Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now be in a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. 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 text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 1 p.m. on Monday, March 12. I further ask unanimous consent that on Monday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business until 2 p.m., with Senators speaking for up to 10 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Lugar, or his designee, for 30 minutes; Senator Durbin, or his designee, for 30 minutes.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will reconvene on Monday and resume the bankruptcy reform bill. Senators who have amendments are encouraged to come to the floor and offer and debate those amendments during Monday's session. As announced by the majority leader, any votes ordered on any amendments are scheduled to begin at 11 a.m. on Tuesday. It is the hope and expectation to complete action on the bankruptcy legislation as quickly as possible next week.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Record remain open today until 2 p.m. for the introduction of bills, statements, and the filing of amendments.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment following the remarks of Senator Durbin under the previous order.

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Armed Services Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 45 and the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of Ohio's greatest and most dedicated public servants, a former four-term Ohio Governor, James A. Rhodes, who passed away on March 4 of this year at the age of 91. Though Jim Rhodes will be deeply missed, he will always, always, be remembered. My friend and colleague from Ohio, Senator Voinovich, and I have introduced a resolution to honor the memory of Governor Rhodes as a gifted political servant and statesman. I thank my colleague from Ohio for his work in crafting this resolution. I know Senator Voinovich shares my admiration and deep respect for Governor Rhodes. In fact, both Senator Voinovich and I traveled back to Ohio this past week to attend the final ceremony for Governor Rhodes in the rotunda of the State Capitol of Ohio. Governor Rhodes was one of a kind--a one-of-a-kind leader, politician, husband, father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and friend. No one--no one--loved Ohio more than Gov. Jim Rhodes. No one was more dedicated to making Ohio bigger, better, stronger, and safer. Jim Rhodes was a visionary. And though a lot of politicians have big visions, Governor Rhodes was different. He turned those visions into reality. That is what set him apart. That is what made him one of Ohio's most influential political figures of the 20th century. That is what made him a legend. Whether it is buildings, roads, airports, parks, vocational schools, community colleges, or universities, most physical infrastructure in Ohio today is attributable directly to Gov. Jim Rhodes. The simple fact is that you can't drive anywhere in Ohio without driving on or driving past something that Jim Rhodes built--something with which he had a role to play. Without question, he will continue to touch lives every day in many, many ways. Most people don't realize that when Ohio first elected James Rhodes as Governor, it was his 13th political race. It was because of this, because of the vastness of his experience, that he was able to govern so effectively for all of us in Ohio. It is often said that the greatness of a man can be measured by the extent and the breadth of his interests and then how he acts on those interests to turn them into reality. By that test, Governor Rhodes was indeed a great man. His interests were Ohio's interests and, because of that, he was passionate in promoting Ohio's economy, its tourism, its natural resources, its schools, and its universities. While that was such an important part of his legacy, we must remember that Governor Rhodes was also equally passionate in his concern for people--for all the people of the State of Ohio. No matter where he went in Ohio, everyone always thought Governor Rhodes was from where they were from. Though he was born in Jackson County and went to high school in Springfield and was mayor of Columbus, for us, he was from Greene County, and he was from Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo, Marietta, and every other township, village, and city in our great State. He was one of us. He was one of us not just because he got so much done for the State; he was one of us because he knew people, understood them, and he liked them. And people liked him back. That is what made Governor Rhodes a great leader and a great man. I will always remember Governor Rhodes for his personal generosity. He was generous with his time, energy, and especially, with his political advice. Back in 1980, when I ran for the State senate in the old 10th Senatorial District, Governor Rhodes came down and campaigned for me on four separate occasions. That was just the start. He continued to support me throughout the last 20 years, even campaigning for me in Jackson County, his home county, this past October, just a few days before the election. The people of Jackson County were happy to see him one more time. I admired Governor