Mike DeWine

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.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I recognize World Health Day, which is celebrated every year on April 7 in order to bring awareness to a specific health issue of global significance. This year, the World Health Organization has selected ``Road Safety'' as the theme for World Health Day. Road safety is an imperative public health challenge that needs to be addressed. Every year, nearly 1.2 million people die in motor vehicle crashes worldwide and an estimated 10 to 15 million people are injured. In the United States, nearly 43,000 people die each year from motor vehicle crashes, making auto fatalities the number one killer of those between the ages of 4 and 34. Despite these already tragic and staggering statistics, some experts predict that motor vehicle fatalities will double by the year 2020, thus becoming the third greatest global health challenge, jumping from its current ranking of ninth. The goal of World Health Day 2004 is to raise public awareness of traffic safety in hopes of reducing these motor vehicle fatalities and injuries worldwide. Wearing a seat belt continues to be the most effective means of reducing the risk of death in a crash and the implementation of a national primary seat belt law could save thousands of lives each year. Other important traffic and vehicle safety actions, such as greater consumer awareness of vehicle safety, stronger emphasis of safety with regard to vehicle design, stronger driver education programs, and the identification and disclosure of dangerous roads and intersections would greatly improve road safety and save lives. We have made some progress on these important issues here in the Senate, but we have a long way to go. I would like to thank the World Health Organization, AAA, the Pan- American Health Organization, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and other important organizations all over the world that have worked tirelessly to confront this global epidemic of motor vehicle fatalities. Their work is saving lives.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I join my colleagues today in congratulating my friend and colleague, my neighbor from West Virginia, for his great accomplishment today but, more importantly, for his great service in the Senate. When I first came to the Senate, I did what many of my colleagues have done, and that is I paid a visit to my colleague from West Virginia. I went into his historic office. He was kind enough to give me the books he has written about the Senate and was kind enough to autograph his books. Those books will always be a great treasure for me to keep. But they have not just been something that has been in my bookcase; they are something I can pull down to then read the history of the Senate. What wonderful books they are, what wonderful references, what wonderful stories they tell about the Senate. That is so because my colleague is not only a great Senator, he is a great historian. We are reminded of that many times when he comes to the Senate floor. Not only does he have a great institutional memory from his many years of the Senate, but because of his reading not only about the United States and the U.S. Senate, but because of his great love of history, he can put what we do in the United States in its historical perspective. As the new Members of the Senate, we take turns presiding over the Senate. One of the great benefits of doing that is to sit in the Presiding Officer's chair, as my colleague is doing now, and we have the opportunity to listen to our colleagues. I have had the opportunity, many times, to listen to Senator Byrd. I can remember many times listening to his speeches. Sometimes it was his great annual speech on Mother's Day, sometimes a speech on the U.S. Constitution, or a speech on whatever legislation is in front of us, or about the history of the Roman Senate or, as my colleague from Illinois has said, a speech about a pending resolution. It didn't matter what it was, it was always something for us to think about, always something for us to ponder and meditate on. Senator Byrd, thank you for your service and thank you for causing us to think. Whether we agree with you or not on every matter, you always make us think. That is the job of the Senate. As you referred a moment ago to this great deliberative body, you make sure that we are that, you make sure we continue to be that great deliberative body. I thank you for that.

