Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I thank the distinguished chair of the Governmental Affairs Committee for his comments. I look forward to working with him and the new Department of Homeland Security to ensure that the Department's information assurance policies include the purchase of secure, stable information systems.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of our friend and colleague, Senator Strom Thurmond, an individual who has devoted his entire life to the service of the American people and who now stands before us as one of the most accomplished U.S. Senators in our nation's history. I must say that I am saddened that I am making these comments on the heels of a controversy over the nomination of a highly qualified judicial nominee, Dennis Shedd, who was a long-time member of Senator Thurmond's staff and who was recommended to the President for this appointment by Senator Thurmond. While I won't go into the specifics of these hollow arguments against Judge Shedd, I cannot make these comments in praise of Senator Thurmond without mentioning my disappointment about the handling of Judge Shedd's nomination. As our colleagues know, Senator Thurmond's nearly 50 years of service within this body make him the longest serving member since the Senate's inception, yet his contributions to public service and our Nation extend well beyond the United States Senate. From the time he served as Superintendent of Education in Edgefield, SC, Strom Thurmond placed the good of the Nation ahead of his personal career. He served over 36 years on active and reserve duty within the U.S. Army, while simultaneously holding many other public service positions. Throughout, he was prepared to abandon his professional career on a moment's notice--ready to fight to preserve democracy and freedom. He was awarded five battle stars, as well as 18 decorations, medals, and awards, including the Bronze Star for Valor and the Purple Heart. I have only--I say ``only''--been in the Senate for 8 years, but in the relatively short time I have had the pleasure of serving in the Senate alongside Senator Thurmond, we have worked together as sponsors or co-sponsors of dozens of bills, including legislation enhancing local law enforcement efforts to protect the elderly and child victims of violent crime, drug interdiction efforts designed to stem the tide of drugs flowing into our cities and schools, laws to end the practice of partial-birth abortion, and constitutional amendments to protect victims of violence. All of these collaborative efforts have benefited a great deal from the insight Strom Thurmond developed during his 12- year tenure as either chairman or ranking member of the Judiciary Committee and also, of course, his 50 years of service in this body. While Senator Thurmond's Senate career speaks volumes about his commitment to this nation and to the people of South Carolina and to all Americans, I also must mention what a pleasure it has been for me to know Strom Thurmond as a person. Over the years, he has shown great kindness and generosity to me and to my family. In particular, I would like to thank him for the hospitality he has shown my son, Brian, who recently graduated from South Carolina's Clemson University. When I told Strom my son Brian was going to go to Clemson, he beamed. I could tell he was delighted. He said, You know, I went to Clemson. Of course I knew that. He said, I went to Clemson. I asked, Strom, What year did you graduate? He said, I graduated from Clemson in 1923. I looked at him. I said, Strom, my dad was born in 1923. Strom Thurmond has had quite an unbelievable career. I have had the opportunity, as well, to listen to many of his stories. I asked him about his tenure at Clemson. He told me about the different times he would run barefooted from town to town. He was a long distance runner when he was there. The great Athenian general Pericles once noted that: Where the rewards of virtue are greatest, there the noblest citizens are enlisted in the service of the state. Our American democracy, like that of the Athenians, is designed to reward virtue with the opportunity to represent and defend fellow citizens. Certainly there is no man of our time better fit for and dedicated to these difficult tasks than Strom Thurmond. Indeed, he is a tribute to the American ethic of public service that the framers of our nation envisioned over two centuries ago. It should come, then, as no surprise to my colleagues in the Senate, to the citizens of South Carolina, and to the American public that Strom Thurmond has left an indelible mark on our nation through his service--a mark that surely will never be forgotten or held in anything less than the highest regard. We thank Strom for his service to our country, to South Carolina, and to the people who will miss his kindness and his friendship. But we look forward to seeing him, as we are sure we will, for a long time because he is a man of great courage and great integrity. We will miss him.

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

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. 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 teachcers especially once they have entered the profession the more likely they will remain in the classroom. Today, I also would like to reintroduce the Early Care and Education Loan Forgiveness Act that Senator Wellstone and I had included 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 demand for quality childcare and education is growing as more mothers enter the workforce. Because the 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 two-fold 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 enhances 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 colleagues 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, 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 make sure the interests of these children are taken care of by making sure they have an advocate, someone working solely on their behalf. By offering loan forgiveness to those willing to purpose careers in the child welfare field, we can increase the number of highly qualified and dedicate 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 unintentionally injured 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 dollars 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. DeWINE. Mr. 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 teachcers especially once they have entered the profession the more likely they will remain in the classroom. Today, I also would like to reintroduce the Early Care and Education Loan Forgiveness Act that Senator Wellstone and I had included 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 demand for quality childcare and education is growing as more mothers enter the workforce. Because the 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 two-fold 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 enhances 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 colleagues 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, 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 make sure the interests of these children are taken care of by making sure they have an advocate, someone working solely on their behalf. By offering loan forgiveness to those willing to purpose careers in the child welfare field, we can increase the number of highly qualified and dedicate 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 unintentionally injured 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 dollars 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. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me begin by thanking all of our colleagues who have already spoken here on the Senate floor this afternoon in tribute to our dear friend, Paul Wellstone. I join in the sentiments and would like to extend my sympathy and my prayers to the entire Wellstone family and the families and friends of the crew and staff members who also lost their loved ones just a few short weeks ago. Paul Wellstone, his wife Sheila, and their daughter Marcia, left quite a legacy. These are family who were working so closely together to help Paul in his reelection bid. So as we pay tribute to Paul today we must also, I believe, remember the dedication and the love of his wife and his daughter--his entire family. Each one of us understands our elections are many times a family effort. We see our spouses, we see our daughters and sons go out and campaign and spend time with us and spend time in other parts of our States. So I think we all can relate to this. In a sense, it makes this tragedy even harder for all of us to bear, to think this was not just a loss of Paul, but also of his wife and his daughter. The great English poet Alfred Tennyson wrote of a dear friend who died suddenly: God's finger touched him, and he slept. Recently God's hand touched our friend Paul Wellstone. Now he sleeps and now we mourn. The Senate will really never be the same without Paul Wellstone. Not only did we lose a colleague, but we also lost a friend, a good man, an ethical man, a leader, a true champion--a champion of the causes and the issues he believed in so passionately. As many of my colleagues have expressed already, Paul had a kind of drive and passion and spirit that was really unequaled in this body. But we will also miss his kindness, his resolve, and his unbelievable energy--energy he brought to every single