Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Dodd.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss in general terms the underlying product liability this Senate has now been debating for several days, and to also discuss the medical malpractice amendment that is pending before the Senate. I intend to discuss tonight some of the concerns that I have with these bills, but also I hope to talk a little bit about some of the hopes that I have in regard to the things that I hope a well-crafted bill can, in fact, achieve, and some improvements that we can make in our current legal system. Mr. President, I do not pretend to be an expert in this area. I have spent a considerable period of time in the last 2 to 3 months reading, talking, and more importantly, listening--listening to business men and women, listening to others who have concerns about our particular bill. Some people, Mr. President, have been, I think, surprised, some amazed, that this Senator from Ohio did not automatically jump on this bill, saying we will approve everything in it just because it was labeled a ``reform'' piece of legislation. We do need reform. I think the question before the Senate today, tonight, tomorrow, next week, will be what really constitutes reform? What will truly help the small companies, small manufacturers in Ohio and other States who are threatened by the current system? But what reform, also, will we utilize that will not take away the victim's rights, nor will it stop the deterrent effect that I find to be an essential part of our system today? I believe that we have to approach this debate cautiously and carefully. Let me first start tonight by listing a few reasons why I believe we do have to approach this very serious, very important debate from a point of view of caution. Let us make no mistake about it, even the relatively narrowly drafted bill that was introduced, that we began this debate with, even if it was passed and nothing more--no amendment, none of the amendments that we have heard about to expand the bill--if the bill was passed in its original form, it would still constitute the most radical, the most dramatic change in our civil justice system in the history of this country. For over 200 years the tort law in this country, the civil justice system, has developed not primarily at the Federal level. Rather, it has been a home-grown product. It has been developed in State after State--in Ohio since 1880--both by statute, by action taken by the State legislature, but also in court case after court case after court case. We have developed a fairly fine-tuned tort system to handle disputes between individuals, to handle tortious conduct. Clearly the system does not work perfectly. By and large it does work. The proposal before us is, for the first time, to federalize that tort system. The only example I can think of where this Congress really became involved in the tort law, civil justice law, was when Congress passed--and I think it was a correct decision--a bill to give help to the general aviation industry in this country. Congress acted only after it was clear that general aviation had been driven overseas. The results of that bill have been positive. We have seen jobs come back to this country. That industry now, instead of contracting in this country, is expanding. But with that exception, Congress has never gotten into this area. I believe there are some very sensible reasons for this past reluctance on the part of the U.S. Congress. A simple way to express Congress' concern is to invoke the concept of Pandora's box. Once you open up this area of law to congressional interference, congressional control, where does that stop? Where does the debate stop? If anyone doubts this is a legitimate concern, I ask them to look at some of the amendments that have already been offered or will be offered in the next few days. Should there be a Federal cap for lawyers' fees? What should be the contractual relationship between employers and employees? What sort of evidence should be admissible at trial? That is just the beginning. Having said this, that it is a dramatic change and we should proceed with caution, that does not necessarily mean we should not proceed at all. But what it does mean is that we should go into this debate with our eyes wide open, and we should understand what we are tackling, and we should understand how significant a change in our law this will be. Let me next turn to another reason I think we, particularly in the year 1995, need to approach this debate with caution. There is some irony that this historic Congress, a Congress which is devoted to thinking and talking about State prerogatives and States rights and the value of returning power to the people, the value of returning power to the States, that this Congress should today be debating a bill that does just the opposite, that really says the U.S. Congress in certain areas--product liability, medical malpractice--will impose its will, will impose a national, uniform standard on all the States in the Union. Merely because it is strange, again, Mr. President, does not mean we should not necessarily do it. But, again, I think it points up how cautious we have to be as we begin this task. It is somewhat ironic that the very qualities we value, particularly those of us on this side of the aisle--self-help, market forces, local as opposed to national authority being better--are basically present in our current system. But they would in fact be changed and be compromised by this legislation. Let me cite what to me is an interesting example. We have been considering in committee a regulatory reform bill. One of the complaints I have heard from business men and women, particularly small businesses, as I travel across Ohio, is how overregulated they are. I totally agree. If there is one thing this Congress needs to do it is to get the Federal Government off the backs of small business men and women. The bill we have reported out of our committee makes an attempt at doing that and I think it will improve the law. I think the bill as we report it could actually be improved. I am going to work to do that when it reaches the floor. But there is, again, some irony here. The bill that this Congress has proposed to help business men and women get the Federal Government to back off and to stop overregulating puts more power in the hands of business men and women to sue the Federal Government, to sue the regulators. It is almost a self-help, self-enforcing provision. And the basic principle behind this bill, I believe, is that if you really want to get control of the Federal regulators, about the only way you can do it--you cannot do it by changing the law and changing the regulations-- the most effective and efficient way to do that is to open up the court system and to rely on business men and women to go into court and sue the bureaucrats, sue the regulators. Again, back to some of the basic principles I talked a moment ago, self-help being one of them. This bill, in a sense, does move in the other direction. So, again, another reason to be cautious. This bill in its various forms, depending on which amendment we look at, caps punitive damages. I believe we need to have a very, very fine balancing test as we approach this particular issue. Punitive damages have been with us for a long time. Punitive damages--let us be very plain about it--are intended to punish. There have been some Members who have talked on the floor almost in surprise that punitive damages are used to punish. That is what they are intended to do. That is what the definition of punitive damage is. But the real benefit to society in regard to punitive damages is not the punishment inflicted on the wrongdoer. The real value to society is that punitive damages in some cases, and in some very important cases, serve as a deterrent for some small minority of people in this country who put a product into circulation and then who, in spite of evidence to the contrary, evidence that should indicate to them they should either make a change in that product or withdraw the product or notify consumers, still go ahead and do none of the above. Punitive damages, the threat of punitive damages in some cases can serve as a deterrent. When a jury awards punitive damages in a product liability case, that jury may in fact be saving lives. The historic purpose of punitive damages is to punish and also to deter. Here is what the Supreme Court said. I quote: The purposes of punitive damages are to punish the defendant and protect the public by deterring the defendant and others from doing such wrong in the future. Let me read it again: . . . protect the public by deterring the defendant and others from doing such wrong in the future. The purpose of punitive damages is to deter conduct that hurts people, but the product liability legislation we are considering does seek to limit the jury's use of that vitally important deterrent. Now, the real question, though, Mr. President, for this Senator at least, is what kind of cap, what dollar amount will achieve the legitimate, desired results that the proponents of this bill want to achieve without really hurting or eliminating this deterrent effect? That I think is one of the key Let us talk a minute about how punitive damages work in real life. A tampon manufacturer received studies and medical reports that linked high absorbency tampon fibers to toxic shock syndrome. Other tampon manufacturers responded to the warning by either altering or withdrawing their product. But the manufacturer in question that I am talking about did not do that. This manufacturer tried to profit from the disadvantage of its competitors and, frankly, tried to profit from the good works of its competitors and the fact that they did the right thing. This manufacturer advertised how effective this product was at a time when its competitors were reducing the absorbency of their products because of this health warning. The court in this particular case came to the following conclusion: Our review of the record reveals abundant evidence that [they] deliberately disregarded studies and medical reports linking high-absorbency tampon fibers with increased risk of toxic shock at a time when other tampon manufacturers were responding to this information by modifying or withdrawing their high absorbency products . . . that [they] deliberately sought to profit from this situation by advertising . . . [And this] occurred in the face of [their] awareness that [their] product was far more absorbent than necessary for its intended effectiveness. The jury in the case awarded $10 million in punitive damages. The manufacturer then withdrew the product. Tragically, Mr. President, that is what it sometimes takes--a small minority of cases--to deter people. It takes punishment. It takes punitive damages. So I think we need to proceed very carefully in this area. The Senator from Maine has offered I think a very appropriate amendment. The Snowe amendment is an attempt to preserve the punitive and deterrent function of punitive damages while at the same time placing a cap, a cap that will, in fact, bring some predictability to business decisions that are made by manufacturers, by other business men and women, a cap that will achieve a goal of not only bringing predictability but allowing the manufacturer to expand and allowing them to move into other markets and to do things that will benefit the public that they would not be able to do but for the cap. Mr. President, I support the Snowe amendment. If for some reason this Senate would vote down the Snowe amendment and proceed to adopt the product liability legislation in its current form, then I believe the punitive and deterrent effect of these damage awards could be seriously weakened. By basing punitive damage awards only on economic damages, the product liability legislation does an injustice, the current bill does an injustice in those cases where the plaintiffs suffer only minor monetary losses but--but--severe and other permanent harm of a nonmonetary kind. The Snowe amendment would rectify that. That is why I intend to