Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Monday, February 9, 2004, at 10 a.m. for a hearing regarding the Department of Homeland Security's budget submission for fiscal year 2005.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to thank the leaders of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member Jeffords, as well as Senators Bond and Reid, for all the hard work they put in to produce this transportation bill. This is really a transportation bill that does a number of different things, but one thing it does do is stress the importance of safety programs. The bill before us today is a revolutionary bill. It is known as SAFETEA. That is what we are calling it. In many respects it certainly deserves this title. I salute my two colleagues, whom I see on the floor, and thank them for their fine work in this area. A strong emphasis on safety programs is vital because in the year 2002, the last year for which we have complete records, over 42,000 of our fellow citizens--in fact, the exact number is 42,815--were lost in this country. That is how many fellow citizens were killed in auto fatalities. The No. 1 killer of Americans between the ages of 4 and 34 in this country is auto fatalities. That is an amazing thing when you think about it. Think about all the other diseases and problems there are in this country, whether it be cancer, all the other things someone could die from, but the No. 1 killer of our young people today is auto fatalities. If you look at the age group of 16, 17, 18, 19, the figures go off the charts for that age group. That is what is killing our young people today--automobiles. In the next 12 minutes, to be precise, at least 1 person will be killed in an automobile accident in this country, while nearly 6 people will be injured in just the next 60 seconds. Tragically, within the last 2 weeks, in my home State of Ohio, two of our soldiers were killed in automobile accidents, one of whom was just back from Iraq on a 2- week pass. Sadly, though, it seems these deaths are something we as a society take for granted. We tolerate it. We put up with it. Frankly, we don't pay much attention to it. How many times every night when we turn on the news do we hear about someone being killed? Unless they are from our local community, unless we know them, we don't think a thing about it. We tolerate it. If a foreign enemy were doing this to us, we would not tolerate it. We would be up in arms. Someone has said these automobile deaths are the equivalent of a 747 going down every 2 days in this country. If that were happening, it would, of course, be on CNN. It would be breaking news. We would be literally up in arms. We would be demanding the President of the United States and this Congress do something about it. Yet these auto fatalities that occur hour by hour, day by day, minute by minute, go on and on and for some reason we have become immune to it, hardened to it, really. Tragically these deaths just continue. That is why I am so pleased the bill before us does go a long way to help to address several safety concerns that can make a difference and can save lives on our roads. The EPW Committee leaders deserve praise for elevating safety programs to core status among highway programs. In the past, safety programs were of a derivative nature, drawing their funding as a percentage of one of the core programs. This framework enabled some States to overlook safety and focus funding and efforts on other areas. With the new core designation, safety will take its proper place at center stage. The EPW Committee leadership deserves praise for taking this quantum leap forward. Let me again thank Senators Inhofe, Jeffords, Bond, and Reid for making their staffs available this weekend for work on my amendments. I am pleased with the progress that has been made so far, trying to work on these amendments. One of my amendments has already been accepted. I thank them for that. That amendment has been integrated into the proposed managers' package. I have another amendment relating to traffic signals that I believe we will have cleared in the near future. I wish this afternoon to take a few minutes to share with the Members of the Senate what these amendments will do, because I believe they will help put us even further down the field in terms of saving lives and promoting greater emphasis on safety. I have further additional safety-related amendments I will be offering to the Commerce Committee portion of the highway bill, and I will be offering those in a future speech when we get to that section of the bill, we hope later in the week. I thank Senator McCain for his leadership. I look forward to working with him and the Commerce Committee on that section of the bill. The first amendment the EPW Committee has accepted contains two parts. First, it would require the States to identify and rank and disclose their most dangerous intersections. That might not sound like a revolutionary thing to do, but not every State is doing that now. It is the right thing to do: to rank them, to identify them, and then to make that information public so the consumers, the citizens will know what that information is and will then be able to act upon it. A second part of our amendment we are still negotiating with the leadership would increase the timely and efficient expenditure of Federal safety dollars by the States. Let