Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. That would be 11:40.

Mr. DeWINE. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. DeWine and Mr. Wellstone pertaining to the introduction of S. 1029 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I yield the floor at this time, Mr. President.

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

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, my amendment is an attempt to strengthen our aid program to the troubled republic island of Haiti. It would help make sure that United States assistance is properly targeted, so it can be more readily effective in areas vital to United States interests. Mr. President, my amendment does three things. No. 1, it provides up to $250,000 for a program to assist Haitian children currently in orphanages. Today, Mr. President, Catholic Relief Services [CRS], and the Adventist Development and Relief Agency [ADRA] support thousands of Haitian children. They basically administer AID Food. There are thousands of children who are receiving one meal a day because of AID assistance that is administered through both CRS and the ADRA. It is vitally important that this assistance continue. Mr. President, my amendment does not deal directly with this food. What it does deal with is the bigger problem of the orphanages of Haiti. I have had the opportunity to visit at least 12 of these orphanages in Haiti over the last few months. There are at least 70 such orphanages just in the Port-au-Prince area alone, containing thousands of children. It is something to see and something to behold to see the work that is being done. These orphanages would break a person's heart, and does, when you see the children who are there. This amendment sets aside a relatively small amount of money to look at this problem from the long range. Frankly, Mr. President, due to lack of resources the orphanages in Haiti cannot take in many of the needy children. This amendment would provide much-needed resources to help alleviate the demand on these orphanages, by helping take care of the children in other ways. Clearly, what these children need, in the final analysis, is not just temporary shelter, but permanent placement in safe, stable homes where they can count on food and clothing. The funds provided by this amendment would help make that permanent home a reality for more of Haiti's children. It would do this by bringing about some coordination among the orphanages and coordination with respect to our AID mission. Mr. President, the second part of our amendment would specify that no less than $500,000 be made available, and made available only for the Special Investigation Unit, the SIU, of the Haitian national police. Mr. President, in my visits to Haiti I have talked with members of the SIU, and I talked with the American contract officer who is down there assisting the SIU unit. One of the things that we have observed and that this country has promoted in emerging democracies is the belief that if a country is to emerge as a democracy, whether it be Haiti, whether it be Bosnia, wherever in the world, that the country has to turn its back on its past and has to stop tolerating political murders, political killings, political crimes, whether they occur from the left or from the right. The SIU unit has a very specific task. Its task is to target these political murderers, to bring them to justice, and to see that they are successfully tried. By doing that, and only by doing that, Mr. President, can we effectively see justice in these emerging democracies. And only by doing this can the people of the country understand that democracy not only means free elections, but democracy also means justice, and these days of political killings must be over. It is important, Mr. President, that support for the SIU investigations continue as investigators build compelling cases against those who have used brutal force to achieve, in the past, political goals. Mr. President, over 80 extrajudicial and political killing cases have been assigned to the SIU by the Government of Haiti. The Government has requested that close to two dozen of those cases be investigated on a ``priority basis.'' However, sadly, not enough progress has been made on these high-profile political murder cases. In fact, to date, none of the cases have been successfully prosecuted. Mr. President, the SIU is being integrated slowly into the newly formed judicial police and is receiving more and more political support, and support from the Haitian people. The people of Haiti want to turn the corner on their long history of political violence. Continued assistance and targeted assistance to the SIU would strengthen Haiti and strengthen United States-Haiti relations as well. No. 3, and probably most important. This amendment would limit assistance to Haiti, unless four conditions are met: Funds are made available if the President reports to Congress that the Government of Haiti, No. 1, is conducting thorough investigations of extrajudicial and political killings; No. 2, is cooperating with the United States authorities on this matter; No. 3, has made progress in privatizing major Government-owned enterprises, including progress toward the material and legal transfer of ownership of these enterprises; finally, No. 4, that the government is taking action to remove from the Haitian national police, and from related agencies, individuals who are alleged, credibly alleged, to have engaged in or conspired to conceal gross human rights violations. Now, Mr. President, in essence, my amendment is designed to make clear that