vote for it. That being said, I should mention that I do have a concern about the equity of the Snowe formula as regards small companies versus large companies; that while in fact this cap may be appropriate for the huge companies, it may not be appropriate in regard to small companies, and we may need to provide them more assurance and more protection. I am concerned that under this particular formula small companies are punished somewhat disproportionately. A small company may well be destroyed outright by a damage award that would serve merely as an appropriate deterrent to a much larger company. This is a concern that we might want to address during the amendment process. In fact, one way of looking at it was expressed to me by a small businessman from Ohio several weeks ago. This is what he told me: A punitive award that might just be a serious deterrent to a big company might really be a death penalty for a smaller company. Let me list some other concerns that I do have about this bill. Earlier today on this floor, I offered an amendment concerning the civil penalties for sex abuse by doctors. I am sure that even those who strongly favor the passage of this bill will join me in making it clear that we do not want to cap damages in cases in which a doctor sexually abuses a patient. I think it would be wrong for this Senate, for this Congress to impose a national cap and to tell each State in the Union to tell the juries of each State in the Union that there is a limit on the punitive damages you can award against a doctor once you have already found that doctor has sexually abused a patient. Let me talk about another area of concern. I intend to offer another amendment to preserve the right of juries to consider the financial status of defendants in product liability cases. As currently written, the product liability bill would forbid juries from considering the assets of the corporation while considering what the proper punitive damages should be. This provision would drastically weaken the punitive and deterrent effect of damage awards, and that is why I will be working to amend that part of the bill. I can find no logical reason, Mr. President, why this Congress should, in this particular case, override the settled law in virtually every State in the Union that does, in fact, allow a jury to take that into consideration. If the jury, in the punitive, as is their job, is trying to make a punishment and is trying to deter, then it seems to me it would be wrong to deny the jury the knowledge of exactly what assets that company does in fact have, because, Mr. President, if that knowledge is denied to the jury, the jury could err either way. They may assume, incorrectly, that a company has a lot of assets and it may turn out the company does not have a lot of assets. And so when they impose that award to get the company's attention, to deter future conduct, it may not be an appropriate amount. It may be too much. It may impose an unbelievable burden on that company; or, on the other hand, it may not be enough. Mr. President, let me make it very clear. The current system is not all good. It is not perfect. If it were, I do not think we would be here today. If it were, I would not have heard from so many people that I have heard from in Ohio about this particular problem. What we are really doing, Mr. President, and what we should be doing, I think, ultimately, is a balancing test. That is what I think we have to do. We have to balance the benefits and costs of the current system versus the benefits and costs of this bill; or, maybe a better way of saying it, the benefits and costs of the bill that we finally do, in fact, pass. Mr. President, I am concerned that the current system in some cases deters innovation. And I think one of the strongest--no, I think the strongest--argument for changing the current system, and the strongest argument for imposing some caps in regard to punitive damages is that the current system does deter innovation. We all know and are aware, Mr. President, of products that have been kept off the market because of our current law. We have all heard how no company will make an antinausea drug for pregnant women. I talked yesterday to a lawyer from a major company who said no one is going to do it; simply not going to do it. ``We have the technology; we could put it on the market. But we are not going to take the risk. We are not going to accept the risk that we have to accept because of lawsuits.'' So if we can give some relief in this area, then products such as the antinausea drug for pregnant women may be able to come onto the market. Another example, in 1992, a company stopped testing a vaccine for preventing the transmission of the AIDS virus from an infected mother to her unborn child. Think of that. I have no idea, Mr. President, whether or not that product would have made it onto the market. I have no idea whether that product would have worked. But heavens, the last thing in the world we want to do is to stop innovation in the research in regard to AIDS. What a tragedy it would be if we had the ability to move forward and to develop this particular vaccine that would keep that unborn child from being infected. That is another, I believe, argument for some change. Also, liability concerns have hindered the development of microbicides used to prevent the spread of AIDS. Mr. President, during this debate, we have all heard and will continue to hear provisions about lawyer's fees. There are going to be several other amendments also offered. I may support some; some I may not. I am not take care of themselves. But, Mr. President, I think what we have to look at when we look at some of these limitations on fees is what impact it will have on the market, what impact it will have on poor people's ability to get into the ball game. And in this case, getting into the ball game means getting into court. If some of these well-intentioned, well-sounding amendments do in fact hinder poorer people from having access to the courthouse door, then I think the right thing to do would be to oppose them. We need to preserve access to the courtroom for people who have been harmed. We should do this to their benefit, not for the benefit of the lawyers. Last week, Mr. President, I voted for an amendment that would force lawyers to disclose their fees. I think that is a good idea. I voted for another amendment that would make sanctions mandatory in cases when lawyers bring lawsuits that are legally determined to be frivolous by a trial judge. I think that is a good idea, too. But I do part company with the proponents of this legislation when they do things that would limit the legal rights of indigent plaintiffs. I believe that that is precisely what some of these amendments would have the effect of doing. Mr. President, over the last 4 months, I have had more than 55 meetings with concerned Ohioans and others about the faults and merits of this legislation. I intend, Mr. President, to be working over the next couple of days and probably weeks to improve the system--to improve the system, but also to make sure we do not abandon some of the extremely positive effects of the legal system we have built up over the last 200 years. Mr. President, that concludes my statement this evening on this issue. Mr. President, at this point, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

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

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DeWINE. It is, indeed.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so that I may offer an amendment.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I have only offered this amendment for Senator Dodd so that it would qualify under the consent agreement, in that Senator Dodd, at this point, is unable to be on the floor.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, the underlying amendment that we are considering, the McConnell medical malpractice amendment, would place a cap on the punitive damages that may be awarded by a jury against a doctor or against other medical providers. My amendment would except out from this cap sexual assault and sexual abuse. The underlying amendment, Mr. President, does set this cap. By setting the cap, it also sets a cap on all medical malpractice cases, including cases where the doctor has committed a sexual assault, some form of sexual abuse, against the patient. Mr. President, I find no logical reason for this Congress, as we debate the issue of medical malpractice, to impose our will on the States and say to each State no longer can a person have unlimited punitive damages against those who a jury has found or an individual who a jury has found has sexually abused his patient. I find no logic behind that, and I think it would be, quite frankly, morally wrong for this Congress to impose such a limit. Mr. President, the amendment I have just sent to the desk would add, at the end of the relevant section, the following new sentence: Such term does not include an action where the alleged injury on which the action is based resulted from an act of sexual abuse (as defined under applicable State law) committed by a provider professional, plan, or other defendant. Mr. President, it is not my intention at this time to talk about the underlying merits of the amendment. What I will try to do, instead, is make absolutely certain by my amendment, that this legislation does not have a truly disastrous, if unintended, consequence, one that may well occur if we do not make the legislation absolutely crystal clear. Mr. President, sexual abuse is a horrible problem in this country. Two and a half percent of all medical malpractice cases involve sexual abuse. In the last reporting period, Mr. President, it was reported that this totaled 173 cases of not only medical malpractice, but of sexual abuse. Clearly, Mr. President, there are a few doctors out there who are engaging in very reprehensible conduct. These cases involve a brutal violation of one of the most sacred relationships that exist; that is, the relationship between a doctor and his or her patient. When a person goes to a doctor, that person establishes that sacred relationship. That person goes to a place where she or he can be healed and certainly not hurt. The patient goes to a doctor in a spirit of trust, someone who is bound by a sacred oath not to violate that trust. Mr. President, tragically, at least 173 women have recently discovered that they had misplaced that trust. They trusted someone who posed as a healer but who it turns out was, in fact, a predator. When they entered the doctor's office, they certainly did not expect that it would turn into an outrageous, humiliating, criminal nightmare. Let me talk about a few cases that have been in the news recently. Let me talk about a woman in Virginia who went to a doctor because she and her husband wanted to have children. They asked the doctor, because they had that problem, to help them start this pregnancy. The doctor led them to believe that the husband's semen would be implanted in the wife by artificial means. The woman became pregnant, all right. But tragically, it turned out that the semen was not her husband's but was, rather, the doctor's. It was later revealed that the doctor had literally made a practice of impregnating his own patients. Mr. President, what words can we summon to express the rage that we all feel when we hear about this kind of outrageous conduct? Mr. President, it has been said that one of the problems we have in this country today in our society is that we accept too much, we tolerate too much; we see so much on TV that is sad and brutal that we just pass it off and say that that is just the way it is. I think, Mr. President, we need to really recapture a spirit of outrage, a sense of deep shame, a sense that we are not going to tolerate this anymore, that we are really going to succeed in deterring this kind of intolerable behavior. It is that sense of outrage that we must have. Would it be right, would it be just, for this Congress to impose a cap and tell the State of Virginia to tell that jury in Virginia, ``You