Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I will be more than happy to.

Mr. DeWINE. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. DeWINE. I will be more than happy to do that. Let me just state the topic I want to talk about is going to take awhile. So I will be more than happy to yield. If you go on too long, I will simply come back later on. That will be fine.

Mr. DeWINE. I have no objection.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent the period of morning business be extended until the hour of 1:30 and I be permitted to speak for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I had intended to come to the floor today and talk about Haiti, a long way from Ohio. I have had the opportunity to visit Haiti three times in the last 18 months. I have had the opportunity to meet with our Ambassador, to meet with President Preval in Haiti, to meet with our members of the Armed Forces that we still have in Haiti, doing an absolutely fantastic job. One of the nice things about having the opportunity to travel to other countries and to see what is going on is the opportunity to see U.S. troops and to see the tremendous job that they do. It is just one more inspiring thing a Member of Congress can do. As I said, I intended to come to the floor today and talk about what I think is important in regard to Haiti. We have invested $2 billion. We have risked U.S. servicemen's lives. We still have United States service men and women in Haiti. Haiti is our neighbor. What happens in Haiti will impact us. Haiti is not of strategic importance to the United States, but Haiti, because of geography, because of historical ties, will continue to have an impact on the United States. If we want to search for examples to prove this theory, we don't have to think back too far in recent history when we had thousands of Haitian boat people coming across the sea, and we were faced with the horrible decision of what we do with them--people who were seeking freedom, people who were seeking the opportunity to simply provide food for their families, and we had to deal with that. So Haiti, because of its geography, is very important to the United States, will continue to be important, and I intend to come to the floor sometime within the next week to detail what I found on the trips I have made to Haiti and some of the specific recommendations I have. But because of the constraints of time, and I know there are other Members who have expressed a desire to speak, I will, Mr. President, yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, the last time we had a balanced budget in this country, as my colleague from Maine has pointed out, was 1969. I happened to be at that time a senior in college. I turned 50 this year. It has been a long time. A lot of things have happened since 1969. The one thing that has not happened is for this Congress and the President to balance the budget. It is, frankly, time that we stopped spending our children's money. It is time we stopped spending our grandchildren's money and great- grandchildren's money. We need to balance the budget. Within the next 2 hours, I intend to cast a ``yea'' vote for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

Mr. DeWINE

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

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

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, at this point let me turn to something I have talked about on this floor on many occasions in the past 2 years, the issue of the banning of partial-birth abortion. When the President of the United States justified his veto of the partial-birth abortion bill last year, this is what he said. I will quote now from President Clinton as he vetoed our bill: There are a few hundred women every year who have personally agonizing situations where their children are born or about to be born with terrible deformities, which will cause them to die either just before, during or just after childbirth. And these women, among other things, cannot preserve the ability to have further children. . . .'' That was a quote from the President, when he vetoed the partial-birth abortion bill. In light of those remarks by President Clinton, I hope all Americans heard the media reports last week about the shocking confession of a leader in the abortion rights movement. It turns out that in every material detail the President's comments that I have just quoted, the comments he made in defense of his veto, are false. And the confession of this leader in the abortion rights movement, the confession he made last week which I am going to talk about in more detail in just a moment, that confession shows the comments made by our President were simply not true because the fact is, President Clinton based his veto on information that was not true. For the last 2 years, a number of us here in the Senate have been trying to ban this horrible practice of partial-birth abortion, a practice in which a baby is partially removed from the mother, partially delivered, and then killed. I believe the horror of this practice is so clear, so heinous, it should truly offer some common ground for those of us who oppose abortion and those who do, in fact, support abortion rights. In my view, one does not have to join the pro- life