Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I come to the Senate today with mixed emotions. A very important, very trusted member of my staff--Katie Ilg--is leaving our office to embark on a host of new adventures in Chicago. While I am happy for her and proud of her as she begins this new chapter in her life, I am also sad to see her go. Katie has become a central figure in our office. As my executive assistant, she has been my right hand for the last year and a half. She has been my friend. I take a few minutes today to talk about Katie and the impact she has had on my office and me and to thank her for all she has done for us. Katie first came to us in April 2000, after graduating from John Carroll University near Cleveland. Her first job in my office was as a staff assistant, where she answered phones, dealt with flag requests, and gave tours of the Capitol. The thing that most impressed me about Katie was that she would always go the extra mile for Ohio constituents--or anyone who wandered into my office, for that matter. She would listen to them with great compassion and concern. She was patient and understanding and a great ambassador for my office. Of course, this is not surprising to anyone who knows Katie. The fact is that people are drawn to her. She endears herself to people. She is kind to people. She goes out of her way for others. She isn't showy or elaborate or judgmental. She just cares about people--constituents, colleagues, strangers. She reads people, and she worries about them. It is also not surprising that Katie moved up in my office quickly. By December 2000, she took a position as my personal assistant. Though, after a year and a half, she left our office briefly to work for JP Morgan, she came back in February 2003--this time as my executive assistant, a management position that put her in charge of my personal assistant and scheduler. Katie has thrived in this job. She is an excellent manager and role model. She works so hard and is so dedicated. She is always looking out for me--always taking care of me, always putting up with me--which, some would say is certainly not an easy thing to do. I've called her at all hours, and she's always there to help--always there with the same enthusiasm and good nature. Katie never complains, or makes excuses, or passes the buck to someone else. No job is ever too small--or too big. Indeed, Katie Ilg is a very special young woman. No one knows that better than the people Katie has worked with in my office. I'd like to share some of the words that my staff has used to describe Katie. I think they paint a very accurate picture of exactly who she is. Katie is ``thoughtful and thorough.'' She is ``sweet, bubbly, ebullient, compassionate, generous, warm, steady--a calming influence.'' ``She is willing to do anything for others. She is always there for you when you need her--whether in a work environment or on a personal level. She is the person everyone goes to for support, a good job done, a laugh, a joke. . . . She keeps the office alive!'' ``Katie is cute, perky, friendly, positive, upbeat.'' And, no matter who you ask, there are four words that everyone uses to describe her: Katie is caring, selfless, genuine--and short! She makes me look tall! Though Katie is a tiny little thing in body, she is a giant in spirit. She is a powerful, positive force, who is smart, quick, and intuitive. She makes good decisions--good choices. She follows her heart and trusts her instincts. Above all else, Katie makes a difference each day--not in big splashy ways, necessarily, but in just a touch on the shoulder or through a kind word. Katie is a good person. And, there is goodness in everything that she does. As her dear friend Matt said, ``Whether comforting a family member in a time of loss or discomfort, counseling a friend through a difficult life challenge or affliction, celebrating a success with a co-worker or classmate, or orienting an old friend to a new city, Katie is always there with genuine and heartfelt words, actions, and deeds no matter the occasion and regardless of the other personal commitments she has at the time. . . . She has the ability to be a friend and confidant to all, whether you have known her for 8 years or 8 days.'' In conclusion, I'd like to say a word to Katie's parents, Tim and Mimi Ilg. Thank you. Katie is solid in her values and beliefs. She is grounded. She is ethical. She has a great sense of right and wrong. And, she loves her family more than anything else in the world. She is a good daughter to you; granddaughter to Lois; sister to Julie; companion to that boy in Detroit, we know as Mert; and friend to countless others. Every once in a while, we are fortunate enough to have a Katie Ilg come into our lives. Without question, Katie has been one of the best things to happen to my office since I have been here in the Senate. While my wife, Fran, and I are sad to see her go, we know it is time for her to move on, as she has many more lives to touch and people to help. We know she will just be a phone call or an e-mail away. And, I'm sure we'll see her at a few OSU football games this fall. Nevertheless, we're going to miss you, Katie Ilg. God bless you, and thank you for everything. You are certainly one of a kind.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me congratulate but mostly thank my friend and colleague from Oregon. We would not be here tonight without him. It is true many people worked on this bill, but he is the one who got us here. No one but my friend knows how many people he talked to and what he had to go through to get us to this point. I think everyone on this floor knows it could not have been done without our colleague. He did it. He did something that no one else could have done. Our friend, my friend, suffered the worst tragedy--he and his wife Sharon--that any couple, any family can suffer; that is, to lose a child. They took that tragedy and resolved that they would do something so other families would not suffer as they have suffered. I say to my friend that neither he nor anyone else in this Chamber will ever know what families will be spared because of the action taken by the House and Senate and because of his hard work. But the one thing we do know is, there will be many families who will be spared what he and Sharon fought through. For that, we all should say thank you. There will be many children out there who will not lose their lives, many families who will not suffer. This bill is a wonderful, living tribute to their son Garrett Smith. If we do our job, not only this year, not only this moment, but in the years ahead in properly funding this, it will remain year after year after year a wonderful living tribute to him. It will remain also a living tribute to all the young children who have lost their lives over the years. I thank my colleague. On behalf of all the people and families who will be spared and all the children whose lives will be saved--and we will never know who they are--he has done something that is very wonderful. He has taken his sorrow and grief, taken the position God has given him and the people of his State have given him and has made something wonderful out of it. It is, in fact, a wonderful tribute to his son, a tribute to the love he has for his son. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, let me first commend my colleague from Alaska as well as my colleague from South Dakota for their very excellent statements about a problem that I understand affects their States but certainly affects every State in the Union. I hope their comments today will be of help. I know their efforts will certainly help. It is, as my colleague from Alaska has so eloquently said, very preventable. It is something that we who have the opportunity to use this bully pulpit of the Senate, as Theodore Roosevelt would say, can talk about to educate and inform people about the problem and that it is, in fact, preventable.