Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I yield my colleague 1 minute.

Mr. DeWINE. I yield 5 minutes.

Mr. DeWINE. I yield myself 1 minute. Let me just briefly respond. This is not an issue of equal treatment. This is not an issue of that at all. It does not tell anyone what to do. I think we need to keep our eye on the ball and discuss not the whole issue of abortion here today. I think it is important we discuss what is in front of us. What is in front of us is a very narrow issue, and that simply is, are we going to use Federal tax dollars to subsidize, pay for abortions? The vast majority of the American people say, no, we see absolutely no reason to do this. On an issue as contentious as this is and where there are good people on both sides of the battle, why in the world we would say, this Congress would say we are going to take Federal tax dollars to subsidize abortions makes absolutely no sense. Let me at this point yield to my colleague from Indiana 10 minutes.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I need.

Mr. DeWINE. On your time, fine.

Mr. DeWINE. I yield myself the balance of that time. In just a moment--4 minutes, roughly--I will make a motion to table this amendment. Let me, again, walk the Members through the procedure of exactly where we are. The DeWine-Nickles motion to table will result in the following. This is what it means. First, that the status quo will remain. The law--as previously passed by this Congress, by this Senate, by the House, and signed into law by President Clinton--will remain the same. This vote, a vote to table, is consistent with what the Senate did a little over a year ago, by a vote of 50 to 44. Again, Mr. President, we need to focus on the narrow issue before us. It is so easy for us--because we all have strong feelings about the issue--to get engaged in a debate about a woman's right to choose, pro- life issues, and even engaged in a debate about all kinds of different things connected with the abortion issue. That's not what we are here today to debate. We are here to debate a very narrow question: Should current law prevail, which restricts from Federal coverage, health insurance coverage of Federal employees, one procedure--the abortion procedure-- and allows it only in the case of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother? That is the issue. The issue is fundamentally, with all due respect to my colleague from Nebraska, whether or not taxpayers are going to subsidize this at the rate of 74 percent. That is really what the issue is all about. The vast majority of the American people, time and time and time again, have said ``no.'' The country is very divided on the abortion issue, but it is overwhelmingly against using Federal tax dollars for abortions. Again, the motion to table will simply preserve the status quo, will reaffirm what the Senate did a year ago. Frankly, it is consistent with what the law was from 1984 to 1993. It was only changed when President Clinton took office, for 2 years, and that law then was changed. So really going back to 1984, until the current time, this motion to table is consistent with what the law has been during that period of time, with the exception of 2 years. Mr. President, I yield back the balance of my time. I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me first say that this very same issue was debated by this body last year in our consideration of the Treasury-Postal Service appropriations bill. Mr. President, at that time this body voted 50 to 44 to accept the very language that the amendment before us asked us to strike. So this Senate has already voted in this same context to restrict Federal funds for abortion, specifically to restrict the use of Federal funds for abortion coverage of the Federal health care plans to cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother. Mr. President, I wanted that noted out front so that we all realize that we are not covering any new ground. This is something that should not take, frankly, very much of the Senate's time. Mr. President, the issue of abortion is an important matter of conscience to millions of Americans. We tried to promote our views in the democratic arena. We seek to embody these views in our Nation's laws. As someone who is pro-life I worked, obviously, to promote the value of and protect the innocent human life. But, Mr. President, the discussion of this amendment is much more narrow. The discussion of this amendment does not need to reach that moral level of debate. The key question in regard to this amendment that we have to answer simply is this: Should taxpayers pay for these abortions? Again, I emphasize the Senate spoke last year by a vote of 50 to 44 and said no. I believe that we should not ask the taxpayers to promote a policy of abortion on demand. This amendment that I am going to move to table after we conclude our debate would strike the House language on this subject and would change current law. Our position, my position is to retain current law, to retain what the Senate did last year by a vote of 50 to 44, and to retain the current House language. I believe we should retain this language that permits Federal employee health plans to cover abortion only in the cases of rape, incest, and threats to the life of the mother. In essence, this is a Hyde amendment-type debate. The vast majority of Americans, 69 percent, in a 1992 ABC-Washington Post poll said they opposed taxpayer funding for abortions for low-income individuals. If that many people oppose subsidizing abortions for poor people, I think there would be even more opposition to subsidizing abortions for higher income Government workers. The reality is that in every single poll I have ever seen done, the vast majority of Americans, whatever their position on the issue of abortion, say no taxpayers funding. We should make no mistake about it. This is a taxpayers subsidy. In 1995, the Federal Government paid an average of 74 percent of the cost of a Federal employee's health premium. That is taxpayer money. I suggest it is wrong. I think we should leave the