Mike DeWine

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. Mr. President, as you know, April is Child Abuse Prevention Month, and this week is National Crime Victims' Rights Week. Furthermore, just last week, I joined with my friends and colleagues, Senators Lincoln and Shelby, in announcing our creation of a new, bipartisan Senate Caucus on Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Children. And, just yesterday, I introduced the Protecting Children Against Crime Act of 2003, S.810. I thank Senators Grassley, Hutchison, and Shelby for joining me as original cosponsors of the Protecting Children Against Crime Act of 2003. This important legislation would help protect our nation's children from the most heinous of criminals--child abductors, child pornographers, and others who would exploit or abuse children. Every day, our local police and prosecutors are on the front line in the fight against the criminals who target children, and they deserve recognition for their hard work. However, the data suggest that law enforcement is fighting an uphill battle--child victimization remains a large, pervasive, and extremely troubling problem in the United States. According to the Congressional Research Service, up to one in three girls and one in seven boys will be sexually abused in this nation before they reach the age of 18. Many child molesters prey upon dozens of victims before they are reported to law enforcement. Furthermore, some child molesters evade detection for long periods because many children never report the abuse. In fact, Bureau of Justice Statistics suggests that between 60 percent and 80 percent of child molestations and 69 percent of sexual assaults are never reported to the police. Of those sexual assaults that are reported, 71 percent of the victims are children. We also have a long way to go on behalf of missing children. According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, in 2001, 840,279 persons--adults and juveniles--were reported missing and entered into the FBI's national crime computer. As many as 725,000 of those reported missing were juveniles. On average, 2,000 children per day were reported missing to law enforcement in 2001, according to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Most missing children are eventually returned safely to their parents, but a small group of them are victims of more predatory abductors. The average victim of abduction and murder is a ``low risk'' 11-year-old girl from a middle-class neighborhood with a stable family relationship who has initial contact with an abductor within one- quarter mile of her home--this is according to a report by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Washington State Attorney General's Office. For all of these reasons, it is vitally important that Congress do everything in its power to support parents and law enforcement in their efforts to protect our nation's most vulnerable citizens. Enacting the Protecting Children Against Crime Act of 2003 would be a step in the right direction. Among its major provisions, this legislation would eliminate the statute of limitations, under our federal criminal code, for prosecuting certain sex crimes against children and child abduction offenses. This provision recognizes that victims of such crimes often do not come forward until years after the abuse, out of shame or a fear of further humiliation. It is important that a sexual predator still be held accountable once a sexual abuse victim courageously chooses to come forward. In addition, this bill would call for those who produce or distribute child pornography to be included in the national sex offender registry. As stated by the United States Supreme Court more than two decades ago, child pornography ``is intrinsically related to the sexual abuse of children.'' Families need to know when a child pornographer moves into the neighborhood. To assist States in finding their missing and runaway children, our bill also would authorize a new, grants-to-States program that encourages technology enhancements in the States' Amber Alert Communications Plans. Similar language, authored by Congressman Mark Foley, already has passed the House of Representatives as part of the Child Abduction Prevention Act, H.R. 1104. This language builds on the national Amber Alert legislation authored by Senator Hutchison and passed by the Senate earlier this year. Under the bill I introduced yesterday, this new grant program would be authorized at $5 million per year in each of fiscal years 2004 through 2007. Finally, our bill would require the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study for Congress on the feasibility of having Internet Service Providers monitor online traffic to detect child pornography sites. The study also would examine both the extent to which credit cards are used to facilitate the sale of online child pornography and options for encouraging greater reporting of such illicit transactions to law enforcement officials. Our bill would help ensure that our children are protected from the most treacherous of criminals. This is a fight we need to win and a fight for which we must give our law enforcement officers every tool at our disposal. I urge my colleagues to support the enactment of S. 810.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize LexisNexis, an Ohio company celebrating a very important milestone. LexisNexis, the first commercial, full-text legal information service, is celebrating its 30th anniversary today. This company, headquartered in Dayton, provides a service that has become an indispensable information resource to a wide range of professionals, not only in many of our congressional offices, but also in the legal, business, and academic arenas. In an era when many professionals frequented the library looking for the necessary documents, LexisNexis introduced desktop terminals that allowed subscribers to call up a variety of documents from their desks, making LexisNexis the preferred search engine of countless professionals. Today, the LexisNexis continues to revolutionize legal research by providing its over 1.6 million subscribers with up-to-date information covering a variety of topics, from worldwide newspapers and magazines to tax and accounting information and legislative records. Currently, there are an astounding 2 billion documents available in the LexisNexis database, with 6.8 million documents added each week, providing its subscribers with a wealth of knowledge. I commend LexisNexis on the success it has achieved over the past 30 years and wish the company, and all of its 13,000 employees worldwide, continued success in delivering high-quality, invaluable resources and information.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Today, Mr. President, violent conflicts and other global threats and humanitarian concerns extend across many parts of our world. We are at war with Iraq. North Korea possesses nuclear weapons. HIV/AIDS is pandemic. And, terrorism threatens our daily lives. Our world is, indeed, a very dangerous and unstable place. We know this. And, while we are well aware of the many global ``hotspots''--the conflicts and the violence and the human suffering--there are parts of the world, which I believe, we have neglected. There are parts of the world, where human tragedy is the order of the day--where children are killed, where women are raped and beaten, and where people are routinely tortured--their bodies maimed and mutilated. 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 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 legitimate market through other nearby nations, like Liberia. Known 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 approximately $10 billion dollars in these diamonds. It is nearly impossible to distinguish the illegally gathered diamonds from legitimate or ``clean'' stones. And so, 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 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 left the country. But, it is the children of Sierra Leone who are bearing the biggest brunt of the rebel insurgency. For over eight years, the RUF has conscripted children--children often as young as 7 or 8 years old--to be soldiers in their make-shift army. They have ripped at least 12,000 children from their 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. 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 families because of the possibility of retribution. Mr. President, 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'd like to read a few of their stories, taken from Amnesty International's 1998 report, ``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 three-month-old baby: When they capture young girls, you belong to the soldier who captured you. I was `married' to him. We are losing these children--an entire generation of children. If the situation does not improve, these kids have no future. But, as long as the rebel's diamond trade remains unchallenged, nothing will change. That is why I have been working with Senators Durbin, Feingold, and Gregg for over two years to pass legislation that would help stem this illegal trade in conflict diamonds. Together, we have worked extensively with our House colleagues, including my good friend and former colleague from Ohio, Tony Hall, and Frank Wolf from Virginia, to develop much needed legislation to help remove the rebel's market incentive. And, while we have not yet been successful in getting this legislation signed into law, I credit my colleagues' continued commitment to this often forgotten issue. I know our countless congressional hearings, meetings, letters and legislative initiatives have encouraged the Administration and the international community to keep this issue alive. We have kept the pressure on, and we are beginning to see some positive results. Mr. President, just this past January 1st, an international agreement called the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme was launched. Specifically, this is a voluntary, international diamond certification system among over 50 participant countries, including all of the major diamond producing and trading countries. This is a positive step in the right direction, and I commend the tireless work of human rights advocates and the diamond industry for making this certification system a reality. Because of their success, Mr. President, 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. That is why I am here today to introduce legislation that commits the United States to mandatory implementation of the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme. I join my distinguished colleagues, Senators Grassley, Durbin, Feingold, Bingaman, Talent, and Snowe, to introduce the ``Clean Diamond Trade Act.'' This legislation is very similar to a measure introduced in the House last week, H.R. 1415. Our bill is very simple. The whole idea behind it is to commit the United States to a system of controls on the export and import of diamonds, so that buyers can be certain that their purchases are not fueling the rebel campaign. 