Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, Monday, I came to the floor to outline what we needed to see accomplished in Darfur, Sudan, where tens of thousands have died, hundreds of thousands are currently in peril, and millions more have lost their homes and their livelihoods. My last speech focused on what the government of Sudan needed to do. Today I want to focus on what we need to do, what the U.S. Government and the American people need to do. Today, I am offering an amendment to the fiscal year 2005 Department of Defense appropriations bill, together with Senators Leahy, Brownback, Alexander, Frist, and McCain. This critical amendment will provide $95 million in emergency funding to help address the current crisis in Darfur and eastern Chad. The House included the same $95 million in their bill this past Tuesday, and I hope we will do the same. Specifically, the amendment would add $70 million to USAID's International Disaster and Famine Assistance programs in Darfur, as well as $25 million to the Department of State for refugee assistance in eastern Chad. This type of crisis is exactly why we created these accounts. Now we need to use them. Mr. President, we simply need to do this. Ten years ago, we failed to act when close to a million people were slaughtered in Rwanda. We cannot go back now and change that, much as we would like to. But we can do something different today. What is occurring today is genocide. Hundreds of thousands of people are dying, and we can prevent it. To ignore this crisis would be a tragic mistake. To deny this funding would be to deny children the right to live and people the right to survive. We are not responsible for the genocide, but we will be responsible if we do not do something today to prevent these people, these children, men and women, from dying. Many times, we come to the floor and talk about emergencies. Sometimes the word is almost debased. But if ever there was an emergency, this truly is an emergency. This truly is a crisis. If this situation weren't so serious, we could wait and offer this amendment to another bill. Members of the Senate, time does not allow us to do that. Time is not on our side. Using this bill as the vehicle will make the emergency funding available as soon as we pass it, and it is signed into law. That is why we must act on this bill. Every major humanitarian organization in the world has recognized Darfur as the worst humanitarian crisis in the world today. But a quote by the U.N. World Food Program Deputy Director in Chad captures it best: There will be a tragedy if nothing happens. I don't think any of the children under the age of 5 will make it [if nothing happens], and the pregnant women, too. For those who are under 5, there is no chance. They will simply die from starvation. The U.S. Agency for International Development is also increasing their mortality figures, their estimates. They now say their original estimate that at least 350,000 people could die of disease and malnutrition over the next 9 months is conservative. That is because the violence that started all of this has not stopped, and because the conditions those individuals are facing are getting worse with the oncoming rains. Hundreds of thousands are now in shantytowns around the regional capitals or in refugee camps in eastern Chad. The conditions are quickly deteriorating because aid groups simply cannot accommodate the large numbers. The United States is currently meeting about 25 percent of the food needs. But that means that 75 percent of the food needs are not being met; 75 percent of the people face starvation. Malnutrition and disease are our biggest enemies in a crisis such as this. The polio epidemic hitting Africa has spread to Darfur, and only 50 percent of the children are immunized. The race against the clock is well underway and we need to make sure that USAID and the State Department have the money they need to respond, and respond now. I have no doubt in my mind that the long-term needs in Darfur and eastern Chad exceed what this amendment calls for, but for now at least this will allow our aid agencies to begin to meet their immediate needs this year. The children cannot wait and, therefore, we cannot delay these funds any longer. That is why I join my colleagues and ask my colleagues to join me in pressing, also, for a U.N. security resolution authorizing peacekeeping troops to monitor the cease-fire in Darfur and ensure, by force if necessary, that humanitarian aid is not obstructed. According to the U.S. Ambassador to Sudan, there is no evidence yet that the Government of Sudan is serious about addressing the militias which have caused so much of this problem. If the Government of Sudan refuses to address the ethnic cleansing that we have seen, then we should make sure the United States will. Senator Durbin and I have a letter that we are now circulating that we will send to Secretary Powell. This letter addresses this issue, and I invite my colleagues to sign this letter. Finally, I want to alert my colleagues to another crisis that is beginning to emerge in Africa. We do not have time today to speak in detail about it, but we should watch for this crisis because we will have to address this crisis as well, and the world needs to address this crisis, and that is the crisis in the Congo. Militant groups who escaped from Rwanda after the genocide there are now destabilizing the Congo. Mr. President, 3.3 million people are without humanitarian aid. If we do not pay attention to the Congo, then the Congo is, in a short period of time, going to also look like Darfur, and we will have failed again and the world will have failed again. The world must pay attention. We must learn to stop these events before they become crises. That is why our response to Darfur today in this amendment is so important. We need to set the precedent that we failed to set in Rwanda: that the U.S. Government will be watching for ethnic cleansing and genocide, and no matter where it is found, we will respond, and those responsible will be held accountable. We simply cannot tolerate crimes against humanity, and we must speak out. If we fail in this effort, we doom not only the people of Darfur but the victims of future conflicts as well. We need to make ``never again'' a promise of the U.S. Government that is enforced by our actions. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to support this amendment and continue to call attention to what is happening in Darfur. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleague from Virginia. Update on Darfur

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, several weeks ago, I came to the floor to talk about the crisis in Darfur, Sudan, where it is estimated at least 30,000 people have already been killed and 1 million people--maybe even 2 million--have lost their homes, have been driven from their homes in a government-led campaign of ethnic cleansing. To get a better idea or another way of looking at this, it is estimated that in this government-led campaign of ethnic cleansing, 341 villages have been completely destroyed, and 99 villages have been partially destroyed. It is also estimated these villages are, on average, made up of 4,000 or 5,000 people to a village. I think my colleagues can understand the gravity of this crisis. Many of these individuals are now homeless. Those who have not been killed have fled, and many of them are in refugee camps. The looming crisis is absolutely unbelievable. This is clearly the world's greatest crisis today. The Government of Sudan announced this past weekend it intends to disarm the militia responsible for these atrocities and present them to justice. We can only hope and pray what the Government of Sudan says is now correct. The Government of Sudan has made similar statements in the past that have turned out not to be true. The Government of Sudan has made similar statements in the past. For example, it is OK for refugees to return to Darfur, all at the same time their very own government planes were locating villages for the militias to attack. In addition, there are still 1 to 2 million people still in need of humanitarian assistance. We do not need promises from the Government of Sudan. What we do need, though, is action. That is why I am back on the floor today to outline what we need to see accomplished in Darfur. First, we need to see that the Government of Sudan is allowing unfettered access to humanitarian aid. This means granting visas and travel permits in a timely manner, not just to U.S. Government agencies, but to all of the groups trying to help deal with the humanitarian crisis that exists today in Darfur. If one truck or one pallet of supplies is unreasonably delayed, the Government of Sudan must be held accountable. The Government of Sudan must know the world is watching and that we will not accept anything short of their full cooperation. Second, the recent decision to disarm the militias needs to be accompanied by a plan to prosecute those guilty of ethnic cleansing and genocide. The ranks of the government and military branches in Sudan need to be searched, and those guilty of participating in the ethnic cleansing need to be prosecuted. Competent tribunals need to be established and justice served in Darfur. An unjust peace will provide no peace for Darfur. Third, the Government of Sudan must prove they have a long-term plan to ensure that these atrocities simply will not continue. That is why it is essential we dedicate the resources necessary to ensure a robust African Union monitoring mission in Darfur. The Darfur region is the size of Texas and, therefore, a handful of monitors simply will not be enough to ensure that the killing and violence has stopped. We must be committed to this in the long haul and the Government of Sudan must be as well. Until such time as the Government of Sudan accomplishes all of these things, we should not relieve any of the pressure we have put on them, and neither should the international community. The pressure is beginning to work, but it must continue. Therefore, I believe the United Nations Security Council must pass a resolution authorizing peacekeepers for Darfur. If the Government of Sudan is serious about ending this conflict, then they have no reason to object to U.N. troops monitoring the cease-fire and ensuring that the humanitarian aid flows. If the Government of Sudan objects to peacekeepers, we will know their promises were not serious. This is a litmus test and the world will be watching. We also should expect the U.S. Department of State to move forward in naming names of militia members and Sudanese Government officials involved in the killings and atrocities. We must do everything in our power to ensure that the guilty are punished. For the women who are raped and then branded, for the children who were slaughtered, and for the 30,000 who were killed because of the color of their skin, we must ensure that justice is served. I closed my speech last time talking about time and about how our window of opportunity was closing. Nothing has changed. We still face the worst humanitarian crisis in the world, and 2 million people are counting on us. If we are serious after the horrible tragedy a decade ago of Rwanda, if we are serious that we will never again allow genocide to go unpunished, if we are serious that we will not allow this to happen again, we cannot lose our focus. The Government of Sudan must know we are still watching, that we will continue to watch, and that nothing short of complete compliance will deter us from helping the people of Darfur. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to put my full support behind an agreement made between Senators Dodd, McCain, Warner, Levin, and Hollings to attach the Assistance to Firefighters Act of 2004, as amendment No. 3309, to the pending Department of Defense Authorization bill. Each day, we entrust our lives and the safety of our families, friends, and neighbors to the capable hands of the brave men and women in our local police departments. These individuals are willing to risk their lives and safety out of a dedication to their citizens and their commitment to public service. We ask local firefighters to risk no less than their lives, as well, every time they respond to an emergency fire alarm, a chemical spill, or as we saw on September 11--terrorist attacks. We ask them to risk their lives responding to the nearly 2 million reports of fire that they receive on an annual basis. Every 18 seconds while responding to fires, we expect them to be willing to give their lives in exchange for the lives of our families, neighbors, and friends. One hundred firefighters lost their lives in 2002 in the line of duty, and nearly 450 lost their lives in 2001. The unyielding commitment these individuals have made to public safety surely deserves an equally strong commitment from the Federal Government. In 2000, Congress affirmed the value of having a properly trained, equipped, and staffed fire service by passing the Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement, FIRE, Act--legislation that Senator Dodd and I introduced, along with Congressmen Pascrell, Weldon, and many others, on the House side. In the 4 years since the FIRE Act became law, fire departments have made significant progress in terms of filling the substantial needs outlined in the National Fire Protection Association's ``needs assessment.'' To date, Congress has appropriated nearly $2 billion dollars for the FIRE Act program. Virtually every penny of that amount has gone directly to local fire departments through FIRE grants to provide firefighter personal protective equipment, training to ensure more effective firefighting practices, breathing apparatus, new firefighting vehicles, emergency medical services supplies, fire prevention programs, and other important uses. The direct nature of the FIRE Act grant program--funds literally go straight from the Federal Government to local fire departments--is an extremely important aspect of the law, particularly in light of the difficulties we are seeing with other homeland security grant programs getting money to flow directly to the intended recipients. FIRE Act grants are awarded based on a competitive, peer-review process that helps ensure that the most important needs are filled first and that funding will be used in an effective manner. I am proud to note that 86 of Ohio's 88 counties have received FIRE Act funding up to this point and that the fire service in my home state is much better prepared to respond to emergencies as a result. The bottom line is this: The FIRE Act program has proven to be an extremely valuable tool for fire-based first responders. The time has come to reauthorize this important legislation--to build upon the successes of the original FIRE Act and to refine the program where improvements can be made. Amendment No. 3309, which I am offering along with Senator Dodd, accomplishes just that. Our amendment focuses on four central themes. First, we take steps to make the grant program more accessible for fire departments serving small, rural communities and to eliminate barriers to participation faced by departments serving heavily populated jurisdictions. Second, we codify changes made in program administration since its transfer to the recently created Department of Homeland Security. Third, the amendment increases the emphasis within the program on life-saving Emergency Medical Services and technologies. And fourth, we evaluate the program through a series of reports to help ensure that resources are targeted to the areas of greatest need. These priorities have been developed jointly with the fire service, and represent a means to strengthen the FIRE Act program for years to come. Our amendment would help the FIRE Act program more accessible for fire departments serving the very largest and smallest jurisdictions in America. Our experience over the past four years has been that a number of features in the program make participation difficult for departments serving these populations. Career fire departments, most of which serve populations well in excess of 50,000, have been receiving only a small percentage of the total grants thus far. After consulting with the fire service organizations, fire chiefs in my home State of Ohio, and officials administering the program at the Department of Homeland Security, we have found that there are two main reasons why this has been the case. First, matching requirements for large departments, currently fixed at 30 percent, have been particularly difficult to meet. Second, current law dictates that departments--whether they serve a large city, such as Cleveland and have numerous fire stations, or a small town, such as Cedarville, OH, and have only one station--are eligible for the exact same level of funding each year: $750,000. These two elements of the current program have caused a number of large fire departments to forgo applying for FIRE grants. With respect to smaller, often volunteer-based departments serving populations of 20,000 or less, budgets are often so limited that meeting the current match is simply not possible. Many of these departments struggle with even the most basic needs, such as having an adequate number of staff available to respond to a structure fire. Our legislation addresses each of these problems in a simple and straightforward fashion. Specifically, the amendment would reduce matching requirements by one third for departments serving communities of 50,000, and by one half for departments serving 20,000 or fewer residents in order to encourage increased participation by these departments. The amendment also would re-structure caps on grant amounts to reflect population served, with up to $2,250,000 for departments serving one million or more, $1,500,000 for departments serving between 500,000 and one million, and $1,000,000 for departments serving fewer than 500,000 residents. Together, these two changes would go a long way toward increasing the accessibility of the program for the very largest and smallest departments in the United States. The second major component of our legislation has to do with the transfer of the FIRE Act Administration from the Federal Emergency Management Administration, FEMA, to the Department of Homeland Security, DHS. When FEMA's functions were transferred into the DHS, the FIRE grant program, along with the U.S. Fire Administration, also were transferred to DHS. As a part of that transfer, formal administration of the FIRE grant program has been delegated to the Department to the Office of Domestic Preparedness, ODP, which oversees all DHS grant programs. While the U.S. Fire Administration--the real fire experts within the Federal Government--remains involved, we need to take steps to formalize the management of the program following the transfer to DHS. There are a number of reasons for solidifying program administration in law, chief among them being the ability of fire departments across our Nation to plan for the future, and the ability to ensure an ongoing role for fire experts in the process. First, our amendment gives the Secretary of Homeland Security overall authority for the program. This just makes sense given the Secretary's current home within ODP. Additionally, the amendment would codify in law practices currently in use by ODP--peer review by experts from national fire service organizations, a formal role for the U.S. Fire Administration, and collaborative meetings to recommend grant criteria. These steps would benefit the program for years to come and would help bring stability to the increasingly mature FIRE grant program. Perhaps more importantly, formalizing the role of the U.S. Fire Administrator and national fire service organizations would help resolve a fundamental tension between the mission of the FIRE Act program, to improve firefighting and EMS resources nationwide for all hazards, and the mission of its caretaker, ODP, to focus on terrorism prevention and response. It makes sense for ODP, as the central clearinghouse for grant programs within DHS, to manage the FIRE grant program. Equally so, it makes sense to build features into the program which would help ensure that the FIRE grant program will remain