Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted to Jennifer Bacigalupi, an assistant in my office, during today's session.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am proud to join my fellow Great Lakes Task Force chair, Senator Carl Levin, in introducing today the Great Lakes Environmental Restoration Act. I would like to thank our Senate cosponsors--Senators Voinovich, Stabenow, Coleman, Durbin, Schumer, and Clinton--for supporting this legislative effort. The Great Lakes hold one-fifth of the world's surface freshwater, hold an estimated six quadrillion gallons of water, cover more than 94,000 square miles, and drain more than twice as much land. The Great Lakes ecosystem includes such diverse elements as northern evergreen forests, deciduous forests, lake plain prairies, and coastal wetlands. Over thirty of the basin's biological communities--and over 100 species--are globally rare or found only in the Great Lakes Basin. The 637 State parks in the region accommodate more than 250 million visitors each year. And, the Great Lakes Basin is home to more than 33 million people--that is one-tenth of our entire U.S. population. The eight Great Lakes States comprise more than one-third of the national manufacturing output, and the lakes represent a critical shipping land for these States' manufactured goods and other natural resources. Ohio's nine ports on Lake Erie annually handle 70 million tons of cargo--that is almost seven tons of cargo for every Ohio resident, with a total value of over $1.5 billion. My colleagues in Congress and I understand the value of the Great Lakes as a natural resource to the region, and we have been making progress in improving the overall quality of the lakes. Over the last few years, I have worked to secure $34 million for Ohio and the Great Lakes States to expand public access to the lakes. And now, I am working to address invasive species through the National Invasive Species Council Act, which I introduced, and the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act, which I cosponsored. Senator Levin and I have worked together as cochairs of the Great Lakes Task Force since 2000. We have fought to secure needed Great Lakes funding for the NOAA water level gauges, the replacement ice-breaking vessel, the Mackinaw, and sea lamprey control money for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. We both met with the U.S. Trade Representative in an effort to prevent water from the Great Lakes from being diverted abroad. And, we also worked together to authorize the Great Lakes Basin Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Program in the 2002 farm bill. Last fall, we passed the Great Lakes Legacy Act, which provides up to $50 million per year to the EPA to clean up contaminated sediments at Areas of Concern. The President provided $15 million in his fiscal year 2004 budget to get this program started. These steps, in conjunction with the efforts by our States, are positive, but unfortunately--based on the Federal Government's current level of funding--we are not able to keep pace with the problems facing the Great Lakes. An April 2003 GAO report found that the Federal Government has spent about $745 million over the last 10 years on Great Lakes restoration programs. Now, consider the fact that the GAO reported that the eight Great Lakes States spent $956 million during that same 10-year period. The Federal Government is simply not spending enough to protect and improve the Great Lakes--one-fifth of the world's freshwater. There is ample evidence to show that this current level of commitment is simply not enough. In 2001, there were nearly 600 beach closings as a result of E. colie bacteria, and State and local health authorities issued approximately 1,400 fish consumption advisories in the Great Lakes. In the years since the United States and Canada signed the Water Quality Agreement and agreed to give priority attention to the 43 designated Areas of Concern, the United States has not been able to remove any of the U.S. sites from the list of Areas of Concern. For several years, I have been calling for a plan to restore the lakes and have been urging the Governors, mayors, the environmental community and other regional interests to agree on a vision for the future of the Great Lakes--not just the immediate future, but many years down the road. I have said that we must work together as partners to create and implement a long-term strategy on how we are going to restore and protect the lakes and that it is time for us to come together and develop a plan and put it in place. This bill would build upon the efforts by the Great Lakes States, which have convened a Working Group to establish their Great Lakes goals and priorities. Many of our regional interest groups and agencies have prepared strategic plans and priorities. And, we have brought in the President's Council on Environmental Quality so that the President will better understand the value of a long-term plan for the Great Lakes. I can't emphasize how important it is to have all of these interests working toward the same goal. A Great Lakes restoration program must be an equal partnership between the local, State, and Federal Governments and other interested citizens and organizations. I believe that this legislation would provide the tools needed for the long-term future of the Great Lakes. First, this legislation creates a $6 billion Great Lakes restoration grant program to augment existing Federal and State efforts to cleanup, protect, and restore the Great Lakes. In the April 2003 GAO report, the GAO reported that insufficient funding is often cited as a limitation to restoration efforts. Therefore, an additional $600 million in annual funding would be appropriated through the EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office, and the Program Office would provide grants to the Great Lakes States, Municipalities, and other applicants in coordination with the Great Lakes Environmental Restoration Advisory Board. This funding would provide the extra resources that existing programs do not have. While the Great lakes are a national and international resource, I believe that the region, not the bureaucrats in Washington, needs to be setting its priorities and guiding the future efforts on the lakes. This bill would require very close coordination between the EPA and the State and regional interests before grants are released. The Great Lakes Environmental Restoration Advisory Board, led by the Great Lakes Governors, would include mayors, Federal agencies, Native American tribes, environmentalists, industry representatives, and Canadian observers. This advisory board, which would include all of the interests in the Great Lakes, would provide priorities on restoration issues, such as invasive species control and prevention, wetlands restoration, contaminated sediments cleanup, and water quality improvements. Additionally, this advisory board would provide recommendations on which grant applications to fund. Ultimately, the input from the advisory board would mean that the region would be involved in determining the long-term future of the Great Lakes. As the April 2003 GAO study reported, environmental restoration activities in the Great Lakes are uncoordinated. So, the second goal of this legislation is the establishment of a Great Lakes Federal coordinating council to coordinate Federal activities in the Great Lakes. The EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office would serve as the council leader, and participants would include the key Federal agencies involved in Great Lakes work, such as NOAA, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Interior. The council would meet at least three times per year to ensure that the efforts of Federal agencies concerning environmental restoration and protection of the Great Lakes are coordinated, effective, complementary, and cost-efficient. The council also would provide a list of its funding priorities to the Office of Management and Budget. Finally, our bill would address the GAO's second recent finding that environmental indicators and a monitoring system for the Great Lakes need to be developed to measure progress on new and existing restoration programs. The Great Lakes are threatened by many problems, and I have worked with Senator Levin and my other colleagues from the Great Lakes states to try to address those problems on an issue-by-issue basis. These programs are working to correct problems. However, the rate of our progress has not able to keep pace with the growing number of threats. For those of my colleagues who know the problems facing Great Lakes and even other large watersheds like the Chesapeake Bay, the gulf coast, or the Everglades, you will agree that we need to refocus and improve our efforts on the Great Lakes to help reverse the trend toward additional degradation. The Great Lakes are a unique natural resource for Ohio and the entire region, and they need to be protected for future generations. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this bill and in our efforts to help preserve and protect the long-term viability of our Great Lakes.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am proud to join my fellow Great Lakes Task Force chair, Senator Carl Levin, in introducing today the Great Lakes Environmental Restoration Act. I would like to thank our Senate cosponsors--Senators Voinovich, Stabenow, Coleman, Durbin, Schumer, and Clinton--for supporting this legislative effort. The Great Lakes hold one-fifth of the world's surface freshwater, hold an estimated six quadrillion gallons of water, cover more than 94,000 square miles, and drain more than twice as much land. The Great Lakes ecosystem includes such diverse elements as northern evergreen forests, deciduous forests, lake plain prairies, and coastal wetlands. Over thirty of the basin's biological communities--and over 100 species--are globally rare or found only in the Great Lakes Basin. The 637 State parks in the region accommodate more than 250 million visitors each year. And, the Great Lakes Basin is home to more than 33 million people--that is one-tenth of our entire U.S. population. The eight Great Lakes States comprise more than one-third of the national manufacturing output, and the lakes represent a critical shipping land for these States' manufactured goods and other natural resources. Ohio's nine ports on Lake Erie annually handle 70 million tons of cargo--that is almost seven tons of cargo for every Ohio resident, with a total value of over $1.5 billion. My colleagues in Congress and I understand the value of the Great Lakes as a natural resource to the region, and we have been making progress in improving the overall quality of the lakes. Over the last few years, I have worked to secure $34 million for Ohio and the Great Lakes States to expand public access to the lakes. And now, I am working to address invasive species through the National Invasive Species Council Act, which I introduced, and the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act, which I cosponsored. Senator Levin and I have worked together as cochairs of the Great Lakes Task Force since 2000. We have fought to secure needed Great Lakes funding for the NOAA water level gauges, the replacement ice-breaking vessel, the Mackinaw, and sea lamprey control money for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. We both met with the U.S. Trade Representative in an effort to prevent water from the Great Lakes from being diverted abroad. And, we also worked together to authorize the Great Lakes Basin Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Program in the 2002 farm bill. Last fall, we passed the Great Lakes Legacy Act, which provides up to $50 million per year to the EPA to clean up contaminated sediments at Areas of Concern. The President provided $15 million in his fiscal year 2004 budget to get this program started. These steps, in conjunction with the efforts by our States, are positive, but unfortunately--based on the Federal Government's current level of funding--we are not able to keep pace with the problems facing the Great Lakes. An April 2003 GAO report found that the Federal Government has spent about $745 million over the last 10 years