Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, this past May, I came to the Senate Floor to commemorate the 58th Anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe. I had been asked by the surviving members of an Army Company-- Company K of the 409th Regiment of the 103rd Infantry Division--to fly a flag over our U.S. Capitol building in honor of those in the company who died on the field of battle--those who did not return home--those who Bill Gleason, a Private in K Company, described this way: Some in our Company were denied the chance to reach old age. They didn't make it to adulthood. They never were old enough to vote in an election. They died then--there in France or Germany. . . . They are frozen in time as they were--forever youthful. I have again flown flags over our U.S. Capitol and am here today on the Floor of the United States Senate to pay tribute to another soldier--another soldier who did not make it home--another soldier who will remain forever youthful. Private First Class Branden F. Oberleitner was born on June 18, 1982, in Columbus, OH. He grew up in nearby Worthington, OH, and graduated from Thomas Worthington High School in 2001, just two short years ago. He was a beloved member of his class. As a kid growing up, many of his friends and family described Branden as ``ornery''--as an independent kid who liked to do things his own way. He didn't feel a need to ``follow the crowd.'' He enjoyed looking for crabs with his friends and taking trips to Kentucky to explore in some of the local caves. Branden valued friendship. Once you were Branden's friend, you were always his friend. He was loyal. Branden had an innate ability to fix things. He could intuitively find solutions to problems. Branden was a gifted mechanic and loved to work on cars--especially the 1988 Delta Oldsmobile that seemed to occupy a permanent place in the family driveway. Branden's friend and classmate, Tyler Louk, remembers him elbow-deep in grease working on that car night after night after night. Branden dreamed of opening a bike shop someday with one of his friends. They were going to fix Harley's. During high school, Branden started taking firefighting classes at the Delaware Area Career Center. He met a man there named Keith Luce, a retired firefighter and now a firefighter and EMT trainer, who had been an airborne trooper in Vietnam. Keith became an important role model, mentor, and trusted friend. The two developed a tight bond. They had a great deal in common and just seemed to speak the same language. Branden looked up to Keith--he respected him. With Keith's support and encouragement, Branden thrived in his firefighter training courses. He took to it. He was adept at it. He had found something that really interested him and something that he was good at and enjoyed--something he could make a career out of when he was finished with high school. Branden's life was taking on whole new dimensions. He was becoming a grounded, disciplined young man, who learned to take time to think things through. He became focused and developed a sense of responsibility for himself and an appreciation for the needs of others. He wanted to make something of his life--he wanted to help others--he wanted to be of service to others. The tragic terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, brought further clarity to Branden's life and his plans for the future. Angered by the vicious attacks and compelled to protect others from future terrorist strikes, Branden enlisted in the United States Army. He joined B Company, 2nd Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment of the 101st Airborne Assault Division, based out of Fort Campbell, KY. The call to arms resonated with Branden. ``That's all he wanted to do,'' said friend Kevin Earhart, who worked with Branden at a local gas station before he enlisted. Military service became his passion. He was a good soldier--regimented and resolute. He quickly earned the respect of his unit. Known as ``Obie,'' Branden served as an infantryman and back-up medic, where he was regarded as being both tactically and technically proficient. All in his unit endorsed his application for Officer Candidate School. His Captain, William Riley, described him as ``a shining example of what a soldier should be.'' Family friend, William Owen described him as ``a model soldier--a soldier others could count on, turn to, and laugh with.'' This model soldier lost his life on June 5, 2003, when a rifle- propelled grenade hit his Humvee near the Sunni city of Fallujah, about 30 miles west of Baghdad. Branden and the rest of his Division were working to ensure the safety of U.S. peacekeeping forces on the ground in Iraq. He was 20 years old. As William Owen said at Branden's memorial service, ``He has a Bronze Star, a Purple Heart, and the appreciation of all of us because he showed that Americans are not selfish, but selfless.'' Branden Oberleitner was indeed selfless. He defines honor. He defines bravery. He defines love of country. As his father, Freeman Carmack said: It was my honor to have watched him grow into the man he became: A loving brother, son, and proud member of the 101st Airborne Assault. Branden Oberleitner grabbed a lot out of life in an all too short amount of time. He lived life well. He it lived deeply. He lived it fully. My thoughts and prayers remain with Branden's family--his mother, with whom he was especially close, Iris Oberleitner; his father Freeman; brothers Lawrence and Andrew; sister Grace; grandparents Mr. and Mrs. Frank Carmack; and grandmother Dora Fassler. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise this morning, along with my friends and colleagues, Senators Durbin, Coleman, Warner, Daschle, Leahy, and Graham of South Carolina, to offer an amendment that would increase this bill's current funding level for the global AIDS initiative by $289 million. This additional funding would bring the total fiscal year 2004 allocation to $2.4 billion. This $2.4 billion would allow us to meet our goal of providing at least $2 billion in bilateral aid, and it would also allow us to meet our current matching commitment to the Global Fund. This money in this amendment would be distributed by the new AIDS coordinator, Randall Tobias, for the prevention, treatment, control of, and research on HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. Mr. President, this clearly is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do because AIDS is wiping out entire communities and, yes, we can truly say that AIDS has the potential to wipe out entire countries. It is the right thing to do because at least 8,000 people every single day--mothers, fathers, children, babies--are dying. And millions of others who are not on treatment, drugs, are suffering the painful effects of this disease. It is the right thing to do because we, thank heavens, because of great medical science and research, now have the ability and the resources to fight HIV/AIDS. We need to do it, we cannot delay, and we must act. We should be judged not just by what we do in society; I believe we should also be judged by what we don't do. We should be judged by what we are willing to tolerate. I