Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a very important environmental issue, not just to my home State of Ohio, but to our entire Nation, and that issue is the protection of our Great Lakes. These lakes are a natural treasure that hold one-fifth of the world's freshwater, produce $2 billion per year in fish, and provide drinking water to 33 million people. Yesterday, the GAO released a report on the progress of cleanup in polluted Areas of Concern. These Areas of Concern, or AOCs, are sites in the Great Lakes that do not meet water quality goals. Many years ago, the United States and Canada identified 44 AOCs in the Great Lakes and agreed to a cleanup process. In my home State of Ohio, there are four AOCs, the Maumee River, the Ashtabula River, the Black River, and the Cuyahoga River. These areas suffer fish and wildlife consumption restrictions, fish and wildlife reproductive problems and deformities, algal blooms, restrictions on drinking water consumption, and beach closings. These environmental problems need to be addressed as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, cleanup has been very slow. The GAO report found that the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, has failed to take oversight responsibility, Federal funding has declined steadily over the years, and States have abandoned the cleanup process. These results are disturbing to say the least. This is why Senator Levin and I, as Co-Chairs of the Senate Great Lakes Task Force, are introducing a bill today that would authorize $50 million per year in grants to States for the cleanup of Areas of Concern. Cleanup work includes monitoring and evaluating sites, remediating sediment, and preventing further contamination. This legislation would authorize the EPA to conduct research and development of innovative approaches, technologies, and techniques for the remediation of sediment in the Great Lakes and would authorize the Great Lakes National Program Office to carry out a public information grant program to provide information about the contaminated sediments, as well as activities to clean-up the site. Finally, as the GAO report recommends, our bill would require the EPA to submit a report to Congress on the actions, time periods, and resources that are necessary for the EPA to oversee the Remedial Action Plans at Areas of Concern. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and honor an international commitment to protect a truly great natural resource. We must honor our commitment to future generations and do all we can to protect the Lakes for our children and grandchildren. We owe it to them.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, over the last couple of weeks during the debate on this trade bill we have heard arguments for and against trade promotion authority, the Andean Trade Preference Act, and trade adjustment assistance. Many of the arguments have focused, and I think rightfully so, on the impact of those issues on American jobs and on the American economy. American workers and the American economy benefit from free and open trade. Granting the President trade promotion authority will greatly help to facilitate open trade. It will help our economy and it will help jobs. Today, I would like to focus on another benefit of the passage of this legislation. I would like to talk about the benefit to our foreign policy, to our national security. A top priority in our foreign policy must be to promote freedom, peace, and stability in the world and particularly in this hemisphere, the Western Hemisphere. Last year, a Dallas Morning News editorial put it very well. Here is what they said: In the post September 11 world, free trade is not just good economic policy. It is also good foreign and security policy. We, as a nation, stand to lose or gain depending on the economic health and security of our neighbors. A strong, a free, and prosperous Western Hemisphere means a strong, free, and prosperous United States. That prosperity depends in large part on free and fair trade. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan told Soviet Premier Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall. It was a symbol of repression, keeping freedom and prosperity out of Eastern Europe. Today, we need to destroy another wall, a wall that prohibits the free and fair trade that Ronald Reagan envisioned for not just the people of Eastern Europe but for all of the world. I am talking, of course, about the tariffs, quotas, the lack of trade agreements that are really bricks in the walls that surround all countries. We must work to eliminate those barriers while also negotiating free trade agreements so our Nation has reciprocal access to these foreign markets. Such efforts are key foreign policy steps that can effectively counter poverty, disease, and tyranny. From an economic point of view, business in the developing world struggles to survive for a multitude of reasons. During my 15 years in the House and Senate, I have traveled across many poverty-stricken and disease-ridden parts of the world. My wife Fran and I have seen the destitution, devastation, and desperation in which millions and millions of men, women, and children live. I believe we have both the ability and the obligation to help these suffering people. In addition to foreign aid, to foreign assistance, increasing our trade relationship with these countries will help promote economic freedom and growth. I cannot tell you how many foreign leaders I have met--I know my other colleagues have also met--who say do not be concerned about foreign assistance to us. What we really need is access to your markets. What we really need is the opportunity to sell the goods that we can produce to the American people. Tear down the artificial barriers. That is the best assistance that you can give us. So in addition to helping us, it helps them and ultimately helps our vision of the world, which is a world filled with countries that are Democratic and that have developing middle classes. Statistics show that when developing countries engage in international trade and investment, they develop and grow faster than closed economies. Trade agreements open up markets. It cuts poverty and advances the cause of economic and political liberty. The sad fact is the United States has underutilized trade to the detriment of our Nation and our trading partners, particularly in our own hemisphere. Right now, the United States is only party to 3 of the more than 130 bilateral and free trade agreements in this area--that is right, only 3. The European Union, on the other hand, has had free trade agreements with 27 nations. Mexico, our Nation's and my home State of Ohio's second leading trading partner, has secured 25 such agreements just since 1994. Providing our President trade promotion authority is a chance for us to, once again, show our leadership in this area. Many foreign leaders have expressed this frustration, that the agreements they sign with the United States, frankly, could get bogged down in Congress. So without trade promotion authority, it is difficult, if not impossible, for our President to conclude the agreements that we so desperately need. That is why this bill must pass and we must send it on to the President. Few foreign leaders candidly will be inclined to invest their time or effort in working out agreements that may be radically altered by Congress. At best, the administration's ability to negotiate bilateral free trade accords will be seriously hampered. We need to remember that trade promotion authority is not a new concept. Our Presidents were granted this authority almost continuously from 1974 to 1994 when the authority lapsed and was not renewed. We also should remember that under the provisions of TPA, the President is required to consult with congressional committees and to notify Congress at major stages during trade negotiations. And we also should remember that Congress retains the ultimate authority, of course, to approve or disapprove the final trade agreement. By granting trade promotion authority, we are not abdicating control of our Nation's trade policy. On the contrary, we in Congress are helping our Congress to lead. Many of my colleagues have spoken very eloquently about why the President needs trade promotion authority. And they have provided statistics showing how increased trade will help open markets and provide job opportunities right here in the United States in every sector of our economy. They have argued further that the President needs TPA in order to strike the best deals for American workers, for families, for farmers, and for business men and women. They have shown that trade promotion authority represents the vital partnership between Congress and the executive branch. These are all important points, and they are all valid. They all illustrate how free and fair trade agreements, accomplished through the exercise of trade promotion authority, are important for the United States. They are correct. But as we have seen, free trade also benefits developing countries, and this is important to the United States. For example, for most of the 20th century, Mexico had closed itself off from international trade and capital flows by setting up currency controls and trade barriers. Only with the Latin American debt crisis of the 1980s did Mexico slowly begin to open its economy to global trade and investment. Then with NAFTA the payoffs to Mexico's economy and workers were certainly very real. Between 1993 and 1999, Mexico climbed from 26th place to 8th place among the world's largest exporters, and in recent years Mexico's exports fueled growth rates of 4 percent. Free trade also has enhanced Mexico's overall stability, and the involvement of U.S. businesses has positively influenced both labor conditions and environmental quality in Mexico. Due to increased competition, domestic firms in Mexico increasingly are forced to compete with foreign-owned businesses and joint ventures by offering better working conditions and higher pay. The situation in Mexico is not perfect and the results so far are uneven, but overall there has been improvement. Meanwhile, U.S. production methods and technology are demonstrating to Mexican business that it is possible to be both profitable and environmentally responsible. The Mexican Government has actually strengthened its environmental regulations and enforcement procedures since NAFTA has been in place, and this, of course, benefits the United States, particularly the area along our southern border. Ultimately, the example of Mexico demonstrates that free trade is not only in Mexico's best interest, but it is also in our best interest as well. If we in the United States care about the illegal drugs that are coming into our country across our southern border, if we care about immigration problems, if we care about other issues of political and economic stability, then we want our