on Great Lakes restoration programs. Now, consider the fact that the GAO reported that the eight Great Lakes States spent $956 million during that same 10-year period. The Federal Government is simply not spending enough to protect and improve the Great Lakes--one-fifth of the world's freshwater. There is ample evidence to show that this current level of commitment is simply not enough. In 2001, there were nearly 600 beach closings as a result of E. colie bacteria, and State and local health authorities issued approximately 1,400 fish consumption advisories in the Great Lakes. In the years since the United States and Canada signed the Water Quality Agreement and agreed to give priority attention to the 43 designated Areas of Concern, the United States has not been able to remove any of the U.S. sites from the list of Areas of Concern. For several years, I have been calling for a plan to restore the lakes and have been urging the Governors, mayors, the environmental community and other regional interests to agree on a vision for the future of the Great Lakes--not just the immediate future, but many years down the road. I have said that we must work together as partners to create and implement a long-term strategy on how we are going to restore and protect the lakes and that it is time for us to come together and develop a plan and put it in place. This bill would build upon the efforts by the Great Lakes States, which have convened a Working Group to establish their Great Lakes goals and priorities. Many of our regional interest groups and agencies have prepared strategic plans and priorities. And, we have brought in the President's Council on Environmental Quality so that the President will better understand the value of a long-term plan for the Great Lakes. I can't emphasize how important it is to have all of these interests working toward the same goal. A Great Lakes restoration program must be an equal partnership between the local, State, and Federal Governments and other interested citizens and organizations. I believe that this legislation would provide the tools needed for the long-term future of the Great Lakes. First, this legislation creates a $6 billion Great Lakes restoration grant program to augment existing Federal and State efforts to cleanup, protect, and restore the Great Lakes. In the April 2003 GAO report, the GAO reported that insufficient funding is often cited as a limitation to restoration efforts. Therefore, an additional $600 million in annual funding would be appropriated through the EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office, and the Program Office would provide grants to the Great Lakes States, Municipalities, and other applicants in coordination with the Great Lakes Environmental Restoration Advisory Board. This funding would provide the extra resources that existing programs do not have. While the Great lakes are a national and international resource, I believe that the region, not the bureaucrats in Washington, needs to be setting its priorities and guiding the future efforts on the lakes. This bill would require very close coordination between the EPA and the State and regional interests before grants are released. The Great Lakes Environmental Restoration Advisory Board, led by the Great Lakes Governors, would include mayors, Federal agencies, Native American tribes, environmentalists, industry representatives, and Canadian observers. This advisory board, which would include all of the interests in the Great Lakes, would provide priorities on restoration issues, such as invasive species control and prevention, wetlands restoration, contaminated sediments cleanup, and water quality improvements. Additionally, this advisory board would provide recommendations on which grant applications to fund. Ultimately, the input from the advisory board would mean that the region would be involved in determining the long-term future of the Great Lakes. As the April 2003 GAO study reported, environmental restoration activities in the Great Lakes are uncoordinated. So, the second goal of this legislation is the establishment of a Great Lakes Federal coordinating council to coordinate Federal activities in the Great Lakes. The EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office would serve as the council leader, and participants would include the key Federal agencies involved in Great Lakes work, such as NOAA, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Interior. The council would meet at least three times per year to ensure that the efforts of Federal agencies concerning environmental restoration and protection of the Great Lakes are coordinated, effective, complementary, and cost-efficient. The council also would provide a list of its funding priorities to the Office of Management and Budget. Finally, our bill would address the GAO's second recent finding that environmental indicators and a monitoring system for the Great Lakes need to be developed to measure progress on new and existing restoration programs. The Great Lakes are threatened by many problems, and I have worked with Senator Levin and my other colleagues from the Great Lakes states to try to address those problems on an issue-by-issue basis. These programs are working to correct problems. However, the rate of our progress has not able to keep pace with the growing number of threats. For those of my colleagues who know the problems facing Great Lakes and even other large watersheds like the Chesapeake Bay, the gulf coast, or the Everglades, you will agree that we need to refocus and improve our efforts on the Great Lakes to help reverse the trend toward additional degradation. The Great Lakes are a unique natural resource for Ohio and the entire region, and they need to be protected for future generations. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this bill and in our efforts to help preserve and protect the long-term viability of our Great Lakes.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, to introduce the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2003. Our legislation would criminalize the appalling practice of filming or photographing victims without their knowledge or consent under circumstances violating their privacy. Video voyeurism encompasses what is referred to as ``upskirting'' or ``downshirting.'' As the terms imply, this subset of video voyeurism involves the use of a tiny, undetectable camera to film up the skirt or down the shirt of an unsuspecting target, most often a woman. One of my constituents from Ohio became the victim of this shocking invasion of privacy while she was innocently enjoying a church festival with her 16-month old daughter. I would like to read you what she told the Cincinnati Enquirer newspaper in an article published on October 10, 2000: As I crouched down to put the baby in my stroller, I saw a video camera sticking out of his bag, taping up my dress. . . . It rocked my whole sense of security. According to an ABCNEWS.com article that also published this story, this particular perpetrator had surreptitiously filmed a total of 13 women that day. Sadly, this is not an isolated event. The widespread availability of low-cost, high-resolution cameras has lead to an increase in the number of high-profile cases of ``video-voyeurism'' all over our country. Reports of women being secretly videotaped through their clothing at shopping malls, amusement parks, and other public places are far too common. The impact of video voyeurism on its victims is greatly exacerbated by the Internet. As a result of Internet technology, the pictures that a voyeur captures can be disseminated to a worldwide audience in a matter of seconds. A State representative from Ohio, Representative Ed Jerse, stated it best when he told ABC News that when a woman's picture is posted on the Web, her privacy ``could be violated millions of times.'' Fortunately, my home State of Ohio has enacted a law that specifically targets video voyeurism. But Ohio is one of only a few States that have such a law. That means that in most areas around the country, victims of this practice are not only deprived of their security and their privacy but are left without any recourse against their perpetrator. As the defense attorney for one video voyeur aptly observed, ``the criminal law necessarily lags behind technology and human ingenuity.'' Our Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2003 seeks to close the gap in the law and ensure that video voyeurs will be punished for their acts. Our bill would make it a crime to videotape, photograph, film, or otherwise electronically record the naked or undergarment-clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of an individual without that individual's consent. This bill would help ensure that when a person has a reasonable expectation that he or she will not be videoed, filmed, or photographed as I have just described, that expectation of privacy will be recognized in and protected by the law. Additionally, our bill would make certain that perpetrators of video voyeurism are punished, by imposing a sentence of a fine or imprisonment for up to 1 year. Importantly, however, the mens rea requirements included in this bill guarantee that only those who are truly guilty of this crime will be punished. To be charged with video voyeurism, an actor must intend to capture the prohibited image and must knowingly do so. In closing, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2003. This legislation would help safeguard the privacy we all take for granted and would help ensure that our criminal law reflects the realities of our rapidly changing technology. I ask unanimous consent that the text of our bill be printed at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, to introduce the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2003. Our legislation would criminalize the appalling practice of filming or photographing victims without their knowledge or consent under circumstances violating their privacy. Video voyeurism encompasses what is referred to as ``upskirting'' or ``downshirting.'' As the terms imply, this subset of video voyeurism involves the use of a tiny, undetectable camera to film up the skirt or down the shirt of an unsuspecting target, most often a woman. One of my constituents from Ohio became the victim of this shocking invasion of privacy while she was innocently enjoying a church festival with her 16-month old daughter. I would like to read you what she told the Cincinnati Enquirer newspaper in an article published on October 10, 2000: As I crouched down to put the baby in my stroller, I saw a video camera sticking out of his bag, taping up my dress. . . . It rocked my whole sense of security. According to an ABCNEWS.com article that also published this story, this particular perpetrator had surreptitiously filmed a total of 13 women that day. Sadly, this is not an isolated event. The widespread availability of low-cost, high-resolution cameras has lead to an increase in the number of high-profile cases of ``video-voyeurism'' all over our country. Reports of women being secretly videotaped through their clothing at shopping malls, amusement parks, and other public places are far too common. The impact of video voyeurism on its victims is greatly exacerbated by the Internet. As a result of Internet technology, the pictures that a voyeur captures can be disseminated to a worldwide audience in a matter of seconds. A State representative from Ohio, Representative Ed Jerse, stated it best when he told ABC News that when a woman's picture is posted on the Web, her privacy ``could be violated millions of times.'' Fortunately, my home State of Ohio has enacted a law that specifically targets video voyeurism. But Ohio is one of only a few States that have such a law. That means that in most areas around the country, victims of this practice are not only deprived of their security and their privacy but are left without any recourse against their perpetrator. As the defense attorney for one video voyeur aptly observed, ``the criminal law necessarily lags behind technology and human ingenuity.'' Our Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2003 seeks to close the gap in the law and ensure that video voyeurs will be punished for their acts. Our bill would make it a crime to videotape, photograph, film, or otherwise electronically record the naked or undergarment-clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of an individual without that individual's consent. This bill would help ensure that when a person has a reasonable expectation that he or she will not be videoed, filmed, or photographed as I have just described, that expectation of privacy will be recognized in and protected by the law. Additionally, our bill would make certain that perpetrators of video voyeurism are punished, by imposing a sentence of a fine or imprisonment for up to 1 year. Importantly, however, the mens rea requirements included in this bill guarantee that only those who are truly guilty of this crime will be punished. To be charged with video voyeurism, an actor must intend to capture the prohibited image and must knowingly do so. In closing, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2003. This legislation would help safeguard the privacy we all take for granted and would help ensure that our criminal law reflects the realities of our rapidly changing technology. I ask unanimous consent that the text of our bill be printed at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE. I thank the Chair.