Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, the Constitution gives us a solemn duty when it comes to the confirmation of an individual to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. While the President is to nominate that individual, it is our duty in the Senate to decide whether to provide our consent. When it comes to whether Judge John Roberts should be the 17th Chief Justice of the United States, I have little trouble providing mine. Judge Roberts is one of the most accomplished legal minds of his generation. He has argued 39 separate cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, and he served with great distinction for 2 years on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. He is certainly an eloquent spokesman for the rule of law, and he has received a ``unanimously well qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association, a rating that specifically addresses his openmindedness and freedom from bias and commitment to equal justice under the law. I will vote to confirm Judge Roberts. I encourage my colleagues to do the same. I think it might be helpful for us to consider this afternoon what we have learned about Judge Roberts over the past several months. First, we have learned something about his judicial philosophy. Judges should not make policy. They don't pass laws or implement regulations. Instead, in the words of Justice Byron White, judges simply decide cases, nothing more. Judge Roberts embodies this philosophy. During our hearing in the Judiciary Committee, he told us: The role of the judge is limited. A judge is to decide the cases before them. They are not to legislate. They are not to execute the laws. Time and again he repeated his belief that judges should play a limited and modest role. During the confirmation hearings, he said this to Senator Hatch, Senator Grassley, Senator Graham, Senator Cornyn, and Senator Kohl. He told Senator Kyl: Judges and Justices do not have a side in these disputes. Rather, they need to be on the side of the Constitution. Judge Roberts explained his philosophy clearly and, yes, in plain English without using fancy words or resorting to long dissertations. By the end of last week, there was little doubt where Judge Roberts stood. He believes that judges play a limited and modest role and, to use his own words, ``judges and Justices are servants of the law, not the other way around.'' Second, over the past several months, we have learned that the American people share our view that Judge Roberts will be fair, openminded, and modest as Chief Justice. We need to look no further than the editorial pages of America's papers to know that Judge Roberts has broad support. The Los Angeles Times put it bluntly: It will be a damning indictment of petty partisanship in Washington if an overwhelming majority of the Senate does not vote to confirm John G. Roberts, Jr., to be the next Chief Justice of the United States. As last week's confirmation hearings made clear, Roberts is an exceptionally well- qualified nominee, well within the mainstream of American legal thought, who deserves broad bipartisan support. If a majority of Democrats in the Senate vote against Roberts, they will reveal themselves as nothing more than self- defeating obstructionists. The Washington Post has offered a similar sentiment: John G. Roberts, Jr., should be confirmed as Chief Justice of the United States. He is overwhelmingly well qualified, possesses an unusually keen legal mind and practices collegiality of the type an effective Chief Justice must have. He shows every sign of commitment to restraint and impartiality. Nominees of comparable quality have, after rigorous hearings, been confirmed nearly unanimously. We hope Judge Roberts will similarly be approved by a large bipartisan vote. Papers from my home State of Ohio have also given Judge Roberts their approval. The Akron Beacon Journal, a paper that endorsed Al Gore in 2000, and then John Kerry in 2004, called Roberts ``supremely qualified.'' They went on to write: Judge Roberts is eminently qualified. He has a sharp mind, a sound temperament, and a keen understanding of the collegiality required to run an effective Supreme Court. According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer: In selecting a leader for the U.S. courts, intellect and probity are far more important than predictable political philosophy. In the instance of John Roberts, it is difficult to find, even among his most committed opponents, anyone who will deny his intellectual superiority. His ethics are unimpeached. He is, by all measures, a fair mind. There is no reason to doubt that he will make an outstanding Chief Justice. The Dayton Daily News described Judge Roberts in straightforward terms: Ya gotta like the guy. Judge John Roberts' 3-day appearance before the Senate was impressive. Facing a Judiciary Committee full of people who obviously consider themselves expert on constitutional issues, he displayed mastery. He was familiar with just about any case the Senators could name. He discussed not only their main thrusts, but their nuances. His decency was as unmistakable as his brilliance and diligence. He bears no ill will toward any group that Democrats in the Senate are concerned about--minorities, women, working people, handicapped people, the poor. These sentiments in these papers are certainly echoed by many of my constituents. For instance, Eric Brandt from Pataskala, OH, wrote in strong support of Judge Roberts: The citizens of this State and country deserve a fairminded jurist who does not use the power of the bench to usurp the elected voice of the people. Robert Hensley from College Corner, OH, made a similar point: I believe it is imperative we have judges who rule according to our Constitution and not their own beliefs and ideas. I believe John Roberts is such a man. And Al Law from Perrysburg, OH, had this to say: We need prudent jurists who understand the proper role of the court, and [Judge Roberts] is such a man. Clearly, these citizens saw what we saw during the hearings last week. Judge John Roberts is a modest, decent, and fair man who actually fully understands the limited role that judges should play in our constitutional system of government. Finally, over the past few months, we have heard from those individuals who really know John Roberts the best. His colleagues in the bar, Democrats and Republicans alike, have overwhelmingly supported Judge Roberts' elevation to the Supreme Court. As I mentioned earlier, the American Bar Association has given Judge Roberts a rating of ``unanimously well qualified,'' its highest possible rating. As Steve Tober, the chairman of the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, explained, Judge Roberts has ``the admiration and respect of his colleagues on and off the bench. And, he is, as we have found, the very definition of collegial.'' We have also heard from Judge Roberts' friends and coworkers and learned that they respect and admire him. Maureen Mahoney, former Deputy Solicitor General of the United States, said Judge Roberts ``is probably the finest lawyer of his generation.'' She described the assistance he provided her in her own career, and testified from her personal experience that he had an enduring commitment to providing equal opportunity to women in the workplace. Another example, Professor Kathryn Webb, a lifelong Democrat who said that she does not support President Bush, nonetheless said that Judge Roberts has her ``full and enthusiastic support.'' Bruce Botelho, the mayor of Juneau, AK, a self-proclaimed liberal Democrat, offered his full support. The mayor worked closely with Judge Roberts on several cases and described him as ``the most remarkable and inspiring lawyer I have ever met.'' Finally, Catherine Stetson, a partner at Hogan & Hartson and a longtime colleague of Judge Roberts, offered her praise as well. She told us how Judge Roberts helped her transition back into the workplace after the birth of her first child. According to Stetson, Judge Roberts supported her in both of her roles as lawyer and as mother, ``and he did it quietly and without fanfare.'' She explained how Judge Roberts was instrumental in helping her become a partner at Hogan & Hartson, despite the unfounded concerns of others that her obligations as a new mother might interfere somehow with her ability to do the job. All of these individuals have something in common. What they have in common is they know Judge Roberts personally. They have seen him handle cases. They have seen him deal with clients. They know him as an individual. They know him as a human being. They have worked with him. Each one of them supports his nomination to be the next Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. It is true that we have heard comments and some testimony from well- intended individuals who oppose Judge Roberts, but I must say these individuals do not know Judge Roberts the way Maureen Mahoney does, they did not work with him the way Mayor Botelho has, and they have not dealt with Judge Roberts on a day-to-day basis the way Catherine Stetson has. To be sure, over the past several months we have learned a great deal about who John Roberts is. We know about his extraordinary professional accomplishments. We have seen the overwhelming bipartisan support that he has earned from his colleagues in the legal profession. We have heard from John Roberts himself in a very eloquent defense of the rule of law. For all of these reasons, I will vote to confirm Judge John Roberts as the 17th Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and I certainly urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I thank Chairman Cochran for taking the time to have this very serious discussion with me about a life saving proposal that I believe needs to become part of this bill before it is passed into law. The proposal, originally suggested by President Bush, would allow a small percentage of U.S. food aid dollars to be used to purchase food locally in the country or region of a food aid crisis until U.S. food aid can arrive. For example, if there is a food crisis in Ethiopia, the U.S. Government would be able to purchase food in neighboring countries, or even in other areas of Ethiopia where food is available, and use it to save lives until food shipped from the United States could arrive. On average, U.S. food aid takes over 4 months to arrive in countries in need, and during that gap period, people die--children die. There is also another consideration that makes this proposal even more imperative. U.S. food aid is stored in Galveston, TX, and 60 percent of our food aid shipments exit through the Gulf of Mexico. Now, with Rita raging off the coast of Texas, several hundreds of millions of dollars of food aid are in the direct path of the storm. Even if the food stores are not destroyed by this storm, the vessels that were intended to transport the food aid have been sent out to sea and rail companies are not picking up additional commodities. This means the U.S. food aid delivery system is in a state of arrest. If we do not provide a limited authority to purchase food locally until U.S. food aid can arrive in countries suffering from a food shortage crisis, kids will starve to death as they wait for help to arrive. We cannot in good conscience let that happen. This is one of those rare times when we, as elected officials, have the opportunity to take a step that directly saves lives. Make no mistake about it--if we fail to give the U.S. Agency for International Development the flexibility to purchase food from local sources, our lack of action will prevent us from saving lives. Failing to act will cost the lives of thousands of suffering men, women, and children. I trust that such a failure is simply not acceptable to my fellow Senators. It certainly is not acceptable to me.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 30 minutes.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, on October 11, 2004, the Lima, OH, newspaper received an e-mail that said the following: Greetings, My name is Captain Dennis Pintor . . . I was born and raised in Lima and lived there until I enlisted in the Army in 1992. I am currently requesting the help of the citizens of Lima to assist in our efforts here in Baghdad. School here has just begun session and many of the students need supplies . . . I tell you it makes a difference in the kids and my soldiers. I appreciate any assistance . . . the people of Lima can offer. Respectfully--Captain Dennis Pintor. Tragically, that same newspaper reported the captain's death just a few days later. He was killed when an improvised explosive device detonated near his patrol vehicle in Baghdad. At the news of his death, family friend Lillian Abelita remembered that Dennis was ``one of a kind'' and that he touched thousands of lives. She noted that Dennis's ``last wish was for the Iraqi children.'' ``It wasn't even for himself,'' she said. The focus of his life had always been giving all that he had for others. Dennis Pintor was born and raised in Lima by loving parents, Bert and Ellen Pintor. He was the big brother whom siblings Bob, Sara, and Diana looked up to. Dennis attended Elida High School, where he belonged to several teams and clubs. He played soccer and tennis, was on the yearbook staff, and started the Red Knees Club for his fellow basketball players who didn't get much playing time. John Hullinger, a teammate, remembered that ``Dennis was not one to complain about sitting on the bench. He made the most of it and had fun with it.'' Dennis made the most of everything, including his academic studies. Dennis wanted to learn. Alan Chum, a guidance counselor at Elida High School, had Dennis in several math classes. He recalled that Dennis was an ``inquisitive'' student who would ``bring an energy that kept the class going.'' Teachers wanted Dennis in their classrooms. Allen emphasized that ``[Dennis] had a knack for being able to answer questions and ask good, appropriate questions. He was just a good kid--great to have in class.'' Dennis excelled academically and earned an appointment to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point where he trained to be an engineer. He graduated in 1998 and then went on to complete Army Ranger School. Dennis quickly became a well-respected superior who was known for putting his men first. Dennis served as a peacekeeper in Kosovo--an assignment that suited his desire to help those who needed it most. In 2002, Dennis was assigned as Company Commander of Bravo Company, 20th Engineer Battalion, based in Fort Hood, TX. Dennis was Army through and through. One of Ellen Pintor's favorite memories of her son is when he would visit her classroom at North Middle School on Veterans Day. He would playfully give the kids orders and assign platoon leaders. Dennis would order the kids to stand in line and if they wouldn't do what he said quickly enough, he would command: ``Drop and give me five!'' Simultaneously, Dennis would drop to the floor and do push-ups with the kids. While he was in the Army, Dennis was lucky enough to meet the love of his life--Stacy--and married her in 2000. The two were meant for each other. Stacy called her husband, ``a glimpse of heaven.'' She said that ``it was love that struck our souls. Individually we were strong, but together we were powerful.'' They were blessed with a baby girl, whom they named Rhea. Being together with his wife and daughter was so very important to Dennis. However, he also felt a great sense of duty to his fellow soldiers and to his Nation. His unit was called for deployment to Iraq in March 2004. Although it was difficult to leave his family, Dennis had a job to do. While overseas, Dennis was in charge of rebuilding and securing the safety of several schools in Baghdad. Dennis realized that Iraqi children needed help--and they needed supplies. He enlisted the help of those in his hometown of Lima to give what they could. As he had so many times before, Dennis had the needs of others foremost in his mind. CPT Jay Wisham, a member of Dennis's unit, noted that he was not surprised Dennis was trying to secure school supplies for the Iraqi children. He said this about Dennis: He was just a very good guy all the way around. He firmly believed in what we were doing over there. All he wanted to do was make things better for whomever's life he touched. Indeed, Dennis touched many lives. After his service, Dennis wanted to return to West Point as a professor. David Garrison said this about his nephew: [Dennis] refused to take the easy way through life. As an