Rhodes, and I respected him. I especially respected his strong and enduring love for his wonderful family. That was such a large part of who Jim Rhodes was. He cherished the time he spent at home with his family, often advising others to go home. If you asked him for political advice, he would say: My advice is go home--and he did that. He was married to his beautiful wife Helen for 46 years and every time I saw the Governor, whether at an Ohio State football game, or at his beloved State fair, he had one or more of his grandchildren or great grandchildren with him. He loved his family dearly, and it showed. As Chesterton once said: Great men take up great space even when they are gone. To be sure, Governor Rhodes will continue to take up great space on this Earth, not just in buildings and roads, airports and parks, but in the lives he touched and the lives he changed. He will continue to live on for the great work he has done for Ohio and will also continue to live on through his family.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak, once again, on behalf of unborn children who are the silent victims of violent crimes. Today, along with my distinguished colleagues, Senators Hutchinson, Hatch, Voinovich, Brownback, Ensign, Enzi, Hagel, Helms, Inhofe, Nickles, and Santorum, I am introducing a bill called the ``Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001,'' which would create a separate offense for criminals who injure or kill an unborn child. Our bill, which is similar to legislation we sponsored in the 106th Congress, would establish new criminal penalties for anyone injuring or killing a fetus while committing certain federal offenses. Therefore, this bill would make any murder or injury of an unborn child during the commission of certain existing federal crimes a separate crime under federal law and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Twenty-four states already have criminalized the killing or injuring of unborn victims during a crime. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act simply acknowledges that violent acts against unborn babies are also criminal when the assailant is committing a federal crime. We live in a violent world. And sadly, sometimes, perhaps more often than we realize, even unborn babies are the targets, intended or otherwise, of violent acts. I'll give you some disturbing examples. In 1996, Airman Gregory Robbins and his family were stationed in my home state of Ohio at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton. At that time, Mrs. Robbins was more than eight months pregnant with a daughter they named Jasmine. On September 12, 1996, in a fit of rage, Airman Robbins wrapped his fist in a T-shirt and savagely beat his wife by striking her repeatedly about the head and abdomen. Fortunately, Mrs. Robbins survived the violent assault. Tragically, however, her uterus ruptured during the attack, expelling the baby into her abdominal cavity, causing Jasmine's death. Air Force prosecutors sought to prosecute Airman Robbins for Jasmine's death, but neither the Uniform Code of Military Justice nor the federal code makes criminal such an act which results in the death or injury of an unborn child. The only available federal offense was for the assault on the mother. This was a case in which the only available federal penalty did not fit the crime. So prosecutors bootstrapped the Ohio fetal homicide law to convict Airman Robbins of Jasmine's death. Fortunately, upon appeal, the court upheld the lower court's ruling. If it hadn't been for the Ohio law that was already in place, there would have been no opportunity to prosecute and punish Airman Robbins for the assault against Baby Jasmine. That's why we need a Federal remedy to avoid having to bootstrap state laws to provide recourse when a violent act occurs during the commission of a federal crime. A federal remedy will ensure that crimes within federal jurisdiction against unborn victims are punished. Let me give you another example. In August 1999, Shiwona Pace of Little Rock, Arkansas, was days away from giving birth. She was thrilled about her pregnancy. Her boyfriend, Eric Bullock, however, did not share her joy and enthusiasm. In fact, Eric wanted the baby to die. So, he hired three thugs to beat his girlfriend so badly that she lost the unborn baby. According to Shiwona, who testified at a Senate Judiciary hearing we held in Washington on February 23, 2000: ``I begged and pleaded for the life of my unborn child, but they showed me no mercy. In fact, one of them told me, `Your baby is dying tonight.' I was choked, hit in the face with a gun, slapped, punched and kicked repeatedly in the stomach. One of them even put a gun in my mouth and threatened to shoot.'' In this particular case, just a few short weeks before this vicious attack, Arkansas passed its ``Fetal Protection Act.'' Under the state law, Erik Bullock was convicted on February 9, 2001, of capital murder against Shiwona's unborn child and sentenced to life in prison without parole. He was also convicted of first degree battery for harm against Shiwona. In yet another example, this one in Columbus, 16-year-old Sean Steele was found guilty of two counts of murder for the death of his girlfriend Barbara ``Bobbie'' Watkins, age 15, and her 22-week-old unborn