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to and recognize the accomplishments of a great man and a great leader--Alfred ``Al'' Learner. Mr. Learner passed away on October 23, 2002, at the age of 69, following a courageous battle against cancer. He left behind a lasting legacy of hard work and remarkable generosity. Al gave so much of himself. He never hesitated to share his good fortune with his fellow citizens, particularly those who were most in need. Al Learner was a man who not only believed strongly in the American dream, he also lived it. He was born the son of Russian immigrants in Brooklyn, NY, in 1933. He graduated from Brooklyn Technical High School in 1951 and received a B.A. from Columbia College in 1955. After college, in the early 1960s, he took a job with the Broyhill Furniture Company as a salesman. His work for Broyhill took him from New York to Baltimore and ultimately to his home in Cleveland. With him on this journey--with him, always by his side--was his best friend, his partner, his wife, Norma. Al and Norma were high school sweethearts, and they were inseparable. Together they shared 43 years of marriage, and together they raised their two children, Randy and Nancy. Al and Norma's commitment to each other and their children was a strong one. They were both well known for attending every school function and every afterschool game their children were involved in, setting their professional lives aside to spend time with their family. When Al was not spending time with his family, he was working tirelessly in his beloved community. Al's numerous professional accomplishments included his service as chairman and chief executive officer of MBNA Corporation, chairman and owner of the Cleveland Browns, and trustee of Columbia University, Case Western Reserve University, and New York Presbyterian Hospital. I was particularly struck by something Al once noted about his success. This is what he said: This is the only country in the world [where] that would be possible. The only country in the world for a guy like me with nothing--no background, no sport, no connections, nothing to help me, and no talent. It wasn't that I was a great violin player or a great something. Where a guy like me could just sort of figure it out every day and at some point wake up and say: ``You did pretty good.'' Indeed, Al Lerner did pretty well. His accomplishments, both in terms of his personal success as well as his ability to lend a helping hand to his fellow citizens and community members, are clear indications of his success and his compassion and, yes, his humanity. Al Lerner led by example. He served his country as a Marine Corps officer and a pilot from 1955 through 1957 and later continued his service by becoming a director of the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation. His service to our country did not end with his departure from the Armed Forces. Al was known in particular for his extremely generous contributions to local and national charities, including a contribution of $10 million in 1993 to Rainbow Babies and Children's Hospital in Cleveland, OH, a donation of $16 million to support construction of the Lerner Research Institute, and a donation of $100 million to the Cleveland Clinic, one of the largest donations to academic medicine in the history of our Nation. His humility and his dedication to fellow citizens is nowhere better evidenced than in the quiet contributions he worked to provide for families of victims of the tragic September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. He helped raise funds, through his affiliation with the MBNA Corporation and the Cleveland Browns, for the Cleveland Browns Hero Fund to aid families from the New York City Fire and Police Departments who suffered the loss of a parent. Al continued his service to the country following the September 11 attacks by serving as one of 15 members of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, advising President Bush on the quality and adequacy of intelligence collection to improve the security of our homeland. Al Lerner was an American patriot, a patriot with a purpose and one who succeeded remarkably in achieving what he set out to accomplish. By embracing the American dream and dedicating himself to sharing with his fellow citizens the good fortune that resulted from his pursuit of it, Al truly distinguished himself as an outstanding American, and certainly one worthy of the respect of the Senate. As I think about Al's life, I am reminded of the strong bond he shared with his wife Norma. They were such good friends and were really partners in life, working side-by-side, together, to raise their family and to help their community. I was quite touched at Al's funeral when Norma, a very strong and courageous woman, spoke about her life with Al. I remember her saying: [Al] took us from where we were to beyond where we even would have dreamed we are now. . . . He had an unwavering commitment to helping others and he was the most generous man I've ever known. There was always someone he wanted to help, whether they were sick, financially troubled or just needed a good friend. That was Al Lerner. I extend my thoughts and prayers to the entire Lerner family-- especially Norma, Randy and Nancy--and to the families, friends, and community members who worked with Al and the organizations he supported. As Sir Winston Churchill once said: We make a living by what we get, we make a life by what we give. Few men have adhered more closely to this wise adage than Alfred Lerner. I am very pleased that last week the Senate passed a resolution that my friend and colleague from Ohio, Senator George Voinovich, and I introduced that recognizes Al Lerner's life, achievements, and contributions. This commemorative resolution is the least we can do in the Senate, on behalf of the entire Nation, to honor a man who dedicated his life to honoring his fellow Americans. I thank Al for all his contributions to our State and Nation. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators Domenici, Leahy, Grassley, and Cantwell, to introduce the ``Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2003.'' This bipartisan measure would, among other things, create a program of planning and implementation grants for communities so they may offer more treatment and other services to mentally ill offenders. Under this bill, programs receiving grant funds would be operated collaboratively by both a criminal justice agency and a mental health agency. The mentally ill population poses a particularly difficult challenge for our criminal justice system. People afflicted with mental illness are incarcerated at significantly higher rates than the general population. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, while only about five percent of the American population has a mental illness, about 16 percent of the State prison population has such an illness. The Los Angeles County Jail, for example, typically has more mentally ill inmates than any hospital in the country. Unfortunately, however, the reality of our criminal justice system is that jails and prisons do not provide a therapeutic environment for the mentally ill and are unlikely to do so any time soon. Indeed, the mentally ill inmate often is preyed upon by other inmates or becomes even sicker in jail. Once released from jail or prison, many mentally ill people end up on the streets. With limited personal resources and little or no ability to handle their illness alone, they often commit further offenses resulting in their re-arrest and re-incarceration. This ``revolving door'' is costly and disruptive for all involved. Although these problems tend to manifest themselves primarily within the prison system, the root cause of our current situation is found in the mental health system and its failure to provide sufficient community-based treatment solutions. Accordingly, the solution will necessarily involve collaboration between the mental health system and criminal justice system. In fact, it also will require greater collaboration between the substance abuse treatment and mental health treatment communities, because many mentally ill offenders have a drug or alcohol problem in addition to their mental illness. The purpose of the ``Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act'' is to foster exactly this type of collaboration at the Federal, State, and local levels. The bill provides incentives for the criminal justice, juvenile justice, mental health, and substance abuse treatment systems to work together at each level of government to establish a network of services for offenders with mental illness. The bill's approach is unique, in that it not only would promote public safety by helping curb the incidence of repeat offenders, but it also would promote public health, by ensuring that those with a serious mental illness are treated as soon as possible and as efficiently and effectively as possible. Among its major provisions, this legislation calls for the establishment of a new competitive grant program, which would be housed at the U.S. Department of Justice, but administered by the Attorney General with the active involvement of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. To ensure that collaboration occurs at the local level, the bill would require that two entities jointly submit a single grant application on behalf of a community. Applications demonstrating the greatest commitment to collaboration would receive priority for grant funds. If applicants can show that grant funds would be used to promote public health, as well as public safety, and if the program they propose would have the active participation of each joint applicant, and if their grant application has the support of both the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, then it would receive priority for funding. Additionally, the bill would permit grant funds to be used for a variety of purposes, each of which embodies the goal of collaboration. First, grant funds may be used to provide courts with more options, such as specialized dockets, for dealing with the non-violent offender who has a serious mental illness or a co-occurring mental illness and drug or alcohol problem. Second, grant funds could be used to enhance training of mental health and criminal justice system personnel, who must know how to deal appropriately with the mentally ill offender. Third, grant funds could be devoted to programs that divert the criminal justice system into treatment those non-violent offenders with severe and persistent mental illness. Finally, correctional facilities may use grant funds to promote the treatment of inmates and ease their transition back into the community upon release from jail or prison. In specifically authorizing grant funds to be used to promote more options for courts to deal with mentally ill offenders, this bill builds on legislation that I introduced two years ago with my colleague from Ohio, Congressman Ted Strickland. That measure, which became law, authorized $10 million per year for the establishment of more mental health courts. I have long supported mental health courts, which enable the criminal justice system to provide an individualized treatment solution for a mentally ill offender, while also requiring accountability of the offender. The legislation we are introducing today would make possible the creation or expansion of more mental health courts, and it also would promote the funding of treatment services that support such courts. In addition to making planning and implementation grants available to communities, the ``Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act'' also calls for an Interagency Task Force to be established at the federal level. This Task Force would include the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, as well as the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Education, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and the Commissioner of Social Security. The Task Force would be charged with identifying new ways that federal departments can work together to reduce recidivism among mentally ill adults and juveniles. Finally, the bill would direct the Attorney General and Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop a list of ``best practices'' for criminal justice personnel to use when diverting mentally ill offenders from the criminal justice system. Ultimately, this is a good bill and one that is long overdue. I encourage my colleagues to support this important legislative measure. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators Domenici, Leahy, Grassley, and Cantwell, to introduce the ``Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2003.'' This bipartisan measure would, among other things, create a program of planning and implementation grants for communities so they may offer more treatment and other services to mentally ill offenders. Under this bill, programs receiving grant funds would be operated collaboratively by both a criminal justice agency and a mental health agency. The mentally ill population poses a particularly difficult challenge for our criminal justice system. People afflicted with mental illness are incarcerated at significantly higher rates than the general population. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, while only about five percent of the American population has a mental illness, about 16 percent of the State prison population has such an illness. The Los Angeles County Jail, for example, typically has more mentally ill inmates than any hospital in the country. Unfortunately, however, the reality of our criminal justice system is that jails and prisons do not provide a therapeutic environment for the mentally ill and are unlikely to do so any time soon. Indeed, the mentally ill inmate often is preyed upon by other inmates or becomes even sicker in jail. Once released from jail or prison, many mentally ill people end up on the streets. With limited personal resources and little or no ability to handle their illness alone, they often commit further offenses resulting in their re-arrest and re-incarceration. This ``revolving door'' is costly and disruptive for all involved. Although these problems tend to manifest themselves primarily within the prison system, the root cause of our current situation is found in the mental health system and its failure to provide sufficient community-based treatment solutions. Accordingly, the solution will necessarily involve collaboration between the mental health system and criminal justice system. In fact, it also will require greater collaboration between the substance abuse treatment and mental health treatment communities, because many mentally ill offenders have a drug or alcohol problem in addition to their mental illness. The purpose of the ``Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act'' is to foster exactly this type of collaboration at the Federal, State, and local levels. The bill provides incentives for the criminal justice, juvenile justice, mental health, and substance abuse treatment systems to work together at each level of government to establish a network of services for offenders with mental illness. The bill's approach is unique, in that it not only would promote public safety by helping curb the incidence of repeat offenders, but it also would promote public health, by ensuring that those with a serious mental illness are treated as soon as possible and as efficiently and effectively as possible. Among its major provisions, this legislation calls for the establishment of a new competitive grant program, which would be housed at the U.S. Department of Justice, but administered by the Attorney General with the active involvement of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. To ensure that collaboration occurs at the local level, the bill would require that two entities jointly submit a single grant application on behalf of a community. Applications demonstrating the greatest commitment to collaboration would receive priority for grant funds. If applicants can show that grant funds would be used to promote public health, as well as public safety, and if the program they propose would have the active participation of each joint applicant, and if their grant application has the support of both the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, then it would receive priority for funding. Additionally, the bill would permit grant funds to be used for a variety of purposes, each of which embodies the goal of collaboration. First, grant funds may be used to provide courts with more options, such as specialized dockets, for dealing with the non-violent offender who has a serious mental illness or a co-occurring mental illness and drug or alcohol problem. Second, grant funds could be used to enhance training of mental health and criminal justice system personnel, who must know how to deal appropriately with the mentally ill offender. Third, grant funds could be devoted to programs that divert the criminal justice system into treatment those non-violent offenders with severe and persistent mental illness. Finally, correctional facilities may use grant funds to promote the treatment of inmates and ease their transition back into the community upon release from jail or prison. In specifically authorizing grant funds to be used to promote more options for courts to deal with mentally ill offenders, this bill builds on legislation that I introduced two years ago with my colleague from Ohio, Congressman Ted Strickland. That measure, which became law, authorized $10 million per year for the establishment of more mental health courts. I have long supported mental health courts, which enable the criminal justice system to provide an individualized treatment solution for a mentally ill offender, while also requiring accountability of the offender. The legislation we are introducing today would make possible the creation or expansion of more mental health courts, and it also would promote the funding of treatment services that support such courts. In addition to making planning and implementation grants available to communities, the ``Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act'' also calls for an Interagency Task Force to be established at the federal level. This Task Force would include the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, as well as the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Education, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and the Commissioner of Social Security. The Task Force would be charged with identifying new ways that federal departments can work together to reduce recidivism among mentally ill adults and juveniles. Finally, the bill would direct the Attorney General and Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop a list of ``best practices'' for criminal justice personnel to use when diverting mentally ill offenders from the criminal justice system. Ultimately, this is a good bill and one that is long overdue. I encourage my colleagues to support this important legislative measure. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, each and every Member of the Senate has taken an oath to uphold and protect the sacred document that has guided Our nation well over 200 years: the Constitution. Indeed, we all hold the Constitution near and dear to our hearts here in the Senate, and yet I rise today to let my colleagues know that the students of Lynchburg-Clay High School in Highland County, OH, have done us one better. You see, I received several letters late last year from students at Lynchburg-Clay High School asking me a simple question: ``Why don't we have a holiday to pay tribute to the Constitution?'' We have commemorative days to celebrate a great many things in this country, but amazingly enough, we don't have one to honor what is one of our Nation's greatest contributions to democracy. The students at Lynchburg-Clay High School set out to change that, and I was honored to recently introduce a resolution, cosponsored by my friend and colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, to give life to the idea these student wrote to me about not long ago. I am very pleased that yesterday my Senate colleagues agreed to pass this very important resolution. Our resolution is simple: It recognizes the special place the Constitution has in our National history, as well as the extremely vital role it continues to play today. Also, it formally designates September 17, 2003, as ``Constitution Day.'' September 17th, of course, marks the anniversary of the day in 1787 when 39 brave men signed the final draft of the Constitution at the final meeting of the convention. An appropriate tribute to the Constitution requires more than simply attaching a name to a day on the calendar, however. The students from Lynchburg-clay High School wrote to me, one of the two Senators representing them in the Senate and one of 20 Ohioans fortunate enough to serve on their behalf in Congress, about their respect for the Constitution. In doing so, the students embraced exactly the kind of democratic values and citizen involvement that the Constitution stands for, and I congratulate them for their effort. It is my intention that by passing this resolution, many more Americans might come to learn about the Constitution, and that as a result, their love and respect for the Constitution might come to match that held by the fine students and fellow Ohioans at Lynchburg-Clay High School.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, to introduce a bi-partisan bill aimed at reducing the number of vehicle incidents associated with drinking and driving. Last year, the Nation experienced an increase in alcohol-related traffic fatalities for the third year in a row. This increase resulted in 17,970 deaths or 42 percent of the 42,850 people killed in traffic incidents. Statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration show that motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for Americans ages 1 to 35 years of age. In fact, on average, 117 people die each day from motor vehicle crashes in the United States. Our bill--the Traffic Safety Law Enforcement Campaign Act--would require States to conduct a combined media/law enforcement campaign aimed at reducing these traffic fatalities. Specifically, the law enforcement portion consists of sobriety checkpoints in the District of Columbia and in the 39 States that allow them and saturation patrols in those States that do not. The Centers for Disease Control estimate that the sobriety checkpoints proposed in the underlying bill may reduce alcohol related crashes by as much as 20 percent. More than 75 percent of the public has indicated in NHTSA polls support for sobriety checkpoints. In fact, NHTSA has concluded that 62 percent of Americans want sobriety checkpoints to be used more often. I urge each of my colleagues to join this bi-partisan effort to save lives and promote highway safety. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, to introduce a bi-partisan bill aimed at reducing the number of vehicle incidents associated with drinking and driving. Last year, the Nation experienced an increase in alcohol-related traffic fatalities for the third year in a row. This increase resulted in 17,970 deaths or 42 percent of the 42,850 people killed in traffic incidents. Statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration show that motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for Americans ages 1 to 35 years of age. In fact, on average, 117 people die each day from motor vehicle crashes in the United States. Our bill--the Traffic Safety Law Enforcement Campaign Act--would require States to conduct a combined media/law enforcement campaign aimed at reducing these traffic fatalities. Specifically, the law enforcement portion consists of sobriety checkpoints in the District of Columbia and in the 39 States that allow them and saturation patrols in those States that do not. The Centers for Disease Control estimate that the sobriety checkpoints proposed in the underlying bill may reduce alcohol related crashes by as much as 20 percent. More than 75 percent of the public has indicated in NHTSA polls support for sobriety checkpoints. In fact, NHTSA has concluded that 62 percent of Americans want sobriety checkpoints to be used more often. I urge each of my colleagues to join this bi-partisan effort to save lives and promote highway safety. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I thank the entire military coalition for all their hard work and support for this effort. I thank all of my colleagues. I also thank General Smith of the Ohio National Guard for all they have done to keep this initiative moving forward. As my colleagues are well aware, our amendment would offer a comprehensive approach to health coverage for members of our military reserve component. Put simply, it would provide a critical health care safety net for service members and their families by offering uninterrupted, affordable health insurance. I can't emphasize enough how important this is both as a readiness and as a retention issue. We know how important it is that we fund our military hardware and base installations. But, at the same time, we can't ignore our military personnel. We can't ignore the very men and women who voluntarily lay their lives on the line to protect our national security. It's the very least we can do, particularly as we continue to rely more and more on our Reserve and National Guard. Our amendment is an important sign of support for those called to serve, as well as their families. I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, to introduce the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2003, a bill designed to improve genetic newborn screening programs in this country. Our legislation would provide education grants for physicians and parents, as well as grants to states, to improve follow-up and tracking of those children who receive a positive result from a heelstick screening for metabolic, genetic, infectious, or other congenital conditions that threaten their health and well- being. Each year, newborn screening identifies an estimated 3,000 babies with conditions like sickle cell diseases and homocystinuria that, if left undetected, would otherwise have had dire consequences. But, despite their clear importance, our newborn screening systems are fragmented. Quite simply, all children do not have access to the same genetic tests. Where a child is born determines the tests that he or she receives. In my home state of Ohio, we test for 12 disorders, while right across the border in Kentucky, they test for only four, and in Pennsylvania, only six. In Massachusetts, on the other hand, newborns are tested for 29 disorders. Compounding this problem, parents often are not sufficiently informed of the number of tests available in their individual states and what those tests can help accomplish. Physicians may not know to educate parents, or physicians may talk to parents too late in the birthing process for it to make a difference. Also, state health departments may not follow up adequately with the parents of a child who receives a positive test result, and health departments may not have the capacity to effectively record or track a large number of positive results. The bill we are introducing today would go a long way toward streamlining the current newborn screening system by offering grants to states to accomplish the following: Build and expand existing procedures and systems to report test results to individuals and families, primary care physicians, and specialists; Coordinate ongoing follow-up treatment with individuals, families, and primary care physicians after a newborn receives an indication of the presence of a disorder on a screening test; Ensure seamless integration of confirmatory testing, tertiary care, genetic services, including counseling, and access to evolving therapies by participation in approved clinical trials involving the primary health care of the infant; and Analyze collected data to identify populations at high risk, examine and respond to health concerns, and recognize and address relevant environmental, behavioral, socioeconomic, demographic, and other factors. Senator Dodd and I recently requested that the General Accounting Office examine state newborn screening programs. The results of this study were troubling. The GAO found that many children are not receiving critical, life-saving tests due, in part, to strained state budgets that cannot fund newborn screening initiatives. The grant program established by our bill seeks to help states maintain and expand their newborn screening programs. Our legislation would be a good start toward ensuring that all newborns receive equal access to genetic tests and that their follow-up care, if needed, is available and coordinated. The importance of these screenings cannot be overstated. It can mean the difference between life and death for a newborn. And that, Mr. President, is something we must address. I urge my colleagues to support this important children's health legislation.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, to introduce the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2003, a bill designed to improve genetic newborn screening programs in this country. Our legislation would provide education grants for physicians and parents, as well as grants to states, to improve follow-up and tracking of those children who receive a positive result from a heelstick screening for metabolic, genetic, infectious, or other congenital conditions that threaten their health and well- being. Each year, newborn screening identifies an estimated 3,000 babies with conditions like sickle cell diseases and homocystinuria that, if left undetected, would otherwise have had dire consequences. But, despite their clear importance, our newborn screening systems are fragmented. Quite simply, all children do not have access to the same genetic tests. Where a child is born determines the tests that he or she receives. In my home state of Ohio, we test for 12 disorders, while right across the border in Kentucky, they test for only four, and in Pennsylvania, only six. In Massachusetts, on the other hand, newborns are tested for 29 disorders. Compounding this problem, parents often are not sufficiently informed of the number of tests available in their individual states and what those tests can help accomplish. Physicians may not know to educate parents, or physicians may talk to parents too late in the birthing process for it to make a difference. Also, state health departments may not follow up adequately with the parents of a child who receives a positive test result, and health departments may not have the capacity to effectively record or track a large number of positive results. The bill we are introducing today would go a long way toward streamlining the current newborn screening system by offering grants to states to accomplish the following: Build and expand existing procedures and systems to report test results to individuals and families, primary care physicians, and specialists; Coordinate ongoing follow-up treatment with individuals, families, and primary care physicians after a newborn receives an indication of the presence of a disorder on a screening test; Ensure seamless integration of confirmatory testing, tertiary care, genetic services, including counseling, and access to evolving therapies by participation in approved clinical trials involving the primary health care of the infant; and Analyze collected data to identify populations at high risk, examine and respond to health concerns, and recognize and address relevant environmental, behavioral, socioeconomic, demographic, and other factors. Senator Dodd and I recently requested that the General Accounting Office examine state newborn screening programs. The results of this study were troubling. The GAO found that many children are not receiving critical, life-saving tests due, in part, to strained state budgets that cannot fund newborn screening initiatives. The grant program established by our bill seeks to help states maintain and expand their newborn screening programs. Our legislation would be a good start toward ensuring that all newborns receive equal access to genetic tests and that their follow-up care, if needed, is available and coordinated. The importance of these screenings cannot be overstated. It can mean the difference between life and death for a newborn. And that, Mr. President, is something we must address. I urge my colleagues to support this important children's health legislation.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, this is an historic day. I am very pleased that the Senate is moving forward with this AIDS relief bill--a bill that represents an unprecedented commitment to fighting the global scourge of HIV and AIDS. It is a good bill. It is a bill that has both bicameral and bipartisan support. It is a place to start--a beginning, not an end. I would like to take just a moment to thank my colleagues both in the Senate and in the House who have been working tirelessly in this fight against AIDS. They have spent countless hours crafting a bill that is going to make a difference--a bill that is going to help save and prolong the lives of millions worldwide. I especially commend Majority Leader Frist for his leadership and vision and Senators Lugar, Durbin, Santorum, Biden, and Kerry for their dedication to this fight, as well as Representatives Hyde and Lantos for crafting a bill in the House that recently passed by an overwhelming vote of 375 to 41. I thank them all for their efforts, for their compassion, and for their commitment. I also applaud the President and Secretary of State Powell for their dedication to easing the worldwide suffering caused by the HIV/AIDS pandemic. They understand that we, as a nation, have an obligation to fight this disease. We have the ability to fight it. We have the tools. And, it is our duty--as a leader in the world--to move forward now and do the right thing. To be sure, there are a number of issues--very important public policy issues--and differences that still need to be resolved as we move ahead. However, while those issues are important, we must not lose sight of the urgent need to do something about AIDS now. This HIV/AIDS relief package is a public health initiative of a magnitude never before undertaken in this country. It is an enormous task that will require a coordinated effort among the State Department, Department of Health and Human Services, and USAID and multiple NGOs and faith-based organizations. Because of that, we need to start putting the infrastructure in place--today. We need to start coordinating efforts--today. We need to get the programming started--today. We need to do all of these things so we can be ready to go when the money gets appropriated--so that on ``Day One'' when the money is available in the field, people in these impoverished nations who desperately need anti-retroviral treatment drugs can start receiving them and prolong their lives--so that pregnant, HIV-infected mothers can get the drugs they need so they don't transfer the disease to their children. Ultimately, Mr. President, this bill represents a starting point. Each one of us who has studied the HIV/AIDS issue would have changes to the bill if we were writing it just ourselves, and