Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I will be more than happy to temporarily set aside the consideration of the amendment.

Mr. DeWINE. We do not have any direct clearance. If I could finish my answer? The reality is, this is the only train that is moving. If we do not have the opportunity to put it in now, the Senator is well aware it is not going to happen for months and months and months. It is such a simple amendment. I have found no one who, on the substance, is opposed to it. I cannot find anyone opposed to it. That is why we are looking at this as the opportunity to, frankly, save some lives and give the local communities the flexibility they need. It is of such a noncontroversial nature, that is why I am here.

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

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

Mr. DeWINE. I certainly will.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I intend to talk for approximately 10 minutes about this amendment, and then, for reasons which I am going to discuss in just a moment, withdraw the amendment. But I want to discuss it. I inform my colleagues that it will take approximately 10 minutes. Mr. President, my amendment deals with the issue of foster care. It is my understanding that because the Senate bill has no language in this bill on the issue of foster care that my amendment would be considered not to be germane. The House bill does deal with foster care. Therefore, if we had a House bill before us it obviously would be germane. Because of this, after a few brief remarks, I am going to withdraw this amendment. But I would like to discuss tonight what I consider to be a very important issue. It is the issue that my amendment addresses. It is the subject of a freestanding bill that I have just a few moments ago introduced. I believe that the idea contained in the bill, the idea contained in my amendment, must be acted upon; if not in this bill then in a subsequent bill. And I have previously discussed this issue at length on the Senate floor. I want to take just a few moments now to revisit the issue, and to talk to my colleagues about it. In 1980, Congress passed the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, known as CWA. That 1980 act has done a great deal of good. It increased the resources available to struggling families. It increased the supervision of children in the foster care system, and it gave financial support to people to encourage them to adopt children with special needs. Mr. President, while the law has done a great deal of good, many experts are coming to believe that this law has actually had some bad unintended consequences. The bad unintended consequences were not because of the way the law was written and not because of the way the lawmakers intended in 1980 that it happen, but, frankly, because the law has been grossly misinterpreted. Under the 1980 act, for a State to be eligible for Federal matching funds for foster care expenditures, the State must have a plan for the provision of child welfare services. And that plan must be approved by the Secretary of HHS. This plan must provide, and I quote. Here is the pertinent language, referring now to foster care: 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. In other words, Mr. President, the law very correctly says we should try family reunification. The law put money behind that. That is the right thing to do. But, Mr. President, this law has been misinterpreted. In other words, Mr. President, no matter what the particular circumstances of the household may be, the State must make reasonable efforts to keep it together and to put it back together, if it falls apart. What constitutes reasonable efforts? Here is where the rub comes. How far does the State have to go? This has not been defined by Congress nor has it been defined by HHS. This failure to define what constitutes reasonable efforts has had a very important and very damaging practical result. There is strong evidence to suggest that in the absence of a definition reasonable efforts have become in some cases extraordinary efforts, unreasonable efforts; efforts to keep families together at all costs. These are families, Mr. President, that many times are families in name only and parents that are parents in name only. In the last few months I have traveled extensively throughout the State of Ohio talking to social work professionals; talking to people who are in the field every day dealing with this issue. In these discussions, I have found that there is great disparity in how the law is being interpreted by judges and by social workers. In my home State of Ohio we have 88 counties, and I would venture to say the law is being interpreted 88 different ways and in some counties with many juvenile judges it is interpreted differently within that same county by different judges. Let me give you an example. This is the easiest way that I can explain it. I posed this hypothetical, which it turns out in some cases, unfortunately, is not a hypothetical, but I made it up, I posed a hypothetical to representatives of children's services in both rural parts of Ohio and urban counties. Here is my hypothetical. The mother, Mary, is a 28-year-old, crack- addicted individual who has seven children. Steve, the father, 29-year- old father of the children, is an abusive alcoholic, and all seven of their children have been taken away, taken away permanently by the county, by the State over a period of time. In each child's case, courts have decided these people cannot have this child; they are abusive; it is dangerous for the child. Not only that, we are taking them away permanently. The mother gives birth now to an eighth child. This newborn tests positive for crack. Therefore, it is very obvious that the mother is still addicted to crack. The father is still an alcoholic. Those are the facts. Pretend for a moment that you work for the county children's services department. Here is the question, the question I posed to numerous people across Ohio. Does the law allow you to get the new baby out of the household, and if you do, should you file for permanent custody so that baby can be adopted? Can you file for permanent custody so that baby can be adopted? The answer, I believe, will surprise and shock you. In fact, I was surprised at the response I got when I asked a number of Ohio social work professionals that very question. The answer varied from county to county but I heard too much ``no'' in the answers I got. Some officials said they could apply for emergency custody of the baby, they would get emergency custody and take the child away on a temporary basis, but that they would have to make a continued effort--do you believe this? They would then have to make a continued effort to send the baby back to the family, back to the mother, back to the father. Other social workers said if they went to court to get custody of the baby, they probably would not be able to get even temporary custody of this little child. Most shocking of all, Mr. President, is the issue of adoption. I asked then with this hypothetical, with the seven children already having been taken away, with the eighth child now testing one day positive for crack, mother clearly still on crack, showing no signs she is going to get off, father continues to be an alcoholic, continues to be an abusive alcoholic, with all of those facts, how soon could I expect that this poor little baby would be eligible to be adopted? Most shocking of all is the answer I got. The lowest figure I got was 2 years. That was the best I got; it would take 2 years for this child to be eligible to be adopted. In one urban county in the State of Ohio--and this is not unusual to Ohio--I was told it would take 5 years before that child was eligible to be adopted--5 years. One social worker, just