Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I introduced yesterday legislation to honor the late Carl Stokes. Carl Stokes was born on the east side of Cleveland in 1927. He lost his father at the age of 2. When he was young, his family was so poor that Carl, his mother, and his brother Louis--now our distinguished colleague in the House of Representatives--had to sleep in the same bed. In 1962, Carl Stokes was elected to the Ohio House of Representatives--the first African-American to serve as a Democrat in our State legislature. In 1967, he was elected mayor of Cleveland--the first African- American ever to be elected mayor of a major U.S. city. He served two terms as mayor, and in his second term, he became the first African-American to serve as an officer of the National League of Cities. Carl Stokes later became a television news anchor in New York City, and a municipal judge in Cleveland. In 1994, President Clinton named him United States Ambassador to the Seychelles. The Honorable Carl Stokes had a long and distinguished career before his untimely passing in April of last year. In his eulogy for Mayor Stokes, the Reverend Jesse Jackson called him ``a dream maker and an odds buster.'' That's exactly right. Carl Stokes was a man who made a difference. The people of Ohio will always remember him as a man of great courage and personal character. For this reason, I am introducing legislation today to name the new Federal courthouse in Cleveland after this truly honorable man.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and friend from Wyoming. I rise today also to support the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. There is no doubt about the need for a balanced budget. We all agree on the huge benefits that will accrue to America if we put our fiscal house in order. To begin with, it would stave off a horrible catastrophe. Mr. President, if we do not establish a balanced budget and if we choose instead to continue on our present course, by the year 2012, the whole budget is going to be eaten up by entitlements and by interest on the national debt. There will be absolutely no money in the domestic discretionary budget for investment in the future of our children--no money, zero. No money for Pell grants, no money for student loans, no money for National Institutes of Health research, none of the things that really are an investment in our children, our grandchildren, and our great grandchildren. This alone is good enough reason to balance the budget--to avoid a social and fiscal disaster. Mr. President, there will also be a huge positive benefit from a balanced budget. According to the latest estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, a permanently balanced budget could make our country 25 percent richer by the year 2030. That is outstanding news. That's why so many Americans are very happy to see the signals coming out of the budget process that we may be getting close to an agreement on a balanced budget. That would mean a better future for America. It's that simple. We all agree on this. But the question we have to ask ourselves now is: Do we need to write this practice of budget balancing into the Constitution of the United States? Some might contend that our recent success at reducing the deficit proves that a constitutional amendment is unnecessary. Some may say and may tell us that if it's not broken, we don't need to fix it. Mr. President, that may seem to make sense on the surface, but that argument flies in the face of history. It doesn't make sense when we consider the fact that it has taken the Congress 27 years to make the limited progress we are seeing today--27 years. It took 27 years, Mr. President. The last time the Federal budget was balanced was in 1969. My wife Fran and I were graduating from Miami University in Ohio in 1969. So of all the arguments against the constitutional amendment, the argument that it's easy enough to balance the budget is certainly one of the weakest. No, Mr. President, our decision on the balanced budget amendment has to be based on a much more fundamental criteria. Indeed, on a matter of conscience. The question all of us have to ask ourselves is simply this: How important is a balanced budget? Does it rise to the level of a constitutional principle? In other words, is it a fundamental component of what we want to be as a nation? This is a question we all have to answer for ourselves, reflecting on our own deepest values, as well as those of the people who sent us here to make the decisions. My decision is based on the America I want my children and my grandchildren to inherit a nation bound by its fundamental law to pay its bills on time, to avoid pulverizing future generations with a towering national debt; in simple terms, Mr. President, an America that says no longer are we going to borrow from our children and grandchildren so we can live better today. In my view, Mr. President, that is as close to a bedrock principle as we can find in political life. I believe it must be in the Constitution. I believe history tells us that it has to be in the Constitution. That is why I believe, for my family, for the people of the State of Ohio and future generations, as well as the present generation, we must pass the constitutional amendment and send it out to the States. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, there are shortcomings in the Code of Military Law that have terrible repercussions in the streets of civilian America. These failures of the military judicial system too often result in military criminals being pushed out of the service and into our civilian streets--where these criminals continue to behave as lawless predators. This bill closes two such gaps in the Military Code and ensures that the enlisted criminal is not pushed out to prey on decent citizens. This bill protects civilians from military personnel who have committed crimes, just as the Military protects itself from those same people. My bill addresses an important gap in the law. Under current law, many illegal acts committed abroad by U.S. soldiers or accompanying civilians go unpunished by the military courts. The prosecution of these crimes is left to the discretion of a military court, which either chooses to do no more than hand down a dishonorable discharge or lacks jurisdiction over the civilian defendant. This should not be the case. This bill guarantees that a soldier or accompanying civilian abroad, committing an illegal act punishable under the United States Code by more than a year's imprisonment, will be handed over to civilian authorities for prosecution under the United States Code. There is another aspect of this bill intended to protect civilian Americans from the actions of those who commit crimes while in the military. This bill also mandates that when an enlisted criminal is discharged from the service, the military Secretary will turn over to the FBI all the criminal records of that soldier for inclusion in the FBI criminal records system. Again, Mr. President, this is another way to protect the tax-paying, law-abiding American from dishonorably discharged criminals. Under current law, the criminal histories of these military personnel do not become part of the National Crime Information Center database. This bill will ensure that they do.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Private Security Officer Assurance Act of 1997. This bill establishes an expedited procedure for State regulators or private security officers to obtain criminal records background checks through the FBI prior to issuing state permits to security officers. Currently, it frequently takes between 6 to 18 months to complete such checks. My bill would authorize the Attorney General to designate an association of employers of security officers to collect signature cards from applicants and forward them to the FBI for a comparison against the Federal criminal history records on file. The records would then be forwarded to the appropriate State regulators who would decide the qualification of the applicants for permits based on State laws. Under this bill, the applicant would pay fees to compensate for the cost of the background checks. No criminal history information would go to the employer. I would note that Congress has established similar procedures for banks, the parimutuel industry and the financial securities industry. The process that I described takes about 3 weeks for these industries. Mr. President, I believe this bill will help improve public safety by ensuring the integrity of those hired as security officers.