Congress does not intend United States assistance to Haiti to be viewed as unconditional. In fact, the first two conditions that I have just mentioned were already imposed by Congress in the form of an amendment sponsored by our distinguished colleague, former majority leader of the U.S. Senate, Senator Bob Dole. By adding the new third and fourth conditions, this amendment strengthens the Dole amendment that currently governs our policy toward Haiti. Now, the limitations I propose will not apply to the provision of humanitarian, electoral, counternarcotics, or developmental assistance, and it does, as the Dole amendment does, contain a ``national interest'' presidential waiver. Mr. President, the amendment currently in force which limits assistance to Haiti, the Dole amendment, has been waived four times over the last two years by this administration. I believe the conclusion is clear. To make sure United States interests in Haiti are protected, that amendment needs to be strengthened. That is the purpose of this amendment that I am offering today. Mr. President, Haiti is now in the midst of a political crisis. The resignation of Prime Minister Rosny Smarth on June 9 has laid bare a very serious problem of leadership. For a number of reasons, which include the political prominence of former President Aristide, the current President, President Preval--despite some truly heroic efforts--has not yet been able to effectively promote economic reform. Mr. President, if this crisis is not met successfully, it could pose a real threat to United States policy interests and to the overall investment the United States has made in Haiti since our deployment of troops beginning in September 1994. In my view, Mr. President, if President Preval is given the space to govern, there is no reason to believe he will not make the necessary reforms--as he did previously in promoting fiscal austerity over the last 16 months. Mr. President, we want to help President Preval find that space to govern. That is one major purpose of the amendment that I am proposing. In conclusion, Mr. President, we as a nation cannot afford to wash our hands of a country in which we have made such a sizable investment. The amendment I am proposing today would make our aid more effective and would help the forces in Haiti that are fighting the uphill battle for genuine reform. Mr. President, I request a voice vote.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I express my strong support for the child survival and disease program fund. I understand that the House Committee on Appropriations, as a part of its foreign operations, export financing, and related programs bill, has recommended that $650 million be allocated to the fund's programs for fiscal year 1998. On the House side, the subcommittee Chairman Callahan has taken the lead, as my colleague from Ohio, Congressman Tony Hall, has also in protecting these child survival programs. I commend him for his leadership on this issue. The Clinton administration, however, has not specifically designated any direct funding for the child survival programs. Mr. President, in order to preserve the benefits of these important programs for children worldwide, I believe that the Senate should accept, when we go to conference, the House language that was agreed to in committee for this fund. It is, I believe, Mr. President, a tragedy, that millions of children die each year through disease, malnutrition, and other consequences of poverty that are both preventable and treatable. The programs in the child survival fund, which are intended to reduce infant mortality and improve the health and nutrition of children, address the various problems of young people struggling to survive in developing countries. Mr. President, this fund places a priority on the needs of more than 100 million children worldwide who are displaced and/or who have become orphans. The fund includes initiatives to curb the resurgence of communicable diseases, such as malaria and tuberculosis, in the underdeveloped world, eradicating polio, as well as preventing and controlling the spread of HIV and AIDS. Mr. President, aside from the addressing issues of health, the fund also supports basic education programs. Investment in education yields one of the highest social and economic rates of return because it gives children the necessary tools to become self-sufficient adults. Each additional year of primary and secondary education results in a 10-to- 20 percent wage increase, and a 25-percent net increase in income. Mr. President, the programs supported by the child survival fund are effective, and they are effective because they save three million lives each year through immunization, vitamin supplementation, oral rehydration therapy, and also through the treatment of childhood respiratory infections which are the second largest killer of children on Earth. Mr. President, eliminating the symptoms and the causes of this problem is not only the humane thing to do. It is also a necessary prerequisite for global stability and for global prosperity. In my view, Mr. President, Congress needs to maintain its support for these very valuable programs. It is my hope that the Senate Foreign Operations Subcommittee will, when we go to conference, accept the House language. The child survival and disease programs are effective, they are important, and they should, Mr. President, be continued. Mr. President, I see the distinguished chairman of the Senate Foreign Operations Subcommittee on the floor, and my colleague from the State of Kentucky. I wonder if he has any comment about this.

