Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add the following members as original cosponsors of S. 384: Senators Coleman, Collins, and Santorum.

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

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I yield all time.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, February 16, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on the President's fiscal year 2006 budget request for Indian programs.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution calling for the establishment of a National Stalking Awareness Month. Each year, approximately 1.4 million Americans--over 1 million women and about 400,000 men--are stalked. This statistic is truly staggering. Despite the prevalence of stalking and its recognition as a crime in all 50 States, this crime is often ignored. Stalking is an issue that affects 1 in 12 women and 1 in 45 men during their lifetime. It cuts across all lines of race, age, and gender. Women and men across the United States have struggled emotionally and financially to rebuild their lives after being victimized by a stalker. With rapidly advancing technology, I fear that stalking will become even more common and that the perpetrators will become even harder to catch. Increasingly, smaller cameras now allow perpetrators to stalk their victims from afar, often without even being detected. Video voyeurism is the next frontier in stalking and more must be done to combat this problem. This resolution applauds the efforts of policymakers, law enforcement officers, victim service agencies, and other groups that currently promote awareness of stalking. This resolution also encourages these groups to examine new and innovative ways to promote prevention and prosecution of stalking crimes. By increasing awareness and devising practical and effective means to reduce the prevalence of this crime, we can help the police, prosecutors, and victims to confront this horrible crime. Stalking is a tremendous problem, and it is one that we need to do more to address. A National Stalking Awareness Month would help to educate and increase awareness about stalking. I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution. We can--and we should--do more to ensure that stalkers are brought to justice and that their victims are not forced to live in fear.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators Leahy and Domenici, to introduce a bill that would reauthorize ``America's Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project Act.'' This program addresses the impact that mentally ill offenders have had on our criminal justice system and the impact the system has had on the offenders and their special needs. My interest in, and experience with this issue began over 30 years ago, when I was working as Assistant County Prosecuting Attorney in Greene County, OH, and then as County Prosecutor. What I learned then-- and what I have continued to encounter throughout my career in public service--is that our State and local correctional facilities have become way stations for far too many mentally ill individuals in our Nation. A recent Justice Department study revealed that 16 percent of all inmates in America's State prisons and local jails today are mentally ill. The American Jails Association estimates that 600,000 to 700,000 seriously mentally ill persons each year are booked into local jails, alone. In Ohio, nearly one in five prisoners need psychiatric services or special accommodations. As these statistics make clear, far too many of our Nation's mentally ill persons have ended up in our prisons and jails. In fact, on any given day, the Los Angeles County Jail is home to more mentally ill inmates than the largest mental health care institution in our country. How did we wind up in this situation? What happens is that all too often, the mentally ill act out their symptoms on the streets. They are arrested for minor offenses and wind up in jail. They serve their sentences or are paroled, but do not receive any treatment for their underlying mental illness. Not surprisingly, they often find themselves right back in the system only a short time later after committing additional--often more serious--crimes. Throughout this destructive cycle, law enforcement and corrections spend time and money trying to cope with the unique problems posed by these individuals. Certainly, many mentally ill offenders must be incarcerated because of the severity of their crimes. However, those who commit very minor, non-violent offenses don't necessarily need to be incarcerated; instead, if given appropriate treatment early, their illnesses could be addressed, helping the offenders, while reducing recidivism and decreasing the burdens on our police and corrections officials. That is why, six years ago Senator Domenici and I introduced America's Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project, to begin to identify--early in the process--mentally ill offenders within our justice system and to use the power of the courts to assist them in obtaining the treatment they need. This program has been a success. In pilot programs around the country, mental health courts have begun to help local communities take steps toward effectively addressing the issues raised by the mentally ill in our justice system, and these steps must continue. The legislation that we are introducing today will help do that. Our bill would establish a Federal grant program to help States and localities develop mental health courts in their jurisdictions. These courts are specialized courts with separate dockets. They hear cases exclusively involving nonviolent offenses committed by individuals with a mental illness. Fundamentally, mental health courts enable State and local courts to offer alternative sentences or alternatives to prosecution for those offenders who could be served best by mental health services. These courts are designed to address the historic lack of coordination between local law enforcement and social service systems and bring them together to work within the criminal justice system. To deal with the separate needs of mentally ill offenders, these mental health courts are staffed by a core group of specialized professionals, including a dedicated judge, prosecutor, public defender, and court liaison to the mental health services community. The courts promote efficiency and consistency by centrally managing all outstanding cases involving a mentally ill defendant referred to the mental health court. Mental health court judges decide whether or not to hear each case referred to them. The courts only deal with defendants deemed mentally ill by qualified mental health professionals or the mental health court judge. Similarly, participation in the court by the mentally ill is voluntary; however, once the defendant volunteers for the Mental Health Court, he or she is expected to follow the decision of the court. For instance, in any given case, the mental health court judge, attorneys, and health services liaison may all agree on a plan of treatment as an alternative sentence or in lieu of prosecution. The defendant must adhere strictly to this court-imposed treatment plan. The court must then provide supervision, and quickly deal with any failure. This way, the court can quickly deal with any failure of the defendant to fulfill the treatment plan obligations. The mental health courts provide supervision of participants that is more intensive than might otherwise be available, with an emphasis on accountability and monitoring the participant's performance. In this sense, the mental heath courts function similarly to drug courts. Offenders with a mental illness who choose to have their cases heard in a mental health court often do so because that is the first real opportunity that many of these people have to seek treatment. A judicial program offering the possibility of effective treatment-- rather than jail time--gives a measure of hope and a chance for rehabilitation to these defendants. The successes of mental health courts are encouraging and show that we can improve the health and safety of our communities through these programs. In Ohio, the Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Services Board which serves Athens, Hocking and Vinton Counties, began operating its program on August 2003 after receiving a mental health court grant under the original America's Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project Act. Success stories from this program are numerous, but let me focus on one individual here. D.L. is a 53 year old man who struggled with Bipolar Disorder for years. Arrested for trespassing in 2003, D.L. was the ideal candidate for the Mental Health Court. Having completed individual counseling, and never missing a single psychiatric appointment, D.L. completed the program last May. He is now viewed as a potential mentor for other program participants. Many jurisdictions across America have established mental health courts as a result of the program that we established four years ago. Our Nation's communities are trying desperately to find the best way to cope with the problems associated with mental illness. Law enforcement agencies and correctional facilities remain challenged by difficulties posed by mental illnesses. Mental health courts offer a solution. Mental health courts have shown great success, and we must ensure their continuation. Our Nation has long been enriched by the dual ideals of compassion and justice, and these programs are a wonderful embodiment of both ideals. I urge my colleagues to join in support of this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators Leahy and Domenici, to introduce a bill that would reauthorize ``America's Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project Act.'' This program addresses the impact that mentally ill offenders have had on our criminal justice system and the impact the system has had on the offenders and their special needs. My interest in, and experience with this issue began over 30 years ago, when I was working as Assistant County Prosecuting Attorney in Greene County, OH, and then as County Prosecutor. What I learned then-- and what I have continued to encounter throughout my career in public service--is that our State and local correctional facilities have become way stations for far too many mentally ill individuals in our Nation. A recent Justice Department study revealed that 16 percent of all inmates in America's State prisons and local jails today are mentally ill. The American Jails Association estimates that 