Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 10:30 a.m., on Thursday, May 1. I further ask unanimous consent that on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted, and the Senate then immediately begin consideration of S. 543, the Volunteer Protection Act.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I will vote today to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). I do so without any illusions. I have concluded that it will be of marginal benefit, but that its benefits do outweigh the risks. Clearly, no chemical weapons treaty can be 100% verifiable. Inside the CWC, there is at least a better chance of catching violators than if we remain outside the treaty. I commend the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Helms, as well as Senator Kyl, and others who have worked so hard to improve this treaty. As a result of their efforts, for example, we retain the right for our troops to use tear gas in hostage rescue operations; we require search warrants in cases where consent is not granted to protect 4th amendment rights; and we restrict U.S. assistance to rogue nations under Article X to medical antidotes and humanitarian assistance. This is a historic agreement bringing together 74 countries that have ratified the treaty in a comprehensive, worldwide fight, to ban chemical weapons. The treaty requires all nations to follow America's lead to destroy all chemical stockpiles by 2007. The CWC also provides for sanctions against those who trade in chemical agents with non- parties to the treaty. These provisions will help to ensure that on a future battlefield our troops will be less likely to face chemical agents. Passage of this treaty should not bring a false sense of security. A treaty alone will not protect our troops and citizens from chemical weapons. We should continue to devote attention and resources to improving our chemical weapons defenses. We should provide our troops with the equipment and training they need in combat situations. The parties to this treaty must also take action against violators who resort to using chemical weapons. As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I will work to ensure that the goals of this treaty are not lost in its implementation.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Primary Care Promotion Act of 1997. This bill would restore full Federal funding under Medicare for graduate medical education for physicians specializing in approved combined primary care residency training programs. This legislation is needed to refocus the recently issued HCFA regulations that reduce the level of Federal funding to graduate medical education paid by the Medicare program. While HCFA's goals--reducing Medicare spending and placing sensible limitations on the number of new specialists trained in this country-- are praiseworthy, we must not lose sight of the fact that we face a shortage of primary care physicians, and particularly those who treat children. The Federal Government has used Medicare dollars effectively to support physicians who specialize in care for our seniors. Now, in my view, we must make a similar commitment to ensure that medical professionals are prepared to meet the health needs of our children. Despite what the bulk of our health policy would suggest, the health needs of our children are very different from those of their parents and grandparents. Children aren't miniature adults, and they need care that is tailored to their special needs. This legislation would greatly benefit children, because it would enable physicians to complete advanced training in combined specialties such as internal medicine and pediatrics or emergency medicine and pediatrics. A recent survey by the American Boards of Internal Medicine and Pediatrics demonstrates the wisdom of this investment: over 70 percent of the physicians who were trained in the combined specialties of internal medicine and pediatrics between 1980 and 1995 currently work as primary care providers. Because the health needs of children are so varied and so different from those of adults, they often require care by physicians who have received specialized training. The Primary Care Promotion Act is supported by a wide variety of professional medical associations, including pediatricians, specialists in internal medicine, children's hospitals, and medical educators. This legislation has received bipartisan support in the House of Representatives, where it has been introduced by Representative Louise Slaughter, and we expect similar support in the Senate.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Primary Care Promotion Act of 1997. This bill would restore full Federal funding under Medicare for graduate medical education for physicians specializing in approved combined primary care residency training programs. This legislation is needed to refocus the recently issued HCFA regulations that reduce the level of Federal funding to graduate medical education paid by the Medicare program. While HCFA's goals--reducing Medicare spending and placing sensible limitations on the number of new specialists trained in this country-- are praiseworthy, we must not lose sight of the fact that we face a shortage of primary care physicians, and particularly those who treat children. The Federal Government has used Medicare dollars effectively to support physicians who specialize in care for our seniors. Now, in my view, we must make a similar commitment to ensure that medical professionals are prepared to meet the health needs of our children. Despite what the bulk of our health policy would suggest, the health needs of our children are very different from those of their parents and grandparents. Children aren't miniature adults, and they need care that is tailored to their special needs. This legislation would greatly benefit children, because it would enable physicians to complete advanced training in combined specialties such as internal medicine and pediatrics or emergency medicine and pediatrics. A recent survey by the American Boards of Internal Medicine and Pediatrics demonstrates the wisdom of this investment: over 70 percent of the physicians who were trained in the combined specialties of internal medicine and pediatrics between 1980 and 1995 currently work as primary care providers. Because the health needs of children are so varied and so different from those of adults, they often require care by physicians who have received specialized training. The Primary Care Promotion Act is supported by a wide variety of professional medical associations, including pediatricians, specialists in internal medicine, children's hospitals, and medical educators. This legislation has received bipartisan support in the House of Representatives, where it has been introduced by Representative Louise Slaughter, and we expect similar support in the Senate.