Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. That is right.

Mr. DeWINE. I understand his position. But does the Senator believe, though, that with the other 48 States there will not be some change? Just as there will be change in action in regard to the speed? This is not just a philosophical debate. This is a practical debate for your [[Page S 8674]] State but it is also a practical debate for the other 48 States as well. I cannot believe that this amendment will not lessen the use of seatbelts or at least the laws on the books, just as the debate this morning on the bill, the way it is written, will not--some States will not change speed limits? I mean, the amendment would not have been offered this morning or the bill would not have been written this way if people did not think that was true. So I mean it is not just a philosophical debate. It has consequences, it seems to me.

Mr. DeWINE. If the Senator will yield one last time, the Senator has been very generous with his time because I realize he has the floor. I just believe all those Senators were eloquent on the issue that we have come so far in this country in reducing fatalities, we have done it in many ways--with seatbelts, airbags, with better designed highways and cars. We have come a long way. I do not see how this debate can totally be viewed as a States rights debate. To me, yes, it is partially a States rights debate. I happen to have some feelings about that in regard to the Interstate Highway System that we build with the tax dollars. It is an Interstate System in interstate commerce. Clearly, Congress can have some uniformity in this area. That is really not my point. My main point is we have come a long, long way in trying to save lives. I think we are turning the clock back with what we did this morning, and what we may do in a moment, if we pass the Senator's amendment. We would be turning the clock back, having sent the wrong signal. I think it is moving in the wrong direction, and I think it is ill-advised. I respect the Senator's position. I will yield back to him at this point.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Lautenberg-DeWine amendment which my colleague from New Jersey just offered. Let us talk for a moment about what this amendment will actually do. Our amendment would retain the current speed limit law while at the same time giving the States the flexibility they need in regard to the enforcement of the law, as the Senator from New Jersey has very well explained. This is really a compromise. It is saying to the States that while we believe the roads are traveled by people from all over the country--all you have to do is to stop at any rest area on one of our interstates in Ohio or any other State and you will see how many cars are from out of State. So, clearly there is a national priority, and clearly this is a national policy issue. But while retaining that, we also say that Congress is not going to micromanage this. We are not going to require these reports from the States. We are not going to look over the shoulders of the States. So it seems to me, Mr. President, it is a reasonable compromise. The bill, as has been pointed out very well, totally repeals 20 years of history, 20 years of experience, and says that basically we have not learned anything in the last 20 years because for 20 years we have seen on our highways lives saved because of what Congress did originally in 1973. As my colleague from New Jersey has pointed out, it was almost, as we would say, an unintended consequence because the law was originally passed because of the energy crisis that this country faced. But, lo and behold, when the statistics came in the next year on all of the fatalities, guess what? We found that thousands of lives had been saved. We found that numerous families had been spared the agony, the horror, and the tragedy of burying a loved one who had been killed on our highways. Mr. President, I talked about 20 years of experience. The facts are in. The facts are clear. The facts are conclusive. Let us go back to 1973. In 1973, 55,000 people died in this country from car-related fatalities--55,000 people--which affected 55,000 families. In 1974, Congress established the 55-mile-per-hour speed limit. That year the highway fatalities dropped by 16 percent. Fatalities dropped from 55,000 in 1973 to 46,000 in 1974. In my own State of Ohio, according to the Ohio Department of Public Safety, there was a 20-percent decrease in fatalities on Ohio roads over this 12-month period of time. According to the National Academy of Sciences, the national speed limit law saved somewhere between 2,000 and 4,000 lives every year; as many as 80,000 lives since 1974. Let us move forward in this history to 1987. When the mandatory speed limit was amended in 1987 to allow the 55-mile-per-hour speed limit on some of the rural interstates, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that the fatalities on those highways were then 30 percent more than had been projected based on historical trends. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, increasing the speed limit to 65 miles per hour on rural interstates cost an additional 500 lives every year. Mr. President, those highways are probably among the safest roads in America. What is going to happen when we extend that speed limit in rural areas to the more dangerous urban interstates in this country? I think we know what is going to happen. History tells us. Statistics tell us. If we were to see the same increase, a 30-percent increase, on the more dangerous urban interstates that we see on the less traveled, less dangerous rural interstates, the U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that an additional 4,750 people would die every year. I believe this is clearly not the direction we need to go in the area of highway safety. We need to go in the opposite direction because there obviously are far too many Americans dying on America's highways in this country. In 1993, in Ohio a total of 1,482 people were killed in car accidents. Over 20 percent of those were speed related. Nationwide, it is estimated that one-third of all highway fatalities are caused because of excess speed. Mr. President the old adage had it right. Speed does in fact kill. Everyone in this Chamber knows that. Even if [[Page S 8645]] interstate highways were designed for 70-mile-per-hour travel, people are not designed to survive crashes at that speed. As speed increases, driver reaction time, the time that driver has, decreases and the distance the driver needs if he is trying to stop increases. Excessive speed increases the total stopping distance, the driver's reaction time, plus the braking distance. Say a truck is overturned 290 feet ahead of a driver. A driver approaching it at 65 miles per hour would not have time to stop. It would take that driver so long to react and then to brake the car that he or she would still be going 35 miles per hour when they reached that truck. That is a major crash. Let us say, on the other hand, the driver is approaching the truck at 60 miles per hour. That driver will have a little more time but still not enough to avoid a crash. They would crash into the truck at 22 miles per hour. Mr. President, let us take a third example. A driver approaching at 55 miles per hour would have time to slow down and to stop. When speeds go above 55 miles per hour, every 10-mile-per-hour increase doubles the force of the injury-causing impact. Let me say that again. It is a phenomenal figure, I think. When speeds go above 55 miles per hour, every 10-mile-per-hour increase doubles the force of the injury-causing impact. This means that at 65 miles per hour a crash is twice as severe as a crash at 55 miles per hour. A crash at 75 miles per hour is four times more severe. Mr. President, a speed limit of over 55 miles per hour is a known killer. The awareness of this fact is growing. Just yesterday in my office I received a letter from the executive director of the National Save the Kids Campaign urging the adoption of this particular amendment. We need, I think, to face the facts about the speed limit and to do the right thing. It is this part of this bill. Mr. President, recently in Ohio the director of the Ohio Department of Public Safety, Charles Shipley, testified on this issue. I would like to read briefly what he said. His words are very simple but very powerful. But before I tell you what Chuck Shipley, the director of our department of highway safety, said, I want to tell you who he is. He is not just some bureaucrat. He is not just some political appointee. Chuck Shipley for many years was a highway patrolman. For many years Chuck Shipley had the duty of investigating crashes. Chuck Shipley had the horrible responsibility, as most members of our patrol ultimately do, of talking to a family informing them that their child or their sister or their brother had died. So Chuck Shipley knows what he is talking about. He has been there. He has seen it. This is what the Ohio Director of Public Safety had to say. As I said, his words are simple and powerful. He was talking about another piece of legislation in Ohio but similar. This legislation is not in the interest of safety. The few minutes that could be saved will be paid for with injuries and with lives. Mr. President, that is the exact truth, and we know it. That is why I strongly support this amendment. That is why I also strongly support Senator Reid's amendment. In the last few years, one of the things that politicians and people in public office have talked about is the phrase ``ideas have consequences.'' I think that is true. Just as ideas have consequences, votes in this Chamber have consequences as well. There are many times when we come to the floor and cast votes where we think we are benefiting society, where we think we can project in years ahead that something we are doing is going to be of help to people. This is one time where we know, based on the past history, based on common sense, what the results are going to be. We do not know how many more people will die, but statistics clearly show us, history clearly shows us that if we change the law as this bill does, more people will die on our highways, and that is the simple truth. I believe that the compromise my colleague from New Jersey and I have crafted is, in fact, a reasonable compromise. It is a compromise that takes into consideration the concern every Member has for our loved ones, the people we represent, but also balances that with an understanding of where this country is going, as it should, to return more authority and more power to the States. It is a compromise, but it is a compromise that I submit, if we pass it, will save lives. The evidence is abundantly clear. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate the Senator from New York not only for his long interest in this area going back for several decades but for the work he has done. I read an article by the Senator a few months ago talking about the fact that there are really two things we always have to deal with in trying to reduce auto fatalities. And one is driver behavior but the other is the design of the car, and things that are external to that driver. As the Senator pointed out--I cannot recall whether it was an article or an op-ed piece--tragically it was something that we should not be surprised by. It is easier many times to alter the car, to alter the speed limit, and to do other things than to alter the behavior of the driver. Certainly, the Senator has been a real leader in the efforts to do that, in the efforts to develop the change in design of the car, the seat belts, and air bags, and the other things that every single day are saving lives in this country, not to say that we do not want to continue with the work on driver behavior. It is something that we all have to work on. But the Senator from New York has been a real leader in this whole area. I want to congratulate him, and I appreciate his comments and am looking forward to working with him on the floor tomorrow.