me first talk about the dangerous roads and intersections amendment. The Environment and Public Works Committee bill focuses some resources on these problem areas and this amendment builds on the committee's fine efforts. Most States, fortunately, do take steps to identify and track the dangerous roads and intersections. They keep a list of the bad ones, the ones with high fatalities and high accident rates. But, amazingly, there are many States that keep this information secret and do not tell the public or, in some cases, do not even keep this information at all. My amendment is very simple. It requires States to systematically rank and disclose their most dangerous roads and intersections. It requires them to do so in terms of dangers to human beings, in other words, in terms of the number of deaths and the number of injuries that occur on these specific roads. Further, my language asks the States to disclose at least the top 5 percent of the most dangerous roads and intersections in their States, and that they identify to the Secretary of Transportation this information and therefore ultimately to the driving public. We need to get information on dangerous roads and intersections out to the public and to the people we are charged to protect. My amendment would help assure that this in fact happens. Consumers have a right to know this information. As a parent, I might tell my 16-year-old or 17-year-old not to go a certain way to a movie. Don't go on that dangerous intersection. Don't go by that dangerous curve. At least, if I had that information, I could make an intelligent decision about it. It is wrong for a State department of transportation to have that information and to deny me, as a citizen of that State, that same information. I should be able to tell my child, ``Don't go that way. It may take another 10 or 15 minutes, but go a different way--be safe.'' I would like to briefly tell my colleagues about a woman by the name of Sandy Johnson and her mother Jacqueline. On October 5, 2002, Sandy and Jacqueline were killed. They were killed in a car crash at a dangerous intersection near Columbus, OH. What they did not know as they drove into that intersection--and what countless other area residents who used the roads that cross through it did not know at the time--was this particular intersection was known at that time by the State department of transportation to be a very dangerous area. In fact, the State department of transportation had indeed known that information for quite some time. Perhaps if Sandy Johnson had known that she would have taken a different route that day. We will never know. Perhaps she might have slowed down to see traffic coming from the other direction. Tragically, we simply will never know. This particular intersection was dangerous because of the close proximity of a house to the intersection, making it difficult for drivers coming from each direction to see those approaching from the other way. The fix to this problem, the installation of four-way stop signs and ultimately removal of a house to improve sight lines, took quite some time to be implemented. But eventually, these steps were in fact taken. Following the tragic death of his wife and his mother-in-law, Dean Johnson initiated a campaign to tackle the issue of dangerous roads and dangerous intersections, not just in Ohio but across the country. He has tried with varying results from State to State to get information on dangerous roads and intersection locations out to the public so tragedies like the one involving his wife could be prevented. Today on the Senate floor, I thank Dean Johnson for his dedication to this very important public safety issue and for the progress he has made in my home State of Ohio and elsewhere in terms of getting critical lifesaving information out to citizens through the Sandy Johnson Foundation. I must say to him that his work is a real tribute to his love for his wife and for her memory. Clearly, tragedies like the one involving Sandy Johnson can be prevented in many cases through means as simple and as inexpensive as disclosure to the public of what State departments of transportation already know--the disclosure of where the dangerous roads and intersections are located. The States should provide this information. They already know it. They simply should provide it. The second part of our amendment focuses on how States spend their safety money. In this respect, my staff is working with the committee to develop additional mechanisms for the timely and efficient expenditure of Federal safety dollars. In the past, there have been problems with getting States to spend their safety money on safety. The EPW Committee bill goes a long way towards helping ensure those safety dollars do in fact get spent on safety. My efforts in this area are aimed at further strengthening this portion of the bill. It is simply so very important that these dollars be spent on safety--to straighten the road that is killing people or to change a dangerous intersection. This money can be very well spent and should be spent on things that will save lives. It is very cost effective. Let me talk about another amendment. My staff and I are continuing to work with the managers and their staff on accepting the second amendment that has to do with keeping our intersections safe with regard to the safety of first responders as they