Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DeWINE. I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to two Ohioans who dedicated their lives to serving their local community of Urbana. Lewis B. Moore passed away on October 21, 2002, at the age of 91. His wife, Jean, passed away on September 12, 2001. I would like to take a few moments to reflect here today on this couple's legacy of service and the mark they left on the people of Urbana. Lewis Moore--Lew to his friends--was born in Paducah, KY, on July 23, 1911. He graduated from Cleveland Heights High School in 1929 and from Case Institute of Technology in Cleveland in 1933 with a bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering. He married Jean Lillian Wenger in 1938, and they moved to Urbana in 1940, where Lew joined Grimes Manufacturing Company as a sales engineer. Later he served as chief engineer, sales manager, and vice president before eventually becoming president and board chairman. Under Lew's leadership, the company grew from 12 to more than 1,300 employees. As president, he served as a mentor to many and as an example to all. If there were ever a disagreement with a customer, Lew used to tell his employees to always be honest with the customers. He would say: ``Tell them the truth--tell them what happened.'' Indeed, Lew Moore was a model of integrity. Together, Lew and Jean's values and visions for the future changed Urbana. Lew eventually ran for public office and served as Mayor of Urbana from 1980 to 1991. Under his leadership, Urbana underwent some big changes in the city government. Known affectionately as ``Mr. Urbana,'' Mayor Moore transformed the City of Urbana from a statutory system into a charter form of government--one of the most important of his contributions to the city government, noted Larry Wolke, former director of administration. According to David Martin, former Grimes employee and current Urbana City Council president, ``He had the best interests of the city and the citizens of Urbana in his heart and mind.'' Working side-by-side with Lew to serve the Urbana community, Jean participated in the campaign that created the city's first youth center and organized and led her church's Prayer Connection. As one Prayer Connection member, Jack Neer, said of Jean, ``She was there for anyone in need.'' No better illustration of their commitment to the interests and community of Urbana is found, however, than in Lew and Jean's involvement with the University of Urbana, where Lew served as building fundraiser and Jean served on the board of trustees for more than 35 years. Through much of their lifetimes, Lew and Jean dedicated much of their time and resources to expanding and improving the institution. As Dr. Robert Head, Urbana University president said, ``It is not an overstatement to say that if it hadn't been for Lew and Jean Moore, Urbana University would not be here today.'' Together, Jean and Lew spearheaded several campaigns to raise funds to enhance the university. In one project, they helped raise $400,000 to build the Warren G. Grimes Community Center. In the early 1990's, Lew co-chaired efforts to raise funds for the math and science center-- a project totaling $3.1 million. According to Dr. Francis Hazard, former University president, ``When no one else stepped forward to head the campaign, they volunteered.'' He added that as the campaign neared its end and the structure had been completed, Moore cashed in a $75,000 insurance policy to furnish its classrooms and laboratories. Lew and Jean Moore were selfless. They loved their community--their family, their friends, and their neighbors. It is no wonder the Urbana community affectionately refers to Lew as ``Mr. Urbana.'' Throughout their lives, they were devoted to their community. And through their service, Lew and Jean Moore provided a vision for Urbana's future. That is their legacy. We certainly miss them both deeply. My wife Fran and I continue to remember Lew, and we continue to remember Jean. They were both great friends. Left to cherish their memories and to pass on this legacy are their sons, Keith and Greg, and their wonderful families. We thank both Lew and Jean for their wonderful service to their community.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, we have all just heard the sad news about our former colleague, Senator Simon, from the Senator from Illinois. There will be opportunities in the future for more formal comments from many Members of the Senate, but I thought this afternoon I would make a few brief comments about our colleague Paul Simon. I had the opportunity to serve in the Senate with Paul, but I also had the opportunity for a few years to serve in the House of Representatives with Paul. What a treat it was to serve in both bodies with Paul. Shortly after I came to the House, I discovered that when Paul Simon came to the well of the House of Representatives, he was someone to come into the House Chamber and listen to because no matter what the topic, we could count on the fact that he was going to give a thoughtful speech. You might agree with him, you might not agree with him, but you could bet that this man of great integrity had thought through what he was going to say. You can bet that he truly believed what he was saying. Members would listen to Paul Simon, whether it was in the House or Senate. Paul Simon was a man of great integrity. When he spoke, it was clear he was a man of great moral clarity in his comments and thoughts. There was great precision to those thoughts. We all know that Paul Simon was first, in his career, maybe first and foremost, a writer. He started, as my colleague from Illinois has just said, at a newspaper. Some have labeled him as a crusading newspaper editor. That is how he got his start. He continued to write throughout his career, writing his columns back to his home State and writing books. I was back home in Ohio at the house of my daughter and son-in-law this past weekend and I happened to look down and there was what I took to be one of Paul's newest books. I picked it up and read a few pages. There was Paul again, being very provocative, being very thoughtful. He made me think. That was Paul. One of the books Paul wrote many, many years ago continues to be cited today. Anybody who reads a biography of Abraham Lincoln will find the work of Paul Simon in that book because, you see, Paul Simon wrote the definitive book about Abraham Lincoln's time in the Illinois Legislature. So whatever definitive biography you read of Abraham Lincoln, it will cite Paul Simon's book for that period of Abraham Lincoln's life. Paul Simon was asked once why he wrote the book. He said he had discovered there just hadn't been a good book written on that period of Abraham Lincoln's life, so Paul Simon wrote it. He did the research, dug the information out, and wrote the book. It is still the definitive book. Paul Simon was, more than anything else, a teacher. You could see that in his speeches on the Senate floor and the House floor before that. You could see that, really, in his columns, his writings. So I think it is fitting that at the end of his career, as Senator Fitzgerald said, he went home. He went home to southern Illinois. He created this great institute at southern Illinois, his home community. He brought in great speakers, talked about big topics, great topics that we have to deal with in our country. He headed that up, put it together, and dealt with those issues. He ended his life as a teacher, what he really was throughout his entire career, beginning as a newspaper man: Paul Simon the teacher. So as he taught us in the Senate, as he taught us in the House of Representatives, he ended his life as a teacher to young people in his home of Carbondale, in southern Illinois. I think that is clearly the way Paul Simon wanted it. I think it is fitting that is how he ended his life. This is a sad day for the Senate. It is a sad day, certainly, for Illinois, and for his country. But we can take joy in this very good man's life and what he has done for our country and what he ended his life doing for our young people. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me first congratulate my colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner, for the very fine statement he just made a moment ago about the bill that he and Senator Clinton are introducing with regard to the primary seatbelt law. This is something I have been interested in for some time. I congratulate them for their very fine bill and Senator Warner's very fine statement. He is absolutely correct. If we are serious about saving lives on our highways in this country, there really is nothing more important that we can do than to get our fellow citizens to buckle up. We have made great progress in this area, but the fact that many of our States do not have a primary seatbelt law on the books costs us thousands and thousands of lives each year. As my colleague from Virginia so eloquently stated in this Chamber a few minutes ago, all the experts--everyone who knows anything about highway safety--will tell you that the most important thing that we could do and the easiest thing we could do would be to have every State of the Union tomorrow, instantly, have a primary seatbelt safety law. That simply means if law enforcement, instead of having to wait for another type of violation before they could cite someone for not wearing a seatbelt could cite someone directly for not using a seatbelt, the use of seatbelts would dramatically increase in this country. That is what has happened in every single State that has had these laws enacted. Seatbelt use dramatically goes up almost overnight. We know there is an inverse relationship between the use of seatbelts and auto fatalities. Thousands and thousands of Americans' lives would be saved every single year. I wanted to come to the floor this afternoon after I listened to my colleague's speech in my office. I wanted to thank him. He has been a real leader in the area of highway safety and this is certainly one more example of his leadership. When we take up the highway safety bill next year, there are a number of highway safety initiatives on which I have been working. I intend to bring them to the floor and talk about them and offer them as amendments, offer them as initiatives. Frankly, there is nothing as important as what my colleague from Virginia has suggested. I hope the Senate will take this very seriously. This is a great opportunity we will have to save thousands and thousands of lives every year. So I salute my colleague from Virginia.