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

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for the national highway bill. I believe it is a good bill. But I believe there is one provision of the bill that, quite frankly, needs to be changed. So tomorrow, Senator Lautenberg and I will be offering an amendment to retain the current maximum national speed limit. The bill as it is currently written totally repeals this law. I believe this action of repealing this law clearly flies in the face of reality, commonsense, logic, and history because I believe that on this issue the facts are in and they are conclusive. Let us talk a little history. In 1973, 55,000 people died in car- related fatalities in this country. In 1974, the next year, Congress established the 55-mile-per-hour speed limit. That is very same year highway fatalities dropped by 16-percent--a 16 percent reduction the very next year after Congress imposed the 55- mile-per-hour speed limit. Fatalities that year dropped from 55,000--in 1973--to 46,000 in 1974. Mr. President, according to the National Academy of Sciences, the national speed limit law saves somewhere between 2,000 and 4,000 lives every year. So there have been as many as 80,000 lives saved in this country because of this law since 1974. Mr. President, another historical fact moving forward to 1987: When the mandatory speed limit was amended in 1987 to allow the 65-mile-per- hour speed limit on some of the rural interstates in this country, the fatalities on those highways went up 30 percent more than had been expected. Increasing the speed limit to 65 miles per hour on rural interstates cost 500 lives per year. Those highways are among the safest roads in America. What happens when we totally repeal that law, totally repeal the 55 miles per hour, not just on the rural interstates but in the urban interstates as well? I think we will continue to see it go up, and it will go up at a much faster rate--the fatalities. If we were to see just the same increase--30 percent--that we saw on the rural highways in the rest of the interstate system because of this particular law, the Department of Transportation estimates an additional 4,750 people would die every single year. I think that is clearly not the direction we need to go in in the area of highway safety. I believe that we need to go in the opposite direction because there are obviously far too many Americans dying on the highways of this country every year. In my home State of Ohio in 1993 a total of 1,482 people were killed in car accidents. Over 20 percent of those accidents were speed related. Nationwide, excessive speed is a factor in one-third of all fatal crashes. Mr. President, I believe the old adage got it exactly right. Speed does kill. And even if interstate highways were designed for 70-mile- per-hour travel, people are not. People are not designed to survive crashes at that speed. As speed increases, driver reaction time decreases. The distance the driver needs, if he is trying to stop, increases. When speed goes above 55 miles per hour, every 10-mile-per- hour increase doubles--doubles--the force of the injury-causing impact. This means that at a 65-mile-per-hour speed, a crash is twice as severe as a crash at 55 miles per hour. A crash at 75 miles per hour is four times more severe. A speed limit of over 55 is a known killer. Let us face that fact and do the right thing right here as part of this bill. That means I believe voting ``aye'' on the amendment which Senator Lautenberg and I will propose tomorrow. [[Page S 8610]] I intend to come to the floor again tomorrow to talk at further length about this particular amendment. But I do believe that what we do in this body has consequences. I do not think anyone should be led to believe that passing the bill as it is currently written, passing a bill that flies in the face of 20 years of statistics, 20 years of history, 20 years of saving lives, makes any sense. I think each one of us, as we cast our vote tomorrow on this particular amendment, needs to think about it and needs to think of young people and old people whose lives have been saved over the past 20 years because of this law. To repeal it with no real compelling urgency, and no real need to do this, I think would be a very tragic mistake. Mr. President, I will, along with my colleague, be offering this amendment tomorrow. I plan on debating this at length tomorrow. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DeWINE. That is correct. The thing I point out to the Senate and my colleagues is it is really restoring the status quo. It is restoring it to something that has clearly worked. As the Senator from New York has also pointed out, this has worked. This has saved lives. Without any compelling reason, to turn back the clock and to ignore 20 years of history, over 20 years' demonstrated experience of saving lives, really makes absolutely no sense. I think the consequences of what we do tomorrow are very significant. A lot of times, we do things in this Chamber, and we act as if they are important, but they are really not. What we do tomorrow on this vote will make a difference and lives, I believe, will be affected. I am absolutely convinced the evidence shows that if we raise the speed limit from the national perspective, people will die. People will die who would not have died if we had kept the law the way it is. That may sound brutally blunt, but I think at times we have to be blunt. And I think the facts clearly show that is what we are talking about. So I appreciate my colleagues' comments very much.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, it has been argued on this floor time and time again that, under this bill, the Department of Justice could still enforce the antitrust laws. That is true. That is technically true. But the facts are that under the bill, the Department could still enforce the antitrust laws after--after--the phone companies move into the new markets. That is the problem. That is exactly the problem. It is like, Mr. President, enforcing the law after the fox has been allowed to guard the chicken coop. At that point, the damage is done. The fox has already eaten the chickens. We can stop the fox, but we cannot get the chickens back. It is too late. In this particular case, we would be enforcing the law after competition has been driven out, after choices have been eliminated. So while the argument is technically true, it certainly falls short and does not disclose the full story. Mr. President, we should enforce the law and ensure competition before competition is driven out. I rise today, Mr. President, in support of the Thurmond second-degree amendment. The goal of the bill we are considering today is to promote competition in the telecommunications industry. The Thurmond amendment is an attempt to make sure that we use the most effective means toward this end. Mr. President, the American people know when we have competition two good things happen: consumers have more choice, prices go down. This is as true in telecommunications as in any other sector of the economy. What we are really debating today is how best to make competition take root in the telecommunications industry. The question is, what agency is best equipped to undertake the task of policing competition in these markets? It is my belief, Mr. President, that the Thurmond amendment offers the most logical answer to that question. Under this amendment, two agencies of Government play a role. Each of the agencies is to play an important role, a role for which it is extremely well suited and in which it has a great deal of relevant expertise. The Federal Communications Commission sets communications policy. That is what the FCC does best. That is what they know how to do. Under the Thurmond amendment, that is what they will be doing. The Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice enforces competition. That is what the Justice Department does. That is what they will do under the Thurmond amendment. The Thurmond amendment makes the best possible use of each of these agencies. We do not need the FCC to hire a new staff of antitrust lawyers, a new layer of bureaucracy, to do something the Justice Department is already equipped to do. We need to liberate the FCC to do what it does best. That is what the Thurmond amendment does. Equally important, Mr. President, in my opinion, is what the Thurmond amendment does not do. It does not duplicate functions of Government. It is emphatically not a question of simply adding the Justice Department on top of the FCC. The FCC has a role. The Justice Department, under the Thurmond amendment, has another distinctive, different role, not duplicating. The system envisioned under the Thurmond amendment, Mr. President, will not cause delays in the licensing process. We have heard that time and time again. From the moment an application is made under the Thurmond amendment, both the FCC and the Justice Department will have exactly 90 days, according to law, to make their ruling. These 90-day periods will run concurrently, not sequentially. The Department has experience in this area. They do it for a period of time. The Clayton Act sets a 30-day limit. They hit that timeframe. Under this amendment, no layering of bureaucracies, no delays, just an intelligent division of labor in U.S. telecommunications policy. In conclusion, Mr. President, that is what the Thurmond amendment will accomplish. I thank the Senator from South Carolina for his bold leadership in this area with this specific amendment. I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, as we proceed on this antiterrorism bill, I would like to discuss for a moment one provision of the bill which I believe is very noncontroversial but I think is very significant, and that is the provision of the bill that concerns the increased help, the increased assistance that we are going to give to local law enforcement in regard to giving them the tools they need to fight back, and that is the area of technology. This is one of the essential tools as we fight against terrorism. The bill we are discussing today strengthens the ability of local law enforcement officers to use high technology to combat terrorism and, frankly, to combat all sorts of crime. It provides for the expenditure of $500 million over the next 3 years to develop and upgrade some very important information systems. These systems provide ready access to criminal histories, fingerprints, DNA, and ballistic information. The terrorism bill will also help local law enforcement agencies connect into these data bases. A data base in Washington, DC, will not do much good if the local communities, the tens of thousands of local law enforcement agencies that are spread throughout this country, cannot access that information. Let us make no mistake about it, this is a very important component of this legislation, just as it has always been a very important component of our fight against crime. Last Saturday's Washington Post provided a case in point. It contains a detailed description of how the Oklahoma City bombing suspects were tracked down. Every step of the way, the suspects left a physical trail of evidence that could be fed into the FBI's computer database. The FBI, according to this story, has set up a very sophisticated computer system to put all kinds of information in, some relevant and some not relevant--you never know until it is put in. You try to make the match and pull it back up and use it. But according to this story, there are now at least 38 million bytes of information just in this database on just this one crime alone, the Oklahoma City bombing. There were 12,800 pieces of evidence collected in Oklahoma City, almost 13,000 pieces of evidence. The FBI computers are being used to analyze all this evidence. I have already told my colleagues the story of how the apprehension of the key Oklahoma suspect came about. It is