child. He was convicted under Ohio's unborn victims law, which represented the first murder conviction in Franklin County, Ohio, in which a victim was a fetus. Look at one more example. In the Oklahoma City and World Trade Center bombings, Federal prosecutors were able to charge the defendants with the murders of or injuries to the mothers, but not to their unborn babies. Again, federal law currently fails to criminalize these violent acts. There are no federal provisions for the unborn victims of federal crimes. Our bill would make acts like this, acts of violence within federal jurisdiction, Federal crimes. This is a very simple step, but one that will have a dramatic effect. The fact is that it's just plain wrong that our federal government does absolutely nothing to criminalize violent acts against unborn children. We cannot allow criminals to get away with murder. We must close this loophole. As a civilized society, we must take a stand against violent crimes against children, especially those waiting to be born. We must close this loophole. We purposely drafted this legislation very narrowly. Because of that, our bill would not permit the prosecution for any abortion to which a woman consented. It would not permit the prosecution of a woman for any action, legal or illegal, in regard to her unborn child. Our legislation would not permit the prosecution for harm caused to the mother or unborn child in the course of medical treatment. And finally, our bill would not allow for the imposition of the death penalty under this Act. It is time that we wrap the arms of justice around unborn children and protect them against criminal assailants. Everyone agrees that violent assailants of unborn babies are criminals. When acts of violence against unborn victims fall within federal jurisdiction, we must have a penalty. We have an obligation to our unborn children who cannot speak for themselves. I think Shiwona Pace said it best when she testified at our hearing, ``The loss of any potential life should never be in vain.'' I strongly urge my colleagues to join in support of this legislation.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak, once again, on behalf of unborn children who are the silent victims of violent crimes. Today, along with my distinguished colleagues, Senators Hutchinson, Hatch, Voinovich, Brownback, Ensign, Enzi, Hagel, Helms, Inhofe, Nickles, and Santorum, I am introducing a bill called the ``Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001,'' which would create a separate offense for criminals who injure or kill an unborn child. Our bill, which is similar to legislation we sponsored in the 106th Congress, would establish new criminal penalties for anyone injuring or killing a fetus while committing certain federal offenses. Therefore, this bill would make any murder or injury of an unborn child during the commission of certain existing federal crimes a separate crime under federal law and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Twenty-four states already have criminalized the killing or injuring of unborn victims during a crime. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act simply acknowledges that violent acts against unborn babies are also criminal when the assailant is committing a federal crime. We live in a violent world. And sadly, sometimes, perhaps more often than we realize, even unborn babies are the targets, intended or otherwise, of violent acts. I'll give you some disturbing examples. In 1996, Airman Gregory Robbins and his family were stationed in my home state of Ohio at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton. At that time, Mrs. Robbins was more than eight months pregnant with a daughter they named Jasmine. On September 12, 1996, in a fit of rage, Airman Robbins wrapped his fist in a T-shirt and savagely beat his wife by striking her repeatedly about the head and abdomen. Fortunately, Mrs. Robbins survived the violent assault. Tragically, however, her uterus ruptured during the attack, expelling the baby into her abdominal cavity, causing Jasmine's death. Air Force prosecutors sought to prosecute Airman Robbins for Jasmine's death, but neither the Uniform Code of Military Justice nor the federal code makes criminal such an act which results in the death or injury of an unborn child. The only available federal offense was for the assault on the mother. This was a case in which the only available federal penalty did not fit the crime. So prosecutors bootstrapped the Ohio fetal homicide law to convict Airman Robbins of Jasmine's death. Fortunately, upon appeal, the court upheld the lower court's ruling. If it hadn't been for the Ohio law that was already in place, there would have been no opportunity to prosecute and punish Airman Robbins for the assault against Baby Jasmine. That's why we need a Federal remedy to avoid having to bootstrap state laws to provide recourse when a violent act occurs during the commission of a federal crime. A federal remedy will ensure that crimes within federal jurisdiction against unborn victims are punished. Let me give you another example. In August 1999, Shiwona Pace of Little Rock, Arkansas, was days away from giving birth. She was thrilled about her pregnancy. Her boyfriend, Eric Bullock, however, did not share her joy and