task he undertook. Whatever it was, Paul did it with sincerity and he did it with great passion. Paul got things done. He was effective. That effectiveness came because of his energy, because of his drive, because of his determination, and it came because he understood what he believed in. He understood what he cared about. He understood what was important. It also came about because he could get along with people from both sides of the aisle. He really transcended politics in that respect. He knew people. He understood them. It was evident he cared about them. You never had any doubt when Paul Wellstone asked you how you were doing, how you were feeling, how your wife was, that he actually meant it. He actually cared. Arthur Ashe, the famous athlete, who also died too young, once said: ``True heroism is remarkably sober, very undramatic. It is not the urge to surpass all others at whatever cost, but the urge to serve others at whatever cost.'' That was Paul Wellstone. That was his mission. No cost was too great in his eyes when it came to protecting the lives of those in this society who could not protect themselves--as he said, ``the little people'', the poor people, the people who needed someone to help them. He worked so hard and so tirelessly and with such commitment to protect children, the elderly, the mentally ill. I had the privilege of working closely with Paul on a number of the legislative initiatives he cared so much about--the kind of initiatives that were intended to protect and improve peoples' lives, like job training--the bill he and I spent an awful lot of time working on--and mental health courts bills. Paul also cared deeply about the future of America's children. He wanted to ensure that every single child in this country received a quality education. He was instrumental in making sure that our transition to teaching initiative was included in last year's education reform law. And, in fact, at the time of Paul's death, he and I were getting ready to introduce a bill to expand the childcare loan forgiveness program to include preschool teachers. I intend to go forward and introduce that bill tomorrow. I know that is what Paul would have wanted. And, in his memory, I would like to rename that bill ``The Paul Wellstone Early Educator Loan Forgiveness Program.'' This legislation is just one of so many examples of what Paul stood for and cared so passionately about. It wasn't too long ago that this Senate lost another friend and colleague. That man was a dear friend of mine. That man was Senator Paul Coverdell. I was recently looking back at the Congressional Record at some of those firery and empassioned speeches that Paul Wellstone used to give on this Senate floor, and I came across a speech he gave in tribute to Senator Coverdell following his death. I was really struck by his remarks, because what he said in those few words about Senator Coverdell really capture today what we in this Senate think about Paul Wellstone. I would like to take just a moment to read to my colleagues what Paul Wellstone said on this floor on July 19, 2000: Mr. President, I want to speak about my colleague, Senator Coverdell. I know other Senators have. I absolutely have nothing rehearsed. There are many Senators who will speak about Senator Coverdell probably in a more profound and moving way than I can. There is one moment I want to remember about Senator Coverdell because this small story tells a large story. We had had a major debate about the Colombia aid package. Senator Coverdell and I were in a debate. We did not agree. It was a pretty good debate back and forth. I know from time to time during the debate I would reach over and touch his hand and say something to the effect: I just cannot believe you said this; this is wrong--something like that. At the end of the debate, I said, because I believed it and believe it: Senator Coverdell is a really good Senator. He smiled and touched my hand and said: Senator Wellstone is a really good Senator. I do not know if the latter part is true, but the point is that is the way he was. That is the kind of Senator he was. That is also the kind of Senator Paul Wellstone was. Paul Wellstone in that tribute went on to say this about our friend, Senator Coverdell: We talk about civility. He was just a beautiful person. I really enjoyed him. We need a lot of Senators like Senator Coverdell: Paul, you are wrong on the issues, but you are a really good person. The Senate has lost a wonderful person and a wonderful Senator, and the United States of America has lost a wonderful person and a wonderful Senator. To Paul Wellstone today, I say that you, too, were a wonderful person. You were a wonderful Senator. Today on this floor, we honor what Paul Wellstone stood for, what he believed in, and what he accomplished here in this Senate. As a public servant, Paul touched the lives of his family, his friends and colleagues in the Senate, his constituents in his home State of Minnesota, and the lives of millions of people throughout the United States. I will not forget Paul Wellstone--none of us will. He is deeply missed and will always be remembered. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Michigan and fellow Great Lakes Task Force Co-Chair, Senator Levin, in announcing that the Great Lakes Legacy has passed Congress. This legislation is vital in our efforts to address the slow progress in restoring the Areas of Concern, AOC, throughout the Great Lakes. In 1987, the United States and Canada made a commitment under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement to cleanup AOCs, but as the General Accounting Office and others have reported, cleanup has been slow. The EPA reported in 1999 that over 1.7 million cubic yards of contaminated sediment have been removed or treated at 32 Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes, all at a cost of over $300 million. However, none of the 26 AOCs that are entirely in the United States have been restored to their beneficial use, approximately half of the sites have abandoned the remedial action planning process agreed to under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, and the EPA does not know how long cleanup will take nor how expensive cleanup will be. The cleanup of these Areas of Concern is important both to human health, as well as the health of the ecosystem. With the legislation Congress recently passed, the EPA can aggressively deal with contaminants that were deposited into the sediments decades ago. Our bill authorizes up to $50 million per year to the EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office to cleanup contaminated AOCs. This includes monitoring and evaluating sites, cleaning up contaminated sediment, or preventing further contamination. Under our bill, the EPA will be required to submit to Congress a report on the actions, time, and resources necessary to fulfill the duties of the EPA relating to oversight of Remedial Action Plans at Areas of Concern. Furthermore, funding will be made available for innovative research to improve our cleanup technology. Additionally, this legislation allows EPA to give money to local organizations, States, or tribal groups for outreach and education efforts. In closing, I want to thank Senators Levin, Voinovich, Stabenow, Clinton, Durbin, Dayton, and Wellstone, as well as Representative Vern Ehlers and the other co-sponsors in the House for their leadership. I also wish to thank the Lake Michigan Federation, the Sierra Club, the Northeast-Midwest Institute, the Great Lakes Commission, and the Council of Great Lakes Industry for their contributions to drafting and passing this bill. It will have a lasting, positive impact on the future of our Great Lakes. Remedial Alternatives

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I have many long-standing concerns about the dire situation, political, economic, and humanitarian, in Haiti. As one who has witnessed the unbelievable poverty and despair in that tiny nation, I believe we must pay closer attention to what is happening there. We must be engaged. That is why I am introducing the ``Haiti Economic Recovery Opportunity Act of 2002.'' This bill would help improve the economic and political situation in Haiti through an important tool of our foreign policy, and that is trade. I would like to thank Representatives Gilman and others for introducing a similar measure in the House. The situation in Haiti is bleak. Haiti is the poorest country in our Hemisphere, with approximately 70 percent of its population out of work and 80 percent living in abject poverty. Less than one-half of Haiti's 8.2 million people can read or write. Haiti's infant mortality rate is the highest in our hemisphere. And, one in four children under the age of five are malnourished. Roughly one in 12 Haitians has HIV/AIDS, and, according to the Centers for Disease Control projections, Haiti will experience up to 44,000 new HIV/AIDS cases this year, that's 4,000 more than the number expected here in the United States, where our population is 35 times that of Haiti's. AIDS already has orphaned over 163,000 children, and this number is expected to skyrocket to between 323,000 and 393,000 over the next ten years. The violence, corruption, and instability caused by the flow of drugs through Haiti cannot be overstated. An estimated 15 percent of all cocaine entering the United States passes through Haiti, the Dominican Republic, or both. Haiti