600,000 to 700,000 seriously mentally ill persons each year are booked into local jails, alone. In Ohio, nearly one in five prisoners need psychiatric services or special accommodations. As these statistics make clear, far too many of our Nation's mentally ill persons have ended up in our prisons and jails. In fact, on any given day, the Los Angeles County Jail is home to more mentally ill inmates than the largest mental health care institution in our country. How did we wind up in this situation? What happens is that all too often, the mentally ill act out their symptoms on the streets. They are arrested for minor offenses and wind up in jail. They serve their sentences or are paroled, but do not receive any treatment for their underlying mental illness. Not surprisingly, they often find themselves right back in the system only a short time later after committing additional--often more serious--crimes. Throughout this destructive cycle, law enforcement and corrections spend time and money trying to cope with the unique problems posed by these individuals. Certainly, many mentally ill offenders must be incarcerated because of the severity of their crimes. However, those who commit very minor, non-violent offenses don't necessarily need to be incarcerated; instead, if given appropriate treatment early, their illnesses could be addressed, helping the offenders, while reducing recidivism and decreasing the burdens on our police and corrections officials. That is why, six years ago Senator Domenici and I introduced America's Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project, to begin to identify--early in the process--mentally ill offenders within our justice system and to use the power of the courts to assist them in obtaining the treatment they need. This program has been a success. In pilot programs around the country, mental health courts have begun to help local communities take steps toward effectively addressing the issues raised by the mentally ill in our justice system, and these steps must continue. The legislation that we are introducing today will help do that. Our bill would establish a Federal grant program to help States and localities develop mental health courts in their jurisdictions. These courts are specialized courts with separate dockets. They hear cases exclusively involving nonviolent offenses committed by individuals with a mental illness. Fundamentally, mental health courts enable State and local courts to offer alternative sentences or alternatives to prosecution for those offenders who could be served best by mental health services. These courts are designed to address the historic lack of coordination between local law enforcement and social service systems and bring them together to work within the criminal justice system. To deal with the separate needs of mentally ill offenders, these mental health courts are staffed by a core group of specialized professionals, including a dedicated judge, prosecutor, public defender, and court liaison to the mental health services community. The courts promote efficiency and consistency by centrally managing all outstanding cases involving a mentally ill defendant referred to the mental health court. Mental health court judges decide whether or not to hear each case referred to them. The courts only deal with defendants deemed mentally ill by qualified mental health professionals or the mental health court judge. Similarly, participation in the court by the mentally ill is voluntary; however, once the defendant volunteers for the Mental Health Court, he or she is expected to follow the decision of the court. For instance, in any given case, the mental health court judge, attorneys, and health services liaison may all agree on a plan of treatment as an alternative sentence or in lieu of prosecution. The defendant must adhere strictly to this court-imposed treatment plan. The court must then provide supervision, and quickly deal with any failure. This way, the court can quickly deal with any failure of the defendant to fulfill the treatment plan obligations. The mental health courts provide supervision of participants that is more intensive than might otherwise be available, with an emphasis on accountability and monitoring the participant's performance. In this sense, the mental heath courts function similarly to drug courts. Offenders with a mental illness who choose to have their cases heard in a mental health court often do so because that is the first real opportunity that many of these people have to seek treatment. A judicial program offering the possibility of effective treatment-- rather than jail time--gives a measure of hope and a chance for rehabilitation to these defendants. The successes of mental health courts are encouraging and show that we can improve the health and safety of our communities through these programs. In Ohio, the Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Services Board which serves Athens, Hocking and Vinton Counties, began operating its program on August 2003 after receiving a mental health court grant under the original America's Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project Act. Success stories from this program are numerous, but let me focus on one individual here. D.L. is a 53 year old man who struggled with Bipolar Disorder for years. Arrested for trespassing in 2003, D.L. was the ideal candidate for the Mental Health Court. Having completed individual counseling, and never missing a single psychiatric appointment, D.L. completed the program last May. He is now viewed as a potential mentor for other program participants. Many jurisdictions across America have established mental health courts as a result of the program that we established four years ago. Our Nation's communities are trying desperately to find the best way to cope with the problems associated with mental illness. Law enforcement agencies and correctional facilities remain challenged by difficulties posed by mental illnesses. Mental health courts offer a solution. Mental health courts have shown great success, and we must ensure their continuation. Our Nation has long been enriched by the dual ideals of compassion and justice, and these programs are a wonderful embodiment of both ideals. I urge my colleagues to join in support of this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise along with Senator Dodd to introduce the Training and Research in Urology Act--also known as the TRU Act. During my career in the U.S. Senate, I have supported the successful effort to double National Institutes of Health (NIH) research funding and have provided a strong voice for our children. This bill complements these past and continued efforts. It helps provide urologic scientists with the tools they need to find new cures for the many debilitating urologic diseases impacting men, women, and children. This legislation is important to my home state of Ohio and would impact many families in Ohio and nationwide who are afflicted with urologic diseases. Ohio is a leader in urologic research. Researchers at the Children's Hospital of Cincinnati, the Cleveland Clinic, Case Western Reserve, and Ohio State University have made great strides toward achieving treatments. The fact is that urologic conditions affect millions of children and adults. Urology is a physiological system distinct from other body systems. Urologic conditions include incontinence, infertility, and impotence--all of which are extremely common, yet serious and debilitating. As many as 10 million children--more than 30,000 in Ohio--are affected by urinary tract problems, and some forms of these problems can be deadly. At least half of all diabetics have bladder dysfunctions, which can include urinary retention, changes in bladder compliance, and incontinence. Interstitial Cystitis (IC), a painful bladder syndrome, affects 200,000 people, mostly women. There are no known causes or cures, and few minimally effective treatments. Additionally, there are 7 million urinary tract infections in the United States each year. Incontinence costs the healthcare system $25 billion each year and is a leading reason people are forced to enter nursing homes, impacting Medicare and Medicaid costs. Urinary tract infection treatment costs total more than $1 billion each year. Many urologic diseases, incontinence, erectile dysfunction, and cancer, increase in aging populations. Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in American men, and African-American men are at a greater risk for the disease. Medicare beneficiaries suffer from benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), which results in bladder dysfunction and urinary frequency. Fifty percent of men at age 60 have BPH. Treatment and surgery cost $2 billion per year. Research for urologic disorders has failed to keep pace. Further delay translates into increased costs--in dollars, in needless suffering, and in the loss of human dignity. Incontinence costs the healthcare system $23 billion each year, yet only 90 cents per patient is spent on research--little more than the cost of a single adult undergarment. In 2002, only $5 million of the $88 million in new initiatives from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) was designated to urologic diseases and conditions. Of that $5 million, no new initiatives were announced for women's urologic health problems. In 2001, we spent less than five cents per child on research into pediatric urologic problems. The medications currently used are very expensive and have unknown, long- term side effects. The TRU Act establishes a Division of Urology at the NIDDK--the home of the urology basic science program--and expands existing research mechanisms, like the successful George O'Brien Urology Research Centers. This will give NIH new opportunities for investment in efforts to combat and vanquish these diseases. This legislation is necessary to elevate leadership in urology research at the NIDDK. When the Institute was created in its current form nearly 20 years ago, Congress specifically provided for three separate Division Directors. Regrettably, the current statute fails to provide the NIDDK with the flexibility to create additional Division Directors when necessary to better respond to current scientific opportunities. This prescriptive statutory language is unique to the NIDDK. For example, the National Cancer Institute and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute do not have any statutory language regarding Division Directors. Mr. President, the basic science breakthroughs of the last decade are literally passing