Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I have had the opportunity to listen to this debate on the last 2 days. I will try very briefly to respond to a couple of points that have been made on the other side. Yesterday, the senior Senator from Massachusetts very eloquently said the proponents of this bill employ terminology that is not recognized by the medical community. He said that the term ``partial-birth abortion'' is not found in medical school textbooks or in medical schools. I would say he is absolutely correct. I guess he and I come to a different conclusion, though, as to what relevance this has. The Senator is correct. This procedure does not have an official medical name. The medical schools do not have a name for it. The medical textbooks do not have a name for it and doctors do not call it by that name. That really is exactly the point. The reason medical authorities do not have a name for it and the reason schools do not teach it is because the procedure is so inappropriate, so medically unnecessary, so bad that the medical community never had a reason to name it. The doctors, the healers, will not even give it a name. They will not put it in their textbooks. They will not described it in their medical journals. It is so bad, in fact, that in September the American Medical Association, council on legislation, described the procedure as ``basically repulsive,'' and voted unanimously this procedure was ``not a recognized medical technique.'' That is why the procedure should clearly be banned. Let me turn to another point that has been brought up by my friend and colleague from Maine as well as my friend and colleague from Michigan, that has to do with the affirmative defense issue. It was stated earlier today by my colleague from Maine that having the affirmative defense in this bill creates an enormous burden on the defense. I respectfully disagree. It does not create an enormous burden. In fact, we have over 30 examples in the code, in the Federal Code, where the affirmative defense is used. I know, as a former prosecutor at the State level and county level, it is used in virtually every State in the Union. The burden it places on the defense is a very, very low burden. It says, basically, in those instances where the defense has a unique capability of knowing and understanding the facts of what this defense would be, it is peculiarly in the knowledge of that person, that they then, after the prosecution has proven everything beyond a reasonable doubt, they have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence, the defendant does, which basically means it is more likely than not, that the procedure was in fact reasonable. If you do not do it this way and if you place it into the statute, do not have an affirmative defense but put the exception in the statute, what it means is the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the partial-birth abortion was not necessary to save the life of the mother and would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not true that no other procedure would suffice for that purpose. So this is, in the law, a commonly accepted way of dealing with this particular issue. Let me conclude, if I could, by commenting on some of the debate I have heard. It seems to me the debate on the other side of the issue has really been [[Page S 16788]] stretching, really been reaching to try to justify this procedure. Maybe a more fair way of describing their argument is not that they were trying to justify the procedure--because I really did not hear very much of that, if any of that--but rather that we just should not talk about it, we just should not deal with it. My reaction to that, to my pro-choice friends, is simply this. Even if you are pro-choice, is there some limit to what a civilized society will accept? Is there not something that you view as so bad, so repulsive that in limited cases we say no, you simply cannot do this? Let me just say that we spent a lot of time on this floor. I think my colleague from New Hampshire did a great job of stripping away the rhetoric and getting to the facts of this procedure. I would like to do the same thing about this motion to commit. Let no one who comes on this floor in the next hour and votes have any misconception about what this vote is about. This is not a procedural vote. It may be technically a procedural vote but what it really is, is a vote on the merits. This is the vote. This is the defining moment. As we vote, I would simply ask my colleagues to recall--particularly my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--one of my favorite quotes. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute?

Mr. DeWINE. Hubert Humphrey, in 1977, defined the proper role of Government. This is what he said. I think, when you listen to this, it summarizes very well what this debate is all about. It was once said that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, those who are in the twilight of life, and those who are in the shadow of life--the sick, the needy, the handicapped. That is what this debate and vote is all about. This is a vote that we will be casting on the merits. It is not just a procedural vote. This vote will determine whether or not this bill moves forward or does not.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Let me thank my colleague from Maryland for her graciousness in regard to alternating back and forth on the two sides of the aisle regarding this bill. I rise today in strong support for the partial-birth abortion bill. I think everyone knows, in this Chamber at least, that I am pro-life. But the comments I make today are not really directed directly at those in the Chamber who are pro-life, but at those who would consider themselves to be pro-choice. I will address some of the concerns that might be raised in regard to this bill by people who do consider themselves pro-choice. As my colleague has so eloquently pointed out, when the House of Representatives took this bill up and ultimately voted on it, there were a number of people who I am sure still today describe themselves as pro-choice, who voted for this bill: Representative Bonior, Representative Gephardt, Representative Susan Molinari, Representative Patrick Kennedy. So I think it is clear that people who consider themselves pro-choice can, in fact, vote for this piece of legislation. I think it is important as we debate today, Mr. President, that we narrow the focus of the debate to the specific bill in front of us, to the language contained in that bill. I believe that, if Members of this Chamber will do that, they will find that the legislation does deserve the support, not just of those of us who consider ourselves pro-life, but also of those who consider themselves pro-choice. I have seen it quoted in the paper that there are those who argue that this particular piece of legislation will rollback Roe versus Wade. I do not think that is true. In fact, I know it is not true. It is perfectly possible, Mr. President, and intellectually coherent and intellectually consistent, to endorse this legislation and at the same time support the decision in Roe versus Wade. I do not happen to support Roe versus Wade, but I do believe that by narrowly focusing on this piece of legislation--what it will do, what it will prevent--a person would come to the conclusion that it is not inconsistent with Roe versus Wade. This bill, Mr. President, is not a ban on abortions. It is not even a restriction on when an abortion may be performed. Let me repeat that. It is not a restriction on when an abortion may be performed. Restrictions of that kind were actually envisioned