Mike DeWine

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.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I rise today to raise the awareness of an issue that affects over 22,000 people a year, and that issue is organ donation. The sad fact about organ donations is this: We have the medical know-how to save lives, but we lack the organs. We lack organs because most Americans simply are unaware of the life-giving difference they can make by choosing to become organ donors. Sadly, each day the waiting list for those needing organs continues to grow. Today, nearly 79,000 people remain on the national transplant waiting list. Right now, more than 50,000 people, alone, are waiting for kidney transplants. That number is expected to double within the next decade. Additionally, between 12 and 16 people die each day just waiting for an available organ. To remedy the organ shortage, we must increase public awareness. By educating the public and raising awareness, more people will choose to become organ donors. At the very least, through these efforts, we can encourage more families to discuss what their wishes are and whether they would want to be organ donors. But our efforts must not stop there. We must do more than just implement public awareness campaigns, because the face of organ donation is changing. For the first time ever, the number of living organ donors outnumbered cadaver donors. Last year, there were 6,081 donor cadavers while 6,485 people opted to become living donors, usually giving up a healthy kidney to help a family member or friend. Recognizing this, my colleague, Senator Durbin, and I introduce a bill today that would help protect living organ donors in the group insurance market. Our bill would ensure that those individuals who choose to be living organ donors are not discriminated against in the insurance marketplace. Our bill builds on the protections provided by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, so that living organ donors are not denied insurance nor are they applied discriminatory insurance premiums because of their living organ donor status. Quite simply, a brother who donates a part of his kidney to his sister should not be denied health insurance. But tragically, that is what oftentimes happens. Frequently, individuals who are living organ donors are denied health insurance or restricted from the insurance market. Instead, we should celebrate living organ donors and remove obstacles and barriers for the successful donation of organs. Insurance shouldn't undermine someone's decision to be a living organ donor. Some States are evaluating how living organ donors affect the market. States are amending their Family Medical Leave eligibility so that living organ donors can participate and benefit from the program. The Federal Government, with the Organ Donor Leave Act of 1999, offered 30 days paid leave to Federal employees who chose to be an organ donor. But, paid leave and job protection doesn't mean much if people are denied health insurance or are required to pay higher premiums because they donated an organ to save another person's life. The impact of living organ donation is profound. A living organ donor not only can save the life of one patient, but can also take that person off the waiting list for a cadaver donation. That means the next person on the waiting list is ``bumped up'' a spot--giving additional hope to the 79,000 persons on the national transplant waiting list. Living organ donors give family members and friends a second chance at life and the opportunity to reduce the number of people on the waiting list to receive an organ. It is time for Congress to make a sensible decision in support of a person's decision to be a living organ donor. I encourage my colleagues to join me in co-sponsoring this bill.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I rise today to raise the awareness of an issue that affects over 22,000 people a year, and that issue is organ donation. The sad fact about organ donations is this: We have the medical know-how to save lives, but we lack the organs. We lack organs because most Americans simply are unaware of the life-giving difference they can make by choosing to become organ donors. Sadly, each day the waiting list for those needing organs continues to grow. Today, nearly 79,000 people remain on the national transplant waiting list. Right now, more than 50,000 people, alone, are waiting for kidney transplants. That number is expected to double within the next decade. Additionally, between 12 and 16 people die each day just waiting for an available organ. To remedy the organ shortage, we must increase public awareness. By educating the public and raising awareness, more people will choose to become organ donors. At the very least, through these efforts, we can encourage more families to discuss what their wishes are and whether they would want to be organ donors. But our efforts must not stop there. We must do more than just implement public awareness campaigns, because the face of organ donation is changing. For the first time ever, the number of living organ donors outnumbered cadaver donors. Last year, there were 6,081 donor cadavers while 6,485 people opted to become living donors, usually giving up a healthy kidney to help a family member or friend. Recognizing this, my colleague, Senator Durbin, and I introduce a bill today that would help protect living organ donors in the group insurance market. Our bill would ensure that those individuals who choose to be living organ donors are not discriminated against in the insurance marketplace. Our bill builds on the protections provided by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, so that living organ donors are not denied insurance nor are they applied discriminatory insurance premiums because of their living organ donor status. Quite simply, a brother who