urology by. A greater focus on urological diseases is needed at the NIDDK and will be best accomplished with senior leadership with expertise in urology as provided in the TRU Act. This legislation is supported by the Coalition for Urologic Research & Education (CURE)--a group representing tens of thousands of patients, researchers and healthcare providers. I urge my colleagues to join me as co-sponsors of the TRU Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise along with Senator Dodd to introduce the Training and Research in Urology Act--also known as the TRU Act. During my career in the U.S. Senate, I have supported the successful effort to double National Institutes of Health (NIH) research funding and have provided a strong voice for our children. This bill complements these past and continued efforts. It helps provide urologic scientists with the tools they need to find new cures for the many debilitating urologic diseases impacting men, women, and children. This legislation is important to my home state of Ohio and would impact many families in Ohio and nationwide who are afflicted with urologic diseases. Ohio is a leader in urologic research. Researchers at the Children's Hospital of Cincinnati, the Cleveland Clinic, Case Western Reserve, and Ohio State University have made great strides toward achieving treatments. The fact is that urologic conditions affect millions of children and adults. Urology is a physiological system distinct from other body systems. Urologic conditions include incontinence, infertility, and impotence--all of which are extremely common, yet serious and debilitating. As many as 10 million children--more than 30,000 in Ohio--are affected by urinary tract problems, and some forms of these problems can be deadly. At least half of all diabetics have bladder dysfunctions, which can include urinary retention, changes in bladder compliance, and incontinence. Interstitial Cystitis (IC), a painful bladder syndrome, affects 200,000 people, mostly women. There are no known causes or cures, and few minimally effective treatments. Additionally, there are 7 million urinary tract infections in the United States each year. Incontinence costs the healthcare system $25 billion each year and is a leading reason people are forced to enter nursing homes, impacting Medicare and Medicaid costs. Urinary tract infection treatment costs total more than $1 billion each year. Many urologic diseases, incontinence, erectile dysfunction, and cancer, increase in aging populations. Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in American men, and African-American men are at a greater risk for the disease. Medicare beneficiaries suffer from benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), which results in bladder dysfunction and urinary frequency. Fifty percent of men at age 60 have BPH. Treatment and surgery cost $2 billion per year. Research for urologic disorders has failed to keep pace. Further delay translates into increased costs--in dollars, in needless suffering, and in the loss of human dignity. Incontinence costs the healthcare system $23 billion each year, yet only 90 cents per patient is spent on research--little more than the cost of a single adult undergarment. In 2002, only $5 million of the $88 million in new initiatives from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) was designated to urologic diseases and conditions. Of that $5 million, no new initiatives were announced for women's urologic health problems. In 2001, we spent less than five cents per child on research into pediatric urologic problems. The medications currently used are very expensive and have unknown, long- term side effects. The TRU Act establishes a Division of Urology at the NIDDK--the home of the urology basic science program--and expands existing research mechanisms, like the successful George O'Brien Urology Research Centers. This will give NIH new opportunities for investment in efforts to combat and vanquish these diseases. This legislation is necessary to elevate leadership in urology research at the NIDDK. When the Institute was created in its current form nearly 20 years ago, Congress specifically provided for three separate Division Directors. Regrettably, the current statute fails to provide the NIDDK with the flexibility to create additional Division Directors when necessary to better respond to current scientific opportunities. This prescriptive statutory language is unique to the NIDDK. For example, the National Cancer Institute and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute do not have any statutory language regarding Division Directors. Mr. President, the basic science breakthroughs of the last decade are literally passing urology by. A greater focus on urological diseases is needed at the NIDDK and will be best accomplished with senior leadership with expertise in urology as provided in the TRU Act. This legislation is supported by the Coalition for Urologic Research & Education (CURE)--a group representing tens of thousands of patients, researchers and healthcare providers. I urge my colleagues to join me as co-sponsors of the TRU Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleague from New York, Senator Clinton, to introduce the Improved Vaccine Supply Act--a bill that would help ensure that our Nation's public health system has an adequate vaccine supply. We all know that vaccinations are critical in our efforts to keep our population, particularly children and the elderly, healthy. They are key to protecting the elderly from influenza during flu season and protecting children from contracting polio or the mumps. Vaccinations, inoculations, immunizations--whatever you want to call them--also help lessen the threat of bacterial or viral infections and potential disease outbreaks. Currently, it is recommended that children receive 12 routine vaccinations against preventable diseases. These vaccinations are given in a series of shots and booster shots by the age of two, with an additional four doses later in life. This ends up being about 16 to 20 doses of vaccines for children. Any shortage of vaccines is not acceptable, and we should do all we can to prevent any future shortage. As a Senator, and more importantly, as a parent of eight and grandparent of eight, I believe that nothing is more important than the health and safety of our children. While we are not currently experiencing a shortage, we know that the vaccine market is unstable and unpredictable. According to the Centers for Disease Control's National Immunization Program, there were several reasons for the shortages in past years. The CDC concluded and posted on its website that the ``reasons for these shortages were multi- factorial and included companies leaving the vaccine market, manufacturing or production problems, and insufficient stockpiles.'' The CDC did as good a job as it could, considering the vaccine shortages our Nation has faced in past years. The agency's website has posted information about shortages and released revised vaccine schedules to keep our public informed and knowledgeable about vaccination shortages. But, even with the strong efforts of the CDC, we need to work toward preventing a future vaccine shortage. We need a more permanent solution. The bill I am introducing will go a long way toward doing just that. The bill we are introducing today--the Improved Vaccine Supply Act-- would help bring some stability to our fragile vaccine supply. Unlike drug manufacturers, vaccine manufacturers do not have to give notice when they stop making a vaccine, whether the vaccine is withdrawn from the market intentionally or because the manufacturer is simply unable to continue making the vaccine. Essentially, these manufacturers leave the marketplace with no notice and no warning. Most doctors and hospitals--and more importantly parents and older adults--often have no idea that a vaccine is in short supply until they line up for a flu shot or go to the doctor for their child's immunizations. Our bill would change this. It would require any manufacturer of a vaccine to give a one-year notice of discontinuance. By giving notice, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would be better able to ensure an adequate vaccine supply for our Nation's population. Additionally, our bill would require all drug and vaccine manufacturers to give notice when they withdraw from the market. This change would ensure that we have a better sense of who is making vaccines and drugs and would allow the CDC and FDA to monitor the manufacturer's production and release of vaccines. Let me explain why this is important. Vaccines, or biological products, are difficult to develop and manufacture. They are more complex than drugs. Because of this, it takes longer for a biological product to reach the market. For example, a pharmaceutical company that manufactured tetanus vaccine stopped producing it, leaving only one company to produce tetanus vaccine for the entire country. The remaining company increased production to accommodate all of the needs of the United States. Despite this, it still required about 11 months for the vaccine to be ready for release. In other words, it took 11 months for the company to ramp-up production to meet demand. Our bill would create a notification mechanism to capture those drugs and vaccines leaving the market so we can avoid future vaccine and drug shortages. Our bill also would require the Secretary, acting through the CDC, to develop a plan for the purchase, storage, and rotation of a supply of vaccines sufficient to provide routinely recommended vaccinations for a six-month period for children and adults. Essentially, it would create a framework for the CDC to develop a national vaccine stockpile to ensure that childhood vaccine shortages simply do not occur. Our children need and deserve timely vaccinations. When childhood vaccinations are in short supply or are unavailable, they do without, living unprotected against disease. That should never happen. The bill we are introducing today is another step toward ensuring that children get the vaccines they need and that they get them at the right time. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important public health legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleague from New York, Senator Clinton, to introduce the Improved Vaccine Supply Act--a bill that would help ensure that our Nation's public health system has an adequate vaccine supply. We all know that vaccinations are critical in our efforts to keep our population, particularly children and the elderly, healthy. They are key to protecting the elderly from influenza during flu season and protecting children from contracting polio or the mumps. Vaccinations, inoculations, immunizations--whatever you want to call them--also help lessen the threat of bacterial or viral infections and potential disease outbreaks. Currently, it is recommended that children receive 12 routine vaccinations against preventable diseases. These vaccinations are given in a series of shots and booster shots by the age of two, with an additional four doses later in life. This ends up being about 16 to 20 doses of vaccines for children. Any shortage of vaccines is not acceptable, and we should do all we can to prevent any future shortage. As a Senator, and more importantly, as a parent of eight and grandparent of eight, I believe that nothing is more important than the health and safety of our children. While we are not currently experiencing a shortage, we know that the vaccine market is unstable and unpredictable. According to the Centers for Disease Control's National Immunization Program, there were several reasons for the shortages in past years. The CDC concluded and posted on its website that the ``reasons for these shortages were multi- factorial and included companies leaving the vaccine market, manufacturing or production problems, and insufficient stockpiles.'' The CDC did as good a job as it could, considering the vaccine shortages our Nation has faced in past years. The agency's website has posted information about shortages and released revised vaccine schedules to keep our public informed and knowledgeable about vaccination shortages. But, even with the strong efforts of the CDC, we need to work toward preventing a future vaccine shortage. We need a more permanent solution. The bill I am introducing will go a long way toward doing just that. The bill we are introducing today--the Improved Vaccine Supply Act-- would help bring some stability to our fragile vaccine supply. Unlike drug manufacturers, vaccine manufacturers do not have to give notice when they stop making a vaccine, whether the vaccine is withdrawn from the market intentionally or because the manufacturer is simply unable to continue making the vaccine. Essentially, these manufacturers leave the marketplace with no notice and no warning. Most doctors and hospitals--and more importantly parents and older adults--often have no idea that a vaccine is in short supply until they line up for a flu shot or go to the doctor for their child's immunizations. Our bill would change this. It would require any manufacturer of a vaccine to give a one-year notice of discontinuance. By giving notice, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would be better able to ensure an adequate vaccine supply for our Nation's population. Additionally, our bill would require all drug and vaccine manufacturers to give notice when they withdraw from the market. This change would ensure that we have a better sense of who is making vaccines and drugs and would allow the CDC and FDA to monitor the manufacturer's production and release of vaccines. Let me explain why this is important. Vaccines, or biological products, are difficult to develop and manufacture. They are more complex than drugs. Because of this, it takes longer for a biological product to reach the market. For example, a pharmaceutical company that manufactured tetanus vaccine stopped producing it, leaving only one company to produce tetanus vaccine for the entire country. The remaining company increased production to accommodate all of the needs of the United States. Despite this, it still required about 11 months for the vaccine to be ready for release. In other words, it took 11 months for the company to ramp-up production to meet demand. Our bill would create a notification mechanism to capture those drugs and vaccines leaving the market so we can avoid future vaccine and drug shortages. Our bill also would require the Secretary, acting through the CDC, to develop a plan for the purchase, storage, and rotation of a supply of vaccines sufficient to provide routinely recommended vaccinations for a six-month period for children and adults. Essentially, it would create a framework for the CDC to develop a national vaccine stockpile to ensure that childhood vaccine shortages simply do not occur. Our children need and deserve timely vaccinations. When childhood vaccinations are in short supply or are unavailable, they do without, living unprotected against disease. That should never happen. The bill we are introducing today is another step toward ensuring that children get the vaccines they need and that they get them at the right time. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important public health legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like to discuss a bill Senator Dodd and I are introducing today. This is a bill about children, and it covers an issue that is difficult to think about or talk about, but one that is critical to many children and their families in our Nation. What I am talking about is what we can do when a child develops a life-threatening or terminal illness. How do we make sure we do everything in our power to make a sick child as comfortable as possible and as happy as possible--everything in our power to ease their suffering--when that child is terminally ill. We have a pressing need for comprehensive, compassionate, continuous care for children who are facing death as a result of serious illness. No parent or family member ever expects a child to die. With today's modern medicine and research advances, it is easy to think that only older people die, but, tragically, we all know that is not the case. That is why today we are introducing the Compassionate Care for Children Act, a bill we introduced previously in the 108th Congress along with Representative Deborah Pryce in the House. This legislation is an effort to help ensure that very sick children receive a continuum of care and that young lives do not end in preventable pain or fear or sadness. Every year, over 55,000 children die in the United States. Some children will die suddenly and unexpectedly--in a car accident, by drowning, or fire, or by choking. Some may even be murdered. Others, though--thousands of children, actually--will be diagnosed with life- threatening illnesses or diseases that might eventually, over a period of time, take away these children's lives. Children with such illnesses are in and out of hospitals and clinics. They receive chemotherapy and radiation treatments. They might undergo multiple surgeries. They might have nurses and doctors poking and prodding at them nearly all the time. Some of these children are old enough to realize that they might die if the treatments for their diseases don't work. Others are too young to understand that reality. One little girl--Liza--knew she was going to die. Shortly after her fourth birthday, she was diagnosed with a form of leukemia. For the next year, Liza's parents explored every possible medical option for her and every possible treatment. They took her to doctor after doctor after doctor, and they had access to the most cutting-edge therapies available to treat Liza's disease. Nothing seemed to work. At the age of five, Liza began to ask her mother what would come next, and whether she would soon die after her bone marrow transplant--her last chance for a cure--had failed. Once the medical treatments had failed, doctors had little else to offer Liza. There was no discussion, tragically, about end-of-life care at the hospital for this little child. No one wanted to admit that they were out of treatment options--that there was no cure--that she wasn't going to get better, have her life restored and her health restored--that she wasn't going to grow up and become an adult and have her own children someday. There was no discussion of that. No one in that hospital wanted to talk with Liza about death, even though this little girl pleaded with them to do so. Liza's mother told the Washington Post that Liza asked her oncologist to tell her when death was near. This little five-year-old girl asked her doctor to tell her when she was going to die. Yet, on the final night of her life, as this little child lay dying in her mother's arms, near her father and her older sister, Liza asked, ``Why didn't the doctor call to tell me?'' Liza's parents were able to get some hospice care for their daughter during the last three months of her life. Tragically, fewer than 10 percent of children who die in the United States ever receive any sort of hospice care. When children like Liza are terminally ill, parents are forced to make decisions for their children under extremely emotional and stressful conditions. The decisions that confront these parents are ones that they never, of course, expected to have to make. Parents want what is best for their children. They want their children to get better and be healthy. They want their children to be pain free. They want their children to receive comfort and care when they are sick. God forbid that parents find out their children are very sick--so sick they are never going to get better--so sick there are no more treatments and no more cures--and so sick they know their children are going to die. Those parents will try to do everything imaginable and everything possible in their power to help their children and make them comfortable--pain-free and happy in their remaining days. Mr. President, we have an obligation to help those parents. Children with life-threatening diseases and illnesses require special medical attention to make their shortened lives more comfortable. We know that. Yet, despite that knowledge, the fact is, current federal law and regulations do not take into consideration the special care needs of a gravely ill or dying child. In fact, these federal laws and regulations get in the way of taking care of these children. The legislation we are introducing today would help correct the deficiencies in current law and help sick children facing possible death live more comfortably and live with dignity. It would help them receive the comprehensive care they deserve and the comprehensive care we would expect for our own children. Let me take a few moments to explain what our bill actually does. First, it offers grants so doctors and nurses can receive training and education to enable them to better understand these issues and to help them provide end-of-life care for these kids. The goal of these grants is to improve the quality of care terminally ill children receive. One of the ways we do this is