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today on the occasion of National Organ and Tissue Donor Awareness Week. I rise to challenge all of us to take actions that will eliminate the chronic shortage of organs available for transplant in the United States. Mr. President, this Nation faces a severe organ shortage. I have talked about this issue several times on the Senate floor. Last year at this time when I talked about it, at least eight people in America every day were dying while waiting for organ transplants. One year later, tragically, the figures are even worse. Today, 10 people now die every day while waiting for organs. Mr. President, these numbers are certainly very distressing. They are devastating because the technology to save these men, women, and children is available. It is there. If you ask our expert on this issue, and the Senate's expert, Dr. Frist from Tennessee, he will tell us that these people can be saved. These 10 people who die every day could have been saved. The technology is there. Medical science has advanced that far. But they die because there are simply not enough available organs. That is a tragedy, Mr. President, In January 1996, there were almost 44,000 patients in this country waiting for an organ transplant. One year later, the figure is up to 51,000 individuals who are today waiting--up 7,000 from just a year ago. The need for transplantable organs has increased in all categories. These aren't just statistics, not just numbers, not just longer and longer lists. These are people. These are children, friends, and families that love them, and that pray every day that there will be a chance for that loved one to live--that there will be an organ that is available for that child, that parent, that husband, or that mother. I think that we have to ask ourselves what we can do about this. What can we do about this as individuals and as elected officials? As private citizens, when we go to get our driver's license for the first time, or when we go to get it renewed, we are asked sometimes very quickly, ``Do you want to donate your organs in case of an accident, in the case of your death?'' We all need to say yes when that question is asked. We can also, and should, encourage our relatives and friends to do the same thing. As Americans, we need to talk about this issue. As families we need to talk about this issue before tragedy strikes. This is not a subject that anyone of us likes to discuss. But it is very important that we do so because our willingness to discuss it now, our willingness as a people to be open and to organize a donation is really a matter of life and death. My wife, Fran, and I faced this issue when our daughter, Becky, was killed almost 4 years ago. This was not something that we had thought about really. It was not something that we had talked about as a family. When we were asked the question whether we would do this or not, my wife, Fran, turned to me, and said, ``You know that is what Becky would have wanted us to do.'' So we did it. I think, Mr. President, that most people would want their loved ones to do the same thing. Too often the survivors--people who are faced with life's most horrible tragedy--just do not want to do it. They do not know that the loved one would have wanted them to do it. So I think by talking about this we will increase the number of organs that are available, and we will, in fact, save lives. I think too often that the No. 1 obstacle to life-saving organ donation is simply that lack of awareness. People simply aren't aware of the huge difference--the life-saving difference that they can make in someone else's life. They don't think about it. They don't talk about it. And that is natural. But that is why the decision to donate the organs of a loved one sometimes is a very difficult decision. But I think when people talk about it that it will be made much easier. As elected officials, we in this Chamber have another responsibility. I believe that we must take this message to the American people. Educational efforts have, of course, already begun. Thanks to the leadership of our colleague, Senator Dorgan, information about organ donations is being enclosed with Federal income tax refunds that are going out this year. It is estimated that 70 million individuals will receive these refunds. So information contained in those envelopes is going out. Further, today I sent a letter to Postmaster General Runyon asking him to approve a ``Gift of Life'' postage stamp as soon as possible. Mr. President, I have been talking to the Postmaster General's office for more than a year now about this issue because I am firmly convinced that this stamp will remind people of the vital importance of organ donation. It will save lives. It will bring about more awareness. Mr. President, anything that we can do to encourage families to discuss this issue will, in fact, better prepare them to make this life-saving decision. Further, Mr. President, as you and other Members of the Chamber may know, Senator Kennedy and Representative Moakley held a field hearing in Massachusetts on this very issue. I will hold a similar field hearing in Ohio this fall, and I encourage all of my colleagues to do the same in their home States, to bring this issue closer to home. Recently, there has been a lot of publicity about organ donation-- publicity specifically about controversial protocols that have been considered to enhance the viability of transplanted organs. I support an informed public dialog on this, or any other medical issue. As this debate continues, however, Mr. President, we have to make sure that we keep our eye on the ball, that we stay focused, and not lose sight of the fact that organ donations save many thousands of lives each year in this country, and that thousands of other Americans are still waiting for this precious gift of life. Mr. President, together we can build a national consensus to increase the rate of organ donations. Seriously ill Americans who are on these waiting lists should not have to wait so long for a second chance. They should have a second chance. And I look forward to working with all of my colleagues in the Senate and with people across this country to achieve this goal in the months ahead. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes, and I also ask unanimous consent that the time for the Senator from Georgia be extended by 10 minutes.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am very proud to join the Senator from Iowa in being an original cosponsor of the drug-free communities legislation. In the last 5 years, substance abuse by America's young people has more than doubled. Even more troubling, it is taking place at younger and younger ages. We need to turn this around. And this is a challenge that requires the involvement of the whole community--young people, their parents, schools, businesspeople, the media, law enforcement, religious organizations, civic and fraternal groups, as well as professionals in the area of drug abuse treatment. Community-based antidrug coalitions have proven their worth in the fight against drug abuse. I'm thinking of groups like the Madison County Prevention Assistance Coalition Team--or PACT--in Madison County, OH. PACT was established in a rural area in central Ohio in 1991, and rapidly inspired over 50 local substance abuse prevention initiatives. What PACT did was mobilize the community. Middle school students acted as mentors and role models for third graders. Teachers in Head Start taught their students about drug abuse prevention. A local church held a father-son retreat. A research team from Miami University found that Madison County's alcohol-related crime dropped by 50 percent. And students are reporting a decline in the use and availability of alcohol and other drugs. The key is mobilizing the community. The bill we're introducing today will help tap into this resource--by redirecting Federal funding to community coalitions that have developed comprehensive programs to educate children about the dangers of drugs. A similar bill was introduced in the House by Representatives Portman, Hastert, Rangel, and Levin. This bill will channel funds from the fiscal year 1998 drug control budget--in the form of matching grants--to community coalitions with proven track records. It will enhance programs that work, without allocating new funds. I think this is exactly the type of legislation we need. It's a sensible and cost-effective approach to solving a major problem. And I will join my colleague from Iowa in working for its enactment.