one out of the ones I asked, told me that her department would move immediately for permanent custody of the baby, but she said their success would depend on the particular judge that is assigned to the case. Mr. President, should our Federal law really push the envelope this far? Should this Federal law really require extraordinary efforts? Should it require extraordinary efforts be made to keep that family together, efforts that any one of us clearly would not consider to be reasonable based on past history? I had one social worker look me in the eye and say, ``Senator, the problem is the way our courts interpret this law, we can't look at any history. We can't learn from the history of that family. We can't learn from the history of that abusive father or that abusive mother. We have to start over again each time.'' It is clear that after 16 years of experience with the law, there is a great deal of confusion as to how the act applies. Again, I do not believe that is the fault of the authors. I think that is just the way it has been interpreted. I would not interpret the law that way, but the fact is after 16 years we know it is being interpreted that way and is going to be interpreted that way. My legislation is very simple, very short. My legislation would clarify once and for all the intent of Congress in the 1980 act. My legislation would amend that language in the following way. I am going to read in a moment what my language would add. I want to first state to the Senate that I would not change any of the language in the current law. I would add to it, but I would not change it. I would not change the requirement for reasonable efforts to be made to reunify a family. That is a positive thing. That is something that we should try whenever it is reasonable to do so. The people who make that decision are the people on the front lines, the social workers, the children's service agencies, the people who have to make life-and-death decisions. They are the ones who are going to have to make the decision. I just want to clarify the law and to get it back to where I think the framers of the law, people who wrote the law in this Congress in 1980, intended it to be. So I would add the following, after the current language: In determining reasonable efforts, the best interests of the child, including the child's health and safety, shall be a primary concern. Let me read it again: In determining reasonable efforts, the best interests of the child, including the child's health and safety, shall be a primary concern. I think that settles it; it clarifies it. Again, I think it does what the framers wanted. In conclusion, Mr. President, the 1980 act was a good bill. There are some families that need a little help if they are going to stay together, and it is right for us to help them. That is what the Child Welfare Act did. But by now it should be equally clear that the framers of the 1980 act did not intend for extraordinary, unreasonable efforts to be made to reunite children with their abusers. As Peter Digre, the Director of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, testified at a recent House hearing, ``We cannot ignore the fact that at least 22 percent of the time infants who are reunited with their families are subjected to new episodes of abuse, neglect or endangerment.'' That was not the intent of Congress in the 1980 law, but too often that law is being misinterpreted in a way that is trapping these children in abusive households. I believe we should leave no doubt about the will of the American people on this issue affecting the lives of America's children. The legislation I am proposing today would put the children first. Now, Mr. President, for the reasons that I have stated in the beginning, I reluctantly ask the Chair to withdraw the amendment. I ask unanimous consent to have the amendment withdrawn.

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

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

Mr. DeWINE. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, prosecutions of gun criminals are down 20 percent under the Clinton administration. At a time when 10 million Americans every year become victims of violent crime, the administration is not making the prosecution of armed criminals a major priority. I think that's a mistake. I think we have to do more to get violent felons off the streets. And I am introducing a bill that will help make sure this happens. Recently, the Supreme Court handled down a unanimous decision that essentially disarmed a very effective weapon that Federal prosecutors use to combat violence and drug abuse. The bill I am introducing will rearm Federal prosecutors--and it will do so in a way that it will not be open to reinterpretation by the courts. Congress must leave no doubt that when a criminal commits a violent crime or completes a drug deal, and a gun is around, the gun is a part of the offense, and the criminal will get 5 years added to his prison sentence. Prior to December 6, 1995, Federal prosecutors used title 18, section 924(c)(1) to impose an additional mandatory 5 years in prison for those criminals who use or carry a firearm during or in relation to a violent crime or a drug trafficking crime. The purpose of this statute was to send violent criminals and drug traffickers to jail--where they belong. And this provision was an effective law enforcement tool because the lower courts defined ``use'' very broadly. In fact, if the defendant simply had a gun nearby, it was sufficient to convict under section 924(c)(1)--because the courts ruled that the proximity of the gun served to ``embolden'' the defendant. According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, in 1994 alone, over 2,000 defendants were sentenced to longer terms under section 924(c)(1). The Supreme Court's ruling last year ended the effectiveness of this statute as a crime-fighting tool. The court ruled that, in order to charge a defendant under section 924(c)(1), the Government must show that the defendant actively employed a firearm during or in relation to a violent or drug trafficking crime. Therefore, if a firearm merely served to embolden a criminal, the court said, it was not being ``used'' within the meaning of section 924(c)(1), and the criminal would not receive the additional 5 years in prison. When Congress passed this statute, it was sending a clear message to drug dealers and violent criminals--Guns and drugs are a recipe for disaster. And, if you mix them, you are going to pay a price. I believe that this Congress should act to restore this crime fighting tool, and we should do it in a way that leaves nothing to the reckoning of the courts. My legislation would do just that. It would amend section 924(c)(1) to cover all circumstances in which a drug dealer or violent criminal is caught with a firearm that is being used to further his drug trafficking or violent enterprise. Under this legislation, a drug dealer, for example, would be subject to a mandatory additional 5-year prison sentence for drug trafficking, if he ``uses or carries a firearm, or has a firearm in close proximity to illegal drugs or drug proceeds, or has a firearm in close proximity at the time of arrest or at the point of sale of illegal drugs.'' I believe that this legislation will do a great deal to help the law enforcement officials on the front lines of the war on drugs. It makes our law stronger--and helps get these felons off the streets, out of our communities, and into prison.