dedicated solely to the fire and Emergency Medical Services, EMS, communities and will not be diluted over time into a generic terrorism-prevention program. Our amendment carefully strikes this balance. The third major focus of this amendment is on finding ways to improve safety and to save lives. We do this in a number of ways. First, we have teamed up with national fire service organizations to incorporate firefighter safety research into the fire prevention and safety set- aside program. This new research, supported by a 20 percent increase in funds for the prevention and safety set-aside, would help reduce the number of firefighter fatalities each year and would dramatically improve the health and welfare of firefighters nationwide. Second, we place an increased emphasis on Emergency Medical Services. In most communities, the fire department is the chief provider for all emergency services, including EMS. To illustrate this point, a 2002 National Fire Protection Association study indicates that fire departments received more than seven times as many calls for EMS assistance as they did for fires. When our family members, neighbors, and friends need immediate medical help, we turn to EMS providers, and we rely on this help to be as effective and timely as possible. It is our duty in structuring the FIRE grant program, then, to do everything we can to give EMS squads the assistance they need to carry out this important mission. Despite the overwhelming ratio of EMS calls to fire calls, the FIRE grant program has not adequately reflected the importance of EMS over the past few years, with about 1 percent of all grants going specifically for EMS purposes. While there is no question that a number of other grants have indirectly benefited EMS and that departments do invest their own money into this service, more can and should be done through the FIRE Act to boost our EMS capabilities nationwide. To accomplish this goal, we do a number of things in the amendment, including specifically including fire-based EMS professionals in the peer review process and allowing EMS grant requests to be combined with those for equipment and training. We have already seen evidence that new, combined structure is making excellent progress this year in shifting a greater emphasis to EMS within the program. Additionally, we include language to incorporate independent, nonprofit EMS squads into the FIRE grant program for the first time. While our work with national fire service organizations on this particular provision has been productive and is ongoing, its intent is clear--and that is to try to bring the emphasis within the FIRE grant program on EMS closer to the level of demand in the field for this life-saving service. I am pleased that we have this language in the amendment and believe that through markup in the Commerce Committee next month, and perhaps later during conference consideration of the underlying bill, we can find an even better solution for increasing support for EMS. Third, we create a new incentive program within the FIRE Act that encourages departments to invest in life-saving Automated External Defibrillator, AED, devices. These devices are capable of dramatically reducing the number one cause of firefighter death in the line of duty--heart attacks. Our incentive program essentially says to fire departments that if you equip each of your firefighting vehicles with a defibrillator unit, we will give you a one-time discount on your matching requirement. Congress has expressed, time and again, strong support for getting these devices out to communities through various grant programs. It is our hope that we can maintain that commitment by extending support for lifesaving defibrillator technologies to fire departments across the country. Fourth, we eliminate a burdensome and unintended matching requirement for fire prevention grants. These grants generally go to non-profit organizations, such as National SAFE KIDS, to provide for fire safety awareness campaigns, smoke detector installations in low-income housing, and other important prevention efforts. Though no match was required in the first few years of the program, a recent legal opinion from the Office of Domestic Preparedness has reversed course and instituted a 10 percent match for grantees. This unanticipated requirement, which is extremely difficult for nonprofits with limited capital, has had a debilitating effect on the prevention program and needs to be eliminated. Our legislation does just that. Together, these commonsense features of our amendment would dramatically improve the safety of our communities, as well as the firefighters who bravely serve them. The fourth section of this amendment centers on a comprehensive review of the FIRE grant program. This review, to be conducted in part by the National Fire Protection Association, and in part by the General Accounting Office, GAO, seeks to evaluate the program with an eye toward ensuring that resources are targeted to the areas of greatest need. A similar study by the National Fire Protection Association conducted shortly after passage of the initial FIRE Act was extremely helpful as far as identifying the nature of the fire service needs. Ultimately, this part of the amendment is about making sure that the billions of taxpayer dollars authorized by this legislation are used in the most responsible and effective manner possible. Our amendment is a good amendment. It is comprehensive and collaboratively drafted with input from fire and emergency services experts from across the country. The National Safe Kids Campaign, the International Association of Fire Fighters, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the National Volunteer Fire Council, the International Association of Arson Investigators, the International Society of Fire Service Instructors, and the National Fire Protection Association, among others, all support our legislation. Furthermore, the process agreed upon between Senators Dodd, McCain, and Warner for consideration of our amendment is a good process. Senator McCain, in his capacity as chairman of the Committee of jurisdiction--the Commerce Committee--has graciously agreed to allow our amendment to be attached to the underlying bill, with the expectation that language reported out of his committee next month will be inserted in its place during conference negotiations. This arrangement gives our legislation the best possible opportunity to pass the Senate, with the added benefit of thorough deliberative consideration through the committee structure. I appreciate Chairman McCain's, and ranking member Hollings' willingness to take this approach, Senator Dodd's hard work to reach a positive resolution to the matter, and Senators Warner and Levin's willingness to facilitate this agreement by accepting the amendment at this time. The efforts of all three Senators deserve the praise of the firefighting community. As was the case in 2000, the Department of Defense authorization bill has become the vehicle of choice for the FIRE Act legislation. I am optimistic that the final result this year will be the same as it was then, concluding with passage of our amendment into law. I am proud to introduce this amendment with my friend and colleague from Connecticut and look forward to working to ensure that the Federal Government increases its commitment to the men and women who make up our local fire departments. We owe them and their service and dedication nothing less than our full support. science & technology funding levels

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I wish to share with my colleagues a story about a wonderful American who I have had the privilege of personally knowing for many years. I am talking about MG Ed Mechenbier. I have had the honor of knowing him as a friend and as a true patriot of the American spirit and soul. On June 30, 2004, MG Ed Mechenbier will celebrate his retirement from the United States Air Force Reserve following a brilliant military career that began in 1964 when then Cadet Mechenbier entered the United States Air Force Academy. My friend Ed Mechenbier is a very humble man, not known for patting himself on the back or openly touting his many accomplishments. But, he is a hero in many respects. He is a man who is driven by a sense of duty, a sense of honor, and a sense of country. In June 1967, Ed Mechenbier found himself flying an F4C Phantom II fighter while assigned to the 390th Fighter Squadron, Da Nang Air Base, South Vietnam. On June 14, 1967, Ed was assigned a strike mission against the Vu Chu railroad near Kep, approximately 30 miles northeast of Hanoi. This flight was the 80th mission for then 1LT Ed Mechenbier. June 14, 1967, also marks the day that Ed became a Prisoner of War after his aircraft suffered a direct hit from a surface to air missile. Little did he know that when he began his 80th mission that he would not leave the Hoa Lo prison, which is also known as the ``Hanoi Hilton'' for the next five years, eight months and four days. The stories that our former POWs describe remind us of the tremendous fighting spirit and sense of survival that distinguish and define the modern day American warrior. February 12, 1973, became a day of freedom for Ed and many other POWs who were released to return with honor to the hallowed soil of the United States. Upon return home, Captain Mechenbier was awarded the Silver Star with the Oak Leaf Cluster for his resistance to demands by the North Vietnamese for information, confessions, and propaganda material. In addition, Captain Mechenbier was awarded the Bronze Star with distinction for his efforts to conduct himself strictly in accordance with the Code of Conduct during his capture and imprisonment. The POW credo ``Return with Honor'' is exactly what Ed Mechenbier did. Throughout his imprisonment, he did not lose his fighting spirit. He did not lose his sense of hope. And, he did not fail to remain anything, but a shining example of a warrior whose duty assignment had been temporarily changed. The irony of this story continues and on that day in February 1973, an Air Force C-141 Starlifter had been dispatched to the Gia Lam Airport in Hanoi, North Vietnam. To the casual observer, the tail number of that aircraft, 66-0177 is insignificant. Historically, however, that identification number is very important because it was the first U.S. aircraft to leave North Vietnam with former POWs as passengers. On board that aircraft, which was affectionately dubbed the ``Hanoi Taxi,'' was former POW Captain Mechenbier. Throughout the process of returning former POWs to the United States, the ``Hanoi Taxi'' was a vital resource as were many other aircraft that were needed to accomplish such an honorable mission. In the years following February 1973, the Hanoi Taxi's history and legacy had been temporarily forgotten while the aircraft carried out a long and proud period of service within the Air Force fleet. Today, over 30 years later, the Hanoi Taxi is still flying airlift missions for the 445th Airlift Wing at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, OH. At the same time, the life of Ed Mechenbier has also moved forward. Following several assignments that include flying with the 4950th Test Wing and the 162nd Tactical Fighter Squadron, the young Air Force Academy cadet of 1964 is now leaving military service as a major general in the United States Air Force Reserve. Through the many promotions and the many assignments, Ed never forgot who he was and his keen sense of perspective tends to bring calmness in times of difficulty. Several years ago, as a member of the 445th Airlift Wing, Ed reunited with the Hanoi Taxi in his capacity as a member of the United States Air Force Reserve. The historic aircraft and the former POW, who was once a passenger on the aircraft, became one of its pilots. Recently, Ed Mechenbier made his final flight as a command pilot having accumulated more than 3,500 hours flight time in several military aircraft. The final flight was more than just a trip around the traffic pattern--the final mission was one that would take him half way around the world to land at the Noi Bai airport in Hanoi. The mission was to return to American soil the remains of American service members who had been missing in action during the Vietnam era and recently recovered from central Vietnam by U.S. military officials. On this mission, the Hanoi Taxi once again returned to Vietnam and the former passenger, Ed Mechenbier was at the controls of the aircraft. Once again, the Hanoi Taxi returned to freedom the remains of fallen comrades from a war that has not been forgotten. During a repatriation ceremony that was conducted prior to departure for return to the United States, Ed Mechenbier said this to those who gathered to honor the fallen comrades: ``For those of us who were fortunate enough to come home, I think we owe a little bit to all the families--to help them make the closure on that end.'' The last operational mission was carried out in the same manner that Ed Mechenbier has conducted himself since 1964--with honor, with pride, and with a tremendous sense of duty. On June 30, 2004, MG Ed Mechenbier and several hundred of his friends will gather to celebrate his retirement. Even though retirement signifies an ending of sorts, his legacy of excellence, commitment, patriotism, and dedication to ``completing the mission'' will remain long after his retirement. The legacy that he leaves behind will inspire generations well into the future. I am proud of Ed Mechenbier. I am proud of his accomplishments, but perhaps more importantly, I appreciate his unwavering sense of duty, honor, and country for it is those values that define the warrior spirit. I thank him for the many sacrifices he has made for our great Nation, and I join with all Ohioans and the members of this Chamber in wishing MG Ed Mechenbier a happy and successful retirement. May God bless him and his family as they enter this new phase in their lives.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today because, frankly, I am alarmed. I am alarmed by bottlenecks and barriers blocking the ability of our law enforcement and intelligence agents to fight terrorism. These bottlenecks and barriers are hampering our law enforcement's ability to use the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as the FISA statute. In setting up surveillance against foreign powers working inside the United States, all Americans should be concerned. All Americans should be concerned, frankly, as the FISA statute is one of the most important weapons we have to fight terrorism. Bottlenecks in the Justice Department's process of FISA applications could mean if there were a terrorist attack being planned against Americans today, we might not know about it. We would not know about it because a FISA request simply did not get processed. We would not know it because the bureaucracy in Washington, DC, simply did not get to the application in time, did not have the time or the people or the resources to process an agent's request allowing him or her to gather that pivotal piece of intelligence, that vital piece of information that very well could be the key to preventing a terrorist attack at home. That scares me, and that should scare every Member of this Senate, and that should scare every American. Although the FBI has been more aggressive in submitting FISA requests since the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Department of Justice has been unable to keep pace with the resulting surge in applications. Here is what the staff of the independent 9/11 Commission tells us: The application process . . . continues to be long and slow. That process is still subject to ``bottlenecks.'' I was very concerned about that. So on May 20, the last FBI oversight hearing held by the Judiciary Committee, I asked Director Mueller how well he thought the FISA statute was being utilized, and this is what Director Mueller said: We still have concerns. There is still frustration out there in the field in certain areas where, because we have had to prioritize, we cannot get to certain requests for FISA as fast as perhaps we might have in the past. What does this mean? Does that mean it is now taking longer post-9/11 to process certain FISA requests? If that is the case--and it is--that is a shocking statement and one that is certainly disconcerting and also downright frightening. Later in a Judiciary Committee hearing just last week, Attorney General Ashcroft made equally troubling statements. I told him I felt it was dangerous to have to prioritize FISA requests because we can never know what kind of information we will get from these warrants. Even our best guess is still just a guess, and this is what the Attorney General said: . . . we are prioritizing among FISA applications . . . so that at least the most promising of those applications are the ones that would be first attended to, but frankly, it is not easy always to know where you are going to get the best intelligence, and it is not a situation where I am confident in saying, ``Oh, well, we do not have to worry about that one.'' The Attorney General was very candid. He was very honest, and he said it very well. You never can be sure where a promising lead will take you or which lead will be the one lead that uncovers the information that will save many lives. They have to prioritize. To have to prioritize, to have to pick and choose among these leads, is very risky and dangerous business. It is almost this kind of Russian roulette. We should not be in that business. We should not have to do it. The Justice Department should be able to look at each FISA request individually and do whatever is necessary to process that request, not prioritize it, not just put it higher up in the pile, but actually process it immediately so that the court can issue a warrant and agents can go about the business of catching terrorists. This is a very real problem we have. So I say to the Justice Department, you have to put more resources into this. You have to do a better job. Of all that you do in the Justice Department, what could be more important? Do you need more FISA lawyers at Justice? Do you need more people in this unit? If you do, then put them there. Do you need more FISA training for agents? Do you need more resources? How far behind are you in the FISA process? These are all questions that the Justice Department needs to answer right now. No excuses. Our national security is at stake. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank the committee for their hard work on this bill. I am always impressed by how Senator Warner and Senator Levin manage this bill and for the excellent work of their staff. Their continued commitment to our troops, and to our Nation is evident in this bill. It is especially important right now. I also thank the committee for their very important inclusion of expanded TRICARE coverage to several members of the Guard and Reserve. While limited, the Committee's inclusion of any extended health care benefits to the reserve component is unprecedented. The committee's mark is an important step in the right direction, but the benefits included in the committee's mark simply aren't enough. They don't go far enough to reach the folks we need to; the current provisions don't provide the kind of coverage that we owe these individuals and their families. They also don't recognize the continued sacrifice of the employers of our Reservists and Guardsmen. That is why I join my colleagues--Senator Lindsay Graham, Senator Daschle, and Senator Leahy--in support of this important amendment. Unfortunately, benefits for our Guard and Reserve simply have not kept pace with the increasing role these folks are expected to play. With the increasing demands we are placing on these individuals, it is the right thing to do. I look forward to working with my colleagues throughout the coming months to make these important initiatives a permanent reality.