say to my friends and colleagues in the Senate that we cannot tolerate inaction; we cannot, as a good and moral society, as a moral people, tolerate inaction. We, who have the ability to do something about this horrible crisis in the world today, must act. With this amendment, we will be able to do so much good. So I say to my colleagues that we should not and we must not tolerate a world where so many people are suffering from HIV/AIDS. We must not tolerate a world where the suffering and dying occurs and we have the ability and the tools to help make a difference and to save lives. As we have discussed on the Senate floor before--and so many of my colleagues have talked about it--time is not on our side. People worldwide are dying this very moment. I have seen firsthand the devastation of HIV/AIDS. I know my colleague in the chair has, and I know so many of my other colleagues have as well. My wife Fran and I have traveled to a number of the 14 countries that President Bush has named to be the primary recipients of the global HIV/AIDS fund money. I know many of my colleagues, such as majority leader Bill Frist, Senators Durbin, Chafee, Coleman, Enzi, Nelson, Warner, Alexander, and so many others, have also witnessed firsthand the effects of AIDS in these nations. I have seen it in Haiti many times. I have also seen it in Guyana, Mozambique, Botswana, South Africa, Namibia. I have held in my arms babies who were dying of the disease. I have met mothers who have lost their children through AIDS, and I have met children who have lost their parents to AIDS. When you do this, as other Members know, you then can put a face on it. It is no longer just statistics; it is real people. When you come back home from those trips, you continue to see in your mind's eye those faces, and you see those children, and some of those children, after you get back home, in a few days or weeks are no longer on this Earth. When you put a face on it and you put names to this disease, the moral imperative in fighting it becomes very clear. There are things we can do right now, at this very moment, to fight HIV/AIDS. Fighting this global AIDS crisis cannot be business as usual, and it cannot be bureaucracy as usual. We cannot treat this crisis the same way we have other problems. This is an emergency. Truly, if there is anything that comes before us today on the Senate floor, this is an emergency. We don't have the luxury of time, as President Bush has said so eloquently. For each moment we delay, people die, and they die every moment. In our travels, Fran and I have seen groups, organizations, and individuals who are ready now to receive our money and our assistance, and that is the good news for us. There are people out there ready to go to work and who are working now--organizations, doctors, and nurses who have the ability to take the resources we can give them and get the job done. They are ready to go into action to deal with the HIV/AIDS problem. It is heartwarming to see them and talk with them because they are already doing such good work. They have proven track records. They are ready to go, and we just need to get them the money and allow them to get about the business of saving lives. As we do fight this disease, we cannot be timid. We cannot be afraid of failure. We need to take some chances. In doing so, the reality is that there are going to be some mistakes made. This is a very big undertaking. No one has ever tried to do what we are doing in the world. The truth is, the world has not faced such a crisis. We probably have to go back in history to the bubonic plague or something in the Medieval period to see the world face such a medical crisis. The good news is, unlike those times, we have the ability to do something about it. There will be some failures and there will be some foul-ups, but the fear of failure must not hold us back. We must move forward because lives are at stake. There are several actions we can take now because we know they work. We talked about this on the Senate floor, but it is such a wonderful issue to talk about and such a wonderful thing to see in action, as I know the Chair and other Members have. We have the ability today to provide an HIV-positive pregnant woman with the care and drugs to ensure that she will not give birth to a child who is also HIV positive. The statistics are very simple, the facts are very simple, and the remedy is so simple. If a woman today is pregnant and she is HIV positive, the odds are 30 percent she will give birth to a child who is HIV positive. In sub-Saharan Africa or in Haiti or in Guyana, there are programs today that will reduce those odds from 30 percent to 10 percent or as low as 5 percent or 4 percent. They can do that for as little as $3 or $4. I am not saying $3 or $4 a day, I am talking about the total cost of $3 or $4. That is phenomenal. For as little as $3 or $4 and for a little treatment and a little expertise and getting that mother in for treatment, we can save a child from being born HIV positive. We can save a child from being condemned to die a very tough and horrible death. We can do it. It is a miracle. So we must act. These are some of the simple activities we can do, and do now, so long as the resources are available. This amendment will mean more people can be saved. It is as simple as that. More people will be saved by this amendment. In targeting health investments to fight HIV/AIDS, we can save lives. It is that simple. This amendment is an appropriate step, and I ask my colleagues for their support. We will have the opportunity next week to further debate this amendment. As I conclude, I wish to thank all the cosponsors of this amendment. I thank Senator Bill Frist who led our trip to Africa in August, which I think helped all of us fully understand not only the gravity of this crisis, but also it helped open our eyes to how many groups are out there, how many doctors are out there who have the ability to deliver the services and with whom we can work in the months ahead. Yes, it is going to be tough. Yes, it is going to be difficult. We know the problems. We saw those problems. But it also showed us good people are out there, organizations are out there, and it showed us there is a path to get this work done. I thank Majority Leader Frist for taking a number of Senators with him to Africa and helping educate all of us. In this work against AIDS, he is a medical doctor who truly understands this disease. I also thank Senator Rick Santorum. Senator Santorum has been a true advocate of trying to increase the dollars we are spending on this AIDS initiative. It was his idea to come up with these dollar figures, to increase this bilateral support. He worked these numbers and worked these numbers. He and I have talked now for the last month, going back and forth. I thank him for his commitment, for his passion, and his work in this area. We would not be where we are today without Senator Rick Santorum. Finally, I thank my colleague, Senator Dick Durbin, who could not be on the Senate floor today but who will be back Monday. I talked with him just a few moments ago by phone. He is someone who cares very passionately. Senator Durbin and I have