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 that every diamond brought into the United States would require a certificate of origin and authenticity, indicating that a rebel or terrorist group has not laundered it onto the legitimate market. Additionally, the bill calls on the President to report annually to Congress on the control system's effectiveness and also requires the General Accounting Office to report on the law's effectiveness within two years of enactment. Finally, Mr. President, our bill emphasizes that 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--purchasing well over half of the world's diamonds--our nation has a moral responsibility to show continued leadership on this issue. Quite candidly, there are a lot of things in this world--a lot of terrible, tragic things--that we don't have the power to change or to fix. But today, we can change something. We can make a difference. We have the power to help put an end to the indescribable suffering and violence caused by diamond-related conflicts. We have that power, and we must use it. And so, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this much-needed legislation. We have an obligation--a moral responsibility--to help stop the violence, the brutality, the needless killing and maiming. No other child should kill or be killed in diamond-related conflicts. I believe that it is absolutely imperative that we pass the bill we have introduced quickly and help end these atrocities once and for all. It is the humane thing to do. It is the right thing to do. It is the only thing to do. I thank the Chair and yield the Floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Today, Mr. President, violent conflicts and other global threats and humanitarian concerns extend across many parts of our world. We are at war with Iraq. North Korea possesses nuclear weapons. HIV/AIDS is pandemic. And, terrorism threatens our daily lives. Our world is, indeed, a very dangerous and unstable place. We know this. And, while we are well aware of the many global ``hotspots''--the conflicts and the violence and the human suffering--there are parts of the world, which I believe, we have neglected. There are parts of the world, where human tragedy is the order of the day--where children are killed, where women are raped and beaten, and where people are routinely tortured--their bodies maimed and mutilated. 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 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 legitimate market through other nearby nations, like Liberia. Known 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 approximately $10 billion dollars in these diamonds. It is nearly impossible to distinguish the illegally gathered diamonds from legitimate or ``clean'' stones. And so, 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 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 left the country. But, it is the children of Sierra Leone who are bearing the biggest brunt of the rebel insurgency. For over eight years, the RUF has conscripted children--children often as young as 7 or 8 years old--to be soldiers in their make-shift army. They have ripped at least 12,000 children from their 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. 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 families because of the possibility of retribution. Mr. President, 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'd like to read a few of their stories, taken from Amnesty International's 1998 report, ``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 three-month-old baby: When they capture young girls, you belong to the soldier who captured you. I was `married' to him. We are losing these children--an entire generation of children. If the situation does not improve, these kids have no future. But, as long as the rebel's diamond trade remains unchallenged, nothing will change. That is why I have been working with Senators Durbin, Feingold, and Gregg for over two years to pass legislation that would help stem this illegal trade in conflict diamonds. Together, we have worked extensively with our House colleagues, including my good friend and former colleague from Ohio, Tony Hall, and Frank Wolf from Virginia, to develop much needed legislation to help remove the rebel's market incentive. And, while we have not yet been successful in getting this legislation signed into law, I credit my colleagues' continued commitment to this often forgotten issue. I know our countless congressional hearings, meetings, letters and legislative initiatives have encouraged the Administration and the international community to keep this issue alive. We have kept the pressure on, and we are beginning to see some positive results. Mr. President, just this past January 1st, an international agreement called the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme was launched. Specifically, this is a voluntary, international diamond certification system among over 50 participant countries, including all of the major diamond producing and trading countries. This is a positive step in the right direction, and I commend the tireless work of human rights advocates and the diamond industry for making this certification system a reality. Because of their success, Mr. President, 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. That is why I am here today to introduce legislation that commits the United States to mandatory implementation of the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme. I join my distinguished colleagues, Senators Grassley, Durbin, Feingold, Bingaman, Talent, and Snowe, to introduce the ``Clean Diamond Trade Act.'' This legislation is very similar to a measure introduced in the House last week, H.R. 1415. Our bill is very simple. The whole idea behind it is to commit the United States to a system of controls on the export and import of diamonds, so that buyers can be certain that their purchases are not fueling the rebel campaign. 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 that every diamond brought into the United States would require a certificate of origin and authenticity, indicating that a rebel or terrorist group has not laundered it onto the legitimate market. Additionally, the bill calls on the President to report annually to Congress on the control system's effectiveness and also requires the General Accounting Office to report on the law's effectiveness within two years of enactment. Finally, Mr. President, our bill emphasizes that 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--purchasing well over half of the world's diamonds--our nation has a moral responsibility to show continued leadership on this issue. Quite candidly, there are a lot of things in this world--a lot of terrible, tragic things--that we don't have the power to change or to fix. But today, we can change something. We can make a difference. We have the power to help put an end to the indescribable suffering and violence caused by diamond-related conflicts. We have that power, and we must use it. And so, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this much-needed legislation. We have an obligation--a moral responsibility--to help stop the violence, the brutality, the needless killing and maiming. No other child should kill or be killed in diamond-related conflicts. I believe that it is absolutely imperative that we pass the bill we have introduced quickly and help end these atrocities once and for all. It is the humane thing to do. It is the right thing to do. It is the only thing to do. I thank the Chair and yield the Floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to share my strong support for this much needed and much deserved military tax package. I commend Chairman Grassley and my many colleagues who have worked so hard on this bill for such a long time. As we all know, this tax package is long overdue. As my colleagues know, the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act of 2003 would provide critical tax relief to our service men and women. Specifically, this bill would remedy several tax problems that unfairly penalize the men and women serving in our military and Foreign Service. Certainly now, more than ever, we must correct these inequities. It is the right thing to do. Mr. President, there are many service men and women from my home state of Ohio serving in our military today. My wife, Fran, and I pray for all of them and their families--we pray that they will be safe, wherever they are and in whatever capacity they are working. Many of these courageous men and women are in Iraq right now. Four of them from Ohio have been injured or are listed as missing. Both Army CPT Gregory Holden from Huron, OH, and Marine Corps Sgt. Jose Torres from Lorain, OH, have been injured in the war. And Army PVT Brandon Sloan from Bedford Heights, OH, and Marine Corps MSgt Robert Dowdy from Cleveland are listed as missing. I would like their families to know that we are praying for them. We pray for their recovery and their safe return