Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, we all hope that agreement can be reached very shortly on the budget. I would like to take a few minutes of the Senate's time this afternoon to talk about one particular part of that budget controversy and that is Medicaid. I would like to caution the negotiators, caution all of us on both sides of the aisle, that as we debate and negotiate on Medicaid, we really need to stay focused on the fact that this is not just a question of money. The argument is not over just money. It is not just a question of finding a dollar amount that we can all agree on, a dollar amount that we can compromise. There are also very important policy issues that we simply must deal with. The policy issues are, in a very real sense, even more important than the dollars that are involved. If we merely reduce the Federal contribution to the States to furnish Medicaid but at the same time do nothing to structurally fix Medicaid, then I believe we will have failed, and that failure will have devastating consequences. Instead, I believe we must seize this opportunity to fix Medicaid by removing the wasteful, inefficient, and administratively burdensome parts of the current program. If we do that, then we will improve Medicaid but, more important, we will improve poor people's health care. So this debate is not just about money. It is not just about federalism. It is not just about State sovereignty. It is about the poor and how best to serve them, how best to develop constructive and viable alternatives that will meet their health care needs. Because the reality is, if given the flexibility, if given the freedom, the States can devise programs that cost less and at the same time provide better health care for the poor. I would like this afternoon, therefore, to review for just a few moments where we are currently on Medicaid, where our proposal and the President's proposal would take us. Today, under the status quo, under what has become an open-ended entitlement program, the Federal Government can give States an unlimited amount of money to look after the health of their poor so long as States do two things. First, States have to provide the poor within their boundaries with a Federally- prescribed set of services. That is, States are told what health care to give their poor and how to give it to them, how to deliver the services. Second, States have to contribute to the costs of Medicaid from their budgets based on a Federal formula. The fact that unlimited funds have been made available to this program has also meant that there has been no incentive to remove the inefficiencies that exist, nor to come up with new or better ways to serve the health care needs of the poor. This has resulted, in turn, in ever-increasing expenditures on Medicaid by both the Federal Government and by the States. Between 1988 and 1994, 6 years, State spending on Medicaid has increased by 160 percent. During the same years, Federal spending on Medicaid has increased 170 percent. Or, to look at it another way, in 1987 States spent on the average 10 percent of their own budgets on Medicaid. Last year, they spent almost 20 percent. In a conversation I had this morning with my Governor, the Governor of the State of Ohio, George Voinovich, he told me that in just a few years, unless changes are made, Ohio will be spending 40 percent of its total budget for the cost of Medicaid. Federal Medicaid spending has grown from 2.7 percent of total Federal outlays to 5.6 percent during this same period of time. So, today, we have a Medicaid Program that is growing too fast and does not provide the best health care for the buck. So we have set out to change this, to cut Federal spending growth--not Federal spending, but to cut the rate of growth, and to cut it in half; and, at the same time, to improve the delivery of health care services to the poor. We proposed a reduction in the current Federal contribution to Medicaid. But, under our plan, we also gave States more flexibility than ever before in determining how health care services should be provided to poor people. These two changes, fewer dollars from Washington, slower rate of growth, but more flexibility for the States, those two have to go hand- in-hand. You cannot have one without the other, because States cannot deliver health care with fewer dollars if they must do so under the current bureaucracy-laden, expensive system. On the other hand, if we let States be creative, they can spend less and at the same time provide better services. Allowing States the flexibility to reform and redefine Medicaid means that our proposal is not just a proposal about money. While it is a proposal that sometimes tells the States what services to provide, for the most part it leaves the States to find innovative ways to provide these services. It leaves it up to the States. States are given this flexibility because we believe the States can devise better and more cost-effective ways in which to deliver health care services. If I could, let me give the Members of the Senate an example, an example I think is very instructive. Let us take a child on Medicaid who has severe asthma, and who is hospitalized on an average of every 2 to 3 weeks every summer, usually for 3 to 4 days at a time. Medicaid pays for this child to be in the hospital at a cost, tremendous cost, per day. But Medicaid does not-- let me repeat--does not allow a State to send a case worker over to that child's home and install an air-conditioner in that child's bedroom to prevent these recurring asthma attacks. An air-conditioner could well save the child from what are very scary breathing problems. I will say my wife, Fran, and I have experienced this with our own children. There is nothing scarier than to have a child who cannot get her breath. A simple thing such as an air-conditioner could save that child from that agony and that family from that agony and, at the same time, save taxpayers thousands and thousands of dollars. Yet, under the current law, this sort of preventive measure is not permitted. This sort of preventive measure is not permitted under current Medicaid law. Giving the States more flexibility will allow them to be innovative, bold, imaginative, and will provide people with real services that matter--and that in many cases will be cheaper. Let me give another example, Mr. President. Under today's Medicaid Program Medicaid beneficiaries who suffer traumatic brain injuries are required to be institutionalized in nursing homes, if they want the money, and if they want the help. So if an 18-year-old is involved in a car accident and is left comatose, he or she may be treated in a rehabilitation center until the car insurance is exhausted. But then that 18-year-old would be placed under current law in a nursing home. Imagine if instead this 18-year-old could be treated at home with services specific to his or her needs with community-based services aimed specifically at brain injuries. He may well recover, return to school, get a job, and live a full life. And, Mr. President, it would cost a lot less. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my time be extended by 10 minutes.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss what the Republican balanced budget bill, the bill that President Clinton vetoed with such fanfare last week, would accomplish in a very important area; that is, the area of student loans. Mr. President, a great deal of attention has been paid to this issue. I do not think most people have heard the whole story, the real story. The real story is this: The Republican balanced budget plan will decrease--let me repeat, decrease--the cost of higher education for American families. The compromise worked out between the House and Senate reduced mandatory spending in the student loan program by $4.9 billion--a savings of $4.9 billion. We achieve this goal without--without-- increasing the cost of student loans for students, for their parents, or for the colleges. We made these reductions by cutting the administrative overhead of the Federal bureaucracy and by reducing the Federal spending--to banks, secondary markets, guaranty agencies, and other private lenders who administer the guaranteed student loan program. Mr. President, none--let me repeat, none--of these cuts can be passed on to the students, parents, or to their colleges. In addition, the Republican balanced budget plan did not achieve this $4.9 billion in savings by cutting the amount of money made available to students and their parents for