Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I thank my friend and colleague from Kentucky. Mr. President, I would like to offer a few thoughts on the pending amendment offered by my good friend from Kentucky, Senator McConnell. I intend to vote for the Senator's amendment. A new approach from the current set-aside is clearly needed--a new approach is needed because the current system, the current law, violates the United States Constitution. The United States Supreme Court, in Adarand Constructors v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995), ruled that racial classifications are unconstitutional unless narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest. The federal district court in Colorado in the case of Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 965 F. Supp. 1556 (1997)--following the guidelines set by the Supreme Court--found that the current racial set- aside for federal highway contracts is unconstitutional. The district court found that the 10% set-aside for federal highway contracts and the race-based presumptions contained in the implementing regulations were not narrowly tailored--they excluded certain unlisted minority groups who may very well have been socially and economically disadvantaged, while presuming that all minorities in the listed groups were economically disadvantaged, and in some cases, socially disadvantaged. Other federal courts, in applying the same strict scrutiny test to other federal, state, and local race-based laws and regulations, have consistently found that these racial preferences are not constitutional. In Ohio, a case is pending before the Ohio Supreme Court (Ritchey Produce Company v. Ohio Department Of Administrative Services, Supreme Court of Ohio, 1998 Ohio LEXIS 495). A Lebanese- American did not fall within the listed minority groups who received preferential treatment under the Ohio set-aside program, so he was denied certification as a minority contractor. Even if the majority of his workforce consisted of the listed minority groups--that company would still not be eligible to receive minority certification under the current standards. Thus, given the constitutional guidelines that have been clearly established by the Supreme Court, we in the Congress face a fundamental choice--we can stand aside and watch federal courts dismantle race- based set aside programs one-by-one, or we can exercise leadership and meet the challenge head on--by initiating a new approach that targets our resources to economically disadvantaged individuals in depressed areas who want a shot at the American dream. To his credit, the Senator from Kentucky has shown leadership by offering such an innovative, constitutional approach. His ideas are not totally new. In 1980, New York Mayor Ed Koch inaugurated a race-neutral affirmative action program targeted at the economically disadvantaged-- providing a 10% set-aside for small firms that did at least 25% of their business in disadvantaged neighborhoods, or employed disadvantaged workers as at least 25% of their workforce. This program has served as a model for other cities nationwide. In several respects, the Senator from Kentucky's amendment borrows from the Koch program. His amendment would target opportunity assistance programs toward businesses based not on the owner of the business exclusively, but on who's working for the business and just as important, who the business is serving. Specifically, the McConnell amendment targets assistance toward new businesses located in economically disadvantaged areas, or has a workforce half of which are employees from economically disadvantaged areas. This direction--to reach out to the economically disadvantaged, including minorities and women--will do much to promote the interests of minorities and the country as a whole. By reaching out to businesses that employ the disadvantaged or that are located in depressed areas, we are doing more than just helping disadvantaged businesses, we're uplifting entire communities. It's more than affirmative action--it's community empowerment. I would also like to point out that my friend from Michigan, Senator Abraham, was instrumental in the drafting of this specific provision. I commend him for working with the Senator from Kentucky--it reflects their strong interest and support for innovative approaches to community renewal. I also commend the Senator from Kentucky for placing a time limit on assistance. Assistance under this program would be offered to firms that have been in existence for less than nine years. That just makes sense. The best business development programs are those that help new, disadvantaged businesses stand on their feet and compete. That's exactly what the McConnell amendment would do. Specifically, the McConnell amendment provides a host of services for eligible businesses--services ranging from financial counseling, business management, and technical assistance for eligible businesses seeking contracts under federal transportation programs. Taken together, these provisions in the McConnell amendment represent a positive approach that is consistent with the Constitution and with the wisdom and intent of those who first championed the idea of affirmative action--action to provide equality of opportunity for individuals. Now Mr. President, let me be candid--if given the opportunity, I would have taken the McConnell amendment one step further. I would have maintained the set-aside program--one that would have been acceptable under our Constitution. I believe we can and should have race-neutral set-aside programs for new, economically disadvantaged businesses. The fundamental problem with the existing program is not the set-aside itself--but who receives it and how they are defined. The current program gives an advantage to those who may not need it--individuals who were given a chance based solely on race or racial goals. That's why the federal courts have found this and other set-aside programs to be unconstitutional. Therefore, I would support a set-aside program that provides time-limited business opportunities to businesses who employ or serve the truly disadvantaged--a program that goes beyond outreach and recruitment, and gives disadvantaged businesses a chance to do business--much like Mayor Koch did in New York a decade ago. Unfortunately, such a program is not before us today. We do not have that option. The choice today is between an unconstitutional law or a new constitutional plan that will provide hope and opportunity for the disadvantaged. While the McConnell amendment does not go as far as I would like or as far as I would go, it is clearly constitutional and it is clearly an effective way to help the disadvantaged. It is a significant improvement over the status quo. This amendment represents a positive, imaginative step in the right direction--one that is true to our Constitution and to our commitment to equal opportunity. I therefore urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I thank my colleague from North Dakota for his fine work in this area. I rise today, Mr. President, to strongly support the amendment. You know, in the past several decades we in this country have made tremendous progress in the war against drunk driving. But we have seen in the last several years a retrenchment in that. Let me cite the statistics that show this. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, alcohol-related traffic fatalities dropped from 24,050 in 1986 to 17,274 in 1995. That was a 28 percent decrease in drunk driving tragedies over a decade. I think we, as a nation, can take a lot of pride in this. But, unfortunately, from 1994 to 1995, alcohol-related fatalities rose 4 percent--the first increase in over a decade. I believe we must now act to reverse this disturbing trend by reinforcing our commitment and the statement that we make through our laws that drinking and driving simply will not be tolerated. Yesterday, the Senate took the first step in doing just that. We passed an amendment which would make .08 blood alcohol content the law of the land, a law which I believe the statistics clearly show will save between 2,500 and 3,000 lives over the life of the ISTEA reauthorization. Today, Mr. President, we can take another step in the right direction. Currently, 22 States allow individuals in a car to be drinking while the vehicle is in operation. And even more shockingly-- even more shockingly--there are five States where it is perfectly legal for the driver of a car to drink while at the same time operating the motor vehicle. Mr. President, common sense should tell us that this is not a good idea. We should be in the business of making it more difficult to drink and drive, not encouraging liquor in cars. Mr. President, this amendment speaks to what message we send through our laws. When we pass drunk-driving-related legislation, our goal is not to have more people arrested, our goal is not to have more people pulled over; our goal is to deter conduct. That has been the effect of drunk driving laws. That is why the fatality level has gone down. That is why lives have been saved, because people have been deterred. We sent messages to ourselves, to the rest of the country, the people, through our laws, what is important and what is not important. What kind of a message is it when we say it is OK to have open containers of alcohol in a car? In some locations in this country it is OK for a driver to be going down the road, driving with one hand and holding a beer in the other. What kind of a message is that? So I think what the Dorgan amendment does and its greatest value is as a deterrent effect. It will help get us back on track. We made progress. We have had steady progress for the last 15 or 20 years in reducing the auto fatalities caused by drinking and driving. It has only been in the last several years that that trend has been reversed. Passage of the Dorgan amendment, while it is a relatively simple amendment--and it might not seem that it is a huge deal--I think it is a big deal because it sends the right message. It says, ``No, it's not OK to have alcohol in a car. It's not OK to be drinking and driving. And it's not OK to drive down the road with a beer in one hand and your other hand on the wheel of a car.'' I think there are certain minimum standards that should apply whether you are driving in North Dakota or on a highway in Indiana or Kentucky or wherever you take your family. I think we all have, as parents, the right to think that, when we put our family and our loved ones in a car, no matter where we are going on vacation or where we are traveling, there are some minimum standards that will be followed. One of the minimum standards, it seems to me, that is eminently reasonable and infringes on no one's rights, is a minimum standard that simply says, ``No, you cannot have open containers of alcohol in a car. And, no, you cannot be driving that car and at the same time drinking alcohol.'' It is that simple. I urge my colleagues to support this very, very modest and very sensible amendment. I yield the floor and thank the Chair.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I appreciate some of the very eloquent comments that have been made this morning on the Senate floor. I appreciate the comments about States rights. Let me say, though, that there are very few times when we, as Members of the Senate, can come to the floor and cast our votes when we will know that the vote we cast will save lives. That is true in this case. There is absolutely no doubt about it. Lives will be saved and families will be spared the heartache of losing a child or mother or father. There are other things I think we clearly know and that are not in dispute. That is one. The second is that no one has come to the floor suggesting that a person who tests .08 has any business being behind the wheel of a car. That is not really in dispute at all. No doctor who has looked at this, no emergency room doctor who has looked at it, no police officer who is involved in testing people, pulling them over and seeing what they test and looking at their reflexes, looking at how they act --everyone who has had that experience agrees--at .08, no one should be behind the wheel. If anyone has a doubt about it, think of it this way: If you were at a party and someone had four beers in an hour and you watched him drink those four beers in an hour, and you observed he didn't have anything to eat, four beers in 1 hour, and he looked over after that time and said, ``Let me take your little 5-year-old daughter''--my daughter, a 5-year-old, is named Anna--``Let me take her up to the Tastee-Freez and buy her an ice cream cone; I'll drive her up.'' How many of us would put her in that car? We would not do that. There is no doubt about it. So it is absolutely a reasonable standard. Does it include social drinkers? We are not talking about one or two beers and a pizza. We are talking about people who have absolutely no business behind the wheel of a car. I think Ronald Reagan did say it best. I think he had it right in 1984. He supported a similar type concept, and that concept was that there should be a minimum standard across the country for the drinking age, and it should be 21 no matter where you were in the country. He supported that. The great champion of States rights said in this case a national uniform standard will save lives and makes common sense. This is what Ronald Reagan said in 1984 when he signed the bill: This problem is much more than just a State problem. It's a national tragedy. There are some special cases in which overwhelming need can be dealt with by prudent and limited Federal influence. In a case like this I have no misgivings about a judicious use of Federal inducements to save precious lives. It is a minimum standard. It is a rational standard. Doesn't it make sense that when you get in your car and put your family in the car and go on a trip--many of us cross two or three State lines every week; every day, some of us--doesn't it make sense there should be some assurance that there is a minimum standard that exists, no matter where you drive your car in this country? Doesn't that make sense? I think it does. So, I think it is a question--yes, it is a question of rights. The rights of families, the right to live, the right to have a fair chance on the highway not to have someone come at you who has been drinking and driving. That is what this is all about. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment in the vote that will take place in 20 or 25 minutes. It is a rare opportunity among all the things we debate, all the rhetoric--

Mr. DeWINE. It is a rare opportunity to save lives. I urge my colleagues to take this rare opportunity and spare a family, spare hundreds of families, life's greatest tragedy, and that is the loss of a loved one. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE. Let me inquire, if I could, how much time the proponents have left?