cannot impose punitive damages above a certain amount in this particular case''? I think the answer is, clearly, no. We cannot tolerate what happened to a woman in Connecticut. She had been going to a dentist for about 10 years. She was going to get a molar filled. The dentist sedated her with nitrous oxide. She woke up, Mr. President, three times in the next hour and 15 minutes. The first time, she found the dentist kissing her and she felt pain in her breasts. She attempted to resist and saw the doctor turn up the concentration of nitrous oxide so that she would pass out again, which she did. The second time she woke up, she found the dentist on top of her, and the third time she woke up the dentist was still on top of her. She felt very scared and very sick. The dentist realized she was awake. He helped her out of the chair. He grabbed her and kissed her. The woman did not remember any dental work ever having been done in that visit. During her excessive exposure to the nitrous oxide, some obviously went into her lungs. And stomach acid had actually gone into her lungs, leaving her with a permanent asthma condition and permanent loss of 30 to 40 percent of her lung capacity. Would it be right to tell the jury in Connecticut, ``No, in this case, there will be a cap on the punitive damages In another case, a Florida woman thought she was receiving periodontal treatment. She awoke from the anesthesia the doctor had given her and found the doctor touching her private parts. Would it be right, in that particular case, Mr. President, to impose a cap? Again, I think not. Mr. President, according to a recent study, in one-third of the sex abuse cases--in one-third--the doctor was permitted to go on practicing medicine. Patients today are being treated by those doctors, totally unaware of the doctors' history of obscene conduct. Sometimes, tragically, it takes time for justice to be done. An investigation by ABC News revealed that a gynecologist in southern California sexually abused as many as 200 women over a 30-year period. It took almost 20 years after the first complaint for California authorities to start proceedings against him. But in that case, the very first complaint really told the whole story. The victim wrote that while the doctor was examining her pelvic region he began sexually abusing her and using foul language. My amendment would exclude this kind of behavior from the changes contemplated in the bill we are considering. This medical malpractice amendment should not have caps which would affect sexual abuse. The Senate may decide to cap damages in case of medical malpractice. But there certainly is no logical reason to extend that protection to individuals who sexually abuse their patients. It would, I believe, be morally wrong. Indeed, I believe it would be outrageous for this Congress to protect, by the use of a cap on punitive damages, individuals who sexually molest or abuse their patients. Under my amendment, all of the remedies currently available for victims of this kind of sexual abuse will continue to remain available to them under the applicable State law. Punitive damages are historically used to punish and to deter. Let us not limit the punishment of these sex offenders. Let us not limit the deterrent effect on these sex offenders. Let us allow juries the full latitude they need to punish and the full latitude they need to deter these offenders. That is what this amendment would do. The vast majority of doctors in this country do a fantastic job. We rely on them for literally the most precious thing in our lives, which is the health and welfare of our family members. Each one of us has had, we hope, great experiences with these doctors. This amendment should not in any way reflect on these doctors. All we are saying by this amendment is let us not have the U.S. Congress interfere with a jury, interfere with a State, interfere with the people's right to punish and deter the small minority of doctors who violate the sacred trust that the patient has given them. The same amendment I am offering today was offered by Senator Kennedy in the Labor and Human Resources Committee. The committee passed that amendment and it is my hope the full Senate will, tomorrow, do the same. The American jury speaks with the voice of America's deepest conscience. That is why I want to make sure the jury keeps the power, the power to punish fully these horrible violations of trust by some truly warped and dangerous individuals. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, once this second-degree amendment of my colleague from Wyoming is disposed of, it is my intention to offer an amendment to the underlying amendment offered by my colleague from Kentucky that will strike from that amendment the cap on punitive damages that amendment places on a specific area and that specific area is sexual assaults of patients by doctors. Understandably this is a rarity, but the facts are that many times when punitive damages are awarded by juries against doctors, against medical providers, the juries do it in cases where there have been sexual assaults--a case where the patient has been put under anesthesia, the doctor then proceeds to sexually assault the patient. It is certainly a rarity. But, Mr. President, I cannot find any moral justification for this U.S. Congress saying to the 50 States, saying to the people across this country, in that particular case we deem it wise to impose our will on the States and to say, in the case of that sexual assault, there is going to be a cap, there is going to be a limit on what that jury can return in punitive damages against that particular individual. I hope and would anticipate that this amendment will not be a controversial amendment, it will be something we can all agree on. But I wanted to notify my colleagues and Members in the Chamber that in a short period of time I do in fact intend to offer that particular second-degree amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to express on my own behalf, and on behalf of the people of the State of Ohio, our deepest sympathy with and for the people of the State of Oklahoma as they cope with the devastating tragedy that took place last Wednesday. Our hearts go out to victims and the victims' families. No one, Mr. President, could watch yesterday's memorial service and see the pictures of the victims, the pictures of the children, without a lump in their throat or having to turn away from the screen. Mr. President, I want to congratulate the rescue workers and all the volunteers, as well as the police--both the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the local police officers--who have proven to a concerned America that we will, in fact, fight back against terrorism. Mr. President, when Oklahoma State trooper Charlie Hanger arrested one of the suspects in Oklahoma, he was acting on behalf of all Americans. He did not know at the time, of course, that he was arresting a terrorist. He was simply doing his job, the job that he does day in and day out. He pulled over a motorist apparently for suspicion of speeding. The motorist said he was driving cross-country--but the officer noticed the driver had not gotten comfortable the way most cross-country drivers do. He still had his jacket on. He did not have any luggage. Mr. President, noticing details like that is the very heart of good police work. When the motorist leaned over, the policeman saw the bulge of a concealed weapon and at that point arrested him. Officer Hanger brought in the suspicious motorist. Subsequently, it turned out that the man he arrested for carrying a concealed weapon was one of the most wanted individuals in America. All in a day's work. That, Mr. President, is really what police work is. It is not glamorous. In fact, many times it is downright laborious, boring. To get that one terrorist, it takes thousands of police chasing down thousands of leads. Most of the leads do not go anywhere, but they all have to be pursued so that ultimately the guilty can be captured. I am sure, Mr. President, in the days since this tragedy occurred, thousands and thousands of police officers thousands of thousands of different times across this country have analyzed what they were doing and tried to identify the composite picture and have done things that they do in their good police work, things that in most cases turn out not to lead anywhere, but they know that they have to do that. Mr. President, the pursuit of the suspects in the Oklahoma City bombing proves the immense value of hard work and patience in American police work. It also proves the awesome importance of technology in the war against terrorism and other kinds of crime. Technology and good police work have really been the key to making the progress that has been made thus far in solving the mystery of this horrible tragedy. Federal agents recovered a confidential vehicle identification number from a fragment of a truck found at the bombing scene. This number led the FBI to a Ryder truck rental office in Junction City, KS--and that is where the composite pictures of the suspects were made. Mr. President, we need to do everything we can at the Federal level to promote the kind of cutting-edge Federal technology that makes this possible. I will be introducing in the near future a comprehensive Federal crime bill that would help hook up all of America's police departments into this Federal information data bank. It will help maintain a national DNA bank to allow the local law enforcement officers to identify and capture sex offenders and other violent criminals. It will be a data base, Mr. President, that deals not only with DNA, but also with fingerprints, also with ballistic comparisons, and also with information about individuals who have been convicted of serious offenses. Mr. President, as we deal with the aftermath of the bombing in Oklahoma City, I think there are three important tasks ahead for the U.S. Senate. First, the Senate does need to increase the availability of crime- fighting technology to make this available to every law-enforcement officer in every town and every community in the country. Second, the Senate needs to take a very close look at how we deal with the entry into the United States of individuals who are affiliated with international terrorist groups. We must look, also, at what we should do when we determine aliens already in this country are members of such groups. Third, the Senate needs to examine the issue of domestic terrorist groups to figure out the best way to infiltrate these extremist groups and then to keep tabs on their dangerous activities. Mr. President, over the next few days I will be discussing my own legislation in greater detail. I think that the level of attention the Senate gives these issues in the days to come will be one factor, a major factor, lessening the chance of another tragedy of the kind that took place this past week. Again, Mr. President, let me offer to the victims, the families of the victims, the loved ones, our deepest sympathy for this horrible and senseless tragedy. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this bus sensor on the floor with me during my speech.