college education. Mr. President, I think these are two very important points. The Republican balanced budget plan does not ask students or their parents or colleges to pay more for student loans. The Republican balanced budget plan does not cut the amount of money made available to students and their parents for a college education. The fact is, Mr. President, and the rest of the story really is, balancing the budget as our overall budget plan would do, would ultimately decrease the cost of students loans. It only makes sense. If we balance the Federal budget, which will reduce interest rates, the cost of borrowing by students and their families will fall. For example, a student that borrowed $11,000 at an interest rate of 8 percent will repay $18,578 over the life of the loan. By balancing the budget in 7 years and by reducing interest rates by 2 percent that same student repayment amount will be lowered--lowered--by $2,167, resulting in a lower yearly payment of $216. That is real money. Mr. President, it is clear these policy changes will not make it more difficult for families to pay for their children's education. Just the contrary. What our changes will do will be to make it easier for families. In addition, our Republican balanced budget plan will provide students with a tax deduction on a portion of the interest they pay on student loans. If you average it out, Mr. President, the average borrower will save $8 a month--$8 a month. The number of student loans is scheduled to increase as well. Let me repeat that: The number of student loans under our plan is going to increase. In 1996, it will be higher than ever before with over 7.1 million student loans. The Congressional Budget Office projects that student loans will continue to rise through the end of the century. This year the volume of student loans stands at about $24.5 billion; by the year 2000 it will rise above $33 billion. That is an increase of nearly 50 percent. Mr. President, the average student loan amount will rise from today's $3,646 to $4,300 in the year 2000. So the balanced budget plan, our balanced budget plan, will help make education more affordable. The bill will also make substantive changes in the law that are both wise and necessary, changes that will make the lending system fair and more efficient. The Republican balanced budget plan will extend to those students who are in the guaranteed loan program the same benefits enjoyed by those who participate in the direct lending program. Mr. President, today if you are a student receiving loans under the direct lending program, you have a wide variety of options for repayment. You can have an extended repayment or income-contingent repayment. These and other repayment options make it easier for young people to make the transition from college life to the working world. A young person getting out of college may decide to take a job that pays little but will give him or her a lot of experience. There is no reason that student should not be allowed to pay the loan back further in the future when he or she is making more money. That is flexibility. Mr. President, you can do that with the direct lending program. I believe it is only fair that we extend those same options to students in the regular guaranteed loan program. That is what the Republican balanced budget plan will do. We have just received a few details on what the President's proposal would do. It is clear that the President's plan would take away from the benefits that students would receive under the Republican balanced budget plan. The President's proposal, the Clinton proposal, would eliminate the expansion of repayment options to students in the guaranteed loan program. Under that plan, only students in the Federal direct lending program--only in the direct lending program--would have flexible repayment options. That is an endorsement, I believe, of the status quo, which really is unfair. Mr. President, that is some of what the President proposes. We are waiting, as I speak this morning, for more details. The more we learn, the clearer it becomes that the Republican budget plan in regard to student loans is better for students, is better for their parents, is better for the colleges. The Republican balanced budget plan provides a tax deduction for interest on student loans, the first time since 1986. It provides flexible repayment options for all students. Most importantly, it cuts the deficit without making a college education less affordable for students, parents, and colleges. In summary, Mr. President, the Republican balanced budget plan constitutes a major step forward for the young people in this country. I believe strongly that these student loan provisions ought to be incorporated in whatever final budget compromise is reached between the President and the Congress. Students, parents, or colleges should not be made to pay more for a college education. The Republican balanced budget plan did not make students, parents, or colleges pay more. The President's plan should not either. I see also on the floor my colleague from Indiana who has played such a major role and has really taken the lead in shaping this very responsible plan that we have put forward. It is a plan I know he is proud of and I am proud of, as well. I yield the floor.

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 for 5 minutes. If I could be notified after 4 minutes.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, others have recounted mistakes and missed opportunities that have led us to this moment, a moment when 20,000 U.S. troops are either on their way or will shortly be on their way to Bosnia. I will not take the time of the Senate this evening to recount these facts. They have been talked about in great detail already today. The fact is, Mr. President, we are where we are. As we debate, and we have debated three different resolutions today, the essential facts are as follows: Fact No. 1: In 1993, the President made a commitment to deploy ground troops in support of a Bosnia peacekeeping mission. Fact 2: This guarantee was a condition or underlying understanding of the entire Dayton peace agreement. Fact 3: The President has now ordered these troops to Bosnia. Some have already arrived. Mr. President, the troops are going to Bosnia. They are going to Bosnia no matter what this Congress does. They are going to Bosnia no matter which resolution is approved or not approved. That is a fact. Fact 4: There are clearly not sufficient votes in Congress to override the President's veto of a bill that would prohibit funding of the troops. In fact, earlier today, there were only 22 votes on this floor--22 votes--to in fact cut off these funds. Mr. President, with these facts in mind, what then should our objectives be today as we debate these resolutions? What do we want to accomplish? What can we reasonably expect to accomplish? Mr. President, the question before us today is I believe a rather narrow one. Which resolution will be the most valuable in achieving our objectives? What can Congress try to accomplish this evening? Mr. President, I would suggest that we have three goals. First, the most important, unconditionally support our troops. Second, to enhance the odds of them leaving as scheduled within 1 year. And, third, to increase the chances of this mission being successful. I believe the Dole resolution--Dole-McCain resolution--can help shape and help influence our Bosnia policy and can improve it. It does this in part by ensuring the training and arming of the Federation of Bosnia, so that they can provide for their own defense after the NATO troops leave. Mr. President, the Dole resolution gives more support than any of other resolutions to our troops. The Dole resolution supports their mission and does so in clear terms. It ensures that America speaks with a clearer voice. Mr. President, for the above reasons, it is my intention this evening to vote in favor of the Dole-McCain resolution. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, Senator Dodd and my second-degree amendment to the Pryor amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that the Senate should, through the Committee on the Judiciary, conduct hearings to investigate the effect of these new patent provisions in title 35. I think it makes eminent sense to do this. Let me just, while I see my colleague from Utah on the floor, get his attention for a moment and ask him if he could respond to a question.

Mr. DeWINE. I thank the Senator very much. (Mrs. HUTCHISON assumed the chair.)