still lacks democracy and political stability. The U.S. policy of not providing assistance directly to the Haitian Government is based on President Aristide's failure to enact necessary reforms to uphold democracy and help the people of his own country. All of this creates an environment where the logical course of action for many Haitians is simply to flee. We have seen this in the past, and we may see it again. So far this fiscal year, the Coast Guard has interdicted and rescued over 1,485 Haitian migrants at sea, compared to 1,113 during the entire fiscal year 2000. And, according to the State Department, migrants recently interdicted and repatriated to Haiti have cited economic conditions as their reason for attempting to migrate by sea. I do not think that a mass exodus is imminent, but we cannot ignore any increase in migrant departures from Haiti. In addition to being an immigration issue for the United States, these migrant departures frequently result in the loss of life at sea. The bill I am introducing today attempts to change this situation by granting limited duty-free treatment on certain Haitian apparel articles if, and only if, the President is able to certify that the Haitian government is making serious market, political, and social reforms. The bill would correct a glitch or oversight in U.S. trade law that recognized the special economic needs of least developed countries in Africa, but did not recognize those needs for the least developed country in the Western Hemisphere, Haiti. Specifically, the bill would allow duty-free entry of Haitian apparel articles assembled from fabrics from countries with which the U.S. has a free trade or a regional trade agreement. It also would grant duty- free status on articles, regardless of the origin of the fabrics and yarns, if the fabrics and yarns were not commercially available in the United States. The bill would cap duty-free apparel imports made of fabrics and yarns from the designated countries at 1.5 percent of total U.S. apparel imports. This limit grows modestly over time to 3.5 percent. The enactment of this legislation would promote employment in Haitian industry by allowing the country to become a garment production center. While the benefits of this bill would be modest by U.S. standards, in Haiti they are substantial. It is estimated that the bill could create thousands of jobs, thereby reducing the unemployment rate and breaking the shackles of poverty. Before the 1991 coup, Haiti was one of the largest apparel suppliers in the Caribbean. But today, Haitian apparel accounts for less than one percent of all apparel imports into the United States. The type of assembly carried out in Haiti would have minimal impact on employment in the United States. In fact, it would encourage the emigration of jobs from the Far East back to our hemisphere, including the United States, because most Haitian foreign exchange earnings, unlike in the Far East, are utilized to purchase American products. And, the ``Trade and Development Act'' already includes strong safeguards against transshipment. In order for Haiti to be eligible for the trade benefits under the bill, the President must certify that Haiti is making progress on matters like the rule of law. This will not be an easy task for the Haitian government. However, I believe that because of the incentives provided in the bill, it would be more and more apparent to them that it is in their interest to reform. During my most recent trip to Haiti, I met with President Aristide and raised many concerns. I explained that it is essential that he call for peace and domestic order, and that he take the necessary measures to bring an end to the political impasse. I explained the need to cooperate with the opposition, and to work with the Organization of American States, OAS. I also met with leaders of the opposition and told them that they, too, must be willing to compromise and cooperate. I am pleased to see that the OAS Special Mission in Haiti is up and running, but I remain cautious about the prospects for resolving the political crisis. In the meantime, the United States must take responsibility by continuing and increasing our humanitarian and trade efforts in Haiti. This is in our own best interest, and we have a moral obligation to remain committed to the people of Haiti. Adopting the Haiti Economic Recovery Opportunity Act of 2002 would be a powerful demonstration of that commitment. I encourage my colleagues to join in support of this legislation.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I have many long-standing concerns about the dire situation, political, economic, and humanitarian, in Haiti. As one who has witnessed the unbelievable poverty and despair in that tiny nation, I believe we must pay closer attention to what is happening there. We must be engaged. That is why I am introducing the ``Haiti Economic Recovery Opportunity Act of 2002.'' This bill would help improve the economic and political situation in Haiti through an important tool of our foreign policy, and that is trade. I would like to thank Representatives Gilman and others for introducing a similar measure in the House. The situation in Haiti is bleak. Haiti is the poorest country in our Hemisphere, with approximately 70 percent of its population out of work and 80 percent living in abject poverty. Less than one-half of Haiti's 8.2 million people can read or write. Haiti's infant mortality rate is the highest in our hemisphere. And, one in four children under the age of five are malnourished. Roughly one in 12 Haitians has HIV/AIDS, and, according to the Centers for Disease Control projections, Haiti will experience up to 44,000 new HIV/AIDS cases this year, that's 4,000 more than the number expected here in the United States, where our population is 35 times that of Haiti's. AIDS already has orphaned over 163,000 children, and this number is expected to skyrocket to between 323,000 and 393,000 over the next ten years. The violence, corruption, and instability caused by the flow of drugs through Haiti cannot be overstated. An estimated 15 percent of all cocaine entering the United States passes through Haiti, the Dominican Republic, or both. Haiti still lacks democracy and political stability. The U.S. policy of not providing assistance directly to the Haitian Government is based on President Aristide's failure to enact necessary reforms to uphold democracy and help the people of his own country. All of this creates an environment where the logical course of action for many Haitians is simply to flee. We have seen this in the past, and we may see it again. So far this fiscal year, the Coast Guard has interdicted and rescued over 1,485 Haitian migrants at sea, compared to 1,113 during the entire fiscal year 2000. And, according to the State Department, migrants recently interdicted and repatriated to Haiti have cited economic conditions as their reason for attempting to migrate by sea. I do not think that a mass exodus is imminent, but we cannot ignore any increase in migrant departures from Haiti. In addition to being an immigration issue for the United States, these migrant departures frequently result in the loss of life at sea. The bill I am introducing today attempts to change this situation by granting limited duty-free treatment on certain Haitian apparel articles if, and only if, the President is able to certify that the Haitian government is making serious market, political, and social reforms. The bill would correct a glitch or oversight in U.S. trade law that recognized the special economic needs of least developed countries in Africa, but did not recognize those needs for the least developed country in the Western Hemisphere, Haiti. Specifically, the bill would allow duty-free entry of Haitian apparel articles assembled from fabrics from countries with which the U.S. has a free trade or a regional trade agreement. It also would grant duty- free status on articles, regardless of the origin of the fabrics and yarns, if the fabrics and yarns were not commercially available in the United States. The bill would cap duty-free apparel imports made of fabrics and yarns from the designated countries at 1.5 percent of total U.S. apparel imports. This limit grows modestly over time to 3.5 percent. The enactment of this legislation would promote employment in Haitian industry by allowing the country to become a garment production center. While the benefits of this bill would be modest by U.S. standards, in Haiti they are substantial. It is estimated that the bill could create thousands of jobs, thereby reducing the unemployment rate and breaking the shackles of poverty. Before the 1991 coup, Haiti was one of the largest apparel suppliers in the Caribbean. But today, Haitian apparel accounts for less than one percent of all apparel imports into the United States. The type of assembly carried out in Haiti would have minimal impact on employment in the United States. In fact, it would encourage the emigration of jobs from the Far East back to our hemisphere, including the United States, because most Haitian foreign exchange earnings, unlike in the Far East, are utilized to purchase American products. And, the ``Trade and Development Act'' already includes strong safeguards against transshipment. In order for Haiti to be eligible for the trade benefits under the bill, the President must certify that Haiti is making progress on matters like the rule of law. This will not be an easy task for the Haitian government. However, I believe that because of the incentives provided in the bill, it would be more and more apparent to them that it is in their interest to reform. During my most recent trip to Haiti, I met with President Aristide and raised many concerns. I explained that it is essential that he call for peace and domestic order, and that he take the necessary measures to bring an end to the political impasse. I explained the need to cooperate with the opposition, and to work with the Organization of American States, OAS. I also met with leaders of the opposition and told them that they, too, must be willing to compromise and cooperate. I am pleased to see that the OAS Special Mission in Haiti is up and running, but I remain cautious about the prospects for resolving the political crisis. In the meantime, the United States must take responsibility by continuing and increasing our humanitarian and trade efforts in Haiti. This is in our own best interest, and we have a moral obligation to remain committed to the people of Haiti. Adopting the Haiti Economic Recovery Opportunity Act of 2002 would be a powerful demonstration of that commitment. I encourage my colleagues to join in support of this legislation.