neighbors to be peaceful democratic nations. It is in our national interest. It is in our national interest to see a Mexico, to see a Central America, to see the rest of this hemisphere be democratic, to see people have opportunities, to have a chance for the future. It is important for someone who has a family in Central America or Mexico to think they have the opportunity to feed that family and not have to make the very difficult, tough, and illegal decision to come to the United States and cross our border. It is in our interest for Mexico to develop, and one of the best ways is through fair trade. What is true of Mexico is also true with the rest of the hemisphere. That is why it is important this legislation pass. Some of the strongest evidence of the benefits of free trade is over the past couple of decades developing countries have been opening their markets voluntarily. Even some of the most traditionally closed economies are abandoning protectionism in favor of freer trade. The World Trade Organization's own history illustrates this trend. Established in 1948, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the precursor to the WTO, had only 23 contracting parties, most of which were industrialized countries. Today more than three-quarters of the WTO's 144 members are developing nations. Of the 49 countries designated as least developed by the United Nations, 30 have become members of the WTO, 9 are eagerly awaiting coming in, and 2 are WTO observers. The world of trade, economics, and international development is, of course, extremely complex, and it is hard to narrow things down to a direct cause-and-effect relationship, but, for most people, the benefits of free trade can be boiled down to one key point: Trade does spur economic growth and growth raises living standards. There is an undeniable relationship between growth rates and economic freedom, including the freedom to conduct international transactions, and research supports this. One study found that developing countries with open economies grew by an average of 4.5 percent per year in the 1970s and 1980s, while those with closed economies grew by only .7, less than 1 percent. Other studies have concluded that nations with relatively open trade regimes grew roughly twice as fast as those with relatively closed regimes. According to a recent report of Africa, East Asia, South Asia, and Latin America, were each to increase their share of world exports by just 1 percent, the resulting gains in income would lift 128 million people out of poverty. The $70 billion that Africa alone would generate is approximately five times the amount it gets through aid and debt relief. If developing countries as a whole increase their share of world exports by just 5 percent, this would generate $350 billion, seven times as much as they receive in aid. It is important that we now, more than ever, provide the President trade promotion authority. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask that my time be taken off the time of those in favor of the motion.

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

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, as the trade debate in the Senate gets underway, I rise to talk about some of the important issues involved in this debate and the vital role trade plays in our Nation's foreign policy and, really, in the health of our overall economy. The trade legislation before us represents a tremendous opportunity, an opportunity for the United States to demonstrate its leadership in hemispheric and world trade. The sad fact is that over the last decade, the United States has not led in this area. Of the more than 130 bilateral and free trade agreements worldwide, the United States is party to just three. The European Union, on the other hand, has free trade agreements with 27 countries. Mexico, the United States and my home State of Ohio's second leading trade partner, has negotiated 25 agreements in the past 8 years--25 compared to our 3. Quite simply, we have underutilized trade as a tool in foreign policy; I believe to the detriment of our Nation and our neighbors within the Western Hemisphere. It is in our national interest to be surrounded by stable democracies. When we trade with our Latin American neighbors, we are helping them economically, which in turn helps maintain internal stability, peace, and democratic reform. It is also beneficial to the United States to trade within our hemisphere because if we don't, other nations and their businesses will take our markets. No country is waiting for us to act first. In the end, the longer we wait to pursue more free trade opportunities in our hemisphere and around the globe, the more we stand to lose. Take, for example, my home State of Ohio. The future of our economy is linked in part at least to our ability to send our products overseas. When given the chance, Ohio's business men and women and Ohio's farmers can and do compete effectively on the world stage. Just listen to these figures: Ohio exported more than $28 billion worth of manufactured goods. In fact, one in every five manufacturing jobs in the State is tied to exports. In most years, one-third to one-half of Ohio's major cash crops in the agricultural field--corn, wheat, soybeans--is found in markets and meals outside our own country. Look beyond Ohio to our entire hemisphere. With a combined gross domestic product of more than $10 trillion, which encompasses 800 million people, trade with our hemispheric neighbors represents vast opportunities. These are opportunities we simply must not ignore. Right now, Europe, Asia, and Canada are all securing their economic fortunes throughout Latin America by trading with the Mercosur, a powerful trading block consisting of Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay. As of now, the Mercosur countries are the EU's largest trading partners. Two-way trade between the EU and the Mercosur totaled $43 billion in the year 2000. That is compared to $38 billion from the United States in the Mercosur. The EU currently imports five times more from the Mercosur than the United States does. Between 1990 and 1998, the total value of trade flows between the Mercosur and the EU increased almost 125 percent. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the EU is not going to sit idle and let the United States gain much of a new market share in this region. In fact, just last Friday, in Brussels, the EU was working to finalize a free trade agreement with Chile. Earlier this month, the EU set out its strategy for negotiating new economic partnerships with Africa, the Caribbean, and Pacific countries. And as we speak, the EU's trade commissioner is in Mexico addressing the EU's relationship with Mexico, almost 2 years after the free trade agreement they entered into went into effect. This is the hemisphere in which we live. Those should be our markets. To lose them through neglect would be a truly shameful outcome for our country. The bill before us this afternoon, the Andean Trade Preference Act, would renew but also enhance our commitment to helping the Andean region: Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia. It would help them, but it also would help us. It would help them to develop economic alternatives, for example, to drug crop production. The Andean Preference Act expired on December 4, 2001. The law provides preferential, mostly duty-free treatment on selected U.S. imports from the region. The countries of the Andean region certainly need our help, and we need their help. For the past 10 years, the Andean Trade Preference Act has helped the United States and these four countries develop legitimate, strong, and expanding commercial ties. Between 1991 and 1999, total two-way trade nearly doubled between our countries. During this same time period, U.S. exports grew 65 percent, and U.S. imports from these countries increased by 98 percent. In 1999, a severe economic recession in the region did, in fact, curb U.S. exports, but U.S. imports continued to grow by 17 percent. U.S. imports to Colombia during this same time increased 155 percent since ATPA was enacted. The Colombian flower industry is a prime example of how U.S. trade policy can support important economic benefits both in Colombia and here at home and at the same time provide jobs and income to people so they do not feel the necessity to become involved in the drug trade. In 1965, Colombia exported just $20,000 worth of flowers to the United States. Today, these exports total nearly $600 million. The flower industry generates 75,000 direct jobs in Colombia, jobs that offer year-round stability and health and retirement benefits, not to mention a legitimate economic alternative to elicit drug production. The Colombian industry also directly generates 7,000 U.S. jobs. Indirectly, even more jobs are created, with U.S. supermarkets employing more than 24,000 people in their flower departments, and U.S. flower shops employing nearly 125,000 people. We also have substantially increased our exports to the Andean region. Under ATPA, our exports have gone up by 84 percent, to $6.6 billion in the year 2000. Despite these gains, ATPA must be expanded. NAFTA and the Caribbean Basin Initiative have changed the playing field and have created a competitive disadvantage for Andean countries. For example, most Caribbean apparel enters the United States duty free, while Andean apparel enters with a 14-percent duty. We also must remember that ATPA is about more than just trade. This is an issue of national security. The stability of the Western Hemisphere is at stake. Open markets are absolutely vital for developing nations to overcome poverty and create opportunity. Fragile economies place peace and democracy at risk. With aid, with trade, and with democracy, we can foster peace among our neighbors. It is in our national interest to pursue an aggressive trade agenda in the Western Hemisphere, to combat growing threats and promote prosperity. Free markets and open trade are the best weapons against poverty, against disease, against tyranny and, yes, against the drug dealers. For example, if Africa, Asia, and Latin America were each to increase their share of world exports by just 1 percent, it would lift 128 million people out of poverty, with all the consequences that would have. Tariff barriers on products from the Third World are more than four times higher than those encountered by richer nations. Such barriers cost poor countries approximately $100 billion a year. That is twice as much as these nations receive in foreign aid. Tariff barriers on products from the Third World are more than four times higher than those encountered by richer nations. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of renewing and expanding the Andean Trade Preference Expansion Act. It is the right thing to do for our neighbors and for our businesses at home. It is the right thing for our country.