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Ten minutes.

Mr. DeWINE. I thank my colleague and thank the Chair. This amendment has received a great deal of attention from the editorial boards across this country. I would like just to read excerpts from several of them because I think their reasoning is quite good. Let me cite first the Austin American Statesman, October 30: Let's say it one more time: DWI laws don't have a thing to do with prohibition, partying, or Puritanism. They aren't intended to interfere with anyone's right to drink alcohol socially or antisocially, responsibly or irresponsibly, in vast or moderate quantities. The law just asks drinkers not to operate heavy machinery on the States' roads and highways while under the influence of alcohol. The Baltimore Sun: You're driving on the beltway. The motorist in the next lane consumed four beers during the past hour. To paraphrase Clint Eastwood, ``Do you feel lucky?'' Amazingly, that tipsy driver may be within his legal rights. And they end up: Four drinks in one State makes you no less drunk than four drinks in another State. The abundant evidence justifies a national response. The Omaha World-Herald: Yes to a national drunk driving law. Congress uses the threat of withheld funds too often, in our opinion, to force its will upon the States. In this case, however, the States would merely be required to set an intoxication standard that reflects research on how alcohol affects driving. That is the Omaha World-Herald, October 29. The Wall Street Journal said this: Safe alcohol levels should be set by health experts, not the lobby for Hooters and Harrah's. The Lautenberg-DeWine amendment isn't a drive toward prohibition, but an uphill push toward health consensus. The Toledo Blade: Complaints from the beverage industry that the new limits would target social drinkers and not alcoholics are ridiculous and dangerous. All that matters is whether the person behind the wheel has had too much to drink. Whether he or she is a social drinker is irrelevant. Finally, New York Newsday: It should be obvious that cracking down on drunk driving is an urgent matter of health and safety. The attack is not against drinking; it's against drinking and driving. Mr. President, my colleagues have said it very, very well. My colleague from North Dakota a few moments ago said it well. He says it is not complicated. It is not complicated how you reduce auto fatalities. This is an easy way to save lives. And this is a way that will save lives. At 10:30 tomorrow morning we are going to have a chance to do something very simple. We are going to have the chance to come to this floor and cast a yes vote on this amendment. It is one time when we will know the consequences of our act. And the consequence of that act, if we pass this, if it becomes law, will be simply this: Fewer families will have their families shattered, fewer families will have their lives changed forever. That is what the loss of a child or loss of a mother or father to drunk driving does--it changes your life forever. We will save some families from that tragedy. We will never know who they are. They will never know. But we can be guaranteed that we will have done that and done that much tomorrow morning. This is a very rational and reasonable proposal. I say that because it sets the standard at .08. I will repeat something I said a moment ago--and I am going to continue to state it because I think it is so important --and that is: No one, no expert who has looked at this believes that someone who tests .08 has not had their driving ability appreciably impaired. No one who has looked at this thinks that someone who tests .08 should be behind the wheel of a car. If any of my colleagues who might be listening doubt that, tonight or early tomorrow morning--we all know police officers; we all know people who have been in emergency rooms; we all know people who have seen DUIs and who know who they tested-- pick up the phone and call one of your police officers. Pick up the phone and call a member of the highway patrol who may have picked up someone, who has picked up probably dozens of people who have been drinking and driving, and ask them if, in their professional opinion, they think someone who tests .08 or above has any business being behind the wheel of a car. I will guarantee you, the answer will be unanimous. The fact is, the more someone knows about the subject, the more adamant they will be about that. I became involved in this issue a number of years ago when I was an assistant county prosecuting attorney. One of my jobs was to prosecute DUI--DWI cases we used to call them in those days. I can tell you from my own experience, someone who tests .08--and I have seen the videotape, as they say. I have seen the replays. I have seen the tapes that are taken right before the person takes the test. And I have compared those videotapes where you can see the person staggering, you can see the person's speech slurred, you can see their coordination impaired. I compared that with the tests. I will tell you from my own experience in observing, a person at .08 absolutely, no doubt about it, should not be behind the wheel. Look what other countries have done. Senator Lautenberg showed the chart. Canada, Great Britain, Australia, Austria, all at .08 or below. This is a rational and reasonable thing to do. It is reasonable, as Ronald Reagan said, to have some minimum national standards that assure highway safety. We live in a country where we get in a car and we think nothing of crossing one, two, three, four, five State lines, and we do it literally all the time. There ought to be some national standard, some floor, some assurance when you put your child in a car, when you get in the car with your wife and your loved ones, some assurance that whatever State you are in, wherever you are driving, that level is .08. That is a rational floor. It is a rational basis. Again, despite all the scientific evidence, despite all the arguments, still there are some who would say this bill is an attack against social drinkers; this amendment will mean if I have two beers and a pizza I will not be able to drive. That is simply not true. All the scientific data, all the tests, all the anecdotal information tells us that is simply not true. Let me again go back and repeat what the scientific data shows. It shows that when a male weighing 160 pounds has four drinks in an hour-- it takes four drinks on an empty stomach in an hour for that adult male at 160 pounds to reach the .08 level. I don't think anyone believes that person should be behind the wheel, and I don't think there is anyone in this Chamber who will turn their child over to that person. Mr. President, again we will have the opportunity tomorrow to save lives. I urge my colleagues to cast a ``yes'' vote on the Lautenberg- DeWine amendment. It will, in fact, save lives. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I state to my colleague, I wonder if I can have 20 minutes, and if the Chair can notify me after 20 minutes, we will see who is on the floor and wants to speak at that point.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me first thank and congratulate my friend and colleague from New Jersey, not just for his very eloquent statement and leadership today, but for his work over the years. His work has made a tremendous difference in saving a number of lives. Mr. President, at 10:30 tomorrow morning, Members are going to have the opportunity to do something that we don't always have the chance to do. Many times, we vote on issues and we think we are right, but we don't know what the ultimate effect is going to be. This is one of those times where when we cast our vote, we know what the effect is. Members who come to the floor tomorrow morning at 10:30 to cast their vote on this amendment and vote ``yes'' will clearly be saving lives. There is absolutely no doubt about it. That is one thing we know. We know it based on statistics and based on history. We know it based on common sense. That is, I think, a great opportunity that we will have tomorrow. This amendment, make no mistake about it, will save lives. As we consider legislation to authorize funds for most of our Nation's highways, we cannot avoid the issue of the safety of those highways. Tragically, in the last couple of years we seem to have been losing ground in highway safety. After well over a decade of progress, we are starting slowly to move backward. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, alcohol-related traffic fatalities dropped from 24,050 in 1986 down to 17,274 in 1995. That was a 28 percent decrease in drunk driving tragedies over a decade. We as a nation, Mr. President, can take pride in the progress that we made. However, unfortunately, from 1994 to 1995, alcohol-related traffic fatalities rose 4 percent--the first increase in over a decade. In 1995, alcohol-related traffic fatalities increased for the first time in a whole decade. That year, there were 17,274 fatalities from alcohol-related crashes. Mr. President, this amendment is an attempt to gain back some of the ground that we have lost in the battle against highway fatalities. It would set a national blood alcohol standard--a standard above which the driver is legally under the influence and should not be driving an automobile. All widely accepted studies indicate that the blood alcohol standard should be set at .08 BAC, the blood alcohol content. Mr. President, at .08 blood content, no one should be driving a car. I don't know any expert, I don't know any police officer, I don't know any scientist who has seriously looked at this issue in the whole country who does not agree with that--who does not agree that at .08 you are under the influence of alcohol, and your judgment, your reflexes, your control of the car, everything is appreciably impaired. There is no doubt about it. Mr. President, the facts are that the risk of being in a crash rises gradually with each increase in the blood level content. We know that. NHTSA reports that in single-vehicle crashes the relative fatality risk for drivers with blood alcohol content between .05 and .09 is over 11 times greater than for drivers with a blood alcohol content of zero--11 times. When a driver reaches or exceeds the .08 alcohol level, the risk goes up even more. In fact, it dramatically shoots up even above that high standard. Mr. President, at .08, one's vision, one's balance, one's own reaction time, one's hearing, judgment, self-control, all are seriously impaired. Moreover, at .08, the critical driving task, concentration, attention, speed control, braking, steering, gear change, lane tracking are all negatively impacted and affected. We have all heard the arguments. The alcohol industry, in arguing against this standard, claims that--get this now--only 7 percent of the fatal crashes involve drivers with blood alcohol content between .08 and .09--only 7 percent. But what does that mean? What that translates into, if you use 1995 figures, it translates into 1,200 people in that year alone dying--1,200 people who are at precisely that level. Some of the opponents of this bill would argue, ``Oh, it is only 7 percent.'' Tell that to the parents who lost a child. Tell that to the brothers who lost a sister, or children who lost siblings or who lost parents. Changing the blood alcohol level content to .08 could have saved many of these lives. Where the .08 laws have been tried, they have been proven to reduce crashes and fatalities. A study done at Boston University found that .08 laws reduced the overall incidence of alcohol-related fatalities by 16 percent. Moreover, that same study found that .08 laws also reduced fatalities at higher blood alcohol levels by 18 percent. So it doesn't just have an impact on the .08 and .09 level; it serves as a deterrent, which affects the entire scale. Lowering the blood alcohol limit to .08 makes it possible to convict seriously impaired drivers whose blood alcohol contents are now considered marginal, because they are just at or just over .10. Further, the .08 blood alcohol level is a supremely reasonable standard. Let's look at the chart again that my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, showed a moment ago. I think it is important to look at this because there always is in debates such as this some misinformation that is going around. I think you have to get back to the scientific data and to look at this. In order for a 170-pound male to reach a blood alcohol content of .08, that male would have to consume four drinks, four beers, four shots, four glasses of wine, four in 1 hour on an empty stomach. Is there anyone in this Chamber, is there anyone in the Senate, who believes that they could sit down, drink four shots in an hour, and then get behind the wheel and drive? You might be able to do it. But would you be able to do it very well? I think the answer is clearly no. Maybe a better question we all should ask ourselves is how many of us, knowing a friend of ours, or acquaintance, or neighbor who had four drinks in an hour on an empty stomach, would say to that person, ``Why don't you take my daughter, Anna, uptown to McDonald's, put her in your car, and drive her?'' It is ludicrous. There isn't a person who would do that. We know that. Yet, that is what it would take to reach the .08 standard. A 135-pound female typically would have to consume three drinks in the same period of time. In other words, Mr. President, the .08 standard is targeted towards those who engage, frankly, in binge drinking--not, let me repeat, social drinking. This bill will not impact social drinkers. The opponents of this legislation apparently want the public to believe that our legislation would target for prosecution individuals who have had a beer or two, or had a beer and a