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I come to the Senate today to pay tribute to Army SPC Charles Odums, II, who lost his life in the service of our country in Iraq. At times like this, I am reminded of a speech President Ronald Reagan gave on Veterans Day many years ago. He said: It is, in a way, an odd thing to honor those who died in defense of our country, in defense of us, in wars far away. The imagination plays a trick. We see these soldiers in our mind as old and wise . . . . But most of them were boys when they died. SPC Charles Odums was 22 years old when he died after an improvised explosive device detonated near his patrol in Baghdad, Iraq. Today, I rise to remember this brave young man, who was taken from us much too soon. Charles, or ``Chuck'' as he was known by family and friends, was an ambitious kid who always tried to do the right thing. Friends lovingly remembered him as the ``sweet and quiet boy who would do anything that was asked of him.'' He came from a close-knit family and developed an especially strong bond with his younger brother, Robert. The two loved to ride their motorcycles and talk of their big plans for the future. They were going to be millionaires. Chuck went to Sandusky High School and graduated in 1999. While there, he played football and participated in track. He was the likable guy everyone wanted to be around. Chuck's coach, Brett Fuqua, remembered him as a hardworking young man who would run a marathon if asked. Chuck was always willing to do whatever needed to be done. After high school, Chuck enrolled at the University of Toledo. While there, he met the love of his life, Melanie, and the two married in December 2001. Chuck remained in college for more than one year, but found that it wasn't for him. After much consideration and much time talking it out with his parents, he decided to enlist in the Army. Though this would be a difficult decision for anyone to make, Chuck knew it was the right one for him. Brett Fuqua described Chuck's reasons for enlisting this way: He didn't do it because it was glamorous. He didn't do it because he would be a hero. He did it because he believed it was his duty to defend the freedoms that define America: the freedom to worship, to speak freely, to be safe. Chuck was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 8th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division, where he worked as a medic and driver. His comrades called him ``Odie'' or ``Doc,'' and they knew they could trust him with their lives. In fact, during his time in Iraq, Chuck was credited with saving three lives and helping countless others. His commanding officer recalled that Chuck would steer his Humvee in such a way that suspicious bumps in the road would pass under the driver's side--his side--putting Chuck in danger rather than his passengers. While overseas, Chuck made sure to keep in touch with his family by phone or e-mail, and his parents made sure they held on to everything he sent them. In the binder that they now cherish, Annie and Charles Odums have pictures of their son serving in Iraq. In one, Chuck, in full gear, is waiting on a helicopter landing pad for his transport to arrive. In another, he stands guarding an Iraqi man while other soldiers search for a weapons cache. Chuck's e-mail read: ``Well, I'm doing good out here.'' While Chuck was in Iraq, he was careful of what he told his mother. He knew she would worry. Chuck missed his parents, his brother and sisters, but especially his wife Melanie. Melanie and Chuck were already planning what they would do when Chuck's enlistment ended. They both wanted to start a family. Chuck had dreams of becoming a police officer. No matter what they decided to do, Chuck and Melanie were looking forward to being together. After Chuck was killed, in his hometown of Sandusky, OH, thousands of people gathered to show their support for the Odums family and to honor Chuck. They lined the street for the funeral procession and placed flags in their yards. One woman held a sign that read: ``Thank you, Charles, God bless America.'' Veterans groups saluted the fallen comrade and many held their hands over their hearts. One Sandusky native, Debra Churchwell, took her grandchildren, nieces, and nephews to watch the funeral procession. When asked why she brought her family, she replied: ``I want them to see a part of history because they'll never see this again. I pray to God they never see this again.'' No one wants to see this again. I know Chuck will live on in the hearts of his many friends and his family, especially his wife Melanie, his mother Annie, father Charles, brother Robert, and sisters Janel, Sophia, Candie, and Tashica. Chuck is an American hero who will live on in all our hearts. Madam President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I take a few minutes to speak about Judge Michael H. Watson, who is from my home State of Ohio. He is from Columbus. As my colleagues are aware, President Bush nominated Judge Watson to serve as a Federal judge in the Southern District of Ohio. I would like to take a moment to tell my Senate colleagues why I believe so strongly in his nomination. Judge Watson is exactly the sort of person we ought to have serving on the Federal bench. He has had a long and distinguished career as a public servant. He has been a judge on the 10th District Court of Appeals in Franklin County since Governor Bob Taft appointed him in May 2003. From 1996 to 2003, Judge Watson served on the Franklin County Common Pleas Court, a position he was appointed to by then-Governor George Voinovich and to which he was re-elected twice. In Ohio, the Common Pleas Court is the highest trial bench. It is the court that tries all the major civil and criminal cases. During his last 3 years on the trial court, Judge Watson served as administrative judge with responsibility of the administrative management of the 16- member court and its staff. He dealt with, literally, thousands of cases during his time as a State trial court judge. Before serving on the bench, Judge Watson worked for the office of then-Governor George Voinovich--first as Deputy Chief Legal Counsel and then, from 1994 to 1995, as Chief Legal Counsel. Prior to that, he was Chief Legal Counsel to the Director of the Ohio Department of Commerce. Judge Watson also spent several years in private practice, focusing primarily on personal injury litigation, employment disputes, workers' compensation, and criminal defense. Without question, Judge Watson has had an impressive legal career. But what really impresses me about him is how hard he has worked throughout his life. Judge Watson has genuinely lived the American dream by working hard and overcoming the odds. Not long after high school, the Judge enlisted in the Air Force and served for over 3 years. When he was discharged, he enrolled at the Ohio State University and continued his service in the military in the Air National Guard. While in college, he married his high school sweetheart, Lori, and they had their first son when Judge Watson was a junior in college. During all this time, Judge Watson was working full- time in the Franklin County prosecuting attorney's office. That's right, Mr. President; Judge Watson was enrolled at OSU full-time, raising a family, serving in the Air National Guard, and working full- time. When Judge Watson finished college, he enrolled in a law school night program at Capital University Law School. During the day, Judge Watson worked full-time as a court bailiff for a well-known Franklin County judge. That job evolved into a law clerk position, in which Judge Watson remained for his entire 4 years of law school. If someone in my family or I ended up in a Federal court, I would want a judge who could relate to me. I would want a judge who knows what the real world is like for most Americans. I would want a judge who knows what it is like to struggle and what it is like to be faced with the real world. Judge Watson is that kind of judge. Of course, I would also want a judge who knows what he is doing and who will enforce the law--and Judge Watson has clearly proven he is qualified for the job in that respect. But what Judge Watson has that makes him really outstanding, in my view, is his ability to make decisions with compassion and with a true understanding of what it is like in the real world. Judge Watson will be a fine addition to the District Court. In his time on the Ohio Court of Common Pleas and on the Ohio Court of Appeals, Judge Watson has distinguished himself through his thoughtful legal reasoning and his great integrity. This experience and his temperament make Judge Watson highly qualified for the Federal District Court. Senator Voinovich and I have known Michael Watson for a number of years. As I said, this is a man who is eminently qualified to serve on the Federal bench. Mike Watson currently serves on the court of appeals in Ohio. For 7 years prior to that he served on our common pleas court bench, which in Ohio is our highest trial bench. Prior to that, among other jobs, he was the chief legal counsel for then-Governor George Voinovich. Mike Watson is an Air Force veteran. He worked his way through night law school while serving at the same time as the court bailiff in Franklin County. This is a man who is respected by his peers and respected by the men and women who practice law in front of him. If you talk to people who practiced law in front of Judge Watson during the 7 years he served on the common pleas court bench, they will tell you this is a man of great integrity. They will tell you this is a man of great common sense, a man who works very hard, and a man of great courtesy. This is a man who has the right judicial temperament to serve on our Federal bench. I am proud to be here this evening to recommend to my colleagues that we confirm this nomination. I am very proud to be in the Senate to speak in favor of the nomination of Michael Watson.