Mr. DeWINE. The Senator is speaking in favor of the motion.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I yield to my colleague from North Dakota.

Mr. DeWINE. I yield for a question.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to discuss a critically important issue in our hemisphere--the growing problem of HIV/AIDS in the Caribbean and Latin America. Today, there are an estimated 420,000 individuals living with HIV/ AIDS in the Caribbean, and another 1.4 million living with the disease in Latin America. In Haiti alone, roughly 1 out of every 10 people has HIV/AIDS. Yet despite these staggering numbers and despite the fact the highest prevalence of HIV/AIDS--outside of Sub-Saharan Africa--exists right in our own backyard, this region of the world is often forgotten, and the people who suffer there because of AIDS are often forgotten. While, understandably, much attention has been focused on the great tragedy caused by the disease in Sub-Saharan Africa--and we should never forget it--I think it is also important that we also focus our efforts on combating this disease in our own hemisphere. That is why I want to call attention to a historic, day-long meeting held just last week in Georgetown, Guyana. While it received very little attention in the media, on April 20, senior U.S. and Caribbean health officials, including Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, met in Guyana to sign a new Pan-Caribbean agreement against HIV/AIDS. I commend Secretary Thompson, Secretary Powell, and President Bush for their leadership and follow through in making this vision a reality. Last week's meeting and subsequent agreement represents an unprecedented new partnership to fight the disease in the region. As part of this new agreement, the U.S. and Caribbean nations have pledged to improve collaborative efforts to make sure people living with HIV/ AIDS, and those at risk, have good access to prevention and treatment services. As Secretary Thompson said: This will be an equal partnership--a sharing of technical know-how and experiences. As part of this partnership, Secretary Thompson has pledged greater in-country collaboration with officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Health Resources and Services Administration. These efforts will complement recently announced initiatives by the U.S. Agency for International Development to provide almost $162 million in new funding over the next 5 years to help countries in the Americas and worldwide expand HIV/AIDS prevention, patient care, and HIV/AIDS mitigation programs. This is in addition to the $20 million the United States is currently providing in HIV/AIDS funding to Latin America and the Caribbean under the Bush administration's Third Border Initiative. These are all important steps in the right direction toward developing an integrated approach to combat this devastating disease. I urge my colleagues to share my support for these initiatives and to work with me to secure greater U.S. contributions for these international efforts in the future--through the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, as well as other bilateral assistance programs. To borrow Secretary Colin Powell's words: Our response to this crisis must be no less comprehensive, and no less relentless, than the AIDS pandemic itself. Mr. President, this is something that we need to work harder on in the United States, in Africa, in the Caribbean, and throughout the world--wherever people suffer from AIDS. I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, during these Days of Remembrance, to remind my colleagues about those who perished, but also those who persevered, in the unimaginable atrocities of the Holocaust. Through remembering the Holocaust and teaching generation after generation about the atrocities that occurred over 60 years ago, we can help ensure that such tragedies do not repeat themselves. General Dwight D. Eisenhower recognized this long ago. After visiting the Ohrdruf concentration camp in 1945, General Dwight Eisenhower arranged for mass witnessing of the camps by military, press reporters, and photographers. ``Let the world see,'' ordered Eisenhower. He realized that the world must bear witness to the atrocities of the Holocaust, and that it was necessary to teach our children about what had happened. To help make sure that future generations continue to learn about and remember the Holocaust, my friend and colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, and I introduced a bill last week, called the ``Holocaust Education Assistance Act.'' Our new bill would authorize two million dollars for grants to schools and school districts to develop a curriculum that teaches our students about the Holocaust, the triumph of the Jewish people, and all who helped them persevere. At the same time, it is also important to teach our children about the thousands of individuals, both Jewish and non-Jewish, who took a stand against the persecution and killing of innocent people. I am reminded today of an obituary I read in the New York Times a couple of years ago, of a man named Jan Karski, who was one of the first to stand up to the injustice of the Holocaust. I am reminded of the role he, and many others, played in our modern history. He had a unique view of an appalling and shameful era of history. Let me explain. During World War II, Jan Karski brought Allied leaders in the West-- at no small risk to his own life--what is believed to be the first eyewitness reports of Hitler's indescribable acts of hate and cruelty against the Jews. In 1942, Jewish resistance leaders asked Jan, then a 28-year-old courier for the Polish underground, to be their voice to the West--to convey to the Allies an actual eyewitness account of the genocide in Europe. He readily accepted this dreadful task, because he knew that someone had to tell the world exactly what was happening in Europe. Though he succeeded in relaying the nightmarish stories to Western leaders, his reports were met initially by indifference. While many others would eventually confirm Jan's horrifying accounts of the Jewish concentration camps and the Warsaw Ghetto in Poland, he was one of the first, and one of very few, to take action against these atrocities. We are discovering that Jan was not the only witness to the slaughter of innocent civilians by Nazi Germany. We are learning more about the atrocities of the Holocaust through thousands and thousands of pages of previously classified material about Nazi war criminals, persecution, and looting. This information is being made available by a dedicated group of individuals, both in government and in the private sector, who are working hard to declassify these important pieces of history. This effort is the result of the ``Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act'' legislation passed and signed into law with the help of my friends and colleagues from New York, Senator Patrick Moynihan and Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney. The documents that are now public can serve as tools for education, to teach our children the horrors of the Holocaust, so that it will never be repeated. Jan Karski persevered, but for the rest of his life, he carried the sights, the sounds, the smells, and the sadness of the Holocaust with him. Karski, himself, once said: ``This sin will haunt humanity to the end of time. It does haunt me. And, I want it to be so.'' Jan Karski wanted us all to be haunted by the Holocaust. He wanted us never to forget. He devoted his life to ensuring that such inhumane horror would be present forever in our collective conscience, so that we, above all else, would never let this dark chapter in our history ever, ever repeat, itself. To understand the Holocaust is to remember the lives of those who perished and those who resisted, to remember, ``always remember,'' as Jan would say, what their sacrifices meant, and still mean, for our world. Stories such as Jan Karski's should never be forgotten and the way to ensure that is through education.