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, there are two truly fundamental issues we need to address in the area of crime. First, what is the proper role of the Federal Government in fighting crime in this country? Second, despite all the rhetoric, what really works in law enforcement? What matters? What doesn't matter? Today, I would like to discuss one issue that I believe really matters: How do we go about protecting America from armed career criminals? I am talking about repeat violent criminals who use a gun while committing a crime. In this area, too, we need to be asking: What works? And what level of Government should do it? In the area of gun crimes, we have a pretty good answer. We all know that there is some controversy over whether general restrictions on gun ownership would help to reduce crime. But there is no controversy over whether taking guns away from felons would reduce crime. There is legitimate disagreement over whether the Brady bill would reduce crime. Similarly, reasonable people can disagree on the question of whether a ban on assault weapons would reduce crime. I happen to support both those measures--but I recognize that some people think they are not effective. But what I am talking about today is something on which there is absolutely no controversy. There's simply no question that taking the guns away from armed career criminals will reduce crime. No question, Mr. President. When it comes to felons, unilateral disarmament of the thugs is the best policy. Let's disarm the people who hurt people. We have actually tried it--and we know it works. One of the most successful crime-fighting initiatives of recent years was known as Project Triggerlock. This project was wildly successful precisely because it addresses a problem squarely--and places the resources where they are most needed. Let me tell you a little about project Triggerlock. The U.S. Justice Department began Project Triggerlock in May 1991. The program targeted for prosecution--in Federal court--armed and violent repeat offenders. Under Triggerlock, U.S. Attorneys throughout the country said to State and local prosecutors: If you catch a felon with a gun, and if you want us to, we--the Federal prosecutors--will take over the prosecution. We will prosecute him. We will convict him. We will hit him with a stiff Federal mandatory sentence. And we will lock him up in a Federal prison at no cost to the State or local community. That's what Triggerlock did. Triggerlock was an assault on the very worst criminals in America. And it worked. This program took 15,000 criminals off the streets in an 18-month period. Incredibly, the Clinton Justice Department abandoned Project Triggerlock. It was the most effective Federal program in recent history for targeting and removing armed career criminals. But the Justice Department stopped Triggerlock dead in its tracks. What I am proposing in this bill is that we resurrect Project Triggerlock. My bill requires the U.S. attorneys in every jurisdiction in this country to make a montly report to the Attorney General in Washington on the number of arrests, prosecutions, and convictions they have gotten on gun-related offenses. The Attorney General should then report, semi-annually, to the Congress on the work of these prosecutors. Like all prosecutors, U.S. attorneys have limited resources. So--like all prosecutors--U.S. attorneys have to exercise discretion about whom to prosecute. We all recognize the Congress can't dictate to prosecutors whom they should prosecute--but it's clear that we should go on record with the following proposition: There's nothing more important than getting armed career criminals off the streets. Mr. President, I think Project Triggerlock is a very important way to keep the focus on the prosecution of gun crimes. Getting gun criminals off the streets is a major national priority--and we ought to behave accordingly.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, in 1980, Congress passed the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, known as CWA. The 1980 Act has done a great deal of good. It increased the resources available to struggling families. It increased the supervision of children in the foster care system. And it gave financial support to people to encourage them to adopt children with special needs. But while the law has done a great deal of good, many experts are coming to believe that this law has actually had some bad unintended consequences. Under the 1980 Act, for a state to be eligible for Federal matching funds for foster care expenditures, the state must have a plan for the provision of child welfare services approved by the Secretary of HHS and this State plan must provide, and I quote: 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 the state must make reasonable efforts to keep it together, and to put it back together if it falls apart. What constitutes reasonable efforts? How far does the State have to go? This has not been defined by Congress. Nor has it been defined by HHS. This failure to define what constitutes ``reasonable efforts'' has had a very important--and very damaging--practical result. There is strong evidence to suggest that in the absence of a definition, reasonable efforts have become in some cases extraordinary efforts. Efforts to keep families together at all costs. Mr. President, during the past year, I have traveled throughout the state of Ohio, talking to social work professionals. In these discussions I have found that there is great disparity in how the law is being interpreted by judges and social workers. Let me give you an example. I posed this hypothetical to representatives of children's services in both rural and urban counties. Mary is a 28-year-old crack-addicted mother who has seven children. Steve, the 29-year-old father of the children, is an abusive alcoholic, and all seven of the children have been taken away--permanently--by the county. Now, Mary gives birth to an eighth child, little Peggy. The newborn Peggy tests positive for crack. Therefore, it is obvious that her mother is still addicted to crack. Steve, the father, is still an alcoholic. Pretend for a moment that you work for the county children's services department. Does the law allow you to get the new baby out of the household? And if you do, should you file for permanent custody so that the baby can be adopted? The answer will surprise you. In fact, I was surprised at the response I got when I asked a number of Ohio social work professionals that very same question. The answer varied from county to county, but I heard too much ``no'' in the answers I got. Some officials said they could apply for emergency custody of the baby and take her away on a temporary basis, but they would have to make a continued effort to send the baby back to her mother! Other social workers said that if they went to court to get custody of the baby, they probably wouldn't be able to get even temporary custody of her. In one county, I was told it would be two years before the baby could be made available for adoption. Another county said it would be five years. One social worker--just one, out of all the ones I asked--told me that her department would move immediately for permanent custody of the baby. But she said that their success would still depend on the judge assigned to the case. Should our Federal law really push the envelope, so that extraordinary efforts are made to keep that family together--efforts that any of us would not consider reasonable? It is clear after 17 years of experience with this law that there is a great deal of confusion as to how the act applies. My legislation would clarify, once and for all, the intent of Congress in the 1980 Act. My legislation would amend that language in the following way: ``In determining reasonable efforts, the best interests of the child, including the child's health and safety, shall be of primary concern.'' The 1980 Act was a good bill. There are some families that need a little help if they are going to stay together, and it's right for us to help them. That's what the Child Welfare Act did. But by now it should be equally clear that the framers of the 1980 Act did not intend for extraordinary efforts to be made to reunite children with their abusers. As Peter Digre, the director of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, testified at a hearing last year before the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources: ``[W]e cannot ignore the fact that at least 22% of the time infants who are reunified with their families are subjected to new episodes of abuse, neglect, or endangerment.'' That was not the intention of Congress in the 1980 law. But too often, that law is being misinterpreted in a way that is trapping these children in abusive households. I believe we should leave no doubt about the will of the American people on this issue affecting the lives of America's children. The legislation I am proposing today would put the children first.