engage in their daily work. This amendment is derived from legislation I introduced last year called the Safe Intersections Act of 2003, S. 1825. This amendment would prohibit the unauthorized sale or possession of traffic signal preempting devices, commonly known as MIRTs. This type of device is a remote control for changing traffic signals. Members of the Senate may have read about these. They have been used for years by ambulances, police cars, and firetrucks, allowing them to reach emergencies faster. As an ambulance approaches the intersection where the light is red, the driver engages a transmitter. That transmitter then sends a signal to a receiver on the traffic light which changes the light from red to green within a few seconds. It is a very useful tool when properly used in emergency situations by someone in an emergency vehicle. In a 2002 survey, the U.S. Department of Transportation found that in the top 78 metropolitan areas, there are 24,683 traffic lights equipped with these sensors--in other words, equipped with sensors that can be triggered by emergency vehicles. In my own home State of Ohio, there is a joint pilot project underway by the Washington Township Fire Department and the Dublin Police Department to install these devices. Other areas in Ohio where they are in use include Mentor, Twinsburg, Willoughy, and Westerville. In Ohio and across the country, law enforcement offices, fire departments, and paramedics are investing in this technology to make their communities safer. So what is the problem? Recently, it has come to light that this technology is being sold to unauthorized individuals--who use this technology in their own private cars and private vehicles to bypass red lights during their commute to and from work or just in their everyday driving. Clearly, preemptive devices were never intended for this type of use. This technology in the hands of unauthorized users could result in traffic problems such as gridlock or, much worse, accidents in which people are injured or killed. We know of at least one incident in Modesto, CA, where paramedics on an emergency run used a preemptive device to clear the way through a busy intersection only to see the light change back to red in their direction due to use of a MIRT by a nearby driver. My amendment is simple. It would restrict the sale of preemptive devices to government-authorized users such as ambulance drivers, firetruck drivers, and police. Clearly, these devices should not be available to casual drivers wishing to make a total end run on civil order by changing traffic signals to make their commute a little bit shorter. It is a very simple amendment. The two amendments I am offering will go a long way towards improving transportation safety. They are commonsense, they are practical, and they will in fact make a difference. These efforts are a continuation of my work in this area--something I have been interested in for many years, going back to a time in the early 1980s when I was in the Ohio State Senate. A little boy named Justin--I think Justin was 7--was killed right outside his school in my home county of Greene County. We decided at that time that Justin had been killed by a driver who had been drinking, a driver who had a very bad previous record of drinking and driving. We decided, frankly, we had had enough of this and we had to do something about it. I introduced a very tough drunk driving billing in Ohio. I researched the law and saw what other States and foreign countries had been doing. Ultimately, the bill became Ohio's tough drunk-driving law. I have been interested in highway safety issues ever since. I have worked in the Congress with many of my colleagues. I have worked in the State Senate. I saw this firsthand when I was county prosecutor. I used to go into county courts and prosecute drunk drivers. I saw the carnage and horrible tragedy drunk drivers cause. I have been interested in highway safety issues for many years. I know many of my colleagues are as well. I again thank Senator Inhofe for his great work in this area to make this a very strong highway safety bill. It has some very strong highway safety components. I think the amendments I have talked about today will go a long way to help make this an even better bill in regard to highway safety. I will be back on the floor later this week as the bill continues to progress with some additional amendments in regard to highway safety. I will be talking more about them. I thank my colleague for his great work on this bill, and Senator Jeffords, as well, for his great work. I yield the floor.

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. President, 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. President, 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 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. I thank the Chair.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, on Monday the Senate will resume debate on H.R. 3108, the pension bill. While there will be no rollcall votes on Monday, Senators will have the opportunity to offer and debate their amendments. It is the leader's intention to complete action on this legislation early next week. Therefore, Members are encouraged to make themselves available during Monday's session to offer their amendments. Any votes ordered with respect to the pension bill will be stacked to occur on Tuesday.