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am very proud to join the Senator from Iowa in being an original cosponsor of the drug-free communities legislation. In the last 5 years, substance abuse by America's young people has more than doubled. Even more troubling, it is taking place at younger and younger ages. We need to turn this around. And this is a challenge that requires the involvement of the whole community--young people, their parents, schools, businesspeople, the media, law enforcement, religious organizations, civic and fraternal groups, as well as professionals in the area of drug abuse treatment. Community-based antidrug coalitions have proven their worth in the fight against drug abuse. I'm thinking of groups like the Madison County Prevention Assistance Coalition Team--or PACT--in Madison County, OH. PACT was established in a rural area in central Ohio in 1991, and rapidly inspired over 50 local substance abuse prevention initiatives. What PACT did was mobilize the community. Middle school students acted as mentors and role models for third graders. Teachers in Head Start taught their students about drug abuse prevention. A local church held a father-son retreat. A research team from Miami University found that Madison County's alcohol-related crime dropped by 50 percent. And students are reporting a decline in the use and availability of alcohol and other drugs. The key is mobilizing the community. The bill we're introducing today will help tap into this resource--by redirecting Federal funding to community coalitions that have developed comprehensive programs to educate children about the dangers of drugs. A similar bill was introduced in the House by Representatives Portman, Hastert, Rangel, and Levin. This bill will channel funds from the fiscal year 1998 drug control budget--in the form of matching grants--to community coalitions with proven track records. It will enhance programs that work, without allocating new funds. I think this is exactly the type of legislation we need. It's a sensible and cost-effective approach to solving a major problem. And I will join my colleague from Iowa in working for its enactment.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that will increase our Nation's investment in pediatric research.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Mexico resolution. I think it offers a constructive solution to the bilateral problem we are facing. It gives the President of the United States an opportunity to discuss with President Zedillo of Mexico the various concerns many of us have about the progress our two countries are making in the drug war. And it does so without provoking unnecessary and counterproductive tensions between our countries. The problems in Mexico's drug enforcement are well known. You can hardly open a newspaper without learning about even more instances of corruption and incompetence at all levels of government and law enforcement. It's a sad chronicle that makes for truly depressing reading. It's understandable why so many concerned Members of Congress are raising serious questions about the effectiveness of Mexico's antidrug effort. But it's important that we in Congress stay focused on doing what's in our own national interest--not on symbolic gestures that fail to accomplish that interest. The problems we face are real. There are 12.8 million Americans who use illegal drugs, including 1.5 million cocaine users and 600,000 heroin addicts. More than 1 out of every 10 children between 12 and 17 years of age use illegal drugs. One out of every four claims to have been offered illegal drugs in the past year. The American people recognize that these are important problems--and that we have to take serious action. But let me point out, Mr. President, that there are many, many people in Mexico who support our goals. To succeed, we need that support. Without their support, it would not have been possible for Mexico to make even today's limited progress against the drug traffickers. That progress is limited, but it is nonetheless real. Over the last year, in spite of the well-known cases of corruption, the Mexican Government has posted increases in drug seizures and crop eradications. That includes a 15-percent increase in marijuana seizures, a 6.3-percent increase in cocaine seizures, and an almost 80- percent increase in heroin seizures. In 1996, Mexican authorities reported an increase of nearly 14 percent in the number of people arrested on drug trafficking and related offenses, including 28 high-level members of drug trafficking organizations. This year, as has been widely reported, Mexican authorities arrested General Jesus Gutierrez Rebollo--who had been in charge of the National Institute to Combat Drugs--for supporting the activities of the Juarez cartel. We didn't catch him, Mr. President. The Mexicans themselves did. Should we expect further improvements in law enforcement operations? Absolutely. We need to monitor the full enforcement of the law--in other words, keep close watch on how many of these arrests lead to prosecution and jail time. In 1996, the Mexican Congress passed tough laws to address the problems of money laundering, chemical diversion, and organized crime. Now we should insist on full enforcement of those new laws. This year, we have seen improved cooperation in the areas of money laundering and extradition. Mexico and the United States established a high level contact group on narcotics control to explore joint solutions to the shared drug threat and to coordinate bilateral efforts. We should now expect this increased cooperation to yield clear, positive results. But one thing is clear: Both Governments need to dedicate greater resources to stop trafficking along our border. Senator Hutchison informed the Foreign Relations Committee last week of the enormous difficulties faced by her fellow Texans along the border. Specifically, ranchers with property along the border are being bribed, coerced, or having their lives threatened by traffickers seeking to use private property as a back door into our Nation. These ranchers have been told by Federal officials that it would be years before enough new border agents could be assigned to better secure their property. Listen to some of the stories these ranchers tell--stories about the gunfights they have fought with drug gangs, and having to carry guns whenever they leave the house. It sounds like a John Ford movie about the Old West. That has got to change. Mr. President, let me conclude by making a broader point about Mexico's future. In my view, with this resolution, we create the opportunity for a new round of cooperation between the United States and Mexico. Mexico is not only a neighbor with whom we share a 2,000- mile border, it is also this country's third largest trading partner. If we are to be successful in our anti-drug efforts, Mexico must be our ally. Yes, the Government of Mexico needs to do more within its borders, and with us, to combat drug trafficking. The real question before us is how can we improve on that partnership. We all know what the problems are. We all agree that they are very, very serious. But we should also recognize that this is a crucial moment in Mexico's