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my good friend and colleague Senator Dodd, to introduce the Sober Truth on Preventing Underage Drinking Act--also known as the STOP Underage Drinking Act. I thank Senator Dodd for his commitment to this issue, as well as our colleagues on the House side--Representatives Roybal-Allard, Wolf, Osborne, DeLauro, and Wamp for working so diligently with us over the past few months on this bill. It is a good bill--a carefully crafted, bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation. As we discussed at the HELP Subcommittee hearing I chaired in September on underage drinking, it is well known that underage drinking is a significant problem for youth in this country. We've known that for a very long time. We know that underage drinking often contributes to the four leading causes of deaths among 15 to 20 year olds--that 69 percent of youths who died in alcohol-related traffic fatalities in the year 2000 involved young drinking drivers--that in 1999, nearly 40 percent of people under the age of 21 who were victims of drownings, burns, and falls tested positive for alcohol. We've known that alcohol has been reported to be involved in 36 percent of homicides, 12 percent of male suicides, and 8 percent of female suicides involving people under 21. How did we get here, how did our Nation reach this point--a point where today, 12 percent of eighth graders--13 and 14 year olds--binge drink? Add to that, the 22 percent of tenth graders--15 and 16 year olds--who binge drink. The National Institute of Drug Abuse also reported that 95 percent of 12th graders perceive alcohol as readily available to them. Tragically, most children and young adults that drink underage obtain the alcohol from their parents or another adult. These statistics are frightening. Too many American kids are drinking regularly, and they are drinking in quantities that can be of great, long-term harm to themselves. Again I ask--how did we get here? As a Nation, we clearly haven't done enough to address this problem. We haven't done enough to acknowledge how prevalent and widespread teenage drinking is in this country. We haven't done enough to let parents know that they, too, are a part of this problem and can be a part of the solution. We talk about drugs and the dangers of drug use, as we should, but the reality is that we, as a society, have become complacent about the problem of underage drinking. This has to change. The culture has to change. The Sober Truth on Preventing Underage Drinking Act, or STOP Underage Drinking Act, has four major areas of Policy development: First, there is a Federal coordination and reporting provision. This title would create an Interagency Coordinating Committee to coordinate the efforts and expertise of various Federal agencies to combat underage drinking. It would be chaired by the Secretary of Health and Human Services and would include other agencies and departments, such as the Department of Education, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Federal Trade Commission. This title also would mandate an annual report to Congress from the Interagency Committee on their efforts to combat underage drinking, as well as an annual report card on State efforts to combat the problem. Two million dollars, annually, would be appropriated under this section. Second, the bill contains an authorization for the a national media campaign against underage drinking. This title would provide $1 million annually to authorize a national media campaign for which the Ad Council received $800,000 last year to begin implementation. It would continue funding for fiscal years 2005 and 2006. Third, the bill would support new intervention programs to prevent underage drinking. This section of the bill would provide $5 million for enhancement grants to the Drug Free Communities program to be directed at the problem of underage drinking. This title also would create a new program which would provide competitive grants to States, non-profit entities, and institutions of higher education to create State-wide coalitions to prevent underage drinking. This program would be funded at $5 million. Finally, our bill contains a section devoted to research. This title would provide $6 million for increased Federal research and data collection on underage drinking, including reporting on the types and brands of alcohol that kids use and the short-term and long-term impacts of underage drinking upon adolescent brain development. Again, I thank Senator Dodd for working with me on this issue here in the Senate, and I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues in the House and Senate to pass this very important bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my good friend and colleague Senator Dodd, to introduce the Sober Truth on Preventing Underage Drinking Act--also known as the STOP Underage Drinking Act. I thank Senator Dodd for his commitment to this issue, as well as our colleagues on the House side--Representatives Roybal-Allard, Wolf, Osborne, DeLauro, and Wamp for working so diligently with us over the past few months on this bill. It is a good bill--a carefully crafted, bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation. As we discussed at the HELP Subcommittee hearing I chaired in September on underage drinking, it is well known that underage drinking is a significant problem for youth in this country. We've known that for a very long time. We know that underage drinking often contributes to the four leading causes of deaths among 15 to 20 year olds--that 69 percent of youths who died in alcohol-related traffic fatalities in the year 2000 involved young drinking drivers--that in 1999, nearly 40 percent of people under the age of 21 who were victims of drownings, burns, and falls tested positive for alcohol. We've known that alcohol has been reported to be involved in 36 percent of homicides, 12 percent of male suicides, and 8 percent of female suicides involving people under 21. How did we get here, how did our Nation reach this point--a point where today, 12 percent of eighth graders--13 and 14 year olds--binge drink? Add to that, the 22 percent of tenth graders--15 and 16 year olds--who binge drink. The National Institute of Drug Abuse also reported that 95 percent of 12th graders perceive alcohol as readily available to them. Tragically, most children and young adults that drink underage obtain the alcohol from their parents or another adult. These statistics are frightening. Too many American kids are drinking regularly, and they are drinking in quantities that can be of great, long-term harm to themselves. Again I ask--how did we get here? As a Nation, we clearly haven't done enough to address this problem. We haven't done enough to acknowledge how prevalent and widespread teenage drinking is in this country. We haven't done enough to let parents know that they, too, are a part of this problem and can be a part of the solution. We talk about drugs and the dangers of drug use, as we should, but the reality is that we, as a society, have become complacent about the problem of underage drinking. This has to change. The culture has to change. The Sober Truth on Preventing Underage Drinking Act, or STOP Underage Drinking Act, has four major areas of Policy development: First, there is a Federal coordination and reporting provision. This title would create an Interagency Coordinating Committee to coordinate the efforts and expertise of various Federal agencies to combat underage drinking. It would be chaired by the Secretary of Health and Human Services and would include other agencies and departments, such as the Department of Education, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Federal