enthusiasm. In fact, Eric wanted the baby to die. So, he hired three thugs to beat his girlfriend so badly that she lost the unborn baby. According to Shiwona, who testified at a Senate Judiciary hearing we held in Washington on February 23, 2000: ``I begged and pleaded for the life of my unborn child, but they showed me no mercy. In fact, one of them told me, `Your baby is dying tonight.' I was choked, hit in the face with a gun, slapped, punched and kicked repeatedly in the stomach. One of them even put a gun in my mouth and threatened to shoot.'' In this particular case, just a few short weeks before this vicious attack, Arkansas passed its ``Fetal Protection Act.'' Under the state law, Erik Bullock was convicted on February 9, 2001, of capital murder against Shiwona's unborn child and sentenced to life in prison without parole. He was also convicted of first degree battery for harm against Shiwona. In yet another example, this one in Columbus, 16-year-old Sean Steele was found guilty of two counts of murder for the death of his girlfriend Barbara ``Bobbie'' Watkins, age 15, and her 22-week-old unborn child. He was convicted under Ohio's unborn victims law, which represented the first murder conviction in Franklin County, Ohio, in which a victim was a fetus. Look at one more example. In the Oklahoma City and World Trade Center bombings, Federal prosecutors were able to charge the defendants with the murders of or injuries to the mothers, but not to their unborn babies. Again, federal law currently fails to criminalize these violent acts. There are no federal provisions for the unborn victims of federal crimes. Our bill would make acts like this, acts of violence within federal jurisdiction, Federal crimes. This is a very simple step, but one that will have a dramatic effect. The fact is that it's just plain wrong that our federal government does absolutely nothing to criminalize violent acts against unborn children. We cannot allow criminals to get away with murder. We must close this loophole. As a civilized society, we must take a stand against violent crimes against children, especially those waiting to be born. We must close this loophole. We purposely drafted this legislation very narrowly. Because of that, our bill would not permit the prosecution for any abortion to which a woman consented. It would not permit the prosecution of a woman for any action, legal or illegal, in regard to her unborn child. Our legislation would not permit the prosecution for harm caused to the mother or unborn child in the course of medical treatment. And finally, our bill would not allow for the imposition of the death penalty under this Act. It is time that we wrap the arms of justice around unborn children and protect them against criminal assailants. Everyone agrees that violent assailants of unborn babies are criminals. When acts of violence against unborn victims fall within federal jurisdiction, we must have a penalty. We have an obligation to our unborn children who cannot speak for themselves. I think Shiwona Pace said it best when she testified at our hearing, ``The loss of any potential life should never be in vain.'' I strongly urge my colleagues to join in support of this legislation.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE. 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 text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of the Gun Lock Consumer Protection Act being introduced by my friend from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry. I support this bill because I believe it will save lives. Recently, we have all borne witness to a disturbing trend. Increasingly, we are hearing shocking news reports that another child has died because of his or her access to a loaded, unlocked firearm. In 1999 alone, this was an almost daily occurrence. Last year, more than 300 children died in gun accidents. Most of these accidents occurred in a child's own home, or the home of a close friend or relative. Places where these children should feel the safest. The mixture of children and loaded firearms is certainly extremely combustible. An estimated 3.3 million children in the United States live in homes with firearms that are always or sometimes kept loaded and unlocked. Now, I believe that the majority of parents with firearms believe they are being responsible about gun storage and other safety measures dealing with firearms. But, the fact is that, some parents have a fundamental misunderstanding of a child's ability to gain access to and fire a gun, distinguish between real and toy guns, make good judgements about handling a gun, and consistently following rules about gun safety. In fact, nearly two-thirds of parents with school-age children who keep a gun in the home believe that the firearm is safe from their children. However, one study found that when a gun was in the home, 75 to 80 percent of first and second graders knew where the gun was kept. Many gun owners, State and local governments, as well as this Senate, have begun to recognize the combustible relationship between children and loaded, accessible firearms. This recognition has led many gun owners to purchase gun safety locks to ensure safe storage of their handguns and to prevent children from gaining access to weapons. In some States, gun locks are required