taxpayers out of the whole debate and out of the whole issue. Therefore, I believe we should support the House language, that we should support current law, and that would mean tabling this amendment. In summary, then, this matter has been debated time and time again on this floor. The issue is a narrow one, a very narrow one, and it is simply this: Should taxpayers' dollars, all taxpayers in this country, be taken by the Federal Government and used to subsidize and fund abortions? Current law says no. Current law limits abortion availability in Federal employee health care plans to cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother. That is current law. That is what the Senate voted for last year. That is the House position, as well. I might add that when we went through this debate last year, ultimately the House acquiesced in the Senate's three exceptions. These were our exceptions from the Senate. They acquiesced, and that is where we are today. My motion to table would simply restore current law. At this point, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, we are concluding this debate and we will shortly be voting on my motion to table the amendment. Again, I think it is important that we keep our eye focused on the ball. We can come down here in the well of the Senate and discuss for hours the issue of abortion. That is not what this debate really is about. What this debate is about is a very narrow issue, a very narrow question, which is simply this: Should this body go against the will of the American people? The vast majority of the American people, even those who really have mixed feelings on the abortion issue, the vast majority of the American people say, no, I do not want my tax dollars being used for abortion. That is what this is because 74 percent of the premium of the Federal employee is paid for by taxpayers; roughly three-fourths of the premium is paid for by taxpayers. This is a horribly contentious issue, an issue that divides families. It is an issue that friends do not want to talk about. It is an issue, quite frankly, that the Federal taxpayers have said time and time again that they do not want to be involved in, they do not want to fund. We are not debating a woman's right to choose today. We are not debating that. We are not debating what a person can do. We are simply debating whether taxpayers are going to pay for this very, very, controversial procedure. That is what we really are talking about. I yield to my colleague from Indiana.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, would the Chair advise Members how much time remains?

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I yield to my colleague from Oklahoma 5 minutes.

Mr. DeWINE. I yield to my colleague from Indiana.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I believe it is a major step toward insuring health for newborn babies and for their mothers. For the last few decades, we have made great progress in medical care, pregnancy and childbirth. I have had the occasion, as my wife has, to see this firsthand. My wife, Fran, had our eight children over a pretty widely spaced period of time. We have had children in the 1960's and 1970's, the 1980's, and the 1990's. So we have seen a lot of changes. The progress during this period of time has certainly been measurable. In 1968, for example, when our first child, Patrick, was born, there was relatively little in the way of prenatal education for the mother. Since then, with each new child, we have seen some truly remarkable improvements: Prenatal child birthing courses now for both parents, ultrasound, fetal monitoring during labor to detect problems, birthing rooms which have done a lot to make the whole process much easier and certainly much more humane. Fran and I have watched all of these innovations as they were introduced, refined and perfected, and we can both testify that as a result of these improvements today's mothers are better prepared to deal with their pregnancies in a healthy way and better prepared to give birth. All that being said, we still have a long way to go if we want to make sure new mothers and their babies get the care they need. This amendment addresses one of the key areas in which we need to make substantial improvements. We can no longer ignore the fact that today's new mothers and their babies are often being moved out of hospitals far faster than a real concern for their health would allow. This is being done without any real consideration for what else needs to be done to compensate for that quick movement out of the hospital, what kind of additional care the mother and child need if the hospital stays are shorter and shorter, and shorter. Often, as we have already heard in the Chamber today, the mother and the baby are moved out of hospitals just 24 hours after the child is born, in some cases even less than that. If you talk to doctors, as I have, they will tell you that they are under a tremendous amount of pressure to keep the new mothers moving out the hospital door. The pressure is coming on the doctors, coming on the mothers. It is coming on the hospitals. I think it is wrong. I think it is unconscionable. This is a decision, as Dr. Frist said just a moment ago, that should be made between the mother and the doctor. That is who should be involved in this decision. It is a decision that should be based on the best interests of the mother and the child. It should not, frankly, be a business decision. When our son Patrick was born in 1968, my wife, Fran, stayed in the hospital with him for almost 5 days. That was standard operating procedure in Hamilton, OH, in 1968. When our last child, Anna, was born in 1992, Fran stayed in the hospital for 36 hours, about a day and a half. This trend is not bad in and of itself. In some cases, a mother might want to leave the hospital sooner rather than later. For example, back in January 1987, my wife Fran had just given birth to our son Mark, when a blizzard threatened to hit. In fact, she gave birth between two blizzards--one had come, then we went to the hospital, then we were worrying