Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. And the Senator from California?

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DeWINE. I suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time to run equally on both sides.

Mr. DeWINE. Thank you. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania 5 minutes.

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I inquire of the Chair, how much time does each side have remaining?

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Subcommittee on Employment, Safety, and Training be authorized to meet for a hearing on Hazard Communication in the Workplace during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 25, 2004 at 10 a.m. in SD-430.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 25, 2003 at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on AGOA III: the United States Africa Partnership Act of 2003.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an amendment I have sponsored, along with Senator Nelson of Florida and Senator Coleman of Minnesota, to increase the amount of funding that we can provide to the people of Haiti. It is a commonsense amendment, as it recognizes the reality of the situation in Haiti right now. It recognizes that we have a lot of work ahead of us in Haiti and that it is going to require considerable resources and a long-term commitment. And, it mirrors the suggested $150 million budget benchmark which was included in S. 2144, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, which was passed out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week. As many of my colleagues know, over the last 9 years since I have been in the Senate, I have traveled to Haiti 13 or 14 different times. And, if I have learned anything in the course of those trips, it is this: There is no other nation in our hemisphere like Haiti. Haiti is different. Haiti is unique. No other nation in our hemisphere is as impoverished. Today, at least 80 percent of all Haitians live in dire poverty, with at least 75 to 85 percent underemployed or unemployed. Per capita annual income is less than $400. No other nation in our hemisphere has a higher rate of HIV/AIDS. Today, AIDS is the number one cause of all adult deaths in Haiti, killing at least 30,000 Haitians annually and orphaning 200,000 children. No other nation in our hemisphere has a higher infant mortality rate or a lower life expectancy rate. And no other nation in our hemisphere is as environmentally strapped. Haiti is an ecological disaster, with a 98-percent deforestation rate and extreme topsoil erosion. Despite its radical differences, Haiti remains in our backyard. It is intrinsically linked to the United States--by history, geography, humanitarian concerns, the illicit drug trade, and the ever-present possibility of waves of incoming refugees. Haiti's problems are our problems, and we are not going to be able to do anything about any of these problems unless Haiti, the United States, and the international community are willing to take several bold, radical steps. First, the international community must help Haiti restore a democratically elected government--one free of corruption and the influence and involvement of violent, human rights abusing thugs and killers. Second, we must free Haiti of its $1.17 billion in foreign debt. Third, we must increase trade and create jobs. Along with Congressman Clay Shaw, I have written a trade bill--the ``Haiti Economic Recovery Opportunity Act,'' S. 489. If enacted, this legislation will help restore some of those jobs and create new ones. Fourth, we must help Haiti develop a self-sufficient system of agriculture. Fifth, we must help Haiti restore the rule of law. The international community needs to resume programs for mentoring magistrate and judges, and the new Haitian Government needs to create a functioning disciplinary body to oversee the entire judiciary. Sixth, we must help Haiti establish an independent, professional national police force--one capable of quelling the violence of the armed thugs who threaten the streets of Haiti with abandon. And finally, the international community should immediately restore the direct aid to the government that was suspended under Aristide, so Haiti can rebuild much-needed institutions and infrastructure for the delivery of food, humanitarian aid, and health care. In 1994, prior to Mr. Aristide's reinstatement of power--during a time of military dictatorship, under Lieutenant General Cedras--our assistance to Haiti was far greater than it is today. Back in 1994, we provided $69.5 million. In fact, our assistance to Haiti reached an all time high in 1995, when it spiked to $235.2 million. The following year, it drastically fell by over half to $104.9 million. Four years later, it fell even more--down to $58.2 million. And today, we are looking at a $54 million budget. It simply isn't enough. That is why our amendment is so important. Ultimately, the United States can't ``fix'' Haiti, nor can the international community. But we can improve the situation, and we can help Haiti begin to help itself. But, it is going to take a serious, sustained commitment. Things won't change overnight, and we must remain committed to Haiti for as long as it takes for reforms to take root and for a democratic system of government to emerge. The first step in this process is providing a realistic level of funding for these efforts.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am proud to join this afternoon my colleague, Senator Lindsey Graham, in support of this very important amendment. I commend him for his great leadership and great work. I have been a longstanding supporter of both initiatives: extending TRICARE coverage to members of the Guard and Reserve, and also increasing the level of benefits provided to the Selective Reserve under the Montgomery GI bill. I have introduced and cosponsored several bills to address existing inequities with these specific benefits. Unfortunately, benefits for our Guard and Reserve simply have not kept pace with the increasing role that these individuals are expected to play today. I commend Senator Graham, Senator Daschle, and Senator Bunning for their great leadership and their continued commitment to these initiatives. I look forward to working with them through the coming months to make these important initiatives a permanent reality. This is important work. I know of nothing more important that this Senate will be doing in the months ahead. I look forward to making sure we get the job done. I thank my colleague for the time this afternoon to talk about another important amendment that I have filed, but I am not calling up at this time. I take a moment to talk about this amendment that is cosponsored by Senator Leahy and Senator Coleman, an amendment that I have sponsored. We live in a world of 6 billion people, the majority of whom live in developing countries. Theirs is a world where, according to UNICEF, out of every 100 children born, 30 will most likely suffer from malnutrition in their first 5 years of life; 26 will not be immunized against the most basic of childhood diseases; and 19 will lack access to clean, safe drinking water. This is certainly unconscionable. Yet we have seemingly come to expect and indeed accept this as a way of life in the developing world. The tragedy is that all of this is avoidable. We can do something about it. We can do simple things, really simple things, basic things that can save millions of children's lives every year. The reality is we are not doing enough right now. Candidly, we are tolerating these deaths, and saving these lives simply has not been a priority. Our amendment would change that. And it is, indeed, a step in the right direction. I take a few minutes this afternoon to share some important statistics about child and maternal mortality. I am often hesitant to come to the floor and talk about statistics. When we hear statistics, it is all too easy to become numb, all too easy to forget the human realities they, in fact, represent. It is important for all to listen to some of these statistics today because they are so unbelievable and so tragic. They represent so many lives, countless lives that could, in fact, be saved; lives that could be saved if we would make the appropriate amount of resources available to people who are in such dire need. Let's look at the facts. Today, over 10 million children under the age of 5 die each year from preventable, avoidable, and treatable diseases and ailments, including such things as diarrhea, pneumonia, measles, and, yes, malnutrition. Over 10 million children under the age of 5 die from preventable and avoidable diseases. Of those 10 million deaths worldwide, 3.9 million occur in the first 28 days of life. These babies do not even have a shot at living their lives or even getting as old as 2, 3, 4 or 5. Yet two-thirds of these deaths could be prevented if available and affordable interventions had reached the children and mothers who needed them. Malnutrition contributes to 54 percent of all childhood deaths, and as many as 3 million children die annually as a result of vitamin A deficiency. An estimated 400,000 cases of childhood blindness are reported each year, also, because of vitamin A deficiencies. According to the World Health Organization estimates, at least 30 million infants still do not have access to basic immunization services, and over 4.4 million children died from vaccine-preventable diseases in the year 2001 alone--diseases such as hepatitis, polio, and tetanus. Of all the vaccine-preventable diseases, measles remains the leading childhood killer, claiming the lives of, it is estimated, 750,000 children--more than half of them in Africa alone. Yet vaccine- preventable deaths could actually be cut in half by the year 2005 if these children were receiving proper vaccinations. Mr. President and my colleagues in the Senate, we can change the course of these developing nations. We can change this tragic human reality. We can start by providing additional money and support for our child survival and maternal health programs. The fact is, this is an emergency situation. There really is not any other way to describe it. Over 10 million children dying each year from preventable and treatable illnesses certainly qualifies as an emergency. It is the equivalent of roughly 55 fully loaded 747 airplanes crashing every day for a year. Think of that. If that were happening, if that many airplanes were going down each day in this country, or anywhere in the world, we know what our reaction would be. It would be all over the news, all over CNN. We would declare a worldwide tragedy, and we would do something about it. But these problems facing the developing world cannot be resolved through short-term, temporary, piecemeal assistance. If we are to make any real headway in improving the health of women and children in the long term, we need to take some bold and radical steps, and we also need to be committed to supporting, in the long run, maternal and child health programs, and not just now but next year and the year after and the year after that. Our funding simply cannot be administered in a single dose. If we could look into the future 10, 20, 30, 40 years from now, we would see what is possible with sustained investments in primary health care and public health systems. An article recently published in the journal, The Lancet, suggests that providing, for example, vitamin A as a preventing measure could avert as many as 225,000 deaths, and providing oral rehydration therapy could prevent as many as 1,477,000 deaths. Simple interventions and treatment are not expensive. Oral rehydration salt packets cost about 8 cents apiece--8 cents. For 4 cents per child, two vitamin A capsules could be given every year to children around the world, saving over 650,000 of them from blindness and death. For 30 cents worth of basic antibiotics given to every child with pneumonia, we could prevent 577,000 deaths. I think you get the idea. Here is another example: Iodine regulates growth and the metabolism. A deficiency in iodine is the primary cause of preventable learning disabilities and brain damage. Iodine can be introduced into the diet by something as simple as fortified salt--iodized salt--something that is in all our kitchens at home. This simple measure would cost only 5 cents per person annually. Furthermore, our amendment would allocate additional money to help avert maternal and neonatal death and improve maternal health, including the prevention of obstetric fistulas and other types of injuries and disabilities resulting from childbirth in unsafe circumstances. The fact is, all pregnant women are at risk for injuries and childbirth complications, which is why it is so important to have skilled attendants--midwives, doctors, or nurses--present at birth. Yet only about half of the world's women give birth with a skilled attendant available. The child survival and maternal health funding provides resources so that USAID can provide training and technical assistance in infection prevention and quality of care, as well as needed equipment and supplies to bring health facilities up to a level where they can provide safe and effective emergency pre- and postnatal care. Clearly, child survival interventions do, in fact, work, and they are the most cost-effective tools we have in the struggle for better global health. We can and we should invest in these programs as they increase developing countries' access to basic health services--services such as vaccinations, immunizations, micronutrient programs, and vitamin supplements.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask for an additional 1 minute.