at the time handguns are purchased. At least seventeen States have laws that require or encourage the use of gun locks that deter child access to handguns. And, finally, the Senate passed an amendment to the juvenile justice bill last Congress that would require the use of gun safety locks. Despite the facts that gun owners are buying more firearm safety devices and governments are rushing to mandate their use, there are no minimal safety standards for these devices. There are many different types of trigger locks, safety locks, lock boxes, and other devices available. There is a wide range in the quality and effectiveness of these devices. Some are inadequate to prevent the accidental discharge of the firearm or to prevent a child access to the firearm. As governments move toward mandated safety devices, I believe it is important that consumers know that the device they are buying is actually adequate to serve its intended purpose. If States are going to prosecute adults when a child uses a firearm, these gun owners should have at least some peace of mind that their gun storage or safety lock device is adequate. Many of the safety lock devices currently on the market will not provide that peace of mind. Over the past year, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has tested thirty-two different lock devices. Thirty did not work as they were intended to work. In other words, 90 percent of the lock devices tested by the CPSC do not work! To date, CPSC has worked with two organizations to recall faulty locks. Because of the organizations' willingness to work with the CPSC, over 1.1 million safety locks have been recalled and replaced. The legislation I am introducing today with Senator Kerry would help responsible gun owners and parents know that the safety device they are buying is at least minimally adequate. This legislation is just common sense. It simply requires the Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC, to formulate minimum safety standards for gun safety locks and to ensure that only adequate locks meeting that standard are available for purchase by consumers. The standard to be used by the Commission requires that gun safety locks are sufficiently difficult for children to deactivate or remove and that the safety locks prevent the discharge of the handgun unless the lock has been deactivated or removed. It is important to note what this bill does not do. First of all, it does not give CPSC any say in standards of firearms or ammunition. In other words, it is not intended to regulate firearms themselves in any way whatsoever. Second, it will not have the effect of mandating what gun lock device is used. As I said earlier, there are many different types of gun locks currently available. Some of these allow for easy access and use of firearms for adults should they decide that is important to them. Other devices are more cumbersome and do not provide quick and easy access. Gun owners would be free to decide what device is best for them. This legislation would have no effect on that issue. Finally, this legislation does not require the use of gun safety locks. While the Senate has already passed legislation to do this, if that language is removed in conference, this legislation will not affect that. As I said earlier, I support this legislation because I believe it will save lives. But, more than that, this legislation will empower parents who decide that they want to have a gun safety lock but are awash in a sea of different devices, to purchase only gun safety locks that provide adequate protection for their children. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Kerry and I in support of this bill.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of the Gun Lock Consumer Protection Act being introduced by my friend from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry. I support this bill because I believe it will save lives. Recently, we have all borne witness to a disturbing trend. Increasingly, we are hearing shocking news reports that another child has died because of his or her access to a loaded, unlocked firearm. In 1999 alone, this was an almost daily occurrence. Last year, more than 300 children died in gun accidents. Most of these accidents occurred in a child's own home, or the home of a close friend or relative. Places where these children should feel the safest. The mixture of children and loaded firearms is certainly extremely combustible. An estimated 3.3 million children in the United States live in homes with firearms that are always or sometimes kept loaded and unlocked. Now, I believe that the majority of parents with firearms believe they are being responsible about gun storage and other safety measures dealing with firearms. But, the fact is that, some parents have a fundamental misunderstanding of a child's ability to gain access to and fire a gun, distinguish between real and toy guns, make good judgements about handling a gun, and consistently following rules about gun safety. In fact, nearly two-thirds of parents with school-age children who keep a gun in the home believe that the firearm is safe from their children. However, one study found that when a gun was in the home, 75 to 80 percent of first and second graders knew where the gun was kept. Many gun owners, State and