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

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will designate the Fallen Timbers Battlefield, Fort Meigs, and Fort Miamis as National Historic Sites. Mr. President, the people of northwest Ohio are committed to preserving the historic heritage of the United States and the State of Ohio, as well as that of their own community. The truly national significance of the Battle of Fallen Timbers and Fort Meigs have been acknowledged already. In 1960, Fallen Timbers was designated as a National Historic Landmark. In 1969, Fort Meigs received this designation. The Battle of Fallen Timbers is acknowledged by the National Park Service as a culminating event in the history of the struggle for dominance in the old Northwest Territory. Fort Meigs is recognized by the National Park Service as ``the zenith of the British advance in the west as well as the maximum effort by Native forces under the Shawnee, Tecumseh, during the War of 1812.'' Fort Miamis, which was attacked twice without success by British troops, led by General Henry Proctor, in the spring of 1813, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Recently, the National Park Service completed a special resource study examining the proposed National Historic Site designation and the suitability of these sites for inclusion in the National Park System. The Park Service concluded that these sites were suitable for inclusion in the National Park System--with non-Federal management and National Park Service assistance. The bill I am introducing today would act on that recommendation. My legislation will accomplish the following: Recognize and preserve the 185-acre Fallen Timbers Battlefield site; Formalize the linkage between the Fallen Timbers Battlefield and Monument to Fort Meigs and Fort Miamis; Preserve and interpret U.S. military history and Native American culture during the period from 1794 through 1813; and, Provide technical assistance to the State of Ohio as well as interested community and historical groups in the development and implementation of programming and interpretation of the three sites. However, my legislation will not require the Federal Government to provide direct funding to these three sites. That responsibility remains with--and is welcomed by--the many individuals, community groups, elected officials, and others who deserve recognition for their many hours of hard work dedicated to this issue. Mr. President, we have entered an era where the responsibility and the drive behind the management, programming, and--in many cases--the funding for historic preservation is the responsibility of local community groups, local elected officials, and local business communities. This legislation to designate the Fallen Timbers Battlefield, Fort Meigs, and Fort Miamis as National Historic Sites represents just such an effort. In my opinion, it is long overdue. Mr. President, it is time to grant these truly historic areas the measure of respect and recognition they deserve. I agree with the National Park Service--and the people of Ohio--on this issue. That is why I am proposing this important legislation today.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, there is concern that some in the House might oppose S. 1612, the Helms/DeWine bill that just passed unanimously, for political reasons. I should emphasize the significance of getting this legislation passed by the House and sent to the President for his signature. This measure, which broadens the scope of firearms offenses committed by violent criminals, is essential if Federal prosecutors are going to have the tools necessary to combat violence and drug trafficking. I urge our colleagues in the House to pass this legislation with dispatch, and to send it to the President, whose Justice Department has been very supportive of this bill. Those who would stop this bill, do so at the expense of law-abiding citizens.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, we have begun a very historic debate in this Chamber. It really is the conclusion of a debate that has been going on for several months. I think it might be instructive to review how we got here. The House, of course, took this matter up. The Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings. I will be quoting from some of those hearings in just a moment. The House passed the bill. The Senate passed the bill. Then the President vetoed it. The House overrode the President's veto, and now we are in the Senate. I think it is important that we keep our eye on the ball as this debate goes on. We should try to stay with the facts and try as much as possible to keep personal comments out of this. My friend from California, the Senator from California, repeatedly has come to the floor the last few days and said she has been offended by other Senators characterizing her position. I understand that. Yet, she has repeatedly this morning talked about politics and talked about cynicism and talked about motives that she believes drive Members of the Senate who happen to be on this side, the other side from her in this debate. Quite frankly, I think that is too bad. I think those assertions are too bad. I think it is too bad when anyone in this debate attempts to look into the heart and mind, the soul of any Senator. And I think it is wrong to do that. Please, please, spare us that argument. The Senator specifically said that she was going to offer a unanimous consent, which she did, which would add this health exception. Let me assure my colleague and friend from California, those of us who oppose that and who would object, do not do it for political reasons. No. We oppose it because we know, based on court decisions, that an amendment such as that would make the bill useless--useless. I think if the Senator will read the opinions of the Court, Supreme Court decisions, that she will see that. But it is not because of politics. It is because we believe this bill should pass and we believe this bill should pass in a form that accomplishes something. I will return to that later today. My friend from California talked about Coreen Costello. I was in the Judiciary Committee when she testified. It was compelling testimony. It was testimony that would break your heart. However, Coreen Costello did not--let me repeat--did not have a partial-birth abortion. Let me read the proposed law, the bill that is in front of us. And then I will turn to Coreen Costello's testimony. Here is the pertinent part of the legislation. As used in this section, the term ``partial-birth abortion'' means ``an abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery.'' Coreen Costello testified--again everyone's heart went out to her when she testified--this is what she said. When I was put under anesthesia, Katherine's heart stopped. She was able to pass away peacefully inside my womb, which was the most comfortable place for her to be. . . . When I awoke a few hours later, she was brought in to us. She was beautiful. She was not missing any part of her brain. She had not been stabbed in the head with scissors. Coreen Costello did not have a partial-birth abortion. If she had intended to have a partial-birth abortion, we know--we know--from all the testimony, that is undisputed, that all of the baby's body, with the exception of the head, would have had to have been delivered anyway. I will quote Dr. Haskell later in regard to the actual procedure. So, although many of the stories that we are going to hear will be compelling, I am not sure, frankly, that they are at all relevant to our discussion. Let me talk about the essential facts as we really begin this debate. There are, in my opinion, four essential facts that we need to keep in mind, Members of the Senate need to keep in mind, as we debate this. No. 1. This procedure is not recognized in medical circles. This procedure, Mr. President, is not recognized