side in order to oppose this practice. In fact, if you look to some of the Members of the House, for example, who voted with us on this issue, who voted to ban the partial-birth abortion, many of them by their own definition would be classified as pro-choice. So, this should be an area where pro-choice and pro-life come together. The sad fact is though, Mr. President, we were not, last year, able to get our bill banning partial-birth abortion past President Clinton's veto pen, in large measure because of the rationale used by the President, which was simply wrong. The American people were assured that partial-birth abortion was an extremely rare procedure-- one that occurs only a few hundred times a year--and is only used to save mothers whose lives are in extreme danger or where the child has been malformed. Thomas Jefferson had a good phrase for arguments like this. He called them, ``false facts.'' Because these very impressive sounding arguments, as many of us suspected, turn out to be wrong. For those of my colleagues--and there can't be very many by now--who have not heard about the startling revelations by Ron Fitzsimmons, let me talk for a moment about them. Mr. Fitzsimmons is the national director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers. In 1995, when the Senate was considering the partial-birth abortion bill, he was helping lead the fight against it. In fact, he went on ``Nightline'' to argue that the procedure ought to remain legal. At that time, Mr. Fitzsimmons said that the procedure was rare and was primarily performed to save the lives or the fertility of the mothers. Now, as we found out last week, because of Mr. Fitzsimmons' own comments, own revelations, own confession, his conscience started gnawing him almost immediately after he had appeared on ``Nightline.'' He says now that he felt physically ill at the lies that he had told. He said to his wife the very next day, according to him, ``I can't do this again. I can't do this again.'' Meanwhile, President Clinton was using Mr. Fitzsimmons' false statements to buttress his case for vetoing the partial-birth abortion bill. And, as I said last week, Mr. Fitzsimmons at long last came in from the cold. He admitted that, to use his own words, he ``lied through his teeth.'' Lied through his teeth The facts, as he now publicly acknowledges them, are clear. Partial- birth abortion is not a rare procedure. It happens all the time, and it is not limited to mothers and fetuses who are in danger. It is performed on healthy women and healthy babies all the time, and that is what the facts are. Mr. President, it is true that everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, but people are not entitled to their own facts. On partial- birth abortion, the facts are out, the facts are clear, and I join our distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from New York, in hoping, as he was quoted this weekend, in light of these facts, that the President will reverse his decision to veto this bill. Mr. President, it would seem fairly simple that when one makes a decision, in this case President Clinton's decision to veto this bill that was passed overwhelmingly by the House and overwhelmingly by the Senate, that when he made his decision to veto the bill and when he publicly stated why he made that decision to veto the bill, when it turns out later that the facts are proven to be false, the underlying facts, the underlying rationale by which he apparently made his decision, it would seem that it would not be too hard for the President then to change his mind, based on a new understanding of what the facts truly are. We will be debating this issue again on the floor, we will be holding hearings again in the Judiciary Committee, and we will be back out here again talking about this very important matter. I hope that as we do that, my friends and colleagues who opposed us on this issue will remember what Mr. Fitzsimmons said, what he said when he could no longer apparently stand it anymore, that he had, in fact ``lied through his teeth,'' that the facts he gave the public, the facts he gave Congress, the facts he gave the President were simply not true. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, on behalf of the people of Ohio, to express our deepest sympathy to the families of all those who have suffered injury and loss of life in this weekend's tornadoes, flooding, and other natural disasters. Our hearts certainly go out to everyone who has suffered, at this time of their need. I personally experienced the Xenia tornado of 1974, and I know how awful such devastation can be. When I saw the pictures over the weekend of the homes totally torn apart in Arkansas, I was reminded of what I saw in 1974 in Xenia, OH. I was assistant prosecuting attorney at the time. We heard the tornado was coming and got down in the basement. After the tornado had passed over, I literally crawled out of the basement of the building, what was left of it, and looked at Xenia and saw the unbelievable devastation. So I have some understanding of what the people of Arkansas and the people of other States are going through with regard to these natural disasters. Let me talk for a moment about the terrible tragedy that took place in my home State of Ohio this