Mr. DeWINE. I appreciate that very much. Mr. President, if I could inquire of my colleague from Kentucky, I have a statement which I would like to give at some point this evening in regard to the vote we are going to have tomorrow. I can refrain from doing that if it works with the chairman's schedule, or I can do it now.

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

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, tomorrow we will be voting on Senator Hutchinson's amendment with regard to most-favored-nation status with China. I intend tomorrow to vote for the amendment offered by my friend from Arkansas, Senator Hutchinson. I would like to emphasize, however, first and foremost, that this is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. It is not binding. It does not in any way alter or reverse the President's decision to extend most-favored-nation trading status with China. As we all know, the House of Representatives already has voted against a resolution revoking China's MFN status. So, Mr. President, this amendment is more a chance to make a statement--frankly, for me, a chance to express my frustration with certain activities taken by the Chinese Government. Let there be no misunderstanding. I believe that China needs to reassess its actions in a number of areas because I believe Congress-- certainly this Senator--is losing patience. Let me be a bit more specific. I am very concerned first about China's weapons proliferation activities particularly in the Middle East. In the past 2 years, it has been reported in the media that China has supplied Pakistan with key components to develop its own nuclear weapons program as well as ballistic missiles to deliver such weapons. China also has been the source for Iran's growing cruise missile capability, which poses a clear threat to our military personnel and commercial shippers in the Persian Gulf. Further, I am concerned about Chinese state-owned companies knowingly supplying assault weapons to criminal gangs in California. Representatives of these companies were arrested in a sting operation just last year and are now awaiting trial in California. I am very concerned about repeated human rights violations throughout China as well as religious persecution and religious repression. I am very concerned about the hideous practices of forced abortions and sterilization in China. I am concerned about the possible reversal of various political liberties such as free speech and assembly in Hong Kong. These are all very serious issues, and I believe that we need to take action to try to address each one. My vote tomorrow in favor of this sense-of-the-Senate resolution will be an expression of these concerns. However, I believe there are far more effective ways to demonstrate our commitment to these issues than just the sense of the Senate before us. I suggest if we truly want to address all these issues constructively, we should bring before the Senate legislation that is targeted for its clear solutions. For example, the Senate recently passed legislation offered by my colleague who just spoke a moment ago, the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr. Bennett, which calls on our President to enforce our Nation's nonproliferation laws against China for its efforts to supply Iran with cruise missiles. I was a cosponsor of this legislation, which, by the way, passed the Senate unanimously. We can do more. We could and we should bring before the Senate the legislation that was introduced by my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, legislation which would impose penalties on countries guilty of supporting or tolerating religious persecution, and I am a proud cosponsor of this bill. We should bring before the Senate the legislation introduced by the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Abraham, which would impose targeted sanctions against China in cases of religious persecution and against Chinese companies for illegal weapons transfers into the United States. This bill would also increase United States support for human rights and democracy-building initiatives in China, including Radio Free Asia and the National Endowment for Democracy. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation as well. If we truly want to take strong, constructive action in regard to China, the options are clearly before us. The sense-of-the-Senate resolution before us is not the best way to address all of the issues of concern we have with China, but it is, I believe, helpful to send a signal to the Government of China that the people of the United States are genuinely concerned about the direction China has taken in a number of areas. Again, it is just a signal. But we should use the opportunity to make this signal strong and very clear. I believe, as I have stated, that we can do much more, more that is constructive and more that I believe can make a real and positive difference for the people of China. I hope in the weeks and months ahead we will take these actions.

