Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I thank my colleague for that answer. Let me pose an additional question. Would the bill, as amended, prohibit the conventional dilation and evacuation abortion procedure which involves dismemberment of the fetus?

Mr. DeWINE. I thank the Senator. I am looking at the language obtained in the modification. I do have some questions concerning some of the language that is in there, some of the wording. First, let me ask the sponsor, my colleague from Pennsylvania, what is the meaning of the word ``living'' as used in the amendment, as where it refers to a living fetus?

Mr. DeWINE. I again thank my colleague. Let me ask a further question. Would the bill as amended prohibit the suction curettage abortion procedure?

Mr. DeWINE. I thank my colleague for that answer. Let me also ask about this. The amendment referred to an ``overt act'' that kills the fetus; an ``overt act'' that kills the fetus. I wonder if my friend from Pennsylvania could tell us what is meant by the term ``overt act'' in this particular context?

Mr. DeWINE. Again, I thank my colleague for his answer. I pose one additional question. Would the bill, as amended, prohibit the induction abortion procedure?

Mr. DeWINE. I thank my colleague very much for those answers.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, the current situation in Colombia is a nightmare. Embroiled in a bloody, complex, three decade-long civil war, Colombia is spiraling toward collapse. Since the early 1990s, more than 35,000 Colombians have lost their lives at the hands of two well- financed, heavily-armed guerrilla insurgency groups, along with a competing band of ruthless paramilitary operatives, hell bent on crushing the group of leftist guerrillas. Sadly, many of those killed so far have been innocent civilians caught in the constant cross-fire. The American drug habit is at the core of the Colombian crisis, with drug users and pushers in this country subsidizing the anti-democratic leftists. Americans want drugs. The drug traffickers want money. To ensure their prosperity and to maintain a profitable industry, the traffickers essentially hire the guerrillas and, increasingly, the paramilitary groups to protect their livelihoods. Violence and instability reign. Democracy is crumbling. That's why, Mr. President, today, along with my colleague Senator Coverdell, we are introducing the Anti-Drug Alliance with Colombia and the Andean Region Act of 1999. This comprehensive bill is designed to promote peace and stability in Colombia and the Latin American region. Our colleague, Senator Grassley also joins us as a co-sponsor. We believe it is time that our government work in conjunction with the government and the people of Colombia to help lessen the growing crisis in the region. The problems in Colombia run deep. There are no easy ``overnight'' solutions. If we are to assist in creating and sustaining long-term stability in Colombia, we must commit the resources to achieving that end. It is in our national interest to support Colombia in its effort to thwart further destabilization. Without a strong Colombia, narco- traffickers will flourish, an abundant and steady flow of illicit drugs will head for the United States, one of our largest export markets in the western hemisphere will continue to falter, and a democratic government will further erode. Just a couple of weeks ago, I met with Colombian President Pastrana during his visit to Washington. We discussed how our two countries can work together--in cooperation--to eliminate drugs from our hemisphere and to begin restoring democracy and the rule of law in Colombia. For more than three decades, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, otherwise known as the FARC, and the National Liberation Army (ELN) have waged the longest-running guerrilla insurgency in Latin America. Both rebel groups have a combined strength of between 15,000 and 20,000 full-time guerrillas. These armed terrorists control or influence up to 60% of rural Colombia. At present, the Colombian military does not appear to have the strength and resources to counter these menacing forces. Well over a decade ago, the biggest threat to stability from within our hemisphere was communism--Soviet and Cuban communists pushing their anti-democratic propaganda in Central America. We overcame that threat. Under the Reagan and Bush Administrations, Democracy prevailed. Today, in our hemisphere, the communists have been replaced by drug traffickers and the rebels they hire to protect their lucrative industry. These drug traffickers also are financing the roughly 5,000 armed paramilitary combatants, whose self-appointed mission is to counter the strength of the leftist guerrillas. If we hope to have any impact at all in eliminating the drugs in our cities, in our schools, and in our homes, we need to attack drug trafficking head on--here and abroad. This is how we can help both the people of Colombia and the people of our own country. With the help of my colleagues, Senators Paul Coverdell, Bob Graham and Charles Grassley, last year we passed the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act. This was a much-needed step toward attacking the drug problem at its core. This Act is a $2.7 billion, three-year investment to rebuild our drug fighting capability outside our borders. This law is about reclaiming the federal government's exclusive responsibility to prevent drugs from ever reaching our borders. This law is about building a hemisphere free from the violent and decaying influence of drug traffickers. This is a law about stopping drugs before they ever reach our kids in Ohio. This bill was necessary because the Clinton Administration, since coming into office, has slashed funding levels for international counter- narcotics efforts. By turning its back for the better part of this decade on the fight against drugs abroad, this Administration has contributed inadvertently to the growing strength of drug trafficking organizations, as well as the narco-terrorists in the region. If one principle has guided American foreign policy consistently since the dawn of our nation, it is this: The peace and stability of our own hemisphere must come first. That certainly has been the case throughout the last century. The Spanish-American War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the democratization of Central America in the 1980s, and the North American Free Trade Agreement in the 1990s--all of these key events were approached with the same premise: A strong, free, and prosperous hemisphere means a strong, free, and prosperous United States. Consistent with that principle, the United States must take an active role in seeking a peaceful, democratic Colombia. That is why Senator Coverdell, who just came back from Colombia, and I have developed a comprehensive assistance plan for Colombia. The Alliance Act of 1999 would authorize $1.6 billion over three years to support: 1. Alternative crop and economic development; 2. Drug interdiction programs; 3. Human rights and rule of law programs; and 4. Military and police counter-narcotics operations. Our plan also contains provisions for counter-narcotics assistance and crop alternative development programs for other Latin American countries, including Brazil, Bolivia, Peru, Panama, Venezuela, and Ecuador. Our plan not only provides the means to eradicate and interdict illicit drugs, but it also provides the training and resources to strengthen both the civilian and military justice systems to preserve the rule of law and democracy in Colombia. A hemispheric commitment to the rule of law is essential. When I visited with Americans living in Colombia during a trip to the region last year, judicial reform was a central focus of our discussion on ways our nation can better assist Colombia. With our plan, our government would take a leadership role in promoting a strong judiciary and rule of law in Colombia by providing our own technical expertise. Our plan promotes the sanctity of human rights and provides humanitarian assistance to the hundreds of thousands of people who have been displaced due to the violence and instability. We not only focus on the economy of Colombia, but also on the stability of the region, as a whole. We provide support for the front- line states and call on them and the international community to assist and support the Government of Colombia. This is a cooperative effort to help Colombia begin to help itself. Our plan would monitor the assistance to the Colombian security forces, so we can be sure that this assistance is used effectively for its intended purpose and does not fall into the hands of those who engage in gross violations of human rights and drug trafficking. We urge the Colombian government to take a tough stance against the often over-looked paramilitaries. They are a growing part of the problem in Colombia and should not be ignored. Our plan is comprehensive. Our plan is balanced. It demonstrates our commitment to assisting the Government of Colombia and our interest in working together to bring peace and security to the hemisphere. Mr. President, this is not an ``America Knows Best'' plan. We consulted with those who are on the front-lines in Colombia--those who know best what Colombia needs right now. We have talked with the Colombian government, including President Pastrana, to inquire about Colombia's specific needs. We also have consulted with U.S. government officials, who have confirmed our belief that a plan for Colombia must be balanced if we hope to address the complex and dangerous elements of the current situation. Frankly, Mr. President, it is my hope that the Administration will pro-actively work with Congress--and most importantly, Colombia--to turn the tide against those seeking to undermine democracy in the region. We must act now--too much is at risk to wait any longer. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, the current situation in Colombia is a nightmare. Embroiled in a bloody, complex, three decade-long civil war, Colombia is spiraling toward collapse. Since the early 1990s, more than 35,000 Colombians have lost their lives at the hands of two well- financed, heavily-armed guerrilla insurgency groups, along with a competing band of ruthless paramilitary operatives, hell bent on crushing the group of leftist guerrillas. Sadly, many of those killed so far have been innocent civilians caught in the constant cross-fire. The American drug habit is at the core of the Colombian crisis, with drug users and pushers in this country subsidizing the anti-democratic leftists. Americans want drugs. The drug traffickers want money. To ensure their prosperity and to maintain a profitable industry, the traffickers essentially hire the guerrillas and, increasingly, the paramilitary groups to protect their livelihoods. Violence and instability reign. Democracy is crumbling. That's why, Mr. President, today, along with my colleague Senator Coverdell, we are introducing the Anti-Drug Alliance with Colombia and the Andean Region Act of 1999. This comprehensive bill is designed to promote peace and stability in Colombia and the Latin American region. Our colleague, Senator Grassley also joins us as a co-sponsor. We believe it is time that our government work in conjunction with the government and the people of Colombia to help lessen the growing crisis in the region. The problems in Colombia run deep. There are no easy ``overnight'' solutions. If we are to assist in creating and sustaining long-term stability in Colombia, we must commit the resources to achieving that end. It is in our national interest to support Colombia in its effort to thwart further destabilization. Without a strong Colombia, narco- traffickers will flourish, an abundant and steady flow of illicit drugs will head for the United States, one of our largest export markets in the western hemisphere will continue to falter, and a democratic government will further erode. Just a couple of weeks ago, I met with Colombian President Pastrana during his visit to Washington. We discussed how our two countries can work together--in cooperation--to eliminate drugs from our hemisphere and to begin restoring democracy and the rule of law in Colombia. For more than three decades, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, otherwise known as the FARC, and the National Liberation Army (ELN) have waged the longest-running guerrilla insurgency in Latin America. Both rebel groups have a combined strength of between 15,000 and 20,000 full-time guerrillas. These armed terrorists control or influence up to 60% of rural Colombia. At present, the Colombian military does not appear to have the strength and resources to counter these menacing forces. Well over a decade ago, the biggest threat to stability from within our hemisphere was communism--Soviet and Cuban communists pushing their anti-democratic propaganda in Central America. We overcame that threat. Under the Reagan and Bush Administrations, Democracy prevailed. Today, in our hemisphere, the communists have been replaced by drug traffickers and the rebels they hire to protect their lucrative industry. These drug traffickers also are financing the roughly 5,000 armed paramilitary combatants, whose self-appointed mission is to counter the strength of the leftist guerrillas. If we hope to have any impact at all in eliminating the drugs in our cities, in our schools, and in our homes, we need to attack drug trafficking head on--here and abroad. This is how we can help both the people of Colombia and the people of our own country. With the help of my colleagues, Senators Paul Coverdell, Bob Graham and Charles Grassley, last year we passed the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act. This was a much-needed step toward attacking the drug problem at its core. This Act is a $2.7 billion, three-year investment to rebuild our drug fighting capability outside our borders. This law is about reclaiming the federal government's exclusive responsibility to prevent drugs from ever reaching our borders. This law is about building a hemisphere free from the violent and decaying influence of drug traffickers. This is a law about stopping drugs before they ever reach our kids in Ohio. This bill was necessary because the Clinton Administration, since coming into office, has slashed funding levels for international counter- narcotics efforts. By turning its back for the better part of this decade on the fight against drugs abroad, this Administration has contributed inadvertently to the growing strength of drug trafficking organizations, as well as the narco-terrorists in the region. If one principle has guided American foreign policy consistently since the dawn of our nation, it is this: The peace and stability of our own hemisphere must come first. That certainly has been the case throughout the last century. The Spanish-American War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the democratization of Central America in the 1980s, and the North American Free Trade Agreement in the 1990s--all of these key events were approached with the same premise: A strong, free, and prosperous hemisphere means a strong, free, and prosperous United States. Consistent with that principle, the United States must take an active role in seeking a peaceful, democratic Colombia. That is why Senator Coverdell, who just came back from Colombia, and I have developed a comprehensive assistance plan for Colombia. The Alliance Act of 1999 would authorize $1.6 billion over three years to support: 1. Alternative crop and economic development; 2. Drug interdiction programs; 3. Human rights and rule of law programs; and 4. Military and police counter-narcotics operations. Our plan also contains provisions for counter-narcotics assistance and crop alternative development programs for other Latin American countries, including Brazil, Bolivia, Peru, Panama, Venezuela, and Ecuador. Our plan not only provides the means to eradicate and interdict illicit drugs, but it also provides the training and resources to strengthen both the civilian and military justice systems to preserve the rule of law and democracy in Colombia. A hemispheric commitment to the rule of law is essential. When I visited with Americans living in Colombia during a trip to the region last year, judicial reform was a central focus of our discussion on ways our nation can better assist Colombia. With our plan, our government would take a leadership role in promoting a strong judiciary and rule of law in Colombia by providing our own technical expertise. Our plan promotes the sanctity of human rights and provides humanitarian assistance to the hundreds of thousands of people who have been displaced due to the violence and instability. We not only focus on the economy of Colombia, but also on the stability of the region, as a whole. We provide support for the front- line states and call on them and the international community to assist and support the Government of Colombia. This is a cooperative effort to help Colombia begin to help itself. Our plan would monitor the assistance to the Colombian security forces, so we can be sure that this assistance is used effectively for its intended purpose and does not fall into the hands of those who engage in gross violations of human rights and drug trafficking. We urge the Colombian government to take a tough stance against the often over-looked paramilitaries. They are a growing part of the problem in Colombia and should not be ignored. Our plan is comprehensive. Our plan is balanced. It demonstrates our commitment to assisting the Government of Colombia and our interest in working together to bring peace and security to the hemisphere. Mr. President, this is not an ``America Knows Best'' plan. We consulted with those who are on the front-lines in Colombia--those who know best what Colombia needs right now. We have talked with the Colombian government, including President Pastrana, to inquire about Colombia's specific needs. We also have consulted with U.S. government officials, who have confirmed our belief that a plan for Colombia must be balanced if we hope to address the complex and dangerous elements of the current situation. Frankly, Mr. President, it is my hope that the Administration will pro-actively work with Congress--and most importantly, Colombia--to turn the tide against those seeking to undermine democracy in the region. We must act now--too much is at risk to wait any longer. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Brittany Feiner be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of Senate consideration of S. 1692.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise this evening to, once again, strongly urge my colleagues to vote to ban partial-birth abortion. Three times Congress has voted to pass legislation to ban the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion--but tragically, at every opportunity, the President of the United States has vetoed the act of Congress to ban this needless and horrific procedure. The words of Frederick Douglass uttered more than 100 years ago I believe are very applicable to this discussion. This is what Frederick Douglass said: Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted. . . . We must continue our struggle to ban partial-birth abortion in this country. We are debating a national question that in my ways, is not unlike the issue of slavery, in part, because opponents of this legislation are truly using artificial arguments to justify why certain people, in their opinion, have no legal status and no civil, social, or political rights. Those opposing the partial-birth abortion ban imply that the almost-born child has no right to live. Clearly, the vast majority of the American people, and a majority of Congress disagree. Every year the tragic effect of this extreme indifference to human life becomes more and more apparent. We must ban this procedure. We must simply say that enough is enough. In my home State of Ohio, two tragic cases of partial-birth abortions did not go ``according to plan.'' Each reveals, in its own way, the unpleasant facts of this horrible tragedy of partial-birth abortion. On April 6, in Dayton, OH, a woman went into the Dayton Medical Center to undergo a partial-birth abortion. This facility is operated by Dr. Martin Haskell, a pioneer of the partial-birth abortion procedure. Usually this procedure takes place behind closed doors, where it can be ignored--its morality left outside. But, this particular procedure was different. Here is what happened. The Dayton abortionist inserted instruments known as laminaria into the woman, to dilate her cervix, so the child could eventually be removed and killed. This procedure usually takes 3 days. This woman went home to Cincinnati, expecting to return to Dayton for completion of the procedure in 2 or 3 days. But, her cervix dilated too quickly and so shortly after midnight, she was admitted to Bethesda North Hospital in Cincinnati. The child was