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I recently made some remarks on the Senate floor about the current administration's record on crime. The facts are clear: The administration's actions on crime do not meet its rhetoric. To stop crime, we have to do more. That doesn't mean another rhetorical assault on crime--or even a flashy 10-point program. Rather, we have to do more of the little things that--when you put them all together--make a big difference. The most important of these is giving law enforcement officials the tools they need to do their jobs. Today, I am introducing legislation that will help us do that. The bill I am introducing today would simply rectify an imbalance in current Federal law which makes it more difficult for law enforcement officials to fight drug trafficking. Today, drug traffickers have taken advantage of technological advances to advance their own criminal interests. Drug traffickers--on a regular basis--use digital display paging devices--better known as beepers--in transacting their business. They do this because it gives them the freedom to run their criminal enterprise out of any available phone booth, and to avoid police surveillance. If law enforcement officials knew from whom they were receiving the calls to their beepers it would certainly aid efforts in tracking down drug traffickers. The technology now exists to allow law enforcement to receive the digital display message, without intercepting the content of any conversation or message. It is called a clone pager. This clone pager is programmed identically to the suspect's pager and allows law enforcement to receive the digital displays at the same time as the suspect. This device functions identically to a pen register. Mr. President, as you may know, a pen register is a device which law enforcement attaches to a phone line to decode the numbers which have called a specific telephone. Like a clone pager, the pen register only intercepts phone numbers, not the content of any conversation or message. Since both devices serve the same purpose, a reasonable person would conclude that both the system for receiving authorization to use these devices, and the procedures mandated by the courts once the authorization was granted would be the same. However, in both cases it is not. Under current law, the requirements for obtaining authorization to use a clone pager are much more stringent than they are for using a pen register. I would like to briefly outline the differences. In order to obtain authorization to use a pen register, a Federal prosecutor must certify to a district court judge the phone number to which the pen register will be attached, the phone company that delivers service to that number, and that the pen register serves a legitimate law enforcement purpose. In other words, the prosecutor must show only that the use of the pen register is based on an ongoing investigation. The district court judge may then grant the authorization on a mere finding that the prosecutor has made the required certification. The pen register can then be used for a period of 60 days--with no requirement that law enforcement report pen register activity to the court. In contrast, the U.S. attorney for a particular district must sign off on a request for clone pager authorization. Once this occurs, a prosecutor may then go before a district court judge where he must show that there is probable cause to suspect an individual has committed a crime--a much higher standard than what is required for a pen register authorization. He must also detail what other investigative techniques have been used, why they have not been successful, and why they will continue to be unsuccessful. Moreover, the prosecutor must disclose other available investigative techniques and why they are unlikely to be successful. Only after all of this is done can authorization to use a clone pager be granted. But these are not the only differences in treatment. After the authorization is granted, it can only be used for 30 days. During that 30 days, the prosecutor must report activity from the clone pager to the issuing judge at least once every 2 weeks. I do not believe that the authorization disparity in authorization for these two devices is warranted. The legislation that I am introducing today would simply amend the Federal code to end this disparity. This bill would give law enforcement agents ready access, with warranted limitations, to the tools they need to do their jobs. This bill will bring Federal law enforcement into the 21st century. The drug traffickers are already there. It's time for law and order to catch up with them.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, a few weeks ago, I spoke on the floor about the current administration's record on crime. The facts clearly demonstrate that the administration's actions do not fulfill its rhetoric on this issue. I think it is time to give law enforcement officers the tools they need to do their jobs--protecting American families. Today, I am introducing legislation aimed at doing just that, in one significant way. The bill I am introducing today would establish, for the first time in the Federal Criminal Code, a general attempt provision. Thankfully, criminals do not succeed every time they set out to commit a crime. We need to take advantage of these failed crimes to get criminals off the streets. Mr. President, under current Federal law, there is no general attempt provision applicable to all Federal offenses. This has forced Congress to enact separate legislation to cover specific circumstances. This approach to the law has led to a patchwork of attempt statutes--leaving gaps in coverage, and failing to adequately define exactly what constitutes an attempt in all circumstances. Since statutes include attempt language within the substantive offense, but don't bother to define exactly what an attempt is. Others define, as a separate crime, conduct which is only a step toward commission of a more serious offense. Moreover, there is no offense of attempt for still other serious crimes, such as disclosing classified information to an unauthorized person. This ad hoc approach to attempt statutes is causing problems for law enforcement officials. At what point is it OK for law enforcement officials to step in to prevent the completion of a crime? If someone is seriously dedicated to committing a crime, law enforcement must be able to intervene and prevent it--without having to worry whether doing so would cause a criminal to walk. In the absence of a statutory definition of an attempt, the courts have been called upon to decide whether specific actions fit within existing statutory language. When a criminal is attempting to commit a crime where attempt is not an offense, then law enforcement must wait until the crime is completed, or find some other charge to fit the criminal's actions. Law enforcement should never be placed in either of these positions. The bill that I am introducing today will solve these problems in the current law. As I mentioned earlier, this legislation will add a general attempt provision to the U.S. Criminal Code. It provides congressional direction in defining what constitutes an attempt in all circumstances. And, it will serve to fill in the irrational gaps in attempt coverage. In my view, it is time for the American people--acting through the Congress--to clarify their intention when it comes to this area of the law. Millions of Americans work hard every day to make ends meet and raise their families and provide a better life for their children. But, there are some people who choose a different approach to life--a life of crime. We as Americans need to leave no doubt where we stand on that choice. If you even try to commit a crime, we're going to prosecute you and convict you. This bill will make it easier for our law enforcement officers to protect our families and our communities.