weekend, and what we possibly can do to give assistance. The southern part of our State was ravaged by the worst flooding we have experienced in at least 33 years. At least four people have died so far, and 14 counties are now in a state of emergency. Bridges have been wiped out; houses and cars have been swept away. Our thoughts and prayers go to the families of those who have lost their lives, and to all those who have been evacuated from their homes and all those who face this disaster. Along with Senator Glenn and my colleagues from Ohio in the House of Representatives, I will be working with the administration to make sure the Federal Government helps these Ohioans get back to their homes. I am encouraged by President Clinton's swift response with Federal aid for Arkansas, and I encourage him to help Ohioans as well. We will be working to make sure everyone gets home safely as soon as possible. Let me also talk about the tremendous job the American Red Cross, the Ohio National Guard, local volunteer groups, local fire departments, and rescue squads are doing in my home State. They have been working this weekend, they are working right now, as we speak. My hat is off to them. I send my congratulations and thanks for the tremendous amount of work they are doing. They are offering a desperately needed helping hand to some families who are having a very, very difficult time. My wife Fran and I extend our prayers to all who have been touched in any way by this tragedy. To those who have lost their lives and those who have been forced from their homes, and to their families, I stand ready to work with all Ohioans to help their communities return to normal just as soon as possible.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I introduce, along with my distinguished colleague Senator Bob Graham, the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Act of 1997. This legislation will serve as the counterpart to similar legislation that will be introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Porter Goss. Mr. President, the purpose of this legislation is to offer some measure of relief to families that have suffered serious medical and financial setbacks because of their reliance on the Federal Government's protection of the blood supply. In 1995, the Institute of Medicine released the findings of a major investigation into how America's hemophilia community came to be decimated by the HIV virus. According to that report, the Federal agencies responsible for blood safety did not show the appropriate level of diligence in screening the blood supply. The Federal agencies did not move as quickly as they should have to approve blood products that were potentially safer. And the Federal Government did not warn the hemophilia community, when the Government knew--or should have known--that there were legitimate concerns that the blood supply might not be safe. The Government's failure caused serious harm to real people--people who were counting on the Government to meet its responsibilities. Mr. President, this legislation is about trust. A substantial number of citizens trusted the Government to exercise due vigilance, and the Government let them down. It's only right that the Government try to offer them some measure of relief. Mr. President, I recognize the budgetary realities we have to confront. As we move through the process, we will have to address the issue of compensation. I think it's absolutely essential that we begin this process--now.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I introduce, along with my distinguished colleague Senator Bob Graham, the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Act of 1997. This legislation will serve as the counterpart to similar legislation that will be introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Porter Goss. Mr. President, the purpose of this legislation is to offer some measure of relief to families that have suffered serious medical and financial setbacks because of their reliance on the Federal Government's protection of the blood supply. In 1995, the Institute of Medicine released the findings of a major investigation into how America's hemophilia community came to be decimated by the HIV virus. According to that report, the Federal agencies responsible for blood safety did not show the appropriate level of diligence in screening the blood supply. The Federal agencies did not move as quickly as they should have to approve blood products that were potentially safer. And the Federal Government did not warn the hemophilia community, when the Government knew--or should have known--that there were legitimate concerns that the blood supply might not be safe. The Government's failure caused serious harm to real people--people who were counting on the Government to meet its responsibilities. Mr. President, this legislation is about trust. A substantial number of citizens trusted the Government to exercise due vigilance, and the Government let them down. It's only right that the Government try to offer them some measure of relief. Mr. President, I recognize the budgetary realities we have to confront. As we move through the process, we will have to address the issue of compensation. I think it's absolutely essential that we begin this process--now.