born. A medical technician pointed out that the child was alive. But apparently her chances of survival were slim. After 3 hours and 8 minutes, this baby died. The baby was named Hope. On the death certificate is a space for ``Method of Death.'' And it said, in the case of Baby Hope, ``Method of Death: Natural.'' That, of course, is not true. There was nothing natural about the events that led to the death of this poor innocent child. Baby Hope did not die of natural causes. Baby Hope was the victim of this barbaric procedure--a procedure that is opposed by the vast majority of the American people. It is a procedure that has been banned three times by an act of Congress--only to see the ban overturned by a veto by the President of the United States. The death of Baby Hope did not take place behind the closed doors of an abortion clinic. The death of this baby took place in public--in a hospital dedicated to saving lives, not taking them. This episode reminds us of the brutal reality and tragedy of what partial-birth abortion really is, the killing of a baby--plain and simple. And, almost to underscore the inhumanity of this procedure--4 months later, in my home State of Ohio it happened again. This time, though, something quite different occurred. Once again, the scene is Dayton, OH. This time on August 18, a woman who was 25-weeks pregnant, went into Dr. Haskell's office for a partial-birth abortion. As usual, the abortionist performed the preparatory steps for the barbaric procedure by dilating the mother's cervix. The next day, August 19, the mother went into labor, and was rushed to Good Samaritan Hospital. This time, however, despite the massive trauma to this baby's environment, a miracle occurred. By grace, this little baby survived, and so she now is called ``Baby Grace.'' I am appalled by the fact that both of these heinous partial-birth abortion attempts occurred anywhere, but particularly because in my home State. When I think about the brutal death of Baby Hope and then ponder the miracle of Baby Grace, I am confronted with the question--a haunting question that we all face--Why can't we just allow these babies to live? Opponents of the ban on this ``procedure'' say that this procedure is necessary to protect the health of women. We know from testimony that we heard in our Judiciary Committee that that simply is not true. The American Medical Association says that this procedure is never--never-- medically necessary. In fact, many physicians have found that the procedure itself can pose immediate and significant risks to a woman's health and future fertility. Clearly, the babies did not have to be killed in the Ohio cases I just cited. No. The babies were both born alive. One survived; one did not. Why does the baby have to be killed? Opponents of this legislation say that this procedure is only used in emergency situations, when women's lives are in danger. Again, from the testimony that we heard in the Judiciary Committee, we know this is absolutely not true. It seems strange that a 3-day procedure would be used and the mother sent home if, in fact, we were dealing with an emergency. Nevertheless, even abortionists say that the vast majority of partial-birth abortions are elective. Dr. Haskell, the Ohio abortionist, stated as follows: ``And I'll be quite frank; most of my abortions are elective in that 20-24 week range.'' Why? Why? Why does the baby have to be killed? Opponents of this bill say that this procedure is necessary when a fetus is abnormal. Now, I do not believe the condition of the fetus ever warrants killing it. But, even abortionists and some opponents of this ban agree that most partial-birth abortions involve healthy fetuses. The inventor of this procedure himself, the late Dr. James McMahon, said ``I think, `Gee, it's too bad that this child couldn't be adopted.' '' So, again, the question: Why does the baby have to be killed? Opponents of this bill say that this partial-birth procedure is rare. But, again, that is not true either. Even the director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers admitted that there are up to 5,000 partial-birth abortion procedures in the United States. Why? Why does the baby have to be killed? Opponents say that this ban violates Roe v. Wade, and so it is unconstitutional. But, anyone who has read the case knows that Roe declined to consider the constitutionality of the part of the Texas statute banning the killing of a child who was in the process of delivery. And, the Supreme Court again declined to decide this issue in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Again, we must ask, why does the baby have to be killed? Opponents say this bill is unconstitutional because it doesn't have a ``health exception.'' First, the ``health exception'' is defined by Doe v. Bolton so broadly as to make the ban unenforceable--effectively gutting the bill. We know that is how the courts have defined the ``health exception'' in abortion legislation. Both sides of this debate fully understand that. The American Medical Association itself has stated: There is no health reason for this procedure. In fact, there is ample testimony to show that all of the health consequences are more severe for this procedure than any other procedure used. Further, the AMA concluded: The partial delivery of a living fetus for the purpose of killing it outside the womb is ethically offensive to most Americans and physicians. (New York Times, May 26, 1997). I ask my colleagues who wish to continue to allow this heinous procedure by upholding the President's veto, why? Why does the baby have to be killed? Why do babies, inches away from their first breath, have to die? Something is terribly wrong in this country when these babies continue to be killed. With the advent of modern technology, we can sustain young life in ways we could not have just a few short years ago. Those of us who have had the privilege of going into neonatal intensive care units in our States have seen the miracles being worked today with precious, tiny children. Medical science can keep babies alive who are only 22 weeks, 23 weeks, children who before would simply not have survived. While we have this great technology, while we have made such great advances, while we are saving so many innocent children, at the same time we have also perfected and created more and more savage ways of killing other children, other babies who are the same level of development. I think we are destroying ourselves by not admitting as a society that partial-birth abortion is an evil against humanity. I believe there will be more and more horrible consequences for our Nation if we do not ban this cruel procedure. As a friend of mine reminded me, no culture can be demolished without the voluntary cooperation of at least a number of its own members. We must stop and ask, to what depths has the American conscience sunk? When it comes to abortion, is there nothing to which we will say no? Is there nothing so wrong, so cruel that we will not say, as a society, we will not tolerate this; we will not put up with this; this is going simply too far? Partial-birth abortion is a very clear matter of right and wrong, good versus evil. It is my wish that there will come a day when my colleagues and I no longer have to come to the floor, to debate this issue. I hope we have the votes this year to not only pass the partial- birth abortion ban, but also to override the President's veto. We have to do it. It is the right thing to do, because innocent children are dying every day in America because of this horrible, barbaric procedure. Let us ban this procedure which kills our partially born children, and let's do it for our children. I thank the Chair, and thank my colleagues. I congratulate Senator Santorum for bringing this matter to the floor, and Senator Smith, who has so long been a proponent of doing away with partial-birth abortion. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Child Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Act (CAPE). This legislation would provide a much-needed increase in funding for the investigation of child abuse crimes, as well as prevention programs designed to prevent child abuse. This bill is similar to the legislation introduced by my Ohio colleague in the House of Representatives, Deborah Pryce, which recently passed overwhelmingly in the House. As a former Greene County, Ohio, prosecutor, and--more importantly--- as a parent, nothing disturbs me more than reports of child abuse and neglect. As a prosecutor, I saw--- first-hand--too many examples of child victimization and abuse. These days, it seems like you can't turn on the local news without hearing about another unforgivable act of violence against a child. Some of these stories have become infamous. Yet, sadly, most stories of child abuse are quickly forgotten. Such stories have become so common, it seems that our collective conscience is seldom even affected any more. The sheer numbers of abusive acts committed against our children are astounding. In my State of Ohio, one incident of child abuse or neglect is reported to authorities every three minutes! What's worse is that these reports of abuse are on the rise. In a study of child abuse, the Federal government found that the number of abused and neglected children in this country nearly doubled between 1986 and 1993. As a result, child protective service agencies across the country are facing more than a million cases of abused and neglected children each year. The Federal government can take meaningful steps--starting now--to help fight child abuse. The Child Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Act would be one meaningful step. Through the use of advanced technology, this legislation would enhance the ability of law enforcement systems to exchange timely and accurate criminal history information with agencies involved in child welfare, child abuse, and adoption services. Every day, State and local child welfare services attempt to ensure that children are cared for properly and living with loving families. It is their job to prevent at-risk children from being left under the same roof with domestic or child abusers. Often, when child welfare agencies conduct child safety assessments, criminal histories and civil protection order information are not always readily available. These agencies may not be getting the full story. The result, in some cases, is that an abused or neglected child is removed from one harmful environment only to be placed in another. To