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like to begin by thanking all my colleagues who have participated in this very crucial and historic debate. I must say I was struck last Friday by the magnificent debate between Senator Byrd and Senator Warner. I think their debate on Friday represented what the Senate is all about, and I congratulate both of them. Really, every Member who has come down here has had something to contribute. It is clear that each Member who came down here has thought long and hard about this very important vote. Throughout my Congressional career, I have believed that the United States must lead in foreign affairs. In doing so, our foreign policy must reinforce and promote our own core values of democracy, free markets, human rights, and the rule of law. And, I am not at all ashamed to say that our most important export to the international community is our ideals and our ideas. The first U.S. President I remember as a child is Dwight D. Eisenhower. We know that he ran for President because of his strong belief that the United States needed to lead in the world. He believed that by leading and by being involved in the world--and not isolated from it--we would have the best chance of guaranteeing peace, freedom, and stability. As President Eisenhower said in his January 1961 farewell address: America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment. He understood that we have a moral obligation, as the leader of the Free World, to use our power to promote freedom and stability and to help alleviate suffering around the globe. And in that process, he understood the importance and the necessity of working with our partners through organizations, such as NATO. And though it is vital that we be engaged in world affairs and work with other nations whenever possible, ultimately we cannot escape the fact that when the world looks for leadership, it can look to only one place--and that place is, of course, the United States of America. History has put us here. And, if the United States does not lead, there is no one else who can lead--and frankly, no one else who will lead. That is why, in the 1980s, when I was in the House of Representatives, I supported efforts to establish stability and democracy in Central America. The United States led--and it made a difference. Significant progress was made in Central America. Democracies emerged. And, significant progress was made throughout the Western Hemisphere. In 1981, 16 of the 33 countries in our hemisphere were ruled by authoritarian regimes. Today, all but one of those nations--Cuba--have democratically elected heads of government. They are certainly not all perfect and maybe those nations don't conform exactly with how we see democracy, but they certainly are better off than they were 25 years ago. The United States led. It made a difference. It paid off. That is why, throughout my career, I have supported U.S. leadership efforts--efforts to export our democratic values to other areas of the world, using tools, such as foreign trade and foreign aid. Speaking of foreign aid, though I wasn't in Congress at the time, I supported U.S. leadership through NAFTA. I voted in favor of Trade Promotion Authority to give the President fast track or enhanced trading abilities with our global partners. I voted in favor of the Andean Trade Preferences Act to expand the economic benefits of trade with the nations of the Andean region. I voted in favor of the African Growth and Opportunity Act and the expanded Caribbean Basin Initiative. And, I support efforts to negotiate free trade agreements within our Western Hemisphere. All of these efforts require strong U.S. leadership. So, too, does an underutilized tool of our foreign policy--and that is foreign aid. First, we don't utilize it enough. Currently, our foreign assistance budget comprises less than one percent of our overall budget, and is barely 0.1 percent of our Gross Domestic Product. Second, we aren't creative enough with the limited resources we do have in our foreign assistance budget. And so, here, too, the United States needs to lead. There are things we can do with this assistance. We can and we must do more to help end suffering throughout the world. We can and we must do more to help alleviate the worldwide AIDS pandemic. We can and we must do more to feed starving children worldwide. We can and must do more to help implement the rule of law in developing democracies. We can and we must do more to foster agricultural and economic development in poverty-stricken, disease-ridden, war-ravaged parts of our world. And, as the leader of the Free World, we also have a moral obligation to bring stability and peace to volatile, violent regions around the globe. Candidly, sometimes the only way to do that is through the use of our military. That's why I supported military action in Bosnia in 1995 and in Kosovo in 1999. The simple reality is that the job could not get done without U.S. leadership. We had to go in. We had to lead. It was the right thing to do, and we did it. And so, Mr. President, it may seem paradoxical now that I have found the decision concerning this Resolution to be very, very difficult. It is difficult, I believe, principally for two reasons. Let me outline them for the Senate. First, the resolution before us is an authorization of force to be used by the President--at his discretion--at some point in the future. It is not a declaration of war. And, it does not say that war will take place. But, it does authorize the President ``to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to: Defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.'' While unusual, this type of resolution is not without precedent. Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1964, which said this: Congress approves and supports the determination of the President as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression. I went back to the Congressional Record of 1964 and read some of Senator Gruening's and Senator Morse's remarks to get a better understanding of why they dissented--why they voted against this resolution. I also read comments from those who voted ``yes.'' However, it is noteworthy that the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was not the first time Congress had passed a resolution to give the President the authority to use force--at his discretion--at some point in the future. Actually, Congress passed two such resolutions during the Eisenhower Administration: one in 1955 regarding Formosa and one in 1957 regarding the Middle East. So while there is precedent, this type of resolution to grant the President the authority to use force, at his discretion, at some point in the future, is certainly unusual, and so we have an obligation to treat this matter with great caution. Granting the President this kind of power is indeed a very grave matter. The second reason this decision, for me, has been so difficult is that the consequences of war would be so serious. A possible war against Iraq would have very real and very serious consequences, many of them unforeseen today. I believe the American people need to understand this. My colleague, Senator Biden, who preceded me, made that point very well. I believe we have an obligation during this debate to explain to the American people what war with Iraq might mean. We have an obligation to be brutally frank in telling the American people about these consequences of war. What are they? What are the risks of war with Iraq? First, Saddam Hussein may very well use chemical and biological weapons against our troops. If we went to war, we would be attempting to remove Saddam from power. Therefore, unlike the Persian Gulf war, this time he is likely to actually use those chemical and biological weapons against our troops, or at least attempt to. Second, we know that war with Iraq dramatically increases the possibility of attacks against United States troops stationed in other places abroad and United States civilians throughout the world. Third, we know that war with Iraq increases the possibility of attacks against Americans right here at home, in our mainland. This has already been read on the floor and discussed, but I would like to read to my colleagues some information recently declassified by the CIA. In a letter to Senator Graham dated October 7--Monday of this week--the CIA released the following: Baghdad, for now, appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or biological weapons against the United States. Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions. Such terrorism might involve conventional means, as with Iraq's unsuccessful attempt at a terrorist offensive in 1991, or [through] chemical or biological weapons. Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a weapons of mass destruction attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him. This information is certainly chilling. We also know that war with Iraq increases the likelihood that Saddam will launch Scud missiles against Israel, this time maybe with biological or chemical agents attached to the missiles. In fact, Iraq has admitted to the weaponization of thousands of liters of anthrax, botulinim toxin, and aflatoxin for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft. Furthermore, if attacked, what would Israel do? Would Israel, this time, retaliate? In the Persian Gulf war, Israel held back, but would they this time? And if they did not, in such a scenario, what would other countries do? What would Syria do, for example? What are the chances of the entire Middle East literally going up in flames? At the conclusion of a war with Iraq--we would win the war; we know that--but at the conclusion of a war with Iraq, there very well may be bloody, fractious battles among the different ethnic groups residing in Iraq. Pent up hostilities among Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds--just to mention a few--would be difficult to restrain, easily resulting in families warring against families and neighbors against neighbors, all fighting village to village and house to house. And there simply would not be enough United States troops or allies you could place into Iraq to stop that from happening. What are the unintended global consequences of the United States using preemptive action? How does this change the dynamics of the world? What would it mean for the India-Pakistan nuclear standoff? What would it mean for China and Taiwan? Would these nations be less restrained in using preemptive strikes? These are questions to which we do not know the answers. Finally, what will Iraq look like after the war? What kind of humanitarian assistance will be needed? How many people will we have to feed? What is our plan now for reconstruction? What does it cost? Who will help? What other countries will we be able to involve in helping us? We can expect to pay for a large part of this. And we can expect our troops to be involved for an extended, indefinite period of time--not days, not months, but years. And there could be no doubt about that. So, yes, Mr. President, there are grave consequences of going to war with Iraq. We cannot predict the future. We do not know exactly how Saddam would react. But it is vital that the American people understand the sobering reality of a war with Iraq; that all Americans understand the uncertainty and the risks and the dire consequences. Yet we also know that inaction is not a choice when it comes to the situation in Iraq. Inaction is just not a choice. We know the status quo is unacceptable. We know things have languished too long. We know Saddam Hussein's regime is in possession of chemical and biological weapons. And we know they are working, as frantically as they can, to develop nuclear weapons. The fear is, also, that Saddam Hussein would eventually put these weapons into the hands of other terrorist groups, terrorist groups such as al-Qaida, terrorist groups that have no qualms about targeting U.S. citizens anywhere in the world, terrorist groups that have networks already established around the world. When that handoff would be made, the consequences would be unbelievable. President Bush made very clear in his speech on Monday night in Cincinnati: Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace, and he must disarm. So I commend President Bush for putting Iraq back on the world stage in his very forceful speech at the United Nations. He has taken Saddam Hussein's evil regime by the throat and dragged it back in front of the eyes of the international community. And he has forced the United Nations to confront Saddam's rampant and flagrant disregard of 10 years' worth of U.N. Security Council resolutions. He has forced the U.N. to confront its failure to enforce past resolutions regarding weapons inspections. And, rightly so, President Bush has forced both the U.N. and our own country to confront this global threat and to deal with it. I commend the President for his leadership. None of us in this body disagrees about what Saddam Hussein is. We know he is a power-hungry dictator, the embodiment of pure evil. The litany, ably recited here day after day, detailing Hussein's thirst for power, is by no means exaggerated, nor is it understated. And there is simply no logic to his actions. Just think back to his attempt to assassinate former President Bush shortly after President Clinton took office. Even in his perverse view of the world, what in the world could that have accomplished from his point of view? Clearly, Saddam is ruthless. He is diabolical. He is a cold-blooded killer. He has launched Scud missiles against his neighbors. He has diverted much of the $10 billion worth of goods now entering Iraq every year--money he gets from oil--he has diverted that money he is supposed to use for humanitarian purposes, to help his own people, to develop weapons of mass destruction. He has murdered his own people. He has killed or injured more than 20,000 Kurds with mustard gas and sarin. In short, Saddam is a 20th century Adolf Hitler, straddling 21st century weapons of mass destruction. No one in this body disagrees Saddam Hussein is an evil despot, but reasonable people can still disagree about our policy for disarming Hussein; reasonable people can disagree with the wording of the resolution we are debating; reasonable people can disagree about the timing; and reasonable people can disagree about how we proceed at the United Nations. This is a very difficult decision. There are very legitimate issues of controversy. Yes, the costs will be high, very high, if we go to war. Again, that is why this decision has for me been so very difficult. It is the most serious vote I have cast in the 8 years I have been in the Senate. None of us take the gravity of this vote lightly. Over the last several weeks I have spent many hours in Intelligence Committee hearings and briefings and other briefings gathering as much intelligence and information as humanly possible. I have met with numerous current and former high-ranking officials from the military, the CIA, the State Department. I met personally with President Bush. At the end of the day, we still must weigh all of the costs and all of the consequences of a potential war with Iraq against the potential for peace and stability and lives saved that will come with the disarmament of Saddam Hussein. Let's be honest, though. The fact is, the ghost of the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution haunts this Chamber, just as the tragedy of Vietnam and the over 58,000 U.S. lives that were lost hang heavy in the heart of America. We should be haunted by the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, and we should be haunted and troubled by the Vietnam war. However, it is instructive, as I mentioned earlier, to remember that the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was not the first time Congress gave the President the authority to commit U.S. Armed Forces at his discretion at some time in the future. In January 1955, when Dwight Eisenhower was President, the Chinese Communists were threatening to take over the Chinese nationalists in Formosa. It was a very serious time in our history. Believing that the time had come to draw the line--those are President Eisenhower's words--to draw the line and hold back the Communist aggression, President Eisenhower asked Congress to pass a resolution giving him the authority ``to employ the Armed Forces of the United States as he deems necessary for the specific purpose of securing and protecting Formosa against armed attack.'' Congress granted President Eisenhower this authority with an overwhelming vote, 410 to 3 in the House, and 85 to 3 in the Senate. Later President Eisenhower said that while he went to Congress for several reasons, his real reason was ``to serve notice on the Communists that they are not going to be able to get away with it.'' Because of that resolution, the Chinese Communists in 1955 did not act. War was avoided. There have been problems. There have been tensions ever since. But war at that crucial time was avoided. By passing the Formosa resolution, Congress sent a clear, unequivocal signal to the Chinese Communists that the United States would defend Formosa, that Congress would support President Eisenhower, and that our country was, in fact, united. It is instructive that during that debate, there was an attempt in the Senate, in the Congress, to change the wording and to be more specific and to mention President Eisenhower, in defending Formosa, had the specific authority to defend Quemoy and Matsu, two little islands