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, also on behalf of the majority leader, I would like to make the following announcement for Members of the Senate. Tomorrow the Senate will resume consideration of S. 955, the foreign operations appropriations bill. Under the order, following the debate time on the remaining two amendments to S. 955, the Senate will begin voting on those amendments as well as final passage. Therefore, Senators can expect three consecutive rollcall votes beginning at approximately 10 a.m. tomorrow morning. It is the intention of the majority leader that the Senate begin consideration of the treasury, postal appropriations bill following the disposition of the foreign operations appropriations bill.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, now on behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, July 17. I further ask that on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and the Senate then immediately resume consideration of S. 955, the foreign operations appropriations bill.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to comment on the proposed technical amendment I have offered to section 1070 of S. 936, the fiscal year 1998 Department of Defense authorization bill. Specifically, section 1070 would grant the Secretary of the Air Force the authority to convey to the Planes of Fame Museum in Chino, CA, a B- 17 aircraft known as the ``Picadilly Lilly.'' It is my understanding that the aircraft is in need of repairs, and the museum would be willing to do the necessary work on the B-17 provided the museum had clear title to the aircraft. Technically, it is my understanding that the aircraft is historical property under the administration of the U.S. Air Force Museum, which is located at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, OH. It is also my understanding that the Air Force Museum has been attempting to work out an agreement with the Planes of Fame Museum that would allow for the latter facility to take the B-17 in exchange for other historical property. I am told the Air Force Museum is prepared to continue to work in good faith with the Planes of Fame Museum to arrive at an exchange that is mutually beneficial. The technical change I am offering simply is designed to ensure that if the Secretary of the Air Force exercises the discretion provided in section 1070, the Secretary determine appropriate compensation in exchange for the B-17. The provision, as amended, now would provide the Secretary with the authority to convey the aircraft, after determining an appropriate level of compensation, and securing other conditions of conveyance. I certainly hope that the Secretary of the Air Force and the Air Force Museum will work together with the Planes of Fame Museum to reach an agreement that is in the best interests of all parties. Mr. President, let me close by thanking my distinguished friend from Virginia, Mr. Warner; the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Thurmond; and their staffs for their assistance with this amendment. amendment no. 808 (Purpose: To establish at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center a pilot program of higher education with respect to the administration of business relationships between the Federal Government and the private sector) On page 353, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, this past Tuesday night, the eyes of the Nation and a good part of the world were focused on Cleveland and the playing of the All Star Game. This was an All Star Game that had, I think, particular significance. This, of course, is the 50th anniversary of Jackie Robinson's entrance into major league baseball, when the so-called color line was actually finally broken. It was appropriate that the honorary captain of the American League was Larry Doby. It was also appropriate that the other honorary captain was Frank Robinson. Frank Robinson, of course, who played when I was a young boy for the Cincinnati Reds, played very well, and then went on later to be the first African American manager in the American League for Cleveland. Mr. President, on July 5, 1947--50 years ago--Larry Doby became the first African-American to play in the American League. Earlier that year, of course, Jackie Robinson was the first person to be signed and to play for the Brooklyn Dodgers--the first African American to play in the major leagues--and Larry Doby was the first African American to play in the American League. Earlier this year, we as a nation paid tribute to Jackie Robinson for the courage and for the integrity showed in breaking baseball's color barrier. I think it is only right, Mr. President, to hail today on the Senate floor the quiet courage of a man who did the same thing just 3 months later in the American League. Bill Veeck of the Cleveland Indians saw that Larry Doby was leading the Negro National League with a .458 batting average and 13 home runs. Veeck and Doby then made a historic decision, a decision that amounted to an act of faith in America's future. They decided that the opposition to Jackie Robinson's entry into the Major Leagues was a throwback, a vestige of the past, and that racial tolerance was the wave of the future. It was a brave choice and a tough choice, but, of course, it was the right choice. Larry Doby said later that Bill Veeck ``didn't see color. To me, he was in every sense colorblind, and I always knew he was there for me.'' Mr. President, that was a very characteristically generous and gracious statement by Larry Doby because it was Larry Doby himself, after all, who had to be brave out on the playing field. Larry Doby had to be brave in a time of segregation and other terrible indignities inflicted on African-Americans. He showed the courage that was needed 50 years ago, and all Americans today ought to be grateful for his example. Again, here is another quote from Larry Doby. ``Kids are our future, and we hope baseball has given them some idea of what it is to live together and how we can