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

Mr. DeWINE. Certainly, I yield.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I wish to talk this afternoon about a bill that my colleagues, Senator Kohl, Senator Grassley, Senator Feingold, Senator Specter, Senator Schumer, Senator Leahy, Senator Coleman, and I are introducing, which is called the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act of 2004. We are introducing this bill to address the longstanding problem of foreign governments acting in the commercial arena to fix, allocate, and establish production and price levels of petroleum products. Every consumer in America knows that gasoline prices have reached record highs over the last couple of weeks. The national average has reached a new record high for self-serve unleaded gas. That is approximately $1.80 per gallon. But over the last week in my home State of Ohio gas prices have been even higher. In Marietta, gas was $1.84; in Cleveland, $1.86; in Columbus, it topped out at $1.88 in some stations. Many analysts predict that prices could get as high as $2 per gallon, or higher, by the summer. This is of particular interest to me because Ohio and the Midwestern States always seem to be hit especially hard by gas prices spikes. These spikes are acutely painful to persons who commute long distances and to those who live on fixed incomes such as the elderly. What is the cause? Certainly there are many causes, but as we might expect, there are a number of factors at play. But there is surprising agreement among industry experts about the primary cause of high gas prices and that is the increase in imported crude oil prices. We also know the biggest factor in setting crude oil prices is OPEC. The unacceptably high price of imported crude oil is a direct result of collusive agreements among OPEC nations to maintain the price of oil. Despite the fact that gasoline prices are going through the roof, OPEC members met yesterday in Austria and decided to cut the output of oil even further. We have been through this process more than enough to know what that means for the American consumer. When demand is high and supplies are cut, that obviously means higher prices. That is exactly what OPEC did to us yesterday. It ripped off American consumers by raising gas prices even more. this is an outrage. In fact, OPEC is probably the most notorious example of an illegal cartel in the world today, even at a time when it is widely understood that such conduct is counterproductive and ill- suited for our global economy. Supreme Court Justice Scalia in a recent case described collusion among competitors as ``the supreme evil of antitrust.'' Nation after nation has adopted antitrust enforcement principles that recognize the illegality of price fixing and output restrictions among competitors. In 1998, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, then composed of twenty-nine member nations, issued a formal recommendation denouncing price fixing. OPEC's continued actions, in ongoing defiance of American and international antitrust principles, should not be tolerated. Until now, however, OPEC has effectively received special treatment under U.S. antitrust laws--despite the fact that oil is a commodity that touches the lives of nearly every American consumer. It is time that we take steps to assure that oil is subject to the principles of the free market. The bill that we are introducing today would do just that and help in the fight to lower gas prices. Senator Kohl and I have introduced this bill twice before--in 2000 and 2001. It is an idea whose time has come. The purpose of our NOPEC bill is simple--it would treat OPEC like any other cartel. If OPEC were a group of private companies colluding on prices, the executives could be prosecuted and sent to jail, and the firms would pay millions of dollars in fines or maybe even billions in fines. Unfortunately, however, for years enforcement has been constrained by two related court opinions. In 1979, a Federal District Court found that OPEC's price-setting decisions were ``governmental'' acts and accordingly that they were given sovereignty status and protected by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Subsequently, in 1981, a Federal Court of Appeals declined to consider the appeal of that antitrust case based on the so- called ``act of state'' doctrine. NOPEC would effectively reverse these decisions by making it clear that OPEC's activities are not protected by sovereign immunity and that the Federal courts should not decline to hear such a case based on the ``act of state'' doctrine. As a result, under NOPEC, the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission could bring a legal antitrust enforcement action against foreign states engaging in the restraint of trade regarding oil and other petroleum products. Simply put, NOPEC assures that our U.S. antitrust agencies have jurisdiction and authority to bring such cases. We don't intend to give up the fight for lower gasoline prices. Today, I want the members of OPEC to hear a message loud and clear--we won't quit fighting for American consumers. When OPEC wants to do business with America, it must abide by our antitrust laws. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the Dana Corporation, a fine Ohio company celebrating a very important milestone--100 years of quality service as one of the world's chief automotive suppliers. The Dana Corporation, headquartered in Toledo, OH, develops automotive parts and systems that have truly revolutionized the automotive industry. I would like to take just a few moments to tell my colleagues in the Senate about this Ohio company and how much of an impact it has made in my home State. Back in early 1904, a young engineering student named Clarence Spicer received a patent for developing the first feasible universal joint to power an automobile. With this one invention, Clarence Spicer forever changed the way automobiles operated by changing the drive mechanism from chain to joint operated. It was from these early insights and humble circumstances that the Dana Corporation was born. The company gained standing and financial prosperity under the leadership of businessman, attorney, politician, and financier, Charles Dana. Under his leadership, the company began to grow in technology, production, and geographic reach. Today, the Dana Corporation employs at least 28,000 Americans. In Ohio, alone, the company employs 3,151 people in 22 different facilities. They are world renowned for their research and production of drive shafts and axles; engine cradles, full-body frames, brake and chassis products, including suspensions and steering products; heat exchangers, valves, and coolers; and bearings and sealing products. Their dedication and insight have helped move some of history's greatest vehicles--from the Model T and World War II- era Jeep to London taxicabs, 18-wheel rigs, giant earth-moving machines, and every car on the NASCAR racing circuit. I commend the Dana Corporation for its century of success and wish the company and all of its employees continued success in producing and manufacturing high-quality automotive supplies.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I wish to talk this afternoon about a bill that my colleagues, Senator Kohl, Senator Grassley, Senator Feingold, Senator Specter, Senator Schumer, Senator Leahy, Senator Coleman, and I are introducing, which is called the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act of 2004. We are introducing this bill to address the longstanding problem of foreign governments acting in the commercial arena to fix, allocate, and establish production and price levels of petroleum products. Every consumer in America knows that gasoline prices have reached record highs over the last couple of weeks. The national average has reached a new record high for self-serve unleaded gas. That is approximately $1.80 per gallon. But over the last week in my home State of Ohio gas prices have been even higher. In Marietta, gas was $1.84; in Cleveland, $1.86; in Columbus, it topped out at $1.88 in some stations. Many analysts predict that prices could get as high as $2 per gallon, or higher, by the summer. This is of particular interest to me because Ohio and the Midwestern States always seem to be hit especially hard by gas prices spikes. These spikes are acutely painful to persons who commute long distances and to those who live on fixed incomes such as the elderly. What is the cause? Certainly there are many causes, but as we might expect, there are a number of factors at play. But there is surprising agreement among industry experts about the primary cause of high gas prices and that is the increase in imported crude oil prices. We also know the biggest factor in setting crude oil prices is OPEC. The unacceptably high price of imported crude oil is a direct result of collusive agreements among OPEC nations to maintain the price of oil. Despite the fact that gasoline prices are going through the roof, OPEC members met yesterday in Austria and decided to cut the output of oil even further. We have been through this process more than enough to know what that means for the American consumer. When demand is high and supplies are cut, that obviously means higher prices. That is exactly what OPEC did to us yesterday. It ripped off American consumers by raising gas prices even more. this is an outrage. In fact, OPEC is probably the most notorious example of an illegal cartel in the world today, even at a time when it is widely understood that such conduct is counterproductive and ill- suited for our global economy. Supreme Court Justice Scalia in a recent case described collusion among competitors as ``the supreme evil of antitrust.'' Nation after nation has adopted antitrust enforcement principles that recognize the illegality of price fixing and output restrictions among competitors. In 1998, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, then composed of twenty-nine member nations, issued a formal recommendation denouncing price fixing. OPEC's continued actions, in ongoing defiance of American and international antitrust principles, should not be tolerated. Until now, however, OPEC has effectively received special treatment under U.S. antitrust laws--despite the fact that oil is a commodity that touches the lives of nearly every American consumer. It is time that we take steps to assure that oil is subject to the principles of the free market. The bill that we are introducing today would do just that and help in the fight to lower gas prices. Senator Kohl and I have introduced this bill twice before--in 2000 and 2001. It is an idea whose time has come. The purpose of our NOPEC bill is simple--it would treat OPEC like any other cartel. If OPEC were a group of private companies colluding on prices, the executives could be prosecuted and sent to jail, and the firms would pay millions of dollars in fines or maybe even billions in fines. Unfortunately, however, for years enforcement has been constrained by two related court opinions. In 1979, a Federal District Court found that OPEC's price-setting decisions were ``governmental'' acts and accordingly that they were given sovereignty status and protected by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Subsequently, in 1981, a Federal Court of Appeals declined to consider the appeal of that antitrust case based on the so- called ``act of state'' doctrine. NOPEC would effectively reverse these decisions by making it clear that OPEC's activities are not protected by sovereign immunity and that the Federal courts should not decline to hear such a case based on the ``act of state'' doctrine. As a result, under NOPEC, the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission could bring a legal antitrust enforcement action against foreign states engaging in the restraint of trade regarding oil and other petroleum products. Simply put, NOPEC assures that our U.S. antitrust agencies have jurisdiction and authority to bring such cases. We don't intend to give up the fight for lower gasoline prices. Today, I want the members of OPEC to hear a message loud and clear--we won't quit fighting for American consumers. When OPEC wants to do business with America, it must abide by our antitrust laws. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like to commend the Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe, on the passage of her amendment to increase the mandatory funding levels for the Child Care and Development Fund by $6 billion over 5 years. I enthusiastically support this amendment, as it is designed to help so many families with young children by ensuring that those children are properly cared for while their parents are at work. Unfortunately, we know that more than 10 million children in the United States are left unsupervised after school on a regular basis. We know that the welfare rolls have been cut nearly 60 percent since 1996, and therefore, this statistic will only continue to grow as more and more parents work. Further, with cuts in State childcare funding, many working families are faced with no care for their children due to waiting lists and higher childcare costs. But, with the passage of this amendment, my home State of Ohio alone would receive over $34 million in additional childcare funds next fiscal year and more than $266 million over the next 5 years. This translates into more children receiving care and more parents with the peace of mind that their children are being properly attended to while they cannot be at home. Again, I commend Senator Snowe for her leadership on this issue. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today we have an opportunity to reach out to the least developed country in the Western Hemisphere--we have an opportunity to reach out to the island nation of Haiti. I am pleased to join Senators Graham of Florida, Lugar, Baucus, Chafee, Dodd, Voinovich, and Nelson of Florida in introducing the Haiti Economic Opportunity Act of 2004. I also would like to thank Representative Shaw, as well as our other House cosponsors, for their support of this bill. Our bill would use trade incentives to encourage the post-Aristide government to make much needed reforms, while encouraging foreign direct investment--the most powerful, and yet underutilized, tool of development. The bill's provisions apply the least developed country provisions of the African Growth and Opportunity Act, AGOA, to Haiti-- the least developed country in our Hemisphere. Specifically, our bill would provide duty-free entry to apparel articles assembled in Haiti contingent upon Presidential certification that the new government is making significant political, economic, and social reforms. The bill also caps the amount of duty-free articles at 1.5 percent of the total amount of U.S. apparel imports, growing to 3.5 percent over 7 years. Currently, Haiti accounts for less than one-half of 1 percent of all U.S. apparel imports, and although these provisions seem modest by U.S. standards, in Haiti they are substantial. The enactment of this legislation would promote employment in Haitian industry by allowing Haiti to become a garment production center again. Haiti has a labor advantage that makes it competitive compared to other countries in the region, and at one time several years ago over 100,000 people were employed in assembly jobs. Now, that number stands at just 30,000, and regional and global economic conditions are quickly converging to eliminate any chance of Haiti reestablishing a foothold in the garment production market. Our window of opportunity to act expires at the end of the year, when quotas are phased out of the global market for textiles and apparel, and countries, such as China, are allowed to fully enter the market. In addition, Haiti has been largely left out of the Central American Free- Trade Agreement negotiations, gaining only small concessions for coproduction with the Dominican Republic. These concessions are necessary but far from sufficient for creating jobs. I have traveled to Haiti 13 times, and there is no doubt that Haiti needs this opportunity. No other nation in our hemisphere is as impoverished. Today, at least 80 percent of all Haitians live in abject poverty, with at least 80 percent under- or unemployed. Per capita annual income is less than $400. No other nation in our hemisphere has a higher rate of HIV/AIDS. Today, AIDS is the No. 1 cause of all adult deaths in Haiti, killing at least 30,000 Haitians annually and orphaning 200,000 children. No other nation in our hemisphere has a higher infant mortality rate or a lower life expectancy rate. And, no other nation in our hemisphere is as environmentally strapped. Haiti is an ecological disaster, with a 98-percent deforestation level and extreme topsoil erosion. Despite this, U.S. assistance has reached its lowest level in over a decade. This needs to change. Haiti is in our backyard, inexorably linked to the United States by history, geography, humanitarian concerns, the illicit drug trade, and the ever-present possibility of waves of incoming refugees. Haiti's problems are our problems. In an environment such as this, foreign assistance is not enough to create economic opportunities, promote development, and