by Roe versus Wade. If you carefully read Roe versus Wade, it is clear that was envisioned by the Court. Roe versus Wade did make the distinction between the different trimesters. Even though Roe versus 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. All this bill does is abolish one particular procedure. My friend and colleague from New Hampshire has described this procedure in great detail. It was unpleasant to listen. At one point I literally walked off the floor. But I compliment him for having the courage to come to this floor and to talk about the facts and to lay out before this Senate and before the American people what, exactly, we are talking about. Stripping away the pleasant rhetoric that is usually used in describing in great detail exactly what this single procedure and what this bill is about, and what it actually does. I think we all can agree that this procedure is especially cruel, unusual and inhumane. Prof. Robert White is the director of the Division of Neurosurgery and Brain [[Page S 16747]] Research Laboratory at Case Western Reserve University. He testified before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution. Let me just stop at this point in response to my colleague from California, her comment that this bill should be sent back, sent back to the Judiciary Committee of the Senate for hearings. There were significant hearings held in the Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives that covered both sides of this particular issue. I think in this case, at least, any additional hearings would be redundant. The facts are basically here in front of us. Let me go back to the quote from Professor White when he testified before the House Judiciary subcommittee on the discussion. He said that fetuses that are subjected to this procedure are ``fully capable of experiencing pain;'' ``fully capable of experiencing pain.'' Mr. President, they endure that terrible procedure that we have heard described, and they are fully capable during that time of experiencing this pain. We should, Mr. President, take some comfort in the fact that the procedure is not performed very frequently. It is rare. The fact is it should not be performed at all. It is an unnecessary procedure. Even from the perspective of the pro-choice community. Mr. President, some Senators have expressed concern about whether the mother will be adequately protected without the availability of this procedure. If you talk to the medical community about this they will tell you that if a mother's life is in danger they certainly have more humane ways of terminating the pregnancy to save her. Let me turn, if I could, Mr. President, to a matter that has been raised already on this floor and that I know will be raised again. That is, the exception for the life of the mother. In this bill, there is such an exception. It is called an affirmative defense. Let me read from the statute of the proposed bill. It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution or a civil action under this section, which must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence, that the partial-birth abortion was before a physician who reasonably believed, one, the partial-birth abortion was necessary to save the life of the mother and, two, no other procedure would suffice for that purpose. This is the only way, I submit, that as a practical matter such an exception can be included in this type of legislation. Affirmative defenses are not new. Affirmative defenses, as the occupant of the chair, the Presiding Officer knows very well, go back throughout history. They include things that we all know about: insanity, for example, or self-defense. In fact, they are contained in the Federal Code in 30 or 31 different statutes. For those who have prosecuted at the State level, we all know about affirmative defenses, as well. Affirmative defenses are usually written into the statute when the knowledge about the fact is uniquely in the hands or control of the defendant. I submit that is true in this particular case. To not have it included as an affirmative defense, but rather to write it directly into the statute, would pose a situation that would be virtually impossible to deal with in court, as the prosecutor would have to basically prove a negative in every single case and then would, in fact, have to get inside the mind of the defendant. This is the type of situation where affirmative defenses are historically used. In the Federal Code, 30 or 35 times affirmative defenses are mentioned and are, in fact, built into the statute. The legal test, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, never changes. Every element has to be proven. It has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The question of the affirmative defense comes in as raised by the defendant and there, when it is raised by the defendant, the legal standard is a very, very low standard; that standard is preponderance of the evidence, evidence which is of greater weight, more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it. It is a balancing test. That is all the defendant has to do. To summarize, to those who are especially concerned about the life of the mother in this regard, as we all should be, this bill does contain an affirmative defense for doctors who act with a reasonable belief that this procedure is necessary to save the mother's life. As a former prosecutor, I can state it is relatively common in criminal law, both at the Federal level and State level, to provide this exception, to provide exceptions to general rules. Among the most common examples are self-defense and the insanity defense. There are more than 30 of these affirmative defenses in the current Federal law. For example, to a charge of witness tampering, there is an affirmative defense that the intent of the defendant was to encourage truthful testimony. In cases of failure to appear, there is an affirmative defense of uncontrollable circumstances. In cases of knowing endangerment, there is an affirmative defense that the endangered person consented to a professionally approved medical treatment. These protections for defendants are relatively common, and the Federal courts know how to deal with them. The affirmative defense in this bill is a sensible and rational provision to protect doctors and patients. We should not lose sight of the real health issue involved here. According to Dr. Pamela Smith of the department of ob-gyn at Mount Sinai Hospital in Chicago, the procedure of partial abortion itself poses risks to the health of the mother. She cites several examples, and then she concludes: There are absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which require a partially delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the health of the mother. This is a pretty clear medical conclusion. Frankly, as I examine the facts, I see no reason why this Senate--those who consider themselves pro-life and those who consider themselves pro-choice--should not approve overwhelmingly this bill. This debate will continue, I am sure, into the night tonight and into tomorrow. I ask, again, that my colleagues listen to the narrow focus of the debate. Look at the language in the bill. Recall the basic facts that we have in front of us in regard to what this medical--medical procedure--actually entails. I think, after Members do this, there is only one logical conclusion that they can come to, and that is, whether pro-life or pro-choice, they have to vote to ban this horrible, brutal operation. I thank my colleague from Maryland, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE. Mine is probably about 10 minutes.

