Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that during consideration of the nomination, the time during all quorum calls be equally divided.

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I certainly have a great deal of respect for my friend and colleague from Massachusetts. We have discussed this nomination in the Judiciary Committee. We are continuing our discussion on the Senate floor today. I would like to respond to a few of his comments. My colleague has stated Justice Cook has been a dissenter on the Ohio Supreme Court. That certainly is true. She has been a dissenter. I am not sure that is a sin. I am not sure that is a reason someone should not be confirmed by this body. If that was the criteria for turning someone down, some of our greatest justices would not be on the Supreme Court, would not have been confirmed, nor would be on the Federal bench. Justice Cook has had five cases where the Ohio Supreme Court has been reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. In all five of those cases, the Ohio Supreme Court has agreed with Justice Cook. It is interesting that in four of those cases, Justice Cook was a dissenter. Yes, she was a dissenter in the Ohio Supreme Court. The case went up to the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court said the majority on the Ohio Supreme Court was wrong. But Justice Cook, the dissenter, was right. So the dissenter, Justice Cook, at least according to the highest Court in this country, the U.S. Supreme Court, was right. As I have outlined, for some of those decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, it was not even a close call. So much for that horrible label of being a dissenter. My colleague and friend from Massachusetts has talked about several cases. I would like to talk about them as well. As the man on the radio says: ``to tell the rest of the story.'' It has been charged that in the case of Davis v. Wal-Mart, Justice Cook voted to shield corporations from the legal consequences of their action. It has been asserted Justice Cook's dissent in that case would have allowed Wal-Mart to get away scot-free. At least that seems to be what has been asserted. But that is simply not what the facts are. In fact, there were two separate legal actions in Davis v. Wal-Mart. We really only hear about one. In the first case, Justice Cook did not intervene, and Mrs. Davis received almost $3 million. In the second case, when Mrs. Davis attempted to get additional payment for the same event, Justice Cook did vote against her position based on a well-known legal principle. Let me tell the story. The facts in this case involved a terrible incident in which Mr. Davis, a Wal-Mart employee, was killed on the loading docks while at work. Mrs. Davis sued Wal-Mart, and she won. She won a jury verdict of $2 million because there was evidence that Wal- Mart had failed to provide a safe working environment for Mr. Davis. In addition, the trial court found Wal-Mart had attempted to hide evidence during the trial and, as punishment for that, the trial court awarded interest on the $2 million to Mrs. Davis covering the time from when the case was first filed to the time when the jury found for Mrs. Davis. Wal-Mart's appeal at the court of appeals failed. The Ohio Supreme Court, including Justice Cook, declined to even consider Wal-Mart's appeal of that decision. So Wal-Mart was punished. Mrs. Davis had her day in court and won a significant verdict plus interest. That is what Justice Cook found. As I noted earlier, the interest award was on the $2 million during the entire time the case was pending. I believe it was about 4 years' worth of interest. I haven't done the math, but it must have been about $800,000 in interest during that period of time--roughly that. Justice Cook did not affect that verdict in any way. So that was the first case in which Mrs. Davis received approximately $3 million, as she should have. The unfounded complaints about Justice Cook are based on a second case against Wal-Mart that was filed by the plaintiff's lawyer. In the second case, the plaintiff's lawyer filed a new lawsuit claiming Wal- Mart had covered up evidence during the first trial. Mrs. Davis lost her second case at the trial court because that judge found all the supposedly new evidence was discovered during the original case, and Wal-Mart had already been punished for covering up the evidence. Specifically Wal-Mart had been punished by the award of that interest money, approximately $800,000. So just to summarize, we have a case in which Wal-Mart engaged in wrongful conduct both at its workplace and in defense of a lawsuit. Wal-Mart was then punished for wrongful conduct in both instances. Justice Cook in no way interfered with any of that process or punishment. After the jury verdict and after the favorable decision on interests were final, the plaintiff's lawyers tried to take a second bite of the apple. Not surprisingly, they lost the second case at the trial court. The plaintiff's lawyers appealed the loss, and a majority of the supreme court overturned the trial court and ruled in favor of Mrs. Davis. The entire supreme court, including Justice Cook, agreed on the legal standard to be applied that such new claims could be brought only if new evidence of wrongful conduct was discovered. The majority of the court said, though, there was new evidence, but they never said what they thought was new. In contrast, Justice Cook agreed with the trial court judge that there was no new evidence. So Justice Cook said there was no new evidence and applied the well-known doctrine of res judicata. In other words, because the issue had already been decided, the case could not be retried. Reasonable people, reasonable jurists--a disagreement. Justice Cook and the trial court judge agreed; the rest of the supreme court were on the other side. Somehow this agreement about a technical legal issue has been turned into an argument that somehow Justice Cook was attempting to shield Wal-Mart and undercut the rights of the plaintiff after Wal-Mart had already been ordered to pay Mrs. Davis $2 million plus interest. Those are the facts. That is the rest of the story. Let's turn to another case that was cited by my friend from Massachusetts, Norgard v. Brush Wellman. Norgard was another tragedy, a tragedy about an individual who contracted chronic beryllium disease while he worked for Brush Wellman. The facts of the case are egregious, especially facts that Brush Wellman withheld information about the causes of the disease. The legal issue, however, was a simple one. It was a statute of limitations case. A statute of limitations, of course, as we know, is a time within which an individual has to file a claim. In Ohio, the statute of limitations is, as it is in every State, set by the State legislature. The statute of limitations for this type of case in Ohio set by the legislature is 2 years. As in most States, there is an exception to the statute of limitations called the discovery rule. That rule provides that the 2 years does not start until an injured party discovers he is injured and knows the source of the injury. In this case, the evidence before the court showed Mr. Norgard knew he was injured and that his injury was caused by his exposure to beryllium at work. He knew that at the latest by August of 1992 when he was formally diagnosed by a doctor. Even though the company had tried to hide evidence from Mr. Norgard, in a legal sense, it really did not make a difference. He still knew about his exposure by August of 1992. The company's conduct, though horribly reprehensible, did not change the legal fact that Mr. Norgard discovered his illness and the source of his illness. Accordingly, the 2-year statute of limitations required the lawsuit to be filed by August 1994. Instead, tragically, Mr. Norgard did not file his claim until 1997, more than 2 years after his time to do so expired. After the case was filed, the trial court applied the statute of limitations and granted summary judgment against Mr. Norgard. We know what summary judgment is. It is a ruling that rejects a party's claim without even going to trial. Because summary judgment circumvents the trial, under the law, a court can only grant summary judgment motions if it finds the claimant cannot possibly win even if it gives the plaintiff every benefit of the doubt. In this instance, the court had to consider all the allegations against Brush Wellman to be true, including the allegations that Brush Wellman outright lied to Mr. Norgard about his exposure to beryllium. They had to accept those as true. That is what happened in this case. The trial judge gave Mr. Norgard the complete benefit of the doubt to which he legally was entitled. In spite of what we all think about this horrible conduct by Brush Wellman, the trial judge thought he had no choice but to follow the laws laid down by Ohio's legislature and grant summary judgment. As I noted earlier, legally, unfortunately, it did not make a difference that Brush Wellman had tried to hide the facts. Norgard still knew about his exposure as a fact. So he still had to file his claim by August of 1994. The court of appeals unanimously upheld the trial court's decision. Justice Cook and two other Ohio Supreme Court justices simply applied the statute of limitations and upheld the decisions of the trial court and the court of appeals. A four-judge majority in the Ohio Supreme Court was troubled by the facts of the case and decided to follow their policy preferences. The new result was one that was favorable to the Norgard family. This is what the Akron Beacon Journal had to say about the case: In her dissent, Cook did not carry an ideological banner cold heartedly proclaiming the company above all. She has sided with workers in many cases. In this instance, she followed the law. Justices do not have a task of changing the statute of limitations. That job belongs to the legislature. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the Akron Beacon Journal editorial about this case.