about the second one coming. So for her the choice was clear: either leave the hospital after a day and a half, or risk being stuck there for up to a week. Fran chose to take Mark home. That is what she did. The blizzard came just a few hours after we got home. But it is not, therefore, a question of mandating hospital stays. Government should not be in the business of doing this. All we are trying to do with this amendment is to make sure it is the mothers and their doctors who are making this important choice, a choice that affects the health of the mother and the child. It is also important that we not look at the number of hours mothers spend in the hospital as if it were an isolated issue or an isolated problem. I think we need to pay greater attention to the overall issue of postnatal care. The way my wife Fran likes to put it, it is time to make the same kind of investment in improving postnatal care as we have invested in prenatal care in recent years. Let me tell another story which I think illustrates this. Last year, our daughter Jill gave birth to our second grandchild. At 10:55 p.m. on a Wednesday, the birth took place. At 2 a.m., Thursday morning, just about 3 hours later, Jill was being taught how to bathe the baby and other necessary information. At 7:30 that morning, they started marching Jill through three or four separate videos on child care. And by noon on Friday, she and the baby were out the hospital door. Jill, at least, was exhausted. We all realize the doctors and nurses who take care of our young mothers and their babies are the best in the world. They are true professionals with the best combination of competence and compassion. But they have an incredibly long checklist--that is literally what it is today--a long checklist of things that they have to teach the new mother. Frankly, they do not have enough time to teach it in. Sometimes we forget the new mother needs some time to rest, too, especially after an exhausting labor, during which she may well have missed a night's sleep. Longer hospital stays very well may be an answer to these problems. But, in addition to that, we have to look at the overall issue, the overall issue of postnatal care. Frankly, there ought to be more followup care for the mothers and their babies. As we heard in testimony in our committee, and as my daughter-in-law Karen just experienced when she had her baby, the enlightened insurance companies, the enlightened HMO's, are now building into the policy, building into the plan, this type of postnatal care, because the fact is that most doctors do not require a followup visit for a week or two. Frankly, as parents, sometimes it is hard to take a new baby out before then. We, therefore, need to consider the importance of followup in-home visits. This kind of followup care can make a huge difference, a huge difference in the welfare of the child. We had an experience, I think, that would shed a little light on this as well. Our youngest child, Anna, was born 5 weeks early, but she appeared to be healthy and had no medical problems. My wife, Fran, and our daughter Anna, were sent home after 36 hours. But after a few days, Anna began to look slightly yellowish. Fran and I really were not worried. We knew it was common for breast-fed babies to become slightly jaundiced. Fran was watching her, and about the fifth day she took her to the doctor. It turned out Anna's bilirubin level was dangerously high. Even as experienced and educated parents--seven other children-- we had not noticed the change and had not noticed how fast the change was occurring. If Fran had not taken her in when she did, there could have been medical complications. This whole incident was particularly scary for us. We felt we knew the danger signals, but we obviously missed them. This is a case of a mother and father who had seven children, who had been through this before. If it was tough for us, can you imagine how difficult it must be for a young mother, with no experience at all, to detect some of these medical problems? Therefore, we need to do more in this area. In fact, when we were considering this legislation in the Labor and Human Resources Committee, some of my colleagues and I added the provision requiring a study of post partum care. I think this study is very important and is, in fact, included in the pending amendment. Let me conclude by saying that today we are making, I think, a very good beginning. It is a very good beginning to deal with a problem that I have seen firsthand, a problem I have discussed with doctors and a problem that I have discussed with other constituents. So, I commend my colleague from New Jersey, my colleague from Tennessee, and the other cosponsors of this amendment for the work they have done, the work they have done to refine the amendment and the work they have done to bring it to the floor of the Senate today. I yield the floor. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I first thank my colleague from Georgia for leading this discussion today. I cannot think of a more appropriate forum than the U.S. Senate, nor can I think of a more appropriate topic for us to be discussing today than what is literally the crisis that is facing our young people. The evidence is out. The statistics are there. We have seen the headlines in the newspapers in the last few weeks that others have detailed on this floor already today. But I would like to spend a little time talking about it and maybe reflecting on my personal experiences in dealing with this problem. I used to be a county prosecuting attorney in Ohio. I dealt with kids who were certainly at risk, kids who were starting out on lives of crime, kids who had unbelievable problems. Later I served as Lieutenant Governor in a State with a very large at-risk youth population. I worked on the education system, but I also worked on the prison system, and I saw a lot of kids leading, certainly what we would describe as, broken lives. Based on that experience, I am convinced, if we truly want to save the next generation of young people in this country, we can no longer, as a