get along, whether you be black or white.'' Mr. President, the accomplishments of Larry Doby on the baseball diamond are well known. In 1948, his first full season in the Major Leagues, he led the Indians to victory in the World Series, batting .318 and hitting a game-winning home run. He was named to the All Star team every single year from 1949 to 1955. In 1952, Larry Doby led the American League in home runs and in runs scored. Two years later, in 1954, he led the league in home runs and in RBI's. He left the Indians in 1956 to play for the Chicago White Sox and later for the Detroit Tigers. Larry Doby retired in 1959 but returned to baseball in 1978 to manage the White Sox, becoming only the second African-American manager in the history of the major leagues. The first, as I stated, of course, as we know, was the great Frank Robinson, who managed the Cleveland Indians from 1975 to 1977. Mr. President, as I have said, Larry Doby's contribution to baseball is well known. That is why he was chosen to serve as honorary captain of this year's American League team at the All Star Game this past Tuesday night. But when everyone at Jacobs Field rose Tuesday night at the All Star Game to honor this great American, we thanked him even more for his message of reconciliation and racial brotherhood. I have a copy of the Cleveland Plain Dealer article from July 6, 1947. This article described Larry Doby's first game as a Cleveland Indian. The headline reads, ``Doby Shows Strong Arm as He Works at Second Base.'' I submit, Mr. President, that Larry Doby showed a lot more than that on that now distant July day. Larry Doby showed what America could and what America should be. So on behalf of people of the State of Ohio and on behalf of all Americans, I rise today in the Senate to say thank you to Larry Doby and to pay tribute to this very fine gentleman. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, as the chairman of the Antitrust, Business Rights and Competition Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the nomination of Joel Klein as Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division. Mr. President, the head of the Antitrust Division, obviously, plays a critical role in assuring that our antitrust laws are enforced wisely and vigorously. The importance of that role really cannot be overstated. Strong enforcement of antitrust laws is necessary to foster and to protect competition. As we all know, competition is good business, it gives businesses increased incentives to innovate, either by creating new products and services, finding ways to improve existing products, or by lowering costs. That type of innovation is good for both business and for consumers. Maintaining the competitive foundation of the American economy has always been a difficult task. And as our economy grows and changes, it's only getting more difficult. We often discuss globalization of the economy as allowing more and more American companies the opportunity to compete in the international marketplace and, because of that, they have flourished in this international environment. In order to build on this success, it is essential that we apply the antitrust laws in order to protect our companies from unfair, anticompetitive actions on the part of foreign businesses and foreign governments. In my view, Mr. President, Joel Klein is qualified to lead our efforts toward that stronger, more efficient antitrust enforcement. Mr. Klein is a superbly qualified attorney, with a great deal of substantive knowledge regarding both the jurisprudence and the enforcement of the antitrust laws. He has shown his abilities over the last few months in his capacity as the Acting Assistant Attorney General. He has shown this by leading the Antitrust Division through a series of very complex, difficult analyses, particularly in the area of telecommunications. As we all know, telecommunications issues have become very important and, many times, quite controversial. Now, some have expressed concerns regarding Mr. Klein's interpretation of section 271 of the Telecommunications Act in a way that some believe will make it too easy for the Regional Bell Operating Companies, or the RBOC's, to enter the long distance market. However, Mr. President, in both instances where the Antitrust Division has been called upon to evaluate an RBOC application to enter the long distance market, the Antitrust Division has recommended against the RBOC. In other words, Mr. President, some people believe that Mr. Klein has been too hard on The RBOC's. The ironic thing about this debate is that when you really analyze it, you will see that Mr. Klein has received criticism from both sides of these issues. Now, Mr. President, these decisions involve complex factual, complex legal, and complex economic analyses. Yes, each decision has angered some of the parties involved, but I believe Mr. Klein has done his job in a responsible and principled way. I may not agree with every decision made by the Antitrust Division, but what is important, I believe, is whether or not the nominee has interpreted the law responsibly and fairly. Interpreting a complex matter, such as the Telecommunications Act, is certainly not easy. I expect Mr. Klein's decisions will not please everyone. They certainly will not please everyone, given that it seems everyone has their own interpretation of this law. In fact, I think he should be praised for his willingness to take on these important and controversial issues. Rather than skirt controversy, Mr. Klein has done his job as best he can. I believe it is time that the U.S. Senate does its job. I believe that we need to discuss Mr. Klein's qualifications and the merits of this particular matter, and then I believe we need to vote on this confirmation. Mr. President, we cannot continue to move forward in this area of antitrust enforcement without the sort of calm, principled leadership that Joel Klein will provide. America will need an Assistant Attorney General with a strong understanding of