Mr. DeWINE. If we can make these investments and work toward equal access to health care, we can help ensure that mothers receive proper prenatal care, that children and families receive nutritional counseling and vitamin supplements, and that children receive the necessary immunizations and vaccinations to live healthy lives. But tragically, if we fail to make a sufficient and sustained investment in the development of public health systems that provide primary care, mothers will continue to die prematurely during childbirth, children will continue to die from preventable diseases and causes, and life expectancies in these developing nations will stagnate or perhaps even decrease. This is not acceptable. Mr. President, adoption of this amendment--as I said, it has been filed but not yet called up--will go a long way to save so many children's lives around the world. Therefore, I would ask my colleagues, when this amendment is called up, to join my colleagues in voting in favor of it. Again, I thank my colleague for his great work to help our Guard and Reserves in relation to what we talked about earlier today. I thank him for his good work in this area. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I join my good friends and colleagues Senator Chris Dodd and Senator Gordon Smith in introducing the Youth Suicide Early Intervention and Prevention Expansion Act of 2004. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, I recently held a hearing on youth suicide. At that hearing, it became painfully clear that we need thorough and actionable plans to deal with this tragic issue. Statistics tell us that approximately every 2 hours a person under the age of 25 commits suicide. We also know that from 1952 to 1995, the rate of suicide in children and young adults has tripled and that between 1980 and 1997, alone, the rate of suicide in 15 to 19 year olds increased by 11 percent. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, suicide was the 11th leading cause overall for death in the United States in 2001. However, it was the 3rd leading cause of death for youth ages 15 to 24. We also know that more boys are killing themselves than girls at a ratio of 5 to 1 in the 15 to 19 year old age group and at a ratio of 7 to 1 in the 20 to 24 year old age group. However, while boys are dying at a higher rate, girls in these age groups are attempting at a much higher rate. Estimates suggest that there may be from 8 to 25 attempts made for every suicide death. These alarming numbers emphasize the need for early intervention and prevention efforts. Too often, the signs may be subtle or hidden until it is too late. While research has created improved medications and methods for helping those with mental health problems to recover, there is still much work to be done in the identifying those who need help. A great deal of study has focused on identifying and categorizing the risk factors related to suicide. In children and youth, these risk factors include depression, alcohol or drug use, physical or sexual abuse, and disruptive behavior. Of people who die from and who attempt suicide, many suffer from co-occurring mental health and substance abuse disorders. Children with these risk factors, as well as children who are know to be in situations at risk for acquiring them, should be included in comprehensive state plans. Children and youth specifically addressed in State plans should include those who attend school, including colleges and universities, those already receiving substance abuse or mental health services, those involved in the juvenile justice system, and foster children. As a result of the need for increased attention to the problem of suicide and access to help, I am pleased to join Senators Dodd and Smith in introducing the Youth Suicide Early Intervention and Prevention Expansion Act of 2004. With the establishment of a $25 million grant initiative, this bill would encourage the development of statewide youth suicide early intervention and prevention strategies that coordinate agencies and non-profits in providing mental health services to and screening of youth in a variety of settings. The settings would include schools, substance abuse and mental health service programs, the juvenile justice system, and foster care programs. The bill would also provide $5 million for relevant technical assistance and research. Candidly, State plans for suicide intervention and prevention need to be created and expanded to help stop these heartbreaking losses. We commend the States that already have created such plans and encourage all states to take this important step. I thank Senators Dodd and Smith for their leadership on this issue, as well as others like Senator Jack Reed, who is dedicated to helping increase and improve much-needed mental health services for our Nation's youth.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I join my good friends and colleagues Senator Chris Dodd and Senator Gordon Smith in introducing the Youth Suicide Early Intervention and Prevention Expansion Act of 2004. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, I recently held a hearing on youth suicide. At that hearing, it became painfully clear that we need thorough and actionable plans to deal with this tragic issue. Statistics tell us that approximately every 2 hours a person under the age of 25 commits suicide. We also know that from 1952 to 1995, the rate of suicide in children and young adults has tripled and that between 1980 and 1997, alone, the rate of suicide in 15 to 19 year olds increased by 11 percent. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, suicide was the 11th leading cause overall for death in the United States in 2001. However, it was the 3rd leading cause of death for youth ages 15 to 24. We also know that more boys are killing themselves than girls at a ratio of 5 to 1 in the 15 to 19 year old age group and at a ratio of 7 to 1 in the 20 to 24 year old age group. However, while boys are dying at a higher rate, girls in these age groups are attempting at a much higher rate. Estimates suggest that there may be from 8 to 25 attempts made for every suicide death. These alarming numbers emphasize the need for early intervention and prevention efforts. Too often, the signs may be subtle or hidden until it is too late. While research has created improved medications and methods for helping those with mental health problems to recover, there is still much work to be done in the identifying those who need help. A great deal of study has focused on identifying and categorizing the risk factors related to suicide. In children and youth, these risk factors include depression, alcohol or drug use, physical or sexual abuse, and disruptive behavior. Of people who die from and who attempt suicide, many suffer from co-occurring mental health and substance abuse disorders. Children with these risk factors, as well as children who are know to be in situations at risk for acquiring them, should be included in comprehensive state plans. Children and youth specifically addressed in State plans should include those who attend school, including colleges and universities, those already receiving substance abuse or mental health services, those involved in the juvenile justice system, and foster children. As a result of the need for increased attention to the problem of suicide and access to help, I am pleased to join Senators Dodd and Smith in introducing the Youth Suicide Early Intervention and Prevention Expansion Act of 2004. With the establishment of a $25 million grant initiative, this bill would encourage the development of statewide youth suicide early intervention and prevention strategies that coordinate agencies and non-profits in providing mental health services to and screening of youth in a variety of settings. The settings would include schools, substance abuse and mental health service programs, the juvenile justice system, and foster care programs. The bill would also provide $5 million for relevant technical assistance and research. Candidly, State plans for suicide intervention and prevention need to be created and expanded to help stop these heartbreaking losses. We commend the States that already have created such plans and encourage all states to take this important step. I thank Senators Dodd and Smith for their leadership on this issue, as well as others like Senator Jack Reed, who is dedicated to helping increase and improve much-needed mental health services for our Nation's youth.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague, Senator Feinstein, for her great work in this area. I rise today in support of her amendment to reauthorize the 1994 assault weapons ban which is set to expire later this year. I thank her for her great leadership in this area. Since it took effect in 1994, the assault weapons ban has been an effective tool in curbing crime in this country. The assault weapons ban has made it more difficult for vicious criminals to get access to firearms that are designed really only to maximize the number of shots that can be fired and people killed in a short period of time. It is the only reason they exist, the only reason they are made. The ban has allowed us to keep these dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous criminals and has helped make our streets safer. Banning these weapons is smart law enforcement and it is good public policy. Continuing the ban is simply the right thing to do. I am not alone in this assessment. The assault weapons ban reauthorization has the support of the White House and also has the support of every major law enforcement organization in this country-- every single one. Furthermore, it has the support of the National League of Cities, the United States Conference of Mayors, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. This is for good reason. Prior to the 1994 ban, the Cox newspaper service conducted a survey using data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. That study found that assault weapons were 20 times more likely to be used in a crime than a conventional firearm. This, therefore, is a question of public safety. It is to me disconcerting that we still hear complaints about extending the duration of the ban. One stated concern is the ban may somehow accidentally infringe on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. For example, some people worry the ban may affect hunting or recreational rifles. The ban has been in effect for almost 10 years now and that has not been a problem so far. What is the compelling reason to repeal this law, because that is, in effect, what we would be doing if we do not extend it? What has been the problem? How many of us have heard from our hunters? How many of us have heard from people who want to use a firearm in a proper way to protect themselves or for recreation purposes, that this particular law is somehow infringing upon their rights? I do not think we have. This law will not be a problem in the future either because this legislation specifically provides protection of 670 different types of hunting and recreational rifles that are presently being manufactured. This list is by no means meant to be exhaustive. A gun does not have to be on the list to be protected. Furthermore, the ban does not just protect the right to purchase and use rifles. It also protects a wide range of guns because it only affects those weapons with no legitimate