truly a compelling story. An Oklahoma City detective found a piece of tattered metal at the crime scene. On this piece of metal, he found a vehicle identification number, or a VIN number--one little piece of evidence. He fed this VIN number into the National Insurance Crime Bureau. In a matter of seconds, the bombing truck was identified. Meanwhile, an Oklahoma State trooper had pulled over the fleeing suspect for driving without a license plate. The trooper had no idea at that time the person he pulled over was a suspect in a major crime, but he called the National Crime Information Center to ask for some data on the suspicious motorist, and when he tapped into the system, that left a fingerprint into the system. In a moment, we will see the importance of that. Later on, the FBI, based on the information they had obtained from that VIN number--we will jump forward now, a lot of work, a lot of tracking--they were able to get the name of Timothy McVeigh. Later, when the FBI fed the name Timothy McVeigh into their computers, the computer informed them, because of this fingerprint that had been placed into the system, of his arrest on these unrelated charges. Thanks to this technological edge, the FBI was able to find out an obscure arrestee was in fact America's most wanted criminal suspect. The McVeigh arrest demonstrates how our technological edge can work and how in fact it can help solve crime, how in fact it can and does save lives. Another story which was in last Friday's paper shows again the importance of technology. On May 28, a North Carolina State trooper arrested a motorist for speeding. Using established procedure, the trooper ran the motorist's name in the North Carolina State computer databank. The trooper did not run the motorist's name in the national database. That was apparently the procedure in the State at that time-- just to run it in the State database, but not the national base. The motorist's name did not show up in the State databank. If the trooper had run the motorist's name in the national databank, he would have discovered the driver was wanted for the shooting of two Washington, DC, police officers and the attempted murder of his girlfriend. Eleven hours after he was arrested for speeding in North Carolina and released, the suspect killed an FBI agent in a shootout in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area. My purpose in telling the story is not to put blame on anyone, not to be judgmental, but again to point out how very, very important it is that these databases be used and how they can in fact not only solve crime but how they can save lives. Mr. President, as a result of this incident, North Carolina has taken, to use the phrase, the ``worthy step'' of encouraging its troopers to run the names of all out-of-State suspects in the national computer. You never know. It certainly does not hurt to ask. Last month I introduced a comprehensive crime bill, and one of the key elements of my proposed legislation was a renewed focus on crimefighting technology on making sure that the local crimefighters are in fact plugged into a truly all-inspiring national database. Technology is already a proven tool in the fight against terrorism. One of the suspects in the World Trade Center bombing was tracked down-- listen to this--because he left a DNA sample in the saliva he left when he sealed an envelope containing a letter to the New York Times. In that letter he claimed responsibility on behalf of his terrorist group. But unknown to him, he left indelible proof of his own identity in the DNA. Mr. President, we have the tools to win this fight. Let us use them. I want to thank Senator Dole and Senator Hatch, two individuals who have worked on this bill, for the job that they have done, and for including my provision that I wrote and put in the crime bill--taking that section and putting it in this antiterrorism bill because it has a lot to do with solving the problem of terrorism in this country and has a lot to do with this technology in solving all crimes. It would be a crime--if I could use the term--if we did not make sure that every law enforcement agency in this country was able to tap into this national database. It would be wrong if for a relatively small amount of money we did not make sure that not only did we tap into the information and pull it back out but that we could get information from every law enforcement agency in the country. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the two articles which I just referred to be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE. If the Senator will yield for a moment, let me congratulate the Senator from Delaware because he really has been a leader in this area. I had the opportunity about 2 months ago to go to the FBI and look to see exactly where all of these systems were. It is amazing the progress that they have made. In the last several crime bills there has been systems in there, and I know particularly that the Senator from Delaware has been a prime leader in this area. Frankly, what the FBI tells me is that they are moving along very, very well. The background for my writing this section was frankly what the FBI told me, and also what local law enforcement told me. That was, look, I say we are moving along very, very well, quite frankly thanks to what the Congress has done. A significant amount of money Congress has put in. But they said, ``Senator, let us tell you the one concern we have; that is, our database is only as good as the information we get. Our concern is that some of these small departments--which the Senator from Delaware is referring to--will not have the resources. They will not have the ability to tap in.'' So I look forward to working with the Senator from Delaware in regard to the formula. Our idea, frankly, is to make sure that every police officer in the country--some way, either through his or her own department or through a consortium or through the departments going together--has the ability to put that information into the computer and to get it back out. Frankly, my only interest is making it work. So, if we can come up with a formula that works better to do that, I am more than happy to work with the Senator to do that.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise this evening in very strong support of the bill that we are considering tonight, the Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act of 1995. This is a bill that truly will help the United States fight terrorism, while at the same time preserving basic constitutional rights and civil liberties. Let me begin tonight by congratulating Senator Dole, the majority leader, Senator Hatch, Senator Thurmond, who have worked so very, very hard on this bill. They have crafted a bill that will truly make a difference. They have crafted a bill that will help the United States as a country fight back, against terrorism. This bill being brought to the floor tonight is in immediate response to the horror of Oklahoma City. But it is also this response to the realization that we all have, about what a very, very dangerous world we live in today. Some thought that with the ending of the cold war we would be living in a safer world. But we all know today that is simply not true. Whether the terrorism comes from our own shores or is international terrorism, it is still horrible and we still must fight back. I would like to talk briefly tonight about one particular aspect of this bill. That has to do with the provisions in this bill that give local law enforcement the resources and the tools that they need to fight back. I am specifically talking about the provisions in the bill that give local law enforcement the resources to provide for 21st century technology. I have talked, Mr. President, on this floor during the last several weeks on 6 or 7 different occasions about how very, very important it is, that local law enforcement throughout the country, where 95 percent of all criminal prosecution occurs, where 95 percent of all arrests occur, where 95 percent of all investigations occur, that the resources be driven down to those local communities and those local law enforcement officers so that they have the technology, the DNA, the automated fingerprints, the ballistics, the criminal record, so that they have those tools so they can fight back. This bill takes a major provision of my crime bill--the crime bill, by the way, that is cosponsored by Senator Hatch as well as Senator Thurmond, Senator Ashcroft--this bill takes a major provision of that bill and inserts it in this bill and provides $500 million that will go directly to local law enforcement to help them develop the data bases that they need, and that the FBI knows they need. This will, Mr. President, make a difference. It will help the government solve crime. It will help to save lives. [[Page S7489]] It will make a difference in fighting terrorism, and it will make a difference in fighting all kinds of crime. Last year's crime bill, Mr. President, had a major provision that provided that very significant amount of money to the FBI to develop the national central data base--DNA, fingerprints, identification of individuals, ballistics. When I traveled Ohio the last few months and talked to local law enforcement officers, one of things that they told me was that is all well and good, but if we cannot access that information, if we cannot get it, if we do not have the tools to bring it to law enforcement, it will not do any good. Several months ago, I visited the FBI and spent a day with them and spent a day with their experts in all of these different high technical fields. That, I found, is what local law enforcement had told me the FBI confirmed. That is, their fear is that local law enforcement will not have the resources so that we all can develop this national data base. This is a unique role for the Federal Government. When we talk, Mr. President, about anticrime bills, antiterrorism bills, we always should first focus on what can only the Federal Government do. I submit, Mr. President, that the evidence is abundantly clear that it is only the Federal Government that can establish this national base throughout the country. Now, why is that? Let us pretend that we are the sheriffs in Lawrence county, Ohio, or the chief of police in Ironton. Our ability to use these tools, to use these data bases, depends on three things. Number one, we have to have the ability or the resources there, and we have to put the information in. We have to do a good job. Number two, the FBI, of course, has to build up a national base, so we can access from a national point of view. But the third thing that we sometimes miss is that my ability --if I am the chief of police or a police officer in Ironton--to get information is dependent not only on the local community, local police, local sheriff and local FBI, but also on tens of thousands of jurisdictions across the country, because we live in a very, very mobile society. People move around; criminals move around. So what the Federal Government does and what we are doing in this bill--and again, I congratulate my colleague from Utah and Senator Dole the majority leader, for having the wisdom to listen to local law enforcement, to listen to the FBI when they say this is what we need, and to set aside a provision of this bill and to take that $500 million and say it will go down to local law enforcement so that we can, as a country, develop this national data base. It will, in fact, Mr. President, make a very substantial difference. What are we talking about? What practical applicability does all of this have? You know, I have said many times, Mr. President, that we debate in this Congress--in the Senate and in the House --on the national news media a lot of things regarding crime that really do not make a lot of difference. But giving local police officers the tools that they need makes a difference. It matters. It