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a remarkable Ohioan--a man of great vision and great compassion. Paul Unger is the founder of the Unger Croatia Institute for Public Administration, an organization that provides professional training, education, and technical assistance to Croatian Government administrators and university officials. On January 23, 2004, he will receive the Outstanding Citizen Achievement Award from the U.S. Agency for International Development for his tireless dedication to fostering democracy and freedom in Croatia. Paul Unger, a fellow Ohioan who is a native of Cleveland, first arrived in Zagreb for a Christmas party one wintry December night in 1945. He was en route from his post as commandant of a United Nations refugee camp for Croatians in Egypt to his new assignment as administrator for the United Nations relief program in Yugoslavia. That evening, he met Sonja Franz, a Croatian architect-engineer, who became his wife by the next holiday season. Soon after they married, the Ungers left Croatia for the United States. As the decades passed, the Ungers kept close contact with their family, friends, and colleagues who had remained overseas, committed to a free, democratic Croatia. In 1997, Paul Unger assembled an advisory group of 45 American and Croatian banking, education, and government leaders to found the Unger Croatia Institute for Public Administration to help reform-minded leaders ease Croatia's transition from the devastating war to a more efficient, democratic government. As a first step, Mr. Unger created a fellowship program to assist senior Croatian officials in the development of improved practices in government. This program was to be administered by his alma mater, Harvard University. The Unger Croatia Program was created within the John F. Kennedy School of Government, and the Institute Advisory Group was charged with nominating and selecting candidates. Between 1998- 2001, the Ungers personally sponsored 22 Fellows at the Kennedy School, including deputy prime ministers, cabinet ministers and deputies, national bank governors, parliamentary committee chairs, ambassadors, and a Presidential candidate. To build a program that could provide similar services for locally elected officials, Mr. Unger turned to the Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs at Cleveland State University, CSU. In 2001, the Unger Croatia Center for Local Government Leadership was established within CSU's Levin College. The success of the Cleveland seminars inspired Mr. Unger to create an educational alliance between CSU and the University of Rijeka, which was formalized in 2002. This collaboration continues to blossom. Over the past 2 years, the Unger Croatia Center at CSU has worked closely with the Economics faculty in Rijeka to develop their professional courses. Last summer, the University of Rijeka hosted the first seminar for public officials in Croatia, and this spring, the University will introduce its first programs in public administration and public health administration--an important step toward the eventual realization of the first-ever Croatian Graduate School of Public Administration. As Mr. Unger continues to work toward a vision for a prosperous Croatia, government is being transformed. Program participants have returned home and implemented the techniques learned through their studies, creating an environment where Croatians have become increasingly involved in local government and have taken an active role in setting budget priorities and guiding community development. Beyond his extraordinary efforts abroad, Mr. Unger also has contributed much to our home State of Ohio. It is here that he and Sonja raised a family and achieved prominence through a successful business, volunteer service, and community activism. Among his many accomplishments, Mr. Unger served as president/CEO of the Unger Company, a national food packaging company headquartered in Cleveland; chairman of the Urban Renewal Task Force for the Mayor of Cleveland; president of the Cleveland chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union; and chairman of the Ohio's International Trade Council. He has been widely-recognized, notably by the Cleveland Heights High School Hall of Fame, the Cleveland Blue Book, and the City Club of Cleveland Hall of Fame. Finally, Paul Unger has remained steadfast in moving Cleveland into the international arena. He has helped lead the Cleveland-Miskole Sister City Committee and the Cleveland Council on World Affairs. He also has sponsored the ``Cleveland in the World'' lecture series at the City Club of Cleveland. Sonja has been a local civic and political leader in her own right and was the first woman to be honored with a Golden Door Award by Cleveland's Nationality Services Center for her dedication as a social worker and interpreter. In January 2004, the USAID's Bureau for Europe and Eurasia will honor Paul Unger with the Outstanding Citizen Achievement Award, which recognizes Americans who have made exceptional contributions to international development through volunteerism. I congratulate Mr. Unger for all his work at home and abroad and express my thanks to him and to his wife Sonja for their leadership, dedication, and commitment to democracy in Croatia.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, the nominees who President Bush have nominated are outstanding attorneys, people who would make fine judges and, frankly, the sooner we have an up-or-down vote on these nominees the better. The nomination of these judges affects the citizens living in their judicial circuits and the nominees themselves. So this is not just a theoretical debate, this is a real world debate with real consequences. Let me turn to one of those nominees, and that is Judge Charles Pickering. I want to talk about the merits because that is what we should be talking about, what we should be debating on the Senate floor, the merits of all these nominees. If we had an up-or-down vote, I say to the Members of the Senate, that is what we would be able to do. That is what this whole discussion for these 30 hours is about: our request to be able to vote on the merits. Let me talk about the merits and what we would be able to talk about if we had that opportunity. Judge Pickering, a man who graduated from the University of Mississippi with honors. This is a man who graduated from law school the first in his class; a man who has had a distinguished career as a lawyer; a prosecuting attorney; a judge who was confirmed unanimously by the Senate to a district court position 13 years ago. What about the ABA? We always hear about the ABA. We don't think that should be the be-all and end-all, but the ABA should be a part of what we look to. Here is a letter ABA sent to me and other members of the Judiciary Committee: Senator DeWine, We are transmitting to you for your consideration, this committee's evaluation pertaining to the nomination of the Honorable Charles Pickering, Sr., as judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. I am pleased to report, as a result of our investigation, a substantial majority of the committee is of the opinion that the Honorable Charles W. Pickering, Sr., is well qualified for appointment as judge to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. That is what they had to say about him. People who know Judge Pickering best in his home State of Mississippi also agree that he should be on the bench. People who have known him for years have written to this Congress and have talked with us and have said this man is qualified. This is a man of great character; he should be on the bench. There have been attacks about Judge Pickering. Let me talk about these for a moment. Again, this is the type of discussion we should be having on the Senate floor. We shouldn't have to be down here making the argument that all we want is an up-or-down vote. This substantive argument is what we really should be able to have. Let me talk about some of the attacks on Judge Pickering. At the time of our hearing on Judge Pickering, he had decided roughly 4,500 cases as a district court judge. Out of those 4,500 cases, he has been appealed 328 times and ultimately he was reversed or had the case remanded for additional work or some clarification in 26 cases. Without getting too much into the numbers, I can tell you he has a good reversal rate--about 8 percent. That is better than the national average, and it is even better than the average in the Fifth Circuit. Some of Judge Pickering's critics would argue the problem is not the number of cases on which he has been reversed. They say the problem is what you find in those reversals. Let's take a moment and look at that. I looked at the 26 cases where he was reversed or where the case was sent back for further clarification. The statement was made in one of Judge Pickering's hearings several times that his cases boiled down to civil rights, voting rights, employment, and that is what was troubling. I think we need to look at each of these areas, and I will try to do that in the brief time I have. There are a few ways to categorize a case and what type of case it is remains, certainly, in the eyes of the beholder, but I have looked at the reversals and the areas mentioned during the hearings, and this is how I break them down. On my count, 2 of the 26 cases involve employee rights, 1 case involved voting rights, and 4 were civil rights cases. I believe as we look at these cases, there is no merit to the charges in regard to Judge Pickering. Let's look first at the accusation of voting rights. Judge Pickering was reversed on one voting rights case, and that was Watkins v. Fordice. Judge Pickering was part of the three-judge panel that decided that case. Here is the key. We should be very clear about this. The voting rights issues in this case had already been resolved. The issue that went up for appeal was, guess what--Listen to this: attorneys fees. That is what the issue was. That is what went up on appeal. So to categorize that as a voting rights case, that the judge was appealed on a voting rights case and overturned on a voting rights case is simply not fair. It is not fair by any good judgment. When the case went up on appeal, the court of appeals said: We need more information. And they sent it back to Judge Pickering's three- judge panel. Judge Pickering and the other two judges gave them more information. It went back up, the court of appeals looked at it, and said: It's OK, you were right. We are not going to reverse you. And that ended it. That is the voting rights case about which everyone is talking. I should also note for the record there were three other