officer, he was determined to receive all the tough training. Unfortunately, America's future cadets will never have the opportunity to learn what this West Point hero might have taught. Although Dennis will never teach those West Point cadets in the classroom, he will teach them through his legacy. He will teach them through the love he had for his family and through the lives of those Iraqi children, who now have the opportunity to go to school. At the memorial service following Dennis's death, his uncle David explained that ``was loved so strongly by so many because he loved so selflessly.'' The Reverend Henry Sattler, who married Dennis and Stacy, noted that Dennis ``knew in the career he'd chosen that he may be asked to lay down his life for his friends . . . and he said yes.'' CPT Dennis Pintor was a selfless man. Thanks to his efforts, more than 30 boxes of school supplies were sent to Iraq. Thanks to his efforts, hundreds of Iraqi children have a chance for a better life. Thanks to his efforts, the Iraqi people have a chance for freedom. My wife Fran and I keep Dennis's wife and daughter and his parents and siblings in our thoughts and in our prayers. Army Sergeant Benjamin Biskie Mr. President, today I remember and pay tribute to a young man from Vermillion, OH, who gave his life for our freedom and for the freedom of the people of Iraq. Army Sgt Benjamin Biskie gave the ultimate sacrifice--his last true measure of devotion--on Christmas Eve, 2003. His vehicle struck an improvised explosive device near Samarra, Iraq. He was 27 years old. Ben was born and raised in Arizona with his two sisters, Andrea and Darlene. He attended Tucson Junior Academy until he moved with his mother, Della, to Ohio in 1993. There, he graduated from Vermillion High School one year later. Following graduation, Ben enlisted in the Army, but not before he met his future wife, Marcie, that summer while working at Cedar Point amusement park. The two quickly fell in love and were married. Although Ben was proud to serve in the U.S. Army, his crowning achievement was the birth of his son Benjamin, Jr. Ben's Army comrades remember how he constantly told stories about his son. Ben trained at Fort Leonard Wood, MO, where he, Marcie, and Ben, Jr. made their home. Ben, Sr. would eventually serve one year in South Korea before he was sent to the Middle East. Though Ben did not want to leave his young family, he did not hesitate when he and the rest of the 5th Engineer Battalion, 1st Engineer Brigade were called to serve in Iraq in April 2003. The men of the ``Fighting Fifth'' were attached to the 4th Infantry Division and were tasked with laying roads and bridges for the Division's advancement. Following the successful completion of that mission, Ben and the rest of the Battalion aided the reconstruction efforts in Iraq. Ben believed in the work he was doing to rebuild the lives of Iraqi people. Like the dreams he had for his own son, Ben knew that his work would give hope for a promising future to so many Iraqi children--hope that had not previously existed. As Fort Leonard Wood Chaplain Gregory Tyree said at the memorial service in Ben's honor: Maybe years from now . . . a person who today is but a child in Iraq will look back through the pages of his life and remember a soldier in a desert-colored uniform who cared enough to help rebuild his school and came with a box of school supplies. And maybe, just maybe, he will offer a word of thanks for Sergeant Ben Biskie and the gift of freedom he died to give him. On an Internet website honoring our Nation's fallen service men and women, Ben Biskie's sister-in-law Ginger tried her best to express her feelings and her gratitude. She wrote the following: Ben--you are always on my mind. I've been thinking about you a lot lately and everything that I wish I could say to you. Most importantly of all is thank you. Thank you, Ben, for fighting for our freedom. Thank you, Ben, for making my sister so happy and for giving me the greatest nephew anyone could ask for. Thank you, Ben, for all of the lessons you have taught me, even if I didn't see the entirety of them until after you were taken from us. Thank you, Ben, for coming to visit me in my dreams on days when you know I need you the most. You are a true hero who will never be forgotten. Indeed, we will always remember Benjamin Biskie. He was a devoted husband, a doting father, and a selfless soldier, who dedicated his life to helping people he did not know while protecting those he loved at home. On that Christmas Eve in 2003, our Nation lost a great man. I would like to close with the words of Ben's wife, Marcie. Knowing how much her husband loved her and their son, she said the following: I don't know where our lives will take us now, but I know that wherever that may be, we'll have an angel following, keeping an eye out for his little boy. [Ben] was a true hero. Sgt Benjamin Biskie will live on in the hearts and minds of all those who knew him. His family remains in our thoughts and prayers. Marine Lance Corporal Michael J. Smith, Jr. Mr. President, I today pay tribute to a fellow Ohioan and true American hero. Marine LCpl Michael Smith, Jr., was killed on April 17, 2004, in Al Anbar Province, Iraq. Michael was coming to the aid of his Sergeant who had been shot. Michael was just 21 years-old. In his brief 21 years on this earth, Michael Smith, Jr., touched countless lives. Described as outgoing and personable, Michael's grandmother Alice once said that her grandson could ``walk into a room and no one was a stranger to him.'' Everyone loved him. Michael spent his youth crossing the Ohio River between Wellsburg, WV, where his father lived, and Wintersville, OH, where his mother resided. Known as the ``funny little redheaded kid,'' Michael and his cousin were partners in crime who loved to play pranks and revel in what many called their ``offbeat sense of humor.'' Though they loved to play tricks on people, cousin, Amy White, noted that Michael was a ``really sweet kid. He was the kind of kid who would do anything for you.'' Michael would carry this reputation throughout his life. He attended Brooke High School in Wellsburg, where he was a diligent student, gifted athlete, and an active participant in school clubs--including one tasked with discouraging fellow teens from using drugs and alcohol. On the high school football team, Michael earned the nickname ``All- Purpose Smitty'' because he could play any position. Michael was also a volunteer firefighter for the Bethany Pike Fire Department in West Virginia, which he formally joined when he was 18 years-old. Ernestein Gorby, a guidance counselor at the high school, once remarked that ``[Michael] was a very pleasant young man--kind of what I would call the `solid citizen,' the person who you'd want to be your next-door neighbor. He was reliable. He was serious about school.'' After high school, Michael wanted to take the next step and help his country. When he was 17, he urged his mother, Marianne, to support his decision to enlist in the U.S. Marine Corps. Though she was hesitant, Marianne knew that her son would follow his own path. And so, on February 9, 2001, Michael enlisted. Marianne instantly found it ironic that her freckled redheaded son was stationed at sunny Twentynine Palms, CA, with the rest of the 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division. Michael was first deployed to Kuwait and then Iraq in January 2003, and was part of the original advance on Baghdad. He then returned to the United States in September 2003, to do something he had been planning for almost a year--and that was to marry Alicia, his high school sweetheart. Alicia and Michael had been friends since the fifth grade. That friendship eventually grew into a romance, and the two were married on October 11, 2003. Alicia described her husband as an incredible man and a wonderful father to her young daughter Elizabeth. ``He's always been my hero,'' she said, ``[and] an amazing husband, my best friend, and a remarkable daddy to Elizabeth.'' In February 2004, Michael was called back to Iraq. Shortly after being redeployed, Alicia called with the news that she was pregnant. Tragically, Michael never had the chance to meet his son, who was born on October 16, 2004, 6 months after Michael's death. One day before he died, Michael was able to talk to Alicia via satellite phone. Alicia said that ``he just called to tell me he loved me with all his heart and soul.'' Michael was loved by all those who met him. When he died, the entire community felt the loss. As he attempted to describe his son to reporters, Michael's dad, Michael Smith, Sr., noted that ``there's not enough tape in the cameras or time in the world [to do that].'' The service for LCpl Michael Smith was held at Grace Lutheran Church in Steubenville, OH--the same church where Michael was baptized, confirmed, and married. Church members remember Michael as a moral guide--``a man who inspired them with laughter, love, and quiet leadership.'' Pastor Bethel Bateson recalls that on Michael's last military leave, he walked through the church and thanked everyone for their prayers, their letters, and their packages. Those whom Michael thanked that day came back to the church to say goodbye. At the service held in Michael's honor, Pastor Bateson commented that it was the most difficult service over which she had ever presided, ``because that beautiful red-haired boy playing under the pews grew up to be an incredible man.'' She went to say that ``even though he was only 21, a lot of us really looked up to him. . . . He was so strong--physically strong--but so tender. He had a tremendous capacity for love.'' I would like to close my remarks with the words of Marine Sgt Jason Long, who served as Michael's squadron leader. Following Michael's death, Sergeant Long wrote the following on an Internet tribute: My heart goes out to Michael's family. I send my deepest regrets. I could always count on [Michael] to get the job done if ever I wasn't around. He was a great man and Marine and an exceptional artist, as well. He showed great bravery in the face of the enemy. I only wish I was there with him to keep him out of danger. I could always count on him to give me a laugh when times were tough. We will meet again someday, my fellow Marine. Mr. President, I know that Michael's fellow Marines and his family will forever cherish the memory of their comrade, son, brother, husband, and father. His tremendous capacity for love shaped their lives. We will never forget him. Luke Petrik Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor this afternoon to pay tribute to a remarkable young man who died in defense of freedom. Luke Adam Petrik of Conneaut, OH, was killed on April 21, 2005, when his helicopter was shot down a few miles north of Baghdad, Iraq. He was 24 years old. Luke was one of those special and courageous individuals, who spent his life defending others. At the time of his death, he was working for a private security company to provide protection to American diplomats in Iraq. Previously, he had served as a decorated Army Ranger, with tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan. After his work in security, Luke had hopes of rejoining the military as a Navy SEAL. Luke knew the risks and accepted the challenges of this life. Born on April 1, 1981, in Ohio, Luke knew from a young age that he wanted to live a life of adventure. As a young boy, he joined the Boy Scouts. Luke's Scout leader, and the man who would later serve as his high school principal, John Posila, remembers Luke as ``an exceptional kid and very, very intelligent. From the time Luke was in Scouting, he had an interest in the military.'' In every aspect of his life, Luke sought out new experiences. His boyhood friend, Josh Brooks, said that ``you would get a million stories with Luke. Every time you hung out with him, there would be some kind of story.'' Along with memorable stories, spending time with Luke also meant that much laughter would ensue. Luke had a great sense of humor, according to everybody who knew him. Friends contend that there was no one who told worse jokes. He told jokes that were so bad, according to his friends, that you couldn't help but crack up. Although he was everything that you would expect from a future Army Ranger-- tough, disciplined, smart, and courageous--he was also riotously funny. Throughout his time at Conneaut High School, Luke knew that he wanted to serve in the military on the front lines. Upon graduation in 1999, he immediately enlisted in the Army and trained to join that elite fighting force, the Army Rangers. Given his discipline and desire, it is no surprise that he was successful. As a paratrooper in the 3rd Ranger Battalion, Luke joined in the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. Luke's experience with the Rangers was a perfect opportunity for him to demonstrate his extraordinary bravery and toughness--toughness that was legendary among his family and friends. Luke's stepfather, Eldridge Smith, remembers a remarkable story. While parachuting for a mission, Luke broke two bones in his foot. He was slated to be airlifted to a medical hospital in Germany for treatment. However, just before the plane was scheduled to leave with him, he walked away and hitchhiked across three countries to rejoin his company. You see, Luke felt a profound sense of duty and--broken foot or not--he would never abandon his mission or his men. Luke's experience in the military also revealed the way he lived his whole life, which was by a personal code of honor. Josh Brooks remembers his friend as a man of principle. On two separate occasions, Luke turned down--yes, turned down--a Purple Heart, saying he didn't deserve the award. Josh says that both that broken foot and Iraqi shrapnel he later took in his body would qualify him for the honor. But for Luke it was simple. Josh recalled, ``He didn't feel that he earned [the medals]. He did things his own way.'' Luke respected the medals and what they symbolized enough to refuse them. After having served two tours of duty in both Iraq and Afghanistan, Luke left the military in late 2003. After a brief period doing security work at a Virginia nuclear powerplant, Luke accepted an offer in 2004 to work for Blackwater Security Consulting. Blackwater specializes in providing security and support to the military, Government agencies, law enforcement groups, and civilians operating in hostile regions. Luke wanted to get back to work in Iraq, and Blackwater would give him that opportunity. While Luke was always full of stories, he was careful to focus on the good he was doing. He would rather talk about the good than the danger and destruction around him. His friend, Chuck Lawrence, had this to say about Luke's return to Iraq: ``I talked to him just about every day. He loved his job and had no regrets. He never regretted his decision to go over there [to Iraq]. He was doing what he loved.'' Luke's mother, Diana Spencer, agreed, saying that ``he enjoyed his work. He was very focused, very patriotic, and felt he was protecting his country.'' Luke's time at Blackwater whetted his appetite for more service in the military. He told his family in one of his last e-mails home that he wanted to become a Navy SEAL. His stepfather said that Luke ``missed special operations work [and that] he had a warrior's heart and had to do what he loved.'' Tragically, though, Luke would not get the chance to become a Navy SEAL. On April 21, 2005, he boarded a helicopter flight bound for Tikrit. He was going there to provide security detail for American diplomats. His helicopter was shot down by insurgents a few miles north of Baghdad. Luke and the 10 other civilian passengers and flight crew were killed. A memorial service was held for Luke on Saturday, May 7, 2005, at the First United Methodist Church in his hometown of Conneaut. Pews were packed with mourners, from former schoolmates to friends, family, and his fellow Rangers. Atop the casket was an American flag and a flower arrangement reading ``Ranger.'' All those closest to Luke agreed that this was certainly fitting. His mother Diana tearfully recalled that a plaque that Luke received after his discharge from the Army Rangers summed up his character. It reads: ``To a friend, a mentor, and the living embodiment of the Ranger creed.'' As Diana put it; ``That says everything about Luke.'' The service provided an opportunity for all of Luke's friends to reflect on how much he meant to them and how much he had taught them both through word and deed. Chuck Lawrence remembers his essential decency, saying that ``anyone who came in contact with Luke was better off for it. I never met anyone more genuine.'' Childhood friend, C.J. Welty says that ``Luke taught me [that] there is a lot to learn, and to do as much as you can in the short time [you have] here on Earth.'' In observance of Arbor Day, the Conneaut Tree Commission hosted a tree planting ceremony at Malek Park Arboretum to honor local men and women serving in Iraq. A red oak tree was planted in Luke's memory. It serves as a symbol of life and strength. That is how Luke should be remembered--as a vital, happy young man. In a beautiful letter to me, Luke's stepfather Eldridge wrote that ``I am having a life celebration for Luke and the way he lived his life, where the good memories will far outweigh the oppressive grief.'' My wife Fran and I keep all of Luke's family and friends in our prayers. Luke Petrik will never be forgotten. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1671 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to join with Senators Allen, Murray, Warner, and Voinovich in an effort to maintain our Nation's commitment to vital aeronautics research. We are offering this amendment to restore the aeronautics research & development program to last year's level of $906 million. For decades, NASA 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 will help make certain that progress continues in the coming fiscal year. The impact of NASA's work is 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. Yet unfortunately, we are at grave risk of losing the staff, facilities, and expertise necessary to continue NASA's aeronautics 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. We are at risk and we better pay attention. The bill we have before us now is a good bill, and I want to congratulate Chairman Shelby and Ranking Member Mikulski on their hard work in meeting so many needs with a very tough and tight budget allocation. One thing the bill does not include, however, is a specific reference 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 $54 million from the previous year, a cut of over $200 million from 2004. In fact, the 2006 Budget shows aeronautics programs facing a nearly one-third cut in the next 5 years for aeronautics. That is simply not acceptable. What will the practical consequences of these cuts be? The cuts mean that subsonic and hypersonic research will be terminated. This is the research that focuses on designing stronger airframes and better engines, technologies that with just a little work can be taken from the lab and applied directly to aircraft, whether commercial or military. As a result, U.S. aerospace producers will lack access to solid pre-competitive research, while competitors abroad benefit from well financed efforts, such as the European Union's ``Vision 2020'' program. Second, many of the facilities necessary to design and test new aeronautics technologies will 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 study determined that over 84 percent of these NASA facilities serve strategic national needs, and that the success of the U.S. aerospace industry relies on NASA's workforce and test facility infrastructure. 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 key aeronautics research areas, and on the other, they will lead to the closure of the very facilities industry and academia would need to replace that research. The cuts undermine our national defense by decimating cross-cutting technologies used by the Department of Defense. The cuts will force massive layoffs among NASA's best and brightest engineers, and will also impact the scores of Americans working for private sector aerospace companies. These cuts are simply unacceptable. 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 National Institute of Aerospace, NIA, study commissioned by Congress and unveiled earlier this year shows a need for vastly increased investment within NASA aeronautics programs. Our amendment does not reach the levels recommended by the NIA report, but it does move us in the right direction, the same direction that the House of Representatives has taken in its version of this bill. Our amendment follows directly from budget language adopted by the Senate this year calling for an adequate aeronautics investment. We do not cut space exploration programs to make this increase. This is a clean, deficit-neutral amendment that will help ensure our national competitiveness in civil and military aerospace, and it deserves the Senate's support. I will be back on the floor later to talk more about this amendment, as my other colleagues will, but at this point I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside.

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

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

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill with my colleague, Senator Rockefeller, which would impact the lives of many at-risk children living in foster care. This bill is called WE CARE Kids: Working to Enhance Courts for At-risk and Endangered Kids Act of 2005. How well a child welfare system functions is often related to how well the accompanying court system functions. The important role of the courts was noted last year when the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care released their recommendations to overhaul the Nation's foster care system. As observed by the Pew Commission, it is the courts that decide whether a child has been abused or neglected and whether that child should be placed in the foster care system. It is the courts that oversee whether the parents are making progress on their case plan and enforce the timelines for permanency. It is the courts that decide whether a parent's rights should be terminated or whether a family should be reunified. These judges are making tough, life-changing decisions for all parties involved. To strengthen the courts making these life-altering decisions, the Pew Commission recommended: 1. The adoption of court performance measures by every dependency court; 2. incentives and requirements for effect collaboration between courts and child welfare agencies; 3. a strong voice in court for parents and children, as well as effective and well-trained representation by attorneys and volunteer advocates; and 4. leadership from chief justices and other State court leaders to organize their systems to better serve the needs of children, train judges, and promote effective standards for courts, judges and attorneys. The legislation that Senator Rockefeller and I are introducing today incorporates many of the recommendations of the Pew Commission. Among other provisions, the legislation provides $10 million for grants for training of judges and court personnel, of which a significant portion must be used for joint training between courts and child welfare agencies. It also provides $10 million for grants to the highest State court for the development and implementation of outcome measures related to safety, permanency, due process, and timeliness of court proceedings. The bill requires States to develop standards of practice for attorneys appearing in child abuse and neglect proceedings, as well as provides loan forgiveness for attorneys who practice in family, domestic, and juvenile courts and for social workers who work within the child welfare system. The bill increases funding for the expansion of the Court Appointed Special Advocate program, and it includes a provision that would ease the placement of children in foster care from one State to another, for the purposes of speeding adoptions out of the foster care system. Let me conclude by saying that when Congress passed the Adoption and Safe Families Act, I believed it was a good start. Congress, however, would have to do more to make sure that every child has the opportunity to live in a safe, stable, loving and permanent home. One of the essential ingredients is an efficiently operating court system--a system that puts the principles embodied in the law into practice. Our bill would help the court system do just that. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill with my colleague, Senator Rockefeller, which would impact the lives of many at-risk children living in foster care. This bill is called WE CARE Kids: Working to Enhance Courts for At-risk and Endangered Kids Act of 2005. How well a child welfare system functions is often related to how well the accompanying court system functions. The important role of the courts was noted last year when the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care released their recommendations to overhaul the Nation's foster care system. As observed by the Pew Commission, it is the courts that decide whether a child has been abused or neglected and whether that child should be placed in the foster care system. It is the courts that oversee whether the parents are making progress on their case plan and enforce the timelines for permanency. It is the courts that decide whether a parent's rights should be terminated or whether a family should be reunified. These judges are making tough, life-changing decisions for all parties involved. To strengthen the courts making these life-altering decisions, the Pew Commission recommended: 1. The adoption of court performance measures by every dependency court; 2. incentives and requirements for effect collaboration between courts and child welfare agencies; 3. a strong voice in court for parents and children, as well as effective and well-trained representation by attorneys and volunteer advocates; and 4. leadership from chief justices and other State court leaders to organize their systems to better serve the needs of children, train judges, and promote effective standards for courts, judges and attorneys. The legislation that Senator Rockefeller and I are introducing today incorporates many of the recommendations of the Pew Commission. Among other provisions, the legislation provides $10 million for grants for training of judges and court personnel, of which a significant portion must be used for joint training between courts and child welfare agencies. It also provides $10 million for grants to the highest State court for the development and implementation of outcome measures related to safety, permanency, due process, and timeliness of court proceedings. The bill requires States to develop standards of practice for attorneys appearing in child abuse and neglect proceedings, as well as provides loan forgiveness for attorneys who practice in family, domestic, and juvenile courts and for social workers who work within the child welfare system. The bill increases funding for the expansion of the Court Appointed Special Advocate program, and it includes a provision that would ease the placement of children in foster care from one State to another, for the purposes of speeding adoptions out of the foster care system. Let me conclude by saying that when Congress passed the Adoption and Safe Families Act, I believed it was a good start. Congress, however, would have to do more to make sure that every child has the opportunity to live in a safe, stable, loving and permanent home. One of the essential ingredients is an efficiently operating court system--a system that puts the principles embodied in the law into practice. Our bill would help the court system do just that. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise this morning to honor a fellow Ohioan, a young man from Springfield. Twenty-year-old LCPL Kevin S. Smith was killed on March 21, 2005, when a suicide bomber detonated an explosive-filled car against Smith's Humvee. Lance Corporal Smith was conducting stabilization operations in Al Anbar Province, protecting Iraqi civilians he had been among for less than a month. Kevin Smith had a profound sense of duty. Before he had even graduated from high school, he knew he wanted to be a marine. At a very young age he had the resolve to defend his country abroad, and as Kevin grew he developed the thoroughness, the competence, and the compassion that helped him serve with distinction. Kevin Smith was born on September 24, 1984, in Springfield to proud parents Ronald and Kathy Smith. Growing up, Kevin enjoyed baseball and playing his guitar. He attended Kenton Ridge High School where he was a member of the Spanish National Honor Society. Marsha Stoner, head of the society, taught Kevin for 3 years. She recalls immediately noticing him in her class, and at the ceremony in Kevin's honor described her former student as ``genuine, kind, and gentle.'' Principal Chuck Foss remembers Smith as the kind of person who ``just did things the way they were supposed to be done.'' He continues: ``I would take a whole school of kids like him.'' Indeed, our whole country could use more men such as Kevin Smith. School was not the only place Kevin showed his reliability and personal strength. As those who own older cars know well, sometimes your own automobile becomes your greatest challenge. Kevin owned a decaying 1993 Toyota Celica that he lovingly named ``Doughnut.'' With spare parts and elbow grease, Kevin kept the Celica in working condition long after this ``doughnut'' should have sputtered its last sputter. Kevin had the drive it took to keep that aging car running. He saw a job that needed doing, and made sure it got done right. Also, while working on the car, Kevin developed the ingenuity he would later apply in the Marines. Lance Corporal Smith could disassemble a medium machine gun--twice--in a minute and forty-eight seconds. Kevin met his fiancee, Kristi Leider, at Kenton Ridge. They planned to marry. Kevin looked forward to becoming a husband and becoming a policeman so he could protect his family and his community. But first, there was something he had to do. He had to protect his Nation as a Marine. After graduating from Kenton Ridge in 2003, Kevin departed to serve. In Iraq, he was a member of the 3rd Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment, known to marines as the three-two. Kevin Smith was a natural leader, always the last to bed after checking on every member of his team. Sergeant Clive S. Chinatomby, Kevin's squad leader, had the following to say about Lance Corporal Smith: He was a team leader and was the first one to jump up and volunteer for anything. Anytime I'd go to him with something, it would get done. Kevin Smith would get it done--and he would get it done right. Lance Corporal Smith was more than just able and dedicated. He was compassionate. Smith would joke with his team, telling them clever one- liners as they patrolled. He not only did his best to protect the Marines around him from the physical perils of war, he shielded them from the stress and tension of being under constant threat. At a memorial service following Kevin's death, Sergeant Chinatomby attested to Kevin's infectious good humor: He kept me on my toes. Everything in life had a smart comment. He always had a come back for you, and he taught me not to take life that [seriously], because there is always a lighter side to things. He made situations a lot less stressful. Tragically, on March 21, 2005, Kevin's squad lost a friend, his parents lost a son, and the United States lost a brave and dedicated Marine. Kevin's Company First Sergeant, J.W. Rovnak wrote this message to the Smith family as a tribute to the kindness and service Kevin gave the men of the three-two: It is difficult to express the loss the men and I share here in Iraq. We bite back tears and mourn quietly in dark corners as we focus on the task at hand. We live for the day that we can grieve with you and try to give back to you all that Kevin has blessed us with. He lives in us, and our lives are forever touched and changed because of him. I am honored to have known him. Semper Fi. Nathan Heironimus, Kevin's childhood friend, remember his kindness, good humor, and dedication. He wrote Kevin the following message in tribute: Kevin--We had some good times these past fifteen years or so--playing backyard sports and videogames as kids, [playing] music, and cruising around in [old doughnut]. It seems like we did it all. You'll always be remembered by me as an easy- going comedian who just knew how to take it easy and enjoy life to the fullest. Easy to talk to and determined, I know you were a great leader for your team like you always were. We're all proud of what you've done for our country!! I know you're up there smiling down on us all now. Kevin was as good a soldier as this country could ask for. He got the job done, he was trusted and loved by his fellow Marines, and he was dedicated to the protection of democracy--be it abroad or at home. Lance Corporal Smith offered us his blood, sweat, and tears. He left an indelible mark on this world. He will never be forgotten. His family and friends honor the sacrifice he made, the Marines of the three-two honor the sacrifice he made, and today, I honor that sacrifice. My wife, Fran, and I continue to keep Kevin's fiancee, his parents, and his sister in our thoughts and in our prayers.