is important. This is what the provisions of this bill truly do. What is the practical application? We have seen it on TV a lot in the last few in regard to DNA. One of the things that is sometimes missed is the fact that DNA can be used, and is used, every single day in this country to help clear from investigations innocent people, so that someone does not stay the focus of a criminal investigation. DNA can be used for that. But the situation we have in this country today is that law enforcement officers throughout the country do not, as a rule, really have access to good DNA technology. The laboratories are not there. If the laboratories are there and they have access, there is waiting time. They have to pick only their top cases, only the highest priority cases. This bill will help solve that problem by establishing the resources so we can have DNA laboratories and experts who can come into court and testify, no matter where that crime is committed. How else does it help? Think how important it is if you are a police officer or a sheriff's deputy, and at 3 o'clock in the morning you are following a car and, for some reason, you make the determination you need to pull that car over, and you need to pull that car over on a dark road, away from civilization, away from people, and you do that. Is it not important that you know that when you run that license plate, that the information you get back on the ownership of that car is accurate? Is that not important? Is it not important, or would it not be important if you are a police officer and you had just arrested someone and you wanted to determine really who that person was, and you did not believe them when they told you who they were, if you could take that person back to your police cruiser and take his or her hand and put it up against a screen and have those prints electronically transmitted to a central data base, and within a matter of seconds know who that person really is? We have that technology today. It is not widespread because of the cost. But we have the ability to do that. Would it not be important for our children, for possible victims of sexual abuse, to be able to start as a country what some States are just now beginning to do--that is, to develop a national data base, DNA data base of sex offenders? The sad truth is, Mr. President, that sex offenders have just about the highest repeat offender rate of any group of criminals. I think check forgers and those who pass bad checks probably have about the same number of recidivism. But it is a little different when we are dealing with a sex offender. I think it is important that every sex offender who goes into prison gets their blood taken. It is constitutional. We can do it. We just have not put the resources behind it. We can take their blood and develop a national DNA data base of sex offenders. So when that person comes out--as most of them do--and if that person commits another offense--as many do, tragically--then we have that data base, and we have the ability to take any bodily fluid from the crime scene, anything, and match that up and make that DNA comparison. We will solve crimes, save lives, and we will convict sex offenders. Mr. President, I could go on and on with example after example. This money is important. We talk a lot about what matters in crime and what does not matter. The money provided in this bill, the provision that Senator Hatch and Senator Dole have put in, when they have listened to local law enforcement and to the FBI--these provisions are an integral part of this bill, a very important part of the bill. I congratulate them and thank them for putting it in the bill because it will truly make a difference. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today in very strong opposition to the amendment of my friend, the Senator from Maine. This amendment, frankly, will hurt the very people it purports to help, our young children. The Snowe amendment would support programs that are, in fact, meritorious. But it would do so with an offset that would cause serious harm to the future of U.S. competitiveness in a very important high- technology industry. It would do so with an offset that would cause serious harm to U.S. competitiveness in an increasingly tough and competitive world. The offset assumes a reduction of $1.124 billion in aeronautic research and development. Let me explain the real world consequences this cut would have, and especially what it would do to some very important programs at NASA. One of the programs has to do with the advanced subsonic technology. This program addresses future technology needs covering the whole spectrum of subsonic aviation, from commercial jets to small aircraft. First of all, this program has already perfected techniques for detecting and evaluating corrosion and cracks in aircraft. These techniques have now become a part of the industry. If we make this cut, the cut proposed in the Snowe amendment, our future ability to increase air safety will be seriously impaired. Second, our ability to decrease the harmful environmental effects of aircraft will also be seriously impaired. To remain globally competitive, U.S. aviation has to stay ahead of international environmental standards. Thanks in part to the advanced subsonic technology program, we are doing that today. It would be wrong to lose our competitive edge in this area. Third, our ability to improve satellite air traffic control would also be seriously hurt by a cut in this program. All of these areas--aircraft safety, the environment, air traffic control--are legitimate concerns of the Federal Government and have been an area where the Federal Government has been involved for decades. In these areas, NASA is engaging in high-risk research that individual companies simply cannot and will not undertake. Furthermore, Federal investment in this technology has important roots in the history of our country, as I will explain in a few moments. NASA's role, really, is to develop high-risk, high- passed along to private industry. This is something that only NASA can do. And this investment is essential to the future of the U.S. aircraft industry. The continuing growth of U.S. market share depends on our ability to ensure that aircraft are safe, cost effective, and able to comply with ever more stringent environmental regulations. There is a long history of Government involvement in basic, precompetitive research. Back in 1917, the United States established the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics to engage in basic precompetitive research. The NACA was a precursor of NASA and did the same kind of forward-looking work that would be cut under this amendment. Earlier this month we, of course, celebrated the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II. Every single airplane that helped win that war was made possible by NACA's testing facilities. No single corporation had enough money to be able to invest in the kind of wind tunnels that were used to test these planes. NACA's Ames facility did have those resources. No single corporation had the resources to do the basic research on how wings should be shaped. NACA did have the resources. For almost eight decades, NACA, and its successor agency, today's NASA, have been making the kind of investment in America's aviation knowledge base that no corporation could possibly match. Every single plane in America today has NASA's technology somewhere in it. The little piece of wing that juts out perpendicular from the wing tip-- known as a winglet--was designed by NASA. The winglet increases the fuel efficiency of an airplane by 5 percent, and that 5 percent can make a big difference in making U.S. planes competitive. Just this week the Boeing 777 was unveiled. Major components in that plane were designed some 15 years ago in NASA's laboratories, not with a view toward the product line of any particular corporation, but because, over the long run, the long term, America needs that technology know-how. Another research project threatened by this amendment is NASA's high- speed research program. Before investing the roughly $20 billion that might be necessary to develop a high-speed civil transport aircraft, private companies need to know whether such a plane could be built in compliance with environmental and safety standards. If we allow the United States to fall behind in the quest for this technological breakthrough, the U.S. share of the long-range global aircraft market could drop below 50 percent. It would be a horrible blow to the trade deficit, to high-technology jobs, and to something in many respects even more important, our national sense that America is leading the world in the future of high technology. America's ascent to the role of global superpower was made possible in large part by the ability of America's aviation pioneers to invest in the future. Education--so ably advocated by my good friend from Maine--has to do with preparing our children for the challenges of the future. This program--the program that would be cut by this amendment--is building that future. I think cutting this program would be a very shortsighted measure--and the losers would be our children. Tens of thousands of American children can grow up to work in high- technology aviation jobs--if we do not foreclose that option by making shortsighted decisions today. In aviation, there is a truly global market. Over the next 15 to 20 years, the global demand is expected to be between $800 billion and $1 trillion. A recent study by DRI/McGraw-Hill estimates that a 1-percent gain in U.S. market share creates 9,000 new jobs--and $120 million in Federal revenues--each year. Aviation already contributes over $25 billion a year to the U.S. balance of trade. That's more than any other U.S. manufacturing industry. And aviation already generates almost a million high-quality jobs in this country. If we allow this cut to go forward, we will fall behind in our effort to develop technologies that will keep America on top of this global market. I think we should continue to invest in a high-technology future for this country. I think NASDA's research on aviation plays a fundamental and irreplaceable role in that process. That is why I will be voting ``no'' on the amendment proposed by the Senator from Maine. To vote ``no'' on this amendment is to say ``yes'' to a high-technology future for Amercia's children. I will conclude by summarizing as follows: We hear a lot of talk on this floor about making sure our children have good jobs, high-paying jobs, high-technology jobs, and they should not be confined, as some people on both sides of the aisle have said, to flipping hamburgers. This type of research gives these good high-paying jobs to our children. I urge, therefore, a ``no'' vote on the Snowe amendment. I urge a vote for our future. I see my time is almost expired. I see my friend and colleague from Ohio, who has a tremendous amount of experience in this area, has risen to speak and will be speaking in just a moment. I look forward to listening to his comments. Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my strong support for the Senate budget resolution proposed and brought forward by Chairman Domenici. Let me first start by congratulating the chairman for the absolutely tremendous job he has done. I am sure that there is not a Member of this body who would write the budget the identical way that the committee has written. I do not suppose the chairman would, either. I think he has done a great job. I want to congratulate him. This is a historic moment. It is a moment where we will really determine whether this Congress has the courage, has the wisdom, to do what we all know we have to do. Let me also congratulate my friend from Ohio, John Kasich, chairman of the Budget Committee in the House of Representatives. He has done a great job, as well. For both of them and for the Senate this is a historic moment. What I would like to talk about this evening, Mr. President, is the issue of this budget and how this budget that we will be voting on tomorrow, affects young people, affects children. The truth is that we simply have to change the direction of this country. We have to face reality. We have to face the fact that America has a fundamental choice between two different futures: A future of responsibility and fiscal sanity on the one hand; or a future of economic catastrophe. Catastrophe is a pretty harsh word, Mr. President, but I think it is accurate. When we fail to balance the budget for 26 consecutive years, when we add to the national debt until we are paying more in interest than we are paying for national defense, and when we have a debt that is nearly $5 trillion--$5 trillion--and no end in sight, what we have is a catastrophe. A catastrophe in the making. No more, nor less. Mr. President, what we are really talking about is not dollars and cents. What we are talking about is our children and the quality of their lives. The sad fact is, Mr. President, that today to many of our children, America is a very tough place to grow up in. I have previously come to the Senate floor and discussed the issue of our children. What I think is the biggest crisis facing this country is what is happening to our young people. Many of our young children are growing up in good conditions, but too many of them live in an environment that makes it very, very difficult for them, very problematic, as to whether they can succeed. I have talked about this. I talked about the fact that this is the first generation in our history whose life expectancy is no greater than their parents because of deaths from auto accidents, deaths because of drugs, homicides. A generation where young children are being born, one-third of all children being born today to parents who are not married; two-thirds of the children born in our inner cities are born to parents who are not married. Probably, Mr. President, the most disheartening fact of all, is probably something that was encountered last year by the Presiding Officer as he traveled through the State of Missouri campaigning, as I found traveling the State of Ohio, and that is that people today do not believe their children will have a better life than they had. They do not believe the standard of living for their children will be even as good as they had. That to me is the most disheartening fact of all. What do we do? Government has a role. I introduced my crime bill last week. I talked about the fact I was targeting money for more cities and for police officers to go in there, because too many of our young people live in an unsafe environment. I will continue to talk about that in the months ahead. It is not just Government. We all have a responsibility. Communities have a responsibility. There are things Government can do and things that Government cannot do. What I want to talk about specifically tonight is one thing that sometimes we forget does impact on children. That is the huge spending, the huge national debt, and the huge tax burden that we are placing on this generation of parents and on the next generation of our children when they grow up. We are dealing, Mr. President, with a sad fact that the U.S. Congress makes the situation worse for our children by throwing away so many of America's resources in an utterly irresponsible manner. To pay for Congress' reckless spending, the Federal Government has to take far too much money from the parents of these children. When my parents were growing up in the 1930's, their families had to work on an average until March 8 of every year to pay for Congress' spending. By the time I was growing up, and my wife Fran was growing up in the 1960's, a typical family had to work until April 16 to pay the taxes. Today, 1995, American families have to work until May 6 to pay their taxes. That is money that is stolen from families, stolen from children. Sometimes it feels like America's parents are in a tug of war with the Federal Government for the resources they need to raise their children. Frankly, Mr. President, I am sure they feel on many days that the Government is winning. This budget begins the process of restoring the resources to the parents. It is only a beginning, but it is a necessary beginning. We ask parents today to do a lot. It is time for this Congress and this Government to stop hindering their efforts and to start helping. I think we sometimes forget, Mr. President, the tremendous burden the taxes place on the American family today and how many of the decisions of that family are made, forced to be made, because of that burden. Decisions about whether the mother, the father, both work; whether one spouse holds down two jobs or three jobs. All these things are impacted by the Federal tax burden. The Government impacts these families and puts a tremendous burden on these families. Mr. President, I have talked about the fact that for some children it is not easy being a kid in America today. We have a lot of problems. Yet we continue to let the Federal Government deprive young parents of the resources they need. Mr. President, if we do not act now and pass this budget resolution, it will get a lot tougher to change things in the future. If we keep spending at this rate, by the year 2012, 17 years from today, there will be nothing--nothing--left in the budget for discretionary spending on our domestic needs. Zero. Every last cent in the Federal budget will go to entitlements and interest payments. Think of that: Every cent will go to entitlements and interest payments. Mr. President, those interest payments did not go to our children. They do not go to the kids. I do not think it is a surprise or a secret to also indicate to this body that, frankly, neither does most of the entitlement spending, either. Mr. President, just a year before that year 2012, our grandson, Albert, will graduate from high school. In that year, our daughter, Anna, if things work out, will be in her first year of college. If we do not act today, Albert and Anna's generation will pay a severe human cost. Between today and the year 2025, the Federal debt per person will continue to rise year after year after year. Today the debt on each person is approximately $18,500. In the year 2025, it is going to be more than $60,000 for every single man, woman, and child in America. Look at the modest sacrifices this budget resolution proposes, so that we can balance the budget. Then look at the incredible sacrifices that our children will have to make if we do not. In this budget, we slow the rate of increase of fast-growing programs. The alternative is a $60,000 debt burden for every person in America. It is a clear choice, Mr. President. The longer we delay, the more it is [[Page S7235]] going to hurt. I say, let our day of reckoning be now, before it really hurts. Many of the Senators speaking here on the Senate floor have focused on the pain that is contained in this budget resolution. But here are the facts. We are not going to touch Social Security. We are going to let Medicare funding increase, by an average of 7 percent. Each year, over the next 7 years. Let us look at children's programs. Chapter 1. No cut. Head Start. No cut. Special education. Spending actually increases. Women, Infants, and Children. Spending goes up. School breakfast. Spending goes up. School lunches. Spending goes up. Over the next 7 years, we propose spending $815 billion on the following major means-tested programs affecting child welfare: Food Stamps. Earned income tax credit. AFDC and child care. Supplemental security income. Child nutrition. For many reasons, this is a child-oriented budget. This budget is designed to make tough choices now, so that our children will not have to face a lot tougher set of choices tomorrow. Contrary to a lot of the rehetoric, we are not taking a meat-ax to this budget. What we have here is a scalpel. America's fiscal policy today is on a glide path toward total collapse. I think a better way of saying it is we are on a glidepath to crash the plane. Anyone who looks at this budget and complains about deep cuts is on a collision course with reality. If you think there are deep cuts in this budget--wait till you see the cuts that are going to be necessary, a few short years from now, if we do not pass this budget. On the Senate floor, this budget resolution has been called a lump of coal for America's children. To call that absurd would be an understatement. The alternative to this sensible, child-oriented budget is the bankruptcy budget that's already scheduled for the year 2012. That bankruptcy budget will become a reality for our children unless we act now. To leave our children flat busted broke, less than two decades from today, would be a cruel act of child abuse. Fortunately, the American people gave us a clear mandate last November. It was a mandate for change. When the debt is nearly $5 trillion, and bankruptcy is less than 20 years away, it is time to change course; to choose the future over the past; to do something that will earn the gratitude of the next generation of Americans. Mr. President, the future of our children depends on the choices we make in this budget. Speaking for the people of Ohio, I think we are ready to do what is right. Let us rescue our children's future. The first step is to pass this courageous budget resolution. This is a moment of history. Each one of us in our daily lives, in our public lives, does things. We do things that we think are important. Frankly, I do not know there is anything we as individuals in our public life, or we collectively in the U.S. Senate, can do that will do more to change the direction of this country to have a positive impact on our children and their children, than to pass this budget. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act for myself as well as Senator Stevens and Senator Ashcroft. Mr. President, for the past week, beginning last Wednesday, I have discussed on the Senate floor different aspects of the bill that I am introducing this afternoon. I do not intend to go through every single provision of the bill again this afternoon. But I would like to highlight three or four of the principal areas of this bill. I believe that when we look at any crime bill proposed in this Congress, we always have to ask several questions. The first is, what is the proper role of the Federal Government in an area that we all know and understand is primarily local. Ninety to 95 percent of all prosecutions are done at the State, county and local level, not the Federal level. So if we are going to have a national crime bill, what is that niche? What is the proper role of the Federal Government? The second question I believe that we always have to ask is, what works? What can this Congress do in legislation, with Federal dollars, that will really make a difference? The bill that I am introducing this afternoon is the product of my 20 years of being involved at different levels of Government, in law enforcement, being involved in this battle against crime. That certainly does not mean that I am an expert. I do not think we have any experts in this area. However, I have seen it from every angle. I have seen it from the angle of a young county prosecuting attorney, a State senator who dealt with it on the State level and tried to write appropriate State laws, then on the House Judiciary Committee for 8 years, and then as Lieutenant Governor of Ohio, where my principal job was to oversee our anticrime effort. This bill is a product of that experience, but also probably more importantly, it is the product of my listening and discussing the crime issues with the men and women in Ohio who are on the front line every single day, the police officers who have to deal with this problem-- what works, what does not work. One thing, Mr. President, that we know works, from our experience, is the tools of technology. My