voting rights cases that Judge Pickering decided. Not one of these cases--not a single one--was reversed. In fact, nobody ever appealed the cases, which again tells us something. When a voting rights case is not appealed or when a major case is not appealed, it certainly tells us something. So we end up on the voting rights issue with only one case where he was appealed, in that particular case it was about attorney's fees and, in the end, Judge Pickering was held to be correct anyway, and three other cases were not appealed at all. Let me talk briefly about Judge Pickering and the civil rights cases. Every one of the civil rights cases--of the 26 cases we are talking about--every single one of them involved claims made by prisoners. I point that out not to say prisoners rights cases are unimportant; they certainly are important. We all know they are important. They can involve basic rights. But these are not the type of cases that we would normally associate, or at least the public would normally associate, as civil rights cases. Lawyers know them as civil rights cases, but I believe the general public would not think of them as typical civil rights cases. They were often procedural requests, sometimes requests for very specific relief. For example, in one case, the whole issue was whether or not a prisoner had a right to use a certain type of typewriter. This prisoner wanted to use a memory typewriter instead of a regular typewriter, and that is what the substance of the case was about. There were procedural issues there, and the court of appeals took a look at them. They were reversed, and we certainly understand that. Again, I am not minimizing that, but I think we just need to put this whole case in its proper perspective. Let me also note for the record that Judge Pickering was reversed, as we have said, in a total of 11 of the so-called prisoner cases out of an estimated 1,100 prisoner cases with which he dealt. Let's now talk about Judge Pickering's employment cases. I will be very brief because I see my time is almost up. We need to look at both the employment cases, the Marshall case, and the Fairley case. In the Marshall case, Judge Pickering upheld an arbitrator's decision reinstating an employee who had been fired from her job. In the other case, the judge found on behalf of the worker suing his employer's disability plan for damages. In both cases, Judge Pickering ruled in favor of the employee. The court said he was wrong about how he did it, wrong in the decision, and the court overturned him. But no one should use the employment case where he was overturned--these two cases--as in any way indicating that he is not sensitive to employees. He did, after all, in these two cases, rule in favor of the employees. Judge Pickering is well-qualified. There is no doubt about it. His overall record as a judge is excellent. The specific cases cited as a concern do not show anything at all except that he is a human being who sometimes made some mistakes. I submit that virtually every district court judge that we look at and look at as carefully as we have looked at Judge Pickering, we would find similar reversals. When we look at these specific cases, I believe there is no indication that Judge Pickering is hostile to civil rights, to voting rights, to employment rights, or any other type of rights. I believe there is no evidence at all that Judge Pickering substitutes his personal opinions for the law. In fact, the evidence shows that he clearly does follow the law. Judge Pickering has testified under oath to the Judiciary Committee twice that he will follow the law and abide by the law, and Mr. President, his record shows that he will. This is just an example of the debate that I think we ought to be having. If our colleagues across the aisle would allow us to have an up or down vote on these nominees, we could talk about the qualifications and criticisms of these nominees. We could talk about allegations and they could be supported or dispelled. There are many, allegations against these nominees that would be dispelled--just like the ones I've just discussed about Judge Pickering. I encourage our colleagues to let us have the debate on the merits of the nominees. Then Senators can hear all the facts--both sides of the debate. And then they can make up their minds and vote--yes or no, just vote. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I recognize the honorees for the 2003 Hannah Neil World of Children Awards presented in Columbus, OH, on November 20, 2003. These awards recognize people from around the world who have devoted their lives to making the world a better place for children. The awards are very prestigious, commensurate to the Pulitzer and Noble Prizes for those who dedicate their lives to improving the lives of children. Since the inception of the awards, 500 nominations have been received from 50 countries. An international Advisory Council, headed by three- time heavyweight boxing champion Muhammad Ali and composed of 35 members from 15 different countries, selects the award recipients. I would like to recognize each of this year's honorees and thank them for their selfless commitment to helping children across the globe: First, the Kellogg's Child Development Award honors an individual who has made a significant lifetime contribution to children's futures by greatly improving their opporuntities to learn and grow. The honorees for this award are: Fani Lerner from Parana, Brazil; Claudia Gonzales Moreno from Murillo, Bolivia; and Jetsun Pema from Himachal Pradesh, India. The Cardinal Health Children's Care Award recognizes an individual who has made a significant lifetime contribution to the health and well-being of children. The honorees for this award are: Dr. Martin Eichelberger from Washington, DC; Dr. Elizabeth Jones from California; and Mehendra G. Mehta from Mumbai, India. The Founder's Award honors an individual youth who has made significant contributions to enhancing the lives of other youth. The honorees for this award are: Ryan Hreljac from Ontario, Canada and Dayro Javier Reyes Acosta from Santander, Colombia. I extend my most sincere thanks to these honorees for their dedication and commitment to our world's children. Their efforts, indeed, are deserving of the highest praise and recognition, as they give voice and hope to children in need across the globe.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a remarkable woman--a woman who devoted herself to improving the lives of those often overlooked in our society--the elderly and the poor. The State of Ohio lost one of its most dynamic and compassionate public servants with the passing of Vicky Mroczek on September 28, 2003. Vicky Mroczek dedicated over 20 years of her career to public service in Ohio, most recently serving as the Chief of the Office of Community Services in the Ohio Department of Development. Since 1985, she administered Ohio's Home Energy Assistance Program, a federally funded program that helps low-income households manage their energy bills. Earlier in her career, she worked for the Ohio Consumer's counsel, representing Ohio's residential customers in utility matters. She also served on the Board of the Central Ohio Transit Authority. Vicky was also a prominent figure at the national level, working on creative and innovative approaches to helping low-income households afford essential energy services. She served as Chair of the National Low-Income Energy Consortium from 1993 until her death. She also served as Chair of the National Energy Assistance Directors Association from 1990 through 1992. Vicky Mroczek was an engaging and dynamic public speaker, someone who could engage audiences from the cities to the farms, in local settings to national forums, reaching utility clients, utility executives, and everyone in between. She led with grace, fairness, and most of all, compassion. Her service and dedication to the citizens of Ohio and to low-income families across our Nation is a model to us all. She will be missed. Vicky's husband of 24 years, George Diehl; her mother Phyllis Mroczek; and her sister, Michelle Mroczek, remain in our thoughts and prayers.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today on Veterans Day, we are reminded of the sacrifices of all those who have served in our Armed Forces. We honor them, we remember them, and we thank them. Today I would like to talk about a veteran who proudly served in World War II, a veteran who died this past year, and a veteran who has, I think, great meaning for those who served in World War II. He was a soldier who told the stories of World War II through these drawings. That man, of course, is Bill Mauldin. He is remembered for depicting in his cartoons the average World War II soldier, the person who was doing his job, just trying to survive, trying to get home; the average World War II soldier who won the war; the average soldier to whom we all owe so much. While Bill Mauldin was depicting the soldier of that generation, in a sense he was depicting all those who serve and who have ever served. Bill Mauldin passed away on January 22 of this year at the age of 81 following a courageous battle against Alzheimer's disease. World War II veterans felt and continue to feel an attachment to Bill Mauldin because he really seemed to understand what a typical GI was going through, and his drawings depicted that. Bill Mauldin's work as a military and civilian cartoonist and writer brought a spirited, insightful, and human touch to the issues and people whom he covered. He is perhaps best known for two of the cartoon characters he created, Willie and Joe, whose adventures took them across various battlefields of World War II. Willie and Joe were both young enlistees on the front lines of combat, very much like Mr. Mauldin himself, a 1940 callup to the Army from the Arizona National Guard who spent a considerable amount of time in the North African and European battle theaters. Willie and Joe were not the straight-edged soldiers we often find in official wartime publications or Hollywood films. Rather, these two cartoon heroes lived the lives of men defined by the difficult surroundings and tasks at hand during World War II--soldiers resolved to give their all in the few matters they could control and resigned to hope for the best in those which they could not. I think the late historian Stephen Ambrose said it best in the introduction to a re-issue of Mauldin's widely read post-war cartoon compilation entitled ``Up Front.'' According to Ambrose, Bill Mauldin's cartoons ``caught on and live on because in them everything is accurate. . . . Willie and