. Efforts are being made to start integrating the Haitian police into the Haitian society. The concept of community policing is a concept that our men and women are taking to Haiti. Haitian President Preval has requested the HNP to engage in this community policing. American civilian police personnel are mentoring their HNP counterparts in this effort. Though this effort is only in its initial stages, it is a change in the right direction. The police are also attempting to change from a reactive force to become a more typically American proactive force. Our continued commitment to the professionalization of the Haitian police is essential. As all Americans know, a strong and effective police force is essential to any civil, democratic society. We must continue the ICITAP program, and urge the Haitian Government to continue its own efforts to professionalize the police, from the officer on the street to the midlevel management at headquarters. To succeed, a quality police force needs quality resources. The fact is resources are, of course, lacking in Haiti. For example, in Cap Haitien, the second largest city in Haiti that we visited with over 300,000 residents, 130 policemen have access to only six vehicles. This force also lacks simple phones and two-way radios. But perhaps most important is not the lack of physical resources, but the lack of human resources. The current police force--slightly over 6,000 for the whole country-- is of course, too small. The Dominican Republic--Haiti's neighboring country--has roughly the same population and a national police force of 29,000. I urge the administration to consult with the international donor community--and together with the Haitian Government--discuss ways to (1) continue training; (2) continue mentoring this police force; (3) provide necessary and better equipment; and (4) slowly but steadily increase the size of the Haitian national police. Let me turn now to the issue of judicial reform. Mr. President, the police in Haiti is only one element of the judicial system. While we have made progress in police reform, there is not now a functioning judicial system in Haiti. Reforming the entire judicial system--the courts, prosecutors and defense attorneys--should be a priority for the Haitian Government. If any progress--economic or political--is going to happen, Haiti needs a working judicial system. To get there, the Haitian Government needs to demonstrate a real commitment--real political will--to make judicial reform a priority. We should make clear that our Government is willing to make a commitment-- an investment--to create an effective judicial system, but only--only-- if it is clear that the Haitian Government itself is willing to lead that effort. Although the 1987 Haitian Constitution requires a separation of powers between the judicial and executive branches, the Minister of Justice--an executive branch official--currently has control over the entire law enforcement system: the police, prosecutors, defense attorneys and the courts! Not only are the courts not independent, to make matters worse, I was informed by both U.S. and Haitian officials that the current Minister of Justice in Haiti is not committed to any real reform measures. The seriousness of this problem cannot be overstated. The credibility of the Haitian legal system is undermined by the perception that it is awash in corruption--and that justice is for sale. Until the Haitian Government demonstrates the political will to bring murderers to justice, for instance, the Haitian people will lack confidence in their own legal system, and vigilante-style justice will tragically continue. True judicial reform cannot take place unless and until Haiti political leaders exercise the political will to solve the high profile political murders. There have been dozens of political murders in Haiti over the past several years. Unfortunately, to date, not a single one has been solved. Despite the efforts of the Special Investigative Unit inside the Haitian national police, which has the specific mandate to investigate these high-profile murder cases, the Haitian Government has done nothing to help resolve these cases. Some argue that one of the reasons behind this fact is that some senior Haitian Government officials may be implicated in the crimes. Having said that, I still believe we must continue to fund the Special Investigations Unit, because, as one high ranking U.S. official told me when we were in Haiti: ``It keeps pressure on the Haitian Government and keeps them halfway honest.'' Mr. President, successfully solving and prosecuting even one of these political cases could serve as a turning point for reform of the judicial system. It could send the right signal. We need to do all we can to put pressure on the Haitian Government to make this a top priority. For example, last year, Congress enacted legislation I proposed which denies visas to Haitians involved in extrajudicial and political killings. The identity of many of these people who committed atrocities is well known. We should keep this law that we passed last year in place as a way of pressuring the Haitian Government--and sending a signal to the Haitian population that the U.S. cares about justice, and that they themselves should demand it. Any expressed commitment by the Haitian Government to judicial reform cannot be taken seriously without its cooperation in the identification, capture and prosecution of political murderers. That kind of commitment will give the judicial system the credibility it needs to be seen as a viable law enforcement agency for all Haitians. Furthermore, currently the Haitian judicial system is a system in name only. Although the number of arrests has increased, those arrested are not being prosecuted. At this time, justice begins and ends with the police. If this does not change, we can only imagine the negative impact this will have on police morale. All our efforts to reform the police could end up, in the long run, being in vain. Mr. President, without judicial reform, we cannot expect Haitian society--its government, its economy--to move forward. On the contrary, it will move backward. Since the Minister of Justice currently is not committed to reform, the U.S. Government has found ways to work around the Ministry by mentoring judges, for example. I was extremely impressed by our Department of Justice representative in Haiti who is helping train judges and prosecutors. He has found ways to work around the Ministry to start instituting positive change in that system. But we cannot make serious long-term progress until the Haitian Government--starting with the Minister of Justice--agrees to reform. Working around the Minister of Justice can only go so far. Serious judicial reform in Haiti begins with a commitment from the government's leaders. Therefore, I recommend the following: First, the United States, along with the international donors, must urge President Preval to appoint a new Minister of Justice who will demonstrate a commitment to work with the international donor community to together help create meaningful reforms in the judiciary. Second, the United States and the other international donors must get from the Haitian Government a serious commitment to reform the entire judicial system. Amazingly, the list of official priorities the Haitian Government has presented to the U.S. Government does not include judicial reform! Unless that changes, I suggest we reconsider any continued U.S. assistance for judicial reform. Without such a commitment, I am concerned that any money we send will simply be wasted. A true commitment by the Haitian Government to reform the entire judiciary system must include action on the following basic elements: An independent judiciary; New legislative laws regarding the judiciary, including a judicial career system, and reform of the penal codes; Increased budget for the national and local judiciary system; and Establishment of an appropriate career and salary structure for the judiciary system, including salary increases for committed prosecutors and judges; and creation of a functioning disciplinary body to oversee the entire judiciary, such as an inspector general's office within the Ministry of Justice. We must make clear that we stand ready to assist the Haitian Government if they are serious about taking the actions I have just described. We must make clear what that assistance would amount to. This year, we provided $11 million for judicial reform. In next year's budget request, the Clinton administration has proposed to reduce the judicial reform program from $11 million to $7 million and grant an additional $4 million (which together would equal $11 million) for human rights initiatives. Now, there are some who will argue that human rights is part of a judicial reform. While providing assistance to those who have suffered human rights abuses is a commendable effort, it should not and cannot replace an effort to reform the system that encourages these abuses. If the Haitian Government agrees to invest in judicial reform, we should at least maintain our current annual investment in judicial reform--the $11 million figure--and we should increase it if possible. After all, the level of our investment should reflect the degree of importance we place on this kind of reform. However, if the Haitian Government does not express and demonstrate a true political will to do these basic reforms, then the United States must reconsider its assistance in this area. Thus, Mr. President, we should set aside the same level of funding for judicial reform in this year's budget. But we must make it clear this money will not be spent, cannot be spent, until we have a commitment, a demonstrated commitment in action, from the Haitian Government to achieve these important benchmarks. Mr. President, before I conclude this section, let me tell my colleagues a quick story about the benefits of judicial reform in another country. During our recent visit to Haiti, we also visited the Dominican Republic where we focused on their efforts to reform the judicial system. Speaking with the President of the Dominican Republic, I got a sense of the Government's true commitment to the judicial reform process. When I asked the President what finally got the process underway, he said that first there had to be political will. Aside from that, the people must also want, if not demand, it. A well-known writer, Orlando Martinez, was murdered several years ago