Mr. DeWINE. We certainly hope to make that information available to the leaders as soon as possible.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, the No. 1 killer of those between the age of 4 and 34 in this country today is auto fatalities. If you look at those between the age of, say, 16 and 25, the figures are even more exaggerated. We all know that in this country over 42,000 Americans lose their lives every year. That figure stays fairly constant. The last year we have figures for is 2002, and 42,815 of our fellow citizens lost their lives. In fact, in the next 12 minutes, to be precise, at least one person will be killed in an automobile accident in this country, while nearly six people will be injured in just the next 60 seconds. This is a tragedy that we as a society are much too willing to tolerate. If a foreign enemy were doing this to us, we would not tolerate it. We would be up in arms. Someone said it is the equivalent of a 747 going down every 2 days in this country. If that were happening, of course, it would be on CNN; we would be demanding an explanation. Yet these auto fatalities that occur, hour by hour, day by day, just go on and for some reason we have become immune to it, hardened to it. They just continue. I come to the floor this morning to discuss five bills, five bills that my staff and I have been working on for about the last year, five bills that I will be introducing but that I hope will be incorporated in the highway safety bill we will be considering in the next several weeks. These bills are commonsense, practical ways to save lives. Each bill is built on solid evidence of what will, in fact, make a difference. They don't cost a lot. It is a commonsense, good way to make a difference. I guarantee you one thing. If we pass them, they will save a lot of lives. The first bill we call ``Stars on Cars.'' It is kind of a cute name. It is kind of basic stuff. When you go buy a new car, we all know what the sticker looks like. But what we may not know is most of the sticker is mandated by the Federal Government. The mileage per gallon has been on there for a number of years. The Federal Government says that your city mileage has to be on there and what you are going to get on the highway when you take it out on the highway. It has to tell you whether it has air- conditioning. It has to tell you whether it has a stereo. It has to tell you a whole bunch of other stuff. One piece of information is not on there--highway safety. The funny thing is you have already paid to have the Federal Government spend millions of dollars to test that very car. The Federal Government knows information about that car. In fact, the Federal Government has put that information up on the Internet. When you go in to buy that car, that information is not available to you. It is not available to the American consumer in the one place where it would make a difference--where you buy the car. This is a mockup. We simply show how it would work under our bill. It wouldn't cost the taxpayers a dime. The car companies are already printing the stickers. Where are they doing the tests? All we do is put the information here. Under this mockup, this is a Silverado pickup. We would add what is below my hand: ``Government Safety Information.'' For this particular pickup, on frontal impact crash data, this is what it would show. This is true information. For the driver side, here is what the Government says. Out of five stars, this particular vehicle got three out of five. For the passenger side, it got four stars out of five. Over here on the side impact crash test, it was not tested. Over here on the rear seat, it was not tested either. On the rollover resistance test that particular vehicle was not tested. If it was tested, it would be there. If it was not tested, it wouldn't be there. In the year 2000, that particular vehicle was not tested. But most of the common cars you and I and the average American would buy have, in fact, been tested. All of that data on the frontal impact crash test, the side impact crash test, and the rollover resistance test would be there. We would have it based on the star. It is really easy to understand. That data would be there. It is already on the Internet. Now it would be available if you go look and compare. What impact would this have? I happen to believe the consumer is better off with more information than less information on whatever we are talking about. The consumer ought to know what the Government does. The consumer ought to know that type of information. I think the consumer would make better choices. Most consumers care about safety. They will make better choices, and in all likelihood, they are going to choose more safe vehicles and more lives will, in fact, be saved. It just makes good common sense to do this. The second bill we call ``Safe Kids, Safe Cars.'' Cars kill kids at unbelievable rates. This is the top 10 leading cause of death in the United States for the year 2001 by age group, ranked 1 through 10 for the leading cause of death. In the orange is traffic crashes as a cause of death. Starting over here, you see ages 1 through 3, 4 through 7, and 8 through 15. When you start over here and pick up at age 4 through 7, and moving on clear over here to age 34, the leading cause of death is traffic crashes, traffic crashes, traffic crashes, traffic crashes--all of these age groups all the way from 4 through 34. That is what is killing the young people--more than cancer, more than homicide, more than fire, more than drowning, more than anything else. So we have a problem. Anything we can do to make a car safer for our kids, we should be doing it. We know a lot of kids and a lot of adults are killed when cars roll over. The