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, last week, my wife and I had the opportunity to spend 3 days in the troubled country of Haiti. I want to take a couple of minutes to report to my colleagues about the situation in Haiti. I believe it is particularly of importance because the United States still has troops in Haiti, and we had the opportunity to visit with a number of these wonderful young men and women. Our trip coincided with the horrible flooding that occurred last week in Haiti and the Dominican Republic. In fact, I had the chance to fly out with our troops to a village in Haiti, Fonds Verettes, about 35 miles east of Port-au-Prince. I saw our troops doing a tremendous job to take food and water and shelter to the Haitians who had been devastated by this flooding. Our trip was also timely because it is during this period of time that our troops are beginning to leave Haiti, or were scheduled to begin to leave Haiti, and the U.N. troops are scheduled to start to come in. The country in this endeavor will be Brazil. Let me make a few observations first, starting with the flooding. As I said, I went out to this village, Fonds Verettes. What I saw when I got there was just an absolutely unbelievable sight. I saw a village that was in ruins. I had the opportunity to talk to several of the victims. I talked to a man who told me he had lost four of his children. Absolutely unbelievable. He lost four of his children, and he was still in a state of shock and could barely talk above a whisper. It is hard to believe that someone could lose four kids. We talked also to a woman by the name of Luciani Joseph. She was just sitting on a box when we saw her. It was the only possession I think she had left in the world. We walked up to her and talked to her. She had lost her 6-year- old son. I know in that village there were dozens and dozens of other stories. Well over 100 people had lost their lives, and hundreds and hundreds of people lost every possession they had. The only good news, I guess, is that U.S. troops were in the country. The only way you could reach this village was because U.S. troops were there. We had helicopters, and that is how they were able to reach the village because nobody could have reached the village any other way. I believe it is important that our troops stay in Haiti until enough food and goods and relief is delivered to these small villages that have been impacted by this flood. There is no other country that has the resources down there. Nobody has the airlift capabilities besides the United States. Again, what an inspiration it was to talk to our young men and women who were assisting in this flood. The seriousness of the flood that hit Haiti is indicative to us and the international community as to the problems Haiti faces. We have all read, I believe, that Haiti is a country that is 97 to 98 percent deforested. This didn't come up overnight; it is something that has happened over the years. This deforestation has exacerbated the seriousness of the flooding. I had the opportunity to talk to the village leader of this community I visited, Father Pierre Etienne Belneau. I said: Father, what happened? Have you had floods before? He said: Yes, but never as serious as this. Each time a flood comes, each time the water comes, it is more serious. He said: There is the reason. He pointed up to the hills, the mountains. He said: They keep cutting down the trees. As recently as just after President Aristide left, people--sometimes not even from our area--came up and went into the national forest and cut down more trees. When the water comes, he says, it just goes right down the mountain; there is nothing to stop it. It washes everything down into their village. This priest in this rural village understood what has happened to Haiti--that Haiti is an ecological disaster. So as we and the international community look to help the new Government of Haiti, if we are serious about long-term help for Haiti and the people of Haiti, reforestation of this country has to be part of that help. A sustainable agriculture is essential to the assistance of Haiti. One of the great problems we find in Haiti is malnourishment. My wife Fran and I held children in our arms in Haiti on this past trip and previous trips, some of whom could be saved and some of whom, tragically, were not going to live. They were simply not getting nutritious food. They were not getting protein. There are children all over Haiti who are not well fed, who are not getting enough to eat, who are not getting enough nutritious food. This is due to the fact that this country, which at one time was the crown jewel of the French empire as far as food production, today cannot produce a fraction of the food for its own people. If we are talking about long-term assistance, what the United States and other countries have to do is help them develop a sustainable agriculture. It is one thing to give them food--and we should do that-- but in the long run, what we really need to do is help them help themselves through better agricultural practices. Now I will turn to another issue that we talked about when we were in Haiti. I had the opportunity to meet with Prime Minister Latortue. We had a very good conversation. The day I arrived the United States had just announced an additional $100 million in assistance for the new Government of Haiti. This money will assist this Government to survive. I think it is so very important for the new Government to show results to the people. The people are looking for results. In the short term, they are looking to have the lights on. They only have the lights on in Port-au-Prince 2 hours a day. They need the lights on and the garbage picked up. The Government needs to show that people who commit serious crimes will be arrested, they will be held accountable, and they will be brought to justice. In the long run, Haiti must have good judicial reform. The police must be trained. A new police force must be stood up. They must develop good land titling so that people will know the land they own is truly theirs. They will not have good international investment until people know that if they invest in property, invest in land, they will be able to sustain that investment. Another issue that was talked about a lot while I was in Haiti--I was approached by many business people, many political leaders--was their support for a bill that I have introduced in the Senate and that has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Clay Shaw, and that is the bill we call the Hero bill, a bill that would give Haiti some trade preferences, a bill that would create tens of thousands of jobs in Haiti. I cannot tell my colleagues how many people came up to me and said: Senator, please tell your colleagues we appreciate the aid, we appreciate the assistance, but if they really want to help Haiti and the Haitian people, what we need is jobs, and the way you can help us get jobs is to pass the bill that you have introduced. The Haitian people want to work. This bill will give us the opportunity to work. Finally, if the new Haitian Government is to succeed, it can only succeed if there is security in the country. The U.S. Armed Forces who are in Haiti today will be phasing out over the next few weeks. They will be replaced by U.N. forces. It is imperative that the U.N. forces be at least as strong in their actions as the U.S. troops have been. The U.N. troops will be tested. They will be tested by the thugs. They will be tested by the shamirs. They will be tested by Aristide's gangs. They will be tested by the rebels. In essence, they will be tested by both sides in what would have been a civil war. Let's keep in mind that the U.S. troops that came in and have done such a wonderful job for the last several months prevented a blood bath in Haiti. They prevented a civil war. The U.N. troops will have to be equally as strong, and when the U.S. forces leave and the U.N. troops come in, the U.N. troops will be tested. The U.N. troops will have to be equally as strong, they will have to be tough, and they will have to fire back. If they do not, then Haiti will revert to chaos. So the next several months will be a very crucial time for these U.N. troops and a very crucial time for Haiti. The one very good piece of news forthcoming during our trip was on the AIDS front. Haiti has been for some time a country that has had the highest incidence of AIDS. The good news is there have been doctors in Haiti who have been at the forefront in the battle against AIDS. Dr. Paul Farmer in the rural area and Dr. Bill Pape in Port-au-Prince have been at the forefront in the battle against AIDS, not just in Haiti but throughout the world. We had the opportunity to meet with Dr. Pape on our most recent visit. He shared with me a statistic. The statistic is this: The incidence of AIDS in Haiti has now been cut in half. That is an astounding figure. It has been the result of some very aggressive work by a number of people. I will come back to the Chamber sometime in the next few weeks to talk about this issue of AIDS in more detail because I think it is of such great importance. I think Haiti can be looked at as a model for the rest of the world as to how to dramatically cut the incidence of AIDS. This poor country that certainly has not been governed very well in the last few years still managed in spite of that to dramatically cut the incidence of AIDS. There is a lot to be learned from what has been going on in Haiti. In addition to cutting the incidence of AIDS, we have also seen in Haiti the dramatic increase in the use of antiretroviral drugs. So when my wife Fran and I walked into an orphanage run by the Sisters of Charity, whereas just a year ago none of the children who had AIDS were on antiretroviral drugs, this year when we came back and walked in we would see some of the children who were HIV positive, who were in need of drugs, who actually this time were on antiretroviral drugs. We saw one little boy who we were told had come in just a few months before. He was very critically ill and he would have died but the sisters, because of Dr. Pape and because of good assistance coming in to Haiti, were able to get that child antiretroviral drugs and we saw a very healthy, chubby little boy running around this orphanage. Because of very good care from the nuns and because he has antiretroviral drugs, that boy is going to make it. That is the type of miracle we are now beginning to see in Haiti, and I think it is something for which we can be very proud. That is what we want to see replicated around the world. So when I come to the Senate floor and ask my colleagues to vote for more money for AIDS assistance around the world, it is that little boy I am going to be citing. It is this type of little boy who we can save around the world because if it can be done in a poor country such as Haiti, it can be done in other countries as well. That is very good news coming out of Haiti from our last trip. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Peace Corps Volunteers Health, Safety, and Security Act of 2004 be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I join our colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, to introduce a bill designed to help protect consumers--especially children--from the dangers of tobacco. Simply, our bill would finally give the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority it needs to effectively regulate the manufacture and sale of tobacco products. I say finally, because there are some tobacco proponents who would have you believe that the Master Settlement Agreement, which was signed in 1998 by 46 States, resolved the issue of youth tobacco use by imposing advertising restrictions. I say finally, because my colleagues--first Senator McCain, then Senator Frist, then Senator Gregg, and then Senator Kennedy and I--have been seeking FDA regulation of tobacco products since the mid to late 1990's. And, I say finally, because the bill that we are introducing today is the product of long and hard discussions and negotiations that I have had with Senator Kennedy and public interest groups and industry. Our bill has the support of Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. Our bill has the support of Philip Morris. Our bill has the support of the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, and the American Cancer Association. It is a bill that I am proud of, that is worthy of the Senate's consideration, and that will provide the FDA--finally-- with strong and effective authority over the regulation of tobacco products. I realize full well that tobacco users and non-users, alike, recognize and understand that tobacco products are hazardous to their health. We all know that smoking is not a healthy habit. But, that's an obvious point in comparison to the fact that right now, many consumers, including smokers, are surprised to learn that no Federal agency has the authority to require tobacco companies to list the ingredients that are in their products--things like trace amounts of arsenic, formaldehyde, and ammonia. And, no Federal agency has the authority to inspect tobacco manufacturers--how the cigarette and smokeless tobacco products are made, whether the manufacturers' machines and equipment are clean, etc. While simply listing the ingredients, toxic as they may be, might not seem like much to some, think of it this way: Current law makes sure we know what's in products designed to help people quit smoking, like ``the patch'' or Nicorette gum, but not the very products that get people addicted in the first place--the cigarettes. That is absolutely absurd! Think about this: Right now, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires Philip Morris/Altria to print the ingredients in its Kraft ``Macaroni and Cheese,'' but not the ingredients in its cigarettes--a product that contributes to the deaths of more than 440,000 people a year. Right now, the FDA requires Philip Morris-owned Nabisco to print the ingredients contained in ``Oreo Cookies'' and ``Ritz Crackers,'' but not the ingredients in its cigarettes--even though cigarettes cause one-third of all cancer deaths and 90 percent of lung cancer deaths. It is unfathomable to me that we would require the listing of ingredients on these products, yet not require the listing of ingredients for one of the leading causes of death and disease. Right now, the FDA requires the printed ingredients for chewing gum, lipstick, bottled water, and ice cream, but not for cigarettes--a product that causes 20% of all heart disease deaths and is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. Think about this: If a company wants to market a food product as ``fat-free'' or ``reduced-fat'' or ``lite,'' that company is required to meet certain standards regarding the number of calories or the amount of fat grams in that product. Yet, cigarette companies can call a cigarette a ``light'' or ``mild'' and not reveal a thing about the amount of tar or nicotine or arsenic in that supposedly ``light'' cigarette. Not having access to all the information about this deadly product just makes no sense, and it is something that needs to change. By introducing this bill, we are finally saying that we are not going to let tobacco manufacturers have free reign over their markets and consumers any more. Today, we are taking a step toward making sure the public gets adequate information about whether to continue to smoke or even to start smoking in the first place. With this bill, we are not just saying ``buyer beware.'' We are saying ``tobacco companies be honest.'' We are saying ``tobacco companies stop marketing to innocent children.'' We are saying ``tobacco companies tell consumers about what they are really buying.'' The legislation that Senator Kennedy and I are introducing would do just that. One of the most dramatic changes our bill makes is that tobacco products will now have to be approved before they reach consumer hands. It just makes sense that tobacco products should not be able to imply that they may be safer or less harmful to consumers because they use descriptors such as ``light'' or ``mild'' or ``low'' to characterize the level of a substance in a product. The National Cancer Institute has found that many smokers mistakenly believe that ``low tar'' and ``light'' cigarettes cause fewer health problems than other cigarettes. Our bill would require specific approval by the FDA to use those words, so that consumers could be informed. For the first time ever, all new tobacco products entering the market would have to be approved by the FDA. Obviously, we already know that smoking is a health risk. But, what we don't know about is the harm caused by or what adverse health effects are created by the other ingredients in tobacco products or by how the tobacco is burned. There are tobacco products on the market that are not conventional cigarettes. They have carbon filters running down the center of them. They are sophisticated products that burn tobacco differently, that affect the body differently, and that may cause people to smoke them differently. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, in an October article of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, ``the only proven method to reduce tobacco-related cancer risk is to stop smoking.'' Yet, often times, people cannot quit. It is very difficult to quit ingesting an addictive product. People are addicted to the nicotine in the tobacco product and are just simply unable to quit using it. So, tobacco companies have responded by developing and marketing tobacco products that purport to be ``reduced-risk'' or ``safer.'' Take, for example, a person who smokes Marlboro cigarettes--just plain Marlboro cigarettes, the ones in the red package. Let's say that person would like to quit smoking, has tried to quit smoking a number of times, but just hasn't been successful. So instead of quitting outright, that person figures they will switch the type of cigarette they smoke to a cigarette that has the implied claim of being ``safer''--like a ``light'' cigarette or a ``mild'' cigarette or a ``low tar'' cigarette. Those cigarettes have not been found to be any safer? In fact, just the opposite has been discovered. In a 2001 National Cancer Institute publication, they wrote the following: The tobacco companies set out to develop cigarette designs that markedly lowered the tar and nicotine yield results as measured by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) testing method. Yet, these cigarettes can be manipulated by the smoker to increase the intake of tar and nicotine. The use of these ``decreased risk'' cigarettes have not significantly decreased the disease risk. In fact, the use of these cigarettes may be partly responsible for the increase in lung cancer for long-term smokers who have switched to the low- tar/low-nicotine brands. Finally, switching to these cigarettes may provide smokers with a false sense of reduced risk, when the actual amount of tar and nicotine consumed may be the same as, or more than, the previously used higher yield brand. So the products that tobacco companies develop and market as being ``safer'' are not safer. Rather than people quitting smoking entirely, they are often misled into thinking that the ``light'' or ``mild'' cigarettes that they switch to are better for them. In addition, people may begin to start smoking because they think some of these products aren't so bad for them--that the products have been made safer or better for them somehow and are okay to smoke. Tobacco companies are able to make these implied health claims about their products because they are not regulated. Consumers have no choice but to trust the tobacco companies to reveal the ingredients and marketing claims about their products. That is just absurd to me. These are all things that should be examined, reviewed, and commented on by the Food and Drug Administration to determine whether it is appropriate for these products to be marketed as ``reduced-risk'' products, so the public knows what they are choosing to consume. Tobacco advertising is in magazines and on billboards along the highway. Tobacco advertising is in convenience stores, along the aisles and at the checkout counter right beside the candy where children are likely to see it. Tobacco advertising is at sporting events, part of promotional items, where consumers can ``buy 1 get 1 free.'' Tobacco advertising is on the Internet and in the daily delivery of mail. Our bill would make changes