home. Mr. President, as we debate the merits of this bill, I would like to take a moment to discuss a specific provision that I have worked on for more than two years--and that is a provision that would allow our National Guard and Reserve members to take deductions for travel expenses incurred getting to and from duty assignments. This initiative stems from legislation I first introduced two years ago, and then again this past January. Specifically, the provision would provide a tax deduction for overnight travel costs incurred more than 100 miles from the taxpayer's home. These expenses include meals, transportation, and lodging up to the amount allowable under Department of Defense per diem allowances. Mr. President, this provision is a positive step in the right direction, as approximately 225,000 Reservists and Guardsmen incur significant out-of-pocket expense--expenses that often match or even exceed their military take-home pay. The restoration of the tax deductibility of these expenses would help alleviate the personal and financial costs of these individuals' patriotic efforts. And, quite frankly, our servicemen and women should not be put in the position of subsidizing their own training. I thank Chairman Grassley, Senator Baucus, and the Finance Committee for working with my office to include my provision. I also would like to thank Senator McCAIN and my 61 colleagues who co-sponsored this legislation with me last year. The incredible number of bipartisan co- sponsors demonstrates the widespread support our legislation carries, as well as the tremendous support we all share for our troops. Mr. President, we owe these brave Americans our thanks and our deep and abiding gratitude for their service and dedication to our country and all that it represents. Whether in the streets of Baghdad, the deserts of Kuwait, or the caves of Afghanistan, we must never forget those men and women, who serve to uphold the ideals of our great Nation. They have sacrificed so much not only to protect our freedom, liberty, and way of life here at home, but also to promote those ideals abroad. Mr. President, this entire military tax package is an important sign of support for those called to serve, as well as their families. I urge my colleagues to support it. I thank the Chair and yield the Floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support my Sense of the Senate amendment, advocating full fiscal year 2004 funding--$305 million--for children's hospitals graduate medical education programs. This funding for pediatric GME is a vital part of our efforts to protect children's health. Today, children's hospitals--though they represent only one percent of all hospitals--train 30 percent of all pediatricians and 50 percent of all pediatric specialists. And, they also provide hospital care to almost 50 percent of seriously ill children. Furthermore, children's hospitals serve as the healthcare safety net for low-income children in their respective communities and are often the sole regional providers of many critical pediatric services. These children's hospitals are often the only source of many pediatric specialty services. And it is their graduate training programs that make these services possible. Funding for this training-- funding for pediatric graduate medical education--helps provide our Nation with highly qualified pediatricians, who can properly treat and care for our children when they are sick. Congress took a remarkable step when it fully funded this program in FY2002 and again in FY2003. Now, for the first time, the independent children's hospitals have the same Federal support for their teaching programs that other teaching hospitals were receiving through Medicare. It has saved many children's hospitals from being forced to reduce their physician training or cut other services. Clearly, funding for GME in children's hospitals is a sound investment in children's health and provides stability for the future of the pediatric workforce. Please join me in support of continued full funding for children's hospitals graduate medical education.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 354.

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

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in support of an amendment that Senator Leahy and I are offering to express the Sense of the Senate that we should fund the Crime Identification Technology Act at its authorized level of $250 million through the year 2007. CITA provides State and local law enforcement with the much-needed resources to make improvements in anti-crime technology. CITA has streamlined a patchwork of Federal funding programs, giving the Department of Justice greater flexibility to make grant awards to States and localities for their specific anti-crime technology needs. What we are talking about is DNA items. We are talking about ballistics. We are talking about all kinds of crime technology items that really go to the heart and soul of our fight against crime today. This single Federal funding stream allows States and localities to make improvements in 17 different areas relating to crime-fighting technology, including automated fingerprint background checks, ballistics testing, DNA-testing, domestic violence information systems, and automated criminal history systems. Quick and efficient access to information is crucial to solving and preventing crimes and protecting our communities. And access to state- of-the-art technology means access to information. Whether it's matching fingerprints or DNA samples or bullets from a gun, law enforcement personnel--police officers and prosecutors and scientists in crime labs--all rely on technology to do their jobs. America can no longer afford to fight 21st Century crime with 20th Century tools and technology. This amendment would demonstrate our support for giving our State and local law enforcement access to the practical tools they need to do their jobs. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues-- Senators Murray, Landrieu, Breaux, Bingaman, and Inouye--to introduce the Poison Control Center Awareness and Enhancement Act of 2003. Our bill is designed to help make certain that the vital work of our nation's poison control centers continues. Many of us--as parents and grandparents--have experienced the terrifying situation when a child accidentally swallows something potentially toxic. Fortunately, local poison control centers--many of them located at children's hospitals--work around the clock to answer questions from parents and to field phone calls from others about possible poisonings. Today, we also have in place a national, toll-free poison control telephone number--and that number is 1-800-222-1222-- that automatically connects callers to specially trained nurses, pharmacists, and doctors at the closest local poison center. This phone number went into effect as a result of legislation I helped get signed into law a few years ago. And now, as parents of eight children and now grandparents of eight, my wife, Fran, and I can tell you that we rest a bit easier knowing that in the case of a possible poisoning, all we need to do is call a toll free, 1-800 telephone number to get in contact with the nearest poison control center. Any parents, anywhere--whether they are in their own hometown or in another state on vacation--can call the 1-800 number, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week in the event of a poisoning. There are over 70 poison control centers nationwide--three in my home State of Ohio. These centers have fielded over one million phone calls just since January 2002, answering questions about poisonous, drug abuse, product contents, substance identification interactions, and adverse reactions. They can answer questions and concerns about what would typically be called poisonous products--things like cleaners and bleach. This is the most common poison exposure for children, who typically ingest household products, such as cosmetics and personal care products, cleaning substances, pain relievers, foreign bodies, and plants. But poison control centers can also answer questions about products that people may not think are poisonous, like prescribed medicines or over-the-counter medications. Maybe someone mixed medications or misread a label and took too much of the medicine by accident. Poison control centers can answer caller questions and direct the caller to seek medical attention if necessary. I remember very clearly a time when Fran and I needed to call the local poison control center. As we were wrapping up our annual Ice Cream Social at our home in Cedarville, our then two year-old granddaughter, Isabelle, fell into a bucket of cleaning solution. We feared that she may have swallowed some of the solution and immediately called the poison control center. We were very lucky. The trained health care professional at the local poison center explained that all we needed to do was rinse Isabelle off and have her drink some water. The quick response of the poison control center provided rapid, easy answers to our questions--a process that has become even easier since the toll-free hotline began operating. A young child, like Isabelle, is representative of most poisoning cases; however, adults often face situations necessitating information and help from poison control centers. Take the example of what occurred in Marysville, OH. Thirty workers in a manufacturing plant in Marysville were victims of gas exposure. Twenty of these workers went to Union Memorial Hospital. The hospital contacted the poison center, after which these patients were given oxygen and later discharged that same day. Ten others went to a different hospital that did not call a poison center. These patients were not released until the next day, even though their symptoms did not differ from the other 20 workers. The national hotline will help cut-down on situations like that in Marysville. Our Nation's poison control centers handle an average of one poison exposure every 15 seconds. These centers are critical to our communities--especially now during this time of war and uncertainty. Parents are already anxious about the safety of their children, and with the potential anthrax scares or chemical or biologic scares, poison control centers can provide information to parents and help relieve some of their concerns. The bill we are introducing today would provide the continued funding needed to ensure that the national toll-free number continues to operate, taking phone calls and helping families across the country. We must continue to increase the accessibility and effectiveness of our nation's poison control centers, as well as cement their existence for future generations. With this bill, we are not just making an investment in poison control; rather, we are making it easier to keep our children, friends, and ourselves safer and healthier. I encourage my colleagues to remember the hotline number--it could save a life: 1-800-222-1222. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues-- Senators Murray, Landrieu, Breaux, Bingaman, and Inouye--to introduce the Poison Control Center Awareness and Enhancement Act of 2003. Our bill is designed to help make certain that the vital work of our nation's poison control centers continues. Many of us--as parents and grandparents--have experienced the terrifying situation when a child accidentally swallows something potentially toxic. Fortunately, local poison control centers--many of them located at children's hospitals--work around the clock to answer questions from parents and to field phone calls from others about possible poisonings. Today, we also have in place a national, toll-free poison control telephone number--and that number is 1-800-222-1222-- that automatically connects callers to specially trained nurses, pharmacists, and doctors at the closest local poison center. This phone number went into effect as a result of legislation I helped get signed into law a few years ago. And now, as parents of eight children and now grandparents of eight, my wife, Fran, and I can tell you that we rest a bit easier knowing that in the case of a possible poisoning, all we need to do is call a toll free, 1-800 telephone number to get in contact with the nearest poison control center. Any parents, anywhere--whether they are in their own hometown or in another state on vacation--can call the 1-800 number, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week in the event of a poisoning. There are over 70 poison control centers nationwide--three in my home State of Ohio. These centers have fielded over one million phone calls just since January 2002, answering questions about poisonous, drug abuse, product contents, substance identification interactions, and adverse reactions. They can answer questions and concerns about what would typically be called poisonous products--things like cleaners and bleach. This is the most common poison exposure for children, who typically ingest household products, such as cosmetics and personal care products, cleaning substances, pain relievers, foreign bodies, and plants. But poison control centers can also answer questions about products that people may not think are poisonous, like prescribed medicines or over-the-counter medications. Maybe someone mixed medications or misread a label and took too much of the medicine by accident. Poison control centers can answer caller questions and direct the caller to seek medical attention if necessary. I remember very clearly a time when Fran and I needed to call the local poison control center. As we were wrapping up our annual Ice Cream Social at our home in Cedarville, our then two year-old granddaughter, Isabelle, fell into a bucket of cleaning solution. We feared that she may have swallowed some of the solution and immediately called the poison control center. We were very lucky. The trained health care professional at the local poison center explained that all we needed to do was rinse Isabelle off and have her drink some water. The quick response of the poison control center provided rapid, easy answers to our questions--a process that has become even easier since the toll-free hotline began operating. A young child, like Isabelle, is representative of most poisoning cases; however, adults often face situations necessitating information and help from poison control centers. Take the example of what occurred in Marysville, OH. Thirty workers in a manufacturing plant in Marysville were victims of gas exposure. Twenty of these workers went to Union Memorial Hospital. The hospital contacted the poison center, after which these patients were given oxygen and later discharged that same day. Ten others went to a different hospital that did not call a poison center. These patients were not released until the next day, even though their symptoms did not differ from the other 20 workers. The national hotline will help cut-down on situations like that in Marysville. Our Nation's poison control centers handle an average of one poison exposure every 15 seconds. These centers are critical to our communities--especially now during this time of war and uncertainty. Parents are already anxious about the safety of their children, and with the potential anthrax scares or chemical or biologic scares, poison control centers can provide information to parents and help relieve some of their concerns. The bill we are introducing today would provide the continued funding needed to ensure that the national toll-free number continues to operate, taking phone calls and helping families across the country. We must continue to increase the accessibility and effectiveness of our nation's poison control centers, as well as cement their existence for future generations. With this bill, we are not just making an investment in poison control; rather, we are making it easier to keep our children, friends, and ourselves safer and healthier. I encourage my colleagues to remember the hotline number--it could save a life: 1-800-222-1222. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a very important subject--one that affects parents, doctors, hospitals, nurses and our children each and every day. The subject that I am talking about is the safety and efficacy of the medicines that doctors give our children when they are sick. Nearly six years ago, I was astonished to learn that close to 80 percent of drugs on the market were not tested for use in children-- yet, doctors were prescribing these drugs to our children. Doctors had no choice but to prescribe these drugs for children if they thought the medicines would be helpful. And, sometimes the medicines did help-- sometimes a child's pain was relieved, or a child would be able to breathe easier or digest food better because of the medicines the doctors prescribed them. But, even when the drugs do work, an anxious feeling remains among doctors and parents about whether these medicines are safe for children. How are doctors and parents to know for certain which medicines will work if they haven't been tested for safety and efficacy in children? There are many examples, of situations where drugs have been misprescribed for children because doctors simply weren't aware of the effects these drugs would have on kids. For example, the drug, Neurontin, which is used to treat chronic pain, was given to children without being properly tested, and doctors eventually learned they were under-dosing children by 50 percent. That means children were suffering from pain because they were being under-dosed. They weren't being given the proper dose of medication to relieve their pain. Another drug, Lithium, which has been prescribed to treat bipolar disorder since 1940 was never tested for long-term use in children until just a few months ago. This is an example of a drug that doctors have been prescribing ``off-label'' for years, and only now we are finally getting some evidence of its effect in children. According to doctors, the testing of Lithium revealed important information because children who suffer from bipolar disorder cycle between mania and depression quicker than adults, and they can even have signs of both at the same time. Unlike adults, they don't have periods of normalcy. Doctors now know that Lithium can be used to treat bipolar disorder in children. Doctors have taken a chance in prescribing medicines for children. Doctors tell parents to cut a pill in half or in quarters so it can be given to a child. Doctors use the best information they have to determine how much or what kind of medicines to give a child. That is all they can do when the medicines children need have not been tested for their use. Doctors and pediatricians should not be left to guess how much medicine our children should receive. And, parents shouldn't have to feel anxious or question whether the half a pill that's been ground up and put in applesauce will still be effective in treating their child-- or whether it's even safe for their child to take. It's been over a year now since the Senate passed and the President signed into law the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children's Act. As many of my colleagues know, that law has been part of a solution--but just a part of a solution--to address the problem I just mentioned. The law provides a six-month patent extension to pharmaceutical companies in exchange for the testing of medicines in children. And, for as long as the bill has been law, the Food and Drug Administration is reporting its success in ensuring that more medicines are tested for use in children. With the incentive provided by Best Pharmaceuticals, companies are seeing the value of studying their drugs in children and are applying for the patent extension. But, the Best Pharmaceuticals incentive cannot work alone to ensure that medicines in children do not go untested. The incentive in the Best Act was never intended to work alone. When the Best Act became law, there was already a rule on the books that helped ensure that no medicine used to treat children, including vaccines or other biologics, would go untested. Back in 1997, the