Mr. DeWINE. This case was not about Justice Cook standing up for big business. This case was about a very specific legal question: The statute of limitations for this type of lawsuit in Ohio. Justice Cook interpreted the law as it was written by the Ohio Legislature. That was her job as a supreme court justice, and she did her job. Whether we like the law or not, whether the legislature was right or not, the justice followed the law, and that is a simple fact. My friend from Massachusetts has talked about the school funding decision, a case that in Ohio is referred to as the Rolf decision. It may surprise my friend from Massachusetts and I may surprise some of my friends from Ohio when I say that I disagree with Justice Cook on that case. I did not hear all the evidence, but I suspect if I had been on the court, I probably would have ruled the other way. But I think my friend is confusing what was really in front of the court because it was a tough case. The Ohio Supreme Court is not a superlegislature, and the decision in front of the supreme court was not whether they liked the way Ohio was funding the schools or whether it was the best way or whether it was the fairest way or whether it was constitutional. That, I would submit, was a very tough decision. The Ohio Supreme Court talks about school funding in these terms and the obligation of a State. It says the State has the obligation to provide a thorough and efficient education for the children of the State. That is the constitutional obligation. In a similar case, I believe in 1979, if I have my date correct, the Ohio Supreme Court had ruled that Ohio was providing a constitutional education for all of the children. Most observers of the court, most observers of education in Ohio would say that things had not gotten more unconstitutional in that period of time since 1979. In fact, people would argue that, if anything, it had gotten better as far as more equity since 1979. In a sense, Justice Cook's decision when she dissented was consistent with prior decisions of the Ohio Supreme Court. So while she was dissenting in this case, while she was not in the majority, it was certainly not an unreasonable decision. It was a decision that was consistent with prior precedent of the court. So it was not a decision that was in any way out of bounds. I will speak later as our debate continues, but I conclude by again talking about my great admiration for Justice Cook. I have known Justice Cook for many years. I know her as an individual. I know her as a public official in the State of Ohio. She is a person of great personal integrity and honesty. In the 2 years she has been nominated for this position, I have had the opportunity to read many of her cases. The one thing that is very clear when one reads her decisions is this is someone a person would want deciding their case, someone who does not have an axe to grind, someone who is very deferential, frankly, to a legislature. I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are concerned about activist judges, she is someone who I believe will be deferential, as she was to the Ohio Legislature, and who will respect the authority of the legislative body; someone who will be deferential within the proper constitutional framework and bounds to the U.S. Congress and who will understand the separation of powers between the different branches of Government. This is someone with great integrity, great honesty, and someone who will be a fine Federal judge. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, in just a few moments the U.S. Senate will be voting on this nomination. What are the essential facts? Here are the essential facts: Justice Deborah Cook authored the Rice case. This case held that workers could get punitive damages from employment discrimination cases. Second fact: It has been charged that Justice Cook is a big dissenter. It has been charged that she cannot reach consensus. Let us look at the cases from the Ohio Supreme Court which have gone to the U.S. Supreme Court. There have been five of those cases. In each case, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed with Justice Cook. But, more importantly, in four of those cases, Justice Cook was a dissenter from the Ohio Supreme Court. In those four cases, the U.S. Supreme Court said we disagree with the Ohio Supreme Court, but we agree with the dissenter. We agree with Justice Cook. In fact, most of those cases weren't even close. By an overwhelming majority, in most of those cases the U.S. Supreme Court said the Ohio Supreme Court was wrong, but Justice Cook was right. So much for the argument that there is something wrong with Justice Cook when she dissents. Justice Cook has been on the Ohio Supreme Court for 8 years. She was on the court of appeals for 4 years. She has a great deal of experience. She is a person who is a well-rounded individual and who has great compassion. We have heard on this floor from Senator Voinovich and myself about how she has established scholarships for children and how she cares about education. And we have heard from the newspapers in Ohio. That is important because the newspapers in the State of Ohio pay attention. They pay attention to the Ohio Supreme Court. All of the five, six, or seven principal newspapers in Ohio endorsed her for reelection. They have endorsed her for this confirmation. I think what they have said is particularly important. The Cincinnati Post wrote on January 8: Cook is serving her second term on the Ohio Supreme Court where she has been a pillar of stability and good sense. The Cleveland Plain Dealer wrote: Cook is a thoughtful, mature jurist--perhaps the brightest on the State's highest court. The Akron Beacon wrote: Those who watch the Ohio High Court know Cook is no idealogue. She has been a voice of restraint in opposition to a court majority determined to chart an aggressive course acting as problem solvers more than jurists. In Deborah Cook they have a judge most deserving of confirmation, one dedicated to judicial restraint. The Columbus Dispatch wrote: Cook's record is one of continuing achievement. Since 1996 she has served on the Ohio Supreme Court where she has distinguished herself as a careful jurist with profound respect for judicial restraint and the separation of powers between the three branches of government. I ask my colleagues to confirm Justice Cook. Senator Voinovich and I asked the President to nominate her. We have known her for many years. She will serve well and ably on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DeWINE. I yield the remaining time. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that any time on the quorum call be taken off both sides at this point.

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

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

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, it is my great honor to come to the Senate floor this afternoon to speak in favor of the nomination of Deborah Cook to sit on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Deborah Cook is from Akron, OH. She is currently serving her second term as an Ohio Supreme Court Justice, a post to which she was first elected in 1994. I will take a few minutes to tell my colleagues in the Senate about Justice Cook and why I am so pleased this afternoon to support her nomination. Justice Cook received her law degree in 1978 and an honorary doctor of law degree in 1996, both from the University of Akron. Prior to serving on the Ohio Supreme Court, she served on the Ohio Court of Appeals for the Ninth District from 1991 to 1994. And, from 1976 until 1991, she worked for the Akron law firm of Roderick, Myers & Linton. She was the first female associate hired by the firm, later becoming the firm's first female partner. Justice Cook is an excellent judge and a gracious and giving individual who has dedicated a great deal of her personal time and energy to helping the underprivileged in her community and in the State of Ohio. First, let me tell my colleagues a little bit about her work as a judge. Justice Cook has been an appellate judge for over 12 years--4 years on the Ohio Court of Appeals and over 8 years on the Ohio Supreme Court. While Justice Cook was on the Ohio Court of Appeals, she participated in deciding over 1,000 cases. Overall, she had a very low reversal rate. She has worked on hundreds of additional cases in the Ohio Supreme Court. But rather than focus on these hundreds of cases, I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to just a small handful of Ohio Supreme Court opinions that have been considered by the United States Supreme Court, during Justice Cook's tenure. As my colleagues are aware, the U.S. Court reviews few State supreme court cases. But this statistic is still worth considering for Justice Cook. During her time on the Ohio Supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court has reviewed five Ohio Supreme Court decisions and has agreed with Justice Cook in all five of those cases. One of those cases was simply a unanimous Ohio Supreme Court decision affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court 8 to 1. In the other four cases, Justice Cook has dissented in the underlying Ohio case. And, in each of these four cases, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Ohio Supreme Courts' majority opinion and reached the same conclusion as Justice Cook. These were not all just the close 5 to 4 decisions that we sometimes see in the U.S. Supreme Court. For example, in a fifth amendment self- incrimination case, the Supreme Court sided with Justice Cook 9 to 0. Another case went 8 to 1, again siding with Justice Cook's dissent. So it is clear from this record that Justice Cook's decisions have been well founded. Another useful gauge of a sitting judge's abilities is the evaluations she gets from objective observers who watch the court on a day-to-day basis. In my home State of Ohio, the major newspapers closely watch our high Court. After observing Justice Cook on the Ohio Supreme Court for a full 6-year term, Justice Cook was endorsed by all the major newspapers in Ohio for her 2000 reelection campaign. These newspapers included the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Columbus Dispatch, the Cincinnati Enquirer, the Akron Beacon Journal, the Dayton Daily News, and the Toledo Blade. Here's what several Ohio papers have said about her nomination to the Sixth Circuit. The Cincinnati Post wrote on January 8, 2003: Cook is serving her second term on the Ohio Supreme Court, where she has been a pillar of stability and good sense. Her role on that court--one, which in the last few years, has repeatedly marched on 4 to 3 votes into the realm of policy making--has often been writing sensible dissents. On December 29, 2002, insisting that the Senate Judiciary Committee act on Justice Cook, the Cleveland Plain Dealer wrote: Cook is a thoughtful, mature jurist--perhaps the brightest on the state's highest court. The Akron Beacon Journal wrote on January 6, 2003: Those who watch the Ohio high court know Cook is no ideologue. She has been a voice of restraint in opposition to a court majority determined to chart an aggressive course, acting as problem-solvers . . . more than jurists. In Deborah Cook, they have a judge most deserving of confirmation, one dedicated to judicial restraint. And, the Columbus Dispatch wrote on January 6, 2003: Cook's record is one of continuing achievement. . . . Since 1996, she has served on the Ohio Supreme Court, where she has distinguished herself as a careful jurist with a profound respect for judicial restraint and the separation of powers between the three branches of government. Mr. President, these quotes are from papers across the political spectrum--all of which endorsed Justice Cook. As these comments make clear, Justice Cook is a talented, serious judge who works diligently to follow the law. At the same time, she also dedicates a great deal of her time to volunteer work and community service. Justice Cook has served on the United Way Board of Trustees, the Volunteer Center Board of Trustees, the Akron School of Law Board of Trustees, and the Women's Network Board of Directors. She was named Woman of the Year in 1991 by the Women's Network. She has volunteered for the Safe Landing Shelter and for Mobile Meals. She has served as a board member and then president of the Akron Volunteer Center. Furthermore, Justice Cook has served as a Commissioner on the Ohio Commission for Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management, where she focused on, among other things, truancy mediation for disadvantaged students. She has chaired Ohio's Commission on Public Legal Education and has taught continuing legal education seminars on oral argument and brief writing. I find it remarkable that Justice Cook has found the time for this level of commitment to her community--and I have yet to describe the most amazing commitment Justice Cook has made to helping the underprivileged in Ohio. Justice Cook believes that the ticket out of poverty is a quality education. And, over the years, in their everyday lives Justice Cook and her husband, Bob Linton, has come across hard working young people who are making an effort to improve their lives through education. Tashia Smith is one of those people. Justice Cook met her when Tashia was struggling to put herself through college at Kent State by working as a waitress. Justice Cook assisted her with tuition for several years. Today, Tashia is in her final year of nursing school, carrying a 3.8 grade point average. Tara King is another of these students. With Justice Cook's help, Tara recently graduated from the University of Akron. She just enrolled in graduate school at Cleveland State University. After helping several students in this manner, Justice Cook and her husband decided they should structure their assistance so they could help more young people early on in their education. A little over 4 years ago, they started the ``College Scholars'' program with a group of 20 disadvantaged third graders from an inner city school. The students were selected to participate based on teacher recommendations, financial need, and level of family support. Justice Cook matched each of the students with a mentor in the community. The students meet with their mentors weekly and participate in other program activities. If the students maintain good grades and conduct through secondary school, Justice Cook and her husband will pay for 4 years of their tuition at any public university in Ohio. Let me repeat that--Justice Cook is going to pay for 4 years of college tuition for 20 disadvantaged children. These activities demonstrate a commitment to the community and dedication to helping the disadvantaged that we would like to see in everyone. These are qualities that help make Justice Deborah Cook a great judge on the Federal bench. It tells us what kind of a person, what kind of human being she is. For these reasons and the other reasons I have outlined, I urge my colleagues to support her nomination. I add, on a personal note, I have known Justice Deborah Cook for many years. She is a fine individual. She is the type of person that should be on the Federal bench. She has a proven track record of fairness, of compassion, of competence. I would not be on the Senate floor today if I did not trust her. I would not have recommended her name to the President of the United States if I did not have the utmost confidence in her ability. I yield the floor.

