Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. It is my understanding that the ABA conducted its own very thorough investigation of Mr. Estrada before they decided to give him their highest possible rating, well qualified. Could the Senator from Utah tell me whether or not that is correct?

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I say to my distinguished colleague from Utah, I wonder if you would yield for an additional question.

Mr. DeWINE. It is my understanding there is substantial opportunity, following hearings, to submit followup questions in writing. I wonder if the Senator from Utah would tell me whether that is correct or not.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Utah yield for an additional question?

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I wonder if my colleague will yield for an additional question.

Mr. DeWINE. So would the Senator from Utah agree, if a Senator thought that he or she did not have enough information at the hearing about Mr. Estrada, or had additional questions that he or she wanted to have answered, they could have submitted additional questions?

Mr. DeWINE. Now, the ABA has expressly stated it does not evaluate a nominee's ideology because it ``restricts its evaluation to issues bearing on professional qualifications.'' But the ABA does investigate a nominee's openmindedness and freedom from bias. Could the Senator from Utah tell me whether it seems unreasonable to believe that the ABA would have unanimously given Mr. Estrada its highest rating if it thought he would use his judicial role to advance his personal ideology?

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Utah yield for a question?

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Friday, February 14, 2003 at 9:30 a.m., for a hearing entitled ``Consolidating Intelligence Analysis: A Review of the President's Proposal to Create a Terrorist Threat Integration Center.''