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the safety of America's school children. On February 27, Brandie Browder, an eighth grader at Ferguson Jr. High School in Beaver Creek, OH, was coming home from school. As she was getting off her schoolbus that afternoon, the drawstring around the waist of her coat got caught in the handrail of the schoolbus. The schoolbus started to move away. Brandie tried to free the coat, wrenched the coat free of the schoolbus and ran alongside the bus for approximately 50 feet. She lost her footing and fell and the bus ran over her and killed her. Mr. President, just 4 days later in Cincinnati, a seventh grader from Roberts Paideia School was getting off her schoolbus when a similar event occurred. The bus dragged her for about 3 or 4 feet, ran over her as she tried to free herself. Fortunately, she only suffered a broken foot. She did survive. Mr. President, in both cases the bus driver was apparently totally unaware of the accident as it was happening. I think we should point out at this point, before I go any further in what I am saying today, that schoolbuses are among the safest modes of transportation. According to the National Safety Council, there are about 400,000 schoolbuses in the United States, and they transport approximately 22 million students every single day. I think we all know and I think most experts would agree if the choices are between putting a child on a schoolbus or letting a teenager drive himself or herself, or ride with someone else, or even having the parents drive to school, most of us, most experts would say statistically the children are better off on the bus. I do not think there is any doubt about that. Having said that, Mr. President, the sad fact remains that in the 1992-93 school year, 30 schoolchildren were killed in schoolbus accidents. Of these children, 5 were killed while riding on their bus. The other 25 were killed while in the process of getting on or off of their own bus. The year before that, the 1991-92 school year, 35 children were killed nationwide; 10 were riding on their own schoolbuses and 25 were killed while getting on or off the bus. An average of 30 school children are killed while getting on or off their buses every single year. This is not a new problem. According to the National Safety Council, over the 10 years since 1983 a total of 445 children were killed in schoolbus accidents; 100 of these were passengers and 345 were killed while getting on or off their own bus. Mr. President, there are many factors contributing to these accidents--many. Today I should like to discuss just three of them. First, an investigation of these accidents reveals that an alarming number of them involve handrails on the schoolbus. When children are getting off a schoolbus, they walk down past a handrail. We have all seen them. We have all had that experience. Some of them hold on to it, others do not. But I understand that there is a small space in most schoolbuses, about an inch, between the handrail and the wall of the bus. Picture a child coming down the steps. He or she may have a backpack, strings or straps trailing off of it. Maybe he or she is wearing a coat with drawstrings that they can use to tighten around the waste-- anything, Mr. President, that is trailing off of that child, like these strings and straps, is liable to catch in that small space between the handrail and the wall of the bus. It is easy to imagine what happens next. The child is off the bus. But part of the child's clothing is stuck in that small gap and the door closes. The bus starts moving. The child gets jerked with it and tries to pry free. We have a moving vehicle and a child swinging off of that vehicle. That is how Brandie was killed. And since 1991, at least four other children have been killed that way. In conclusion, Mr. President, we as parents, as members of school boards, as concerned citizens, I believe, need to make sure that these handrails are as safe as possible, that all precautions are being taken to avoid these tragedies. A second problem, Mr. President, is the danger area around the bus. The schoolbus, of course, is a very large object. It is very difficult for other motorists to see around it. It is even difficult for the bus driver to see around it. Because of this, far too many children are killed by their very own buses. We need to explore ways to make those children visible to the schoolbus driver. There are at least two companies, maybe more in the United States, that produce sensors that can be attached to school buses to prevent accidents. I have one, Mr. President, right here. This works on the same basic principle as a home security system. It sends out a radio signal. If the signal detects reflected energy from a child in what is called a danger zone area, a frequency shift occurs which triggers an alarm and illuminates a red light in the cab of the bus. This particular system covers the 10-foot by 10-foot area in front of and behind the bus, as well as the 6 by 8 areas on either side of the bus. There are other technologies that are involved. We know though, Mr. President, no matter what technology we are talking about, that ultimately it is up to the schoolbus driver. I think what we should try to do is to assist those drivers, most of whom are great people, who do a great job every day protecting our children. Maybe additional training is needed in some cases; maybe additional equipment on the bus. Maybe other things. I intend, Mr. President, in the weeks ahead, to return to this issue, because I think it is an issue that we can have an impact on by publicity, by talking about it, by making people aware of the opportunities they have and all of us have to save lives. Each one of us has a responsibility--whether we put our own child on that schoolbus every day and tell that child what to be careful about, whether we are on school boards, or parents--to make sure that school system has the latest equipment, to make sure that our good bus drivers do in fact have the training that they need. Before coming to the floor, Mr. President, I spoke to the father of the little girl who was killed. I wanted to know whether it was all right if I came and talked about his daughter's accident. His reaction was what I expected it to be--that if we could save a life by talking about this issue, that if we could make other parents aware of it, other school boards or school systems, that we should be doing that. That is why I am on the floor today. I will return to this issue in the future, Mr. President. At this point, I yield the floor. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me first congratulate my colleague from Tennessee for his description of the problem that we face. I think it is appropriate and significant that this week, the 11 new Members of this body are coming to the floor to talk about really the most important problem facing our country; that is, our inability to deal with our budget deficit. This week, Mr. President, there is going to be a lot of discussion about the close of the first 100 days of this Congress. There will be talk about the Contract With America. I think that, by and large, the American people are pleased with what they have seen. We have begun to make progress; we have a way to go. We have passed in this body the line-item veto. We failed by one vote to pass a balanced budget amendment, but I am hopeful, as I know many of my colleagues are and as the majority leader is, that we will get that one additional vote and that we will be able to come back on this floor and pass that balanced budget amendment. We passed the unfunded mandate bill which, for the first time, will really hold Congress accountable for unfunded mandates that are passed down to the local communities with no money, but just telling the communities what to do. With unfunded mandates, line-item veto, making Congress live by the same laws that everyone else has to live under, I think we have made progress. We have a way to go. Quite frankly, Mr. President, I believe the tough votes are ahead of the Senate, not behind the Senate. I believe that this Congress really should be looked at in two different sections. The first part of the Congress deals with the items we have just talked about. Then we will move in--and frankly we have already begun to do this with different committees--the Budget Committee particularly--to the hardest and most difficult task that we have; that is, to do something that we have not done for a quarter of a century. That is to get ahold of Federal spending and bring it under control. I think the American people should understand that this week, while the focus is on the first 100 days, we now must turn to where we go from here. Mr. President, it is not going to be easy. Over the next few months, the U.S. Senate and this Congress is going to face some very, very tough choices. This Congress must do what prior Congresses have not done. We have to write a realistic budget for the U.S. Government. All Americans must be prepared for what lies ahead. Mr. President, this will not be pretty. It will not be easy. Indeed, the votes we have cast so far in this body are very easy compared to what lies ahead. We have to begin, Mr. President, by being absolutely candid and honest with the American people about the tough choices that lie ahead. We can no longer postpone the day of reckoning. The day of reckoning, Mr. President, is here. The current direction of U.S. budget policy is simply not sustainable. Congress has already amassed a $4.7 trillion national debt that our children and grandchildren will have to pay. That is what the American people in the past election voted to change. The people of this country demand change because they know what is going to happen if we do not change. Mr. President, we are already paying over $235 billion a year just in interest on the national debt. By the year 2003, just 8 years from now, spending on entitlements and interest alone will exceed 70 percent of the entire Federal budget. the budget for all the discretionary spending on our domestic needs. That is 15 percent of the whole budget--15 percent, Mr. President, for education; job training; for the Women, Infants, and Children Program; just 15 percent of all these domestic needs. That is, if we just stay on our present course. It does not get any better after the year 2003. In fact, it gets worse. By the year 2012, just 17 years from today, there will be nothing left in the budget for these social needs--zero. No money for our children, no money for our future--everything consumed. Every last red cent of the Federal budget will go to entitlements and interest payments. Mr. President, Congress' fiscal insanity has had a terrible human cost. The year 2012, the year the money is scheduled to run out if we do not change our ways, is 1 year after my wife, Fran, and I expect our grandson, Albert, to graduate from high school, and 1 year after our daughter, Anna, should enter college. Mr. President, if we do not succeed in writing a sensible budget, a budget that leads toward balance instead of further and further into bankruptcy, I shudder to think of the America we are going to leave these children. Another way of looking at it, when my parents graduated from high school in the early 1940's, the debt attributable to each child graduating from high school that year was $360. By the time my wife, Fran, and I graduated, in the mid-1960's, that figure was up to $1,600 for each child. When our older children, Patrick, Jill, and Becky, graduated in the mid-to-late 1980's, that figure was up to $9,000. If we continue, Mr. President, to go the way we have been going, by the time our grandson, Albert, graduates from high school in the year 2012, that figure will be up to almost $25,000. That is $25,000 in debt, and no money at all to pay for urgent national needs. Mr. President, this is much more than simply a budget question. It is much more than a question of accounting and bookkeeping. I believe, Mr. President, it is a fundamental moral question about the kind of people we are, the kind of Americans we are. In conclusion, Mr. President, I contend that we do not have the right to leave our children a bankrupt America. They deserve a lot better. That is why we are here on the floor today. It is our challenge over the coming weeks to create another picture of America, another picture of America in the year 2012, an America with a balanced budget, an America that is gradually paying off its debt and coming back to fiscal sanity, an America in which Albert, Anna, and other children of their generation are liberated from the crushing burden of debt and have, finally, the freedom to cope with the challenges of the 21st century. That is what, Mr. President, the coming debate is all about. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me first thank the Senator from Wyoming for putting this group together this morning. His comments are certainly well taken, as are the comments of my colleagues from Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. I think it is fitting and appropriate that the new Members of the Senate, who just finished the campaign, just finished talking directly to the American people, should be the ones who are on the floor this morning talking about welfare reform, because I am sure that the experience my friend from Wyoming, or my friends from Tennessee, Pennsylvania, and Arizona, had was the same experience that I had. I could not find one person--not one person--in the State of Ohio who thought welfare worked. And that included people who were on welfare. It included taxpayers. It included the average citizens, whom I see day after day after day. I could not find anybody who thought welfare works. So it is appropriate that we, really, in this country engage in this national debate. Mr. President, the House has just concluded this debate and the Senate will take up this debate in a few weeks. In this debate, we seem to be focusing on adults, on money, on jobs. But, Mr. President, underlying all these considerations is really the future of our children, because that is really what this debate is all about. It is about our children. It is about breaking the cycle of poverty. It is about breaking the cycle of despair. We are, it is true, Mr. President, trying to rescue the adults who are trapped in the welfare system. But if we are brutally frank and honest with ourselves, I think most of us will admit that it is our concern for the children that really underlies this debate and makes it so imperative that we do something, that we do something different. Fixing welfare will not be easy, and it will not be done overnight. And fixing welfare, frankly, is not all we have to do. We also have to tackle the broader problems of violence, poverty, and lack of education that is posing such a threat to the well-being of our country's children. Mr. President, the fact is that America's children are in crisis, and welfare dependency is part of the cause of that crisis. The statistics in regard to our young people today are absolutely staggering and frightening. In 1960, about 5 percent of the children born in America were illegitimate. Today, almost one-third are. In some major cities, that figure is now at two-thirds, and in some cities, even higher than that. Since 1972, the rate of children having children has doubled. What happens to these children, Mr. President? According to the Congressional Budget Office, half of all teenage unwed mothers are on public assistance within 1 year of having their first child, and within 5 years, 77 percent are on public assistance. This takes a huge toll on the children. The poverty rate among children is the highest of any age group in the country. Our young people today are the only age group in America--listen to this--the only age group in America that does not have a longer life expectancy than their parents did at the same age. A recent study revealed that of the children born to a married adult with a high school education, only 8 percent live in poverty. But of the children born to unmarried minors without a high school diploma, 80 percent live in poverty. The children born out of wedlock are three times more likely than the children of married parents to become welfare clients when they grow up. What kind of a life are these children being prepared for? What kind of values are they learning in a family where many times no one works, and bare subsistence income is given by, frankly, a distant and grudging Federal Government? Mr. President, what do we do? That is what we are going to be talking about in the weeks and months ahead. I think it might be tempting, particularly for those of us on this side of the aisle, now that Republicans control the Senate and Republicans control the House, to once again do what we have done in this country time and time and time again, and that is to impose a Washington solution on this problem. I think, however, Mr. President, that would be a mistake. I think it is very tempting to do this now that we are in control, but I believe it would be a grave mistake because history has simply taught us that Washington does not have all the answers. I do believe that there will be times, as we debate this bill and this reform, when I will vote for some uniformity. I think, for example, that it makes eminent sense in the area of child support enforcement, an area that has been a problem for many, many years, to have more uniformity, to have more cooperation between the States. I saw this 20 years ago as a young assistant county prosecuting attorney when we tried to enforce child support. I saw the problems we had in going from State to State to State. I think uniformity in that area does make sense. But I think, in most cases, we are going to be much better off in allowing the Governors, the legislators, and the people of the States to design their own programs. Too often, Mr. President, we think, here in Washington, we have all the answers. Indeed, the crisis of welfare dependency in today's America is, I believe, in large measure a consequence of Federal policies written right here in this Capitol. Mr. President, to be very blunt, I do not believe we should replace the Democratic Party's version of Federal micromanagement with the Republican version of Federal micromanagement of our welfare system. I think it would be a mistake. The answers are not here in Washington, not even on this side of the aisle. If we are going to find answers, we need to be looking to the States and the local communities. My colleague from Tennessee, Mr. Thompson, said it very, very well. Who better knows their neighbors, their friends, their communities? Who better knows the solution to this problem than the people of the local community? I believe, Mr. President, that welfare reform experiments in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and other States do in fact show a great deal of promise. But we should not try to force all States into a single mold. We still have a great deal to learn about what works in welfare, and we certainly know already what does not work. We should not standardize the Federal solution to which all States and communities have to conform. We need the States to continue to experiment, to be the laboratories of democracy, and to lead the way toward a 21st century welfare system in this country that does, in fact, work. Finally, Mr. President, we, I believe, as we approach this welfare debate, must always remember that welfare is not, first and foremost, a money problem. Over the last few weeks, we have heard a great deal about the money side of welfare, and that is quite natural. Some say we are taking money away from the needy. Others say we are saving money for the taxpayers. But beyond the welfare debate in regard to money is something much more important, and that is human beings, and that is young children. The problem, frankly, Mr. President, is the kind of culture we are building in this country and the kind of lives America's children will inherit. As we begin this debate, I propose a very radical solution. It is particularly radical for this town and this city, this Capitol Building, this Chamber. And the radical solution is to say, ``We don't have all the wisdom here. We don't know all the answers.'' Let us trust the States to be the laboratories of democracy. Let us turn back power to the States and let them try things, and let them find out what will work and what will not work. They cannot do a worse job than the Federal Government has done. That may be a radical solution. It may be something that is foreign to Congress in the past. Quite frankly, Mr. President, we have tried everything else. I think it is time for a radical solution, a radical change, and I think, quite frankly, that it will work. Thank you very much. Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my strong support for the legislative line-item veto. The line-item veto will be a very effective tool in helping this country achieve a balanced budget. Let us be clear, though, Mr. President. This is not some sort of magic potion that is going to solve all of our problems. We are going to be faced with very, very difficult choices that we as Members of the Senate and House will have to make in the upcoming months in regard to our budget. But while it is not a magic potion or magic wand, it is a reasonable, rational tool, a tool that will help us achieve this very important fiscal goal. This legislation will give the President the power most Governors already have, the power to cut wasteful spending items and special tax breaks out of the budget. I believe, though, that this power which most Governors have today and which I hope the President will have after we pass this bill is valuable not because of what the Chief Executive actually vetoes. Rather, the true importance of the line-item veto lies in its value as a deterrent. I believe the passage of this bill will change the climate in which Congress operates just as it has affected the climate in which most of our State legislators operate. Think of all the wasteful taxing and spending provisions that will never be included in legislation, never be included simply because Congress knows that the provision will not stand up to public scrutiny, will not stand up to scrutiny in the light of day. This I believe is the real value of the line-item veto at the State level, and it would be equally valuable at the Federal level. Talk to the Governors. My colleague from Missouri, who just sat down, was a Governor, and he outlined for us several days ago some of the provisions that he had to veto as a Governor and why he made those decisions and how he felt that was an effective tool. Governors I have talked to say the same thing. When you really pin the Governors down, what they will tell you usually--it is what Governor Voinovich has told me--is that the value of the line-item veto is not so much in what they do veto but, rather, in the fact that the legislature does not put certain items in the bill because they know the Governor has that veto, and so that is really the true value, it is the value of the deterrent. Frankly, I do not expect to see a huge number of vetoed items when we pass this legislation. We may, but I do not think so. The very existence of the line-item veto will prevent these items from ever being included in these bills in the first place. Mr. President, I know there are some of our colleagues who are concerned that any form of a line-item veto would effectively transfer power from this body and from the House to the executive branch, to the President. I understand those concerns. But I think if we look at this from a historical point of view, what we will really find is that the passage of this legislation is merely restoring the balance of power to where it was many, many years ago. As a practical matter, I believe passage of this bill will return us to the situation that originally existed in Congress when Presidents in the early days of this country were presented with simpler and shorter bills. I believe the Framers of the Constitution had that in mind when they wrote the Constitution, and when the original provision about the veto was put into law. Over the last several decades, the Federal legislative process has really gotten out of hand. For too long the process has been distorted and perverted by the practice of enacting huge omnibus bills which the President is forced to accept or reject in their entirety. This historic change I believe has been for the worse. Appropriations bills, tax bills, entitlement bills, the passage of these bills is followed, many times within a week or two, by a story in the paper outlining all the hidden projects, all the hidden provisions that somehow were put in a bill at the last moment, maybe in a conference committee. If these special projects or special tax breaks had to stand alone in the clear light of day, they simply would not withstand public scrutiny and, quite frankly, would never be included at all. The line-item veto will help take us back to the original legislative process, an original legislative process in which we can count on the President to represent the national interest in deciding on the value of legislation. Today the President is hindered in this important constitutional duty. He must either accept or reject outright these huge taxing and spending bills that contain literally thousands of separate line items. Some of the line items, Mr. President, are necessary. Some are desirable but not necessary. Some are questionable, and some are downright indefensible. Congress regularly says to the President take it or leave it. If you think the national interest requires the passage of some of what is in the bill, you have to sign all of the bill. By now we are all familiar with thousands of examples of Federal spending items, special tax breaks that would never have been approved if those responsible for them were truly held accountable to the American people. The line-item veto is tailor-made to solve this problem. Eleven former Presidents have endorsed it. Forty-three of our Nation's Governors have it, and it works. In 1992, the Cato Institute surveyed current and former Governors, and 92 percent of them believed that the line-item veto would help restrain Federal spending. I think they are right. That is why I will be voting for the legislative line-item veto. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, the passage of a balanced budget amendment will do more to bring about the fundamental change that the American people voted for in 1994 than anything else that we can do. This is a vote about our future. This is a vote about our children. Let me share some sobering facts. When my parents graduated from high school in the early 1940's, the debt on each child that graduated was about $360 dollars. By the time my wife and I graduated in the mid- 1960's it was up to $1,600. When my children, Patrick and Jill and Becky, graduated in the mid-1980's, it was up to almost $9,000. If we continue to go the way we have been going, by the time my grandson, Albert, graduates in the year 2012, it will be up to almost $25,000. Mr. President, this is a defining moment. We vote today to change the Government. We vote today to carry out the mandate that was given to this Congress in 1994.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, this particular letter was solicited by the American Legislative Exchange Council and I believe, when read, will indicate the strong support these economists have for the balanced budget amendment and why they feel it is necessary. I agree with the statement of the Senator from Connecticut that tomorrow will be a very historic day. He and I come down on different sides of this issue. Many of his comments and many of the comments that have been made in the last 5 weeks on this floor against the balanced budget amendment may seem to make some sense. And quite frankly, I do not believe anyone in this Chamber is happy about the fact that at this point in our history, we have come to the point where we have to pass, or at least many of us believe we have to pass, a balanced budget amendment. Never before have we been this close to passing a balanced budget amendment and, quite candidly, I am not sure if we do not pass it tomorrow we will ever really have a good opportunity to do it again. For the balanced budget balanced budget amendment in the current political climate in this country--after having seen what happened in 1992 when everyone in this country voted for change in frustration and then in 1994 where people again voted for change, where today 80 percent of the American people want a balanced budget amendment--if we cannot pass it today, I am not sure that we ever can. Last November, the American people voted for change. For 25 consecutive years, Congress has failed to balance the budget. The last time we balanced a budget in this country I was a senior in high school, 25 years ago. Congress has amassed a $4.7 trillion national debt that our children and our grandchildren and our great grandchildren are going to have to deal with. That, Mr. President, is what the American people voted to change in 1994. For decades, they have heard promises from Congress. The American people, people that I talk to, are tired of promises. They want action. They are tired of words. They want a balanced budget and they want a balanced budget amendment. They know that Congress is simply incapable of balancing the budget unless it is forced to balance the budget. Eighty percent of the American people support the balanced budget amendment because they realize that unless we change the budget process in a fundamental way, we are not going to change the result of the budget process. Let us make no mistake about this, only a constitutional amendment can create this fundamental change. As long ago as 1921, Congress was trying to change the budget process by statute. This strategy clearly has not worked. At least six different times, maybe more, this Congress has passed statutory balanced budget requirements, all to no avail. History proves that Congress cannot balance the budget by statute, and it has been true no matter which party was in power. When we had a Republican President, we had a deficit. When we had a Democrat President, we have had a deficit. When we had a Democrat Senate, we had a deficit and, yes, even with a Republican Senate, we have had a deficit, too. There is no better evidence of the bankruptcy of this statutory approach than the current budget that was sent to Capitol Hill by the President. The President's budget proposes deficits in the neighborhood of $200 billion, but even more shocking, there really is no serious attempt to balance the budget in what people on Capitol Hill refer to as the outyears and what people away from the beltway refer to as the future. As far, Mr. President, as the eye can see with the President's budget proposals, we have nothing but red ink. This budget proposal proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that America's fiscal policy is fundamentally misguided. Clearly, we need to change course, and if we do not change course, if the balanced budget amendment is voted down, the result will be a bleak future, indeed, for the next generation of Americans. We are already paying over $235 billion--$235 billion--a year in interest on the national debt. That is eight times what we currently invest in education. It is 50 times what we invest in job training programs. Every year we add to this mountain of debt, every year we are committing more of tomorrow's resources, our children's resources, to pay for Congress' failures today. By the year 2003, just 8 years from now, spending on entitlements and interest alone will exceed 70 percent of the whole Federal budget. Take out defense and you leave just 15 percent of the budget for all the discretionary spending--all the discretionary spending--on our domestic needs; less than 15 percent cumulative total for education, for job training, for Women, Infants and Children Program, and for all the other programs that help the American people at home; just 15 percent of the budget for all these programs combined. We have heard a lot of talk on the floor about how a balanced budget amendment will stop us from being able to help the neediest in society, how a balanced budget amendment will unduly penalize our children, and how it will make it very, very difficult for us to invest in our future. I believe that just the opposite is true; that unless we pass a balanced budget amendment, future Congresses, future generations will have no money left to invest in our young people. Mr. President, following up on these figures, if you go out to the year 2012, just 17 years from today, there will be nothing left in the budget for these social needs--zero, no money at all for our children. Every last red cent in the Federal budget will go to entitlements and interest payments. The year 2012 has special significance for my wife and myself, because just a year before that, our grandson, Albert, will graduate from high school. In the year 2012, our daughter, Anna, should be in her first year of college. If we do not act today, Albert, Anna, and other children will pay a severe human cost. Tomorrow we face a decision about their future, and it is of historic significance. Let us prove by our vote tomorrow that we can put partisanship aside and that we can for once act together in the long- term best interest of our country and of our children. Mr. President, let us just admit that well-intentioned people of both parties, of both parties, have failed to enact a responsible Federal budget. Therefore, let us do what is necessary to fix the problem. If we do not do it today, it may never happen. And future Americans will ask why, why, why the Congress, faced with a clear and well informed mandate from the American people, chose once again to defend a fiscal process that had already created a debt of nearly $5 trillion. Some people would have us believe that this constitutional amendment is a quick fix; that it will not solve the real problems of fiscal policy, but when I go home to Ohio that is not what I hear. That is not what I hear from people back home. This is not something the people of Ohio want to do any more than we do. It is something, however, that they are convinced we have to do as a last resort. In the short term, passing the balanced budget amendment is no quick fix. It will create a monumental challenge for this very Congress because for the first time in a generation we will not be permitted to take unlimited spending demands and just tack them on to the deficit. Future Congresses will have to deliberate, will have to make the best choices they can and will have to be judged by the American people on the results that are produced. Over the short term this will not be pleasant, but over the long term this constitutional amendment is the greatest gift we can make to future generations. Last week, a columnist in the Wall Street Journal warned Senators that their grandchildren will remember the votes they cast on this amendment. I believe the author of that article was correct. That is why I am proud to vote yes on this very historic measure. I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today in very strong support of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I will begin by asking unanimous consent that this letter that was released today signed by 219 economists from throughout the country who have endorsed the balanced budget amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, this morning the time for the two leaders has been reserved, and there will now be a period for the transaction of routine morning business until the hour of 10:30 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each. At the hour of 10:30 a.m., the Senate will resume consideration of House Joint Resolution 1, the constitutional balanced budget amendment and the pending amendments thereto. The majority leader has indicated there will be debate only today on the amendments. Therefore, there will be no rollcall votes during today's session.