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, let me continue briefly in regard to this matter. Madam President, I think it is abundantly clear after we have listened to this debate--my colleague from Rhode Island, my colleague from Arkansas, both have been very, very eloquent in regard to this issue--I think it is clear, after listening to my colleague from Utah, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, that there are two sides to this issue, that there is a very complicated, a very serious issue, and it is the type of issue, quite frankly, that we should have hearings. We should, as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee just said, hold those expeditiously. We should hear from both sides of the particular issue. And then I believe we will be in a much better position for this Senate to take a position and to actually hold a vote. I think as we listen to this debate it is just abundantly clear that there are legitimate issues, arguments on both sides of the debate and that we should examine those. Frankly, the only way this Senate has to examine them at length is not just by debate on this floor, but it is also by actual hearings. So I think Members of the Senate should understand that the vote in favor of the DeWine-Dodd amendment would, in fact, guarantee that these hearings would take place and the Senate would have the opportunity to have the benefit of hearings. There are two sides to this. On the one hand opponents of the Pryor amendment argue that shortening the patent term contained in the agreement on trade related aspects of intellectual property rights, that provision in the Uruguay round of GATT would have detrimental effects on both the development of new and innovative medicines and also the global patent protections gained for United States manufacturers in Uruguay. In fact, Madam President, according to former Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop, who my colleague from Utah has already quoted, to bring a new single medicine to patients requires on the average an investment of 12 years and $350 million. Of the components tested in a laboratory, only 20 percent ever make it onto pharmacy shelves, and only a third of those ever earn a return on the investment made through the discovery. Madam President, if we weaken patent protections on these products, we will stifle innovation, and slow down further the discovery of new treatments for diseases such as possibly AIDS or cancer. Two former U.S. Trade Representatives, Clayton Yeutter and William Brock, argue that passage of the Pryor amendment would set a bad precedent. It would cost all U.S. firms and workers the enormous long- term gains that the Trade Representatives worked so hard for in Uruguay. It would do this by making it nearly impossible for the United States to force other nations to adhere to the intellectual property protections of this agreement. Robert L. McNeill, executive vice Chairman of the Emergency Committee of American Trade, said the following: . . . enhanced protection of intellectual property rights will be diminished abroad if the United States itself violates the patent term contained in the [intellectual property rights protections] agreement. It is almost certain that such an action would provide foreign-based pirates and patent infringers with potent ammunition in seeking to have their domestic governments devise measures that are inconsistent with [these protections.] Madam President, on the other hand, supporters of the Pryor amendment argue that failure to amend the Hatch-Waxman Act would place a substantial burden on consumers. Moreover, according to U.S. Trade Representative Kantor, amending the act would ``in no way increase the ability of our trading partners to justify their failure to provide * * * consistent patent protection [for intellectual property rights.]'' So clearly, Madam President, this amendment is not as straightforward--the underlying amendment by my colleague from Arkansas is not as straightforward as it might appear on the surface. This is legislation that should be debated fully and not thrown in as an amendment to the partial-birth abortion bill. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE. It would be my understanding, from the statement made by the chairman, that he would be willing to hold these hearings, and Members of the Senate could be advised these hearings would take place sometime within the next 120 days. Is that correct?

Mr. DeWINE. The second-degree amendment Senator Dodd and I have offered provides that this issue would be referred to the Judiciary Committee for hearings. And as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I wonder if the Senator could give the Members of the Senate some indication of how he intends to conduct the hearing or what time there would be in that event. There have been some questions on the floor. And I think we should respond to the Members before the voting in regard to that.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, a person who is pro-choice could very consistently support this bill as these pro-choice Representatives in the House of Representatives clearly did. A pro-choice person can support this simply by believing, by saying, by arguing that there is some limit to what we will permit; there is some limit to what a civilized people tolerate. Again, I do not want to put words in their mouths. But I think that clearly is a consistent position with being pro-choice. So this is not an attack on Roe versus Wade. You simplistically could argue that. But I think it is very, very incorrect. My friend from California talked about the fact that ``America does have a heart and soul.'' Yes, we have a heart and soul. That is why we are on the floor. That is why Senator Smith introduced this bill. This is why people across this country--once they learned about the facts of this procedure--are simply saying, ``No, it is wrong. We cannot tolerate it. We cannot permit it.'' My friend talked about the arrogance of power, that we are somehow arrogant to be making this argument. It is not arrogance. I think it would be, quite frankly, not arrogance but indifference for us to turn our back on this horrible, horrible procedure. Finally, Mr. President, my friend from California talked about the anger. Who is this directed at, this anger? This anger is not directed at anybody, not a person. It is directed at a procedure that a civilized society simply should not permit. Mr. President, we will surely continue this debate tomorrow. At this point, I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I think all the arguments have been made. That usually does not stop us. We continue to make them and will probably make some more tomorrow. Let me try to be very, very brief in closing. I think it is important, as I said 2 days ago on this floor, we keep our eye on the ball, we keep our eye on what this debate is about, what is relevant and what is not relevant. The horrible tragedy that the Senator from Illinois described a few minutes ago, the horrible tragedies that my friend from California continues to describe are horrible. They are tragic. Everyone was moved in the committee. I had tears in my eyes before I left the room listening to those horrible tragedies. Our heart goes out to these families. But the fact is these horrible cases are not relevant to what we are talking about. Viki Wilson did not have this procedure. Let me repeat for my friends on the floor and my friends who may be watching this on TV that Viki Wilson did not have this procedure. I do not know how many times we have to say it. That is what the facts are. None of the three women did. It is simply not true. Let me read from the proposed statute. ``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.'' That is not what happened in these particular cases, however sad they say they are. Let us keep our eye on the ball. Let us keep our eye on the ball and have relevant debate in regard to saving the life of the mother. The bill, as Senator Smith introduced it, had an affirmative defense. The amendment that Senator Dole has proposed should take any doubt away that it is covered because it puts it right in the statute itself--puts that exception, the life-of-the-mother exception. But even, in a sense, of more significance is we will not get to this situation because there has been no credible evidence at all in the hearings--none--that this procedure would ever be used to save the life of the mother. That evidence was just to the contrary. The evidence was that there were other procedures that would be used. This would not be used. You would not use the procedure. The evidence was it would take 3 days, which this procedure does. Dr. Smith of Chicago, IL, and Mt. Sinai Hospital, a very credible witness, testified this is simply not the standard of care. Let me quote a portion of the testimony from the hearing. If anyone has the doubt about the relevancy, look at this on page 78 of the hearing by the Committee on the Judiciary. Now, this insinuates that this is a standard of care to take care of a trapped fetal head on a breech deliver. This is totally untrue, and I have provided for you from Williams Obstetrics the techniques that are used by obstetricians to deal with this problem. Those techniques include relaxing the womb with halifane or with anesthesia, cutting the cervix, in limited circumstances if you are going to do a Cesarean section to save a term baby, you can do that. And if the baby has what we call hydrocephalus, or water on the brain, you insert a needle and drain that fluid. The testimony is very, very clear. Of the other procedures that you use, this is simply not one of them at all. Again, Mr. President, let us keep our eye on the ball. Let us talk about this in a rationale way. Let us talk about what is relevant and what is not relevant. Time and time again on this floor the argument has been made that if you support this bill, it is an attack on Roe versus Wade. I would submit that flies in the face of any rational discussion about what Roe versus Wade really means and a correct interpretation of it. Pro-choice individuals in the House of Representatives, such as Representatives Kennedy, Molinari, Gephardt, Traficant, each one voted in favor of this. I do not want to put words in their mouths, but I will simply say that a person who is pro-choice could very well support this. Mr. President, I ask for 3 additional minutes.