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, a few weeks ago, I spoke on the floor about the current administration's record on crime. The facts clearly demonstrate that the administration's actions do not fulfill its rhetoric on this issue. I think it is time to give law enforcement officers the tools they need to do their jobs--protecting American families. Today, I am introducing legislation aimed at doing just that, in one significant way. The bill I am introducing today would establish, for the first time in the Federal Criminal Code, a general attempt provision. Thankfully, criminals do not succeed every time they set out to commit a crime. We need to take advantage of these failed crimes to get criminals off the streets. Mr. President, under current Federal law, there is no general attempt provision applicable to all Federal offenses. This has forced Congress to enact separate legislation to cover specific circumstances. This approach to the law has led to a patchwork of attempt statutes--leaving gaps in coverage, and failing to adequately define exactly what constitutes an attempt in all circumstances. Since statutes include attempt language within the substantive offense, but don't bother to define exactly what an attempt is. Others define, as a separate crime, conduct which is only a step toward commission of a more serious offense. Moreover, there is no offense of attempt for still other serious crimes, such as disclosing classified information to an unauthorized person. This ad hoc approach to attempt statutes is causing problems for law enforcement officials. At what point is it OK for law enforcement officials to step in to prevent the completion of a crime? If someone is seriously dedicated to committing a crime, law enforcement must be able to intervene and prevent it--without having to worry whether doing so would cause a criminal to walk. In the absence of a statutory definition of an attempt, the courts have been called upon to decide whether specific actions fit within existing statutory language. When a criminal is attempting to commit a crime where attempt is not an offense, then law enforcement must wait until the crime is completed, or find some other charge to fit the criminal's actions. Law enforcement should never be placed in either of these positions. The bill that I am introducing today will solve these problems in the current law. As I mentioned earlier, this legislation will add a general attempt provision to the U.S. Criminal Code. It provides congressional direction in defining what constitutes an attempt in all circumstances. And, it will serve to fill in the irrational gaps in attempt coverage. In my view, it is time for the American people--acting through the Congress--to clarify their intention when it comes to this area of the law. Millions of Americans work hard every day to make ends meet and raise their families and provide a better life for their children. But, there are some people who choose a different approach to life--a life of crime. We as Americans need to leave no doubt where we stand on that choice. If you even try to commit a crime, we're going to prosecute you and convict you. This bill will make it easier for our law enforcement officers to protect our families and our communities.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I recently made some remarks on the Senate floor about the current administration's record on crime. The facts are clear: The administration's actions on crime do not meet its rhetoric. To stop crime, we have to do more. That doesn't mean another rhetorical assault on crime--or even a flashy 10-point program. Rather, we have to do more of the little things that--when you put them all together--make a big difference. The most important of these is giving law enforcement officials the tools they need to do their jobs. Today, I am introducing legislation that will help us do that. The bill I am introducing today would simply rectify an imbalance in current Federal law which makes it more difficult for law enforcement officials to fight drug trafficking. Today, drug traffickers have taken advantage of technological advances to advance their own criminal interests. Drug traffickers--on a regular basis--use digital display paging devices--better known as beepers--in transacting their business. They do this because it gives them the freedom to run their criminal enterprise out of any available phone booth, and to avoid police surveillance. If law enforcement officials knew from whom they were receiving the calls to their beepers it would certainly aid efforts in tracking down drug traffickers. The technology now exists to allow law enforcement to receive the digital display message, without intercepting the content of any conversation or message. It is called a clone pager. This clone pager is programmed identically to the suspect's pager and allows law enforcement to receive the digital displays at the same time as the suspect. This device functions identically to a pen register. Mr. President, as you may know, a pen register is a device which law enforcement attaches to a phone line to decode the numbers which have called a specific telephone. Like a clone pager, the pen register only intercepts phone numbers, not the content of any conversation or message. Since both devices serve the same purpose, a reasonable person would conclude that both the system for receiving authorization to use these devices, and the procedures mandated by the courts once the authorization was granted would be the same. However, in both cases it is not. Under current law, the requirements for obtaining authorization to use a clone pager are much more stringent than they are for using a pen register. I would like to briefly outline the differences. In order to obtain authorization to use a pen register, a Federal prosecutor must certify to a district court judge the phone number to which the pen register will be attached, the phone company that delivers service to that number, and that the pen register serves a legitimate law enforcement purpose. In other words, the prosecutor must show only that the use of the pen register is based on an ongoing investigation. The district court judge may then grant the authorization on a mere finding that the prosecutor has made the required certification. The pen register can then be used for a period of 60 days--with no requirement that law enforcement report pen register activity to the court. In contrast, the U.S. attorney for a particular district must sign off on a request for clone pager authorization. Once this occurs, a prosecutor may then go before a district court judge where he must show that there is probable cause to suspect an individual has committed a crime--a much higher standard than what is required for a pen register authorization. He must also detail what other investigative techniques have been used, why they have not been successful, and why they will continue to be unsuccessful. Moreover, the prosecutor must disclose other available investigative techniques and why they are unlikely to be successful. Only after all of this is done can authorization to use a clone pager be granted. But these are not the only differences in treatment. After the authorization is granted, it can only be used for 30 days. During that 30 days, the prosecutor must report activity from the clone pager to the issuing judge at least once every 2 weeks. I do not believe that the authorization disparity in authorization for these two devices is warranted. The legislation that I am introducing today would simply amend the Federal code to end this disparity. This bill would give law enforcement agents ready access, with warranted limitations, to the tools they need to do their jobs. This bill will bring Federal law enforcement into the 21st century. The drug traffickers are already there. It's time for law and order to catch up with them.