in the Dominican Republic. At the time, no one attempted to take on the case. No one would. The reason was that no one had trust or faith in the judicial system. Well, one courageous judge in early 1996 decided to take on that case. He made the case a priority and through the process did something unprecedented. He had a number of military officials arrested and successfully prosecuted and sentenced. Mr. President, to make a long story short, the prosecution of the individuals involved in this murder was a turning point in moving forward with judicial reform in that country. The case got tremendous media coverage, and the society was never the same--the Dominican Republic was not the same. Soon after the civil society started demanding important judicial reforms, the business community started demanding important judicial reforms. They felt invigorated by the prosecution of this one, but highly important, case. It gave them faith in the system. Mr. President, as I mentioned earlier, there have been a number of unsolved political murder cases in Haiti. The murder case in the Dominican Republic serves as an important example of an important transformation that took place in that society. We saw a similar scenario in El Salvador in the 1980s when high-profile murders were investigated and those responsible were successfully prosecuted and sentenced. That was something new in El Salvador and had an unbelievable effect on the society. Specifically, in El Salvador, high- ranking military officers were sentenced for the killing of Jesuit priests. The solving of even one political murder--the solving of even one political murder--in Haiti would do wonders to send a powerful signal about justice and the rule of law in that troubled country. Mr. President, let me now turn to another topic in regard to Haiti that is extremely troubling, and that is the drug situation. The need for a stronger judiciary, Mr. President, and a professional police force becomes readily apparent if you examine Haiti's situation with regard to drugs. When it comes to the matter of illegal narcotics, I must report to the Senate that the situation in Haiti is grave and even approaching a crisis. Because of Haiti's weak political and economic condition, this country is becoming increasingly attractive to international drug traffickers. The United States must pay close attention to this growing concern, for there is a threat that Haiti could turn into a full-fledged narcostate. That means, and would mean, more and more illegal drugs coming through Haiti into our country. For that reason, the Clinton administration must direct more Drug Enforcement Administration and Coast Guard personnel to Haiti to better combat the drug problem within the country and better control the drug trafficking in international waters surrounding Haiti. We should also incrementally increase our counter-narcotics assistance to Haitian Government agencies responsible for counternarcotics in terms of training, as they become more efficient and professional. According to a U.S. Government interagency assessment on cocaine movement, in 1996, between 5 and 8 percent of the cocaine coming into the United States passed through the country of Haiti. By the third quarter of 1997, the percentage jumped to 12 percent and increased to 19 percent by the end of that year. One of the reasons cited for the increase is the enhanced law enforcement effort that is being made in Puerto Rico, which has caused traffickers to move operations from there to Haiti. Responding to this trend, the Clinton administration added Haiti to the list of countries requiring annual certification in 1995, and though it has been certified as cooperative in the war on drugs each year since, the problem appears to be getting worse. Mr. President, most people are aware that most of the cocaine coming into our country is grown and processed in Colombia, but the transit routes are always changing. The drug traffickers continue to move them. As indicated on this map, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico are all located approximately halfway between Colombia and the United States. Drug interdiction efforts have increased to combat direct shipment of drugs from Colombia to Puerto Rico, forcing opportunistic drug lords to seek alternative routes. Thus Haiti, a mere 15 hours from Colombia by speedboat, seems a perfect candidate, a mere overnight passage in a boat. Because commercial shipments from Haiti to the United States are scarce, illegal drugs are transported from Colombia into Haiti and across Haiti into the Dominican Republic and then the short distance to Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico is only about 75 miles away at its closest point to the Dominican Republic. These drugs go into Puerto Rico disguised as legitimate commercial shipments. Once they are in Puerto Rico, they are virtually home free into the United States. Drug traffickers realize that once the drugs land in Puerto Rico, they are virtually home free because of the special status of Puerto Rico as a U.S. Commonwealth. That is the route. And it is increasing every single day, the transshipment through Haiti. Apart from the strategic location, Haiti has become increasingly attractive to international traffickers because drug interdiction efforts are minimal in that country. Haitian law enforcement authorities present no threat to the drug traffickers. The Haitian Coast Guard consists of only a few boats, and it is simply outnumbered and outgunned by the Colombian professional drug lords. The Haitian Coast Guard has had, with our help, a few successes. With the assistance of the United States, in 1998 Haitian authorities have seized 1,000 pounds of cocaine, 500 pounds of marijuana, and 25 pounds of hashish oil. But serious problems remain that when Haitian law enforcement succeeds and actually makes a seizure, Haiti's slow and ineffective criminal justice system does not act as a serious deterrent. In addition, the fledgling Haitian National Police has only 24 agents devoted to the drug problem--24. Granted, this counternarcotics unit was just established last year. I am told there are plans to slowly increase the number of personnel. There is apparently a leadership problem within the unit. Hence, more training is absolutely essential. Sadly, some evidence also exists that those responsible for upholding the law in Haiti are themselves part of the problem. Last year, the Haitian Government arrested 21 of its own policemen on narcocorruption charges. Money laundering appears to be on the rise as well. Until several years ago, only a handful of banks existed in Haiti at all. That number is said to have more than doubled, or even tripled, in the last few years. The transit of drugs in Haiti represents a serious threat to an already fragile democracy. The United States should pay close attention to this growing concern--for there is a threat that Haiti could turn into a full-fledged narcostate, completely controlled by the drug lords with institutionalized power. If Haiti's current political vacuum is filled by these drug cartels, it will then be too late. We simply must not allow that to happen. The Clinton administration's budget for next year in regard to drugs calls for $166 million for international narcotics and law enforcement affairs for all of Latin America and the Caribbean. Of that $166 million, no assistance is earmarked specifically for Haiti. Rather, any assistance for Haiti comes from a general fund. Through this general fund, Mr. President, Haiti is expected to get a meager $400,000, up from an estimated $300,000 in 1998--this despite the fact that a country like Jamaica has a requested earmark at $800,000 and the Bahamas have an earmark of $1 million. I believe the President's proposed budget would not do very much to stem the tide of drugs flowing through Haiti. A better effort to seize these shipments simply must be made. That means, of course, more investment in training the Haitian Coast Guard. We are doing some of that, Mr. President. It means, further, the Haitian police counternarcotics units must be professionalized. It also means a U.S. law enforcement presence in Haiti and the Dominican Republic. When I visited Haiti 2 weeks ago, there was one DEA agent in all of Haiti--one. I was told at the time that two more were on the way. Next door, in the Dominican Republic, when I visited the Dominican Republic, I found they have one permanent and one temporary DEA agent. That is three for the entire island. This is a very small presence considering the fact that Congress has authorized over 100 DEA agents for the Caribbean alone. I was disappointed to find the lack of serious counternarcotics plans for both of these countries. We do not have a plan. I recommended that we do more. I must say that I had the opportunity late yesterday afternoon to talk on the phone to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright about this issue. She informed me and assured me yesterday when I talked about this that shortly the United States will be beefing up its DEA presence, the number of DEA agents in both Haiti and in the Dominican Republic. I applaud that. We need to do it, and we need to do it immediately. Let me make today my specific recommendations in regard to this area. One, we have to increase our DEA presence in Haiti. One is not enough. Two, we must increase Coast Guard personnel and boats in international waters around Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Three, we must slowly increase our counternarcotics assistance resources for Haiti. The Clinton administration's proposed fiscal year 1999 budget would provide foreign aid to Haiti in a total aggregate of over $182 million. That is the proposal. Yet the proposed budget by the Clinton administration only provides $400,000 in counternarcotics assistance. Clearly, we have to do more. When we consider the top priorities in U.S. policy toward Haiti, counternarcotics matters should be clearly at or near the top of the list. Having said that, it is important to note that just giving more money to the weak and inefficient Haiti National Police counternarcotics unit and to the Haitian Coast Guard won't solve the problem. It won't solve the problem, because these institutions are weak, and because they are weak, we first need to focus on training. As these institutions slowly become more professional and efficient, we must incrementally, then, increase our counternarcotics