local governments, as well as this Senate, have begun to recognize the combustible relationship between children and loaded, accessible firearms. This recognition has led many gun owners to purchase gun safety locks to ensure safe storage of their handguns and to prevent children from gaining access to weapons. In some States, gun locks are required at the time handguns are purchased. At least seventeen States have laws that require or encourage the use of gun locks that deter child access to handguns. And, finally, the Senate passed an amendment to the juvenile justice bill last Congress that would require the use of gun safety locks. Despite the facts that gun owners are buying more firearm safety devices and governments are rushing to mandate their use, there are no minimal safety standards for these devices. There are many different types of trigger locks, safety locks, lock boxes, and other devices available. There is a wide range in the quality and effectiveness of these devices. Some are inadequate to prevent the accidental discharge of the firearm or to prevent a child access to the firearm. As governments move toward mandated safety devices, I believe it is important that consumers know that the device they are buying is actually adequate to serve its intended purpose. If States are going to prosecute adults when a child uses a firearm, these gun owners should have at least some peace of mind that their gun storage or safety lock device is adequate. Many of the safety lock devices currently on the market will not provide that peace of mind. Over the past year, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has tested thirty-two different lock devices. Thirty did not work as they were intended to work. In other words, 90 percent of the lock devices tested by the CPSC do not work! To date, CPSC has worked with two organizations to recall faulty locks. Because of the organizations' willingness to work with the CPSC, over 1.1 million safety locks have been recalled and replaced. The legislation I am introducing today with Senator Kerry would help responsible gun owners and parents know that the safety device they are buying is at least minimally adequate. This legislation is just common sense. It simply requires the Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC, to formulate minimum safety standards for gun safety locks and to ensure that only adequate locks meeting that standard are available for purchase by consumers. The standard to be used by the Commission requires that gun safety locks are sufficiently difficult for children to deactivate or remove and that the safety locks prevent the discharge of the handgun unless the lock has been deactivated or removed. It is important to note what this bill does not do. First of all, it does not give CPSC any say in standards of firearms or ammunition. In other words, it is not intended to regulate firearms themselves in any way whatsoever. Second, it will not have the effect of mandating what gun lock device is used. As I said earlier, there are many different types of gun locks currently available. Some of these allow for easy access and use of firearms for adults should they decide that is important to them. Other devices are more cumbersome and do not provide quick and easy access. Gun owners would be free to decide what device is best for them. This legislation would have no effect on that issue. Finally, this legislation does not require the use of gun safety locks. While the Senate has already passed legislation to do this, if that language is removed in conference, this legislation will not affect that. As I said earlier, I support this legislation because I believe it will save lives. But, more than that, this legislation will empower parents who decide that they want to have a gun safety lock but are awash in a sea of different devices, to purchase only gun safety locks that provide adequate protection for their children. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Kerry and I in support of this bill.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I understand that S. 328 is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 28, regarding an address to Congress by the President of the United States. Further, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 32, the adjournment resolution, which is at the desk. I further ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 10 a.m. on February 15. I further ask unanimous consent that immediately following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then proceed to a period for morning business until 1 p.m., with Senators speaking for up to 10 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Durbin, or his designee, in control of the time between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m., with 10 minutes under the control of Senator Clinton, 15 minutes under the control of Senator Dorgan, and 20 minutes under the control of Senator Carnahan; Senator Kyl, or his designee, controlling the time between 11 a.m. and 11:30 a.m.; Senator Thomas, or his designee, in control of the time between 11:30 a.m. and 12 noon; Senator Collins, or her designee, in control of 15 minutes; Senator Lott, or his designee, in control of 15 minutes; Senator Daschle, or his designee, in control of 30 minutes.