use. We know why American citizens buy guns. The most common answer to the question of why we buy a gun is protection, hunting, target shooting, and other legitimate reasons. These are very legitimate uses for legally acquired firearms. The firearms included in the assault weapons ban do not effectively serve any of these purposes. No legitimate gun owner need have a weapon such as the TEC-9 that has been talked about before. I will not take my colleagues' time to talk about this weapon, but it is not a legitimate weapon for anyone but a criminal who wants to see how quickly he can kill a large number of people. Probably the most important reason to have this ban, if we really want to analyze it, is that it limits the number of rounds in a clip to 10. What significance does this have in regard to law enforcement? Maybe if I can go back to my days as a county prosecuting attorney and draw upon my conversations I had not just then but throughout the years with my friends in law enforcement, some of my police officer friends who I have known and continue to know and call my good friends, what is it people fear and police officers fear? One thing is someone comes in and they have a big clip, and they can just shoot, shoot, shoot, and shoot and nothing will stop them--15, 20, 30 rounds. What does this law do? It limits it to 10. That is an arbitrary figure. It could have been something different. We understand that. At least it limits it to 10. That makes some sense. Yes, someone could put the other clip in and continue on, but there is a period of time where they have to stop and do that. What law enforcement people tell us is that period of time, when you have a mass murderer who is intent on killing as many people as he or she can, is valuable, that period of time is significant from a law enforcement point of view and it maybe will save lives. In some cases, it will save lives. Law enforcement will be able to react in that period of time and lives will be saved and shots will not be able to be taken, and that criminal, that person who maybe is insane, will be stopped, disabled, or killed by law enforcement, by a bystander, by someone. That, from a law enforcement point of view, is the most effective part of this bill. In my opinion, at least, and in the opinion of many people in law enforcement with whom I have talked, that is the heart of this law we have today, and I think it is the heart of the Feinstein amendment. She is attempting to do something that is not revolutionary. All she is trying to do with this very modest amendment is to keep current law. Let me emphasize that. A vote for the Feinstein amendment is a vote for the status quo. It is a vote to keep current law. I urge my colleagues to follow that law. The assault weapons ban prevents the manufacture of new high-capacity military style magazines for sale to the general public. Indeed, the guns we banned were designed to work in conjunction with these high- capacity magazines. Many of them are able to hold 30 or 40 rounds in each magazine. That is 30 bullets that can be fired rapidly without ever reloading. This is far more ammunition than a hunter, sportsman, or individual concerned with self-protection needs in one magazine. This deadly combination of large clips and rapidly firing guns is not characteristic of recreational guns or guns used for personal protection. We all know that. Neither is a threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer, a feature that is much more useful to assassins and snipers than it is to a sportsman; or a bayonet mount that allows a knife to be attached to the front of a rifle; or a grenade launcher. Again, it was provided in this bill. Does a grenade launcher sound recreational? Under this provision, the Feinstein amendment, and under current law, we do not outlaw a gun unless it has two of these features. It has to have two of them. I think it is a pretty modest law, and a pretty modest amendment. The assault weapons ban does not outlaw a gun if it has one of these features. It only outlaws a gun with two or more of these features. These are dangerous weapons that do not belong on our streets. I urge my colleagues to talk, as I have, to law enforcement officers in their States. Talk to the mayors of their cities, talk to people who are on the front lines and who might potentially have to deal with these types of weapons if we do not reenact this law. They will say these weapons are a threat to law enforcement and to the general public. These weapons are not for hunting. They are not for self-defense. It is time to once again reauthorize this law. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I will discuss tonight the situation in Haiti. I have come to the Senate many times in the past to discuss the situation in Haiti. Over the last 9, 10 years since I have been in the Senate, I have traveled to Haiti 13 or 14 different times. Haiti has been on the front page of the papers now and in the news for the last several weeks. The situation certainly reached a climax this weekend. Once more, Haiti is at a crossroad. Once more, the U.S. troops, U.S. Marines, are back in Haiti. I commend President Bush for taking decisive action and sending the Marines into Haiti to stabilize the situation in this poor country. We have 20,000 Americans who live in Haiti. This country is in our own back yard. The President made the right decision. But if we are to avoid this happening again and again and again, avoid the necessity of sending U.S. troops back to Haiti time and time again, avoid seeing the boat people coming toward the United States, avoid having to see the very sad scene of the U.S. Coast Guard having to pick these poor, miserable people up on the high seas and take them back to Haiti, if we are to avoid this in the future, and if the people of Haiti are to have any hope, then this country and the international community has to now take some very bold and radical steps. Now is the time to change the future and to do some things differently. We have to do them in conjunction with the new coalition Haitian Government. The Haitian Government, by the way, cannot include and should not include the thugs, the drug dealers, the bad people who are part of this group of rebels who were marching on Port-au-Prince. These are not good people. They cannot be part of the government. But there are many good people in Haiti who can be a part, and are going to be a part of the new coalition government. Briefly, in the time remaining in the Senate, I will make a few suggestions. These are suggestions made in regard to the long-term health of Haiti. They are this idea of bold and innovative and radical change of things that need to be done. First is trade. Congressman Clay Shaw and I have introduced in our respective bodies a bill, S. 489, a trade bill, a very modest bill. It would not cost any American job. It might cost some jobs in Asia, but certainly it would not cost any jobs in the United States. It would create some jobs in Haiti, give them modest trade preference. It was not too many years ago there were 100,000 assembly jobs in Haiti. Today, there are only about 30,000. This bill would create very quickly, probably 60,000 or 70,000 jobs in Haiti, assembly jobs. Haitian people are an industrious, hard-working people. Anyone who knows anything about Haiti will tell you that. These jobs would be created very quickly. For each job that is created, each one of those individuals would support many people and their families. Haitian people want the same thing that people in this country want. They want to be able to make a living, to support their families, feed their children. This bill would go a long way to do that. Second, the Haitian Government has inherited this new government, will inherit from past governments from years and years ago, a debt to the international community of $1.17 billion. Let's do something bold. Let's get together with the international community and say that debt needs to be forgiven. Let's get rid of it. Don't saddle this government with that debt. That is bold. That is different. We have done it in the past. The international community did it as far as wiping away some of the debt for Nicaragua, another very poor country in this hemisphere-- not as poor as Haiti--but we did it a few years ago. It needs to be done for Haiti if this Government of Haiti will have a chance. Third, we have to put resources in and work with the new Government of Haiti in regard to the rule of law, and to start with the courts. We can have free elections and try to bring back democracy, and have democracy, but there is nothing more important--frankly, nothing tougher--than to develop a court system that respects the rule of law. Why is the rule of law important? Well, one reason it is important is, if you are going to have foreign investment in the country, if you are going to get people, companies to put money into a country and to invest and create jobs--which is what you have to have; you have to have jobs--then they have to be able to have some assurance that when they make an investment, their investment will be protected. You only do that through the rule of law, and you do that by having honest judges and cases that can be processed in court. We can do that by mentoring the judges, by helping create the system in their country, the magistrates. We need to put extra effort into that. We have the ability in this country to do it. We have good programs through our Justice Department and State Department. We have done it in other countries. We can do it there. In relation to the police, we were making very good headway a few years ago in Haiti. We brought into Haiti some great Haitian-American cops from New York City and Chicago and LA. They went down to Haiti. They mentored the new, young recruits, and things were working. I saw it myself. You should have seen the pride when I talked to these Haitian-American policemen from Chicago and LA and New York. They were so proud of what they were doing. Unfortunately, President Aristide allowed it to become political. It then started to become corrupt, and all that good work started to go down the drain. That work can be revised. Some of those policemen who were trained are still in the country. Some of them were fired, kicked out by the politicians. They can be brought back. We can retrain some people, and that can be reconstituted, because Haiti has to have a good police force. This time it is going to have to be separated somehow from the government politicians. It is going to have to be independent. It is going to have to respect the rule of law and not be politicized. Fourth, we are going to have to restore aid to the government. A few years ago, when we became very disenchanted--what our Government did with the Aristide regime, I believe understandably so--we stopped giving any aid to the government. We gave aid to the NGOs and to the nonprofits and to the charitable organizations down there. I happened to think it was the right thing to do, and I supported that. But what that meant was, the government institutions suffered. Today, with the new government that is starting to emerge in Haiti, we have to nourish that because if the institutions in a country do not flourish, it is hard to have democracy. So we have to reinstate, now, our direct aid. And other countries have to do the same. We are in this with other countries. They have to reinstate their direct