improve access to critical law enforcement information, the bill I am introducing today would amend the Crime Identification and Technology Act (CITA), which I sponsored last year, to allow State and local governments to use CITA grant dollars to enable the criminal justice system to provide criminal history information to child protection and welfare agencies. Our bill also would allow the use of funds from the $550 million Byrne grant program for activities aimed at cracking down on and preventing child abuse and neglect. Since 1986, Byrne grant dollars have been used successfully to provide financial assistance to State and local governments to coordinate government efforts to fight crime and drug abuse. With our bill, State and local agencies could use Byrne grant dollars to train child welfare investigators and child protection workers. The funding also could help build and develop child advocacy centers and hospitals for the abused. These are just a few of many possible uses. Mr. President, our bill would go even one step further to direct resources to fight against child abuse. It would double the amount of funds available to States and localities to assist the victims of crimes against children. Currently, $10 million of the Federal Crime Victims $383 million fund are earmarked for child abuse and domestic assistance programs. This fund is financed not by taxpayer dollars, but through criminal fines, penalties and forfeitures. While the fund has grown since its beginning in 1984, the amount reserved for assistance to victims of abuse has remained stagnant. Our bill would earmark $20 million to help public and nonprofit agencies provide necessary services like rescue shelters, 24-hour abuse hotlines, and counseling to victims of child abuse. Mr. President, this is one piece of legislation that can and should pass the Senate quickly. As I noted earlier, a similar bill was overwhelmingly approved by the House by a vote of 425-2. More than 50 child protection organizations have endorsed this legislation, including the National Child Abuse Coalition; the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children; Fight Crime: Invest in Kids; the Family Research Council and the Christian Coalition; the American Professional Society of the Abuse of Children; and Prevent Child Abuse America. I urge my colleagues here in the Senate to demonstrate their commitment to America's abused and neglected children by supporting this legislation. Let's show some compassion and support our States and local communities in the fight against child abuse.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an issue that is very important to our political system. I believe that our current campaign finance system needs serious reform. But, I cannot support the current version of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. I believe the bill's total ban on so-called ``soft money'' is unconstitutional. It is a clear violation of the free speech clause of the First Amendment. Soft money is used by political parties to advocate specific policies or issues, as well as other party-building activities, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote efforts. The Supreme Court considers these issue advocacy activities to be free speech and has made it perfectly clear through previous rulings that any total prohibition of funds for issue advocacy would be a violation of the First Amendment. That's why I have been working with several of my colleagues, including Senators Hagel, Abraham, Gorton, and Thomas, to come up with a campaign finance reform proposal that makes much-needed changes in the system, while still preserving the free speech rights guaranteed under the First Amendment. I believe that by correcting the problems, we can achieve a fair and open system of campaign finance laws, which is a big step toward restoring the people's faith in our democratic government. Our proposal would achieve a number of important goals. First, it would improve our disclosure laws and increase accountability of political candidates and political parties. Our proposal would provide for more disclosure of contributions given to candidates and parties, institute immediate electronic disclosure by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and require disclosure of the names of those who purchase political advertisements on radio and television. Second, our proposal would impose overall limits on what individuals can provide to both candidates and parties. As I noted earlier, right now, a person can contribute any amount of ``soft'' money he or she wishes to a political party. Under our proposal, a person could give a maximum of $60,000 to national political parties. The proposal also would allow that same person to make individual contributions to candidates of up to $3,000--up from the current $1000 limit. This would bring the total amount that an individual could give to parties, candidates, and other political committees to $75,000. The limitation on contributions to political parties would not take effect until after the Supreme Court has a chance to review any constitutional challenges to these limits. The goal here is to limit one person's or organization's ability to distort the political process through massive cash contributions to parties. In addition, we would like to see more of that limited contribution go toward the candidates, themselves, rather than the parties, because candidates currently face tougher disclosure requirements than the parties. In short, our plan would put a lid on overall contributions and increase accountability of these funds. I know a number of my colleagues and I were looking forward to discussing our proposal and others and how it would bring reform to our political process. We should view today's vote as a demonstration for the need for our proposal--one that will not run counter to the First Amendment, and one that will ensure greater accountability and credibility of our political process.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Child Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Act (CAPE). This legislation would provide a much-needed increase in funding for the investigation of child abuse crimes, as well as prevention programs designed to prevent child abuse. This bill is similar to the legislation introduced by my Ohio colleague in the House of Representatives, Deborah Pryce, which recently passed overwhelmingly in the House. As a former Greene County, Ohio, prosecutor, and--more importantly--- as a parent, nothing disturbs me more than reports of child abuse and neglect. As a prosecutor, I saw--- first-hand--too many examples of child victimization and abuse. These days, it seems like you can't turn on the local news without hearing about another unforgivable act of violence against a child. Some of these stories have become infamous. Yet, sadly, most stories of child abuse are quickly forgotten. Such stories have become so common, it seems that our collective conscience is seldom even affected any more. The sheer numbers of abusive acts committed against our children are astounding. In my State of Ohio, one incident of child abuse or neglect is reported to authorities every three minutes! What's worse is that these reports of abuse are on the rise. In a study of child abuse, the Federal government found that the number of abused and neglected children in this country nearly doubled between 1986 and 1993. As a result, child protective service agencies across the country are facing more than a million cases of abused and neglected children each year. The Federal government can take meaningful steps--starting now--to help fight child abuse. The Child Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Act would be one meaningful step. Through the use of advanced technology, this legislation would enhance the ability of law enforcement systems to exchange timely and accurate criminal history information with agencies involved in child welfare, child abuse, and adoption services. Every day, State and local child welfare services attempt to ensure that children are cared for properly and living with loving families. It is their job to prevent at-risk children from being left under the same roof with domestic or child abusers. Often, when child welfare agencies conduct child safety assessments, criminal histories and civil protection order information are not always readily available. These agencies may not be getting the full story. The result, in some cases, is that an abused or neglected child is removed from one harmful environment only to be placed in another. To improve access to critical law enforcement information, the bill I am introducing today would amend the Crime Identification and Technology Act (CITA), which I sponsored last year, to allow State and local governments to use CITA grant dollars to enable the criminal justice system to provide criminal history information to child protection and welfare agencies. Our bill also would allow the use of funds from the $550 million Byrne grant program for activities aimed at cracking down on and preventing child abuse and neglect. Since 1986, Byrne grant dollars have been used successfully to provide financial assistance to State and local governments to coordinate government efforts to fight crime and drug abuse. With our bill, State and local agencies could use Byrne grant dollars to train child welfare investigators and child protection workers. The funding also could help build and develop child advocacy centers and hospitals for the abused. These are just a few of many possible uses. Mr. President, our bill would go even one step further to direct resources to fight against child abuse. It would double the amount of funds available to States and localities to assist the victims of crimes against children. Currently, $10 million of the Federal Crime Victims $383 million fund are earmarked for child abuse and domestic assistance programs. This fund is financed not by taxpayer dollars, but through criminal fines, penalties and forfeitures. While the fund has grown since its beginning in 1984, the amount reserved for assistance to victims of abuse has remained stagnant. Our bill would earmark $20 million to help public and nonprofit agencies provide necessary services like rescue shelters, 24-hour abuse hotlines, and counseling to victims of child abuse. Mr. President, this is one piece of legislation that can and should pass the Senate quickly. As I noted earlier, a similar bill was overwhelmingly approved by the House by a vote of 425-2. More than 50 child protection organizations have endorsed this legislation, including the National Child Abuse Coalition; the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children; Fight Crime: Invest in Kids; the Family Research Council and the Christian Coalition; the American Professional Society of the Abuse of Children; and Prevent Child Abuse America. I urge my colleagues here in the Senate to demonstrate their commitment to America's abused and neglected children by supporting this legislation. Let's show some compassion and support our States and local communities in the fight against child abuse.