regarding tobacco advertising. It would give the FDA authority to restrict tobacco industry marketing-- consistent with the First Amendment--that targets our children. Our bill would require advertisements to be in black and white text only and would define adult publication in terms of readership. An issue that is related to advertising and marketing of tobacco products has to do with the flavored tobacco products, which clearly target our children. We have probably all seen the flavored cigarettes--flavors like strawberry, chocolate, and wild rum. The scent of strawberry filters through the unopened pack of cigarettes. And guess what, the cigarettes smell like candy. A recent New York Times article described the scent of chocolate flavored cigarettes as if ``someone had lifted the lid on a Whitman Sampler.'' I can't speak for every parent, but I know my 8 grandchildren like candy, and they like the smell of chocolate, and they would be curious to try something that smells or tastes like candy. Cigarettes shouldn't be flavored and marketed in such a way to attract children and to encourage children to smoke. Our bill bans the use of flavors such as strawberry, grape, orange, clove, cinnamon, pineapple, vanilla, coconut, coffee and other flavorings that would attract children to the product. Despite the fact that 40 million Americans use tobacco products, many of them do not know what is inside the cigarette or the tobacco product they ingest. They do not know the ingredients or the constituents, like tar or nicotine, that are in the products they use. Consumers do not know what additives are included in the product. Additives like ammonia or urea, both of which may make the tobacco product more addictive because they increase the delivery of nicotine. Tobacco companies do not disclose the specific ingredients in their products because they don't have to. Tobacco products are unregulated. Our legislation would give consumers more information about what's in tobacco products. Specifically, the bill would provide the FDA with the ability to publish the ingredients of tobacco products. It would require a listing of all ingredients, substances, and compounds added by the manufacturer to the tobacco, paper, or filter. It would require a description of the content, delivery, and form of nicotine in each tobacco product. It would require information on the health, behavioral, or physiologic effects of the tobacco products. I think it is equally important that I mention what our bill does not do. Here are some of the areas where authority is not conferred to FDA: Our bill does not allow FDA to ban tobacco products or to eliminate nicotine from a tobacco product. The bill ensures that FDA will not have the power to use its ``performance standard'' authority to ban cigarettes, smokeless tobacco or any other category of tobacco products, or to reduce their nicotine yields to zero. Our bill does not allow FDA to establish a minimum smoking age higher than 18. The bill explicitly forbids FDA from establishing a minimum age higher than 18 years of age to purchase tobacco products. Our bill treats all tobacco retailers equally. Our bill specifically provides that FDA can't prohibit the sale of tobacco products in any particular category of retail outlet. Our bill forbids FDA from creating a more permissive set of advertising rules for adult-only establishments. This provision protects retailers and convenience store owners. Finally, I would like to make a comment about the tobacco farmers. There has been a lot of talk recently about the need for a buyout for our Nation's tobacco farmers. My colleagues, Senator McConnell and Senator Dole, have been working tirelessly to craft a buyout bill for tobacco farmers. They need a buyout--and the Congress should give them one. The Senate needs to pass the buyout, but the buyout needs to be passed along with this FDA bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues from the tobacco-growing states to make this happen. The bill that Senator Kennedy and I introduce today gives the FDA the authority to regulate a product that has gone unregulated for far too long--a product that for the past century has not revealed its ingredients to the consumer--a product whose manufacturing facilities are not inspected or accountable for following good manufacturing practices--a product that is never reviewed or approved before reaching the hands of 40 million consumers, many of whom are just children. Congress needs to put an end to this. Congress should put an end to the marketing of tobacco products to our children. Congress should put an end to the ability of tobacco companies to make claims, whether they are implied claims or direct claims, about their products. Congress should put an end to tobacco companies putting any ingredient they want into their products without disclosing it to the consumer. It is time Congress give the FDA authority to it needs to fix these problems. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I join our colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, to introduce a bill designed to help protect consumers--especially children--from the dangers of tobacco. Simply, our bill would finally give the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority it needs to effectively regulate the manufacture and sale of tobacco products. I say finally, because there are some tobacco proponents who would have you believe that the Master Settlement Agreement, which was signed in 1998 by 46 States, resolved the issue of youth tobacco use by imposing advertising restrictions. I say finally, because my colleagues--first Senator McCain, then Senator Frist, then Senator Gregg, and then Senator Kennedy and I--have been seeking FDA regulation of tobacco products since the mid to late 1990's. And, I say finally, because the bill that we are introducing today is the product of long and hard discussions and negotiations that I have had with Senator Kennedy and public interest groups and industry. Our bill has the support of Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. Our bill has the support of Philip Morris. Our bill has the support of the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, and the American Cancer Association. It is a bill that I am proud of, that is worthy of the Senate's consideration, and that will provide the FDA--finally-- with strong and effective authority over the regulation of tobacco products. I realize full well that tobacco users and non-users, alike, recognize and understand that tobacco products are hazardous to their health. We all know that smoking is not a healthy habit. But, that's an obvious point in comparison to the fact that right now, many consumers, including smokers, are surprised to learn that no Federal agency has the authority to require tobacco companies to list the ingredients that are in their products--things like trace amounts of arsenic, formaldehyde, and ammonia. And, no Federal agency has the authority to inspect tobacco manufacturers--how the cigarette and smokeless tobacco products are made, whether the manufacturers' machines and equipment are clean, etc. While simply listing the ingredients, toxic as they may be, might not seem like much to some, think of it this way: Current law makes sure we know what's in products designed to help people quit smoking, like ``the patch'' or Nicorette gum, but not the very products that get people addicted in the first place--the cigarettes. That is absolutely absurd! Think about this: Right now, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires Philip Morris/Altria to print the ingredients in its Kraft ``Macaroni and Cheese,'' but not the ingredients in its cigarettes--a product that contributes to the deaths of more than 440,000 people a year. Right now, the FDA requires Philip Morris-owned Nabisco to print the ingredients contained in ``Oreo Cookies'' and ``Ritz Crackers,'' but not the ingredients in its cigarettes--even though cigarettes cause one-third of all cancer deaths and 90 percent of lung cancer deaths. It is unfathomable to me that we would require the listing of ingredients on these products, yet not require the listing of ingredients for one of the leading causes of death and disease. Right now, the FDA requires the printed ingredients for chewing gum, lipstick, bottled water, and ice cream, but not for cigarettes--a product that causes 20% of all heart disease deaths and is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. Think about this: If a company wants to market a food product as ``fat-free'' or ``reduced-fat'' or ``lite,'' that company is required to meet certain standards regarding the number of calories or the amount of fat grams in that product. Yet, cigarette companies can call a cigarette a ``light'' or ``mild'' and not reveal a thing about the amount of tar or nicotine or arsenic in that supposedly ``light'' cigarette. Not having access to all the information about this deadly product just makes no sense, and it is something that needs to change. By introducing this bill, we are finally saying that we are not going to let tobacco manufacturers have free reign over their markets and consumers any more. Today, we are taking a step toward making sure the public gets adequate information about whether to continue to smoke or even to start smoking in the first place. With this bill, we are not just saying ``buyer beware.'' We are saying ``tobacco companies be honest.'' We are saying ``tobacco companies stop marketing to innocent children.'' We are saying ``tobacco companies tell consumers about what they are really buying.'' The legislation that Senator Kennedy and I are introducing would do just that. One of the most dramatic changes our bill makes is that tobacco products will now have to be approved before they reach consumer hands. It just makes sense that tobacco products should not be able to imply that they may be safer or less harmful to consumers because they use descriptors such as ``light'' or ``mild'' or ``low'' to characterize the level of a substance in a product. The National Cancer Institute has found that many smokers mistakenly believe that ``low tar'' and ``light'' cigarettes cause fewer health problems than other cigarettes. Our bill would require specific approval by the FDA to use those words, so that consumers could be informed. For the first time ever, all new tobacco products entering the market would have to be approved by the FDA. Obviously, we already know that smoking is a health risk. But, what we don't know about is the harm caused by or what adverse health effects are created by the other ingredients in tobacco products or by how the tobacco is burned. There are tobacco products on the market that are not conventional cigarettes. They have carbon filters running down the center of them. They are sophisticated products that burn tobacco differently, that affect the body differently, and that may cause people to smoke them differently. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, in an October article of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, ``the only proven method to reduce tobacco-related cancer risk is to stop smoking.'' Yet, often times, people cannot quit. It is very difficult to quit ingesting an addictive product. People are addicted to the nicotine in the tobacco product and are just simply unable to quit using it. So, tobacco companies have responded by developing and marketing tobacco products that purport to be ``reduced-risk'' or ``safer.'' Take, for example, a person who smokes Marlboro cigarettes--just plain Marlboro cigarettes, the ones in the red package. Let's say that person would like to quit smoking, has tried to quit smoking a number of times, but just hasn't been successful. So instead of quitting outright, that person figures they will switch the type of cigarette they smoke to a cigarette that has the implied claim of being ``safer''--like a ``light'' cigarette or a ``mild'' cigarette or a ``low tar'' cigarette. Those cigarettes have not been found to be any safer? In fact, just the opposite has been discovered. In a 2001 National Cancer Institute publication, they wrote the following: The tobacco companies set out to develop cigarette designs that markedly lowered the tar and nicotine yield results as measured by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) testing method. Yet, these cigarettes can be manipulated by the smoker to increase the intake of tar and nicotine. The use of these ``decreased risk'' cigarettes have not significantly decreased the disease risk. In fact, the use of these cigarettes may be partly responsible for the increase in lung cancer for long-term smokers who have switched to the low- tar/low-nicotine brands. Finally, switching to these cigarettes may provide smokers with a false sense of reduced risk, when the actual amount of tar and nicotine consumed may be the same as, or more than, the previously used higher yield brand. So the products that tobacco companies develop and market as being ``safer'' are not safer. Rather than people quitting smoking entirely, they are often misled into thinking that the ``light'' or ``mild'' cigarettes that they switch to are better for them. In addition, people may begin to start smoking because they think some of these products aren't so bad for them--that the products have been made safer or better for them somehow and are okay to smoke. Tobacco companies are able to make these implied health claims about their products because they are not regulated. Consumers have no choice but to trust the tobacco companies to reveal the ingredients and marketing claims about their products. That is just absurd to me. These are all things that should be examined, reviewed, and commented on by the Food and Drug Administration to determine whether it is appropriate for these products to be marketed as ``reduced-risk'' products, so the public knows what they are choosing to consume. Tobacco advertising is in magazines and on billboards along the highway. Tobacco advertising is in convenience stores, along the aisles and at the checkout counter right beside the candy where children are likely to see it. Tobacco advertising is at sporting events, part of promotional items, where consumers can ``buy 1 get 1 free.'' Tobacco advertising is on the Internet and in the daily delivery of mail. Our bill would make changes regarding tobacco advertising. It would give the FDA authority to restrict tobacco industry marketing-- consistent with the First Amendment--that targets our children. Our bill would require advertisements to be in black and white text only and would define adult publication in terms of readership. An issue that is related to advertising and marketing of tobacco products has to do with the flavored tobacco products, which clearly target our children. We have probably all seen the flavored cigarettes--flavors like strawberry, chocolate, and wild rum. The scent of strawberry filters through the unopened pack of cigarettes. And guess what, the cigarettes smell like candy. A recent New York Times article described the scent of chocolate flavored cigarettes as if ``someone had lifted the lid on a Whitman Sampler.'' I can't speak for every parent, but I know my 8 grandchildren like candy, and they like the smell of chocolate, and they would be curious to try something that smells or tastes like candy. Cigarettes shouldn't be flavored and marketed in such a way to attract children and to encourage children to smoke. Our bill bans the use of flavors such as strawberry, grape, orange, clove, cinnamon, pineapple, vanilla, coconut, coffee and other flavorings that would attract children to the product. Despite the fact that 40 million Americans use tobacco products, many of them do not know what is inside the cigarette or the tobacco product they ingest. They do not know the ingredients or the constituents, like tar or nicotine, that are in the products they use. Consumers do not know what additives are included in the product. Additives like ammonia or urea, both of which may make the tobacco product more addictive because they increase the delivery of nicotine. Tobacco companies do not disclose the specific ingredients in their products because they don't have to. Tobacco products are unregulated. Our legislation would give consumers more information about what's in tobacco products. Specifically, the bill would provide the FDA with the ability to publish the ingredients of tobacco products. It would require a listing of all ingredients, substances, and compounds added by the manufacturer to the tobacco, paper, or filter. It would require a description of the content, delivery, and form of nicotine in each tobacco product. It would require information on the health, behavioral, or physiologic effects of the tobacco products. I think it is equally important that I mention what our bill does not do. Here are some of the areas where authority is not conferred to FDA: Our bill does not allow FDA to ban tobacco products or to eliminate nicotine from a tobacco product. The bill ensures that FDA will not have the power to use its ``performance standard'' authority to ban cigarettes, smokeless tobacco or any other category of tobacco products, or to reduce their nicotine yields to zero. Our bill does not allow FDA to establish a minimum smoking age higher than 18. The bill explicitly forbids FDA from establishing a minimum age higher than 18 years of age to purchase tobacco products. Our bill treats all tobacco retailers equally. Our bill specifically provides that FDA can't prohibit the sale of tobacco products in any particular category of retail outlet. Our bill forbids FDA from creating a more permissive set of advertising rules for adult-only establishments. This provision protects retailers and convenience store owners. Finally, I would like to make a comment about the tobacco farmers. There has been a lot of talk recently about the need for a buyout for our Nation's tobacco farmers. My colleagues, Senator McConnell and Senator Dole, have been working tirelessly to craft a buyout bill for tobacco farmers. They need a buyout--and the Congress should give them one. The Senate needs to pass the buyout, but the buyout needs to be passed along with this FDA bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues from the tobacco-growing states to make this happen. The bill that Senator Kennedy and I introduce today gives the FDA the authority to regulate a product that has gone unregulated for far too long--a product that for the past century has not revealed its ingredients to the consumer--a product whose manufacturing facilities are not inspected or accountable for following good manufacturing practices--a product that is never reviewed or approved before reaching the hands of 40 million consumers, many of whom are just children. Congress needs to put an end to this. Congress should put an end to the marketing of tobacco products to our children. Congress should put an end to the ability of tobacco companies to make claims, whether they are implied claims or direct claims, about their products. Congress should put an end to tobacco companies putting any ingredient they want into their products without disclosing it to the consumer. It is time Congress give the FDA authority to it needs to fix these problems. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Peace Corps Volunteers Health, Safety, and Security Act of 2004 be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, each day, we entrust our lives and the safety of our families, friends, and neighbors to the capable hands of the brave men and women in our local police departments. These individuals are willing to risk their lives and safety out of a dedication to their citizens and their commitment to public service. We ask local firefighters to risk no less than their lives, as well, every time they respond to an emergency fire alarm, a chemical spill, or as we saw on September 11, terrorist attacks. We ask them to risk their lives responding to the nearly 2 million reports of fire that they receive on an annual basis. Every 18 seconds while responding to fires, we expect them to be willing to give their lives in exchange for the lives of our families, neighbors and friends. One hundred firefighters lost their lives in 2002 in the line of duty, and nearly 450 lost their lives in 2001. The unyielding commitment these individuals have made to public safety surely deserves an equally strong commitment from the Federal Government. In 2000, Congress affirmed the value of having a properly trained, equipped and staffed fire service by passing the Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement (FIRE) Act--legislation that Senator Dodd and I introduced, along with Congressmen Pascrell, Weldon, and many others, on the House side. In the 4 years since the FIRE Act become law, fire departments have made significant progress in terms of filling the substantial needs outlined in the National Fire Protection Association's ``needs assessment.'' To date, Congress has appropriated nearly $2 billion for the FIRE Act program. Virtually every penny of that amount has gone directly to local fire departments through FIRE grants to provide firefighter personal protective equipment, training to ensure more effective firefighting practices, breathing apparatus, new firefighting vehicles, emergency medical services supplies, fire prevention programs, and other important uses. The direct nature of the FIRE Act grant program--funds literally go straight from the Federal Government to local fire departments--is an extremely important aspect of the law, particularly in light of the difficulties we are seeing with other homeland security grant programs getting money to flow directly to the intended recipients. FIRE Act grants are awarded based on a competitive, peer-review process that helps ensure that the most important needs are filled first and that funding will be used in an effective manner. I am proud to note that 86 of Ohio's 88 counties have received FIRE Act funding up to this point and that the fire service in my home State is much better prepared to respond to emergencies as a result. The bottom line is this: The FIRE Act program has proven to be an extremely valuable tool for fire-based first responders. The time has come to reauthorize this important legislation--to build upon the successes of the original FIRE Act and to refine the program where improvements can be made. Just as we did in 2000, Senator Dodd and I have come together, along with the support of several national fire service organizations, to introduce a bill to reauthorize the FIRE Act. Our bill focuses on four central themes. First, we take steps to make the grant program more accessible for fire departments serving small, rural communities and to eliminate barriers to participation faced by departments serving heavily populated jurisdictions. Second, we codify changes made in program administration since its transfer to the recently created Department of Homeland Security. Third, the bill increases the emphasis within the program on life-saving Emergency Medical Services and technologies. And fourth, we evaluate the program through a series of reports to help ensure that resources are targeted to the areas of greatest need. These priorities have been developed jointly with the fire service, and represent a means to strengthen the FIRE Act program for years to come. First, our new legislation would help the FIRE act program be more accessible for fire departments serving the very largest and smallest jurisdictions in America. Our experience over the past 4 years has been that a number of features in the program make participation difficult for departments serving these populations. Career fire departments, most of which serve populations well in excess of 50,000, have been receiving only a small percentage of the total grants thus far. After consulting with the fire service organizations, fire chiefs in my home State of Ohio, and officials administering the program at the Department of Homeland Security, we've found that there are two main reasons why this has been the case. First, matching requirements for large departments, currently fixed at 30 percent, have been particularly difficult to meet. Second, current law dictates that departments--whether they serve a large city, such as Cleveland and have numerous fire stations, or a small town, such as Cedarville, OH and have only one station--are eligible for the exact same level of funding each year: $750,000. These two elements of the current program have caused a number of large fire departments to forego applying for FIRE grants. With respect to smaller, often volunteer-based departments serving populations of 20,000 or less, budgets are often so limited that meeting the current match is simply not possible. Many of these departments struggle with even the most basic needs, such as having an adequate number of staff available to respond to a structure fire. Our bill addresses each of these problems in a simple and straightforward fashion. Specifically, the bill would reduce matching requirements by one third for departments serving communities of 50,000, and by the one half for departments serving 20,000 or fewer residents in order to encourage increased participation by these departments. The bill also would restructure caps on grant amounts to reflect population served, with up to $2,250,000 for departments serving one million or more, $1,500,000 for departments serving between 500,000 and one million, and $1,000,000 for departments serving fewer than 500,000 residents. Together, these two changes would go a long way toward increasing the accessibility of the program for the very largest and smallest departments in the United States. The second major component of our bill has to do with the transfer of the FIRE Act administration from the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). When FEMA's functions were transferred into the DHS, the FIRE grant program, along with the U.S. Fire Administration, also were transferred to DHS. As part of that transfer, formal administration of the FIRE grant program has been delegated to the Department to the Office of Domestic Preparedness (ODP), which oversees all DHS grant programs. While the U.S. Fire Administration--the real fire experts within the Federal Govenment--remains involved, we need to take steps to formalize the management of the program following the transfer to DHS. There are a number of reasons for solidifying program administration in law, chief among them being the ability of fire departments across our Nation to plan for the future, and the ability to ensure an ongoing role for fire experts in the process. First, our bill gives the Secretary of Homeland Security overall authority for the program. This just makes sense given the Secretary's current home within ODP. Additionally, the bill would codify in law practices currently in use by ODP--peer review by experts from national fire service organizations, a formal role for the U.S. Fire Administration, and collaborative meetings to recommend grant criteria. These steps would benefit the program for years to come and would help bring stability to the increasingly mature FIRE grant program. Perhaps more importantly, formalizing the role of the U.S. Fire Administrator and national fire service organizations would help resolve a fundamental tension between the mission of the FIRE Act program (to improve firefighting and EMS resources nationwide for all hazards) and the mission of its caretaker, ODP (to focus on terrorism prevention and response). It makes sense for ODP, as the central clearinghouse for grant program within DHS, to manage the FIRE grant program. Equally so, it makes sense to build features into the program which would help ensure that the FIRE grant program will remain dedicated solely to the fire and emergency medical services (EMS) communities and will not be diluted over time into a generic terrorism-prevention program. Our bill carefully strikes this balance. The third major focus of this reauthorization bill is on finding ways to improve safety and to save lives. We do this in a number of ways. First, we've teamed up with national fire service organizations to incorporate firefighter safety research into the fire prevention and safety set-aside program. This new research, supported by a 20 percent increase in funds for the prevention and safety set-aside, would help reduce the number of firefighter fatalities each year and would dramatically improve the health and welfare of firefighters nationwide. Second, we place an increased emphasis on Emergency Medical Services. In most communities, the fire department is the chief provider for all emergency services, including EMS. To illustrate this point, a 2002 National Fire Protection Association study indicates that fire departments received more than seven times as many calls for EMS assistance as they did for fires. When our family members, neighbors, and friends need immediate medical help, we turn to EMS providers, and we rely on this help to be as effective and timely as possible. It is our duty in structuring the FIRE grant program, then, to do everything we can to give EMS squads the assistance they need to carry out this important mission. Despite the overwhelming ratio of EMS calls to fire calls, the FIRE grant program has not adequately reflected the importance of EMS over the past few years, with about 1 percent of all grants going specifically for EMS purposes. While there is no question that a number of other grants have indirectly benefited EMS and that departments do invest their own money into this service, more can and should be done through the FIRE Act to boost our EMS capabilities nationwide. To accomplish this goal, we do a number of things in the reauthorization bill, including specifically including fire-based EMS professionals in the peer review process and allowing EMS grant requests to be combined with those for equipment and training. Additionally, we include language to incorporate independent, non- profit EMS squads into the FIRE grant program for the first time. While our work with national fire service organizations on this particular provision has been productive and is ongoing, its intent is clear--and that is to try to bring the emphasis within the FIRE grant program on EMS closer to the level of demand in the field for this life-saving service. I am pleased that we have this language in the bill and believe that through debate here in committee, and perhaps on the Senate floor, we can find an even better solution for increasing support for EMS. Third, we create a new incentive program within the FIRE Act that encourages departments to invest in life-saving automated external defibrillator (AED) devices. These devices are capable of dramatically reducing the number one cause of firefighter death in the line of duty--heart attacks. Our incentive program essentially says to fire departments that if you equip each of your firefighting vehicles with a defibrillator unit, we'll give you a one-time discount on your matching requirement. Congress has expressed, time and again, strong support for getting these devices out to communities through various grant programs. It is our hope that we can maintain that commitment by extending support for life-saving defibrillator technologies to fire departments across the country. Fourth, we eliminate a burdensome and unintended matching requirement for fire prevention grants. These grants generally go to non-profit organizations, such as National SAFE KIDS, to provide for fire safety awareness campaigns, smoke detector installations in low-income housing, and other important prevention efforts. Though no match was required in the first few years of the program, a recent legal opinion from the Office of Domestic Preparedness has reversed course and instituted a 10 percent match for grantees. This unanticipated requirement, which is extremely difficult for non-profits with limited capital, has had a debilitating effect on the prevention program and needs to be eliminated. Our bill does just that. Together, these common-sense features of our reauthorization bill would dramatically improve the safety of our communities, as well as the firefighters who bravely serve them. The fourth section of this reauthorization bill centers on a comprehensive review of the FIRE grant program. This review, to be conducted in part by the National Fire Protection Association, and in part by the General Accounting Office (GAO), seeks to evaluate the program with an eye toward ensuring that resources are targeted to the areas of greatest need. A similar study by the National Fire Protection association conducted shortly after passage of the initial FIRE Act was extremely helpful as far as identifying the nature of the fire service needs. Ultimately, this part of the bill is about making sure that the billions of taxpayer dollars authorized by this legislation are used in the most responsible and effective manner possible. Our bill is a good bill. It is comprehensive and collaboratively drafted with input from fire and emergency services experts from across the country. The National Safe Kids Campaign, the International Association of Fire Fighters, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the National Volunteer Fire Council, the International Association of Arson Investigators, the International Society of Fire Service Instructors, and the National Fire Protection Association, among others, all support our legislation. I am proud to introduce this bill with my friend and colleague from Connecticut and look forward to working to ensure that the Federal Government increases its commitment to the men and women who make up our local fire departments. We owe them and their service and dedication nothing less than our full support.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, each day, we entrust our lives and the safety of our families, friends, and neighbors to the capable hands of the brave men and women in our local police departments. These individuals are willing to risk their lives and safety out of a dedication to their citizens and their commitment to public service. We ask local firefighters to risk no less than their lives, as well, every time they respond to an emergency fire alarm, a chemical spill, or as we saw on September 11, terrorist attacks. We ask them to risk their lives responding to the nearly 2 million reports of fire that they receive on an annual basis. Every 18 seconds while responding to fires, we expect them to be willing to give their lives in exchange for the lives of our families, neighbors and friends. One hundred firefighters lost their lives in 2002 in the line of duty, and nearly 450 lost their lives in 2001. The unyielding commitment these individuals have made to public safety surely deserves an equally strong commitment from the Federal Government. In 2000, Congress affirmed the value of having a properly trained, equipped and staffed fire service by passing the Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement (FIRE) Act--legislation that Senator Dodd and I introduced, along with Congressmen Pascrell, Weldon, and many others, on the House side. In the 4 years since the FIRE Act become law, fire departments have made significant progress in terms of filling the substantial needs outlined in the National Fire Protection Association's ``needs assessment.'' To date, Congress has appropriated nearly $2 billion for the FIRE Act program. Virtually every penny of that amount has gone directly to local fire departments through FIRE grants to provide firefighter personal protective equipment, training to ensure more effective firefighting practices, breathing apparatus, new firefighting vehicles, emergency medical services supplies, fire prevention programs, and other important uses. The direct nature of the FIRE Act grant program--funds literally go straight from the Federal Government to local fire departments--is an extremely important aspect of the law, particularly in light of the difficulties we are seeing with other homeland security grant programs getting money to flow directly to the intended recipients. FIRE Act grants are awarded based on a competitive, peer-review process that helps ensure that the most important needs are filled first and that funding will be used in an effective manner. I am proud to note that 86 of Ohio's 88 counties have received FIRE Act funding up to this point and that the fire service in my home State is much better prepared to respond to emergencies as a result. The bottom line is this: The FIRE Act program has proven to be an extremely valuable tool for fire-based first responders. The time has come to reauthorize this important legislation--to build upon the successes of the original FIRE Act and to refine the program where improvements can be made. Just as we did in 2000, Senator Dodd and I have come together, along with the support of several national fire service organizations, to introduce a bill to reauthorize the FIRE Act. Our bill focuses on four central themes. First, we take steps to make the grant program more accessible for fire departments serving small, rural communities and to eliminate barriers to participation faced by departments serving heavily populated jurisdictions. Second, we codify changes made in program administration since its transfer to the recently created Department of Homeland Security. Third, the bill increases the emphasis within the program on life-saving Emergency Medical Services and technologies. And fourth, we evaluate the program through a series of reports to help ensure that resources are targeted to the areas of greatest need. These priorities have been developed jointly with the fire service, and represent a means to strengthen the FIRE Act program for years to come. First, our new legislation would help the FIRE act program be more accessible for fire departments serving the very largest and smallest jurisdictions in America. Our experience over the past 4 years has been that a number of features in the program make participation difficult for departments serving these populations. Career fire departments, most of which serve populations well in excess of 50,000, have been receiving only a small percentage of the total grants thus far. After consulting with the fire service organizations, fire chiefs in my home State of Ohio, and officials administering the program at the Department of Homeland Security, we've found that there are two main reasons why this has been the case. First, matching requirements for large departments, currently fixed at 30 percent, have been particularly difficult to meet. Second, current law dictates that departments--whether they serve a large city, such as Cleveland and have numerous fire stations, or a small town, such as Cedarville, OH and have only one station--are eligible for the exact same level of funding each year: $750,000. These two elements of the current program have caused a number of large fire departments to forego applying for FIRE grants. With respect to smaller, often volunteer-based departments serving populations of 20,000 or less, budgets are often so limited that meeting the current match is simply not possible. Many of these departments struggle with even the most basic needs, such as having an adequate number of staff available to respond to a structure fire. Our bill addresses each of these problems in a simple and straightforward fashion. Specifically, the bill would reduce matching requirements by one third for departments serving communities of 50,000, and by the one half for departments serving 20,000 or fewer residents in order to encourage increased participation by these departments. The bill also would restructure caps on grant amounts to reflect population served, with up to $2,250,000 for departments serving one million or more, $1,500,000 for departments serving between 500,000 and one million, and $1,000,000 for departments serving fewer than 500,000 residents. Together, these two changes would go a long way toward increasing the accessibility of the program for the very largest and smallest departments in the United States. The second major component of our bill has to do with the transfer of the FIRE Act administration from the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). When FEMA's functions were transferred into the DHS, the FIRE grant program, along with the U.S. Fire