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate a very important milestone in the history of the State of Ohio and in the history of this body on this, the first day the Senate has met since my colleague Senator John Glenn announced that he was retiring from this body. On behalf of the people of Ohio and on behalf of the U.S. Senate, I have the privilege of paying respects to Senator Glenn, to pay respects to my senior Senator, our friend and our colleague, on the occasion of the announcement of his retirement from the U.S. Senate. Senator Glenn has served Ohio and the Senate for a longer consecutive period than any other individual in the history of our State. When he leaves office 2 years from now, he will have served in this body for 24 consecutive years. Over this almost quarter of a century of service, Senator Glenn has established a reputation as a man who knows the importance of details. Senator Glenn realizes that the most important work done in this Chamber is not the sound bites, not the press conferences, but the nitty-gritty of making this complicated legislative process work for the people who sent us here. Despite the fact that I have only been in the Senate for a little over 2 years, in many ways I feel I know Senator Glenn better than many who have served with him for a lot longer period of time. This is true, in part at least, I suspect, because he and I fought a very tough campaign against each other in 1992. It was a tough, hard-fought campaign. Let no one doubt--I can say this from personal experience-- let no one doubt that behind John Glenn's kind, grandfatherly exterior beats the heart of a true marine, a man who is willing to fight very hard for what he believes is right. That has been something that has really been the hallmark of John Glenn's life of service to this country, from his service in World War II and Korea to his service in the military to his work in the space program to this very day, as he continues his service to this country in the U.S. Senate. Two years after that campaign, I was elected to the Senate, and it became important, then, for Senator Glenn and me to build a relationship, to build a relationship to benefit all Ohioans. I think we have done that. In the 2 years since then, I have found that Senator Glenn's attitude to the work of the Senate really should serve as a model for all the rest of us. In a campaign, you fight hard, but when you are in the Senate, when you are one of the 100 Members of the U.S. Senate drawn from all over this country, there is a different kind of work to be done. I have worked with Senator Glenn on the floor, worked with him on different issues, and he has unfailingly put the interests of Ohio and the interests of this country first. I am sure we will continue to disagree on some issues, but our disagreements are buried whenever we have a chance to accomplish something for Ohioans by working together. Some may say that Senator Glenn's style of leadership is too bipartisan for modern politics, too bipartisan for this day and age, too bipartisan for this town. If that is true, it is a shame, because the dedication to bipartisanship exemplified by John Glenn, through his service in the Senate, I think should serve as an example for all of us. It was significant that Senator Glenn chose the 35th anniversary of his three orbits around the Earth to make his announcement that he was leaving the Senate. I think as an Ohioan, it was also significant to see where he made that announcement. He went back home to Muskingum College, New Concord, OH, a town where he had been raised, where he grew up, a town where there is now a high school named after him, the John Glenn High School. He went home to make this announcement to the people of the State of Ohio. I think it was also significant that he made the announcement in front of an audience of primarily young people. John Glenn has always been someone who has thought about the future. How many times have we heard him come to the floor and talk about young people, talk about investment in young people, talk about what we have to do to prepare them and us for the next century? So it was significant that he went home to make this speech and significant that he was talking to young people when he did it. I was reminded, as I think many Americans were, when I heard the official news that John Glenn was going to retire, where I was 35 years ago--at least those of us who are old enough to remember--when he made that historic flight. My future wife and I were freshmen at Yellow Springs High School, Yellow Springs, OH. On the particular moment that he took off, I happened to be in Ed Wingard's science class and remember listening on the radio, and watching on TV later in the day, as we followed his progress for the next few hours. John Glenn, on that date, captured the hearts of Americans, and he guaranteed his place in the history of this country and the history of this world. We took a great deal of pride, those of us from Ohio, in what our native son was doing on that date. It was clear that NASA had selected the right person to make the trip, not just because of his nerves of steel, not just because of his technical ability, but it was also clear why they picked John Glenn when he came back. It was clear that this was a person who young people across the country could look up to, that this was someone who should be considered a national hero and a national treasure. We should not talk today as if John Glenn will not be with us. John Glenn is going to be with us for 2 more years in this body. We are going to argue about some things, agree on some things, but John Glenn will continue for the next 2 years to do what he has done throughout his lifetime, and that is serve the people of the State of Ohio and serve this great country that he loves so very much. So let me, on behalf of the people of the State of Ohio, again say thank you to John Glenn for his service to his country, for his service to the State of Ohio, and thank him for being a role model for all of us 35 years ago and for continuing to be a role model today. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me conclude by saying once again how pleased I am that the President has joined our efforts. I am confident that his proposal will help us speed up the adoption process in this country and bring us closer to the day when every child in America will be cared for by a loving family. Mr. President, I will continue to come to the floor and talk about this issue until we make that change in Federal law. It is a change that is urgently needed. I simply conclude by saying what I have said many times on this floor, and that is that it was never, I am sure, the intent of the authors of the 1980 law--which has done a great deal of good in this country--it was never their intention to in any way tell case workers who are making life and death decisions every day in this country that anything other than the best interests of the child, anything other than the safety of children should be their primary concern. But it is also abundantly clear to me, I have traveled through Ohio and talked to people from other States, that this law is being misinterpreted day after day after day. We should clarify it. We should make the job of a case worker simpler, and by doing that, I believe we will save some children. Exhibit 1 [From the Washington Post, Feb. 9, 1997] Save the Kids, Not the Mom (By Mary McGrory) Richard Gelles, an authority on child welfare, is boldly intervening in a custody case that may be without parallel in the sorry annals of the Family Reunification Act. Latrena D. Pixley, a District mother who, at 19, killed her 6-week-old baby, is asking to be reunited with two of her three other children--a boy of 6 and another of 1 year. Gelles is volunteering to come at his own expense from Rhode Island-- where he is director of the Family Violence Research Program of the state university--to offer his view that a woman who has committed infanticide is not a fit mother. ``In these cases, we're often too late,'' says Gelles, who wrote ``The Book of David,'' the story of a baby who was murdered by a mother who had abused an older child. Social workers had a watchful eye on the mother all along. ``This time, I'd like to be early. Most of the time the children are dead or greviously injured by the time I get involved.'' The Pixley case has already attracted major attention because it could answer the question of what limits, if any, there are to the Family Reunification Act, which puts preservation of the family over the protection of children. It could also provide a measure of how far our culture has advanced in victimhood: Can a mother who kills her baby succeed in portraying herself as a victim? Gelles knows what it's like to get involved in the Pixley case and with the District bureaucracy. Last year, at the request of Jerome Miller, the receiver in charge of the D.C. Department of Human Services, Gelles did a study of Pixley. He told Miller that he did not think she could then or at ``any foreseeable date'' provide adequate care for her children. He says he was not paid for his work; the receipt of his report was never acknowledged. Miller is one of several figures in the Pixley case who believe in her. He hired her as a clerk while she was serving her sentence for infanticide. Social workers were indignant, and Pixley abused his trust by engaging in credit card fraud, but Miller remains a fan. She's still in jail for fraud (not murder). He told the weekly City Paper this week, ``I'll take her back in a minute.'' Social workers who are critical of him, he says, are ``probably lousy social workers.'' Striking as Miller's tolerance is, it pales beside the mercy shown by Superior Court Judge George W. Mitchell, who seems stricken with sympathy. He accepted Pixley's attorney's plea that she killed 6-week-old Nakya in 1992 as a result of postpartum depression. Pixley has testified that, after she had suffocated the crying baby under a blanket, she stuffed the body in a dumpster and went off to a barbecue with her boyfriend. Social workers and therapists speak well of Pixley's cooperativeness and progress. Her lawyer told Judge Mitchell that, apart from the smothering, Pixley had been a good mother to the infant. Gelles observed that she was a quiet, ``compliant'' person but ``seriously damaged.'' Mitchell, in imposing his feather-light sentence--weekends in jail for three years--said he wanted to give Pixley's plea as much respect as that of ``some high society woman.'' The judge is sending Pixley to a halfway house where she will be joined in time by 1-year-old Cornilius, who is in the care of an acquaintance of is mother. She will be taught ``parenting'' and could eventually get custody of 6-year-old Edward, whom, Gelles thinks, should be made eligible for adoption. Gelles says he has no choice but to volunteer as a ``complaining witness' for the two little boys whose lives he feels are in danger. He finds it ironic that this test of the Family Reunification Act comes at a time when so many are trying to undo it. Both the president and the First Lady have held White House conferences about it. Sen. Michael DeWine (R-Ohio) has introduced a bill making the safety of the child the prime consideration--a concept sinking out of sight in our addled, victim-struck culture.