Mr. DeWINE. Either way. It does not matter.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Let me thank my colleague from Michigan for yielding time and say that I rise in strong support of the Abraham amendment. My friend from Michigan said a moment ago that he has many examples of constituents who have had firsthand experiences. My guess is that there is not a Member of this body who could not say the same thing. As I travel the State of Ohio, I talk to people about the Medicare issue and what we need to do, the steps that we will have to take to preserve and protect and strengthen Medicare. And people will always talk to me about the fraud, talk to me about abuse. Many times I travel the State. And they have specific examples. I suspect that every single Member of this body could say the same thing. I have had my staff go through some of the letters that we have received. Here are just a few of them, people who have written to us, people who I have talked to personally, who have described specific incidents that they believe constitute fraud. I think my colleague from Michigan is right on point, because I think one of the things that we have to do is to enlist the public's help in this effort to deal with the fraud and abuse. It has been my experience, Mr. President, that the American people are generally right. And in this particular case, the American people, the people who are on Medicare, the children of people who are on Medicare who have been involved in maybe paying the bills or overseeing some of the finances, they are not wrong. They are right. There is fraud. There is abuse. There are things that need to be done. So I would like to congratulate my colleague from Michigan and give him my full support for this particular amendment. Mr. President, the reconciliation bill that we are debating tonight and will be debating tomorrow, probably also into Friday, has great historic significance. It has many different parts to it, as has already been pointed out tonight. One of the provisions in this bill that my colleague from Michigan mentioned several hours ago when he was on the floor I would also like to briefly comment about, and that has to do with the tax credit, the $500 tax credit for those couples, those families, who have children. There has been a lot of talk about what this might do to help stimulate the economy, a lot of talk about what impact this has on this particular bill. But I think the main reason, Mr. President, for having this provision, and why so many of us on this floor tonight insisted that this provision be in the bill, is because it is a question of fairness, it is a question of equity. If we look at the tax burden that our Government has placed on working men and women and on their families, what we find is that that burden has really impacted how people live their lives today. Let me give you a statistic. If you took a family with four children in 1960 and compared them with a family of four children in 1995, what you find when you strip away inflation is that the tax burden on that family has gone up in real dollars 220 percent--220 percent. So each one of us has constituents back in our home States who are working second jobs, or third jobs or where the spouse has taken a second job or maybe taken a first job, who would not do that but for the fact that this tax burden has been imposed on them. And so you have one of the spouses working one job full-time just to pay the taxes, just to keep the family standard of living where they believe it should be and to help educate their children. That is the perverse impact that the Tax Code has had on families, and the fact that the Tax Code has not, over the years since 1960, for example, kept up in any way, shape or form with inflation. What this $500 tax credit does is helps to rectify that injustice and bring some equity to the tax system. Mr. President, another major provision of this bill that we have in front of us has to do with welfare. I believe that this bill is an essential step toward creating jobs and opportunity for the American people, and I believe that the welfare provision goes a long way in doing that. This particular provision encourages the culture of work instead of the culture of welfare. In the case of the welfare provision, again, there has been a lot of talk about dollars and cents, and those certainly are important. In the long run, I think this provision is going to save money, but that is really not the main reason it is in this bill. It is really not the most significant thing about this welfare provision, because in this bill, we are changing the culture. In this bill, we are turning our back on the last 30 years where what we really have been doing in this society--it has been unintended--but what we really have been doing is keeping people alive. We have been feeding people, we have been keeping them on welfare. I guess we have done a pretty good job in that respect. But what we really should be doing is what we are doing with this bill, and that is, moving from a system of welfare, whose goal is to maintain people, to a system of welfare whose goal is to help people realize the American dream, to help them get themselves off welfare so they can fully participate in the great American dream. Let me briefly discuss, if I can, Mr. President, how this bill does this. This bill promotes work, not welfare. It proposes radical change based on the principle that the only way to succeed in reforming welfare is to get welfare out of Washington, DC. We are only going to change welfare when we turn the power back to the local communities, we turn the money back to the local communities. Washington, DC, has demonstrated for decades that it cannot reform welfare. The innovation that has occurred in the welfare area in the attempt to get people to work has not occurred over the last few years in Washington. Where you see the innovation is in the 50 States. The States have truly become the laboratories of democracy. And so what we have seen in the last few years is Governors and State legislatures who have had to petition Washington, have had to come hat in hand to Washington and deal with some unelected bureaucrat to ask permission to be bold and innovative and to try a new program back in their home State. What we are saying with this bill is enough is enough, we trust the States. That is where the innovation has been. That is where the changes are going to be made. Let us get the money out of Washington, get the power out of Washington. Real change is only going to come, Mr. President, at the State level. And so the thrust of this bill is, as I said, to get the power and the money and the decisions out of Washington, DC. It will take the States time to fix this broken system. I think we have to be very realistic about this. Welfare did not become a wreck overnight, and it is not going to be fixed overnight. In fact, it will not get fixed at all if the power course stays here at the Federal level. The welfare provisions contained in this bill will help accomplish this historic transfer of power away from Washington. It will transfer welfare responsibility to the States in the form of block grants. The bill would also establish a tough new uniform work requirement for welfare. Next year, under this legislation, to continue receiving block grant money, States will have to make sure that at least 25 percent of the people on welfare are working in return for the benefits that they receive. I ask for 3 additional minutes.