assistance to them. Let me turn now to probably the most serious problem that Haiti faces. That is the political impasse which has plagued this country for 10 months. The political impasse means there is virtually no Government in existence. A political impasse stops any kind of progress that this country might see. When we look at the challenges I have already described in regard to Haiti, challenges of social stability, law enforcement, and drug trafficking, all of these are symptomatic of a larger problem. The larger problem is the political paralysis that exists within the Haitian Government itself. Since the Prime Minister resigned from office last June, there has not been a functioning Government. Charges of election fraud in the April 1997 election still remain unresolved, halting any real democratic and economic progress. In conjunction with the international community, the United States must pressure the Haitian Government to, one, resolve the current crisis; and, two, allow for greater international administration and monitoring of the upcoming elections. Mr. President, almost 10 months ago, then Prime Minister of Haiti, Prime Minister Rosny Smarth, stepped down from his position due to his frustration with the Government's inability to resolve an electoral dispute and implement his economic modernization plan. Since then, a Prime Minister has not been confirmed by the Parliament. The Prime Minister is designed and designated as the Chief Executive of the Government. He appoints the Cabinet and basically runs the Government. Without a Prime Minister, the country simply cannot function. The current political impasse stems from pervasive fraud and improper vote tabulation in the April 6, 1997, elections. Not only have the opposition of the parties demanded that the April 1997 elections be annulled, the international community, including the United Nations, has deemed the elections--which produced only a meager 5 percent turn out--fraudulent. The political parties, led by OPL, insist they will not move forward on a Prime Minister candidate until the issues surrounding the 1997 April elections are finally resolved. This paralysis in Government is being felt everywhere. Economic reform efforts have stalled, the legislature has not passed a budget, it has not enacted structural reforms needed to free up over $100 million in foreign assistance, nor has it approved loans for millions of technical assistance. The lack of a Government has halted the process of privatization and made it difficult to implement civil downsizing. Finally, it has discouraged potential investors who could play a key role in economic development and in improving Haiti's image. Regardless of the countless visits to Haiti in the last year alone by very senior U.S. Government administration officials, up to and including Secretary Albright's visit this weekend, there has not been a real movement toward a solution to this crisis. One thing that is clear to me after my recent visit is that the United States cannot do for Haiti what it will not do for itself. The Haitians first have to realize the need to solve their political crisis. They have not yet hit rock bottom, and maybe that is what it will take to create the political will to move forward. Unfortunately, I do not yet see the requisite political will and determination in Haiti. What complicates matters even more is that there are upcoming national and municipal elections slated for November of 1998 in Haiti. Hundreds of seats are up, including the entire lower Chamber, up to two-thirds of the Senate, and all municipal seats. The problem is, there hasn't been a resolution to the irregularities surrounding the previous election, and as the clock continues to tick, we are getting closer and closer to even more elections, including the Presidential election scheduled for the year 2000. During my visit, the Haitian political parties made very clear the importance of this November's election. So far, however, the international community has not developed a united or current strategy for this crucial election. I recommended that the administration--our administration--work with the international community to take the following measures: One, we must pressure the Haitian Government to allow the international community to take a lead role in the upcoming election; two, we must insist on the establishment of a credible, nonpartisan, competent electoral commission to oversee that crucial election; three, we must insist there be a fair, equitable, and transparent resolution to the numerous controversies resulting from the 1997 electoral fraud; four, we must urge the Haitian Government to reform the electoral and political party laws to level the playing field; five, we must insist on attention to several important technical matters, such as the voter registration list, voter cards, access to state media, and access to state financial resources as stipulated in the Constitution and in the electoral law; six, we must ensure that the police do not become politicized, favoring certain factions or parties at the expense of others; seven, we must encourage a visit by a high-visibility delegation of notable world leaders to go to Haiti and observe the election. This kind of high visibility would help force the Haitian Government to agree to fair and transparent standards for the election. And, finally, we must provide funding for the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute to continue their political-party-building programs in Haiti. If the current election impasse is broken, the IRI and NDI will need money to help support the crucial institutional election programs that make for open, democratic elections. Unfortunately, several political parties made it clear to me during my visit that they viewed the U.S. Government as strictly aligned with the ruling party of Preval and Aristide, that they are not getting the attention they deserve regarding a resolution to the current crisis. I strongly believe that if we are going to help establish a true democracy in Haiti, we need to stress the importance of political party pluralism in that country. Mr. President, in light of these benchmarks, I strongly urge that no U.S. assistance should be used to underwrite the November elections until and unless a settlement of the impasse of the April 6, 1997, elections is reached--and until a fair and independent electoral council is established in accordance with the Haitian Constitution. Since 1995, Mr. President, the United States has provided almost $17 million for elections in Haiti. Strangely, of $182 million requested for fiscal year 1999, the Clinton administration has only asked for $900,000 for these upcoming elections. My first reaction to this is that this specific assistance request is simply not enough for this important election. But before we consider ways to sustain and consolidate democracy in Haiti, by building infrastructures and institutions, it is essential to have the first true element of any democracy; that is, the ability to have free and fair elections. Our administration should make the upcoming election a priority and work with the international community to pressure the Haitian Government to have a fair and transparent election. Having said that, Mr. President, if the Haitian Government is not willing to make the election a priority and agree to these simple and obvious benchmarks, then there is no use for the United States to administer this kind of assistance for any future election. The money would simply be wasted. We must have a commitment first. We need to know the Haitian Government is serious before we agree to get involved in the election. Our administration should coordinate with other international donors to develop a common front based on agreement to this basic principle. Let me turn to Haiti's economy. Haiti is an impoverished country that simply cannot afford further political shenanigans. The Haitian economy has experienced dismal growth while experiencing some growth in the underground market--primarily, contraband and drugs. Private investment is absolutely critical if Haiti is going to create new jobs and put an end to the cycle of poverty. Several key things the United States should pursue include: 1, extending trade preferences to the CBI beneficiary countries under the Caribbean Basin Trade Enhancement Act; 2, we should urge the Haitian Government to begin implementation of its long-delayed plan to reduce the civil service; 3, we should urge the Haitian Government to move forward with privatization efforts; 4, we should find ways to empower the chamber of commerce communities in Haiti, particularly those interested in economic development. We must empower these chamber communities; they have a tremendous potential. Mr. President, last year the Haitian economy experienced tepid growth of only 1.1 percent in the formal sector--down from 2.7 percent in 1996. The informal, or nontaxed, sector experienced slightly higher growth of 2.2 percent. It is important to note here that this growth is largely due to the tremendous amount of foreign assistance provided by the international donor community. The reality of the Haitian economy today is that but for the donor contributions to the economy, the economy would have negative growth during the last several years. This slow growth is causing problems for the Government, through increased tax revenues--and the failure to meet Haitians' expectation that Haiti would begin a period of sustained economic growth and job creation in a country with chronically high unemployment and underemployment. While economic growth is slow or nonexistent, it is well known in Haiti that the underground market--primarily contraband and drugs--is on the rise. The Preval administration in Haiti is faced with a difficult fiscal situation, compounded by the lack of a fiscal year 1998 budget, suspension of international donor disbursement, and an inability to significantly cut spending. The Government has trouble cutting spending because the bulk of Government funds go to pay the large civil service. Other factors include the Central Bank's financing of deficit spending, which has increased significantly in the first quarter of this year, and that is a very scary thought, Mr. President. Further, preliminary Government statistics indicate that tax revenues have dropped during the first quarter of this fiscal year, largely because of a strike in the tax office. The Government of Haiti is moving to implement a cash management program that would limit spending to expenditures. But President Preval will face difficulty putting such a program in place, never mind sustaining it, if Government workers press for wage hikes to keep up with inflation. Inflation was roughly 17 percent last year. Price hikes for basic foodstuffs will further impoverish more Haitians and could spark demonstrations against the Preval government in the coming months. Now let me turn to the important issue of privatization. Though at an extremely low pace, the Government of Haiti has completed the privatization of the country's flour mill, and the privatization of the cement mill will be completed as soon as the new Prime Minister is approved by the Senate. Three other high-priority privatization projects are said to be on track to begin the bidding process later this year--the airport, the seaport, and the telephone company. Resources have been made available by the international community to ensure that the bidding process is open and transparent and fair to prospective purchasers. During my recent visit, both U.S. and Haitian officials acknowledged the difficulty that can be expected in privatizing these three projects. The main reason that they will have difficulty, of course, is that these state-owned enterprises, particularly the seaport, are a source of revenue for the Government of Haiti. Furthermore, former Government cronies are allegedly involved in the telephone company. The U.S. Government needs to continue pressuring the Haitians to privatize these facilities. But budget balancing and privatization are just the beginning. Private investment is absolutely crucial if Haiti is going to create new jobs and end the cycle of poverty. To attract new investments, I propose the following specific steps: One, the United States should extend trade preferences to the CBI beneficiary nations under the Caribbean Basin Trade Enhancement Act. This would tell investors the United States is prepared to help Haiti and other island nations diversify their economies through special tariff breaks. Two, the Clinton administration should develop a new loan guarantee initiative for Haiti through the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. These loan guarantees would help make small to medium- sized loans available, $10,000 to $100,000, to businesses that are prepared to move to Haiti and start new enterprises. Each job in the assembly sector supports at least another 7 to 10 Haitians and also creates secondary spinoff jobs. Three, we must urge the Haitian government to move forward with the privatization of the remaining state owned enterprises; Four, we must urge the Government of Haiti to begin immediate implementation of its long-delayed plan to reduce the size of the Haitian civil service. The necessary Haitian laws have been passed to begin this process. Unfortunately, however, the Civil Service Reform Act, which mandates the reduction in the civil service, has a sunset provision which expires this fall. The U.S. Government and the international community need to pressure the Haitian government to implement this important law. Further, $20 million in international assistance is available to underwrite this program. Implementation of this program would be a tangible signal to investors that the Haitian Government wants to work more efficiently. Five, we must work with the FAA and Department of Transportation to improve airport facilities and ensure that the airport meets all international safety standards. The airport is a vital access point for tourists and promotes the free flow of Haitians to and from the country. These Haitians help the economy with their remittances, and provide a healthy dialogue with on-island Haitians about the benefits of democracy. The FAA has a number of current concerns about the airport, and is currently addressing them. We must ensure that the airport is operated efficiently and safely, because it is the principal entry and exit point for Haiti. Sixth, work with the government to ensure the privatization of the sea port. Mr. President, the sea port is plagued with inefficiency and corruption. It is certainly the most expensive port in this hemisphere to ship into or out of. The port must be privatized and modernized for better efficiently and productivity. I also recommend that the Clinton Administration urge the Haitian government to privatize other ports in Haiti as well. Seven, find ways to empower the Chamber of Commerce communities in Haiti, particularly in the secondary cities. The Chamber of Commerce in Cap Haitien, for example, is energized--and is working with the local mayor and government to further develop the city. Mr. President, compared to Port-au-Prince, Cap Haitien almost felt like a different country. It's the attitude that was different. For instance, the business community is eagerly seeking foreign investors, and in fact have already been able to secure some investment. Currently, there are two cruise lines which occasionally visit Cap Haitien. The Haitians on the street welcomed us. I remember one elderly woman who came up to our delegation and said: ``God bless you. I am so happy you are here. You give us hope.'' They want tourists. They want people to come in. Findings ways to work with and encourage Haitians in areas such as Cap Haitien, where their willingness is more visible than in Port au Prince, is something we should pursue. agriculture Mr. President, let me now turn to one particular economic sector that is especially crucial to Haiti's future, and that is agriculture. Amazingly, tragically Haiti imports two thirds of its food. Every day, thousands of Haitians leave rural areas where they are unable to provide for themselves and flood into the cities which are unable to sustain the population pressures. Right now, approximately 20 percent of Haiti's population lives in Port au Prince. The rest live in secondary cities and the countryside. If this trend continues unchecked, Haiti will not be able to alleviate poverty and starvation. In the long run, agricultural and rural development is critical to the goal of Haiti providing jobs, income and food for its population. Agriculture production is extremely low for many reasons. Topsoil has eroded because most of the trees are harvested for charcoal--the major source of Haitian fuel. Technical skills are lacking--skills as basic as soil conservation techniques, tree planting, and caring for animals. Basic technology is lacking--including soil and water conservation techniques, tree grafting for higher quality products, crop improvement and improving the genetic base of crops. Rural infrastructure is deficient. Farmers do not have access to capital or credit, and little access to seeds, saplings and fertilizers. Delivery mechanisms, including market access and techniques are inadequate and need to be developed. During my visit, I was encouraged by the U.S. Agency for International Development's Productive Land Use System Program or PLUS Program. To increase output, PLUS works directly with farmers to improve techniques in the fields. These activities are undertaken in collaboration with Haitian farmers. The program deals with the environmental problem through the farmers' own self-interest. This kind of assistance is what works best. This partnership has been a success for local Haitian farmers and should be continued. In addition, I believe Haiti's strategies for development should focus on the preservation and reclamation of the natural resource base. Linking production and income generation with resource conservation and management activities is being done by field teams that reach farmers through the grass roots. This is similar to our own very successful cooperative extension program in the U.S. We do it better than anybody else. We are now trying to export it and are exporting it to Haiti. This is a good example of something that should be expanded throughout Haiti. To further develop the rural and agricultural sectors of Haiti, attention needs to be given to a decentralized development strategy. I believe that continued focus on nongovernmental organizations is appropriate. I believe that we should be promoting regional development and that associations linking private sector interests with local government need to be established. One way to do this is to link our own successful foundations and institutions of higher education such as Ohio State University together with local Haitian interested in pursuing this goal. The Haitian farmers I met understood that the sound environmental practices and productive agricultural and marketing techniques led to an improved standard of living. If we can help them expand these techniques, they can make the staying in the rural areas more attractive and stem the current tide of urban migration. AID has also been working to help establish marketing cooperatives. One such cooperative is Servi Coop. which has allowed some Haitian cocoa farmers to have a new market for their goods. Historically, Haitian farm prices have been keep down because farmers have only had one ultimate export source to sell their products to. This AID program is attempting to change that and to create competition. When they have competition, they bid up the price and Haitian farmers have already begun to see in certain areas that type of improvement in their prices. U.S. troops Let me talk about the 475 that we have currently stationed in Haiti. Their mission is twofold. First, to provide a visible presence for stabilization. Second, to receive real-life training for readiness-- training that can prove extremely beneficial in wartime. Through humanitarian and civil operations, our troops have built infrastructure and have medically treated thousands of Haitians. Their presence has had a positive impact in Haiti. Their presence, their mission, should continue. While in Haiti last week, I had the opportunity to visit with our troops. As I said, there are currently 475 of them--down from approximately 2,000 troops in 1996. This year's troop levels will likely range between 475 and 600 on any given day, depending on the number of military personnel at any given time temporarily deployed to Haiti to perform the various humanitarian and civic operations. Our troops engage in a variety of operations. Just in the last two years, U.S. troops have built or restored approximately 13 miles of roads, repaired or renovated 36 schools, dug 23 wells, and restored a University Hospital. They have treated over 50,000 Haitians and have trained over 200 Haitian health care providers. The goals for our troop this year include: continued humanitarian and civic operations, such as medical and infrastructure building; and port call visits. One new project our military will undertake is building a maritime operation center in Jacmel to be used by the Haitian Coast Guard. Because of Jacmel's strategic location as a potential drug transit area, this facility will be very helpful for counter-narcotics operations. By the end of this fiscal year, U.S. troops will have renovated or built two other schools, distributed over a million dollars in medical supplies, and treated over 18,000 Haitians. Our military presence there has had a profound and positive impact. Our troops repeatedly told me, as I talked to them, that they feel useful and generally feel safe. While significant violence is still taking place among Haitians, the U.S. troops that I talked to told me the Haitians understand their presence and, by and large, welcome them there. Further, the military officers that I talked to, our men and women, told me they have generally found no substantiated evidence of targeting of U.S. forces in Haiti. The vigilantes--those who take justice into their own hands and engage in serious violence through gangs--have apparently not targeted U.S. forces. Because the conditions in Haiti are so bad, our troops say that the humanitarian and civic work they do is having a tremendous impact, both on Haiti and on their own training. I was told a story by a U.S. military nurse in Haiti who recently treated a child who had conjunctivitis. The little girl was close to losing her eyesight. If it had remained untreated for 2 weeks, the doctors told me, she would have lost her eyesight. The nurse in this case, U.S. military nurse, treated this little girl with eyedrops which saved the girl's vision. The American nurse told us: ``I feel useful every day. I feel like I'm doing something.'' She is not alone. Thousands and thousands of U.S. citizens travel every year to Haiti to provide humanitarian assistance. When I arrived in Haiti 2 weeks ago, the morning I arrived our troops informed me that several of their key personnel were at that very moment involved in a medical emergency involving U.S. citizens. Three U.S. missionaries had just been in a very serious car accident. A U.S. civilian policeman overheard reports of the accident on his two-way radio and was able to get a helicopter to pick up the individuals and transport them to a medical facility at the American base. As I arrived that morning at the base, I saw one of the individuals literally being carried into an ambulance to be taken to the operating table. An hour later, during lunch that day, a soldier from Ohio, with whom I was eating lunch, told me he had helped treat the Americans, these American missionaries. He gave me an update on their condition. It was abundantly clear that our troops had saved the lives of these missionaries. This limited U.S. military presence is having a profound positive effect. If we maintain this limited mission then, in my view, our troops' presence should continue for the time being. The best news in Haiti, though--in addition to our troops who are there and the great work they are doing--the other good news in Haiti comes from the good works of thousands of individuals who are working to make a difference in the daily lives of Haitians. I met many innovative Haitians who were passionate about improving life in Haiti. They are not part of the Government, they are private citizens. And they have been joined by people from around the world who work in every aspect of society. They help the poor, the orphaned, the starving, the elderly, and the sick. It has been an inspiration to visit these people on my trips to Haiti and to visit their projects. Let me just talk about a couple. In 1980, Dr. Guy Theodore, a retired U.S. Air Force colonel, founded a health clinic in Pignon to serve a poor rural Haitian community. Through Dr. Theodore's leadership, hard work, and his determination, the clinic has now one of Haiti's most successful comprehensive help and development programs. The hospital serves 150,000 people and provides health services, women's literacy programs, credit programs, an innovative water and sanitation program, and environmental and community development programs. It was here when we were traveling out in the country that we happened to meet a group of doctors from Fargo, ND. The eight men and women who traveled there traveled at their own expense. They raised $20,000--enough money to send them and their equipment to Haiti for a week of surgery and medical work. They were giving their time to make a difference to many suffering people. In Cap Haitien, we met three nurses from Georgia who were working through Emory University. They told me about the work they were doing, training local people about basic health and sanitation, and they encouraged me to urge other American universities to consider cooperative ventures to train more Haitians in these important works. One nurse whom I talked to had been coming to Haiti and working in Haiti for 17 years. On a previous trip, in the town of Lescayes, we met Father William Konicki, who gave us a tour of his home for the elderly. People who had nowhere to sleep, nothing to eat, people who were sick and disabled, they all found a place to live and be safe with Father Konicki. Without Father Konicki's tremendous efforts to make something out of nothing, these elderly people would have starved to death. Some of the most difficult stories have to do with Haiti's orphans. Because of extreme poverty, high premature death rates among adults, parents, and AIDS, thousands of Haiti's children have been orphaned or abandoned. Many end up in places that provide no more than shelter. The children come malnourished and diseased. Often the only food these children eat comes from the U.S. Public Law 480 title II feeding program. Last year, the administration announced a plan to phase out the part of this program that served orphans, the elderly, and individuals with AIDS. Through legislation, I worked closely with appropriators in Congress to secure funding for fiscal year 1998 at the same level as fiscal year 1997. I will continue to fight for this money for these children. It is the only food many of them have. If this money is not approved, we will literally be taking away the only food these children have to eat. These are pictures of the food ration that our Public Law 480 actually provides. This may not look too appetizing to us in the United States, but this is a meal that provides these children--they get one meal a day--it provides them with a well balanced, nourishing meal. It allows them to be healthier, frankly, than most children are in Haiti. That is what that Public Law 480 funds provide. There are tens of thousands of children like this in Haiti. There are many caring adults who run the orphanages I have referred to. Mr. President, 67-year-old Sister Veronique, a Haitian-born nun whom I have gotten to know and my wife has gotten to know over the last few years, picks up abandoned babies from the hospital every time that she has an open bed. These are children who are about ready to die. Many times they are not true orphans, they are brought into the hospital when people are so poor they bring the children in--they try to keep them at home, but then when they know they are about ready to die or think they cannot keep them any longer or they will die, they bring them into the hospital. What Sister Veronique does is, she goes to the hospital every time she has an open bed, she picks up another baby, and takes that baby back to her orphanage and tries to keep that baby alive. There are many, many success stories. Many of these children do, in fact, make it because of what Sister Veronique does. Another nun, Sister McGonagle, from San Diego, spends 6 months of every year raising moneys for the Kenscoff Orphanage, where she works the rest of the year. Father Stra, from Italy, a Salesian priest, provides shelter for homeless boys and training programs for street children. We also met an American couple who bring Haitian orphans into their own home in Port au Prince, hoping to find permanent homes for these children later in the United States. I am pleased that our United States Agency for International Development mission in Haiti is working to develop a local association of people to advocate for children and serve as a network for orphanages, so as to be able to share ideas and resources. This is an important idea and one that we should encourage and continue. Let me say that after five visits to Haiti, I can assure my colleagues in the Congress that we have, working for the U.S. Government, a number of very dedicated people in AID, a number of very dedicated and talented people at our Embassy as well. In conclusion, we should be clear. Haiti's democracy is not stable; it is in its infancy. As Americans, we find it hard to imagine a country that is not even able to hold elections. But the electoral fraud over Haiti's national and municipal elections last April, that cloud over those elections in which only 5 percent of the population even bothered to cast ballots, has brought government there to a halt. There has been a political impasse since last June, when President Rosny Smarth resigned. In fact, it seems that all the key players, the Haitian Government and the other parties, have decided not to resolve this crisis. That is why this weekend's visit by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is so critical. I understand she intends to meet with the two Lavalas parties, which I think is necessary. However, I am surprised to hear that she has no plans to meet with the other opposition parties. I think that is a mistake. It is critical that she meet with the other parties as well. This will encourage their participation in the next elections, and keep them involved in the national political dialogue and will send a signal to the current Government of Haiti of what true political pluralism really means. Until this political impasse has been resolved, we should not be pledging any kind of financial support for future elections. Indeed, our Haiti policy must be something more than a blank check. Without specific measurable goals, monetary aid to Haiti is an unguided assistance program in search of a policy. It seems to me that we must export our ideas along with our aid. It will take more than just money to bring stability to Haiti; it will require a comprehensive plan and Haitian political will. Without these key elements, all the money in the world will not do any good in Haiti. I think it is clear that the United States needs to work with the international community, develop a coherent and well-planned strategy, and together pressure the Haitian Government to first resolve the current political crisis. Furthermore, before Haiti can prosper--both democratically and economically--the government must address--and make a commitment to--three key factors: (1) hold free and transparent elections; (2) combat the increasing threat of drugs; and (3) reform the ``broken'' judiciary. I have suggested that in these three key areas--which do not currently receive significant funding from the United States; it is a relatively small amount of money that we put in Haiti--that increased funding should be considered if certain benchmarks are met as I have outlined. Current budget request figures for these three areas do not exceed $10 million, a relatively small part of the total Haitian commitment. These priority areas though are essential and our administration should pay close attention. We must pay close attention to whether the Haitians are willing to address these three specific problems: hold free and transparent elections; combat the increasing threat of drugs; and reform the broken judiciary. Unless they are addressed, it is very hard to see how any real democratic progress and economic development can possibly ever take hold in Haiti. In two of these priority areas--politial and judicial reform--we must find ways to work with the government. We have no choice. Simply, it will take political will by the Haitian Government to achieve any progress in this areas. Let me make it clear: The United States cannot and should not make an investment in these areas without a clear commitment from the Haitian Government. As I mentioned before, we can't do for the Haitians what they cannot and will not do for themselves. The political will must exist. However, Mr. President, there are areas where we can't stand by and wait for the Haitian Government to act. There are ways that the United States can work around the government to provide a semblance of hope for the Haitian people and some stability to that country. These areas include agriculture reform, feeding programs, and other areas of humanitarian support. With respect to drugs, here, too, we cannot wait--we must take action now to reduce the flow of drugs through Haiti. It is in our national self-interest. If we do not do that, we risk the entire nation turning into a narcostate with tragic consequences not only for Haiti but for the United States. No doubt, long-term drug control will require greater cooperation with the Haitian Government, but our Government should devote its resources now to respond to the current threat. I look forward to working with my colleagues both in the Congress and in the administration to address these priorities, and help create a strategic long-term vision for our policy toward Haiti. Mr. President, before I yield the floor, I thank you personally for your forbearance this morning and this afternoon. I appreciate it very, very much. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of my Sense of the Senate Resolution which I have introduced. In believe there is a crisis in teacher education in the United States. To me, that means we have to look to new ideas. If we are serious about restoring America as an academic power, I believe that we have to act immediately to find solutions. In the past, education reform has not been bold enough--and our children are suffering very serious consequences. Some alarming statistics really brought this home for me: 36% of those now teaching core subjects--like English, math, science, social studies, and foreign languages--neither majored nor minored in those subjects. A study conducted by the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future revealed that More than one-quarter of newly hired public school teachers in 1991 lacked the qualifications for their jobs, and nearly one-fourth of all secondary teachers did not even have a minor in their main teaching field. The Commission also found that 56% percent of high school students taking physical science were being taught by out-of-field teachers, as were 27% of those taking mathematics and 21% of those taking English. This is bad enough--but there's also evidence that the least qualified teachers were most likely to be found in high-poverty and predominantly minority schools, and in lower-track classes. In fact, in schools with the highest minority enrollments, students had less than a 50% chance of getting a science or mathematics teacher who held a license and a degree in the field he or she taught. This is a prescription for disaster on a truly national scale. With this failure of investment in properly trained teachers, we should not be surprised that students are doing so poorly on standardized tests. After all, if the teacher does not understand the subject he or she is teaching, then certainly the students will not learn what they need to know. It is inexcusable that a country that leads the world in so many ways does not give its children the best academic resources available. The truth is, the United States will not remain a world leader unless we make a commitment to invest more in teacher quality--and soon. I am encouraged that we have bipartisan interest in reforming the education system. However, we must address the problem of quality teachers before we merely reduce class size and hire 100,000 new teachers. The answer, in my view, is to only certify quality teachers--and furthermore, to get the quality teachers to teach our neediest kids. All children, from K to 12th grade, deserve the chance to have well- educated, qualified teachers who will help them reach the limits of their academic potential. I have introduced legislation that would provide assistance for the creation of teacher training facilities across the United States that will help train teachers who are either already in the classroom, or about to enter the teaching profession. While it is important to stem the tide of unqualified teachers reaching the classroom, we must also focus on helping teachers that are already in the classroom and need assistance in becoming the best teachers that they can be. The Teacher Quality Act is common-sense legislation that will assist school districts in their struggle to maintain the highest possible academic standards for their children. The idea for this legislation developed out of my admiration for the Mayerson Academy in Cincinnati, Ohio. The Mayerson Academy was established in 1992 as a partnership between the Cincinnati business community and its schools. Its mission is to provide the highest quality training and professional development opportunities to the men and women responsible for educating the children of Cincinnati. We also need to tap into the expertise of people who have a lot to offer our children, but who haven't trained specifically to be teachers. I have introduced legislation that will expand and improve the supply of well-qualified elementary and secondary school teachers, by helping States develop and implement programs for alternative certification or licensure of teachers. The Alternative Certification and Licensure of Teachers Act will give people who would like to teach a chance to do so. These are people who can serve as mentors and role models--real-life examples of how a good education can make a huge positive difference in a student's future. We need to bring the best possible people into America's classrooms-- people who can inspire kids with their knowledge and experience. That's what this bill would accomplish. When it comes to education, our national task is clear: We have to develop an education system that will draw the best and brightest students into the teaching profession. The States need to be encouraged to provide incentives for people to become teachers, and restore a sense of pride to this profession. Without strong teachers, our children will continue to struggle. But if we start attracting the best possible people into the classroom, there's really no limit to what our young people can achieve. Please join me in voting for this Resolution so that we can begin a concerted focus on teacher quality in this country.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concerns about the implementation of the immigration laws that Congress passed in 1996, since we are fast approaching an important deadline. Today is the deadline for those immigrants who have lived in the United States for one year who wish to apply for political asylum. The concerns I raised and shared during the debate on the 1996 Immigration bill are even more relevant today. People who have the most credible asylum claims--those under threat of retaliation, those suffering physical or mental disability, possibly as a result of torture they endured in their home country--may find themselves barred from ever applying for asylum if they miss this deadline. To protect those who flee persecution and abuse and seek refuge in the United States, the INS should, at the very least, promulgate a final rule that includes the broad ``good cause'' exceptions from the Senate-passed version of the 1996 immigration law. Senators Kennedy, Feingold, and I sent a letter on February 12, 1998 to INS urging that the final rule include the Senate's more expansive definition of ``good cause'' exceptions for missing that deadline. The INS should not issue regulations that might exclude the very applicants that the concept of asylum was meant to include. For this reason, our letter urges INS to promulgate a final rule that adopts the Senate's entire definition of ``good cause'' for missing the one-year filing deadline: ``Good cause'' may include, but is not limited to, [1] circumstances that changed after the applicant entered the United States and that are relevant to the applicant's eligibility for asylum; [2] physical or mental disabilities; [3] threats of retribution against the applicant's relatives abroad; [4] attempts to file affirmatively that were unsuccessful because of technical defects; [5] efforts to seek asylum that were delayed by the temporary unavailability of professional assistance; [6] the illness or death of the applicant's legal representative; or [7] other extenuating circumstances as determined by the Attorney General. [Section 193 of Senate bill; *numbers added for reference]. Mr. President, the very least our country should offer these victims of persecution, are clearly and fairly stated exceptions to this one-year filing deadline. My second concern is that the implementation of the summary exclusion or expedited removal provisions of the new immigration law may prove to be even more harmful to those who flee from persecution and seek refuge in the United States. When this bill was being debated in 1996, Senator Leahy and I sponsored an amendment that would have limited such expedited removal procedures to only emergency situations. While that amendment passed by one vote in the Senate, it unfortunately did not survive in conference. I said in May of 1996, and I still believe today, that victims of politically motivated torture and rape are the very ones who are most likely to have to resort to the use of false documents to flee from repressive governments--yet the use of such fraudulent documents subjects them to summary exclusion under the 1996 law. I also remain concerned that while the INS may instruct its inspectors not to assess the credibility of an asylum claim--but instead refer the claim to an asylum officer--who can say how this process is actually being implemented nationwide at all of our 260 ports of entry? Other outside agencies are not permitted to monitor this process. Some credible cases are being assessed at secondary inspection sites by INS officials who are not trained asylum officers. As a result, I urge the Attorney General to appoint someone from her office to oversee the functioning of secondary inspection sites to ensure that anyone stating a fear of persecution or abuse is not forced onto the next plane back to his or her persecutors. DOJ oversight could also prevent future inhumane actions--cases of physical and mental abuse that some INS officials have allegedly inflicted on asylum seekers who are shackled to benches at JFK Airport--or at least provide accountability for a process sorely lacking such oversight. A man from Somalia, Mohamoud Farah, who was recently granted asylum, yesterday described his ordeal during a press conference sponsored by the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights. I will ask that his full statement be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks, but I will highlight some of it now. While Mohamoud endured 14 and a half hours shackled to a chair at JFK Airport, without food or water or even restroom breaks, he experienced abuse from INS officials and saw them abuse others who had been detained in the secondary inspection waiting area. Being kicked, cursed at, and shackled to a chair is not how any of us envision proper treatment of people who seek refuge in our great nation--in fact, I imagine that kind of treatment as only occurring at the hands of the persecutors in the very countries from which these refugees flee. Finally, I am concerned about the consistency with which INS implements its own rules and regulations in compliance with the 1996 immigration law. For example, in the General Accounting Office's report that was sent to me yesterday, the GAO describes inconsistencies among the eight asylum offices in the process of conducting ``credible fear'' interviews. Some offices failed to document whether a required paragraph on torture was read to the asylum seeker, or whether questions about torture were asked. I am concerned about these inconsistencies--especially since information about torture would provide a solid basis on which to grant asylum. INS should also be consistent in allowing for effective representation when an asylum applicant appears before an immigration judge. This means that immigration judges should allow the attorney or representative of the asylum seeker to participate at the hearing by speaking or asking questions. The right to have a trained asylum officer hear an asylum claim or to have counsel speak during a review hearing before an immigration judge should be a consistent right of all asylum seekers--not just a right that depends on which airport a person lands in or which immigration judge that person ends up appealing to. In conclusion, Mr. President, the Senate must remain vigilant in its oversight duties if we want to keep our asylum system working. We have to remember that there's a reason for having an asylum system in the first place--and that is to keep the torch of liberty lit for truly oppressed people. This is a basic American value, and America should not turn its back on this fundamental principle. I ask that the statement of Mohamoud Farah be printed in the Record. The statement follows: Statement of Mohamoud Farah (represented by the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS)) I arrived at JFK airport in New York City on October 31, 1997, on an Egypt Air flight from Cairo. When the plane landed, I informed someone at the airport that I was a refugee without a visa to enter the United States. I overheard this person tell a uniformed INS officer that I was ``illegal''. This INS officer insulted me, cursed at me, and asked me why I came to the United States. He pushed me backwards, and I fell down. Before I knew what was happening, three or four INS officers were putting shackles on my arms and legs. They bound my wrists and ankles to the legs of a chair. As the shackle was short, I was forced to lean forward in an uncomfortable position. The officers yelled and cursed at me. One of them pulled my ear. I tried to explain that I was a refugee from Somalia, but they just continued to shout. I saw the officers kick some other people, who were then taken away. I remained shackled to the chair, leaning forward, for fourteen and a half hours. During that time, despite my requests, I was not given any food or water, nor was I allowed to use the restroom. I saw two shift changes take place while I was still bound to the chair. At one point, employees from Egypt Air came with my luggage and ticket and said they were trying to send me back. I was afraid that if I were sent to Egypt, I might be put in jail. I told them I would rather be in jail in the United States. They eventually sent me to another office where someone from INS began to take a statement from me about why I left Somalia. This statement would be used by the Immigration Judge in my proceedings. I was expected to discuss very painful experiences with the same people who were being abusive to me. This interview took a long time, as there was another shift change, and a new officer had to finish the statement. After they took the statement, I had to wait in that office for three more hours. I still was not allowed water or given permission to use the restroom. Finally, I was transported to the detention facility, near the airport in Queens, NY, at about 3:30 a.m. At that point, I was finally able to have some water and use the restroom, but received no food until lunch the next day. In the detention center, I began the process of applying for asylum in the United States. I was represented by Olga Narymsky, an attorney with the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS). After 101 days in detention, on February 9, 1998, I was granted political asylum. I never expected that I would be treated this way in the United States. I know America is a great nation and that the way I was treated is not normal. I hope that by telling my story, I can help prevent anyone else from having to endure what happened when I arrived seeking refuge in this country.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Act of 1998, which reauthorizes the very successful Local Law Enforcement Grant Program. This program gives local governments the resources to fight crime, without the ``Washington knows best'' strings attached. I believe it is a mistake for Washington to try to micromanage how local communities spend their law enforcement dollars. Instead Washington should play the role of partner with local law enforcement to improve the tools they use to fight crime. My views on this issue are based on more than 20 years of experience in the criminal justice system: as a prosecutor in Greene County, Ohio; in the Ohio State Senate; as a United States Congressman on the Judiciary Committee; as Lieutenant Governor overseeing anti-crime and anti-drug efforts; and now, as a member on the Senate Judiciary Committee. I have had an opportunity to work on criminal justice issues from the local, state, and federal levels, and have been fortunate to see firsthand what Congress can do to help local communities be victors in the war on crime. Because 90 percent of all criminal prosecution is local, the fight against crime will be won or lost by local law enforcement, local prosecutors and courts, and concerned citizens in every community. I believe the best way for the federal government to help local communities fight crime is to return more money to those communities, because in the final analysis, it is they who will get the job done. For too long the Federal Government has had all the money--and local communities all the crime. Local communities know what works--and they should have the resources. From 1999-2003, this Act authorizes $750 million each year for direct grants to local law enforcement to reduce crime and improve public safety. Distributions are made by the Bureau of Justice Assistance on a formula basis, directly to local governments. Grants may include, but are not limited to, equipment and law enforcement personnel, enhancing school security measures, violent offender adjudication, drug courts, crime prevention programs and youth intervention programs. One of the most frequent uses of this grant money in Ohio, and by local law enforcement across the country, has been for crime fighting technology. I believe there is a critical need to modernize the crime fighting tools used by local law enforcement, who have been fighting increasingly sophisticated criminals with outmoded tools. That's why I am expressly providing that funds may also be used for information and identification technology, such as criminal history information, fingerprint dissemination, and DNA and ballistics tests. Let me underscore here that this Act leaves to local governments the decision regarding what their funding priorities should be, while at the same time requiring accountability as to how funds are ultimately used. Local advisory boards also have an opportunity to recommend how monies are spent as well. These funds will help local law enforcement meet the critical local needs, by letting them put the resources where they are needed most.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Act of 1998, which reauthorizes the very successful Local Law Enforcement Grant Program. This program gives local governments the resources to fight crime, without the ``Washington knows best'' strings attached. I believe it is a mistake for Washington to try to micromanage how local communities spend their law enforcement dollars. Instead Washington should play the role of partner with local law enforcement to improve the tools they use to fight crime. My views on this issue are based on more than 20 years of experience in the criminal justice system: as a prosecutor in Greene County, Ohio; in the Ohio State Senate; as a United States Congressman on the Judiciary Committee; as Lieutenant Governor overseeing anti-crime and anti-drug efforts; and now, as a member on the Senate Judiciary Committee. I have had an opportunity to work on criminal justice issues from the local, state, and federal levels, and have been fortunate to see firsthand what Congress can do to help local communities be victors in the war on crime. Because 90 percent of all criminal prosecution is local, the fight against crime will be won or lost by local law enforcement, local prosecutors and courts, and concerned citizens in every community. I believe the best way for the federal government to help local communities fight crime is to return more money to those communities, because in the final analysis, it is they who will get the job done. For too long the Federal Government has had all the money--and local communities all the crime. Local communities know what works--and they should have the resources. From 1999-2003, this Act authorizes $750 million each year for direct grants to local law enforcement to reduce crime and improve public safety. Distributions are made by the Bureau of Justice Assistance on a formula basis, directly to local governments. Grants may include, but are not limited to, equipment and law enforcement personnel, enhancing school security measures, violent offender adjudication, drug courts, crime prevention programs and youth intervention programs. One of the most frequent uses of this grant money in Ohio, and by local law enforcement across the country, has been for crime fighting technology. I believe there is a critical need to modernize the crime fighting tools used by local law enforcement, who have been fighting increasingly sophisticated criminals with outmoded tools. That's why I am expressly providing that funds may also be used for information and identification technology, such as criminal history information, fingerprint dissemination, and DNA and ballistics tests. Let me underscore here that this Act leaves to local governments the decision regarding what their funding priorities should be, while at the same time requiring accountability as to how funds are ultimately used. Local advisory boards also have an opportunity to recommend how monies are spent as well. These funds will help local law enforcement meet the critical local needs, by letting them put the resources where they are needed most.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, further, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 202 submitted earlier today by Senators Lott and Daschle.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to this measure appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Again, on behalf of the majority leader, tomorrow the Senate will resume consideration of the budget resolution. At 10 a.m. the Senate will resume consideration of the Sessions amendment No. 2166 with 30 minutes of debate equally divided, with a vote occurring on or in relation to the amendment at approximately 10:30 a.m. Following that vote, the Senate will resume debate on the Murray amendment No. 2165. During Tuesday's session of the Senate, Members can anticipate debate on a number of amendments expected to be offered to the budget resolution. Any Members wishing to offer amendments should contact the managers of their intentions. In addition, the Senate may consider any executive or legislative business cleared for Senate action. Therefore, Members can anticipate a very busy week of floor action. As a reminder to all Senators, tomorrow the first vote will occur at approximately 10:30 a.m.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I rise today to discuss a major threat to the life and health of countless Americans. I am referring to the alcohol-impaired drivers on our roads. Madam President, as part of the Senate's action on the highway bill, we passed an extremely valuable measure that would save many of these precious lives. Through the amendment offered by myself and my colleague from New Jersey, who is on the floor now, we said that if a person's blood contains .08 percent alcohol or higher, that person is not fit to drive. This Lautenberg-DeWine amendment, passed this body by a very wide margin. I rise this afternoon because there is a rising tide of disinformation being spread about this .08 legislation. This misinformation campaign is funded in large part by the alcoholic beverage industry. I strongly believe that as we move this measure forward through the legislative process, we all must be guided by the facts. The facts are simple: All widely accepted studies indicate that the blood alcohol standard should be set at .08 BAC. ``BAC,'' of course, stands for ``blood alcohol content.'' At .08 BAC, individuals simply should not be driving a car. The risk of being in a crash rises gradually with each increase in the blood alcohol content level of an individual. But when a driver reaches or exceeds the .08 blood alcohol content level, the risk rises very rapidly. At .08 a driver's vision, balance, reaction time, hearing, judgment, and self-control are seriously impaired. Moreover, at .08, critical driving tasks--concentrated attention, speed control, braking, steering, gear changing and lane tracking--are also all negatively affected. The alcohol industry, in arguing against the .08 standard, claims that ``only'' 7 percent of fatal crashes involve drivers with blood alcohol content levels between .08 and .09. Well, let us look at what that really means. If we take their own statistics, if we use the 1995 figures, that means that approximately 1,200 Americans died because of alcohol, drivers impaired at the levels of .08 and .09--1,200 lives were lost. Madam President, that obviously is too many. Changing the blood alcohol standard to .08 could have saved these lives. Let me talk now about the tragic consequences of .08 alcohol driving for some real Americans. State trooper Steven Blue of Toledo, OH, arrested a young woman who was driving at a blood alcohol level of .15. She was convicted and spent the mandatory 3 days under Ohio law in jail. Madam President, 8 months later the same officer arrested the same person again. This time she was driving with a blood alcohol content level of .085. The officer wanted to charge her with impaired driving, driving under the influence, but her defense attorney argued that because the per se standard in Ohio is .10, the charge should be knocked down to reckless operation. Now, of course, Madam President, in Ohio, as in most States, if you are below .10 but still seriously impaired, you can be charged with driving under the influence. In fact, the Ohio law reads, as most States do, ``appreciably impaired.'' So even if you test at .10, technically you can be charged with this offense, but as a practical matter, the standard is .10, pure and simple. In this case, regrettably, the prosecutor felt compelled to reduce the charges. If these charges had not been reduced, if they had gone ahead with the original charge of driving under the influence, the young woman would have spent 10 days in jail, and maybe, just maybe, that would have turned her life around and at least warned her off from further alcohol-impaired driving. But that did not happen. She then moved to San Diego, and 2 years later Trooper Blue got a call from a law firm asking him for his testimony about his earlier arrests of the same young woman. You see, she had taken up drunk driving again. Driving the wrong way down a one- way street, she killed two people. Madam President, the State trooper, Steven Blue, has to deal with the real-life consequences of .08 alcohol driving. So did I when I was a local county prosecutor in Greene County, OH, dealing with mangled bodies and devastated relatives of people who died much too soon. But you don't have to be a State trooper or county prosecutor to understand a simple fact: .08 drivers kill people. No amount of propaganda can obscure that fact. That is why in this morning's Washington Post an editorial calls our .08 measure ``a most reasonable and effective measure to curb deadly drunk driving.'' The Washington Post is not alone in praising this bill. The Austin American-Statesmen from Austin, TX, the Baltimore Sun, Omaha World Herald, Toledo Blade, New York Newsday, and many, many other papers have all endorsed this legislation. Madam President, this measure will save lives. That is why I will continue to fight for its enactment all the way through this legislative process. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, the Senate resume consideration of the Sessions amendment No. 2166, and there will be 30 minutes of debate equally divided between the proponents and opponents. I further ask consent that following that time the Senate then proceed to a vote on or in relation to amendment No. 2166, and that no second- degree amendments be in order to that amendment. I finally ask consent that following that vote the Senate resume debate on the Murray amendment No. 2165.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, again on behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, March 31, and immediately following the prayer the routine requests through the morning hour be granted, and the Senate resume consideration of S. Con. Res. 86, the budget resolution, with the time between 9:30 a.m. and 10 a.m. being equally divided between the two managers.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. the Senate stand in recess for the weekly policy luncheons to meet.