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a dear and cherished friend, a mentor and a role model, former Yellow Springs, OH, chief of police of 34 years, Jim McKee, who passed away on January 18 of this year at the age of 73. Raised in Springfield, OH, Jim McKee moved to Yellow Springs when he was 18 years old, fresh out of high school, in search of a job. During his first year in Yellow Springs, Jim held a number of different positions, working in a shoe repair shop and later at Mills Lawn Elementary School. It was at Mills Lawn Elementary School that I first met my future wife Frances, in first grade, but it was also at Mills Lawn I first met Jim McKee. Jim was the person who kept things going at Mills Lawn. I remember how much respect, love, and admiration the students had for Jim. I first saw in Jim the ability he had to connect with people. I saw it as a child. I remember he would gather the students together and talk to them about how we needed to keep the place looking good and how important that was. I remember how we looked up to him and how much we respected him. Eventually, Jim McKee took a job at Wright Patterson Air Force Base near my hometown of Yellow Springs. But by 1957, Jim decided he needed to move on. True to form, Jim saw this change not as a bad thing but really as a new opportunity to do something he had always dreamed of doing, and that was to get involved in law enforcement. This was his chance, his opportunity. Before long, he was realizing that dream. The village of Yellow Springs then hired him as a police officer. He joined a department of two officers and a chief, a small department at the time. Within 2 short years and the recognition of his talent and his hard work, Jim McKee was appointed chief of police. In this new leadership position, Jim McKee soon found himself dealing with issues he probably did not think he was going to be dealing with, issues of historic importance, because at that time the civil rights movement was beginning to sweep our country. The civil rights movement had reached Yellow Springs, a small community in southwest Ohio, my hometown. It reached Yellow Springs sooner than most other parts of the country. Jim McKee was one of the few African-American chiefs of police in the State of Ohio. Jim McKee guided my hometown with great skill through a very difficult period of time. As one of the few African-American chiefs of police in the State, really one of the few in the country at the time, Jim McKee faced his own civil rights issues early on in the movement. Everybody in Yellow Springs, a community then and now of great diversity and a community that then and now embodies a person's right to free speech, everybody in Yellow Springs respected and liked Jim McKee. That made all the difference in the world. Whether Jim realized it or not during this tumultuous era, Jim was in fact playing a part in our American history. Jim McKee kept the peace, maintained order, and all the while respected people's freedom of speech, their right to demonstrate, and their civil rights. He did it in a professional way. I remember when Dr. Martin Luther King came to Yellow Springs to deliver the commencement address at Antioch College. Chief McKee, of course, provided his security detail. Years later, recalling this experience with Dr. King, Chief McKee had this to say: At the time there were rumors they were out to get him. I saw him do his nonviolent teachings. I drove around in the car with him for 2 days. He was a perfect Christian gentleman and I was frightened to death because I was providing his security. We told people he was staying at the Antioch Inn, but in fact he was right across the street from where I live--in the home his wife, Coretta, lived in as a student at Antioch years before. You would think they would have figured it out, with all the police cruisers parked out front. I was never so glad to see a plane take off. Despite whatever concerns Jim McKee may have had, the chief performed his duties with a great sense of professionalism, with honor and courage. Though he dealt with significant issues on the national stage, Chief McKee dedicated his career to Yellow Springs and to keeping the community he loved so much safe and free from crime. As Members of the Senate know--or may not know--Yellow Springs is not a large city. It is a village. It is a small village where people know their neighbors and watch out for one another. Even today, I believe there are probably only about eight or so police officers on the force. Chief McKee, as the local police chief, was really an icon in his own community. He was greatly admired and respected as an officer, as a protector, but most of all as a friend. Though I first met him as an elementary school student, actually in the first grade, I had the opportunity later on to reconnect with him. Our lives came together again when I became assistant county prosecuting attorney and he was by that time the dean of the chiefs of police in Greene County. I knew him then and later when I became the prosecutor of our home county. We worked on a number of cases that arose out of Yellow Springs, several very difficult rape cases. We worked on several of those cases together. During this time, I learned a great deal about how Chief McKee treated people and how he dealt with some of the most tense situations. Perhaps most importantly, though, I saw his great sense of humanity toward both victims and suspects. Chief Jim McKee taught me there is much more to police work than arrests and convictions. He taught me about the human component in police work. He taught me about people and about compassion. I remember one instance in particular when I saw and learned about how Jim McKee dealt with a man who had been in an auto accident. This man was involved in a horrible thing, as many accidents are, but he came out of it. He walked out of the accident, but the other person in the other vehicle did not and the other person died. This particular person was actually a suspect, and he could have been charged. The police were looking at and trying to decide whether to charge him. Actually, later on there was a grand jury that was convened. The grand jury had to make a decision whether this person was going to be charged and have to stand trial. Eventually they decided not to charge him, but Jim did not know that at the time. I saw how Jim dealt with this man and showed this man, who was going through great anguish at the time, a man who was really a suspect, and I saw how Jim worked him through this, talked to him and showed great kindness to him. That is how Jim McKee treated everyone, with great kindness and with great compassion, all the time being a professional, all the time doing his job. It was this compassion that set Jim McKee apart. He cared deeply about people and just knew how to deal with them. At the end of Chief McKee's distinguished 36-year career in law enforcement, I had the honor of attending his farewell banquet. I was lieutenant governor at the time and was there to pay tribute to the chief on behalf of the entire State of Ohio, and on behalf of Governor, then-Governor George Voinovich. At this reception and this dinner, I was struck by the sheer outpouring of respect and admiration and appreciation for Chief McKee's work and for his selfless contributions to our community. It was clear at this reception how important Chief McKee was to the people, to the village of Yellow Springs, and to the entire law enforcement community across the State of Ohio. I was proud to be part of this memorable event. Following his retirement from the force in 1993, Chief McKee remained active in the community until the day he died. He was a key member of the Yellow Springs Men's Group, an organization dedicated to studying issues important to the day-to-day lives of Yellow Springs residents. Through this organization, the James A. McKee scholarship fund was established in 2002 as a tribute both to Jim and to his legacy of community involvement. In the recent days following Jim's death, a number of newspapers ran articles about his life and his legacy. As I read through these tributes, I was especially taken with a statement from my friend, Paul Ford, who had known Chief McKee since 1949. This is what Mr. Ford said: We've lost a good citizen, a good friend, and a humanitarian. Once you met Jim, you were a friend. Indeed, Jim McKee was my friend and someone for whom I had great affection and admiration. This quote really gets to why Chief McKee was so special to the community of Yellow Springs and to all of us who knew him. He dedicated his life to serving the people of Yellow Springs. He worked to keep his community safe and free from crime. When I think about Jim McKee and his life's work as a police officer, protector of the community, I am reminded of a Bible passage from Matthew: Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God. Indeed, Chief Jim McKee was a peacemaker and a protector and just a good and decent hard-working man. He was a kind person, a kind human being who always tried to do the right thing for his family, for his community, and for his Nation. My wife Fran and I extend our heartfelt sympathy and our prayers for the entire McKee family, for his wife of 54 years, Naomi; his four daughters, Bari McKee-Teamor, Karen McKee, Jean McKee, Sandra McKee- Smith; his son, Jimmy, his five grandchildren, and one great grandson. Jim McKee loved his family. He cared deeply for them. I know they, like all of us, will miss him tremendously. Thank you, Jim, for all you did for Yellow Springs and for our Nation. You will be remembered always in our minds and in our hearts. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I join several of my colleagues today to introduce a series of bills related to the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA). These five bills emphasize a number of issues that are vital to higher education, including teacher quality; loan forgiveness for social workers, family lawyers, and early childhood teachers; and the reduction of drug use and underage drinking at our colleges and universities. The quality of a student's education is the direct result of the quality of that student's teachers. If we don't have well trained teachers, then future generations of our children will not be well educated. That is why I am introducing a bill that would provide $200 million in grants to our schools of education to partner with local schools to ensure that our teachers are receiving the best, most extensive training available before they enter the classroom. The Secretary of Education's annual report on teacher quality reported that a majority of graduates of schools of education believe that the traditional teacher preparation program left them ill prepared for the challenges and rigors of the classroom. Part of the responsibility for this lies in the hands of our schools of education. However, Congress also has a responsibility to give our schools of education the tools they need to make necessary improvements. This new bill would create a competitive grant program for schools of education, which partner with low-income schools to create clinical programs to train teachers. Additionally, it would require schools of education to make internal changes by working with other departments at the university to ensure that teachers are receiving the highest quality education in core academic subjects. Finally, it would require the college or university to demonstrate a commitment to improving their schools of education by providing matching funds. Another complex issue affecting the teaching force is the high percentage of disillusioned beginning teachers who leave the field. Our bill would help combat this issue, as well. Schools of education receiving these grants would be responsible for following their graduates and continuing to provide assistance after they enter the classroom. The more we invest in the education of teachers--especially once they have entered the profession--the more likely they will remain in the classroom. Today, I also would like to introduce, along with Senator Dodd, the Early Care and Education Loan Forgiveness Act. Our dear friend and colleague, Senator Wellstone, and I had included this legislation in the last higher education reauthorization bill. We had been working on this legislation together before Paul's tragic death. I know he cared deeply about this issue and about making sure that all children receive a quality education. He was passionate about that. And, in his memory, I would like to rename our bill the Paul Wellstone Early Educator Loan Forgiveness Act. This bill would expand the loan forgiveness program so that it benefits not just childcare workers, but also early childhood educators. This loan forgiveness program would serve as an incentive to keep those educators in the field for longer periods of time. Paul Wellstone knew how important early learning programs are in preparing our children for kindergarten and beyond. Research shows that children who attend quality early childcare programs when they were three or four years old scored better on math, language arts, and social skills in early elementary school than children who attended poor quality childcare programs. In short, children in early learning programs with high quality teachers--teachers with a bachelor's degree or an associate's degree or higher--do substantially better. When we examine the number and recent growth of pre-primary education programs, it becomes difficult to differentiate between early education and childcare settings because they are so often intertwined-- especially considering that 11.9 million children younger than age five spend part of their time with a care provider other than a parent and that demand for quality childcare and education is growing as more mothers enter the workforce. Because this bill targets loan forgiveness to those educators working in low-income schools or childcare settings, we can make significant strides toward providing high quality education for all of our young children, regardless of socioeconomic status. The bill would serve a twofold function. First, it would reward professionals for their training. Second, it would encourage professionals to remain in the profession over longer periods of time, since more time in the profession leads to higher percentages of loans forgiveness. The bill would result in more educated individuals with more teaching experience and lower turnover rates, each of which enhance student performance. I encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort to ensure that truly no children--especially our youngest children--are left behind. I also am working on two bills with my friend and colleague from West Virginia, Senator Jay Rockefeller. These bills would provide loan forgiveness to students who dedicate their careers to working in the realm of child welfare, including social workers, who work for child protective services, and family law experts. Currently, Mr. President, there aren't enough social workers to fill available jobs in child welfare today. Furthermore, the number of social work job openings is expected to increase faster than the average for all occupations through 2010. The need for highly qualified social workers in the child protective services is reaching crisis level. We also need more qualified individuals focusing on family law. The wonderful thing about family law is its focus on rehabilitation--that is the rehabilitation of families by helping them through life's transitions, whether it is a family going through a divorce, a family dealing with their troubled teenager in the juvenile system, or a child getting adopted and becoming a member of a new family. Across the United States, family, juvenile, and domestic relations courts are experiencing a shortage of qualified attorneys. As many of my colleagues and I know, law school is an expensive investment. In the last 20 years, tuition has increased more than 200 percent. Currently, the average rate of law school debt is about $80,000 per graduate. To be sure, few law school graduates can afford to work in the public sector because debts prevent even the most dedicated public service lawyer from being able to take these low- paying jobs. This results in a shortage of family lawyers. The shortage of family law attorneys also disproportionately impacts juveniles. The lack of available representation causes children to spend more time in foster care because cases are adjourned or postponed when they simply cannot find an attorney to represent their rights or those of the parent or guardian. Furthermore, the number of children involved in the court system is sharply increasing. We need to ensure that the interests of these children are taken care of by making certain they have an advocate--someone working solely on their behalf. By offering loan forgiveness to those willing to pursue careers in the child welfare field, we can increase the number of highly qualified and dedicated individuals who work in the realm of child welfare and family law. Finally, I am introducing a bill today with my friend and colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, that would help address an epidemic--the epidemic of underage drinking, binge drinking, and drug- related problems on college and university campuses across the United States. Our bill would provide grants to states to establish statewide partnerships among colleges and universities and the surrounding communities to work together to reduce underage and binge drinking and illicit drug use by students. According to a study by Boston University, over 1,400 students aged 18-24 died in 1998 from alcohol-related injuries, more than 600,000 students were assaulted by another student, and another 500,000 were injured unintentionally while under the influence of alcohol. According to a 1999 Harvard University study, 40 percent of college students are binge drinkers and according to the Department of Health and Human Services, nearly 10.5 million current drinkers were under the legal age of 21, and of these, over 5 million were binge drinkers. Currently, 28 States, including my home State of Ohio, have coalitions that deal specifically with the culture of alcohol and drug abuse on our nation's college campuses. They work with the surrounding communities, including local residents, bar, restaurant and shop owners, and law enforcement officials, toward a goal of changing the pervasive culture of drug and alcohol abuse. They provide alternative alcohol-free events, as well as support groups for those who choose not to drink. They also educate students about the dangers of alcohol and drug-use. Furthermore, the coalitions recognize that while it is important to promote an alcohol aware and drug-free campus community, if the community surrounding the campus does not promote these initiatives, there will be no long-term solutions. Therefore, these coalitions also have worked to establish regulations both on and off campus, which will help our nation's youth to stay healthy, alive, and get the most out of their time at college. Some of these regulations include the registration of kegs. This provides accountability for both the store and the student. This is just an example of one step that colleges, local communities, and organizations can take. To help start the expansion of these coalitions, our bill would provide $50 million in grants. This is an important demonstration project that would help lead to positive effects for our young people. It is up to us to change the culture, which has been perpetuated by years of complacency and a dismissal tone of--``that's just the way it is in college.'' We must protect the health and education of our young people by changing this culture of abuse--and that is exactly what this bill would do. Next year when we consider the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, I encourage my colleagues to join in support of these initiatives.