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I join my friend and colleague from Arkansas, Senator Lincoln, to introduce a bill called the Advancing Better Coverage and Care for Children's Health Act or the ABCs for Children's Health Act. It is an important piece of legislation designed to help improve the access and quality of children's health services around the country,'' including children's hospitals. Children's Hospitals provide care to hundreds of thousands of children across our Nation every day. They care for the great majority of children who are seriously ill. They are the mainstay of the health care safety net for low-income children. But, a child who lacks health insurance is still much less likely to have timely access to the medical care they need. That's not right. Two-thirds of the more than 9 million uninsured children in the United States are eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP. They should be enrolled in public coverage when eligible, and we should streamline the eligibility process to make it easier, not more difficult. President Bush said in 2004, ``America's children must also have a healthy start in life . . . we will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of poor children who are eligible but not signed up for the government's health insurance programs. We will not allow a lack of attention or information to stand between these children and the health care they need.'' The bill we are introducing today would do just that. Our bill would provide the higher SCHIP federal match to states for children covered by Medicaid at the State option so that States think twice before removing children from the Medicaid rolls during State budget cuts. It also would provide a 90/10 administrative-match to help states update enrollment systems for children, including technology for ``express lane'' enrollment, the determination of eligibility for Medicaid and SCHIP when a child applies for another public benefit, like the school lunch program, and the allowance for enrollment by mail or phone. We also need to do more to help strengthen the system of care to ensure quality and accountability for children's coverage. Our bill would do this by supporting innovative ideas at children's hospitals. Quality improvement funding shouldn't just be available to adult hospitals. Children's hospitals have good ideas, too, and we should support those good ideas. Cincinnati Children's Hospital in Ohio is leading the way in improving care for children with diabetes, cystic fibrosis and other chronic conditions. The hospital is deeply committed to transforming health care delivery to improve outcomes for children. In 2001, they were selected as one of just seven hospitals in the Pursuing Perfection initiative launched by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and with this funding from the Foundation, they have made significant progress. They can document improvements in patient safety, in the effectiveness of care, in operational efficiency, in timely access to care, and in more patient-centered care. These are the reforms we need to pursue for children in Medicaid and for all children. Our bill would help Cincinnati Children's Hospital and our other Children's Hospitals speed their journey to better, safer, more cost-effective care. A hospital that makes the effort to improve care and outcomes for children should be compensated for that effort. We need to advance quality and performance for children in Medicaid, like we are doing for seniors in Medicare. The development of hospital quality measures, testing their ability to gauge effective care and rewarding performance, should apply to all hospitals, including children's hospitals. That's why we have worked with the National Association of Children's Hospitals to introduce a bill that would provide grants to help improve pediatric quality, so that Children's Hospitals can begin to establish measures for quality care and share what works--and what doesn't work-- across hospital services for children nationwide. Our bill would provide for a demonstration program in Medicaid to evaluate evidenced-based quality and performance measures in children's health services, with grants for States and/or providers in three areas: health information technology and evidenced-based outcome measures, disease management for children with chronic conditions, and evidenced-based approaches to improving the delivery of hospital care for children. The bill also would provide for a national Children's Hospital pay-for-performance demonstration program, rewarding Children's Hospitals, which provide critical access to services and voluntarily participate, for reporting and meeting quality and performance measures. Evaluating the national measures of quality in Children's Hospitals, their success in capturing performance, and their applicability to pay- for-performance across States' varying methods of payments, would gives States, the Federal Government, and Children's Hospitals an essential base of information in measuring performance in children's hospital care. And that is something we vitally need. I urge my colleagues to support and co-sponsor this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I join my friend and colleague from Arkansas, Senator Lincoln, to introduce a bill called the Advancing Better Coverage and Care for Children's Health Act or the ABCs for Children's Health Act. It is an important piece of legislation designed to help improve the access and quality of children's health services around the country,'' including children's hospitals. Children's Hospitals provide care to hundreds of thousands of children across our Nation every day. They care for the great majority of children who are seriously ill. They are the mainstay of the health care safety net for low-income children. But, a child who lacks health insurance is still much less likely to have timely access to the medical care they need. That's not right. Two-thirds of the more than 9 million uninsured children in the United States are eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP. They should be enrolled in public coverage when eligible, and we should streamline the eligibility process to make it easier, not more difficult. President Bush said in 2004, ``America's children must also have a healthy start in life . . . we will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of poor children who are eligible but not signed up for the government's health insurance programs. We will not allow a lack of attention or information to stand between these children and the health care they need.'' The bill we are introducing today would do just that. Our bill would provide the higher SCHIP federal match to states for children covered by Medicaid at the State option so that States think twice before removing children from the Medicaid rolls during State budget cuts. It also would provide a 90/10 administrative-match to help states update enrollment systems for children, including technology for ``express lane'' enrollment, the determination of eligibility for Medicaid and SCHIP when a child applies for another public benefit, like the school lunch program, and the allowance for enrollment by mail or phone. We also need to do more to help strengthen the system of care to ensure quality and accountability for children's coverage. Our bill would do this by supporting innovative ideas at children's hospitals. Quality improvement funding shouldn't just be available to adult hospitals. Children's hospitals have good ideas, too, and we should support those good ideas. Cincinnati Children's Hospital in Ohio is leading the way in improving care for children with diabetes, cystic fibrosis and other chronic conditions. The hospital is deeply committed to transforming health care delivery to improve outcomes for children. In 2001, they were selected as one of just seven hospitals in the Pursuing Perfection initiative launched by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and with this funding from the Foundation, they have made significant progress. They can document improvements in patient safety, in the effectiveness of care, in operational efficiency, in timely access to care, and in more patient-centered care. These are the reforms we need to pursue for children in Medicaid and for all children. Our bill would help Cincinnati Children's Hospital and our other Children's Hospitals speed their journey to better, safer, more cost-effective care. A hospital that makes the effort to improve care and outcomes for children should be compensated for that effort. We need to advance quality and performance for children in Medicaid, like we are doing for seniors in Medicare. The development of hospital quality measures, testing their ability to gauge effective care and rewarding performance, should apply to all hospitals, including children's hospitals. That's why we have worked with the National Association of Children's Hospitals to introduce a bill that would provide grants to help improve pediatric quality, so that Children's Hospitals can begin to establish measures for quality care and share what works--and what doesn't work-- across hospital services for children nationwide. Our bill would provide for a demonstration program in Medicaid to evaluate evidenced-based quality and performance measures in children's health services, with grants for States and/or providers in three areas: health information technology and evidenced-based outcome measures, disease management for children with chronic conditions, and evidenced-based approaches to improving the delivery of hospital care for children. The bill also would provide for a national Children's Hospital pay-for-performance demonstration program, rewarding Children's Hospitals, which provide critical access to services and voluntarily participate, for reporting and meeting quality and performance measures. Evaluating the national measures of quality in Children's Hospitals, their success in capturing performance, and their applicability to pay- for-performance across States' varying methods of payments, would gives States, the Federal Government, and Children's Hospitals an essential base of information in measuring performance in children's hospital care. And that is something we vitally need. I urge my colleagues to support and co-sponsor this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the Jewish community on 350 years of Jewish life in America. In September of 1654, 23 Jews founded the first Jewish community in America when they sailed to what was then New Amsterdam. The Jewish community in this country has a rich and fascinating history, surmounting numerous obstacles and working diligently to make great contributions to our Nation. I offer my sincerest congratulations to the Jewish community on reaching this important milestone and express my endorsement of the 350th Rabbinical Resolution and ask that it be printed in the Record. The resolution follows:

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, when this bill was before the Senate in the last Congress, I came to the Senate to oppose it. I opposed it because it denied certain gun crime victims, certain individuals who were victims of crimes committed with guns, their day in court. It singled out a particular group of weapon victims that it treated differently than we treat any other victims in the whole country. It set them apart. Unfortunately, the bill before the Senate is no better than the one we had last year. In fact, it is worse. Not only does it grant immunity to the gun industry, the bill also prevents Federal, State, and local government agencies from shutting down gun dealers who violate the law. Local and State governments are responsible for ensuring that restaurants are clean, that doctors are properly licensed, stores do not sell alcohol and cigarettes to our children. Why can't they also ensure that gun dealers and manufacturers operate responsibly? Why do we want to take that right away from them? Yet the current language of the bill before the Senate would do that. I have great respect for the many firearms dealers and manufacturers around this country who are legitimate, honest and hard working. The vast majority of dealers have no tolerance for buyers who circumvent gun laws. These dealers are also responsible, ensuring that they have adequate inventory control systems in place so that guns do not get lost or become missing. This bill would not help them. The responsible dealers don't need this bill. Cases filed against responsible dealers and manufacturers who have done nothing wrong can already be tossed out if they have no merit, as any frivolous lawsuit will be tossed out in a court of law if they are filed against any manufacturer of any product or against any wholesaler or retailer of any product. Who, then, will benefit by the passage of this bill? The people who will benefit are the irresponsible dealers and the irresponsible manufacturers. Let me describe some cases. Everyone remembers all too well the tragedies of the DC sniper cases. Some of the victims of the DC snipers sued Bull's Eye Shooter Supply, the gun dealer that negligently allowed a Bushmaster rifle to reach the hands of John Allen Mohammed and Lee Boyd Malvo. That suit was successful. In the settlement, the negligent dealer--we could have assumed he would have been found negligent in a court of law--agreed to pay the victim and their families $2.5 million. If this bill had been in effect a few years ago, these victims would have had no recourse in court. Or perhaps we remember Danny Guzman, from Worcester, MA. On December 24, 1999, Danny Guzman was shot and killed by a gun that was taken from a factory run by Kahr Arms. Unfortunately, Kahr Arms hired Mark Cronin, an individual with a history of crack cocaine addiction and theft. Cronin was given unfettered access to the untraceable, unstamped guns in the factory. He bragged, in fact, that it was so easy to remove guns that he ``does it all the time and he could just walk out with them.'' Cronin removed one of these guns from the factory. That gun ended up on the streets, and tragically it was used to kill Danny Guzman. Those are the essential facts. Danny Guzman's estate, on behalf of his widow and two young daughters, sued Kahr Arms, alleging that it operated its plant in a grossly negligent manner, and in the spring of 2003, a State judge allowed that case to proceed. If this bill passes, however, the widow and children of Danny Guzman would be out of court. As we can see, this bill cuts to the core of civil liability law and guts it. As my colleagues know, now, under current law throughout this country, the victim needs to prove the defendant acted in an unreasonable manner--basic negligence law, the law those who are lawyers learn about in the first and second year of law school. It is the law of negligence that prevails in courts of law in every type of civil case. It is not unusual. It is what it is. Under negligence law, if the defendant fails to meet his or her duty to act in a responsible fashion, they are liable for negligence as long as that failure leads to harm to the victim. That is what is required. It is negligence. It is as simple as that. That is the standard. It is a standard we have developed over 200 years in this country, a standard we inherited from the British system. So we have hundreds and hundreds of years of experience in how to apply the rules of law, the common law negligence. This bill says that those rules will no longer apply for one set of victims. These rules that we have taken hundreds of years to develop will no longer apply to one set of victims and to one set of defendants. When we study law, one of the first things we learn is the difference between civil and criminal law. Someone who did not commit a crime can still be held liable in civil law to someone else and have to pay monetary damages. That is a basic concept. This bill, however, changes that fundamental idea of civil law because under this bill a victim cannot sue a gun dealer for damages resulting from illegal actions of a third party without also showing that a dealer is guilty of a violation of the law, even--even--when the dealer has been negligent. Again, that is a fundamental change in our law with one group of civil defendants. If this bill were to become law, a plaintiff would not only have to demonstrate that a gun dealer acted negligently, but also that the gun dealer broke the law--broke the criminal law. In other words, the plaintiff would--with one lone exception that has already been talked about on the floor a few moments ago--have to prove the gun dealer violated a statute or is guilty of a crime. We do not require this in any other place in our law. Why do we want to do it in this case? If those who come to the floor in favor of this bill think it is such a great idea to do it in this case, if they think it is such a great idea to require that they have to violate a criminal law before you can sue them, then why not just pass that law for everybody? Why not make it the law of the land that in any civil suit in this country you have to have violated a criminal law? Why not change our civil law, turn it upside down, in all 50 States of the Union, if it is such a great idea? I do not see anybody coming to the floor who is in favor of this bill saying it is such a great idea to do that. I do not see anybody proposing to do that. Yet they want to do it for one set of victims. They want to single out one set of victims. If you are a victim of guns--and it could be that somebody, a manufacturer, a gun dealer, has been negligent--we are going to require, for you to get inside the courthouse door, for you to even enter the courthouse door, before you can get what every American has the right to have--and that is a trial by jury, a trial, the opportunity to have your case heard by a judge and a jury--we are going to require you to prove there has been a crime committed. We do not require that for any other group of people. So if they think it is such a great idea, let them come to the floor and propose that, to make it a universal law for every civil suit in the country. I would like to talk for a moment about the language in this bill that might well prevent the Government from enforcing our gun laws against irresponsible gun dealers. This provision goes well beyond barring civil suits by private citizens who have been wronged. This provision is a new provision. It was not in last year's bill. This provision potentially curtails the ability of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, the ATF, from enforcing the gun laws that are currently on the books. Two former ATF Directors recognize the potential harm that comes from this provision. According to Stephen Higgins, ATF Director from 1982 to 1995, and Rex Davis, ATF Director from 1970 to 1978, this broad, new language contained in this legislation in front of us today would likely prohibit the ATF from initiating proceedings to revoke a gun dealer's license, even when that dealer supplies guns to criminals. Let me repeat that. According to both of these former ATF Directors, this broad, new language would likely prohibit the ATF from initiating proceedings to revoke a gun dealer's license, even when that dealer supplies guns to criminals. So not only are we shielding these bad apples, bad actors, people who ought to not be doing business, not only are we shielding them from civil liability, now we are coming along and saying the ATF cannot enforce the law against them. What in the world are we thinking? I think that everyone in this body can agree it is important for us to enforce gun laws that we have on the books. Why in the world is there attached a provision to this bill that would make it harder for ATF to enforce our laws and shut down wayward and dangerous gun dealers? Why in the world would we want to do this? I don't know. Why would we want to strip away the opportunity of a gun victim to get into court? Why do we want to do either one of those things? I guess the answer is pretty simple. This bill ties the ATF's hands, ties the hands of private citizens, ties the hands of State and local agencies. It shields a certain group of defendants--gun manufacturers and dealers--from liability. This bill grants immunity. It overturns well over 200 years of civil law, 200 years of tort law, 200 years of common law. If it passes, this bill would fundamentally change our justice system. It would do this by denying one group of citizens access to the court system in order to protect another group. Why in the world are we about to do this? The only reason I can think of is because there are the votes here to do it. There is the power to do it. It can be done. One group in the country can get it done. Now, Mr. President, I can count. I know how this vote is going to turn out. But that still does not make it right. Just because there are votes to pass this legislation does not mean it is the right bill for our country, for the victims, or for the American people. I said this last year, and I will say it again. I will make a prediction about this bill. I will make a prediction about the effect it will have on this group of victims. Yes, the passage of this bill will get rid of some frivolous lawsuits. There is no doubt about that. We could get rid of a lot of frivolous lawsuits in this country by prohibiting access to the courthouse. There will be lawsuits that will never be filed because of this bill. That is true. There is no doubt about that. But, Mr. President and Members of the Senate, mark my words: If this bill passes, in the future there will be a case, or cases, that will be so egregious, so bad, that it will sicken your stomach, and Members of this Senate will read about it, and Members of this Senate will look up from their paper, or will look up from the evening news, and will say: I didn't intend to do that. I didn't intend for that victim not to be able to go into court. I didn't intend for that child, that man, that woman not to be able to sue that defendant. Oh, I never intended that. There will be that case, and that day will come. And whether it is a terrorist who is the defendant or whether it is some horrible criminal or whether it is some horribly negligent gun dealer--whoever it is-- there will be some case, and we will see it, and we will live to regret this day. You cannot arbitrarily close the door to the courthouse and say, ``You cannot come in, victim, if you are of a certain class,'' and not have injustice done. You cannot do it. That day will occur, and we will regret what we are about to do. There is an additional aspect of this bill that has not been talked a lot about; and that is the fact that it is retroactive. It would actually kick existing cases out of court. How dare we do that. How dare we have the audacity to do that. How dare we in this Congress come to the Senate floor and wipe out every lawsuit that has been filed in this country that would come within the parameters of this bill. How arrogant are we to do that? Did we really get elected to the Senate to tell crime victims that their case is frivolous, without ever even knowing the facts of that particular case? We will have in front of us, in a few weeks, a Supreme Court nominee. There will be a lot of talk, as there already has been, about the separation of powers. There will be a lot of talk about judicial restraint, as well there should be. I probably will be talking about it as well. What about legislative restraint? We do not talk much about that. We get mad here on Capitol Hill when we pass a bill and the Supreme Court says we did not have the power to pass that bill. I think we should remember what our role is. I do not think anyone elected us to the Senate to bar their ability to go into court--not to completely bar the door. I think it is one thing to set standards and parameters and maybe limits. You can talk about that. But to totally say, ``You can't go into court,'' I think we ought to think long and hard before we do this. If passed, this bill would kick people out of court retroactively. It would not just bar people from coming to the courthouse. Apparently, that is not enough. No. What this bill does is kick people out who are already in court. It kicks people out who have already survived motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment. It likely even tosses out victims who have won at trial and are defending their cases on appeal. To me, that is just plain wrong. The courts are supposed to decide these cases. Juries are supposed to decide them. People are supposed to have their day in court. That is how our system is supposed to work. I do not think it is my job or the job of other Members of the Senate to judge these cases. It is not our job to determine whether these cases should or should not proceed. It is not my job to determine whether someone is negligent or is not negligent. I also think it is not my job to tell a victim that he or she does not have the right to go to court and present a case to a judge or a jury. People in this country are supposed to have their day in court. That is fundamentally the American way. This bill creates two classes of victims in this country. If you are injured by any industry in America, you can file a lawsuit in State court in an attempt to redress your injury. After the passage of this bill, however, if you are injured by the gun industry, you are likely out of luck. Other industries face legal challenges. Other industries, other defendants, have had lawsuits filed against them they do not like. Other defendants, every single day in this country, face suits that in their eyes, many times, are frivolous, that they cannot stand, that they do not think are fair. But they are not here petitioning us, telling us we should pass a law that blocks the ability of someone to sue them. Other industries are involved in cases where many people die. We understand that. We do not grant to them this kind of immunity from civil liability. I support the second amendment. I support individuals' rights to own guns. I support gun manufacturers. I support legitimate gun dealers. And I support responsible tort reform. I certainly understand there are some abuses in the system, and that sometimes Congress needs to act to prevent these abuses. For example, just recently, I voted in favor of class action reform, and we passed that legislation to modify certain class action procedures. But what we are about to do in this Congress, in this Senate, is wrong. This bill keeps victims out of court altogether. This bill is unfair to victims. But more important than that, it is a horrible precedent. If we do this, this time, what is to stop a future Congress--where there are the votes, maybe configured differently--from saying: ``Oh, there is another group of victims, and we need to protect them, another group of victims that we are not going to protect, another group of defendants that we are going to protect, another group of victims to whom we are going to say, you can't sue them, you can't get your day in court''? If we deny this group of victims in front of us today their rights, what is to stop a future Congress from denying another group of victims their rights? We need to think about this long and hard before we cast this vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I join several of my colleagues today to introduce a series of bills related to the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA). These bills emphasize a number of issues that are vital to higher education, including teacher quality, recruitment, and retention; loan forgiveness for social workers, family lawyers, and early childhood teachers; and the reduction of drug use and underage drinking at our colleges and universities. The quality of a student's education is the direct result of the quality of that student's teachers. If we don't have well trained teachers, then future generations of our children will not be well educated. That is why I am introducing a bill ``Ready to Educate All Children Act'' that would provide $200 million in grants to our schools of education to partner with high-need local schools to ensure that our teachers are receiving the best, most extensive training available before they enter the classroom. Studies find that a majority of graduates of schools of education believe that the traditional teacher preparation program left them ill prepared for the challenges and rigors of the classroom. Part of the responsibility for this lies in the hands of our schools of education. However, Congress also has a responsibility to give our schools of education the tools they need to make necessary improvements. This new bill would create a competitive grant program for schools of education, which partner with low-income schools to create clinical programs to train teachers. Additionally, it would require schools of education to make internal changes by working with other departments at the university to ensure that teachers are receiving the highest quality education in core academic subjects. Finally, it would require the college or university to demonstrate a commitment to improving their schools of education by providing matching funds. Another bill I am introducing today, is the ``Collaborative Agreements to Recruit Educators Act,'' which also would encourage improvement in the education of our Nation's low-income students. Children raised in poverty have a much more difficult time in finishing high school and going on to college. While about seventy percent of children in America will graduate from high school, that rate drops to fifty percent for low-income students. We know that every day, about 3,000 children drop out of school. Our Nation's inner city schools have some of the lowest rates of graduation. I strongly believe that education is one of the most important ways to break the cycle of poverty. To break that cycle, we must keep our children in school, help them graduate from high school, and increase their access to higher education. My bill would provide grants for collaborative agreements to between local education agencies in low-income communities and to colleges of education. These partnerships would work to provide services, such as mentoring, tutoring, and scholarships through the college of education to the students at the partnering school in order to 1. encourage those students to graduate from high school, 2. let them know of opportunities within higher education, and (3) encourage them to become teachers, which are so badly needed. Another complex issue affecting the teaching force is the high percentage of disillusioned beginning teachers who leave the field. This bill would help combat this issue, as well. Schools of education receiving these grants would be responsible for following their graduates and continuing to provide assistance after they enter the classroom. The more we invest in the education of teachers--especially once they have entered the profession--the more likely they will remain in the classroom. To further help teacher quality and retention, I am introducing a bill ``The Master Teacher Scholarship Act''--to establish a Master's in Education Scholarship Program. The lack of promotions and salary increases are some of the most pervasive reasons for the disillusionment of teachers. This disillusionment is becoming a crisis as half of teachers leave the profession altogether within their first five years of teaching. To both improve the quality of teachers and increase their retention, this bill would provide $30 million in grants to schools of education to administer scholarships to eligible teachers. In return for the scholarships, teachers would agree to teach for another five years and mentor a novice teacher for two years. Today, along with Senator Dodd, I am introducing the ``Paul Wellstone Early Educator Loan Forgiveness Act.'' Our dear friend and colleague, Senator Wellstone, and I had been working on this legislation together before his tragic death. I know he cared deeply about this issue and about making sure that all children receive a quality education. He was passionate about that. Though our bill was originally called the ``Early Care and Education Loan Forgiveness Act,'' we have renamed our bill in Paul's memory. Our bill would expand the loan forgiveness program so that it benefits not just childcare workers, but also early childhood educators. This loan forgiveness program would serve as an incentive to keep those educators in the field for longer periods of time. Research shows that children who attend quality early childcare programs when they were three or four years old scored better on math, language arts, and social skills in early elementary school than children who attended poor quality childcare programs. In short, children in early learning programs with high quality teachers--teachers with a Bachelor's degree or an Associate's degree or higher--do substantially better. When we examine the number and recent growth of pre-primary education programs, it becomes difficult to differentiate between early education and childcare settings because they are so often intertwined-- especially considering that about 12 million children younger than age five spend part of their time with a care provider other than a parent and that demand for quality childcare and education is growing as more mothers enter the workforce. Because this bill targets loan forgiveness to those educators working in low-income schools or childcare settings, we can make significant strides toward providing high quality education for all of our young children, regardless of socioeconomic status. The bill would serve a twofold function. First, it would reward professionals for their training. Second, it would encourage professionals to remain in the profession over longer periods of time, since more time in the profession leads to higher percentages of loans forgiveness. The bill would result in more educated individuals with more teaching experience and lower turnover rates, each of which enhance student performance. I encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort to help ensure that truly no children--especially our youngest children--are left behind. I also am working on two bills with my friend and colleague from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller. These bills would provide loan forgiveness to students who dedicate their careers to working in the realm of child welfare, including social workers, who work for child protective services, and family law experts. Currently, there aren't enough social workers to fill available jobs in the area of child welfare. Furthermore, the number of social work job openings is expected to increase faster than the average for all occupations through 2010. The need for highly qualified social workers in the child protective services is reaching crisis level. We also need more qualified individuals focusing on family law. The wonderful thing about family law is its focus on rehabilitation--that is the rehabilitation of families by helping them through life's transitions, whether it is a family going through a divorce, a family dealing with their troubled teenager in the juvenile system, or a child getting adopted and becoming a member of a new family. Across the United States, family, juvenile, and domestic relations courts are experiencing a shortage of qualified attorneys. As many of my colleagues and I know, law school is an expensive investment. In the last 20 years, tuition has increased more than 200 percent. Currently, the average rate of law school debt is about $80,000 per graduate. To be sure, few law school graduates can afford to work in the public sector because debts prevent even the most dedicated public service lawyer from being able to take these low-paying jobs. This results in a shortage of family lawyers. The shortage of family law attorneys also disproportionately impacts juveniles. The lack of available representation causes children to spend more time in foster care because cases are adjourned or postponed when they simply cannot find an attorney to represent their rights or those of the parent or guardian. Furthermore, the number of children involved in the court system is sharply increasing. We need to ensure that the interests of these children are taken care of by making certain they have an advocate--someone working solely on their behalf. By offering loan forgiveness to those willing to pursue careers in the child welfare field, we can increase the number of highly qualified and dedicated individuals who work in the realm of child welfare and family law. Finally, I am introducing a bill today that would help address an epidemic--the epidemic of underage drinking on college and university campuses across the United States. This bill would provide grants to states to establish statewide partnerships among colleges and universities and the surrounding communities to work together to reduce underage and binge drinking and illicit drug use by students. Many States, including my home State of Ohio, have coalitions that deal specifically with the culture of alcohol and drug abuse on America's college campuses. They work with the surrounding communities, including local residents; bar, restaurant, and shop owners; and law enforcement officials toward a goal of changing the pervasive culture of drug and alcohol abuse. They provide alternative alcohol-free events, as well as support groups for those who choose not to drink. They also educate students about the dangers of alcohol and drug use. Furthermore, the coalitions recognize that while it is important to promote an alcohol aware and drug-free campus community, if the community surrounding the campus does not promote these initiatives, there will be no long-term solutions. Therefore, these coalitions also have worked to establish regulations both on and off campus, which will help our Nation's youth to stay healthy, alive, and get the most out of their time at college. Some of these regulations include the registration of kegs. This provides accountability for both the store and the student. This is just an example of one step that colleges, local communities, and organizations can take. To help start the expansion of these coalitions, this bill would provide $5 million in grants. This is an important demonstration project that would help lead to positive effects for our young people. It is up to us to change the culture, which has been perpetuated by years of complacency and a dismissal tone of ``that's just the way it is in college.'' We must protect the health and education of our young people by changing this culture of abuse--and that is exactly what this bill would help do. I thank all of my colleagues who have worked with me on these bills. I look forward to the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act and working with Chairman Enzi and Ranking Member Kennedy to incorporate these important measures.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I join Senator Murray in introducing the ``Improving Access to Education for Students Who Are Homeless or in Foster Care Act.'' I thank Senator Murray for her deep commitment to the education of children who are homeless or in foster care. I have worked with her on provisions to promote their access to and completion of education in both the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) reauthorization and the Head Start Act reauthorization and am pleased to have worked with her again on this bill. In the United States, on any given day, more than half a million children are in foster care--20,000 of whom are in the State of Ohio, alone. In 2003, also know that more than 900,000 children were found to be victims of child abuse or neglect. More than half of the children in foster care experience developmental delays. Children in foster care have three to seven times more chronic medical conditions, birth defects, emotional disorders, and academic failures than children of similar socioeconomic backgrounds who do not enter foster care. We also know that homeless children face great barriers to higher education. Often, these students have run away from an abusive home, or have been lost to the system. These students also may be living on the street with a parent--too often with a parent suffering from an addiction to alcohol or drugs. These children will move from school to school and shelter to shelter, piecing together their education as they can. This is not good enough. Although we have tried to reach out to these students through the McKinney Vento Homelessness Assistance Act, we need to do more. These children deserve a better chance at an education. Education offers foster care and homeless children their best hope for escaping the poverty and instability they experience. This bill includes additional outreach to these hard to reach populations through current Federal education programs, such as TRIO and GEAR UP. It also would expand and clarify the definition of ``Independent Student'' in order to accommodate the special circumstances of foster care and homeless children and would allow student financial aid administrators additional flexibility to help this cohort of students attain access to higher education. This bill would create a $20 million demonstration grant program targeting foster and homeless children to help decrease the barriers to higher education by involving stakeholders and their communities in the outreach process. I look forward to working with HELP Committee Chairman Enzi to incorporate these provisions into the Higher Education Act reauthorization bill. I appreciate his willingness to incorporate provisions related to homeless and foster children in the Head Start Act reauthorization bill, as well. He is equally concerned with the welfare of these children. And again, I thank Senator Murray for her commitment to these children. We cannot afford to overlook their needs.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I join Senator Murray in introducing the ``Improving Access to Education for Students Who Are Homeless or in Foster Care Act.'' I thank Senator Murray for her deep commitment to the education of children who are homeless or in foster care. I have worked with her on provisions to promote their access to and completion of education in both the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) reauthorization and the Head Start Act reauthorization and am pleased to have worked with her again on this bill. In the United States, on any given day, more than half a million children are in foster care--20,000 of whom are in the State of Ohio, alone. In 2003, also know that more than 900,000 children were found to be victims of child abuse or neglect. More than half of the children in foster care experience developmental delays. Children in foster care have three to seven times more chronic medical conditions, birth defects, emotional disorders, and academic failures than children of similar socioeconomic backgrounds who do not enter foster care. We also know that homeless children face great barriers to higher education. Often, these students have run away from an abusive home, or have been lost to the system. These students also may be living on the street with a parent--too often with a parent suffering from an addiction to alcohol or drugs. These children will move from school to school and shelter to shelter, piecing together their education as they can. This is not good enough. Although we have tried to reach out to these students through the McKinney Vento Homelessness Assistance Act, we need to do more. These children deserve a better chance at an education. Education offers foster care and homeless children their best hope for escaping the poverty and instability they experience. This bill includes additional outreach to these hard to reach populations through current Federal education programs, such as TRIO and GEAR UP. It also would expand and clarify the definition of ``Independent Student'' in order to accommodate the special circumstances of foster care and homeless children and would allow student financial aid administrators additional flexibility to help this cohort of students attain access to higher education. This bill would create a $20 million demonstration grant program targeting foster and homeless children to help decrease the barriers to higher education by involving stakeholders and their communities in the outreach process. I look forward to working with HELP Committee Chairman Enzi to incorporate these provisions into the Higher Education Act reauthorization bill. I appreciate his willingness to incorporate provisions related to homeless and foster children in the Head Start Act reauthorization bill, as well. He is equally concerned with the welfare of these children. And again, I thank Senator Murray for her commitment to these children. We cannot afford to overlook their needs.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I join several of my colleagues today to introduce a series of bills related to the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA). These bills emphasize a number of issues that are vital to higher education, including teacher quality, recruitment, and retention; loan forgiveness for social workers, family lawyers, and early childhood teachers; and the reduction of drug use and underage drinking at our colleges and universities. The quality of a student's education is the direct result of the quality of that student's teachers. If we don't have well trained teachers, then future generations of our children will not be well educated. That is why I am introducing a bill ``Ready to Educate All Children Act'' that would provide $200 million in grants to our schools of education to partner with high-need local schools to ensure that our teachers are receiving the best, most extensive training available before they enter the classroom. Studies find that a majority of graduates of schools of education believe that the traditional teacher preparation program left them ill prepared for the challenges and rigors of the classroom. Part of the responsibility for this lies in the hands of our schools of education. However, Congress also has a responsibility to give our schools of education the tools they need to make necessary improvements. This new bill would create a competitive grant program for schools of education, which partner with low-income schools to create clinical programs to train teachers. Additionally, it would require schools of education to make internal changes by working with other departments at the university to ensure that teachers are receiving the highest quality education in core academic subjects. Finally, it would require the college or university to demonstrate a commitment to improving their schools of education by providing matching funds. Another bill I am introducing today, is the ``Collaborative Agreements to Recruit Educators Act,'' which also would encourage improvement in the education of our Nation's low-income students. Children raised in poverty have a much more difficult time in finishing high school and going on to college. While about seventy percent of children in America will graduate from high school, that rate drops to fifty percent for low-income students. We know that every day, about 3,000 children drop out of school. Our Nation's inner city schools have some of the lowest rates of graduation. I strongly believe that education is one of the most important ways to break the cycle of poverty. To break that cycle, we must keep our children in school, help them graduate from high school, and increase their access to higher education. My bill would provide grants for collaborative agreements to between local education agencies in low-income communities and to colleges of education. These partnerships would work to provide services, such as mentoring, tutoring, and scholarships through the college of education to the students at the partnering school in order to 1. encourage those students to graduate from high school, 2. let them know of opportunities within higher education, and (3) encourage them to become teachers, which are so badly needed. Another complex issue affecting the teaching force is the high percentage of disillusioned beginning teachers who leave the field. This bill would help combat this issue, as well. Schools of education receiving these grants would be responsible for following their graduates and continuing to provide assistance after they enter the classroom. The more we invest in the education of teachers--especially once they have entered the profession--the more likely they will remain in the classroom. To further help teacher quality and retention, I am introducing a bill ``The Master Teacher Scholarship Act''--to establish a Master's in Education Scholarship Program. The lack of promotions and salary increases are some of the most pervasive reasons for the disillusionment of teachers. This disillusionment is becoming a crisis as half of teachers leave the profession altogether within their first five years of teaching. To both improve the quality of teachers and increase their retention, this bill would provide $30 million in grants to schools of education to administer scholarships to eligible teachers. In return for the scholarships, teachers would agree to teach for another five years and mentor a novice teacher for two years. Today, along with Senator Dodd, I am introducing the ``Paul Wellstone Early Educator Loan Forgiveness Act.'' Our dear friend and colleague, Senator Wellstone, and I had been working on this legislation together before his tragic death. I know he cared deeply about this issue and about making sure that all children receive a quality education. He was passionate about that. Though our bill was originally called the ``Early Care and Education Loan Forgiveness Act,'' we have renamed our bill in Paul's memory. Our bill would expand the loan forgiveness program so that it benefits not just childcare workers, but also early childhood educators. This loan forgiveness program would serve as an incentive to keep those educators in the field for longer periods of time. Research shows that children who attend quality early childcare programs when they were three or four years old scored better on math, language arts, and social skills in early elementary school than children who attended poor quality childcare programs. In short, children in early learning programs with high quality teachers--teachers with a Bachelor's degree or an Associate's degree or higher--do substantially better. When we examine the number and recent growth of pre-primary education programs, it becomes difficult to differentiate between early education and childcare settings because they are so often intertwined-- especially considering that about 12 million children younger than age five spend part of their time with a care provider other than a parent and that demand for quality childcare and education is growing as more mothers enter the workforce. Because this bill targets loan forgiveness to those educators working in low-income schools or childcare settings, we can make significant strides toward providing high quality education for all of our young children, regardless of socioeconomic status. The bill would serve a twofold function. First, it would reward professionals for their training. Second, it would encourage professionals to remain in the profession over longer periods of time, since more time in the profession leads to higher percentages of loans forgiveness. The bill would result in more educated individuals with more teaching experience and lower turnover rates, each of which enhance student performance. I encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort to help ensure that truly no children--especially our youngest children--are left behind. I also am working on two bills with my friend and colleague from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller. These bills would provide loan forgiveness to students who dedicate their careers to working in the realm of child welfare, including social workers, who work for child protective services, and family law experts. Currently, there aren't enough social workers to fill available jobs in the area of child welfare. Furthermore, the number of social work job openings is expected to increase faster than the average for all occupations through 2010. The need for highly qualified social workers in the child protective services is reaching crisis level. We also need more qualified individuals focusing on family law. The wonderful thing about family law is its focus on rehabilitation--that is the rehabilitation of families by helping them through life's transitions, whether it is a family going through a divorce, a family dealing with their troubled teenager in the juvenile system, or a child getting adopted and becoming a member of a new family. Across the United States, family, juvenile, and domestic relations courts are experiencing a shortage of qualified attorneys. As many of my colleagues and I know, law school is an expensive investment. In the last 20 years, tuition has increased more than 200 percent. Currently, the average rate of law school debt is about $80,000 per graduate. To be sure, few law school graduates can afford to work in the public sector because debts prevent even the most dedicated public service lawyer from being able to take these low-paying jobs. This results in a shortage of family lawyers. The shortage of family law attorneys also disproportionately impacts juveniles. The lack of available representation causes children to spend more time in foster care because cases are adjourned or postponed when they simply cannot find an attorney to represent their rights or those of the parent or guardian. Furthermore, the number of children involved in the court system is sharply increasing. We need to ensure that the interests of these children are taken care of by making certain they have an advocate--someone working solely on their behalf. By offering loan forgiveness to those willing to pursue careers in the child welfare field, we can increase the number of highly qualified and dedicated individuals who work in the realm of child welfare and family law. Finally, I am introducing a bill today that would help address an epidemic--the epidemic of underage drinking on college and university campuses across the United States. This bill would provide grants to states to establish statewide partnerships among colleges and universities and the surrounding communities to work together to reduce underage and binge drinking and illicit drug use by students. Many States, including my home State of Ohio, have coalitions that deal specifically with the culture of alcohol and drug abuse on America's college campuses. They work with the surrounding communities, including local residents; bar, restaurant, and shop owners; and law enforcement officials toward a goal of changing the pervasive culture of drug and alcohol abuse. They provide alternative alcohol-free events, as well as support groups for those who choose not to drink. They also educate students about the dangers of alcohol and drug use. Furthermore, the coalitions recognize that while it is important to promote an alcohol aware and drug-free campus community, if the community surrounding the campus does not promote these initiatives, there will be no long-term solutions. Therefore, these coalitions also have worked to establish regulations both on and off campus, which will help our Nation's youth to stay healthy, alive, and get the most out of their time at college. Some of these regulations include the registration of kegs. This provides accountability for both the store and the student. This is just an example of one step that colleges, local communities, and organizations can take. To help start the expansion of these coalitions, this bill would provide $5 million in grants. This is an important demonstration project that would help lead to positive effects for our young people. It is up to us to change the culture, which has been perpetuated by years of complacency and a dismissal tone of ``that's just the way it is in college.'' We must protect the health and education of our young people by changing this culture of abuse--and that is exactly what this bill would help do. I thank all of my colleagues who have worked with me on these bills. I look forward to the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act and working with Chairman Enzi and Ranking Member Kennedy to incorporate these important measures.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I want to call attention to and condemn the recent deplorable violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Last Saturday, almost 50 people, mostly women and children, were quite literally burned alive in eastern Congo because of their support for the U.N. peacekeeping mission there. While many of the men in the village fled, the victims--again, the vast majority women and children--were herded into huts and locked inside while the huts were then set on fire. The perpetrators of this heinous act were Rwandan rebels who, after the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, fled to the eastern Congo to avoid prosecution for their genocidal actions. Since then, they have roamed the eastern Congo with impunity, spreading death and misery in their wake. During Saturday's brutal massacre, the rebels taunted their victims, telling them to call on their U.N. saviors to rescue them. ``Call on your U.N. saviors if you want to be rescued,'' they said. But the problem was that the U.N. peacekeepers were not there. They were not there when those women and children needed them the most. We have to condemn the rebels. What they did was indescribably brutal. But we, also, in the international community have a responsibility to protect the victims, and the international community failed. We have sent the world's largest U.N. peacekeeping mission into the Congo. Yet the violence and instability continues. Sexual scandals in the Congo and elsewhere show that peacekeepers cannot be trusted with the very people they are designed to protect. In addition, peacekeepers often avoid danger, abdicating the responsibility to protect at the very moment they are most needed. I don't want my colleagues in the Senate to think this is an isolated critique of the U.N. peacekeeping mission in the Congo which, in its defense, has been more active in the past few months. This is really an endemic problem, as shown by the 1995 massacre of some 8,000 men and boys in Bosnia by the Bosnian Serb army. The U.N. peacekeeping force was simply unable to protect them. Because of the U.N. peacekeeping mission's failure, 8,000 innocent people lost their lives. Mr. President, I can also speak at length about the current failures of U.N. peacekeeping in Haiti. In Haiti, despite a robust U.N. peacekeeping mission that is twice as large as the successful multinational force that includes United States troops that kept the peace immediately following President Aristide's departure, today violence and chaos reign in Haiti. U.N. peacekeepers in Haiti are called turistas because they are found more often on the beaches or in local restaurants and bars than actively protecting the people of Haiti. The U.N. originally argued the problem was more troops were needed. But the quantity is not the problem in Haiti, nor in the Congo. As I mentioned before, Congo hosts the world's largest U.N. peacekeeping force, and the U.N. peacekeeping force in Haiti is twice as large as the contingent of United States, French, and Canadian soldiers who were very effectively able to keep the peace immediately after Aristide left. The problem then is quality. The problem is what they are doing. The problem is what they are not doing. I certainly do not want to imply all peacekeepers are doing a bad or inadequate job. There are many brave individuals who make up the peacekeeping forces. Some countries certainly have an exemplary reputation for sending competent peacekeepers, but there are far too few quality peacekeepers. It is inconsistent. The bottom line is the United Nations needs to take a long, hard look, and that all countries in the international community need to take a long, hard look at the peacekeeping missions to ensure that every peacekeeper in every peacekeeping mission is willing to protect and engage. ``Protect and engage'' should be the motto of the U.N. because no international mandate is more important than the responsibility to protect innocent civilians. We know, of course, the United States cannot afford to send U.S. troops--certainly the best in the world--to every single conflict in every single region. That is why we have U.N. peacekeepers, for which we pay a significant amount of money. We pay a significant percentage of the cost of U.N. peacekeepers. We have peacekeepers so the international community can collectively respond to threats to international peace and security. But simply sending peacekeepers is not enough if they are not going to protect the innocent and engage the wicked. We must demand more from the peacekeepers or we will face the consequences of failed states. Mr. President, I will come to the floor in the near future and talk at greater length about Haiti and the crisis that is occurring in Haiti. Today I simply want to spend another moment to talk about the peacekeepers. I had the opportunity to be in Haiti--I have visited Haiti many times--when our U.S. troops were down there shortly after President Aristide left. In my career in the Senate, I don't know anything that has made me prouder to be an American than to see our United States troops in Haiti, to walk the slums of Port-au-Prince with our troops, to see young children come up--run up--these poor children who have absolutely nothing in the world, to run up to our troops and see the relationship between those troops and those children. When our troops went to Haiti, they did it the right way. They engaged in civil work. They helped clear the sewers. They helped clear the open sewers we find in City Soleil, the worst slum in Port-au- Prince. They would go out and set up clinics to help children and adults with their medical needs. They brought medical care to people who had not seen medical care. At the same time, they brought order and stability. They made City Soleil an example. In a slum in Port-au- Prince of 300,000 to 400,000 people, they brought order and peace, something the people living there have never seen before. The humanitarian groups working in City Soleil tell me this was the first time they have really seen peace, when our troops were there. I talked with the U.S. commanders. Our troops were about to leave, and the U.N. peacekeeping mission was about to come in. Our U.S. commanders told me: Senator DeWine, we are telling the U.N. commanders when they come in, they better take charge immediately. They better let the gang leaders, the thugs, and the people who will cause the problems know who is in charge, and they better let them know immediately because if they do not, we are going to tell them there will be chaos, the violence will return, and death will return to Haiti. That is what they told the U.N. peacekeeping mission. Tragically, the U.N. peacekeepers apparently did not listen. They did not take charge and chaos has returned. Many of us have urged the U.N. and the peacekeepers there and the countries involved to be more aggressive with the thugs to help the people of Haiti, to help restore order. But it is not that simple. The U.N. engaged in a mission on July 7, I believe it was, in City Soleil where they tried to deal with one gang leader, a gang leader who had been causing a lot of problems. They did, in fact, deal with him. They killed him. But by the reports I have received from my sources in City Soleil, they also killed 50, 60, 70 civilians, a horrible botched operation, from everything I can tell, at least, and I am still trying to find out exactly what happened. So it is not just a question of getting tough, it is a question of doing it the right way. It is a question of going out, being among the people, working with the people, having good intelligence, knowing what is going on, and then acting against the people who would rain havoc on the community. There are a million things wrong with Haiti--a port that does not work, not enough food, electricity that is not on, a government that is struggling. But nothing will work in Haiti, nothing can be done in Haiti unless there is some order, unless there is some security. Haiti today is on the brink of chaos. The United States and the international community are going to have to do something about it. We are coming very close to the point where the United States, whether we like it or not, is going to have to send troops back to Haiti. No one wants to hear it now. No one wants to talk about that. But that is the situation that is fast approaching. I will be back on the Senate floor in the next few days to talk more about that, but what we see today is a failed U.N. mission and a very dangerous situation in Haiti. People may ask, Why do we worry about Haiti? Why do we care about what is going on? We care from a humanitarian point of view--8 million people in Haiti who starve every day, people who die from violence every day. We should care about the children who are down there. We should care about the innocent people. If we do not care about that, we should care because Haiti is on our doorstep. Haiti is not going to go away. It is there. We should be concerned about it. We should be concerned because Haiti is becoming a transshipment area for drugs into the United States. And we should be concerned because of the boat people who could begin to float back up to Miami where our Coast Guard will again have to turn them around. So Haiti is of significance to the United States. It always will be because of its geographical location. We will always have to be concerned. We have had U.S. troops down there twice in the last decade. In the last century, we have been involved numerous times. Unless the situation changes quickly in the next several weeks, we are going to have to be involved again.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor this afternoon to pay tribute to a brave soldier and fellow Ohioan. PFC Devin Grella from Medina lost his life on September 6, 2004, when an improvised explosive device struck his vehicle near Qarrayah, Iraq. Devin was 21 years old. When I think about the dedication of our men and women in uniform, I am reminded of something President Ronald Reagan once said about the devotion to freedom. This is what he said: Freedom is a fragile thing, and it is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance. It must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Devin embodied the spirit of freedom President Reagan so eloquently described. He sacrificed his life so we can continue to be free and so the people of Iraq can have the chance to know the freedoms we hold so dear. His dedication to and love for his country knew no bounds. Growing up in Medina, Devin loved music and he loved to play the violin, the piano, and the guitar. As one of four boys, Devin was also known for his outgoing personality. Devin's brother Darrin remembers his brother as always having a good time. Devin attended Medina High School his freshman, sophomore, and senior years, and Archbishop Hoban High School for his junior year. He was a very actively involved student who sang in the choir, ran cross country, and played on the lacrosse team with his younger brother Drew. Lacrosse coach Pat O'Brien described Devin as ``a good athlete and a strong kid whom the other players looked up to. You could tell he was having the time of his life when he was on the field.'' Off the field, Devin was known for his playful personality. Brother Darrin described the time when Devin introduced himself to Cleveland Cavaliers star Lebron James as ``Debron James,'' since James was his middle name. Known to family and friends as ``Deuce''--a reference to his favorite number--Devin was a great guy to have around. After graduation in 2002, Devin worked at Donato's Pizza, a local restaurant. Adam Stout, a manager at the restaurant, described Devin as a hard worker and a great morale booster who would like to laugh, tell jokes, and make other people laugh. Indeed, wherever he went, Devin made people smile. He wanted to earn money for college, and out of a sense of patriotism and with a dream of becoming an officer, Devin joined the Army Reserves in December 2003. He was assigned to the 706th Transportation Company out of Mansfield, OH. After completing basic training, Devin was deployed to Iraq in June 2004. While serving overseas, Devin made a lasting impression on his superiors. Platoon leader 2LT Timothy Searcy noted that Devin was ``very motivated and dedicated to his job. He set an example.'' Army MAJ Willie Harris described Devin as a dedicated soldier ``who was always willing to take on a challenge . . . and who believed in what he was doing.'' Devin was doing extremely dangerous work. In Iraq, Devin and his unit were tasked with delivering fuels and supplies to U.S. troops, including during heavy combat with U.S. troops and insurgents at Najaf. He regularly sent e-mails to his family, many of which describe the constant threat of roadside bombings and firefights. Tragically, a roadside bomb took the life of this brave young man. An IED exploded near Devin's convoy when his unit was resupplying other troops. On that tragic day, our Nation lost a great soldier. More importantly, Donna and Dennis Grella lost a great son; Dustin, Darrin, and Drew lost a great brother; and so many others lost a great friend. In an e-mail message posted on an Internet tribute to Devin, friend Adam Feeks, from Medina, wrote the following to Devin: I remember meeting you for the first time in 3rd grade on the basketball court. We became the best of friends shortly thereafter, and our days of watching the Bulls and Cavs games together are days I will never forget. Our unhealthy, but fun obsessions with Mark Price and Michael Jordan will last a lifetime. The memories we shared will never be forgotten. . . . I remember the last thing I said to you. I told you how proud I was of you, and how much I loved you, and that you could tell me all about it when you get back. That day will not come anytime soon. Just know I think about you all the time. Anytime I pick up a ball or step on the football field, it is for you. In my heart is where I keep you friend. Devin's father, a former Marine, said this about Devin: He loved his church. He loved his family. He loved his country.'' Dennis also said that the key thing that must be learned from his son's death is how brave and valiant [Devin] was to give, so that we--you and I and all of us--can have freedom.'' Devin's mother remembers her son's enthusiasm and love for life. She remarked that her family's faith helps them find peace. she knows that Devin's death ``is just a separation.'' She said, ``We will be together again. It helps you go on. You know you will see him again.'' At the service held in Devin's honor at the Medina chapel of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Devin's older brother, Darrin, decided to address the crowd because he wanted people to know about his brave and heroic brother. Darrin reflected on a conversation with Devin about his plans to join the Army Reserves and emphasized how proud he was of his brother. He told those gathered that it was an honor to have been [Devin's] brother.'' It was indeed an honor for all those who knew Devin. He touched countless lives. Though words will never be enough to express our gratitude for Devin's sacrifice, a simple phrase on his gravestone is able to describe his life and this is what it says: Devin James Grella . . . Loves his Mom/Loves our God/Called to serve. army specialist jesse buryj Mr. President, I rise today to honor a fellow Ohioan, a young man from Canton, whose courage and selflessness knew no bounds. On May 5, 2004, Army SPC Jesse Buryj gave his life to protect his fellow soldiers, to protect the American people, and to protect Iraqis whom he barely knew. He was 21 years old. Jesse Buryj enlisted in the Army as a way to help him pursue a dream, and that was the dream of someday becoming a police officer. The creed of any police officer is to serve and protect. Jesse didn't just pledge that motto, he lived by it. Jesse grew up playing kickball and baseball in the street with the other kids of his tight-knit community. Like many active young boys, Jesse experienced his share of broken bones and knocked out teeth. His mother, Peggy, recalls that the nurses in the emergency room at Mercy Medical Center knew him well. Jesse stood apart, though, from many of the boys his age. He was a particularly well-mannered, well-rounded young man. Angela, Jesse's sister, remembered that her little brother wouldn't wait to be found out if he did something wrong. He used to go ahead and tell on himself. Jesse attended Canton McKinley High School and was a Bulldog to his core. He played the baritone in the school band, where, on several memorable occasions, he left his indelible mark. Jesse was the first baritone to dot the ``I'' in the school's Script Ohio formation and was a sight to see at the Massillon-McKinley football game when he draped himself in Christmas lights. Though dedicated to the band, Jesse didn't spend all his time during practices concentrating on the music. A certain piccolo player, named Amber Tichenor caught his eye. It didn't take long before the two became high school sweethearts. Those around them noticed that they seemed meant for each other right from the start of their days together in the band, so much so that their band director, Ed Arrington, married them in October 2003. Jesse looked forward to his life together with Amber, still holding onto the dream he had cultivated since the third grade of becoming a police officer in the same department where he served as a cadet throughout high school. Jesse knew that he would not be old enough upon high school graduation to attend the police academy. Not deterred by this, he decided to enlist in the Army to gain experience as a military police officer first. Jesse enlisted in the Army and became an MP. Family and friends recalled how committed Jesse was to training the summer before his enlistment. He wanted to enter the service as ready as he could be. In September 2002, he was placed with the Army's 66th Military Police Company stationed in Fort Lewis, WA. Before his deployment to Iraq, Jesse worked as a guard at the Pentagon and trained as a paratrooper. While in Iraq, Jesse guarded military checkpoints. During his all too brief life, Jesse made a huge impact on his friends at home and on his fellow service members. That was very clear to me upon reading several of the e-mail messages that people posted on an Internet tribute to Jesse following his death in Iraq. I would like to read from two of the many e-mails. SGT Michael D'Saachs from the Military Police Company in Fort Lewis wrote the following: It's been a year since you were taken from our brotherhood. I will never forget you, my friend. I hope that you will watch over all of us and keep us safe. I never got to thank you for all the tips you gave me before I went to school. We all miss you. A friend named Matt had this to say: Jesse--you were the best friend anyone could ask for. I still cannot believe you are gone. Thank you for listening to me when I had problems. Nobody will ever replace you as my battle buddy or best friend. I love you and cannot wait to see you again. During the military ceremony held in his honor, Jesse's commanders repeatedly spoke of his bravery and sense of responsibility. GEN Dennis Moran said that ``as a military police officer, his first job was to serve and protect. He trusted his life to those soldiers as they trusted theirs to him.'' Lieutenant Colonel Tatum also spoke fondly of Jesse saying that he gave no ground and showed no fear. Matthew Beadoin, the best man at Jesse's wedding, described his closest friend as the ``bravest person, friend, and soldier [I've] ever known.'' Others recalled his immense compassion and how much fun he was to just be around. In memory of this true American hero, the flag was lowered to half- staff at Canton McKinley High School and a memorial to Jesse was placed in the band room. During the funeral procession, members of the community lined the street to show their support for Jesse's family. I conclude my remarks by reading from an e-mail message that Allen Vandayburg of Mansfield, OH, left on that Internet tribute for Jesse. I have met Allen Vandayburg. I met him and his wife when I attended the calling hours for their 20-year-old son, Army SPC A.J. Vandayburg, who was killed in Iraq a short time before Jesse. He wrote the following: We are so sorry for your loss. . . . We also know [your] pain. We lost our son in Iraq. There are no words and the pain is forever, but just know you are not alone in your grief, as we well found out. Not only did we lose a child, but America lost a hero. I am a police officer, and it sounds like Jesse would have made a fine Officer, as we already know he was a great soldier. Remember--you are not alone. My wife, Fran, and I continue to keep Jesse's wife, Amber; his parents, Steve and Peggy; and his sister, Angela, in our thoughts and in our prayers. staff sergeant omer t. hawkins Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to pay tribute to a fellow Ohioan and a true American hero. On October 14, 2004, SSG Omer ``O.T.'' Hawkins, from Cherry Fork in Adams County, gave his life in service to our Nation. He was killed when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle outside Ar Ramadi, Iraq. O.T. was 31 years-old. When we think about the sacrifices of our servicemen and women, we should remember what President Ronald Reagan said in his first inaugural address. He said that ``no arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'' SSG O.T. Hawkins lived these words. He loved this country more than anything else and was proud to serve in protection of it. He knew the potential costs and dangers of military service, but he never shied away. Family and friends will forever remember O.T.'s dedication to the cause of freedom and his commitment to bringing that freedom to people around the world. O.T. knew from a young age that he wanted to join the Army. When he was just 10 years old, he composed a three sentence letter to the Army written in cursive. In it, he wrote: Do you take 10 year-old boys? If you do, I will come and sign up. Please, can I join?'' O.T. asked his mother, Lisa, to mail his letter. Instead, she safely tucked it away into her Bible. O.T.'s mother still has that letter today, 22 years later. When O.T. was a kid, even the games he played were geared toward joining the military. His friend, Russell Todd, knew O.T. since their days in elementary school together. He remembers that all O.T. ever talked about was joining the Army. The two young boys used to play war games on a hill outside Cherry Fork. At North Adams High School, O.T. was known as a quiet kid, but one who enjoyed the occasional prank and practical joke. Russell Todd also remembers the time the two decided to ride the carousel horses at K- Mart, at 4 in the morning. Though he loved to have fun, O.T. also had a serious side, being voted as ``most likely to succeed'' by the rest of his senior class. O.T.'s teachers describe him as that rare student who could combine humor with intellect and determination. History teacher, Tom Breeze, remembers O.T. as a scholar and voracious reader, who would skim through an almanac or encyclopedia ``looking for bits of information because he just liked to learn.'' O.T. played baseball and was on the debate team. And, though he could have pursued just about any career he wanted after high school, the military remained his number one love and lifelong goal. Just 2 days after his high school graduation and 8 years after he wrote that priceless letter to the Army expressing his desire to join, O.T. enlisted in the Army. Not only was he following his dream, O.T. was following in the footsteps of his father, William, who had been an engineer with the Marines until he passed away from a brain aneurysm in 1977. Once in the Army, O.T. was recognized by his superiors as a passionate and capable soldier. Having served on tours of duty in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Egypt, Kosovo, and Somalia, O.T. was a deeply respected and beloved superior. As a member of the 44th Engineer Battalion, 2nd Infantry Division, stationed in Camp Howze in Korea, O.T. saw it as his mission to keep his men safe. After all, O.T. considered his comrades to be family. His fellow soldiers felt the same. Army Specialist Justin Malzac wrote the following in an email message posted on an Internet tribute to O.T. after his death: I had the honor to serve in the same company and platoon as Staff Sergeant Hawkins. His aura always gave great hope to his soldiers. He was a stunning leader and a great man, I am just thankful to have known him. He has left a permanent impact on me. Rest in peace, ``Mother Hen.'' O.T. Hawkins' life was tragically cut short less than 2 weeks into his deployment as platoon leader. When he died, Our Nation lost a great soldier. But, more importantly, O.T.'s family lost a great son, brother, and uncle. I had the privilege of meeting O.T.'s family and friends at the memorial service held in his honor. I want to thank them for sharing their memories with me. After speaking with them, it is clear that this extraordinary young man believed in his service and lost his life doing what he truly loved. I know that O.T. lives in their memories. His mother, Lisa, fondly recalls that when O.T.'s nephew was born, O.T. tucked a tiny American flag into the baby's curled fist. His brother--Missouri National Guardsman, James ``Buck'' Hawkins-- will cherish the letters O.T. sent in support of his duty and service to our Nation. His sister, Cherry, will remember the brother she treated more like a son. They all find solace in knowing that O.T. now peacefully rests alongside another great man and dedicated serviceman--O.T.'s dad, William. We will never forget SSG Omer T. Hawkins. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.