offered two other amendments on the Senate floor in the past, both of which we have been able to adopt, and we have seen them make a difference. I traveled with Senator Durbin to Haiti. We worked on these problems in the past. He also cares passionately about this issue. He is someone who is very results oriented and someone who has made a difference in this field. I thank Senator Durbin for his commitment to the children and his commitment to this issue. I conclude by thanking my colleagues, Senator McConnell and Senator Leahy, for bringing a very good bill to the floor. This is a bill that a lot of people do not pay attention to, but it is a bill that does a tremendous amount of good around the world. It is an instrument of foreign policy, which is very important, but it is also a bill that saves lives every year, and it is a bill that spends U.S. money well to help our commitment to the children of the world, as well as making sure the United States is well represented around the world. I thank Senator McConnell and Senator Leahy for working in a bipartisan way to bring this bill to the Senate floor. We will be back in the Chamber next week to talk further about this amendment. I thank my colleague from Kentucky. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE. I thank my colleague. International Fund for Agricultural Development

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I honor the scientists, engineers, and other innovators working with the NASA Glenn Research Center in Cleveland. They are working tirelessly to develop technologies and products that improve the lives of Americans--both in missions to space and in everyday applications here on Earth. Through commercialization initiatives, these products are brought from the laboratory into the marketplace, driving the creation of new jobs and economic growth nationwide. NASA Glenn recently received six of Research & Design Magazine's ``R&D 100'' awards, which are awarded annually to the 100 most technologically significant products introduced into the marketplace. This is a tremendous accomplishment for the Glenn Research Center, its employees, and the numerous organizations and individuals who work in partnership with the Center. I recognize each of the award recipients and thank them for the their outstanding work: NASA Glenn's Structures and Acoustics division, in collaboration with the University of Toledo and the Army Office, developed new high-load bearings capable of operating at over 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit. This new bearings technology has opened the door to two new patent applications, and is the result of the hard work and dedication of Gerald Montague, Andrew Provenza, Albert Kascak, Mark Jansen, Ralph Jansen, Ben Ebihara, and Dr. Alan Palazzolo. A combined airport data and radar device developed by NASA Glenn in collaboration with ViGYAN, Inc., will provide new opportunities for pilots to access weather information while in the sky via a portable device called the ``Pilot Weather Advisor''. It was made possible by NASA Glenn's Engineering Design and Analysis Center, as well as the personal assistance of Glenn Lindamood. Thanks to a system developed through a partnership between Zin Technologies and NASA Glenn, real time data plots from the International Space Station are now available to end users through a system known as the ``Microgravity Analysis Software System,'' MASS. NASA staff, including Kevin McPherson, Ted Wright, Ken Hrovat, Eric Kelly, Gene Lieberman, and Nissim Lugasy, teamed up with Zin Technologies' Tim Reckart to make the MASS project possible. Drawing on NASA Glenn's renowned expertise with icing research, a New York-based company has recently brought the first new FAA approved deicing technology to market in 40 years. This new system will provide protection to sensitive aircraft materials, while also combining two long-recognized deicing techniques. NASA Glenn's Dean Miller and Andy Reehorst, as well as representatives from Cox & Company, developed this important innovation. Advances in thermal protection technologies known as ``DMBZ-15,'' jointly developed by NASA Glenn and an Ohio firm, will improve the temperatures and wear resistance of aircraft engines and other propulsion systems, extending flight capabilities and component life spans. Dr. Kathy Chuang of NASA Glenn joined representatives from the Maverick Corporation to accomplish this feat of engineering. Last, but certainly not least, versatile new lubricant products pioneered by NASA Glenn are now being used to improve commercial steam valves and furnace conveyors. Dr. Christopher Dellacorte and Brian Edmonds, both NASA Glenn researchers, made these lubricants possible. I extend my most sincere congratulations to everyone involved with each of NASA Glenn's award-winning projects and also thank NASA Glenn's AeroSpace Frontiers newsletter for bringing these wonderful accomplishments to my attention.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum, Senator Brownback, Senator Graham, Majority Leader Frist, also my colleague, Senator Allard, who spoke just a moment ago, for their unending and unwavering efforts to put a permanent end to this horrible partial-birth abortion procedure. We are here today because a civilized society cannot tolerate this type of procedure. With all due respect to my colleague, my friend from Illinois, this is not about politics. This is about what kind of a society we have, what kind of a country, what kind of a people we are. This will be the third time for the Senate and the Congress to vote to ban this inhumane procedure--a procedure which, I point out, has absolutely no medical purpose. Time and time again, the testimony we heard in front of our Judiciary Committee is this procedure is never--I repeat, never--medically indicated. I also point out, just to make sure there is a a provision in this bill that provides for a life-of-the- mother exception, the testimony time and time again from all the experts was this is never medically indicated. This has been before the Senate before. We have voted on this before. The difference today is after Congress votes to ban this procedure this time, this time the President of the United States will sign this bill into law. Soon, once this becomes the law of the land, the abortionist will not be able to legally perform this brutal act on our society's most innocent victims. Once this becomes the law of the land, the abortionist will no longer pull living babies feet first out of their mother's wombs, puncturing their skulls and sucking out their brains. Those are the facts, much as we hate to talk about them. I have come to the Senate before and talked about different specific stories. I have talked about the story of Baby Hope. The stories of little children like Baby Hope will no longer occur. I described before in the Senate in detail the story of Baby Hope. This was the story where the abortionist, Dr. Mark Haskell, in Dayton, OH, inserted, as he has done thousands of times, a surgical instrument into this little child--in this case, Baby Hope--into Baby Hope's mother to dilate her cervix so Baby Hope could eventually be removed and killed. In