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 to proceed for the next 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader Frist, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on Executive Calendar No. 105, the nomination of Edward C. Prado, occur at 2:05 p.m. today.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, a number of us had the honor of attending an event at the White House on Tuesday in which President Bush urged Congress to act quickly in passing an emergency plan for global HIV/ AIDS relief. I come to the Senate floor this afternoon to applaud the President for his remarks and for his continuing commitment to ease the worldwide suffering caused by the HIV/AIDS epidemic around the world. I also want to thank Secretary of State Colin Powell and also my colleagues in both the House of Representatives and in the Senate for their leadership in fighting this dread disease. There are so many people to thank. Let me commend Senators Lugar, Biden, Frist, Santorum, Durbin, and Kerry for their tireless efforts and their dedication to this fight, as well as Congressmen Henry Hyde and Tom Lantos for their great leadership and their great vision. I am encouraged by what they have done with their leadership. I believe we will soon pass a comprehensive global AIDS relief initiative. As the President said, time is not on our side. It is imperative that we in the U.S. Congress move quickly. As President Bush so correctly said on Tuesday: Fighting AIDS on a global scale is a massive and complicated undertaking. Yet, this cause is rooted in the simplest of moral duties. When we see this kind of preventable suffering--when we see a plague leaving graves and orphans across a continent--we must act. The President of the United States is absolutely right. This is a moral issue. We as a nation and as a people have an obligation to act. We as a nation and we as a people have the ability to fight this disease. We have the tools. And it is our duty and it is our obligation to help ease this grave and global public health crisis. In February, I made my 12th trip to Haiti and my first visit to Guyana, both nations in our hemisphere that President Bush has cited as countries in dire need of our assistance to fight this HIV/AIDS problem. We traveled there to learn more about the AIDS situation and determine what kind of health infrastructure is in place to fight the disease. What we saw in these visits was devastating, with so many children and adults dying of this horrible disease and too few drugs to go around to help treat them and keep them alive. Without question, HIV/AIDS is a human tragedy of grave proportions-- not just in Africa but right here in our own backyard in our own hemisphere. When you travel to the AIDS-infested regions of the world, as my wife Fran and I have, and as so many of my colleagues here in the Senate have, such as Majority Leader Frist, Senator Inhofe, Senator Durbin, Senator Nelson of Florida, and Senator Chafee, when you see the children with AIDS, when you hold them, when you touch them, when you talk to the people who care for them, when you know that these children will in all likelihood die, it truly does change you forever. Then when you leave those countries, and when you leave those children, you know you cannot just leave; you know you have to try to do something to help. Our trip in February reinforced what we already knew about the devastation of the disease in Haiti, and allowed us to see what efforts are now underway in Guyana. This afternoon, I would like to take a few minutes to tell my colleagues about what we learned on that visit. I was pleased that Senator Chafee and his wife Stephanie were able to join Fran and me on that trip. We learned a great deal about what is and what is not being done in both of these impoverished nations. We were fortunate to have Senator Durbin and Senator Nelson of Florida and his wife Grace and Congressman Kendrick Meek join us on an earlier trip to Haiti in January, where we saw the tragic effects of the abject poverty and disease that engulfs Haiti today. While there is certainly some miraculous work being done in Haiti to ease the suffering--work done by people such as Father Tom Hagan and his organization Hands Together--there remains so much work to be done. When you view the HIV/AIDS rates in Haiti and Guyana in the context of the disease's overall prevalence rate in our hemisphere--Haiti has the highest rate and Guyana, either the second or third highest rate-- the moral imperative of helping these two troubled nations becomes absolutely crystal clear. In Haiti today, a nation of approximately 8 million people, 300,000 currently live with AIDS--300,000 people out of a country of 8 million people. Guyana follows close behind. In Guyana, a nation of roughly 800,000 people, 35,000--35,000--have been identified as HIV positive or as having AIDS. Of those 35,000 people who have been identified as HIV positive or as having AIDS, only 200--less than 1 percent--are getting antiretroviral drug treatment. Of those 200, only one--only one--is a child. So virtually none of the children in Guyana are getting any kind of drug treatment at all--virtually none. Only one child in all of Guyana is getting any drug treatment for AIDS. What a great tragedy. Consequently, the disease is having a devastating impact on these nations, and especially on the children. In Haiti, there are more than 150,000 orphans due to AIDS. This number has been increasing for over a decade and is expected to rise even more. Specifically, the percentage of Haitian AIDS orphans has gone from 7 percent in 1990 to 43 percent in 2001 and is estimated to increase to 49 percent by 2010. That will be a sevenfold increase in 20 years. Rates are equally troubling in Guyana. In 1990, there were no children orphaned due to AIDS, none, but by 2001, 21 percent of the orphans were the result of AIDS, and that number is projected to double to 41 percent by 2010. Not only is AIDS orphaning these children, but many of them are also suffering from the disease. Today, in Haiti, there are hundreds of orphanages spread throughout the country, hundreds actually just in the capital of Port-au-Prince, but there are less than just a handful that are serving or even taking care of children who have AIDS or who are HIV positive. We visited one of these orphanages in February, one of the orphanages that is taking care of children with AIDS. It is a wonderful place. It is a place called Arc en Ciel or ``Rainbow House Orphanage.'' This is a place that is doing just wonderful work. A Canadian couple--Danielle and Robert Penette--came in and restored the home there, and today it is a wonderful, bright, cheery, clean, and beautifully maintained orphanage for about 37 Haitian children. I think about 30 of them actually are HIV positive or already have AIDS. What we saw there was truly inspiring: children playing, laughing, and learning in the classroom. They sang songs for us. They were happy and healthy and content. They did not seem like orphans at all really but more like one big happy family--one healthy family. It was hard to imagine that any of these little children were sick at all. But of the HIV-positive children at the Rainbow House Orphanage, about 15 of them are currently in need of antiretroviral drugs. Those 15 children, fortunately, are now receiving these drugs. One of the important lessons we learned about these children and about the Rainbow House is that by providing these drugs, and by providing love and consistent nutrition--this good health care--clean water, the Penettes, this wonderful couple, are making an unbelievable impact on the quality of life for these very sick children. What they, in effect, are doing is prolonging the time it takes before these children actually need to be on AIDS treatment drugs. So half the children are not even on the drugs yet. Half of them are on the drugs. There are other places in Haiti, places where there are good, decent, loving people, such as the Penettes, who are also working miracles. For example, at another orphanage we visited in January, we saw wonderful people doing the best they could to care for some very sick, very malnourished children. At this particular orphanage, many children are brought there who are on the verge of death. The parents bring them there to try to save them. The good people who run these orphanages--saints really--love these children. They care for them. They feed them, give them what little medicine they have access to. These people bring many of these dying children back to life. They save them and they nourish them. But, tragically, for many of these children, they have AIDS. Unfortunately, the people who care for them in these orphanages--these other orphanages--do not have access to what the Penettes have; that is, the lifesaving drugs, antiretroviral drugs to keep these children with AIDS alive. They can give them love. They can give them food and clean water--and that helps--but they cannot give them the drugs that ultimately will save them. At this orphanage that Fran and I saw, they have an entire floor just for children--these young babies with AIDS. What you see when you go there really does change you forever. It is truly tragic--row after row of steel cribs with babies at various stages of disease, none of whom are receiving any sort of antiretroviral drug treatment. I remember seeing a little boy. He was about 4 or 5 years old, a little boy whose name was Francois. He had AIDS. The day we were there, when we saw him, he was very close to death. He was laid out on a makeshift bed on the cold, concrete floor. He had an IV attached to him, and he was getting some fluids. The wonderful people who were caring for him explained that he was no longer able to keep any food down. They explained to us that he would probably die within a couple days. There were no drugs available to treat him. So the people who were caring for him, were loving him, nurturing him, were doing what they could to give him the love they could and to make him as comfortable in the little time this poor little boy had remaining. I will not ever forget that little boy. I will not forget him for the rest of my life. I don't think anybody else who was in our group and who saw that little boy will forget him either. Another little boy I won't forget was about 7 years old. He also had AIDS. But he appeared to be, when you looked at him, very healthy. He was lively and content and thriving. But when we talked to the people in the orphanage, sadly we found out that will not last because this little boy also has AIDS. Very likely, unless something changes, unless drugs are made available to him, this little 7-year-old boy, who I also can't get out of my mind, will also eventually die. His death will be a needless one 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. It is a human tragedy. When we see children who are healthy now and who could remain healthy if treated properly, we feel so helpless because we know they are eventually going to die if we don't do something. That is why we must try to do something. I believe we must take action to save these children. This is one of the children my wife Fran and I had the opportunity to see at the orphanage I just described in Haiti. This is one of the little children who does in fact have AIDS. This is one of the little children who does not have access today to the drugs that will save this child. So when the President talks about a moral imperative, as he so eloquently does, and says we in the United States have a moral obligation to stop the suffering, to reach out and help these children, these are not just statistics. These are children who are in Africa, Asia, Haiti, Guyana. This is just one of the real faces of the children. This is a picture of one of the many AIDS babies we saw and actually held when we were in Haiti. When you look at that innocent, helpless little child, a child who has acquired AIDS through no fault of her own, you realize we as a Nation have a moral obligation to help. Children like this little girl, who in all likelihood may have already died in the time that has passed since we were in Haiti, will continue to die because they are not getting the drugs they need. These drugs are available, but they are not getting them. It is clear we are not doing enough. It is also clear this Congress must act. We cannot just walk away from nations such as Haiti and