pizza. That is the opposite of the truth. I think we should ask ourselves the simple question: Should the average person who has consumed four shots of distilled spirits in an hour, four beers, four glasses of wine on an empty stomach, be behind the wheel of a car? We all know what the answer to that is. Mr. President, the .08 legislation sets an intelligent national minimal standard, the same kind of commonsense standard that President Reagan pointed to in 1984 when he signed legislation raising the national minimum drinking age to 21. The results are in. The results of that action by this Congress and that President are in. In every year for which the national minimum drinking age was changed, roughly 1,000 lives were saved. No one believes in States rights more than Ronald Reagan. No one talked about it more eloquently. And there were those when Ronald Reagan took that position in 1984 who said that is inconsistent, that is wrong. We understand that argument. I think Ronald Reagan had it right, as he did a lot of times. His answer was very eloquent. This is what he said about really the same type issue. I quote from President Reagan: This problem is much more than just a State problem. It's a national tragedy. There are some special cases in which overwhelming need can be dealt with by prudent and limited Federal influence. And, in a case like this, I have no misgivings about a judicious use of Federal inducements to save precious lives. President Ronald Reagan, 1984, on a very similar issue. Mr. President, our purpose here today is really exactly the same as President Reagan's was back in 1984. We are working together in a very bipartisan way to guarantee a fundamental right, because this really is about rights. It is about freedom--the right of freedom to know that when you put your family in a car on a highway and you put your child in a car, there will be an absolute minimum national standard for how sober some other person has to be to drive on that same highway. So, if there is some minimum standard when I am in Cincinnati and leave Ohio and go into Kentucky, and maybe a few minutes later go into Indiana, cross State lines, that there is some national floor, a minimum standard of responsibility. That is about my freedom as a driver. That is about my family's freedom. That is about, I think, responsibility. That is the rationale behind the .08 standard embodied in this amendment. Simply put, a person at the .08 blood alcohol level is under the influence. No one disputes that. No one. And that person simply should not be driving a car. Our amendment would make this principle the law of the land, and it would save many, many lives. Mr. President, I see that my time is about up. I at this point reserve the remainder of the time. I do not know if anyone--Senator Chafee is on the floor--who wants to speak against the bill at this point wants me to yield time. I see my colleague from Illinois is on the floor. I will reserve the remainder of our time at this point. Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I rise as a cosponsor of the Child Custody Protection Act sponsored by my colleague, Senator Spencer Abraham, to whom I am grateful for introducing this important legislation. The purpose of this legislation is to make it a crime to transport a child across state lines if this circumvents state law requiring parental involvement or a judicial waiver for a minor to obtain an abortion. In a well-publicized case in Pennsylvania, a 12-year-old girl became pregnant after a sexual relationship with an 18-year-old man. As parental consent is required under Pennsylvania law before a minor can receive an abortion, the man's mother took the pregnant girl to New York for an abortion, where there is no such parental involvement law. The baby was aborted. The girl's mother did not consent to her daughter having an abortion; in fact, she did not even know her daughter was pregnant. Unfortunately, parents and guardians have no clear recourse when another adult circumvents the law of the state where the parent and child live by transporting a child to another state. Twenty-two states have laws that require either notification or consent of a parent before a minor child receives an abortion. Currently, in my State of Ohio, a parent or guardian must be notified before a child receives an abortion. However, the State Legislature has recently passed a law requiring both parental consent and a face-to- face meeting with the doctor performing the abortion at least twenty- four hours before the procedure. Clearly, the citizens of Ohio have a compelling interest in making sure that parents are involved in a minor's decision to have an abortion, and that women have a full opportunity to consider the medical implications of their decision to abort an unborn child. The right of citizens to pass and enforce laws regarding the rights of parents is completely abrogated by the ability of strangers to surreptitiously transport children to another state to obtain a surgical or drug-induced abortion. By introducing this bill, we are sending a clear message that Roe v. Wade does not confer a ``right'' on strangers to take one's minor daughter across state lines to obtain an abortion when the involvement of a parent or a court is required. In H.L. v. Matheson, the Supreme Court correctly stated, ``the medical, emotional, and psychological consequences of an abortion are serious and can be lasting; this is particularly so when the patient is immature.'' In my view that strangers should be barred from circumventing the rights of parents to be involved in life and death decisions faced by their children. I believe the vast majority of Americans will never want to relegate the well-being of our children to a situation where life-altering decisions are made without the guidance and support of caring parents.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I rise as a cosponsor of the Child Custody Protection Act sponsored by my colleague, Senator Spencer Abraham, to whom I am grateful for introducing this important legislation. The purpose of this legislation is to make it a crime to transport a child across state lines if this circumvents state law requiring parental involvement or a judicial waiver for a minor to obtain an abortion. In a well-publicized case in Pennsylvania, a 12-year-old girl became pregnant after a sexual relationship with an 18-year-old man. As parental consent is required under Pennsylvania law before a minor can receive an abortion, the man's mother took the pregnant girl to New York for an abortion, where there is no such parental involvement law. The baby was aborted. The girl's mother did not consent to her daughter having an abortion; in fact, she did not even know her daughter was pregnant. Unfortunately, parents and guardians have no clear recourse when another adult circumvents the law of the state where the parent and child live by transporting a child to another state. Twenty-two states have laws that require either notification or consent of a parent before a minor child receives an abortion. Currently, in my State of Ohio, a parent or guardian must be notified before a child receives an abortion. However, the State Legislature has recently passed a law requiring both parental consent and a face-to- face meeting with the doctor performing the abortion at least twenty- four hours before the procedure. Clearly, the citizens of Ohio have a compelling interest in making sure that parents are involved in a minor's decision to have an abortion, and that women have a full opportunity to consider the medical implications of their decision to abort an unborn child. The right of citizens to pass and enforce laws regarding the rights of parents is completely abrogated by the ability of strangers to surreptitiously transport children to another state to obtain a surgical or drug-induced abortion. By introducing this bill, we are sending a clear message that Roe v. Wade does not confer a ``right'' on strangers to take one's minor daughter across state lines to obtain an abortion when the involvement of a parent or a court is required. In H.L. v. Matheson, the Supreme Court correctly stated, ``the medical, emotional, and psychological consequences of an abortion are serious and can be lasting; this is particularly so when the patient is immature.'' In my view that strangers should be barred from circumventing the rights of parents to be involved in life and death decisions faced by their children. I believe the vast majority of Americans will never want to relegate the well-being of our children to a situation where life-altering decisions are made without the guidance and support of caring parents.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts. Although cigarette smoking continues to be a major problem in this country today, I don't think there is anyone who doubts that the Surgeon General using his bully pulpit in 1966 had a profound impact on public opinion and behavior in this country. Mr. President, the nomination of Dr. David Satcher poses a difficult problem for those of us who oppose the procedure known as partial-birth abortion. The vast majority of Americans agree that it is a barbaric process and procedure. As our distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from New York, has pointed out, it is disturbingly close to infanticide. As a matter of conscience, Mr. President, I cannot support a nominee for the position of Surgeon General--in essence, America's chief doctor--who is a defender of this procedure. That, Mr. President, is why I will vote no on this nomination. While I suppose it would be unrealistic for any of us to hope this administration would send us a pro-life nominee for Surgeon General, I don't think it's too much to ask that their nominee oppose this particularly brutal procedure of partial-birth abortion. But we are now left, Mr. President, with the compellingly serious problem of a three-year vacancy at the post of Surgeon General. The Surgeon General is our number one public health official--the only doctor who can command the national bully pulpit to alert America to public health threats. This is a very important position. As our distinguished colleague, Dr. Frist, has said, and I quote: A Surgeon General brings national and international recognition to public health problems. Their expertise and credibility as well as a national forum can bring life-saving attention to issues Americans may not otherwise hear. Mr. President, I could not agree more. Whoever occupies the position of Surgeon General can command America's attention. For example, we all know that in 1966, the Surgeon General used that bully pulpit to warn Americans about the health dangers of cigarette smoking. Although cigarette smoking continues to be a major problem in this country today, I don't think there is anyone who doubts that the Surgeon General using his bully pulpit in 1966 had a profound impact on public opinion and behavior in this country. And there are other serious public health problems confronting America--challenges that cry out for a strong voice--for a physician who will use the bully pulpit of the office of Surgeon General to be a teacher, and to be a leader. Mr. President, I would like to note in this context that this nominee, Dr. Satcher, has promised that if he is confirmed, he will not--he will not--use the bully pulpit of his office to promote partial-birth abortion. He has been very clear about that. We need a Surgeon General. There may well be important challenges out there that we don't yet know about. Who knows what public health threats might emerge in the next 6 months, or 12 months, or 2 years? Mr. President, we need somebody on the job. That is why, while I cannot support this nominee, I cannot in good conscience vote to delay the filling of this position. Consequently, I will vote in favor of cloture on this nomination. But it's time to move forward with this matter, it is time to have a vote on this nominee. If Dr. Satcher is then in fact confirmed, we should extend all possible cooperation to him, as he undertakes what is a very important task for the American people. Senator Frist says Dr. Satcher is, and I quote, ``an accomplished researcher with a long and truly distinguished record in promoting public health'' and ``will reclaim the integrity historically associated with the position of Surgeon General.'' Mr. President, if the nominee is successful, I wish him well in the difficult and very important task facing him and facing the country. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to commemorate an important event in the history of my State, the State of Ohio, and also the history of this Congress. Over the just-concluded recess, my good friend, Congressman Lou Stokes, announced he will retire at the end of this Congress. Lou Stokes will retire after 30 years representing the people of his Cleveland area district. Mr. President, when I first entered the House of Representatives in 1983, Louis Stokes had already been there for 14 years--14 years building friendships and developing a reputation as a powerful and effective leader. Lou Stokes is a leader. Mr. President, he is more than that. Lou Stokes is a good man. One of my own favorite memories of Lou Stokes, and frankly it is one of my memories that I will carry with me all my life and my career in politics, was the very moving speech that Congressman Lou Stokes made when he and I served together on the Iran- Contra Committee. Mr. President, this was a contentious time. Congressman Stokes and I did not always agree on everything about these hearings or about the facts of that series of events that led to the Iran-Contra hearings. But there was a moment during the hearings when Lou Stokes spoke from the heart and he really let us know what kind of a person he is, sort of what makes him tick. We really had an insight into the soul of this very good man. In his remarks he expressed heartfelt love of this great country of ours. Let me quote a portion of what Congressman Lou Stokes said at that time: I wore the uniform of this country in World War II in a segregated Army. I wore it as proudly as you did, even though our Government required black and white solders in the same Army to live, sleep, eat, and travel separate and apart while fighting and dying for our country. But because of the rule of law today's servicemen in America suffer no such indignity. . . . My mother, a widow, raised two boys. She had an eighth grade education. She was a domestic worker who scrubbed floors. One son became the first black mayor of a major American city. The other sits here today as chairman of a House Intelligence Committee. Only in America, only in America, Colonel North, only in America. Mr. President, Louis Stokes said these words at a time of great tension in our country and in the Congress. In doing so, he gave voice to what Abraham Lincoln called the better angels of our nature. That, Mr. President, is really who Louis Stokes is, a truly honorable man who represents the finest aspects of the American spirit. Congressman Stokes rose from poverty to become a great American statesman. He was Ohio's first African American member of the U.S. Congress. He was the first African American ever named to the House Appropriations Committee. First, first, first, again and again and again, Mr. President. Where a path had not been carved out before, Louis Stokes took the lead and blazed a trail by himself. He was chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, he was chairman of the House Ethics Committee, he was chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, he was chairman of the historic House committee that investigated the assassinations of President Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He was chairman and is currently ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee on VA-HUD overseeing $87 billion of our Federal budget. For the last 5 years he has been the dean of our State's congressional delegation. Mr. President, I am proud to have served for so long with this truly great American, here in the Senate for the last 3 years, as well as the 8 years we served together in the U.S. House of Representatives. So today, Mr. President, I join the people of Ohio in thanking Congressman Lou Stokes for all he has done to move our State and our country forward. Louis Stokes's hometown newspaper, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, says that he is ``A man who, through word and deed, created a legacy of exemplary public service. . . . After his long years of distinguished service, Congress won't be the same without him.'' Mr. President, how true that is. So to our friend, Lou Stokes; his wife, Jay; his children, Shelley, Angela, Louis, Lorene; and his grandchildren, who I know he cherishes so much, Brett, Eric, Grant, Kelley, Kimberley, Alexandra, and Nicolette, thank you very much. Thank you for sharing him with us. We wish you, Congressman Stokes, and your children and your grandchildren and the rest of your family all the best for a wonderful future.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I will take a moment this afternoon to say a few words about another truly historic announcement that occurred during the recess. On behalf of the people of the State of Ohio and all of our colleagues in the U.S. Senate, let me say how truly proud we are of our distinguished friend and colleague, Senator John Glenn. By now, everyone in America knows that in October at the age of 77, Senator John Glenn will return to space as a member of the crew of the space shuttle Discovery. Mr. President, very few people show the kind of courage shown throughout his lifetime by John Glenn, courage that Senator Glenn showed when he flew 149--149--heroic combat missions as a Marine pilot in World War II and then in the Korean war facing death from enemy fighters and antiaircraft fire. Because of all the enemy fire that John Glenn braved, we are told his buddies called him the ``Mig-Mad Marine,'' and I guess they had a few other names for him, as well. Mr. President, it comes as no surprise to those of us who know him that our friend, John Glenn, is that kind of a rare person. One reporter commented that when he was a young man he was thrilled by then Colonel Glenn's orbits around the Earth and yelled out, ``Go, Colonel Glenn, go.'' Well, Mr. President, I had pretty much the same experience, as millions of Americans did. My experience occurred when I was in high school, my wife Fran and I were in high school in Yellow Springs High School and the day that John Glenn orbited the Earth and made that historic flight I happened to be in Mr. Ed Wingard's science class in Yellow Springs High School. We all listened on the radio to the progress of this truly historic flight. For those who were not born at that time or cannot remember it, it is hard to describe the atmosphere in this country. It is hard to explain how literally this country came to a stop, when people gathered around TVs and gathered around radios for that period of time as he went around the Earth and made those three orbits. In fact, just about anyone around back then can tell you how important that achievement was for the American people, and they can tell you where they were and what they were doing at that moment. We, as a Nation at that time, Mr. President, were shaken, we had been shaken when the Russians beat us into space with the Sputnik, Sputnik satellite, earlier in 1957 and then in April of 1961 they sent Yuri Gagarin into orbit, the first man in space. The same week as that flight the U.S. was rocked by the tragedy and failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba. In short, Mr. President, America was reeling, and that is one of the reasons why our hearts were lifted so very much by John Glenn's daring exploit. That, Mr. President, was a great day to be an American. I hear a lot of that enthusiasm today after the announcement that Senator Glenn will be going back into space. I think that one of his last public services as a Member of the U.S. Senate may be one of the most valuable achievements of his long and very distinguished career because John Glenn has a rare, truly incredible opportunity to educate the rest of us, to educate the American people about the value of America's adventure in space. Who better, Mr. President, than John Glenn to speak to Americans about this great American achievement? Who better to explain to us the importance of NASA, the importance of space exploration? And who among us, except John Glenn, has that historical perspective and can explain it in terms that average Americans can understand? John Glenn has a unique ability to tell this great story. He has that ability because he has lived it. Mr. President, I think this space mission is already starting to fire up the imagination of the American people about the wonders of discovery. It can remind us again that we as Americans have a tradition of national greatness and that the pursuit of national greatness remains our continued breathtaking challenge. So, Colonel--Senator--the hearts of all Ohioans and the hearts of your colleagues in the Senate, and indeed all Americans, will be with you on your historic mission. Our hearts will also be with your great family and with your heroic wife Annie. As President Clinton said the other night, godspeed, John Glenn. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, on September 17, 1997, as a member of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee and as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Employment and Training, I introduced S. 1186, the Workforce Investment Partnership Act. This legislation represents a tremendous effort to reshape our country's job training system, eliminate its fragmented and ineffective programs, and prepare it for the new demands of the next century. Today, in the same spirit, I introduce the reauthorized Rehabilitation Act and am very pleased to be joined by Senators Jeffords, Kennedy, Wellstone, Harkin, Frist, Collins, Reed, and Chafee. The Rehabilitation Act is the country's only Federally funded job training program for individuals with disabilities. If we are to truly reshape the country's job training programs--and begin to create a seamless system--we must bring all the programs, including vocational rehabilitation, in line with each other. We must link their efforts to train and place individuals. And we must ensure cooperation and awareness among their personnel. Reauthorizing the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 gives us the perfect opportunity to ensure that the vocational rehabilitation (VR) system does just that. It links the VR system to the states' new job training systems under the Workforce Investment Partnership Act. It streamlines the VR system, and eliminates unnecessary and wasteful requirements on state agencies. It improves the provision of services that lead to more jobs and better jobs for individuals with disabilities. And it reauthorizes the Rehabilitation Act for 7 years, to mirror the reauthorization schedule of the Workforce Investment Partnership Act. Linking the VR system to states' new workforce systems should not be confused with compromising the integrity of the VR system. Under no circumstances, proposed either in this reauthorization or in S. 1186, will funding for VR be jeopardized or diluted. However, no one should underestimate the importance of cooperation and awareness between the two systems, and the strong statutory links that are necessary to ensure such cooperation. Mr. President, let me elaborate on some of the links included in this reauthorization. First, one member of a state's State Partnership, under S. 1186, would also be a member of a state's State Rehabilitation Council. State Rehabilitation Councils are responsible for advising state VR agencies and helping them develop the state plan for implementing rehabilitation services. Input from a State Partnership will help assure that the programs do not duplicate each other's efforts. Second, a state's VR agency is required to develop cooperative agreements with other components of the state's workforce investment system. These agreements should include: Arrangements for interagency staff training; arrangements to share data electronically regarding labor market information and information on specific job vacancies; arrangements to use common intake procedures, forms, and referral procedures; agreements to share client databases; and arrangements for resolving interagency disputes. Third, the Rehabilitation Services Agency Commissioner, who is required to submit a report to Congress and the President on the activities carried out under the Rehabilitation Act for a fiscal year, must now include in his report the same information required in the Workforce Investment Partnership Act. Linking the reporting requirements helps assure that VR and the state workforce systems will be evaluated on the same results, including statistics on job placement, job retention six and twelve months after placement, and on how many did or did not complete their training. Finally, the bill clearly states that its purpose is to ``assist states in operating statewide comprehensive, coordinated, effective, efficient, and accountable programs of vocational rehabilitation, each of which is an integral part of a statewide workforce investment system.'' After establishing significant links between state workforce systems and state vocational rehabilitation systems, my second objective in this bill is to streamline the existing VR system. For example: First, the duplicative and wasteful requirements to develop state plans were removed. For example, the entire concept of a ``strategic plan'' requiring states to develop already existing or required goals and standards elsewhere is eliminated. In addition to saving time for state administrators, this means that states would no longer have to spend 1.5% of their Federal allotment on the ``strategic plan.'' In Ohio, this means a savings of close to 3 million dollars--savings the state of Ohio could now spend on providing services and getting people jobs. Second, eligibility procedures also have been simplified. Under this reauthorization bill, an individual could demonstrate eligibility for VR services based on information attained from another program with either the same or higher eligibility criteria. Therefore, state agencies would not longer have to reinvent the wheel to determine eligibility for individuals who can already demonstrate it. Mr. President, in addition to linkages and streamlining, we have vastly improved the VR system in several ways. First, all individuals eligible for VR programming would now receive at least basic services. Current law allows states under an ``order of selection'' to ignore eligible individuals who have come for job assistance if they do not meet the state's definition of ``most severely disabled.'' Now, even those disabled individuals who would not otherwise be served must receive at least evaluative services, job placement information, and referral services. A state may opt to provide additional services to these individuals, but not everyone will have access to basic assistance and information. Second, individuals' roles in developing their own ``Individualized Rehabilitation Employment Plans'' have been strengthened. Individuals with disabilities, who will always have the opportunity of working as a team with a VR counselor, will also have more choice as to what their plan will provide. Third, the dispute resolution process between clients and state agencies has been vastly improved, ensuring