in medical circles. Dr. Pamela Smith, Medical Education Director at Mount Sinai Medical Center in Chicago testified November 17, 1995, citing the medical textbook ``Williams Obstetrics,'' that this is not a recognized procedure. The term is not even found in medical textbooks. The American Medical Association Legislative Council voted, without dissent, to recommend that the AMA's board endorse the partial-birth abortion ban. And they did it because they felt, according to the Congress Daily, ``This was not a recognized medical technique.'' I want to point out that the AMA ended up taking no position. They overrode the legislative council. They overrode it because they did not want to take a position on a policy issue, but there is no indication that they disagreed with the statement ``This was not a recognized medical technique.'' Dr. Nancy Romer, chairman of ob-gyn and a professor at Wright State University Medical School in Ohio said, ``there is simply no data anywhere in the medical literature in regards to the safety of this procedure. There is no peer review or accountability of this procedure. There is no medical evidence that the partial birth abortion procedure is safer or necessary to provide comprehensive health care to women. Finally, Dr. Donna Harrison, a fellow of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists put it most simply: This is medical nonsense . . . it is a hideous travesty of medical care and should rightly be banned in this country. That is essential fact No. 1. The procedure is not recognized in medical circles. Fact No. 2. The procedure is not used to save the life of the mother. We have testimony that a partial-birth abortion takes 3 days to perform. Now, let me just say it again. The testimony is it takes 3 days to perform this abortion. This is not an emergency procedure. Emergency procedures exist to save the life of the mother. This is simply not one of those procedures. Listen again to the testimony of Dr. Pamela Smith: ``So for someone to choose a procedure that takes 3 days, if they are really interested in the life of the mother, that puts the mother's life in further jeopardy.'' Those are not my words, those are the words of Dr. Pamela Smith. In his medical paper describing partial-birth abortion, Dr. Martin Haskell--now, this is the doctor who performs the abortions, one of the doctors who performs this procedure--he put it in a medical paper. This is, in part, what he said. He described in great detail the 3-day process for performing this type of abortion. His paper goes through day 1, which is dilation, day 2, more dilation, and day 3, the actual operation. Let me quote directly from the doctor's paper. Again, this is the doctor's own paper, Dr. Haskell. Day 1--Dilation. The patient is evaluated with an ultrasound. . . . Hadlock scales are used to interpret all ultrasound measurements. In the operating room, the cervix is prepped, anesthesized and dilated 9-11 [millimeters]. . . . Day 2--More Dilation. I am going to summarize this. The patient returns to the operating room, and the previous day's Dilapan are removed. The cervix is scrubbed. Day 3. The patient returns to the operating room, and the previous day's Dilapan is removed, and the procedure begins. Mr. President, by definition and by description, this is not an emergency procedure used to save the life of the mother. That is fact No. 2. Fact No. 3. My friends who are opposed to this bill have argued this procedure is usually medically necessary, when, in fact, these abortions are overwhelmingly elective. Here again, the testimony of those individuals who do these abortions is instructive. Dr. Martin Haskell, in a tape-recorded statement to the American Medical News, said the following: ``Eighty percent of these abortions are purely elective.'' Another physician said the following: ``We have an occasional abnormality, but it is a small amount. Most are for elective, not medical, reasons.'' The Washington Post reports that although no statistics are kept on partial-birth abortion, ``Perhaps the majority are not for medical reasons.'' President Clinton has said this procedure is necessary ``to prevent ripping the mother to shreds and to protect future fertility.'' But, Mr. President, Dr. Joseph DeCook, another fellow at the American College of OB-GYNs, says, ``Both contentions are, of course, incorrect, and probably merit the adjective `absurd.' '' Finally, former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop sums up this issue by saying, ``In no way can I twist my mind to see that late-term abortion is a medical necessity for the mother.'' So that is fact No. 3. These abortions, the vast majority of them, are elective, not medically necessary. No. 4, a living, fully formed living child is killed. You can use all the language you want to to try to hide this fact, but the basic fact is a living child is killed. We need, I think, to understand this procedure. In a partial-birth abortion, the entire body of the baby has been delivered except the head--the entire body is delivered except the head. The only reason the head has not been delivered--the only reason--is because under the law the doctor would have to protect the rights of a fully delivered baby. Listen to nurse Brenda Shafer's description. Remember that Brenda Shafer had described herself as being pro-choice before she walked into the doctor's office that day, to that clinic. This is what she saw: The baby's heart beat was clearly visible on the ultrasound screen . . . Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down . . . Then he delivered the baby's body and the arms--everything but the head . . . The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head and the baby's arms jerked out, like a startle reaction . . . The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby went completely limp.'' Mr. President, it has been argued that the baby was dead before the procedure was initiated. But listen again to Dr. Haskell, listen again to his own comments. He said in his interview, ``No, it is not. No, it is really not.'' It was argued that the anesthesia given to the woman killed the baby, but the American Society of Anesthesiologists testified this is absolutely untrue. Anesthesia does not kill the child. The baby is alive. Mr. President, the essential facts about partial-birth abortion are as follows: One, it is not recognized in traditional medical circles. No. 2, it is not necessary to save the life of the mother. In fact, there are safer methods to protect maternal health. No. 3, those who perform these abortions admit they are overwhelmingly done for elective reasons. They are elective. No. 4, this procedure kills a living child. Mr. President, civilized society simply cannot tolerate this procedure. How, then, did partial-birth abortion come about? Why was this technique developed? Why are there some doctors--not many, but some-- doing this? Why was this particularly gruesome procedure ever developed? I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. DeWINE. I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania. Mr. President, how did this come about? We know now it has no medical purpose. We heard testimony that partial-birth abortions are not taught in any medical school. The term is not found in any medical text. In fact, the American Medical Association does not recognize it as a medical procedure. We also know, Mr. President, that mainstream medical doctors would never use this procedure for any medical purpose. We have testimony to that effect. Doctors who do these partial-birth abortions admit that most are ``purely elective.'' Fellows at the American College of OB- GYNs describe the contention of this type of abortion being used for legitimate medical reasons as, ``incorrect and absurd.'' Dr. Koop says, ``In no way can I twist my mind to say that late-term abortion is a medical necessity for the