aid. We have to reinstate our direct aid to the Government of Haiti so they can develop their institutions, whether they are the courts or the police or the other basic institutions of the country. Fifth, Haiti is one of the most deforested countries in the world. It is a country that suffers from depleted topsoil. We have to work with them to develop better agricultural practices. All the people are fleeing the countryside, going to Port-au-Prince, going to Cap-Haitien, creating more and more slums, with more and more people who cannot be fed, with more and more crime and all kinds of problems that you see with slums in cities. That trend can only be reversed if people have a way of making a living and farming. So our economic development has to be focused on agriculture and good practices. USAID has to work with other donors around the world to focus on that. Haiti is a relatively small country of 8 million people; it has hardly any topsoil left. It is deforested. The emphasis has to be put on sustainable agriculture and economic development. Finally, we have to continue our assistance. The international community has to continue the assistance. We have to continue our assistance on all the good work that is being done in Haiti, including the amazing work in regard to fighting the AIDS problem in Haiti. AIDS is a huge problem, but there are excellent doctors who are working on that problem. Dr. Pape and Dr. Farmer are doing very wonderful work there. So we have to be bold; we have to be radical, if we do not want to be back in Haiti in a couple more years with the Marines again. Haiti is in our backyard. It will always be in our backyard. It will never be of strategic importance to the United States, but it will always be of importance. It will always be a country we will have to deal with. If not for humanitarian concerns--and I think it should be; I think we should worry about their humanitarian concerns--we will always be there because of the reasons I have mentioned. No other nation in our hemisphere has a higher rate of AIDS than Haiti. No other nation in our hemisphere has a higher infant mortality rate or a lower life expectancy rate than Haiti. No other country in our hemisphere is as environmentally strapped as Haiti. Despite its radical differences, Haiti remains in our own backyard. It is intrinsically linked to the United States by history, geography, and humanitarian concerns. It is linked to us by illicit drug trade and the ever-present possibility of droves of incoming refugees. Haiti's problems are--whether we like it or not--our problems. To assure progress, Mr. President and Members of the Senate, we-- Republicans and Democrats--in Congress need to join forces and approach Haiti with a united, bipartisan front. Haiti's dire humanitarian and economic crisis transcends partisan politics. Moreover, the United States must work with the international community over the long haul because any improvements will require a serious, sustained long-term commitment. Conditions in Haiti will not change overnight. We must remain, though, committed to Haiti for as long as it takes for reforms to take root and for a democratic system of government to emerge. Ultimately, the United States cannot ``fix'' Haiti, nor can the international community. But we can improve the situation, and we can help Haiti begin to help itself. Clearly, Haiti is at a pivotal point in its history, and so is the international community. We can either choose a path that builds upon Haiti's tentative democracy or choose a road that will lead to yet another dictatorial regime. This time, let's get it right. This time, let's not blow it. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I spoke earlier today in favor of an amendment we have offered which the Senator from New York is talking about; that is, the assault weapon ban. It is a very simple amendment. I don't intend to talk about it this evening other than to say this is merely a reiteration of status quo--a law that has been on the books now for 10 years, and a law that has the support of law enforcement officers across this country. It is the right thing to do from a law enforcement point of view. This Congress should in fact continue this law in effect. This is truly a law enforcement vote. I commend my colleague from New York for his comments. Let me speak tonight about three different items. First, very briefly, I would like to support the Levin amendment which will be voted on tomorrow. I thank my colleague from Michigan for his leadership on this issue. His amendment is a simple, modest amendment. It would merely allow injured victims to bring cases of gross negligence or recklessness against irresponsible gun dealers without the unreasonable restrictions of the gun liability bill that is in front of us. That is fair. It is justice. I have already spoken about what I consider to be the drastic attack the underlying bill makes on ordinary negligence cases and on this select group of victims in our society. It is wrong. As my colleagues know, cases of gross negligence or recklessness require even greater wrongdoing by irresponsible people before liability can be found. This amendment merely restores the ability of parties injured as a result of gross negligence or recklessness to have their day in court. I implore my colleagues in the Senate when Senator Levin's amendment is offered tomorrow to vote in favor of it. I rise this evening also in support of Senator McCain's amendment which will also be voted on tomorrow. This amendment is known as the Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2003. Senators Lieberman, Reed, and myself are the original cosponsors of this commonsense amendment, an amendment that aims to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and out of the hands of children. The United States Constitution guarantees the rights of gun owners. We all believe strongly in the second amendment. As a former prosecutor in Greene County, Ohio, I have learned the best way to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens and reducing illegal and often fatal use of guns is to pass and enforce tough laws that severely punish criminals who use them. I have tried to do that throughout my legislative career. I have consistently supported measures to keep firearms from getting into the wrong hands and efforts that increase the punishment of those who use firearms in the commission of a crime. I believe the Gun Show Loophole Closing Act helps achieve this goal. For the most part, our current system is working. Under the existing Brady bill, when a purchaser buys a gun from a licensed dealer, he or she must undergo a background check through the Federal Government's National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, into which States feed records of certain criminals and others not qualified to own a gun. NICS has up to 3 days to inform the dealer as to whether the buyer is qualified to purchase a gun. But 95 percent of these checks come up with an instant or near instant response allowing or disallowing the purchase immediately. So a decision can be made. The person can get their gun. This amendment simply applies the same commonsense check to all gun show sales. Right now, there is no statute requiring that all sellers at gun shows run these checks on potential gun buyers. Yet according to Federal officials, gun shows are the second leading source of illegal guns recovered from gun trafficking investigations. By leaving this loophole open, by not requiring all gun show sellers to run NICS checks, we are presenting gun traffickers and other criminals with a prime opportunity to acquire firearms. This is terrifying. This is unacceptable. In common language, we have a situation where someone can walk into a gun show, look around, look for a licensed firearm dealer, and find a firearm dealer. If they buy a gun from that person, there will be a check run. But if they do not want a check run on them, all they have to do is find someone at the gun show who is not a licensed firearm dealer. At most gun shows they can find that person. They just have to look around. They will find them. Guess what. They do not have to have a check run. If you are a criminal, if you have a felony conviction, or worse yet, if you are a terrorist, you go to a gun show and you find someone who is not a registered firearm dealer and you buy their gun and there is no check done. That is a classic definition or classic example of a loophole. Following the attacks on September 11, for example, news reports suggested that al-Qaida produced a handbook in which it advised terrorists to purchase firearms at gun shows in the United States. Other media reports indicate that suspected terrorists have exploited this loophole to acquire firearms. It is imperative now, more than ever, to enact legislation to protect our citizens from this potential area of terrorist exploitation. This amendment is simply common sense. Regardless of where firearms are purchased, whether at a gun shop or a gun show, the laws should be the same. It seems silly if you go to a gun show to buy a gun, the determination as to whether you will have to undergo a background check is wholly dependent upon how you purchase a gun; that is, you could buy a gun from one seller and be subjected to the government's Brady check. But if you walk a few feet away, you can find another seller, give them some cash, they would be willing to give you a gun, and that gun would not be subject to a check and that seller would not be subject to a check. You would walk away with a gun and totally be unchecked. Don't we think that criminals know this? Of course they know it. It is like having a metal detector at the front entrance of our building but leaving the back door wide open for anyone to pass through. Don't we think that under that circumstance, someone with nefarious intentions would simply use the back entrance? That would make our attempt at security completely illusory. Indeed, not only would there be no greater security whatever, we would be paying a lot of money to do absolutely nothing, nothing other than giving hard- working Americans a false sense of security. That certainly makes no sense and would not under those circumstances. That is the exact same thing that is going on with the gun show loophole. People with these nefarious intentions know they have a back door to getting guns without any threat of a background check. Thus, this Government, spending millions of dollars on a sophisticated system of background checks to check the background of people who voluntarily choose to be checked, they go in, buy the gun, they voluntarily choose to be checked, but the system totally misses those who, with very little effort, choose to evade it. That is a waste of the American people's money. At the same time, it gives them a false sense of security. We need to provide the American people with the security they deserve and for which they are already paying. This amendment, the McCain amendment, that we will vote on tomorrow, closes the gun show loophole in a way that respects the second amendment and also respects an honest law-abiding American's right to buy and sell guns and to attend gun shows. That is good law. It is good policy. It makes good common sense. That is why I support this amendment and urge my colleagues to join me tomorrow.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Certainly.