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to thank President Clinton for lending his voice to one of the most important efforts underway in this Congress. On February 14, the President unveiled a proposal that would help provide children with safe homes and loving families, something that every child deserves. This is a victory for America's children, and I believe a victory for good common sense. It recognizes that the safety of our children must always be our most important consideration. Mr. President, let no one doubt how important this issue is and why action by this Congress is so necessary. On a number of occasions over the last year, I have come to the floor of the Senate to discuss a provision in Federal law, that has tragedy in it, which has proven dangerous to the safety of America's children. I have on those occasions discussed the fact that too many children are spending their most important, most formative years in a legal limbo, a legal limbo that denies them their chance to be adopted, that denies them what all children should have: the chance to be loved and cared for by parents. Mr. President, we are sending too many children back to dangerous and abusive homes. We are sending them back to the custody of people who have already abused them, already tortured them, and we do it, tragically, knowing that that has already taken place. The statistics are frightening. Every day in this country, three children actually die of abuse and neglect at the hands of their own parents or caretakers. That is over 1,200 children per year. Almost half of these children--almost half of them--are killed after their tragic circumstances have already come to the attention of local authorities. That means 600 children die every year in cases where we, as a society, already know that they have been abused, already know that they may have been tortured, already know that they really should never go back into that home again. Mr. President, some of the tragedies in the child welfare system are the unintended consequence of a small part of a law passed by the U.S. Congress in 1980--basically, Mr. President, a good law. Under the Federal Child Welfare Act--the law I am referring to--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 approved by the Secretary of HHS. The State plan must provide--here I quote from statute--``that, in each case, reasonable efforts will be made (A) prior to the placement of a child in foster care, to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child from his home, and (B) to make it possible for the child to return to his home.'' In other words, Mr. President, no matter what the particular circumstances of a household may be, a State must make reasonable efforts to keep it together, and to put it back together if it has fallen apart. There is strong evidence, Mr. President, strong evidence to suggest that, in practice, reasonable efforts have become extraordinary efforts, efforts to keep families together at all costs, efforts, I might add, to keep families together that are families in name only and to put children back in homes that are homes in name only. As a result of this, Mr. President, children have died. That law simply has to be changed. One of my first legislative acts of the Congress was to introduce a bill that would accomplish this. My bill would change the law to make it absolutely clear that the best interests of the child have to come first. Pretty basic, pretty simple--best interests of the child, safety of a child. You would not think we would have to clarify that. I tell you, Mr. President, based on my experience in talking to judges, prosecutors, in talking to children service advocates, children service caseworkers across the State of Ohio, and from talking to some of my colleagues from other States, and from hearing testimony in our committee, it is abundantly clear to me that we have to spell this out, that it is being misinterpreted, that reasonable efforts to put families back together many times take precedence over the best interests of the child and the safety of the child. As I said, Mr. President, my bill would change the law to make it clear that the best interests of the child must come first. We do this by enacting the following simple, straightforward amendment to the Child Welfare Act. And this is what language I would add, not taking anything away, just add this: In determining reasonable efforts, the best interests of the child, including the child's health and safety, shall be of primary concern. Pretty simple, Mr. President, pretty straightforward, pretty basic, but darn important. In November, Mr. President, I chaired a hearing of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee on this issue. I assembled some of America's chief experts on child welfare. And I was encouraged by what they had to say. Peter Digre, the director of Los Angeles County's Department of Children and Family Services--an unbelievably huge department, and a man who has to deal with gut-wrenching problems and decisions every single day of his life--this is what Peter Digre said. He said that ``we should emphasize