to make sure doctors and nurses truly understand these issues so they can provide the care and be better informed. Our bill also provides money for the National Institutes of Health to conduct research in pain and symptom management in children. This research is critically important to improving the type of care that dying children receive. An article in the New England Journal of Medicine stated that 89 percent of children dying of cancer die experiencing ``a lot or a great deal'' of pain and suffering. This does not have to happen. We can change that, and we must. This is simply not acceptable. Research has to be done so that children will not suffer needlessly. In addition to grants, the second piece of our bill changes the way care is delivered to children with life-threatening illnesses. Right now, doctors, hospitals, and parents have to overcome significant insurance and eligibility barriers to enroll a dying child in hospice. First, to qualify for hospice, a doctor must certify that a child has six months or less to live. The problem with this ``six-month rule'' is that it is harder for a doctor to determine the life expectancy of a sick child than it is to determine the life expectancy of a sick adult or elderly person. A child dying of cancer, for example, may die in six months or six years, making that child ineligible for hospice care that would ensure a comfortable life while that child is alive. It is very difficult many times to estimate how long that child is going to live. This very rigid six-month predictability rule, which denies care, is very inhumane for these kids. It is wrong, and we have to change that rule. According to Dr. Joanne Hilden and Dr. Dan Tobin, ``Sick children are still growing, which is a biological process very much like healing. So, when a child is diagnosed with illness, such as cancer or heart disease, he or she is much more likely to be cured than an adult.'' Simply put, diseases progress differently in children than adults, and children with terminal diseases get lost in the health care system designed for adults--a health care system that does not take into consideration the special needs of children. Furthermore, the current system does not allow a patient to receive curative and palliative care simultaneously. In other words, current law does not allow doctors to continue trying life-prolonging treatments--treatments that could cure an illness or extend a life--and also at the same time provide palliative care to that patient. That means that current law does not allow the doctors to go in to provide typical hospice care where you make that child comfortable and do all the things to alleviate the pain and at the same time try to save the child's life. That is wrong. That is simply wrong. That presents a parent with a horrible choice--a choice that no parent should ever have to make. That is tragic. Palliative care offers a continuum of care--care that involves counseling to families and patients about how to confront death--care that involves making the patient comfortable in his or her sickest hours--care that acknowledges that death is a real possibility. Federal law requires a person who wishes to receive end-of-life care to discontinue receiving curative or life-prolonging treatment. This should not be an either/or decision for parents. I don't know of any parent who would give up trying to cure a sick child when there was any chance that child might be saved. They should not be put in this position. Current law places parents in impossible positions. We simply must fix this. End-of-life care should be integrated with curative care so that parents, children, and doctors have access to a range of benefits and services. As I said earlier, palliative care should not be confined to the dying. It should be available to any child who is seriously ill. That is why our bill creates Medicare and private market demonstration programs to remove these barriers, making it simpler and easier for doctors and parents to make end-of-life decisions for children. The demonstration program would allow children to receive curative and palliative care concurrently. This means children can continue to receive treatment and life-prolonging care while receiving palliative care at the same time. The demonstration program also removes the six-month rule so children can receive palliative care benefits at the time of diagnosis. I would like to take a moment to tell my colleagues about another girl--Rachel Ann. Rachel Ann was a little girl who did receive palliative care from the time she was diagnosed with a grave heart problem. Rachel Ann had a heart that doctors describe as ``incompatible with life.'' Most babies with heart malformations like Rachel Ann die within a matter of days after birth. Rachel Ann's parents were devastated and distraught to see their tiny baby connected to a sea of wire and tubes, clinging to life. Rachel Ann's parents were referred to a pediatric hospice and decided to bring their daughter home from the hospital so she could experience life with her family, surrounded by parents, brothers, relatives, and friends at home. Rachel Ann's parents say she seemed truly happy at home. She smiled and wiggled in response to voices and being held. Her brothers doted on their baby sister. Rachel Ann was able to spend her life at home in comfort with her family. She lived for 42 days and her family was able to make every single moment count. On Christmas day, after spending the morning with her family, Rachel Ann passed away. Fortunately, Rachel Ann and her family were able to spend as much time together as possible with Rachel Ann as comfortable as possible. Her brothers were able to know their sister and to talk with hospice professionals about what was happening to her. Rachel Ann's parents and grandparents also were able to talk about her condition with hospice professionals and maintained an active role in her care. There was a support system in place for this family. The terminal illness of a child is an incredibly difficult thing to confront for a parent and family. No one wants to think about children dying. No one wants to believe that children suffer, especially in this age of great medical advances. It is a horrible situation. But, it is one that we must face. We can always do more to improve the care that our children receive. We should continue to support research and finding cures for the diseases and illnesses from which children suffer. But, until those cures are found, and as long as children die from these diseases, we must provide care and support for a dying child. We have an obligation to provide that care and that support. The bill we are introducing today will be an important step in this direction. It will provide tools and support networks to help grieving families in their time of need. It is the right thing to do, and I encourage my colleagues to join us in co-sponsoring this important piece of legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like to discuss a bill Senator Dodd and I are introducing today. This is a bill about children, and it covers an issue that is difficult to think about or talk about, but one that is critical to many children and their families in our Nation. What I am talking about is what we can do when a child develops a life-threatening or terminal illness. How do we make sure we do everything in our power to make a sick child as comfortable as possible and as happy as possible--everything in our power to ease their suffering--when that child is terminally ill. We have a pressing need for comprehensive, compassionate, continuous care for children who are facing death as a result of serious illness. No parent or family member ever expects a child to die. With today's modern medicine and research advances, it is easy to think that only older people die, but, tragically, we all know that is not the case. That is why today we are introducing the Compassionate Care for Children Act, a bill we introduced previously in the 108th Congress along with Representative Deborah Pryce in the House. This legislation is an effort to help ensure that very sick children receive a continuum of care and that young lives do not end in preventable pain or fear or sadness. Every year, over 55,000 children die in the United States. Some children will die suddenly and unexpectedly--in a car accident, by drowning, or fire, or by choking. Some may even be murdered. Others, though--thousands of children, actually--will be diagnosed with life- threatening illnesses or diseases that might eventually, over a period of time, take away these children's lives. Children with such illnesses are in and out of hospitals and clinics. They receive chemotherapy and radiation treatments. They might undergo multiple surgeries. They might have nurses and doctors poking and prodding at them nearly all the time. Some of these children are old enough to realize that they might die if the treatments for their diseases don't work. Others are too young to understand that reality. One little girl--Liza--knew she was going to die. Shortly after her fourth birthday, she was diagnosed with a form of leukemia. For the next year, Liza's parents explored every possible medical option for her and every possible treatment. They took her to doctor after doctor after doctor, and they had access to the most cutting-edge therapies available to treat Liza's disease. Nothing seemed to work. At the age of five, Liza began to ask her mother what would come next, and whether she would soon die after her bone marrow transplant--her last chance for a cure--had failed. Once the medical treatments had failed, doctors had little else to offer Liza. There was no discussion, tragically, about end-of-life care at the hospital for this little child. No one wanted to admit that they were out of treatment options--that there was no cure--that she wasn't going to get better, have her life restored and her health restored--that she wasn't going to grow up and become an adult and have her own children someday. There was no discussion of that. No one in that hospital wanted to talk with Liza about death, even though this little girl pleaded with them to do so. Liza's mother told the Washington Post that Liza asked her oncologist to tell her when death was near. This little five-year-old girl asked her doctor to tell her when she was going to die. Yet, on the final night of her life, as this little child lay dying in her mother's arms, near her father and her older sister, Liza asked, ``Why didn't the doctor call to tell me?'' Liza's parents were able to get some hospice care