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

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I join several of my colleagues today to introduce a series of bills related to the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA). These five bills emphasize a number of issues that are vital to higher education, including teacher quality; loan forgiveness for social workers, family lawyers, and early childhood teachers; and the reduction of drug use and underage drinking at our colleges and universities. The quality of a student's education is the direct result of the quality of that student's teachers. If we don't have well trained teachers, then future generations of our children will not be well educated. That is why I am introducing a bill that would provide $200 million in grants to our schools of education to partner with local schools to ensure that our teachers are receiving the best, most extensive training available before they enter the classroom. The Secretary of Education's annual report on teacher quality reported that a majority of graduates of schools of education believe that the traditional teacher preparation program left them ill prepared for the challenges and rigors of the classroom. Part of the responsibility for this lies in the hands of our schools of education. However, Congress also has a responsibility to give our schools of education the tools they need to make necessary improvements. This new bill would create a competitive grant program for schools of education, which partner with low-income schools to create clinical programs to train teachers. Additionally, it would require schools of education to make internal changes by working with other departments at the university to ensure that teachers are receiving the highest quality education in core academic subjects. Finally, it would require the college or university to demonstrate a commitment to improving their schools of education by providing matching funds. Another complex issue affecting the teaching force is the high percentage of disillusioned beginning teachers who leave the field. Our bill would help combat this issue, as well. Schools of education receiving these grants would be responsible for following their graduates and continuing to provide assistance after they enter the classroom. The more we invest in the education of teachers--especially once they have entered the profession--the more likely they will remain in the classroom. Today, I also would like to introduce, along with Senator Dodd, the Early Care and Education Loan Forgiveness Act. Our dear friend and colleague, Senator Wellstone, and I had included this legislation in the last higher education reauthorization bill. We had been working on this legislation together before Paul's tragic death. I know he cared deeply about this issue and about making sure that all children receive a quality education. He was passionate about that. And, in his memory, I would like to rename our bill the Paul Wellstone Early Educator Loan Forgiveness Act. This bill would expand the loan forgiveness program so that it benefits not just childcare workers, but also early childhood educators. This loan forgiveness program would serve as an incentive to keep those educators in the field for longer periods of time. Paul Wellstone knew how important early learning programs are in preparing our children for kindergarten and beyond. Research shows that children who attend quality early childcare programs when they were three or four years old scored better on math, language arts, and social skills in early elementary school than children who attended poor quality childcare programs. In short, children in early learning programs with high quality teachers--teachers with a bachelor's degree or an associate's degree or higher--do substantially better. When we examine the number and recent growth of pre-primary education programs, it becomes difficult to differentiate between early education and childcare settings because they are so often intertwined-- especially considering that 11.9 million children younger than age five spend part of their time with a care provider other than a parent and that demand for quality childcare and education is growing as more mothers enter the workforce. Because this bill targets loan forgiveness to those educators working in low-income schools or childcare settings, we can make significant strides toward providing high quality education for all of our young children, regardless of socioeconomic status. The bill would serve a twofold function. First, it would reward professionals for their training. Second, it would encourage professionals to remain in the profession over longer periods of time, since more time in the profession leads to higher percentages of loans forgiveness. The bill would result in more educated individuals with more teaching experience and lower turnover rates, each of which enhance student performance. I encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort to ensure that truly no children--especially our youngest children--are left behind. I also am working on two bills with my friend and colleague from West Virginia, Senator Jay Rockefeller. These bills would provide loan forgiveness to students who dedicate their careers to working in the realm of child welfare, including social workers, who work for child protective services, and family law experts. Currently, Mr. President, there aren't enough social workers to fill available jobs in child welfare today. Furthermore, the number of social work job openings is expected to increase faster than the average for all occupations through 2010. The need for highly qualified social workers in the child protective services is reaching crisis level. We also need more qualified individuals focusing on family law. The wonderful thing about family law is its focus on rehabilitation--that is the rehabilitation of families by helping them through life's transitions, whether it is a family going through a divorce, a family dealing with their troubled teenager in the juvenile system, or a child getting adopted and becoming a member of a new family. Across the United States, family, juvenile, and domestic relations courts are experiencing a shortage of qualified attorneys. As many of my colleagues and I know, law school is an expensive investment. In the last 20 years, tuition has increased more than 200 percent. Currently, the average rate of law school debt is about $80,000 per graduate. To be sure, few law school graduates can afford to work in the public sector because debts prevent even the most dedicated public service lawyer from being able to take these low- paying jobs. This results in a shortage of family lawyers. The shortage of family law attorneys also disproportionately impacts juveniles. The lack of available representation causes children to spend more time in foster care because cases are adjourned or postponed when they simply cannot find an attorney to represent their rights or those of the parent or guardian. Furthermore, the number of children involved in the court system is sharply increasing. We need to ensure that the interests of these children are taken care of by making certain they have an advocate--someone working solely on their behalf. By offering loan forgiveness to those willing to pursue careers in the child welfare field, we can increase the number of highly qualified and dedicated individuals who work in the realm of child welfare and family law. Finally, I am introducing a bill today with my friend and colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, that would help address an epidemic--the epidemic of underage drinking, binge drinking, and drug- related problems on college and university campuses across the United States. Our bill would provide grants to states to establish statewide partnerships among colleges and universities and the surrounding communities to work together to reduce underage and binge drinking and illicit drug use by students. According to a study by Boston University, over 1,400 students aged 18-24 died in 1998 from alcohol-related injuries, more than 600,000 students were assaulted by another student, and another 500,000 were injured unintentionally while under the influence of alcohol. According to a 1999 Harvard University study, 40 percent of college students are binge drinkers and according to the Department of Health and Human Services, nearly 10.5 million current drinkers were under the legal age of 21, and of these, over 5 million were binge drinkers. Currently, 28 States, including my home State of Ohio, have coalitions that deal specifically with the culture of alcohol and drug abuse on our nation's college campuses. They work with the surrounding communities, including local residents, bar, restaurant and shop owners, and law enforcement officials, toward a goal of changing the pervasive culture of drug and alcohol abuse. They provide alternative alcohol-free events, as well as support groups for those who choose not to drink. They also educate students about the dangers of alcohol and drug-use. Furthermore, the coalitions recognize that while it is important to promote an alcohol aware and drug-free campus community, if the community surrounding the campus does not promote these initiatives, there will be no long-term solutions. Therefore, these coalitions also have worked to establish regulations both on and off campus, which will help our nation's youth to stay healthy, alive, and get the most out of their time at college. Some of these regulations include the registration of kegs. This provides accountability for both the store and the student. This is just an example of one step that colleges, local communities, and organizations can take. To help start the expansion of these coalitions, our bill would provide $50 million in grants. This is an important demonstration project that would help lead to positive effects for our young people. It is up to us to change the culture, which has been perpetuated by years of complacency and a dismissal tone of--``that's just the way it is in college.'' We must protect the health and education of our young people by changing this culture of abuse--and that is exactly what this bill would do. Next year when we consider the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, I encourage my colleagues to join in support of these initiatives.