this case, Baby Hope's mother went home to Cincinnati expecting to return 3 days later to Dayton for the completion of the procedure. This is a 3- day procedure. In this case, the mother's cervix dilated too quickly and as a result Baby Hope was actually born but died shortly thereafter. Mr. President and Members of the Senate, on the death certificate there is a space for the cause of death or ``Method of Death.'' In Baby Hope's case, the method of death is written in with the word ``natural.'' Well, that, of course, is simply not true. There is nothing natural about the events that led to the death of this tiny little child. We all know that Baby Hope did not die of natural causes. We cannot nor should we ever forget this tragedy, nor others like it as recounted by medical professionals. My colleagues may recall the story of Brenda Pratt Shafer, a registered nurse who was assigned to Dr. Haskell's abortion clinic one morning in the early 1990s. I have told this story on the Senate floor many times. Nurse Shafer observed Dr. Haskell use the partial-birth abortion procedure to abort babies that day. In fact, she testified before our Senate Judiciary Committee in 1995. I would like to share with my colleagues again--and I pray that this time will be the final time we have to tell this story on the Senate floor--exactly what the nurse saw and what she testified to in front of the Judiciary Committee. Nurse Shafer gave very gripping, very telling, very truthful testimony. This is what she said. She described the partial-birth abortion she witnessed on a child that was 26\1/2\ weeks. This is what she said: The young woman was 18, unmarried, and a little over six months pregnant. She cried the entire three days she was at the abortion clinic. The doctor told us, ``I'm afraid she's going to want to see the baby. Try to discourage her from it; we don't like them to see the babies.'' The nurse continues: Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby's body and arms--everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus. The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping and his little feet were kicking. The baby was hanging there, and the doctor was holding his neck to keep his head from slipping out. The doctor took a pair of scissors and inserted them into the back of the baby's head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks he might fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube in the opening and sucked the baby's brains out. The nurse continues: Now the baby went completely limp. We cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used. I saw the baby move in the pan. I asked another nurse and she said it was just reflexes. The baby boy had the most perfect angelic face I think I have ever seen in my life. When the mother started coming around, she was crying--``I want to see my baby.'' ``I want to see my baby.'' So we cleaned him up and put him into a blanket. We put her in a private room and handed her the baby. She held that baby in her arms and when she looked into his face, she started screaming--``Oh my God, what have I done? This is my baby.'' Soon we will rest more easily knowing we are very near the end, very near the day when we do not have to retell Nurse Shafer's story--the day when my colleagues, such as Senators Santorum and Brownback and Graham and Majority Leader Frist and the rest of us who have fought this battle, will not have to come to the Senate floor and talk about partial-birth abortion. Nobody wants to talk about this act. Nobody wants to tell the story, to tell Nurse Shafer's story. Now is finally the time we will ban this horrible, horrible procedure. I look forward to this forthcoming vote in just a few hours and our subsequent delivery of this bill to the President for his prompt signature. This is the right thing to do. The facts are there. The facts are that this procedure is not medically indicated; it is not medically necessary. We should be judged, I believe, not just by what we do in society; I think we also should be judged by what we put up with, by what we tolerate. I say to my colleagues, no civilized society should tolerate this type of action. We should say today, by our vote, we simply will not tolerate this, that this is wrong. We cannot allow this to continue in this great country of ours. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Durbin and Senator Voinovich to introduce the Presidential Sites Improvement Act of 2003. This legislation would honor the great men that have served as our former Chief Executives and have influenced the development of our great Nation. This act would create a new and innovative partnership with public and private entities to preserve and maintain Presidential sites, such as birthplaces, homes, memorials, and tombs. Preserving this heritage is vital to enabling our children and grandchildren to learn about the leadership and infinite wisdom of our past Presidents. We often forget that the best learning tool is that which a child can touch, see, and relate. When a child boards a bus for a field trip to visit historic sites, that is truly when hands-on learning takes place. Visiting the birthplace or home of the same individuals they heard about or read about in the classroom provides a completely different atmosphere to appreciate history. This learning can continue only through the preservation of the birthplaces, homes, memorials, and tombs of our former Presidents. Family foundations, colleges and universities, libraries, historical societies, historic preservation organizations, and other non-profit organizations own the majority of these sites. These entities often have little funding and are unable to meet the demands of maintaining such important sites. Operating costs must be met before maintenance needs, and slowly the sites deteriorate. I have visited many of the Presidential historic sites throughout my home State of Ohio--a state that has been home to eight Presidents. During one such visit at the Ulysses S. Grant house, I found it very disturbing to see the discoloration and falling plaster due to water damage. At the home of President Warren Harding, the famous front porch where then candidate Harding gave his campaign speeches actually began to pull away from the house. Fortunately, we were able to obtain the funding to prevent these two historic treasures from deteriorating further. However, by providing Federal assistance for maintenance projects today, we can help prevent larger maintenance problems tomorrow. These Presidential sites are far too important to let them slowly decay. My legislation would authorize grants, administered by the National Park Service, for maintenance and improvement projects on Presidential sites that are not federally owned or managed. A portion of the funds would be set aside for sites that are in need of emergency assistance. To administer this new program, this legislation would establish a five-member committee, including the Director of the National Park Service, a member of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and a State historic preservation officer. This committee would make grant recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior. Each grant would require that half of the funds come from non-Federal sources. Up to $5 million would be made available annually. I encourage my colleagues to join us in support of this legislation, and ask unanimous consent that the text of our bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, with my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, to introduce an important piece of legislation, which will help protect the health of contact lens wearers, by ensuring that all contact lenses satisfy the same regulatory requirements for approval. Currently, non-corrective contact lenses, such as decorative lenses that change eye color or have some design on them, are regulated under the Food and Drug Administration's cosmetic authority. The problem is this. The FDA does not review cosmetics for safety or effectiveness before they are sold to the public. This means that the FDA cannot require manufacturers to test non-corrective lenses for safety problems, cannot set ``good manufacturing practices,'' and cannot even require that these lenses carry directions for safe use. This lack of FDA review and lack of established safety standards can lead to the marketing of lenses that are neither safe nor suitable for wearing. An article in the most recent issue of the medical journal Eye & Contact Lens describes the cases of six people injured by the sale of unregulated colored contact lenses. As the article points out, four of the six patients reside in the greater Cleveland area. This obviously concerns me. But what concerns me more is that three of the five female patients were teenagers. One such case involved a teenage girl from Cleveland who bought colored contact lenses from a video rental store for the purpose of matching her eyes with her dress. The lenses were sold without fitting or instructions. Prior to putting these lenses in her eyes, she had no previous problems with her vision and had never worn contact lenses. Shortly after wearing the colored contact lenses, she was urgently admitted to a Cleveland hospital where it was determined that the vision in her left eye had become so poor that she could only make out hand motions. She stayed in the ICU for four days because that was the only place where she could receive the treatment necessary for her eye. Worse yet, her doctor feared that she would not only lose her sight, but that she might actually lose her eye. In an effort to restore vision, her doctor recommended a corneal transplant, which she underwent. Nearly two years after the infection started, her vision has not been fully restored. For the rest of her life, this young girl will be at risk for rejection of the transplant, cataracts and glaucoma. This type of injury can be prevented. The bill that Senator Kennedy and I are introducing today would allow non-corrective lenses to be reviewed before they are marketed and before they are accessible to young people. This bill, which has the endorsement of leading organizations in eye care--representing thousands of health care professionals and consumers and the contact lens industry--would clarify that all contact lenses are devices and are to be approved under the FDA's device authority. Applying the medical device requirements across-the-board to all contact lens manufacturers and distributors would help ensure that all companies are held to the same important safety standards. Our bill would be a positive step forward in helping to prevent unnecessary eye injuries. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, with my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, to introduce an important piece of legislation, which will help protect the health of contact lens wearers, by ensuring that all contact lenses satisfy the same regulatory requirements for approval. Currently, non-corrective contact lenses, such as decorative lenses that change eye color or have some design on them, are regulated under the Food and Drug Administration's cosmetic authority. The problem is this. The FDA does not review cosmetics for safety or effectiveness before they are sold to the public. This means that the FDA cannot require manufacturers to test non-corrective lenses for safety problems, cannot set ``good manufacturing practices,'' and cannot even require that these lenses carry directions for safe use. This lack of FDA review and lack of established safety standards can lead to the marketing of lenses that are neither safe nor suitable for wearing. An article in the most recent issue of the medical journal Eye & Contact Lens describes the cases of six people injured by the sale of unregulated colored contact lenses. As the article points out, four of the six patients reside in the greater Cleveland area. This obviously concerns me. But what concerns me more is that three of the five female patients were teenagers. One such case involved a teenage girl from Cleveland who bought colored contact lenses from a video rental store for the purpose of matching her eyes with her dress. The lenses were sold without fitting or instructions. Prior to putting these lenses in her eyes, she had no previous problems with her vision and had never worn contact lenses. Shortly after wearing the colored contact lenses, she was urgently admitted to a Cleveland hospital where it was determined that the vision in her left eye had become so poor that she could only make out hand motions. She stayed in the ICU for four days because that was the only place where she could receive the treatment necessary for her eye. Worse yet, her doctor feared that she would not only lose her sight, but that she might actually lose her eye. In an effort to restore vision, her doctor recommended a corneal transplant, which she underwent. Nearly two years after the infection started, her vision has not been fully restored. For the rest of her life, this young girl will be at risk for rejection of the transplant, cataracts and glaucoma. This type of injury can be prevented. The bill that Senator Kennedy and I are introducing today would allow non-corrective lenses to be reviewed before they are marketed and before they are accessible to young people. This bill, which has the endorsement of leading organizations in eye care--representing thousands of health care professionals and consumers and the contact lens industry--would clarify that all contact lenses are devices and are to be approved under the FDA's device authority. Applying the medical device requirements across-the-board to all contact lens manufacturers and distributors would help ensure that all companies are held to the same important safety standards. Our bill would be a positive step forward in helping to prevent unnecessary eye injuries. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Durbin and Senator Voinovich to introduce the Presidential Sites Improvement Act of 2003. This legislation would honor the great men that have served as our former Chief Executives and have influenced the development of our great Nation. This act would create a new and innovative partnership with public and private entities to preserve and maintain Presidential sites, such as birthplaces, homes, memorials, and tombs. Preserving this heritage is vital to enabling our children and grandchildren to learn about the leadership and infinite wisdom of our past Presidents. We often forget that the best learning tool is that which a child can touch, see, and relate. When a child boards a bus for a field trip to visit historic sites, that is truly when hands-on learning takes place. Visiting the birthplace or home of the same individuals they heard about or read about in the classroom provides a completely different atmosphere to appreciate history. This learning can continue only through the preservation of the birthplaces, homes, memorials, and tombs of our former Presidents. Family foundations, colleges and universities, libraries, historical societies, historic preservation organizations, and other non-profit organizations own the majority of these sites. These entities often have little funding and are unable to meet the demands of maintaining such important sites. Operating costs must be met before maintenance needs, and slowly the sites deteriorate. I have visited many of the Presidential historic sites throughout my home State of Ohio--a state that has been home to eight Presidents. During one such visit at the Ulysses S. Grant house, I found it very disturbing to see the discoloration and falling plaster due to water damage. At the home of President Warren Harding, the famous front porch where then candidate Harding gave his campaign speeches actually began to pull away from the house. Fortunately, we were able to obtain the funding to prevent these two historic treasures from deteriorating further. However, by providing Federal assistance for maintenance projects today, we can help prevent larger maintenance problems tomorrow. These Presidential sites are far too important to let them slowly decay. My legislation would authorize grants, administered by the National Park Service, for maintenance and improvement projects on Presidential sites that are not federally owned or managed. A portion of the funds would be set aside for sites that are in need of emergency assistance. To administer this new program, this legislation would establish a five-member committee, including the Director of the National Park Service, a member of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and a State historic preservation officer. This committee would make grant recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior. Each grant would require that half of the funds come from non-Federal sources. Up to $5 million would be made available annually. I encourage my colleagues to join us in support of this legislation, and ask unanimous consent that the text of our bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I rise this morning to pay special tribute to a special man whose life ended exactly as he lived it--in service to others. LTC Dominic Rocco Baragona--``Rocky'' to his family and friends--passed away at the age of 42 on May 19, 2003, near Safwan, Iraq. He had been deployed to Iraq and Operation Iraqi Freedom on March 16, 2003. Lieutenant Colonel Baragona, originally from Niles, OH, was commander of the 19th Maintenance Battalion based in Fort Sill, OK. As commander, he was in charge of nearly 900 soldiers. At the time of his death, he was the highest ranking U.S. service member killed in Iraq. Rocky Baragona dedicated his life to his country. After graduating from West Point Military Academy in 1982, he spent the next 21 years serving our Nation. He served with distinction, upholding what GEN Douglas MacArthur called the soldier's code--a code of duty, honor, and country. During his military career, he was stationed in Germany and twice in Korea, where he was the Terrorist Force Protection commander. He also served as an officer in the 101st Airborne and with the Green Berets. Rocky was brilliant in regard to logistics. He received many honors while in the Army, including the Meritorious Service Medal, the Joint Commendation Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, the Joint Achievement Medal, the Army Achievement Medal, the Parachutist Badge, and the Bronze Star. His superiors relied on Rocky. As BG Richard Formica, a commanding general of the Third Corps Artillery at Fort Sill, said: I could count on him to tell me what I needed to hear, not what I wanted to hear. Not only did they rely on him, they respected and admired him. According to BG Brian Gehan, who commands the Army's First Corps at Fort Bragg: Rocky was a man of tremendous passion and of tremendous integrity. It was those qualities that set him apart. I didn't know Rocky Baragona, but I wish I had. I say that because I learned a great deal about this man from listening to his family and his friends describe this man's remarkable life. On June 18 of this year, I had the honor of attending two memorial services for him--a private service, and then his burial on the hallowed ground of Arlington National Cemetery. What I learned is that Rocky Baragona lived life well. He lived it with purpose and he lived it with love of family and of country. At his memorial services, someone said when Rocky was around, everyone else just seemed happier; there was always more laughing. Others said he had a positive energy, was never judgmental, and never made fun of people. He listened. He was a good friend. He looked out for his mom and his dad and he helped others achieve their dreams. He was selfless. Without question, Rocky Baragona was a good man. He was a nice, decent, generous, hard-working man who loved his family unconditionally. He was always there for them, willing to help anyone, any time, any place. His family called him ``the rock.'' He was the cement that bonded that family. As his father said, ``When everybody went their own way, Rocky made sure the family stayed together.'' Whenever they needed anything, Rocky was there, whether it was at Christmastime to bring the family together and shower them with gifts, or just to watch the Cleveland Indian games with his dad. Rocky will continue to be there for his family; he will continue to be there in spirit, forever loved and forever remembered. LTC Dominic Baragona was a brave man who loved his country. He was a brave man who served as a true example of what defines patriotism and service to others. He was a brave man who dedicated his career and his life to helping his fellow man, fighting for a better future for us and for our children and our grandchildren. Left to cherish his memory are his parents, Dominic and Vilma; his brothers and sisters, Tony, John, David, Pamela, and Susan; and several nieces and nephews. You all remain in my thoughts and in my prayers. Madam President, I will conclude with something Rocky's brother John wrote when he described Rocky: Rocky was the smartest of the seven kids. He was the most generous of the seven kids. He was the kindest of the seven kids. He was always there for all his brothers and sisters. He was my dad's best friend and my mom's pride and joy. He was always looking out for everyone else. That is who Rocky Baragona was, and that is how he will be remembered. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I yield further to my colleague.