Trade Commission. This title also would mandate an annual report to Congress from the Interagency Committee on their efforts to combat underage drinking, as well as an annual report card on State efforts to combat the problem. Two million dollars, annually, would be appropriated under this section. Second, the bill contains an authorization for the a national media campaign against underage drinking. This title would provide $1 million annually to authorize a national media campaign for which the Ad Council received $800,000 last year to begin implementation. It would continue funding for fiscal years 2005 and 2006. Third, the bill would support new intervention programs to prevent underage drinking. This section of the bill would provide $5 million for enhancement grants to the Drug Free Communities program to be directed at the problem of underage drinking. This title also would create a new program which would provide competitive grants to States, non-profit entities, and institutions of higher education to create State-wide coalitions to prevent underage drinking. This program would be funded at $5 million. Finally, our bill contains a section devoted to research. This title would provide $6 million for increased Federal research and data collection on underage drinking, including reporting on the types and brands of alcohol that kids use and the short-term and long-term impacts of underage drinking upon adolescent brain development. Again, I thank Senator Dodd for working with me on this issue here in the Senate, and I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues in the House and Senate to pass this very important bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the retiring dean of the Ohio press corps. Tom Diemer, a veteran reporter who spent more than 26 years at the Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper, has left the paper to pursue another career. Tom is one of those rare reporters who truly do ``get it.'' Tom understands Ohio. He understands Ohio government. He understands Ohio politics and certainly national politics. He understands what his readers need and what they want to know. Tom Diemer began working at the Columbus bureau of the Plain Dealer in 1978. A few years later, in 1981, Tom was promoted to bureau chief. When the opportunity came in 1985 to join the Plain Dealer's Washington bureau, Tom took it. During his career here in Washington, Tom has covered four Ohio U.S. Senators: first, Howard Metzenbaum and John Glenn; later on, myself and then George Voinovich. With a healthy dose of skepticism, Tom reported to his readers in Cleveland about the activities in the U.S. Senate. But Tom was never a reporter to take a press release at face value or a prepared statement at face value. I think Tom was a skeptic in a good sense of the term. He required his sources and those he got information from to make the case to him, and he questioned them, questioned them hard. He asked them questions that showed he was looking for the story behind the story. Whether it was local issues, such as the Great Lakes or the Euclid Corridor, or national issues, such as a war declaration or the PATRIOT Act, we could always expect Tom to dig deeper and go further with his line of questioning than just about anybody else. Tom would want to know the implications of a certain story or he would want some ``color'' for his story so he could capture the ``feel'' of an event for his readers. He would want to be able to take his readers here to Washington and let them feel and understand how things really work in our Nation's Capital. I always got the feeling that when Tom wrote a story, his editors got off pretty easily. They really did not have to do much work. However Tom wrote it, that was probably just about the way the story appeared in the Plain Dealer because Tom got it right. No matter how tough his questions were to me, I always knew any story I read by Tom Diemer would be fair and accurate. In Washington, Tom came to lead the Ohio press corps. His expertise about Ohio politics often made him the go-to person for C-SPAN or CNN or any of the national reporters anytime they needed someone to analyze the Ohio political scene during an election year. I have always appreciated Tom's great professionalism, his thoroughness, his frankness, his fairness, his kindness, and the way he deals honestly, forthrightly with people. Tom Diemer will still be writing, but he is leaving the Plain Dealer to set out now on his own. I certainly will miss him. I will miss my frequent contact with him. I certainly wish him the best of luck. Transportation Safety Mr. President, I would like to turn to the issue of highway safety. Over 43,000 people lost their lives on our Nation's highways last year. That is one death every 12 minutes or the equivalent of two Boeing 747- 400s filled to capacity going down every week with no survivors. This past May, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, released its 2003 traffic safety report, which details when, where, and why so many Americans lose their lives on our roads. This information gives us an idea of how effective our efforts are at the local, State, and national levels and where we need to focus resources in the future to help save lives. Based on the preliminary 2003 data, we have, tragically, a long way to go. Overall, fatalities increased 1 percent, from 42,815 in 2002 to 43,220 in the year 2003. This is the fourth consecutive increase in annual traffic fatalities. This is truly bad news, particularly in light of the progress we made throughout the 1990s, when the norm was a reduction in fatalities each year. On the other hand, the number of deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled stayed constant at 1.5 from 2002 to 2003. While not an increase, this figure does show how difficult it will be to reach the Secretary of Transportation's very aggressive goal of reaching 1.0 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled by the year 2008. The 2003 report also includes a number of other findings that shed light on the direction our country is taking as far as highway safety. Among other things, the report states the following: Standard passenger car fatalities are down but deaths in sports utility vehicles, SUVs, are up in the past year, with most of the increase coming from rollover crashes. NHTSA estimates this trend may continue as SUVs grow as a share of sales volume. Motorcycle crash deaths are up 11 percent from last year, now totaling 3,592. Further, drunk driving death rates are essentially unchanged from 2002, with 40 percent of crash fatalities involving alcohol in the year 2003. Further, the number of fatal crashes involving young drivers, those between 16 and 20, declined by 3.7 percent, from 7,738 in 2002 to 7,542 in the year 2003. While the report does bring welcome news with regard to young drivers who are much more vulnerable while driving than adults, it is also clear that progress needs to be made in a host of other areas, particularly rollover crashes and drunk driving. I have been working in the Senate, along with others, to see that we do just that through safety issues we have added and that the Senate added to the 6-year highway bill currently under consideration by the joint House-Senate conference committee. These initiatives are designed to advance our ability to test vehicles for passenger protection and rollover crashes, get consumers vital crash test information when they need it most, and increase seatbelt use and reduce drunk driving through nationwide high- visibility traffic safety enforcement campaigns. Combined with increased seatbelt use, something that in my State of Ohio, Ohio State Senator Jeff Armbruster is working diligently to enforce in Columbus, better driver education, which the Ohio Department of Public Safety is focusing on, and responsible practices, such as using a designated driver, can in fact make a real difference. These initiatives are contained in the Senate-passed bill that is currently being considered by the House-Senate conference committee. It is vitally important that they remain in this conference committee. They will, in fact, save many lives. Traffic safety affects all of us. We all have a role to play in making sure that when the 2004 numbers come out early next year, they are headed in the right direction. In a related matter, I would also like to discuss a very important development in the effort to make our Nation's roads safer. Earlier this month, Delaware