antitrust doctrine and the willingness and ability to enforce the laws in an aggressive but evenhanded manner. I believe, Mr. President, that it is vitally important that the competitive foundation of our economy be maintained, and that the antitrust laws must be enforced and must be enforced fairly. Joel Klein, I believe, shares these goals, and I believe that he has proven he has the expertise and the ability to put those goals into practice. I believe, therefore, Mr. President, we should confirm his nomination without further delay. Mr. President, as we have already heard on this floor, there is going to be a vigorous debate about this nominee. Each Senator has to exercise his or her constitutional obligations. Each one of us has to decide whether we will vote ``yes'' or vote ``no.'' I merely ask, however, that we do vote, that after a good, thorough, and vigorous debate, we bring this matter to a close. Quite frankly, this administration has had some problems, for whatever reason, in filling some of the key positions at Justice. They are slowly beginning to take care of that matter. I believe that in the Senate we have an obligation--now that we have the nomination in front of us--to proceed, and to proceed without unnecessary and undue delay. Frankly, it is not helpful to have a vacancy in one of the key positions. Mr. Klein has, for some months, been the acting head of the Antitrust Division. I believe that he has carried out his duties well, as I have already said, in that particular job. But it is not helpful and it is not good for this nomination to continue to be pending, and it is not good for him to continue to be in the position of the acting head of the Antitrust Division. So, as we have this debate--and it will be a good debate; I am sure it will go on for some time--I merely urge my colleagues to bring this matter at some point to a vote in the near future so that we can move on with the business of antitrust in this country. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to the amendment proposed by my colleague and friend from New Jersey. It is an amendment that would disclose the total intelligence budget. Mr. President, intelligence budgets and programs are kept secret for a good reason: to keep our enemies--and, yes, we still do have enemies--from knowing how much we are spending on intelligence and, of course, on what programs. Mr. President, disclosure of the total budget might well be the first step leading to a demand to disclose individual agency budgets, as my colleague from Arizona has just stated, and inevitably to disclose specific programs. Mr. President, the reality is that a single budget figure with no additional detail or disclosure of capabilities does not, in my view, provide a sufficient basis for a meaningful public debate. Therefore, I think there would be pressure to disclose more. But such a disclosure would only help our enemies. It would provide them with vital information on our Nation's resource allocations. It would undermine our commitment to early warning for our policymakers, as well as our ability to provide our military the intelligence information that is essential to making them the best in the world. President Clinton--as the chairman of the committee has already pointed out--has the authority to disclose the total budget on his own. However, he has not done so. President Clinton joins every President since Harry Truman in making that same policy decision--that it is not in the best interest of this country to disclose this dollar figure. Mr. President, the practice of keeping the budget secret is fully consistent with the Constitution, and it carries forward a tradition of secret expenditures dating back more than 200 years. The Supreme Court observed in U.S. versus Richardson that ``historical analysis of clause 7 suggests that it was intended to permit secrecy in operations.'' It is clear, Mr. President, the Constitution provides for this secrecy. This intelligence figure is available to all Senators, as is the entire classified schedule of authorizations and classified annex to the Intelligence Authorization Act. Members of the Intelligence Committee, members of the Armed Services Committee, members of the Appropriations Committees in both the House and the Senate do provide vigorous oversight of the intelligence community and of its budget. There is full scrutiny through the people's elected representatives, while at the same time providing protection for intelligence operations. Mr. President, to disclose the budget would break with tradition. I believe it would help our enemies and it would not provide the public with any meaningful information. For these reasons, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. I believe that little can be gained, but much can be lost over time by this type of disclosure. I thank the Chair and my colleague from Alabama. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Alabama for the great work he has done as the subcommittee chairman. Let me also compliment my colleague from New Mexico, as well as my colleague from Missouri, for the great work that they have done to call the attention of the Senate to an issue that is certainly on the minds of the American people, and that is the issue of juvenile crime. We always have the question, as my colleague from New Mexico has pointed out, of what is the proper role of the Federal Government in what has historically been a matter that has been dealt with by the States. I think there is a role. I think what is important, as we look at Senate bill 10, which is currently in the Judiciary Committee, awaiting markup--as we look at that draft, it's important for us, with the finite amount of money that we do have to spend, that we spend that money wisely, and that we spend it with an understanding that the criminal justice system, particularly the juvenile justice system, is inherently a local system. So what we need to do in Congress is to do those things that matter, to do those things that maybe only the