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my friend and colleague, Senator Voinovich, to introduce legislation that would temporarily suspend the import duty on Dichlorobenzidine, DCB. DCB is a chemical used to produce organic pigments for printing ink. It is reacted with other materials to form various yellow organic pigments. These yellow pigments are used extensively by the printing ink industry because yellow is one of the three primary colors used in printing and is used in nearly all color printing applications. DCB also is used to produce certain red and orange pigments. The U.S. printing ink industry is facing increasingly aggressive competition from low-cost foreign producers. Despite its widespread use, DCB is no longer produced in the United States and is unlikely to be produced here in the foreseeable future. Domestic manufacturers of synthetic organic pigments must import all of the DCB required for their production of yellow pigment. These imports are currently subject to high duties despite the fact that there is no longer a domestic DCB industry to protect. Our duty suspension bill would help U.S. producers remain competitive in the global market, and it would remove unnecessary costs on U.S. pigment, ink, and printing industries and on millions of consumers of printed products. Though our bill is quite simple, its effects would be widespread. It would suspend the duty on DCB, therefore eliminating a significant and unnecessary cost for U.S. pigment producers. That action, by itself, would have a significant positive impact on our domestic industry I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this legislative effort.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my friend and colleague, Senator Voinovich, to introduce legislation that would temporarily suspend the import duty on Dichlorobenzidine, DCB. DCB is a chemical used to produce organic pigments for printing ink. It is reacted with other materials to form various yellow organic pigments. These yellow pigments are used extensively by the printing ink industry because yellow is one of the three primary colors used in printing and is used in nearly all color printing applications. DCB also is used to produce certain red and orange pigments. The U.S. printing ink industry is facing increasingly aggressive competition from low-cost foreign producers. Despite its widespread use, DCB is no longer produced in the United States and is unlikely to be produced here in the foreseeable future. Domestic manufacturers of synthetic organic pigments must import all of the DCB required for their production of yellow pigment. These imports are currently subject to high duties despite the fact that there is no longer a domestic DCB industry to protect. Our duty suspension bill would help U.S. producers remain competitive in the global market, and it would remove unnecessary costs on U.S. pigment, ink, and printing industries and on millions of consumers of printed products. Though our bill is quite simple, its effects would be widespread. It would suspend the duty on DCB, therefore eliminating a significant and unnecessary cost for U.S. pigment producers. That action, by itself, would have a significant positive impact on our domestic industry I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this legislative effort.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleagues, Mr. Bingaman and Mr. Murkowski, for working with us to authorize the Department of Energy, in consultation with Federal and State agencies, to study the anticipated growth of energy transmission infrastructure in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes ecosystem is complex, so it's important to understand how to minimize the possible impacts that the various energy transmission infrastructure proposals may have on the Great Lakes ecosystem.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senators SNOWE and DODD, in introducing the Access to High Quality Child Care Act, ACCESS. This legislation would reauthorize the Child Care and Development Block Grant through 2007 and rename it the ACCESS Act. We all know that our children are the most vulnerable members of our population and our most valuable resources. Today, 75 percent of children less than five years of age are in some kind of regular childcare arrangement. Parents need to feel confident that the people caring for their children are giving the love and support that children deserve. The bill we are introducing today would help give parents that kind of piece of mind. There are two pieces of the ACCESS Act that I would like to focus on because they are vital to improving the accessibility of high quality care. Last year, Senator Dodd and I introduced the Child Care Facilities Financing Act, which uses small investments to help leverage existing community resources. In my home State of Ohio, and throughout the country, resources for the development or enhancement of space are extremely scarce for childcare facilities. This leveraging approach has been successful in helping expand childcare capacity. Let me give you an example. Wonder World in Akron, OH, is an urban childcare center located in an old church. This facility was in dire need of repairs. The upstairs space was poorly lit and not well ventilated, and the downstairs was a damp basement. The childcare rooms had no windows and no direct access to bathrooms or a kitchen. There was no outdoor play space. This environment, itself, had a negative effect on the children, no matter how dedicated the caregivers. In spite of these dismal conditions, the center had a waiting list. There were no other choices for affordable childcare facilities within the community! Fortunately, in Ohio, we have the Ohio Community Development Finance Fund, OCDFF, which is a statewide nonprofit organization that works with local organizations in low-income communities. This fund was able to coordinate public and private monies to build a new eight-room childcare facility, a facility that serves approximately 200 children! It is programs like OCDFF that are possible under the Child Care Facilities Fund. The ACCESS Act includes the language from the Child Care Facilities Fund bill that Senator Dodd and I introduced, which authorizes $50 million dollars for the Child Care Facilities Fund. The second most important part of our ACCESS Act is a section that contains vital language to help provide emergency childcare services. This section would allow parents to access quality care when their childcare provider is sick or has a family emergency. The need for this type of care was made clear by a tragic incident that happened in Ohio, when little two-year-old Charles Knight's mother had to go to work and had no one available to care for Charles and his siblings. The boy's father was supposed to baby-sit, but he failed to show up that day. Charles' mother tried to find a neighbor or family member to care for her children, but no one was available. Tragically, she made the poor decision to leave her sleeping children unattended, so she could work her 12-hour shift. She thought her boys' father would eventually show up and baby-sit while she worked. The father never arrived. Charles was able to climb up on the balcony. This young, unsupervised child fell nine stories off the apartment balcony to his death. His mother was charged with manslaughter, and his father was charged with child neglect. This sad incident just might have been prevented with emergency childcare centers. With access to such a center, Charles' mother could have gone to work knowing her children were safe and secure. Just last month, Summit County, OH, started a program called ChildCare NOW in response to an alarming spike in child death and injuries. ChildCare NOW is being offered at 17 centers in the Akron- Canton area of Ohio. These childcare centers are opening their doors to many parents whose baby-sitter cancels at the last minute. This program is not meant as a permanent childcare replacement but when an ``emergency'' arises, these are safe alternatives to parental care. The language I have included in this bill, emphasizes that local and State childcare agencies may use funds on emergency childcare programs, programs like ChildCare NOW. More importantly, the next time a mother must chose between going to work and leaving her children all alone or staying at home and losing a day's pay, she will have a third option, to leave her children in an emergency child care center. I think that is an important option that we must give to working mothers. It is my hope that this language will prevent future tragedies like the death of two-year-old Charles Knight. Once again, I want to thank Senator Snowe and Senator Dodd for their work on the ACCESS Act. This bill is necessary for parents who work, especially parents who have worked hard to get off welfare. They should be confident that their children are receiving quality care.