Guyana and these children and say this problem is too big for us to fix. We cannot walk away and say these are resource-strapped Third World countries and there is nothing we can do. We cannot walk away and say we should not funnel more resources into those nations because it will be too difficult to get compliance with the reforms; in other words, that lack of education and a weak and feeble infrastructure will impede any progress. We cannot walk away and simply say these are poor people, illiterate people, and we cannot teach them how to take the drugs. We cannot walk away and say there is no hope, because the evidence is that is not true. There is hope. The evidence is good doctors have already demonstrated, in countries like Haiti, that no matter how poor, how illiterate, people can take the drugs. They can do it very well and effectively, and their lives can be saved. In fact, doctors in Haiti have already demonstrated--Dr. Pape, Dr. Farmer, who I will talk about in a moment--through the compliance rate, in other words, the rate people taking these drugs and doing it consistently and saving their own lives, that they can do it just as well as you or I can do it in the United States or someone who has AIDS in the United States can do it. The fact is, despite the enormity of the despair, there is an equal if not greater amount of hope. There is hope because we can help. There is hope because a great deal is being done already. In Guyana, there is an energetic President, President Jagdeo, and a dedicated health minister who are committed to fighting this disease and building a health infrastructure in their nation that will in fact save lives. They have a long way to go, but I am encouraged by their current education efforts and by their commitment to getting more drug treatment into their nation. As they work to build this infrastructure, they can learn a great deal from the success stories in Haiti. I will tell you a couple. First there is Dr. Bill Pape who was with us at the White House just 2 days ago and who the President talked about and cited as a great example. He is director of GESHKIO, a health organization with 27 clinics in the Port-au-Prince area dedicated to the prevention and treatment of AIDS. I met with Dr. Pape several times in the past. I am always amazed at what this man has accomplished. Through his work, Dr. Pape is showing that in places as poor as Haiti, a nation with an average yearly per capita income of only $250, a nation where there are very limited health resources and, frankly, a nation with all kinds of problems with the government, HIV treatment and prevention can and does work. At the 27 GESHKIO clinics, they see over 11,000 children, of whom 589 are HIV positive. Sadly, of those children, only 29 are currently on antiretroviral drugs, but that is changing. At the same time, GESHKIO is working hard to treat infected mothers to help prevent mother-to- child HIV transmission. At Dr. Pape's clinics, they have found 30 percent of children were being born with HIV/AIDS if the mother was HIV positive and not receiving treatment. But of the HIV-positive mothers receiving treatment, only 8.7 percent of the children born are HIV positive. Clearly, this shows what can be accomplished, and this is one of the President's major initiatives--the mother-to-child transmission. It shows what you can do when you can go from a 30 percent AIDS incidence to at least 8.7, and possibly even lower. Think of all the children whose lives are being saved, who are not getting HIV, who are not HIV positive because of that. Mr. President, the medical science is clear: If we can reach these mothers early enough before they give birth to that child who will have AIDS because the mom has AIDS, and if we can get medical treatment to the mother and get her the proper drugs, we can save that child. We can save that child at comparatively little economic cost. We should think of the savings not just in dollars and cents, but in lives saved. I was pleased to have the opportunity in February to also meet with Dr. Paul Farmer, who is fighting AIDS in the rural and remote parts of Haiti. He runs an organization called ``Partners in Health'' and operates clinics in Cange. Dr. Farmer is making tremendous progress. Since 1999, his organization has tracked a population of 3,500 HIV/AIDS patients and has been able to treat more than 350 of them with antiretroviral drugs. Of those receiving drugs since 1999, zero percent--no one--has died. Yet, tragically, of those not receiving drug treatment, 35 percent, so far, have died. Both Dr. Pape and Dr. Farmer have received grants from the Global AIDS Fund to supplement their efforts. And I point out that money is being put into proven organizations that can get the job done. This tells us we are willing to invest efforts that are working and making a difference and saving lives. While Dr. Farmer and Dr. Pape have empirically proven there is success in treatment in a Third World nation, and there is hope, we still must do more. We must act, and we must act now. I am encouraged we have moved forward in terms of our AIDS spending level--a level that has gone up significantly over the last few years. I compliment my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, and particularly Senator Ted Stevens for his efforts and dedication to increasing our funds to fight AIDS. Earlier this year, Senator Durbin and I were successful in amending the fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations bill to include an additional $100 million to fight the global AIDS pandemic. That money will go a long way. If that money is used to implement a holistic approach to fighting AIDS, I believe we can make significant advances worldwide. That means focusing 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. This type of comprehensive approach can and will make a difference. Let me turn my colleagues' attention to two other photographs from our recent trip to Guyana. You will see two men who are stricken with AIDS. They are patients of the only public hospital in that nation's capital of Georgetown. When you look at these pictures, you can see the anguish in these poor men's eyes. You can see their suffering and you can certainly see their heartbreak. This shows you the ward in this hospital in Georgetown. This poor gentleman has AIDS. Though the staggering and shocking statistics can be at once overwhelming and seemingly unreal, when you hold babies dying from the disease, or when you see the real faces of these men, the people suffering, as in these photographs, it has to move you. It changes you. It certainly makes the statistics real. Mr. President, in a guest column recently in the Washington Post, prominent AIDS activist Bono quoted something President Harry Truman once said. This is what Truman said: I trust the people because when they know the facts, they do the right thing. That certainly is the case, I believe, when it comes to the global AIDS problem. We have the opportunity to do the right thing. I believe we will do the right thing. The House plans to take final action on its bill today, and I am encouraged by the continued good-faith efforts of my colleagues in the Senate. We are moving forward on a bipartisan basis. The majority leader, Dr. Bill Frist, has been a real leader in this. My colleague, Senator Lugar, on a bipartisan basis, is working with others and moving forward on this as well. I am encouraged that we will be able to get a bill put together. Mr. President, every 50 seconds a child somewhere in the world dies of an AIDS-related illness, and another becomes infected with HIV. We have to do something to stop this. The United States has an obligation to lead this fight, and we are leading it and moving forward. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues as we move ahead. It is our duty, it is our moral obligation, and it is the right thing to do. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, if I may ask the Chair to state the parliamentary situation now on the time. My understanding is that we had a total of 2 hours.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Utah. After 12 years, in about an hour from now we will finally be voting on the nomination of Jeffrey Sutton, 2 years after his nomination was submitted by President Bush to this body. I spoke twice yesterday in the Chamber in regard to his nomination, so I will not take much of my colleagues' time today to talk about the nomination. I have listened to my friends' comments--they are my friends--who oppose this nomination. I have a great deal of respect for them. But I believe I had to come back to the floor this morning and respond, however briefly, to their comments. As I have listened to their comments, it has become clear that the opposition to Jeffrey Sutton really does boil down to this: The fact that the opponents to Jeffrey Sutton, those who in a few moments will vote against his nomination, do not like the positions he has taken in cases he has argued. The Garrett case is a prime example. Mr. President and Members of the Senate, as I said yesterday, and as I explained in more detail than I will today, I thought Jeffrey Sutton's own argument on behalf of the State of Alabama in the Garrett case was wrong. This Senator from Ohio believed it was wrong. And the U.S. Supreme Court decided that I was wrong. They decided that Jeffrey Sutton and the State of Alabama were right. I happen to still think the Supreme Court got it wrong. I still happen to think Mr. Sutton's arguments on behalf of his client, the State of Alabama, were wrong. But the fact remains that Jeffrey Sutton was simply acting as a lawyer. He was acting as a lawyer--and in this case a successful lawyer--representing his client. If you analyze the different criticisms and the different cases, what you will find time after time after time is that he was acting in his capacity as a lawyer, and a pretty successful lawyer. If we would deny Jeffrey Sutton the ability to serve on the Federal bench because we do not like his clients, or we do not like the position of his clients, or we do not like his advocacy for those clients or the position he took as a good lawyer following the canons of judicial ethics, it would set a very dangerous precedent for this Senate. It would have a chilling effect on the practice of law in this country. Every lawyer in this country who had any thought or any ambition of ever serving on the Federal bench--I will guarantee that there are an awful lot of them out there who someday will have some dream in their mind of serving on the Federal bench, however realistic or not it might be--each one of them would have to think: Gee, is my representation of this client, is my representation of this particular cause going to somehow affect my ability to get on the Federal bench? Will some judiciary committee, will some U.S. Senator, will some White House in the future look at this and say, oh, that was a bad cause, that was something that was just too controversial? No, my friends in the Senate, we don't want to go down that path. That is a wrong path to go down. We know better. We know better than to do that. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said: No, that is really not what we are talking about. We are not talking about his representation of someone in court. We are talking about what he said outside of the court. I think we have to look at that. I submit to Members of the Senate, when you look at that allegation, and when you strip it away and look at the real facts, what you find is, in the cases that we look at, Jeffrey Sutton was still working as a lawyer. I will give you an example: The famous NPR interview, National Public Radio interview, that has been cited time and time again on the floor by the opponents. There are quotes from Jeffrey Sutton about that, and people say: Oh, look. He was talking on National Public Radio, and he was not serving as a lawyer then, or he was not arguing a case in front of the United States Supreme Court; that must have been his own ideas. What my colleagues fail to mention is that interview was done in conjunction with an oral argument in front of the United States Supreme Court. If I am not mistaken, I think it was actually the same day he was making the oral argument in front of the United States Supreme Court. He was talking, I believe, about the Garrett case, and he was telling the interviewer from NPR what his oral argument was going to be. We would obviously expect him not to disagree with what his oral argument was going to be. We would not expect him to say anything inconsistent with what his oral argument was going to be. And we would expect him to advocate for his clients and say the same thing on National Public Radio that he would say in the courtroom of the United States Supreme Court. So again, Mr. Sutton was acting as a lawyer. So to put it in a common term, it is a ``bum rap.'' This man has a right to be a lawyer--not only has a right to be a lawyer, he has an obligation to be a lawyer. It is what he has to do once he takes a case. He is a good lawyer. He is a lawyer who has done his job. He is a lawyer who is well qualified to serve on the Federal bench. I hope my colleagues, when they come to the floor, will consider his life experiences, his life's work, things he has done outside the courtroom as far as community service, as well as how well respected he clearly is by courts, by his colleagues, and by the community. Therefore, I hope my colleagues will vote to confirm Jeffrey Sutton to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, shortly before Congress adjourned for the Easter recess, I came here to the Senate floor and had a chance to speak briefly about the magnificent service that our Armed Forces are performing in Iraq. The hard-working men and women in all branches of our military--those who are serving in Iraq and those who are helping to support them--they are all doing an absolutely tremendous job. We are so proud of our service men and women and so grateful for their service and dedication to our country. Since Operation Iraqi Freedom began, we have watched on television and read in the newspapers about our troops' countless acts of bravery, strength, and leadership. We have seen our service men and women take control of Baghdad, driving out Saddam Hussein and freeing the Iraqi people from his oppressive regime. And, Mr. President, we have rejoiced as the many statues of Saddam--and all that they represent--have toppled. But, at the same time, Mr. President, while there certainly are many reasons to rejoice and there is clearly much to be thankful for, I also am reminded of something Dwight D. Eisenhower said nearly 60 years ago in a speech following the defeat of Nazi Germany in June 1945. General Eisenhower said that there are certain things that military honors and battlefield victories cannot hide. As he so eloquently said, Mr. President--and I quote: [Military] honors cannot hide . . . the crosses marking the resting places of the dead. They cannot soothe the anguish of the widow, or the orphan, whose husband or father will not return. Sadly, Mr. President, there are sons, husbands, and fathers who will not be returning home from Iraq. Our hearts go out to the families of those who have lost their lives. We pray for them. We pray for those who have been injured. We pray for those who are recovering. And, we think about them--we thing about them every day. President John F. Kennedy once said that ``a nation reveals itself not only by the men it produces, but also by the men it honors [and] remembers.'' And so today, Mr. President, I would like to honor and remember three valiant men from my home State of Ohio--three brave men who gave the ultimate sacrifice to protect us and to protect our children and our grandchildren and the Iraqi people--three brave men who serve as true examples of what defines patriotism and love of country. Today, Mr. President, I would like to honor and remember the lives and sacrifices of Army Private Brandon Sloan, Army First Sergeant Robert Dowdy, and Marine Private First Class Christian Gurtner--all of whom upheld with strength and conviction what General Douglas MacArthur called the soldier's code, a code of ``Duty, Honor, Country.'' I did not have the privilege of knowing these men. I did, however, have the honor of attending their funerals and meeting their families and friends and hearing from them about the lives of these men and about their dreams and their hopes and their aspirations. I am grateful. I am grateful to have had that opportunity, and I thank their families for allowing me to attend those services. I learned a great deal about these three Ohioans. And though I am here on the Senate floor today to pay tribute to these men, I know that my words will fall short. My words will fall short because really, it is their families and friends and the men and women with whom they served--many still in Iraq right now--who knew them best. They are the people who could give the most adequate tribute. But, at the same time, I do feel it is very important for my colleagues here in the United States Senate and for the American people to know what I have learned about these three fine men, because each one of them, in his own way, has revealed the strength and the greatness of our Nation. PVT Brandon Sloan was born in Cleveland, OH, on October 7, 1983, to the Rev. Tandy Sloan and Kimberly Sloan. Brandon was special. Rev. Walter Thornhill, the pastor at Brandon's church in Cleveland, remembered him as ``a gentle person with a goodness of spirit.'' Brandon was a loving and caring person, with a strong faith in God. He radiated joy because of that faith, and his joy spread to everyone around him, especially to his younger sister Brittney, and to his friends and to his community. His friends described Brandon as ``a big guy--happy-go-lucky and loyal to a fault.'' His friend Tony Tucker said Brandon was a ``kind, sweet person . . . a cool person to be around.'' That was his faith shining through. It was not surprising that Brandon was a popular and friendly student at Bedford High School in Bedford Heights, OH. He was a gifted athlete, who proved to be a talented football player, working hard on the field to earn a position as defensive lineman for the Bedford High Bearcats. Store owners recalled how pleasant and personable Brandon was when he would stop by their stores after high school football practice. He was a nice young man who was respectful and considerate of others, they recalled. Again, that was Brandon's faith shining through. Brandon's faith in God, and the warmth that radiated from him because of it, extended to his love of his country. When he turned 18 years old, he enlisted in the U.S. Army. His service in the Army began with great promise. He became a logistics specialist and was assigned to Fort Bliss, TX. In January 2003, he was sent to Kuwait with the 507th Maintenance Company. But, after just 1 year of service, at the age of 19, Brandon was killed in action when the 507th was ambushed by Iraqi troops near Al Nasiriyah. He was killed while defending the Nation he was so proud to serve and protect. Brandon Sloan wanted to be a soldier. He was proud to be a soldier. His father, Rev. Sloan, recalled how Brandon just exuded pride at his boot camp graduation. He wanted to protect his country. He wanted to protect us and our children and our grandchildren. His faith in God and his commitment to serving America is what made Brandon Sloan a very special person. He is a role model for all of us. I know he will be greatly missed by his friends and by his family. He leaves behind to cherish his memory his father, his mother, his sister, and his grandmothers Dr. Rementa Pippen and Luberta Sloan. My prayers are with all of them. 1SG Robert Dowdy was also from Cleveland and also served and died with the 507th Maintenance Company where he was the highest ranking enlisted soldier. Robert was born on August 21, 1964, and attended Cleveland South High School, and before graduating in 1982, he lettered in five sports. After high school, Robert followed his older brother Jack, a former marine, into the military, and his service carried him to bases in South Korea and across the United States. Even when far away from home, however, he always kept close to Cleveland and followed his beloved Cleveland Indians whenever and wherever he could--and, I might add, when they were having good seasons or bad seasons. One of Robert's other passions was distance running. He was an avid runner with a level of perseverance and commitment that permeated everything else that he did in life. His friends said in a race he always would cross the finish line in high spirits. Robert also liked to take time to enjoy all things in life, including the little things. He was a devoted son, devoted husband, devoted father. And, he loved doing small things for his family, things such as teaching his mother how to drive. His family was everything to him. His family was his life, his passion, his whole world. Robert married his high school sweetheart, Kathy, and they were blessed by the birth of their daughter Kristy. Their marriage was one of balance. Robert never made a decision without consulting Kathy. They were equals. They were partners. They were best friends. Robert had great respect for his wife and loved her and loved Kristy with all of his heart. Robert's bravery as a soldier was something he passed on to his daughter Kristy. At the age of 14, she had the courage and the strength to design the program cover for her dad's funeral. Kristy created an enduring and heartfelt tribute not only for her father, but also for other Americans who have dedicated their lives to protecting us. For the program cover, she took a picture of her father and placed in the background additional pictures of policemen and firefighters saving lives on September 11, 2001. I think we can be sure that Robert would have been so proud of his daughter Kristy, as we know he always was. Mr. President, 1SG Robert Dowdy was an inspiration, not only to his family, but also to his fellow troops. He led by example. He led by his actions, not just by his words. As a first sergeant, he was a leader. He was strong, yet compassionate. He truly loved those under his command, and they knew it. He touched their hearts. He loved them, and they loved him back. MSG John Hite, who eulogized Robert at his funeral, relayed a story of a young soldier who was clearly touched by Robert's life and leadership. Master Sergeant Hite spoke of a big, strapping 6-foot-4- inch, 250-pound soldier who came up to him the day before First Sergeant Dowdy's burial and told him about the love and admiration he had for Robert. As they talked, they were standing by a bouquet of flowers adorned with a tiny replica of Robert's machine gun, his helmet, and his combat boots. Before long, as this big, strong, tough Army soldier spoke of First Sergeant Dowdy, his eyes swelled with tears. He looked at those combat boots and simply said: ``No one will ever fill them. . . .'' Robert Dowdy loyally served his country for 18 years. He was only 18 months from retirement when he deployed for Iraq--a deployment he volunteered for so that another soldier could stay home with his family. This act defines who Robert Dowdy was, and no one who knew him was surprised that he would offer to help a fellow soldier in this selfless way. As his brother, Jack, said: ``[Robert] was a very patriotic and very loyal man who loved his country. . . . He just wanted to serve his country to the best of his ability before he retired.'' First Sergeant Robert Dowdy did serve his country and he served it loyally, heroically, and honorably. In the end, Robert Dowdy ran a good race. And as St. Paul wrote in his second Epistle to Timothy: He finished the course; he kept the faith. Robert Dowdy is survived by his wife Kathy, his daughter Kristy, his brothers Jack Jr. and Jim, his sisters Roxanne and Anita, and his parents Jack and Irene Dowdy. My heart goes out to them all. PFC Christian Daniel Gurtner was born on June 23, 1983. He grew up in Ohio City, OH, and graduated from Van Wert High School in Van Wert, OH. He joined the Marines last year after graduating from high school and was assigned to the 3rd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, based out of Twentynine Palms, California. He was deployed to Kuwait in February 2003. Christian's friends described him as respectful, motivated, and hard- charging. He was proud of what he was doing and was committed to the Marines. As his friends described, he was so excited about being in the Marines and was so honored to serve. He frequently signed letters back home with the Marine Corps motto ``Semper Fidelis.'' In February, one of the last times Christian spoke to his family, he told his mother that he was ready to do whatever was needed to