mother.'' So we know that partial-birth abortion is not a medical term or a medical procedure. How did this come about? I believe the evidence is clear, Mr. President, that it came about as a perversion of the law. Under the law, a child outside the womb is, of course, a fully protected human being. That child has civil rights. That child has rights under the Constitution as a person--rights we all enjoy. However, if the child is almost ready to be born but remains in the womb, the law permits the child to be aborted. The law permits the child to be killed. Remember the testimony, remember the evidence, when we say, ``almost ready to be born.'' Every part of this child is out, outside the womb, except the head. The head is kept in. The problem for the person doing the abortion is that when a baby is nearly ready to be born, a more traditional style of abortion is uncertain and dangerous, because in a traditional abortion the child is kept totally in and the abortion is performed totally inside the womb. When the baby is ready to be born and is fully developed, it is more difficult to kill the child with certainty, and the abortion may be more dangerous. Dr. Haskell, an abortion provider who is a self-described ``pioneer'' in this procedure, was most proud of the fact that partial-birth abortion is the most effective and certain way to kill a child that is legal under the law today. The most effective way to kill a late-term child, a child that is very close to being born, is to use this procedure. That is why it is used. You could argue, Mr. President, that the safest and easiest way to kill such a child ready to be born would be to allow complete delivery, allow the head to come out as well as the rest of the body, and then kill the baby. That, of course, is illegal. That is why it is not done. The law does not allow a fully delivered child to be killed. Current law does allow a child that four-fifths of the child's body is out, to be killed. That is what the facts are. No matter how we talk or how we try to gloss over the fact, that is the essential fact of this debate. Mr. President, those who do partial-birth abortions have done what they think is the best way, the best thing under the law. They nearly fully deliver the baby. Every part of the child is delivered except the head, and they hold the head inside the birth canal. Mr. President, they cannot let the head slip out. As Dr. Haskell says again, the man who does these procedures, ``That's the goal of your work, to complete an abortion--not to see how do I manipulate the situation so I get a live birth instead.'' Mr. President, the law allows this. This cannot be what the Senate of this country or the American people believe to be good public policy. What happens, Mr. President, if a doctor makes a mistake, a sneeze, a cough, a knock at the door, or the doctor looks away, is distracted, and by mistake the baby's head comes out? The doctor meant to hold it in, but it slipped out. Can he still kill the child? Well, of course not--not legally, because we now have a fully delivered baby with civil rights. Mr. President, how can we permit a situation to exist in this country where, if the doctor makes a mistake, it is a child, but if he is coldly efficient, it is not? How do we say that a few inches is the difference between the life or death of this child? Surely, this Senate can stand up for the rights of that defenseless child. Surely, this Senate cannot stand by and allow such a legal absurdity to continue, a perversion of medicine, a perversion of the law. This is why we are here today. This is not about the right to choose. This is not about the right to abortion generally. This is a question of whether the Senate will permit a legal fiction that says that if you are fully born, you are protected, but if a doctor holds just your head inside the birth canal, you may be killed. Mr. President, in conclusion, is there no limit to what we will accept in this country? Is there no limit to what we will tolerate as a people? Are we so numb or are we so insensitive that we cannot raise our voice and say, ``No, not this. This is just too much''? Mr. President, what are we willing to turn our backs on? My colleague and friend from Illinois, Congressman Hyde, is a great spokesperson and very eloquent in this area. He was very eloquent in his closing argument in the House. But he is also not only eloquent with regard to this issue, he is eloquent about the duty each one of us has not just in this country, but the duty we each have as individuals. Many times, he quotes from St. Ambrose: ``Not only for every idle word, but for every idle silence must man render an account.'' I don't think this is unique to the Christian faith. I do not think this is unique to St. Ambrose. I think this is a universal truth. Let me quote from a book written by Henry Hyde a number of years ago that speaks, I think, to personal responsibility, because that is what we are about on the Senate floor today: I believe . . . that when the final judgment comes--as it will surely--when that moment comes that you face Almighty God--the individual judgment, the particular judgment--I believe that a terror will grip your soul like none other you can imagine. The sins of omission will be what weigh you down; not the things you've done wrong, not the chances you've taken, but the things you failed to do, the times that you stepped back, the times you didn't speak out. ``Not only for every idle word but for every idle silence must man render an account.'' I think that you will be overwhelmed with remorse for the things you failed to do. Mr. President, this Senate should not fail to do what is right. This Senate should not fail to override the President's very misguided veto. Thank you. I yield the floor. Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DeWINE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that will designate the Fallen Timbers Battlefield, Fort Meigs, and Fort Miamis as national historic sites. Mr. President, the people of northwest Ohio are committed to preserving the historic heritage of the United States and the State of Ohio, as well as that of their own community. The truly national significance of the Battle of Fallen Timbers and Fort Meigs have been acknowledged already. In 1960, Fallen Timbers was designated as a National Historic Landmark. In 1969, Fort Meigs received this designation. The Battle of Fallen Timbers is acknowledged by the National Park Service as a culminating event in the history of the struggle for dominance in the old Northwest Territory. Fort Meigs is recognized by the National Park Service as the zenith of the British advance in the west as well as the maximum effort by Native forces under the Shawnee, Tecumseh, during the War of 1812. Fort Miamis, which was attacked twice without success by British troops, led by Gen. Henry Proctor, in the spring of 1813, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Recently, the National Park Service completed a special resource study examining the proposed national historic site designation and the suitability of these sites for inclusion in the National Park System. The Park Service concluded that these sites were suitable for inclusion in the National Park System--with non-Federal management and National Park Service assistance. The bill I am introducing today would act on that recommendation. My legislation will accomplish the following: Recognize and preserve the 185-acre Fallen Timbers Battlefield site; Formalize the linkage between the Fallen Timbers Battlefield and Monument to Fort Meigs and Fort Miamis; Preserve and interpret U.S. military history and native American culture during the period from 1794 through 1813; and, Provide technical assistance to the State of Ohio as well as interested community and historical groups in the development and implementation of programming and interpretation of the three sites. However, my legislation will not require the Federal Government to provide direct funding to these three sites. That responsibility remains with--and is welcomed by--the many individuals, community groups, elected officials, and others who deserve recognition for their many hours of hard work dedicated to this issue. Mr. President, we have entered an era where the responsibility and the drive behind the management, programming, and--in many cases--the funding for historic preservation is the responsibility of local community groups, local elected officials, and local business communities. This legislation to designate the Fallen Timbers Battlefield, Fort Meigs, and Fort Miamis as national historic sites represents just such an effort. In my opinion, it is long overdue. Mr. President, it's time to grant these truly historic areas the measure of respect and recognition they deserve. I agree with the National Park Service--and the people of Ohio--on this issue. That is why I am proposing this important legislation today.