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the agriculture appropriations conference report. First, I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Cochran and Senator Kohl, for their hard work on this legislation. They faced multiple challenges in trying to find funds for so many different and critical areas within agriculture. I support this bill, Mr. President. I support it because it will help provide some immediate relief to our farmers, who, in many states, are facing a twin blow from drought and low commodity prices. I know that in my home state of Ohio--where agriculture is the number one industry--many of our farmers are in serious financial trouble. When you're getting hit from both drought and low commodity prices, it really hurts. I am pleased that the bill we will send to the President today will take an important step toward helping agriculture producers overcome some of the current problems resulting from this summer's drought and low commodity prices. For example, the conference report includes $5.54 billion in emergency assistance for Agricultural Market Transition Act payments (AMTA). This amount will double producers' AMTA payments for 1999 crops. Also, the bill enables farmers to receive AMTA payments at the beginning of the fiscal year rather than in two installments. This is very important for many of Ohio's farmers who are struggling right now to make ends meet. The Senate should get this bill to the President as quickly as possible. Our farmers need relief now--not later. This summer has brought with it one of the most prolonged periods of drought in this century. I have talked to many farmers back home and have driven along the highways and back roads in Ohio--you can see how this summer's drought has severely stunted the growth of corn and other key crops. It's devastating. And this devastation is widespread. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman has designated all but one of Ohio's eighty-eight (88) counties as natural disaster areas. Of those, Secretary Glickman designated sixty-six (66) counties as primary disaster areas. According to the Governor of Ohio, our state's farmers are expected to lose $600 million in income due to the drought. Let me repeat that, Mr. President. In Ohio, our farmers stand to lose $600 million. When combined with the current low commodity prices, it is no wonder that many farmers in Ohio are asking themselves--and us--how they and their families are going to make it. In response, the bill we will send to the President today provides approximately $1.2 billion--to assist farmers plagued by the drought. It's a decent start. But, while this assistance will surely help lessen the immediate financial worries of many of our drought-stricken farmers, it doesn't address a fundamental issue here--and that is that our farmers aren't equipped to withstand cyclical economic downturns and natural disasters over which they have no control. As I see it, we have failed to give agriculture producers the tools they need, over the long-term, to manage risks--whether those risks come from the market or nature. There are things that we, in Congress, are trying to do to help get to the root of the challenges facing our farmers today. Let me explain. The United States is the most open market in the world. While our farmers are the most productive in the world, market barriers against the free and fair trade of our agriculture products exist. Dismantling these barriers must be a top priority. Congress can help by giving the President fast track authority to negotiate trade agreements. Fast track authority would allow the Administration to enter into trade agreements with other countries, where we are the most competitive and to negotiate with specific regions of the globe. Failure to pass fast track puts our farmers at a serious disadvantage with global competitors. For instance, the Latin America and Carribean region offers great opportunities for increased agriculture exports. It is one of the fastest growing markets for U.S. exports and will exceed the European Union as a destination for U.S. exports by next year. This market is expected to exceed both Japan and the European Union combined by the year 2010. Other nations already are working to break down barriers in this region. The United States cannot afford to sit on the sidelines--just watching--much longer. We need to get into the game. That would help our farmers. When our foreign trading partners are not trading by international rules, and doing so to the detriment of our farmers, our trade authorities should use all the tools available to them. For example, I introduced bipartisan legislation, the ``Carousel Retaliation Act,'' which would increase pressure on our trading partners to comply with World Trade Organization rules by requiring the U.S. government to rotate targets every six months. What's happening is that our nation--and especially our farmers--are being injured by the refusal of some foreign countries to comply with World Trading Organization (WTO) Dispute Settlement rulings. Noncompliance with Dispute Settlement rulings severely undermines open and fair trade. As many of our farmers, cattle ranchers, and large and small business owners know firsthand, this is having a devastating impact on their efforts to maintain or gain access to important international markets. The ``Carousel Retaliation Act'' would help ensure the integrity of the WTO Dispute Settlement by rotating--or carouseling--the retaliation list of goods to affect other goods 120 days from the date the list is made and every 180 days, thereafter. Currently, the U.S. Trade Representative has the authority to carousel retaliation lists, but is not required to do so. The Carousel bill requires the U.S. Trade Representative to rotate and revise the retaliation list so that countries violating WTO Dispute Settlements cannot merely subsidize the affected industries to recover from retaliation penalties. American farmers are the most efficient and competitive in the world. When given the opportunity to compete on equal footing, they will be the most successful, as well. Besides opening new markets abroad, there are things we can do here at home to help our farmers prosper under the Freedom to Farm Act we passed three years ago. I cosponsored legislation that would allow farmers to open savings accounts into which they can place--tax free--a certain percentage of their profits during good economic times. These funds can remain in their accounts for up to five years. If hard times come along--as we know they do--farmers can withdraw funds from their accounts. The only time these funds would be taxed is when they are withdrawn from the account or after five years. This bill, the Farm and Ranch Risk Management (FARRM) Act, was included in the $792 billion tax-relief package that I supported and Congress passed. That tax relief package had many other provisions helpful to farmers. Besides the FARRM provision, the bill included the elimination of estate taxes, broad-based tax relief, the elimination of the marriage penalty, and the full deductibility of health insurance for the self-employed. Unfortunately, President Clinton vetoed this reasonable tax relief package--that doesn't help our farmers. Most important, we should get the federal government off the backs of our farmers so they can have the freedom to do what they do better than any other country--and that's produce. I have cosponsored the Regulatory Fairness and Openness Act, which would require the Environmental Protection Agency base pesticide use decisions on sound science rather than worst-case scenarios. Also, I have cosponsored legislation that would require the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to base any ergonomic standards on sound science. Mr. President, our farmers need assistance--the kind that is provided through the agriculture appropriations bill and the kind of assistance that comes from pursuing trade and tax policies that would further the economic strength and freedom of American agriculture. I urge the President to sign the appropriations bill immediately so that farmers in Ohio--and throughout the country--can receive short- term relief as quickly as possible. I also urge the President to take a long, hard look at how we can give our farmers the kind of lasting relief they need to stay in business not just this year, but for generations to come.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, we live in dangerous and uncertain times. The global threats to peace and security known well to us during the Cold War have been replaced by terrorist states and rogue nations with growing nuclear arsenals. Historically, existing international arms control agreements have made our nation, and our world, a safer place. The United States has been a world leader to reduce global nuclear tests. Several nuclear test ban treaties already are in effect, including the 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty (LTBT), which banned nuclear blasts in the atmosphere, space, and underwater; the 1974 Threshold Test Ban Treaty (TTBT), which banned tests on devices above 150 kilotons; and the 1990 Peaceful Nuclear Explosion Treaty. Unfortunately, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty will not provide the same protections as these other weapons treaties. That is why I cannot support it. I am against the CTBT for two fundamental reasons: 1. The Treaty does not guarantee us an ability to maintain a safe, viable, and advanced nuclear stockpile; and 2. The Treaty does not provide effective verification and enforcement if other nations violate the Treaty. The Clinton administration has proposed replacing our testing system with a computer simulated Stockpile Stewardship Program. Right now, we simply do not know if this program can serve as a reliable surrogate for testing. We do not know if computer simulations can mimic accurately the functions of actual testing. We do not know if computer simulations can provide adequate information so we can modernize and our devices in response to changing threats and new weapons systems. What we do know is that in order for our own nuclear defenses to be an effective deterrent, they must be able to work. Ratification of the CTBT would close off the only means that currently can ensure the reliability, safety, and security of our nuclear defense stockpile. I also am opposed to the CTBT because it does not provide adequate verification and enforcement mechanisms. Nations will be able to conduct nuclear tests well below the detection threshold of the Treaty's current monitoring system. If a rogue nation, like Iraq, conducts a nuclear test, and the United States insists on an on-site inspection, the treaty first would require 30 of 51 nations on the CTBT executive council to approve the inspection. If approved, the country to be inspected could still declare up to 50 square kilometers as being ``off limits'' from the inspection. How can measures like this ensure other nations will comply with the CTBT? They simply can't. The national security of our nation would not be served with the adoption of the current CTBT. I believe ratification of the CTBT could compromise our national security. The Senate should defeat its ratification.