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senators SNOWE and DODD, in introducing the Access to High Quality Child Care Act, ACCESS. This legislation would reauthorize the Child Care and Development Block Grant through 2007 and rename it the ACCESS Act. We all know that our children are the most vulnerable members of our population and our most valuable resources. Today, 75 percent of children less than five years of age are in some kind of regular childcare arrangement. Parents need to feel confident that the people caring for their children are giving the love and support that children deserve. The bill we are introducing today would help give parents that kind of piece of mind. There are two pieces of the ACCESS Act that I would like to focus on because they are vital to improving the accessibility of high quality care. Last year, Senator Dodd and I introduced the Child Care Facilities Financing Act, which uses small investments to help leverage existing community resources. In my home State of Ohio, and throughout the country, resources for the development or enhancement of space are extremely scarce for childcare facilities. This leveraging approach has been successful in helping expand childcare capacity. Let me give you an example. Wonder World in Akron, OH, is an urban childcare center located in an old church. This facility was in dire need of repairs. The upstairs space was poorly lit and not well ventilated, and the downstairs was a damp basement. The childcare rooms had no windows and no direct access to bathrooms or a kitchen. There was no outdoor play space. This environment, itself, had a negative effect on the children, no matter how dedicated the caregivers. In spite of these dismal conditions, the center had a waiting list. There were no other choices for affordable childcare facilities within the community! Fortunately, in Ohio, we have the Ohio Community Development Finance Fund, OCDFF, which is a statewide nonprofit organization that works with local organizations in low-income communities. This fund was able to coordinate public and private monies to build a new eight-room childcare facility, a facility that serves approximately 200 children! It is programs like OCDFF that are possible under the Child Care Facilities Fund. The ACCESS Act includes the language from the Child Care Facilities Fund bill that Senator Dodd and I introduced, which authorizes $50 million dollars for the Child Care Facilities Fund. The second most important part of our ACCESS Act is a section that contains vital language to help provide emergency childcare services. This section would allow parents to access quality care when their childcare provider is sick or has a family emergency. The need for this type of care was made clear by a tragic incident that happened in Ohio, when little two-year-old Charles Knight's mother had to go to work and had no one available to care for Charles and his siblings. The boy's father was supposed to baby-sit, but he failed to show up that day. Charles' mother tried to find a neighbor or family member to care for her children, but no one was available. Tragically, she made the poor decision to leave her sleeping children unattended, so she could work her 12-hour shift. She thought her boys' father would eventually show up and baby-sit while she worked. The father never arrived. Charles was able to climb up on the balcony. This young, unsupervised child fell nine stories off the apartment balcony to his death. His mother was charged with manslaughter, and his father was charged with child neglect. This sad incident just might have been prevented with emergency childcare centers. With access to such a center, Charles' mother could have gone to work knowing her children were safe and secure. Just last month, Summit County, OH, started a program called ChildCare NOW in response to an alarming spike in child death and injuries. ChildCare NOW is being offered at 17 centers in the Akron- Canton area of Ohio. These childcare centers are opening their doors to many parents whose baby-sitter cancels at the last minute. This program is not meant as a permanent childcare replacement but when an ``emergency'' arises, these are safe alternatives to parental care. The language I have included in this bill, emphasizes that local and State childcare agencies may use funds on emergency childcare programs, programs like ChildCare NOW. More importantly, the next time a mother must chose between going to work and leaving her children all alone or staying at home and losing a day's pay, she will have a third option, to leave her children in an emergency child care center. I think that is an important option that we must give to working mothers. It is my hope that this language will prevent future tragedies like the death of two-year-old Charles Knight. Once again, I want to thank Senator Snowe and Senator Dodd for their work on the ACCESS Act. This bill is necessary for parents who work, especially parents who have worked hard to get off welfare. They should be confident that their children are receiving quality care.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I wish to talk about legislation that Senator Durbin, Senator Feingold, and I introduce today to address the continued profitable sale of what we refer to as conflict diamonds. We have been working together on this matter for some time, along with our colleagues in the House of Representatives, Congressman Tony Hall from my home State of Ohio and Congressman Frank Wolf of Virginia. We have been working to help those in Africa who are suffering at the hands of this illicit diamond trade. Last spring, we introduced a similar bill to put pressure on the international community to implement a global agreement to stem the conflict diamond trade. While the House passed a weaker version of that bill last November, my Senate colleagues and I have been working with the administration to pass a stronger, more meaningful bill. Unfortunately, these negotiations thus far have not been successful. That is why we join together today in the introduction of a new and even stronger measure: legislation that reflects both trade and humanitarian concerns. The introduction now is particularly significant, as the international community begins the final session of the Kimberly Process today in Ottawa. During these negotiations, it is critical that the United States send a strong message to the international community, a message that says we are committed to these efforts and are fighting for a strong, effective Kimberly agreement. Mr. President, I believe the United States must take this leadership role so we can get ultimately the strongest possible agreement. That is the message I believe our bill sends today. I will spend a few minutes talking about why this bill is so important and why it is vital we get a strong measure passed and eventually signed into law. The diamond trade is one of the world's most lucrative industries. With its extreme profitability, it is not surprising a black market trade has emerged alongside the legitimate industry. The sale of illicit diamonds has yielded disturbing reports in the media linking even Osama bin Laden to this trade. On February 22, 2001, the U.S. District Court trial, United States v. Osama bin Laden, attests to this. Additionally, there is an established link between Sierra Leone's diamond trade and well-known Lebanese terrorists. It is also not surprising that diamond trading has become an attractive and sustainable income source for violent rebel groups around the world, particularly in Africa. The information I am talking about today in regard to terrorists has been reported in the public news media. Currently in Africa, where the majority of the world's diamonds are found, there is ongoing strife and struggle resulting from the fight for control of the precious gems. While violence has erupted in several countries, including Sierra Leone, Angola, the Congo, and Liberia, Sierra Leone in particular has one of the worst records of violence. In that nation, rebel groups, most notably the Revolutionary United Front, the RUL, have seized control of many of that country's diamond fields. Once in control of a diamond field, the rebels confiscate the diamonds. Then they launder them on to the legitimate market through other nearby nations, such as Liberia, and ultimately finance their terrorist regimes and their continued efforts to overthrow the government. Over the past decade, the rebels reaped the benefits of at least $10 billion in smuggled diamonds, and the fact is it could be a lot more than that. Since the start of the rebel quest for control of Sierra Leone's diamond supply, the children of this small nation have borne the brunt of the insurgency. For over 8 years, the RUF has conscripted children, often as young as 7 or 8 years old. These soldiers and their makeshift army have ripped an estimated 12,000 children from their families. After the RUF invaded the capital of Freetown in January 1999, at least 3,000 children were reported