real due process for all parties. No longer will a state VR administrator be allowed to review decisions in which the state agency is always a party. Under this reauthorization bill, it is a state's option to have an administrative review of an initial decision, but this review must be conducted by someone not affiliated with the state VR agency. If a state does not have such a review, any appeals from an initial hearing proceed directly to civil court. Furthermore, assuming both parties agree, mediation is now an option for either the state VR agency or the individual. Finally, one of the most positive changes emphasizes the value of self-employment as a possibility for individuals with disabilities. Individuals with disabilities, together with their VR counselors, can develop plans in which their goal is to be self-employed. It is a step that gives VR clients more choice in how they will live their lives and become more independent members of their communities. Before I conclude, Mr. President, I would like to point out the broad bipartisan support for this bill and its link to the Workforce Investment Partnership Act enjoys. Members from both sides of the aisle, the Department of Education, and many interest groups worked together in a very open negotiation to produce this legislation--one that will truly improve the lives of millions of people. I thank the Chairman of the Labor Committee, Senator Jeffords; the Ranking Member of the Committee, Senator Kennedy; the Ranking Member of the Employment and Training Subcommittee, Senator Wellstone, and my colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin for all the work they and their staffs put into this process. I also would like to thank my colleague from Tennessee, Senator Frist and his staff for his contribution not only in the 105th Congress, but also for his contributions to developing links to our previous workforce bill in the 104th Congress. Mr. President, I am hopeful the Senate will approve this legislation soon. Passage of this bill will create a system that will improve the lives of individuals with disabilities and provide opportunities for more jobs. This bill would streamline the VR system, making it more efficient and effective, and couple the vocational rehabilitation system's job training efforts with states' workforce systems' efforts to develop a seamless system of job training. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, on September 17, 1997, as a member of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee and as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Employment and Training, I introduced S. 1186, the Workforce Investment Partnership Act. This legislation represents a tremendous effort to reshape our country's job training system, eliminate its fragmented and ineffective programs, and prepare it for the new demands of the next century. Today, in the same spirit, I introduce the reauthorized Rehabilitation Act and am very pleased to be joined by Senators Jeffords, Kennedy, Wellstone, Harkin, Frist, Collins, Reed, and Chafee. The Rehabilitation Act is the country's only Federally funded job training program for individuals with disabilities. If we are to truly reshape the country's job training programs--and begin to create a seamless system--we must bring all the programs, including vocational rehabilitation, in line with each other. We must link their efforts to train and place individuals. And we must ensure cooperation and awareness among their personnel. Reauthorizing the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 gives us the perfect opportunity to ensure that the vocational rehabilitation (VR) system does just that. It links the VR system to the states' new job training systems under the Workforce Investment Partnership Act. It streamlines the VR system, and eliminates unnecessary and wasteful requirements on state agencies. It improves the provision of services that lead to more jobs and better jobs for individuals with disabilities. And it reauthorizes the Rehabilitation Act for 7 years, to mirror the reauthorization schedule of the Workforce Investment Partnership Act. Linking the VR system to states' new workforce systems should not be confused with compromising the integrity of the VR system. Under no circumstances, proposed either in this reauthorization or in S. 1186, will funding for VR be jeopardized or diluted. However, no one should underestimate the importance of cooperation and awareness between the two systems, and the strong statutory links that are necessary to ensure such cooperation. Mr. President, let me elaborate on some of the links included in this reauthorization. First, one member of a state's State Partnership, under S. 1186, would also be a member of a state's State Rehabilitation Council. State Rehabilitation Councils are responsible for advising state VR agencies and helping them develop the state plan for implementing rehabilitation services. Input from a State Partnership will help assure that the programs do not duplicate each other's efforts. Second, a state's VR agency is required to develop cooperative agreements with other components of the state's workforce investment system. These agreements should include: Arrangements for interagency staff training; arrangements to share data electronically regarding labor market information and information on specific job vacancies; arrangements to use common intake procedures, forms, and referral procedures; agreements to share client databases; and arrangements for resolving interagency disputes. Third, the Rehabilitation Services Agency Commissioner, who is required to submit a report to Congress and the President on the activities carried out under the Rehabilitation Act for a fiscal year, must now include in his report the same information required in the Workforce Investment Partnership Act. Linking the reporting requirements helps assure that VR and the state workforce systems will be evaluated on the same results, including statistics on job placement, job retention six and twelve months after placement, and on how many did or did not complete their training. Finally, the bill clearly states that its purpose is to ``assist states in operating statewide comprehensive, coordinated, effective, efficient, and accountable programs of vocational rehabilitation, each of which is an integral part of a statewide workforce investment system.'' After establishing significant links between state workforce systems and state vocational rehabilitation systems, my second objective in this bill is to streamline the existing VR system. For example: First, the duplicative and wasteful requirements to develop state plans were removed. For example, the entire concept of a ``strategic plan'' requiring states to develop already existing or required goals and standards elsewhere is eliminated. In addition to saving time for state administrators, this means that states would no longer have to spend 1.5% of their Federal allotment on the ``strategic plan.'' In Ohio, this means a savings of close to 3 million dollars--savings the state of Ohio could now spend on providing services and getting people jobs. Second, eligibility procedures also have been simplified. Under this reauthorization bill, an individual could demonstrate eligibility for VR services based on information attained from another program with either the same or higher eligibility criteria. Therefore, state agencies would not longer have to reinvent the wheel to determine eligibility for individuals who can already demonstrate it. Mr. President, in addition to linkages and streamlining, we have vastly improved the VR system in several ways. First, all individuals eligible for VR programming would now receive at least basic services. Current law allows states under an ``order of selection'' to ignore eligible individuals who have come for job assistance if they do not meet the state's definition of ``most severely disabled.'' Now, even those disabled individuals who would not otherwise be served must receive at least evaluative services, job placement information, and referral services. A state may opt to provide additional services to these individuals, but not everyone will have access to basic assistance and information. Second, individuals' roles in developing their own ``Individualized Rehabilitation Employment Plans'' have been strengthened. Individuals with disabilities, who will always have the opportunity of working as a team with a VR counselor, will also have more choice as to what their plan will provide. Third, the dispute resolution process between clients and state agencies has been vastly improved, ensuring real due process for all parties. No longer will a state VR administrator be allowed to review decisions in which the state agency is always a party. Under this reauthorization bill, it is a state's option to have an administrative review of an initial decision, but this review must be conducted by someone not affiliated with the state VR agency. If a state does not have such a review, any appeals from an initial hearing proceed directly to civil court. Furthermore, assuming both parties agree, mediation is now an option for either the state VR agency or the individual. Finally, one of the most positive changes emphasizes the value of self-employment as a possibility for individuals with disabilities. Individuals with disabilities, together with their VR counselors, can develop plans in which their goal is to be self-employed. It is a step that gives VR clients more choice in how they will live their lives and become more independent members of their communities. Before I conclude, Mr. President, I would like to point out the broad bipartisan support for this bill and its link to the Workforce Investment Partnership Act enjoys. Members from both sides of the aisle, the Department of Education, and many interest groups worked together in a very open negotiation to produce this legislation--one that will truly improve the lives of millions of people. I thank the Chairman of the Labor Committee, Senator Jeffords; the Ranking Member of the Committee, Senator Kennedy; the Ranking Member of the Employment and Training Subcommittee, Senator Wellstone, and my colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin for all the work they and their staffs put into this process. I also would like to thank my colleague from Tennessee, Senator Frist and his staff for his contribution not only in the 105th Congress, but also for his contributions to developing links to our previous workforce bill in the 104th Congress. Mr. President, I am hopeful the Senate will approve this legislation soon. Passage of this bill will create a system that will improve the lives of individuals with disabilities and provide opportunities for more jobs. This bill would streamline the VR system, making it more efficient and effective, and couple the vocational rehabilitation system's job training efforts with states' workforce systems' efforts to develop a seamless system of job training. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, H.R. 867, the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, is an extremely important piece of legislation. Let me begin by thanking Senators Craig, Chafee, Rockefeller, Jeffords, Coats, Grassley, Moynihan, Landrieu, Chairman Roth, and Senator Lott, the majority leader, who has made this bill a priority. I thank all of them and I thank their staffs for all the hard work they have done. I also want to thank our distinguished House colleagues Representatives Dave Camp and Barbara Kennelly, as well as Chairman Shaw, and their staffs, for their hard work in moving the bill through the House of Representatives. This is a significant bill for a number of reasons. It will require reasonable efforts to be made to find adoptive homes for children. It requires concurrent case planning, which will reduce the amount of time that a child has to wait to be adopted. It would do this by permitting States to develop an alternative permanency plan in case a child's reunification with his family doesn't work out. The bill shortens the time line for children in foster care. And it reduces interstate geographic barriers to adoption. But there is one element of this bill that is especially important--a provision I have been working to enact for over 2 years now. This one provision will save the lives of many children--and ensure that many others get to live in safe, loving, and permanent adoptive homes. My staff and I have been involved in the discussion, drafting, negotiation, and adoption of just about every provision in this bill. But I have been working for the passage of this one particular provision for a very long time--and I believe it merits extended discussion in detail. This provision is a clarification of the so-called reasonable efforts law, that was first passed in 1980. I introduced this provision as S. 1974 in the 104th Congress, and again as S. 178 in the 105th Congress. I have given at least nine speeches on the floor discussing the need for this legislation; chaired one hearing on it; and testified at several others. Anyone who is seeking to understand the need for this legislation-- and our legislative purpose in passing this bill today--would do well to review my remarks in the Record on those occasions. I will detail-- in these remarks today--both the dates of these speeches, and their page citations in the Record for easy reference. On May 23, 1996, I held my first press conference to call for a change in the reasonable efforts law. On June 4, 1996, I discussed this problem here on the Senate floor. That speech will be found in the Record at page S5710. On June 27, 1996, I testified before our colleagues over in the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources, at a hearing on how P.L. 