close to mainland China, far away from Formosa, but controlled by Formosa at the time. President Eisenhower said, no, do not do that; do not be that specific in the resolution. President Eisenhower was looking for the authorization to protect Formosa, but he also wanted the discretion to decide how to do it. And he also did not want to tell the Communist Chinese exactly what he would do. With the flexibility and discretion to use force as he deemed necessary, President Eisenhower left the Communists guessing about the ways in which the United States would act, but they had no doubt that we would act. That is why I believe we must pass the resolution before us. We need a tough resolution that gives the President the authority he needs to disarm Saddam Hussein. We need a tough resolution that also gives the President flexibility and discretion. We have that before us. We need a tough resolution that does not tie the President's hands. Through the resolution before us, this Senate and this Congress is saying to Saddam Hussein that he is on notice. Saddam Hussein, we are saying, you are not going to be able to flagrantly disregard U.N. Security Council resolutions any more. You are not going to be able to get away with building weapons of mass destruction. You are not going to be able to threaten our lives and the lives of our children and the lives of our grandchildren and the peace and security of the world. In the final analysis, we are left with the sober realization that when it comes to Saddam Hussein, there really are no good choices. When it comes to him, lives are being lost in his own country now, and many more could be lost around the world in the future if we allow him to continue his weapons of mass destruction obsession. Left unrestrained, Saddam Hussein will only become more dangerous, more diabolical, and certainly more deadly. So I believe when you weigh the risk of action versus the risk of inaction, we, as the leader of the free world, simply have a moral obligation to act. As I already said, we simply cannot, as a nation, escape the fact that when the world looks for leadership, it can look to only one place today. That place is the United States of America. We have an obligation to lead the efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein. In the process, we may tragically end up at war with Iraq. But my prayer, my prayer is that by passing this resolution, we will not have to go to war against Iraq. My prayer is that congressional unity will signal to Saddam Hussein and to the international community that we do, in fact, mean business. My hope is we can get a tough new U.N. Security Council resolution passed, giving weapons inspectors unfettered access to every mile, every square foot, every inch of Iraq. We increase the chances for peace by telling Saddam Hussein and his evil regime that our Nation is united and that we do, in fact, speak with one voice. We increase the chances for peace by giving the President the strongest possible hand, while at the same time giving him flexibility. Finally, I must say I am convinced President George Bush will do absolutely everything he can to avoid war. Mr. President, I do not know if war can be avoided, but I do know if we are serious about disarming Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction, our best chance of avoiding war is through the passage of a tough resolution. That is why I will vote in favor of this resolution. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my friend and colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, to pay tribute to 4-H, one of the strongest youth organizations in the country. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the legislation that Senator Inhofe introduced recently to designate October 6, 2002, through October 12, 2002, as ``National 4-H Youth Development Program Week.'' 4-H began in Clark County, OH. Just minutes away from where I grew up. In 1902, a century ago this year, A.B. Graham established a ``Boys' and Girls' Agricultural Club.'' There were approximately 85 children who attended that first meeting in the basement of the Clark County Courthouse in Springfield, OH. This was the start of what would be called a ``4-H Club'' within a few years. The first projects included food preservation, gardening and beginning agriculture. 4-H has grown from its 85 original members to approximately 300,000 in Ohio and over 6.8 million nationwide. One out of every six people in Ohio has been or is currently involved with 4-H youth development programs either as a member, parent, volunteer, or donor. The project selection has also grown from the original three to over 200. A sampling of today's projects include health, family life, photography, aerospace science, bicycles, natural resources, safety, horticulture and nutrition. We need organizations, like 4-H, to help guide our next generation of agriculturists, teachers, and even elected officials toward a better tomorrow. I also am proud to say, that my wife, Fran, and I have had children go through the 4-H program for 24 straight years now, in fact, last year was our eighth and youngest child Anna's first year in 4-H. 4-H clubs have expanded from rural to urban areas, where they provide a new group of kids with essential leadership skills and community service involvement. National 4-H conferences have even become platforms for presidents and other national officials to voice their ideas for agriculture and other policies. Although today's 4-H organization may be larger than the original 100 members and our communication has increased from town meetings to Internet chat rooms, the organization's principles of Head, Heart, Hands, and Health remain the same. Without question, the lessons and skills 4-H members learn will last a lifetime. I am pleased to report that in Ohio, 4-H members, Nationwide Insurance, and the Ohio Farm Bureau have teamed together to create a brand new 4-H Center on the campus of The Ohio State University. The groundbreaking ceremony occurred just last month. This new Center will provide research, teaching resources, and service opportunities for youth, adult volunteers, and community organizations. The development of this Center is a result of partnerships, one of the many skills our youth learn through 4-H. In closing, I take this opportunity to challenge other Senators to become involved in 4-H either as a parent or volunteer. I guarantee it will be one of the most rewarding experiences of their lives.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my friend and colleague from Ohio, Senator Voinovich, to introduce a bill to name the federal building in Dayton, OH, after Congressman Tony Hall. This bill is a fitting tribute to Tony Hall, a tireless and dedicated public servant, who will be greatly missed in the United States Congress upon his retirement. I am confident that he will continue his commitment to public service as our U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.'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 build the unique resources of Wright Patterson Air Force base, as well. 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. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill to designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 200 West 2nd Street in Dayton, Ohio, as the ``Tony Hall Federal Building and United States Courthouse'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my friend and colleague from Ohio, Senator Voinovich, to introduce a bill to name the federal building in Dayton, OH, after Congressman Tony Hall. This bill is a fitting tribute to Tony Hall, a tireless and dedicated public servant, who will be greatly missed in the United States Congress upon his retirement. I am confident that he will continue his commitment to public service as our U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.'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 build the unique resources of Wright Patterson Air Force base, as well. 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. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill to designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 200 West 2nd Street in Dayton, Ohio, as the ``Tony Hall Federal Building and United States Courthouse'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate and honor an outstanding Ohioan, Fred Abraham, on his upcoming retirement. Fred is retiring from Ducks Unlimited, DU, where he has become widely recognized as the expert on wetlands restoration and protection. During his time at Ducks Unlimited, he has been an incredibly valuable resource to my staff and to me. We have relied on him for accurate information and clear advice on countless occasions. Fred has dedicated more than three decades of his life to the preservation and restoration of wetlands. Through his work at Ducks Unlimited, Fred has advocated on behalf of wetlands across the country, working on projects in Ohio, Indiana, Michigan and California. Today, thanks to Fred's tireless efforts, America's wetlands are in great shape and have ample resources. Fred was born in Canton, OH, and served time in the Air Force during the Korean War. He then returned to Ohio, where he worked in the steel mills and began a career marketing baked goods. His passion for conservation grew as he started organizing sportsmen's clubs throughout Ohio to voice their concerns on wildlife and conservation issues. Fred was one of the early advocates of fostering industrial responsibility as acid-mine runoff and other pollutants threatened wildlife and their habitat. He developed such a talent for conservation advocacy that he was recruited by the Ohio Division of Wildlife and took a position as a District Supervisor. While there, he helped resolve many of the challenging habitat and conservation issues facing Ohio in the 1970s and 1980s, and solidified his status as a leader on wetland and wildlife issues. Fred then went on to work for one of the most influential conservation organizations in the country, Ducks Unlimited. At DU, he built strong coalitions and made countless friends, advocating on behalf of sportsmen at the national level. After 16 years at DU, where he engaged in fundraising and grassroots advocacy, Fred came to Washington as DU's Director of Conservation Policy. Fred was the force behind some of the most important conservation legislation that has been signed into law. His accomplishments on behalf of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, the Wetlands Reserve Program, and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act have had a profound effect on wetlands, waterfowl, and wildlife across the country. Under his leadership and advocacy, the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund has increased dramatically, rising to $43,500,000 in 2002. I first met Fred several years ago on a trip to the Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge and Metzger March in Northwest Ohio. I immediately could sense his passion for wetlands and his motivation to preserve these areas for us now and for generations in the future. There is no question that Fred Abraham is ``the Man'' when it comes to wetlands. Both in Washington and around the country, he is widely recognized as the foremost advocate on wetland restoration. Everyone who has had the opportunity to work with Fred is proud to call him a friend. We admire his energy, enthusiasm, and commitment to the conservation cause. I am sure that he will spend his retirement enjoying some of the wetlands areas he has helped preserve, and I am confident that we will still hear his voice on many conservation issues. I ask my colleagues in the Senate to join me in congratulating Fred Abraham on his retirement and wish him the best of luck in the future.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. No, I am not offering an amendment.

Mr. DeWINE. Actually, it is on the bill.

Mr. DeWINE. Fifteen.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, approximately 3 hours ago, the Senate passed the Lieberman-McCain amendment to create an independent national commission to investigate the events leading to and following the September 11 terrorist attacks. I voted in favor of that amendment. I come to the floor this afternoon to briefly explain why and explain what I hope that commission will do and what I hope it won't spend a lot of time doing. I believe that commission should focus on what the joint Senate-House Intelligence Committee's investigation focused on in looking at the September 11 tragedy. As a member of that committee, I have argued that we should be looking at not just what led up to September 11, not just finding out what the failures were, but also, and much more importantly, looking toward the future and trying to determine what we can do to change, what we can do to improve our intelligence operation, our intelligence network. I believe that should be the same focus of the national commission. The national commission will inherit the work our joint committee has done. Shortly, we will be done with our work. The national commission will not only have our work, but it will have other information available to it. It will have the information that has been dug up by some very good reporters. It will have additional information, and so the foundation clearly will be laid. The commission will not have to spend a lot of time rehashing the errors that were made. What I hope the commission will spend most of its time on, though, is the future. I would like to talk a little bit about that future this afternoon and what I think we need to do. Knowing what failures have occurred in the past certainly is vital, but it is not enough. Knowing what we should do in the future is really what is important. The creation of this independent commission presents us with the opportunity to build on our current congressional intelligence investigation. One of the reasons I did vote in favor of this commission is that I believe our Senate and House intelligence investigation stopped too early. We had a deadline. I thought the deadline was a mistake. I still think it is a mistake. Because we have that deadline, we have not been able to focus on the big picture issues of where we need to go in this country. The language of the McCain-Lieberman amendment that was adopted this afternoon clearly provides the commission with the opportunity to get into these big picture issues. I quote from that amendment. The amendment specifies the commission may . . . identify, review, and evaluate the lessons learned from the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, regarding the structure, coordination, management policies, and procedures of the Federal Government. There is more to that. Those are words that I think are very important because those words, if this becomes law, will give this commission a great opportunity to look at these big picture issues about which I am talking. What am I talking about? Let me give some examples. I believe the commission should take a serious look at the role of the Director of Central Intelligence. I believe it is time to give the DCI the necessary authority and the ability to truly direct our overall intelligence operations. Quite simply, we need to empower the DCI to do the job. We all know the facts. Currently, the DCI, while he is in charge of our intelligence, only controls about 15 to 20 percent of the budget. This is an issue that has to be examined, and it has to be looked at, no matter how people come down on this issue. I know it is a contentious issue, and it may divide this Senate, it may divide the commission, but we need to look at it. We had the opportunity in our joint committee the other day to hear from Sandy Berger, Anthony Lake, and Brent Scowcroft on a panel. All three of them said with various degrees of language that we need to make a change in the DCI, we need to make the DCI more powerful, we need to enable him to get the job done. That is an issue at which we should look. Second, I believe we must seriously examine the long-term resource issues that confront us, not just now but over the long haul--over the next decade, maybe over the next two decades, or three decades. Are we providing the resources we need for our intelligence community? And are we providing them in the right way? Do they know they are going to have the necessary resources, as much as anybody can ever know year to year with Congress? But do they have some indication those resources are going to be there so they can get the job done? How much resources do they, in fact, need to protect us? Maybe a good way of looking at it is to say, if tomorrow we were struck again and we are all in shock again, what would be our reaction? What would we do to the budget then? Maybe we need to ask ourselves that question and go ahead and do it now. The next question I hope the commission looks at is: Do we have the human resources available within the agencies themselves? Are we going to get the necessary people because ultimately it comes down to people. We have good people. They are doing a good job. They are working 14, 15, 16 hours a day, but there is only so much they can do. How many more people do we need? My guess is we need a lot more people based on what I have seen. In the counterterrorism center, for example, in the CIA, FBI, we need a lot more people. Do we have the right technology is another question the commission should look at, and do we have enough of it to get the job done in the new world in which we live? The technology the FBI has is not good. If any major business in this country had that technology, somebody would be fired; a lot of people would be fired. It is shameful. It is wrong. It is not fair to the employees, and it is not fair to the American people. We are, frankly, responsible for that. We are responsible for that failure. We have an obligation to change that. That is another issue at which this commission should look. The commission should ask us and the American people: What is our long-term commitment to intelligence? Finally, I think the commission needs to examine the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the FISA statute, and determine what changes are necessary to make sure we are getting intelligence from this source to help prevent future attacks. We made improvements in FISA. The Patriot Act was an improvement. Quite frankly, Congress has been derelict in its duty over two decades to have good oversight over FISA. It has been a hidden court, as it was designed to be; a secret court, as it was designed to be. Yet we have not figured out some way through the Intelligence Committees to have good oversight to find out how the law we wrote as representatives of the American people is truly being interpreted. For the first time we have a court decision that has come out of the FISA court. It is