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to, very briefly, respond to the comments my colleague from California made a few moments ago. I will try to be brief because I realize that we will be debating this bill on other days. My colleague from California placed in the Record a letter, which I might point out had already been placed in the Record in the previous days of debate. That was a letter from Nurse Shafer's supervisor. That letter calls into question some of the things that Nurse Shafer said, or in the words of my colleague from California, the supervisor doubts the veracity of the nurse. Mr. President, let me again talk about the testimony that we heard in the Judiciary Committee that refutes the attacks on Nurse Shafer and that refutes this specific letter by the purported supervisor of Nurse Shafer. First, the issue of how far along, how many weeks along Dr. Haskell would continue to do abortions. Let me quote from the letter. ``Dr. Haskell does not perform abortions past 24 weeks of pregnancy.'' Wrong. Dr. Haskell does. Dr. Haskell says so himself. We have already put that into the Record in Dr. Haskell's own words. Second, ``Dr. Haskell does not use ultrasound.'' Wrong. The record clearly shows he does. How do we know that? Because he says he does. Third. ``At no point is there any fetal movement or response that would indicate awareness, pain, or struggle.'' Wrong. The testimony that we heard would indicate contrary to that. So I do not think we should spend this entire debate talking about the veracity of Nurse Shafer. But, again, I would go back to what I said an hour ago and, that is, if anyone doubts her veracity, take the facts, compare them with what Dr. Haskell says, the man who performs the abortions. What you will find is that Nurse Shafer's description fits identically with what Dr. Haskell says he does himself. So this is a red herring. This is a side issue. This is the old tactic that is always used in court or in a debate: When you do not have the facts, talk about something else. Attack somebody whose testimony you do not like. Let us continue, if we can, to try to focus on what this debate is all about. I will come back to that in a moment. Senator Boxer has quoted Ms. Costello and Ms. Wilson, who gave very compelling testimony. Yes, it was. I thought that in my previous statement I stated that. Quite frankly, Mr. President, I do not see how anyone could have listened to their testimony and not have teared up. I did. Nobody who is a parent and nobody who has lost a child could listen to that and not become emotional. The hearts of everybody in that room went out to those two women. But let me again say, Mr. President, that their testimony was not relevant. Let us confine ourselves to the terms of this debate and to the terms of this bill. No matter how compelling or how emotional their testimony was, or how much our hearts go out to them, it does not alter the simple fact that this bill does not apply to their situations. And so, again, the opponents of this bill want to talk about everything in the world but the bill. With all due respect, I believe that the attack on this bill that we have heard this afternoon, 90 percent--and that is a conservative estimate--of what was said in opposition to this bill is totally irrelevant. You may believe it, disbelieve it, agree with it, disagree with it, but it is irrelevant. This bill, I submit, Mr. President, has nothing to do with nursing home standards. It has nothing to do with the EPA. It has nothing to do with the environment. We can and will argue these issues on this floor. But let us, please, try to keep this debate to what the issues are in front of us. Maybe on a note of personal privilege, if I could, Mr. President, my friend from California talks about the ``joy of giving birth.'' She used that phrase four or five times. I guess she was inferring that those of us who favor this bill use this term to in some way denigrate women and say that it is just an easy thing. Well, let me tell you, Mr. President, and let me assure my colleague from California, as the father of eight--but much more importantly, as the husband of the mother of eight, you are never going to catch this U.S. Senator in any way denigrating or in any way making light of birth. You are not going to find me minimizing the pain or the great accomplishment of the mother or the seriousness of the delivery. Again, Mr. President, let us try to stay on the debate and try to stay on what is relevant. The opponents of this bill talk about protecting the life of the mother. I would, again, call to my colleagues' attention the affirmative defense that was in this bill when it was passed in the House. When many pro-choice Members of the House voted for this bill, that affirmative defense was in there. I also, though, refer my colleagues in the Senate to the evidence that came at the hearing. Again, this is the hearing that the opponents of this bill wanted. It was a good hearing, and we learned things. The evidence at the hearing clearly showed that this is a procedure that you would not use--that a doctor would not use to save the life of a mother. I point out that the testimony clearly showed that this procedure takes 3 days, from the time the woman comes in and you begin to treat the woman until the actual final act takes place. The testimony at the hearing was very clear. If the life of the mother was at stake, a doctor would not do this method, would not do this 3-day procedure. This procedure is not the ``standard of care'' in these cases. So, again, we can talk about saving the life of the mother. But I maintain that it is outside the scope of this debate. We have the affirmative defense built into the law, built into this proposed law, and you also have testimony--medical testimony--that this is not the procedure you would use anyway. Dr. Pamela Smith of Chicago's Mt. Sinai Medical Center testified that medical texts prescribe at least three other techniques, but not this one. I will not take the time of the Senate to go into all the medical details, but the testimony is clearly there. I also point out that no one at the hearing--no one at the hearing-- disputed Dr. Smith's testimony. That is the state of the record. We simply do not do this procedure. Again, confine ourselves to this debate. Mr. President, the debate will go on. We will hear again from both sides, but we should try to narrow it and talk about what is at stake. It is not a question of, do we do away with Roe versus Wade? It is not a question about Republicans or Democrats or conservatives or liberals, or trends, or Republican Congresses or Democrat Congresses. It is about a very, very, very limited number of abortions that are performed each year. But they are performed. They are, I maintain, wrong. I think the evidence is abundantly clear. My colleague who is in the chair and who has shown the pictures and who has talked about it in graphic detail has described exactly what this procedure consists of. So it is a public policy debate, of very limited scope, but of an important area. We define in this debate, as we do in many debates, what kind of a people we are. To my friends who are pro-choice--and, again, I say being pro-choice, being for Roe versus Wade, is not inconsistent for being with this bill; in fact, you can be consistent and do that--I say to them and I say to my [[Page S 17903]] friend from California and others who oppose this bill, is there not some limit, some limit, to what a civilized society will tolerate, to what a good and decent people will allow? I think, Mr. President, in this bill we are saying, yes, there is a limit, however narrow that may be drawn, but there is a limit. So in this bill, in this public debate, as in many debates, we define and redefine and redefine what kind of a people we are and what we hold dear.