missing. As a result of deliberate and systematic brutalization, children soldiers have become some of the most vicious and effective fighters within the rebel factions. The rebel army, child soldiers included, has terrorized Sierra Leone's population, killing, abducting, raping, and hacking off the limbs of victims with machetes. This chopping off of limbs is the RUF's trademark strategy. I believe we can do something about this. We can, in fact, make a difference. We have the power to help put an end to the indiscriminate suffering and violence in Sierra Leone and elsewhere in Africa. As the world's biggest diamond customer, purchasing the majority of the world's diamonds, the United States has tremendous clout. With that clout, we have the power to remove the lucrative financial incentives that drive the rebel groups to trade in diamonds in the first place. Simply put, if there is no market for their diamonds, there is little reason for the rebels to engage in their brutal campaigns to secure and then protect their diamonds. That is why our legislation is aimed at removing the rebels' market incentive. We need to work together with the international community to facilitate the implementation of a system of controls on the export and import of diamonds so that buyers can be certain their purchases are not fueling the rebel campaign. Specifically, our new bill attempts to move this issue forward and to strengthen U.S. policy. For example, our bill would require the President to prohibit the importation of rough diamonds from countries not taking effective measures to stop the trade in conflict diamonds. It also addresses potential loopholes associated with polished diamonds and diamond jewelry and includes a broader definition of conflict diamonds so that it includes conflicts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and other areas as well. These are a few of the important provisions that were omitted in the House version, provisions that are essential in this legislation to make the difference we want to make. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this new bill and send an important message to the international community. As I see it, we do have an obligation, I think a moral obligation, to help eliminate the financial incentives for the illicit traders. We owe it to those who unwittingly buy these conflict diamonds but, more importantly, we owe it to the children who have suffered far too long.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President I rise today to recognize the National 4-H organization upon it's 100th anniversary this year. The organization, symbolized by the famous four leaf clover, has become synonymous with rural America and agriculture. While 4-H has its roots in many States, I am proud to say that the youth organization got its primary start in my home State of Ohio--in Springfield. I would like to take a few minutes today to remind my colleagues about how 4-H evolved into what it is today. In doing so, we need to step back and remember what our Nation was like at the beginning of the 20th century and how the field of agriculture was suffering from the industrial revolution. As a result of the industrial revolution, our nation experienced, for the first time, a greater number of people living in cities than in small, rural agricultural communities. As a new generation of farmers were talking about moving to ``the big city,'' many began to fear a lapse in the traditional teaching techniques in which parents taught their children how to farm. Additionally, the industrial revolution brought about new technologies, many of which greatly affected farming techniques. At first, unfortunately, few people knew about these technologies--let alone how to use them. As concerns continued to grow, many communities were forced to develop programs that sought new and innovative ways of teaching the next generation of farmers. The most successful of these programs was created in Springfield, OH. It was there, in 1902, that Albert B. Graham, superintendent of the Clark County school system, first established agricultural classes. Recognizing that many people would have a difficult time with the concept of learning farming outside of the family, Graham established a club that offered Saturday morning classes in the basement of the county building. Families coming into town to do their weekly shopping could drop off their children at the courses. In a sense, it was a form of daycare, but one in which the boys and girls were kept busy learning how to examine soil with litmus paper and how to tie knots and splice ropes. They even examined droplets of milk under microscopes. Eventually, Graham expanded this program with help from the Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station and the dean of agriculture at The Ohio State University, itself a land-grant college. Ohio State took quickly to this course concept, as it offered the university an effective way to communicate with farmers throughout Ohio. By 1903, Graham's agriculture club had over 100 members, and by 1904, 13 such countywide clubs had been organized in Ohio. You might say that Graham had planted the seed for the 4-H organization, and it sprouted quickly. It didn't take long before similar clubs grew nationally. Around this time, a clover became a commonly known symbol for club members, who wore the symbol on their lapels. Another landmark for 4-H came in 1906, when Thomas Campbell, an assistant to George Washington Carver, was hired to establish youth farming organizations for African-American farmers in the south. At a time in our Nation when the racial divide ran deep, 4-H was clearly ahead of its time. By 1914, a mere decade after 4-H's creation, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Smith-Lever Act into law, establishing the Cooperative Extension System. This system offered a mechanism through which 4-H programs could receive Federal funds. Now jump forward to today. The 4-H organization continues to be one the most active youth organizations in our Nation, with chapters not only in the United States, but throughout the world. 4-H clubs have expanded from rural to urban areas, where they provide a new of group kids with essential leadership skills and community service involvement. National 4-H meetings have even become platforms for presidents and other national officials to voice their ideas for agriculture and other policies. The fear of an agriculture system eroding away with the expansion of cities continues to this day, as we have witnessed the massive growth in urban sprawl. But, this merely furthers the need for 4-H. Although today's 4-H organization may be larger than the original 100 members and our communication has increased from town meetings to Internet chat rooms, the organization's principles of Head, Heart, Hands, and Health remain the same. Without question, the lessons and skills 4-H members learn will last a lifetime. I am proud to know that organizations, like 4-H, are there to help guide our next generation of farmers, teachers, and even elected officials toward a better tomorrow. I also am proud to say that my wife, Fran, and I have had children go through the 4-H program for 24 straight years now--in fact, last year was our eighth and youngest child, Anna's first year in 4-H. I congratulate 4-H on their centennial anniversary, and I wish them the best for their next 100 years.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I congratulate my colleague, Senator Dodd, for a very eloquent and compelling statement in regard to the tragedies that are going on in Colombia today. I think he does very well in expressing the sentiments of all the Members of the Senate. I thank him for that eloquent comment. Colombia must be looked at not just as a place we worry about in regard to drugs coming into this country, not just as a country that we have to partner with to try to deal with our mutual drug problem, the production of drugs, and the huge consumption of drugs in the United States, although we are partners in that effort, but we also must understand that what is going on in Colombia is a direct threat to the democracy of Colombia. Senator Dodd has spelled out very well what has been going on. We do have a longstanding democracy in this hemisphere, a democracy that has been a friend of the United States for many years that is, in fact, imperiled. When we make a decision about what assistance we can and will give in the future, we need to keep that in mind. (The remarks of Mr. DeWine pertaining to the introduction of S. 2027 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I yield myself 15 minutes from this side's time.