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, prosecutions of gun criminals are down 20 percent under the Clinton administration. At a time when 10 million Americans every year become victims of violent crime, the administration is not making the prosecution of armed criminals a major priority. I think that's a mistake. I think we have to do more to get violent felons off the streets. And I am introducing a bill that will help make sure this happens. Recently, the Supreme Court handled down a unanimous decision that essentially disarmed a very effective weapon that Federal prosecutors use to combat violence and drug abuse. The bill I am introducing will rearm Federal prosecutors--and it will do so in a way that it will not be open to reinterpretation by the courts. Congress must leave no doubt that when a criminal commits a violent crime or completes a drug deal, and a gun is around, the gun is a part of the offense, and the criminal will get 5 years added to his prison sentence. Prior to December 6, 1995, Federal prosecutors used title 18, section 924(c)(1) to impose an additional mandatory 5 years in prison for those criminals who use or carry a firearm during or in relation to a violent crime or a drug trafficking crime. The purpose of this statute was to send violent criminals and drug traffickers to jail--where they belong. And this provision was an effective law enforcement tool because the lower courts defined ``use'' very broadly. In fact, if the defendant simply had a gun nearby, it was sufficient to convict under section 924(c)(1)--because the courts ruled that the proximity of the gun served to ``embolden'' the defendant. According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, in 1994 alone, over 2,000 defendants were sentenced to longer terms under section 924(c)(1). The Supreme Court's ruling last year ended the effectiveness of this statute as a crime-fighting tool. The court ruled that, in order to charge a defendant under section 924(c)(1), the Government must show that the defendant actively employed a firearm during or in relation to a violent or drug trafficking crime. Therefore, if a firearm merely served to embolden a criminal, the court said, it was not being ``used'' within the meaning of section 924(c)(1), and the criminal would not receive the additional 5 years in prison. When Congress passed this statute, it was sending a clear message to drug dealers and violent criminals--Guns and drugs are a recipe for disaster. And, if you mix them, you are going to pay a price. I believe that this Congress should act to restore this crime fighting tool, and we should do it in a way that leaves nothing to the reckoning of the courts. My legislation would do just that. It would amend section 924(c)(1) to cover all circumstances in which a drug dealer or violent criminal is caught with a firearm that is being used to further his drug trafficking or violent enterprise. Under this legislation, a drug dealer, for example, would be subject to a mandatory additional 5-year prison sentence for drug trafficking, if he ``uses or carries a firearm, or has a firearm in close proximity to illegal drugs or drug proceeds, or has a firearm in close proximity at the time of arrest or at the point of sale of illegal drugs.'' I believe that this legislation will do a great deal to help the law enforcement officials on the front lines of the war on drugs. It makes our law stronger--and helps get these felons off the streets, out of our communities, and into prison.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise this evening to talk about an issue that I have talked about on several occasions previously on the floor, and that has to do with a problem we have in this country, a serious problem, and that is a shortage of organ donors. We need to raise the awareness of the American people about this very important issue. That is why today I am calling upon the Citizens Postal Advisory Committee to approve a postage stamp in honor of organ donation. Every day in this country eight people die--eight people every single day die--who are on a waiting list, a waiting list to have an organ transplant operation. In 1994, over 3,000 Americans died while waiting for an organ, 142 of them in my home State of Ohio. As of May 1 of this year, which are the most current available figures that I have, there were 46,128 Americans on the waiting list for organs. That was an increase over the April numbers, just 1 month before. On April 3, there were 45,583 people on the waiting list. So just in 1 month, over 500 people were added to that waiting list. As of May 1, 32,256 people were waiting for kidneys. That is an increase of 344 people in less than a month. On that same date, 6,273 people were waiting for a liver, and that is 137 more than in April. On that same date, May 1, there were 1,339 people waiting for a kidney-pancreas transplant, 30 more than in April. And on that same date, there were 3,599 people waiting for a new heart, 50 more than a month before on April 3. Mr. President, if we ask our expert on this, our colleague from Tennessee, Dr. Frist, he will tell us these people can be helped. He will tell us these people did not have to die. He will tell us that the technology is there to save them and that what we are lacking is enough organ donations, what we are lacking is enough family members who lose a loved one who are willing, in a time of great tragedy and great hurt, to say, ``Yes; yes, I will agree to have my loved one's organs transplanted into someone else so they can live.'' The technology is there to save these lives. It is the organs that are missing. That is why all American families need to talk about this issue. It is something we as Americans do not want to talk about. We do not want to talk about death. We do not want to talk about funerals. We do not want to think a tragedy may strike. But it is important that we talk about this before something happens. I am convinced, and, in fact, the statistics, polls and studies show it, the vast majority of Americans, if they thought they could help someone, would want their organs donated to save someone's life. The problem is that as a people, we do not talk about it; as families, we do not talk about it. So the next of kin, the families, the fathers, the mothers, the brothers, the sisters who have to make this decision do not really know what to do because that issue has never been discussed. That is why the national campaign is to get families to talk about it, because we believe if families do talk about this, they will ultimately make the right decision and lives will be saved. We need to do everything we can to make sure that this issue does get the attention of all Americans. We need literally to start a conversation about this at the kitchen table of every single family in this country. We need to find creative ways to do this, creative ways to get people's attention. There is one particular measure that I would like to talk about today that I think will get people's attention. Tomorrow, the citizens stamp advisory committee will meet to review and make recommendations for new postage stamps. Nearly 300,000 Americans have already signed a petition urging this stamp advisory committee to approve a postage stamp honoring organ and tissue donation. I believe that if we put our message on the envelopes of millions of Americans, we will strike an important blow for public awareness of the need for organs. Here is one example of what the stamp could look like. I am not an artist. I did not draw this. Anybody who knows me knows I did not do this. But there are some creative people in our office who had some ideas, and they put this together. We bring it to the floor only to show what a stamp like this could look like, and the message is pretty basic: ``Organ Donation. Share Your Life . . . Share Your Decision.'' That is the national campaign for people to talk about it before tragedy does strike. The green