became the 50th and last U.S. State to adopt a .08 blood- alcohol content per se drunk driving standard. Now every State in the Union has that standard. This development constitutes the culmination of many years of work here in the Senate to get tough, uniform drunk driving laws on the books across our country. In 2000, the Senate took decisive action to help stop drunk driving by implementing mandatory sanctions for States that do not adopt a .08 per-se standard. Now we are finally seeing the full realization of this effort, as all 50 States now have .08 laws. This is so important from a safety perspective because the fact is that a person with a .08 blood-alcohol concentration level is seriously impaired. When a person reaches .08, his or her vision, balance, reaction time, hearing, judgment, and self-control are severely impaired. Additionally, critical driving tasks, such as concentrated attention, speed control, braking, steering, gear-changing and lane- tracking, are negatively impacted at .08. Beyond these facts, there are other scientifically sound reasons to have a national .08 standard. First, the risk of being in a crash increases gradually with each blood-alcohol level, but then rises rapidly after a driver reaches or exceeds .08 compared to drivers with no alcohol in their systems. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that in single-vehicle crashes, the relative fatality risk for drivers with blood alcohol levels between .05 and .09 is over eleven times greater than for drivers with blood alcohol levels of zero. Second, .08 blood alcohol laws have proven results in reducing crashes and fatalities. Some studies have found that .08 laws reduce the overall incidence of alcohol fatalities by 16 percent and also reduced fatalities at higher blood alcohol levels. Now that all 50 States have a .08 law, we will have the opportunity to see its effects on a much larger scale. The reduction in alcohol-related fatalities since the 1970s is not attributable to one single law or program. Rather, it is the result of a whole series of actions taken by State and Federal Government and the tireless efforts of many organizations, such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Students Against Drunk Driving, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the Alliance of Auto Manufacturers, and many others. I thank my friend from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, for his continued dedication to fighting drunk driving. His hard work and perseverance have made the nationwide .08 standard possible. Mr. President, .08 was definitely a legislative effort worth fighting for, and now that all 50 States have a companion law in effect, I believe we will see why. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss the situation in Darfur, Sudan. I have come to the floor many times before to discuss this horrible crisis. I do so again today. My colleague Senator Biden and I have introduced a bill, which I will describe in detail in a few minutes. Significant, I think, within the past hour was a very graphic video and audio description of the situation in Darfur, as it appeared on CNN. I commend it to any colleagues who may have the opportunity to see it, or who can even get a transcript of that show. It is a 3- or 4-minute piece. It clearly demonstrated in the most stark terms that the tragedy of Darfur continues to unfold. We saw little children who were in danger of dying. Some may be dying. They described one man who had been injured-- shot within the last week by the militias who came in. So despite the pledges of the Sudanese Government that they will stop the militias from carrying out this genocide, in fact, as we meet here today, it continues. There has been a discussion about whether genocide is in fact occurring. Some have argued this is not genocide. So as I describe what is in the bill Senator Biden and I have introduced today, I want to describe for my colleagues what, under the law, it takes for genocide to occur, what the convention says, and what the facts are. I am on the floor tonight to discuss whether what is happening in the Darfur region of Sudan is in fact genocide. I believe it is genocide, although for some reason there seems to be some confusion about what that term, in fact, means and what responsibilities come with that once it is determined that genocide is taking place. I have been using the term ``genocide'' to describe what has been happening in the Darfur region of Sudan since May, and I think it is time, frankly, that this body, as a whole, and the world, more importantly, begins to do the same. That is why Senator Biden and I have introduced a bill that refers to what is happening, in fact, as genocide. I thank my colleague, Senator Biden, for his leadership on this issue. He, too, has been calling this genocide since the beginning, and we hope our colleagues will join us and rightly identify the atrocities in Darfur as, in fact, genocide. Our bill will also prevent any normalization of relations between the U.S. Government and the Sudanese Government unless and until the President of the United States can certify that the Government of Sudan is taking significant and demonstrable steps to stop the militias and allow humanitarian aid to flow. The bill we have introduced today will allow us to place sanctions on Sudan contingent on improvements in Darfur. Simply put, this bill will use every weapon in our diplomatic arsenal to attack this problem, and, frankly, that is exactly what is needed. Only when the Government of Sudan satisfies the requirements laid out in this bill--and we have set a high but, frankly, reasonable hurdle-- would the Government of Sudan then be eligible for any U.S. assistance. The bill will authorize $800 million in support of the north-south peace process, but that money will not be available until and unless the Government of Sudan complies with the terms of the bill. But separate and apart from that money, the bill will authorize an additional $200 million for humanitarian assistance for Darfur, obviously not going through the Government of Sudan. Let me reiterate. The $800 million that we would authorize in support of the north-south peace process would only be available if and when the genocide has stopped, the atrocities have stopped, the humanitarian situation has improved, and the President of the United States is confident and willing to certify to Congress that the Government of Sudan is protecting its people. It is my hope that this bill will be passed before the summer recess so the pressure on the Government of Sudan begins immediately and does not stop until that Government complies. I want to return to the larger issue of whether what is taking place in Sudan now is, in fact, genocide because there does seem to be a lot of confusion about this issue. There should not be any confusion about it because what is taking place in Sudan today clearly is genocide. The definition of ``genocide'' can be found in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide which entered into force originally in 1951. Specifically, article 2 states that genocide is any one of five acts which is committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. Let me repeat that. Specifically, article 2 states that genocide is any one of five acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. Here are the five acts, any one of which will qualify for genocide. First is the act of killing members of the group. There is no doubt that the militias in Darfur, aided by the Government of Sudan, have been killing the Black Africans of Darfur. Their scorched Earth campaign has left 30,000 dead--men, women, children. These people were killed because they were Black, while their Arab neighbors went untouched. That is the fact. Even when the people fled, the militias chased them into Chad trying to finish the job. Under this qualification alone, what is happening should be classified as ``genocide.'' The second group of actions that constitute genocide under the Convention is causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group. The militias have used rape as a weapon, killed children in front of the parents, killed parents in front of the children, made husbands stand by while their wives are raped and killed, and have done all of this because their victims are Black. An Amnesty International report stated: The long-term effects of these crimes can be seen in countries like Rwanda where many women and children remain traumatized. In the same way, the