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Idaho and my colleague from Colorado for agreeing to change the name of this amendment from the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act to the Steve Young Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act. This name has particular meaning to me. I believe the renaming of this provision is a fitting tribute to a man who dedicated his life to keeping our community safe and free from crime. Steve Young was a dear friend of mine from the State of Ohio. He was also a well-known and well-respected figure in the law enforcement community. Steve was elected by his peers to serve as the national president of the Fraternal Order of Police and held this post until his death from cancer on January 9, 2003. Steve was just 49 years of age at his death. Steve grew up in Upper Sandusky, OH, and was a graduate of Upper Sandusky High School. He joined the Marion City Police Department in 1976 and spent his entire law enforcement career as an active-duty officer there. It was in Marion that Steve first became a member of the FOP, joining FOP lodge No. 24. He later went on to serve as president of this lodge in the year 2000. He received the prestigious lifetime honor of president emeritus. Leadership in the law enforcement community came naturally to Steve, as his hard work and dedication earned him the respect and admiration of his peers. Steve went on to become active in the Ohio State lodge of the FOP and served first as vice president and then as president, representing Ohio's 24,000 law enforcement officers. Through the Ohio State lodge, Steve helped to create the Ohio Labor Council. This council created a model for improved labor-management negotiation in police forces, a model that has now been adopted in at least 14 other States. Steve's leadership in the Ohio law enforcement community and really his expertise in labor issues earned him a national reputation. In 2001, after serving for 4 years as national vice president, Steve was unanimously elected to serve as the national president of the FOP. In this capacity, Steve represented over 300,000 law enforcement officers and worked to protect their interests, the interests of our Nation's finest. This was a job I know Steve loved and one he did with great dignity and pride. While Steve Young had an incredibly successful career with multiple accomplishments, I would also like to take a few moments to discuss my personal connection with Steve. I had the privilege of knowing not just Steve Young the police officer but also Steve Young the man. Steve was, as I said, a dear friend of mine for many years. He was someone in whom I had a great deal of trust, and was fortunate to be able to call on him as a trusted adviser. I can't tell Members of the Senate and you, Mr. President, how often I would call him for advice, whether it was when I was Lieutenant Governor of Ohio or later when I was a Senator. I had the opportunity to work with Steve for many, many years. I relied heavily on his advice and his counsel. I consulted with him regularly on criminal justice matters, and his keen insights have helped shape nearly every piece of crime legislation with which I have been involved. Steve made a lasting impression on law enforcement, both in Ohio and across our Nation. From pension plans to crime fighting technology, Steve's foresight and his vision have helped bring law enforcement into this century. One of the last times I saw Steve he was in Washington for a Judiciary Committee hearing. I am fortunate that I had a chance to spend a few moments with him that day. It is that meeting that reminded me of Steve's humility. He was a humble man. He had no airs about him. He was quiet and self-effacing. He didn't put on a show or try to impress people with his position or his power within the national FOP. But you know, at the same time, his affable nature did not hide the fact that Steve Young was also a very strong man: brave, courageous, fearless, and tough as nails. After all, he was a policeman, and exactly the kind of policeman I would have wanted by my side when I was a county prosecutor many years ago, the kind of policeman I would have wanted helping me if I were a victim of crime, the kind of policeman I would have wanted protecting my children or grandchildren or any member of my family. That was Steve Young--a model for all law enforcement. He was a humble, dedicated man who devoted his career to working for the good of his fellow officers, for the good of Ohio, for the good of this Nation. Steve's commitment to our communities was evident in everything he did. Criminals were caught because of him and crimes were prevented. He was a protector. He was a leader. He was a good and decent, hard-working man for whom I have the greatest respect and admiration. It is fitting that this amendment now is named after Steve Young. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I have the utmost respect for my colleague from Alabama who just spoke most eloquently, and I certainly have respect for my friend from Idaho who has brought this bill to the floor. I certainly have great respect for the many firearms dealers who are legitimate, honest, and hard working, and manufacturers around this country, but I must oppose this bill. I oppose this bill because it denies certain victims in this country their day in court. It singles out one particular group of victims and treats them differently than all other victims in this country. It sets them apart. It sets them aside, and it treats them differently. It denies them their access to court. It does not put a limit on their lawsuit. It does not put on a cap. It is not what we were talking about yesterday. Rather, it says they are barred from coming to court. It is unprecedented what this Senate, if I can count the votes correctly, is about to do. This bill shields a certain group of defendants. It establishes an immunity. This bill would overturn over 200 years of civil law, 200 years of tort law, 200 years of common law. It would overturn over 200 years of civil law in this country and fundamentally change our justice system. It would, in essence, turn the civil justice system and our tort law on its head. It would do this by denying one group of our citizens access to the court system. Most fundamentally, the problem with this bill is it sets a precedent. It will not affect that many victims, that is true, but the real reason to oppose this bill is for the precedent it sets, because if we do it for these victims, what is to stop us from doing it for other victims? And if we don't care about these victims, will we care about other victims in the future, and will we do it to other victims who maybe some of us care about? Civil liability law is about encouraging people and industries to take responsibility for their actions, and it is also about protecting victims. It is about deterring irresponsible behavior by making sure there are incentives in place to encourage people to behave responsibly. It is about preventing bad conduct and holding people accountable under our common law. It is not and should not be about undercutting the ability of innocent victims to hold irresponsible people accountable for wrongful and negligent actions. This bill, unfortunately, does just that. It undercuts the ability of innocent victims to hold irresponsible individuals accountable for harmful and negligent actions. The fact is, this bill cuts to the core of civil liability law and would essentially gut it. As my colleagues know, right now under current law throughout this country, to prove liability in a civil suit, the plaintiff only needs to prove the defendant acted in an unreasonable manner, if the defendant failed to meet his duty to act in a responsible fashion. That is basic common law, basic civil law, that his or her failure led to harm to the victim. Nothing more than that is required. We do not normally require a victim to prove that the defendant is guilty of a violation of the law, but this bill, however, provides that a victim cannot sue a gun dealer for damages resulting from illegal actions of a third party without also showing that a dealer is guilty of a violation of the law. So that in this bill, in effect, for a plaintiff to prevail in lawsuit and recover damages, he or she would not only need to prove that a gun dealer acted with negligence, that the dealer was irresponsible, but would also have to prove that the gun dealer also broke the law. In other words, the plaintiff would have to prove the gun dealer violated a statute or was guilty of a crime. There is one exception to this general rule built into this statute we are debating, and that is the so-called negligent entrustment exception. For the most part, this bill requires a defendant violate a statute before he is liable. We do not require this in any other place in our law. In civil law, sometimes it happens when you prove negligence, the defendant did violate a statute, but that is not a requirement. That is not something in a civil suit you have to prove. When you study law, one of the first things you learn is the difference between civil law and criminal law, and that someone can be liable in civil law to someone else and have to pay monetary damages and it not be a crime. That is a basic concept. What we are saying in this statute is, under these circumstances, with an irresponsible gun dealer, that the plaintiff would have to prove that the irresponsible gun dealer violated a criminal law. We don't do that anywhere else in our law. Why do we want to do it in this case? Why that special protection in this one case? If those who support this bill think that is such a great idea that we want to build this impediment into this law or the requirement into our civil law that you have to violate criminal law before you can sue someone, if that is such a great idea, let's just pass that law for everything. So in any civil suit in this country, you would have to find a violation of criminal law. I don't think we want to do that. If it is good for this victim, why is it not good for everything? Obviously, it is not. Obviously, we are not going to do that. I do not see anybody suggesting that. Clearly, this bill would make a major change in traditional liability law and is something we should more thoroughly consider and debate before we move toward a vote. Why is there such a rush to pass this legislation? This is legislation that I might point out never had a hearing. No witnesses were called. No one came in. Yet we are here on the Senate floor today. No discussion about this. Why is there this rush to bring this bill to the Senate floor? Why the rush to judgment? I have two thoughts. I guess the main reason we are here is because there are the votes here to do it. There is the power to pass this bill. When there are the votes, it can be done, and I can count. I know which way this vote is going to come out. There are the votes to pass it. So when there are the votes, I guess the job can get done. But that does not make it right. I ask my colleagues who have cosponsored this bill or are thinking about voting for it to think one more time, to think about the precedent that is being set. Yes, undoubtedly there are frivolous lawsuits that are being filed against this industry. There is no doubt about that. But there are legitimate victims who when this legislation is passed will not be able to file their