Mr. DeWINE. There was, of course, the Feinstein amendment that was filed. We were able to debate that amendment. That amendment was passed by a voice vote. Other than the Feinstein amendment, there are no other amendments that have been filed and there are no other amendments that are pending.

Mr. DeWINE. If my colleague will yield for just a minute and I will finish, I am sorry to hear that. I understand what the position of the Senator is. We will continue to move on and try to get this bill passed.

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I would respond to my colleague that frankly I do not know. We have had a good debate. Many of the issues my colleagues have raised have to do with amendments they have said they are going to file. They have talked about amendments. They have talked about actually several amendments that might be brought to the floor. Yet despite the fact I have asked for amendments to be brought to the floor, there have been no amendments brought. So I really frankly am at a loss to explain to my colleague why we are seeing no amendments and we are still now wrapping up our fifth day of debate on this bill.

Mr. DeWINE. I will yield for a question.

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I will take a moment to remind my colleagues where we are today. We are now in the fifth day of debate of the District of Columbia appropriations bill. I think we have had a good debate, but this is the fifth day. Really, there is nothing controversial about this bill. Senator Landrieu and I have worked on this bill. It is a good bill. The only issue really before us has to do with the education scholarships, the school scholarships. There are those who have raised questions about those scholarships. While questions have been raised about them, we are still waiting for amendments. I have come to the floor time and again and said, bring down the amendments.

Mr. DeWINE. I do see my colleague from Nevada. I do not know if my colleague had the opportunity to hear what I said when he was coming to the floor, but to repeat it for my colleague, I said simply we have been on this bill now for 5 days. We have had the Feinstein amendment which was adopted. We have had a good debate. There really is no contentious issue about this bill, other than the one issue that has been raised in regard to the school scholarships. We have had a good debate about that. Really, it is time for the amendments to be offered. We have had discussion about amendments. In fact, three of my colleagues have come to the floor and talked about amendments they might offer. We look forward to having those amendments offered and we look forward to having additional debate on those amendments, although I will say we have already had some good debate. We look forward to additional debate, but we look forward to having those amendments offered after having 5 days of debate. In just a moment I will make a unanimous consent request. In fact, at this point I will do that. I ask unanimous consent that the pending substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill be read the third time, and the Senate now proceed to a vote on passage of the bill with no further intervening action or debate; further, that following the vote the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.

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

Mr. DeWINE. Despite the fact that we have had a lot of discussion, there are no pending amendments to this bill.

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I regret that. I am sorry to hear that. But the fact is, this bill could be finished very quickly. We have heard comments about several amendments. Frankly, it would not take long to debate those amendments. We have already had a good debate about those amendments. We pretty much know what is in those amendments. My colleagues could bring those amendments to the floor very quickly, we could debate them, and we could dispose of them. We could have a good debate, we could take whatever time that needs to be taken, Members could come to the floor to debate the amendment, and we could move on. Let me ask my colleague this. In light of that objection, I wonder if we could set a time certain at least to find out if they would be prepared to set a time certain for a vote on passage for later today or perhaps tomorrow?

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I respond to my colleague that I agree with him, it is time to go to third reading. If there are no amendments, that is the normal procedure of the Senate. You look around and wait for amendments, and after a reasonable period of time if there has been debate and there are, in fact, no amendments to be offered, then we would normally go to a third reading. As I look around the Chamber, I do not see any of my colleagues, and so out of deference to them I will not make any unanimous consent at this point, but I say to my colleagues, in a short period of time I would like to raise the issue with them. I will not at this point, but I would like to make a unanimous consent in regard to moving forward.