history--and they need our support if they are going to continue in the right direction. What the Mexican people are trying to do is make the transition from a one-party state, in which corruption and excessive government mandates stifle the hope for widespread prosperity, to a multiparty state that creates jobs and rewards job creators. President Zedillo appears to be trying to free up Mexican society and reform the political process--changes that will make Mexico a more stable neighbor for the United States. He is opposed by powerful elements in his ruling party, and make no mistake, the outcome is still in doubt. Now more than ever, the people of Mexico need to know that we want them to be our partners. Our national interest is served by a prosperous and democratic Mexico--a Mexico that offers hope and opportunity for its citizens. The drug war is one area where we must continue to work together. We should redouble our efforts to look for constructive solutions--to reduce trafficking, to crack down on money laundering, and most important of all, to reduce the demand for drugs. Our countries must be united in a very important partnership. In the anti-drug effort, as in so many other areas, we have a major common challenge, and we can only prevail if we face it together. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that will increase our Nation's investment in pediatric research.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after my colleague is done speaking that I have 10 minutes.

Mr. DeWINE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DeWINE. I thank the Senator very much.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee to meet on Monday, March 10, 1997, at 1:30 p.m. for a hearing on overview of management issues for the Department of Commerce.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I just returned from spending 3 days in flood-ravaged southern Ohio. I had the opportunity to visit with some of the victims in Clermont County, Adams County, Brown County, Scioto County, Jackson County, Lawrence, Gallia, and Meigs counties. When you see the damage up close, it is even more terrifying than it is when you see it on the nightly news, or see it on CNN. As I visited with the victims, I saw something that was very heartening. I saw something that simply makes you feel good. It certainly made me feel good. That was the number of people who were pulling together in a spirit of community, reaching out to each other to reassure each other, to help each other, to be with their friends, to be with their neighbors. I can't tell you how many different times I saw people who were volunteering to help someone else. I walked into one home and talked to a woman. I said, ``How did your home get cleaned up?'' She was an elderly lady. She said, ``I had 30 people come in here, 30 of my friends. They came in. They cleaned it up.'' They cleaned it up in a very short period of time. This weekend I visited Jackson, OH, in Jackson County. We were walking down a street that had been very heavily damaged. The homes had been heavily damaged by flood water. We came across what looked like 30, 40, or 45 Boy Scouts in Boy Scout uniforms. I asked the leader what they were doing. He said, ``Well, we were supposed to be camping out this weekend.'' These were scouts from four, five, or six different counties. ``But we decided to come in here to Jackson.'' And they literally just started volunteering to clean up people's homes. So I watched these Boy Scouts for a while as they went about their business moving the debris from that street, going into people's homes and helping them scrub down their floors and get the mud out. It was absolutely an unbelievable thing to see. That same day I saw the same spirit in New Boston. The Jaycee group was in New Boston. Again, as I was walking down the street and talking to some of the victims of the flood, I saw a bunch of Jaycees. They were out doing the same thing. They were drawn from all over the State of Ohio. They just volunteered to come in that day and were doing that type of cleanup work. On Sunday morning, yesterday morning, I participated in a church service in the village of Vinton, OH, a small village in Gallia County. Just about every family in that church had experienced some devastation from the flood. Yet, I heard words of hope from the pulpit. I heard words of hope from the members of the congregation. Frankly, Mr. President, I was reminded of what I saw in Xenia, OH, in 1974 when Xenia went through that tornado. Then, several days later, people still went to Sunday church services. There were people who said, ``Why in the world do they do that?'' Again, it was, I think, a reaffirmation of faith, people's devotion to each other, devotion to God, and really a showing of spirit of coming together. The Ohio National Guard has done a fantastic job. The Watercraft Division of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources literally came in and saved life after life--rescued people from the top of homes. The Ohio Department of Transportation is doing a phenomenal job, the Red Cross. I could go on and on. An absolutely tremendous amount of work is being done in the communities to really make a difference in the communities. My wife, Fran, had the opportunity to work in Ohio several days last week. She worked with the Salvation Army. She worked with the Red Cross and is working with one group of Southern Baptists who are all geared up whenever there is a disaster. They come from all over the State of Ohio and from other States into an area and cook and prepare food for people. They really made a difference. She was very inspired by what she saw them doing. And as she has told me about it, I have certainly been inspired as well. So these are just a few examples of what we are seeing in the State of Ohio. We are seeing people who are out there making a difference, people who are working with their neighbors, and people are just hanging in there. I happened to talk to one man in New Boston. His home was flooded in a very quick flash flood. He literally had to knock a hole in the ceiling. As the water was rising inside his house, he had to knock a hole in the ceiling and put his four little children up into the attic. He and his wife then crawled up into the attic. He knocked a hole in the roof, and they were rescued from the top of their house. Yet, when I came across this man, the mayor of New Boston told me that he had been one of the chief volunteers over the last few days. This man who had lost virtually everything in his home, who went through that unbelievable experience, was out leading the cleanup, volunteering for other people. So that is the type of thing we see. Let me also compliment the FEMA personnel who are on the scene. These are good folks who are out doing their job every day and who are really making a difference. So the report from Ohio, Mr. President, is that there is a tremendous amount of damage. We think it is $150 million, maybe $200 million. We really will not know until the entire flood has receded and we see what damage has been done. But the good news is people are fighting back. Human spirit is strong and people are helping each other. Again, I think that is the good news that I have to report for the last 3 days I spent in the State of Ohio. Mr. President, I will at this point yield the floor and yield back my time.