not public, but we can at least look at it. It is the first one, to my knowledge, that has been published in 2 decades. I do not happen to agree with the decision, but we can look at it. It is being appealed. We will have an opportunity to see what the court of appeals says about that, but at least that part of the debate is out there. We must continue to look for ways to fulfill our oversight responsibility in the Congress. That is an issue that the commission should look at as well. These are a few of the issues I think the commission needs to look at. Let me say, however, it is not just the commission's responsibility. I voted for this amendment, not because I felt it would be solely the commission's responsibility to look at these issues; I believe the Senate Intelligence Committee has an obligation to look at these big-picture issues in the months and years ahead. I believe the House has the same obligation. I simply believed that with an additional commission issuing reports in 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, that would be an added voice, an added set of eyes, more expertise, to look at some of these issues this country should be debating. Ultimately, we need a serious national debate about all of these issues and so many more, even those that are outside the realm of the intelligence community. In examining the intelligence component, if we have learned anything from September 11, it is that our security, our safety, and the safety of our loved ones, is intrinsically linked to the quality of that intelligence. So we must do all we can to improve the quality of that intelligence. The ability to share that information with the appropriate agencies is involved with our national security. As Members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, as Members of this Senate, we have an obligation to examine these issues. We must debate them. The proposed commission can certainly play a productive role in these debates and in these investigations. Therefore, I was pleased this afternoon to support its creation. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I rise today to join my friend and colleague from Ohio, Senator Voinovich, to submit a resolution designating September 22 through September 28, as ``National Parents Week.'' As proud parents of eight children and now seven grandchildren, my wife, Fran, and I know that our Nation's future is in the hands of all children. To safeguard this future, parents must fulfill many demanding responsibilities. They must teach their children values, participate in their education, encourage their dreams, and comfort them in times of need. As any parent knows, this is not easy. It takes dedication, constant attention, and unconditional love. This resolution serves as a ``thank you'' to all parents across the nation working hard, day after day, to provide for their children emotionally, physically, spiritually, and materially. It is very common today for a single parent to be solely tasked with the responsibility for raising his or her children. This month we have all remembered the over 100 babies who were born to widowed mothers after the tragic events of September 11, babies who will never know their fathers. We've also remembered the countless children who have been left fatherless or motherless due these events. Indeed, these single parents have an extremely challenging job ahead. Studies indicate that children in families maintained by one parent face more challenges and are more likely than children raised in two- parent homes to do poorly in school, have emotional and behavioral problems, become teenage parents, and have poverty-level incomes as adults. These frightening facts, once again, show us that strong parental involvement is vital to children's development and long-term success. Knowing the many risks kids face today, parents are increasingly getting involved in their children's lives from talking with them about drugs to making sure their homework is done to getting to know their child's friends and teachers. This resolution is important to let parents know that we are grateful to them and support them in their tasks. Parenthood is, at minimum, an eighteen-year full-time job, and takes unending commitment to ensure a bright and promising future for our country's children. And so today, I thank parents on behalf of a grateful Nation.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, as Senator Hatch just mentioned, last Thursday, on September 5, 2002, the Judiciary Committee met in an executive business meeting and considered the nomination of Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen to be a Federal Court of Appeals Judge for the 5th Circuit. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I participated in the debate on her nomination and then cast my vote in Owen's favor. Unfortunately, Owen's nomination was rejected on a straight party-line vote of nine in favor and ten against. I thought that the issues that had been raised against Justice Owen were unfounded. I won't go into Justice Owen's excellent qualifications here today, nor will I address objections that have been raised regarding her nomination. However, had the full Senate engaged in a debate on Justice Owen, and I think she deserved such a debate, I would have pointed out significant mischaracterizations that have been made about her decisions in a series of parental notification cases before the Texas Supreme Court. I discussed this issue in the Judiciary Committee debate, so for the information of other Senators who did not have the opportunity to participate in that debate, I ask unanimous consent to print my committee statement for the Record.

Mr. DEWINE

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, on August 1, along with my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, introduced a bill designed to improve the Nation's current genetic newborn screening program. Our legislation would provide education grants for physicians and parents, as well as grants to States to improve follow-up and tracking of those children who receive a heelstick screening and receive a positive result for metabolic, genetic, infectious, and other congenital conditions that threaten their health and life. Each year, newborn screening identifies an estimated 3,000 babies with conditions that would otherwise have had dire consequences. But despite their clear importance, our newborn screening systems are fragmented. Quite simply, all children do not have access to the same genetic tests. Where a child is born and what tests are offered in that State is what determines the tests a newborn receives. In my home State of Ohio, we test for 12 disorders, while right across the border in Kentucky, they test for only four disorders and in Pennsylvania, they test for five. In Massachusetts, however, newborns are tested for 29 disorders. Furthermore, parents often are not sufficiently informed of the number of tests available in their state and what those tests can help accomplish. Physicians may not know to educate parents, or physicians may talk to parents too late in the birthing process for it to make a difference. Also, State health departments may not follow-up adequately with the parents of a child who receives a positive test result, and health departments may not have the capacity to effectively record or track a large number of positive results. The bill we are introducing today would go a long way toward streamlining the current newborn screening system by offering states grants to accomplish the following: build and expand existing procedures and systems to report test results to individuals and families, and primary care physicians and subspecialties; coordinate ongoing follow-up treatment with individuals, families, and primary care physicians after a newborn receives an indication of the presence of a disorder on a screening test; ensure seamless integration of confirmatory testing, tertiary care, genetic services, including counseling, and access to developing therapies by participation in approved clinical trials involving the primary health care of the infant; and analyze collected data to identify populations at high risk, examine and respond to health concerns, recognize and address relevant environmental, behavioral, socioeconomic, demographic, and other factors. This bill is a good start toward ensuring that all newborns receive equal access to genetic tests and that their follow-up care, if needed, is available and coordinated. The importance of these screenings cannot be overstated. It can mean the difference between life and death for a newborn. And that, is something we must address. I ask my colleagues for their support.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, to introduce the ``Comprehensive Child Protection Act of 2002''--a bill to help protect our nation's children from child molestation and other forms of abuse. 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 Country 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. Last year, 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. Of reported sexual assaults, 71 percent of the victims are children, according to the Congressional Research Service. 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 2002'' 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, easy to access 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 cosponsoring this important measure.