Joe's boots and smelly socks, their baggy, dirty uniforms, their knives, rifles, ammunition, mortars, web belts, canteens, beards, haversacks, helmets (with crease marks or holes), the rations--this is how it was.'' Ambrose really got it right. Mauldin's unique ability to capture the young soldier's perspective on day-to-day life during the war in an inclusive and patriotic manner earned his work the distinction of regular publication in numerous military newspapers, including Stars and Stripes and the 45th Division News. His work also won him the respect of fellow soldiers across the globe, one of whom recently described Willie and Joe as ``a secret weapon on our side.'' Willie and Joe were featured in Mauldin's first post-war compilation of cartoons and essays entitled ``Back Home.'' The success ``Back Home'' had in bookstores across the country propelled Mauldin to even greater fame, winning him the opportunity to publish several more works and even act in a few motion pictures. In fact, Mauldin is so well respected that in 1945, at the age of 23, he received a Pulitzer Prize soon after Time magazine featured him on its cover. Following the conclusion of World War II, Mauldin began a career as a political cartoonist for several major U.S. newspapers, including the Chicago Sun-Times and then the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, stirring up high-profile issues along the way. He won a second Pulitzer Prize in 1959 for a cartoon he drew depicting the Soviet Union's harsh treatment of renowned writer and Nobel Prize winner Boris Pasternak. Bill Mauldin has touched my generation with one of his most famous drawings, a drawing I certainly remember and I know anyone in my generation remembers. It was a drawing from now what has been 40 years ago of a statue of Abraham Lincoln at the Lincoln Memorial with his face cupped in his hand, weeping, following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. I will not forget that image, and I am sure there are many Members of the Senate and across this country who will not forget that, either. Bill Mauldin was a creative, artistic genius who could capture so much about people and the human condition in the simplicity of his drawings. He could capture in those cartoons what words alone could not. Bill Mauldin had the gift and he used it well. On Veterans Day this year, we should thank Bill Mauldin for that gift and for his service to our Nation, for what he did to represent in drawings the average GI in World War II--and in a sense the average GI throughout our long history as a country--for what he did to communicate to so many the way life was for our troops. I would also like to take this opportunity to send that same message of thanks on this Veterans Day to all of our current and former service men and women. Whether on the islands of the South Pacific, in the air over France, or on land in France or in Germany, on the beaches of Sicily, the mountains in Korea, the jungles of Vietnam, the deserts of Kuwait, more recently in the caves of Afghanistan or the streets of Baghdad, our service men and women have defended America and they defended our values with great valor. We must never forget that veterans served for us, they served for our children, for our grandchildren, and for future generations not yet born. Today on this Veterans Day our service men and women continue to serve around the world. We pause again tonight to thank our veterans, thank those who have served in the past, and to remember our service men and women who are serving at this very hour tonight.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, at a wreath-laying ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery on this day--Veterans Day--nearly two decades ago in 1985, President Ronald Reagan spoke about the responsibility we, the living, have in remembering those who have died for us on the field of battle. At that ceremony, President Reagan said this: There is a special sadness that accompanies the death of a serviceman [or woman], for we're never quite good enough to them--not really; we can't be, because what they gave us is beyond our powers to repay. And so, when a service [member] dies, it's a tear in the fabric, a break in the whole, and all we can do is remember. Today, I come again to the floor of the U.S. Senate to remember an Ohio serviceman who gave his life to protect us, to protect our families, and to help liberate the Iraqi people. Army Private First Class Marlin Tyrone Rockhold, who proudly served with the 3rd Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment of the 3rd Mechanized Infantry Division, was killed on May 8, 2003, by a sniper in Baghdad. He was 23 years old. Marlin Rockhold--``Rocko'' to his family and friends--was born in Hamilton, OH, on July 1, 1979. He attended school in Butler County and graduated from Hamilton High School in 1998, where he was a well-liked student and member of the Hamilton Big Blue football squad. As his grandmother, Eileen Henderson, described, ``Marlin just about always had a smile. He was a person you just had to like.'' Though a kidder growing up, Marlin also had a quiet, determined, serious side. After graduation, he set out to realize a dream--a dream he had since childhood. Marlin Rockhold's dream, was to join the military. From the time he was a little boy, he wanted to become a soldier. He wanted to see the world. He wanted to see a life outside of Hamilton. He wanted to serve the country he so dearly loved. And so, on March 4, 2002, Marlin joined the Army and was sent to Boot Camp at Fort Benning, GA. From there, he was stationed at Fort Stewart, GA. On January 20, 2003, he was sent to Kuwait and eventually went on to serve in Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Mr. President, for as much as Marlin Rockhold loved the Army, he loved his family even more. In fact, two days before he joined the service, on March 2, 2002, he married the love of his life, DaVonna. Marlin was thrilled to begin his family with her and her daughter, Therashia. He loved them both with every ounce of his being. They meant the world to him. He devoted his life to them. While he was in Iraq, Marlin often wrote letters to his wife and his family. In one letter to his grandmother, he wrote that no one wants to fight a war, but sometimes you do what you have to do. Through his service in the Army, PFC Marlin Rockhold was doing what he believed in. He didn't want to leave his family. He didn't want to fight a war. But Marlin Rockhold did what he felt he had to do. As Rev. Lonnie Napier said at Marlin's memorial service: He was willing to join the fight for the hopeless so that they might be free. Marlin Rockhold was a good soldier. He was a good man. Marlin's sister Brooke said he ``always was determined to be happy. Now he's with the Lord. He's happy.'' I attended Marlin's funeral, and I am grateful to have had the chance to hear his family talk about the ``Rocko'' they so deeply loved and admired. At the service, Marlin's brother Derrick said: My brother is a hero, my hero, our hero. He is my inspiration. My brother's legacy will live forever in our hearts. Without question, Marlin Rockhold is a hero, and his legacy will live on through all who knew him and loved him. In addition to his wife and daughter, left to cherish his memory are his mother Mary, his father Gary, his stepmother Joan, his grandmother Eileen, his four brothers, Keith, Derrick, Gregory, and Anton, his two sisters, Brooke and Kara, his in-laws Dorothy and Clarence and Demery and Patricia, and several aunts and uncles and nieces and nephews. I know they will miss Marlin deeply. My thoughts and prayers are with them all. I would like to close with something Marlin's wife Davonna said. She said this: I just want Marlin to be remembered--that he [won't] be forgotten. I'll never forget him. We, too, will never forget Marlin Rockhold. We will always remember him because, as President Reagan said at the conclusion of his remarks at Arlington National Cemetery on that Veterans Day 17 years ago: We owe a debt we can never repay. All we can do is remember [the soldiers who have died] and what they did and why they had to be brave for us. All we can do is try to see that other young men and women never have to join them.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for morning business with Senators speaking for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, in the few days before Veterans Day, to pay tribute to one of America's and one of Ohio's fallen sons. Twenty-seven year-old Army Specialist James Christopher Wright, who served in the 4th Battalion, 42nd Field Artillery Regiment, of the 4th Infantry Division, passed away on September 18, 2003, while trying to secure a hostile area near Tikrit, Iraq. James Wright--known as Jimmy by his family and friends--was from Delhi Township, OH. In the early 1990s, he graduated from Oak Hills High School and Diamond Oaks Vocational School. Growing up, Jimmy was a fun-loving kid. Friends say he was always ready with a smile or a joke. He could make any situation seem comfortable. He could put people at ease. Christina Schwaller, who attended Oak Hills High School with Jimmy said that he was ``very outgoing and lovable, very much the clown. He was always laughing--you never had a bad moment when he was around.'' Jimmy also loved cars. It's a love he shared with his older brother, Eddie. When Jimmy was still in high school, and Eddie had just graduated, they bought low-riding pick-up trucks and spent hours upon hours outfitting them. In Iraq, Jimmy was the proud driver of a Humvee. Today, Eddie drives a Porsche with a memorial to his brother painted on the front hood. In 1996, Jimmy enlisted in the Marines and served four years. In that time, he toured in Bosnia, Greece, and Italy. Jimmy felt strongly about serving our Nation. He had a deep, abiding sense of duty--something he learned from his family. His father, Edward, served in the Army for 20 years and did two tours in Vietnam. He learned from his family about sacrifice and service. After his tour with the Marines was over, Jimmy decided to settle down for a short time in Delhi Township and later Waco, TX, with his wife, Alina, whom he had met when they were both stationed at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. She, too, had been a Marine. As they were settling in to their new civilian life, the world turned upside-down with the tragic terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Once again, Jimmy and Alina felt the familiar pull of duty--duty to the victims of September 11th, duty to their families, duty to our country. Alina