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, there were 17,274 alcohol-related traffic fatalities in 1995. Each year, 1 million people are injured in alcohol- related traffic crashes. Alcohol is the single greatest factor in motor vehicle deaths and injuries. It is estimated that alcohol-related crashes cost society over $45 billion every year, when you count up items like emergency and acute health care costs, long-term care and rehabilitation, police and judicial services, insurance, disability and workers' compensation, lost productivity, and social services for those who cannot return to work and support their families. Just one alcohol-related fatality is estimated to cost society $950,000. The cost of each alcohol-related injury averages $20,000. fixing the problem The legislation we are introducing today would enact nationally a strategy that has been proven to work against alcohol-impaired driving--making it per se illegal to have a .08 level of blood alcohol content [BAC] when driving. An illegal per se law makes it illegal in and of itself to drive with an alcohol concentration measured at or above the established legal level. Forty-eight States have established a per se law. Thirty-five States have established per se laws at .10 BAC. Thirteen others have established the law at .08 BAC. Virtually all drivers are substantially impaired at .08 BAC. Laboratory and on-road tests show that the vast majority of drivers, even experienced drivers, are significantly impaired at .08 BAC with regard to critical driving tasks such as braking, steering, lane changing, judgment, and divided attention. The risk of being in a crash rises with each BAC level, but rises very rapidly after a driver reaches or exceeds .08 compared to drivers with no alcohol in their systems. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has concluded that in single-vehicle crashes, the relative risk for drivers with BAC's between .05 and .09 is over 11 times greater than for drivers with no alcohol in their systems. The .08 laws reduce the incidence of impaired driving at .08. However, they reduce even more the incidence of impaired driving at high BAC's over .15. Most States with a .08 law have found that it has helped decrease the incidence of alcohol-related fatalities. In California, NHTSA found that the State experienced a 12-percent reduction in alcohol-related fatalities. A recent study conducted by a professor at Boston University compared the first five States to lower their BAC limit with five nearby States with a .10 limit. Overall, the .08 States experienced a 16 percent reduction in the proportion of fatal crashes with a fatally injured driver whose BAC was .08 or higher, as well as an 18 percent reduction in crashes where the fatally injured driver's BAC was .15 or higher. The study concluded that if all States lowered their BAC limits to .08, alcohol-related highway deaths would decrease by 500-600 per year. Furthermore, .08 laws make it easier to arrest and convict drivers with BAC's of .10 or .11 because these are no longer borderline cases. Laws establishing a .08 per se limit serve as a powerful deterrent to drinking and driving--sending a message that the State is getting tougher on drunk driving, and making people think twice about getting behind the wheel. I strongly support this legislation.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, there were 17,274 alcohol-related traffic fatalities in 1995. Each year, 1 million people are injured in alcohol- related traffic crashes. Alcohol is the single greatest factor in motor vehicle deaths and injuries. It is estimated that alcohol-related crashes cost society over $45 billion every year, when you count up items like emergency and acute health care costs, long-term care and rehabilitation, police and judicial services, insurance, disability and workers' compensation, lost productivity, and social services for those who cannot return to work and support their families. Just one alcohol-related fatality is estimated to cost society $950,000. The cost of each alcohol-related injury averages $20,000. fixing the problem The legislation we are introducing today would enact nationally a strategy that has been proven to work against alcohol-impaired driving--making it per se illegal to have a .08 level of blood alcohol content [BAC] when driving. An illegal per se law makes it illegal in and of itself to drive with an alcohol concentration measured at or above the established legal level. Forty-eight States have established a per se law. Thirty-five States have established per se laws at .10 BAC. Thirteen others have established the law at .08 BAC. Virtually all drivers are substantially impaired at .08 BAC. Laboratory and on-road tests show that the vast majority of drivers, even experienced drivers, are significantly impaired at .08 BAC with regard to critical driving tasks such as braking, steering, lane changing, judgment, and divided attention. The risk of being in a crash rises with each BAC level, but rises very rapidly after a driver reaches or exceeds .08 compared to drivers with no alcohol in their systems. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has concluded that in single-vehicle crashes, the relative risk for drivers with BAC's between .05 and .09 is over 11 times greater than for drivers with no alcohol in their systems. The .08 laws reduce the incidence of impaired driving at .08. However, they reduce even more the incidence of impaired driving at high BAC's over .15. Most States with a .08 law have found that it has helped decrease the incidence of alcohol-related fatalities. In California, NHTSA found that the State experienced a 12-percent reduction in alcohol-related fatalities. A recent study conducted by a professor at Boston University compared the first five States to lower their BAC limit with five nearby States with a .10 limit. Overall, the .08 States experienced a 16 percent reduction in the proportion of fatal crashes with a fatally injured driver whose BAC was .08 or higher, as well as an 18 percent reduction in crashes where the fatally injured driver's BAC was .15 or higher. The study concluded that if all States lowered their BAC limits to .08, alcohol-related highway deaths would decrease by 500-600 per year. Furthermore, .08 laws make it easier to arrest and convict drivers with BAC's of .10 or .11 because these are no longer borderline cases. Laws establishing a .08 per se limit serve as a powerful deterrent to drinking and driving--sending a message that the State is getting tougher on drunk driving, and making people think twice about getting behind the wheel. I strongly support this legislation.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I thank the Chair.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for his indulgence and yield the floor. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, it is my view that this would be a big step forward for the progress of restoring civil society in Haiti. It would help bring high-profile killers to justice and send a powerful message to the people of Haiti that they can count on law and order becoming a reality in the future of their country. Let me discuss a broader topic--topic No. 2--the ordinary day-to-day operation of the Haitian police as it deals with run-of-the-mill, nonpolitical crimes, the crimes that most people face the threat of each day. The United States has already helped to train 5,000 young recruits as a civilian police force to replace the discredited Haitian military. This task was and remains daunting. Try to imagine, Mr. President, the Washington, DC police force fired one day, everyone fired en masse and replaced by kids fresh out of the police academy who are then asked to patrol the city's most dangerous neighborhoods. Or think of any other big city in this country. As one would expect, there have been some pretty serious problems with this police force. They are alleged to have killed innocent people. In fact, even Pierre Denize, director general of the Haitian national police has acknowledged these problems. He has a letter in Time magazine that reached the newsstands earlier this week, in which he writes the following: I take responsibility for the actions of my subordinates and acknowledge that some HNP members have committed human rights abuses, but the majority of these offenses have been identified through the investigative efforts of HNP officials. The HNP does not condone these acts. In addition, the Haitian Government is working to ensure HNP officers face criminal charges when warranted. Unfortunately, there is no quick fix, as the problems did not originate with the creation of HNP in 1996 but have developed over decades. Mr. President, one major problem is that these Haitian recruits lack experience, and they also lack the midlevel support that is essential to successful police work. I personally met with 10 of these United States police officers who are mentoring these young Haitian recruits. These Americans are veterans of big city police departments. They were born in Haiti and speak Creole. They are United States citizens. They have worked in some of the biggest, toughest cities and have great police experience. I found them to be enthusiastic and doing a great job. I was very proud of them. But, frankly, Haiti must have more of them. In his letter that I mentioned earlier, Secretary Talbott wrote me that in response to interest on the part of the Haitian Government, there are now 10 more United States officers there, for a total of 32. The expectation of law and order is always a prerequisite for a working society, but it is also a prerequisite for a working economy. Therefore, let me turn now to the third major issue I would like to discuss, the state of Haiti's economy, and I have mixed news to report. After a decade and a half of negative growth, the Haitian economy is finally beginning to grow, very slowly. But if the Haitians do not move forward, if the Government does not move forward immediately on privatizing their State industries, growth is going to stop. People need to see real economic progress if they are going to support the free market over the long run. If Haiti pays lip service to the free market while continuing its dead-or-dying state-run businesses, the prosperity will not be there for the Haitian people, and support for market reforms and support for democracy will erode very quickly. The Haitian Parliament has taken a meaningful first step by passing privatization legislation. But legislation is only a first step. To make a difference in national prosperity, privatization has to be real. It has to actually happen. President Preval must move forward quickly and forcefully on privatization. Mr. President, another thing that absolutely must happen in Haiti is the fundamental reform of Haiti's corrupt and inefficient ports. And this brings me to my fourth topic. My wife Fran and I visited an orphanage in Haiti, at which a nun approached us and told us that her orphanage had been expecting a vitally important x-ray machine. Where was it? She told us it was sitting on the docks for months. Then it was finally stolen. A second replacement x-ray machine, estimated to be worth a great deal of money, sat on the docks for months and months awaiting the payment of a 30- percent tax. Mr. President, a few weeks after returning to the United States, I met with Joe Busken in Cincinnati, a private citizen. Mr. Busken has been involved for years with a different orphanage in Haiti. He outfitted a bakery for them and taught them to make highly nutritious bread. I found, in talking to Mr. Busken, that last July--last July--he had shipped flour to that bakery, only to find that flour was also stuck on the docks since July. This was in November when I was talking to him. Once my office became involved, and with the help of the U.S. Embassy and the USAID, the flour and the other orphanage's x-ray machine were finally liberated, but that was 7 months later. Mr. President, Haiti is an island. It is therefore very vulnerable to the poor functioning of its ports. On an island such as Haiti, a badly run and corrupt port can become a major chokepoint for imports and also exports. A vibrant assembly sector, for example, cannot hope to grow as long as the port authority exacts a $750-per-container export fee. The Inter-American Development Bank, Mr. President, is to spend literally hundreds of millions of dollars to build roads in Haiti. The main purpose of these roads is to allow farmers and others to get goods to the ports for export. But those roads will not do any good if Haiti cannot even get things in or out of the port to begin with. Humanitarian aid, Mr. President, is just as vulnerable as are ordinary commercial imports and exports. Because economic reform remains a long-term goal, continued humanitarian aid remains an immediate need that must be met. Many concerned American volunteer groups are sending food and other emergency aid to Haiti. But huge tariff or port entry fees are keeping aid sitting on the docks for months. Food shipments are simply left to rot, discouraging many from even trying. Mr. President, here is an example of where American know-how can help. I am glad to report we have made some progress in making the humanitarian-aid train run on schedule. United States Ambassador William Swing has informed me that the Haitian Government has agreed to let assistance from private voluntary organizations, PVO's, who are affiliated with the United States Government enter Haiti without having to pay the 4-percent so-called verification fee. Shipments of food, pharmaceuticals and scholastic materials will be exempt from that verification fee for all PVO's, as well as United States Government agencies shipping aid to Haiti. That, Mr. President, is certainly a step in the right direction. Let me now turn to a related humanitarian matter, the current U.S. food-aid policy. That policy is shifting from a general feeding program to one targeted to women and infants. That is a wise step. But, Mr. President, I believe it should be modified so that the children in orphanages and the elderly in institutional care continue to receive this food until there is an alternative feeding program in place. In Port-au-Prince, my wife Fran visited an orphanage run by a nun who goes to hospitals to gather as many children as her orphanage will hold. These children who have been abandoned as babies are simply left at the hospital. She now takes care of 50 babies and children, many of whom came to the orphanage horribly malnourished. My wife had the opportunity to see some of these children, and it was a very pitiful sight. Mr. President, if the proposed U.S. food-aid policy is left unchanged, it would harm the neediest and most vulnerable patients, such as these babies. USAID is evaluating this policy now. I would urge them to reformulate the policy so that the most vulnerable people, children in orphanages and the elderly in institutions, are not left out. Mr. President, there is another topic that I do not intend to address today. That is the issue of Haitian agriculture. Haiti cannot recover-- true progress cannot be made--without a viable agricultural sector. But Haitian agriculture has been devastated. Haiti