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

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1833, the partial-birth abortion ban bill. Mr. President, as you and the Members of the Senate know, on November 8, after 2 days of very spirited debate, this Senate voted to commit this bill to the Judiciary Committee for hearings. There were a number of concerns that had been raised on the Senate floor. A number of these concerns, quite frankly, were addressed during the Judiciary Committee hearing that I attended. So I would like for a moment to take the Members of the Senate back to the debate that we had on the Senate floor in regard to several of the points that were made by the opponents of this bill and see how the points that were made on that date, November 8, were, in fact, answered by the testimony that our Judiciary Committee, under Chairman Hatch, heard, the testimony that we heard at that committee, how it relates to the arguments made by the opponents. Let me start, Mr. President, with Brenda Shafer. Brenda Shafer, as my colleagues will recall, is the nurse from the Dayton area who has described in great detail exactly what this procedure consists of. My colleague, Senator Smith, has in great detail described that as well. While we were debating this issue on the Senate floor the last time it was up, on November 8, Brenda Shafer's credibility was attacked, was attacked by the opponents of this bill. Let me say, Mr. President, after having watched Brenda Shafer testify, I do not believe anyone could have watched her testimony, could have listened to her testimony, could have observed her demeanor, and not come away with the conclusion that she was not only telling the truth, but that what she saw was etched and will be etched in her memory for the rest of her life. Like some other Members of this body, Mr. President, I have been involved as an attorney in lawsuits. I was a county prosecutor for 4 years, assistant for 2\1/2\ years prior to that. I have seen hundreds, probably thousands, of witnesses on the stand. I cannot recall a more compelling witness than Brenda Shafer. If anyone doubts that, I would invite them to go back--do not just read the transcript that is available, but go back and get a video tape from C-SPAN of her testimony. Let me take a couple points where nurse Shafer was attacked on this floor and talk about how those particular attacks were rebutted by her testimony. Nurse Shafer said that the partial-birth abortion procedure was performed past the 24th week of pregnancy. She was attacked on the Senate floor for saying that. One Senator quoted from a letter from a supervising nurse at the clinic where Brenda Shafer worked to the effect that ``Dr. Haskell does not perform abortions past 24 weeks of pregnancy.'' This is a document entitled ``Second Trimester Abortion: From Every Angle, Fall Risk Management Seminar, September 13-14, 1992, Dallas, Texas.'' On page 27 of this transcript, there was a paper delivered by Dr. Martin Haskell, ``Dilation and Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortion, presented at the National Abortion Federation Risk Management Seminar, September 13, 1992.'' On page 28 of this document--this is Dr. Haskell's own words--this is what he said, the author--now remember this is the same person that Brenda Shafer observed performing the abortion. ``The author,'' Dr. Haskell, referring to himself, ``performs the procedure on selected patients 25 through 26 weeks LMP.'' So Dr. Haskell, in his own writing, confirms what nurse Shafer said. Let me turn to another point. The nurse was attacked also for her comments about ultrasound. On this floor from the same letter, a Senator quoted, ``Dr. Haskell does not use ultrasound.'' Again, in Dr. Haskell's own report, this is what he says: ``The surgical assistant places an ultrasound probe on the patient's abdomen * * *.'' Again, Dr. Haskell's own comments. In conclusion, I would simply say that again I would invite my colleagues to listen to her testimony. Her testimony is compelling. It is shocking. It is sickening. And it also is backed up by the doctor who performed that abortion, that is, Dr. Haskell, in his own words. Let me turn to another issue that was raised on this floor in the last debate. Anesthesia. After the bill was introduced, bill opponents argued, without medical evidence, that the anesthesia that was administered to the mother killed the baby, so the baby felt no pain. That was the statement that was made. One U.S. Senator said the following. Let me read directly from the Congressional Record. ``The fetus dies during the first dose of anesthesia.'' That is from the Congressional Record. That was said on this floor. Further, Dr. Mary Campbell of Planned Parenthood in a fact sheet said the following, in answer to a question, ``When does the fetus die?'' ``The fetus dies of an overdose of anesthesia given to the mother intravenously.'' Further, Kate Michelman of NARAL, at a NARAL news conference, November 7, 1995, here is what she said. ``There has been expert testimony by physicians who do this procedure stating that the anesthesia that is given to the pregnant women prior to the procedure causes fetal demise, the death of the fetus, prior to the procedure.'' Now, Mr. President, in spite of these three comments, in spite of the three assertions that were made on this floor, the facts are directly contrary to this. This was brought out very clearly--very clearly--in the Judiciary Committee hearing. Again, I invite my colleagues to examine the record. The confusion raised by these statements was so great in fact, Mr. President, that the American society came forward to set the record straight, a society of people who do this every day, who administer anesthesia. Mr. Norwig Ellison, president of ASA, came forward and testified at the Judiciary Committee hearing. This is his written statement that was presented that day, and then he gave an oral statement where he stated it again. This is what he had to say: The widespread publicity given to this view may cause pregnant women to delay necessary and perhaps lifesaving medical procedures. He further said: Pregnant women are routinely heavily sedated during the second and third trimester for the performance of a variety of necessary medical procedures with absolutely no adverse effect on the fetus, let alone death or brain death. Also at the hearing, when confronted with this fact, Dr. Campbell, who I quoted earlier, changed her position. At the hearing, Senator Spence Abraham from Michigan asked her about the position, referring to the fact sheet that the fetus dies of an overdose of anesthesia. Senator Abraham said, ``This is no longer your position?'' Dr. Campbell replied: ``I believe that is true.'' In other words, she no longer holds the position that the fetus dies from anesthesia. Further, Dr. Haskell, who performed this procedure on numerous occasions, himself had no doubts on this issue. The American Medical News asked Dr. Haskell the following question: ``Let's talk first about whether or not the fetus is dead beforehand.'' Dr. Haskell responded: ``No, no it's not. No, it's really not. A percentage are for various number of reasons and probably the other two-thirds are not.'' Again, one of the allegations that was made on this floor that the hearings clearly showed was wrong. Some of the opponents of the bill would have the Members of this Senate and the American people believe that this debate is about whether we ban all abortions. It is sad that this bill is really not about partial-birth abortions, that what it really is is a covert assault on the decision in Roe versus Wade. This is totally false. Look at some of the people lining up behind this legislation: Congressman Dave Bonior, Susan Molinari, Patrick Kennedy, Dick Gephardt. These individuals are pro-choice. No one has questioned their pro-choice credentials. [[Page S 17896]] They voted for this bill because they believe this is, in fact, a legitimate public policy issue. Mr. President, this is a legitimate public policy issue. This procedure is especially cruel, it is unusual, it is inhumane, and it should be abolished. It is perfectly possible and intellectually consistent and coherent to endorse this legislation and simultaneously support the Supreme Court decision in Roe versus Wade. This bill is not a ban on abortions. It is not even a restriction on when an abortion may be performed. Restrictions of that kind were actually envisioned by Roe versus Wade, based as it was on the differences of three trimesters of a pregnancy, but this bill does not do that. Even so, even though Roe v. Wade allowed for that kind of restriction, this bill does not restrict the timeframe for a woman contemplating an abortion. All this bill does is abolish one particular procedure. By now, we have all heard this procedure described in considerable detail. I hope that we can agree that this procedure is especially cruel, unusual, and inhumane. This debate is about a very, very, very limited number of abortions. It is a narrow, and should be narrowly structured, debate. To my friends on the other side who argue that we simply have to continue to allow this particular procedure to exist I simply say, is there not any limit to what we as a society will tolerate, what we as a society will accept? How close to an actual birth do we have to get in seconds, in inches, before we say, no? Mr. President, the two witnesses who testified in front of our committee--my colleague from Illinois and my colleague from California have referenced them--gave some very heart-wrenching testimony. No one could have sat through that hearing without being moved, touched-- really those terms are not adequate for how anyone would feel, certainly as I felt as I listened to the testimony. I think, though, that what we need to remember is that neither of these two tragic situations would have been affected by the bill we are debating. H.R. 1833 covers only living fetuses, not fetuses that have died in the womb. In both the cases, in both the tragedies that were related by the witnesses, their babies had died prior to birth. Their babies had died in the womb. So this bill simply would not cover them. We will continue to hear, I am sure, on this floor the argument made that we should look at these two heart-wrenching situations. I simply remind my colleagues, whether in the Chamber or back in their office listening to this debate, that we all agree these are just heart- wrenching situations. But we also should understand, and I ask my colleagues to keep in mind, that these two situations are simply not covered by this bill, and so it is really a bogus argument. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, the Senate stand in recess between the hours of 12:30 and 2:15 for the weekly policy conferences to meet.