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003. This bill contains several important provisions. I am especially pleased with title I of the bill--the Rape Kits and DNA Evidence Backlog Elimination Act, which mirrors the bill of the same name that I introduced earlier this year. The purpose of this title and our original bill is to extend more Federal funding to States and localities to fight crime with DNA technology, expand our national database of DNA profiles from criminals, and train sexual assault examiners. While the overall violent crime rate has decreased in recent years, the occurrence of rape has only increased. Tragically, somewhere in America, a woman is sexually assaulted every 2 minutes. In other words, by the time I conclude my remarks, at least five women will have been assaulted. It has been estimated, as well, that 1 in 6 women and 1 in 33 men in the United States have been the victim of a completed or attempted rape. These statistics are truly staggering, especially considering that rape is a chronically underreported crime. Experts contend that rape could be much more prevalent than even these statistics reflect. The majority of sexual assault victims who report their crimes do so in a hospital emergency room, where they frequently wait hours for treatment--in many cases, to see doctors or nurses who have not received specialized training in dealing with assault victims and who lack the proper forensic tools for evidence collection. As you can imagine, the collection of forensic evidence can be a very invasive process for a rape victim. But in many cases, this is where the investigation stops. In cities across the country, hundreds of thousands of rape kits are sitting untested in police department evidence rooms. While these kits contain vital DNA evidence that could lead to the arrest of rapists, many rape kits have gone untested for more than a decade due to a lack of funding. In my own home State of Ohio, officials estimated in May 2002 that at least 3,000 kits with rape evidence--and maybe even more--remained unanalyzed, despite recent strides in science that allow DNA evidence from rapes and other violent crimes to be compared against DNA profiles in the Combined DNA Index System, CODIS, our national DNA database. Laboratory researchers at the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation report that they have a high success rate in matching unknown DNA collected from crime scenes to either the DNA of offenders on file or to other crime scenes. That would mean that if all 3,000 unexamined Ohio rape kits contained extractable DNA, several kits very likely could yield evidence leading to the identity of rapists. We now have both the technology to analyze DNA evidence and a growing database of DNA profiles with which to compare this evidence. This system works, and it catches criminals. Let me share an example of how evidence from rape kits has led to the arrest of a rapist in Ohio. Last year, a Hamilton, Ohio man was convicted and sentenced to 25 years in prison for an April 1998 attack on a woman in a grocery store parking lot. Although a DNA sample from this rape was sent to the State crime lab 3 days after the attack, it took until November 2001--nearly 3\1/2\ years later--for scientists to analyze the sample and add it to the State's DNA database. Once this sample was added, a positive match was made and this rapist was prosecuted and put behind bars. Unfortunately, this victim had to wait 3 years for justice, while her rapist remained on the street. While this is an excellent example of how DNA has been used successfully to catch rapists, it also shows the critical need to promptly analyze the kits we have on hand. The longer this evidence sits around unanalyzed, the longer sex offenders will remain free--and free to potentially harm more victims. The Rape Kits and DNA Evidence Backlog Elimination Act would help to address the issues I have just outlined, particularly those involving the collection and processing of DNA evidence. We owe it to rape victims, as well as to our society as a whole, to do all we can to apprehend and prosecute sex offenders. To this end, title I would do several important things. Specifically, and perhaps most importantly, this bill would extend the authorization for the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000. This law, of which I was one of the chief Senate sponsors, aims to reduce the backlog of unanalyzed DNA samples in forensic laboratories across the United States. Unfortunately, the authorization for the grant programs established under the act will expire soon, but many States still have a long way to go to clear their DNA evidence backlogs. The Rape Kits and DNA Evidence Backlog Elimination Act would extend that authorization, while also increasing the funds authorized for grants under the Act. This would help States to further reduce their DNA evidence backlogs, processing crucial evidence that could bring criminals to justice. Furthermore, title I would expand CODIS, our national DNA database. The expansion of this database is important, since the larger the database, the more likely it is that State crime laboratories will be able to match DNA evidence to offenders. Under the Rape Kits and DNA Evidence Backlog Elimination Act, the FBI could accept for inclusion in CODIS any DNA sample submitted by the States for inclusion in the database, including DNA samples from all felons convicted of Federal crimes. Given the high rate of recidivism among sexual offenders, this last addition may prove very useful to law enforcement as they utilize CODIS. The U.S. Department of Justice has expressed support for expanding the DNA database in this manner. In addition to providing funds to help States and localities process evidence, we also must improve the way that DNA evidence is collected and used. To this end, title II of the Advancing Justice through DNA Technology Act also contains many components of the bill I introduced earlier this year involving important training programs. This title would provide Federal resources to support a new training program for Sexual Assault Forensic Examiners, known as SAFEs. This program is modeled on a separate bill that Senator Schumer and I introduced during the 107th Congress. As I discussed before, many rape victims first report their crimes in a hospital emergency room, where they are treated by inexperienced staff, many of whom have no training in the proper use of a rape evidence kit. SAFEs, by contrast, are well-trained in the collection of forensic evidence and are able to give competent and sensitive treatment to rape victims at a time when they are most vulnerable--immediately after their attack. Furthermore, the intervention of SAFEs in a sex crime case bolsters the odds of prosecution and conviction of offenders, as their expertise generally renders them better witnesses than most emergency room personnel during trials. While these programs have proven to be effective, only a few hundred SAFE programs currently exist in the United States, treating a minute number of sexual assault victims. These nurse examiners provide an important service, both to the victim and to justice system, and I strongly advocate funding more training programs for them. Finally, title II would make two changes in the criminal code to better protect victims of crimes in which DNA evidence is recovered. It would extend or ``toll'' the statute of limitations under Federal law for prosecuting many crimes in which DNA evidence is recovered, but the identity of the perpetrator is unknown. Also, this title would amend the Violence Against Women Act to include legal assistance for victims of dating violence. In closing, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support the Advancing Justice through DNA Technology Act of 2003. This bill is a good one, and one deserving of the Senate's support. It can do a great deal to help rape victims, as well as to prosecute sexual offenders.