needs to do what it can to help themselves in this particular area. I intend to return to the floor at some future date, Mr. President, to discuss this issue in greater detail than time would permit today. Let me conclude by underlying the central fact about today's Haiti. It is an extremely troubled country. The road ahead is uphill, and it is very steep. Turning around two centuries of poverty and misrule is not a task that can be accomplished by Haitians overnight. That is why, Mr. President, it is important for Congress and the administration to work out a realistic bipartisan consensus on Haiti. The United States cannot make Haiti an island paradise. Only the people of Haiti can determine their own destiny. But we can help the Haitian people transform their country into one that works, one that exports goods and services, one where the people will come together to escape from their past rather than escaping from their homeland. That is their only hope for a viable future. That is a goal worthy of America's support. Mr. President, I will continue to work with the administration, with Members of both parties here in Congress to make sure this goal gets the attention that it needs. Exhibit 1 U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC, February 6, 1997. Hon. Mike DeWine, U.S. Senate. Dear Senator DeWine: I read with interest your January 24 OpEd article in the Wall Street Journal. I wholeheartedly concur with you on the need for further reforms in the police, judiciary and economy if Haiti is to realize the full benefits from the restoration of democracy. In this regard, I believe you would be interested in some developments that have occurred since your November visit to Haiti which address these shared concerns. Police and Judicial Reforms: The Inspector General (IG) of the Haitian National Police (HNP) has continued to crack down on police officers implicated in malfeasance or other improper activity, including during the last month the detention of four HNP officers involved in a November 5 shootout in the Delmas suburb of Port-au-Prince. Over the last year, IG investigations have resulted in the dismissal of dozens of police officers. As you note, one of the most positive elements of our own effort to strengthen the fledgling Haitian National Police has been the contribution of U.S. police mentors working with their Haitian counterparts. Responding to continued Haitian Government interest in this program and to your recommendation that additional U.S. civilian police officers be assigned to Haiti, the current U.S. contingent of 22 officers will be augmented this week with the arrival of ten new mentors. I also believe that additional measures are needed to ensure a thorough investigation of the murders of Haitian political figures. Two additional experienced, Creole- speaking U.S. investigators have been assigned to the Special Investigation Unit (SIU), and in response to a formal request from Haitian authorities, the FBI has agreed to provide a medical examiner to perform autopsies. We will give positive consideration to additional areas of support to the SIU that might be identified during a forthcoming FBI visit to Haiti to develop an investigation plan for the SIU. In the area of judicial reform, strengthening prosecutorial capabilities and the courts remain a priority USG effort, and we will work with the Congress to provide adequate resources for these efforts. Economic reforms: I agree with you that progress on privatization and tariff reform are essential to encourage economic development and private-sector investment. The Department remains committed to working closely with the Congress to establish and apply realistic conditions that will encourage sustainable economic development. We also plan to target USAID safety-net programs toward those most in need including, as you recommend, maintaining feeding programs directed at vulnerable sectors such as mothers and their infants. Again, I wish to express my appreciation for your interest in Haiti and your desire to work with the Administration in pursuit of democratization, political security and economic reform. Your visits have helped to galvanize a bipartisan effort that, in turn, will help Haiti to help itself. National Security Advisor Sandy Berger and I hope to visit Haiti in the near future. I look forward to continuing close cooperation with you to address the problems of the poorest and least developed of our neighbors. Sincerely, Strobe Talbott.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes today to talk about an issue that I have been looking at for some time. I rise today to discuss U.S. policy in regard to one of our most troubled neighbors in this hemisphere. Over the last several years, in my capacity as a member of the Intelligence Committee, I traveled to Haiti on three separate occasions to investigate the problems of that country and to assess the efforts of the United States to help the Haitians cope with these problems and to help them as they try to secure the solid legal and economic infrastructure that has, frankly, eluded them now for centuries. I did this because I believe Congress and the administration must undertake a candid, realistic look at U.S. policy, what is working, what is not working, and where we go from here. The American taxpayers have already invested a great deal in Haiti, contributing at least $2 billion to the country's recovery, risking the lives of American service personnel in the 1994 invasion, and leaving hundreds of them there today to help keep an uneasy peace. While Haiti is not of great strategic importance to the United States, we do have a serious interest in what happens in this, the poorest country in our hemisphere. These interests stem from geography and are amply proven by history. I do not think most of us need to be reminded, for example, about the Haitian boat people. It is clear the only thing preventing yet another explosion of refugees into the southern part of this country is a wise, multinational investment in the stability of Haiti. Fortunately, recent history has given us some good guidelines, some good advice, if you will, on how to help secure such stability. One of the great principles of the Reagan administration was that America's national interest was best served by having neighbors that practiced democratic and free-market principles. In Latin America, the Reagan doctrine certainly has worked. As free elections and economic liberalization has taken place in country after country, the countries of South and Central America have become better neighbors for the United States. I believe these same principles apply to our national strategy in regard to Haiti. Mr. President, we need to apply these principles to Haiti so that over the long term, Haiti can move out of the category of ``problem country'' and into a fuller economic and political participation in regional progress. The challenge for us, the challenge for Congress, the challenge for the administration is to provide assistance that actually works, a do-good approach, not a feel-good approach. This means working with the Haitian people to determine the real roadblocks to democracy and to free enterprise and determine what form of United States assistance will help overcome these obstacles. Two years after the United States invasion, Haiti still is struggling by any reasonable measure. But a closer examination reveals several seeds of progress struggling to take root. First, Let's start, Mr. President, with the justice system. For democracy to survive, it is not enough that Haitians have the power to effect change at the ballot box. They also must have a working judicial system. Frankly, Haiti has never had a functioning judiciary, certainly not the way we understand it. There are sitting judges today who can't read or write. Others are just incompetent. Understandably, the Haitian people are demanding change. Specifically, they want to know if President Preval is committed to building an independent and a competent judiciary. Since President Aristide's return, there has been a series of commando-style killings of political opponents. The numbers have dropped off since the inauguration of President Preval, but, disturbingly, too many people in Haiti still think they can commit political murders with impunity. Mr. President, there are two things you always need if you want to solve high-profile crimes. First, you have to have the expertise, good solid police work, good professional police investigation. And Second, you also have to have the political will from the top so that everyone in the country, everyone in the judicial system, everyone in law enforcement understands the priority. The good news is that the Haitian national police have established a special investigations unit, SIU, to investigate human rights crimes. The bad news is that while I was there in November, my most recent visit, the SIU consisted of one experienced United States police officer and roughly 36 inexperienced Haitians. This has changed somewhat since my visit, since two more U.S. police officers have been added to the force. This is one area in which American expertise can make a big difference. Indeed, with some extra United States help, Haiti could succeed in convicting some of the worst defenders, like the murderers of Mireille Bertin and Guy Malary. Mireille Bertin was an anti-Aristide lawyer. Guy Malary was Aristide's justice minister. To prosecute and convict the killers in those kinds of cases would send an unmistakable message to Haitian society: Your chance of getting justice does not depend on what side you are on. Mr. President, these reforms will not happen without leadership from the President of Haiti. President Preval needs to push judicial reform and make clear that the period of impunity from the left and from the right is now over. These reforms will not take place either, Mr. President, without expertise and without assistance from the United States. The SIU needs the kind of know-how that U.S. law enforcement officials can provide; indeed, they can provide it better than anyone else in the world. After my recent visit, I wrote to Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott and told him that additional U.S. expertise is needed in this area. I am pleased to report that I have received a letter back from Secretary Talbott. He wrote me that two additional Creole-speaking U.S. citizens, U.S. police officers, have been added to the SIU since my last visit, and further, that the FBI has agreed to provide a medical examiner to perform autopsies. Furthermore, he told me that the FBI will visit Haiti with a view toward possibly helping to develop an investigation plan for the SIU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Secretary Talbott's letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, as we speak, the flooding continues in Ohio and Kentucky and Indiana and West Virginia. Our hearts and prayers go out to all of those who are suffering and all those who are fighting back, trying to put their lives back in order. I see on the floor my colleague from Ohio and my colleague from Kentucky and my colleague from West Virginia. All are States, as well as Indiana, that have been hit very hard. The most heartening thing to see during a tragedy such as this is how people react. We have many organizations that are involved, but probably the biggest organization involved is not an organization at all, it is just Ohioans and Kentuckians and Hoosiers and people from West Virginia who are out there, helping their neighbors and helping their friends, and sometimes just helping people they do not know at all. It is the American spirit and is something that is a wonderful thing to behold.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me start by expressing on this floor, as I did this past Monday, my sympathy for the families who have lost loved ones in the last week due to tornadoes, due to flooding and other natural disasters. This has been a very, very tough week. In my home State of Ohio, we are experiencing a flood of once in the last 30 or 40 years magnitude--we have not experienced anything like this since the 1960's. Not only is my home State of Ohio experiencing this, but, of course, Kentucky and Indiana is as well. Vice President Gore is, as I speak, in Ohio, having the opportunity to view firsthand the damage. We appreciate his visit. We welcome it. We also appreciate the prompt action by President Clinton in designating 14 Ohio counties, to make them eligible for disaster assistance. Governor Voinovich has now made an additional request to the President to add two additional counties, Hamilton County, Cincinnati, as well as Clermont County. Both these counties have been hit exceedingly hard by the flooding. In fact, we have yet to see the high-water mark, which should not occur for a few more hours in Cincinnati and Clermont County, the Richland area--that part of our State. We really have an area in Ohio from Monroe County, up river, all the way down to Hamilton County. What we have seen is what we always see during tragedies such as this. We see Americans responding. And, in the midst of the tragedy, the suffering, what we see is neighbors helping neighbors and people out there just making a difference. We have Red Cross volunteers. We have emergency department volunteers. We have fire department volunteers. The National Guard is actively involved. But most of all, we have people who are just volunteers, who are just out there making a difference, who do not necessarily belong to any group except they are Ohioans or Kentuckians or Hoosiers from Indiana, and they are out there making a difference in their local communities. So let me pay tribute to them. The work that we have at hand is going to continue. Once the spotlight of CNN and the network news goes off Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana and goes off the river communities, the work is going to have to continue. We will have to be hanging in there and doing what we can. I appreciate the prompt response of FEMA and the Federal officials who were in Ohio yesterday, traveling with Lt. Gov. Nancy Hollister. I appreciate their prompt response and prompt recommendations to the President. I look forward to working with them, as well as working with the local communities, in the weeks and, frankly, months ahead. We are seeing not only a tremendous amount of damage, in the millions of dollars, to homes, trailers, people having to be relocated, but we are also seeing an immense damage to the infrastructure of the southern part of the State of Ohio. I don't think any of us know what this is going to amount to. We won't know until the river goes back and things begin to get back to normal before we can assess the full damage. When you look at some of the counties in southern Ohio, there is not a one of them that has the capacity to respond, as far as dollars are concerned. This is something that cannot be budgeted. We, of course, will be looking forward to working with FEMA and other agencies to get assistance in there to those counties.