child safety as our first priority.'' Dr. Digre's department has about 73,000 children under its protection--73,000. He sees the real-life consequence of unreasonable attempts to reunite families that are families in name only. But, Mr. President, I believe our most eloquent testimony that day came from Sharon Aulton, a grandmother in Annapolis, MD. Sharon Aulton had warned the local children services that her daughter was neglecting her children, her grandchildren, but the officials failed to intervene. Sharon Aulton's daughter ended up blockading her children in a room and setting the room on fire. Both these beautiful young children died. Mr. President, this happens too often in this country. Last August a 4-year-old girl named Nadine was found starved to death in her mother's apartment in New York. The mother had kept Nadine in a crib covered by a blanket so she did not have to see her. She did not feed the child regularly for the year preceding her death. In the last few months before the child's death, she did not seek medical help despite the fact that the child could not walk, could not stand, could not even sit up. Apparently, Mr. President, city social workers had visited the apartment in May 1995 after an anonymous complaint about the little girl's treatment. The commissioner of the Administration for Children Services was unable to provide any information as to the conditions found in the apartment or what action was taken at that time by the city. However, the commissioner did say the city investigators found enough credible evidence of neglect to open an investigation after they visited the apartment, but yet the case was closed 5 months later. Nadine only weighed 15 pounds at the time of her death--a week before her 5th birthday. Mr. President, I have a daughter who is almost 5, my daughter Anna. Those of us who have children, those of us who care about kids, have to be heartsick and shocked by the recounting of this poor little child's death. According to the ambulance workers, Mr. President, Nadine was found in the crib, dirty, with arms as thin as a half-dollar, her eyes sunken, her hair in patches, her ribs protruding. Her mother at that time, when the emergency folks responded, was sitting on a bed near the crib eating a hot dog. That is how they found the mother when the medics arrived at the home. The New York Daily News obtained secret documents which indicate how city child welfare workers and public school officials repeatedly ignored warning signals in Nadine's case. That is from the New York Daily News. School officials never turned in Nadine's mother for not showing up for school, nor did anyone report the fact she did not show up for medical appointments. Officials did not notify the State child abuse hotline when Nadine's siblings were out of school for long periods of time. In May 1995, the anonymous caller I mentioned earlier reported to the State child abuse hotline that Nadine was, in fact, starving. Mr. President, tragically, Nadine is far from alone in falling through the cracks in our system. In December, a 10-month-old girl named Delores died after savagely being beaten by her mother's boyfriend; ten weeks earlier, child welfare officials had been warned that she and her siblings were in danger. Mr. President, let me be very clear--I cannot stress enough that I am not trying to lay the blame on children's services officials in these cases. I worked with children services officials for many years, going back in time to when I was an assistant county prosecutor in 1973. These are good people, people who try to do their job. They generally are overworked and have too many cases and have many challenges to face. I think it is clear as we look at these cases of abuse, as we recount the fact that we lose at least three kids every day to child abuse in this country--and those are just the kids who die, let alone the other ones who are savagely beaten or abused--I think it is clear that there is one part of this problem that Congress can fix. We cannot fix it all by passing legislation. We can try. But one part of the problem can be fixed, and that is to move forward in fixing, in clarifying the 1980 law that I refer to, to make it clear that we want these professionals, children's service workers, to have the flexibility to do what we all want done, and what they want to do, and that is to save the kids first, save the children, to set as a priority the best interests of the child and the safety of the child, and that priority has to take precedence over everything else. These case workers work very hard to meet, many times, conflicting mandates. We should make their job a little easier and say to them that Federal law from now on will be abundantly clear, that the primary mission should always be to save the children. Mr. President, some families are families in name only, and simply should not, should not be reunited. Mr. President, my proposed legislation would change the law to make this the key goal. I think Washington Post columnist Mary McGrory made the case in a very compelling way in her column of February 9. I ask unanimous consent that column be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I wish to announce that today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until the hour of 1:30 p.m., with the time equally divided between the two leaders. At 1:30 today, the Senate will resume consideration of House Joint Resolution 36 regarding U.N. population funding. Following 2 hours of