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, that percentage will continue to rise every year, and by the year 2000 at least 50 percent of those receiving welfare will have to work. The only long-term solution to welfare is work. This reconciliation bill recognizes this basic commonsense fact. I am especially pleased by some of the improvements we were able to make during floor consideration of the bill. We established, when we were debating the welfare bill, a rainy-day fund to help cover economic emergencies, creating a grant fund of Federal money that will help tide States over in the event of a recession. We also made it easier to track deadbeat parents. We know that we could reduce the welfare rolls by up to two-thirds if deadbeat parents would just pay their child support. Years ago, I was a prosecutor in Greene County, Ohio, and I learned then firsthand how difficult it can be to track down these deadbeat parents. You get banking information about them on a yearly basis, you find out their assets, find out their location, just in time to discover they vanished once again. This bill would provide this vital tracking information on a quarterly basis, once every 3 months, not once a year. It will be a big plus for our efforts to track down the deadbeats and, thus, reduce welfare costs and, perhaps most important of all, we will give States credit for helping people avoid falling into the welfare trap. We have found that helping people before they get on welfare through job training, job search assistance, and similar measures is a cheaper and more effective way to help them than simply waiting for them to fall off the economic cliff and become full-fledged welfare clients. In conclusion, Mr. President, I strongly support the idea that we have to make welfare recipients work, but we need to make sure that meeting the work requirement does not become an end in and of itself. The goal, after all, is to help people avoid getting caught in the welfare trap in the first place. This bill gives States credit toward the work requirements for the efforts they make to help people stay off welfare. It will help keep States focused on the real problem: Making sure fewer and fewer people need welfare in the first place. With these changes and the underlying idea of promoting work and getting welfare out of Washington, the Senate welfare reform package is a major step toward breaking the cycle of welfare dependency once and for all.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, first let me congratulate my colleague from Texas for a very eloquent statement as well as congratulate my colleague from Idaho for his statement that preceded the Senator from Texas. I rise today, Mr. President, to discuss the reconciliation bill that we will begin debating this Wednesday. It is very clear that there will be nothing more important that this Congress will do than the particular bill that we are going to take up on Wednesday. In fact, there may not be anything more important in any of our careers here in Congress, however short or long they may be, than this particular bill. The bill that we will begin debating on Wednesday results from a statement made by the American people last November. It was a statement that was very simple, very plain and very eloquent. What the American people said last November was that we must make some very fundamental changes in the course of the direction of this Government. Mr. President, the American people had ample reason to speak so loudly last November. For example, if we look at the budgetary outlook contained in the report of the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlements, we will find a pretty grim picture. Here is what this Bipartisan Commission said, in essence. If we do not change our present course, by the year 2012 every single penny in the Federal budget will be consumed by entitlements and by interest on the national debt. My colleague from Texas just said that a moment ago. I again want to repeat it because it summarizes, I think, very well, the crisis that we are in. Think of it--every single penny of the entire Federal budget will be consumed by entitlements and by interest on the national debt. If, Mr. President, in the year 2012 we want Government to do anything at all--provide for our national defense, provide money to run the Army, the Navy, Air Force, Marines, run a program such as the WIC Program or provide any funds for higher education or primary or secondary education--to do any of these things, unless we change the course of the direction of this Government of this country, we would have to raise taxes because there would not be any money anywhere else in the budget to pay for any of these things. This, I think, gives us a pretty good indication of what kind of problem we have in this country. As we approach this problem, I think the American people demand from us honesty, demand from us that we use numbers that are real, because I believe the American people are sick and tired of phony numbers. They know we cannot go on trying to hide from the facts. Unless we take action and take action now, our children, our grandchildren, are going to face an even more severe reckoning; frankly, the quality of life our children have, and our grandchildren and their children have, will be different, will be lower than ours. So I believe the American people last November were also saying that the time for the blue smoke and mirrors is over. The reconciliation bill that we will begin to consider this Wednesday is an honest, forthright attempt to solve this major problem threatening our children's future--the problem of America's imminent bankruptcy. If we listen to the debate occurring on TV, in our newspapers, on the radio, one might conclude that we, on this side, have been a little too honest, maybe a little too forthright. But I do not think so. I do not believe that the American people expect us to do any less than to be forthright and to be honest. And one charge that has not been made--and I do not think will be made--is that we have taken a walk on this issue. We assuredly have not. This reconciliation bill that, in about 48 hours, we will begin to consider is a serious, detailed, fundamental attempt to change America's fiscal course. The patience of the American people, I believe, has run out--their patience with distorted figures, their patience with lack of candor. That is one of the reasons why we had such a revolutionary election, such an historic election in 1994. The American people want elected officials who are willing to break the syndrome, once and for all, of distortion. That is what I believe we are trying to do with this reconciliation bill. The President, on the other hand, has not responded to this national demand for fundamental change. Unfortunately, the administration's proposal does not even come close to meeting this challenge. It is not detailed. It is not serious. And it does not attempt to fundamentally change the course and the direction of this Government. Thanks to the important work of my colleague, the senior Senator from New Mexico, the chairman of the Budget Committee, we have details spelling out exactly how far short the President's plan has fallen. Let us look at how the President's plan claims to get to balance. Let us look at it. According to the President's plan, there will be $55 billion less in Medicare spending. No changes in benefits, no changes in law, it will just, somehow, magically appear. There will be $68 billion less in Medicaid spending, according to the President. Again, no changes in benefits, no changes in law; it will just somehow magically happen. There will be $85 billion less in spending on agriculture, pensions, and other programs. No details, no specific cuts; again, it will just somehow magically happen. [[Page S 15420]] The same goes for $22 billion in supposed savings in the discretionary account. No real changes--the cuts are just going to happen somehow. Then--please stay with me, follow this--the administration predicts, based upon these assumptions, assumptions that really have no basis in fact, that as a result of these things certain other things will occur that will save another $70 billion from lower interest rates; yet another $175 billion thanks to economic growth--lower interest rates and economic growth, based upon assumptions that have no basis in fact, that have no support, that have no specifics. A few years ago there was a popular song that asked, ``Do You Believe in Magic?'' The American people no longer believe in magic when it comes to the Federal budget. They believe it is time to sweep away the smoke and mirrors. It is time to start buckling down and making the tough choices. Sadly, the administration proposal is not even smoke and mirrors. There are not any mirrors in that proposal. It is all smoke. When you say we are going to cut $475 billion out of the budget without actually changing anything, without actually paying any kind of price, that does not even qualify as a trick. The time for that kind of falsehood, I think, is over. It is time for truth. It is time for decisions. And that is what Congress is trying to do in this historic reconciliation bill. A vote for the reconciliation package is a vote to balance the budget so we can start reducing the national debt and put America on a course toward a future we can be proud to leave our children. A vote against the reconciliation package, I believe, is a vote to stay the course, a vote to take today's staggering deficits and hand them to our children and our grandchildren, to give our children and our grandchildren our bills for them to pay. When the smoke clears, there is one fundamental difference between the President's budget proposal and our budget proposal. Under the President's plan, we will leave our children and our grandchildren our bills. Under our plan, we will balance our budget so our children and grandchildren will not have to pay our bills. For America, I believe it is a clear choice between two very distinct and different futures. That is why I intend to vote for this reconciliation package. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me congratulate my colleague from Pennsylvania. I think it is appropriate, at this very, very historic time--and I think we all understand the next 2, 3, 4, 5 weeks may be the most important weeks that any of us ever serve in this body, or in this Congress, and they may be some of the most important weeks for the future of this country--I think it is appropriate, and I think it is important we do have a full debate. As the Senator from Pennsylvania so eloquently said, you cannot do that, really, unless you view different options, unless both sides are willing to debate the specific facts. Therefore, I think it is appropriate that the President's budget be literally on the table and that we look at that and look at the assumptions in there and look to see whether or not that budget does what the President says, and that is balance the budget. There are those of us on this side who do not think it does. We think it is based upon assumptions that, frankly, are very optimistic and that are not based upon reality and that the savings, so-called savings that the President achieves he achieves in that manner, a changing of the accounting rules, in a sense, or changing of the assumptions, at least. So I think it is important we debate this. We have, I believe, made some progress in this country in the tenor of the national debate. As I travel throughout my home State of Ohio-- and, I imagine, my colleague from Pennsylvania finds the same thing in Pennsylvania--we are seeing emerging a consensus about the problems that exist and a consensus that this Congress finally has to do something about these problems. There are three areas where I think really, today, there is a consensus. A balanced budget: The American people understand we cannot continue to do what we had been doing in the past. They understand that. So the real question in this debate is, whose budget is realistic? Whose budget will, in fact, bring about a balanced budget, as we believe ours will, by the year 2002? The second area where there clearly is a consensus is in regard to welfare reform. We saw this on the floor a few weeks ago as we looked at the overwhelming vote. Over 80 Members of this body of 100 cast a vote in favor of the final welfare reform bill that passed. There is a consensus in this country about welfare reform. Medicare: A year ago, I do not think there was really an understanding about the problems that we have, that we face in regard to Medicare. Today, while there is a debate about what we should do about Medicare, I do not think there is any longer a debate about the fact that something has to be done. The Medicare commissioners have said clearly that Medicare will, in fact, be bankrupt in a short period of time unless we take some very dramatic action. So there is consensus on these three issues. As my colleague from Pennsylvania says, it is important that we get the facts out and we debate these facts on this floor. Let me talk for a moment, in light of this, about the bill that is going to be coming in front of us. The American people may not have heard the term ``reconciliation.'' It is kind of a inside-the-beltway term, but it is a term that is going to be used quite often in the next several weeks. This particular bill we are going to discuss is going to be the vehicle for this Congress to bring about the changes I believe people voted for last November. This legislation is bold, it is farsighted, and it is absolutely necessary for America's future. Furthermore, it is based on sound data. It is based on facts. It is based on good budget figures. The American people decided last November they wanted a Congress that was finally willing to put America back on track towards fiscal solvency. I believe the American people are ready for this change. In fact, I believe the message of 1994, and frankly the message of 1992, was that the American people were demanding this kind of change. We cannot ignore the basic truth contained in the report of the bipartisan entitlement commission. That commission said, if we do not change our present course, by the year 2012, every single penny in the Federal budget will be consumed by entitlements and interest on the national debt. Mr. President, I ask consent to speak for 1 additional minute.

Mr. DeWINE. If, in the year 2012, we want Government to have any money for discretionary spending--money to run the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, or the WIC program--it would then mean a tax increase, because there would not be any money left, no money left at all, if we continue to do what we have been doing. In the days ahead, I intend to continue to talk about this issue, to talk about the need for this reconciliation bill. At this point, I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I want to congratulate my freshman colleagues who have been on the floor the last hour. I think they have brought to the floor today an understanding of what this national debate that is going on is all about and what the debate that we will be having for the next few weeks in this Chamber is all about. It is appropriate that the freshman Members, myself included, are making this debate today as we have in the past, because we were the ones who came through the last election and listened to what the American people had to say, as, of course, all our colleagues did. In a sense, we were a little closer to that. My colleagues who preceded me today have talked very eloquently. I think if I could summarize, I would say [[Page S 15193]] that what they have talked about is to try to give us real understanding about what this debate that we are engaging in this Congress is all about. The term ``reconciliation'' may be a term that is not familiar to the American people today, but I suspect in the next 3 or 4 weeks it may become more familiar. We are going to be talking about a lot of specifics that are contained in the reconciliation bill. We will talk about some provisions of this bill that, frankly, I may not like. I suspect there are few Members on this floor, if they were very candid, who would not point out a provision or two or more of the reconciliation bill that we will be considering that they may not like. But, instead of focusing on the minutiae, I think it is important for us to step back, as we tried to do during this last 50 minutes of debate, and keep our eye on the ball and talk about the big picture and what is at stake. My colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum, who just concluded, I think, said it very, very well when he talked about promises that were made. What are those promises? What were those promises? How will this Congress be judged? I think we will ultimately be judged on four things, the four big promises that were made. First, to balance the budget; to do something that this Congress has not done since I was a senior at Miami University in Ohio in 1969--a long time ago, a quarter of a century--that is to balance the Federal budget, and to set us on the path so that we will, within that reasonable period of time of 7 years, have a balanced budget and do something we have not done for a quarter of a century and to make sure the figures are real, the promises kept. Second, to save Medicare. I use the term save because, as my colleague from Tennessee, who is currently presiding, has very eloquently pointed out, that is what this debate about Medicare is really all about: to save it, to preserve it, to strengthen it. Third, is to reform welfare. We passed a welfare bill. The House has passed one. We understand if we are really going to change the direction of this country, we have to first start with a change in welfare. And the fourth: commitment. The fourth thing I think this Congress will be judged on is our commitment to have a modest tax cut--it is a modest tax cut--for working men and women in this country. So, I think it is important for us to truly keep our eye on the ball. Let me conclude by saying the comments of my colleague from Tennessee I thought were most appropriate as was the chart that was displayed here a few moments ago. What these promises, once they are kept, will really do is to improve dramatically the quality of life for the average man, woman, and child--particularly child--in this country. Because, as he so eloquently pointed out, interest rates and other things that silently