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I want to talk today about one aspect of this debate about CAFE standards. To me, this aspect is the most important consideration. I know we have talked about many different things. We have argued this issue, and we have talked about many statistics which have been given. I believe it would be a mistake to approve the underlying bill without the Bond-Levin amendment. I support the Bond-Levin amendment because I believe the underlying bill, quite bluntly, will cost thousands and thousands of lives. So for this Senator, while the other issues are important, the most important is this: Are we going to say, as a Congress, as a Senate, as the Government, that we are going to force people into smaller cars, when we know, by every piece of evidence that we can find, that smaller cars lead to higher fatalities? To me, that is the question. I think it would be a tragic mistake for us to do this. I know people have come to this Chamber--and I have listened to a lot of the debate--and have said that is just not true, it is not going to cost lives. They have argued about how many lives it will be. They have argued about whether the statistics that have been cited are accurate. But every scientific study that I have seen that really has much validity shows that some lives will be lost. In addition to that, I think good common sense tells us that as well. In 1989, a study by Robert Crandall of the Brookings Institution and John Graham of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis provided the first evidence suggesting a negative relationship between weight and vehicle occupant fatality risk. Another study from Dr. Leonard Evans, president of the International Traffic Medicine Association, found that large, heavy cars lower the risk to drivers. His study suggested that more passengers, i.e., more weight within the vehicle, reduced fatalities by 7.5 percent. The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, NHTSA, and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that since 1975, 46,000 people have died because of the 1970s-era push for greater fuel efficiency that has led to smaller cars. For every mile per gallon gained by the standards increased, 7,000 people have died according to the USA Today. According to the National Academy of Sciences and supported by the National Safety Council and the American Trauma Society, CAFE standards have led to 1,300 to 2,600 additional crash fatalities and 97,000 to 195,000 total injuries. The NAS report says: [I]t is clear that there were more injuries and fatalities than otherwise would have occurred had the fleet in recent years been as large and heavy as the fleet of the mid-1970s. According to the July 2001 issue of the American Journal of Public Health, the rates at which drivers crash are strongly influenced, of course, by drunk driver behavior. But the relative risk to each driver when a crash does occur is not affected in any obvious way by driving behavior. The relative risk is enormously influenced by relative masses of the involved cars. That is pretty simple. In other words, if two cars crash into each other, and one of them is twice as heavy as the other, then the driver of the lighter car is about 12 times as likely to be killed. Again, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, between 1991 and 1997, 41 percent of all car deaths occurred in single- vehicle accidents. So we need to ask ourselves this: If you or a member of your family are going to be in one of these single-vehicle accidents, in what kind of a car should you be sitting? Obviously, the heavier the car, the safer you are. In the year 2000, the motor vehicle death rate per 100,000 people was especially high among 16 to 24-year-olds--that is what we continue to see--and people 80 years and older. These are the portions of the population most likely, candidly, to buy a car based on financial situations since lighter cars are cheaper to purchase and fuel. Now, in all fairness, there are other reasons why 16 to 24-year-olds are involved in more fatal accidents, but this is certainly one of them. Finally, according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, based on J. DeFalco's findings in the ``Deadly Effects of Fuel Economy Standards, CAFE's Lethal Impact on Auto Safety,'' in my own State of Ohio, it is estimated, based on the data, that in the year 2000, 768 passenger car occupants died because of these CAFE standards. I believe the statistics are clear. Simply put, we cannot increase CAFE standards without increasing fatalities. Yes, there are actions you can take to improve safety, such as airbags and other safety devices, and we are certainly moving in that direction, albeit more slowly than this Member would like. Yes, you can argue that the safety effect of downsizing and downweighting as a result of CAFE standards has been negligible because the injury and fatality experience per vehicle mile of travel has, in fact, steadily declined during the changes in the fleet. That is true. However, a 1992 National Research Council report suggested that reduced risk of motor vehicle travel is part of a long-term historical trend tracing way back to 1930, and the improving safety picture is the result of various interacting and sometimes conflicting trends. So while things such as enhanced vehicle designs, increased rates of safety belt use, better roads, and decreased drunk driving are, in fact, reducing crash injury risk, there are other variables, such as higher speed limits or no speed limits on some roads, increased horsepower, and an increased number of teenagers and other risky drivers on the road that are increasing crash injury risk. In short, technological innovations don't get you out of a CAFE safety bind. In the words of Dr. Leonard Evans, to argue this is [L]ike a tobacco industry executive saying that smoking doesn't endanger your health because with everything we know about diets and exercise, you can smoke and still be as healthy as a non-smoker. It is true that with current knowledge about keeping fit, smokers can be healthier. But, this knowledge can make a non-smoker even healthier yet. If you smoke, you're going to be taking a risk no matter what. Similarly, if you get in a car, you are taking a risk no matter what. That is just reality. We accept that there will be a certain number of accidents and injuries and deaths. We know that. We may not accept it, but we understand it. But the question really is about the weight and size of cars. You can argue about how many lives are lost or saved, what the exact figure is, what the exact number is. You can argue about how many variables impact safety and which variables have the most impact. You can argue about how much the environment will be affected by this bill. You can argue about oil dependency. But in the end, one of the main variables that we know will make a difference in determining how many Americans die next year driving automobiles or as passengers in automobiles is the weight of the car. That is a variable we know will make a difference. For me, that is what it comes down to. As millions of Americans, I do read Consumer Reports. Year after year, I take a look at the annual report that lists the cars and rates them for many reasons. It rates them for safety. One of the special reports every year is a safety report. You can look down and see how they rate each size car. They always break them down into the larger cars, the heavier cars, all the way down to the light cars. What you will see is that, yes, some of the midsize cars do very well. Some of the smaller cars do better than you might expect. But what you clearly can see is that by and large, if you are interested in safety, you buy a bigger, heavier car. I am not suggesting that every American should do that or can afford to do that. I am suggesting that is something that every American should have the option to do. Every American should have the option within their means to as best they can protect their family from highway fatalities. They should be able to intelligently choose their car. They should make the choice of the car, what safety features the cars have, and they should be able to make the choice in regard to the weight of that car. I believe the underlying bill strikes at that freedom, at that liberty, and at the ability of parents to protect their children in the car, the ability of someone buying a car to protect themselves or their loved ones. It is a tragic mistake. I will be supporting the Levin-Bond amendment. It is a rational compromise. It is an approach that makes sense. It is not micromanagement from the Congress but is allowing the science and technology to take place and to be utilized. I hope if that amendment does pass, when the decisions are made in regard to setting of the standards, highway safety will not just be one of the items considered, that highway safety will be at the top of the list. Madam President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Mr. Richard ``Dick'' J. Leon, the new U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia. I have known Dick for many years, and I was pleased that the Senate unanimously confirmed him on February 14, 2002. Dick has all the key qualities necessary to be a fine a District Judge. He is bright, thoughtful, and ethical. He is a personable individual, who cares deeply about the law. I first worked with Dick in 1987, when I was serving on the Senate/House Select Iran-contra Committee. He had been a distinguished Federal prosecutor for the Justice Department, when our ranking Republican on the committee, Dick Cheney, hired him to serve as our deputy counsel. His performance on our staff was outstanding and his legal skills as an investigator, counselor, and examiner of witnesses were critical to the work of the select committee. Dick Leon has distinguished himself as a counselor, handling complex criminal and civil litigation. But, his commitment to legal education is also noteworthy. Over his 28 year career, Dick has served in various positions helping teach others about law. He was a full-time law professor for 4 years at St. John's University Law School in New York, and he currently serves as an adjunct law professor at both the Georgetown University and Catholic University law schools in Washington, DC. From time to time, Dick has been called to assist Congress with highly sensitive matters. Whether it has been counseling a bipartisan task force or serving on a congressional commission, he always has conducted himself with the utmost integrity. Dick Leon has earned the respect of both Republican and Democratic Members alike. I have every confidence that Dick is fully prepared for the challenges of being a U.S. District Court Judge. I congratulate him on his new assignment and wish him; his wife, Christina; and their son, Nicholas, all the best.