protect our Nation. He told her that he was ``good to go.'' And, in a letter he wrote home--a letter that his mother received just days ago and portions of which were printed in yesterday's Washington Post--Christian wrote of how he missed and loved his family, but that he was fighting so we all ``can sleep better at night because there is less terrorism in the world.'' In typical fashion, he closed this letter with ``Semper Fi.'' Christian was a faithful, hard-working, and well-loved member of the Ohio City community. He loved to laugh, and, as his friend Alicia Sterling said, ``He had this smile, and you knew when you saw that smile [that] you were going to get into trouble!'' Christian loved to have fun, and he loved to watch sports. He followed both the Atlanta Braves and the Ohio State University football team. He also enjoyed bowling and spent many evenings at the bowling alley with friends. To celebrate this, his friends brought to his funeral a bowling pin signed by his teammates. It was a touching gesture--one of love and admiration for their friend and fellow teammate. When he joined the Marines, Christian found a cause in which he believed deeply and a vehicle through which he could pursue his beliefs. He served our country well and fought valiantly to preserve the security of this Nation and fight for the freedom of the Iraqi people. Christian Gurtner passed away on April 2, 2003. As Chief Warrant Officer Suzanne Handshoe so fittingly said upon his death, ``We lost a brother. As Marines, we honor our own.'' Christian Gurtner was good-natured. He was loyal. He was true to his family and friends. And, he was just a decent, loving, kind-hearted young man who died fighting for a cause he strongly believed in. At his funeral, Christian's mother picked a very special song to be played in her much-loved son's honor, a song called ``Forever Young.'' When I heard that song, I was reminded of a poem that was sent to me shortly after my wife and I lost our daughter 10 years ago. Our daughter was about Christian's age. It was sent to me by a dear friend of mine, Jack McKernan, who had lost his own son--a young man who was also about Christian's age. It was a poem that was written during World War I, by a man named Laurence Binyon. Here is a stanza from that poem: They shall not grow old, as we that are left grow old; Age shall not worry them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. And we, too, will remember you, Christian. PFC Christian Gurtner is survived by an infant daughter, his mother Eldonna, and his stepfather Gary Wagonrod, and his grandmothers Sally Mae Gurtner and Dorothy Wagonrod. They have been and will remain in my thoughts and prayers. Brandon Sloan, Robert Dowdy, and Christian Gurtner demonstrated great nobility both in their lives and in their deaths. They revealed all that is good and strong about our Nation--a Nation they gave their lives for to defend and protect. Each of these men was an amazing individual, whose families and friends loved them dearly. My heart aches at their loss, but after learning more about these three remarkable men, I am even more proud to say that I am an American, and that I come from a country and a state that could produce such admirable individuals--men who, indeed, upheld the code of Duty, Honor, Country. Though, they were but three of the several hundred thousand women and men who serve this country in the military, they represented the courage and the selflessness of them all. My wife, Fran, and I extend our most heartfelt sympathy and prayers to the families of Brandon Sloan, Robert Dowdy, and Christian Gurtner. To their parents, I must say that you raised incredible sons. We will never forget them. As President Ronald Reagan said of the troops who perished at Normandy in World War II: We will always remember. We will always be proud. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I want to talk for just a moment about a case that has seen the most attention in this debate over Mr. Sutton's nomination, and that is the case of the Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett. Mr. Sutton has been criticized for representing the University of Alabama in the U.S. Supreme Court; specifically, for presenting Alabama's constitutional sovereignty immunity argument before the U.S. Supreme Court. In the Garrett case, the Supreme Court held that a disabled individual cannot sue a State for money damages for employment discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Court held that in order for Congress to pass that particular remedy--money damages against a State--it first had to show that States were engaging in a pattern of employment discrimination against the disabled. The Court said that Congress had not met the burden of proof required by the Constitution. That was the finding of the U.S. Supreme Court. I disagreed with the Court's decision in Garrett, and I disagreed with Alabama's argument as presented by Mr. Sutton in the Supreme Court. I believe that Congress did, in fact, meet its burden in passing the ADA. Congress established a record of discrimination against the disabled necessary to pass constitutional scrutiny by the courts. Congress sent a loud and clear message to the courts in the findings of the ADA and in an extensive legislative history. What happened in Garrett was that the Supreme Court--unwisely, I believe--substituted its judgment for ours. The Court reviewed our extensive findings and our legislative history, then, one by one, dismissed them as inadequate. I must say to my colleagues that I am deeply troubled by the Court's lack of deference to Congress in the Garrett case. This lack of deference is why many of us in this body believe the U.S. Supreme Court, in Garrett, simply got it wrong. Ultimately, whether I agree or disagree with Mr. Sutton's arguments, or whether this Senator from Ohio agrees or disagrees with the Supreme Court in that Garrett case, is really irrelevant to whether Mr. Sutton is qualified to serve on the Federal bench because, you see, Mr. Sutton was doing nothing more than acting as a lawyer, as an advocate. It is clear that all Mr. Sutton has done is successfully argue his client's position in that case and in some other controversial cases. Bluntly, that is what lawyers do. They argue for their clients. As Mr. Sutton has testified, he has argued on behalf of a wide range of clients, on a wide range of issues. Back in January of this year, the Columbus Dispatch weighed in on this exact point when it wrote: The fact is, Sutton is guilty of nothing except being a good lawyer. When he represents a disabled client, he fights hard for the disabled client. When he is representing a State opposing an extension of Federal power, as in the ADA case, he fights hard for his State client. That is what attorneys are supposed to do. I absolutely agree with that editorial from the Columbus Dispatch and with that assessment. I believe arguing that Jeff Sutton should not be confirmed because of his legal representation in Garrett or any other case would set a very bad precedent for this body. We should not go down that path today or tomorrow when we vote. We should not go down the path of denying the confirmation of a nominee because we may not like some of the clients he has represented or because we disagree with the arguments he has made as an attorney. Think about it. If that is the standard we apply, we would never confirm anyone who has a background as a criminal defense lawyer. The examples are legion. What would this criterion have meant for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall? In 1943, Thurgood Marshall successfully argued a case before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of an accused rapist. He used a technical jurisdictional argument to defend his client. Specifically, he argued that the Federal Government could not prosecute his client for a rape that took place on a Federal military installation in Louisiana, based on an obscure land acquisition act. There was no question in this case as to the actual guilt of the defendant, only whether the Federal Government had jurisdiction to prosecute the individuals guilty of the crime. Nobody argued that Thurgood Marshall should not be confirmed because of his role as a defense lawyer in that case. He was doing his job-- defending his client's legal position. Obviously his role in this case did not mean that he believed that the Federal Government should not be able to prosecute crimes, or that Thurgood Marshall was not sympathetic to women's issues, or that he was in any way sympathetic to rapists, for Heaven's sake. Let me raise an example that was called to the attention of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a another Court of Appeals nominee--the famous example is John Adams. John Adams, the revered and well-known patriot of our Nation's Revolutionary War, represented extremely unpopular clients while acting in his capacity as a private attorney. As some of my colleagues may recall, John Adams argued in a murder trial on behalf of a prominent captain in the British army and several of his soldiers who had allegedly killed five Boston citizens and injured several others in what is known as ``the Boston Massacre.'' Adams described his work on behalf of the British soldiers as ``the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested Actions of my whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country.'' He also described his involvement in the Boston Massacre case as a source of great anxiety-- evidence enough that his representation of the soldiers was, as a political and social matter, extremely unpopular at the time. As my colleagues know, John Adams was successful in his representation of the soldiers. Clearly, however, John Adams was not sympathetic to British rule or murder nor opposed to popular citizen uprisings. Would the Senate have not confirmed John Adams to a court because of his work as a lawyer? I certainly hope that would not have been true. There are many examples of individuals who were confirmed by this body for service on the Federal bench and had, during their time in private practice, represented unpopular clients or causes. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, for example, represented two corporations charged in two separate cases with conspiracy to monopolize markets and illegal restraint of competition. Despite his work on behalf of these corporations, few would argue that Justice Stevens unfairly favors the interests of businesses over those of consumers or that his efforts as a lawyer in these cases reflect his personal feelings about corporate misconduct. To take a few more recent examples, Eric Clay, confirmed in 1997 to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, represented a number of client positions that many might find personally problematic: An insurance company that was seeking to deny benefits to a disabled individual covered by the company's policy; a defendant in a sex discrimination suit; and a corporation which was seeking to displace, by condemnation if necessary, an entire town in Michigan so that an automaker could build an assembly plant on the land. Nonetheless, nobody would argue that Judge Clay then or now on the basis of his work as an attorney, held personal views that were hostile toward employees, the disabled, or people who live in small towns. Frank Hull, who was confirmed in 1997 to the 11th Circuit, represented a company seeking to deny life insurance benefits to the spouse of a deceased employee and also represented an accounting firm that was accused of financial fraud. Justice Hull was confirmed 96 to 0. Nobody believed that Judge Hull had a bias against widows or that he supported financial fraud. Merrick Garland was confirmed in 1997 to the D.C. Circuit Court. Prior to that, in his capacity as a Federal prosecutor, he successfully opposed a defendant who was trying to assert his constitutional right to due process in order to overturn a drug conviction. Nobody in the Senate believes that Judge Garland has any personal opposition to constitutional due process protections. Robert Bruce King, confirmed in 1998 to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, represented a client accused and convicted of defrauding the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Nonetheless, nobody believes that Judge King advocates the practice of defrauding the Government or that he is somehow hostile toward the mission of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The list goes on and on, and I am sure that Members of the Senate and their staffs could easily come up with a laundry list of examples where an individual has represented potentially unsavory clients or causes in private practice and has nonetheless been confirmed to the Federal bench by the Senate. Members of this body did not oppose these nominees just because they might not have liked all of the nominee's clients, or because they did not like the positions they took or the issues they stood for while advocating for that particular client. This should not even be an issue. The idea of zealously advocating for your client, no matter who that client is and what he or she is accused of, is basic and fundamental to the very idea of being a lawyer. And, I might add, it goes to the core obligation of being a lawyer. Once a person takes a case, they must represent that client to the fullest of their ability. In fact, the American Bar Association Model Code of Professional Conduct explicitly addresses this issue. The Model Code, Canon 7-1, states this: The duty of a lawyer, both to his client and to the legal system, is to represent his client zealously within the bounds of the law. The individuals listed above represented their clients, even the unpopular ones I have mentioned, because they understood their role as attorneys. They were dedicated to representing their clients, whomever they might be, and to advocating the cause and positions of their clients. Jeff Sutton has shown the same dedication. He has been a passionate advocate for his clients, as every lawyer is duty-bound to be. He should be judged by his advocacy and ability as a lawyer. He should not be condemned for this. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, following the morning business period, the Senate will resume consideration of the nomination of Jeffrey S. Sutton to be a circuit judge for the Sixth Circuit. Under the previous consent agreement reached, a vote will occur on the confirmation of that nomination on Tuesday at approximately 12 noon. There will be no rollcall votes during today's session. The majority leader has also stated that this week the Senate will also resume consideration of the nomination of Priscilla Owen to be a circuit judge for the Fifth Circuit. In addition, there are a number of other legislative items that may be scheduled for action, including the bioshield bill, the digital and wireless technology legislation, the FISA bill, and any other legislative or executive items that can be cleared. Again, as a reminder, the first rollcall vote will occur at approximately 12 noon tomorrow.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am pleased that today we are considering the nomination of Jeffrey Sutton to serve on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Judiciary Committee had an opportunity to listen to Mr. Sutton answer questions a few months ago in what turned out to be a very lengthy hearing. Probably 60 to 70 percent of the questions asked during the 9\1/2\-hour hearing were directed at Mr. Sutton. Those of you who heard this testimony, my colleagues who had the opportunity to hear it or who maybe had the opportunity to review the transcript of that hearing, will no doubt attest to Mr. Sutton's keen intellect, his even temperament, and the depth of his legal knowledge. These attributes demonstrate why Jeffrey Sutton is one of the finest appellate lawyers in the United States today, and why he will be an excellent Federal judge. Mr. Sutton's legal and life experiences have been extensive. He spent the first part of his life living abroad. The Sutton family remained abroad until a couple of years before Mr. Sutton started high school. They returned to the States because his father took over a boarding school for children with severe cerebral palsy. For over 6 years, Jeff spent much of his time around the school doing odd jobs for his dad. He was deeply affected by this experience and by the interactions he had with these students. It reinforced what he had been taught by his parents, that serving others is an important calling and virtue. Mr. Sutton attended Williams College where he was a Lehman Scholar and varsity soccer player. He graduated with honors in history. After college, from 1985 to 1987, Mr. Sutton taught 7th grade geography and 10th grade history while also serving as the coach of a high school varsity soccer team and a middle school baseball team. From there, he went on to law school and graduated first in his class from The Ohio State University College of Law, where he served as an editor of the Law Review. Mr. Sutton then clerked for Judge Thomas Meskill on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. From this position, he went on to clerk for two U.S. Supreme Court justices-- retired Justice Lewis Powell and Justice Antonin Scalia. From 1995 to 1998, Mr. Sutton was the State Solicitor of Ohio, which is the State's top appellate lawyer. During his service, the National Association of Attorneys General presented him with the Best Brief Award for practicing in the U.S. Supreme Court--a recognition he received an unprecedented four years in a row. Jeff Sutton is currently a partner in the Columbus law firm of Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue. He is a member of the Columbus Bar Association, the Ohio Bar Association, and the American Bar Association. He also has been an adjunct professor of law at The Ohio State University College of Law since 1994, where he teaches seminars on Federal and State constitutional law. Every lawyer who knows Jeff Sutton already knows he is one of the best lawyers in the country. Recently, The American Lawyer confirmed this by rating him one of its ``45 under 45''--that is, they named him as one of the top 45 lawyers in the country under the age of 45. He has appeared frequently in court, having argued 12 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, where he has a 9 and 3 record. In the Supreme Court's 2000-2001 term, Mr. Sutton argued four cases--that's more cases than any other private practitioner in the country. Can you imagine preparing to argue one case before the Supreme Court, much less four? Mr. Sutton, by the way, won all four cases. Mr. Sutton also has argued twelve cases before the Ohio Supreme Court, six cases before various U.S. Courts of Appeals, and numerous cases before the State and Federal trial courts. And, over the years, Mr. Sutton has been the lawyer for a range of clients on a wide range of issues. Some of these cases were quite well known and at least one of them has already been raised in debate here on the Floor. For example, he represented the State of Ohio in City of Boerne v. Flores, the State of Florida in Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, and the State of Alabama in University of Alabama v. Garrett. While many of the cases that he has argued are well known, I would like to take this opportunity to tell my colleagues about some of his lesser-known cases. Jeff Sutton represented Cheryl Fischer, a blind woman who was denied admission to a State-run medical school in Ohio because of her disability. He also represented the National Coalition of Students with Disabilities in a lawsuit alleging that Ohio universities were violating the Federal ``motor voter'' law by failing to provide their disabled students with voter-registration materials. Jeff Sutton also defended Ohio's minority set-aside statute against constitutional attack, and in another case he filed an amicus brief in the Ohio Supreme Court defending Ohio's hate-crimes statute on behalf of the NAACP, the Anti-Defamation League, and an assortment of other civil-rights groups. As this sampling of cases makes evident, Mr. Sutton has represented a variety of clients in the course of his career as an appellate lawyer. I think it is important for Senators to remember this fact as we consider Mr. Sutton's nomination. In addition to his professional work as a lawyer, Jeff Sutton has found an extraordinary amount of time to give back to his community. Between a demanding law practice and spending time with his wife Peggy and their three young children--Margaret, John, and Nathaniel--Mr. Sutton serves on the Board of Trustees of the Equal Justice Foundation, a non-profit provider of legal services to disadvantaged individuals and groups, including the disabled. He has spent considerable time doing free legal work, averaging between 100 and 200 hours per year. He is an elder and deacon in the Presbyterian Church, as well as a Sunday school teacher. He participates in numerous other community activities, including ``I Know I Can,'' which provides college scholarships to inner-city children, and ProMusica, a chamber music organization. He also coaches youth soccer and basketball teams. In conclusion, when considering Jeff Sutton's nomination, I encourage the Senate to consider his broad range of life experiences, as well as his stellar legal background. I also urge my colleagues to take into account his testimony and the very straightforward way that he answered the many questions posed to him during his confirmation hearing. He has been straightforward, and he has been frank with our committee. Finally, I encourage the Senate to consider Mr. Sutton's astute characterization of the role of a Federal judge. As he said, a Court of Appeals judge must try at all times to ``see the world through other people's eyes.'' I believe that is an excellent summary of one of the core responsibilities of an appellate court judge. Jeff Sutton understands well the skills and the temperament necessary to be a good federal judge. He has the intellect for the job, and I am confident that he will approach his duties on the bench in a pragmatic, tempered, and thoughtful way. I strongly support his nomination and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, on April 26, 2003, more than 1,200 students from across the United States will visit Washington, DC, to compete in the national finals of the ``We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution'' program, the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I am pleased and proud to announce that a class from Findlay High School from Findlay, OH, will represent our state in the upcoming national event. These young scholars have worked conscientiously to reach the national finals by participating at local and statewide competitions. As a result of their experience, they have gained a thorough knowledge and deep understanding of the fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy. The 3-day We the People national competition is modeled after hearings in the Congress. The hearings consist of oral presentations by high school students before a panel of adult judges on constitutional topics. The students are given an opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge while they evaluate, take, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. Their testimony is followed by a period of questioning by the judges who probe the students' depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge. The We the People program provides curricular materials at upper elementary, middle, and high school levels. The curriculum not only enhances students' understanding of the institutions of American constitutional democracy, but it also helps them identify the contemporary relevance of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Critical thinking exercises, problem-solving activities, and cooperative learning techniques help develop participatory skills necessary for students to become active, responsible citizens. Furthermore, independent studies by the Educational Testing Service, ETS, revealed that students enrolled in the We the People program at upper elementary, middle, and high school levels significantly outperformed comparison students on every topic of the tests taken. Another study by Richard Brody at Stanford University discovered that students involved in the We the People program develop greater commitment to democratic principles and values than do students using traditional textbooks and approaches. Researchers at the Council for Basic Education noted: [T]eachers feel excited and renewed. . . . Students are enthusiastic about what they have been able to accomplish, especially in terms of their ability to carry out a reasoned argument. They have become energized about their place as citizens of the United States. The class from Findlay High School is currently preparing for their participation in the national competition, and it is inspiring how these young people advocate the fundamental ideals and principles of our government--ideas that identify us as a people and bind us together as a Nation. I send these fine young constitutional experts my best wishes as they compete in the We the People national finals.