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that will designate the Fallen Timbers Battlefield, Fort Meigs, and Fort Miamis as national historic sites. Mr. President, the people of northwest Ohio are committed to preserving the historic heritage of the United States and the State of Ohio, as well as that of their own community. The truly national significance of the Battle of Fallen Timbers and Fort Meigs have been acknowledged already. In 1960, Fallen Timbers was designated as a National Historic Landmark. In 1969, Fort Meigs received this designation. The Battle of Fallen Timbers is acknowledged by the National Park Service as a culminating event in the history of the struggle for dominance in the old Northwest Territory. Fort Meigs is recognized by the National Park Service as the zenith of the British advance in the west as well as the maximum effort by Native forces under the Shawnee, Tecumseh, during the War of 1812. Fort Miamis, which was attacked twice without success by British troops, led by Gen. Henry Proctor, in the spring of 1813, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Recently, the National Park Service completed a special resource study examining the proposed national historic site designation and the suitability of these sites for inclusion in the National Park System. The Park Service concluded that these sites were suitable for inclusion in the National Park System--with non-Federal management and National Park Service assistance. The bill I am introducing today would act on that recommendation. My legislation will accomplish the following: Recognize and preserve the 185-acre Fallen Timbers Battlefield site; Formalize the linkage between the Fallen Timbers Battlefield and Monument to Fort Meigs and Fort Miamis; Preserve and interpret U.S. military history and native American culture during the period from 1794 through 1813; and, Provide technical assistance to the State of Ohio as well as interested community and historical groups in the development and implementation of programming and interpretation of the three sites. However, my legislation will not require the Federal Government to provide direct funding to these three sites. That responsibility remains with--and is welcomed by--the many individuals, community groups, elected officials, and others who deserve recognition for their many hours of hard work dedicated to this issue. Mr. President, we have entered an era where the responsibility and the drive behind the management, programming, and--in many cases--the funding for historic preservation is the responsibility of local community groups, local elected officials, and local business communities. This legislation to designate the Fallen Timbers Battlefield, Fort Meigs, and Fort Miamis as national historic sites represents just such an effort. In my opinion, it is long overdue. Mr. President, it's time to grant these truly historic areas the measure of respect and recognition they deserve. I agree with the National Park Service--and the people of Ohio--on this issue. That is why I am proposing this important legislation today.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, here is what she says about the necessity of this procedure: I went around and described the procedure of partial-birth abortion to a number of physicians and lay persons who I knew to be pro-choice. They were horrified to learn that such a procedure was even legal. Later on in her testimony she says the following. Again, this is Dr. Pamela Smith: Now, the cruelty to the baby is there for everyone to see, if you will acknowledge it. But I think that it is more difficult for people to recognize the risk to the mother that is associated with these procedures. I might also add that these risks have been acknowledged not only in standard medical literature, but by people who perform abortions as well. Continuing her testimony, she concludes as follows: Enactment of this legislation is needed both to protect human offspring from being subjected to a brutal procedure and to safeguard the health of pregnant women in America. This is just one of the witnesses that we heard who said this procedure is simply not indicated, it is not something that is accepted in the medical field. It is not something that medical journals recognize. It is not something that doctors believe is necessary. That was Dr. Pamela Smith. Let me conclude with a third individual, and that is Dr. Nancy Romer, a medical doctor. She is a clinical professor, ob-gyn, Wright State University, chairman of the department. This is her quote: This procedure is currently not an accepted medical procedure. A search of medical literature reveals no mention of this procedure, and there is no critically evaluated or peer review journal that describes this procedure. There is currently also no peer review or accountability of this procedure. It is currently being performed by a physician with no obstetric training in an outpatient facility behind closed doors and no peer review. Again, only one of several witnesses who testified that this is really not an accepted medical procedure at all. Mr. President, I will be commenting further about this issue later on in the debate. Let me conclude by saying what we are really about today, tomorrow and Thursday when we vote on this matter when we determine whether or not there are enough votes in this Senate to do what the House did, and that is override the President's veto, a veto that I believe was very misguided. The issue really is about what kind of a people we are and what we will tolerate, what we will turn our back to, what we will turn our head on and what we will say is OK: ``I wouldn't do it, I don't like it, but I'm not going to do anything about it.'' I think we really define who we are as a people, what kind of a people we are in this debate, because, Mr. President, if this procedure can be accepted, can be allowed in this country, I think virtually anything can be allowed. My colleague from Pennsylvania, who has been very eloquent in this matter, and other colleagues have referred to the fact that this child--there is nothing else to call it, a child--is within seconds of being born, is within inches of being born. It is almost all the way out when that child is killed in the manner described by Nurse Shafer, and that if this procedure--and I think that almost debases the English language by calling it a ``procedure,'' it is such a sterile word--is allowed to continue in this country, there is literally no limit to what we will tolerate, what we will turn our back on, what we will say: ``We don't like it, but we will put up with it.'' So I think we really do in this debate define what we are as a people, what we care about, what is important to us and what is not important to us. I yield the floor, Mr. President. Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.