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to thank Senators Lugar and Harkin for the hard work they have demonstrated on this bill. I also thank them for accepting a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that is similar to a resolution I introduced earlier this week along with nine of my colleagues: Senators Bingaman, Dayton, Dorgan, Kerry, Sarbanes, Chafee, Dodd, Hagel, and Lott. Our resolution highlighted the important role effective foreign assistance programs play in fostering political stability, food security, rule of law, democracy, and ultimately peace around the world. Our resolution, as we originally introduced it, expressed the sense of the Senate regarding the importance of U.S. foreign assistance programs as a diplomatic tool for fighting global terrorism and promoting U.S. security interests. Many times we think about foreign assistance as just humanitarian assistance, helping other people. We have an obligation to do that. We forget, though, that when it is used effectively, it is a good foreign policy tool. In fact, it is an essential foreign policy tool. Tragically, I believe we have seen the amount of money that we put into foreign assistance go down in real dollars within the last 20 years. So as we try to carry out American foreign policy, that tool is simply not there as much as it used to be. Without question, there is a direct link between foreign aid programs and the self-sufficiency and stability of these developing countries. The reality is that when we go into a developing, impoverished, or war- torn nation and give the suffering people assistance, we can make a positive difference. We can feed starving children, care for the sick and elderly, house countless orphans, and teach people new and more effective methods of farming. If we do these things, the people of those nations would be better able to pull themselves out of hopelessness and despair. These assistance programs must be looked at not just as a handout but literally, as we always say, a hand up, giving people the opportunity to help themselves. Chaos, poverty, hunger, political uncertainty, and social instability are the root causes of violence and conflict around the world. We know this. We also know we must not wait for a nation to implode before we take action. We must not wait for a nation's people to suffer from poverty, disease, and hunger. We must not wait for the rise of despotic leaders and corrupt governments, such as the Taliban. I believe we certainly have a moral obligation to those in the world suffering at the hands of evil leaders and corrupt governments. We have a moral obligation to the 1.2 billion people in the world who are living on less than $1 a day. We have a moral obligation to the 3 billion people who live on only $2 a day. This kind of poverty is unacceptable and, quite candidly, it is dangerous to us and to the stability of the world. I think it is something we have to work to change. It is in our self-interest that we do so. The fact is that foreign assistance has had an enormous impact when applied effectively. For example, over the past 50 years, our assistance has helped reduce infant child death rates in the developing world by 50 percent. We also have had a significant impact on worldwide child survival and health promotions, through initiatives, such as vaccinations and school feeding programs. Agriculture is certainly another area of great success. Today, 43 of the top 50 countries that import American agricultural products have in the past received humanitarian assistance from the United States. Today, they are our customers. Our investment in better seeds and agricultural techniques over the past two decades have made it possible to feed an additional 1 billion people throughout the world. Despite its importance and immeasurable value, our overall foreign affairs budget has been stagnant for the past 20 years. As I said, in real dollars, it has gone down. We currently use only about one-half of 1 percent of our Federal budget for humanitarian assistance. Yet this assistance is absolutely critical for people in war-ravaged, politically unstable, impoverished nations. The children, the elderly, and the civilian people are not responsible for the political and economic turmoil in their homelands, but they are the ones who always end up suffering the most. Right now, increases in foreign assistance could make a very real difference around the world. One example is in our own backyard, and that is in the country of Haiti. I recently returned from a trip to Haiti, where I witnessed the tremendous devastation, destitution, and desperation of that country located less than 2 hours by plane from the shores of Miami. Haiti remains the poorest country in the hemisphere. Democracy and political stability continue to elude the Haitian people. The already- dire humanitarian conditions of Haiti's 8.2 million people continue, tragically, to deteriorate. Today, less than one-half of their population can read or write. The country's infant mortality rate is the highest, by far, in our hemisphere. At least 23 percent of the children up to age 5 are malnourished. Only 39 percent of Haitians have access to clean water, and diseases such as measles, malaria, and tuberculosis are epidemic. Haiti is also suffering from an AIDS crisis--really an epidemic. Roughly 1 out of 12 Haitians is living with HIV/AIDS. This is the highest rate in the world, outside of sub-Sahara Africa. According to the Centers for Disease Control projections, Haiti will experience up to 44,000 new HIV/AIDS cases this year, and that is at least 4,000 more than the number expected in the United States. We have a population, obviously, a great deal higher than Haiti. They have a population of about 8 million people. Ours is nearly 35 times larger than theirs. In addition, there are an estimated 30,000 to 40,000 deaths each year in Haiti from AIDS. Already, AIDS has orphaned 163,000 children. That number is expected to skyrocket to between 320,000 to 390,000 over the next 10 years. Haiti also continues to suffer from an unnecessarily high HIV transmission rate from mother to child. Some of this is easily prevented through proper counseling and medication. Currently, only one clinic in Port-au-Prince provides these critical, lifesaving services. Indeed, things are bad in Haiti, and they stand to get only worse. Right now there is a great deal of money that the international community is holding up, awaiting reforms to be made, awaiting the Government of Haiti to settle disputes concerning the May 2000 election. I believe it is correct to withhold that money. But what it means is that the only assistance coming from many countries--certainly the only assistance coming from the U.S.--is the purely humanitarian assistance that does not go through the Government. That purely humanitarian assistance has gone down and down and down. We have taken it down for the last few years. The prospects are that we will take it down again this year. I think that is, quite bluntly, a mistake. It is a mistake for us to continue to reduce this humanitarian assistance. This is not money that is going to the Government of Haiti. This money is going to NGOs, private organizations, charitable groups that are dealing directly with the people of Haiti, who are helping with agricultural problems and challenges and helping them feed their children through school feeding programs and helping them with the AIDS problem. All of this work is done directly on the ground by people who are making a difference. I think we should reconsider our position--the position we have seen in the past few years of continuing to ramp down that assistance that goes directly to these NGOs and to the people of Haiti. I believe we have a moral obligation to stay committed to these people, irrespective of what the Haitian Government does or does not do. The reality is that we need to increase foreign assistance across the board, not just the money that goes to protect the Haitian people but the much-needed aid that reaches all corners of the developing world. While we as a Nation must project strength, we also must project compassion. Quite simply, providing humanitarian assistance is the right thing to do. It is also in our national interest to do it. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to praise the life of Sergeant 1st Class Nathan Chapman--a brave American who gave his life in Afghanistan to fight against the terrorists who threaten our way of life here at home. Nathan attended high school in my home state of Ohio in Centerville. Nathan Chapman's unmatched work ethic and dedication to people led him down a path of excellence. Nathan rose rapidly through the army ranks and special units. A member of the Army Rangers and--after only 8 years of service--the elite Green Beret forces, Nathan received 15 military commendations through his tours of duty in Panama, Haiti, and Operation Desert Storm. An accomplished soldier with what his father called ``a quiet confidence,'' Nathan Chapman was a credit to the American citizens he was sworn to protect. A communications expert, Nathan was known among his colleagues as a highly capable soldier, who always was ready to volunteer for the tough missions. Col. David Fridovich describes Nathan as ``a dynamic, outgoing, physically and mentally hard soldier. . .a stellar example of the Special Forces ethos.'' I add that Nathan is also a stellar example of the American ethos, through his courage, intelligence, honor, and character. The people of Centerville, Ohio, have nothing but good things to say about Nathan. His old wrestling coach, Rich Miller, said he knew Nathan ``felt good about what he was doing and was a real professional.'' One of Nathan's Centerville friends summed it up best: ``Sgt. Chapman was one of us. . . .'' As an Ohioan and an American, I thank Nathan Chapman for the ultimate sacrifice he has made for our country. I offer my condolences to those left behind to cherish and celebrate Nathan's life--his parents, Will and Lynn; his wife, Renae; their two young children, Amanda and Brandon; and his many, many friends. Amelia Earhart once said that ``courage is the price that Life exacts for granting peace.'' Nathan Chapman worked for peace through his courage and it cost him his life. But Nathan did not die in vain; he gave his life for the good of our Nation, fighting to ensure that his children's future and the future of all Americans would be free from terror.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, in talking about the important role that our service men and women play in protecting our nation, I would also like to take this opportunity to mention two brave men from Ohio's Wright-Patterson Air Force Base who died this weekend in an aircraft accident. I extend my deepfelt condolences to the families of Captain Brian Rizzoli, who had been living in Kettering, and 1st Lt. William Satterly, who had been living in Huber Heights. Their C-21 aircraft crashed near Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota. Few details have been released yet about the accident. In the meantime, though, I offer my prayers and condolences to the friends and families of these two fine men.