Federal Government can do to try to give assistance to the local communities. So we need to sit back, I think, and think about what that is, what can be our unique contribution. I want to talk this morning about one particular area that we have been able to get in the draft of the bill, which the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Sessions, has been very much supportive of. It is an area that I have worked on for a number of years, going back to the time when I was a county prosecutor, and that is the sorry state--if I can use that term--of our criminal records system in this country. I have worked long and hard to try to improve that system. It is an area where the Federal Government can be of assistance because the reality is that what happens in Ohio affects what happens in New Mexico and what happens in Alabama, as far as the keeping of criminal records. If Ohio doesn't put our records in the system and someone from Ohio goes to New Mexico and commits a crime, then New Mexico is the loser because the local law enforcement does not have that information. So this is an area where we have a national system, administered by the FBI--a criminal records system for adults, administered by the FBI. But if we don't get the local input and information, then it doesn't do any good. That same principle applies to juveniles. The only difference is, historically, we have not shared records of juvenile offenders. We have proceeded under the assumption that a person who commits a crime in Ohio before the age of 18 is a juvenile. Their records are sealed. They are not available to anyone. In fact, they may not even be available outside the county in which the individual committed the crime, or with the individual in Ohio, where that person resides. That is where the records are kept. I think we now understand that, with violent crime increasing among 15-year-olds, 16-year-olds, 17-year-olds, even 13- and 14-year-olds, it makes absolutely no sense and is very counterproductive and dangerous for us to continue that old mindset that says we are going to protect the record of this juvenile, even if this juvenile has committed murder, even if this juvenile has committed rape, or a whole series of what would be felonies if committed by an adult. What this bill does is it says enough is enough. We have to change the policy in this country that says we protect these records, and we have to make these records available to law enforcement for legitimate law enforcement purposes--which means prosecutors, police, sheriff departments--so that when a 16-year-old commits a crime in Greene County, OH, and they show up a year later in New Mexico and commit another crime, there is a national database, and that there has been information put in that database so the officials in New Mexico know that this is not a first-time offender, that this person has a bad track record, and they have committed whatever they have committed in the State of Ohio. We live in a very mobile society. We live in a society where families are broken down, which means, tragically, young children move from community to community. For our own self-protection, it is vitally important that this information follow that individual. This is what this bill addresses. We will have the opportunity on the floor later to talk in much greater detail about what this does. I want to use a real life example, if I could, which I think illustrates the need for this type of tracking and for the money that this bill provides for the local communities to have this kind of tracking. Let me tell the story about ``Jack.'' That is not his real name. What he did was very, very real. When Jack was 12 years old, he was arrested for vandalizing a neighbor's house, wrecking the furniture and drowning the neighbor's pet bird in the bathtub. When Jack was 14, he was burglarizing another apartment. The elderly man who owned the apartment came home and found Jack there and confronted him. Jack and the elderly man struggled, as a result of which the elderly man broke his hip, and, tragically, this man then died a few days later of pneumonia. Jack was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. Let's go forward, Mr. President, 5 more years. Jack is now 19. He breaks into a house and severely beats a 45-year-old woman who lives there. Jack is arrested for this. It is his first adult crime because now he is 19. A Cleveland judge has to sentence Jack, and because all his juvenile offenses aren't available to the court, the judge is dealing with a person who he thinks is a first-time offender. Jack got probation. This is a true story. Two months later, he burglarized another home and killed the 81-year-old man who lived there. The judge had to make a crucial decision in this particular case where we are talking about Jack, a decision vitally affecting the public safety of the judge's community. But he had to make that decision, which turned out to be a decision which cost someone their life; he had to make it in a state of legally enforced mandatory ignorance. It wasn't the judge's fault, it was the system's fault. What we intend to do by this legislation is to help change that culture, change that system, so that a judge who is faced with making a life-or-death decision will know whether or not this person is a first offender or whether, as in the case of Jack, he had a long record of not just scrapes with the law but a long record of violence. If a judge knew that, the judge's decision would be very different than if he did not know that fact. I see that my time is about up. Again, I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague from Alabama for the great work he has done on this piece of legislation. I have taken a few minutes to talk about just one of the aspects of the legislation. There are many other parts that have been discussed. I look forward to working with him and the other Members of the Senate as we bring this bill to the floor this year, as we pass it, as we send it on to the President.