Government is doing tests to see how likely a vehicle is to roll over. But it might come as a surprise to my colleagues and to the public to know that the Government is not doing any testing today to determine what happens inside the vehicle once the car begins to roll over. We test to see if it is going to roll over. What we don't test to see is what happens when it starts to roll over and when it does roll over. Our bill provides for the use of child-size dummies and the use of adult dummies to see what impact that rollover has on them. What are you going to do if you get that information? It is going to tell us, I assume, how well those airbags in that particular vehicle deploy, how well they protect the adult, and how well they protect the child. It may be different. How well is the structure of that vehicle put together for a rollover? Does it crush on the side of the child or the adult? How well was the structure built? We don't know. We don't know it because we are not testing for it today. Our bill provides that we do that. Child-size dummies--NHTSA needs to look at its testing and ask where we need to use them. My bill says they need to incorporate these child dummies. We are doing so to improve safety for children. Another area where kids are dying in cars is power windows. NHTSA started a rulemaking to require child-safe window switches in 1996. That is when this Federal agency started making the rulemaking procedure. That rulemaking procedure is not done yet. They have not finalized the rule. My bill tells NHTSA to finish the rulemaking process, and it requires car makers to install switches to protect kids from getting caught in power windows by making switches harder to switch inadvertently. Some car makers are already doing this. This can be done very cheaply. Companies are doing this already. Every company needs to do it. This is not an expensive proposition. There are good switches and there are bad switches. Every company needs to have the good switches. Twenty-five children have died that we know of in the last 10 years because they have been choked to death in cars. At least 25 we know about. At least 500 people go to emergency rooms each year as a result of power window accidents. NHTSA tells us the power switches cost virtually nothing, very little. A third bill has to do with another problem; that is, dangerous road intersections. Every State has them. Most States, fortunately, rank these roads. They keep a list of the bad ones. But, amazingly, there are many States that keep this information secret and don't tell the public. Again, consumers have a right to know this information. What would you do with the information? As a parent, I might tell my 16-year-old not to go that way to the movie. At least I have the right to have that information and saying go another way. It might take another 10 minutes, but go that way. Don't go by that intersection. Don't go on that curvy road. States already have that information. The State should provide that information. They already know it, they should provide it. Policymakers need to know that to make decisions about how to spend money in that State, what roads to fix. Further, States need to spend their safety money. They need to spend their safety money on safety. Our bill says they should do that and it requires them to do it. Current law allows States to shortchange safety programs or to do other things--highway construction. I understand that, but that should not occur. Safety programs pay for new left turn lanes, lane markings, other improvements, lifesaving improvements, straightening roads, straightening highways, doing some relatively small things that will, in fact, save lives. The percentage of money earmarked, set aside for safety as it comes through the highway construction bill should be spent for those safety items. We are not talking about soft safety programs; we are talking about hard construction dollars. They are still construction dollars. They will still be used for construction. They will still be used to make things happen. They should be used for safety. The fourth bill I am introducing has to do with driver education. This is a neglected area. Again, look at our chart. These are the kids who are dying, the new drivers. It is natural; they are the inexperienced drivers. We need to try to attack this in many different ways. One way we can do it is through driver education. It is a problem. I have looked at it in my home State. I have looked at it in other States. Driver education, at best, is mediocre in this country. The Federal Government cannot run it. It is a State responsibility. But the Federal Government can play a small role. My bill follows the Natural Transportation Safety Board's lead and recommendation and establishes the National Office of Driver Training within the Department of Transportation, NHTSA. This office would work to establish and maintain a set of best practices--not mandates, not national standards but just best practices--for driver education and licensing and also would provide assistance to States that implement these best practices. My bill authorizes a modest amount of money, $20 to $30 million annually to assist States with making their driver education and licensing programs better. Our bill also deals with a graduated driver's license and raises the bar for a Federal program to give money to States for having graduated driver's licenses and laws. One of the good things we have seen in the last few years is the graduated driver's licensing laws that come into place in the States. Each State has done it differently. That is the improvement. What we and most experts have seen is there are some laws that are working and some laws that are not working. Again, the