frankly, no one knows the future and can see exactly the landscape of the new ground we are plowing here. So really, none of us here can be sure that the precise approach we have taken or the precise figures and precise percentage allocation of dollar amounts for certain things is correct. But, we have to start somewhere. The most important thing is that we start--and this is the start. This is the beginning. It is a major first step. This bill is different than anything we have done in the past. It is a holistic approach to fighting global AIDS. It will have to be followed with appropriations money, and we will need to come back year after year to get that funding, but this bill gives us a place to start. It takes a balanced, comprehensive approach to combat the scourge of HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. It will focus funds on education and prevention and treatment-- treatment in terms of mother-to-child transmission, treatment of mothers who already have children, and treatment of all infected adults and children who have AIDS. This type of comprehensive approach, Mr. President, can and will make a difference. As I said, Mr. President, I believe this is a good bill--a good starting place--a major first step. Underscoring all of the major provisions of this bill is the moral imperative to fight this horrible, tragic disease. Over the last few months and years, we have heard countless statistics about the devastation AIDS is causing. Those statistics are troubling. They are disturbing. But, until there is a face and a name attached, those suffering from the disease remain statistics. I would like to take a few minutes to talk to my colleagues about the faces I have seen--the faces of children and babies with AIDS. In February, my wife Fran and I traveled to Haiti--our 12th trip--and we saw once again what this disease is doing to this nation and its people. In Haiti today, a nation of approximately 8 million people--300,000 currently live with AIDS. We have seen the devastation this is causing. We have held dying babies in our arms--babies who could have been saved--babies who could live and grow up if they only could get the treatment drugs they need to stay alive. We traveled to Guyana in February, as well, and saw the same devastation--too many children and adults dying of this horrible disease and too few drugs to go around to help treat them and keep them alive. Right now in Guyana--a nation of roughly 800,000 people, 35,000 have been identified as HIV-positive or as having AIDS. Of those 35,000 people, only 200--less than one percent--are getting anti-retroviral drug treatment. And, of the many children in Guyana with AIDS, only one of those children--only one--is receiving anti-retroviral drugs! In Haiti, we visited an orphanage that has an entire floor just for AIDS babies. What you see is truly tragic--row after row of steel cribs with babies at various stages of the disease--none of whom are receiving any sort of anti-retroviral drug treatment. I remember seeing a little boy--he was about four or five years old-- named Francois. He had AIDS and was very close to death. He was laid out on a makeshift bed on the cold, concrete floor. He had an I.V. attached to him, and he was getting some fluids. The wonderful people who were caring for him explained that little Francois was no longer able to keep any food down. He was within days of death. There were no drugs available to treat him. So, the people caring for him were loving him, nurturing him, and were doing what they could to make him as comfortable as possible in the little time he had remaining. I will never forget that child--I will never forget little Francois. I will never forget him for the rest of my life. Another little boy who I will never forget appeared the opposite of little Francois. This little boy was about 7 years old, and also has AIDS, but he seemed to be very healthy. He was lively and content and thriving. But, that won't last. Very likely, unless something changes--unless he gets the treatment drugs that he'll eventually need--this 7 year-old boy, whom I cannot get out of my mind, will also eventually die. His death will be a needless one. It will be needless because these drugs are available. It is just that the folks caring for this little boy do not have access to them. Money is not available. The drugs are not available. That is an injustice. It is wrong. And, it is a great human tragedy. Let me conclude, Mr. President, by again thanking my colleagues for their efforts in getting this bill passed. We are telling the world that the United States cares and that we will lead the fight against this dreaded disease. We can make a difference, Mr. President--and we will make a difference. There is hope. This bill gives us more hope. We are moving ahead. We are moving in the right direction. We are finally doing the right thing.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today--on the 58th Anniversary of the unconditional surrender of Germany and the end of World War II in Europe--a flag will be flown over this Capitol building here in Washington, DC, to honor the men who served in Company K, the most decorated company in the 409th Regiment of the 103rd Infantry Division, 6th Corps of the 7th Army. The members of the Company will display this flag at their reunion later this year in Green Bay, Wisconsin, and at all future reunions, in memory of the men from K Company who fell on the field of battle, the men who did not return home. Though it has been 58 years nearly 6 decades, since these men served and fought and lived and died together, the men of K Company, now in their late 70s and 80s, continue to remember and honor their brothers who died in battle. The members of K Company--the men who did return home--the men who were able to lead their lives and have families and grow old and spend time with their children and grandchildren and now even great- grandchildren--these men have great reverence for those who died. As Bill Gleason, who was a Private in Company K, so eloquently once wrote in the Southtown Economist in May 1988: 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 would like to take a moment to read the names of those men of K Company, the men who perished during battle, the men who remain, as Mr. Gleason so fittingly wrote, forever youthful: Wilson F. Rogers from Tacoma, WA.; James Rosenbarger from Corydon, IN; Rosco Fry from Spickard, MO; Stanley Berdinski from Muskegon, MI; Bruno Pashisky from Chicago, IL; Sherman Sprague from Clinton, IA; Alex Hurtiz from El Paso, TX; Charles Frakes from Kokomo, IN; Abe Umansky from San Diego, CA; Edwin Byron from Akron, OH; and Albert Strang. K Company was no ordinary company. It was recognized as the Most Decorated Company in the 409th Regiment. The soldiers of K Company fought valiantly in France, Germany, and Austria. They saw combat in the Rhineland from September 15, 1944 to March 12, 1945 and in Central Europe from March 22, 1945 to May 11, 1945. Two books have been written about the Company--one by Bill Gleason, called Task Force Kommando: Camp Howze, Texas to Jenbach Austria; and A Combat Infantryman in World War II, by Otis Cannon, who also served in the Company. Both books provide an excellent perspective of an Infantry company in combat during World War II. They describe the reality of the War that these brave, young Infantrymen on the frontlines faced. They paint us a picture of what life was really like for these men--how they struggled and endured fierce fighting, rugged terrain, and miserable conditions until they helped secure the ultimate victory 58 years ago today. I had the opportunity to read both of these books this past weekend. Both of them provide insightful understanding of what life was like for these men during that period of time. The one book, ``Task Force Kommando,'' by Private Gleason, was written shortly after the end of World War II. Both books were written by the men who engaged in the combat. It goes almost in a day-by-day chronicle describing that combat. It gives us an understanding of what the combat was like. K Company's commander was Captain Joseph Bell, who hailed from Topeka, KS. By all accounts, Captain Bell was a man among men. He was fearless. He was a brilliant tactician. And, he was respected and admired by those who served under him. I was quite taken by a description of Captain Bell that I read from a recent e-mail exchange between two former K Company soldiers. In this e-mail, one of the men recalled his first impressions of Captain Bell and how this man and how this Company have had a lasting impact on his life. I think that this depiction captures a very colorful image of Captain Bell and how he was looked up to and admired by his men. I'd like to take a few moments to read from that e-mail. It begins as a young, World War II Army Private, who has recently arrived in Europe, awaits his company assignment: We were told that the next morning, we would be assigned to some infantry company. That night, we went into a bar and were bought some beer by some GI's who knew we were (for want of a better word) very uptight. All they talked about was Captain Bell and his K Company. They told us that if we wanted to do a lot of fighting that would be the company to be assigned to. That was really not what [my buddy, Ernie Dessecker] and I had in mind! A little before dark, someone on the other side of the room yelled that Captain Bell was walking down the street and every single soldier in that bar got up and crammed the windows to get a look at him. He had a couple of other officers on both sides of him, but he was walking a step or two ahead. It was a dirt muddy street, but he looked like he was walking on a parade ground. After he went by, you could hear Captain Bell stories all over the bar. The next day, we were loaded on a truck and at each town, it would stop and some names were called to get off. When Dess and I were told to get off, the first thing we asked was, ``What company is this?'' When told it was Company K, we both wished we could climb back on that truck and head for the rear echelon! Of course, in a very short time, we were so very proud to be part of Captain Bell's Company K, and that pride continues to this day. I was assigned to John Miller's squad in the second platoon with Sergeant Hart and Lieutenant Monk as platoon leaders. They were very kind and excellent leaders. I learned a lot from them that has stayed with me all these years. Mr. President, leaders like Captain Bell and John Miller and Sergeant Hart and Lieutenant Monk were tough soldiers, but they had to be, and all the men who served under them came to understand that. As Bill Gleason wrote about Captain Bell: We understood . . . that if we made it through the war, we would owe our lives to him. And, we do. . . . [H]e kept us alive simply because he insisted we stay alive. Leaders, like Captain Bell, made all the difference. As Memorial Day approaches, I ask my colleagues to think about Captain Bell and the men of K Company. I ask my colleagues to think about and remember all the men and women who served our Nation during World War II--and to think about and remember all the men and women who have defended our Nation since that time. Memorial Day is a time to honor and remember these individuals. They fought, and therefore all of us now know peace and freedom--our children and our grandchildren know peace and freedom. We owe them our respect and, we give them our thanks. I am grateful for the men of Company K. I am grateful that they fought so that I can be here today in a free country--that I can stand here today on the Floor of the United States Senate in the world's greatest Democracy. And, I am grateful that we can continue to enjoy Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness because of their efforts nearly 60 years ago. I thank them. I thank all the men of K Company and especially one man who served in the Company--the author of the e-mail I quoted just a moment ago--a Private named Richard DeWine. To him, I will simply say: Thanks, Dad. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 1:25 p.m. today there be 20 minutes for debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee prior to the cloture vote at 1:45 p.m.