reverse these dire conditions. Economic development is the answer, bringing with it lower unemployment, increased infrastructure development, and spillover effects for the rest of Haiti's population. This bill is not the ``silver bullet'' for Haiti, because there is no silver bullet. Rebuilding Haiti is going to require time, attention, and determination on the part of the people of Haiti, the countries in the region, and ultimately the entire international community. This bill would be a powerful indicator that Haiti has the support necessary to move forward. I encourage all of my colleagues to cosponsor this important piece of legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today we have an opportunity to reach out to the least developed country in the Western Hemisphere--we have an opportunity to reach out to the island nation of Haiti. I am pleased to join Senators Graham of Florida, Lugar, Baucus, Chafee, Dodd, Voinovich, and Nelson of Florida in introducing the Haiti Economic Opportunity Act of 2004. I also would like to thank Representative Shaw, as well as our other House cosponsors, for their support of this bill. Our bill would use trade incentives to encourage the post-Aristide government to make much needed reforms, while encouraging foreign direct investment--the most powerful, and yet underutilized, tool of development. The bill's provisions apply the least developed country provisions of the African Growth and Opportunity Act, AGOA, to Haiti-- the least developed country in our Hemisphere. Specifically, our bill would provide duty-free entry to apparel articles assembled in Haiti contingent upon Presidential certification that the new government is making significant political, economic, and social reforms. The bill also caps the amount of duty-free articles at 1.5 percent of the total amount of U.S. apparel imports, growing to 3.5 percent over 7 years. Currently, Haiti accounts for less than one-half of 1 percent of all U.S. apparel imports, and although these provisions seem modest by U.S. standards, in Haiti they are substantial. The enactment of this legislation would promote employment in Haitian industry by allowing Haiti to become a garment production center again. Haiti has a labor advantage that makes it competitive compared to other countries in the region, and at one time several years ago over 100,000 people were employed in assembly jobs. Now, that number stands at just 30,000, and regional and global economic conditions are quickly converging to eliminate any chance of Haiti reestablishing a foothold in the garment production market. Our window of opportunity to act expires at the end of the year, when quotas are phased out of the global market for textiles and apparel, and countries, such as China, are allowed to fully enter the market. In addition, Haiti has been largely left out of the Central American Free- Trade Agreement negotiations, gaining only small concessions for coproduction with the Dominican Republic. These concessions are necessary but far from sufficient for creating jobs. I have traveled to Haiti 13 times, and there is no doubt that Haiti needs this opportunity. No other nation in our hemisphere is as impoverished. Today, at least 80 percent of all Haitians live in abject poverty, with at least 80 percent under- or unemployed. Per capita annual income is less than $400. No other nation in our hemisphere has a higher rate of HIV/AIDS. Today, AIDS is the No. 1 cause of all adult deaths in Haiti, killing at least 30,000 Haitians annually and orphaning 200,000 children. No other nation in our hemisphere has a higher infant mortality rate or a lower life expectancy rate. And, no other nation in our hemisphere is as environmentally strapped. Haiti is an ecological disaster, with a 98-percent deforestation level and extreme topsoil erosion. Despite this, U.S. assistance has reached its lowest level in over a decade. This needs to change. Haiti is in our backyard, inexorably linked to the United States by history, geography, humanitarian concerns, the illicit drug trade, and the ever-present possibility of waves of incoming refugees. Haiti's problems are our problems. In an environment such as this, foreign assistance is not enough to create economic opportunities, promote development, and reverse these dire conditions. Economic development is the answer, bringing with it lower unemployment, increased infrastructure development, and spillover effects for the rest of Haiti's population. This bill is not the ``silver bullet'' for Haiti, because there is no silver bullet. Rebuilding Haiti is going to require time, attention, and determination on the part of the people of Haiti, the countries in the region, and ultimately the entire international community. This bill would be a powerful indicator that Haiti has the support necessary to move forward. I encourage all of my colleagues to cosponsor this important piece of legislation. 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 Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 25, 2004, for a joint hearing with the House of Representatives' Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to hear the legislative presentations of the National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs, AMVETS, American Ex-Prisoners of War, the Vietnam Veterans of America, and the Military Officers Association of America. The hearing will take place in room 345 of the Cannon House Office Building at 10 a.m.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 25, 2004 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Economic Policy of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 25, 2004, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on ``National Flood Insurance Repetitive Losses.''