Administration, also were transferred to DHS. As part of that transfer, formal administration of the FIRE grant program has been delegated to the Department to the Office of Domestic Preparedness (ODP), which oversees all DHS grant programs. While the U.S. Fire Administration--the real fire experts within the Federal Govenment--remains involved, we need to take steps to formalize the management of the program following the transfer to DHS. There are a number of reasons for solidifying program administration in law, chief among them being the ability of fire departments across our Nation to plan for the future, and the ability to ensure an ongoing role for fire experts in the process. First, our bill gives the Secretary of Homeland Security overall authority for the program. This just makes sense given the Secretary's current home within ODP. Additionally, the bill would codify in law practices currently in use by ODP--peer review by experts from national fire service organizations, a formal role for the U.S. Fire Administration, and collaborative meetings to recommend grant criteria. These steps would benefit the program for years to come and would help bring stability to the increasingly mature FIRE grant program. Perhaps more importantly, formalizing the role of the U.S. Fire Administrator and national fire service organizations would help resolve a fundamental tension between the mission of the FIRE Act program (to improve firefighting and EMS resources nationwide for all hazards) and the mission of its caretaker, ODP (to focus on terrorism prevention and response). It makes sense for ODP, as the central clearinghouse for grant program within DHS, to manage the FIRE grant program. Equally so, it makes sense to build features into the program which would help ensure that the FIRE grant program will remain dedicated solely to the fire and emergency medical services (EMS) communities and will not be diluted over time into a generic terrorism-prevention program. Our bill carefully strikes this balance. The third major focus of this reauthorization bill is on finding ways to improve safety and to save lives. We do this in a number of ways. First, we've teamed up with national fire service organizations to incorporate firefighter safety research into the fire prevention and safety set-aside program. This new research, supported by a 20 percent increase in funds for the prevention and safety set-aside, would help reduce the number of firefighter fatalities each year and would dramatically improve the health and welfare of firefighters nationwide. Second, we place an increased emphasis on Emergency Medical Services. In most communities, the fire department is the chief provider for all emergency services, including EMS. To illustrate this point, a 2002 National Fire Protection Association study indicates that fire departments received more than seven times as many calls for EMS assistance as they did for fires. When our family members, neighbors, and friends need immediate medical help, we turn to EMS providers, and we rely on this help to be as effective and timely as possible. It is our duty in structuring the FIRE grant program, then, to do everything we can to give EMS squads the assistance they need to carry out this important mission. Despite the overwhelming ratio of EMS calls to fire calls, the FIRE grant program has not adequately reflected the importance of EMS over the past few years, with about 1 percent of all grants going specifically for EMS purposes. While there is no question that a number of other grants have indirectly benefited EMS and that departments do invest their own money into this service, more can and should be done through the FIRE Act to boost our EMS capabilities nationwide. To accomplish this goal, we do a number of things in the reauthorization bill, including specifically including fire-based EMS professionals in the peer review process and allowing EMS grant requests to be combined with those for equipment and training. Additionally, we include language to incorporate independent, non- profit EMS squads into the FIRE grant program for the first time. While our work with national fire service organizations on this particular provision has been productive and is ongoing, its intent is clear--and that is to try to bring the emphasis within the FIRE grant program on EMS closer to the level of demand in the field for this life-saving service. I am pleased that we have this language in the bill and believe that through debate here in committee, and perhaps on the Senate floor, we can find an even better solution for increasing support for EMS. Third, we create a new incentive program within the FIRE Act that encourages departments to invest in life-saving automated external defibrillator (AED) devices. These devices are capable of dramatically reducing the number one cause of firefighter death in the line of duty--heart attacks. Our incentive program essentially says to fire departments that if you equip each of your firefighting vehicles with a defibrillator unit, we'll give you a one-time discount on your matching requirement. Congress has expressed, time and again, strong support for getting these devices out to communities through various grant programs. It is our hope that we can maintain that commitment by extending support for life-saving defibrillator technologies to fire departments across the country. Fourth, we eliminate a burdensome and unintended matching requirement for fire prevention grants. These grants generally go to non-profit organizations, such as National SAFE KIDS, to provide for fire safety awareness campaigns, smoke detector installations in low-income housing, and other important prevention efforts. Though no match was required in the first few years of the program, a recent legal opinion from the Office of Domestic Preparedness has reversed course and instituted a 10 percent match for grantees. This unanticipated requirement, which is extremely difficult for non-profits with limited capital, has had a debilitating effect on the prevention program and needs to be eliminated. Our bill does just that. Together, these common-sense features of our reauthorization bill would dramatically improve the safety of our communities, as well as the firefighters who bravely serve them. The fourth section of this reauthorization bill centers on a comprehensive review of the FIRE grant program. This review, to be conducted in part by the National Fire Protection Association, and in part by the General Accounting Office (GAO), seeks to evaluate the program with an eye toward ensuring that resources are targeted to the areas of greatest need. A similar study by the National Fire Protection association conducted shortly after passage of the initial FIRE Act was extremely helpful as far as identifying the nature of the fire service needs. Ultimately, this part of the bill is about making sure that the billions of taxpayer dollars authorized by this legislation are used in the most responsible and effective manner possible. Our bill is a good bill. It is comprehensive and collaboratively drafted with input from fire and emergency services experts from across the country. The National Safe Kids Campaign, the International Association of Fire Fighters, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the National Volunteer Fire Council, the International Association of Arson Investigators, the International Society of Fire Service Instructors, and the National Fire Protection Association, among others, all support our legislation. I am proud to introduce this bill with my friend and colleague from Connecticut and look forward to working to ensure that the Federal Government increases its commitment to the men and women who make up our local fire departments. We owe them and their service and dedication nothing less than our full support.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I rise in support of S. Con. Res. 99, condemning the Government of the Republic of the Sudan for its participation and complicity in the attacks against innocent civilians in the impoverished Darfur region of western Sudan. I commend my fellow cosponsors of this resolution for taking this essential first step in addressing the dual crises in Sudan. We must condemn the Government of Sudan for its complicity in the human rights abuses and their gross failure to put an end to the current genocide. In addition to the gross human rights violations, we now face a humanitarian disaster. Over a million people are displaced and well over a hundred thousand have fled over the border to Chad. The Government of Sudan is only making matters more difficult by resisting, delaying, frustrating the work of humanitarian assistance groups, and the situation gets worse. Roads in the region are only accessible to the most sturdy of jeeps and trucks, and once the rainy season starts in just a couple of weeks, those roads will be wiped out, cutting off aid altogether. The clock is ticking. We certainly cannot control Mother Nature, so the world must act now. I believe there are a few essentials that we should do immediately. First, the United States must push the United Nations Security Council to authorize a stability and support operation under chapter VII to help stop the atrocities and help distribute humanitarian aid. I would also like to see an expansion of the civilian protection monitoring teams into the Darfur region. The Government of Sudan has had long enough time to stop the killing and facilitate the flow of aid. With the rainy season coming, we cannot tell the people of Darfur to give their government more time to comply. This may sound as if it is a radical step, but this step is needed. We should not be, and do not want to be, in the situation 6 months or a year or 2 years from now where we look back and say we should have taken this step--oh, if we only would have sent this U.N. force in; if we only would have sent these troops in we could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives--because that is the situation we are going to be in. We are going to look back and say, if we only would have acted, if the world only would have acted, these lives could have been saved. Why didn't we act? That is what has to take place. That, clearly, is what should take place. Second, I believe Congress should amend the Sudan Peace Act to require improvements in Darfur. We have the ability here in Congress to do that. Third, the United States should target sanctions against any members of the Sudanese Government found to be involved in these atrocities. We have done it in regard to other individuals in other governments in other countries. We should do it in regard to these individuals. We should make it very clear to them they will be held accountable. Finally, the international community must act now. We need a special session of the U.N. Human Rights Commission to appoint a special rapporteur for Sudan. The international community should also consider a special tribunal to investigate the atrocities. These steps form a broad outline of what must be done. We must work together with the administration in the coming days to iron out the details so we can move forward. The crisis is here, it is now, and this is what we must do. Clearly, this is a case of genocide, and the international community must face its moral responsibility to act.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, let me turn to another area in the world where there is another humanitarian crisis, and that is the country of Haiti. I will be very brief because I have come to the Senate floor many times before to talk about Haiti. Haitian Prime Minister Latortue was on Capitol Hill yesterday. I had the opportunity to meet with him. The majority leader and the Democratic leader met with him, as well as other Senators. The Prime Minister is a very impressive man. He is a man who faces a very difficult task in Haiti. The U.S. troops are scheduled to leave June 1 to be replaced with U.N. troops. I will not try to summarize the message from the Prime Minister, but two things he said were very important which I will share with my colleagues. First, the Prime Minister made a very strong case to the Members of the Senate whom he talked to for the passage of a bill Senator Dodd and I have introduced in the Senate, a bill that, according to the Prime Minister, within a relatively short period of time would help create an additional 100,000 jobs in Haiti, 100,000 jobs that are desperately needed. This is a trade bill Senator Dodd and I have introduced that is pending in the Senate. It has bipartisan support. There is a companion bill introduced by Congressman Clay Shaw in the House of Representatives. I again call my colleagues' attention to this bill and hope we can act on this bill this year. It is a bill that would restore the assembly jobs in Haiti. Haiti at one time had many assembly jobs. After the sanctions were imposed during the Clinton administration, these jobs basically went away. This bill will help restore these jobs. It will make a big difference for Haiti. The other point the Prime Minister made was the Haitian Government today is in desperate need of cash. They cannot even do little things such as get the electricity back on. I have talked to Mr. Noriega in our administration. I have talked to Secretary Colin Powell. Both are very sympathetic to what is going on in Haiti and the needs of the Haitian Government. Secretary Powell has assured me the administration is trying to reprogram money and to get additional money for Haiti. Everyone agrees and understands the urgent need for this money. I simply say to the administration, this money is desperately needed now. The new Haitian Government is struggling. They need to show the people of Haiti some immediate victories. If the people of Haiti are to have some confidence in this new Government, if they are to believe in this new Government, if they are to have confidence in the new Government, they have to see something tangible and they have to see it fairly quickly. I hope our administration will be able to reprogram some money, will be able to set some money aside and get that money to Haiti so this new Government will be able to show the people of Haiti some good faith, be able to show them some victories, and the people of Haiti will be able to see there is, in fact, some hope. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, how much time is remaining on our side?

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Training and Research in Urology Act--or the TRU Act. During my career in the U.S. Senate, I have supported the successful effort to double NIH research funding and have provided a strong voice for our children. This bill complements my past and continued efforts. It helps provide urologic scientists with the tools they need to find new cures for the many debilitating urologic diseases impacting men, women, and children. This legislation is important to my home State of Ohio and would impact positively many families in Ohio and nationwide who are afflicted with urologic diseases. Ohio is a leader in urologic research. Researchers at the Children's Hospital of Cincinnati, the Cleveland Clinic, Case Western Reserve, and Ohio State University have made great strides toward achieving treatments. The fact is that urologic conditions affect millions of children and adults. Urology is a physiological system distinct from other body systems. Urologic conditions include incontinence, infertility, and impotence--all of which are extremely common, yet serious and debilitating. As many as 10 million children--more than 30,000 in Ohio--are affected by urinary tract problems, and some forms of these problems can be deadly. At least half of all diabetics have bladder dysfunctions, which can include urinary retention, changes in bladder compliance, and incontinence. Interstitial Cystitis (IC), a painful bladder syndrome, affects 200,000 people, mostly women. There are no known causes or cures, and few minimally effective treatments. Additionally, there are 7 million urinary tract infections in the U.S. each year. Incontenence costs the healthcare system $25 billion each year and is a leading reason people are forced to enter nursing homes, impacting Medicare and Medicaid costs. Urinary tract infection treatment costs total more than $1 billion each year. Many urologic diseases, incontinence, erectile dysfunction, and cancer, increase in aging populations. Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in American men, and African-American men are at a greater risk for the disease. Medicare beneficiaries suffer from benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), which results in bladder dysfunction and urinary frequency. Fifty percent of men at age 60 have BPH. Treatment and surgery cost $2 billion per year. Research for urologic disorders has failed to keep pace. Further delay translates into increased costs--in dollars, in needless suffering, and in the loss of human dignity. Incontinence costs the healthcare system $23 billion each year, yet only 90 cents per patient is spent on research--little more than the cost of a single adult undergarment. In 2002, only $5 million of the $88 million in new initiatives from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) was designated to urologic diseases and conditions. Of that $5 million, no new initiatives were announced for women's urologic health problems. In 2001, we spent less than five cents per child on research into pediatric urologic problems. The medications currently used are very expensive and have unknown, long- term side effects. The TRU Act establishes a Division of Urology at the NIDDK--the home of the urology basic science program--and expands existing research mechanisms, like the successful George O'Brien Urology Research Centers. This will give NIH new opportunities for investment in efforts to combat and vanquish these diseases. This legislation is necessary to elevate leadership in urology research at the NIDDK. When the Institute was created in its current form nearly 20 years ago, Congress specifically provided for three separate Division Directors. Regrettably, the current statute fails to provide the NIDDK with the flexibility to create additional Division Directors when necessary to better respond to current scientific opportunities. This prescriptive statutory language is unique to the NIDDK. For example, the National Cancer Institute and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute do not have any statutory language regarding Division Directors. The basic science breakthroughs of the last decade are literally passing urology by. A greater focus on urological diseases is needed at the NIDDK and will be best accomplished with senior leadership with expertise in urology as provided in the TRU Act. This legislation is supported by the Coalition for Urologic Research & Education (CURE)--a group representing tens of thousands of patients, researchers and healthcare providers. I urge my colleagues to join me as cosponsors of the TRU Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Training and Research in Urology Act--or the TRU Act. During my career in the U.S. Senate, I have supported the successful effort to double NIH research funding and have provided a strong voice for our children. This bill complements my past and continued efforts. It helps provide urologic scientists with the tools they need to find new cures for the many debilitating urologic diseases impacting men, women, and children. This legislation is important to my home State of Ohio and would impact positively many families in Ohio and nationwide who are afflicted with urologic diseases. Ohio is a leader in urologic research. Researchers at the Children's Hospital of Cincinnati, the Cleveland Clinic, Case Western Reserve, and Ohio State University have made great strides toward achieving treatments. The fact is that urologic conditions affect millions of children and adults. Urology is a physiological system distinct from other body systems. Urologic conditions include incontinence, infertility, and impotence--all of which are extremely common, yet serious and debilitating. As many as 10 million children--more than 30,000 in Ohio--are affected by urinary tract problems, and some forms of these problems can be deadly. At least half of all diabetics have bladder dysfunctions, which can include urinary retention, changes in bladder compliance, and incontinence. Interstitial Cystitis (IC), a painful bladder syndrome, affects 200,000 people, mostly women. There are no known causes or cures, and few minimally effective treatments. Additionally, there are 7 million urinary tract infections in the U.S. each year. Incontenence costs the healthcare system $25 billion each year and is a leading reason people are forced to enter nursing homes, impacting Medicare and Medicaid costs. Urinary tract infection treatment costs total more than $1 billion each year. Many urologic diseases, incontinence, erectile dysfunction, and cancer, increase in aging populations. Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in American men, and African-American men are at a greater risk for the disease. Medicare beneficiaries suffer from benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), which results in bladder dysfunction and urinary frequency. Fifty percent of men at age 60 have BPH. Treatment and surgery cost $2 billion per year. Research for urologic disorders has failed to keep pace. Further delay translates into increased costs--in dollars, in needless suffering, and in the loss of human dignity. Incontinence costs the healthcare system $23 billion each year, yet only 90 cents per patient is spent on research--little more than the cost of a single adult undergarment. In 2002, only $5 million of the $88 million in new initiatives from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) was designated to urologic diseases and conditions. Of that $5 million, no new initiatives were announced for women's urologic health problems. In 2001, we spent less than five cents per child on research into pediatric urologic problems. The medications currently used are very expensive and have unknown, long- term side effects. The TRU Act establishes a Division of Urology at the NIDDK--the home of the urology basic science program--and expands existing research mechanisms, like the successful George O'Brien Urology Research Centers. This will give NIH new opportunities for investment in efforts to combat and vanquish these diseases. This legislation is necessary to elevate leadership in urology research at the NIDDK. When the Institute was created in its current form nearly 20 years ago, Congress specifically provided for three separate Division Directors. Regrettably, the current statute fails to provide the NIDDK with the flexibility to create additional Division Directors when necessary to better respond to current scientific opportunities. This prescriptive statutory language is unique to the NIDDK. For example, the National Cancer Institute and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute do not have any statutory language regarding Division Directors. The basic science breakthroughs of the last decade are literally passing urology by. A greater focus on urological diseases is needed at the NIDDK and will be best accomplished with senior leadership with expertise in urology as provided in the TRU Act. This legislation is supported by the Coalition for Urologic Research & Education (CURE)--a group representing tens of thousands of patients, researchers and healthcare providers. I urge my colleagues to join me as cosponsors of the TRU Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. As a former county prosecuting attorney, this is an issue about which I feel very strongly. All too often, our criminal justice system overlooks the victims of crime in efforts to ensure the legitimate rights of accused defendants. Crime victims simply have not been given the equal footing that they deserve. From start to finish, the legal system sometimes can be a terrible ordeal for victims--a bureaucratic nightmare that seems to and in fact many times does go on and on and on. We substantially protect the rights of defendants, as well we should. We ensure that they have every reasonable benefit--and that is good--so as to ensure the acquittal of the innocent. But, in the process, I believe that many times, we don't give the victims of crime the rights that they, too, deserve. When I was a county prosecutor in Greene County, OH in the 1970s I saw too many crime victims--people who had already been hurt--hurt a second time by a callous legal system. That is why I did everything that I could to protect the rights of those victims. Our bottom line has to be this: To be victimized once by crime is already once too often. To be victimized yet again by an uncaring judicial system is totally unacceptable. Accordingly, I am pleased to cosponsor this bipartisan legislation that will afford these victims, the fundamental right to participate in the criminal justice system. It just makes good sense for the innocent victim of a crime to be given the right to know if his or her assailant is released or escapes from prison. It is simply fairness to recognize a crime victim's right to reasonable notice of public proceedings involving the crime; the right to not be excluded from such public proceedings; and the right to be heard at the public release, plea, sentencing, reprieve, and pardon proceedings involving that victim's assailant. It's about time that we guarantee crime victims their rights to court decisions that duly consider their safety, their rights to have the courts avoid unreasonable delay in adjudicating those charged with harming them, and their rights to just and timely restitution from their offenders. This legislation is about victims. This legislation is about working to keep victims safe from further harm. This legislation is about keeping their concerns at the forefront. When I was Green County prosecuting attorney, I had seen the victims of murder and other terrible crimes. I interviewed people who had been abused, assaulted, and raped. I learned a lot from talking to these innocent people. I learned that we have to make the crime victim a full participant--not a forgotten person, not a neglected person--in the criminal justice system. That is why I cosponsored this bipartisan legislation. It is designed to help guarantee that the victims of crime have access to our criminal justice system. It is time to stop treating the victims like they are the criminals. Let's move the legitimate concerns of victims toward center stage in our criminal justice system and finally provide these innocent victims with the rights they deserve.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, shortly, we hope to be taking up S. 2290, the asbestos bill. I have come to the Senate this afternoon to talk a little bit about the legislation. It is a good bill. It is a bill that, quite frankly, needs to be passed. I believe our civil justice system generally works very well. Like many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I think our State and Federal courts are a vital part of our entire system of government. Our court system ensures a level of fairness and justice for our citizens that is second to none in the entire world. Our civil justice system works well when we let juries decide disputes between two individuals or a limited number of parties. It usually works well in class action cases with large numbers of individuals with similar injuries caused by one or a handful of defendants. But we all have to admit our justice system is not perfect. It doesn't always work. We all know our justice system has failed to deal with the asbestos crisis. I use the term ``crisis'' because that is exactly what it is. The system is not adequately protecting the rights of victims nor defendants. As things stand now, some victims are successful in getting jury verdicts that compensate them fairly. But many victims have no one to sue and receive perhaps 5 percent or 10 percent of the total value of their claims from asbestos bankruptcy trusts. That is not right. It is not fair. On the other extreme, some victims receive huge awards or settlements that are way out of proportion to their injuries. The bottom line is, more and more victims face a risk of never being compensated for asbestos-related illnesses at all, ever. It is our responsibility in the Senate to deal with this crisis. We must not wait any longer to act. I would like to take a moment to talk about why we have this asbestos crisis and why the courts are ill equipped to deal with it. First, the sheer volume of claims is staggering. So far through the year 2002--the last figures we have--730,000 individuals have made claims for asbestos exposure, and the most recent Rand study estimates that anywhere between 1 million and 3 million total individuals could make claims in the future. The second factor is the unusual nature of the illnesses caused by exposure to asbestos. As witnesses before the Senate Judiciary Committee testified, there is a long latency period between exposure to asbestos and the actual illness or impairment. People are exposed to asbestos for long periods of time and then don't show symptoms of illness for 25 or sometimes even 30 years. Not everyone exposed to asbestos ever gets sick, thank heavens. Yet our tort system requires a potential victim to file his or her claim for injury within a year or two from discovering the potential harm. What this means is the vast majority of people who are filing claims don't have any actual symptoms at that time, and many may not ever even get sick. Still they have to sue to protect their rights. Third, many of those who are exposed to asbestos feel compelled to sue immediately because the number of financially sound potential defendants is rapidly diminishing. Someone who has been exposed to asbestos, even if he or she has no symptoms, may decide to sue now or take the risk that nobody will be left to pay a claim down the road. Clearly, this system isn't meeting the needs of victims, and it also is causing tremendous problems for the business community. Candidly, asbestos liability is bankrupting many potential defendants as claims are now being brought against businesses that have a very remote connection to the manufacture of asbestos. So the impact of asbestos claims is overwhelming, not just to some of our Nation's largest companies but to our small businesses as well. As a consequence, tens of thousands of workers, people employed by these businesses, are, in fact, being affected. Thousands and thousands and thousands of people are being affected. Employees and their families who never had any exposure to asbestos are, in fact, feeling the effects in lost wages, and for many of them lost jobs. The impact in my State of Ohio is particularly severe. From 1998 to the year 2000, Ohio was one of the top five States in which asbestos litigants chose to file their suits. This is partly because Ohio is the home of many businesses that at one time or another used asbestos in products. It is also likely the result of a litigation strategy in which attorneys look for a court that has a history of allowing overly generous verdicts for claimants. This is known, of course, as forum shopping. But either way, literally thousands of companies have been named as defendants in our Ohio courts. Out of 8,400 firms that have been named as defendants nationwide, over 7,000 have been named in cases filed in Ohio. Of the 66 or so companies that filed bankruptcy because of asbestos-related liability, more than 20 of these companies are headquartered or have significant facilities in Ohio. Perhaps most important is the impact this has on jobs. More than 200,000 people worked for those bankrupt companies. Not every job was lost, but many were because of the bankruptcy and many employees were affected in other ways. It is simply devastating for an employee whose employer goes bankrupt--wages are cut, promotions are scaled back, and pension funds can be completely wiped out. Of course, many of these 200,000 employees are in Ohio. Let me be clear--I believe that companies should be held accountable for their conduct. I am concerned, however, about the many companies that now find themselves held responsible for the actions of other companies. These companies employ thousands of people and contribute to our economy and tax base. No one, including the victims of asbestos, is served by the closure or dramatic reorganization of these companies. With both victims and employers at risk, we have no choice but to enact a legislative remedy to address this problem. We need to do something that protects the rights of those harmed by exposure to asbestos and allows businesses at least to predict how much this crisis will cost. ``Predictability'' is the key word for business. The FAIR Act provides that protection and predictability--protection for the victims and predictability for business. Mr. President, I will respond to an ad campaign that paints the FAIR Act as nothing but a bailout for big companies that manufactured asbestos products. The ad includes some outrageous and indefensible quotes from asbestos company executives, and implies that Congress wants to bailout the companies that were the source of these quotes. I want to try to set the record straight. But first, I want to say that I would not, under any circumstances, vote to bailout any company that intentionally harmed its employees. However, this bill is not about releasing big asbestos companies from liability simply because there are virtually no companies left that manufactured asbestos. With one notable exception, they all went bankrupt. I'll talk about the exception in a moment, but let me tall you what the essential facts are with regard to asbestos manufacturing companies. Johns-Manville went bankrupt in 1982; 48 Insulations went bankrupt in 1985; Raymark went bankrupt in 1989; Celoteax went bankrupt in 1990; Eagle Picher went bankrupt in 1991; Armstrong World Industries went bankrupt in 2000; Babcock & Wilcox went bankrupt in 2000; Federal Mogul went bankrupt in 2001; Owens-Corning went bankrupt in 2000; U.S. Gypsum went bankrupt in 2001; and W.R. Grace went bankrupt in 2001. Some of these companies had a lot to answer for with regard to the asbestos exposure; others manufactured asbestos products before the dangers were known. We don't need to judge their culpability, however. They no longer exist as companies that must account for their conduct with regard to asbestos. And, most importantly, this bill has little effect on these companies. It is clearly not a ``bailout.'' Here's why. In an asbestos liability bankruptcy, a majority of the assets of the company are put into a trust fund to compensate asbestos claimants. I want to note here that traditional creditors, such as banks, suppliers, and stockholders are the minority creditors and often get mostly shut out of recovery all together. Please keep in mind that a company's stockholders often include the company's pension fund. This bankruptcy process eliminates all of a company's asbestos liability. If there is a ``bail out'' here, it is in the current bankruptcy code. The Johns-Manville Company is a perfect example of an asbestos manufacturing company gone bankrupt. For years, Manville produced a whole range of products containing asbestos and had as much as one half the market share for manufactured asbestos products. They were the subject of intense asbestos litigation and filed for bankruptcy in 1982. All the assets of Johns-Manville were sold years ago and the proceeds are in the Manville Trust. Johns-Manville as it existed pre- bankruptcy is long gone. The Manville Trust exists solely to compensate victims of asbestos exposure. In the real world, as it exists today, Johns-Manville's asbestos liability is limited to the assets which are held by the Manville Trust. Johns-Manville will never have to pay another dime for asbestos exposure, over what is currently in the trust. Under our bill, all the money in the Manville trust will be rolled into the national trust. Manville will not get a dime back; they will not save a single dime. And, they are not relieved from a single cent of their existing liability. This is true for all the asbestos manufacturing companies, which have gone bankrupt. My point is that the suggestion that this bill bails out big asbestos manufacturing companies is almost silly--there are virtually no ``asbestos'' companies left to bail out. And, I should note, the Manville Trust is currently paying claimants 5 cents on the dollar. So, the future victims of asbestos exposure whose only recourse will be against the Manville Trust do stand to benefit greatly by this bill. The truly sick individuals who only have claims against Manville will receive significantly more compensation under the national trust than they would from Manville. Now, I mentioned an exception a minute ago. There is one company that could be considered an asbestos manufacturing company. The company is a large and diversified manufacturer. But, it had a small division that made pipe that included asbestos up until 1958, when the pipe manufacturing division was sold. But, here is the key--to date, this company has paid more than $1.5 billion towards its asbestos liability--liability that is largely exhausted because it has not manufactured an asbestos product for 45 years. Nonetheless, under this bill, the company will pay hundreds of millions of additional dollars into the trust fund. Is this bill a ``bailout'' for this company? Clearly, it is not. Mr. President, in addition to protecting the victims of asbestos exposure, at issue in this bill are small and mid-size businesses which did not manufacture asbestos products. These are businesses that provide needed jobs to Americans across the country--businesses that are being driven to bankruptcy themselves due to the remotest of connections to asbestos. These are bankruptcies that will cost thousands of Americans their jobs and their pensions--bankruptcies that mean that fewer and fewer victims will receive compensation in the civil justice system. This is why the legal system is broken and why we need the bill before us to help fix it. Mr. President, I will talk about just one example from my State of Ohio. In my State, there is a medium-sized company that employs over a thousand hardworking Ohioans. Before the dangers of asbestos were known--when the industry standard was to use asbestos in a variety of products--this company sold a home repair product for do-it- yourselfers; the product was a drywall paste. This product was not used in big commercial applications. Professional contractors did not use this product. It was sold in local hardware stores to average Americans who wanted to do things such as patch nail holes in their own homes or maybe finish the inside of a garage. At its peak, this company had less than a 1-percent market share for this product and made less than $500,000 total. As soon as the dangers of asbestos were known, this company immediately stopped production of their product. I would like everyone to keep in mind that the majority of harm caused by exposure to asbestos is a result of occupational exposure which is individuals who routinely work with asbestos products on the job over a long and continuous period of time. It was unlikely that anyone had any occupational exposure to the product made by this Ohio company. Let's take these two important facts together. One, the product was not sold for use in commercial settings. By definition, then, an individual could not have been exposed to this product over time as part of his occupation and, two, a vast majority of asbestos-related diseases were only caused by occupational exposure over long periods of time. One would think this adds up to a pretty good defense in litigation. One would think this company should not fear defending themselves in court. One would think they would do OK in our civil justice system. Let me tell you what has happened over the last few years to this company. They have been named in over 4,000 lawsuits that include something like 15,000 individual claimants. The company has actually won all of the few cases it has tried. However, in most of these cases, they have a number of codefendants ranging from 6 to 20 or sometimes 30 in a single case. Sometimes these codefendants