remembers Jimmy saying then that ``it was time to put the uniform back on. He couldn't just sit back and not do anything.'' Jimmy and Alina both enlisted--this time into the Army. Jimmy was deployed to Iraq on April 1, 2003. Three weeks later, he learned that his wife was pregnant with a baby boy whom they named Jamison Edward. Five months later, Jimmy Wright gave his life fighting to secure the safety and freedom of the Iraqi people--fighting to secure a peaceful world and future for his unborn son. As his brother Eddie said, ``When Jimmy died, he was doing something he loved. I'm proud of my brother. He's a hero.'' He received the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, the Armed Forces Services Medal, and the Good Conduct Medal. Specialist James C. Wright did not have to re-enlist. He did not have to fight and die for us and for his son, Jamison Edward. But he did. As Reverend Thomas King said at Jimmy's memorial service in Ohio, ``Jimmy knew the dangers he faced, but he never backed down.'' He felt it was his duty--his calling--to serve. He believed in what he was doing--in what he was fighting for. He wanted his son to live in a world without terrorism--a safe world--a world of freedom and liberty and hope. Pliny the Elder wrote that ``hope is the pillar that holds up the world.'' Jimmy was a man of courage, of love, of duty--and his broad shoulders of hope will continue to hold up the world safely above our heads. He will continue to be that pillar as we remember his life--as we remember how he followed his heart, lived a life full of love, and dutifully responded to the call of his country. Left to cherish and honor his life are his wife, Alina; his unborn son, Jamison Edward; his parents, Edward and Barbara; his two brothers, Eddie and Mark and their families; and his grandmother, Josefa Wright. Let me say to all of them that you all remain in my thoughts and prayers. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, today, I rise to honor recently fallen soldiers in Iraq and to recognize the mission these men and all Fort Carson soldiers have been accomplishing since the conflict began. This past Sunday the State of Colorado lost four of its courageous army warriors when a Chinook helicopter assigned to the 12th Aviation Brigade and attached to the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment crash landed outside of Baghdad. These were brave and loyal soldiers defending the principles of freedom and liberty and fighting the terrible war against tyranny and terrorism. This helicopter was shot down in the single deadliest attack on American troops since the war began. This attack killed a total of 16 troops and injuring another nineteen. It was transporting the troops to Qatar. Some were headed home for leave while others were getting much needed rest before returning to Iraq to wage peace and rebuild the country after more than twenty years of neglect and oppression. As I learn more of the four men from Fort Carson who lost their lives, my heart swells with pride. I am very proud of the commitment and sacrifice these soldiers gave to our country and our way of life. Yet, I am also saddened. I am deeply grieved knowing that for each of the brave souls have a family left behind. It is a somber realization that some parent or spouse will receive the worst possible news. Men in dark green uniforms will show up to explain the unexplainable. As honorable as this task is, no one from the army can comfort the families of Specialist Darius Jennings, Specialist Brian Penisten, Sergeant Ernest Bucklew or Staff Sergeant Daniel Bader. These were good men and proud Americans who were pausing briefly in their duty to improve the conditions in Iraq and fully expected to return soon to rejoin their units. This tragedy is magnified when you learn of the stories behind these young men and the lives they left behind. Sergeant Dan Bader was returning to Fort Carson to see his wife and fourteen-month-old daughter. Last spring he tearfully kissed his wife and child goodbye and deployed for Operation Iraqi Freedom promising to return soon and was ever more eager to see his daughter grow with each passing day. He was a towering man of six foot three who was not afraid of anything. He fought for his family, for his unit and for America. His daughter will grow up knowing her father was a hero but not knowing her father. Specialist Brian Penisten was also coming home but he was coming home to start a new family. He was coming home to his fiance in Pueblo, CO so they could get married this month. He called her before heading to the helicopter and told her everything was okay and ended the conversation with the words, ``I love you Mrs. Penisten.'' But now instead of a wedding his two families will be attending a funeral for this fallen hero. This attack represents another example of the cowardice and terror tactics employed by Saddam loyalists and the foreign insurgents intent on our failure to bring peace and freedom to Iraq and the region. They will not succeed. Both the American troops and the Iraqi people are working hard to make the country better. Everywhere you turn, the message is the same. The Iraqi citizens are happy to have us there and our troops understand why we must be there. Whether you count the social programs being worked by our soldiers, the re-enlistments of our Fort Carson soldiers or the over all morale of the troops, the message is clear. We are committed and will not quite until our task is done. Some of these troops have been in the country since before Christmas of last year. This deployment and combat environment could easily destroy morale and incentive to re-enlist. That is not so for these fine soldiers of Fort Carson. Even through Sunday's disastrous loss, the spirit of Fort Carson stays strong. The executive Officer for the 3rd Armored Cavalry, said after losing his four men, that, ``morale is saddened and humbled but we remain resolved to continue the fight.'' The unit's 5,000 soldiers serving in Iraq don't have time to be horrified or mourn the dead. They have a job to do.'' He added that they were obviously saddened by the events but ``we are soldiers, cavalry troops and have to execute the mission given to us.'' There has been plenty of discussion lately of America's resolve and commitment to seeing this through. Let me tell you that the men and women serving in Iraq are not confused and know how committed this country is to ensuring that democracy flourishes in Iraq. The men and women of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment are still fighting the war on the Syrian border but that has not deterred them from performing great measures for the Iraqi people. The 3rd Cavalry helped rebuild a town's schools and hospitals with the help of the local mayor and town council. Another program brought bookbags full of school supplies to over 200 local youth. This is a sharp contrast to the Hussein regime who did not provide basic education for all children. One of the American commanders said ``most people in the communities here are peaceful and just want to resume moral lives but the actions of the aggressors place them in a position where they feel they can't publicly support coalition forces.'' And the Iraqi mayor said ``we are very grateful for what they have done.'' Fort Carson has retention goals that it must meet to fulfill its mission. This is true during war as well as during times of peace. Fort Carson has deployed over 12,000 troops to Iraq since last year. That constitutes 80 percent of its troops. Men and women from the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Special Forces Group and 7th Infantry Division have all supported Operation Iraqi Freedom. Surprisingly, though the 3rd Armored Cavalry is still deployed in Iraq, the unit has not only reached its retention goals, it has greatly exceeded them. In the last quarter of this past year 294 soldiers re- enlisted while the objective was 129. This unit is retaining almost three times its goal for that period and for fiscal year 2003. Over the year, the regiment had 834 soldiers re-enlist though the goal was 554 reenlistments. It is clear to me that the soldiers who are laying their lives on the line; they are committed to this cause; and we need to follow their lead. Secretary of State Colin Powell, while leading the first gulf war, said that the truly great leaders were also great followers. We in the Congress need to follow the lead of men and women from Fort Carson and commit to this cause. We must not waver when it is politically correct to do so, when the elections are near, or when the costs are high. The cost of failure is greater than any supplemental bill brought forward to this body. The cost of failure is immense. The cost of failure will be realized not only here but through out the Arab world. Iraq is a unique opportunity to show that freedom and democracy can flourish in the region. This mission is that important. Any loss of life is tragic and we must reflect on the ultimate sacrifice we ask of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines when we send them into harm's way. We always hope that every person that deploys to a war zone will return home to their parents, wives, children and community. Today we have four families who will be met by the dark green uniforms that they all dread. We can never bring SP Darius Jennings, SP Brian Penisten, SGT Ernest Bucklew or SSG Daniel Bader back to their families alive. As much as we would want, that is not possible. What Fort Carson is doing is `continuing the fight' and that is exactly what this Congress and this country needs to do. We need to continue the fight even when that means more money appropriated, even when that means a new round of deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan or other yet to be determined hot spots, even if that means standing up to the world community and demanding they do their share. The war on terror is not going to be won over night. The terrorists have been honing their skills and will not quit because we ask them to. Surgical strikes to obscure targets will not deter them. United Nations resolutions with no force deployment will not dissuade them. What will convince these international thugs is a commitment to stand firm in our responsibility and not second guess our actions when things get difficult. I stand today to honor these four fallen soldiers, each of the injured, and all of the men and women of Fort Carson. Your commitment and sense of duty is a commendable example to all Americans. I salute Fort Carson and everything the soldiers stand for, so let this body recognize SP Darius Jennings, SP Brian Penisten, SGT Ernest Bucklew, SSG Daniel Bader and all of Fort Carson left to carry on the fight and more importantly carry on the peace. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. In the past, this subcommittee has been very supportive of the Great Lakes Basin Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Program. The Great Lakes Basin program is a federal--state partnership, and its goal is to protect and improve Great Lakes water quality by controlling erosion and sedimentation; limiting the input of associated nutrients and toxic contaminants; and minimizing off-site sources of damages to harbors, streams, fish and wildlife habitat, recreational facilities and the basin's system of public works.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, to introduce the Safe Intersections Act of 2003. This bill would criminalize the unauthorized sale and possession of a mobile infrared transmitter, MIRT. A MIRT is a remote control for changing traffic signals. These devices have been used for years by ambulances, police cars, and fire trucks, allowing them to reach emergencies faster. As an ambulance approaches an intersection where the light is red, the driver engages the transmitter. That transmitter then sends a signal to a receiver on the traffic light, which changes to green within a few seconds. This is a very useful tool when properly used in emergency situations. In a 2002 survey, the U.S. Department of Transportation found that in the top 78 metropolitan areas, there are 24,683 traffic lights equipped with the sensors. In my home State of Ohio, there is a joint pilot project underway by the Washington Township Fire Department and the Dublin Police Department to install these devices. Other areas in Ohio where they are in use include Mentor, Twinsburg, Willoughby, and Westerville. Across the country, law enforcement officers, fire departments, and paramedics utilize this technology to make communities safer. However, recently it has come to light that this technology may be sold to unauthorized individuals--individuals who want to use this technology to bypass red lights during their commute or during their everyday driving. MIRT was never intended for this use. MIRT technology--in the hands of unauthorized users--could result in traffic problems, like gridlock, or even worse, accidents in which people are injured or killed. Let me quote from an ad that was recently posted on the Internet auction site, ``eBay'': Tired of sitting at endless red lights? Frustrated by lights that turn from green to red too quickly, trapping you in traffic? The MIRT light changer used by police and other emergency vehicles Change the Traffic Signal Red to Green [for] only $499.00. Traffic Signal Changing Devices--It's every motorist's fantasy to be able to make a red traffic light turn green without so much as easing off the accelerator. The very technology that has for years allowed fire trucks, ambulances and police cars to emergencies faster--a remote control that changes traffic signals--is now much cheaper and potentially accessible. This ad demonstrates the extent to which the potential widespread sale and possession of MIRT technology by drivers would be a hazard to public safety and must be stopped before it starts. That is why I am introducing the Safe Intersections Act of 2003. I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this important piece of legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the legislation I have just introduced be printed in the appropriate place in the Record immediately following the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, to introduce the Safe Intersections Act of 2003. This bill would criminalize the unauthorized sale and possession of a mobile infrared transmitter, MIRT. A MIRT is a remote control for changing traffic signals. These devices have been used for years by ambulances, police cars, and fire trucks, allowing them to reach emergencies faster. As an ambulance approaches an intersection where the light is red, the driver engages the transmitter. That transmitter then sends a signal to a receiver on the traffic light, which changes to green within a few seconds. This is a very useful tool when properly used in emergency situations. In a 2002 survey, the U.S. Department of Transportation found that in the top 78 metropolitan areas, there are 24,683 traffic lights equipped with the sensors. In my home State of Ohio, there is a joint pilot project underway by the Washington Township Fire Department and the Dublin Police Department to install these devices. Other areas in Ohio where they are in use include Mentor, Twinsburg, Willoughby, and Westerville. Across the country, law enforcement officers, fire departments, and paramedics utilize this technology to make communities safer. However, recently it has come to light that this technology may be sold to unauthorized individuals--individuals who want to use this technology to bypass red lights during their commute or during their everyday driving. MIRT was never intended for this use. MIRT technology--in the hands of unauthorized users--could result in traffic problems, like gridlock, or even worse, accidents in which people are injured or killed. Let me quote from an ad that was recently posted on the Internet auction site, ``eBay'': Tired of sitting at endless red lights? Frustrated by lights that turn from green to red too quickly, trapping you in traffic? The MIRT light changer used by police and other emergency vehicles Change the Traffic Signal Red to Green [for] only $499.00. Traffic Signal Changing Devices--It's every motorist's fantasy to be able to make a red traffic light turn green without so much as easing off the accelerator. The very technology that has for years allowed fire trucks, ambulances and police cars to emergencies faster--a remote control that changes traffic signals--is now much cheaper and potentially accessible. This ad demonstrates the extent to which the potential widespread sale and possession of MIRT technology by drivers would be a hazard to public safety and must be stopped before it starts. That is why I am introducing the Safe Intersections Act of 2003. I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this important piece of legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the legislation I have just introduced be printed in the appropriate place in the Record immediately following the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today as an original co-sponsor of the Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2003. I would like to thank Senators McCain, Lieberman and Reed for also sponsoring this common sense piece of legislation that aims to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and out of the hand of kids. It is a good bill--an important bill. Gun ownership rights are clearly established in the United States Constitution. And, I am a firm supporter of the Second Amendment. I also strongly believe that we have an obligation to protect the safety of law-abiding citizens and the safety of our most precious resource, our children. As a former county prosecutor, I learned that the best way to reduce the illegal and often fatal use of guns is to pass and enforce tough laws that severely punish criminals who use them. That is why I consistently have supported measures that keep firearms from getting into the wrong hands in the first place and that increase the punishment of those who use firearms in the commission of a crime. The Gun Show Loophole Closing Act helps achieve that goal. Under the existing Brady law, when a purchaser buys a gun from a licensed dealer, he or she must undergo a background check through the Federal Government's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (``NICS''), into which States feed records of certain criminals and others not qualified to own a gun. NICS has up to three days to inform the dealer as to whether the buyer is qualified to purchase a gun. If the dealer receives no response by the end of the three-day period, the dealer is allowed to the sell the gun to that buyer. Ninety-five percent of NICS checks, however, do not take three days. They come up with an instant or near instant response. This bill we are introducing today simply applies the same common- sense checks to gun show sales. Right now, there is no statute requiring that all sellers at gun shows run NICS checks on potential gun buyers; however, according to Federal officials, gun shows are the second leading source of illegal guns recovered from gun trafficking investigations. By leaving this loophole open--by not requiring all gun show sellers to run NICS checks--we are presenting gun traffickers and other criminals with a prime opportunity to acquire firearms. This is terrifying and this is unacceptable. Only last week, Federal authorities arrested a Georgia man who sold large quantities of firearms at Georgia gun shows. These firearms have been recovered in subsequent crimes in New York, New Jersey, Michigan, and here in Washington, DC. Furthermore, following the attacks on September 11th, it came to light that Al Qaeda produced a handbook in which it advised terrorists to purchase firearms at gun shows in the United States. In fact, at least three suspected terrorists have exploited this loophole to acquire firearms. Therefore, it is imperative, now more than ever, to enact legislation to protect our citizens from this potential area of terrorist exploitation. This bill is common sense. The laws for purchasing firearms at gun shows and stores should be the same. We have the same responsibility to make sure that gun owners are qualified--regardless of where they buy their guns. This bill closes the gun show loophole in a way that respects the Second Amendment and honest, law-abiding Americans' right to buy and sell guns and attend gun shows. That's good law. That's good policy. That's why we should pass this bill.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, a week ago today, I came to the Senate floor to honor and to remember a young Ohio soldier who lost his life while bravely serving our Nation in Iraq. That young man, PFC Branden Oberleitner, had served proudly in the Army's 101st Airborne Division, based out of Fort Campbell, KY. Today, I come again to the floor of the Senate to honor and to remember another young Ohio soldier who served proudly in the 101st Airborne Division, another young soldier who lost his life bravely defending our Nation and fighting to give a better life, freedom, and liberty to the people of Iraq. Madam President, SGT Brett Thomas Christian was born on December 5, 1975. Growing up, Brett's life was not always easy. Like a lot of families, he and his mother Tess and brothers Sloan and Derek moved around a lot. As a young child, Brett was in and out of a number of schools, leaving old friends and making new ones each time. The family eventually settled in the Cleveland, OH, area, where, for a time, Brett attended Richmond Heights High School. Brett adapted well to new environments and knew how to quickly make new friends. People liked Brett; they were drawn to him. He had a great sense of humor and an easy-going demeanor. The first thing people remember about Brett is his whit, his smile, his charm. His brother Derek said, ``You couldn't be sad around him. He was just a funny guy.'' But Brett also had a serious side. He was a smart person, a smart kid. He read a lot. In fact, he started reading at a very early age and ended up 2 years ahead in school. As his brother Sloan said, ``He was always so smart. He blew away all the tests he took.'' Brett was also a hard worker. His uncle remembers how he took a physically demanding job at a tropical fish farm. Each day, Brett would travel on his bike 5 miles there and 5 miles back. Rain or shine, Brett road those 10 miles to and from work, laboring tirelessly to get the job done and, yes, done well. He dreamed of opening a restaurant one day with his Richmond Heights High School buddy, Jonathan Wilke. Brett completed his GED and decided to enlist in the U.S. Army. Brett's mom Tess said he was born to serve; that he always wanted to be a soldier. She said, ``My son believed in honor, loyalty, good character, all those things.'' Brett was assigned to Company C, 2nd Battalion of the 502nd Infantry of the 101st Airborne Division. He trained to be a sniper and served a year in Korea before being called to Iraq. Brett's job in Iraq was to drive a 2\1/2\-ton diesel carrier. It was grueling and dangerous work. SGT Shane Harris described Brett as one of his most dependable drivers. He was able to log 20-hour days moving soldiers, loads of ammunition, thousands of gallons of fuel, and pallets of bottled water, MREs, and other supplies. Brett was one of the first American soldiers to cross the line into Iraq. SGT John Ryan recalled how he sent Brett in to push a line forward to secure a bridge. He said that he chose Brett because he was certainly up for it: He believed in what we were there for. He knew what needed to be done. He knew how to lead from the front. He was sniper-qualified. He was mission-responsible. He was good under stress. He had a good head on his shoulders. He could always analyze and develop a course of action quickly. On that same mission, it was later learned that some of our trucks got lost in Iraq after crossing the line. Not surprisingly, it was Brett who found them and, yes, got them out. On July 23, 2003, SGT Brett Christian was killed and seven others were wounded near Mosul, Iraq, when his convoy was ambushed by rocket- propelled grenades and small arms fire. He was 27 years old. Madam President, Brett Christian was buried on the hollowed ground of Arlington National Cemetery on August 7, 2003. At that service, MAJ Douglas Fenton called Brett an American hero. He received a Purple Heart and Bronze Star. There is no question that Brett Thomas Christian was a good man, a good son, brother, grandson, friend, and soldier. He was kind. He was compassionate. As his mother said: They say the eyes are the windows of the soul. His eyes swelled with emotion. They were bright and welcoming. At a memorial service for Brett in Ohio, Pastor Rick Duncan movingly described the kind of man Brett Christian became. This is what he said: He was resourceful. He was gracious, never malicious. He never showed any sort of prejudice about anyone. He was responsible, uplifting, and thoughtful. He was a man of action. He was a charmer. Ultimately, Brett Christian was a true warrior. Brett Christian made a lot of choices in his life. He chose to look at the positive, not the negative. He chose to see the good things in life and in people, not the bad. He chose to face fear and adversity head on and fight against the evil in our world. According to Brett's grandmother Eileen, the last time he was home he explained to his younger brother, who had indicated an interest in joining the military, exactly why he joined the Army. He wanted his brother to understand that he believed in what he was doing, that he believed in helping people and serving our country. Let me conclude with something Sloan said about his beloved brother: Brett had the most potential of anyone in the family-- anyone I know. He's a beautiful soul who could have changed so much of the world. He had the love and ability to change a lot of the world. Madam President, Brett Christian did change the world. Brett Christian did make a difference. Brett's family--his mother Tess; his brothers Derek and Sloan; his grandparents Thomas and Eileen--remain in my thoughts and my prayers. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today as an original co-sponsor of the Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2003. I would like to thank Senators McCain, Lieberman and Reed for also sponsoring this common sense piece of legislation that aims to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and out of the hand of kids. It is a good bill--an important bill. Gun ownership rights are clearly established in the United States Constitution. And, I am a firm supporter of the Second Amendment. I also strongly believe that we have an obligation to protect the safety of law-abiding citizens and the safety of our most precious resource, our children. As a former county prosecutor, I learned that the best way to reduce the illegal and often fatal use of guns is to pass and enforce tough laws that severely punish criminals who use them. That is why I consistently have supported measures that keep firearms from getting into the wrong hands in the first place and that increase the punishment of those who use firearms in the commission of a crime. The Gun Show Loophole Closing Act helps achieve that goal. Under the existing Brady law, when a purchaser buys a gun from a licensed dealer, he or she must undergo a background check through the Federal Government's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (``NICS''), into which States feed records of certain criminals and others not qualified to own a gun. NICS has up to three days to inform the dealer as to whether the buyer is qualified to purchase a gun. If the dealer receives no response by the end of the three-day period, the dealer is allowed to the sell the gun to that buyer. Ninety-five percent of NICS checks, however, do not take three days. They come up with an instant or near instant response. This bill we are introducing today simply applies the same common- sense checks to gun show sales. Right now, there is no statute requiring that all sellers at gun shows run NICS checks on potential gun buyers; however, according to Federal officials, gun shows are the second leading source of illegal guns recovered from gun trafficking investigations. By leaving this loophole open--by not requiring all gun show sellers to run NICS checks--we are presenting gun traffickers and other criminals with a prime opportunity to acquire firearms. This is terrifying and this is unacceptable. Only last week, Federal authorities arrested a Georgia man who sold large quantities of firearms at Georgia gun shows. These firearms have been recovered in subsequent crimes in New York, New Jersey, Michigan, and here in Washington, DC. Furthermore, following the attacks on September 11th, it came to light that Al Qaeda produced a handbook in which it advised terrorists to purchase firearms at gun shows in the United States. In fact, at least three suspected terrorists have exploited this loophole to acquire firearms. Therefore, it is imperative, now more than ever, to enact legislation to protect our citizens from this potential area of terrorist exploitation. This bill is common sense. The laws for purchasing firearms at gun shows and stores should be the same. We have the same responsibility to make sure that gun owners are qualified--regardless of where they buy their guns. This bill closes the gun show loophole in a way that respects the Second Amendment and honest, law-abiding Americans' right to buy and sell guns and attend gun shows. That's good law. That's good policy. That's why we should pass this bill.

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, Members of the Senate, there are very few times when we have the opportunity to come to the floor when we know that the vote we will cast will save hundreds of thousands of lives. The amendment we have before us will do that. I am very pleased that we have reached an agreement on the amendment that Senator Durbin and I have offered to provide an additional $289 million for the fight against global AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. Mr. President, this money will clearly save lives. Adopting this amendment is the right thing to do, and I want to thank so many of my colleagues for their support and their own efforts to fight the global AIDS epidemic. First, I thank my colleague from Illinois, and the cosponsor of this amendment, Senator Durbin. Senator Durbin and I have traveled to Haiti. I have had the opportunity to watch Senator Durbin hold children who have HIV who are very sick. I have seen how compassionate he is, how much he cares. This is the third time Senator Durbin and I have come to the floor and offered amendments to add additional funds to this fight against AIDS. I thank my colleague for his great work. I thank my colleague, the majority leader, Senator Bill Frist. No one knows more about this problem. No one has done more about this problem. Many of us had the opportunity, this past August, to go on a trip with Senator Frist to Africa. It was an educational trip for all of us. Bill Frist is a teacher. He is a doctor. He is a leader. He has done a great deal, and I salute him for his great work. I also thank Senator Rick Santorum, who is a compassionate individual and who is passionate about this cause. It was Rick Santorum who first began working with the leadership and who first suggested, frankly, the formula that is in front of us today; he came up with these numbers. I salute him for his work. I thank Senator Mitch McConnell and Senator Leahy for bringing a very good bill to the floor. This bill will do a tremendous amount of good around the world. It truly is an instrument of our foreign policy and also provides the resources to help save