Federal Government cannot tell the States what to do in this area, but maybe the Federal Government can reward those States that are at the higher point, the higher bar, maybe give some encouragement in that area. Our fifth bill has to do with tires. Tires do not get better with age. The fact is, there are tires being sold in the market today that were manufactured a while ago. Tires are not like wine. They do not get better with age. We do not know for sure what the implications are of the aging of a tire, a tire that was sitting on the shelf. We do know that the tire that gets old does not get better. My bill calls for the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a scientific study into tire aging to establish exactly when and under what conditions tire age becomes a major safety problem. We know at some point it becomes a safety problem. We just do not know when and under what conditions. Currently, the date code on tire sidewalls is extremely difficult to read or decipher. There is a date there but you and I could not figure it out. The average consumer could not figure it out. What we provide is that the Department will figure out how to do this. We will not tell them how to do it. But we want the consumer to know when he or she buys a tire--at the point of sale--when that tire was manufactured. That, coupled with the information from the scientific study, will give consumers some information. Again, we will move forward in giving the consumer information about the age of the tire, knowing when it was manufactured, plus, once the study is done the consumer will know the relevance of that information. We have talked with the tire industry and worked with them. They want to know, frankly, what all the implications are for aging tires. They have worked hard to make their tires as safe as possible. They have done a lot in this area and improved the safety of their tires and have been cooperative in this, as well. These five bills will go a long way. They are common sense. They will make a difference. These bills continue my work in this area. This is something I have been interested in for many years, going back to my time in the Ohio Legislature 20 years ago when I introduced the drunk driving bill, and we were able to pass a tough drunk driving bill I wrote in the Ohio Legislature. I worked for .08. It was very controversial in the Senate, but we were able to pass .08. Senator Lautenburg and I worked on that. I support Senator Warner's bill and was a cosponsor of a bill he introduced last year that was pending in Congress with regard to including a primary seatbelt law. I support that. These bills represent a continuation of the great concern I have about highway safety. This issue is not a partisan issue; this is a bipartisan issue. Anytime you lose 42,815 Americans every year, highway safety is something we all have to be concerned about. I know the bill is not on the floor yet, but I have seen it. I have seen a draft of the safety bill that will be here, the highway bill. As currently written, the bill goes farther than any highway bill that has been before the Senate in regard to highway safety. All those who worked on the bill have put an emphasis on highway safety, and the bill as currently written makes a great effort to deal with highway safety. I congratulate the authors. Our amendments which we will have when the bill comes to the floor will improve on a good bill. I make that point very clear. My amendments are not in any way critical of that bill. In fact, I hope they will be complimentary and simply add to a good product that is already a good product and will help to improve it. I will have more to say about this as we proceed on the highway construction bill and it comes to the floor in the next few weeks.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 1 p.m., Monday, January 26. I further ask consent that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume consideration of H.R. 3108, the pension bill.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 290, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the Record remain open today until 1 p.m. to allow Senators to submit statements.

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, this afternoon I pay tribute to a dear friend and beloved Ohioan, a man who has been a great public servant for the last half century, a man who I served with in the House of Representatives for a number of years. I am talking about Representative Delbert Latta. Representative Delbert Latta devoted 30 years of distinguished service to Ohio's 5th Congressional District in the House of Representatives. In his honor, earlier this year, President George Bush signed into law a bill that renamed the Bowling Green Ohio Post Office the Delbert L. Latta Post Office Building. This is a well-deserved tribute to a man who inspires all around him to strive to be a better public servant. This afternoon I will take a few minutes to explain to my colleagues why Del is so revered by the citizens of the 5th District and all the citizens of Ohio. Del was raised in McComb, OH. He graduated from McComb High School and later worked in a shoestore and put himself through Ohio Northern University from where he received his undergraduate and then his law degree. Del practiced law in Bowling Green for several years before he successfully ran for an Ohio State Senate seat. After serving three terms in the Ohio State Senate, Del Latta decided to serve his community at the Federal level and was elected to the House of Representatives in 1958. Before retiring from the House of Representatives in 1989, constituents of Ohio's 5th District showed Del their appreciation by electing him and reelecting him 15 times. He