ribbon in this stamp symbolizes life. The stamp would send the message that organ donation is a gift of life. This is literally true. The donor shortage in this country is one of the most important problems in health care today and a problem that is not easily solved. I believe the stamp advisory committee should approve this organ donation stamp in the same spirit in which it approved this year's breast cancer awareness stamp. By approving this stamp, the advisory committee will literally be saving lives. It will prompt exactly the kind of family discussions we have been trying to promote. This postage stamp would save lives and would save lives without major cost or major effort. The advisory committee should heed the appeals of over 300,000 concerned Americans, including some Members of Congress, to go ahead and approve this stamp. By doing so, the postal advisory committee would send a strong message to all Americans about the lifesaving decision every single family can make. I thank the Chair, yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that provides for the transfer of 3.22 acres of land owned by the Army Corps of Engineers at an appraised value to the Village of Mariemont, OH. The proceeds of the sale will be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury and credited as miscellaneous receipts. The General Services Administration conducted a 30-day Federal screening of the property and informed the minority side of the Governmental Affairs Committee and me that no Federal agency expressed interest in the property.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that provides for the transfer of 3.22 acres of land owned by the Army Corps of Engineers at an appraised value to the Village of Mariemont, OH. The proceeds of the sale will be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury and credited as miscellaneous receipts. The General Services Administration conducted a 30-day Federal screening of the property and informed the minority side of the Governmental Affairs Committee and me that no Federal agency expressed interest in the property.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, this amendment provides for the transfer of 240 acres from the U.S. Air Force to the Port Columbus International Airport. The Columbus Airport Authority is seeking this transfer for the purpose of constructing a new 10,250-foot south runway. This amendment has been cleared by both the majority and minority side of the Armed Services Committee, the Air Force, and the General Services Administration. I am pleased that Senator Glenn joins me in offering this amendment to facilitate this public benefit conveyance.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that will clarify the ability of fee-for-service plans in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program [FEHBP] to provide coverage for medical foods. Medical foods are a liquid formula given to a patient under the supervision of a doctor in cases where patients cannot take solid foods to meet their nutritional needs. Medical foods are often used for patients with AIDS or patients undergoing chemotherapy and have difficulty taking solid foods. So this bill would amend title 5 of the United States Code to include medical foods specifically in the list of items and services that can be covered by fee-for-service plans serving FEHBP beneficiaries. This legislation would not mandate coverage of medical foods. It simply clarifies that fee-for-service plans can provide coverage for medical foods.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that will clarify the ability of fee-for-service plans in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program [FEHBP] to provide coverage for medical foods. Medical foods are a liquid formula given to a patient under the supervision of a doctor in cases where patients cannot take solid foods to meet their nutritional needs. Medical foods are often used for patients with AIDS or patients undergoing chemotherapy and have difficulty taking solid foods. So this bill would amend title 5 of the United States Code to include medical foods specifically in the list of items and services that can be covered by fee-for-service plans serving FEHBP beneficiaries. This legislation would not mandate coverage of medical foods. It simply clarifies that fee-for-service plans can provide coverage for medical foods.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New Mexico. On behalf of the people of Ohio, I join all my colleagues in paying tribute to a legislative giant who left the stage of the U.S. Senate just a few moments ago. The Bob Dole America saw earlier today is a person we all in the Senate know: A man of character, a man of integrity and a man of utter devotion to the future of this country. It is strange in politics, it is really an oddity in politics that a person's public image sometimes differs from his or her true qualities. That sometimes is the case with Bob Dole. I have watched some of his press conferences earlier in the campaign and particularly read some of the earlier stories and newspaper articles about him. When I did that, I realized there was something missing, that this really was not the Bob Dole that I have seen for the last 18 months. The Bob Dole that I have seen was the real Bob Dole, the individual, the leader, the war hero, the consensus builder and a man of enormous compassion. In listening to his speech earlier today on this floor, I did see those qualities clearly on public display, as did the American people. This is Bob Dole, many times a man of few words, but a man who shows tremendous character and leadership in his actions. Upon joining the Senate a little over a year ago, I became a Bob Dole watcher. I had the opportunity as a Member of the House for 8 years to watch him from afar, but I have had the opportunity now for a little over a year to see him up close and watch how he operates and watch how he gets things done. I have seen him, as we all have, preside over four different meetings at once, moving from room to room to room and never lose track of what is going on. Bob Dole is someone who keeps in mind the big picture. I think the majority leader of the U.S. Senate always has to keep the big picture in mind. Yes, he has to understand details, he has to understand the nuances of legislation, how you get bills passed, but he also has to keep in mind the big picture: That you have to ultimately get the job done, that you ultimately have to get the bill passed, that you ultimately have to get things to happen. This is the Bob Dole I saw earlier today. Earlier today, Bob Dole told how he and Senator Moynihan and others made the last, brave attempt to reform Social Security in 1983, with the result that Social Security is safe for another generation. That leadership ability is still there. I had the opportunity to see that many, many times in the last year, year and a half, but my favorite example that I use to illustrate Bob Dole's leadership is the welfare reform bill that we passed. Unfortunately, the President ultimately vetoed the welfare bill, but the bill we passed in the Senate, Bob Dole was able to get 87 votes for. I do not think anyone in this Chamber, anyone in this country, none of the political experts a year ago, a year and a half ago, if we had been talking about welfare reform, would have thought Bob Dole could have brought a welfare reform bill to this Senate and could have gotten 87 votes. What an achievement--what an achievement. Bob Dole was able to deal with the Governors, trying to put that together, certainly no easy task, and the Senate, equally difficult. And he put together a fair and balanced welfare reform measure. He was able to accomplish this amazing feat, because he never lost sight of the need to ultimately reform a system that has