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

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleague from New York, Senator Clinton, to introduce the Childhood Vaccine Supply Act--a bill that would help ensure that our nation's public health system has an adequate vaccine supply. Vaccinations are critical in our efforts to keep our population, particularly children and the elderly, healthy. They are key in protecting the elderly from influenza during flu season or protecting children from contracting polio or the mumps. They--vaccinations, inoculations, immunizations, whatever you want to call them--also help lessen the threat of bacterial or viral infections and potential disease outbreaks. Currently, it is recommended that children receive 12 routine vaccinations against preventable diseases. These vaccinations are given in a series of shots and booster shots by the age of two, with an additional four doses later in life. This ends up being about 16 to 20 doses of vaccines for children. Yet, just last year, over half of the vaccines children need were in short supply. That shortage of vaccines was not acceptable, and we should do all we can to prevent any future shortage and do all we can to protect our kids from illness and disease. As a Senator, and more importantly, as a father of eight and grandfather of eight, nothing is more important to parents than the health and safety of our children. While we are not currently experiencing a shortage, we know that the vaccine market is unstable and unpredictable. According to the Centers for Disease Control's National Immunization Program, there were several reasons for the shortages last year. The CDC concluded and posted on its website that the ``reasons for these shortages were multi-factorial and included companies leaving the vaccine market, manufacturing or production problems, and insufficient stockpiles.'' The CDC did as good a job as it possibly could, especially considering the vaccine shortages our nation faced last year. The agency's website posted information about shortages and released revised vaccine schedules to keep our public informed and knowledgeable about vaccination shortages. But, even with the strong efforts of the CDC, we can work toward preventing a future vaccine shortage. We can work toward a more permanent solution. The bill I am introducing with my colleague from New York will go a long way to do just that. The bill we are introducing today--the Childhood Vaccine Supply Act-- would help bring some stability to our fragile vaccine supply. Unlike drug manufacturers, vaccine manufacturers do not have to give notice when they stop making a vaccine--whether the vaccine is withdrawn from the market intentionally or because the manufacturer is simply unable to continue making the vaccine. Essentially, these manufacturers leave the marketplace with no notice and no warning. Most doctors and hospitals--and more importantly parents and older adults--often have no idea that a vaccine is in short supply until they line up for a flu shot or go to the doctor for their child's immunizations. Our bill would change this. It would require any manufacturer of a vaccine to give notice of discontinuance. By giving notice, the Centers for Disease Control, CDC, and the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, would be better able to ensure an adequate vaccine supply for our Nation's population. Additionally, our bill would require all drug and vaccine manufacturers to give notice when they withdraw from the market. This change would ensure that we have a better sense of who is making vaccines and drugs and would allow the CDC and FDA to monitor the manufacturer's production and release of vaccines. Let me explain why this is important. Vaccines, or biological products, are difficult to develop and manufacture. They are more complex than drugs. Because of this, it takes longer for a biological product to reach the market. For example, a pharmaceutical company that manufactured tetanus vaccine stopped producing it, leaving only one company to produce tetanus vaccine for the entire country. The remaining company increased production to accommodate all of the needs of the United States. Despite this, it still required about 11 months for the vaccine to be ready for release. In other words, it took 11 months for the company to ramp-up production to meet demand. Our bill would create a notification mechanism to capture those drugs and vaccines leaving the market so we can avoid future vaccine and drug shortages. Our bill would take another important step toward ensuring an adequate vaccine supply. It would confirm the authority of the CDC to develop a plan for the purchase, storage, and rotation of a supply of vaccines sufficient to provide routinely recommended vaccinations for a six-month period for children and adults. Essentially, our bill would create a framework for the CDC to develop a national vaccine stockpile to ensure that childhood vaccine shortages simply do not occur. Our children deserve timely vaccinations. When childhood vaccinations are in short supply or are unavailable, they do without, living unprotected against disease. That should never happen. Our bill is a step toward ensuring children get the vaccines they need and that they get them at the right time. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this important public health legislation. 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 in support of the nomination of Judge John Adams. Judge Adams, from Akron, has been nominated to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio. He currently serves as a Judge on the Court of Common Pleas in Summit County, Ohio. Judge Adams is a 1978 graduate of Bowling Green State University, where he earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Education. In 1983, he received his law degree from the University of Akron School of Law. While a law student at Akron, Judge Adams clerked for Judge W.F. Spicer with the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. Following this clerkship, Judge Adams spent 5 years in private practice with the law firm of Germano, Rondy, Ciccolini Co., and during this time, also served as Assistant Summit County Prosecutor. In 1989, Judge Adams returned to private practice as an associate and then a partner at the firm of Kauffman & Kauffman in Akron. Since 1999, Judge Adams has served as a Judge on the Court of Common Pleas for Summit County. In this position, Judge Adams has demonstrated that he is an intelligent, hard working, and dedicated jurist. He is well respected, both inside the courtroom and out, and exhibits an excellent judicial temperament. He has shown that he has what it takes to be an excellent District Court Judge. In endorsing his re-election effort last November, the Akron Beacon Journal stated that Judge Adams ``has the potential to be a distinguished federal judge, building on the record of fairness and thoughtfulness that has marked his three years on the county bench.'' I agree completely with that sentiment. Judge Adams' accomplishments are indeed impressive, and I am pleased that the Senate is voting on his nomination today. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to confirm Judge Adams.