Mr. DeWINE. Seeing no other Members of the Senate who wish to speak, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, December 5; that [[Page S 17932]] following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, no resolutions come over under the rule, the call of the calendar be dispensed with, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and under the previous consent agreement, the Senate then begin consideration of the conference report accompanying H.R. 1058, the securities litigation bill.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, on Tuesday there is an 8-hour time limitation for debate on the securities litigation conference report. Senators can therefore expect a rollcall vote on the conference report at the expiration or yielding back of that debate time. Following that vote, it is expected that the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 1833, the partial-birth abortion bill.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, we are now debating in this country the question of deployment of United States troops to Bosnia. As we engage in that discussion this week, I think it would be appropriate if we take a moment to go back and talk about the last major U.S. deployment of troops in a trouble spot situation. Of course, I am talking about Haiti. Today, Mr. President, there are approximately 2,500 United States troops in Haiti, down from a much higher figure previously. These troops, Mr. President, were deployed in the interest of the future of peace and democracy in Haiti. It is vitally important to Haitian democracy that there be an orderly transfer of power in Haiti in the coming weeks. On December 17 of this year--in just a few days--elections are scheduled to take place. These elections on December 17 are to be followed, on February 7, by the swearing in of a new President of Haiti. Mr. President, all over the world the orderly transition of power is considered the true hallmark of democracy. This orderly, routine transfer of power is what separates true democracy from pseudodemocracy. It is what separates the democratic countries in the world from other countries. And there is no truer test of a democracy than its ability routinely to carry out this awesome transfer of power. Mr. President, in the past, President Aristide has indicated that he understands this and that he understands the importance of this. In fact, on May 29 of this year, Senator Specter and I met with President Aristide at the White House in Haiti. We asked him at that time in a fairly lengthy conversation if he can envision any circumstances under which he would retain power. His answer was an unequivocal no. Senator Specter asked him again, could he envision any circumstances that he would retain power, stay in office. His answer, no. Then I asked President Aristide, ``Mr. President, many of your supporters may urge you to stay on, they may appeal to your patriotism, they may tell you that you are the only one who can carry out the duties of the Presidency, that your country needs you. How will you be able to resist those comments? How will you be able to resist those pleas?'' President Aristide's answer was very simple. He said, ``Senator, I have no choice. The Constitution takes precedence over the wishes of my supporters.'' Over the last couple of weeks, there has been some confusion about whether President Aristide will leave office. There has been some indication that he might not step down as scheduled. His views on this matter appear to be a moving target. The most recent accounts over the weekend, last Friday specifically, are that he said that he will step down after all and that he was really misunderstood in the comments that he made a few days prior to that. Mr. President, it is vitally important that President Aristide does, in fact, step down, that he follows his Constitution, the Constitution of Haiti. I cannot emphasize enough the vital importance of President Aristide's routine departure from office. Last year, the United States went to the brink of a full-scale invasion in support of constitutional democracy in Haiti. We want and the Haitian people want a strong and stable democracy in Haiti. To achieve that, there has to be an orderly transfer of power. The Haitian people deserve it. Earlier in this century, William Faulkner described Haiti as ``homeless and desperate on the lonely ocean, a little lost island'' that had suffered ``200 years of oppression and exploitation.'' [[Page S 17881]] Faulkner's words could have just as well have been uttered last year, with the addition of several decades. The people of Haiti deserve hope. They need to know that the world shares their aspiration to be a full member of the community of nations. They have waited a long time. They have waited long enough. I believe it is important that all of us--this country, other countries of the world--put President Aristide on notice that to flirt with the idea of clinging to power in violation of his country's Constitution would be to risk a huge step backward for the Haitian people. It is long past time to break the cycle of oppression in Haiti. The routine, orderly departure from office of President Aristide will be a major step in that direction. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Not only does all this money for the luxury boxes then go to the individual owner of the home team, but it also has the effect--I will not take the time on the floor of the Senate today to explain all the math of this--but it has the effect of driving up these salary caps because that salary cap is based on total gross revenue and based on formulas. Basically, it is 62 percent times the designated amount of revenue. And so if one team, let us say team A, has no luxury boxes, but team B builds luxury boxes, not only does team B get all the money for the luxury boxes, not split at all with team A, who they might be playing that weekend, but team B, by getting that luxury box money, drives up the salary cap, not just for them but for everybody. So team A has their costs go up. So it is almost like being on a treadmill. The NFL has created a system by which everybody has a real incentive to go out and build luxury boxes. What that means is they are either going to build them in the home coliseum or the home park, or they are going to make the incentive to move somewhere else. So the NFL has created a situation with this structure that really puts a premium on movement, and I do not think it is in the best interest of football. Again, it is something that the NFL should change and can change themselves, and I think it is a fair representation of Commissioner Tagliabue's testimony yesterday that he simply did not disagree with this at all. Mr. President, let me conclude by stating that the thing that I have found most interesting in the last several weeks in regard to the controversy surrounding the Cleveland Browns' reported move to Baltimore has not been the reaction of fans in Ohio--and that has been absolutely unbelievable. People are up in arms. But we sort of expected that. What I think is interesting is that people across this country, who are sports fans, and who are not Browns fans, have looked at this and said this is not right, something is wrong, there is a problem. Maybe this move or attempt to move by the Browns to Baltimore is sort of, or should be, a wakeup signal to the NFL that something is absolutely wrong. Mr. President, the NFL has a nine-point criteria. I think they should apply that nine-point criteria to determine if this move--I think they would, if they applied the nine-point criteria, determine this move is not right, does not fit the criteria, and should not take place, and is not in the best interest of football. I believe that the bill that Senator Glenn introduced, that I have cosponsored, today will help in this situation. It will help the NFL do what it should do anyway, and is one more step toward trying to rectify a situation in professional football and other professional sports that is really very much out of hand and out of control. I will be talking more about this on the floor in the weeks to come, Mr. President. I thank the Chair and the Senate for the additional time, and I yield back.