affect our ability to purchase a home, for a young, newly married couple to purchase a home, have their interests rates down, to have a newer car, a safer car, all of these will be affected by what we do with the Federal deficit. The quality of life of people who are struggling to get out of poverty will be affected by what we have done and will do in regard to true welfare reform. I think sometimes we forget the big picture. Sometimes we spend a lot of time on this floor talking about individual bills, which we should, and what impact some small bill, relatively small bill, is going to have on individuals. Sometimes we forget what we do in regard to the big picture, what we do in regard to welfare reform, what we do in regard to a meaningful tax cut for working men and women, what we do in regard to balancing the budget, what we do in regard to saving Medicare. This big picture will affect, ultimately, the quality of life of our children much more than what we do on any individual program. I again congratulate my colleagues, congratulate my friend and colleague from Tennessee, whose statistics and chart I think pointed that out very, very well. So, as we head into this debate and as we talk about the minutiae of reconciliation--I see my friend from New Mexico, the chairman of the Budget Committee, who is, obviously, going to be involved very much in that debate--I think it is important to keep our eye on the ball, keep our eye on the commitments, what we told the American people we were going to do, why we were coming to Washington. And, as we cast these tough and, frankly, very unpleasant votes we are going to have to cast in the weeks ahead, it is important for us to do that, to keep our eye on the ball and remember the big picture. Remember, it is the big actions that we take in the four areas I have talked about that are going to impact the quality of life of our children and our grandchildren much more than any one particular bill, any one particular amendment, any one particular vote. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to now proceed as in morning business.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to discuss a matter that I have discussed on several other occasions on this floor over the last few months, and that is the issue of schoolbus safety in this country. I would like to update the Senate on the progress that we are making in this particular area. The bad news, Mr. President, is that there are still, we believe, over 100,000 unsafe schoolbuses on the road in this country today, 100,000 schoolbuses that at this moment, at least in the Eastern time zone, the Eastern part of the country, are in the process of taking children home from school. I have been involved in, and my staff has been involved in, trying to alert the school officials, schoolbus safety officials, in all the 50 States to this particular problem. And I think we are making progress on a number of fronts. First, one of the major causes, as I have talked about before on this floor, of schoolbus fatalities is the drawstrings that appear around the waist and other parts of clothing of the coats worn by many schoolchildren today. As children get off of schoolbuses, this drawstring is liable to get snagged in the gap that exists between the bus wall and the handrail itself. Since 1991, at least five children that we know of have been killed in this manner, have been stuck on the bus that that particular drawstring has caught, and they have been dragged by the bus and they have been killed. I am pleased, Mr. President, to report that the Consumer Product Safety Commission is taking action on this problem. Last month they recommended to the American Society of Testing Materials, the ASTM, that the drawstrings be shortened. Experts agree that this measure will help prevent these accidents. This is, Mr. President, a big step--a big step--in the right direction. As a result of CPSC's recommendation, the ASTM has already announced a voluntary standard for the drawstrings. Drawstrings that are 4 or 5 inches in length are now banned. The ASTM also announced plans for a research project to determine if there is any ideally safe drawstring length. The results of this study are to be announced on November 30. Second, we, as a country, are starting to fix the buses. A bus manufacturing company bought some of the assets of another bus company, a company had gone out of business, a defunct bus company that was purchased. And the new bus company has decided voluntarily to provide materials to retrofit many of the dangerous buses made by the defunct company. It will do this at cost. That particular company is also trying to identify other unsafe buses that are still on the road so they, too, can be retrofitted. Third, I have brought with me to the floor, Mr. President, a copy of a pamphlet that children are getting in an elementary school in my hometown of Cedarville, OH. This particular pamphlet gives good advice to parents. ``Teach your children to look out for the straps and drawstrings. Be very careful when you are getting on and off the schoolbus.'' This was provided courtesy of the Pupil Transportation Safety Institute, 1-800-836-2210. It is a very simple brochure, but a brochure that we hope will do some good. Mr. President, in conclusion, I think parents all over America should get a pamphlet just like this. It is available from the Pupil Transportation Safety Institute. Let me again repeat the number, 1-800- 836-2210. As the pamphlet says, ``Schoolbus safety is a team effort.'' So, Mr. President, let us work together to make all these schoolbuses as safe as they can be.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would also like to talk about another issue this afternoon, and that is an issue that I discussed briefly this morning, an issue that we in the Senate will be debating for the next few weeks and an issue that has, I believe, historic importance, not just in this Senate but to this country, not just to this generation but to our children's generation and our grandchildren's. I rise specifically today, Mr. President, to discuss the reconciliation bill that we expect to reach the floor sometime in the next 2 weeks. This bill embodies the decision that the American people expressed last November. The American people last December decided that we need to make a fundamental change in course for our U.S. Government Many of us ran, many of us talked about these issues, and what were the commitments? I think we can summarize them as follows. There are many, but four essential commitments were made last November, four commitments that we will work over the next few weeks to carry out: First, we need to balance the budget. Second, we need to replace the welfare system with a system that rewards work and creates opportunity. Third, we need to rescue Medicare from bankruptcy. And fourth, we need to give some tax relief to the hard-working families of this country. Four basic simple things that I believe, if passed, if enacted, will fundamentally change the direction of this country. While these are simple, I think it is fair to say that this is really an extremely ambitious agenda. Even to consider an agenda of this magnitude would make this a truly historic Congress. But in this reconciliation package, the Senate is about to pass this agenda, to actually pass it, and to send it on to the President of the United States. Except for a few days at the beginning of 1953, the last time a Democratic President had to deal with a Republican Congress--with a Republican Congress--was from 1947 to 1949. In the 1948 election, the Democratic President accused the Republicans of running a do-nothing Congress. The current President is very well equipped with rhetorical ammunition. They work very hard on this at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, but I think that the charge that this is a do- nothing Congress is not one the White House will be using any time soon, or at least the White House will be using successfully any time soon, because the fact is, this Congress has stepped up to the plate and made some extremely tough decisions. This Congress has passed a balanced budget plan for the first time, if we carry it out, since 1969. This Congress is fundamentally overhauling the welfare system, and just a few weeks ago on this floor, this Senate passed a historic welfare bill. I believe this Congress will take the steps to save Medicare from bankruptcy. This Congress is working to relieve the tax burden on working families. Mr. President, this is the historic agenda the 104th Congress is prepared to send to the President of the United States. Let us make no mistake, this