Food and Drug Administration proposed what is known today as the Pediatric Rule. The Pediatric Rule allowed FDA to require that the drugs the agency felt are important for children are safe, effective, and properly labeled for children. Unfortunately, the Pediatric Rule has come under legal challenge, with a District Court ruling just a few months ago stating that FDA lacked the statutory authority to require pediatric studies. This was a troubling step backward for children's health--a troubling step at a time when 75 percent of the medicines on the market still aren't tested and labeled for pediatric use. We've made some improvements from the 80 percent of medicines on the market, but 75 percent is still too much. Without the Pediatric Rule, new medicines and biologics coming onto the market are not required to be tested for use in children. Congress needs to make sure that the FDA continues to have every tool--that includes the market incentives and the pediatric rule--available to them to ensure that drugs for children are tested for safety and efficacy and that they are labeled properly. Everyday that a drug manufacturer chooses not to participate in the incentive program, the number of medicines that go untested for use in children increases. Everyday that we don't have the Pediatric Rule, we sacrifice our children's safety. Medicines that are used by children should be tested for safety and efficacy. That is why Senators Clinton, Gregg, Dodd, and Kennedy and I are introducing a bill today--the Pediatric Research Equity Act--that would ensure that the Pediatric Rule continues to work alongside the Best Act, so that children will remain on safe footing when it comes to the testing of the medications they use. Congress needs to make sure the Pediatric Rule stays in place, because right now, the Pediatric Rule and the Best Act incentive work together to ensure that drugs are tested for use in children. As I said already, the Best Act was never intended to substitute the rule, but rather to reinforce and work with the rule. For example, the Pediatric Rule may be invoked in instances where pediatric information is essential, but the patent exclusivity is no longer available. The Pediatric Rule also applies to biologics, whereas the Best Pharmaceuticals does not. A significant portion of therapeutics used in children, including many cancer treatments, are biological products (products that include a live agent). Because Best Pharmaceuticals does not apply to biologics, the Pediatric Rule is the only way to ensure pediatric labeling. Finally, the Best Pharmaceuticals is voluntary. For any number of reasons, including insufficient sales, a manufacturer may choose not to conduct the testing necessary to receive additional exclusivity under the Best Act. But, just because a drug manufacturer chooses not to study the drug in children does not mean that drug is not critical to the proper treatment of our children. Without the Pediatric Rule, there is no way to guarantee that a drug that is used in the pediatric population is tested for children's use. With the establishment of the Pediatric Rule and the financial incentives of the Best Pharmaceuticals law, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of studies that have been undertaken. Let me quote from the Government's Response to Plaintiff's Notice of Reauthorization of FDA Modernization Act. This is the document that the government filed to defend the lawsuit against the Rule: ``These two options [the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act and the Pediatric Rule] have resulted in a number of drugs being labeled for use in pediatric populations. As of March 31, 2002, 94 applications containing complete or partial pediatric use information had been submitted to the agency. Of these 94 applications, 45 are attributable to the statutory exclusivity provisions. FDA attributes 48 of the 94 applications to the authority of the pediatric rule alone.'' The bill that my colleagues and I are introducing today would help maintain that progress--not erode it. Our bill would provide the FDA with the authority it needs to ensure that the medicines children take are studied for safety and efficacy. And, our bill would give FDA this authority in a way so that it does not conflict with the incentives provided in the Best Pharmaceuticals Act. Our bill would preserve the waiver and deferral process, so that drug companies can get waivers or deferrals for a range of legitimate reasons. Drug companies could get a waiver or deferral of studies for safety or ethical concerns. A drug company could get a waiver or deferral if the pediatric testing would interfere with the drug's availability for adults. Ultimately, though, our bill would help make certain that children are no longer a therapeutic afterthought by ensuring that all new drugs are studied for pediatric use at the time a drug comes to market. This would put children on a level playing field with adults for the first time. Our children deserve no less, and I encourage my colleagues to join in support of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, to reintroduce the ``Comprehensive Child Protection Act of 2003''--a bill to help protect our Nation's children from child molestation and other forms of abuse. Senator Hatch and I introduced this bill for the first time on September 10, 2002. Sexual abuse of children is a pervasive and extremely troubling problem in the United States. I learned that over 25 years ago when I was serving as the County Prosecutor in Greene County, Ohio. I saw what this kind of abuse does to innocent, helpless children and how pervasive the crimes are in our communities. In fact, according to the Congressional Research Service, one of every three girls and one of every seven boys will be sexually abused before they reach the age of 18. Our local police and prosecutors are on the front line in the fight against these criminals, and they deserve credit and our thanks for their hard work. For example, in Greene County recently, a number of child pornographers were identified and prosecuted when local law enforcement carried out a successful Internet sting operation. Despite successes like this, however, the data suggest that law enforcement is fighting an uphill battle. In 2001 alone, there were over 5,400 registered sex offenders living in my home State of Ohio--an increase of 319 percent over 1998. Equally troubling, many child molesters prey upon dozens of victims before they are reported to law enforcement. Some evade detection for so long because many children never report the abuse. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 60 percent and 80 percent of child molestations and 69 percent of sexual assaults are never reported to the police. And, according to the Congressional Research Service, of reported sexual assaults, 71 percent of the victims are children. For these reasons, it is vitally important that Congress do everything in its power to support law enforcement in its efforts to protect our nation's most vulnerable citizens. Enacting the ``Comprehensive Child Protection Act of 2003'' would be a step in the right direction. By enacting this measure, we would help protect our children from sexual predators, pornographers, and others who abuse children. Among its major provisions, this legislation would: 1. Direct the FBI to establish a new center that creates and trains ``rapid response teams'' (composed of prosecutors, investigators, and others) to respond promptly to reported crimes against children; 2. Establish a national Internet site that would make sex offender information available to the public in one, easily accessible place. Currently, about 30 states make offender information available to the public online; 3. Authorize the collection of DNA samples from registered sex offenders and the inclusion of these DNA samples in the Combined DNA Index System, or ``CODIS;'' 4. Permit the prosecution of child abuse offenses until a victim reaches the age of 35 (as opposed to the age of 25 under current law). This provision recognizes that victims of such crimes often do not come forward until years after the abuse, out of shame or a fear of further humiliation; 5. Make it easier for investigators to track sexual predators and child pornographers and make it easier to prosecute criminal child abuse/molestation cases; 6. Create a new section at the Department of Justice to focus solely on crimes against children; and 7. Stiffen penalties for sex-related offenses involving children. This is a good bill--a bill that would help ensure that our children are protected from some of the most heinous of criminals. It is a bill that would increase the punishment for those criminals. And, it is a bill that, quite simply, is the right thing to do. I encourage my colleagues to join us in co-sponsoring this important measure.