bill will take America from 19th-century technology in the anticrime area into the 21st century. It does it in a unique way. It does it by putting $1 billion--which is certainly a lot of money, but only a little over 3 percent of this total crime package that was passed last year, which my bill essentially is a rewrite of--a little over 3 percent of that total money over a 5-year period we spend on technology for the local communities, for the local States. What I have been advised by law enforcement throughout Ohio and what I have been advised by the FBI is that while last year's crime bill went a long way to create the national databases that we need here in Washington and in the new facility that is being built in West Virginia, it will never be a complete system unless we grow the system locally. I come from Greene County in Ohio, and the Xenia police department, when they put information into the system or try to get information back out, it is not only important for them to do it accurately and for that information to be in; it is not only important for the FBI to have the national database; but for it to really be successful and work for the local police department wherever that police department is, every other jurisdiction in the country has to do the same thing. Criminals move around, information moves around, and it has to be accurate. What our bill does is put the money into the local communities. What are we talking about? We are talking about, basically, four national systems: a DNA system; a fingerprint system; a ballistic system, where we can compare the grooves, for example, on shells and bullets; and the fourth, of course, is to identify criminals. This type of technology matters. It does, in fact, help to solve crimes. It matters when a police officer, at 3 o'clock in the morning, or a sheriff's deputy out on some dark road, has to pull someone over. It matters when that police officer activates his or her computer or calls back into the station to run that license plate. It matters that the information in that computer is accurate so that police officer knows as well as humanly possible who that [[Page S6820]] person is before the apprehension has to be made, before that person is approached. It matters when we have an investigation of a case and all the police have is an unknown fingerprint, and they have to try to figure out where that fingerprint came from. It matters under the technology that we have today: Take that unknown print and compare it with 4 or 5 million known prints of known criminals. It matters. That is the type of thing that we can do with this new technology that we never would dream of being able to do without the computers. All this does, in fact, matter. This is a tool, a tool that will be relatively cheap in regard to the entire crime bill. Let me make very clear, Mr. President, the crime bill that we are introducing today does not spend any more money. It basically accepts as given what this Congress has decided last year, and appears to be deciding again this year, and that is over the next 5 years, we will devote 30 billion Federal dollars, taxpayers' dollars, to the fight against crime. The question that we have before Congress today is how best to spend that money, and can we improve upon what the Congress did last year? I believe that we can. The first thing that matters is technology. Our bill provides that. It will make a difference. We will solve crimes. We will save lives. Let me move now to the second area. The second thing that we know does, in fact, matter in law enforcement. It matters, Mr. President, if we can take violent criminals off the streets. If we can take violent criminals off the streets and lock them up and keep then locked up, we know they at least will not be continuing to commit crimes. My bill reinstitutes a program that the Bush administration had in place for over a year and a half. It was called Project Triggerlock. The principle behind Project Triggerlock was very simple. The principle was that violent offenders who use a gun in the commission of a felony need to be targeted by all U.S. attorneys in this country. And in cooperation with local State prosecutors and county prosecutors, if they wish, then the U.S. attorney takes that case into Federal court, and under Federal law prosecutes that person. Then, when the person is convicted, they are housed courtesy of the Federal Government. That is a great assistance to law enforcement because in most cases, the Federal mandatory sentencing laws for violent offenders, particularly violent offenders who use a gun in the commission of a felony, is tougher than it is in most States. We have a great deterrent effect. During the last administration, in an 18-month period of time, 15,000 violent career criminals were taken off the streets, prosecuted, locked up, and put away for a long, long time. That matters. That is what the people in law enforcement call a specific deterrent. That person is locked up and is going to be specifically deterred from committing another crime as long as they are, in fact, locked up. Let me turn now, Mr. President, to the third thing that matters: Technology matters. Technology will solve crimes. It matters to lock up dangerous, violent people, particularly those who use a gun. The third thing that clearly matters that we have learned from experience, if a community deploys police officers into a high-crime area, and if they are deployed correctly--call it community policing, call it whatever-- but if they are deployed correctly in the community, they will, in fact, reduce crime. There is an inverse relationship between the number of police officers put out on the street and the crime, the violent crime that occurs in a given area. President Clinton was right in regard to that basic concept. He is to be congratulated for that. I think, though, that between the rhetoric and the details, something in last year's crime bill was lost. What was lost was a dedication of those tax dollars to be targeted to our most dangerous areas. What my bill, the bill we introduce today, is doing, is to take a finite amount of money that we have, $5 billion, and target it to the 250 most dangerous places in this country to live, the 250 places in this country where according to the FBI's own statistics, the crime rate is the highest. We are not talking about writing bad checks. We are not talking about forgery. What we are talking about is rape, murder, armed robbery, and aggravated assault--the meanest, toughest crimes that there are. When we put that into the computer and run that and compare that then by factoring with regard to population, that is how we divided this money up. We went further in our bill. Where the bill that was passed last year provided that this money would last for 3 years and that these police officers that the Clinton administration envisioned would be paid for 3 years, our bill pays for them for 5 full years. In addition to that, our bill provides for full funding, at 100 percent, so the local community has no match. There is no money the local community has to put in. The Clinton bill is a 75-25-match, where the local community has to come up with 25 percent. There have been a number of communities that have had a problem with that, coming up with those dollars. In fact, in Ohio it is my understanding the city of Cincinnati, at least up until now, has not made a match to have any police officers come in under this program. So our bill targets the 250 communities in this country where the violent crime rate is the highest. Let me just give some examples of what this will actually mean. Let me just skip around the country. In Detroit, MI, 96 police officers have been hired so far under the Clinton plan. Our bill provides, at full funding for 5 years the hiring of 747. Dallas, TX, 70 police officers hired so far. Our bill provides for 604 police officers to be hired. Atlanta, GA, 38 under the Clinton bill. Ours provides for 442. Miami, FL, only six, according to the figures that we have come up with--only six so far in Miami. Yet our bill provides for 402. St. Louis, 23 under the Clinton plan, 386 under our plan. Chicago, 308 under the Clinton plan, under ours 2,219. There will be some people who have already suggested to me that maybe what you are doing makes sense but it does not make political sense because you are not spreading these police officers in every community. And that is true, we are not doing that. But I think what the American people expect us to do and what we should do is to target those police officers in those areas of the country where they are most needed. Our bill provides money to be targeted. But we also provide, for those communities that are not in that top 250 where the crime rate is the highest, additional funds over and above what the Clinton administration bill provided. We add an additional $1.8 billion over 5 years. So those communities will have additional money, but not only additional money, they will have a great deal of flexibility so if they want to take that money and hire police officers or pay for overtime, they can do that as well. We may say, would it not be better just to spread these police officers throughout the country? We talked about, particularly this year, the basic functions of Government. What should Government do? What should Government not do? What should the Federal Government not do? What should the State government do? One of the basic functions of government, maybe the basic function of government--certainly the oldest function of government, going back thousands of years to the time when governments of some sort were originally formed, it may have been nothing more than a chieftain or a king or someone guaranteeing to provide safety for people--but the primary function of government is to protect people and to make a safe environment for them to live. We have a crisis today in our inner cities. We have a crisis in many parts of our country. It is not totally, exclusively devoted to the inner cities, but the inner cities certainly provide an example of where crime is very, very high. I think we have a moral obligation to try as a country to address that problem. In 1987 the Justice Department estimated that 8 out of every 10 Americans will be victims of a violent crime at least once in their lifetime. Every year, one out of four households is victimized by a crime. An American is more likely to be injured by a violent crime than by a car accident. So crime is a big problem and it is a big problem for all Americans. But the [[Page S6821]] crime we are talking about, the violent crime, is really heavily concentrated in certain areas. Princeton Prof. John DeIulio reports that while Philadelphia--just as an example--while Philadelphia contains only 14 percent of the population of the State of Pennsylvania, it accounts for 42 percent of the entire State's crime-- an unbelievable figure. What is happening to the children who live in these high-crime areas? They are living a life, frankly, that would be unimaginable for Americans of my parents' generation. Over 25 percent of inner-city children growing up in this country think they are likely to be shot at some point in their life--25 percent, one-fourth of these children growing up. A male teenager growing up in an inner city is at least six times more likely to be a victim of violent crime than a male teenager growing up somewhere else in the country--six times. I do not think we can give up on these young people, these young Americans. They need hope and opportunity every bit as much as any other child in this country. They need a chance. And I believe putting more police in their neighborhoods is something we can do to start giving them that chance, the chance to live without constant fear for themselves and for their families. Let us make no mistake about it, putting more police into those crime-infested areas, the most crime-ridden areas of