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 25, 2004, at 2:30 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on National security space programs, and management, in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2005.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 25 at 2:30 p.m. to receive testimony regarding the following bills: S. 1085, a bill to provide for a bureau of reclamation program to assist states and local communities in evaluating and developing rural and small community water supply systems, and for other purposes; S. 1732, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish a rural water supply program in the reclamation states to provide a clean, safe, affordable, and reliable water supply to rural residents: S. 2218, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish a rural water supply program in the reclamation states to provide a clean, safe, affordable, and reliable water supply to rural residents and establish guidelines for projects and for other purposes; S. 1727, a bill to authorize additional appropriations for the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978; and S. 1791, a bill to amend the Lease Lot Conveyance Act of 2002 to provide that the amounts received by the United States under that act shall be deposited in the reclamation fund, and for other purposes.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, March 25, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., on Cable Rates.

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

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE. I object.

Mr. DeWINE. I yield to the Senator from Utah.

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

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to address my concerns about the amendment my friend and colleague from Washington, Senator Murray, has offered to the underlying bill. First, let me commend my colleague for her passion, for her dedication to promoting public awareness about domestic violence, and for her dedication to this cause. She certainly is a tireless advocate in these efforts to help end domestic abuse. She is steadfast and unwavering in her commitment to these issues, and I applaud her for offering this amendment today. But, reluctantly, I come to the floor this afternoon to oppose this amendment. I say this not because I am opposed to all the provisions of her amendment, but because the reality is this is not the time or the place for this amendment. Her amendment being offered to this bill, as a practical matter, does not have any chance of becoming law. We understand how not only this body but the other body operates. The truth is, what the agreement to this amendment would do is stop the underlying bill. When we look at the calendar, when we look at the reality of the other body, when we look at what is going on in this body, the agreement to this amendment to this bill will stop this bill. It will kill this bill. So when Members come to the floor, I implore them to think about this, however tempting it might be to agree to this amendment. It is a very big amendment. It is a very complex amendment. Some of my other colleagues in just a moment will talk about the merits of this amendment. I am not going to get into that. I have a long history in the House, when I was in the House and later when I was Lieutenant Governor of Ohio, and now in the Senate, of supporting the cause of dealing with the problem of domestic violence. So many other Members of the Senate have done that as well. I don't say I am the only one. Other Members have had a great record. My colleague has a great record. But the reality is this amendment, however well intended, cannot become law this way. It will not become law this way, and it will have the effect of killing this underlying bill. So, therefore, I must oppose this amendment. This amendment would kill this bill. We are so close to seeing the underlying bill, a bill we have worked so hard to pass, actually go to the President. The House has passed it. We are very close to passing it here in the Senate and sending it on to the President for his signature. The only thing, frankly, that now stands between this bill becoming law and going to the President for his signature is the Murray amendment. At this point, I will yield time to my colleague from the State of Utah for his comments about this amendment.

Mr. DeWINE. We are getting close to the end of this debate. I think there are just a few points about this amendment I would again like to stress. One is this whole debate today has nothing at all to do with abortion. I talked about that. I will not belabor the point. We have made that clear in the language we have written. It is set down in the precedent of States that have passed similar legislation. It has not had anything to do with abortion. If Members of the Senate truly believe what the vast majority of the American people believe, and that is there are two victims, then they have to turn down the well-intended Feinstein amendment. The Feinstein amendment tries to provide for enhanced penalties. I believe it is clear, from what I have spelled out a few moments ago, she has failed to do that, that there are no enhanced penalties. Even if there were, it is a contortion of the law and logic to deny the fact that when a pregnant woman is violently attacked and she loses her child, for the law to say we refuse to recognize there is a second victim, and that is what the Feinstein amendment, unfortunately, says. The Feinstein amendment denies the fact there is a second victim. We have heard on the Senate floor today, time and time again, these horrible stories that Senator Feinstein and I--our hearts go out to these victims. Everyone's heart does. But how can we say to these families that these children who were lost, sometimes the grandchildren who were lost, were really not, in the eyes of the law, victims? In the eyes of everyone else in society they are victims. Shouldn't the law also recognize them as victims? That is what we are saying with our bill. Unfortunately, the Feinstein amendment denies them that. I reserve the remainder of my time.

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