lawsuits. Why not trust the good judges we trust in every other civil suit in this country to make the decision to throw out those frivolous lawsuits? There are frivolous lawsuits filed in this country every day in all kinds of cases, and we trust the good men and women, the judges who sit on our benches, to get rid of those cases. By and large, they do a pretty good job kicking them out of court. Why penalize the people who might have a legitimate case and kick them out and deny them, in fact, the opportunity to ever get to court at all? The precedent is what I worry about. I worry about the victims in this case, but I worry about the precedent because if we, who have the votes to do this today to this group of victims, say we are going to do it because we have the votes to do it, we have the power, whether it is because this lobby is more powerful for whatever reason, what about when the next lobby comes along and they happen to have the votes? Maybe it is a set of victims you worry about or you care about who will be blocked from coming to the courthouse and filing their case. What if it is your child, your mother, your father, your wife, or your husband, and they happen to be among a group of victims who some lobby has put together enough votes to convince Congress to deny them the access to come to court? Their day may come. So, yes, I worry about the victims we are going to disenfranchise and block from coming to the courthouse by this bill. But more than that I worry about the precedent we are setting by this bill. I worry about the day in the future when another lobby group, another Congress, has put together enough votes to come to this floor to deny another set of victims the right to have access to the courthouse. I think that is what should bother everybody else in this Senate. Let me make a prediction about this group of victims. Yes, the passage of this bill will get rid of some frivolous lawsuits. There will be lawsuits that will never be filed because of this bill, no doubt about it. But let me make a prediction to everyone who is thinking about voting for this bill. Mark my words, if this bill passes, in the future there will be a case or cases that will be so egregious and so bad that when they are read about and it is found out that that victim could not file a lawsuit and could not file that lawsuit because this Senate voted not to allow that victim to file that lawsuit, it will be so bad, it will turn one's stomach. Mark my words, that will happen if we pass this legislation. A second reason which has not been stated or discussed as to why there is such a rush to judgment and why some people are in such a big hurry to get this bill passed: We are having a great increase in crime technology. One of the great things that has happened in the last few years is our ability to trace guns and ballistics. We are putting great systems together in this country, and many of us in the Senate have worked hard to do that. We have the ability in law enforcement to trace these guns better today. I think some of the irresponsible--notice I say ``irresponsible''-- gun dealers are worried about that because they know their days are numbered. They know when they ship out all of these guns, put them out on the market, guns that are just getting by today, they know they are going to be able to be better traced and they know they are going to be more liable and we are going to have the ability to trace them. I believe the passage of this legislation will be more damaging in the future than it is even now. As ballistics technology improves, law enforcement will be better able to find the original source of crime guns, and that oftentimes would be back to a dealer who should not have sold the weapon in the first place. To the extent that we immunize these negligent dealers now, we will be decreasing their incentive to act responsibly and therefore deny their victims their day in court. There is another aspect about this bill that has not been talked about a lot, and that is the fact that it is retroactive. How dare us in the Congress come to the Senate floor and wipe out every lawsuit that has been filed in this country that would come within the parameters of this bill. How arrogant of us to do that. In this Congress, we have the arrogance to come to the floor and pass legislation that wipes every case out in every State in the Union where there is a lawsuit pending. Did we really get elected to the Senate to do that? That is what this bill does. It will kick people out of court. It would not just bar people from coming to the courthouse. That is not enough. No, what this bill does is kick people out who are already in court. It kicks out people on whom judges have already ruled summary judgments, motions to dismiss, and have already made decisions that the case is at least valid enough to go forward and to go to trial. We are saying, oh, no, judge, we are now going to kick that case out of court and take it away from you and throw that person out of court. To me, if we do that, it would be the height of arrogance. I think that is wrong. It is not my job to judge these cases. It is not my job to determine whether one of these cases should proceed or should not, or determine whether someone is negligent or not negligent. But I don't think, on the other hand, it is my job to say someone should not have the right to go to court and present that to a judge and ultimately, in most cases, to present that to a jury. That is fundamentally the American way. Let me talk about a couple of cases. We don't need to look too far to find legitimate cases that would be dismissed if this bill were to become law. Everyone remembers all too well the tragedies of the DC sniper cases. Some of the victims of the DC snipers are suing the Washington State gun retailer known as Bull's Eye Shooter Supply for allowing John Malvo to walk off unnoticed with a 3-foot semiautomatic assault rifle. In fact, there were allegations that Bull's Eye not only failed to report the missing assault rifle, this particular missing assault rifle, but also failed to report over 230 other missing firearms because Bull's Eye was never aware that over 230 guns were missing, in total. That is absolutely unbelievable. It is, of course, totally unacceptable for a firearm dealer, a retailer, to so poorly monitor and protect its stock. If these allegations are proven true--again, I don't know if they are true--then Bull's Eye should be held accountable for the negligent fashion in which it handled these weapons. Under the provisions of this bill, however, such behavior would be protected from private lawsuits. We would in effect be saying it is OK to allow unknown people--without, of course, background checks--to walk off your premises with hundreds of guns, be they criminals, terrorists, or in this case an underage serial killer. There is another case in Worchester, MA. This bill would not only prevent recovery for the victims of the DC sniper, but the family of a young man killed in Worcester, MA, by the name of Danny Guzman would also be barred from recovering for the negligence that caused his death. In that case, Danny Guzman was shot and killed with a gun taken from a gun maker by one of his own employees. The employee had a significant record of violence and drug abuse but was able to steal the gun because apparently the gun maker allowed this criminal free access to his guns without any legitimate check of his background and also failed to implement effective security procedures that would have prevented the theft. Indeed, this gun maker could not account for at least 50 of his firearms. If this bill were to pass, Danny's family would be barred from continuing their suit against the gun maker for negligence in completely failing to screen its employees or secure its facilities to prevent repeated thefts of guns. Let me talk about another pending case--again, I emphasize, this is a pending case--that would be affected by this bill. In this case, a couple entered a gun shop. This was referred to by my colleague from California a few minutes ago. A couple entered a gun shop. The man identified several weapons he was interested in purchasing. The woman he was with was not involved in the discussions between the man and gun shop owner and clearly didn't know much at all about guns. Then she purchased these guns and she paid cash. She paid cash for them. The man in the gun shop, because he was a convicted felon, was prohibited, of course, from purchasing guns. The woman, however, was allowed to buy them on his behalf. The man then illegally sold the guns on the black market. One of these guns was used to shoot at least one police officer. Clearly the gun shop owner should have known what was going on. The woman, while technically the purchaser, obviously was merely carrying out the wishes of a convicted felon. Therefore, the owner should never have sold her the guns in the first place. That would appear at least to be negligence. Obviously the criminal who shot the police officer should go to jail. But the dealer who negligently supplied that gun to the criminal should be civilly liable for his negligence as well. However, if this bill becomes law, it is likely the gun shop owner will be immune from liability. As I mentioned earlier, there is a possible exception written into the law known as negligent entrustment, that might arguably, in this case, allow the lawsuit to go forward. We don't know. But many courts have construed that exception in the past narrowly under the common law, so it is a close call in a case such as this. Candidly, though, why in the world would we even want to take a chance this sort of irresponsible behavior might be immune from liability? The point is, we can argue these cases. I know some of my colleagues might come to the floor and say under our bill maybe these cases could proceed. Maybe they could proceed. The point is, Why take a chance? Why take a chance? I would argue the three examples I have given. This bill could stop these cases cold in their tracks, and in each one of the cases I have cited, we have lawyers we could bring in, if we could get a hearing, who would swear under oath these cases, in their legal opinion, would be stopped by this bill. We could debate that. But the point is, why take the chance? Why pass a bill that would create that kind of legal impediment to people proceeding? Again, we get to the point I raised earlier, and that is the inequity, the inequality of creating two classes of victims in this country. Other industries face legal challenges. Other industries have had lawsuits filed against them they don't like. Other industries face suits that in their eyes many times are frivolous and they have cases thrown out of court. Other industries are involved in cases where many people die. We understand that. But we don't grant this kind of immunity from civil liability. For example, the auto industry. There are 42,000 or 43,000 Americans who die in car accidents every single year. We wouldn't think of coming to the floor and granting any kind of immunity like this for the auto industry, would we? No, we wouldn't. We wouldn't think of that for the world. We can each come up with our own example. But here we are today picking one industry for no reason. We all know what the truth is, for no other reason than that they have simply put together the votes to do it. They are here and they have the votes. If I count correctly, they are probably going to get this passed. But that doesn't make it right. Victims are going to suffer and there will be victims in the future who will be denied their opportunity to go to court. It is wrong. I support the second amendment. I support individuals' rights to own guns. I support gun manufacturers. I support legitimate gun dealers. But this is wrong; it is unfair. It is unfair to victims. But more important than that, it is a horrible precedent. If we do it this one time, what is to stop a future Congress, where the votes are maybe configured differently, from saying, oh, there is another group of victims and we are not going to protect them. We are not going to protect them. If we deny this group of victims their rights, what is to stop a future Congress from denying another group of victims their rights? Let us think about that before we cast our vote. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would reauthorize America's Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project. This program addresses the impact that mentally ill offenders have had on our criminal justice system and the impact the system has had on the offenders and their special needs. My interest in, and experience with this issue began over thirty years ago, when I was working as Assistant County Prosecuting Attorney in Greene County, OH, and then as County Prosecutor. What I learned then--and what I have continued to encounter throughout my career in public service--is that our State and local correctional facilities have become way stations for far too many mentally ill individuals in our Nation. A recent Justice Department study revealed that 16 percent of all inmates in America's State prisons and local jails today are mentally ill. The American Jails Association estimates that 600,000 to 700,000 seriously mentally ill persons each year are booked into local jails, alone. In Ohio, nearly 1 in 5 prisoners need psychiatric services or special accommodations. Far too many of our Nation's mentally ill persons have ended up in our prisons and jails. In fact, on any given day, the Los Angeles County Jail is home to more mentally ill inmates than the largest mental health care institution in our country. What happens is that all too often, the mentally ill act out their symptoms on the streets. They are arrested for minor offenses and wind up in jail. They serve their sentences or are paroled, but find themselves right back in the system only a short time later after committing additional--often more serious--crimes. Throughout this destructive cycle, law enforcement and corrections spend time and money trying to cope with the unique problems posed by these individuals. Certainly, many mentally ill offenders must be incarcerated because of the severity of their crimes. However, those who commit very minor non-violent offenses don't necessarily need to be incarcerated; instead, if given appropriate care early, their illnesses could be addressed, helping the offenders, while reducing recidivism and decreasing the burdens on our police and corrections officials. That's why, four years ago Senator Domenici and I introduced America's Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project, to begin to identify--early in the process--mentally ill offenders within our justice system and to use the power of the courts to assist them in obtaining the treatment they need. This program has been a success. In pilot programs around the country, mental health courts have begun to help local communities take steps toward effectively addressing the issues raised by the mentally ill in our justice system, and these steps must continue. That's why Senators Leahy and Domenici join me in cosponsoring this bill to reauthorize this important program. America's Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project established a Federal grant program to help States and localities develop mental health courts in their jurisdictions. These courts are specialized courts with separate dockets. They hear cases exclusively involving nonviolent offenses committed by mentally ill individuals. Fundamentally, mental health courts enable State and local courts to offer alternative sentences or alternatives to prosecution for those offenders who could be served best by mental health services. These courts are designed to address the historic lack of coordination between local law enforcement and social service systems and the lack of interaction within the criminal justice system. To deal with the separate needs of mentally ill offenders, these mental health courts are staffed by a core group of specialized professionals, including a dedicated judge, prosecutor, public defender, and court liaison to the mental health services community. The courts promote efficiency and consistency by centrally managing all outstanding cases involving a mentally ill defendant referred to the mental health court. Mental health court judges decide whether or not to hear each case referred to them. The courts only deal with defendants deemed mentally ill by qualified mental health professionals or the mental health court judge. Similarly, participation in the court by the mentally ill is voluntary; however, once the defendant volunteers for the Mental Health Court, he or she is expected to follow the decision of the court. For instance, in any given case, the mental health court judge, attorneys, and health services liaison may all agree on a plan of treatment as an alternative sentence or in lieu of prosecution. The defendant must adhere strictly to this court-imposed treatment plan. The court must then provide supervision with periodic review. This way, the court can quickly deal with any failure of the defendant to fulfill the treatment plan obligations. The mental health courts provide supervision of participants that is more intensive than might otherwise be available, with an emphasis on accountability and monitoring the participant's performance. In this sense, the mental health courts function similarly to drug courts. Mr. President, mentally ill persons who choose to have their cases heard in a mental health court often do so because that is the first real opportunity that many of these people have to seek treatment. A judicial program offering the possibility of effective treatment-- rather than jail time--gives a measure of hope and a chance for rehabilitation to these defendants. The successes of mental health courts are encouraging and show that we can improve the health and safety of our communities through these programs. For example, in Ohio, the Fairfield Municipal Mental Health Court began its program on January 1, 2001. Of those participating in the Fairfield program, 46 percent are bipolar, 42 percent suffer from depression, and 13 percent are schizophrenic. It recently conducted its first ``graduation'' ceremony of program participants. The program's first graduate came to them hostile, uncommunicative, and unable to function in society due to her bipolar mood disorder. Two years later, she left the program confident, talkative, healthier, and reconnected to her family and her life. Many jurisdictions across America have established mental health courts as a result of the program that we established four years ago. Our Nation's communities are trying desperately to find the best way to cope with the problems associated with mental illness. Law enforcement agencies and correctional facilities remain challenged by difficulties posed by mental illnesses. Mental health courts offer a solution. Mental health courts have shown great success, and we must ensure their continuation. Our Nation has long been enriched by the dual ideals of compassion and justice, and these programs are a wonderful embodiment of both ideals. I urge my colleagues to join in support of this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would reauthorize America's Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project. This program addresses the impact that mentally ill offenders have had on our criminal justice system and the impact the system has had on the offenders and their special needs. My interest in, and experience with this issue began over thirty years ago, when I was working as Assistant County Prosecuting Attorney in Greene County, OH, and then as County Prosecutor. What I learned then--and what I have continued to encounter throughout my career in public service--is that our State and local correctional facilities have become way stations for far too many mentally ill individuals in our Nation. A recent Justice Department study revealed that 16 percent of all inmates in America's State prisons and local jails today are mentally ill. The American Jails Association estimates that 600,000 to 700,000 seriously mentally ill persons each year are booked into local jails, alone. In Ohio, nearly 1 in 5 prisoners need psychiatric services or special accommodations. Far too many of our Nation's mentally ill persons have ended up in our prisons and jails. In fact, on any given day, the Los Angeles County Jail is home to more mentally ill inmates than the largest mental health care institution in our country. What happens is that all too often, the mentally ill act out their symptoms on the streets. They are arrested for minor offenses and wind up in jail. They serve their sentences or are paroled, but find themselves right back in the system only a short time later after committing additional--often more serious--crimes. Throughout this destructive cycle, law enforcement and corrections spend time and money trying to cope with the unique problems posed by these individuals. Certainly, many mentally ill offenders must be incarcerated because of the severity of their crimes. However, those who commit very minor non-violent offenses don't necessarily need to be incarcerated; instead, if given appropriate care early, their illnesses could be addressed, helping the offenders, while reducing recidivism and decreasing the burdens on our police and corrections officials. That's why, four years ago Senator Domenici and I introduced America's Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project, to begin to identify--early in the process--mentally ill offenders within our justice system and to use the power of the courts to assist them in obtaining the treatment they need. This program has been a success. In pilot programs around the country, mental health courts have begun to help local communities take steps toward effectively addressing the issues raised by the mentally ill in our justice system, and these steps must continue. That's why Senators Leahy and Domenici join me in cosponsoring this bill to reauthorize this important program. America's Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project established a Federal grant program to help States and localities develop mental health courts in their jurisdictions. These courts are specialized courts with separate dockets. They hear cases exclusively involving nonviolent offenses committed by mentally ill individuals. Fundamentally, mental health courts enable State and local courts to offer alternative sentences or alternatives to prosecution for those offenders who could be served best by mental health services. These courts are designed to address the historic lack of coordination between local law enforcement and social service systems and the lack of interaction within the