Mr. DeWINE. I will do this very briefly in the time we have. When I was Lieutenant Governor of Ohio, I was in charge of the seven different agencies in our administration that had anything to do with law enforcement. One of the things that we tried to do is to improve our criminal records. This was, as I said, a longstanding interest of mine that went back to the time when I was a county prosecutor. When I first started looking at this as Lieutenant Governor, I was shocked by what I found. What I found is that the accuracy of the adult criminal records system in Ohio left a lot to be desired, and that is a nice way of saying it. I was even further shocked when I found that Ohio was pretty typical. It is pretty much the same as we find in most other States. When I first started looking at it, I asked the question to our State employees: How accurate are criminal records? I got something back like, ``Well, we think they are about 40 percent accurate.'' Six months later, after they really look into this, they found they were about 12 percent totally accurate. What happens is, as people are arrested it goes into the system but you don't get the final disposition going in. You don't get the information, if the person is convicted, or, in some cases, if the person is acquitted. So you try to determine how totally accurate the records are. What we find in most States is that clearly less than 50 percent of the criminal records are accurate. That is the adult system. But what we are dealing with here is the juvenile system. And in most States we are just barely beginning to establish the juvenile recordkeeping system. The money in this bill will help the States establish that system, help put it online, and help make it accurate.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for bringing the Drug Free Communities Act to the floor today. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation--and I urge all my colleagues to support it today. We face an epidemic of drug abuse in this country--particularly among children. Substance abuse by young people has more than doubled during the past 5 years, and children are beginning to use drugs at younger ages. This trend has major implications for public health, which include the dangers of long-term addiction and disease. There also are costs to society as a whole in the form of poorer educational achievement, lost productivity, increased health care costs, and higher levels of crime. The most important cost, however, is the tragic loss of the potential and aspirations of many of our young people. During America's long fight against substance abuse, community-based coalitions have offered a way to turn this situation around. These coalitions have consistently shown that grassroots efforts to educate young people about the dangers of drug abuse do work. It is clear that a Federal drug abuse strategy must complement and enhance community actions wherever possible. Recognizing the success of community-based programs, the Drug Free Communities Act will enhance programs that work by providing matching grants to community coalitions with proven track records. This is a sensible approach, because it builds on the hard-won, practical experience of people who have been in the forefront of the fight against substance abuse. America's children are our most important resource, and substance abuse places them at great risk. The Drug Free Communities Act will enhance the ability of communities across the country to protect the health of their young people. This proposal has great potential for success and deserves our wholehearted support.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Delaware and I thank Senator Dodd for this effective amendment. It is consistent with what we are trying to do and trying to say and are saying in the DeWine amendment. That simply is that the United States should not allow people who have committed political murders in the country of Haiti into the United States and whether these are from the left or the right, whether these occurred after Aristide or before Aristide, we should be consistent. So I support the amendment and urge its adoption.

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE. I would like a rollcall vote, if we could.

Mr. DeWINE. If I could respond to my colleague, tragically, political murders have continued. We saw them before Aristide came to power, we saw them during the time he was in power, and we have continued to see them with the current President, President Preval. I believe it is very important that the people of Haiti must see that no matter who is in power, no one is above the law and supporters of someone in power are not above the law.

Mr. DeWINE. I thank the Chair. I thank again my distinguished colleague, the chairman of the committee, Mr. Helms from North Carolina.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and my distinguished colleague from Florida, Senator Graham, I send an amendment to the desk.