country, pretend the problem does not exist. I am afraid, to some extent that is what we have been doing. We have to face the problem and we cannot do that, frankly, without Presidential leadership. Over the last 4 years, we have basically surrendered on the fight against drugs. A couple of weeks ago, President Clinton's Department of Health and Human Services released a report stating the total failure of the Clinton administration on this particular issue. The statistics are unbelievable. From 1992 to 1995, overall drug use by teenagers, young people age 12 to 17, has risen by 78 percent. Marijuana use is up 105 percent, more than double what it was 4 years ago. That is after 11 years of declining marijuana use, 11 straight years of declining marijuana use under President Reagan and President Bush. Now we are up 105 percent in just a couple of years. Use of LSD and other hallucinogens is up 183 percent, nearly triple what it was 4 years ago. Cocaine use is up 166 percent. If you really want to see the tragedy my colleague from Georgia has talked about in the past, if you really want to see the tragedy, look at the emergency rooms and look at the people who have gone into the emergency rooms for overdose problems today. One out of every ten children age 12 to 17 is using drugs on a monthly basis--1 out of every 10 children. We must do something. This administration's approach has basically been one of neglect. For years, the Reagan and Bush Justice Departments would concentrate their most intensive efforts on two areas of law enforcement: Gun crimes and drugs. When President Clinton came in, this effort simply withered away. Here are the statistics. Under President Clinton, the prosecution of gun-related offenses in Federal court by U.S. attorneys went down 20 percent--down 20 percent. That is after an increase year after year under the Bush and Reagan administrations. Further, under President Clinton, drug prosecutions have gone down 12.5 percent. It is incredible. The drug problem is skyrocketing but the Clinton administration's willingness to fight has gone down. President Clinton has cut 625 individuals, soldiers, out of the ranks of the war on drugs; 625 law enforcement personnel from 6 separate Federal agencies are gone. Under President Clinton, Federal spending on drug interdiction went down 25 percent. These are not just statistics, these are not just facts. This matters. This makes a difference, because spending less on interdiction makes a difference. According to recent Federal law enforcement statistics, the disruption rate--that is the amount of drugs that are blocked from coming into this country--dropped 53 percent between 1993 and early 1995. That means that an additional 84 metric tons of marijuana and cocaine came into America and comes into America every single year. Since 1993, Coast Guard seizures of cocaine are down 45 percent. Coast Guard seizures of marijuana for that same period of time are down 90 percent. That says a lot about the priorities of this administration. Instead of cracking down on gun criminals, people who use a firearm to commit an offense, repeat violent offenders, and instead of getting tough on drugs, this administration has literally taken a walk. I am sure that is one reason Democratic Congressman Charlie Rangel--certainly someone in the U.S. Congress who is one of the foremost leaders in this area, who has spent a lot of time battling the drug problem--said, ``I have never, never, never met a President who cares less about this issue.'' That sums up very well the prevalent attitude of the current administration with regard to the war on drugs. It is an attitude of neglect. For anyone who cares about the future of this country, this attitude is totally unacceptable. The average young person who is using drugs in high school ends up in trouble. That individual represents America's future. This is something we have to get serious about. This administration, unfortunately, did just the opposite. They cut the drug czar's office. One of the first things they did is they cut the drug czar's office by 83 percent. Their Surgeon General talked about legalizing drugs. ``We should study that,'' she said. Their National Security Council dropped drugs--this is astonishing, absolutely amazing--their National Security Council dropped drugs from the top 3 of national priorities down to 29th, the last, 29 out of 29, when they ranked the national priorities; dead last. That tells you something about what this administration's attitude has been. As a statement of our national priorities, as a statement of our national consensus, this administration's attitude and record are simply unacceptable. It is time for our national leadership to let the teenagers of this country know we are serious. Drugs do kill. We have to speak in this country with one clear voice. In the first 9 months of 1995, President Clinton was interviewed 112 times. He mentioned drugs just once. He made 119 statements during that period of time, formal statements. He mentioned drugs just twice. We need an attitude of ``just say no.'' This administration, by contrast, has just said nothing. Drugs are a threat to the future of our children. They are a threat to the future of our country. That will be true even after this election year. It is time, frankly, for some followthrough in the Oval Office. We need to realize that our national effort against drugs is really not a war. All of us, myself included, use that term. That really is not the best of terms, because in a sense it is something more difficult than a war. When we talk about a war, we usually think of something where we go in as a country, we make the commitment, we pay the price, we get the job done, and we win and we go home, men and women go home--mission accomplished. The antidrug effort in that sense is a not a war. Rather, it is more of a struggle, a struggle that is always going to be with us day in and day out and for every young person is, in a sense, a new battlefield, and victory is never final. We live, Mr. President, in a society where we want everything instant, quick--instant