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am very proud to join my colleague from Ohio today in cosponsoring this piece of legislation. The senior Senator from Ohio has very eloquently outlined the need for this legislation. Let me also talk about a few items that I feel are important, because this legislation is not just about the Cleveland Browns. Really, this legislation is about how tax dollars are spent. This legislation is about equity. It is about fairness. It is a bill that would ultimately help protect professional football fans everywhere. The question is asked many times, particularly this week when we are talking in this city about important issues such as Bosnia and the budget, why should Congress even think about becoming involved in professional sports? I think the answer is threefold. First, in 1966, the NFL-AFL wanted to merge, and they came to this Congress to ask for specific exemption of the antitrust law, and that was granted. Later on, when they wanted to pool their resources, pool the TV money, again the NFL came to this Congress, to the House and the Senate, to the American people, and said we want special legislation. That legislation was passed and signed into law, and they operate under that law today. In virtually every move that is contemplated today in professional sports, certainly in regard to the purported move by the Browns from Cleveland to Baltimore, tax dollars are involved, Federal tax dollars indirectly, local tax dollars both indirectly and directly. No move takes place today without subsidization by the taxpayers. In the case of the Baltimore-Cleveland situation, you have the Cleveland community that has not only supported the Browns with its individual money by the people who go to the game, not only watch the game on TV, not only the great loyalty of almost 50 years of the Cleveland Browns fans, but the community through tax dollars has put tax dollars back into Municipal Stadium over the years, and there has been a contribution. And so we see that case now in Baltimore with additional tax dollars. Yes, I know they are called lottery dollars. They are. But again they are public funds that are used to lure Cleveland over to Baltimore. So public dollars are involved and involved in virtually every single move. And so these are three good reasons I believe why Congress is already involved in the NFL, already involved in professional football. The only question before us is to what extent we want to be involved. Senator Glenn has outlined the major provisions of this bill. The one provision which will give a limited antitrust exemption to the NFL owners if they turn down a move is, as Senator Glenn said, very limited, and it does have the effect, in my opinion, of facilitating the NFL in doing what they ought to do anyway, and that is, frankly, follow their own nine-point criteria. That is all anyone can expect them to do. When anyone looks at the nine-point criteria that the NFL drew up to guide them, that they did in lieu of the Al Davis case--and they drew up nine points, very objective criteria--it is abundantly clear that if you objectively apply the criteria, the Cleveland Browns would simply never be allowed to move. It is not even a close call. Here we have a community that has put an average of 70,000 people in the stands Sunday after Sunday after Sunday in good years and some years that maybe were not so good--almost 50 years of football tradition, NFL football in Cleveland. The day after it was announced that the Browns wanted to move to Baltimore, a day after the infamous press conference in Baltimore was held, less than 24 hours later, the voters of Cleveland, in Cuyahoga County, voted by a 72 percent margin to tax themselves to keep the Browns in Cleveland--72 percent in 1995, with the antitax climate that we have today. Here is a team that is rated No. 1 in the NFL, No. 1 in the NFL in TV penetration of their market. They get a bigger share of the TV market in the Cleveland area, throughout the Cleveland market, northeast Ohio, central Ohio, than any other team in the NFL. So if you look at the criteria that is applied, objective criteria, how well has the community supported the team, how willing is the community willing to try to negotiate and to provide the things that are needed for the team to solve any problems the team might have, when you look at all the criteria, it is abundantly clear, on an objective basis, the Browns did not qualify. It is not even close. Baltimore should get a team, but it should not be the Cleveland Browns. Let me turn, Mr. President, to another provision in this bill, and it has to do with something that I discussed yesterday with Commissioner Tagliabue when he testified in front of our Judiciary Committee, and that is this thing that is called the franchise relocation fee. This is, in essence, to boil it down, money that is given by the team that is moving to all the other NFL owners. The last time this was done, the amount was, if you count the direct money and the indirect money, $46 million. The last time there was a move in the NFL, $46 million, they spread it among the other NFL teams. These are the same owners, same teams that have to judge whether or not it is in the best interest of football and the fans for a team to be able to move. What this bill does is say you cannot have this franchise relocation fee. It is not right. It is not fair. It does not accomplish anything for the fans, for professional football, and certainly it does not make the decisionmaking process any more objective as carried on by the owners. The deal between the Cleveland Browns and Baltimore in Maryland provides a specific provision. In that contract it provides that up to $75 million can be used for a franchise relocation fee, up to $75 million. I would submit, Mr. President, that it is not too far a stretch of the imagination to argue that the lottery funds, other public money, from Baltimore, from Maryland, will then go to the Browns, the Browns would then turn around and distribute this, on this relocation fee, to the other owners. I think it is abundantly clear what the problem is with this franchise relocation fee. Mr. President, we are not in any way with this bill arguing or saying that teams should not be able to move. Teams should be able to move. They should be able to move if the market is not good, if there are problems locally that cannot be resolved. What we are simply saying, though, is that the movement should be based on merit, and there should be some logic behind that. In yesterday's hearing, Mr. President, I talked with some of the witnesses, particularly witness Tagliabue, the commissioner of the NFL, about a couple changes I thought the NFL could make without any intervention by Congress. The franchise relocation fee is one. The NFL does not have to wait for legislation. They could do that tomorrow. They could change the rules and do away with that. And I think they should. Another thing that the NFL could do would be to change their very, very strange--I do not know, Mr. President, a better word to describe it--but the very, very strange structure by which they share revenues in regard to people who go into those coliseums and ballparks every weekend. Mr. President, if you or I buy a ticket, go in to see an NFL football game this coming Sunday, if we just buy a regular ticket, part of the money from that ticket will go to the visiting team, part will go to the home team. It is the way most professional sports divide the money up. The home team does get more, but there is a certain percentage. It works no matter where you buy the ticket. There is one exception to that. This has to do with the luxury boxes. If you are lucky enough to be seated up in a luxury box, in comfort, looking down, the money you have paid or the money someone else has paid for that luxury box, for that seat, whatever you want to call it, that all goes to the home team. Well, this was a decision made apparently a few years ago by the NFL. It did not take the owners and teams very long to figure this out. And so if you got extra money, if you got all the money from the luxury boxes, it put a premium on building more luxury boxes, in fact, put a lot of pressure on the teams to build these luxury boxes, because not only, Mr. President, do the teams get all of the money instead of just part of the money----

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Not only does all this money for the luxury boxes then go to the individual owner of the home team, but it also has the effect--I will not take the time on the floor of the Senate today to explain all the math of this--but it has the effect of driving up these salary caps because that salary cap is based on total gross revenue and based on formulas. Basically, it is 62 percent times the designated amount of revenue. And so if one team, let us say team A, has no luxury boxes, but team B builds luxury boxes, not only does team B get all the money for the luxury boxes, not split at all with team A, who they might be playing that weekend, but team B, by getting that luxury box money, drives up the salary cap, not just for them but for everybody. So team A has their costs go up. So it is almost like being on a treadmill. The NFL has created a system by which everybody has a real incentive to go out and build luxury boxes. What that means is they are either going to build them in the home coliseum or the home park, or they are going to make the incentive to move somewhere else. So the NFL has created a situation with this structure that really puts a premium on movement, and I do not think it is in the best interest of football. Again, it is something that the NFL should change and can change themselves, and I think it is a fair representation of Commissioner Tagliabue's testimony yesterday that he simply did not disagree with this at all. Mr. President, let me conclude by stating that the thing that I have found most interesting in the last several weeks in regard to the controversy surrounding the Cleveland Browns' reported move to Baltimore has not been the reaction of fans in Ohio--and that has been absolutely unbelievable. People are up in arms. But we sort of expected that. What I think is interesting is that people across this country, who are sports fans, and who are not Browns fans, have looked at this and said this is not right, something is wrong, there is a problem. Maybe this move or attempt to move by the Browns to Baltimore is sort of, or should be, a wakeup signal to the NFL that something is absolutely wrong. Mr. President, the NFL has a nine-point criteria. I think they should apply that nine-point criteria to determine if this move--I think they would, if they applied the nine-point criteria, determine this move is not right, does not fit the criteria, and should not take place, and is not in the best interest of football. I believe that the bill that Senator Glenn introduced, that I have cosponsored, today will help in this situation. It will help the NFL do what it should do anyway, and is one more step toward trying to rectify a situation in professional football and other professional sports that is really very much out of hand and out of control. I will be talking more about this on the floor in the weeks to come, Mr. President. I thank the Chair and the Senate for the additional time, and I yield back.