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a very important subject--one that affects parents, doctors, hospitals, nurses and our children each and every day. The subject that I am talking about is the safety and efficacy of the medicines that doctors give our children when they are sick. Nearly six years ago, I was astonished to learn that close to 80 percent of drugs on the market were not tested for use in children-- yet, doctors were prescribing these drugs to our children. Doctors had no choice but to prescribe these drugs for children if they thought the medicines would be helpful. And, sometimes the medicines did help-- sometimes a child's pain was relieved, or a child would be able to breathe easier or digest food better because of the medicines the doctors prescribed them. But, even when the drugs do work, an anxious feeling remains among doctors and parents about whether these medicines are safe for children. How are doctors and parents to know for certain which medicines will work if they haven't been tested for safety and efficacy in children? There are many examples, of situations where drugs have been misprescribed for children because doctors simply weren't aware of the effects these drugs would have on kids. For example, the drug, Neurontin, which is used to treat chronic pain, was given to children without being properly tested, and doctors eventually learned they were under-dosing children by 50 percent. That means children were suffering from pain because they were being under-dosed. They weren't being given the proper dose of medication to relieve their pain. Another drug, Lithium, which has been prescribed to treat bipolar disorder since 1940 was never tested for long-term use in children until just a few months ago. This is an example of a drug that doctors have been prescribing ``off-label'' for years, and only now we are finally getting some evidence of its effect in children. According to doctors, the testing of Lithium revealed important information because children who suffer from bipolar disorder cycle between mania and depression quicker than adults, and they can even have signs of both at the same time. Unlike adults, they don't have periods of normalcy. Doctors now know that Lithium can be used to treat bipolar disorder in children. Doctors have taken a chance in prescribing medicines for children. Doctors tell parents to cut a pill in half or in quarters so it can be given to a child. Doctors use the best information they have to determine how much or what kind of medicines to give a child. That is all they can do when the medicines children need have not been tested for their use. Doctors and pediatricians should not be left to guess how much medicine our children should receive. And, parents shouldn't have to feel anxious or question whether the half a pill that's been ground up and put in applesauce will still be effective in treating their child-- or whether it's even safe for their child to take. It's been over a year now since the Senate passed and the President signed into law the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children's Act. As many of my colleagues know, that law has been part of a solution--but just a part of a solution--to address the problem I just mentioned. The law provides a six-month patent extension to pharmaceutical companies in exchange for the testing of medicines in children. And, for as long as the bill has been law, the Food and Drug Administration is reporting its success in ensuring that more medicines are tested for use in children. With the incentive provided by Best Pharmaceuticals, companies are seeing the value of studying their drugs in children and are applying for the patent extension. But, the Best Pharmaceuticals incentive cannot work alone to ensure that medicines in children do not go untested. The incentive in the Best Act was never intended to work alone. When the Best Act became law, there was already a rule on the books that helped ensure that no medicine used to treat children, including vaccines or other biologics, would go untested. Back in 1997, the Food and Drug Administration proposed what is known today as the Pediatric Rule. The Pediatric Rule allowed FDA to require that the drugs the agency felt are important for children are safe, effective, and properly labeled for children. Unfortunately, the Pediatric Rule has come under legal challenge, with a District Court ruling just a few months ago stating that FDA lacked the statutory authority to require pediatric studies. This was a troubling step backward for children's health--a troubling step at a time when 75 percent of the medicines on the market still aren't tested and labeled for pediatric use. We've made some improvements from the 80 percent of medicines on the market, but 75 percent is still too much. Without the Pediatric Rule, new medicines and biologics coming onto the market are not required to be tested for use in children. Congress needs to make sure that the FDA continues to have every tool--that includes the market incentives and the pediatric rule--available to them to ensure that drugs for children are tested for safety and efficacy and that they are labeled properly. Everyday that a drug manufacturer chooses not to participate in the incentive program, the number of medicines that go untested for use in children increases. Everyday that we don't have the Pediatric Rule, we sacrifice our children's safety. Medicines that are used by children should be tested for safety and efficacy. That is why Senators Clinton, Gregg, Dodd, and Kennedy and I are introducing a bill today--the Pediatric Research Equity Act--that would ensure that the Pediatric Rule continues to work alongside the Best Act, so that children will remain on safe footing when it comes to the testing of the medications they use. Congress needs to make sure the Pediatric Rule stays in place, because right now, the Pediatric Rule and the Best Act incentive work together to ensure that drugs are tested for use in children. As I said already, the Best Act was never intended to substitute the rule, but rather to reinforce and work with the rule. For example, the Pediatric Rule may be invoked in instances where pediatric information is essential, but the patent exclusivity is no longer available. The Pediatric Rule also applies to biologics, whereas the Best Pharmaceuticals does not. A significant portion of therapeutics used in children, including many cancer treatments, are biological products (products that include a live agent). Because Best Pharmaceuticals does not apply to biologics, the Pediatric Rule is the only way to ensure pediatric labeling. Finally, the Best Pharmaceuticals is voluntary. For any number of reasons, including insufficient sales, a manufacturer may choose not to conduct the testing necessary to receive additional exclusivity under the Best Act. But, just because a drug manufacturer chooses not to study the drug in children does not mean that drug is not critical to the proper treatment of our children. Without the Pediatric Rule, there is no way to guarantee that a drug that is used in the pediatric population is tested for children's use. With the establishment of the Pediatric Rule and the financial incentives of the Best Pharmaceuticals law, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of studies that have been undertaken. Let me quote from the Government's Response to Plaintiff's Notice of Reauthorization of FDA Modernization Act. This is the document that the government filed to defend the lawsuit against the Rule: ``These two options [the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act and the Pediatric Rule] have resulted in a number of drugs being labeled for use in pediatric populations. As of March 31, 2002, 94 applications containing complete or partial pediatric use information had been submitted to the agency. Of these 94 applications, 45 are attributable to the statutory exclusivity provisions. FDA attributes 48 of the 94 applications to the authority of the pediatric rule alone.'' The bill that my colleagues and I are introducing today would help maintain that progress--not erode it. Our bill would provide the FDA with the authority it needs to ensure that the medicines children take are studied for safety and efficacy. And, our bill would give FDA this authority in a way so that it does not conflict with the incentives provided in the Best Pharmaceuticals Act. Our bill would preserve the waiver and deferral process, so that drug companies can get waivers or deferrals for a range of legitimate reasons. Drug companies could get a waiver or deferral of studies for safety or ethical concerns. A drug company could get a waiver or deferral if the pediatric testing would interfere with the drug's availability for adults. Ultimately, though, our bill would help make certain that children are no longer a therapeutic afterthought by ensuring that all new drugs are studied for pediatric use at the time a drug comes to market. This would put children on a level playing field with adults for the first time. Our children deserve no less, and I encourage my colleagues to join in support of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, to reintroduce the ``Comprehensive Child Protection Act of 2003''--a bill to help protect our Nation's children from child molestation and other forms of abuse. Senator Hatch and I introduced this bill for the first time on September 10, 2002. Sexual abuse of children is a pervasive and extremely troubling problem in the United States. I learned that over 25 years ago when I was serving as the County Prosecutor in Greene County, Ohio. I saw what this kind of abuse does to innocent, helpless children and how pervasive the crimes are in our communities. In fact, according to the Congressional Research Service, one of every three girls and one of every seven boys will be sexually abused before they reach the age of 18. Our local police and prosecutors are on the front line in the fight against these criminals, and they deserve credit and our thanks for their hard work. For example, in Greene County recently, a number of child pornographers were identified and prosecuted when local law enforcement carried out a successful Internet sting operation. Despite successes like this, however, the data suggest that law enforcement is fighting an uphill battle. In 2001 alone, there were over 5,400 registered sex offenders living in my home State of Ohio--an increase of 319 percent over 1998. Equally troubling, many child molesters prey upon dozens of victims before they are reported to law enforcement. Some evade detection for so long because many children never report the abuse. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 60 percent and 80 percent of child molestations and 69 percent of sexual assaults are never reported to the police. And, according to the Congressional Research Service, of reported sexual assaults, 71 percent of the victims are children. For these reasons, it is vitally important that Congress do everything in its power to support law enforcement in its efforts to protect our nation's most vulnerable citizens. Enacting the ``Comprehensive Child Protection Act of 2003'' would be a step in the right direction. By enacting this measure, we would help protect our children from sexual predators, pornographers, and others who abuse children. Among its major provisions, this legislation would: 1. Direct the FBI to establish a new center that creates and trains ``rapid response teams'' (composed of prosecutors, investigators, and others) to respond promptly to reported crimes against children; 2. Establish a national Internet site that would make sex offender information available to the public in one, easily accessible place. Currently, about 30 states make offender information available to the public online; 3. Authorize the collection of DNA samples from registered sex offenders and the inclusion of these DNA samples in the Combined DNA Index System, or ``CODIS;'' 4. Permit the prosecution of child abuse offenses until a victim reaches the age of 35 (as opposed to the age of 25 under current law). This provision recognizes that victims of such crimes often do not come forward until years after the abuse, out of shame or a fear of further humiliation; 5. Make it easier for investigators to track sexual predators and child pornographers and make it easier to prosecute criminal child abuse/molestation cases; 6. Create a new section at the Department of Justice to focus solely on crimes against children; and 7. Stiffen penalties for sex-related offenses involving children. This is a good bill--a bill that would help ensure that our children are protected from some of the most heinous of criminals. It is a bill that would increase the punishment for those criminals. And, it is a bill that, quite simply, is the right thing to do. I encourage my colleagues to join us in co-sponsoring this important measure.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment to S. 3 that has been offered by my friend and colleague from Illinois. When the Senate considered the partial-birth abortion ban in 1999, we decisively rejected, in a vote of 61 to 38, a very similar amendment sponsored by my friend from Illinois. And, once again, I believe we should reject this amendment today. Let me say to my colleague and dear friend from Illinois, he is a man of great integrity, great passion, and great compassion. He is someone with whom I have worked on this floor on many different issues. I know we will work together again on other issues. We worked together a few weeks ago on an amendment that we were successful in getting the Senate to pass to add additional money for the worldwide AIDS effort. But I do believe the amendment he has offered--however well intended it is--is tragically flawed. The Senator from Illinois contends his current amendment would ban all partial-birth abortions after a fetus is viable unless two doctors certify that continuing the pregnancy would threaten the mother's life or risk grievous injury to her physical health. Now, this may sound very reasonable, and does. But in, reality, this amendment has loopholes so big that abortion providers would be able to continue to perform virtually all the partial-birth abortions they perform today. Why? Why do I say that? First, the amendment ties the availability of late-term abortions to the risk of grievous injury to the mother. That sounds reasonable. But let's be clear about this. Grievous injury is, of course, by definition, necessarily subject to the so-called medical judgment of the abortion provider. The effect of this amendment is ambiguous on its own terms because the term ``medical judgment'' has, of course, a great deal of built-in flexibility. Specifically, under the precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court, in 1973, in the Doe v. Bolton case: Medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors--physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age--relevant to the well being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. . . . That is from Doe v. Bolton. Clearly, this precedent shows us there is a wide range of factors that can legally be taken into account in assessing medical judgment, so many factors that they create a host of loopholes through which many partial-birth abortionists--such as Dr. Martin Haskell, whom I have referenced on the floor before, who lives in my home State of Ohio, in Dayton--could easily slip through. Further, under this amendment, who would make the call that the mother's life is threatened or that her physical health is at risk? We know the answer. Naturally, it would be primarily up to the abortion provider. Although in nonemergencies, the abortionist would need to get one other doctor to agree with him, the amendment of the Senator from Illinois contains a medical emergency clause which permits the abortionist to decide to do an abortion without certifying anything prior to doing the procedure. Even worse, Mr. President and Members of the Senate, in those situations when the abortionist declares an emergency, he or she does not need to get independent confirmation from anyone--from no one. In other words, it is totally up to the abortionist's discretion. In practice, in the real world, this likely means there will be absolutely no limit on the will of the abortionist. The doctor who will be certifying these procedures is a person like Dr. Haskell, a man who admitted that most of the abortions he already performs are elective-- elective. That is Dr. Martin Haskell, and that is what he does. Why do I talk about Dr. Haskell? I talk about him because I am familiar with him because he lives in my home State, but much more importantly, because he is typical of the people who provide these abortions. They are not your ``Dr. Welbys.'' They are not your typical OB/GYNs. They are not surgeons. They are people who do this day in and day out, and that is what they do. Let there be no misunderstanding. I want my colleagues, and I want the American people, to understand exactly who Dr. Haskell is and what it is that this man does for a living, what his livelihood is, what his mission is, what it is he does day in and day out to these innocent little babies. He kills them. That is what he does for a living. Let's make no mistake about it. This man is going to do everything he can to maintain his livelihood. He has a vested interest in performing partial-birth abortions. This amendment before us now is going to give him the ticket he needs to continue these procedures. The amendment by definition creates a loophole so big that Dr. Haskell and the other abortionists just like him could drive trucks through it. This amendment will allow them to continue to do what they do on a daily basis; that is, kill innocent babies, babies who, if given the chance, could be born and could grow up and could thrive and live productive lives and make positive contributions to our country. Ultimately my colleagues need to know and the American people need to know that Dr. Martin Haskell in Dayton, OH is not your family practice physician. He is not ``Dr. Welby.'' He kills babies. That is what he does for a living. This is the person who, under this amendment, tragically, would be charged with making the medical judgments. When Dr. Haskell needs to seek a second opinion, which is provided under this amendment, from a so-called independent physician as required under the amendment to determine if the procedure is necessary, who do you think he is going to ask? Do you think he is going to really ask the local family practice doctor nearby? We know he is not going to. He is going to ask one of his other abortion provider friends. We know that is what the truth is. That is the way the world works. That is what is going to happen. If anyone believes otherwise, they are not living in the real world. That is the world of abortionists; that is the way it is. In practice, this amendment would likely put no limit on the will of the abortionist. The doctor who will be certifying is a Dr. Haskell or someone like him or perhaps a third-trimester abortionist such as Dr. Warn Hern who wrote the textbook ``Abortion Practice.'' Dr. Hern has argued that the fact of an occasional death in childbearing can justify any abortion, no matter how late in pregnancy it is performed. As he stated in the May 15, 1997 Washington Times: I will certify that any pregnancy is a threat to a woman's life and could cause grievous injury to her physical health. So even a so-called grievous injury exception potentially would allow an abortionist to perform a partial-birth abortion on any pregnant woman. The second problem with the Durbin amendment is that its ban on partial-birth abortions is practically meaningless because the amendment on its own terms only applies to a fetus that is already viable. It does not apply to a fetus that is not viable. We know the overwhelming majority of partial-birth abortions--it has been estimated over 90 percent--occur between 20 and 26 weeks of pregnancy, not during the third trimester. Clearly, this amendment would not even apply to very many partial-birth abortions at all. Even worse, the determination of viability is left entirely within the discretion of the abortionist. In other words, this amendment would allow someone like Dr. Martin Haskell to make the very subjective decision whether or not a fetus is viable. The amendment would allow Dr. Haskell to decide whether or not he even wanted to comply with the amendment. We all know what his decision would be in these cases. In fact, my fear is this amendment would allow thousands of these gruesome procedures to continue to be performed in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy, horrific and painful and inhumane procedures performed on healthy babies of healthy mothers. Yesterday I talked about Brenda Pratt Shafer, an experienced registered nurse who was assigned to an Ohio abortion clinic in the early 1990s. She witnessed partial-birth abortions. She saw what Dr. Haskell does for a living because she worked for a short time at Dr. Haskell's office. She testified before Congress about it. I would like to conclude today with her story because it clearly shows what happens when an abortionist