oatmeal, instant coffee, everything has to be resolved in 30 minutes on TV from beginning to end, everything has to happen quickly. That is how we live our lives. I think we have to understand and accept the fact it simply is not true in regard to our efforts in the drug area, that we have to hang in there, we have to stay in there, we have to talk about this problem and fight this problem day in and day out. The good news is we can, in fact, make a difference if we are willing to stay in there and if we are willing to have patience and if we are willing to persevere. Mr. President, we need to win this struggle, but to win this struggle, we need to be focused. We need leadership. We need leadership from the top. We need leadership all the way through the system. There are many things that, frankly, we need to do. We spend a lot of time debating what is more important: treatment, education, or law enforcement. The reality is, they are all important; we have to do them all. That is what the reality is. We have to have education. We have to have treatment. We have to have domestic law enforcement, and we also have to have drug interdiction that goes to the source and goes to the transit countries. We have to do all four, and we have to continue to do them day in and day out. Mr. President, in a sense, this is a tall order. It is difficult to accomplish even when we have the best of intentions. But if you turn away from this effort, as this administration has done for several years, if you really do not act like there is a drug problem, you send the wrong message to the American people, but particularly to the most impressionable, and that is our young people. You send them the message that drugs are really not that big a problem. My colleague from Georgia said it very well a moment ago. The most frightening statistic in all these polls we have seen published, all this data we have seen, is that consistently as drug use goes up, the fear of drugs is going down, and there is a relationship--I should say an inverse relationship--between those two. Part of that lack of fear is maybe lack of experience. That is what we deal with when we deal with young people, a lack of experience. But part of it also is that the message has not been reinforced as it has to be time after time after time after time. That is what, frankly, we need the President of the United States to do. So, Mr. President, I ask that we recommit ourselves, from the President on down, to this antidrug effort, understanding that it is a long fight, it is a struggle, and that we are going to have to hang in there to get the job done. I, again, thank my colleague from Georgia for taking time on the Senate floor today. It is an appropriate forum for a very, very critical issue that we need to be dealing with in this country. I thank the Chair.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to communicate some very good news to my colleagues in the Senate. The good news is about an issue that I have previously talked about on two or three occasions on the Senate floor, the issue of schoolbus safety. Over the last year and a half, I have been working on an important problem affecting the safety of America's schoolchildren. Mr. President, tragically, since 1991, at least six children have died in accidents involving defective handrails on schoolbuses. Other children have been injured. My interest in this issue, Mr. President, came about because of a horrible tragedy in my home county in Greene County, OH. A little girl by the name of Brandie Browder was killed. She was killed because of one of these defective handrails and because the drawstring from her clothing was caught on that handrail as she was trying to get off the bus. She was stuck there, and unfortunately the bus ultimately ran over her. We have been working for the last year and a half on this particular problem. As I indicated, we have made some, I think, very, very important progress. Mr. President, ever since I learned about these accidents, we have been trying to warn communities, schools, and parents in Ohio and across the country about this danger. We have publicized some methods for reducing the risk to children, such as a test we use in Ohio to determine whether a handrail is safe. Mr. President, I have also chaired two Senate hearings--two Senate hearings--to investigate this problem. At the most recent of these hearings, this past April, we displayed this chart. I might say, Mr. President, to explain this for a moment, the question, does your State remove schoolbuses with dangerous handrails? This was the status as of April, the red being ``no,'' the States that did not deal with this problem; the yellow being states that were dealing with this problem. This was an interim report. If we would have gone back a year before that, we probably would have seen virtually every State in the Union in the red with a ``no.'' So this was the progress as of April. You can see, Mr. President and Members of the Senate, at that time there were still at least 15 States that had these dangerous buses on the road. Since that time I have been working with both my colleagues in the Senate and directly with officials in these States to see what we can do to fix this problem. We have come a long way. I am glad to announce today, that as of today, as you can see in this new chart, all States except one--all States except one--are taking active measures to get schoolbuses with defective handrails off the road. Mr. President, as we approach a new school year, it is my hope that the last remaining State, the State of Georgia, will follow suit and will do this by the beginning of the school year. I have been working with Senator Coverdell to bring this issue to the attention of the relevant officials in Georgia. We certainly hope that Georgia will take action soon. Mr. President, we are close to a solution on the issue of defective handrails. I am encouraged by the cooperation I have received from my colleagues in this Chamber, and I want to help them for all the help they have given my office over the last year and a half. Let me stress that schoolbuses are already the very safest mode of transportation. They should be, because they carry the most precious asset that any of us have, and that is our children. Mr. President, we do have to do everything we can to make them even safer. That is why I will continue to work on other areas of the schoolbus safety issue. But on this issue, Mr. President, we are very, very close to solving the problem. If we can continue working together in this effective, bipartisan manner, I expect to make a great deal more progress on school bus safety in the months ahead. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, the Finance Committee requests unanimous consent for the Subcommittee on Social Security and Family Policy to conduct a hearing on Friday, August 2, 1996, beginning at 10 a.m. in room SD-215.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Friday, August 2, 1996, at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing on White House access to FBI background summaries.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, earlier this week, the President of the United States gathered the TV networks together to work out a much- trumpeted agreement on quality TV programming for children. I certainly applaud the President's efforts, and I am pleased that the meeting has served to at least spotlight this important issue. But the sad fact remains that this new and improved agreement to bring quality programming to our children is really nothing more than a ratification of the status quo. In fact, two of the major networks announced they already met this agreement. Another said that it is just barely short of compliance now. So, essentially, the President has come out and said he approves of what the networks are already doing about quality programming; the status quo is OK. Mr. President, as the father of eight children, and now the grandfather of three, let me just say that I do not approve of what the networks are doing. In fact, I find that some of what you see on television during the so-called family hour, from 8 to 9 o'clock at night, is absolutely outrageous today. I do not approve of it. I can say with assurance that parents I have talked to are clearly frustrated with television programming today. The last thing we want to say to the networks is, ``Just keep on doing what you are doing.'' Parents do not want a measure that has a lot of fanfare and no substance. They want to do something real. Personally, I would like to be able to sit down after dinner with my 13-year-old daughter, Alice, or my 9-year-old son, Mark, or my 4-year-old daughter, Anna, and watch a half an hour or an hour of TV without having to always be in some sort of high state of alert for things that might not be appropriate for any one of them to see. You know, Mr. President, it was not that many years ago that we did not have this problem. We could all watch TV with our children between 8 and 9 o'clock at night without having to worry about them. While every show between 8 and 9 wasn't a great show, at least you could find one show between 8 and 9 o'clock at night that was appropriate for a child to watch with a parent. Mr. President, I think we should take advantage of the attention that the White House has focused on this issue, and I think we should use it to call for some measures that really would make a difference. Our distinguished colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, has recently proposed a resolution that I think would do a great deal to accomplish this goal. His resolution would call upon the networks, on a strictly voluntary basis, to restore the idea of family hour programming. That, Mr. President, would make a real difference in the lives of America's families. I would guess that, on this issue, my experience is not unique or unusual. Who among us--among all the parents in this country--has not been very worried about what their children might suddenly be exposed to on TV? Just a few years ago, during the family hour, you did not have to do that. I am not talking about just the 1950's or the 1960's; I am talking about as recently as less than a decade ago. I think many of us in politics do not fully realize how much and how fast TV has changed just in the last few years. That is why I think my colleagues will be interested in seeing a comparison of the TV Guide listings for the hour between 8 and 9 o'clock as they have changed over the years. I ask unanimous consent that this very interesting document be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks, and I recommend it to the attention of my colleagues.

Mr. DeWINE. This was put together by Dan Wewers, a young man who interned in my office. He researched the TV Guides going back to 1954 and looked at a typical week. We take it every so many years, in 1954, in 1960, all the way up through July 14 through the 20th of 1996. People are not going to approve or like every program on here. They weren't all great shows. But the point is, I think there were very few times where you could not at least find one program between 8 and 9 o'clock that was suitable to watch with your children. Mr. President, the networks recognize, at least in principle, that they have a responsibility to the public. As parents and citizens, we have both the right and the duty to tell the networks what we think they should do--the little changes they can make that we believe will make a positive difference in the lives of our children and our families. Scheduling 1 hour of programming in the early evening that is appropriate for parents to watch with their children would be a very big positive step, and it would be a great change from the status quo. That is why I support the Lieberman initiative, and I think my colleagues, if they look at the document I am submitting today, which I asked be printed in the Record, they will come to the same conclusion. I think the President should talk to Senator Lieberman about this idea. It is a good idea, and it would make a real difference. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Family Hour Programming (8:00-9:00 p.m.)