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am very proud to join my colleague from Ohio today in cosponsoring this piece of legislation. The senior Senator from Ohio has very eloquently outlined the need for this legislation. Let me also talk about a few items that I feel are important, because this legislation is not just about the Cleveland Browns. Really, this legislation is about how tax dollars are spent. This legislation is about equity. It is about fairness. It is a bill that would ultimately help protect professional football fans everywhere. The question is asked many times, particularly this week when we are talking in this city about important issues such as Bosnia and the budget, why should Congress even think about becoming involved in professional sports? I think the answer is threefold. First, in 1966, the NFL-AFL wanted to merge, and they came to this Congress to ask for specific exemption of the antitrust law, and that was granted. Later on, when they wanted to pool their resources, pool the TV money, again the NFL came to this Congress, to the House and the Senate, to the American people, and said we want special legislation. That legislation was passed and signed into law, and they operate under that law today. In virtually every move that is contemplated today in professional sports, certainly in regard to the purported move by the Browns from Cleveland to Baltimore, tax dollars are involved, Federal tax dollars indirectly, local tax dollars both indirectly and directly. No move takes place today without subsidization by the taxpayers. In the case of the Baltimore-Cleveland situation, you have the Cleveland community that has not only supported the Browns with its individual money by the people who go to the game, not only watch the game on TV, not only the great loyalty of almost 50 years of the Cleveland Browns fans, but the community through tax dollars has put tax dollars back into Municipal Stadium over the years, and there has been a contribution. And so we see that case now in Baltimore with additional tax dollars. Yes, I know they are called lottery dollars. They are. But again they are public funds that are used to lure Cleveland over to Baltimore. So public dollars are involved and involved in virtually every single move. And so these are three good reasons I believe why Congress is already involved in the NFL, already involved in professional football. The only question before us is to what extent we want to be involved. Senator Glenn has outlined the major provisions of this bill. The one provision which will give a limited antitrust exemption to the NFL owners if they turn down a move is, as Senator Glenn said, very limited, and it does have the effect, in my opinion, of facilitating the NFL in doing what they ought to do anyway, and that is, frankly, follow their own nine-point criteria. That is all anyone can expect them to do. When anyone looks at the nine-point criteria that the NFL drew up to guide them, that they did in lieu of the Al Davis case--and they drew up nine points, very objective criteria--it is abundantly clear that if you objectively apply the criteria, the Cleveland Browns would simply never be allowed to move. It is not even a close call. Here we have a community that has put an average of 70,000 people in the stands Sunday after Sunday after Sunday in good years and some years that maybe were not so good--almost 50 years of football tradition, NFL football in Cleveland. The day after it was announced that the Browns wanted to move to Baltimore, a day after the infamous press conference in Baltimore was held, less than 24 hours later, the voters of Cleveland, in Cuyahoga County, voted by a 72 percent margin to tax themselves to keep the Browns in Cleveland--72 percent in 1995, with the antitax climate that we have today. Here is a team that is rated No. 1 in the NFL, No. 1 in the NFL in TV penetration of their market. They get a bigger share of the TV market in the Cleveland area, throughout the Cleveland market, northeast Ohio, central Ohio, than any other team in the NFL. So if you look at the criteria that is applied, objective criteria, how well has the community supported the team, how willing is the community willing to try to negotiate and to provide the things that are needed for the team to solve any problems the team might have, when you look at all the criteria, it is abundantly clear, on an objective basis, the Browns did not qualify. It is not even close. Baltimore should get a team, but it should not be the Cleveland Browns. Let me turn, Mr. President, to another provision in this bill, and it has to do with something that I discussed yesterday with Commissioner Tagliabue when he testified in front of our Judiciary Committee, and that is this thing that is called the franchise relocation fee. This is, in essence, to boil it down, money that is given by the team that is moving to all the other NFL owners. The last time this was done, the amount was, if you count the direct money and the indirect money, $46 million. The last time there was a move in the NFL, $46 million, they spread it among the other NFL teams. These are the same owners, same teams that have to judge whether or not it is in the best interest of football and the fans for a team to be able to move. What this bill does is say you cannot have this franchise relocation fee. It is not right. It is not fair. It does not accomplish anything for the fans, for professional football, and certainly it does not make the decisionmaking process any more objective as carried on by the owners. The deal between the Cleveland Browns and Baltimore in Maryland provides a specific provision. In that contract it provides that up to $75 million can be used for a franchise relocation fee, up to $75 million. I would submit, Mr. President, that it is not too far a stretch of the imagination to argue that the lottery funds, other public money, from Baltimore, from Maryland, will then go to the Browns, the Browns would then turn around and distribute this, on this relocation fee, to the other owners. I think it is abundantly clear what the problem is with this franchise relocation fee. Mr. President, we are not in any way with this bill arguing or saying that teams should not be able to move. Teams should be able to move. They should be able to move if the market is not good, if there are problems locally that cannot be resolved. What we are simply saying, though, is that the movement should be based on merit, and there should be some logic behind that. In yesterday's hearing, Mr. President, I talked with some of the witnesses, particularly witness Tagliabue, the commissioner of the NFL, about a couple changes I thought the NFL could make without any intervention by Congress. The franchise relocation fee is one. The NFL does not have to wait for legislation. They could do that tomorrow. They could change the rules and do away with that. And I think they should. Another thing that the NFL could do would be to change their very, very strange--I do not know, Mr. President, a better word to describe it--but the very, very strange structure by which they share revenues in regard to people who go into those coliseums and ballparks every weekend. Mr. President, if you or I buy a ticket, go in to see an NFL football game this coming Sunday, if we just buy a regular ticket, part of the money from that ticket will go to the visiting team, part will go to the home team. It is the way most professional sports divide the money up. The home team does get more, but there is a certain percentage. It works no matter where you buy the ticket. There is one exception to that. This has to do with the luxury boxes. If you are lucky enough to be seated up in a luxury box, in comfort, looking down, the money you have paid or the money someone else has paid for that luxury box, for that seat, whatever you want to call it, that all goes to the home team. Well, this was a decision made apparently a few years ago by the NFL. It did not take the owners and teams very long to figure this out. And so if you got extra money, if you got all the money from the luxury boxes, it put a premium on building more luxury boxes, in fact, put a lot of pressure on the teams to build these luxury boxes, because not only, Mr. President, do the teams get all of the money instead of just part of the money----