people of Darfur will remain traumatized for years to come, and this is what the militias want. The militias want to make sure that the Black Africans they do not kill are broken by the atrocities they have witnessed and suffered through. Let me turn to the third measure. The third way to commit genocide is to deliberately inflict on a group conditions of life calculated to bring about a group's physical destruction in whole or in part. The numbers in Darfur are appalling and clearly makes a case that this provision is satisfied. Over 1 million people--1 million people--have been driven from their homes, over 400 villages have been destroyed, wells have been poisoned, crops have been destroyed, and granaries and herds have been looted. The militias and Government have done everything possible to ensure that the Black Africans of Darfur cannot survive even if they escape the initial killings. There is nothing left for them. Their herds are gone. Their crops are gone. What is worse is the Government militias are also now blocking humanitarian aid. These tactics, in the face of the worst humanitarian crisis in the world, can be for no other purpose than to ensure that those who escape the killing now die along the way or die in camps. The militias have turned the camps into prisons, killing those who leave in search of firewood and food. This campaign is, obviously, not just about driving these people off the land; it is about destroying the Black African groups, and that, I say to my colleagues, is what is genocide. That is genocide. The final two acts that qualify as genocide are imposing measures intended to prevent births within a group and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. We have reports that children have been abducted and that women are being raped by Arab men to ``make a light baby.'' In these societies, a child adopts the father's ethnic background, and by raping all of these women with the purpose of making lighter children, they are effectively meeting the fourth and fifth criteria for genocide in the Convention. Specifically on the fifth criteria for genocide, forcibly transferring children from one group to another group, I want to share with my colleagues in the Senate the story of a woman named Mecca. She was killed by the militias when she tried to stop them from taking her 3-year-old son. I am sure there are countless others who were killed trying to save their children, as any parent would. For these parents, for the children who have been abducted, for the girls and women who have been raped, for the people dying right now, I ask this body, I plead with this body to support using the term ``genocide'' because that is what it is. Although we can make a case that all five of these provisions have been met, the Convention is very specific. The Convention states that any one of these actions constitutes genocide. The fact that we have evidence to support all five qualifying categories only makes the decision to call this genocide that much easier. The question remains, though, if we call it genocide, what does that mean? What is the significance? Maybe when we know the answer, that will tell us why sometimes some people in the international community may be a little reluctant to call it genocide. The answer to the question once again is right in the convention, both in its title and in its articles. The document is called the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It is called that for a good reason. We need to make sure that the crimes being committed in Darfur are both prevented and punished. To prevent these crimes, the Government of Sudan and the militias need to be forced to end their reign of terror. We have tried to use diplomatic pressure to get them to start. The U.N. Secretary General and our own Secretary of State Colin Powell both went to the region to plead with the Government to stop the atrocities. The U.N. even submitted a draft U.N. Security Council resolution including targeted sanctions on the militias and an option for sanctions on the Sudanese Government if they did not keep their promises to rein in the militias. All of this, and yet, as Secretary Powell has said, the Government of Sudan is still not keeping their promises. The atrocities continue. That means to prevent genocide, we will need more than promises and high-level visits. Quite frankly and bluntly, we need troops on the ground. The African Union is going to send 300 peacekeepers, but we all know that is not enough for a region that is the size of Texas. We need more countries to commit troops, and we, the U.S. Government, need to be prepared to fund and assist these troops in reaching the region and protecting the civilian population of Darfur. The second major responsibility we have under the convention is to ensure that the crime of genocide is punished. The Government of Sudan must try those individuals suspected of committing these atrocities, and if they are found guilty, they must punish them. This includes vetting the ranks of the military to ensure that no further militia members find refuge there. It also means not just rounding up a few low-level members of the militias and punishing them. That is not enough. In addition, the international community will not accept show trials and, if necessary, an international tribunal should be convened to ensure that justice is served in Darfur. Justice also must be blind to the position held by those responsible for genocide. If any public officials in Sudan are guilty of genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, an attempt to commit genocide, or complicity in genocide, they must be held just as accountable as the militia members themselves. It does no one any good to wait until after the fact to call this genocide. Let's not wait 6 months. Let's not wait a year. Let's not wait 5 years. That is what happened in Rwanda. We cannot afford to let that mistake happen again. That is why I have been calling this genocide, because it is. We must call this genocide. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Biden and myself in calling this genocide. I urge my colleagues to speak out. My colleagues, Senator McCain, Senator Brownback, and others, have been on the floor of the Senate speaking about this issue. Senator Biden and I have a bill. I urge my colleagues to come forward and cosponsor and help us pass this bill. I also urge my colleagues to come forward and help us pass Senator Brownback's resolution condemning this as well. This is something that needs to be done. This Senate needs to speak out. This country needs to take action. The international community needs to take action. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to honor and remember a young man from Somerset, OH. I rise to honor Gavin Neighbor, a soldier who gave the last full measure of devotion to our Nation on June 10, 2003. On that date, Gavin was killed by a rocket-propelled grenade while serving in Iraq as part of Company C, 3rd Battalion, 325th Infantry Regiment, of the 82nd Airborne Division. At the time of his death, Gavin Neighbor was 20 years old. When Gavin Neighbor was killed, Marisa Porto, who at the time was a journalist with the Zanesville Times Recorder, had a very difficult time writing about Gavin. She struggled to write about his life and his death because she said she knew she had to balance the reporting of the news with the personal connection she felt knowing that someone so young from her own community had just been killed. She managed, though, to find the right words and wrote the following: My thoughts [are] simple. Gavin Neighbor's family won't get the chance to see his wedding announcement in his newspaper. They won't ever have the opportunity to see his son's birth announced in this newspaper. These next few days may be the last time his name is ever published in this newspaper. . . . So, let's give him the homecoming he deserves. Mr. President, Members of the Senate, since his death, I have learned that Gavin Neighbor, in his all-too-brief 20 years on this Earth, did, in fact, live life fully. He was an outgoing, determined young man, who felt great love and affection for his family, for his fiancee, his friends, and his country. Gavin was born in Newark, OH, on November 25, 1982. He graduated from New Lexington High School in 2001, where high school friends described him as dependable and fun loving. Gavin was a gifted artist. He had a signature piece: a drawing of a dragon. His friends say he would draw that dragon anywhere, anytime. He loved