for their daughter during the last three months of her life. Tragically, fewer than 10 percent of children who die in the United States ever receive any sort of hospice care. When children like Liza are terminally ill, parents are forced to make decisions for their children under extremely emotional and stressful conditions. The decisions that confront these parents are ones that they never, of course, expected to have to make. Parents want what is best for their children. They want their children to get better and be healthy. They want their children to be pain free. They want their children to receive comfort and care when they are sick. God forbid that parents find out their children are very sick--so sick they are never going to get better--so sick there are no more treatments and no more cures--and so sick they know their children are going to die. Those parents will try to do everything imaginable and everything possible in their power to help their children and make them comfortable--pain-free and happy in their remaining days. Mr. President, we have an obligation to help those parents. Children with life-threatening diseases and illnesses require special medical attention to make their shortened lives more comfortable. We know that. Yet, despite that knowledge, the fact is, current federal law and regulations do not take into consideration the special care needs of a gravely ill or dying child. In fact, these federal laws and regulations get in the way of taking care of these children. The legislation we are introducing today would help correct the deficiencies in current law and help sick children facing possible death live more comfortably and live with dignity. It would help them receive the comprehensive care they deserve and the comprehensive care we would expect for our own children. Let me take a few moments to explain what our bill actually does. First, it offers grants so doctors and nurses can receive training and education to enable them to better understand these issues and to help them provide end-of-life care for these kids. The goal of these grants is to improve the quality of care terminally ill children receive. One of the ways we do this is to make sure doctors and nurses truly understand these issues so they can provide the care and be better informed. Our bill also provides money for the National Institutes of Health to conduct research in pain and symptom management in children. This research is critically important to improving the type of care that dying children receive. An article in the New England Journal of Medicine stated that 89 percent of children dying of cancer die experiencing ``a lot or a great deal'' of pain and suffering. This does not have to happen. We can change that, and we must. This is simply not acceptable. Research has to be done so that children will not suffer needlessly. In addition to grants, the second piece of our bill changes the way care is delivered to children with life-threatening illnesses. Right now, doctors, hospitals, and parents have to overcome significant insurance and eligibility barriers to enroll a dying child in hospice. First, to qualify for hospice, a doctor must certify that a child has six months or less to live. The problem with this ``six-month rule'' is that it is harder for a doctor to determine the life expectancy of a sick child than it is to determine the life expectancy of a sick adult or elderly person. A child dying of cancer, for example, may die in six months or six years, making that child ineligible for hospice care that would ensure a comfortable life while that child is alive. It is very difficult many times to estimate how long that child is going to live. This very rigid six-month predictability rule, which denies care, is very inhumane for these kids. It is wrong, and we have to change that rule. According to Dr. Joanne Hilden and Dr. Dan Tobin, ``Sick children are still growing, which is a biological process very much like healing. So, when a child is diagnosed with illness, such as cancer or heart disease, he or she is much more likely to be cured than an adult.'' Simply put, diseases progress differently in children than adults, and children with terminal diseases get lost in the health care system designed for adults--a health care system that does not take into consideration the special needs of children. Furthermore, the current system does not allow a patient to receive curative and palliative care simultaneously. In other words, current law does not allow doctors to continue trying life-prolonging treatments--treatments that could cure an illness or extend a life--and also at the same time provide palliative care to that patient. That means that current law does not allow the doctors to go in to provide typical hospice care where you make that child comfortable and do all the things to alleviate the pain and at the same time try to save the child's life. That is wrong. That is simply wrong. That presents a parent with a horrible choice--a choice that no parent should ever have to make. That is tragic. Palliative care offers a continuum of care--care that involves counseling to families and patients about how to confront death--care that involves making the patient comfortable in his or her sickest hours--care that acknowledges that death is a real possibility. Federal law requires a person who wishes to receive end-of-life care to discontinue receiving curative or life-prolonging treatment. This should not be an either/or decision for parents. I don't know of any parent who would give up trying to cure a sick child when there was any chance that child might be saved. They should not be put in this position. Current law places parents in impossible positions. We simply must fix this. End-of-life care should be integrated with curative care so that parents, children, and doctors have access to a range of benefits and services. As I said earlier, palliative care should not be confined to the dying. It should be available to any child who is seriously ill. That is why our bill creates Medicare and private market demonstration programs to remove these barriers, making it simpler and easier for doctors and parents to make end-of-life decisions for children. The demonstration program would allow children to receive curative and palliative care concurrently. This means children can continue to receive treatment and life-prolonging care while receiving palliative care at the same time. The demonstration program also removes the six-month rule so children can receive palliative care benefits at the time of diagnosis. I would like to take a moment to tell my colleagues about another girl--Rachel Ann. Rachel Ann was a little girl who did receive palliative care from the time she was diagnosed with a grave heart problem. Rachel Ann had a heart that doctors describe as ``incompatible with life.'' Most babies with heart malformations like Rachel Ann die within a matter of days after birth. Rachel Ann's parents were devastated and distraught to see their tiny baby connected to a sea of wire and tubes, clinging to life. Rachel Ann's parents were referred to a pediatric hospice and decided to bring their daughter home from the hospital so she could experience life with her family, surrounded by parents, brothers, relatives, and friends at home. Rachel Ann's parents say she seemed truly happy at home. She smiled and wiggled in response to voices and being held. Her brothers doted on their baby sister. Rachel Ann was able to spend her life at home in comfort with her family. She lived for 42 days and her family was able to make every single moment count. On Christmas day, after spending the morning with her family, Rachel Ann passed away. Fortunately, Rachel Ann and her family were able to spend as much time together as possible with Rachel Ann as comfortable as possible. Her brothers were able to know their sister and to talk with hospice professionals about what was happening to her. Rachel Ann's parents and grandparents also were able to talk about her condition with hospice professionals and maintained an active role in her care. There was a support system in place for this family. The terminal illness of a child is an incredibly difficult thing to confront for a parent and family. No one wants to think about children dying. No one wants to believe that children suffer, especially in this age of great medical advances. It is a horrible situation. But, it is one that we must face. We can always do more to improve the care that our children receive. We should continue to support research and finding cures for the diseases and illnesses from which children suffer. But, until those cures are found, and as long as children die from these diseases, we must provide care and support for a dying child. We have an obligation to provide that care and that support. The bill we are introducing today will be an important step in this direction. It will provide tools and support networks to help grieving families in their time of need. It is the right thing to do, and I encourage my colleagues to join us in co-sponsoring this important piece of legislation. 