reconciliation package is the only proposal on the table that will achieve the goals of the American people. Our national goals are to balance the budget and to let working families keep more of their own money. The Republican reconciliation package accomplishes both of these goals. Indeed, Mr. President, if you look at it a certain way, these two are, in fact, the [[Page S 15206]] same goal. If we do not take action now to balance the budget, the tax burden will only get worse and worse for American families in the future. The report of the bipartisan entitlement commission could not be more clear: If we do not change our present course by the year 2012, every single penny in the Federal budget will be consumed by entitlements and interest on the national debt. If in the year 2012 we want Government to do anything at all, such as run the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, run a program for women, infants, and children, the WIC Program, or any other things we consider important, it would have to mean a tax increase, a huge, staggering tax increase. You would have to have a tax increase, because there is no money left to do these things. Let me try to put our present course in historical perspective and talk about an American family. When my parents graduated from high school in early 1940's, the debt on each child who graduated that year was approximately $360. By the time my wife, Fran, and I graduated in 1965, it was up to $1,600 for each child. When our older children, Patrick, Jill, and Becky, graduated in the mid-1980's, that figure had risen per child. The debt for each child graduating those years was $9,000. If we continue to go the way we have been going, by the year 2012, just 1 year after our grandson, Albert, graduates from high school and just 1 year after our daughter, Anna, enters college, by that year 2012, that figure will be $25,000. That will be $25,000 in debt for each person--each man, woman, child--in this country. What a staggering debt, what a horrible legacy we would be leaving to our children and our grandchildren. Clearly, the longer we wait to change course, the worse it will be for the American people. The reconciliation package that we will be considering balances the budget by slowing the rate of growth of Federal spending. Let me repeat that. It balances the budget by slowing the rate of growth. Columnist James Glassman of the Washington Post has proposed a useful way of looking at this bill, this package. Add up all the spending by the Federal Government over the last 7 years and compare it with the total this budget proposes to spend over the next 7 years. The result: Spending over the next 7 years will increase over the last 7 years by $2.6 trillion. Let me repeat that. Spending will increase. The truth is that by limiting spending growth to just a little more than the expected rate of inflation, by doing this, what would seem to be, simple act, we can balance the budget. If we as a nation cannot summon the will and the courage to make that relatively small sacrifice, how on Earth can we expect the next generation to face a budget with no money in the discretionary account, no money for defense, no money for social programs, and $25,000 of debt owed by every single American? Mr. President, over a working lifetime, the interest alone on the national debt will cost an American child born today a total of $187,000. It is clear to me as well as to the American people this could very well be our last chance to solve this problem before it is really too late. This is a grave responsibility, and I do not believe that we can back away from it. Is there an alternative? Is there anything else we can do? The President has proposed a different approach. His budget, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the budget office that he told us we should be following, contains deficits, according to their calculation. His budget, the President's budget, contains deficits of $200 billion as far as the eye can see, for the foreseeable future. His budget never gets to balance. Let me repeat that. According to CBO, the President's budget never gets to balance. In other words, no balanced budget, staggering deficits as far as the eye can see. Mr. President, I do not believe that is how America wants to begin a new millennium. For over 200 years, we have given hope to all the nations of the world--hope that free men and women are, in fact, capable of self-government, capable of making responsible choices to ensure a prosperous future for our families, our children, and for our country. Mr. President, a vote for the Republican reconciliation package is a vote to balance the budget so that we can start reducing the national debt and so we can put America on course toward a future we can be proud to leave our children. The administration's budget proposal would take today's staggering deficits, add 24 percent, and then ask our children and grandchildren to pay our bills. Often in the past, Americans have faced up to a choice, a choice between two futures. The choice we make in this historic Congress will rank with some of the most important in our Nation's history. As Congress decides and as America decides, I believe we should stay true to our national calling. We should prove, Mr. President, that America is in fact capable of responsibility. We must balance the budget so that our children and grandchildren do not have to pay our bills. We must, we should, put the future first and support the reconciliation bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on the time of the Senator from Wyoming?

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today very reluctantly to oppose the amendment from my friends from Pennsylvania and Illinois and Utah. I say reluctantly because I totally agree with their objectives and I totally agree with their analysis of what is one of the gravest problems this country faces and that is the growing number of young people in this country who are literally growing up in a society that is separate from the rest of us. Someone has come up with the term ``at-risk youth.'' You see these at-risk youth when you go into a Job Corps center site, as I have in Dayton, OH, or in Cincinnati or in Cleveland. You talk to these kids-- really not kids, young adults--and you find they have grown up in a family where there is one parent, that one parent may be an alcoholic or drug addict, where no one in the family has worked for years--where no one has in the neighborhood, really. They do not seem to know anybody in the neighborhood who has worked. That is not true in every case, but it is not atypical. The thing we have to keep in mind, though, is when we go into a Job Corps site and see these young people, for every one you see in a Job Corps site there are 10, 100, maybe 1,000, maybe 10,000 more out there in every one of our States, so we are just seeing a small number of these individuals. So I applaud the purpose of this amendment but I differ in the approach. We looked at this issue at length in the Labor Committee. The committee adopted an amendment that I offered that ensures that approximately 40 percent of the money that will be spent at the State level will be spent for these at-risk youth and that we will not allow the States to cream off the top, to just help those young people who are between jobs, to help just those in the middle class, but that the States will be required --the total package provides $2.1 billion that has to be spent on the at-risk youth. Now we move to the question how do we spend this money the most effectively? There are those who look at Job Corps and say, ``Do away with it.'' They cite the statistics of crime, drug abuse, lack of any definable results or quantitative results. There are others who say very eloquently, ``The Job Corps does work and we have to have a residential facility.'' I believe the Senator from Kansas, who chairs our committee, has come up with a very rational compromise and it is a middle position. It is a position, I believe, that marries the best of both worlds. What does it do? It says we understand there are problems with the Job Corps. We are going to try to fix those. It says, of the 111 or so Job Corps sites--we have eight more coming on, that makes 119--we are going to take 25, the worst, in an objective measure, and those will be eliminated. But the rest will stay in existence. I want Members who are listening back in their offices to keep this in mind. They will continue and they will continue under the authority and the power of the States. Any State that might lose a Job Corps site--25. For example, let us say Ohio might lose one. It may. I do not