Mr. DeWINE. I do not think I will object. I want to see where we are.

Mr. DeWINE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, let me return to the issue of partial-birth abortion. I would like to respond to a comment that was made about an hour ago, I guess, by my colleague from California, Senator Boxer. She is certainly very eloquent. She and I have debated this issue before, and I suspect we will be debating it again. She made a statement to the effect that we have heard from the men, we have heard men come down to the floor, we have heard from the men, now let's hear from the women. Mr. President, there are many women in this country adamantly opposed to partial-birth abortions. I have received in my office over 90,000 postcards and letters from people in Ohio. That does not include the thousands of calls that we have received. By looking at some of these postcards, it is clear that a large number of these individuals are women who are writing about this issue. But let's talk about three specific people, three women, three women who are professionals, who are experts, who have, I think, something really to say about this issue. Let me first start with Brenda Shafer. Brenda Shafer described herself as pro-choice. She is working as a nurse in Dayton, OH. I am going to read very briefly from the testimony that she gave to the Judiciary Committee on November 17, 1995. She is describing at this point, Mr. President, in her testimony how she came to work in Dr. Haskell's office. This is what she said: So, because of strong pro-choice views that I held at that time, I thought this assignment would be no problem for me. But I was wrong. I stood at the doctor's side as he performed the partial-birth abortion procedure, and what I saw is branded on my mind forever. Then she describes what she saw: The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head and the baby's arms jerked out, like a startled reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby went completely limp. I was really completely unprepared for what I was seeing. I almost threw up as I watched Dr. Haskell doing these things. Then she goes on: I've been a nurse for a long time, and I've seen a lot of death, people maimed in auto accidents, gunshot wounds, you name it. I've seen surgical procedures of every sort. But in all my professional years, I never witnessed anything like this. Finally, she concluded: I will never be able to forget it. What I saw done to that little boy and to those other babies should not be allowed in this country. I hope that you will pass the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Brenda Shafer described herself as pro-choice. She knew she was walking into a clinic where abortions were done. That is what they did. That is what she saw. That is what she described. No dispute about it. Dr. Haskell himself in the printed literature, articles he has written, describes, basically, the same procedure. That is Brenda Shafer. The next woman I would like to reference and call the Senate's attention to and the testimony she gave to our committee is Dr. Pamela Smith. Dr. Pamela Smith is the director of medical education, department of obstetrics and gynecology, Mt. Sinai Medical Center, Chicago, IL. In her testimony, she systematically described how this procedure is really not indicated, that it is not a medical procedure that is required. It does not really have to take place. Let me read a portion of the testimony that she gave. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, for 5 additional minutes.

Mr. DeWINE. Reserving the right to object, I would like to inquire as to the amount of time we have remaining. My understanding is we will go to a vote at 5 o'clock. Is that our cutoff time?

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I believe certain elements of the U.S. military justice system need to be reformed. For example, current conditions contain loopholes that allow military criminals to receive pay--even after conviction. They allow nonmilitary personnel residing on military bases who commit crimes to escape criminal prosecution. And they allow military personnel who have committed crimes to be discharged without their criminal records being included in the FBI's National Crime Information Center system. I believe we must close these loopholes. Mr. President, under current law, a soldier sentenced to and awaiting dishonorable discharge, remains on the taxpayer's payroll, unless otherwise ordered by the military court. While in military custody, that lawbreaker continues to collect a paycheck from the rest of tax- paying America. Mr. President, this simply should not be the case, in the streets of Cleveland, Seattle, or Denver, when a criminal breaks the law, he is removed from those streets. When he is allowed to return to those streets, his time in jail will have cost him a few things. Of course, chief among these things is his loss of freedom for the period of confinement. But he will also not collect a paycheck while incarcerated. We do not pay and should not pay our prisoners for serving their time in jail. A Cincinnati man, convicted of rape, burglary, and assault by a military tribunal, later collected something on the order of $40,000, after taxes, for serving out his sentence. A Wright-Patterson Air Force Base airman, convicted of molesting a 4-year-old girl, has collected an average of $4,700 per month while serving out his sentence. Three years after his confession, he had received $148,616 from the U.S. taxpayers. He even received raises while behind bars. There are many such stories, Mr. President. This bill addresses that injustice to the taxpayer. This bill makes that law-breaker serve out the sentence he has earned--at his own expense. It is already enough of a burden that the taxpayer has to pay for the room and board of that prisoner during the sentence, after he or she already paid more than enough to train and keep that soldier. The loss of opportunity and earnings should be something the criminal pays for himself, the taxpayer should not pay for it. When that soldier breaks the law--and in doing so, breaks his agreement with the taxpayer--that should be the end of the taxpayer's responsibilities. Once that soldier decides he no longer wants to be a law-abiding citizen, he is on his own, financially and otherwise. Mr. President, again, we should not pay our criminals for serving out their sentences. My bill addresses another important gap in the law. Under current law, many illegal acts committed abroad by U.S. soldiers or accompanying civilians go unaddressed by the military courts. The prosecution of these crimes is left to the discretion of a military court, which often decides to do no more than hand down a dishonorable discharge, unleashing that criminal on civilian society. This should not be the case. Mr. President, there should be no geographical limits to the law. This bill guarantees that a soldier or accompanying civilian abroad, committing an illegal act punishable under the United States Code by more than a year's imprisonment, will be handed over to civilian authorities for prosecution under the United States Code. The military should not be able to rid itself of its criminals at the expense of law abiding civilians. These criminals belong behind bars, not just out of the service and back in our streets. This bill will keep them out of our streets. There is a final aspect of this bill intended to protect civilian Americans from the actions of enlisted criminals. This bill also mandates that when an enlisted criminal is discharged from the service, the military Secretary will turn over to the FBI all the criminal records of that soldier for inclusion in the FBI criminal records system. It also requires sex offenders who are discharged from the military to submit a DNA sample before discharge so that that sample can be included in the FBI's CODIS system. Again, Mr. President, this is another way to protect the tax-paying, law-abiding American from dishonorably discharged criminals. Under current law, the criminal histories of these military personnel do not become part of the National Crime Information Center database and the FBI's CODIS system. This bill will ensure that they do.