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Thank you, Mr. President. This legislation that we will pass in the next 2 hours is truly historic. It recognizes, literally for the first time in 60 years, that when it comes to lifting people out of poverty, Washington does not have all the answers. In fact, I think most of us know Washington has really few answers in this area, because the true innovation, the true changes that we have seen in the last decade in regard to welfare reform has come from the States. That is what this bill will foster. That is what this bill will allow. Mr. President, there has been a great deal of controversy about many parts of this bill, but I believe what unites just about everyone in this debate is a realization that the current system simply is not working, that the status quo is unacceptable. We disagree about what should replace that system. That is why one chief merit of this bill is that it gives the States the flexibility to reinvent welfare, to find out what works, what does not work, and once we find out what works, to build on that. That experimentation has already started in the States. The only thing that is holding it back, frankly, is the Federal Government. And this bill allows for more experimentation, it allows for new ideas. Mr. President, compared to the current system, a failed, top-down system that fosters the cycle of dependency that blights so many parts of America, this is a huge improvement. And there are other improvements, Mr. President, in this bill as well. This bill reestablishes the connection between work and income, the time-honored idea that people should work to get income. The current welfare system cut the nexus between working and making money. This was one of the great mistakes of our social welfare policy. People do need a hand up. They need help. And this welfare bill gives them a hand up. I am also very pleased, Mr. President, the bill includes a ``rainy day'' contingency fund for the States. As a former Lieutenant Governor, I know how vulnerable a State's budget is to an economic downturn. Many States, such as my home State of Ohio, are required by law to balance their budget every single year, no matter how hard the economic times are. We need to make sure that the poorest Americans are taken care of when that contingency arises, thus the contingency fund in this bill. That is why, Mr. President, I offered the amendment for the contingency fund last year. I applaud the conferees and the leadership for the decision to include that contingency fund in this package as well. I also think this bill's crackdown on unpaid child support is a terrific idea and long overdue. As a former county prosecutor, I dealt with these child support cases all the time, and I can tell you that when child support goes up, the welfare rolls go down. It is as simple as that. One provision in this bill that I am particularly proud of is one I proposed as an amendment to last year's welfare reform bill. It has been included in this bill as well. It would give States added tools in their efforts to track down the bank accounts of deadbeat parents. Mr. President, in this bill, we are strengthening the States as they attempt to go after the delinquent and deadbeat parents. It is absolutely essential that we strengthen the ethic of personal responsibility in this way. We need to make it absolutely clear-- America demands that parents be responsible for their children. Deadbeat parents cannot be allowed to walk away from their responsibilities. In this bill, we deal with that. We also provide a strong safety net at the same time, a strong safety net for people who need help. The bill passed the House by a broad bipartisan vote, 328 to 101. I expect it will pass the Senate overwhelmingly later this evening. I applaud the President for his decision to sign this bill. My only regret is that we lost time. We lost a year. Last year, the President had welfare reform before him. He decided to veto the bill. This bill is no different, not significantly different in any way. I am pleased to see that the President has changed his mind and that he now intends to sign the bill. Today, the American people can be proud of this legislative process. We are about to pass a bill in a couple of hours that offers the best hope in our lifetime for breaking the cycle of poverty. It is a bill that provides hope, hope for the people on welfare, and hope for the idea that we can change welfare, change the system that clearly has not worked. It has been a system that has kept people down, a system that has promoted illegitimacy, a system that has not given people hope. Today we take a major step to change that. Mr. President, let me conclude by stating that we have heard a lot of comments today on this floor about children. I think we should not fail to realize that the chief victim of the current welfare system, the chief victims, are the children. If anyone doubts that, talk to families who are on welfare. Talk to the children. I believe the chief benefit of this bill, quite frankly, is the hope it holds for these children. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, this amendment is being offered by myself, Senator Lugar, and Senator Biden, and it really is a fairly simple amendment. First of all, it costs no money. Second, it gives States more tools, more flexibility to deal with a very serious problem in this country, and that problem is that each year we lose over 500 people who are killed in collisions between automobiles and trains. In fact, the figure last year was 559 people-- 559 people died last year in auto-train accidents, 36 of them in my home State of Ohio. In preparing this amendment, and having some understanding of the problem going back to my time as Lieutenant Governor in Ohio when I worked on this problem, I put together a meeting in my office where we brought together all the experts in this field. They sat down for 2, 2\1/2\ hours and discussed this. Then they got together again. One of the ideas they came up with is contained in this amendment. Mr. President, my amendment is a simple one. It would make America's railroad crossings a lot safer--500 people are killed each year in these train-vehicle collisions. Fifty percent of these accidents occur at crossings that are already equipped with active warning devices--50 percent. So simply adding more warning devices, therefore, is not a complete solution to the problem. Some of these railroad crossings are just simply too dangerous. They are life-threatening. They are not needed, and they ought to be closed. We all know though from our own experience that people do become accustomed to taking certain routes and communities get used to certain traffic patterns. That is why it is sometimes very difficult for localities to close these crossings, for local officials to make this decision, even when it is clear on safety grounds that a particular crossing simply needs to be closed. Clearly, the local communities need some help, and that is the purpose of this amendment. Again, this idea did not come from me. This idea came from the safety experts who have looked at this, both in government and outside of government. Currently, the Federal Government pays 90 percent of the cost of closing a railroad highway grade crossing, but other grade crossing safety projects, such as traffic signs, guard rails and traffic lights, are eligible for 100 percent Federal funding. My amendment will make grade crossing closure projects eligible for that same 100 percent Federal funding. This will help remove the current incentive against closure projects. Let me emphasize, this is a State decision that will be made by the State, and that is out of the same pot of money. No additional funds will be utilized. If the safest thing to do is to close a very dangerous railroad crossing, localities should have an incentive to do that. Let me again point out this amendment does not involve new Federal money. The CBO says no additional contract authority would be necessary. The money for this amendment is already allocated for crossing safety purposes, for the very purpose we are talking about. All we are trying to do in this amendment, Senator Lugar, Senator Biden and myself, is to deploy that money in the most rational and effective way. Again, that decision is being made by the local authorities. The second part of my amendment provides up to $7,500--again, out of the same pot of money--to a local highway authority for each crossing closed. Mr. President, $7,500 is an incentive to that local community if the State decides that is the best way to spend this money. Furthermore, the railroad itself that is operating the crossing under this amendment has to match the money. This means up to $15,000 for a local community to close a railroad crossing. In other words, it creates an incentive to get the job done. Safety does not come about by accident. It comes about when concerned people exercise the necessary level of prudence and the necessary level of vigilance. I have been working with the railroads, with the Federal Railroad Administration and with the Federal Highway Administration on these issues for some time now, and I believe this amendment embodies a commonsense approach to this very real issue of railroad safety. Mr. President, we have worked with the Federal Railroad Administration to develop this amendment, and the amendment has been endorsed by the Association of American Railroads. In conclusion, let me summarize again, this costs no additional Federal dollars. Every safety expert that we have consulted says this is the thing to do. It is the most cost-effective way to preserve lives. We can close these railroad crossings, frankly, at a fraction of the cost to install the gates and the flashers. They cost anywhere between $130,00 and $135,000, and it takes some time to get them installed. This amendment will provide more flexibility to the States to deal with this hazard. It has the endorsement of all the safety experts, as well as Senator Biden, Senator Lugar and myself. And, Mr. President, if we needed any other incentive to pass this amendment, let me just hold this chart up. This is a listing for the most immediate year available. This is 1995: ``Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Statistics by State.'' I did not have time to have this blown up, but I am going to read a couple of these, if I could. It has every State. If any Members want to see how many fatalities occurred in their home States, they can do that. South Carolina, just last year, 111 accidents, 61 injuries, 6 fatalities. Looking at the State of California, 191 accidents last year, 69 injuries, 28 fatalities. We go on and on and on. This is a very simple amendment. It is no cost to taxpayers and gives more flexibility to States, to people who have to make the decisions to spend the finite dollars to try to save lives. I believe this amendment will save lives, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like to thank the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee for his efforts during the appropriation process. I appreciate the fact that the Senate transportation appropriation report includes $30 million for bus and bus-related facilities in the State of Ohio. I would, however, like to make sure that this $30 million will be made available to the Ohio Department of Transportation to be used for bus and bus-related facilities in a manner determined by the Ohio Department of Transportation.

Mr. DeWINE. I have agreed to temporarily lay it aside with the understanding the amendment will continue to pend.