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, later today the Senate will take up a bill that the House has acted upon; that is, the Clean Diamond Act of 2003. There are many tragedies in this world, a lot of suffering. This bill deals with one of these problems. There are many atrocities that are occurring. One area of the world where such atrocities are occurring on a daily basis is in Sierra Leone, Africa. For at least a decade, Sierra Leone, one of the world's poorest nations, has been embroiled in a civil war. Rebel groups--most notably, the Revolutionary United Front--RUF--have been fighting for years to overthrow the recognized government. In the process, violence has erupted as the rebels have fought to seize control of the country's profitable diamond fields which, in turn, helps finance their terrorist regime. Once in control of a diamond field, the rebels confiscate the diamonds and then launder them onto the very legitimate market through other nearby nations, such as Liberia. We refer to these as ``conflict'' or ``blood'' diamonds. These gems are a very lucrative business for the rebel groups. In fact, over the past decade, the rebels have smuggled out of Africa, we estimate, approximately $10 billion in these diamonds. It is nearly impossible, of course, to distinguish the illegally gathered diamonds from legitimate or ``clean'' stones. And so, Members of the Senate, regrettably and unwittingly, the United States--as the world's biggest buyer of diamonds--has contributed to the violence. Our Nation accounted for more than half of the $57.5 billion in the global retail diamond trade last year, and some estimates suggest that illegal diamonds from Africa account for as much as 15 percent of the overall diamond trade. Since the start of the rebel's quest for control of Sierra Leone's diamond supply, half of the nation's population of 4.5 million have left their homes, and at least a half million have fled the country. But it is the children, as it usually is--it is the children--of Sierra Leone who are bearing the biggest brunt of the rebel insurgency. For over 8 years, the RUF has conscripted children--children often as young as 7 or 8 years old--to be soldiers in this makeshift army. They have ripped at least 12,000 children from their own families. As a result of deliberate and systematic brutalization, child soldiers have become some of the most vicious--and effective--fighters within the rebel factions. The rebel army--child-soldiers included--has terrorized Sierra Leone's population--killing, abducting, raping, and hacking off the limbs of victims with their machetes. This chopping off of limbs is the RUF's trademark strategy. In Freetown, the surgeons are frantic. Scores of men, women, and children--their hands partly chopped off--have flooded the main hospital. Amputating as quickly as they can, doctors toss severed hands into a communal bucket. The RUF frequently and forcibly injects the children with cocaine in preparation for battle. This is a picture of a little girl who, obviously, has had her arm amputated. In many cases, the rebels force the child-soldiers at gunpoint to kill their own family members or neighbors and friends. Not only are these children traumatized by what they are forced to do, they also are afraid to be reunited with their own families because of the possibility of retribution. Madam President and members of the Senate, I cannot understate nor can I fully describe the horrific abuses these children are suffering. The most vivid accounts come from the child-soldiers themselves. I would like to read a few of their stories--their own stories--taken from Amnesty International's 1998 report entitled: ``Sierra Leone--A Year of Atrocities against Civilians.'' According to one child's recollection: Civilians were rounded up, in groups or in lines, and then taken individually to a pounding block in the village where their hands, arms, or legs were cut with a machete. In some villages, after the civilians were rounded up, they were stripped naked. Men were then ordered to rape members of their own family. If they refused, their arms were cut off and the women were raped by rebel forces, often in front of their husbands . . . victims of these atrocities also reported women and children being rounded up and locked into houses which were then set [on fire]. A young man from Lunsar, describing a rebel attack, said this: Ten people were captured by the rebels and they asked us to form a [line]. My brother was removed from the [line], and they killed him with a rifle, and they cut his head with a knife. After this, they killed his pregnant wife. There was an argument among the rebels about the sex of the baby she was carrying, so they decided to open her stomach to see the baby. According to Komba, a teenager: My legs were cut with blades and cocaine was rubbed in the wounds. Afterwards, I felt like a big person. I saw the other people like chickens and rats. I wanted to kill them. Rape, sexual slavery, and other forms of sexual abuse of girls and women have been systematic, organized, and widespread. Many of those abducted have been forced to become the ``wives'' of combatants. According to Isatu, an abducted teenage girl: I did not want to go; I was forced to go. They killed a lot of women who refused to go with them. She was forced to become the sexual partner of the combatant who captured her and is now the mother of their 3-month-old baby: When they capture young girls, you belong to the soldier who captured you. I was ``married'' to him. Look at how some of these children have depicted themselves, the violence and bloodshed in their own drawings. That is how they depict it. Children strike at the heart of what they see and, more importantly, what they feel. We are losing these children, an entire generation of children, if the situation is not improved. These kids have no future. But as long as the rebel diamond trade remains unchallenged, nothing really will change at all. That is why. I have been working with Senator Durbin, Senator Feingold, Senator Gregg, and so many others in the Senate and the other body for over 2 years to pass legislation that would help stem this illegal trade in conflict diamonds. I thank Senator Grassley for his good work. Together we have worked extensively with our House colleagues, including my good friend and former colleague from Ohio, former Congressman Tony Hall. We have also worked with a champion in this area, my good friend, Frank Wolf from Virginia. We have worked to develop much needed legislation to help remove the rebel's market incentive because that is what you have to do is to get rid of the incentive. While we have not yet been successful in getting this legislation signed into law--not yet--I credit my colleagues' continued commitment to this often forgotten issue. I know our countless congressional hearings and meetings, letters, and legislative initiatives have encouraged the administration and the international community to keep this issue alive. I thank those in the administration who have kept the issue going and worked so very hard. We have kept the pressure on. We are beginning to see very positive results. Just this past January, an international agreement called the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme was launched. Specifically, this is a voluntary international diamond certification system among over 50 participating countries, including all of the major diamond producing and trading countries. This is a positive step. I commend the tireless work of human rights advocates and the diamond industry for making this certification system a reality. Because of their success, today we are faced with the urgent need of providing legislative measures to enable effective U.S. implementation of the certification scheme. We need to provide the administration with the authorization necessary to ensure U.S. compliance with this global regulatory framework. This is why last week I joined with my distinguished colleagues and my friends--Senator Grassley, Senator Durbin, Senator Feingold, Senator Baucus, Senator Bingaman, Senator Gregg, and several additional cosponsors--to introduce the Clean Diamond Act, legislation that commits the United States to mandatory implementation of the Kimberley Process Certification. This legislation is similar to a measure passed just last night in the House of Representatives, H.R. 1584. I am optimistic we can pass this legislation in the Senate very shortly, possibly even as early as today. The whole idea behind this is to commit the United States to a system of controls on the export and import of diamonds so that buyers can be certain their purchases are not fueling the rebel campaign. I know there is not one person in this country who goes in and buys a diamond with the intention to fuel a rebel campaign. No one wants to do that. This is a way we can ensure buyers they are not doing that. Specifically, our legislation would prohibit the import of any rough diamond that has not been controlled through the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme. Put simply, this means every diamond brought into the United States would require a certificate of origin and authenticity to indicate the rebel or terrorist group has not laundered it on to the legitimate market. Additionally, the bill calls on the President to report annually to the U.S. Congress on the control system's effectiveness and also requires the General Accounting Office to report on the law's effectiveness within 2 years of enactment. Finally, our bill emphasizes the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme is an ongoing process and that our Government should continue to work with the international community to strengthen the effectiveness of this global regulatory framework. As the world's biggest diamond customer, biggest consumer, purchasing well over half of all the diamonds purchased in the world, our Nation has a moral responsibility to show continued leadership on this issue. Quite candidly, there are a lot of terrible, tragic things going on we don't have the power to change or fix or have much impact on at all, but today in the Senate we can have impact on this issue. We can make a difference. We have the power to help put an end to this indescribable suffering and violence caused by diamond-related conflicts. We have that power, and we must use it. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this much needed legislation. We have a moral obligation to help stop the violence, help stop the brutality, and help stop the needless killing and the maiming going on, to help stop the victimization of these children. No other child should kill or be killed in diamond-related conflicts. I believe it is absolutely imperative that we pass the bill we have introduced and pass it quickly to help end these atrocities once and for all. It certainly is the humane thing to do. It is the right thing to do. It is the only thing to do.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I rise this morning to discuss a bill I believe the Senate will be taking up later today or possibly tomorrow. But before I do, I cannot come to the floor this morning without commenting about the magnificent work and service that our service men and women are doing in Iraq, and also the service men and women who are supporting our folks in Iraq. What an absolutely tremendous job they are doing, and how proud all Americans are of the work they are doing. We are having an opportunity in this war, unlike any previous war in American history, to see, sometimes firsthand, the tremendous work they are doing. As I talk to people in Ohio, talk to my colleagues, and talk to family members and friends, everyone is so proud of what they are doing. Our hearts go out to the families of those who have lost their lives. We pray for them. We pray for those who have been injured. We pray for those who are recovering. And we think about them. We think about them every day.