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Miguel Estrada's nomination. I wish to talk about just one aspect of this nomination, one aspect about this debate. I am very concerned about an argument some have been making regarding their ability to assess this nominee's nomination to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Some are arguing that they cannot judge Miguel Estrada's qualifications because they have not seen some memos that he wrote when he worked for the Department of Justice from 1990 to 1997. Some argue they cannot vote in favor of his nomination because they have not seen these memos. I am here this afternoon because I believe that this line of thinking is really not a prudent way to view the debate on this nomination. This is why. First, Mr. Estrada has nothing to do with whether these memos are released. Under the rules of privilege, it is not the attorney who produces the work who decides whether or not to disclose it. Instead, it is the client for whom the work was produced who has this right. To be blunt, this is not Mr. Estrada's fight. In fact, Mr. Estrada has testified that were it up to him personally, he would be willing to turn over the memos. In fact, let me quote from a transcript of his nomination hearing: You are right that I have not opposed the release of those records. I have been a lawyer in practice for many years now, and I would like the world to know that I am exceptionally proud of every piece of legal work I have done in my life. If it were up to me as a private citizen, I would be more than proud to have you look at everything that I have done for the Government or for a private person. I think it is clear that Mr. Estrada believes he has nothing to hide in those memos and would be willing to turn them over. However, as Mr. Estrada understands, it is not up to him to decide whether or not those memos are released. Instead, it is up to his client--in this case, the Justice Department. It is their decision. So it is clear that Mr. Estrada is not responsible for this dispute. It would be very unfair, I maintain, to hold up Mr. Estrada's nomination because these memos have not been released. Perhaps more importantly, in terms of the underlying merits of the dispute, it is clear that the Justice Department is correct in refusing to turn over these memos. Precedent is clearly on their side. It is entirely appropriate for the Department to assert its privilege in order to protect work product that was used as part of the Department's internal deliberative process. Mr. Estrada discussed this issue at his nomination hearing, and he put it well when he said the following: I do recognize that there are certain interests that have been asserted in this case that go beyond my own personal interest, and those are the institutional interests of the Justice Department. Mr. Estrada was pressed to ask the Attorney General to release the memos. He was asked: Won't you go to the Attorney General and ask them to release the memos? This is what he said: I have been a practicing lawyer for all these years, and one of the things I have come to learn is that a practicing lawyer . . . ought not put his own interests ahead of the stated interests of his client. . . . The argument has been made that since he is no longer the Assistant Solicitor General, and because he no longer works at the Department of Justice, he doesn't have to protect their internal deliberations. But that argument really, of course, misses the point entirely. What is important is that these privileges do not exist to protect the lawyer. Rather, these privileges exist to protect the client. Accordingly, these privileges simply do not disappear when the lawyer no longer works for his client. A lawyer's obligation to protect his client's privileges carries on indefinitely, whether that client is a private person, the Attorney General, or a U.S. Senator. In the case of a private person who hires a lawyer, the attorney-client privilege exists to encourage full and frank communication between clients and their attorneys. A client can confidently disclose all relevant information to his attorney so that the attorney can provide informed advice to the client. If the client thought that the attorney would reveal the client's highly personal information, full disclosure would be significantly chilled. Similarly, it is in the client's interest that a lawyer's advice to him or her remains confidential. Any number of a client's decisions could be undermined if the attorney's advice influencing those decisions were revealed. In a May 28, 2002, editorial supporting Mr. Estrada's nomination, the Washington Post recognized that: Such a request for an attorney's work product would be unthinkable if the work had been done for a private client. The Washington Post got it right. It seems completely reasonable to support private assertions of privilege. Some, however, will argue that this situation is different. Some will argue that this is a Government lawyer whose client is the people of the United States. Some will argue that all those documents and deliberations should be public because the public is the client. But that simply ignores reality, how the real world works and should work. The Department of Justice makes difficult decisions about litigating some of the most complex and sensitive cases before our courts. The Department must decide which cases to pursue and what arguments to present in each case. It is in the interest of the public that these issues are fairly debated and vetted internally so that the Attorney General or the Solicitor General can make informed decisions. Attorney General Ashcroft described the internal second-guessing that a career attorney could go through if the Department of Justice disclosed these internal deliberative memos. That attorney may question: Are these memos somehow going to be used against me later so that I should tone down my response? Should I adjust what I am saying because someday a Senate committee, or someone else, is going to want to look at it? Should I act in ways that are more consistent with my aspirations to be a judge someday instead of my responsibility to serve in a particular case? Ultimately, we need an environment that allows for a complete discussion of all the arguments, both the pros and the cons. Attorneys have to be able to present all sides of a case. If an attorney who is engaged in a case discussion holds back, it hurts the case, it hurts the free and open exchange of ideas. If an attorney is afraid to talk about all the arguments and angles of a case because he or she is afraid of getting quoted at some future point, it hurts the case. It has a chilling effect on the discussion. It hurts the entire litigation process. Let's bring this a little closer to home. Most Members of the Senate have attorneys on their staffs. This is especially true for those of us who serve on the Judiciary Committee. We often require counsel on complex legal and policy issues that come before the committee. I have several attorneys on my staff. Other Members do as well. We rely on our staffs, attorneys and nonattorneys, for candid and complete advice. I insist they provide me with points of view and arguments from all sides of any given policy debate. Often, one of my attorneys will present one side of a debate and the other will take up the other side just so we get a give-and-take. This is a scenario that takes place many times a day every day in the Senate. I must have and other Members must have complete faith that we are getting the entire picture from our staffs and that we are receiving their unvarnished opinions. As it stands now, I am confident that I get such advice because my staff knows anything they communicate to me is completely internal and will not be disclosed. Imagine the difference if their advice were subject to disclosure. Many staffers are in the early stages of their careers and may find themselves down the road serving the Government in many different capacities. Some may go on to appointed positions that might require Senate confirmation. How could I rely on their work if it were influenced by some fear that their advice would someday be revealed in the confirmation process? Think about it. I know I am protected as a Member by the speech and debate clause and that my staff's advice to me will not be revealed because of that protection, but the principles are really the same. Our staff, Congress's staff, needs to be able to do its work without fear of future repercussions for arguments made in good faith, but the same is true of the staff of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General. I wish to reiterate that this is not Mr. Estrada's fight. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. DeWINE. This is not Mr. Estrada's fight. He should not be punished for a dispute that is really just about disclosure of documents between branches. It is that simple. I support his nomination. I will be back in the Chamber later to talk about the merits, but I wanted to talk about this one particular aspect of the debate. Mr. President, later today, in less than 2 hours, we will be voting on several district court nominations. One of them is John Adams from the State of Ohio. I personally know John Adams. John Adams is a very well respected judge from Summit County. He is a very decent human being. He is someone who is well respected in the community. He will bring great common sense to the Federal district court bench. I urge my colleagues to approve his nomination when we vote on it later today. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my friend and colleague from Ohio, Senator George Voinovich, to introduce a bill to name the Federal building and United States courthouse in Dayton, Ohio, after Congressman Tony Hall. This bill is a fitting tribute to Tony Hall, a tireless and dedicated public servant, who we greatly miss since his retirement from the United States Congress. He is continuing his commitment to public service as our U.S. Ambassador to the UN's food and agriculture agencies. The people of Ohio and the American people can be proud of and thankful for the many years Tony Hall has served in the United States Congress. I've had the privilege of working closely with him since my early days in the House nearly 20 years ago. He has been a valuable legislator and a real statesman. Over the years, he has worked tirelessly on behalf of the people of Montgomery County and throughout Ohio. Tony Hall comes from a family rich in devotion to public service and dedication to Ohio. His father, in fact, once served as Dayton's Republican Mayor. A graduate of Fairmont High School in Kettering and Denison University in Granville, where he was an all-star tailback on the football team, Tony served in the Ohio House from 1969-1972, in the Ohio Senate from 1973-1978, and as Dayton's Congressman since January 1979. A devoted husband to his wife, Janet, and a dedicated father to Jyl and Matt, the entire Hall family struggled valiantly alongside Matt as he fought an unsuccessful battle against leukemia that ended in 1996. My wife, Fran, and I are proud to have worked over two decades with Tony and Janet on humanitarian efforts and other causes that bridge across the political aisle. Tony, who served in the Peace Corps in 1966 and 1967, has been an unmatched advocate for the needy, the poor, the hungry, and the oppressed across Ohio, our Nation, and the world. Tony has been singularly responsible for much of the world's continued, focused attention on the serious hunger issues worldwide. His involvement in a 22-day hunger strike in 1989, forced the Department of Agriculture and the World Bank to call conferences on hunger, which ultimately resulted in the creation of the Congressional Hunger Center. I'm proud to have worked with Tony on several humanitarian initiatives through the years from Africa Seeds of Hope to the Global Food for Education Act to the Microenterprise for Self- Reliance Act to the Clean Diamond Act of 2001. We also share a commitment to the yet unborn. A staunch pro-life Democrat, Congressman Hall was responsible for language in the Democratic National Committee platform respecting the beliefs of those within his party who wished to protect the sanctity of life. I also have had the pleasure of working with Tony Hall on several projects important to the Miami Valley area of Ohio. We share a passion for the aviation heritage of the Wright Brothers in Dayton and have worked together to protect and preserve the monuments to the Wright Brothers legacy. And, we've also worked together on issues to help build the unique resources of Wright Patterson Air Force base. Today, it is a pleasure to take this opportunity to join Senator Voinovich to honor Tony Hall's many legislative efforts and achievements and to thank him for his commitment to the people of Ohio and this Nation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill to honor our good friend and statesman, Tony Hall.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my friend and colleague from Ohio, Senator George Voinovich, to introduce a bill to name the Federal building and United States courthouse in Dayton, Ohio, after Congressman Tony Hall. This bill is a fitting tribute to Tony Hall, a tireless and dedicated public servant, who we greatly miss since his retirement from the United States Congress. He is continuing his commitment to public service as our U.S. Ambassador to the UN's food and agriculture agencies. The people of Ohio and the American people can be proud of and thankful for the many years Tony Hall has served in the United States Congress. I've had the privilege of working closely with him since my early days in the House nearly 20 years ago. He has been a valuable legislator and a real statesman. Over the years, he has worked tirelessly on behalf of the people of Montgomery County and throughout Ohio. Tony Hall comes from a family rich in devotion to public service and dedication to Ohio. His father, in fact, once served as Dayton's Republican Mayor. A graduate of Fairmont High School in Kettering and Denison University in Granville, where he was an all-star tailback on the football team, Tony served in the Ohio House from 1969-1972, in the Ohio Senate from 1973-1978, and as Dayton's Congressman since January 1979. A devoted husband to his wife, Janet, and a dedicated father to Jyl and Matt, the entire Hall family struggled valiantly alongside Matt as he fought an unsuccessful battle against leukemia that ended in 1996. My wife, Fran, and I are proud to have worked over two decades with Tony and Janet on humanitarian efforts and other causes that bridge across the political aisle. Tony, who served in the Peace Corps in 1966 and 1967, has been an unmatched advocate for the needy, the poor, the hungry, and the oppressed across Ohio, our Nation, and the world. Tony has been singularly responsible for much of the world's continued, focused attention on the serious hunger issues worldwide. His involvement in a 22-day hunger strike in 1989, forced the Department of Agriculture and the World Bank to call conferences on hunger, which ultimately resulted in the creation of the Congressional Hunger Center. I'm proud to have worked with Tony on several humanitarian initiatives through the years from Africa Seeds of Hope to the Global Food for Education Act to the Microenterprise for Self- Reliance Act to the Clean Diamond Act of 2001. We also share a commitment to the yet unborn. A staunch pro-life Democrat, Congressman Hall was responsible for language in the Democratic National Committee platform respecting the beliefs of those within his party who wished to protect the sanctity of life. I also have had the pleasure of working with Tony Hall on several projects important to the Miami Valley area of Ohio. We share a passion for the aviation heritage of the Wright Brothers in Dayton and have worked together to protect and preserve the monuments to the Wright Brothers legacy. And, we've also worked together on issues to help build the unique resources of Wright Patterson Air Force base. Today, it is a pleasure to take this opportunity to join Senator Voinovich to honor Tony Hall's many legislative efforts and achievements and to thank him for his commitment to the people of Ohio and this Nation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill to honor our good friend and statesman, Tony Hall.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Senator Bingaman, as you know my State of Ohio is considered the home to the lighting industry, and from the start, I have been a strong supporter of the next generation lighting initiative. I feel it is important that for the record, there is a good understanding by the executive branch on the legislative history of the next generation lighting initiative. Would you please be so kind as to share with us its history?

Mr. DeWINE. Senator Bingaman, did we not introduce this conference language as a bill this Congress?

Mr. DeWINE. Senator Bingaman, as you know my state of Ohio is considered the home to the lighting industry, and from the start, I have been a strong supporter of the Next Generation Lighting Initiative. I feel it is important that for the record, there is a good understanding by the executive branch on the legislative history of the Next Generation Lighting Initiative. Would you please be so kind as to share with us its history?

Mr. DeWINE. Senator Bingaman, did we not introduce this conference language as a bill this Congress?

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank Senator Durbin for the great work he has done. I thank Senator Dodd, Senator Coleman, and all of those who have worked on this bill to bring us to this point. I also thank Senator Ted Stevens for raising the amount of money that this bill originally had by $50 million, at our request. And then coming along, he brought this bill to the floor and agreed to this amendment. I am very grateful. He has been a leader in this area. I also thank the majority leader, Bill Frist, who has great vision in this area and great compassion as well. My colleague from Illinois has said it very well. When you travel to Africa or, as my wife Fran and I have, to Haiti, when you see these children, when you hold them, touch them, talk to the people who care for them, when you know these children whom you see or are holding in all likelihood many of them are going to die, it truly does change you forever. When you leave those countries and when you leave those children, you know you cannot just leave. You know you have to try to do something. That is an experience I had, it was an experience my wife Fran had, but we are not unique. I know my colleague Bill Frist has traveled to Africa. When he goes there, he can do much more than I can. He can work as a medical doctor. I know Senator Inhofe goes, as well as many other people, and they see this, and they come back. I have talked with so many of my colleagues. This amendment says to the world that the United States of America does not just care, does not just want to use its rhetoric, but that we are going to back that up with our dollars and that we are going to do something about it and that, as the richest country in the world, we are going to lead in this area. We are going to be a leader in the world. In the last several years, we have done a lot better. My colleague has said our spending level in this area has gone up significantly, and I compliment my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for that. With this amendment, we are upping that a lot more. It is $150 million more. That money goes a long way. That money can be used primarily in two significant ways. One is to help in the area of the transmission from mothers who have AIDS to their babies. It is an amazing statistic. We know, medical science tells us and the experts tell us, if we can reach these mothers early enough, before they give birth to that child who will have AIDS because the mom has AIDS, and get medical treatment to her and get the proper drugs to her that really cost comparatively little, we can save that child. Two out of three of the children who will be born, if the mother gets the appropriate drugs, will not have AIDS. Think of the savings in dollars and cents, let alone the human savings. We can do that. Yet children are being born every single day with AIDS who needlessly would not have to have AIDS. With the great plagues in Africa today and the great plagues in Haiti today, there are a number of children who are orphans. All throughout this little country of Haiti, there are thousands of orphans. Why? Because there are not the drugs to keep the parents alive. And that is transforming that little country of Haiti. For the next year, there will be just as many incidents of AIDS in Haiti, a country of 8 million people, as there will be in the entire United States of America. We can see this is a problem not just in sub-Saharan Africa, it is a problem in a country that is only a 1-hour flight from Miami. So this bill goes a long way to deal with this problem. It speaks volumes. It says we care and we are going to put our money where our mouth is. It is a step forward. It does not do everything, we have a long way to go, but I think it is a great bipartisan effort. I thank all of my colleagues for getting behind this. I thank Senator Stevens for accepting the amendment. I again pay tribute to Senator Durbin, who has been a real bulldog on this. I thank all of my colleagues who have really made a great commitment to it.