many, many lives around the world. Finally, let me thank Senator Ted Stevens for his leadership in this area. We would not be on the floor tonight with this matter worked out without Ted Stevens' work. Let me say, for the Members of the Senate who do not already know this, this is not the first time that Ted Stevens has come forward and provided the necessary money to deal with the AIDS problem. This is, to my knowledge at least, the third time that I am personally aware of that Senator Stevens has done so. Ted Stevens is someone who is compassionate and who cares. I salute him and thank him. I thank my colleagues for bringing us to this point. It is significant that today in Columbus, OH, the President of the United States at noon today spoke very eloquently about this problem. He has taken the lead in our efforts to deal with really one of the greatest tragedies of our era. He, once again, spoke about the problem of AIDS. More importantly, he spoke about our obligation and our duty. This is what he said in Ohio today: We have duties in this world. When we see disease and starvation and hopeless poverty, America will not turn away. This great, mighty nation is leading the world in confronting a terrible disease on the continent of Africa. This nation is bringing the healing power of medicine to millions of men and women and children now suffering with AIDS. This great land is leading the world in this incredibly important work of human rescue. I salute President George Bush for his vision and his leadership in this area. I conclude by thanking everyone for their good work. This is the right thing to do. This will save lives. We will never know the people whose lives this amendment will save. We will not meet them. We will not see them. But we can rest assured, there will be many, many lives saved by what we do tonight. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time for the noon recess be extended by 10 minutes.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Illinois for his very fine statement and for his sponsorship of this amendment. This is the third time my colleague and I have worked on an amendment on AIDS help for the people of the world who are literally dying of this dread disease. I salute him for his very fine work and for his very fine comments today. Last Friday, we offered an amendment to the Foreign Operations bill that would increase the bill's current funding level for the global AIDS initiative by $289 million, as Senator Durbin has indicated. This additional funding would bring the total fiscal year 2004 allocation to $2.4 billion. This $2.4 billion would allow us to meet our goal of providing at least $2 billion in bilateral assistance, and it would also allow us to meet our current matching commitment to the global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. The new AIDS coordinator, Randall Tobias, would be able to distribute this money for the prevention, treatment, and control of and research in regard to AIDS/HIV, tuberculosis, as well as malaria. I am very pleased a number of our colleagues have joined us as cosponsors of this amendment. In addition to Senator Durbin, Senator Coleman, Senator Warner, Senator Daschle, Senator Leahy, Senator Graham of South Carolina, Senator Alexander, Senator Santorum, Senator Collins, Senator Smith of Oregon, Senator Bingaman, Senator Corzine, Senator Brownback, Senator Lugar, Senator Roberts, Senator Hagel, Senator Dole, Senator Specter, Senator Hatch, Senator Clinton, as well as Senator Kerry have also cosponsored this amendment. I thank them all for their cosponsorship. I thank each one of them for their support and for their own efforts to fight the ravages of the global AIDS epidemic. Fighting AIDS is a monumental task, a huge effort that will demand the time, resources, support, and certainly the prayers of the American people and people around the world for years to come. It is a global problem with global implications. It is delicate; it is intricate; it is anything but simple. I think the American people understand this. They certainly need to know this. They need to know we will be fighting against AIDS and HIV for a long time. The disease, death, and destruction it has left in its wake will not go away overnight, no matter what we do. Our amendment today will not completely solve this problem. It will not make AIDS go away, but it will help. It will begin to make a difference. It certainly can make a difference. The resources this amendment will provide will, in fact, save lives. Let there be no mistake about it; passing this amendment will save thousands of lives. It will save lives because the resources we will provide by this amendment will go to organizations, groups, doctors, and nonprofit organizations that are already in the field, already are in these countries, that have already proven they have the ability to go out and do the job. So in this regard, it is very simple. There are things we can do right now to save these lives and to make an immediate difference. For example, as I said Friday, I have had the opportunity to travel to Guyana and Haiti in this hemisphere and, as we did this past summer, along with Senator Frist and other Members of the Senate, we traveled to the southern part of Africa, where we had the opportunity to see doctors and organizations in the field doing the work. They were already saving lives and they looked at us and, in so many words, said: Give us the resources, give us the help, give us the assistance we need so we can expand the work we are doing. We saw them in place. What this bill will do is to give them more help and assistance so they can expand their work, treat more people and help save more lives. I think the most striking example of this is when we see a mother who is HIV-positive, we know the facts are if she is HIV-positive when she is pregnant with a child and about to give birth, the odds are 30 percent that child will be HIV-positive and that child will be condemned to death. We also know, though, that for as little as $3, that mother can be treated and the odds will be reduced from 30 percent to 5 percent or 4 percent that she will give birth to a child who will be HIV-positive. We can give lifesaving drugs and that lifesaving treatment for a very small amount of money, for the cost of two cups of coffee in the United States. We can do that, and we need to do it. In addition to fighting HIV/AIDS, we must remain vigilant in our efforts to fight other global epidemics. That is another reason this amendment is so important. The funds it provides, in addition to fighting HIV/AIDS, can be used to fight the spread of tuberculosis and malaria. These are two diseases we have the ability to fight, two diseases we have an obligation to fight. Like HIV/AIDS, the statistics are staggering. According to the World Health Organization, tuberculosis kills 2 million people per year. It is estimated that between 2000 and 2020, nearly 1 billion people will be newly infected by TB; 200 million people will get sick from it; and 35 million people will die from it if the control of it is not further strengthened. TB is a leading cause of death among women of reproductive age worldwide and it is estimated to cause more deaths among this group than all causes of maternal mortality. With an estimated 3 million new cases of TB each year, Southeast Asia is the world's hardest hit region. In Eastern Europe, TB deaths are increasing after almost 40 years of steady decline. More than 1.5 million TB cases occur in sub-Saharan Africa each year. This number is rising rapidly, largely due to the high prevalence of HIV. The fact is, people who are HIV positive or who already have AIDS are far more susceptible to acquiring tuberculosis. Their compromised immune system, quite simply, has a very difficult time fighting off the TB infection. As a result, TB is the leading killer of people living with HIV/AIDS. One-third of people infected with HIV would develop TB-- one-third. At the end of the year 2001, 13.1 million people living with HIV/AIDS were coinfected with tuberculosis. In Africa alone, more than 50 percent of individuals with active TB are also HIV positive. And in Asia, TB accounts for 40 percent of AIDS deaths. The spread of malaria is equally troubling. According to the World Health Organization, over 40 percent of the world's children live in malaria epidemic countries. Each year, approximately 300 to 500 million malaria infections lead to over 1 million deaths, of which over 75 percent occur in African children. In fact, every 30 seconds an African child dies of malaria. As with HIV/AIDS, there are some relatively simple things we can do to help prevent these needless deaths. For example, insecticide-treated nets have been shown to reduce mortality among children under 5 years by approximately 20 percent. This translates to the prevention of almost half a million deaths each year in sub-saharan Africa alone. Simple items such as these nets can cost as little as $1.50, while a year's supply of insecticides to retreat a net costs from 30 cents to 60 cents. Yet a recent ``Child Survival'' series in the British medical journal The Lancet concluded that: Fewer than 5 percent of children in regions of Africa with very high prevalence rates of malaria are using insecticide treated materials to prevent malaria. Again, as with HIV/AIDS, we as a nation and as a people have the resources and the ability to fight these preventable diseases. With this amendment, we can do so much good. So I say to the Members of the Senate, I say to my colleagues, we should not and we must not tolerate a world where so many people are suffering from HIV/AIDS and so many people are suffering from malaria and tuberculosis. We simply should not tolerate a world where this suffering and dying occurs. And where we have the ability and where we have the tools to help make a difference and to save lives, we must act, and we must act quickly. We should not delay. We must act now. Every 10 seconds, someone in the world dies because of AIDS. In just the short time I have been speaking here on the Senate floor--in just that time--at least 60 people have died because of AIDS. Those are lives that we can help save. Those are lives that I believe we must help save. I urge my colleagues to join us, to join Senators Durbin, Coleman, Warner, Daschle, Leahy, Graham of South Carolina, Alexander, Santorum, Collins, Smith of Oregon, Bingaman, Corzine, Brownback, Lugar, Roberts, Hagel, Dole, Specter, Hatch, Clinton, and Kerry in supporting this amendment. This amendment will mean more lives can be saved. It is as simple as that. I yield the floor.