to draw, and he was good at it. According to his high school art teacher, Jody Bowen: Gavin would work on projects on the side, after his classwork was done. I saw something more in him. . . . He certainly impacted my life. I feel fortunate I met him and got to know him. Equal in his devotion to art, Gavin was committed to serving his country and making his family proud. Gavin had a strong sense of duty and a strong sense of family. He was always trying to take care of others and protect others. That is part of what compelled him to join the military. He wanted to follow in the footsteps of several relatives. Like them, he wanted to protect his family and his friends and his country. So after his high school graduation in 2001, Gavin enlisted in the U.S. Army. According to Gavin's grandmother, Gladys Hykes: He was wonderful. He loved the service. That was his goal. Gavin planned to make a career for himself in the military, aspiring to join an elite Ranger battalion. He was well on his way toward achieving that dream. Gavin earned his paratrooper wings and was known for performing, with ease, some of the most difficult airplane jumps. Known as a ``Javelin Jumper,'' he would jump from planes while carrying part of an antitank missile system strapped to his leg. Upon receiving an award of recognition for this accomplishment, Gavin dedicated it to his parents and had his thanks to them engraved on the plaque. Gavin loved his family very much. He had an especially strong bond with his mother Cathy. Oh, he loved her cooking. He loved to spend time with her. He wrote and called home often, and when he did he had simple requests. According to his mom, Cathy: I kept sending him letters and boxes. He wanted Kool-Aid and chips. And Copenhagen. He wanted Copenhagen. I didn't want to send it, but I did. Gavin called home on February 13, 2003, to say his unit was leaving on Valentine's Day for Iraq. Soldiers only had an hour for family visits. Cathy and her husband Willie drove more than nine hours to visit one last time with Gavin. As Cathy said: All I knew was that I had to get there. I had to be there to hug him. Many of his fellow comrades have said that Gavin Neighbor was the kind of soldier you wanted by your side--any time, any place. He was dependable. He was tough. He was a real leader. Gavin was also known for his ability to make light of serious situations--an admirable quality in the face of war. While training in California, to humor his comrades, he would walk around flapping his arms like a chicken and then claim to be a dinosaur. During a punishing mountain hike, Gavin lightheartedly asked his leader, ``Are we there yet? Are we there yet?'' The other members of the platoon could not help but smile. As Sergeant Arthur Swartz said at Gavin's memorial service: When we were at our lowest, Gavin could turn the whole platoon around just by making a joke or saying something funny. . . . He was definitely the best, youngest soldier in my platoon. Gavin's unique sense of humor did not cloak the fact that he was also a very hard worker and a very independent young man. Captain Todd Hollins, a chaplain with the 82nd Airborne Division, said that when he thinks of Gavin: I see a young man who chose to walk the road less traveled--a man who gave 100 percent, all the way, all the time. . . . I see a young man, one who cared about others more than himself, a man with a zest for life, who was willing to face his fears. . . . I see a volunteer, a bold spirit. I see a young man who was genuine in all regards. Gavin Neighbor's dependability, commitment, and fun-loving attitude will never be forgotten. His life is an example for us all. Left to cherish his memory are his parents; his sisters, Roxanne Lewis and Tracy Neighbor; brother Willie Neighbor, Jr.; and Gavin's special friend--his fiance, his soulmate--Rachel Sanderson. Gavin Neighbor was just a good kid, who died too young. I think that Brigadier General Abe Turner, assistant division commander of operations with the 82nd Airborne, said it best: He quickly became a very important part of our band of brothers. We asked him if he'd be willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice, and he did. . . . He was our hero.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am very pleased we are moving forward today with passage of the Haiti Economic Recovery Opportunity Act. Congressman Clay Shaw in the House and I have been working on Haiti trade legislation for some time. I thank Congressman Shaw for his support. I also want to give my sincere thanks to Senators Lindsey Graham and Ernest Hollings. Without their help and support we would not have been successful in our efforts today. Let me take a moment to mention all of our cosponsors as well: Senators Biden, Breaux, Chafee, Coleman, Daschle, Dodd, Durbin, Bob Graham, Hagel, Jeffords, Lautenberg, Lieberman, Lugar, Bill Nelson, Gordon Smith, Sununu, and Voinovich. I thank them for their support and their efforts in getting this bill passed. This bill can really change things for Haiti. Once it is signed into law, it will make a very real, very lasting difference in a country that is the poorest in our hemisphere--and one that has an 80-plus percent unemployment rate and a less than $400 per capita income for individuals. This bill is going to use trade incentives to encourage the post- Aristide government to make much needed reforms, while encouraging foreign direct investment--the most powerful, and yet underutilized, tool of development. This bill, quite simply, will create thousands of jobs--one of the most important things for the Haitian people right now. The people of Haiti want to work. They are good workers--they are hard workers. They are industrious. This bill is going to give them the chance to have jobs. It is going to give them a chance at economic recovery through economic opportunity. In the last decade, Haiti has gone from over 100,000 assembly jobs to less than 30,000 today. Our bill helps create jobs by providing duty-free entry to apparel articles assembled in Haiti contingent upon Presidential certification that the new government is making significant political, economic, and social reforms. The bill also caps the amount of duty-free articles at 1.5 percent of the total amount of U.S. apparel imports, growing to 3.5 percent over 7 years. Currently, Haiti accounts for less than .5 percent of all U.S. apparel imports, and although these provisions seem modest by U.S. standards, in Haiti they are substantial. This bill is not the ``silver bullet'' for Haiti, because there is no silver bullet for Haiti. Rebuilding Haiti is going to require time, attention, and determination on the part of the people of Haiti, the countries in the region, and ultimately the entire international community. But, passage of the Haiti Economic Recovery Opportunity Act is a powerful indicator that Haiti has the support necessary to move forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I yield to my colleague from Massachusetts.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his eloquent statement. There are still some who question whether the tobacco industry is targeting young people. If anybody doubts that, I refer them to what the tobacco industry is continuing to do as far as advertising. Sports Illustrated is read by adults, but it is certainly read by kids, anybody who has a teenager who is interested in sports. And you don't have to be a teenager. Kids start reading Sports Illustrated when they are 9, 10 years old. I did. When you look at some of the advertising in Sports Illustrated, it is absolutely, unbelievably focused on kids. Here is an example. This is Sports Illustrated, 2002 NFL preview. Look at the back. An awful lot of kids are going to see that. Here is advertising for smokeless tobacco. Just take a look at that. ``Where's the chicks? Intense premium tobacco taste, Rooster, icy minute, the bold one.'' If that isn't targeted to kids, teenagers, I don't know what is. The next one, if that is not targeted to young kids, I don't know what is. I suppose it is targeted to someone 22, 23, but it is also targeted to someone 16. We know where they are going and what they are doing. Let me get back to some of the editorials. The Hartford Courant said it very well on June 14: Four decades ago the Government linked smoking to lung cancer and urged Americans to kick the habit. Now the Surgeon General Richard Carmona says the impact on health is ``even worse than we knew'' and has added nine diseases to a growing list conclusively