like Dr. Haskell is left unrestrained. Here is what she said in describing one of the horrifying procedures she witnessed: The young woman was 18, unmarried, and a little over 6 months pregnant. She cried the entire 3 days she was at the abortion clinic. The doctor told us, ``I'm afraid she's going to want to see the baby. Try to discourage her from it; we don't like them to see the babies.'' We gave her some IV- valium to calm her down, but she was never totally knocked out. The baby's heartbeat was clearly visible on the ultrasound screen. I stood 3 feet from the doctor as he took the forceps and brought the baby's legs down through the birth canal. He delivered the baby's body and arms, everything but his little head. The baby's body was moving. His little fingers were clasping together. He was kicking his feet. The baby was hanging there, and the doctor was holding his neck to keep his head from slipping out. The doctor took a pair of scissors and inserted them into the back of the baby's head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks he might fall. Then the doctor opened up the scissors, stuck the high-powered suction tube into the hole and sucked the baby's brains out. The baby went completely limp. Then, the doctor pulled the head out, and threw the baby into a pan. When the mother started coming around, she was crying ``I want to see my baby.'' So we cleaned him up and put him into a blanket. We put her in a private room and handed her the baby. She held that baby in her arms and when she looked into his face, she started screaming ``Oh my God, what have I done? This is my baby.'' At that point, I couldn't take it. In my 14 years of nursing, I had been pretty strong. But this was different. I started choking. I excused myself and ran to the bathroom. It was horrible, and I didn't fully understand my reaction. Then, I had to go back and take that baby away from his mother. She was so hysterical, and all she kept saying was, ``It was a baby; he was so beautiful.'' Many other beautiful babies are dying the same tragic deaths. Quite simply, we as a country, as a people, should not tolerate it. We should not tolerate it anymore. We must not allow it to continue. We must not pass amendments that would allow it to continue even under a legal ban of the partial-birth abortion procedure. No matter how well-intentioned the amendment is, it is abundantly clear it would allow this partial-birth abortion procedure to continue. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to defeat the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment that has been offered by my friend and colleague from California. A few hours ago, the Senate decisively rejected, in a vote of 60 to 38, a substitute amendment by my colleague from Illinois. The Feinstein substitute amendment we are now considering, frankly, is even worse than the failed Durbin substitute amendment. I would like to spend a few minutes to discuss this with my colleagues and explain exactly why I believe the Feinstein amendment simply is not good public policy. The Feinstein substitute says that it would be ``unlawful'' to perform an abortion if ``the fetus is viable'' in the judgment of ``the attending physician.'' First, as I have stated earlier, most partial-birth abortions are conducted when the fetus is within 20 to 26 weeks, so, just as with the Durbin amendment, the Feinstein amendment does not even cover most partial-birth abortions. Furthermore, the terms of the substitute, when you look at the language, make it practically useless in stopping these abortions. What does the language in the Feinstein amendment mean? Very simply, it means the abortion provider--the person who will perform the abortion, the person who makes a living doing abortions--is the person who will make the decision of whether or not the abortion is legal. What do I mean by that? Let me explain. Specifically, the Feinstein substitute does not define when a fetus is viable. It further imposes no restrictions on the abortionist. Instead the substitute would permit the abortionist to decide what viability means. The abortionist is the one under this substitute who makes that decision. As long as the abortionist says the fetus is not viable, then the Feinstein amendment would not apply. He could go ahead and perform the abortion. This is obviously not acceptable. We don't have to search very far for an example of how abortionists would apply this standard. At least one abortionist who performs third- trimester abortions has publicly taken the position that viability occurs only when a baby can survive independently of the mother without any artificial assistance. Of course, that is not what most doctors mean when they refer to viability. It is not the standard understanding. But under the Feinstein substitute, this standard, as defined by this doctor, would be fine. Even just this much discussion should be enough to convince everyone of the dangers of accepting this substitute, but there is more. Under the terms of the Feinstein substitute, even if an abortionist should, completely against his self-interest, declare the baby he has been hired to kill is, in fact, viable under the Feinstein substitute, he could still perform the abortion. All that would be required under the Feinstein substitute would be for the abortionist to determine, in the medical judgment of the abortionist, that the abortion was necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. As I discussed earlier today, the term ``health of the mother'' is almost impossible to clearly define, based on prior Supreme Court decisions. In fact, the Supreme Court has declared, in an abortion- context decision, that this term is extremely broad. I quote again for my colleagues from the Supreme Court case of Doe v. Bolton. Here is what the Court said: [P]hysical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age--[are] relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health . . . That is the Supreme Court, Doe v. Bolton. Under this definition, almost any excuse would be enough to justify a late-term partial-birth abortion. Yet the abortionist would be within the law because he determined the health of the mother was at risk. In fact, we have a real-life example of just how this power to define a mother's health would be used. Kansas is currently the only State in the Union that requires partial-birth abortions to be reported distinct and separate from other abortions. In 1999, Kansas abortionists reported they performed 182 partial-birth abortions. They also reported all 182 of these partial-birth abortions were performed on babies who the abortionists themselves found to be viable. Further, they reported that all 182 of these postviability partial- birth abortions were performed for mental as opposed to physical health reasons. Those are very interesting statistics. They tell us a lot. Every single one of these partial-birth abortions, 182 out of 182, were reported by the abortionist as being performed on viable children for mental as opposed to physical health reasons.

Mr. DeWINE. After all this, if somehow, somewhere, somebody were able to prove the abortionist had in some way violated this law--and I don't know how that would ever happen--the only penalty would be a fine, a civil penalty. If you add it all up, the effects of this substitute amendment are clear. It would leave someone like Dr. Haskell, who I have talked about, a professional abortionist who only does partial-birth abortions, to perform partial-birth abortions practically at will. Accordingly, this amendment would allow thousands of these gruesome procedures to continue to be performed. A vote for the Feinstein substitute is simply a vote to kill the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. It is a vote simply to allow partial- birth abortions to continue. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to defeat this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in strong support of the nomination of Judge Gregory Frost, whom the President has nominated to be United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, and whom the Senate confirmed just two days ago. I have had the pleasure of knowing Judge Frost for many, many years and can say with confidence that he is exceptionally qualified for this position. I believe that he will be an excellent Federal Judge. Judge Frost currently serves as Judge on the Licking County Common Pleas Court in Newark, OH. He has been on the Licking County bench for the past 19 years--serving first as a Municipal Court judge from 1983 to 1990 before being elected to his current position. As I discussed during his Judiciary Committee hearing, while on the Licking County bench, Judge Frost was selected to take the lead in writing the jury instructions for the State of Ohio. This is no small undertaking. These jury instructions provide the framework in which all jury cases in the State of Ohio are deliberated. The fact that he was chosen to do this reflects the esteem in which his colleagues hold him. Before serving on the bench, Judge Frost served in private practice and also served an assistant Licking County prosecutor from 1974 until 1978. Having seen how the trial process works from many different perspectives--as a prosecutor, a defense attorney, and a judge--Judge Frost knows what defines good judicial temperament, and I believe that he has it. While on the bench, his graciousness and dedication have earned him the respect of those inside and outside of his courtroom. I received many letters of support for Judge Frost that attest to this. Without question, Judge Frost will be a fine addition to the District Court. He has the experience, the temperament, and the dedication to be an excellent Federal judge. I strongly support his nomination and thank my colleagues for voting in support of his nomination.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Ryan Richardson, a law clerk in my office, be given floor privileges for the duration of the day.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes.