Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I wish to talk now about two other amendments, one of which has already been offered and one which will be offered that I have cosponsored. Haiti is not the only emergency need that cannot wait another 6 or 9 months for funding. I wish to first talk about an amendment that Senator Kohl and I sponsored and that Senator Cochran has been very helpful in regard to. Our amendment provides additional emergency money for food aid. The President in his budget requested $150 million in additional emergency food aid in this bill. Quite frankly, we need to do more. Accounts have been drained, and over 17 million people are in need of emergency food aid in the world. That is a very conservative estimate. Last week, the United Nations World Food Program announced that it would be forced to cut rations to Darfur to make their supplies last. As Senator Frist so eloquently spoke just a few moments ago, the people in this part of the world suffered through genocide, and now they will starve. In addition, the U.S. Agency for International Development has been forced to cut programs in Sudan and Angola, Nicaragua, Rwanda, Ghana, Eritrea--all food programs. We know, of course, about the high-profile food aid emergencies, such as the people affected by the tsunami in Southeast Asia and the people in Darfur, but what we really do not hear so much about is the need for food as a result of the locust infestation that swept through Africa last year, devastating crops, and what we do not hear about is the devastating floods in Bangladesh that leave women and children without any means of survival. We cannot tell these 17 million starving people of the world to wait. We can't tell them to wait for the regular appropriations cycle because, frankly, by then, for them at least, it will be too late. When this amendment comes to the floor, the amendment sponsored by Senator Kohl and me, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to provide this emergency food. It is lifesaving. It will make a difference. Lives are, in fact, saved. Finally, I am cosponsoring an amendment offered by Senator Corzine, together with Senators Brownback and Durbin, that would provide $93.5 million to address the crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan. Again, I thank my colleague, Senator Frist, who has on many occasions been to Sudan and has personally done humanitarian work there, and who has been so very active on the floor of the Senate as well. I thank him for his eloquent words a few minutes ago and for his great leadership. I also thank my other colleagues who have taken the lead in this area and for their comments on the floor about this particular amendment and the dire situation in Darfur. They have been deeply committed to helping this troubled region of our world, and I commend them for their work. The amendment would provide $52 million in assistance for the African Union. The African Union is trying to stop the genocide, and we have a moral obligation to support their mission. This amendment also addresses the overwhelming humanitarian crisis in Darfur--providing $40.5 million for international disaster assistance. The United Nations International Children's Fund estimates that they only have access to 5 to 10 percent of Darfur and only can get into 5 or 10 percent, and they have access only to one-third of the millions of people living in the region. Children's lives depend on our vote on this amendment. This amendment is budget neutral. I urge all of my colleagues who have raised their voices on the floor in opposition to the crimes being committed in Darfur to vote for this amendment and to vote for the accompanying amendment containing the Darfur Accountability Act. The genocide in Darfur must end, and it must end now. I understand that we cannot address every problem in the world in this particular bill and that some things will have to wait for the regular appropriations cycle, but the things that I have come to the floor to talk about this morning simply will not wait. Lives are at stake if we do not address them in this bill, and lives will, in fact, be lost. Each one of the items that I have talked about is a matter of crisis, a matter of emergency. They need to be included in this bill. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 340 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DeWINE. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, inscribed on an exterior wall of the Chapel at the Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial in France, are the following words: These endured all and gave all that justice among nations might prevail and that mankind might enjoy freedom and inherit peace. Many years after the bloody battle on Normandy's shores and many miles from those sandy beaches and jagged cliffs, Army 1LT Charles Wilkins, III, of Columbus, OH, like the thousands of American servicemen who perished before him over 60 years ago, gave his life so that others, too, might enjoy freedom and inherit peace. On August 20, 2004, 1st Lieutenant Wilkins was killed near Samarra, Iraq, when a roadside explosive detonated near his Humvee. He was 38- years-old. Today, I would like to pay tribute to this fellow Ohioan and to take a few moments to remember him here in the Senate Chamber. You see, Charles--or Chuck, as he was known to his family and friends--was a deeply devoted, unselfish man. He lived his life with a sense of duty-- always dutiful to his country, to his family, to his friends, and to his job. Chuck defined the term ``citizen soldier,'' balancing his service in the Ohio National Guard with his obligations to his family and his career. After attending both Bishop Hartley High School and St. Charles Preparatory School, Chuck graduated in 1985, and enlisted in the U.S. Air Force. After his discharge, he enrolled at The Ohio State University to study economics. While in college, Chuck joined the Ohio National Guard because, according to his sister Lorin, ``He wanted to be an officer.'' After earning his college degree, Chuck took a job as a transportation planner with the Federal Highway Administration, became a volunteer for Habitat for Humanity, and began attending Capital Law School--all while continuing his service in the National Guard. At any time, Chuck could have quit being a soldier and settled into a quiet life as a civilian. But, that wasn't the type of person he was. Rather, Chuck was the type of person who always gave 100 percent of himself. In addition to his full time job, his military responsibilities, and his law classes, Chuck served as a peer-advisor at Capital for first-year law students. As someone who also attended law school, myself, I know how difficult and time consuming study can be--and Chuck Wilkins was doing it with a host of additional fulltime commitments! One of his advisees remembered how helpful Chuck was: Without Chuck, I doubt I would have made it through that very difficult first year [of law school]. He was always positive and upbeat, and he was constantly encouraging [us] to never give up. We could always count on Chuck to lift us up when we were down. It was important to him to make our first year journey a little bit better by sharing things that weren't available to him during his first year. I'm glad he took the time to make our first year law school world a better place. Chuck Wilkins always made time for others. As one of his co-workers said, ``He was always looking out for somebody else, never for himself.'' It was this sense of selflessness led Chuck to Iraq. Chuck was a member of the 216th Engineering Battalion, based in Chillicothe, OH. When his original unit was passed over for deployment to Iraq, Chuck sought a transfer to a unit that was scheduled to deploy in February of 2004. The new unit needed officers, and the Iraqi people needed bridges and roads. Once again, Chuck gave of himself so that others would not go without. It was hard for Chuck to leave his career and his law school studies, but as his sister, Lorin, said, ``He was Army, through and through. He wanted to help rebuild Iraq so people could have the same freedoms we do.'' As I said earlier, Chuck Wilkins wanted the Iraqi people to ``enjoy freedom and inherit peace.'' Though his sense of duty compelled him to go, it still was hard for Chuck to leave his family--the family he loved so very much. Like any mother, Natalie Wilkins did not want her son to leave for war. She begged him not to go and to seek an exemption, but Chuck would just reply, Mom, I can't stay. I have to go with my men.'' While his deep sense of duty pulled him away from his loved ones here at home, Chuck remained a family man'' in every sense of that phrase. His sister, Lorin, says that Chuck was always there for the family. She said that even with his busy schedule, if you called him, he would be there.'' He took good care of his mom and dad and his sisters, always making sure that his family was provided for--whether he was home in Ohio or thousands of miles away in Iraq. Charles Wilkins, Jr.--Chuck's father--says that one of his last memories of his son is of him swimming in a pool, playing with his nephew, laughing. That is when Chuck Wilkins was happiest--that is when he was making others happy, making them feel safe and cared for and protected. We honor the fallen because they have honored us--with their service, with their sacrifice. Charles Wilkins not only gave himself to his country, he gave a little bit of himself to everyone he met. When Charles passed away, his mother said that the world lost a good man--a man whose llfe was bound by duty and good deeds. Our world is the lesser without him, but it is also the better for the time he lived on this earth. Charles Wilkins was a good citizen, a good soldier, a devoted family man, and a compassionate human being. Everyone who met him was touched by him in some way. He will be dearly missed. My wife Fran and I continue to keep his grandmother, Dorothy; his mother, Natalie; his father, Charles; and his sisters Lorin and Davina in our thoughts and our prayers. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I rise with my colleague, Senator Jack Reed, to reintroduce the Services for Ending Long-Term Homelessness Act. I would like to thank Senator Reed for his support in introducing this bill and for his dedication and commitment to this issue. I also would like to thank Senator Burr for his work on this bill. Senator Burr introduced a similar version of this bill when he was a member of the House of Representatives. I appreciate his support and the support of Senator Dodd, as well. Both are co-sponsors of this legislation. The chronically homeless represent about 10 percent of the entire homeless population, but consume a majority of the services. There are approximately 200,000 to 250,000 people who experience chronic homelessness. Those numbers include the heads of families, as well. Tragically, for these individuals, the periods of homelessness are measured in years--not weeks or months. They tend to have disabling health and behavioral health problems: 40 percent have substance abuse disorders, 25 percent have a physical disability, and 20 percent have serious mental illness. These factors often contribute to a person becoming homeless, in the first place, and are certainly an impediment to overcoming it. The President has set a goal of ending chronic homelessness in 10 years. The President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, chaired by the Ohio Department of Mental Health Director, Mike Hogan, recommended that a comprehensive program be created to facilitate access to permanent supportive housing for individuals and families who are chronically homeless. This recommendation is so important because affordable housing, alone, is not enough for this hard to reach group. And, temporary shelter-housing does not provide the stability and services needed to provide long-term positive outcomes. Only supportive housing, where the chronically homeless can receive shelter and services, such as mental health and substance abuse treatment, has been effective in decreasing their chances of returning to the streets and increasing their chances for leading productive lives. Not only is it right to help this group of hard to reach individuals, but it is also fiscally responsible. This group is one of the most expensive groups to serve. As I mentioned previously, they represent 10 percent of the overall homeless population, however, they consume a majority of homeless services. They consume the most emergency housing and health care services, which are also the most costly to provide. By encouraging supportive housing, we are providing the services necessary for these individuals and families to really get back on their feet. We can either continue to provide expensive emergency services to these needy people or we can give them the right kind of help--the type of help they need for their long-term well-being and the long-term well- being of our communities. Unfortunately, current programs for funding services in permanent supportive housing, other than those administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, were not designed to be coordinated with housing programs. These programs also were not designed to meet the challenging needs of this specific subgroup of the homeless. That is why the bill we are introducing today would provide the authorization to fund services for supportive housing by providing grants which can be used with existing programs through HUD and state and local communities. Our bill also would encourage those who provide services to the chronically homeless, such as SAMHSA within the Department of Health and Human Services, to work with and coordinate their efforts with those who provide the physical housing, such as HUD. Under the current administration, these two departments have started to truly coordinate their efforts, and this bill would encourage and support that continued collaboration. This is a good bill, Mr. President, and it could make a real difference in the lives of so many individuals in need. I ask my colleagues to join us in support. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I rise with my colleague, Senator Jack Reed, to reintroduce the Services for Ending Long-Term Homelessness Act. I would like to thank Senator Reed for his support in introducing this bill and for his dedication and commitment to this issue. I also would like to thank Senator Burr for his work on this bill. Senator Burr introduced a similar version of this bill when he was a member of the House of Representatives. I appreciate his support and the support of Senator Dodd, as well. Both are co-sponsors of this legislation. The chronically homeless represent about 10 percent of the entire homeless population, but consume a majority of the services. There are approximately 200,000 to 250,000 people who experience chronic homelessness. Those numbers include the heads of families, as well. Tragically, for these individuals, the periods of homelessness are measured in years--not weeks or months. They tend to have disabling health and behavioral health problems: 40 percent have substance abuse disorders, 25 percent have a physical disability, and 20 percent have serious mental illness. These factors often contribute to a person becoming homeless, in the first place, and are certainly an impediment to overcoming it. The President has set a goal of ending chronic homelessness in 10 years. The President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, chaired by the Ohio Department of Mental Health Director, Mike Hogan, recommended that a comprehensive program be created to facilitate access to permanent supportive housing for individuals and families who are chronically homeless. This recommendation is so important because affordable housing, alone, is not enough for this hard to reach group. And, temporary shelter-housing does not provide the stability and services needed to provide long-term positive outcomes. Only supportive housing, where the chronically homeless can receive shelter and services, such as mental health and substance abuse treatment, has been effective in decreasing their chances of returning to the streets and increasing their chances for leading productive lives. Not only is it right to help this group of hard to reach individuals, but it is also fiscally responsible. This group is one of the most expensive groups to serve. As I mentioned previously, they represent 10 percent of the overall homeless population, however, they consume a majority of homeless services. They consume the most emergency housing and health care services, which are also the most costly to provide. By encouraging supportive housing, we are providing the services necessary for these individuals and families to really get back on their feet. We can either continue to provide expensive emergency services to these needy people or we can give them the right kind of help--the type of help they need for their long-term well-being and the long-term well- being of our communities. Unfortunately, current programs for funding services in permanent supportive housing, other than those administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, were not designed to be coordinated with housing programs. These programs also were not designed to meet the challenging needs of this specific subgroup of the homeless. That is why the bill we are introducing today would provide the authorization to fund services for supportive housing by providing grants which can be used with existing programs through HUD and state and local communities. Our bill also would encourage those who provide services to the chronically homeless, such as SAMHSA within the Department of Health and Human Services, to work with and coordinate their efforts with those who provide the physical housing, such as HUD. Under the current administration, these two departments have started to truly coordinate their efforts, and this bill would encourage and support that continued collaboration. This is a good bill, Mr. President, and it could make a real difference in the lives of so many individuals in need. I ask my colleagues to join us in support. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I join our colleagues Senators Kennedy, Lugar, Collins, Smith, Cornyn, McCain, Snowe, Harkin, Durbin, Dodd, Lautenberg, Reed, Murkowski, Chafee and Specter to introduce a bill designed to help protect consumers--especially children--from the dangers of tobacco. Simply, our bill would finally give the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority it needs to effectively regulate the manufacture and sale of tobacco products. I say finally, because there are some tobacco proponents who would have you believe that the Master Settlement Agreement, which was signed in 1998 by 46 states, resolved the issue of tobacco use by imposing advertising restrictions. I say finally, because my colleagues--first Senator McCain, then Senator Frist, then Senator Gregg, and then Senator Kennedy and I--have been seeking FDA regulation of tobacco products since the mid- to late- 1990's. And, I say finally, because the bill that we are introducing today is the product of long and hard discussions and negotiations that I have had with Senator Kennedy and public interest groups and industry. Our bill has the support of the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, Philip Morris, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, and the American Cancer Association. It is a bill that I am proud of-- one that is worthy of the Senate's consideration, and one that will provide the FDA--finally--with strong and effective authority over the regulation of tobacco products. The introduction of this bill couldn't come at a better time. The budget is on the Floor, and people anticipate the slowed-spending in Medicaid, and the economic burden of cigarettes is enormous. According to the 2004 Surgeon General's Report entitled The Health Consequences of Smoking, from 1995 to 1999, smoking-related costs totaled $157.7 billion each year. This figure includes more than $75 billion in direct medical costs for adults (things like ambulatory care, hospital care, prescription drugs, nursing homes, and other care), about $82 billion in indirect costs from lost productivity, and $366 million for neonatal care. This equals an estimated $3,000 per smoker, per year. In a budget year when Congress is looking to find savings in Medicaid--in the ballpark of $15 billion over 5 years--Congress should look at the cost savings that would be made possible by FDA regulation of tobacco. We already know that doing nothing costs our country, our taxpayers, and our employers and employees $157 billion a year. Isn't it time that the federal government consider that it has a responsibility to find savings through the regulation of tobacco? Not having access to all the information about this deadly product makes no sense and it is something that needs to change. By introducing this bill, we are saying that. we are not going to let tobacco manufacturers have free reign over their markets and consumers any more. We are taking a step toward making sure the public gets adequate information about whether to continue to smoke or even to start smoking in the first place. With this bill, we are not just saying ``buyer beware.'' We are saying ``tobacco companies be honest.'' We are saying ``tobacco companies stop marketing to innocent children and tell consumers about what they are really buying.'' Ultimately, our bill would give consumers the information they need to make healthier and better choices about tobacco use. I have faith that informed consumers make better choices, and those choices could lead to cost-savings for the society overall. Our bill would give the FDA the authority to regulate a product that has gone unregulated for far too long--a product that for the past century has not revealed its ingredients to the consumer--a product whose manufacturing facilities are not inspected or accountable for following good manufacturing practices--a product that is never reviewed or approved before reaching the hands of 40 million consumers, many of whom are just children. Mr. President, Congress should put an end to this. Congress should put an end to the marketing of tobacco products to our children. Congress should put an end to the ability of tobacco companies to make claims, whether they are implied claims or direct claims, about their products. Congress should put an end to tobacco companies putting any ingredient they want into their products without disclosing it to the consumer. It is time Congress gives the FDA authority to it needs to fix these problems. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, amendment No. 161 is at the desk, with modifications.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I join my friend and colleague, Senator Leahy, in offering this amendment that would increase the funding level for the child survival and maternal health program to $400 million. Basically, by voting for this amendment we will save many lives. It provides money for vaccinations, immunizations, and vitamins that will save lives around the world.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Allen in urging the Senate to adopt budget language reinforcing our Nation's commitment to vital aeronautics research. For decades, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has conducted a wide array of aeronautics research programs that have helped ensure our economic and military security and revolutionize the way we travel. NASA's work in aeronautics has captured the spirit of the Wright Brothers, spawning generation after generation of progress. The amendment before us, which I am cosponsoring, will help make certain that progress continues for many years to come. Members of this body, including me, will fly to their home states later today or tomorrow when we have completed the budget, and when we do, we will benefit from countless innovations first developed in NASA aeronautics programs over the years--efficient jet engines, safe and secure air traffic control networks, advanced de-icing technologies, and so on. The impact of NASA's work is indeed widespread. The U.S. aviation industry supports over 11 million jobs and contributes $1 trillion in economic activity. Our airlines carry 750 million passengers per year, with that number expected to grow to a billion within 15 years. We ship 52 percent of our exports by air, and in fact, the aviation industry contributes more to the U.S. balance of trade than any other domestic manufacturing industry. Today we are at grave risk of losing the staff, facilities, and expertise necessary to continue the long history of NASA's aeronautics research programs. We are at risk of essentially allowing the first ``A'' in NASA--the one that stands for aeronautics--to die over the next several years. What a tragedy that would be for the traveling public, for our aviation industries, for our military, and really for our entire economy. The budget we have before us does not contain specific references to aeronautics funding. Nonetheless, we know of NASA's plans for aeronautics from its fiscal year 2006 budget request. We know that the agency intends to reduce overall aeronautics funding by over 17 percent from fiscal year 2004, dropping another 12 percent by 2009. That is nearly one-third in just 5 years. The cuts are even more severe within the ``vehicle systems'' account--the portion of NASA's aeronautics program that focuses on making aircraft safer, faster, quieter, more fuel efficient, and dynamic. NASA has announced its intention to cut over 28 percent of its budget in this area relative to fiscal year 2004, with plans to eventually cut even deeper in the out years. What will the practical consequences of these cuts be? For starters, the cuts mean that all subsonic and hypersonic research will be terminated. This is the research that focuses on designing stronger airframes and better turbine engines--technologies that with just a little work can be taken from the lab and applied directly to functional aircraft, whether commercial or military. As a result, domestic aircraft and engine producers will lack the ability to draw on a body of solid pre-competitive research, while competitors abroad benefit from well financed efforts, such as the European Union's ``Vision 2020'' aeronautics program. Ultimately, the consequence may be the loss of our longstanding global leadership in civil aviation and all the economic benefits that flow from that leadership. Second, many of the facilities necessary to design and test new aeronautics technologies will likely be closed as a result of budget shortfalls. Wind tunnels and propulsion test facilities are used by government, academia, and industry--often on a pay-for-use basis--and require minimal funding to maintain. A recent RAND National Defense Research Institute determined that over 84 percent of these NASA facilities serve strategic national needs, and concluded that the success of the U.S. aerospace industry ``relies on our workforce and test facility infrastructure . . . and will continue to need to predict airflow behavior over a range of designs.'' If we allow wind tunnels and propulsion labs to close, there will, in fact, be no way to serve these needs. So these proposed aeronautics cuts are a double threat to the U.S. aviation industry: On the one hand, they get NASA out of the business of subsonic research, and on the other, they may well lead to the closure of the very facilities industry and academia would need to replace that research. There would, of course, be consequences for cross-cutting technologies used by the military and for the scores of Americans employed in these areas. On balance, the overall long-term impact would be devastating. Instead of focusing on these subsonic and hypersonic aeronautics program areas, NASA intends to focus on ``barrier breaking'' flight demonstrations. These are exciting projects that involve UAVs and aircraft capable of quietly crossing the sound barrier, and they may pay off 15, 20, or 25 years down the road. By then, however, it could be too late for our aviation industry. The language offered by Senator Allen today addresses that fact head-on by restoring balance in NASA's aeronautics programs. We need to step back and re-evaluate where we are with aeronautics research, where we want to be in 5, 10, 15 years, and make a commitment to do what it takes to get us there. A study specifically requested by Congress in the fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations bill mapping this course will be unveiled later this month by the National Institute of Aerospace. Just yesterday, the House Science Committee held an important hearing on the direction of aeronautics research. There is movement on these issues, and we will have opportunities to define our goals as the year progresses. What Senator Allen is proposing to do is to say that we must keep all of our options open and our areas of expertise healthy until we are able to come to a conclusion between Congress, the administration, industry, academia, and really our Nation on what our direction will be. Senator Allen's language, in essence, ensures that our debate on how to approach aeronautics will not be over before it begins. amendment no. 220

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I join our colleagues Senators Kennedy, Lugar, Collins, Smith, Cornyn, McCain, Snowe, Harkin, Durbin, Dodd, Lautenberg, Reed, Murkowski, Chafee and Specter to introduce a bill designed to help protect consumers--especially children--from the dangers of tobacco. Simply, our bill would finally give the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority it needs to effectively regulate the manufacture and sale of tobacco products. I say finally, because there are some tobacco proponents who would have you believe that the Master Settlement Agreement, which was signed in 1998 by 46 states, resolved the issue of tobacco use by imposing advertising restrictions. I say finally, because my colleagues--first Senator McCain, then Senator Frist, then Senator Gregg, and then Senator Kennedy and I--have been seeking FDA regulation of tobacco products since the mid- to late- 1990's. And, I say finally, because the bill that we are introducing today is the product of long and hard discussions and negotiations that I have had with Senator Kennedy and public interest groups and industry. Our bill has the support of the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, Philip Morris, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, and the American Cancer Association. It is a bill that I am proud of-- one that is worthy of the Senate's consideration, and one that will provide the FDA--finally--with strong and effective authority over the regulation of tobacco products. The introduction of this bill couldn't come at a better time. The budget is on the Floor, and people anticipate the slowed-spending in Medicaid, and the economic burden of cigarettes is enormous. According to the 2004 Surgeon General's Report entitled The Health Consequences of Smoking, from 1995 to 1999, smoking-related costs totaled $157.7 billion each year. This figure includes more than $75 billion in direct medical costs for adults (things like ambulatory care, hospital care, prescription drugs, nursing homes, and other care), about $82 billion in indirect costs from lost productivity, and $366 million for neonatal care. This equals an estimated $3,000 per smoker, per year. In a budget year when Congress is looking to find savings in Medicaid--in the ballpark of $15 billion over 5 years--Congress should look at the cost savings that would be made possible by FDA regulation of tobacco. We already know that doing nothing costs our country, our taxpayers, and our employers and employees $157 billion a year. Isn't it time that the federal government consider that it has a responsibility to find savings through the regulation of tobacco? Not having access to all the information about this deadly product makes no sense and it is something that needs to change. By introducing this bill, we are saying that. we are not going to let tobacco manufacturers have free reign over their markets and consumers any more. We are taking a step toward making sure the public gets adequate information about whether to continue to smoke or even to start smoking in the first place. With this bill, we are not just saying ``buyer beware.'' We are saying ``tobacco companies be honest.'' We are saying ``tobacco companies stop marketing to innocent children and tell consumers about what they are really buying.'' Ultimately, our bill would give consumers the information they need to make healthier and better choices about tobacco use. I have faith that informed consumers make better choices, and those choices could lead to cost-savings for the society overall. Our bill would give the FDA the authority to regulate a product that has gone unregulated for far too long--a product that for the past century has not revealed its ingredients to the consumer--a product whose manufacturing facilities are not inspected or accountable for following good manufacturing practices--a product that is never reviewed or approved before reaching the hands of 40 million consumers, many of whom are just children. Mr. President, Congress should put an end to this. Congress should put an end to the marketing of tobacco products to our children. Congress should put an end to the ability of tobacco companies to make claims, whether they are implied claims or direct claims, about their products. Congress should put an end to tobacco companies putting any ingredient they want into their products without disclosing it to the consumer. It is time Congress gives the FDA authority to it needs to fix these problems. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, amendment No. 153 is a sense of the Senate expressing the importance of providing treatment to children infected with HIV/AIDS. I encourage all of my colleagues to read the amendment and ask that they join as cosponsors to show support for pediatric treatment of HIV/AIDS. This Congress must not overlook children who are infected with HIV/AIDS. Fortunately, Congress has realized that the transmission of HIV/AIDS is preventable and avoidable. We have supported funding for mother-to- child transmission, which, when effectively implemented in the United States, has resulted in the near elimination, less than 2 percent transmission, of mother-to-child HIV/AIDS transmission. By contrast, in resource-poor settings, less than 10 percent of pregnant women living with HIV have access to services to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV. It is inexcusable for us to not do something to continue to reduce the rate of transmission between mother and child. With the President's Emergency AIDS Initiative, we have certainly made some progress, but there is always more to do. But, we cannot stop at preventing the transmission. We have to ensure that there is treatment available for children when necessary. Approximately 2.2 million children under the age of 15 are infected with the HIV virus, and 1,900 children worldwide are infected with HIV each day. To date, more than 4 million children worldwide are estimated to have died from AIDS. We must ensure that HIV-positive children and children with AIDS are no longer overlooked and that they begin receiving the treatment and care that they deserve. Few programs specifically target the treatment of children with HIV/ AIDS in resource-poor countries due to significant challenges in diagnosing and treating infants and young children with HIV. Such challenges include: difficulty in diagnosing HIV in infants less than 18 months of age; lack of appropriate and affordable pediatric HIV/ AIDS medicines; and lack of trained health care providers. When I went to Guyana two years ago, only one child--one child in the whole country--was receiving antiretroviral treatment medicine. I know that more are receiving treatment now, but not many. We have to do more to change that. We need to ensure that physicians and clinicians are trained in pediatric care and that safe and effective medicines are available to infected children who need them to survive. Ultimately, pediatric treatment cannot be anecdotal. It must be routine. And we should demand that it be routine. This sense-of-the- Senate amendment is a step in that direction. It forces us to look at the facts, and it compels us to do something about it. Mr. President, today I also join my friend and colleague, Senator Leahy, in amendment No. 161 that would increase the funding level for the Child Survival and Maternal Health Program to $660 million. That would be a $334 million increase over the budgeted level of $326 million. This is an appropriate and necessary step. And, it is, simply, the right thing to do. With regard to today's child survival crises, we know the facts: 130 million children entered the 21st Century unable to read or write; 2,000 children younger that 15 each day are infected with AIDS; 650 million children live in extreme poverty; and over 10 million children die each year, most from preventable causes and almost all in poor countries. According to UNICEF, out of every 100 children born, 30 will most likely suffer from malnutrition in their first 5 years of life; 26 will not be immunized against the most basic of childhood diseases; 19 will lack access to clean, safe drinking water; and 17 will never--ever--go to school. How have we responded to this world of ours? How have we responded to the developing world? We have seemingly come to expect, and indeed, accept poverty, instability, and epidemic disease as a way of life in the developing world. The real tragedy is that all of it is avoidable. We can do something about it. We can do simple things to save millions of children's lives. Our amendment would help save lives. I would like to take a few minutes to share some more statistics about child and maternal mortality. I am often hesitant to recite statistics here on the floor of the U.S. Senate because when we hear them repeatedly, it is all too easy to become numb to them--to forget the human realities that they do, in fact, represent. It is important, though, for my colleagues and for the American people to listen to some of these statistics because they are so unbelievable and so tragic and represent so many lives that could be saved--lives that could be saved if we would make the appropriate amount of resources available to the developing countries in such dire need. Of those 10 million children who die each year worldwide, 3.9 million occur in the first 28 days of life. These babies don't even have a shot at living their lives. Yet, two-thirds of these deaths could be prevented if available and affordable interventions had reached the children and mothers who needed them. Malnutrition contributes to 54 percent of all childhood deaths. And, as many as 3 million children die annually as a result of Vitamin A deficiency and an estimated 400,000 cases of childhood blindness are reported each year. According to World Health Organization estimates, at least 30 million infants still do not have access to basic immunization services, and over 4.4 million children died from vaccine preventable diseases in 2001--diseases such as hepatitis, polio, and tetanus. Of all the vaccine-preventable diseases, measles remains the leading childhood killer, claiming the lives of 745,000 children--more than half of them in Africa. Yet, vaccine-preventable deaths could actually be cut in half by 2005 if these children were receiving proper vaccinations. Recently, the Lancet, which ran a series of articles last year about child survival, has launched a series of articles about neonatal death. Here is what the first few articles reveal: Of the 130 million babies born every year, about 4 million die in the first 4 weeks of life--the neonatal period. In poor communities, many babies who die are unnamed and unrecorded, indicating the perceived inevitability of their death. [Also], 450 newborn children die every hour, mainly from preventable causes. This is unconscionable, and it is an emergency situation. There really isn't any other way to describe it. Over 10 million children dying each year from preventable and treatable illnesses is an emergency. But this emergency cannot be resolved through short-term, temporary, piecemeal assistance. If we are to make any real headway in improving the health of women and children in the long-term, we need to take some bold and radical steps and be committed to supporting maternal and child health programs not just now, but next year and the year after and the year after that. Our funding simply cannot be administered in a single-dose. Our amendment would allocate additional money to help avert maternal and neonatal death and improve maternal health, including the prevention of obstetric fistulas and other types of injuries and disabilities resulting from childbirth in unsafe circumstances. The fact is that all pregnant women are at risk for injuries and childbirth complications, which is why it is so important to have skilled attendants--midwives, doctors, or nurses--present at birth. Yet, only about half of the world's women give birth with a skilled attendant available. Child survival and maternal health funding provides resources so that USAID can provide training and technical assistance in infection prevention and quality of care, as well as needed equipment and supplies to bring health facilities up to a level where they can provide safe and effective emergency pre- and post-natal care. Child survival interventions work, and they are the most cost-effective tools we have in the struggle for better global health. We can and should invest in these programs as they increase developing countries' access to basic health services--services like vaccinations, immunizations, micronutrient programs, and vitamin supplements. If we make this investment and work toward equal access to health care, we help ensure that mothers receive proper prenatal care, that children and families receive nutrition counseling and vitamin supplements, and that children receive the necessary immunizations and vaccinations to live healthy lives. But tragically, if we fail to make a sufficient and sustained investment in the development of public health systems that provide primary care, mothers will continue to die prematurely during childbirth, children will continue to die from preventable disease and causes, and life expectancies in these developing nations will stagnate or perhaps even decrease. That is not an acceptable future for any of us. I ask my colleagues to join us in supporting this amendment.

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed in morning business and I also ask unanimous consent that the time be counted as postcloture time.

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

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I come to the Senate this afternoon in disbelief and sadness and a little anger. I am angry, sad, at the blatant disregard for common sense in a new ad campaign being promoted by a prominent trade association. The American Beverage Licensees, or ABL, has launched a campaign entitled ``MADD at GM''--MADD referencing Mothers Against Driving Drunk, with the aim of stopping the charitable donations General Motors gives to Mothers Against Drunk Driving. ABL claims that MADD has a ``neoprohibitionist agenda.'' Yes, the neoprohibitionist agenda is what they claim. They claim that MADD ``wants to criminalize social drinking by preventing designated drivers from drinking before they get behind the wheel.'' Apparently in their world, designated drivers ought to be able to have a few drinks before getting on the road. In most people's world, that defies all common sense. In honor of MADD's 20th anniversary in 2000, General Motors made a commitment to contribute $2.5 million over 5 years to MADD to combat underage drinking, for underage drinking prevention, and drunk driving victim assistance, a very laudable goal. I applaud General Motors for doing this. But what has happened is, with General Motors' funding commitment now expired, ABL has seen this as the perfect opportunity to attack General Motors. They are attacking a noble cause, and their attack makes no sense. ABL's smear campaign against General Motors and MADD has taken many forms--an Internet Web site, print advertisements, TV ads during NASCAR events, and through promotional materials distributed at bars, restaurants, and other ABL member locations throughout the country. I have brought two of these ads with me to the Senate floor this afternoon. Let me show the first ad. This first advertisement plays off the well-known board game Monopoly. It explicitly states that by purchasing a General Motors car, any American is funding his or her own arrest. How absurd. It suggests that because General Motors supports MADD and MADD is against drinking and driving that somehow General Motors is to blame if you get arrested for being over the legal drinking limit. But last time I checked, in this country we arrest people who have broken the law. And in this case that is drinking too much before you get behind the wheel. Let me show the second ad, just as outrageous. This advertisement, again from the MADD at GM campaign, contradicts common sense as much as the first one did. As you can see here, the man in the ad is posing for his mug shot. But instead of holding his arrest number, he is holding a sign stating that his arrest was sponsored by General Motors. That is what it says. General Motors didn't get this man arrested. Drinking and driving did. The ad further states that General Motors supports the arrest of social drinkers through its charitable donations to MADD. But that isn't the case at all. The simple fact is that if you drink too much and you get in a car and drive, you break the law. It doesn't matter if you label it as social drinking or not; what is wrong is wrong. This ad says that ``MADD spends millions provided by GM to fund their roadblock promotion campaign. They're using your money to arrest you.'' That roadblock campaign is a program I strongly support and I know many Members of the Senate support as well. It is also a program that the Traffic Safety and Law Enforcement Campaign bill that Senator Lautenberg and I are introducing today would help fund. Let me show a third ad. This ad, however, is from MADD. In it you can see a note from LT Carl McDonald about his daughter Carlie. It reads: This is my precious little girl, Carlie. I always told her, ``I will love you as long as there are stars in the sky.'' She would always smile, look up at me and say, ``I love you more than there are stars in the universe.'' These words are now inscribed on her tombstone. At the tender age of five she was killed by a drunk driver--her mother. If you think it can't happen to you--think again. Please don't drink and drive. This was an ad brought to us by MADD. The ad has more teeth in it than the other two ads combined. We all know the truth; that is, drinking and driving is deadly. MADD is doing all it can do to help save lives and get drunk drivers off the road. I think what is so alarming and irritating and makes us all so mad is this campaign that is targeted against MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, an organization that has done so much good in this country in all 50 States. I first came in contact with MADD when I was a State senator back in the early 1980s. We had a little boy, a 7-year-old boy by the name of Justin Beason, who was tragically killed by a drunken driver in my home county. As a result, I introduced a bill in our State legislature, a tough drunk-driving bill. I can truthfully say it was through the support of MADD and MADD's members who went to the legislature, lobbied the legislature, testified in front of the State legislature, wrote letters--if it wasn't for MADD, that bill would not have become law. It is an organization that reminds us every day of the horrible tragedies and about people like Carlie--little children who lose their lives on highways every week because of drivers who were drinking. This organization has been so viciously attacked by this trade organization. It is an organization made up of many parents who have lost children, and many times husbands who have lost wives, and wives who have lost husbands--all to drunk drivers. It is a good organization. It is an organization we should all support. It is an organization of which we should all be proud. Anyone who attacks it, I just don't understand. Here are some statistics to think about: 69 percent of our youth died in alcohol-related fatalities in the year 2000 involved young drinking drivers. Of the 42,000 people killed in all of the traffic accidents in 2003, 40 percent--well over one-third--were due to alcohol. Further, since MADD's founding in 1980, drunk-driving deaths have dramatically decreased from 26,179 in 1982 to 17,013 in the year 2003. Clearly, MADD and other anti-drunk-driving campaigns are having an impact. We have begun to change the culture in this country. In part, we have corporations such as General Motors to thank having helped MADD in their cause. While deaths due to drunk driving have decreased in large part through the great work of MADD, the job is certainly not finished. As long as people are put into danger because someone got behind the wheel after drinking alcohol, we have work to do. General Motors and MADD are not criminalizing social drinkers, they are working together to simply save lives. Today, I am introducing six transportation safety bills. I introduced them last year and am doing so again because I want to see them get passed and signed into law and see lives saved. They are commonsense bills that will, in fact, save lives. I think all of us care about keeping our roads safe. That is also why I again commend MADD and General Motors. I also commend the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for its efforts to keep drunk drivers off the road and its prosafety agenda. They are all doing what is right and what needs to be done to protect our children and our families when they get into a car and get on the road. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for the very kind remarks. Senator Dodd has been a real partner on so many issues affecting children. He and I have worked together. Whenever we want to find someone to advocate for children, Chris Dodd is there. My colleague is always a great champion for children. On the issue of drinking and driving, underage drinking and highway safety, Senator Dodd has been a true champion. I thank my colleague for coming to the floor. Again, I look forward to continuing to work with him in the years ahead.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague, Senator Bingaman, for sponsoring that measure, and I appreciated the support of Senator Domenici and our colleagues from Tennessee and Washington. The Manhattan Project stands as one of the great technological achievements of the 20th century. Therefore, it is appropriate to recognize the historical importance of the sites most closely associated with the development of the atomic bomb. This legislation has begun a process for the Secretary of the Interior to provide that recognition. I want to call attention to the critical contributions made in Dayton, OH, toward the Manhattan Project, under what became known as the ``Dayton Project.'' Because the Dayton Project was shrouded in secrecy, its contribution has long been overlooked. Yet, the technological achievements of the Dayton Project were among the most important to the completion of the Manhattan Project. It was in Dayton that scientists discovered how to trigger the chain reaction that unleashed the power of the atom. To continue that effort, the Atomic Energy Commission established the Mound Laboratory in Miamisburg, just southeast of Dayton. As my colleague explained, the act directs the Secretary of the Interior to study three specifically named sites associated with the history of the Manhattan Project. I would like to ask the distinguished Senator if there is the opportunity for sites associated with the Dayton Project to be recognized?

Mr. DeWINE. I thank the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleagues-- Senators Kohl, Leahy, Grassley, Feingold, Snowe, Schumer, Durbin, Levin, Boxer, Wyden, Corzine, and Dayton--to introduce the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act of 2005 (NOPEC). This legislation would give the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission legal authority to bring an antitrust case against the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Every consumer in America knows that gasoline prices have reached record highs recently. Likewise, the price of home heating oil has dramatically increased. These price increases have been acutely painful to people in my home State of Ohio. Moreover, the rise in jet fuel prices is crippling our already weak airline industry. One of the main reasons that many U.S. airlines have not been able to make a profit has been due to skyrocketing jet fuel costs. For example, in the fourth quarter of 2004, Continental Airlines' jet fuel costs were $453 million, which was a 48 percent increase compared to last year, and Delta's jet fuel costs were $385 million, which was 76 percent increase compared to last year. No wonder so many U.S. airlines are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy or are already in bankruptcy. What is the cause of these high gas and fuel prices? There are a number of factors at play, but there is clear agreement among industry experts about the primary cause of high gas and fuel prices--and that is the increase in imported crude oil prices. Who sets crude oil prices? OPEC does. The unacceptably high price of imported crude oil is a direct result of price fixing by the OPEC nations to keep the price of oil unnaturally high. OPEC's hunger for ill-gotten gains is astounding. It seems its appetite can never be satisfied. For example, despite the fact that oil prices recently hit the historic high of $55 a barrel, OPEC members met in December 2004 and decided to cut the output of oil by another 1 million barrels. When demand is high and supplies are cut, that means prices will increase. Nonetheless, OPEC cut production. This is an outrage. OPEC is probably the most notorious example of an illegal cartel in the world today. It is an affront to the principle that markets should be free. Nation after nation has adopted antitrust laws that make it illegal to fix prices. In 1998, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, then composed of 29 member nations, issued a formal recommendation denouncing price fixing. OPEC's continued actions, in ongoing defiance of American and international antitrust norms, should not be tolerated. Until now, however, OPEC has effectively received a ``free pass'' from prosecution under U.S. antitrust laws. For over two decades, enforcement has been constrained by two related court opinions. In 1979, a Federal district court found that OPEC's price-setting decisions were ``governmental'' acts. As a result, they were given sovereign status and protected by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Subsequently, in 1981, a Federal court of appeals declined to consider the appeal of that antitrust case based on the so-called ``act of state'' doctrine, which holds that a court will not consider a case regarding the legality of the acts of a foreign nation. Our bill would effectively reverse these decisions. It makes it clear that OPEC's activities are not protected by sovereign immunity and that the Federal courts should not decline to hear a case against OPEC based on the ``act of state'' doctrine. As a result, under NOPEC, the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission could bring an antitrust enforcement action against OPEC's member nations. This bill would force OPEC to begin pricing in a competitive, free-market manner or face the possibility of civil or criminal antitrust prosecution. Senator Kohl and I have introduced this bill three times before--in 2000, 2001, and 2004. We intend to keep fighting for American consumers and businesses so that they will not be fleeced by OPEC in the future. NOPEC says to OPEC: When you want to do business with America, you must abide by our antitrust laws and the rules of the free market. And when OPEC, one day, abides by the rules of the free market, we will all see lower oil and gas prices. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, the number one killer of those between the ages of 4 and 34 in this country today is auto fatalities. If you look at those between the ages of 16 and 25, the figures are even more exaggerated. We all know that in this country over 42,000 Americans lose their lives every year in auto accidents. That figure stays fairly constant. The last year we have figures for is 2003, and in that year, 42,643 of our fellow citizens lost their lives. In fact, in the next 12 minutes, to be precise, at least one person will be killed in an automobile accident in this country, while nearly six people will be injured in just the next 60 seconds. This is a tragedy that we as a society are much too willing to tolerate. If a foreign enemy were doing this to us, we would not tolerate it. We would be up in arms. Someone said it is the equivalent of a 747 airplane going down every two days in this country. If that were happening, of course, it would be on CNN; we would be demanding an explanation. Yet, these auto fatalities that occur, hour-by-hour, day- by-day, just go on, and for some reason, we have become immune to it, hardened to it. They just continue. I come to the Floor today to discuss five bills--five bills that my staff and I have been working on for a few years now--five bills that I will be introducing, but hope will be incorporated in the transportation bill we will be considering in the next several weeks. These bills are commonsense, practical ways to save lives. Each bill is built on solid evidence of what will, in fact, make a difference. These are bills that will, in fact, save lives. Last year, the Senate passed each of these bills as a part of the SAFE-TEA transportation bill. I want to thank Senators Inhofe, Jeffords, Bond, Reid, and McCain for their assistance in making that happen. Our former colleague Senator Hollings was also instrumental in clearing these bills. So, what I'm talking about today is a set of bills that has already enjoyed the support of the Senate, and I believe we ought to pass each and every one of them again this year as a part of the transportation reauthorization. In particular, I look forward to working with Senators Stevens, Lott, and Inouye on the Commerce Committee portion of my transportation safety package. I am thankful for the support and assistance of Senator Rockefeller as the lead co-sponsor on the first several bills--the vehicle safety bills--as well as Senator Lautenberg's leadership as my chief co- sponsor on the drunk driving prevention campaign bill. Both Senators are great leaders on highway safety, and I'm pleased to be working with them this year in an effort to get these bills signed into law. The first bill we call ``Stars on Cars.'' While its name is cute, its focus is quite serious. When you go to buy a new car, there is a large label in the window detailing the price, features, gas mileage, and other information about the vehicle. This label is referred to in the auto industry as the ``Monroney Label'' after a former member of this body, Senator Monroney from Oklahoma. We all know what the sticker looks like. But, what we may not know is that most of the content on that sticker is mandated by the Federal Government. The mileage per gallon has been on there for a number of years. The Federal government says that your city mileage has to be on there and your highway mileage has to be on there. It has to tell you whether the vehicle has air-conditioning. It has to tell you whether it has a stereo. It has to tell you a whole bunch of other stuff. One piece of information is not on there--and that is the vehicle's safety rating. The funny thing is that in the vast majority of cases, you have already paid to have the Federal Government--specifically the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)--spend millions of dollars to test that very car and others like it. In fact, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has put that information up on the Internet. Nonetheless, the basic fact is that when you go in to buy that car, that information is not available to you. It is not available to the American consumer in the one place where it would make a difference--where you buy the car, at the dealership. Doing this right wouldn't cost the taxpayers another dime. The car companies are already printing the labels. Under this legislation, we would add a new section to the label titled ``Government Safety Information.'' The new section would clearly lay out information from each of the government crash tests--frontal crash impact, side impact, and rollover resistance. For vehicles that haven't been tested yet, the label will say so. We would show the ratings pure and simple, as graphical star ratings on the label, just like many automakers do in their commercials. The bill requires that this be done in a manner that can be clearly understood by your average car buyer, with short explanations as to what each rating means. What impact would this have? I happen to believe the consumer is better off with more information than less information on whatever we are talking about. The consumer ought to know what the Government does. The consumer ought to know that type of information. The consumer would make better choices. Consumers care about safety. They will make better choices, and in all likelihood, they are going to choose safer vehicles and more lives will, in fact, be saved. It just makes good common sense to do this. We have worked hard to fashion a bill that gets this life-saving information to consumers in a way that is sensitive to the concerns of automakers, as well as the NHTSA. We've reached out to a broad coalition to craft our bill for 2005, and I look forward to working with interested parties to continue to improve and shape the language contained in it. In the end, this bill is my number one safety priority for passage into law this year. The second bill we call ``Safe Kids and Cars.'' Cars, unfortunately, are involved in child deaths at unbelievable rates. According to NHTSA data, automobile accidents happen to be the leading cause of death in the United States for children age 4 and up, and are right among the top causes for those ages 0 to 3. More than cancer, more than homicide, more than fire, more than drowning, more than anything else, auto accidents are the source of child fatalities. We have a problem. And, while I congratulate auto manufacturers, safety groups, and NHTSA for working hard on this issue, there's more work to be done. Anything we can do to make a car safer for our kids, we should be doing it. Complacency is not an option. The focus of this bill is to improve data collection and vehicle testing with regard to some specific dangers that small children face. NHTSA has done an excellent job in terms of working from solid data, and this is one area where unfortunately we just don't have enough data to move forward. Likewise, we need the tools to perform effective vehicle tests once we have those numbers, and my bill contains measures to see to it that we develop these tools. In terms of testing, child-size dummies are an area where NHTSA needs to review its testing and look for areas where increased use of these dummies would lead to increased safety, or a better understanding of how crash forces impact small children. My bill directs NHTSA to conduct a full review of test procedures and incorporate these child dummies when and where suitable. We also ask the agency to give a status update on the extremely important Hybrid-III 10-year-old child test dummy. The rest of the bill focuses on an emerging danger for small children often referred to as ``non-traffic, non-crash'' accident situations. These are incidents in which interaction between an automobile and a child leads to injury or death when the vehicle is not on the road, or where no actual crash has occurred. Instead, these are incidents that happen in parked cars, driveways, parking lots, and other very common situations. Unfortunately, these common situations can be deadly under the wrong circumstances. A prime example of ``non-traffic, non-crash'' dangers to small children has to do with dangerous power window switches. In many cases, children are left alone in a vehicle and manage to inadvertently activate a power window switch--a situation which can lead to the window moving up and crushing a limb or other part of the child's body. Some children are killed almost instantaneously by the force of the rising window. These incidents are not terribly frequent, but they are preventable at almost no cost to consumers and manufacturers. Power windows are an area where NHTSA has taken action since I last introduced the child safety bill, and I want to pause to thank Dr. Jeffrey Runge, NHTSA Administrator; Janette Fennel, President of the safety advocacy group Kids and Cars; and several other groups for their work to make the new power window safety rule possible. The new rule, which I helped announce in Columbus late last year, will lead to the elimination of unsafe power window switches--switches that can be accidentally tripped by children with ease--in every car and light truck sold in the United States. It is clearly a step in the right direction, and it will save lives. Unsafe power window switches show one kind of ``non-traffic, non- crash'' danger children face today. Were it not for a one-time study of death certificates by NHTSA, we would have no government data whatsoever on how widespread this problem happens to be. We would not know much about other types of ``non-traffic, non-crash'' dangers, such as backover incidents and heat exhaustion in closed vehicles. These are areas where there is a clear need for better data collection and testing. My bill tackles each head-on. The ``Safe Kids and Cars'' bill directs NHTSA to continue pushing forward on ``non-traffic, non-crash'' incidents by instituting, for the first time, regular collection of data on these kinds of accidents. With time and some solid data, we may be able to tackle other kinds of ``non-traffic, non-crash'' problems in the future. Understanding the problem is the first step. A third bill has to do with dangerous road intersections. Every State has them. Most States, fortunately, rank these roads. They keep a list of the bad ones. But, amazingly, there are many States that keep this information secret and don't tell the public. Again, citizens have a right to know this information. What would you do with the information? As a parent, I might tell my 16-year-old not to go that way to the movie. At least I have the right to have that information and would be able to say go another way. It might take another 10 minutes, but go that way. Don't go by that intersection. Don't go on that curvy road. State Departments of Transportation already have that information. Each State should provide that information to the public. They already know it, and they should provide it. Policymakers need to know that to make decisions about how to spend money in that state and what roads to fix. I would like to briefly talk about a woman by the name of Sandy Johnson and her mother Jacqueline. On October 5, 2002, Sandy and Jacqueline were killed in a car crash at a dangerous intersection near Columbus. What they did not know as they drove into that intersection--and what countless other area residents who used the roads that cross through it did not know at the time--was that this particular intersection was known at that time by the Ohio Department of Transportation to be a very dangerous area. In fact, ODOT had indeed known that information for quite some time. Perhaps if Sandy Johnson had known that she would have taken a different route that day. We will never know. Following the tragic death of his wife and his mother-in-law, Dean Johnson initiated a campaign to tackle the issue of dangerous roads and dangerous intersections, not just in Ohio, but across the country. He has tried with varying results from state to state to get information on dangerous roads and intersection locations out to the public so tragedies like the one involving his wife could be prevented. As I have in the past, I would like to thank Dean Johnson for his dedication to this very important public safety issue and for the progress he has made in my home State of Ohio and elsewhere in terms of getting critical lifesaving information out to citizens through the Sandy Johnson Foundation. His assistance has been an asset in crafting this legislation, and I look forward to working with him in the future. My bill requires that safety information be disclosed to the public as an eligibility requirement for a new Federal safety funding program--the Highway Safety Improvement Program. States seeking additional Federal dollars for safety construction projects will have to take the quick and easy step of identifying their danger spots, ranking them according to severity, and then disclosing them to the public. I believe this is the least we can ask from States in exchange for large chunks of federal aid. In some cases, States would like to release the data but fear the legal ramifications of doing so. My bill contains a fix for this that provides the same kind of protection States already enjoy for other types of highway safety data. In other words, no legal harm could come to a State for releasing lists of dangerous locations under this bill. Further, States need to find ways to get safety experts, law enforcement, engineers, transportation officials, and the general public working together to identify and correct dangerous locations. I've borrowed language in my bill from last year's Senate-passed SAFE- TEA bill--excellent language drafted and passed by Senator Inhofe and the Environment and Public Works Committee that creates incentives for States to foster this kind of collaboration. Collaboration between these entities is essential to finding quick, effective solutions to fatalities arising from dangerous intersections, as well as long stretches of roadway that account for high crash rates. I am including the Committee's language on Highway Safety Improvement Programs in my bill because I strongly believe that it is a step in the right direction. The fourth bill I am introducing has to do with driver education. Teen driving is an area where fatality rates are extremely high and unfortunately where programs across the country are not getting the job done. Above average crash and fatality rates may be inevitable for teenage drivers, but they can certainly be reduced substantially from present- day levels. The Federal Government cannot run driver education. It is clearly a State responsibility. But it can play a small, productive role. For decades, our attempt to address this problem--standard classroom- based driver education--has been ineffective or worse, inspiring false confidence in students and parents alike that graduates are ready to drive safely. Fortunately, we've started to move in a new direction as a nation, with 41 States adding innovative graduated driver licensing (GDL) laws to their ongoing driver education efforts. These new laws have been proven to be effective in reducing accident and fatality rates. While my bill contains language to raise the bar on GDL laws and make them more effective, its real emphasis is on finding a better way with respect to driver education. Revitalized driver education needs to be data-driven and cognizant of the limitations associated with classroom-based instruction. It must utilize new ways of inculcating young drivers with the knowledge and skills they need to avoid unnecessary high-risk situations, particularly in the first six months behind the wheel. Integration of driver education with the graduated driver licensing process to maximize the safety value of both programs also must be addressed. Past failures in our Nation's history with regard to driver education are not a reason to abandon these programs. They are a reason to go back to the drawing board to re-invent more effective means of promoting safe driving. A recent study by the National Institutes for Health sheds some light on the problem. The study suggests that due to their unique brain development, risk tolerance, and other tendencies--teen drivers are naturally inclined toward increased danger on the roads. Clearly, some methods used in driver education today aren't getting the message through, and in some areas, the message may never get through independent of who does the teaching. NHTSA and its research partners must find ways to tailor the content and delivery of driver education so that it recognizes these realities and focuses on areas where novice drivers can learn the skills necessary to be safer drivers. A NHTSA pilot program is currently under way with several states to test out updated ``best practices'' driver education models--not mandates, not national standards, but just best practices. My bill responds to the call for national leadership in driver education and licensing made at a recent National Transportation Safety Board forum by creating a Driver Education and Licensing Improvement Program within NHTSA. The new Improvement Program will provide NHTSA with the resources and time it needs to run the pilot program and then evaluate the results to see what works and what doesn't. Once this pilot program has run its course, my bill provides a modest amount of grant funding to supply states with the resources and technical expertise necessary to implement the ``best practices'' model in a way that fits their specific needs and circumstances. The grants will be competitively awarded, and also will be available for fulfillment of several other state needs with regard to novice driver education and licensing. This grant program is 100 percent voluntary, and my bill has been crafted carefully to ensure that the prerogatives of States are protected in every manner. The areas ripe for improvement are numerous: instructor certification, curriculum improvement, outreach to increase parental involvement, enforcement of graduated driver licensing laws, and follow-up testing to ensure program effectiveness. These are just a few examples. By creating a National Driver Education and Licensing Improvement Program within NHTSA, and tasking that program to come up with best practices, we can help States interested in improving their programs do so without having to expend the time and resources necessary to ``re-invent the wheel'' on their own. I have worked for over a year with NHTSA, the American Driver Training and Safety Education Association, the Governors' Highway Safety Association, the American Motor Vehicle Administrators' Association, AAA, the Driving School Association of America, Advocates for Auto and Highway Safety, and several other groups to come up with the bill that will be introduced today. Its contents are a compromise that reflects significant input from each of these fine organizations, and I believe we are now at a point where the road ahead toward safer, more effective driver education and licensing programs is clear. The goals set by this bill are clear, and the means to achieve them are provided for in full. The time has come to take serious action on driver education and licensing in this country. Lastly, I'd like to introduce the Safe Intersections Act of 2005. This bill would criminalize the unauthorized sale or use of mobile infrared transmitters, also known as ``MIRTs.'' A MIRT is a remote control for changing traffic signals. These devices have been used for years by ambulances, police cars, and fire trucks, and maintenance crews, allowing them to reach emergencies faster. As an ambulance approaches an intersection where the light is red, the driver engages the transmitter. That transmitter then sends a signal to a receiver on the traffic light, which changes to green within a few seconds. This is a very useful tool when properly used in emergency situations. In a 2002 survey, the U.S. Department of Transportation found that in the top 78 metropolitan areas, there are 24,683 traffic lights equipped with the sensors. In Ohio, there is a joint pilot project underway by the Washington Township Fire Department and the Dublin Police Department to install these devices. Other areas in Ohio where they are in use include Mentor, Twinsburg, Willoughby, and Westerville. Here in the District of Columbia, emergency services across the country, law enforcement officers, fire departments, and paramedics utilize this technology to make communities safer. However, recently it has come to light that this technology may be sold to unauthorized individuals--individuals who want to use this technology to bypass red lights during their commute or during their everyday driving. MIRT was never intended for this use. MIRT technology--in the hands of unauthorized users--could result in traffic problems, like gridlock, or even worse, accidents in which people are injured or killed. Let me quote from an ad that was posted on the Internet auction site, eBay: ``Tired of sitting at endless red lights? Frustrated by lights that turn from green to red too quickly, trapping you in traffic? The MIRT light changer used by police and other emergency vehicles Change the Traffic Signal Red to Green [for] only $499.00. Traffic Signal Changing Devices--it's every motorist's fantasy to be able to make a red traffic light turn green without so much as easing off the accelerator. The very technology that has for years allowed fire trucks, ambulances, and police cars to get to emergencies faster--a remote control that changes traffic signals--is now much cheaper and potentially accessible.'' This ad demonstrates the extent to which the potential widespread sale and possession of MIRT technology by drivers would be a hazard to public safety and must be stopped before it starts. The Congressional Fire Service Institute, Ohio Fire Alliance, and several other organizations have come out in support of this measure. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that it becomes law. The sixth bill I am introducing today is a bi-partisan bill aimed at reducing the number of drinking and driving deaths and injuries on our roads. Tragically, our Nation has experienced increases in alcohol- related traffic fatalities three of the past four years. In 2003--the last year for which full statistics are available--17,013 Americans died in alcohol-related incidents. This total represents 40 percent of the 42,643 people killed in traffic incidents. The bill I am introducing today along with Senator Lautenberg--the Traffic Safety Law Enforcement Campaign Act--would require states to conduct a combined media/law enforcement campaign aimed at reducing drunk driving fatalities. Specifically, the law enforcement portion consists of sobriety checkpoints in the District of Columbia and in the 39 States that allow them and saturation patrols in those states that do not. The Centers for Disease Control estimate that the sobriety checkpoints proposed in the underlying bill may reduce alcohol related crashes by as much as 20 percent. Law enforcement officials from across the United States underscored this point in a recent conference sponsored by MADD, making high visibility enforcement campaigns a top priority. More than 75 percent of the public has indicated in NHTSA polls their support for sobriety checkpoints. In fact, NHTSA has concluded that 62 percent of Americans want sobriety checkpoints to be used more often. These six bills will go a long way. They are common sense. They will make a difference. This is something I have been interested in for many years, going back to my time in the Ohio Legislature 20 years ago when I introduced the drunk driving bill, and we were able to pass a tough drunk driving bill in the Ohio Legislature. I worked for .08. It was very controversial in the Senate, but we were able to pass .08. Senator Lautenburg and I worked on that. Anytime you lose 42,643 Americans every year, highway safety is something we all have to be concerned about. I know the SAFE-TEA highway bill is not on the Floor yet, but I have seen it, and of course was pleased to support it on the Floor last year. As passed by the Senate in 2004, the bill goes farther than any highway bill regard to safety. This year's bill from the Environment and Public Works Committee will enable the same great progress on highway safety. I congratulate the authors. In the weeks ahead, I look forward to working with the respective committees and outside organizations on the bills I have described above as amendments to the 2005 SAFE-TEA bill. But, I want to make it very clear that these bills and amendments are not in any way critical of the underlying bill. In fact, I hope they will be complementary and simply add to a good product that is already a good product and will help to improve it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleagues-- Senators Kohl, Leahy, Grassley, Feingold, Snowe, Schumer, Durbin, Levin, Boxer, Wyden, Corzine, and Dayton--to introduce the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act of 2005 (NOPEC). This legislation would give the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission legal authority to bring an antitrust case against the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Every consumer in America knows that gasoline prices have reached record highs recently. Likewise, the price of home heating oil has dramatically increased. These price increases have been acutely painful to people in my home State of Ohio. Moreover, the rise in jet fuel prices is crippling our already weak airline industry. One of the main reasons that many U.S. airlines have not been able to make a profit has been due to skyrocketing jet fuel costs. For example, in the fourth quarter of 2004, Continental Airlines' jet fuel costs were $453 million, which was a 48 percent increase compared to last year, and Delta's jet fuel costs were $385 million, which was 76 percent increase compared to last year. No wonder so many U.S. airlines are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy or are already in bankruptcy. What is the cause of these high gas and fuel prices? There are a number of factors at play, but there is clear agreement among industry experts about the primary cause of high gas and fuel prices--and that is the increase in imported crude oil prices. Who sets crude oil prices? OPEC does. The unacceptably high price of imported crude oil is a direct result of price fixing by the OPEC nations to keep the price of oil unnaturally high. OPEC's hunger for ill-gotten gains is astounding. It seems its appetite can never be satisfied. For example, despite the fact that oil prices recently hit the historic high of $55 a barrel, OPEC members met in December 2004 and decided to cut the output of oil by another 1 million barrels. When demand is high and supplies are cut, that means prices will increase. Nonetheless, OPEC cut production. This is an outrage. OPEC is probably the most notorious example of an illegal cartel in the world today. It is an affront to the principle that markets should be free. Nation after nation has adopted antitrust laws that make it illegal to fix prices. In 1998, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, then composed of 29 member nations, issued a formal recommendation denouncing price fixing. OPEC's continued actions, in ongoing defiance of American and international antitrust norms, should not be tolerated. Until now, however, OPEC has effectively received a ``free pass'' from prosecution under U.S. antitrust laws. For over two decades, enforcement has been constrained by two related court opinions. In 1979, a Federal district court found that OPEC's price-setting decisions were ``governmental'' acts. As a result, they were given sovereign status and protected by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Subsequently, in 1981, a Federal court of appeals declined to consider the appeal of that antitrust case based on the so-called ``act of state'' doctrine, which holds that a court will not consider a case regarding the legality of the acts of a foreign nation. Our bill would effectively reverse these decisions. It makes it clear that OPEC's activities are not protected by sovereign immunity and that the Federal courts should not decline to hear a case against OPEC based on the ``act of state'' doctrine. As a result, under NOPEC, the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission could bring an antitrust enforcement action against OPEC's member nations. This bill would force OPEC to begin pricing in a competitive, free-market manner or face the possibility of civil or criminal antitrust prosecution. Senator Kohl and I have introduced this bill three times before--in 2000, 2001, and 2004. We intend to keep fighting for American consumers and businesses so that they will not be fleeced by OPEC in the future. NOPEC says to OPEC: When you want to do business with America, you must abide by our antitrust laws and the rules of the free market. And when OPEC, one day, abides by the rules of the free market, we will all see lower oil and gas prices. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, the number one killer of those between the ages of 4 and 34 in this country today is auto fatalities. If you look at those between the ages of 16 and 25, the figures are even more exaggerated. We all know that in this country over 42,000 Americans lose their lives every year in auto accidents. That figure stays fairly constant. The last year we have figures for is 2003, and in that year, 42,643 of our fellow citizens lost their lives. In fact, in the next 12 minutes, to be precise, at least one person will be killed in an automobile accident in this country, while nearly six people will be injured in just the next 60 seconds. This is a tragedy that we as a society are much too willing to tolerate. If a foreign enemy were doing this to us, we would not tolerate it. We would be up in arms. Someone said it is the equivalent of a 747 airplane going down every two days in this country. If that were happening, of course, it would be on CNN; we would be demanding an explanation. Yet, these auto fatalities that occur, hour-by-hour, day- by-day, just go on, and for some reason, we have become immune to it, hardened to it. They just continue. I come to the Floor today to discuss five bills--five bills that my staff and I have been working on for a few years now--five bills that I will be introducing, but hope will be incorporated in the transportation bill we will be considering in the next several weeks. These bills are commonsense, practical ways to save lives. Each bill is built on solid evidence of what will, in fact, make a difference. These are bills that will, in fact, save lives. Last year, the Senate passed each of these bills as a part of the SAFE-TEA transportation bill. I want to thank Senators Inhofe, Jeffords, Bond, Reid, and McCain for their assistance in making that happen. Our former colleague Senator Hollings was also instrumental in clearing these bills. So, what I'm talking about today is a set of bills that has already enjoyed the support of the Senate, and I believe we ought to pass each and every one of them again this year as a part of the transportation reauthorization. In particular, I look forward to working with Senators Stevens, Lott, and Inouye on the Commerce Committee portion of my transportation safety package. I am thankful for the support and assistance of Senator Rockefeller as the lead co-sponsor on the first several bills--the vehicle safety bills--as well as Senator Lautenberg's leadership as my chief co- sponsor on the drunk driving prevention campaign bill. Both Senators are great leaders on highway safety, and I'm pleased to be working with them this year in an effort to get these bills signed into law. The first bill we call ``Stars on Cars.'' While its name is cute, its focus is quite serious. When you go to buy a new car, there is a large label in the window detailing the price, features, gas mileage, and other information about the vehicle. This label is referred to in the auto industry as the ``Monroney Label'' after a former member of this body, Senator Monroney from Oklahoma. We all know what the sticker looks like. But, what we may not know is that most of the content on that sticker is mandated by the Federal Government. The mileage per gallon has been on there for a number of years. The Federal government says that your city mileage has to be on there and your highway mileage has to be on there. It has to tell you whether the vehicle has air-conditioning. It has to tell you whether it has a stereo. It has to tell you a whole bunch of other stuff. One piece of information is not on there--and that is the vehicle's safety rating. The funny thing is that in the vast majority of cases, you have already paid to have the Federal Government--specifically the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)--spend millions of dollars to test that very car and others like it. In fact, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has put that information up on the Internet. Nonetheless, the basic fact is that when you go in to buy that car, that information is not available to you. It is not available to the American consumer in the one place where it would make a difference--where you buy the car, at the dealership. Doing this right wouldn't cost the taxpayers another dime. The car companies are already printing the labels. Under this legislation, we would add a new section to the label titled ``Government Safety Information.'' The new section would clearly lay out information from each of the government crash tests--frontal crash impact, side impact, and rollover resistance. For vehicles that haven't been tested yet, the label will say so. We would show the ratings pure and simple, as graphical star ratings on the label, just like many automakers do in their commercials. The bill requires that this be done in a manner that can be clearly understood by your average car buyer, with short explanations as to what each rating means. What impact would this have? I happen to believe the consumer is better off with more information than less information on whatever we are talking about. The consumer ought to know what the Government does. The consumer ought to know that type of information. The consumer would make better choices. Consumers care about safety. They will make better choices, and in all likelihood, they are going to choose safer vehicles and more lives will, in fact, be saved. It just makes good common sense to do this. We have worked hard to fashion a bill that gets this life-saving information to consumers in a way that is sensitive to the concerns of automakers, as well as the NHTSA. We've reached out to a broad coalition to craft our bill for 2005, and I look forward to working with interested parties to continue to improve and shape the language contained in it. In the end, this bill is my number one safety priority for passage into law this year. The second bill we call ``Safe Kids and Cars.'' Cars, unfortunately, are involved in child deaths at unbelievable rates. According to NHTSA data, automobile accidents happen to be the leading cause of death in the United States for children age 4 and up, and are right among the top causes for those ages 0 to 3. More than cancer, more than homicide, more than fire, more than drowning, more than anything else, auto accidents are the source of child fatalities. We have a problem. And, while I congratulate auto manufacturers, safety groups, and NHTSA for working hard on this issue, there's more work to be done. Anything we can do to make a car safer for our kids, we should be doing it. Complacency is not an option. The focus of this bill is to improve data collection and vehicle testing with regard to some specific dangers that small children face. NHTSA has done an excellent job in terms of working from solid data, and this is one area where unfortunately we just don't have enough data to move forward. Likewise, we need the tools to perform effective vehicle tests once we have those numbers, and my bill contains measures to see to it that we develop these tools. In terms of testing, child-size dummies are an area where NHTSA needs to review its testing and look for areas where increased use of these dummies would lead to increased safety, or a better understanding of how crash forces impact small children. My bill directs NHTSA to conduct a full review of test procedures and incorporate these child dummies when and where suitable. We also ask the agency to give a status update on the extremely important Hybrid-III 10-year-old child test dummy. The rest of the bill focuses on an emerging danger for small children often referred to as ``non-traffic, non-crash'' accident situations. These are incidents in which interaction between an automobile and a child leads to injury or death when the vehicle is not on the road, or where no actual crash has occurred. Instead, these are incidents that happen in parked cars, driveways, parking lots, and other very common situations. Unfortunately, these common situations can be deadly under the wrong circumstances. A prime example of ``non-traffic, non-crash'' dangers to small children has to do with dangerous power window switches. In many cases, children are left alone in a vehicle and manage to inadvertently activate a power window switch--a situation which can lead to the window moving up and crushing a limb or other part of the child's body. Some children are killed almost instantaneously by the force of the rising window. These incidents are not terribly frequent, but they are preventable at almost no cost to consumers and manufacturers. Power windows are an area where NHTSA has taken action since I last introduced the child safety bill, and I want to pause to thank Dr. Jeffrey Runge, NHTSA Administrator; Janette Fennel, President of the safety advocacy group Kids and Cars; and several other groups for their work to make the new power window safety rule possible. The new rule, which I helped announce in Columbus late last year, will lead to the elimination of unsafe power window switches--switches that can be accidentally tripped by children with ease--in every car and light truck sold in the United States. It is clearly a step in the right direction, and it will save lives. Unsafe power window switches show one kind of ``non-traffic, non- crash'' danger children face today. Were it not for a one-time study of death certificates by NHTSA, we would have no government data whatsoever on how widespread this problem happens to be. We would not know much about other types of ``non-traffic, non-crash'' dangers, such as backover incidents and heat exhaustion in closed vehicles. These are areas where there is a clear need for better data collection and testing. My bill tackles each head-on. The ``Safe Kids and Cars'' bill directs NHTSA to continue pushing forward on ``non-traffic, non-crash'' incidents by instituting, for the first time, regular collection of data on these kinds of accidents. With time and some solid data, we may be able to tackle other kinds of ``non-traffic, non-crash'' problems in the future. Understanding the problem is the first step. A third bill has to do with dangerous road intersections. Every State has them. Most States, fortunately, rank these roads. They keep a list of the bad ones. But, amazingly, there are many States that keep this information secret and don't tell the public. Again, citizens have a right to know this information. What would you do with the information? As a parent, I might tell my 16-year-old not to go that way to the movie. At least I have the right to have that information and would be able to say go another way. It might take another 10 minutes, but go that way. Don't go by that intersection. Don't go on that curvy road. State Departments of Transportation already have that information. Each State should provide that information to the public. They already know it, and they should provide it. Policymakers need to know that to make decisions about how to spend money in that state and what roads to fix. I would like to briefly talk about a woman by the name of Sandy Johnson and her mother Jacqueline. On October 5, 2002, Sandy and Jacqueline were killed in a car crash at a dangerous intersection near Columbus. What they did not know as they drove into that intersection--and what countless other area residents who used the roads that cross through it did not know at the time--was that this particular intersection was known at that time by the Ohio Department of Transportation to be a very dangerous area. In fact, ODOT had indeed known that information for quite some time. Perhaps if Sandy Johnson had known that she would have taken a different route that day. We will never know. Following the tragic death of his wife and his mother-in-law, Dean Johnson initiated a campaign to tackle the issue of dangerous roads and dangerous intersections, not just in Ohio, but across the country. He has tried with varying results from state to state to get information on dangerous roads and intersection locations out to the public so tragedies like the one involving his wife could be prevented. As I have in the past, I would like to thank Dean Johnson for his dedication to this very important public safety issue and for the progress he has made in my home State of Ohio and elsewhere in terms of getting critical lifesaving information out to citizens through the Sandy Johnson Foundation. His assistance has been an asset in crafting this legislation, and I look forward to working with him in the future. My bill requires that safety information be disclosed to the public as an eligibility requirement for a new Federal safety funding program--the Highway Safety Improvement Program. States seeking additional Federal dollars for safety construction projects will have to take the quick and easy step of identifying their danger spots, ranking them according to severity, and then disclosing them to the public. I believe this is the least we can ask from States in exchange for large chunks of federal aid. In some cases, States would like to release the data but fear the legal ramifications of doing so. My bill contains a fix for this that provides the same kind of protection States already enjoy for other types of highway safety data. In other words, no legal harm could come to a State for releasing lists of dangerous locations under this bill. Further, States need to find ways to get safety experts, law enforcement, engineers, transportation officials, and the general public working together to identify and correct dangerous locations. I've borrowed language in my bill from last year's Senate-passed SAFE- TEA bill--excellent language drafted and passed by Senator Inhofe and the Environment and Public Works Committee that creates incentives for States to foster this kind of collaboration. Collaboration between these entities is essential to finding quick, effective solutions to fatalities arising from dangerous intersections, as well as long stretches of roadway that account for high crash rates. I am including the Committee's language on Highway Safety Improvement Programs in my bill because I strongly believe that it is a step in the right direction. The fourth bill I am introducing has to do with driver education. Teen driving is an area where fatality rates are extremely high and unfortunately where programs across the country are not getting the job done. Above average crash and fatality rates may be inevitable for teenage drivers, but they can certainly be reduced substantially from present- day levels. The Federal Government cannot run driver education. It is clearly a State responsibility. But it can play a small, productive role. For decades, our attempt to address this problem--standard classroom- based driver education--has been ineffective or worse, inspiring false confidence in students and parents alike that graduates are ready to drive safely. Fortunately, we've started to move in a new direction as a nation, with 41 States adding innovative graduated driver licensing (GDL) laws to their ongoing driver education efforts. These new laws have been proven to be effective in reducing accident and fatality rates. While my bill contains language to raise the bar on GDL laws and make them more effective, its real emphasis is on finding a better way with respect to driver education. Revitalized driver education needs to be data-driven and cognizant of the limitations associated with classroom-based instruction. It must utilize new ways of inculcating young drivers with the knowledge and skills they need to avoid unnecessary high-risk situations, particularly in the first six months behind the wheel. Integration of driver education with the graduated driver licensing process to maximize the safety value of both programs also must be addressed. Past failures in our Nation's history with regard to driver education are not a reason to abandon these programs. They are a reason to go back to the drawing board to re-invent more effective means of promoting safe driving. A recent study by the National Institutes for Health sheds some light on the problem. The study suggests that due to their unique brain development, risk tolerance, and other tendencies--teen drivers are naturally inclined toward increased danger on the roads. Clearly, some methods used in driver education today aren't getting the message through, and in some areas, the message may never get through independent of who does the teaching. NHTSA and its research partners must find ways to tailor the content and delivery of driver education so that it recognizes these realities and focuses on areas where novice drivers can learn the skills necessary to be safer drivers. A NHTSA pilot program is currently under way with several states to test out updated ``best practices'' driver education models--not mandates, not national standards, but just best practices. My bill responds to the call for national leadership in driver education and licensing made at a recent National Transportation Safety Board forum by creating a Driver Education and Licensing Improvement Program within NHTSA. The new Improvement Program will provide NHTSA with the resources and time it needs to run the pilot program and then evaluate the results to see what works and what doesn't. Once this pilot program has run its course, my bill provides a modest amount of grant funding to supply states with the resources and technical expertise necessary to implement the ``best practices'' model in a way that fits their specific needs and circumstances. The grants will be competitively awarded, and also will be available for fulfillment of several other state needs with regard to novice driver education and licensing. This grant program is 100 percent voluntary, and my bill has been crafted carefully to ensure that the prerogatives of States are protected in every manner. The areas ripe for improvement are numerous: instructor certification, curriculum improvement, outreach to increase parental involvement, enforcement of graduated driver licensing laws, and follow-up testing to ensure program effectiveness. These are just a few examples. By creating a National Driver Education and Licensing Improvement Program within NHTSA, and tasking that program to come up with best practices, we can help States interested in improving their programs do so without having to expend the time and resources necessary to ``re-invent the wheel'' on their own. I have worked for over a year with NHTSA, the American Driver Training and Safety Education Association, the Governors' Highway Safety Association, the American Motor Vehicle Administrators' Association, AAA, the Driving School Association of America, Advocates for Auto and Highway Safety, and several other groups to come up with the bill that will be introduced today. Its contents are a compromise that reflects significant input from each of these fine organizations, and I believe we are now at a point where the road ahead toward safer, more effective driver education and licensing programs is clear. The goals set by this bill are clear, and the means to achieve them are provided for in full. The time has come to take serious action on driver education and licensing in this country. Lastly, I'd like to introduce the Safe Intersections Act of 2005. This bill would criminalize the unauthorized sale or use of mobile infrared transmitters, also known as ``MIRTs.'' A MIRT is a remote control for changing traffic signals. These devices have been used for years by ambulances, police cars, and fire trucks, and maintenance crews, allowing them to reach emergencies faster. As an ambulance approaches an intersection where the light is red, the driver engages the transmitter. That transmitter then sends a signal to a receiver on the traffic light, which changes to green within a few seconds. This is a very useful tool when properly used in emergency situations. In a 2002 survey, the U.S. Department of Transportation found that in the top 78 metropolitan areas, there are 24,683 traffic lights equipped with the sensors. In Ohio, there is a joint pilot project underway by the Washington Township Fire Department and the Dublin Police Department to install these devices. Other areas in Ohio where they are in use include Mentor, Twinsburg, Willoughby, and Westerville. Here in the District of Columbia, emergency services across the country, law enforcement officers, fire departments, and paramedics utilize this technology to make communities safer. However, recently it has come to light that this technology may be sold to unauthorized individuals--individuals who want to use this technology to bypass red lights during their commute or during their everyday driving. MIRT was never intended for this use. MIRT technology--in the hands of unauthorized users--could result in traffic problems, like gridlock, or even worse, accidents in which people are injured or killed. Let me quote from an ad that was posted on the Internet auction site, eBay: ``Tired of sitting at endless red lights? Frustrated by lights that turn from green to red too quickly, trapping you in traffic? The MIRT light changer used by police and other emergency vehicles Change the Traffic Signal Red to Green [for] only $499.00. Traffic Signal Changing Devices--it's every motorist's fantasy to be able to make a red traffic light turn green without so much as easing off the accelerator. The very technology that has for years allowed fire trucks, ambulances, and police cars to get to emergencies faster--a remote control that changes traffic signals--is now much cheaper and potentially accessible.'' This ad demonstrates the extent to which the potential widespread sale and possession of MIRT technology by drivers would be a hazard to public safety and must be stopped before it starts. The Congressional Fire Service Institute, Ohio Fire Alliance, and several other organizations have come out in support of this measure. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that it becomes law. The sixth bill I am introducing today is a bi-partisan bill aimed at reducing the number of drinking and driving deaths and injuries on our roads. Tragically, our Nation has experienced increases in alcohol- related traffic fatalities three of the past four years. In 2003--the last year for which full statistics are available--17,013 Americans died in alcohol-related incidents. This total represents 40 percent of the 42,643 people killed in traffic incidents. The bill I am introducing today along with Senator Lautenberg--the Traffic Safety Law Enforcement Campaign Act--would require states to conduct a combined media/law enforcement campaign aimed at reducing drunk driving fatalities. Specifically, the law enforcement portion consists of sobriety checkpoints in the District of Columbia and in the 39 States that allow them and saturation patrols in those states that do not. The Centers for Disease Control estimate that the sobriety checkpoints proposed in the underlying bill may reduce alcohol related crashes by as much as 20 percent. Law enforcement officials from across the United States underscored this point in a recent conference sponsored by MADD, making high visibility enforcement campaigns a top priority. More than 75 percent of the public has indicated in NHTSA polls their support for sobriety checkpoints. In fact, NHTSA has concluded that 62 percent of Americans want sobriety checkpoints to be used more often. These six bills will go a long way. They are common sense. They will make a difference. This is something I have been interested in for many years, going back to my time in the Ohio Legislature 20 years ago when I introduced the drunk driving bill, and we were able to pass a tough drunk driving bill in the Ohio Legislature. I worked for .08. It was very controversial in the Senate, but we were able to pass .08. Senator Lautenburg and I worked on that. Anytime you lose 42,643 Americans every year, highway safety is something we all have to be concerned about. I know the SAFE-TEA highway bill is not on the Floor yet, but I have seen it, and of course was pleased to support it on the Floor last year. As passed by the Senate in 2004, the bill goes farther than any highway bill regard to safety. This year's bill from the Environment and Public Works Committee will enable the same great progress on highway safety. I congratulate the authors. In the weeks ahead, I look forward to working with the respective committees and outside organizations on the bills I have described above as amendments to the 2005 SAFE-TEA bill. But, I want to make it very clear that these bills and amendments are not in any way critical of the underlying bill. In fact, I hope they will be complementary and simply add to a good product that is already a good product and will help to improve it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the attached bill to reduce temporarily the duty on palm fatty acid distillate be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the attached bill to reduce temporarily the duty on palm fatty acid distillate be printed in the Record.