debate on that resolution, the resolution will be temporarily set aside and the Senate will then resume consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 1, the constitutional balanced budget amendment. From 3:30 today to 5:30 today, the Senate will debate Senator Byrd's amendment relating to section 6 of the balanced budget amendment. All Senators should be reminded that at 5:30 this afternoon there will be a rollcall vote in relation to the pending Byrd amendment. Following that vote this afternoon, Senator Reid will be recognized to offer his amendment regarding Social Security. The Senate will continue debating that amendment tomorrow morning and afternoon, with a vote occurring on or in relation to that amendment at 6 p.m. on Tuesday. Also, I remind our colleagues that we will be voting on the U.N. population funding resolution at 2:15 on Tuesday afternoon immediately following the weekly policy conferences. Following the vote on Senator Reid's amendment to Senate Joint Resolution 1, Senator Feinstein will offer an amendment. We will debate that amendment from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. on Wednesday, with the vote occurring at 11 a.m. on that amendment. The majority leader thanks his colleagues for their cooperation in allowing the Senate to move forward on both of these matters. I further remind all Senators that the leadership hopes to complete action on the balanced budget amendment as soon as possible, and the leader will continue to update all of us as we make progress on this issue. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

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, I rise today to honor, on a very special occasion, one of the most important figures in the history of education in the State of Ohio. This year, Dr. Phillip R. Shriver will celebrate the 50th anniversary of his career as a teacher. Dr. Shriver was born in Cleveland in 1922. When he was 6 years old, his grandfather gave him an Indian spear point, and thus began his lifelong interest in Ohio history. He graduated from Yale in 1943, graduating early so he could go and make some history himself as a Navy lieutenant in World War II. When Dr. Shriver got back to the United States, he set his sights on his work of a lifetime. Armed with an M.A. from Harvard in 1946, and his Ph.D. from Columbia in 1954, he began teaching history to generation after generation of Ohio students. In 1947, Dr. Shriver joined the faculty at Kent State University. In 1965, he became the president of Miami University, greeting in his first incoming class a freshman, myself, and my future wife, Frances Struewing. He served as Miami's president for 16 years--all the while continuing to teach. He has also served as president of the Ohio College Association, and as chairman of the Council of Presidents of the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. Even after his retirement from the presidency of Miami, he continues his mission in the classroom. Dr. Shriver continues to teach. It has been said that the past is prologue. Well, I think of the enthusiasm of Dr. Phillip Shriver, as he has made Ohio's past a living reality for countless young men and women, I cannot help thinking that he has done much to shape the future of our State and the lives of its people. Mr. President, I join all of his family and friends in congratulating him on a truly historic milestone. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I offer my support to the President's nomination of the Honorable John F. Maisto to serve as United States Ambassador to the Republic of Venezuela. Mr. President, it has been my pleasure to know Ambassador Maisto and I have known him as the United States Ambassador to Nicaragua. He has served with great distinction as our United States Ambassador to Nicaragua for the last 4 years, helping that country make its very historic transition to full democracy. In fact, Mr. President, I had occasion to be in Nicaragua this past November, and it just happened to be the week that the Ambassador and his wife were leaving after 4 years. I had the opportunity to talk to Nicaraguans clear across the political spectrum. I had the opportunity to talk to Nicaraguans with all kinds of background, Nicaraguans who had many different political beliefs. But I found that it was unanimous that our Ambassador had done a fantastic job--a fantastic job of representing our country in a time in Nicaragua's history that was crucial for not only democracy to continue to develop in Nicaragua, but also crucial for our continuing relationship with this country, which we have had such a long relationship with in the past. It was very clear to me, after talking to the many Nicaraguans that I saw, that our Ambassador was very well respected and that he had represented us exceedingly well. Mr. President, before his posting to Managua, Ambassador Maisto had served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs. He also served as Deputy U.S. Representative to the Organization of American States, and Deputy Chief of Mission in the United States Embassy in Panama. Mr. President, this is a man whose hands-on experience with Latin America will serve us very well. It has served us in the past and will continue to serve us. Mr. President, the Ambassador will be an outstanding Ambassador to Venezuela, and I urge that his nomination be confirmed. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. DeWINE

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