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Again, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for his clarifications and for his tremendous effort in increasing the funds for NIH to ensure that medical research, including pediatric research, remains a top priority for our country. Treatment of Child and Adolescent Violence Related Trauma

Mr. DeWINE. I share the concerns of the Senator from North Dakota about the proposed funding level for vocational education. As the Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee that had the responsibility for reauthorizing the Perkins Act, I can assure my colleagues that the reauthorization of this law, which Congress enacted last year with strong bipartisan support updated the Perkins programs. The authorized funding level for the Perkins Act was increased by $10 million from $1.14 billion to $1.15 billion. Now that this work is done, now is the appropriate time to increase funding for vocational education.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I rise to support the Durbin-DeWine pediatric asthma amendment. This amendment would appropriate $10 million for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, to award grants to local communities for screening, treatment, and education relating to childhood asthma. On May 5th of this year, the Allergy and Asthma Network's Mothers of Asthmatics organized an asthma awareness day to educate everyone about asthma. As most of you probably know, asthma is a chronic lung disease caused by inflammation of the lower airways. During an asthma attack, these airways narrow--making it difficult and sometimes impossible to breathe. Fortunately, we have the ``tools'' to handle asthma attacks once they occur. The most common way, of course, is to use an asthma inhaler that millions of us use every day. We also know a lot about how to prevent asthma attacks in the first place--through drug therapy and by avoiding many well-known asthma triggers. With asthma prevalence rates--and asthma death rates--on the rise, especially in inner-city populations, it is important for us to raise national awareness, so we can educate families on how to detect, treat, and manage asthma symptoms. Of the more than 15 million Americans who suffer from asthma, over five million are children. The American Lung Association estimates that in my home state of Ohio, 212,895 children under the age of 18 suffer from asthma. That's about two percent of the entire population in Ohio. Asthma is the most common chronic illness affecting children and is the leading cause of missed school days due to chronic illness. Asthma is hitting the youngest the hardest. Nationwide, the most substantial prevalence rate increase for asthma occurred among children 4 years-old and younger. Hospitalization rates due to asthma were also highest in this young age group, rising 74 percent between 1979 and 1992. These increases in hospitalization rates are especially affecting the inner city populations, where asthma triggers, like air pollutants, are more concentrated. An August 29 Akron Beacon Journal article cites statistics from the CDC that show the ratio of children under age four with asthma increased from one in forty-five in 1980 to one in seventeen in 1994. Every year, more than 5,000 Americans die from this disease--these are PREVENTABLE deaths. A July 27 New York Times article described the results of a study performed by a team at the Center for Children's Health and the Environment at Mount Sinai School of Medicine. This study found that hospitalization rates were as much as 21 times higher in poor, minority areas than in the hardest-hit areas of wealthier communities. The article quotes Dr. Claudio, an assistant professor in the division of neuropathology at Mount Sinai, who said, ``The outcomes in the poor Latino and African-American areas, especially among children, are tragic.'' This Mount Sinai report cited previous studies that suggest that poor African-American and Latino children are suffering at higher rates because the poor often rely on care in emergency rooms, where doctors have little time to educate families on how to control the disease and where there is little follow-up care. Without receiving adequate care and medication, the asthma victims eventually suffer such severe attacks that they need immediate hospitalization. Those are some of the reasons why I joined my colleague, Senator Durbin, in introducing S.805, the ``Children's Asthma Relief Act.'' This bill will help ensure that children with asthma receive the care they need to live normal lives. It provides grants that will be used to develop and expand asthma services to children, equip mobile health care clinics that provide diagnosis and asthma-related health care services, educate families on asthma management, and identify and enroll uninsured children who are eligible for, but not receiving, health coverage under Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program. By requiring coordination with current children's health programs, this bill will help us identify children--in programs such as supplemental nutrition programs, Maternal and Child Health Programs, child welfare and foster care and adoption assistance programs--who are asthmatic, but might otherwise remain undiagnosed and untreated. By increasing local asthma surveillance activities through legislation, such as S.805, and by better educating the public on the importance of asthma awareness and management through events like Asthma Awareness Day, we can help reverse the distressing increase in hospitalization rates and mortality rates due to asthma. As a person with asthma, and as the father of 3 children with asthma, I know first- hand how important diagnosis, treatment, and management are to ensuring that this manageable disease will not prevent children and adults from carrying on normal lives. We can make a big difference. Asthma is a serious health concern that simply must be addressed. I commend my colleague, Senator Frist, for the outstanding children's health hearing that his Public Health Subcommittee held on September 16. A very articulate 13-year old named Robert Jackson from South Euclid, OH, testified at that hearing. He described how important early diagnosis and treatment plans are for children who suffer from asthma. According to Robert, doctors at Rainbow Babies and Children's Hospital in Cleveland explained to him how he could avoid asthma ``triggers''-- like cigarette smoke and strong odors like bleach--to avoid having serious asthma attacks. By learning how to manage his asthma through an asthma treatment plan, Robert now plays sports, attends school regularly, and maintains a newspaper route. At a time when States, like Ohio, finally are passing laws that allow students to take their asthma inhalers to school, we need to provide the federal public health dollars to the CDC for childhood asthma screening, treatment, and education. The states gradually are realizing the severity of this disease and the need for children to access their inhalers to manage their asthma. It is now time for the Federal Government to help local communities stem the rising prevalence of the worst chronic health problem affecting children. I commend my colleagues for supporting this very important amendment as it will help the nearly 5 million children who have been diagnosed with asthma, as well as those children who suffer from asthma, but remain undiagnosed and--sadly--untreated.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise to thank my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, and his subcommittee, for the tremendous job they have done in putting together this $312 billion bill. It is not easy to work within tight budget caps and fund so many agencies and institutes at levels that will make all members--and constituents-- happy. I'd like to take this opportunity to especially thank Senator Specter for his hard work and dedication in providing start-up funding for the Ricky Ray Fund. Even though we would have all liked to have seen full funding, I realize that Senator Specter and his subcommittee performed a monumental task in funding $50 million to make the Ricky Ray Fund a reality. I look forward to working with my colleagues next year to finish the job we are beginning in this appropriations bill and fund the remaining amounts for the Ricky Ray Fund that we authorized last year. As for the appropriations bill that is before us, I would like to ask my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, to clarify the ``Pediatric Research Initiative'' provision that is on page 138 of the Committee Report. It is my understanding that the Report should state that the ``Committee further encourages the Director of NIH to expand extramural research directly related to the illnesses and conditions affecting children.'' The Report currently states that the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) should expand extramural research, but it should state that the Committee encourages the Director of NIH to expand extramural pediatric research--is that correct?