know. But that money would continue to flow to the State and that money would have to be spent for at-risk youth. It could not be creamed off. It could not be used by the State for any other purpose but to target this at-risk youth. That, to me, is very, very significant. I think it is important to point out exactly where this bill stands now. As a result of the amendment that I offered and other changes that were made, and the good work of the chairman, the Workforce Development Act now targets $2.1 billion of the funding on Jobs Corps and other education and training programs directly on the problems of at-risk youth. States have to spend roughly 40 percent of job training dollars in this bill on the at-risk youth problem. They cannot cream off the easy part for the job training problem. They have to tackle the tough cases. The bill provides us a framework based initially on a residential concept for Job Corps. But it requires that a major portion of this money be targeted at this at-risk youth population. I believe that this legislation now represents a rational compromise. In this compromise, States must target the at-risk youth population. But along with this requirement, or mandate, they are given flexibility--flexibility that I think is essential if we are to empower the States and to encourage the States to develop a full-fledged program for at-risk youth. States should not be in a position to turn and say, ``Well, the at- risk youth is the Federal Government's problem. The at-risk youth is what we have Job Corps for.'' I do not think so. I think it is much better if it is integrated to the State's entire program to deal with all of the at-risk youth in the State. This compromise keeps most Job Corps centers in place. But it shifts control of the centers to the States to promote a greater focus on local jobs. The goal of the compromise is to make sure States see helping at-risk youth as an integral, very significant part of their mission. The specific issue of the future of the Job Corps Program is of great concern to myself and my colleague from Pennsylvania and other Members on the floor. Some people, as I said, want to abolish Job Corps. Some want to keep it with the status quo and make some minor changes. I believe the compromise that we have come up with will actually rescue Job Corps and start it down the path of truly fixing it. It is clear that many of these at-risk youth that I have talked about will continue to need the kind of residential education that Job Corps provides. I think we need to keep that option open. That is why Job Corps was not abolished in this compromise. That is why the Labor Committee bill provides for a great deal of flexibility in how this fund for at-risk youth will be used. Indeed, the bill cures what has been one of the major complaints about the Job Corps program in the past--the fact that Job Corps is a nationally administered program that does not respond to the needs of the local labor markets. I will come back to that in a moment. One of the key insights into a recent American political discourse is that we need to rebuild the sense of community. My friend from Indiana, Senator Coats, has talked about that. He has spoken eloquently on the need to rebuild the ties that make for a successful civil society. But let us look at a typical Job Corps experience. A young woman or young man from Detroit, MI, may be sent to a Job Corps Center in Dayton, OH, and that Job Corps Center in Dayton, OH, may be run by a contractor from Utah. Then when that young man or that young woman goes out to find a job, the agency that is charged with helping that person find a job may be based in Atlanta, GA. You lose the sense of community which I think most people truly understand is essential if the person in the Job Corps is not only going to be trained but if they are going to have a real job afterward, 6 months or 12 months later, because that is the true test of whether it works or not. The problem with the current system is that very few people involved in this process have any real ties to the local community or to the particular young adult being trained. This is an extremely disjointed process, not a focused, locally oriented approach. More often than not, the young person does not remain in the community where a Job Corps center is. The person quite naturally tends to go home. I think a truly successful Job Corps Program should look at that young person not just as another client who is shipped somewhere, but as a member of the local community. That is why streamlining the job training program into block grants to the States is how we have done it in this bill. We have also decided to shift the Job Corps Program to the States. There is a much greater chance that Job Corps will succeed in rescuing an at-risk youth if that program is tapped [[Page S 14966]] into a local community--local youth, local employers, and local jobs. The Job Corps needs to be part of a focused, comprehensive, locally oriented system. I think that is very, very important. So let me conclude by saying, Mr. President, that everyone on this floor--as I look around at all the Members-- has a great concern about at-risk youth. The only issue today is how we best serve these at-risk youth. I believe that the continuation of Job Corps--and an improved Job Corps providing for residential services but integrated into a State system--is really the only way that we can go. It is a rational approach. It is a rational compromise. I think it has a much greater chance of success than continuing the current system. So, I ask my colleagues--again, I say this quite reluctantly--to defeat this amendment and assure them that when they look at this bill they will find it is a bill that has considered at-risk youth, and not only has considered at-risk youth but has put a star behind that term, and say we care, we care about the at-risk youth in this society, and that this Congress, this Senate, is not going to forget about them but, even more importantly, the States are not either. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like to respond to the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Pennsylvania. They are absolutely correct in what they read. But the rest of the story is that all of that money, in that area, that title, has to be spent for at-risk youth. So it is not a question of the State being able to take part of that money and divert it over here for some other purpose. You cannot even use it for some other purpose that has to do with job training. It has to specifically be targeted at at-risk youth. To me, that is the significant part. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Ten minutes.

Mr. DeWINE. I do, Mr. President.

Mr. DeWINE. I will at this point, Mr. President, ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DeWINE. If I just could say, we have worked closely with people in the banking community. And I do appreciate the Senator's comments about not having a hearing on it. I understand that. But this amendment is based on matching computer tapes, basically a computer match with tapes, which we are told is not, with today's technology, really much of a burden. It is not the creation and not asking for the creation of a new list. It is a computer match with tapes to get this particular job done. I also say that if a person wanted to get a court order in every case, they could go in and get a court order for the bank records anyway on a case-by-case basis. That is not the right way to do it. This, we believe, is the right way to do it.

Mr. DeWINE. Absolutely. What will happen on a practical basis is what has happened in Massachusetts and what I am sure would happen in Ohio, and that is, quite frankly, the State officials would enter into an agreement with the banking association, whoever represents all the banks in the State, for something that is actually very, very workable. As someone who has dealt with this at the local community level, if you do not have the cooperation of a bank, if they do not want to do this, you are going to have a lot of problems. And so you have to have the good will of the bank. And to get the good bill of the bank, what you simply do is work out something that they clearly can in fact live with. The other point I would make to the Senator is that we are not talking about huge lists being supplied to a bank. We are talking about basically a single shot where you go in with a limited list and that would only be triggered basically once the parent locater, whatever that agency was in the State, had information that that person might be in that bank's jurisdiction.

Mr. DeWINE. That is correct. The Senator is correct.