long failed the people it was intended to help. Mr. President, here is a man who is capable of making tough decisions and right decisions. As he pointed out in his speech earlier today, the Senate is not like the House of Representatives. The Senate leader has fewer tools to control the Senate than the House Speaker possesses in the House. The Senate leader rules--not rules--really leads by consensus. He cannot dictate, he must lead, and I have seen, as we all have in this Chamber, Bob Dole lead. I have been to more than one meeting with Senators, and Senators only, where a Senator complained that he or she had not been consulted on an issue or had some other complaint to the leader, Senator Dole, about how things were going, what he had done, not done. I had seen Bob Dole look at them, as only Bob Dole can, and say, ``Well, if you want someone else to lead, if you want someone else to be a leader, that's fine, but you elected me to lead. As long as I am the leader, I intend to do just that.'' And that was the end of the conversation. That is Bob Dole. That is leadership. But, Mr. President, my admiration for Bob Dole goes far beyond his ability as a majority leader. It is personal as well. Bob Dole has the insight born of someone who suffered an enormous and unexpected tragedy. He was a star athlete who went off to war and came back with crippling injuries. This is not campaign hype of anything. Senator Dole would rather downplay, and always has throughout his life, the struggles that he encountered when he came back and what he had to go through when he came back from World War II. He would rather downplay what he struggles with every day, since he was literally blown apart in World War II. We all expect in life to lose our parents, even a spouse. Certain things you expect to happen, but there are other defining tragedies that go beyond the normal course of events, that go beyond what we are taught to expect. I have thought about this often since suffering the loss of our daughter, Becky. I, too, am also very reticent to talk about such a deep and personal tragedy, but I cannot help but admire the way Bob Dole has worked through his own suffering. He understands daily pain, and I take great comfort from seeing this in him. He understands that life is not fair. Through dealing with pain, he has learned to understand himself, and these, Mr. President, are not bad qualities to have in a leader or in a President. The President who comes to mind who reminds me the most of Bob Dole in some ways is Franklin Roosevelt, who also faced physical disability with silent courage. Like Roosevelt, Bob Dole's identity and his understanding of life were forged by pain. When Senator Dole made the historic announcement last month that he would leave the Senate, the room was very crowded. It was so crowded that where I was, I could not see the expression on his face as he made the speech, but I could hear the emotion in his voice. Bob Dole has the two seemingly opposite qualities of toughness and compassion. He had to be tough to leave the Senate. Most people do not leave voluntarily after spending a lifetime to get here. But he showed his more emotional side, too, when he made his announcement. His voice quivered during his announcement, not an easy public display for him, and he was even more emotional when he broke up during an earlier private meeting with us. But as difficult as this decision was for him, I believe he will find it liberating to have left the Senate. I recall my own decision to make a second run for the Senate after losing the first time. I realized at that point that if I lost the second bid that my political career was over. If I lose this race, what happens? The same is now true for Bob Dole who said he has ``nowhere to go but the White House or home.'' Bob Dole had fixed in his own mind that his time as majority leader had passed and that the time had come for another challenge. Once he made the mental leap from the Senate Chamber, it was time to act. This is the real Bob Dole. And as he said goodbye to us then and again today, his friends and coworkers, Bob Dole looked like a leader. He looked like a President. Mr. President, I, like the rest of my colleagues, will always remember the demeanor and courage of this great statesman as he said farewell to the U.S. Senate. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. That is correct. It could be 7 minutes.

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, one of the key measures of any government is how well it protects the people from the threat of violent crime. In the preamble to our Constitution, the charter of our Government, we are told the purpose of Government is to ``establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility * * *'' Only by doing those things and doing them well do we hope to ``secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity * * *'' I would like to talk today about the record of the Clinton administration in regard to crime. In doing so, I will contend that mere words are not enough to fulfill that sacred trust between Government and the people. To fulfill its obligation, its obligation to protect people from crime, Government must act. One of the President's closest advisers said recently, ``Words are actions.'' Words are actions. They really are, Mr. President. The record of this administration gives grave cause for doubt. For 2 years, 1993 and 1994, President Clinton and his party controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress. One-party control means the party in charge generally gets to set the agenda. It is pretty clear that the fight against crime should be at the top of any sensible national agenda. Violent crime remains at historic highs. Every year 43 million Americans become victims of crime, and 10 million become victims of violent crime. Juvenile crime is a problem now of historic proportions. Frankly, Mr. President, there is no reason to believe that this is going to change unless we take some very drastic measures. Here is why. Violent crimes by young people age 18 to 24 have gone up 50 percent since 1986. These young predators are moving coldly, dangerously into a career that will wreak havoc on their communities for years to come. That is bad enough. But it will get even worse, even scarier, because while crime among 18- to 24-year-olds has gone up 50 percent, crime by even younger offenders, those aged 14 to 17, has gone up 150 percent--150 percent-- since 1986. So if we think violent crime is bad now, wait until these 14- to 17-year-olds get into their prime age for crime, the late teens and early twenties. The problem we will have to face is when today's violent teenagers grow up. They are going to be a major social force in this country. To me, that would indicate cause for serious concern about the kind of America we are going to have in the next couple of decades. Mr. President, the picture is bad in regard to violent crime. But, unfortunately, it does not get any better when we look at the issue of drugs. Since the Reagan-Bush years, marijuana use has tripled-- tripled--among those 14 years of age and 15 years of age. In 1992, 1.6 million young people were reported to have used marijuana--1.6. Today that number has risen to 2.9 million. Mr. President, one good way to find out what our real social problems are is to visit a hospital emergency room. Today cocaine-related episodes have hit their highest level in history. People talk about the 1980's as the cocaine decade. But visit any emergency room and you will see that it is even worse today. Heroin-related episodes are rising, too. They jumped 66 percent in 1993 and have stayed at that higher level. In summary, Mr. President, I think any fair observer would characterize this as a very bleak picture. A fair observer would say that violent