was the dean of the Ohio Republican delegation and as dean of the delegation was deeply respected for the leadership role he played for fellow Ohio Representatives as well as for the party. He was the person to whom, frankly, we all went. I remember when I was first elected in 1982. I remember driving north to Bowling Green and going to see Del in his office and talking to him about committee assignments. I told him I wanted to be on the Judiciary Committee if that were possible. I remember Del sitting behind his desk talking to me about that and telling me he would see what he could do about it. It was not too long after that I was on the Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives. Del was the person you went to. Del was the person you went to for advice, for counsel, and to get things done. Del served as leader of the Rules Committee. Del was the ranking Republican in all the House on the Budget Committee. Del was not only recognized as a key leader of the Republican Party, he was a consensus builder who also earned the respect of Members on both sides of the aisle. The Honorable Democrat Senator and Representative Claude Pepper, of Florida, had this to say about Del: Del's conduct as a Member of the [Rules] Committee and a Member of the House has exemplified the best and noblest traditions of this House. His integrity has been exemplary. His kindliness, gentleness and graciousness of manner have endeared him to all of his colleagues. I shall always honor the service Del Latta has rendered to the Rules Committee, to the Budget Committee and the House because what he did, he did as an able, honorable patriotic American. Del Latta had a significant impact on so many pieces of legislation and events over his 30-year tenure in the House. One notable example is the leadership he demonstrated during Watergate, but perhaps he is best well-known as a champion of balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility. In 1981, Del spearheaded President Reagan's economic recovery program in the House by sponsoring and helping to pass the Gramm-Latta bill. This bill is often cited as the single most influential measure in stimulating America's economic recovery in the 1980s. Del Latta was there. Del Latta led. It was Del Latta who got it done. Expressing his admiration for Del's humility and work ethic, the Honorable Chip Pashayan, Jr., of California, said this about a dinner experience he had with Del after the passage of this momentous bill that bears Del Latta's name. No gloating, no bragging, no brandishing. To [Del] Gramm- Latta was just another bill, just another day's work for the American people. . . . As usual, we finished dinner by 8:30 or 9 p.m. because Del had to get back to his office to do some constituent work. No constituency ever had a harder working Member that I ever saw. I could not agree more. In 1982, when I first came to the House of Representatives, as I said, Del was instrumental in teaching me the ropes. What I admired most about Del was his ability to work with an unwavering commitment and passion for his constituents. He never forgot who sent him to Washington. He never forgot who he worked for. In everything he did, you could see how much he cared for the people he represented, the people of northwest Ohio. He understood how much he cared about our great country. People have always come first for Del Latta. It is what drives him. He has said his greatest satisfaction comes from helping people find solutions to their problems, whether it is big problems or small problems, helping people find solutions to their problems, especially problems they could not solve on their own. At his retirement Del said this: Being a representative [of Ohio's 5th district] has given me and members of my family the opportunity to make untold thousands of wonderful friendships which we shall always treasure. I will also cherish the many friendships I have made over the years with my congressional colleagues. And to be sure, Del Latta has not finished giving of himself, certainly not. To this day, he continues to do everything he can for his community. From local businessmen to neighborhood schoolchildren, Del Latta is there for them. The dedication of the Bowling Green Post Office in Del's name--a post office that Del once helped secure funds to build--is simply a reminder that although it has been 15 years since he has retired from the Congress, Del has continued to work tirelessly for his community. The renaming of this post office, in many ways, is a symbol--a great symbol--of the civic spirit Del stood for as a U.S. Representative and still stands for today. So I extend my heartfelt congratulations to Del for this great honor. He has done so much for the Fifth District, for the State of Ohio, and for our Nation. I have the highest regard for the example Del has set as a leader and public servant. My wife Fran and I cherish his friendship, and we wish him and his wife Rosemary and their children Bob and Rose Ellen and their families all the best in their future. Del Latta is a great man. I said that he has worked tirelessly for his constituents, and it is always fun to watch him do that. But there has been one thing for me that has been even more fun, and that is to watch Del Latta with his grandchildren and to hear Del Latta talk about his grandchildren because this is a man who is also a great family man; he has never lost sight of the importance of family. So, Del Latta, congratulations. You are a man who has served our country well. You are a great family man. You are a good friend. We appreciate all you have done for our country. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeWINE

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