96-272, the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act is a barrier to adoption. On July 18, 1996, I introduced S. 1974, a bill to clarify what Congress means by reasonable efforts. I offered the bill the very same day as an amendment to the Senate's welfare reform legislation, but withdrew the amendment because it was not germane. Nevertheless, I continued to talk about this problem, in an effort to create momentum to bring this kind of legislation to the floor. My remarks on that occasion will be found at page S8142 of the Record. On November 20, 1996, we held a hearing in the Labor and Human Resources Subcommittee on improving the well-being of abused and neglected children. When the new Congress reconvened in January of this year, I reintroduced my bill to clarify reasonable efforts, as S. 178. It was my very first order of business in the new Congress. On January 21, 1997, I spoke about this on the Senate floor. That can be found in the Congressional Record, page S551. On February 14, President Clinton endorsed my reasonable efforts bill. On February 24, I spoke about this on the Senate floor--page S1431. On March 20, Senators Chafee and Rockefeller introduced another bill to help us build momentum. That bill was titled S. 511, the Safe Adoptions and Family Environments Act. On April 8, I testified again in the House Ways and Means Committee on this topic. On April 30, H.R. 867, the Adoption Promotion Act of 1997, overwhelmingly passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 416 to 5. This bill, sponsored by Representatives Dave Camp and Barbara Kennelly, included my language to clarify reasonable efforts. I talked about that bill, on the same day that it passed in the House, on the floor of the Senate. Those remarks can be found at S3841. Mr. President, I addressed this issue again on the Senate floor on May 1. Those remarks can be found at page S3898, and yet again, on May 5, I spoke about the issue, and those remarks can be found at S3947. On May 21, I testified on this issue at a hearing in the Senate Finance Committee. On October 1, I addressed this issue on the Senate floor again. Those remarks can be found at page S10262. On October 8, I testified yet again in a hearing before the Finance Committee on the Promotion of Adoption, Safety and Support of Abused and Neglected Children Act, the PASS Act, as it is commonly known. Finally, on October 24 of this year, I addressed this issue again on the Senate floor, and those remarks can be found on page S11175. The legislation that we will take up in a moment and that I hope we pass today is the culmination of that effort. I have taken the time of the Senate today to outline that history, as I stated a moment ago, because I want to make it very clear what the legislative history is and what the intent was behind that provision of the bill. Let me turn now to the need for this provision. Let me explain why this provision was the focus of so much attention and why we need this provision. We need it, Mr. President, because of an unintended consequence of a bill that was passed by this Congress in 1980. The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 included a provision saying that for a State to be eligible for Federal funds for foster care spending, that State must have a child welfare services plan approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services and that plan must be in effect. The State plan must provide, and I quote now from the 1980 law, it must provide ``that, in each case, reasonable efforts will be made (A) prior to the placement of a child in foster care, to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child from his home and (B) to make it possible for the child to return to his home.'' Mr. President, over the last 17 years, since this law went into effect and since this provision became part of our Federal law, this law, tragically, has often been seriously misinterpreted by those responsible for administering our foster care system. Too often, reasonable efforts, as outlined in the statute, have come to mean unreasonable efforts. It has come to mean efforts to reunite families which are families in name only. I am speaking now of dangerous, abusive adults who represent a threat to the health and safety and even the lives of these children. This law has been misinterpreted in such a way that no matter what the particular circumstances of a household may be, it is argued that the State must make reasonable efforts to keep that family together and to put it back together if it falls apart. I have traveled across the State of Ohio, talking with child service representatives, with judges, other social welfare professionals who have told me about this problem. I have held hearings with experts from other parts of the United States, and we have discovered that this is a truly national problem. There can be no doubt that this problem did, in fact, arise because of the 1980 law, and it arose because this 1980 law was and has been for 17 years misinterpreted. Clearly, the Congress of the United States in 1980 did not intend that children should be forced back into the custody of adults who are known to be dangerous and known to be abusive. My purpose in making these comments today is to make absolutely certain that this legislation that I believe we are about to pass, H.R. 867, is not misinterpreted. My purpose today is to make sure the bill we are about to pass is not misinterpreted. I intend, therefore, to explain in some detail our purpose in passing this legislation. Let me begin, if I can, Mr. President, by reading clause A of H.R. 867, and this is the bill we are about to take up. Clause A of this bill says: (A) in determining reasonable efforts to be made with respect to a child, as described in this section, and in making such reasonable efforts, the child's health and safety shall be the paramount concern. Let me read it again. Clause A of H.R. 867 that we are about to take up says: In determining reasonable efforts to be made with respect to a child, as described in this section, and in making such reasonable efforts, the child's health and safety shall be the paramount concern. The purpose of clause A, Mr. President, is to make it clear to everyone involved in caring for our young people, not just judges, but also caseworkers, prosecutors, magistrates, court-appointed attorneys, and child advocates--all of them--that reasonable efforts to reunify families must be governed by one overriding principle, and that overriding principle is that the health and safety of the child must always, always, always come first. In determining what efforts are required, in determining what efforts are reasonable, we must give priority to this clause. Second, clause A also makes clear that there are some cases in which reasonable efforts do not need to be made to reunify children with dangerous adults. In some cases, no efforts are reasonable efforts. In some cases, any efforts are unreasonable efforts. All the rest of this section of this bill, which will become law, must be read in the light of clause A which I just read. Clause A governs the law of reasonable efforts. Clause A defines, once and for all, the overriding principle, that the health and safety of the child must always, always, always come first. This bill that we are about to take up also includes a list of certain very specific cases in which reasonable efforts are not required, very specific cases laid out in the statute. They include the crimes set forth already in the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, or CAPTA. They also include aggravated circumstances that will have to be defined by each individual State, and they include also cases in which the parental rights have been involuntarily terminated as to the sibling of the child in question. Mr. President, let me point out now very carefully so there is no risk of misinterpretation on this floor, this list that I have just read is not meant to be an exclusive list. The authors of this legislation do not--do not--intend these specified items to constitute an exclusive definition of which cases do not require reasonable efforts to be made. Rather, these are examples--these are just examples--of the kind of adult behavior that makes it unnecessary, that makes it unwise, makes it simply wrong for the Government to make continued efforts to send children back to their care. This is not meant to be an exclusive list. We make this clear in the text of the bill. Let me read the rule of construction from the bill H.R. 867: (c) Rule of Construction--Nothing in this part shall be construed as precluding State courts from exercising their discretion to protect the health and safety of children in individual cases, including cases other than those described in section 471(a)(15)(D). ``Nothing in this part shall be construed as precluding State courts from exercising their discretion to protect the health and safety of children in individual cases, including cases other than those described in section 471(a)(15)(D).'' This leaves absolutely no room for doubt. Whether the case comes under the previously listed examples or not, the health and safety of the child must--must--come first. The passage of this bill will cause a momentous change in how we look out for the interests of the most vulnerable children in this country. I thank a number of individuals who have helped us build a consensus for making this change. I must say that is what had to happen before we could pass this bill. We had to get a consensus, not just in the Senate, not just in the House, but, frankly, among caring people across this country. It had to become a public issue. Let me thank some of the people who helped change that and build that consensus. Dr. Richard Gelles, whose pathbreaking book called ``The Book of David,'' did so much to educate me and the rest of America on this issue. He deserves a great deal of thanks. Peter Digre, Director of the department of children and family services of the county of Los Angeles, was also instrumental and testified about the need for our bill. Mrs. Sharon Aulton, the grandmother of Christina Lambert and Natalie Aulton, two children who lost their lives to child abuse. I think Mrs. Aulton was very brave when she came before us to share her heartbreaking story. She helped us bring the point home really as no one else could about the need for change. Mary McGrory of the Washington Post, a tireless advocate for children, who wrote at least two very compelling columns about the need for change in our reasonable efforts law. Dave Thomas of Ohio, a man who has devoted an incredible amount of effort to promote adoption as a way to provide a better future for America's endangered children. All the caseworkers, the CASA volunteers, prosecutors and other concerned citizens throughout Ohio and across this country who took the time to help me and my staff learn about this issue and craft the beginnings of a solution. Mr. President, speaking of my staff, I also thank my senior counsel, Karla Carpenter, who has worked so tirelessly on behalf of getting this bill passed. She has spent literally thousands of hours, both in the State of Ohio and here in Washington, working on this triumph today. The bill that is about to be passed today is a great credit to her fine work. I thank all these individuals. They all deserve the gratitude of anyone who cares about our children. Mr. President, you will notice and Members of the Senate will notice I said a moment ago we have crafted the beginnings of a solution. It is that, it is the beginnings. It is, I think, precisely what we have started today, the beginnings of a solution to this problem. The sad truth is, some children will continue to spend too much time waiting to be adopted. But without this bill, more children would have to wait, and they would have to wait longer. It is also true, Mr. President, that it is a tragic fact that children will continue to die in this country of child abuse. But without this bill, more children would have died. Mr. President, we should make no mistake about the challenges ahead. We stand only at the very beginning of a long struggle to save America's children. I do not think it is enough, as we do in this bill, to get more children adopted, although we are doing that, nor it is enough to make sure that fewer children are killed. It is our responsibility as a Congress, as citizens, as a people to do all we can to build an America, to build a country where children do not die of child abuse. I see an America and I want America, Mr. President, where every child has the opportunity to live in a safe, a stable, a loving, and a permanent home. That is why, Mr. President, I intend to return to this issue next year. There is a great deal we can still do. There is a great deal we must do, and there is a great deal we must do soon. We need, for example, to provide better training for caseworkers who look out for our children. We need to make sure that they have smaller case loads. We need to do more to emphasize adoption as the solution and provide greater resources and more emphasis on adoption so we can increase adoptions. We need, Mr. President, to provide better training for the courts that deal with our children. We need to make sure that the families who are in trouble, but who can be saved, do get help, and that they get good help, and that they get it before it is too late. That is quite an extensive agenda, Mr. President, for this country, but I believe it is necessary, and I believe we are up to it. If we want to continue to think of ourselves as a good country, we cannot afford to continue allowing so many of our children to be abused and so many to be killed, nor, Mr. President, can we allow so many of our children to languish in an unadoptable situation where they are sometimes shuttled, many times from home to home to home, without getting what every child deserves, needs, and should have--and that is a loving home and someone to love that child. I think we can and we must do better. With the bill we pass today, we say plainly and simply that there are cases in which reasonable efforts are not required to reunite innocent children with dangerous adults. With the bill we pass today, we will truly save lives. This historic change took a great deal of effort and consensus building. It is a good day's work and a good start at fixing America's No. 1 challenge--protecting and rescuing our young people. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and thank the Members of the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will help organ transplant recipients maintain access to drugs that they need to prevent their immune systems from rejecting transplanted organs. This bill is the product of many conversations I have had with folks in the organ and tissue transplant community, including many people from Ohio. I have worked with people interested in organ and tissue donation for quite some time to increase awareness and education about transplant issues. Organs are very scarce, and we work hard to raise awareness so we can increase donation. Despite our efforts, more than 55,000 Americans are on the organ transplant waiting list--where they wait, and wait, and some of them die. Others are lucky--they get one of the precious organs, allowing them to live a healthier, longer life. Because of the wonderful gift these lucky few have been given, it is particularly tragic that some can't afford the drugs--called immunosuppressive drugs--that help ensure that their immune systems won't reject their new organs. That is why I am introducing the ``Immunosuppressive Drugs Coverage Act of 1997.'' This bill makes sure that the 75,000 people that have received an organ transplant covered by Medicare always have access to immunosuppressive drugs. Medicare currently limits coverage for immunosuppressive drugs to 30 months after a transplant. In 1998, the limit will rise to 36 months under current law. But then what? After Medicare coverage ends, the transplant recipient must find some other way to pay for these essential drugs. Many transplant recipients may not be able to get other insurance coverage or be able to afford to pay out-of-pocket for the drugs, which average around $5,000 annually and can cost in excess of $10,000. Without a way to pay for them, these patients may be forced to stop taking the immunosuppressive drugs. Others will ration use of the drugs and take them irregularly. In either case, the risk of rejection for the transplant organ is much greater. If a transplanted organ is rejected, the recipient may die or may need intensive, life-sustaining medical care, which Medicare often does pay for. And yet, it won't pay for the drugs to prevent these life- threatening episodes. For kidney recipients, who make up the vast majority of Medicare transplant recipients, immune rejection means an immediate return to renal dialysis at a cost to Medicare of around $30,000 a year. For some kidney patients and all other Medicare transplant recipients, rejection means a return to the transplant waiting list, and a need for expensive life-sustaining care. If they are lucky, they will get a second transplant, which can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. My bill simply makes sure that everyone who receives an organ transplant through Medicare will have continued access to immunosuppressive drugs. This bill will help people who cannot pay for life-preserving immunosuppressive drugs and, at the same time, will help Medicare avoid the huge additional costs currently incurred when organs are rejected. When working with people to write this bill, I wanted to make sure the cost was as low as possible, while still getting the job done. That is why my bill contains safeguards that say that if any patient has private insurance coverage, it is the private insurance plan--and not Medicare--that pays for the immunosuppressive drugs. Someday, immunosuppressive drugs may not be necessary. We are beginning to see some promising research in this area. But today's transplant recipients need help now. They need this bill. The miracle of transplantation gives people the ``Gift of Life.'' It does not make sense to put this gift at risk because the recipient is unable to pay for immunosuppressive drugs. I urge every Senator to consider cosponsoring and supporting this bill.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I thank the Chair, and I thank my distinguished colleague from North Carolina. I am delighted to join him, as well as Senator Faircloth and Senator Glenn, in introducing a bill to create the Centennial of Flight Commission. In the year 2003, the United States and, indeed, the world will celebrate a truly breathtaking anniversary. That date will mark exactly 100 years of the adventure of human flight. For those of us who are from the State of Ohio, it is an especially important anniversary as Senator Helms has so ably described--first and foremost because the Wright brothers, the very first pioneers of powered flight, were from Dayton, OH. It was in Dayton, OH, that they grew up. It was in Dayton, OH, that they had a print shop. It was in Dayton, OH, that they had the bicycle shop that was referred to a moment ago by Senator Helms. It was at Huffman Prairie, in Montgomery County, actually what is now enclosed in Wright Patterson Air Force Base, technically in Greene County, that the Wright brothers learned to fly. So, those of us from Ohio are very proud of the Wright brothers, as this whole country is. We are also proud in Ohio that ever since the time of the Wright brothers, Ohio has continued to build a proud aviation history. From the Wright brothers to World War I flying ace David Ingalls, to John Glenn who just walked on to the floor of the Senate, the first man, the first American to orbit the Earth, to Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the Moon, to the incredible research being done right now at NASA Lewis Research Center in Cleveland, OH, has continually been a part of the great epic of aviation. This is, indeed, cause for celebration, and that is what this bill is all about. It would create a commission to coordinate the centennial of flight celebration in the year 2003. The commission will be composed of 21 members: the Secretaries of the Interior, Transportation, and Defense; the Director of the National Air and Space Museum; the Administrator of NASA; two people from North Carolina; the president and chairman of the First Flight Centennial Commission; and two people from the State of Ohio, the Governor and the chairman of the 2003 Committee, and 12 additional Presidential appointees. Madam President, this commission will help the United States take a leadership role in planning international celebrations of the centennial of flight, promoting participation and sponsorship by the aerospace industry, the commercial aviation industry, educational institutions, and State and local governments. The commission is going to distribute a calendar, a register of national and international programs and projects concerning the flight centennial. What I hope most of all is that these celebrations will recognize that the history of flight is not just the story about machines or about the triumph of technology. It is rather a story about people. It is a story of how human creativity overcame one of the most fundamental barriers that humans ever faced. For hundreds of thousands of years, human beings could not fly, but in this century, thanks to the freedom and spirit of creativity in this country, the human race broke the bonds of Earth. So, from Dayton to Kitty Hawk and beyond the limits of our solar system, this is a story to truly celebrate. Madam President, I see my distinguished senior Senator from the State of Ohio, the honorable John Glenn, is on the floor. I yield to Senator Glenn.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I thank the Chair, and I thank my distinguished colleague from North Carolina. I am delighted to join him, as well as Senator Faircloth and Senator Glenn, in introducing a bill to create the Centennial of Flight Commission. In the year 2003, the United States and, indeed, the world will celebrate a truly breathtaking anniversary. That date will mark exactly 100 years of the adventure of human flight. For those of us who are from the State of Ohio, it is an especially important anniversary as Senator Helms has so ably described--first and foremost because the Wright brothers, the very first pioneers of powered flight, were from Dayton, OH. It was in Dayton, OH, that they grew up. It was in Dayton, OH, that they had a print shop. It was in Dayton, OH, that they had the bicycle shop that was referred to a moment ago by Senator Helms. It was at Huffman Prairie, in Montgomery County, actually what is now enclosed in Wright Patterson Air Force Base, technically in Greene County, that the Wright brothers learned to fly. So, those of us from Ohio are very proud of the Wright brothers, as this whole country is. We are also proud in Ohio that ever since the time of the Wright brothers, Ohio has continued to build a proud aviation history. From the Wright brothers to World War I flying ace David Ingalls, to John Glenn who just walked on to the floor of the Senate, the first man, the first American to orbit the Earth, to Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the Moon, to the incredible research being done right now at NASA Lewis Research Center in Cleveland, OH, has continually been a part of the great epic of aviation. This is, indeed, cause for celebration, and that is what this bill is all about. It would create a commission to coordinate the centennial of flight celebration in the year 2003. The commission will be composed of 21 members: the Secretaries of the Interior, Transportation, and Defense; the Director of the National Air and Space Museum; the Administrator of NASA; two people from North Carolina; the president and chairman of the First Flight Centennial Commission; and two people from the State of Ohio, the Governor and the chairman of the 2003 Committee, and 12 additional Presidential appointees. Madam President, this commission will help the United States take a leadership role in planning international celebrations of the centennial of flight, promoting participation and sponsorship by the aerospace industry, the commercial aviation industry, educational institutions, and State and local governments. The commission is going to distribute a calendar, a register of national and international programs and projects concerning the flight centennial. What I hope most of all is that these celebrations will recognize that the history of flight is not just the story about machines or about the triumph of technology. It is rather a story about people. It is a story of how human creativity overcame one of the most fundamental barriers that humans ever faced. For hundreds of thousands of years, human beings could not fly, but in this century, thanks to the freedom and spirit of creativity in this country, the human race broke the bonds of Earth. So, from Dayton to Kitty Hawk and beyond the limits of our solar system, this is a story to truly celebrate. Madam President, I see my distinguished senior Senator from the State of Ohio, the honorable John Glenn, is on the floor. I yield to Senator Glenn.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be part of a bipartisan group of Senators, led by my friend from New York, Senator Moynihan, to introduce the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act. Passage of this legislation will lift the last remaining veils of secrecy on one of the darkest periods in human history. the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act represents what I hope will be the culmination of work begun in the last Congress to release U.S. Government-held records of Nazi war criminals, the Nazi Holocaust, and the trafficking of Nazi-held assets. Just 2 years ago, we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, and with it, the Nazis' death grip on an entire continent. Since that time, searingly detailed accounts of the Nazi Holocaust have come to our attention. We have learned so much. Yet, if the last few years are any indication, we still have so much more to learn. After the fall of Communist rule, Russia and several former Soviet- bloc nations opened volumes of secret files on Nazi war crimes. Argentina has cooperated in the public release of its files. British Government records are being declassified and made available for public scrutiny. And over the past year, Swiss banks and the Swiss Government have been under intense international pressure to make a full accounting of unclaimed funds belonging to Holocaust victims, as well as Nazi assets that may have once belonged to Holocaust victims. Mr. President, here at home, our own Government has been gradually making records available about what it knew of Nazi-related activities and atrocities. Earlier this year, a Government-conducted study revealed new information about what the U.S. Government knew regarding the transfer and flow of funds held by Nazi officials. This report found that the U.S. Government was aware that the Nazi mint took gold stolen from European central banks and melted it together with gold obtained in horrible fashion--from tooth-fillings, wedding bands and other items seized from death camp victims. Last Sunday's New York Times detailed newly released Government documents that described how the Federal Reserve Bank of New York had melted down and recast hundreds of Nazi-held gold bars. According to the released records, the U.S. Government knew that a good portion of this gold had been looted from the Netherlands and Belgium. It is not known if any of these bars contained gold from Holocaust victims, or to what extent the U.S. Government knew it. Mr. President, earlier today, at a press conference to announce the introduction of this legislation, I had on display several aerial U.S. intelligence photographs taken in 1944. The pictures were of Auschwitz, with prisoners being led to the gas chambers. These pictures were discovered by photo analysts from the Central Intelligence Agency in 1978. They confirm what we had heard from the Polish underground that a death camp did in fact exist at Auschwitz. They also demonstrated that our Government had photographs of these camps as these atrocities were occurring. These pictures tell a grisly story. How many more exist? With our legislation, we intend to answer that question. So, the fact is, the dark tragedy of the Nazi Holocaust, which ended more than 60 years ago, has been unfolding long after these tragic events occurred and is still unfolding with each new release of information. Both Congress and the President have taken action to promote the release of Government-held records during this tragic era. On April 17, 1995, the President issued an Executive order calling for the release of national security data and information older than 25 years. Last year, thanks to the tireless efforts of my friend from New York, Senator Moynihan and Representative Carolyn Maloney and several others, Congress passed a sense-of-the-Congress resolution, which stated that any U.S. Government agencies should make public any records in its possession about individuals who are alleged to have committed Nazi war crimes. The President agreed, noting that learning the remaining secrets about the Holocaust are in the clear public interest. The Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act is designed to put the concerns expressed by the last Congress into strong action. What our bill would do is amend the Freedom of Information Act to establish a presumption that Nazi war criminal records are to be made available to the public. This means that all materials would be required to be released in their entirety unless a Federal agency head concludes that the release of all or part of these records would compromise privacy or national security interests. The agency head must notify Congress of any determination to not release records. To facilitate this process, the bill would establish the Nazi War Criminal Records Interagency Working Group. This working group would to the greatest extent possible locate, identify, inventory, declassify, and make available for the public all Nazi war records held by the United States. This pro-active search is necessary because a full Government search and inventory has never been completed. For example, some documents that surfaced this spring were found in holdings related to Southeast Asia. Our bill would be targeted toward two classes of Nazi-related materials: First, war crimes information regarding Nazi persecutions; and second, any information related to transactions involving assets of Holocaust and other Nazi victims. In summary, what we are trying to do with this bill is strike a clear balance between our Government's legitimate privacy and national security interests and the people's desire to know the truth about Nazi atrocities. These records, once released, will be held in a repository at the National Archives. This bill is a bipartisan effort to ensure the Federal Government has done all it can to ensure Holocaust victims and their families can obtain the answers they need. Again, this bill is the culmination of years of tireless work by a number of leaders. First, I want to pay special tribute to the Senators from New York--both have worked tirelessly on Holocaust related legislation for years. Senator Moynihan has been a leader in the drive to declassify U.S. Government records and a well-respected historian. He championed the release of the so-called VENONA cables that confirmed that the Soviet Union had an active spy network that had penetrated our Government. I am pleased to be working with Senator Moynihan on a similar endeavor--the cataloging and declassification of as many World War II documents on the Holocaust as possible. Senator D'Amato has worked to make public scores of Swiss bank records and lost accounts of Holocaust victims. His efforts inspired us to redraft our legislation to ensure the Federal Government releases records related to the trafficking of Nazi-held assets. This bill has the support of the chairmen of the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees--respectively, my friend from Utah, Senator Hatch, and my friend from Alabama, Senator Shelby. Mr. President, I also would be remiss if I did not mention my friend from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl, who serves with me on the Antitrust Subcommittee on the Judiciary Committee. He has brought insight on this issue that none of us has. Together, with this kind of bipartisan support, I am hopeful we can move this legislation quickly through Congress and to the President early next year. As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I intend to make this a priority issue--so that people from my State and across our Nation can have access to the most complete inventory of U.S. Government records on the Holocaust. The clock is running, and time is running out for so many victims of the Holocaust. They, and history itself, deserve to know as much as possible about this tragic chapter in the story of humanity. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be part of a bipartisan group of Senators, led by my friend from New York, Senator Moynihan, to introduce the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act. Passage of this legislation will lift the last remaining veils of secrecy on one of the darkest periods in human history. the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act represents what I hope will be the culmination of work begun in the last Congress to release U.S. Government-held records of Nazi war criminals, the Nazi Holocaust, and the trafficking of Nazi-held assets. Just 2 years ago, we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, and with it, the Nazis' death grip on an entire continent. Since that time, searingly detailed accounts of the Nazi Holocaust have come to our attention. We have learned so much. Yet, if the last few years are any indication, we still have so much more to learn. After the fall of Communist rule, Russia and several former Soviet- bloc nations opened volumes of secret files on Nazi war crimes. Argentina has cooperated in the public release of its files. British Government records are being declassified and made available for public scrutiny. And over the past year, Swiss banks and the Swiss Government have been under intense international pressure to make a full accounting of unclaimed funds belonging to Holocaust victims, as well as Nazi assets that may have once belonged to Holocaust victims. Mr. President, here at home, our own Government has been gradually making records available about what it knew of Nazi-related activities and atrocities. Earlier this year, a Government-conducted study revealed new information about what the U.S. Government knew regarding the transfer and flow of funds held by Nazi officials. This report found that the U.S. Government was aware that the Nazi mint took gold stolen from European central banks and melted it together with gold obtained in horrible fashion--from tooth-fillings, wedding bands and other items seized from death camp victims. Last Sunday's New York Times detailed newly released Government documents that described how the Federal Reserve Bank of New York had melted down and recast hundreds of Nazi-held gold bars. According to the released records, the U.S. Government knew that a good portion of this gold had been looted from the Netherlands and Belgium. It is not known if any of these bars contained gold from Holocaust victims, or to what extent the U.S. Government knew it. Mr. President, earlier today, at a press conference to announce the introduction of this legislation, I had on display several aerial U.S. intelligence photographs taken in 1944. The pictures were of Auschwitz, with prisoners being led to the gas chambers. These pictures were discovered by photo analysts from the Central Intelligence Agency in 1978. They confirm what we had heard from the Polish underground that a death camp did in fact exist at Auschwitz. They also demonstrated that our Government had photographs of these camps as these atrocities were occurring. These pictures tell a grisly story. How many more exist? With our legislation, we intend to answer that question. So, the fact is, the dark tragedy of the Nazi Holocaust, which ended more than 60 years ago, has been unfolding long after these tragic events occurred and is still unfolding with each new release of information. Both Congress and the President have taken action to promote the release of Government-held records during this tragic era. On April 17, 1995, the President issued an Executive order calling for the release of national security data and information older than 25 years. Last year, thanks to the tireless efforts of my friend from New York, Senator Moynihan and Representative Carolyn Maloney and several others, Congress passed a sense-of-the-Congress resolution, which stated that any U.S. Government agencies should make public any records in its possession about individuals who are alleged to have committed Nazi war crimes. The President agreed, noting that learning the remaining secrets about the Holocaust are in the clear public interest. The Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act is designed to put the concerns expressed by the last Congress into strong action. What our bill would do is amend the Freedom of Information Act to establish a presumption that Nazi war criminal records are to be made available to the public. This means that all materials would be required to be released in their entirety unless a Federal agency head concludes that the release of all or part of these records would compromise privacy or national security interests. The agency head must notify Congress of any determination to not release records. To facilitate this process, the bill would establish the Nazi War Criminal Records Interagency Working Group. This working group would to the greatest extent possible locate, identify, inventory, declassify, and make available for the public all Nazi war records held by the United States. This pro-active search is necessary because a full Government search and inventory has never been completed. For example, some documents that surfaced this spring were found in holdings related to Southeast Asia. Our bill would be targeted toward two classes of Nazi-related materials: First, war crimes information regarding Nazi persecutions; and second, any information related to transactions involving assets of Holocaust and other Nazi victims. In summary, what we are trying to do with this bill is strike a clear balance between our Government's legitimate privacy and national security interests and the people's desire to know the truth about Nazi atrocities. These records, once released, will be held in a repository at the National Archives. This bill is a bipartisan effort to ensure the Federal Government has done all it can to ensure Holocaust victims and their families can obtain the answers they need. Again, this bill is the culmination of years of tireless work by a number of leaders. First, I want to pay special tribute to the Senators from New York--both have worked tirelessly on Holocaust related legislation for years. Senator Moynihan has been a leader in the drive to declassify U.S. Government records and a well-respected historian. He championed the release of the so-called VENONA cables that confirmed that the Soviet Union had an active spy network that had penetrated our Government. I am pleased to be working with Senator Moynihan on a similar endeavor--the cataloging and declassification of as many World War II documents on the Holocaust as possible. Senator D'Amato has worked to make public scores of Swiss bank records and lost accounts of Holocaust victims. His efforts inspired us to redraft our legislation to ensure the Federal Government releases records related to the trafficking of Nazi-held assets. This bill has the support of the chairmen of the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees--respectively, my friend from Utah, Senator Hatch, and my friend from Alabama, Senator Shelby. Mr. President, I also would be remiss if I did not mention my friend from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl, who serves with me on the Antitrust Subcommittee on the Judiciary Committee. He has brought insight on this issue that none of us has. Together, with this kind of bipartisan support, I am hopeful we can move this legislation quickly through Congress and to the President early next year. As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I intend to make this a priority issue--so that people from my State and across our Nation can have access to the most complete inventory of U.S. Government records on the Holocaust. The clock is running, and time is running out for so many victims of the Holocaust. They, and history itself, deserve to know as much as possible about this tragic chapter in the story of humanity. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I further, Mr. President, ask unanimous consent that Wendy Selig of the staff of Representative Porter Goss be granted privilege of the floor during my remarks.

Mr. DeWINE

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