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me try briefly to respond to some of the very eloquent comments made by the distinguished minority leader of the Senate and also respond to the amendment that he offered earlier today. The Senator points out very correctly that we are beginning to make some progress in regard to balancing our budget. For 3 years in a row we are beginning to move clearly in the right direction. What I believe, though, the Senator did not point out is that the Clinton administration's own projections will indicate that while progress is now being made, when we go to what those here in Washington refer to as the ``outyears'', the 4th, 5th, 6th, 10th year from now, the projections are that the deficit goes up and up and up and up. That was confirmed, Mr. President, in an article in the New York Times this morning, which my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Utah, has already referenced earlier today. Let me, if I can, Mr. President, quote a brief part of this article. The article has to do with President Clinton's upcoming budget. I quote: Although his budget message boasts that his economic policies have sharply reduced the deficit from record levels, he says the deficit will probably stay in the range of $190 billion through the year 2005. The year 2005, Mr. President, according to this article, citing the administration's budget that will be submitted next week. Mr. President, if there ever was an argument eloquently made in favor of the need for having a balanced budget amendment, that argument was just made by President Clinton in this budget--at a time when everyone agrees that we need to move forward meaningfully to balance our Federal budget, at a time, Mr. President, when really the only debate on this floor is not whether we need to have a balanced budget; the only debate is whether we are going to just go ahead and do it and tell the American people, ``Trust us to do it,'' or whether we are going to to do it. That really is the only debate, and that is the climate that the President will be submitting--a budget which shows really no meaningful progress. The amendment we are talking about, Mr. President, says that we would have a balanced budget by the year 2002, which seems like a long way off. According to this article in the New York Times this morning, the President's own budget, or own estimates, will show that even by the year 2005, we will not be moving in the right direction. Mr. President, we have had good intentions. Everyone has good intentions. Yet, under Republican Presidents we have had a huge deficit. Under Democrat Presidents we have had a huge deficit. Under a Republican-controlled Senate we have had deficits, and under a Democrat-controlled Senate we have had deficits. It is clear, Mr. President, that good intentions are not enough. The American people, I believe, clearly understand that. The distinguished Senator, the minority leader, talked about the right to know--an interesting term. I agree that the American people do have a right to know. But I think what they really have a right to know is that finally--finally--this Congress is going to pass a constitutional amendment and send it out to the States, and if that constitutional amendment is ratified, then finally we will have the ability to balance the budget and this Congress will be compelled to balance the budget. Mr. President, let no one misunderstand what this debate is about. This debate, we can anticipate, will go on for some time. We have been at it a week now, and I am sure we will be 2, 3, 4 weeks still debating it. There will be many issues that will be raised. We will talk about Social Security, we will talk about the right to know, and we will talk about all kinds of different things. Let no one mistake what really is at stake. In 1992, the American people voted for change. They said, by their votes, we want to change the way Government works; we want to change particularly the way Washington works or does not work. In 1994, people voted for change again. If in this political climate this Congress cannot pass a constitutional amendment, then when in the world are we going to be able to pass one? Mr. President, Members of the Senate, the time is right, the time is now, the opportunity is here. If we do not seize this opportunity, and if we allow the naysayers, who can come up with 25 reasons why not to do this, to have their way, I honestly do not know that we will ever be able to do it again. I do not know that we will ever have the opportunity. The distinguished minority leader also stated that this must be a bipartisan effort. That, I say, is absolutely correct. It has to be a bipartisan effort. Not only the passage of a constitutional amendment, because those of us on this side of the aisle--certainly if you count, we do not have two-thirds on this side. We have to have many Democrats involved, many Democrats who will vote ``yes,'' not just a bipartisan effort to pass the constitutional amendment. We also will have to have a bipartisan effort to balance the budget year after year and to begin to move toward that balanced budget and to make the very, very difficult decisions that we will have to make. That is why, Mr. President, I believe that the argument about the right to know does not really make a whole lot of sense. Those who use this argument are, in essence, saying that the Senator from Ohio--for example, whatever I say on the Senate floor about how I want to balance the budget, that will be law, or whatever the distinguished majority leader says, or the Senator from Oregon. The fact is, no matter what is said at this point, the reality is that it will have to be a bipartisan effort and that democracy will work, and we will go through the gut- wrenching process that we have to, on this floor, move year after year toward that target goal that we have to meet in the year 2002. So to say that we are going to stop and we cannot pass a constitutional amendment because some of the proponents are not able, or are not willing, to say that for the next 7 years this is what our budget will be every single year, seems to me to be wrong and a misplaced argument and not really to be leveling with the American people. Mr. President, yesterday there was a poster on the Senate floor with the words ``Trust me'' on it, as if somehow the supporters of the balanced budget amendment were hiding the truth from the American people; that if the American people ever found out what a balanced budget would really mean, they would be strongly opposed to a balanced budget. Mr. President, I do not think anyone in this country today really thinks that balancing the budget is going to be easy. The distinguished minority leader had some very interesting charts, although I am not sure I followed every detail of each chart. But my summary of the charts would be simply that they demonstrated very clearly that balancing the Federal budget, to achieve the goal by the year 2002, is not going to be easy. The minority leader is right. It is going to be very, very difficult. But is that an argument for not doing it? Is that an argument for not setting the standard? Is that an argument for not saying and putting into the Constitution that, yes, by the year 2002 we will achieve this goal, and that is our vision and that is what we want to do? I think not. The opponents say that we need to spell this out. Mr. President, is it really appropriate to spell out beforehand all of the details and ramifications of a constitutional provision? I contend that it is not. Mr. President, the Constitution is a document about basic principles. It does not write our laws. It creates a process under which legislatures can write the laws. In this case, it is a process by which the U.S. Congress can write the laws. Let me give you a few examples. Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution says: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes * * * Mr. President, that provision does not set the marginal income tax rate. It does not decide whether there should be accelerated depreciation or investment, plant and equipment. Mr. President, the Constitution also says that Congress has the power ``To raise and support Armies * * *'' It does not say what percentage of the gross national product ought to go to defense. Working out these details is a task for the democratic process. That is what democracy does. That is what democracy is all about. That is why we have a Congress. What the Constitution does is set the ground rules so that we can act. The Constitution empowers the Congress. Mr. President, it is also true that for 25 years, the democratic process, without a balanced budget amendment, has not succeeded in balancing the Federal budget. That is why the American people, by an overwhelming margin, are demanding the process reform known as the balanced budget amendment. A few days ago, Ohio's Governor, George Voinovich, proposed a balanced budget, as do the Governors in all of the States. Very soon-- in a couple days--President Clinton, as we have seen this morning, is going to be sending us a budget that clearly is not balanced, not only for this year, but it is not giving any indication that we are going to be balanced by the year 2005. Mr. President, what is the difference? Why can Governor Voinovich do it in Ohio when the President cannot do it here? Quite frankly, Mr. President, it has less to do with the occupant of the Governor's office or the occupant of the Oval Office than it does with the basic facts. The difference is because Ohio's constitution, like the constitution in many States, says the Governor has to balance the budget--has to balance the budget. Consequently, the Governor, State legislatures, and their constituents have to work out the details for a balanced budget every single year. Mr. President, as someone who has served in the Ohio Senate, as someone who has served as Lieutenant Governor, let me tell you and other Members--and I am sure everyone knows and we have many Members here who have served in a legislative body or have been a Governor-- that that is a process that is not very easy. It causes some heartburn and causes some hard feelings and is very, very difficult. But State legislatures do it and Governors have to do something that the U.S. Congress has not done, frankly, something that Congress has resisted doing, for most of our lifetime. The State of Ohio has to make choices. The State of Ohio has to set priorities. They have to do it. And, Mr. President, when you have to do something, you can. When you have to do something, you can. We need a constitutional order that allows our National Government to do the same thing--to make choices and set priorities for the Federal budget. This is not something the American people wanted to do. None of us likes to be here debating this. It is not a pleasant task. It is something, though, that the American people are convinced that we have to do, really as a last resort. The other ways just did not work. The balanced budget amendment is not, as the opponents contend, a straitjacket for democracy. Rather, it is a tool--a tool we can make use of to make democracy work. All Senators, even those who are opposed to this constitutional amendment, are going to be involved in the process of writing the balanced budget itself. Are these Senators saying that if we pass the balanced budget amendment they will somehow be unable to participate or will not want to participate? I think not. Further, Mr. President, if we were to give specifics with those, would those who oppose this be wedded to our specifics? Would they have to live by what we expressed with our original intent in passing the amendment? Of course not. But what will happen if the balanced budget amendment does pass and it is ratified by the States? Well, one thing that will happen is that we will have to balance the budget. We will have to do it. The opponents will finally be forced to come forward with their own specific proposals, and so will we. The American people will see their spending priorities and the American people will see our spending priorities. Then the debate will begin. I believe, Mr. President, that this amendment is precisely what we need to bring everyone to the table and to get serious about deficit reduction. Mr. President, Senators have also been issuing a rhetorical challenge. They said, ``If we want to have a balanced budget, why not do it now? Why wait for 8 years?'' Well, my response to that is, first of all, those two options, the options we are talking about of having a balanced budget amendment and having a balanced budget, are certainly not mutually exclusive. We can pass the balanced budget amendment and get to the work immediately on balancing the budget. Indeed, the harder we work over the next couple of years the easier it will be for us to balance the budget once the amendment actually does in fact go into effect. Mr. President, we need, however, to create a process that will force everybody to participate in making these choices. Out in this country, in the real America, nobody, nobody, Mr. President, believes that we will ever balance the budget without a balanced budget amendment. But once we pass the amendment, doing