criminal justice system. To deal with the separate needs of mentally ill offenders, these mental health courts are staffed by a core group of specialized professionals, including a dedicated judge, prosecutor, public defender, and court liaison to the mental health services community. The courts promote efficiency and consistency by centrally managing all outstanding cases involving a mentally ill defendant referred to the mental health court. Mental health court judges decide whether or not to hear each case referred to them. The courts only deal with defendants deemed mentally ill by qualified mental health professionals or the mental health court judge. Similarly, participation in the court by the mentally ill is voluntary; however, once the defendant volunteers for the Mental Health Court, he or she is expected to follow the decision of the court. For instance, in any given case, the mental health court judge, attorneys, and health services liaison may all agree on a plan of treatment as an alternative sentence or in lieu of prosecution. The defendant must adhere strictly to this court-imposed treatment plan. The court must then provide supervision with periodic review. This way, the court can quickly deal with any failure of the defendant to fulfill the treatment plan obligations. The mental health courts provide supervision of participants that is more intensive than might otherwise be available, with an emphasis on accountability and monitoring the participant's performance. In this sense, the mental health courts function similarly to drug courts. Mr. President, mentally ill persons who choose to have their cases heard in a mental health court often do so because that is the first real opportunity that many of these people have to seek treatment. A judicial program offering the possibility of effective treatment-- rather than jail time--gives a measure of hope and a chance for rehabilitation to these defendants. The successes of mental health courts are encouraging and show that we can improve the health and safety of our communities through these programs. For example, in Ohio, the Fairfield Municipal Mental Health Court began its program on January 1, 2001. Of those participating in the Fairfield program, 46 percent are bipolar, 42 percent suffer from depression, and 13 percent are schizophrenic. It recently conducted its first ``graduation'' ceremony of program participants. The program's first graduate came to them hostile, uncommunicative, and unable to function in society due to her bipolar mood disorder. Two years later, she left the program confident, talkative, healthier, and reconnected to her family and her life. Many jurisdictions across America have established mental health courts as a result of the program that we established four years ago. Our Nation's communities are trying desperately to find the best way to cope with the problems associated with mental illness. Law enforcement agencies and correctional facilities remain challenged by difficulties posed by mental illnesses. Mental health courts offer a solution. Mental health courts have shown great success, and we must ensure their continuation. Our Nation has long been enriched by the dual ideals of compassion and justice, and these programs are a wonderful embodiment of both ideals. I urge my colleagues to join in support of this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, at this very minute, there is an urgent crisis in America's own backyard, a crisis on the island nation of Haiti. I have come this afternoon to talk about that. I have been on the Senate floor many times in the past to talk about Haiti. I think I have traveled to Haiti 13 times since I have been in the Senate. I have talked before about the AIDS crisis there. I have talked about the horrible dehumanizing poverty. I have talked about the lack of clean water. I have talked about the food shortages. I have talked before about the children who are sick with AIDS and other diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis, children who have been orphaned when their parents die from AIDS, children who have little hope for a better future unless significant reforms are implemented and changes are made. Today, I come to the Senate floor to talk about what everyone has seen in the news in the last several weeks, and that is something that is now dwarfing the poverty, the AIDS, and all the other problems, and that is the current crisis, the violence that has erupted across this island nation. The chaotic and dangerous situation in Haiti right now is anything but a surprise. The fact is that a crisis has been looming there since at least before Christmas. In January, in an opinion piece that I wrote for the Miami Herald, I urged Haitian President Aristide to reach an agreement with the legitimate opposition groups, the political groups, to reach wholesale political change and reform. In that opinion piece, I urged him to pull back his own gangs of thugs and to tell them to stop their violence. I suggested then that President Aristide had within his own power the ability to avert further chaos and inevitable disaster at the hands of insurgent groups by ending the political impasse with the opposition and by creating a government that the international community could, in fact, support. I am pleased that just this weekend President Aristide agreed to the proposal of the U.S. administration, our administration's proposal to end the political stalemate. It is imperative that the legitimate political opposition groups in Haiti now accept the terms of this agreement. As I speak this afternoon, these groups are considering this proposal. But I must say, time is of the essence. I believe our administration's proposal, based on other Caribbean nations' earlier proposal, is a reasonable offer and one that has the greatest chance of bringing about an immediate end to the bloodshed. Members of the Senate need to understand that, really, there are three forces at play here. There is the Aristide government; there is the legitimate political opposition in the country; and then there are the thugs, and we can use no other term to describe them but the thugs who are trying to overthrow the Government. Let there be no mistake about it. These are not democrats, with a small ``d.'' They care not for democracy. When we talk about the political opposition we mean just that, the political opposition, the legitimate political opposition in Haiti. It is not associated with these thugs. So we call upon them today, the political opposition, to agree to the proposal made by the U.S. Government. President Aristide has agreed to this. We ask, and believe it is clearly in the best interests of Haiti, for the political opposition to agree to it as well. This agreement includes the setting up of a broad-based advisory council to Aristide's government. It also includes the appointment of a new Prime Minister. That is very significant. Further, it includes the disarming of gangs aligned with Aristide's Lavalas Family Party. I urge the opposition groups to accept this because, quite candidly, this proposal is the best hope for creating a coalition government that can stop the violence and a coalition government that can be accepted by the international community and can be respected on the world stage. The fact is, unless agreement is reached and unless the violence stops, there will be serious consequences for our hemisphere, for Haiti, and, yes, for the United States. We do not know what is going to happen in Haiti, but as we think about what our response might be if in fact settlement cannot be reached or if in fact a settlement is reached and the violence continues, we need to keep in mind a few basic facts. First, Haiti is in our neighborhood and what happens in our neighborhood affects the United States. Haiti is a nation that lies only about 800 miles from our shores and is, therefore, less than a 1\1/2\ hour flight from Miami. Second, amazingly there are at least 20,000 U.S. citizens living in Haiti today. Let me repeat that. The official estimate is that there are at least 20,000 U.S. citizens living in Haiti today. These are missionaries; these are doctors; these are nurses and other U.S. citizens. No one knows for sure how many U.S. citizens are actually down there. They are, so to speak, embedded all throughout the country. The reality is that an awful lot of humanitarian workers are simply not going to flee. They are not going to leave this Nation no matter what our advisories say. They are there simply to help the people of Haiti and they are going to stay. They are going to stay to help the children. They are going to stay to help the elderly. They are going to stay to help the sick. They are not going to abandon the people. Therefore, we have an obligation as a country to protect them and we need to be concerned about them. Furthermore, if the violence does not end, then we in the United States will once again be seeing boats swollen with Haitians, risking their lives for the chance of a better life. Our Coast Guard will be out there having to stop them and we will be seeing them floating toward Miami and the Florida shores. No one knows what the future will hold. We have watched on the news. We have read in the newspapers as these thugs, these rebels have taken over most of the main cities of Haiti--all of the main cities of Haiti, except Port-au-Prince. No one knows what will happen next. I said the hope is there will be agreement reached between the opposition, legitimate political opposition and the Aristide government. But if we assume the violence will continue, if we assume these thugs, these insurgents do what they say they are going to do and they move toward Port-au-Prince, no one can predict what will happen. But it is certainly not out of the realm of possibility that there will be a bloodbath in Port-au-Prince. There is no army. President Aristide, tragically--we have seen the police corrupted. There is no real police force of which to speak. So what Aristide has done is he has armed the gangs of Port-au-Prince. So there are arms everywhere in Port-au-Prince. They are the ones who would be there to ``defend'' Port-au-Prince. So you would have certainly the potential of the gangs of Port-au- Prince with their guns versus the insurgents coming in, and the people who would be the victims would be the children, the women, and the elderly would be caught in that tragic crossfire. That very well could be the scene that we will see unfold in front of us on CNN, on the network news. Those are things we need to contemplate in the days ahead as we think about what our reaction might have to be. I believe our administration has taken the right steps. Mr. Roger Noriega, representing the administration, went to Haiti and made this proposal. It was the right thing to do. It was a good proposal. Haiti is out of time. I, again, urge the opposition leaders, the legitimate political opposition leaders to accept the administration's proposal. It is clearly in Haiti's national interest. If the opposition doesn't accept the proposal without question, the situation will spiral out of control very quickly. It may, in fact, spiral out of control anyway, but clearly it will spiral out of control if it is not accepted. If it does spiral out of control, the United States needs to be prepared to act in our own national self-interest. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.