settle early on. Sometimes codefendants are bankrupt companies which were, in fact, bad actors when it came to asbestos. As litigation proceeds, this Ohio company finds itself in an extremely difficult position over and over. It may be one of three or four solvent defendants left in the case. Although it has a valid defense, other defendants may not have a good defense. The problem is, many States have something called joint and several liability. What that means is if a jury finds another defendant liable and grants a huge jury verdict and that liable defendant is bankrupt, our Ohio company is on the hook for the entire amount. So instead of taking a chance, the company I am talking about in Ohio figures it is in their best interest to settle. They settle over and over again in cases in which they have a legitimate, significant defense. In this example, this Ohio company has spent in excess of $175 million on asbestos litigation so far. They have a good defense. They have won 100 percent of the cases they have taken to trial. Yet they have spent $175 million on asbestos litigation. The Senate is not a court. We are not in a position to judge liability or nonliability of every defendant. I am not asking my colleagues to do this, but I can say this Ohio company seems to have an extremely good defense to liability, and a jury has said so several times. I doubt all manufacturers that have been named in lawsuits have such a good defense. So I want to make it clear that the last thing I want is for a company that is legitimately liable for causing someone harm to get off free. There is really no chance of that under this bill, and I want to make that clear. Under this bill, this Ohio company I described will be required to pay $450 million into a trust fund for people who have health problems caused by exposure to asbestos. That is $450 million in addition to $175 million already spent. That does not seem fair. It does not seem fair to them when they look at it. But this company and hundreds of others like it are willing to go along with this solution even though to them it does not seem fair. It does not seem fair to them when they look at it, but they are willing to do it because it is better than the status quo. It is better than the uncertainty they are facing today. It is going to be painful for the companies and their employees, but it is better than the uncertain future they face under the status quo today. I have heard from several Ohio companies that, frankly, are not happy about some of the provisions of this bill. If we can debate this bill in the Senate, I plan to work with Senator Hatch and others to make some additional refinements to the bill. Still, I anticipate that many businesses will be concerned that we have gone too far and demand they pay too much into the trust fund. But it is what must be done, I believe, to guarantee that American owned and operated companies have the certainty and predictability they need in dealing with their potential asbestos liability. Hopefully, we will save companies from the bankruptcies that cost jobs and pensions. I would like to conclude my remarks. I see my colleague from Tennessee is in the Chamber. I assure him I am wrapping up. I conclude my remarks by talking for a couple more minutes about the process that has led us to this point where we are actually debating whether to bring the asbestos reform bill to the Senate floor for debate. I have been working on and supporting efforts to deal with the asbestos crisis for most of my time in the Senate. A little over a year ago, my staff and I had numerous meetings to discuss the issue. I met with a lot of folks from Ohio who told me stories that the impact of the asbestos crisis had on them. These meetings were not only happening in my office, but were happening all over the Senate in Democratic and Republican offices alike. My colleagues had similar experiences. They were experiences with companies, but, frankly, they were also experiences with victims. We had a hearing in the Judiciary Committee in early March of 2003. Then I recall participating in a bipartisan asbestos summit which was organized by our friend and colleague, Senator Dodd. That occurred April 1 of last year. A large number of Senators on both sides of the aisle participated in that summit. Then for months, through the spring and summer, we all worked intensely, meeting and negotiating. A point came when we decided the best approach to solving this problem was to create a privately funded trust which would be managed by the Federal Government to compensate victims. This approach won out over the traditional-tort-reform-type approach that had been discussed previously. Some of my colleagues were not happy about that decision, and some outside businesses affected by asbestos were not happy about that decision either, but it was a compromise reached with the input of a number of Republican and Democratic Senators and with the input of industry and organized labor. Our staff and outside groups representing organized labor, big and small manufacturers, and insurers met and worked for dozens of hours on the structure of the fund, medical criteria, claims values, and funding. They worked on nights and weekends. I recall when my staff reported to me about progress in an intense all-day session on a sunny Saturday in June, which included representatives from the AFL-CIO, the Asbestos Study Group, the Asbestos Alliance, the American Insurance Association, and staff from Senator Leahy's office, Senator Kennedy's office, Senator Dodd's office, Senator Hatch's office, my office, and other offices as well. I recall we had another meeting in the Judiciary Committee in early June. I recall that we welcomed the attendance of other Senators who were not on the Judiciary Committee at that hearing. I believe Senator Dodd, Senator Carper, and Senator Murray attended some of the hearings. I know staff from many other Senate offices were there as well. My only point is this was a group effort, where virtually every Member of the Senate it seems like at one time or another has been involved. Negotiations continued behind the scenes. Every Senate office and every party was not at every single meeting. That would not have been impractical, if not impossible. Yet countless suggestions, and suggestions from Senators and outside parties, were included in the discussions and negotiations. Then in June 2003, the Judiciary Committee began marking up a draft bill which we formulated from the earlier discussions--and what a markup it was. It was an unbelievable time. I think it took place during 4 full days over the course of several weeks. I think we adopted 35 bipartisan amendments, many of them making significant changes to the bill. It is safe to say not a single Senator on the committee was entirely happy with the resulting bill we reported. While the final vote was not overwhelming, the process was bipartisan. Nobody got everything they wanted. In fact, we created a little bit of a mess. It is a large and complicated bill, and some of the amendments we adopted conflicted with others. Some of the amendments we adopted sounded very reasonable, but frankly did not withstand post-markup scrutiny. That is the way it works sometimes in the Senate. So the negotiations and redrafting started again, as often happens in large, complex bills. Again, many Senators from both sides of the aisle and outside parties submitted input into the process. Meetings took place on at least two or three different tracks. Senator Frist's office led staff negotiations that included representatives for Senator Daschle, Senator Hatch, Senator Leahy, Senator Specter, Senator Dodd, and others. Again everyone was not at every meeting. Many times more than one meeting was going on. It was not practical to have everyone who was interested in attendance at all times, but a range of political views was represented at these meetings. At the same time, Senator Specter convened a series of very important meetings with the help of retired Circuit Judge Becker. These comprehensive meetings involved stakeholders in the asbestos issue, many of whom I have mentioned earlier. These meetings continued up until last week, as I understand it. I have gone through this tedious history for one reason, to point out this bill is not a result of a single Senator's partisan effort to craft a biased asbestos reform bill. Anyone who thinks that just has not followed the laborious history of this bill. That is not the fact. That is not true. Thousands of hours have gone into creating this bill with input from all directions in this Senate. It is easy to say now, well, that was not or this was not put into the bill or that meeting was not attended or I was excluded from that meeting, or hundreds of other allegations that the process for this bill was insufficient or maybe not even fair. The fact is this has been a good process. I conclude by saying in fact the process that led to this bill was comprehensive, it was fair, it was bipartisan. I do not think we should use complaints about process as an excuse to vote against proceeding to debate on this bill. We should bring this bill to the floor. We have been through a long, laborious, and a good process. It has gotten us this far. If anyone would have said to me 2 years ago, 3 years ago, 18 months ago we would have been this far on this bill, I would have said, I do not think so; I do not think we can craft a bill that would be even this close. We have come a long way. First of all, we owe it to the victims who are still not being compensated, either at all or adequately, to craft this bill and to report a bill. We owe it to the victims to debate this and give it our best efforts on the Senate floor. Too much work has gone into this. We have come too far. We owe it to the workers who will lose their jobs if more companies have to declare bankruptcy or if more companies go out of business. We owe it to those companies, but most of all we owe it to the victims. So let's bring this bill to the floor. Let's give it the chance it deserves. We have put a great deal of effort in it. Let's do the right thing, bring this bill to the Senate floor. I thank my colleague from Tennessee for his indulgence. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I will take a few minutes today to report on the very shocking and troubling situation right here in our Nation's Capitol. I am speaking of the situation of the District of Columbia's juvenile detention center known as Oak Hill. Right before the Easter recess I visited the center. Also, as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, I held a hearing to review the operations of Oak Hill. Actually we held the hearing first. As a result of that hearing, I then made a point to personally visit Oak Hill. Based on what I saw at this juvenile facility and the testimony we heard at a hearing, it is clear to me Oak Hill is not meeting the needs of the children it serves, that the conditions there are abysmal to say the least, and this place simply needs to be shut down once and for all. At our hearing the inspector general for the District of Columbia released a comprehensive report about the situation at Oak Hill. Let me mention some of the more egregious deficiencies outlined in that report. First, illegal drugs such as marijuana and PCP were regularly smuggled into Oak Hill in the past. In some cases, youth correction officers in the past were the source of some of the illegal substances. That is a rather shocking thought, that the correctional officers were the sources of some of these illegal drugs actually coming into this juvenile detention facility. Substance abuse treatment contractors actually refused to renew contracts because Oak Hill was unable to stop the influx of drugs. They also found some youths entering Oak Hill drug free actually started taking drugs once they were inside the facility because they had easy access to drugs there. They also found the Youth Services Administration, which runs Oak Hill, wasted millions of dollars on contractors who did not provide any meaningful services or deliverables. During this hearing Senator Landrieu and I held, the director of the Public Defender Service of the District of Columbia testified the Youth Services Administration has failed to protect youths from harm while under its care. For example--this is a very sad story--last year a 12- year-old held at Oak Hill overnight, not accused of any crime, was placed in a room with two other children. This 12-year-old was sexually assaulted by one of the other youths. Several months later a 13-year-old was arrested and held at Oak Hill waiting for shelter space to be available. The 13-year-old was placed in a room with the same child who had committed the sexual assault before on the 12-year-old. Not surprisingly, another sexual incident occurred and there was another victim; this sexual predator had another victim. Furthermore, I understand this practice of assigning more than one child to a room has led to the commingling of status offenders, kids who are runaways or truants--commingling them with delinquent youth as well as detained committed youths. For example, these practices led to a child detained as a truant and a runaway being housed in the same room as a youth detained on charges of negligent homicide. That simply is not right. It is not good practice. It is not permitted and should not have been allowed. Amazingly, these are only the latest in a long list of deficiencies with the Youth Services Administration that stretches back at least 19 years. Indeed, it was 19 years ago this month the Public Defender Service filed a complaint against the District for failure to protect youth under its custody. Year after year, the city has fallen short of the court's ``Jerry M. Decree,'' which is the name of the court decree, and is now facing the prospect of being taken over by a court receiver. Equally amazing, some estimates are it costs nearly $90,000 a year to house a child at Oak Hill. But even more astounding than that is when I visited this facility a little over a week ago and asked the interim administrator and the interim special counsel from the Youth Services Administration who gave me the tour how much it cost to house a child there, they simply could not give me an answer. Their answer was they did not break out how much it cost to run Oak Hill from a total cost of the whole Youth Services Administration. I find that to be astounding frankly. They did not know. They could not give me a breakout so they couldn't tell us what Oak Hill cost to run a year and therefore obviously they couldn't tell us whether the $90,000-a-year figure, which is what we believe it costs to house a child there for a year, is an accurate figure. I visited many youth detention facilities in Ohio in my public career. I was Lieutenant Governor of the State of Ohio and had the opportunity to visit, I think, all of our juvenile facilities during the 4 years when I was Lieutenant Governor. I was a county prosecuting attorney. I learned a lot about these types of centers. I know what they do well and what they do not do well. I can tell you with certainty there are several things they are not doing very well at Oak Hill right now. The buildings are decrepit. They are falling apart. Important services such as substance abuse treatment programs are certainly piecemeal at best. Children who are detained and awaiting trial are commingled with those who are committed offenders. In fact, I learned one girl who was committed merely because she is a truant has been housed with committed delinquents since October. This, I understand, is in violation of the D.C. Code. What is particularly troubling is what happens sometimes is the teenagers who are in foster care or group homes run away because they are being victimized by other youths in the same home or they run away for other reasons. Once these children run away or are truant from school, for example, they are labeled delinquents and they are often picked up and sent to Oak Hill. So neglected youths who are failed by a broken foster care system now find themselves locked up and labeled juvenile delinquents and then are commingled in Oak Hill with dangerous delinquents at a place where they are currently able to get ready access to illicit drugs. What a horrible situation. The Federal Government contributes about $15 million annually to the District's Youth Services Administration, which administers Oak Hill. The YSA would be eligible for even more Federal funding if it had a qualified drug treatment program in place. A large number of the children at Oak Hill have a substance abuse problem. That should not surprise us. It is what I would expect. What I did not expect is to go to Oak Hill and find very little, if any, substance abuse treatment in place. In all fairness, when we went out there we were told substance abuse treatment was on the way, that a program was going to be started. But there was not much going on at all when we were there and there was a promise of something happening in the future. But that is what it was, a promise. Clearly, Congress has a vested interest in assuring the proper use of the money we provide. We have, more importantly, a moral interest in ensuring the proper treatment of youths at Oak Hill. After touring the facility and after hearing from expert witnesses and after reading the November 6, 2001, recommendation of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Youth Safety and Juvenile Justice Reform in the District, I believe Oak Hill should be closed. The children of the District of Columbia deserve better. The communities to which these youths will one day be returned deserve better. It is our duty to work hard to rehabilitate these young offenders who have, frankly, often been failed by their parents and, yes, overlooked by their communities. Not only do I recommend that Oak Hill be demolished, but I expect to see the Mayor develop a comprehensive plan afterward so the problems at Oak Hill are not repeated elsewhere. Just this past Thursday, Judge Dixon of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia found that the District is in contempt of court regarding Oak Hill having violated numerous provisions of the ``Jerry M. Decree.'' Because of this contempt finding, the city will be fined $1,000 per day and may be subject to additional sanctions. It is our hope these sanctions and this court order will push the city towards addressing the intractable problems at Oak Hill. As I have already stated, trying to fix this broken facility is, in my opinion, a waste of time and a waste of money and is futile. We have waited 19 years for improvements. Yet no one has stepped up to take the lead. If no one does, the problems at Oak Hill will continue. The blue ribbon commission recommended that Oak Hill be shut down. Judges have recommended that it be shut down. And now it is time for the District to step to the plate, take the lead, and shut this place down once and for all. Let me make one final comment in conclusion. When I was the Governor of Ohio, I visited every juvenile facility and every adult facility in Ohio. I don't pretend to be an expert in this area, but I think I know something about it. What has happened at Oak Hill over the last few years is that the District knows the place eventually is going to be closed. So every problem they see, they look at it and they say, Well, there is no reason to put money into fixing this problem or to fix that problem. So it keeps getting worse and worse. It is sort of like a house you know you are going to bulldoze down in a few months, and you are not going to fix anything. Yet the District, for some inexplicable reason, does not have the will to shut this place down--to pull the plug and say enough is enough. After touring this facility, I am saying enough is enough. It is not fair to the kids who are being sent out there. It is not fair to the employees who have to work out there. And it is not fair to the taxpayers to continue to put money into this facility. This facility has to be shut down. The District has to move forward. It is in the best interests of the children of the District of Columbia to do so. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.