nothing will no longer be an option. We will have to deliberate, to make the best choices we can and be judged by the American people on the results we produce. The current process simply does not work. We need to fix the process. And that is why we have a procedure for a constitutional amendment. It is spelled out in article V of the Constitution that says: The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution. And those amendments: * * * shall be valid * * * when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three-fourths thereof. Mr. President, that is what the Constitution says. The Daschle amendment attempts to create a brand-new constitutional requirement between the approval by two-thirds of Congress and the approval by three-fourths of the States. This amendment tries to put in an unconstitutional stop sign, another hurdle to go over. It says that Congress has to do something else, that Congress has to write a balanced budget before the amendment goes to the States. But, you know something, Mr. President, even if we pass the Daschle amendment, the Daschle amendment is really a dead letter. It has no effect, because the Constitution is clear-- Congress approves, then the States approve. There is nothing in between. There is no stop sign in the Constitution between those two stages of the amendment process. This amendment was described earlier on the floor as being blatantly unconstitutional, unconstitutional on its face. I think clearly, Mr. President, it is. Mr. President, we can try to pass a statute creating a new requirement. But that statute cannot, under basic constitutional law, that statute cannot change the Constitution itself. We have amended the Constitution 27 times in this country's history. In each of those 27 cases, and in the 5 other cases when amendments were proposed but not actually ratified, we have followed this basic constitutional process. We have not had recourse with the kind of gimmick that is embodied in this particular amendment. Of course, if Senators who support the Daschle amendment do not like what the Constitution says, they can try to amend the Constitution. Then we can have a debate on that. But under the Constitution that we have, this amendment, the Daschle amendment, is unprecedented. Not only is it unprecedented, it is unconstitutional. And, make no mistake about it, it is a killer amendment. It is an amendment that, quite frankly, will have the effect of protecting the status quo. Why, Mr. President, are we having this debate on the Daschle amendment? We are having it because I believe some do not want to see the amendment ultimately passed. I think that is too bad. I think that whether they intend that or not--they may not intend that--but that would be the ultimate effect of the passage of this amendment. I know that the gentleman, the minority leader, is certainly well-intentioned, but I believe that would be the unintended consequence. Mr. President, in the 1994 elections the American people demanded change. They demanded it. Eighty percent of them support a balanced budget amendment. They support it because they know that under today's process Congress is simply incapable of creating the kind of change the American people want. That is why Americans are insistent on the balanced budget amendment. Nothing symbolizes fundamental change more for the American people than the passage of the balanced budget amendment. Mr. President, I will vote against the Daschle amendment because I believe it is harmful to this amendment. I will vote for the constitutional amendment and for the fundamental change demanded by the American people. I yield the floor. Mr. THOMPSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I rise today as a person who has spent the better part of the last 4 years traveling my great State and listening to the concerns of the people of Ohio. One thing I have found is that people are more skeptical than they have ever been before. I have really heard it everywhere I went. Today, people measure politicians not by the promises that they have made, but rather by the promises that they have kept. Empty promises simply no longer work. The people of this country want concrete action, not just promises. Madam President, in 1992, people voted for change. But then there was not enough change, and so people did not see the concrete results. And then in 1994, they voted for change again. I ran in 1992. I ran in 1994, and I can tell you that people are fed up with promises. They want change and they want action. For the American people, nothing symbolizes Congress' inability to change, to back up words with action, more than Congress' unwillingness to balance the Federal budget. Despite all the talk, year after year, Congress continues to run deficit after deficit. And if it is true that nothing symbolizes people's perception of Congress' inability to change more than our failure to balance the budget, I think it is also true that nothing will do more to restore people's faith in Congress, in the Government, in the country, than by passing a constitutional amendment that will mandate and compel a balanced budget. The balanced budget amendment to the Constitution does represent fundamental change. This, Madam President, is the change the American people demanded, demanded in 1992 and again in 1994. Over the last couple of days, we have had a somewhat academic debate about the balanced budget amendment. And I expect this debate will go on for a few more days, a few more weeks. The opponents of the balanced budget amendment tell us that we do not really need a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. They say all we really need is the political will. Well, Madam President, I suppose that is right. I suppose that is technically true. But is there really anyone in this Chamber, is there really any Americans who believe that Congress, without a balanced budget amendment, will balance the budget? Nobody I talk to believes that. Let us do a reality check. Let us look at the past. Madam President, we have not had a balanced budget since 1969--1969, the year I graduated from high school. We have had a deficit in 5 of the last 63 years. When we had a Republican President, we had a deficit. When we had a Democrat President, we had a deficit. When we had a Democrat Senate, we had a deficit. When we had a Republican Senate, we also had a deficit. The reason the American people, 80 percent of them in a recent poll, support the balanced budget amendment is that they simply do not believe Congress will ever balance the budget any other way. And I must say, Madam President, the past would indicate the American people are absolutely correct. For 25 straight years we have not balanced the budget; 25 budgets in a row. Madam President, what are the chances, without a balanced budget amendment, without the discipline that this will impose on this body, on the House, on the Congress, on the Government, what are the chances in the 26th year or 27th year or 28th year, 30th year, 35th year, we will not continue to do what Congress has done for the last quarter of a century and that is not balance the budget? Madam President, a lot of people say that Americans are cynical today. I am not sure that is really true. But Americans have watched Congress try to balance the budget in each of the last 25 years and Congress has failed every time. What the American people are saying is pretty simple. ``Let's try something else. Let's try something else and see if that works.'' Madam President, I do not call that cynicism. I call it realism. You know, I do not think any of us who support the balanced budget amendment are really happy that we have to do this. It is a last resort. But really it is our only realistic hope. And I believe that we have to do it. (Mr. THOMAS assumed the chair.)

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, the opponents like to talk about how the balanced budget amendment is a threat to our children; that it would devastate the investments we need to make in our children's future. Let us look at this and let us look at this argument because it is a very serious argument. Mr. President, the word ``cynical'' might be the most appropriate way to characterize that particular argument. To run up a colossal mountain of debt, $4 trillion and rising, a debt that threatens to leave our children's generation bankrupt is bad enough. But to use these very same children as an excuse for not biting the bullet on the budget deficit is just plain wrong. Again, Mr. President, let us face the facts. If we do not pass the balanced investment in our children. We are already paying over $235 billion a year in interest on the debt. As my colleague, the Senator from Illinois, pointed out earlier today, that is eight times what we today invest in education. It is 50 times what we invest in job training. It is 145 times what we pay for early childhood immunizations. Every year we add to this mountain of debt and every year we are committing more of tomorrow's resource to pay for Congress' failures of today. What does the future look like for children if we do not balance the budget? Well, let me tell you. This, Mr. President, is what it would mean to continue with business as usual. If we continue with business as usual, next year the Federal budget deficit is set to start growing again. By the year 2003, just 8 years from now, spending on entitlements and interest alone, entitlements and interest alone, will exceed 70 percent of the whole Federal budget. If you take out defense, it leaves you just 15 percent of the budget for all the discretionary spending and domestic needs--15 percent out of entire budget. That means less than 15 percent for education--and these are cumulative for everything--less than 15 percent for education, for job training, for the Women, Infants, and Children Program, the WIC Program, for Head Start, for drug treatment, for employment training, for the environment, for housing, for all the other programs that help the American people here at home--just 15 percent of the budget for all these programs, all these programs, Mr. President, combined. And by the year 2012, just 9 years later, we will be looking back on that 15 percent as the absolute golden age of investment in our domestic needs because by that time, by the year 2012, just 17 years from today, there will be nothing left in the budget for these social needs--zero; no money for children--unless we change the direction we are going in. Every last red cent in the Federal budget will go to entitlements and interest payments. And 2012 is a year that has significance for my wife and I and for many other people, I am sure, because just a year before that, our grandson Albert, we hope, will graduate from high school; our daughter Anna will be in her first year of college--2012. This is the human cost of Albert and Anna, all our children and our grandchildren, will have to pay because of Congress' unwillingness to change. Mr. President, to hide these facts and then to hide behind these very children who will be hurt the most if we do not act is worse than absurd. I find it unconscionable. The American people no longer, Mr. President, care what we say. They are tired of excuses, evasions, rhetoric. They do not care if some of us say we can balance the budget. What they care about is what we do. They are not listening to what we say. They are watching what we are about to do. To say, Mr. President, that they are not happy with what Congress has done in recent years would certainly be a severe understatement. In the name of our future, in the name of our children, they are demanding change. Mr. President, I will vote to create the change. I will vote in favor of the balanced budget amendment. It is a vote for less government, instead of more government. It is a vote for responsible government, instead of a runaway spending machine. It is, Mr. President, the last hope of the American people for fiscal sanity and long-term solvency. This is the greatest gift we as Members of Congress can give to the next generation of Americans. Mr. President, I yield the floor.