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 honor the many families of our Nation's servicemen and women. We owe them a tremendous debt of gratitude for the services they have performed in supporting their family members in uniform. These families embody courage, patriotism, and dedication. Mr. President, we have all heard the saying, ``if the military wanted you to have a family, they would have issued you one at boot camp.'' But, the truth today is that more than 50% of America's men and women in uniform are married and about 50% of those families also have children. These families supply endless support for our servicemen and women in life and I believe we need to provide them that same support in the event of the death of the service member while serving on active duty. That is why I am joining my colleagues Senators Durbin, Allen, Hagel, Coleman, Johnson, Obama, and Leahy in introducing legislation today to improve critical survivor benefits for those families who have lost a loved one on active duty. Our legislation would amend four key benefit programs to improve the overall quality of life for survivors and dependent children. First, it would increase the death gratuity to $100,000 and create a death gratuity for each child under the age of 18 in the amount of $25,000. Currently, the gratuity for spouses is just $12,000, while no benefit exits for dependent children. This change would provide flexibility for the spouse in maintaining a home, paying off remaining debt, and providing immediate funds to transition the family to a life without the service member. Additionally, the dependent benefit would offer surviving children an initial investment that can be used to transition to adulthood, for example, as a down payment on a house or for college tuition. Second, our legislation would extend military health insurance, known as TRICARE Prime, to every dependent child of a deceased service member at no cost until the age of 21, or until 23 if the dependent attends college. The Department of Defense indicates that this important benefit would save dependents approximately $15,000 per year compared to the cost of private health insurance premiums. Expanded TRICARE coverage also guarantees that surviving dependents would continue to have access to some of the best doctors this country has to offer and would receive adequate health care and treatment. Third, our legislation would increase the dependency and indemnity compensation, or DIC, for a spouse to $1500 per month, as well as $750 per month for each child. In July 2004, the Government Accountability Office released a report titled ``Military Personnel: Survivor Benefits for Service members and Federal, State, and City Employees.'' This report outlined hypothetical situations to demonstrate the benefits received at certain pay grades. This report indicated that an E-3, meaning a Private First Class or a Lance Corporal, with two dependents and three years of service would receive $1,182 per month from the Survivor Benefit Plan, SBP, and $1208 per month for DIC. This equals $28,680 per year for the family to live on if the surviving spouse is not employed. In 2003, the USDA Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion released a report on the costs associated with raising children. The study indicated that, on average across the United States, families spent between $9,500 and $10,500 per child on expenses in a two child, husband-wife family. Further, this study indicated that families with a household income below $47,000 per year were only able to spend from $7000 to $8000 per year on expenses to raise a child. For the hypothetical family I just described, it would cost more than $18,000 per year just to meet the expenses of raising the two dependents. However, since the household income, if the surviving spouse is not employed, would reach just $28,860, then it is likely that only about $14,000 will be spent for that purpose. Clearly, that's just not enough. Our bill would help ensure that the essential needs of the family can be met. Finally, our legislation would increase the benefits available from the Survivors' and Dependents' Educational Assistance Program. It would eliminate the current 45 month cap on benefit payments and establish an $80,000 lump sum that can be drawn down for any educational expenses, including tuition, fees, room, board, and books. Under current law, a survivor only has access to about $38,867 if he/she attends college or a trade school on a full-time basis. As we know, this amount would not even guarantee a survivor access to a college degree from a state university. In fact, let's use the Ohio State University as an example. This public institution will cost in-state students roughly $18,600 for the 2004-2005 school year. Now, if there were no cost increases over the course of a four year matriculation, which, in this day and age, is an unrealistic assumption, a degree from OSU would cost $75,600. That is $36,733 more than the current benefit available from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Clearly a gap exists. Mr. President, we owe the families of those who have lost loved ones in active duty our gratitude and support. The President's inauguration last week reminded me of something President Abraham Lincoln said in his second inaugural address. He said this: ``With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan. . . .'' It is time to do a better job of caring for these families. It is time to ensure that this Congress does what is right. I ask my colleagues to stand with me in support for these families and do our part, as they have done theirs. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I find it almost impossible to believe that I am actually standing on the floor of the Senate today engaged in a debate over whether George Bush won Ohio in the 2004 Presidential election. Clearly he did and did so by 118,000 votes. Because I am limited under the rules to 5 minutes, I will not have time to address all of the wild, incoherent, and completely unsubstantiated charges that have been made about the 2004 Ohio Presidential election. What might be a better way for me to explain the absurdity of the suggestion that Ohio did not go for President Bush is to quote from numerous editorials that have been written in Ohio newspapers. The Cleveland Plain Dealer, a newspaper that did not endorse either President Bush or John Kerry, said in an editorial this past Tuesday addressing those in Ohio and those from out of State still contesting Ohio's results: The election horse is dead. You can stop beating it now. Not one ounce of political flesh remains on that carcass. Ohio has counted and recounted: President George W. Bush received 118,775 more votes than your man Sen. John Kerry. The senator had the good grace and sense to acknowledge the abundantly obvious, go home, and resume his life. You might consider emulating his excellent example, because what you are doing now--redoubling your effort in the face of a settled outcome--will only drive you further toward the political fringe. And that long grass already is tickling your knees. The 176 Democrats who sit on Ohio's 88 county election boards pondered their jurisdictions' results, accepted their subordinates' good work, and are turning their energies toward the future. Are they all dupes in some Machiavellian Republican scheme? Or do they simply have a firmer grasp of reality than that displayed by the two of you and a handful of unrelenting zealots still ranting in the January rain, eight weeks after the November voting?'' The headline for the Akron Beacon Journal's editorial from December 24, 2004 was: We wish John Kerry would have won Ohio. He didn't. The piece went on to say: The allegations being thrown around are of the flimsiest nature . . . Not one shred of evidence has been presented to show that Ohio's strictly bipartisan system of running elections was manipulated. The Columbus Dispatch, in an editorial dated December 12, 2004, said: On Monday, the 20 Ohio members of the Electoral College will cast their votes to elect the next president of the United States. When those votes are added to those from electors in the other 49 states, George W. Bush's re-election will be official. But that won't stop the conspiracy theorists who claim that Bush stole his victory. Though they are small in number, these naysayers are loud and repetitious. So the truth bears repeating, too: Bush won because more Ohioans voted for him than for Senator John Kerry. Kerry understands that George Bush legitimately won the election, which is why he conceded on November 3rd. Those who claim that Ohio's vote was rigged have produced nothing that approaches credible evidence, nor have they explained how a conspiracy could be carried out successfully in a decentralized system involving 88 separate, bipartisan county election boards. Such a conspiracy would have to involve scores, if not hundreds, of Democratic election-board members actively working against their own party and presidential candidate. It is terribly unfortunate that this body is meeting under these circumstances. I urge my colleagues to act unanimously in seating Ohio's electors. I ask unanimous consent to have the full text of the above-mentioned articles printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of passage of the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004. This act would help safeguard the privacy we all value, and help ensure that our criminal law reflects the realities of rapidly changing technology. It would do this by prohibiting both the filming of and taking compromising pictures of people in places where they expect privacy the most. This important legislation would give prosecutors and law enforcement officers the tools they need to fully prosecute these disturbing acts, acts that have, tragically, become more and more prevalent. For example, a woman in my home State of Ohio became a victim of video voyeurism while she attended a church picnic with her young daughter. She told the Cincinnati Enquirer that, ``as I crouched down to put the baby in my stroller, I saw a video camera sticking out of his bag, taping up my dress. . . . It rocked my whole sense of security.'' The law needs to say clearly that such an act is illegal. As disturbing as these acts are, they are occurring with increasing frequency and are going unpunished. Almost weekly, there are reports of cameras found in public bathrooms and changing rooms. Just recently, an employee of the New Mexico Department of Transportation had installed a tiny camera in an office restroom. What makes these crimes even more troubling is the ease with which these images can be transmitted to countless people via the Internet. Now, not only has an individual been victimized by having per picture taken, she faces the possibility of millions more seeing those pictures in cyberspace. While video voyeurism is currently illegal in over 30 States, including Ohio, there are still areas where prosecutors are unable to file charges for these crimes. As the defense attorney for one video voyeur aptly observed, ``The criminal law necessarily lags behind technology and human ingenuity.'' This legislation takes an important step toward ensuring a person that he or she will not be filmed or photographed where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy on Federal land, like at a national park. Additionally, the bill makes certain that perpetrators of video voyeurism are punished, by imposing a sentence of a fine or imprisonment for up to 1 year. I thank my colleagues for supporting the legislation.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Would my colleague agree--my colleague certainly is an expert on Haiti, having traveled there many times--the situation in Haiti is certainly not getting any better today; with this trade legislation we have talked about, both the House version of the bill and the Senate version of the bill would appreciably help the situation for the people of Haiti as well as help our foreign policy.

Mr. DeWINE. I wonder if my colleague will yield for a question.

Mr. DeWINE. I wonder if my colleague from Florida would yield for another question?

Mr. DeWINE. My colleague has studied this issue, I know, extensively. I wonder if he would agree that the proposed bill from the Senate, as well as the proposed bill the House was considering, while both would have a significant impact on the people of Haiti in the future as far as actual job creation, it would have, really, minimal impact, if any impact, on the United States as far as jobs. In fact, would he agree also that some of the experts we have consulted believe these two bills would actually help create jobs in the United States?

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, over a week ago we celebrated Veterans Day. In countless parades, ceremonies, and prayer services, Americans honored and remembered the service and sacrifices of all of those who have answered the call of duty. In the days that have followed, I continue to be reminded of something President Ronald Reagan said more than 20 years ago, something he said about the brave service men and women who did not return from the field of battle. This is what he said: Their lives remind us that freedom is not bought cheaply. It has a cost; it imposes a burden. And just as they whom we commemorate were willing to sacrifice, so, too must we--in a less final, less heroic way--be willing to give of ourselves. That is an important lesson, our willingness to repay the debts we who are left behind owe our fallen soldiers, this notion of giving of ourselves. It is a lesson the students of McNicholas High School in Cincinnati have taken to heart. On June 24, 2004, 37-year-old Army SSgt Charles ``Chuck'' Kiser, an Ohio native and former McNicholas High graduate, lost his life in Iraq while saving the lives of his comrades. The current students at McNicholas wanted to honor and remember Chuck Kiser this year on Veterans Day, so they went about raising enough money to hold a ceremony and fly Chuck's wife Deb and their two children, Alicia and Mark, from Wisconsin to Ohio, for the services. In their own way, these students gave of themselves. They reached out to the Kiser family and said we will not forget your husband. We will not forget your father. We will not forget him either. Chuck Kiser was a loving husband, doting father, and courageous soldier. He grew up in Amelia, OH, in a home with his father Charles and six women--mother Glenda and sisters Chris, Denise, Patty, Teresa, and Joy. Some say that living with all those women is what toughened him up and made him into such an outstanding soldier. I imagine that is very true. Their father passed away in 2002. Chuck and his dad were very close. Chuck followed in his dad's footsteps when he entered the military. The elder Charles had served in the Navy and was a Korean War veteran. Chuck's brother-in-law, Bill Grannen, said that ``[Chuck's] father instilled that kind of love of country and commitment in him. I'm sure they're together now.'' Chuck was a runner--and a good one, at that. He began his track career in the third grade at St. Bernadette School and continued running through college. At McNicholas High School and at the University of Cincinnati, he was a champion sprinter. As a high school senior, he finished in second place in the 200-meter run at the state Class AA meet. In fact, he also holds the University of Cincinnati records for the 300 meter and the 300 yard dash indoors. His former coach, Brett Schnier remembered Chuck as his top recruit and that ``he could run about anything.'' After a year at the University, Chuck decided to join the Navy, where he would eventually meet and marry the love of his life, Deb. Chuck spent seven years in active duty in the Navy, stationed mostly in Italy. It was there that he met Deb, and they fell in love. They started a family while Chuck continued his military service. Following his time in the Navy, he spent seven years in the Naval Reserves. Later, he entered the Army Reserve because the base was near their eventual home in Cleveland, WI. Not only was Chuck Kiser a model soldier, he was a model father. He loved his children dearly. He was a great dad. He took joy in coaching Mark and Alicia in various sports. Last year, Chuck coached a Little League championship team and would often volunteer to work with youth at the Zion United Church of Christ in Sheboygan. Chuck Kiser loved all kids and felt especially strong about helping the children in Iraq. According to his brother-in-law: Charles really felt like he wanted to secure their freedoms so they could live without the fear they lived under during the dictatorship. He said that if the situation were reversed, he would hope people would come to liberate his children. He believed that in his heart. That is why Chuck never hesitated when he and the rest of his Army Reserve unit--the 330th Military Police Detachment--were deployed to Iraq earlier this year. He wanted to defend our Nation, and he wanted the Iraqi people to have the same freedoms he and his family enjoyed. Chuck was proud to be serving his country. He was proud to help the Iraqi people in whatever way he could. Staff Sergeant Kiser lost his life helping the Iraqi people and saving the lives of his Comrades. He was on guard duty in Mosul, Iraq when insurgents began firing from a truck loaded with explosives. Chuck returned fire, but was killed when the truck crashed and exploded. Army Major Mark Magalski noted that Chuck saved countless lives in his final act of bravery. Upon Chuck's death, hundreds in his hometown of Amelia gathered to show their support for the Kiser family. At the Clermont County courthouse, signs hung that read, ``God Bless Chuck and the Kiser Family.'' Flags were placed in yards and the community came out to help the Kisers in any way they could. I had the privilege of meeting Chuck's family at the memorial service held in his honor, and I want to thank them for sharing their memories with me. The service was fitting for a man so full of life. The family requested that the service be a celebration of Chuck's life rather than a time of mourning. As patriotic music played, thousands paid tribute to this American hero. The service was a testament to the love his community had for this brave man--and a testament to the number of lives he touched. Staff Sergeant Charles Kiser was a good, decent, loving man, who protected our Nation bravely. We will remember him always. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.