our country, is not going to solve all the problems of those communities. We all know that and we all have an obligation to work on the other problems-- welfare reform, jobs, making sure the schools in every neighborhood in this country are good schools so the children do in fact have a chance and opportunity. But no matter what we do with our schools, no matter what we do with welfare, no matter what we do with job creation, nothing positive can really take place as long as crime does exist. So, having community policing, having law enforcement targeted to these areas, I believe, is clearly the right thing to do. I do not think it is fair to say to that child who, because of accident of birth, happens to be growing up in an area where he or she is six times more likely to be killed than a child in a suburb, I do not think it is fair to say to that child: We cannot do anything about it. We are, for political reasons, going to spread out these police officers, these new police men and women. We are going to spread them out throughout the country because for political reasons we think we can get more votes that way for a particular bill. I do not think that is right. I think the right thing to do is to target where these police men and women go, and that is what our bill does. Our bill does many other things. I see my colleague from Michigan is on the floor, so I am not going to speak very much longer, let me advise him. But let me say in conclusion that this bill is aimed at doing things that matter, doing things that will make a difference, doing things that will get the job done. It is a very pragmatic bill, a very hardheaded bill. And it basically says this: If we as a Congress have made the decision, as apparently we have, that over the next 5 years we are going to spend $30 billion on this very, very important problem, then we should spend it correctly and we should listen to the men and women who are professionals, who can tell us how to spend it: More technology, more police officers deployed correctly, and finally, taking off the streets the violent repeat career criminals. Let me conclude by saying that I want to thank the original cosponsors of this bill, Senator Ashcroft, Senator Stevens, and Senator Hatch, and ask for additional cosponsors. I look forward to working with the Members of the Senate as we take these ideas that I presented today, this past week, presented in this bill, take these ideas, incorporate them with other ideas of my colleagues to come up with a final bill this year, or next year, that will in fact make a difference and will save lives, that will reduce crime. Mr. President, thank you very much. At this point, I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. DeWine pertaining to the introduction of S. 816 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. DeWINE. I yield the floor. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that I be able to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to continue my discussion of the crime bill that I intend to introduce tomorrow. As I pointed out, there are really two basic issues that we always need to address when we look at a crime bill. First, what is the proper role of the Federal Government in fighting crime in this country, understanding that over 95 percent of all criminal prosecutions really are done at the local level? The second question we always have to ask is, what really works? What matters? What makes a difference? Last Wednesday I discussed these issues with specific reference to crime-fighting technology. We have an outstanding technology base in this country, a technology base that will do a great deal to help us catch criminals. But, quite frankly and candidly, we must expand this base. Technology does in fact matter, but we need the Federal Government to be more proactive in getting the States on line with this technology. Having a terrific national criminal record system or huge DNA data base, or an automated fingerprint data base in Washington, DC, is good. But it will not really do the job if the police officer in Henry County, Trumbull County, Greene County, Clark County, OH, cannot tap into it; if they cannot get into it, put their own information in and get the information back out. What my legislation does is drive the money down to the local community to help build this database system from the ground up. My legislation would help bring these local police departments on line. It would help them contribute to and benefit from this emerging nationwide crimefighting database. Mr. President, on Thursday I discussed another aspect of my bill. I discussed what we have to do to get armed career criminals off our streets, to get them locked up and away from our children and our families. I talked about a program called Project Trigger Lock that targeted criminals who use guns and targeted them in the Federal court and prosecuted them in Federal court. My legislation would bring back ``Project Trigger Lock.'' Further, it would toughen the laws against criminals who use guns. We have to lock up armed career criminals. If we are trying to figure out what works and what does not work, if we are trying to figure out what is important and what is not important, what priority the U.S. Attorney General should place on different types of crime, what the priority of U.S. attorneys scattered throughout this country should be, I cannot think of anything more important than going after repeat violent offenders who use a gun in the commission of a felony. Mr. President, the third area of the bill that I talked about on Friday has to do with crime victims. Quite frankly, in too many ways our criminal justice system has treated criminals like they are victims and victims like they are criminals. My legislation contains a number of provisions that would make the system more receptive to the rights and claims of crime victims. Another area: On Monday I turned to another provision of my bill. I talked about what we had to do to get more police officers on the streets, and particularly how we had to get police officers into crime- infested areas and how we had to target the finite tax dollars that we have so that we spend these dollars and that we put these police officers in areas where it would make the most difference, because the simple fact is when you put police officers on the street, when they are deployed correctly, crime does go down. My legislation reflects this plain fact. My bill over a 5-year period of time will spend $5 billion on putting police officers on the street. But my bill would target the money to America's most crime-threatened communities. Further, my bill, unlike the bill that passed last year, unlike the President's bill, would pay the full cost of these police officers and would pay them for not just 3 years, not just put them out for 3 years, but would do that for 5 years. We target the money to the highest crime areas in the country, the 250 highest crime areas. We pay for the police officers to go in there, and we fully pay for them not at 75 percent but at 100 percent a year and we do it for 5 years instead of 3 years. Today I would like to discuss another part of my crime bill. That is the need for local flexibility in fighting crime. As I pointed out, 90 to 95 percent of the criminal prosecutions in this country do not take place at the Federal level. Rather, they take place at the State and local level, in communities throughout this country. Crime is a local community problem. The late Speaker of the House, ``Tip'' O'Neill, used to say that all politics is local. It would not be too much of an exaggeration to say the same is true of crime, that all crime is local--just about anyway. I think that any Federal crime legislation to be truly effective has to take this basic fact into account. Mr. President, this is a historic year. From welfare to health care America today is conducting a fundamental debate on the issue of which level of government is in fact best suited to undertake which responsibilities. What we are frankly seeing this year is a thorough reexamination of the meaning of federalism. This historic debate offers a terrific opportunity to rethink the role of Government and to make our Government work better. Mr. President, I think in this historic year when we are having this fundamental debate about federalism, the proper role of the Federal Government, the State government and the local government, I think it would be a terrible shame if we did not extend this debate to the issue of crime. We will never have a better opportunity than the present to focus our national attention on crime as a fundamentally local problem; that is, the problem to be dealt with at the local level by local authorities. For this reason my crime legislation applies to the principle of local flexibility, local flexibility to this fight against crime. Yesterday I talked a little bit about my objections to some of the provisions of the President's plan to put police officers on the street. Specifically, I pointed out that the President's scattershot approach sent police officers, frankly, in too many directions. Some of these places did not need extra police nearly as much as some other communities. The result of this approach, the Clinton approach, is to put too few police officers where the police are the most needed. That is why in my crime legislation we spend $5 billion for police but we target that money. Whereas the Clinton administration spends $8.8 billion, we spend only $5 billion, but we target that money and we target it into the 250 communities in this country where the crime rate is the highest. We do it on a statistical basis, and we do it on a basis that I think makes eminent common sense. I am convinced that by targeting the extra police only to extremely high-crime areas, we can accomplish a lot more with this $5 billion over 5 years than the President can accomplish with his $8.8 billion over a 5-year period. The $3.8 billion that is left over, along with an additional $3.2 billion in uncommitted funds provided under my legislation, would be turned over to local communities to use as they see fit. Let me stop at this point and make a point that I hope is clear. But I want to make sure that my colleagues understand this. Our bill does not spend any more money. Our bill takes the basic $30 billion that we have been debating now for the last several years and spends it differently, spends it, I think, more appropriately. The dollar figures I am talking about to my colleagues in the Senate today I indicate is not one penny more than was indicated under any of the other bills that have been introduced or indicated under the President's plan. Let me talk a little bit about this discretionary money that we are talking about. I have worked at the local level. I have worked as an assistant county prosecutor. I have worked as the elected county prosecutor of my home county, worked at the Federal level as a Member of the House of Representatives and as a Member of the U.S. Senate. I have been in the Ohio State Senate, and I have served as Lieutenant Governor. I have had occasion to compare the efficiency and effectiveness at all levels of government. To be honest, a sheriff or county prosecutor, chief of police, or county commissioner in my home county or your home county, Mr. President, and many of the home counties of our other colleagues know a lot more about how crime money should be U.S. Attorney General or this Senator or this body. Under the proposal contained in my crime legislation, local government officials will get Federal money, and what they do with it will be up to them. They will be able to spend that money based on local needs, local concerns, local priorities. Yesterday, I discussed my proposal to pay for extra police officers in the highest crime areas in America. The 250 most crime-infested areas in America are eligible under my bill for police funding. Other