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I believe certain elements of the U.S. military justice system need to be reformed. For example, current conditions contain loopholes that allow military criminals to receive pay--even after conviction. They allow nonmilitary personnel residing on military bases who commit crimes to escape criminal prosecution. And they allow military personnel who have committed crimes to be discharged without their criminal records being included in the FBI's National Crime Information Center system. I believe we must close these loopholes. Mr. President, under current law, a soldier sentenced to and awaiting dishonorable discharge, remains on the taxpayer's payroll, unless otherwise ordered by the military court. While in military custody, that lawbreaker continues to collect a paycheck from the rest of tax- paying America. Mr. President, this simply should not be the case, in the streets of Cleveland, Seattle, or Denver, when a criminal breaks the law, he is removed from those streets. When he is allowed to return to those streets, his time in jail will have cost him a few things. Of course, chief among these things is his loss of freedom for the period of confinement. But he will also not collect a paycheck while incarcerated. We do not pay and should not pay our prisoners for serving their time in jail. A Cincinnati man, convicted of rape, burglary, and assault by a military tribunal, later collected something on the order of $40,000, after taxes, for serving out his sentence. A Wright-Patterson Air Force Base airman, convicted of molesting a 4-year-old girl, has collected an average of $4,700 per month while serving out his sentence. Three years after his confession, he had received $148,616 from the U.S. taxpayers. He even received raises while behind bars. There are many such stories, Mr. President. This bill addresses that injustice to the taxpayer. This bill makes that law-breaker serve out the sentence he has earned--at his own expense. It is already enough of a burden that the taxpayer has to pay for the room and board of that prisoner during the sentence, after he or she already paid more than enough to train and keep that soldier. The loss of opportunity and earnings should be something the criminal pays for himself, the taxpayer should not pay for it. When that soldier breaks the law--and in doing so, breaks his agreement with the taxpayer--that should be the end of the taxpayer's responsibilities. Once that soldier decides he no longer wants to be a law-abiding citizen, he is on his own, financially and otherwise. Mr. President, again, we should not pay our criminals for serving out their sentences. My bill addresses another important gap in the law. Under current law, many illegal acts committed abroad by U.S. soldiers or accompanying civilians go unaddressed by the military courts. The prosecution of these crimes is left to the discretion of a military court, which often decides to do no more than hand down a dishonorable discharge, unleashing that criminal on civilian society. This should not be the case. Mr. President, there should be no geographical limits to the law. This bill guarantees that a soldier or accompanying civilian abroad, committing an illegal act punishable under the United States Code by more than a year's imprisonment, will be handed over to civilian authorities for prosecution under the United States Code. The military should not be able to rid itself of its criminals at the expense of law abiding civilians. These criminals belong behind bars, not just out of the service and back in our streets. This bill will keep them out of our streets. There is a final aspect of this bill intended to protect civilian Americans from the actions of enlisted criminals. This bill also mandates that when an enlisted criminal is discharged from the service, the military Secretary will turn over to the FBI all the criminal records of that soldier for inclusion in the FBI criminal records system. It also requires sex offenders who are discharged from the military to submit a DNA sample before discharge so that that sample can be included in the FBI's CODIS system. Again, Mr. President, this is another way to protect the tax-paying, law-abiding American from dishonorably discharged criminals. Under current law, the criminal histories of these military personnel do not become part of the National Crime Information Center database and the FBI's CODIS system. This bill will ensure that they do.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I am not sure how that will function, how that will work or how to mechanically get that done. The bottom line is, in fact, you can buy riders, you can, in fact, buy separate policies. All we are saying is, when the latest study shows 74 percent of the premiums are paid by other taxpayers, it is a legitimate issue.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Very briefly, let me say, again, this is not a debate about abortion. This is not a debate to determine what a person can do or cannot do. That is not what is at issue here. What is at issue here is what will be covered. What is at issue is whether or not Federal tax dollars taken from all Americans, many of whom find this procedure to be abhorrent, whether or not we will involuntarily take their money to pay for abortions. Congress has voted time and time again not to do that. The vast majority of the American people in every public opinion poll anyone has seen indicate they do not want that done. It is a very, very narrow issue. Let me read the current law. Our position is the current law simply should be sustained: No funds appropriated by this act shall be available to pay for an abortion or administrative expenses in connection with any health plan under the Federal Employees Health Benefits program which provides any benefits or coverage for abortions. The provision of this section shall not apply where the life of the mother will be in danger if the fetus were carried to term, or the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest. Mr. President, let me yield to my colleague from Oklahoma.