crime, especially youth violence, is a major challenge to America and very probably the single greatest challenge we face in this country. Let us talk for a moment about how the U.S. Government has coped with this crisis. Let us examine what the new Clinton administration wanted to do after they took office, what it proposed to do in its first 2 years. Then let us examine what the Clinton administration actually accomplished in its first 2 years. Finally, I would like to examine what was accomplished after the first 2 years. Let us start first with the new administration's proposals. So I begin with the first phase: The new Clinton administration and its agenda and what they wanted to do. For 2 years, Mr. President, 1993 and 1994, we had an undivided Government, a Government under the control of a single party. A President with a free hand could create positive change and do what is necessary to protect the American people from the plague of violent crime. What use was made of this opportunity? What did the new administration propose to do about this major national crisis? Here is the answer. Here, Mr. President, if you can believe it, is what the new administration proposed to do. This is what the President's budget proposed to do. The President wanted to cut 790 agents out of the FBI. The President wanted to cut 311 agents out of the DEA. The President wanted to cut 123 prosecutors, take them out of the Federal courts. The President wanted to construct zero--zero--new Federal prisons. Finally, the President wanted to cut prison personnel by 1,600. That was the proposed response of the Clinton administration to this major national crisis. It is true, Mr. President, that much of this agenda did not actually become a reality. It did not happen because, fortunately, congressional approval was required. Again, fortunately, concerned Senators on both sides of the aisle said to the administration, ``No. No way. We're not going to do it.'' Thanks to Senators like Orrin Hatch, Joe Biden, Pete Domenici, Fritz Hollings, much of that misguided agenda was not passed, was defeated. Let me turn, Mr. President, to the actual Clinton administration record. There is, Mr. President, of course, a lot that the President of the United States can do without congressional approval. The President has a great deal of discretion. Let us look at what the new administration actually did without congressional approval. I think when we look at this we will find that on every front of the war on crime there was a monumental retreat. First, no new FBI agents were trained. No class. No FBI class. Second, the White House Office of Drug Policy was absolutely gutted, an 83 percent cut in staff. Next, the prosecution of gun criminals went down 20 percent. The prosecution in Federal court of those who use a gun in the commission of a felony went down 20 percent. Prosecution of drug criminals--drug criminals--went down 12.5 percent. No new FBI agents trained, the White House drug office was gutted, gun prosecutions down 20 percent, drug prosecutions down 12.5 percent. That is what the President did by himself. Here is what else actually happened under the President's leadership. Federal spending on drug interdiction went down 14 percent. The Federal drug budget accounts that fund antismuggling efforts dropped by 55 percent. In fact, the Clinton administration made a conscious decision to ignore the fact that drugs were coming into this country. They thought it would be enough to focus on the drugs once they were already in the country. But, Mr. President, we should make no mistake, spending less on interdiction does have consequences. It does make a difference. According to recent Federal law enforcement statistics, the disruption rate, the amount of drugs that are blocked from actually entering the country, dropped 53 percent between 1993 and early 1995. The projection is an additional 84 metric tons of marijuana and cocaine coming into the United States every year. What was the result of this cut? What was the result of this change in policy by the administration, change in emphasis? Since 1991, Coast Guard seizures of cocaine are down 45 percent. Coast Guard seizures of marijuana are down 90 percent. The Clinton administration, unfortunately, has ignored a fundamental fact: Spending money on the antidrug effort does make a difference. When we make the antidrug fight a national priority, drug use does drop. Between 1981 and 1992 Federal spending on the drug war effort rose 700 percent. Over roughly the same period, drug use was cut in half. But, tragically, the opposite has happened under the Clinton administration. Drugs have gotten cheaper. They are more easily available and more pervasive in the lives of our young people. Between 1993 and 1995, the retail price of a gram of cocaine fell during that 2-year period from $172 to $137. Over roughly the same period, answering a survey, the number of 8th graders who think it is bad to even try crack once or twice dropped from 61 percent to 51 percent. And overall teenage drug use is up 55 percent. On measure after measure in the years 1993 and 1994, America's anticrime and antidrug effort lost ground. That was the Clinton administration's record of accomplishment. They faced a tough problem and had to make tough choices. The sad litany I have recited is the best they could do. Now, moving to the third item I want to talk about, in 1995 there was a major change in the landscape of Federal crime-fighting policy. The new Senate came under new leadership. Over the last 16 months under that new leadership, a dramatically different effort on the issue of crime has emerged. Since January 1995, the majority leader, Senator Dole, took over the helm of America's anticrime strategy. Here is America's new strategy for fighting crime: FBI agents, up 20 percent; DEA agents, up 15 percent; $800 million in new funding for Federal prosecutors; $3 billion in new funding for prisons; $1 billion in grants to States and local communities so they can fight crime at the grassroots level from neighborhood to neighborhood to neighborhood. Mr. President, that is a truly remarkable change. I do not believe it is just a coincidence. A pattern of differences as striking as this can lead to only one tenable conclusion. Only one major factor intervened between the dismal record of 1993 and 1994 and the truly remarkable resurgence in the Federal crime-fighting effort that has occurred over the last 16 months. That one factor, Mr. President, is the new management in the Senate and the House. I suggest Senator Bob Dole be given the credit he deserves for changing the culture of Washington in this very important way. Mr. President, politics has been defined as the art of the possible. The best definition of leadership I ever heard is this: ``Leadership is the art of changing the limits of what's possible.'' Over the last 16 months, Mr. President, we have seen this happen in the fight against crime. I think it is time that Senator Dole got the recognition he deserves for a very, very impressive accomplishment. Further, Mr. President, I believe people should be paying more attention to actions and accomplishments than simply to election year conversions and all the rhetoric that they spawn. The former chairman of the House Committee on Narcotics, a Democrat, once said he had ``Never seen a President care less about drugs,'' referring to the President of the United States. The lackluster war on drugs is just one symptom of an overall abdication on the issue of crime itself. Mr. President, as we prepare to say goodbye to Majority Leader Dole, let me say I speak for many when I observe that we will miss his excellent leadership on this very vital and important issue. We owe him our thanks not for his words but, rather, for his actions. I suggest the absence of a quorum.