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

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, May 8, 2003, at 2:05 p.m., in The President's Room, S 216, The Capitol. I. Nominations: Carolyn B. Kuhl, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit; John G. Roberts, Jr., to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit; Consuelo Maria Callahan, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit; Michael Chertoff, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit; David G. Campbell, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Arizona; S. Maurice Hicks, Jr., to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana; L. Stott Coogler, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama; William Emil Moschella, to be Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, U.S. Department of Justice; Leonardo M. Rapadas to be U.S. Attorney for the District of Guam. II Bills: S. 878, a bill to authorize an additional permanent judgeship in the District of Idaho.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, the recent nationwide publicity surrounding the murder of 27-year-old Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Conner, has renewed public concern about violence against the unborn-- and rightfully so. Not long ago, the bodies of Laci--who was eight months pregnant at the time she disappeared--and Conner were discovered on a rocky shoreline of the San Francisco Bay. Baby Conner was found near his mother with his umbilical cord still attached. Under California State law, intentionally killing a fetus is murder, and California prosecutors are seeking to bring separate murder charges in the deaths of Laci Peterson and her unborn son. But, I want make it very clear to my colleagues here in the Senate that the murder charge that California prosecutors will bring for the death of Laci's son would not be permitted if that crime were being prosecuted under current Federal law. And that--that is why we need to pass and get signed into law the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Let me explain. In about half the States today, 26, if you commit a crime of violence against a pregnant woman and her unborn baby dies, you can be punished for the violence against both the mother and the unborn child. But, tragically, if you commit a Federal crime of violence against a pregnant woman and her baby dies, the death of the unborn child could essentially go unpunished. Examples of such Federal crimes of violence would include kidnapping across State lines, drug-related drive-by shootings, or assaults on Federal property. This gap in the law leads to glaring injustices. It is time that we close this gap once and for all and let justice wrap its arms around our society's most vulnerable members. That is why, it is imperative that we pass the Unborn Victims of Violence Act--once and for all. Today, along with several of my distinguished colleagues--Senators Graham of South Carolina, Hatch, Brownback, Santorum, Kyl, Voinovich, McCain, Ensign, Enzi, Inhofe, Nickles, Bunning, Coleman, Chambliss, Grassley, Fitzgerald, Shelby, and Talent--we are re-introducing our legislation. This is the fourth time that I have introduced this bill--in fact, it was the first piece of legislation that I introduced at the start of the 108th Congress. This bill is strongly supported by President Bush, and a companion measure passed the House of Representatives in two previous Congresses. I intend to take procedural steps that would make this bill eligible to be taken up directly by the Senate, without further Committee action. I thank my colleagues for their support of this effort, and would like to recognize especially Senator Graham of South Carolina, who championed this issue on the House side before joining us in the Senate. He has worked tirelessly to see to it that the most vulnerable are protected. I also would like to thank our lead House sponsors-- Congresswoman Melissa Hart from Pennsylvania and my friend and colleague from Ohio, Congressman Steve Chabot. They, too, are working tirelessly to get this bill passed by the other Chamber and signed into law. Our bill would establish new criminal penalties for anyone injuring or killing a fetus while committing certain Federal offenses. Specifically, this bill would make any murder or injury of an unborn child during the commission of certain existing Federal crimes a separate crime under Federal law and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Twenty-six, 26, States already have criminalized the killing or injuring of unborn victims during a crime. We live in a violent world. And sadly, sometimes--perhaps more often than we realize--even unborn babies are the targets, intended or otherwise, of violent acts. We have to protect these innocent victims. I'd like to share some disturbing examples with my colleagues of situations where the deaths of unborn children would have gone unpunished but for the existence of State criminal laws. If these same crimes would have occurred in the 24 States today that don't have such State laws, justice would not have been served, because there is simply no Federal law in place to try these crimes. First, let me talk about the example of Airman Gregory Robbins. In 1996, Airman Robbins and his family were stationed in my home State of Ohio at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton. At that time, Mrs. Robbins was more than eight months pregnant with a daughter they named Jasmine. On September 12, 1996, in a fit of rage, Airman Robbins wrapped his fist in a T-shirt and savagely beat his wife by striking her repeatedly about the head and abdomen. Fortunately, Mrs. Robbins survived the violent assault. Tragically, however, her uterus ruptured during the attack, expelling the baby into her abdominal cavity, causing Jasmine's death. Air Force prosecutors sought to prosecute Airman Robbins for Jasmine's death, but neither the Uniform Code of Military Justice nor the Federal code makes criminal such an act that results in the death or injury of an unborn child. The only available Federal offense was for the assault on the mother. This was a case in which the only available Federal penalty did not fit the crime. So prosecutors bootstrapped the Ohio unborn victims law to convict Airman Robbins of Jasmine's death. Fortunately, upon appeal, the court upheld the lower court's ruling. If it hadn't been for the Ohio law that was already in place, there would have been no opportunity to prosecute and punish Airman Robbins for the assault against Baby Jasmine. That's why we need a Federal remedy to avoid having to bootstrap State laws to provide recourse when a violent act occurs during the commission of a Federal crime. A Federal remedy will ensure that crimes within Federal jurisdiction against unborn victims are punished. Let me give you another example. In August 1999, Shiwona Pace of Little Rock, AK, was days away from giving birth. She was thrilled about her pregnancy. Her boyfriend, Eric Bullock, however, did not share her joy and enthusiasm. In fact, Eric wanted the baby to die. So, he hired three thugs to beat his girlfriend so badly that she lost the unborn baby. According to Shiwona, who testified at a Senate Judiciary hearing we held in Washington on February 23, 2000: I begged and pleaded for the life of my unborn child, but they showed me no mercy. In fact, one of them told me, ``Your baby is dying tonight.'' I was choked, hit in the face with a gun, slapped, punched, and kicked repeatedly in the stomach. One of them even put a gun in my mouth and threatened to shoot. In this particular case, just a few short weeks before this vicious attack, Arkansas passed its ``Fetal Protection Act.'' Under the State law, Erik Bullock was convicted on February 9, 2001, of capital murder against Shiwona's unborn child and sentenced to life in prison without parole. He was also convicted of first-degree battery for harm against Shiwona. In yet another example--this one in Columbus--16-year-old Sean Steele was found guilty of two counts of murder for the death of his girlfriend Barbara ``Bobbie'' Watkins, age 15, and her 22-week-old, unborn child. He was convicted under Ohio's unborn victims law, which represented the first murder conviction in Franklin County, OH, in which a victim was a fetus. Ultimately, the fact is that it is just plain wrong that our Federal Government does absolutely nothing to criminalize violent acts against unborn children. We cannot allow criminals to get away with murder. We must close this loophole. As a civilized society, we must take a stand against violent crimes against children--especially those waiting to be born. We must close this loophole. We purposely drafted this legislation very narrowly. Because of that, our bill would not permit the prosecution for any abortion to which a woman consented. It would not permit the prosecution of a woman for any action, legal or illegal, in regard to her unborn child. Our legislation would not permit the prosecution for harm caused to the mother or unborn child in the course of medical treatment. And finally, our bill would not allow for the imposition of the death penalty under this Act. This is about making sure justice is done when a pregnant woman is attacked. And ultimately, I think that everyone in this Chamber would agree that people who violently attack unborn babies should be punished. When acts of violence against unborn victims fall within federal jurisdiction, we must have a penalty. We have an obligation to our unborn children who cannot speak for themselves. I think Shiwona Pace said it best she testified at our hearing: ``The loss of any potential life should never be in vain.'' I strongly urge my colleagues to join in support of this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, the recent nationwide publicity surrounding the murder of 27-year-old Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Conner, has renewed public concern about violence against the unborn-- and rightfully so. Not long ago, the bodies of Laci--who was eight months pregnant at the time she disappeared--and Conner were discovered on a rocky shoreline of the San Francisco Bay. Baby Conner was found near his mother with his umbilical cord still attached. Under California State law, intentionally killing a fetus is murder, and California prosecutors are seeking to bring separate murder charges in the deaths of Laci Peterson and her unborn son. But, I want make it very clear to my colleagues here in the Senate that the murder charge that California prosecutors will bring for the death of Laci's son would not be permitted if that crime were being prosecuted under current Federal law. And that--that is why we need to pass and get signed into law the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Let me explain. In about half the States today, 26, if you commit a crime of violence against a pregnant woman and her unborn baby dies, you can be punished for the violence against both the mother and the unborn child. But, tragically, if you commit a Federal crime of violence against a pregnant woman and her baby dies, the death of the unborn child could essentially go unpunished. Examples of such Federal crimes of violence would include kidnapping across State lines, drug-related drive-by shootings, or assaults on Federal property. This gap in the law leads to glaring injustices. It is time that we close this gap once and for all and let justice wrap its arms around our society's most vulnerable members. That is why, it is imperative that we pass the Unborn Victims of Violence Act--once and for all. Today, along with several of my distinguished colleagues--Senators Graham of South Carolina, Hatch, Brownback, Santorum, Kyl, Voinovich, McCain, Ensign, Enzi, Inhofe, Nickles, Bunning, Coleman, Chambliss, Grassley, Fitzgerald, Shelby, and Talent--we are re-introducing our legislation. This is the fourth time that I have introduced this bill--in fact, it was the first piece of legislation that I introduced at the start of the 108th Congress. This bill is strongly supported by President Bush, and a companion measure passed the House of Representatives in two previous Congresses. I intend to take procedural steps that would make this bill eligible to be taken up directly by the Senate, without further Committee action. I thank my colleagues for their support of this effort, and would like to recognize especially Senator Graham of South Carolina, who championed this issue on the House side before joining us in the Senate. He has worked tirelessly to see to it that the most vulnerable are protected. I also would like to thank our lead House sponsors-- Congresswoman Melissa Hart from Pennsylvania and my friend and colleague from Ohio, Congressman Steve Chabot. They, too, are working tirelessly to get this bill passed by the other Chamber and signed into law. Our bill would establish new criminal penalties for anyone injuring or killing a fetus while committing certain Federal offenses. Specifically, this bill would make any murder or injury of an unborn child during the commission of certain existing Federal crimes a separate crime under Federal law and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Twenty-six, 26, States already have criminalized the killing or injuring of unborn victims during a crime. We live in a violent world. And sadly, sometimes--perhaps more often than we realize--even unborn babies are the targets, intended or otherwise, of violent acts. We have to protect these innocent victims. I'd like to share some disturbing examples with my colleagues of situations where the deaths of unborn children would have gone unpunished but for the existence of State criminal laws. If these same crimes would have occurred in the 24 States today that don't have such State laws, justice would not have been served, because there is simply no Federal law in place to try these crimes. First, let me talk about the example of Airman Gregory Robbins. In 1996, Airman Robbins and his family were stationed in my home State of Ohio at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton. At that time, Mrs. Robbins was more than eight months pregnant with a daughter they named Jasmine. On September 12, 1996, in a fit of rage, Airman Robbins wrapped his fist in a T-shirt and savagely beat his wife by striking her repeatedly about the head and abdomen. Fortunately, Mrs. Robbins survived the violent assault. Tragically, however, her uterus ruptured during the attack, expelling the baby into her abdominal cavity, causing Jasmine's death. Air Force prosecutors sought to prosecute Airman Robbins for Jasmine's death, but neither the Uniform Code of Military Justice nor the Federal code makes criminal such an act that results in the death or injury of an unborn child. The only available Federal offense was for the assault on the mother. This was a case in which the only available Federal penalty did not fit the crime. So prosecutors bootstrapped the Ohio unborn victims law to convict Airman Robbins of Jasmine's death. Fortunately, upon appeal, the court upheld the lower court's ruling. If it hadn't been for the Ohio law that was already in place, there would have been no opportunity to prosecute and punish Airman Robbins for the assault against Baby Jasmine. That's why we need a Federal remedy to avoid having to bootstrap State laws to provide recourse when a violent act occurs during the commission of a Federal crime. A Federal remedy will ensure that crimes within Federal jurisdiction against unborn victims are punished. Let me give you another example. In August 1999, Shiwona Pace of Little Rock, AK, was days away from giving birth. She was thrilled about her pregnancy. Her boyfriend, Eric Bullock, however, did not share her joy and enthusiasm. In fact, Eric wanted the baby to die. So, he hired three thugs to beat his girlfriend so badly that she lost the unborn baby. According to Shiwona, who testified at a Senate Judiciary hearing we held in Washington on February 23, 2000: I begged and pleaded for the life of my unborn child, but they showed me no mercy. In fact, one of them told me, ``Your baby is dying tonight.'' I was choked, hit in the face with a gun, slapped, punched, and kicked repeatedly in the stomach. One of them even put a gun in my mouth and threatened to shoot. In this particular case, just a few short weeks before this vicious attack, Arkansas passed its ``Fetal Protection Act.'' Under the State law, Erik Bullock was convicted on February 9, 2001, of capital murder against Shiwona's unborn child and sentenced to life in prison without parole. He was also convicted of first-degree battery for harm against Shiwona. In yet another example--this one in Columbus--16-year-old Sean Steele was found guilty of two counts of murder for the death of his girlfriend Barbara ``Bobbie'' Watkins, age 15, and her 22-week-old, unborn child. He was convicted under Ohio's unborn victims law, which represented the first murder conviction in Franklin County, OH, in which a victim was a fetus. Ultimately, the fact is that it is just plain wrong that our Federal Government does absolutely nothing to criminalize violent acts against unborn children. We cannot allow criminals to get away with murder. We must close this loophole. As a civilized society, we must take a stand against violent crimes against children--especially those waiting to be born. We must close this loophole. We purposely drafted this legislation very narrowly. Because of that, our bill would not permit the prosecution for any abortion to which a woman consented. It would not permit the prosecution of a woman for any action, legal or illegal, in regard to her unborn child. Our legislation would not permit the prosecution for harm caused to the mother or unborn child in the course of medical treatment. And finally, our bill would not allow for the imposition of the death penalty under this Act. This is about making sure justice is done when a pregnant woman is attacked. And ultimately, I think that everyone in this Chamber would agree that people who violently attack unborn babies should be punished. When acts of violence against unborn victims fall within federal jurisdiction, we must have a penalty. We have an obligation to our unborn children who cannot speak for themselves. I think Shiwona Pace said it best she testified at our hearing: ``The loss of any potential life should never be in vain.'' I strongly urge my colleagues to join in support of this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a fellow Ohioan, a leader in higher education, a dear friend, and a good neighbor: Dr. Paul Dixon. Dr. Dixon is the current president of Cedarville University, a Baptist liberal arts university located very near my home, my wife Fran's home in Greene County, OH. Dr. Dixon is planning to retire from that position in June of this year after a quarter of a century of great successful leadership. As the longest- serving president of any college or university in Ohio, Paul led the university through an unprecedented period of growth and has served as an example and friend to many in our community. I would like to take a few minutes to tell my colleagues in the Senate about Paul's great support and dedication to higher education. He is an exemplary educator and a well respected and committed member of our local community. Though Paul is retiring from his current position as university president, we are pleased that he will remain at the university as chancellor and will continue to be a role model in our community. Paul Dixon was born in Cincinnati, OH, and graduated from Tennessee Temple University in 1961, and Temple Baptist Theological Seminary in 1964. After graduation, Paul spent 14 years as an evangelist where he traveled the country preaching and ministering to communities and churches and spoke for professional sports chapel programs, including the Cincinnati Reds and the Bengals, the former Houston Oilers, and most of the National League of baseball. He moved from Chattanooga, TN, to Cedarville, OH, in 1971 with his wife Pat, took a position with the faculty of the Language and Literature Department of then Cedarville College. In 1978, Cedarville University trustee member Donald Tyler recommended Paul to the board of trustees as a replacement for the retiring university president, Dr. James T. Jeremiah. At the time, Donald was sure the idea of an evangelist serving as president would shock his fellow trustees. But, as Dr. Murray Murdoch's book, ``Cedarville College: A Century of Commitment,'' tells the story, Donald Tyler felt compelled to suggest the successful young evangelist to the board as a candidate for the college's next leader. Donald Tyler already knew Paul well as an influential evangelist. But he also observed Paul's interest in and involvement with college students as a Cedarville resident and husband of a faculty member. Even though he was not a CEO or business leader, Paul demonstrated leadership skills and began to establish himself as a visionary within the community. Ultimately, these observations convinced Donald that Paul was the right person to serve as the new president, and the entire board of trustees agreed. A glance at the past 25 years of Paul's tenure reveals Donald Tyler's instincts served the university well. Paul's success as president of Cedarville University may be due in part to his God-given ability to balance stability and change. With a strong vision and foresight, Paul led the university into a period of tremendous growth. Throughout his 25 years of leadership, $100 million in facilities have been built on a campus that has expanded from 180 to 400 acres. The school attained university status in the year 2000 and now offers more than 100 programs of study, including a graduate degree. Enrollment grew from 1,185 students in 1978 to more than 3,000 students today. Dr. Dixon also championed the university's focus on technology, positioning the institution as an award-winning leader and pioneer in the digital age. I must say, Mr. President, and Members of the Senate, that the quality students that Cedarville University produces is really a testament to Dr. Paul Dixon as a role model and to the high standards he sets for the faculty and for the students. Without question, Paul Dixon sets the bar high. But the young people--the young people--who graduate from Cedarville University not only leave the school with a diploma, but they also leave the school with a strong set of values to guide them in their future lives. That is due, in no small part, to Dr. Paul Dixon's dedication to each and every student and to his commitment to leading by example. Apart from Paul's contributions to the growth and success of Cedarville University and its students, he is an admired leader throughout the surrounding community. KeyBank President William Hann said this of Paul: Paul is value-driven. He is admired by the entire business community because of his character, compassion, and leadership. Also, Mike Stephens, president of Greene Memorial Hospital in nearby Xenia, OH, and former Cedarville University student, said this: I have worked with Dr. Dixon on several community leadership activities. He is a well respected and sought after community leader, both for his ideas and vision. Over the years, Paul Dixon has served the area through his leadership on several local business and community boards. He served on the regional board of directors for KeyBank in Dayton, was a member of the Springfield/Clark County Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, and was a part of the Greene County Development Task Force, as well as the Greene County Blue Ribbon Committee. In addition to serving on these boards and committees, Paul Dixon has hosted several events at the university aimed at community outreach and development. Every year, Dr. Dixon has hosted Farmer's Night, with about 250 to 300 local farmers attending, and Community Night, with about 400 community leaders in attendance. These events have brought people together to share problems, success stories, and ideas to better improve our community. Jackie Pyles, a resident of Cedarville, had this to say about Dr. Dixon: Through ``Farmer's Night,'' ``Community Night,'' and consulting area businessmen in their areas of expertise, Dr. Dixon has brought the University and community into a relationship where they are more supportive of each other. With Dr. Dixon's genuineness, love for people, and his sincere sensitivity, he has helped people not look at the University as a separate entity, but rather as an intricate part of this community. I couldn't agree more. Paul Dixon has positively influenced the individual lives of so many, but particularly his students. Students, university staff members, and people in the surrounding community all speak of Paul's love for people and his impeccable personal integrity. Reflecting upon this legacy, current trustee member Dr. Eugene Apple said this: The accomplishments during Dr. Dixon's tenure as president are well known and very impressive: new programs, campus expansion, enrollment growth, and on and on. Having served on the Board of Trustees for more than 20 years, I noted one characteristic that seemed to rise above all else--his integrity, not only with the Cedarville family, but in a very quiet way with others in need of support, advice, consultation, and help. The mantle of his presidency has been passed on to Dr. William E. Brown, former president of Bryan College of Dayton, TN. And I congratulate Dr. Brown and welcome him to our community. As I said, Dr. Dixon will not be far away. He will continue to preach, continue to represent the university among a variety of constituencies, and tell the Cedarville University story wherever he goes. Paul will end his presidency the way he began it, and that is by serving people and by serving the community. Paul has a famous motto: ``Everything we do ought to have quality stamped all over it.'' It is well known by Cedarville University students, staff, faculty, and the surrounding community. It truly captures the essence of who Dr. Paul Dixon is as a person and his mission in life. As the longest-serving college president in Ohio and the 12th longest-serving president in our Nation, Paul's example of stability, commitment, leadership, faithfulness, and quality is unparalleled. My wife, Fran, and I extend our deepest appreciation to Dr. Paul Dixon for his dedication to college students, his leadership in higher education in Ohio, and his service to the village of Cedarville and the surrounding area. We both cherish Paul and his wife Pat's friendship and wish them our warmest congratulations and an enjoyable retirement.

Mr. DeWINE

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