linked to cigarettes. The latest includes leukemia, cataracts, pneumonia and cancers of the cervix, kidney, pancreas, and stomach. Although many people have quit, smoking remains the leading contributor of death in America, killing 440,000 people each year. Smokers typically die 13 to 14 years younger than do nonsmokers. With 2 percent of adults smoking, the rate is declining so slowly that the Government concedes it will not meet its goal of 12 percent by 2010. The Surgeon General's sobering report ought to stir Members of Congress to take up legislation to give the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate tobacco. A proposed bill would let the FDA prohibit the marketing of tobacco to minors, require stronger warning labels, a listing of ingredients on packages, and limit the use of harmful chemicals in the product. That was from the Hartford Courant. An editorial from the Columbus Dispatch, May 30: Congress needs to grant FDA the power to regulate big tobacco. Because of its long history of reckless disregard for the truth, the tobacco industry is in dire need of strong Federal regulation. The latest demonstration of industry irresponsibility is the introduction of cigarettes in flavors such as mandarin mint and mocha taboo. Such cigarettes would seem to be a violation of the multibillion-dollar 1998 tobacco settlement which was supposed to prohibit tobacco companies from marketing to minors. This isn't the first time the tobacco companies have blown smoke in the face of the tobacco settlement. A study in the New England Journal of Medicine reported in August 2001 that tobacco companies spent more on advertising in youth-oriented magazines in the 2 years after the agreement was signed than they did in the year it was signed. Let's not forget the years of lies spewed by the tobacco companies as they claimed cigarettes posed little or no danger to smokers, all the while knowing the deadly truth. Congress needs to pass it. Then the FDA needs to take aggressive action. The tobacco companies have operated for far too long with inadequate oversight, leaving death in their wake. It is time for Congress to stand up for the people and grant the FDA the power to crack down on this irresponsible industry. So said the Columbus Dispatch on May 30 of this year. The Hartford Courant again, another editorial, January 26, 2004: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulates food, drugs and medical devices, but it has no authority over tobacco products which annually are linked to millions of deaths. When he was FDA commissioner in 1994, David Kessler proposed regulation of cigarettes, but the Supreme Court nixed the idea, saying only Congress could give the agency such power. Giving the FDA oversight of a product that is detrimental to public health seems like a matter of common sense. Congress, however, hasn't seen it that way. The FDA has long performed a critical service by testing and regulating consumer products to ensure safety. That authority should extend to tobacco. Another editorial, this one from the Akron Beacon Journal, dated June 28 of this year: The Federal Food and Drug Administration can make manufacturers disclose what goes into your bottled water, foods and medications. [But] it can't make tobacco companies reveal what goes into their cigarettes and other tobacco products. The agency can demand that drug companies support with research the health claims they make for their products. [But] not so with tobacco companies. Tobacco products were identified as leading causes of cancers, heart disease, and other serious ailments decades ago. They account for billions of dollars in health care costs and are a factor in the deaths of several hundred thousand people every year. It is long past time to put the products under regulations at least as strict as those for ice cream. The Akron Beacon Journal continues: It has been four years since the U.S. Supreme Court told the Food and Drug Administration and its commissioner at the time, David Kessler, that Congress had not given the authority to regulate tobacco products. Congress has an opportunity to fill the void through bipartisan bills recently introduced in the Senate by Ohio's Mike DeWine, a Republican, and Democrat Edward Kennedy, and in the House by Tom Davis, a Virginia Republican, and Henry Waxman, a Democrat from California. This legislation would grant the FDA the necessary authority, none too soon, to protect the public health and guard children, in particular, against addictive and risky tobacco use. Among other provisions, the legislation would give the FDA approval authority over all new tobacco products entering the market, bar the use in tobacco products of flavors that are enticing to children, and restrict advertising and promotions that target children. It also would require companies to provide research information for claims on reduced-risk products and to submit a list of product contents and components, including the paper and filters. This is an editorial from the Akron Beacon Journal, June 28, 2004. Mr. President, we are getting close to the end of this debate. I say to any of my colleagues who have any desire to come to the floor of the Senate and argue in favor of this amendment or come to the floor and argue in opposition to the amendment, we are getting close to closing out this debate. I invite them to come to the Senate floor. We are getting very close to coming to the end of the debate. Now would be the appropriate time to come to the floor. At this point, I yield to my colleague, Senator Lautenberg.

Mr. DeWINE. I thank my colleague for the question. I am looking at the same language. He read it correctly. It is directly in the amendment. It was originally in the bill that my colleague from Massachusetts and I wrote and introduced. I have penciled in here ``FDA can't go on the farm,'' which is a shorthand version of what he said. But actually it goes further than that. It is not just on the farm but it is basically any kind of FDA interference in this area. In earlier versions, years ago, the bill may have given my colleague from Kentucky something to worry about but this version clearly makes it abundantly clear the FDA cannot do this. I am glad my colleague has pointed this out. I have other editorials I can read but I see my colleague from Illinois is in the Chamber. If he is ready to speak, I am more than happy to yield him time.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank all the cosponsors of this amendment for their good work. Senator Hollings has done an excellent job. I congratulate him, as well as the other cosponsors. I thank my colleague, Senator Lautenberg, for his very eloquent remarks. He and I have worked on issues that affect public safety. He has been a leader in highway safety. He and I have been on this floor together and have worked on legislation that we hope has saved the lives of children. He has been a good partner. I appreciate his comments again today. It is good to be working with him again.

Mr. DeWINE. I inquire of the Chair how much time remains.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 15, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., in closed session to receive a briefing regarding ICRC reports on U.S. military detainee operations in Iraq.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 15, 2004, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, we regulate every product that is consumed in this country today. We put the contents of that product on the label--every product except tobacco. It makes absolutely no sense. This is a very modest bill, a very modest proposal, that gives the FDA the authority to regulate tobacco. I point out to my colleague, it does not give the FDA the authority to ban tobacco. It does not give the FDA the authority to do that at all. It is a modest compromise, but it will save lives. It makes sense. One of the biggest health problems we have in this country today is underage smoking. We know if we can get a child at 19 or 20 and he or she does not start smoking by then, they probably will never start smoking. This bill allows us to get at advertising targeted at young people, which is a major problem today. I yield the remainder of my time to my colleague from Massachusetts.

Mr. DeWINE. We yield back our time.

Mr. DeWINE. How much time remains?

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of the floor be granted to my assistant Dara Pittard for the duration of the debate of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.