areas, areas that are not included in the list of the 250 worst crime areas, may decide, if they wish, that they need extra police officers. If that is the case, they may choose to spend the dollars they get from this $7 billion local flexibility fund to pay for the extra police officers. My bill allows them that flexibility. They can use the money to hire, train, and employ these police officers, maybe put them out on the street. They can use it to pay overtime for police officers that they already have which, frankly, may, depending on the jurisdiction and the economics involved, be the best use of the funds. Or they can use it to buy extra technology that is already covered in this bill. They can use it to beef up school security, either by deploying extra police or adding measures like metal detectors. They can use it to establish and run crime-prevention programs like Neighborhood Watch and citizen patrol programs and programs to combat domestic violence and juvenile crime. They can use it to establish early intervention and prevention programs for juveniles to reduce or eliminate crime. There was a vigorous debate last year about the issue of crime prevention. One thing I have learned in my years in local law enforcement is that even more than most programs crime prevention programs really have to be grown locally to be effective. When you travel Ohio, as I have done, or Minnesota, or Wisconsin, and you look at crime prevention programs, I suspect in other States you find what I have found in Ohio, and that is the quality of those programs depends upon the local people. It depends on who is running the program, the dedication of that particular individual. This is not something that Washington can take a cookie cutter and duplicate, replicate across the country. They have to be grown locally. It is clear that we have to go after those also who have chosen a life of crime. We have to apprehend them. We have to convict them. But we also have to reach out to the young people who are at risk in this country. We have to reach out to them before--before--they embark on a life of crime. The best ideas on how to do this are not in Washington, DC, surprisingly. It is not with Government bureaucrats, in Washington. It is, rather, locally. Government bureaucrats in Washington, Mr. President, do not know the kids in Greene County, OH. Do you know who does? The people in Greene County--Jerry Irwin, our county sheriff; the county prosecuting attorney, Bill Schenck. I could go on and on. That is why I wish to empower people such as County Sheriff Jerry Irwin, or County Prosecutor Bill Schenck through this proposal. Mr. President, to mandate a prevention program from Washington, DC, is absurd. Let us trust the people on the ground, the local law enforcers who know the young people in their communities. In conclusion, Mr. President, let me say there is a basic insight that the American people imparted to all of us last November. I hope we heard the message. That message was fairly simple and basic, that Government is best which is closest to the people. I have worked to incorporate this basic principle into the legislation that I will be introducing tomorrow. At this time, I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to continue my discussion of the crime bill that I intend to introduce this Wednesday. As I previously pointed out, there are really two basic questions that we need to address in the area of crime whenever we try to determine whether a crime bill is good or whether it is not good, whether it does the job or whether it does not do the job. The first question is: What is the proper role of the Federal Government in fighting crime in this country? The second is: What really works in law enforcement? What matters? What does not matter? Last Wednesday, I discussed these issues with specific reference to crimefighting technology. The conclusion I reached was that we have an outstanding technology base in this country that does a great deal and will continue to do a great deal to help us catch criminals. Technology, Mr. President, does in fact matter. But we need the Federal Government to be more proactive, more proactive in getting the States on line with this technology. Having a terrific national criminal record system or a huge DNA database or an automated fingerprint system or huge DNA database for convicted sex offenders in Washington, DC, is great; it is nice. But it will not do much good if the police officer in Hamilton, OH, or Middletown, OH, or Cleveland, OH, cannot tap into it, cannot put the information in, and cannot get the information back out. My legislation would bring these local police departments on line. It would help them to contribute to and benefit from the emerging nationwide crimefighting database. On this past Thursday, I discussed what we have to do to get armed career criminals off the streets, those who terrorize us, terrorize their fellow citizens with a gun. I talked about a program called Project Triggerlock that targeted gun criminals for Federal prosecution. My legislation would bring back Project Triggerlock and toughen the laws on gun crimes in many other significant ways. We have to get these armed criminals off the streets. On Friday, I talked about the long neglected needs of crime victims. In too many ways, our legal system treats criminals like victims and victims like criminals. We have to stop that. My legislation contains a number of provisions that would make the system much more receptive to the rights and the needs of crime victims. Today, I would like to turn to another item. I would like to talk about [[Page S6676]] what we can do to put more police officers on the street, and to put more police officers into our highest crime areas. Make no mistake, the evidence is clear, putting a police officer on a street corner in a dangerous neighborhood will reduce crime. We are looking for what really works, and putting police officers on the streets is a proven strategy that works. It is a plain fact, if you put a police officer on the street, crime will go down. The President is right in this respect, and he is to be commended for understanding that there is, in fact, a direct or actually inverse relationship between the number of law enforcement officers who are deployed correctly in the neighborhood and the amount of crime that exists in that neighborhood. That is why the President last year asked for $8.8 billion in Federal funding for police officers. We do need more police; he is correct. Police officers deployed correctly matter. They do make a difference. But, Mr. President, I believe that we can improve on President Clinton's plan, and there are three major shortcomings I believe that exist in the President's plan that we ought to address in the Senate. Let me list them: First, the administration's plan spreads the $8.8 billion far too thin. It does not target the funding for police officers to the most crime-ridden areas where the funding is most needed. Instead, it spends money on extra police officers even--even--in extremely low-crime areas. That just does not make sense. Second, the administration is not paying for the full cost of the extra police officers. The Clinton proposal pays for only 75 percent of the police officers and asks local communities to come up with the remaining 25 percent. Third, the Clinton plan provides the money for only--only, Mr. President--3 years. I think that these problems I have just listed with the Clinton administration proposal can be fixed fairly easily. As part of the comprehensive crime legislation I intend to introduce on Wednesday, I will be including my proposals on how we should fix these problems, and here is what I propose: First, I propose to pay for the police officers and to pay for them in full, 100 percent. Under my proposal, we will send $5 billion over a period of time to the local communities for new police officers. Those police officers will be fully funded 100 percent, not just 75 percent, as envisioned in the Clinton plan. Second, we will fund these police officers for 5 years; 5 years, not 3 years, as envisioned by the Clinton proposal. Third, and probably most significant, my proposal will target these funds where they are needed the most. Under the Clinton plan, really crime-threatened communities are deprived of the full contingent of police officers they really need. For example, under the administration proposal, a high-crime community, such as Chicago, has received 300 police officers so far, and those 300 are not even fully funded. They are funded at 75 percent. My legislation would put 2,100 new police officers on the streets of Chicago and would pay for them in full. I can cite example after example. Let me just give one from my home State. Youngstown, OH, is another city with a very serious crime problem. Under the Clinton plan, it has received a total of 10 new police officers. I think, however, to make a real difference in a crime area, we need to do better than that. Under the formula that is contained in the bill that I will introduce on Wednesday, there would be a total of 58 new police officers on the streets of Youngstown. We would go from 10 under the Clinton plan to 58 under my plan, and the way we are able to do that is because we are targeting the money to go to the areas where the crime is the worst. It only makes sense that when we are dealing with scarce Federal dollars, those Federal dollars should be targeted specifically to the areas where our citizens are most in danger. My proposal would put the dollars for police officers where police officers are needed the most. We are targeting the 250 most crime- infested cities in America. We will succeed in getting those police officers on the street. In a community brutalized by rampant crime, the police officer is truly an ambassador of law and order. The police officer is a living, breathing confirmation of America's resolve to defend civilization from those who want to turn our country into a wasteland of stealing, raping, and killing. The police officer is a soldier of justice, and like any other soldier, the police officer, to be most effective, needs to be sent where the enemy is. The enemy is anyone who does a drive-by shooting or rapes someone or commits any other kind of brutal act. Mr. President, anyone who watches TV or reads the papers knows where the enemy really is. My bill would make sure that the police officers are deployed where they are needed the most. My bill would pay for them in full. This is what it will take. This is what it will take if we are serious about taking back our streets. The American people are, quite frankly, losing patience with violent crime. They are losing patience with the syndrome that my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from New York, calls defining deviancy down. There is a consensus out here, Mr. President, that we will not allow our country to become a place where violent crime is considered normal. I think that putting these police officers on the street--and paying for them in full--will be a major symbol of our national resolve. My legislation, Mr. President, would spend $5 billion on these police officers, target them where they are needed the most, and pay for these police officers in full. The Clinton administration plan included $8.8 billion as partial payment for police officers, with their deployment of police officers being spread throughout the country and spread among many, many areas where crime is not that serious. Tomorrow, Mr. President, I will discuss what we can do with this extra $3.8 billion, and specifically how we can use block grants to give local communities the flexibility they need to use that $3.8 billion as effectively as possible. And then on Wednesday of this week, Mr. President, I will be introducing my comprehensive crime bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent to proceed as if in morning business.