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, yesterday my colleagues in the Senate, Senator Helms, Senator Enzi, Senator Voinovich, Senator Tim Hutchinson, and Senator Nickles, introduced a bill that would establish new criminal penalties for anyone injuring or harming a fetus while committing another Federal offense. By providing a Federal remedy, our bill, the bill we are calling the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, will help ensure that crimes against unborn victims are in fact punished. The House passed their version of this bill yesterday by a vote of 254 to 172. Tragically, unborn babies, perhaps more than we realize, are the targets--sometimes intended, sometimes otherwise--of violent acts. That is why we need to pass this bill. Let me give several very disturbing real-life examples. In 1996, Airman Gregory Robbins and his family were stationed in my home State of Ohio at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. At that time, Mrs. Robbins was more than 8 months pregnant with a daughter whom they would name Jasmine. On September 12, 1996, in a fit of rage, Airman Robbins wrapped his fist in a T-shirt to reduce the chance he would inflict visible injuries and then savagely beat his wife by striking her repeatedly about the head and the stomach. Fortunately, Mrs. Robbins survived this violent assault, but, sadly and tragically, her uterus ruptured during the attack, expelling the baby into her abdominal cavity, causing this little child's death. A prosecutor sought to prosecute the airman for the little girl's death, but neither the Uniform Code of Military Justice nor the Federal code makes criminal such an act, such an act which results in the death or injury of an unborn child. So they had to look outside the Federal code, outside that law. The only available Federal offense actually was for the assault on the mother. That, of course, is a Federal offense. This was a case in which the only available Federal penalty obviously did not fit the crime. So prosecutors looked outside Federal law, used Ohio law, and then bootstrapped--if we can use the term--the Ohio fetal homicide law to convict Mr. Robbins of Jasmine's death. This case is currently pending appeal. We certainly hope justice is done. It is being appealed under the theory that if it was not in fact a Federal offense, you could not use the assimilation statute to bring this into the court using the Ohio law. If it weren't for the Ohio law that is already in place and that the Presiding Officer of the Chamber was very instrumental in getting passed and signed into law, there would have been no opportunity to prosecute and punish Airman Robbins for the assault against baby Jasmine. We need a Federal remedy to avoid having to bootstrap State laws and to provide recourse when a violent act occurs during the commission of a Federal crime, especially in cases when the State in which the crime occurs does not have a fetal protection law in place, because there are some States that simply do not. There are other sickening examples of violence against innocent unborn children. An incident occurred in Arkansas just a few short weeks ago. Nearly 9 months pregnant, Shawana Pace of Little Rock was days away from giving birth to a child. She was thrilled about the pregnancy. Her boyfriend, Eric Bullock, did not share her joy and did not share her enthusiasm. In fact, Eric wanted the baby to die. So he hired three thugs to beat her, and to beat her so badly that she would lose this unborn child. During the vicious assault against mother and child, one of the hired hitmen allegedly said--and I quote--Your baby is going to die tonight. Tragically, the baby did die that night. Shawana named the baby Heaven. We all should be saddened, we all should be sickened, by the sheer inhumanity and brutality of this act of violence. Fortunately, the State of Arkansas, like Ohio, passed a fetal protection law which allows Arkansas prosecutors to charge defendants with murder for the death of a fetus. Under previous law, such attackers could be charged only with crimes against the pregnant woman. That is under the old law, as in the case of Baby Jasmine's death in Ohio, but for the Arkansas State law, there would be no remedy--no punishment--for Baby Heaven's brutal murder. The only charge would be assault against the mother. Another example: In the Oklahoma City World Trade Center bombings-- here, too--Federal prosecutors were able to charge the defendants with the murders of, or injuries to, the mothers --but not to their unborn babies. Again, Federal law currently only provides penalties for crimes against born humans. There are no Federal provisions for the unborn, no matter what the circumstances, no matter how heinous the crime. This clearly is wrong. Within the Senate, we have the power to do something about this, to rectify this wrong, to change the law. That is what our bill is intended to do. It is wrong that our Federal Government does absolutely nothing to criminalize violent acts against unborn children. We must correct this loophole. I think most Americans would look at it that way and say that is a loophole that should not exist. Congress should change this. We must correct this loophole in our law, for it allows criminals to get away with violent acts--and sometimes even allows them to get away with murder. We, as a civilized society, should not, with good conscience, stand for that. That is why our bill would hold criminals liable for conduct that harms or kills an unborn child. It would make it a separate crime under the Federal Code and the Uniform Code of Military Justice to kill or injure an unborn child during the commission of certain existing Federal crimes. Our bill, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, would create a separate offense for unborn children. It would acknowledge them as the victims they are. Our bill would no longer allow violent acts against unborn babies to be considered victimless crimes. At least 24 States already have criminalized harm to unborn victims, so this is not a new concept. Another seven States have criminalized the unlawful termination of a pregnancy. In November of 1996, a baby, just 3 months from full term, was killed in Ohio as a result of road rage. An angry driver forced a pregnant mother's car to crash into a flatbed truck. Because the Ohio Revised Code imposes criminal liability for any violent conduct that terminates a pregnancy of a child in utero, the prosecutor successfully tried and convicted the driver for recklessly causing the baby's death. Our bill would make an act of violence such as this a Federal crime. It would make sure it was always covered. This is a very simple step, but one that will have a dramatic affect. It is, quite frankly, a question of justice. Let me make it clear to my colleagues in the Senate that we purposely drafted this legislation very narrowly. For example, it would not permit the prosecution for any abortion to which a woman consented. It would not permit the prosecution of a woman for any action--legal or illegal--in regard to her unborn child. That is not what the intent of this legislation is all about. This legislation, further, would not permit the prosecution for harm caused to the mother or unborn child in the case of medical treatment. The bill would not allow for the imposition of the death penalty under this act. It is time we wrap the arms of justice around unborn children and protect them against criminal assailants. Those who violently attack unborn babies are criminals. The Federal penalty should, in fact, fit the crime. I strongly urge my colleagues to support our legislation. We have an obligation to our unborn children. This bill will bring about justice. It is the right thing to do. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Ms. LANDRIEU addressed the Chair.

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, today I rise to speak on behalf of unborn children who are the victims of violence. I am here to be their voice; I am here to fight for their rights. We live in a violent world, Mr. President. Sadly, sometimes--perhaps more often than we realize--even unborn babies are the targets, intended or otherwise, of violent acts. I'll give you some disturbing examples. In 1996, Airman, Gregory Robbins, and his family were stationed in my home state of Ohio at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton. At that time, Mrs. Robbins was more than eight months pregnant with a daughter they named Jasmine. On September 12, 1996, in a fit of rage, Airman Robbins wrapped his fist in a T-shirt (to reduce the chance that he would inflict visible injuries) and savagely beat his wife by striking her repeatedly about the head and abdomen. Fortunately, Mrs. Robbins survived the violent assault. Tragically, however, her uterus ruptured during the attack, expelling the baby into her abdominal cavity, causing Jasmine's death. Air Force prosecutors sought to prosecute the Airman for Jasmine's death, but neither the Uniform Code of Military Justice nor the Federal code makes criminal such an act which results in the death or injury of an unborn child. The only available federal offense was for the assault on the mother. This was a case in which the only available federal penalty did not fit the crime. So prosecutors bootstrapped the Ohio fetal homicide law to convict Mr. Robbins of Jasmine's death. This case currently is pending appeal, and we do hope that justice will prevail. Mr. President, if it weren't for the Ohio law that is already in place, there would have been no opportunity to prosecute and punish Airman Robbins for the assault against Baby Jasmine. We need a federal remedy to avoid having to bootstrap state laws and to provide recourse when a violent act occurs during the commission of a federal crime-- especially in cases when the state in which the crime occurs does not have a fetal protection law in place. A federal remedy will ensure that crimes against unborn victims are punished. There are other sickening examples of violence against innocent unborn children, Mr. President. An incident occurred in Arkansas just a few short weeks ago. Nearly nine months pregnant, Shawana Pace of Little Rock was days away from giving birth. She was thrilled about her pregnancy. Her boyfriend, Eric Bullock, however, did not share her joy and enthusiasm. In fact, Eric Bullock wanted the baby to die. So, he hired three thugs to beat Shawana so badly that she would lose the unborn baby. During the vicious assault against mother and child, one of the hired hitmen allegedly said: ``Your baby is going to die tonight.'' Shawana's baby did die that night. She named the baby Heaven. Mr. President, I am saddened and sickened by the sheer inhumanity and brutality of this act of violence. Fortunately, the State of Arkansas, like Ohio, passed a fetal protection law, which allows Arkansas prosecutors to charge defendants with murder for the death of a fetus. Under previous law, such attackers could be charged only with crimes against the pregnant woman. As in the case of Baby Jasmine's death in Ohio, but for the Arkansas state law, there would be no remedy--no punishment--for Baby Heaven's brutal murder. The only charge would be assault against the mother. In the Oklahoma City and World Trade Center bombings--here too-- federal prosecutors were able to charge the defendants with the murders of or injuries to the mothers--but not to their unborn babies. Again, federal law currently only criminalizes crimes against born humans. There are no federal provisions for the unborn. This is wrong. It is wrong that our federal government does absolutely nothing to criminalize violent acts against unborn children. We must correct this loophole in our law, for it allows criminals to get away with violent acts--and sometimes even murder. We, as a civilized society, should not--with good conscience--stand for that. So, today, I am introducing legislation, along with my distinguished colleagues, Senator Tim Hutchinson and Senator Abraham, to provide justice for America's unborn victims of violence. Our bill, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, would hold criminals liable for conduct that harms or kills an unborn child. It would make it a separate crime under the Federal code and the Uniform Code of Military Justice to kill or injure an unborn child during the commission of certain existing federal crimes. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act would create a separate offense for unborn children--it would acknowledge them as individual victims. Our bill would no longer allow violent acts against unborn babies to be considered victimless crimes. At least twenty-four (24) states already have criminalized harm to unborn victims, and another seven (7) states criminalize the termination of pregnancy. Mr. President, in November of 1996, a baby, just three months from full-term, was killed in Ohio as a result of road rage. An angry driver forced a pregnant mother's car to crash into a flatbed truck. Because the Ohio Revised Code imposes criminal liability for any violent conduct which terminates a pregnancy of a child in utero, prosecutors successfully tried and convicted the driver for recklessly causing the baby's death. Our bill would make an act of violence like this a federal crime. It would be a simple step, but one with a dramatic effect. Mr. President, we purposely have drafted this legislation very narrowly. For example, it would not permit the prosecution for any abortion to which a woman consented. It would not permit the prosecution of a woman for any action (legal or illegal) in regard to her unborn child. This legislation would not permit the prosecution for harm caused to the mother or unborn child in the course of medical treatment. And, the bill would not allow for the imposition of the death penalty under this Act. Mr. President, it is time that we wrap the arms of justice around unborn children and protect them against criminal assailants. Those who violently attack unborn babies are criminals. The federal penalty should fit the crime. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation. We have an obligation to our unborn children.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I rise to speak on behalf of unborn children who are the victims of violence. I am here to be their voice; I am here to fight for their rights. We live in a violent world, Mr. President. Sadly, sometimes--perhaps more often than we realize--even unborn babies are the targets, intended or otherwise, of violent acts. I'll give you some disturbing examples. In 1996, Airman, Gregory Robbins, and his family were stationed in my home state of Ohio at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton. At that time, Mrs. Robbins was more than eight months pregnant with a daughter they named Jasmine. On September 12, 1996, in a fit of rage, Airman Robbins wrapped his fist in a T-shirt (to reduce the chance that he would inflict visible injuries) and savagely beat his wife by striking her repeatedly about the head and abdomen. Fortunately, Mrs. Robbins survived the violent assault. Tragically, however, her uterus ruptured during the attack, expelling the baby into her abdominal cavity, causing Jasmine's death. Air Force prosecutors sought to prosecute the Airman for Jasmine's death, but neither the Uniform Code of Military Justice nor the Federal code makes criminal such an act which results in the death or injury of an unborn child. The only available federal offense was for the assault on the mother. This was a case in which the only available federal penalty did not fit the crime. So prosecutors bootstrapped the Ohio fetal homicide law to convict Mr. Robbins of Jasmine's death. This case currently is pending appeal, and we do hope that justice will prevail. Mr. President, if it weren't for the Ohio law that is already in place, there would have been no opportunity to prosecute and punish Airman Robbins for the assault against Baby Jasmine. We need a federal remedy to avoid having to bootstrap state laws and to provide recourse when a violent act occurs during the commission of a federal crime-- especially in cases when the state in which the crime occurs does not have a fetal protection law in place. A federal remedy will ensure that crimes against unborn victims are punished. There are other sickening examples of violence against innocent unborn children, Mr. President. An incident occurred in Arkansas just a few short weeks ago. Nearly nine months pregnant, Shawana Pace of Little Rock was days away from giving birth. She was thrilled about her pregnancy. Her boyfriend, Eric Bullock, however, did not share her joy and enthusiasm. In fact, Eric Bullock wanted the baby to die. So, he hired three thugs to beat Shawana so badly that she would lose the unborn baby. During the vicious assault against mother and child, one of the hired hitmen allegedly said: ``Your baby is going to die tonight.'' Shawana's baby did die that night. She named the baby Heaven. Mr. President, I am saddened and sickened by the sheer inhumanity and brutality of this act of violence. Fortunately, the State of Arkansas, like Ohio, passed a fetal protection law, which allows Arkansas prosecutors to charge defendants with murder for the death of a fetus. Under previous law, such attackers could be charged only with crimes against the pregnant woman. As in the case of Baby Jasmine's death in Ohio, but for the Arkansas state law, there would be no remedy--no punishment--for Baby Heaven's brutal murder. The only charge would be assault against the mother. In the Oklahoma City and World Trade Center bombings--here too-- federal prosecutors were able to charge the defendants with the murders of or injuries to the mothers--but not to their unborn babies. Again, federal law currently only criminalizes crimes against born humans. There are no federal provisions for the unborn. This is wrong. It is wrong that our federal government does absolutely nothing to criminalize violent acts against unborn children. We must correct this loophole in our law, for it allows criminals to get away with violent acts--and sometimes even murder. We, as a civilized society, should not--with good conscience--stand for that. So, today, I am introducing legislation, along with my distinguished colleagues, Senator Tim Hutchinson and Senator Abraham, to provide justice for America's unborn victims of violence. Our bill, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, would hold criminals liable for conduct that harms or kills an unborn child. It would make it a separate crime under the Federal code and the Uniform Code of Military Justice to kill or injure an unborn child during the commission of certain existing federal crimes. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act would create a separate offense for unborn children--it would acknowledge them as individual victims. Our bill would no longer allow violent acts against unborn babies to be considered victimless crimes. At least twenty-four (24) states already have criminalized harm to unborn victims, and another seven (7) states criminalize the termination of pregnancy. Mr. President, in November of 1996, a baby, just three months from full-term, was killed in Ohio as a result of road rage. An angry driver forced a pregnant mother's car to crash into a flatbed truck. Because the Ohio Revised Code imposes criminal liability for any violent conduct which terminates a pregnancy of a child in utero, prosecutors successfully tried and convicted the driver for recklessly causing the baby's death. Our bill would make an act of violence like this a federal crime. It would be a simple step, but one with a dramatic effect. Mr. President, we purposely have drafted this legislation very narrowly. For example, it would not permit the prosecution for any abortion to which a woman consented. It would not permit the prosecution of a woman for any action (legal or illegal) in regard to her unborn child. This legislation would not permit the prosecution for harm caused to the mother or unborn child in the course of medical treatment. And, the bill would not allow for the imposition of the death penalty under this Act. Mr. President, it is time that we wrap the arms of justice around unborn children and protect them against criminal assailants. Those who violently attack unborn babies are criminals. The federal penalty should fit the crime. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation. We have an obligation to our unborn children.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I send amendment No. 1782 to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a very important issue concerning the Department of Energy and its ability to secure nuclear information. Nuclear security is imperative to this nation, and after the scandals in the last year, Americans have questioned the ability of the Department of Energy to keep nuclear information secure. As a result, Senator Warner, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee and Ranking Member Levin included legislation in the Defense Authorization Conference Report that creates a new division within the Department to restore nuclear security. I applaud their efforts. However, Mr. President, I am concerned about the potential for unintended consequences as a result of the Department of Energy reorganization. Specifically, the attorneys general of 46 states, including the State of Ohio, wrote to Congress stating that the 1992 Department of Energy reforms which clarify that states have regulatory authority of the Department of Energy's hazardous waste management and cleanup could be undermined by this legislation. The attorneys general believe that this legislation could allow the Federal Government to abandon its commitment to ``environmental, health and safety requirements'' at Energy Department facilities nationwide. This is troubling for the State of Ohio, which has three former Department of Energy nuclear facilities--the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Fernald, and the Mound Nuclear Facility. Each facility is at a different stage of cleanup, and recent revelations of plutonium contamination at the Portsmouth facility only emphasize the need for strong environmental, health, and safety requirements at these DOE facilities. While I have heard the concerns of the attorneys general, I am assured by the Armed Services Committee that the intent of this legislation is not to exempt nuclear facilities from state environmental regulations and requirements or worker safety and health regulations. I am further assured that if there are any unintended consequences, Congress will rectify these problems.