donates a part of his kidney to his sister should not be denied health insurance. But tragically, that is what oftentimes happens. Frequently, individuals who are living organ donors are denied health insurance or restricted from the insurance market. Instead, we should celebrate living organ donors and remove obstacles and barriers for the successful donation of organs. Insurance shouldn't undermine someone's decision to be a living organ donor. Some States are evaluating how living organ donors affect the market. States are amending their Family Medical Leave eligibility so that living organ donors can participate and benefit from the program. The Federal Government, with the Organ Donor Leave Act of 1999, offered 30 days paid leave to Federal employees who chose to be an organ donor. But, paid leave and job protection doesn't mean much if people are denied health insurance or are required to pay higher premiums because they donated an organ to save another person's life. The impact of living organ donation is profound. A living organ donor not only can save the life of one patient, but can also take that person off the waiting list for a cadaver donation. That means the next person on the waiting list is ``bumped up'' a spot--giving additional hope to the 79,000 persons on the national transplant waiting list. Living organ donors give family members and friends a second chance at life and the opportunity to reduce the number of people on the waiting list to receive an organ. It is time for Congress to make a sensible decision in support of a person's decision to be a living organ donor. I encourage my colleagues to join me in co-sponsoring this bill.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, yesterday my friend and colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, and I introduced a resolution of which every American should be proud. Our country has seen wars, recessions, conflict, prosperity and unification. In order to honor our collective past, this resolution would establish July as American History Month. July, the month of our country's declaration of independence--a time when Americans put aside differences of opinion and signed one of the most important documents in our country's history--is an ideal time for us to reflect on our Nation's history and educate our children about America's past. Studies have shown that Americans lack a passable knowledge of our history. We, as Americans, should learn from and understand this history. I believe we must encourage Americans of all ages and ethnicities to learn the history and heritage of the United States. Studies have shown that our next generation of leaders may lack the knowledge and understanding of what made our country great. In fact, one survey showed that only 23 percent of college seniors could identify correctly James Madison as the ``Father of the Constitution,'' and 26 percent of those same students mistakenly thought that the Articles of Confederation established the division of power between the states and the Federal Government. To help overcome this lack of knowledge, our resolution would encourage teachers and parents to take educational adventures to historic sites where the students may gain a working and memorable understanding of American history. I always have been in strong support of teaching American history and preserving our historic sites. Throughout my time in the Senate, I have sponsored legislation, like the Fallen Timbers bill, the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center Act, the National Aviation Heritage Area Act, and a resolution to honor the Buffalo Soldiers. Ohio has been home to seven presidents, which led me to introduce the Presidential Sites Improvement Act. I was also able to secure funds to help restoration of the Grant boyhood home in Georgetown, Ohio. All of these efforts will help provide opportunities for children and adults to learn about our nation's past. I believe that individuals who have a strong knowledge of American history also possess a deeper appreciation of the need for historic preservation of properties, buildings, and artifacts. There are many great historical sites and museums around Washington and the nation-- sites like the Smithsonian Museums, National Archives, Presidential birthplaces, Civil War battlefields, and national monuments. I encourage parents to spend time with their families and take family visits to these great sites. I am proud to say that Congress also has affirmed its commitment to the teaching of American history by appropriating $100 million to teaching American history in the Leave No Child Behind Act of 2001. Such a financial commitment sends a serious message that Congress believes in the importance of American history. And, with the passage of our resolution, we can only strengthen that message. In expressing the significance of American history, I defer to the words of Marcus Tullius Cicero, the great Roman orator: ``We study history not to be clever in another time, but to be wise always.'' I encourage my colleagues to support the vital preservation of our history and our historical sites. Our future and wisdom, as Cicero so aptly suggests, depend on our knowledge and grasp on the past.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. We are committed to fighting for dollars for these studies, because the contracting process at NIH only works if there are funds available. If there are no funds available, we must have the rule to ensure that we get needed studies done so that the necessary information can be added to the labels of the medicines children use. Would the Senator agree that the language of the amendment allows other tools to be used, but also makes clear that the rule will be available, enforceable, and unencumbered when needed?

Mr. DeWINE. That is correct. Congress made several tools, including the contracting process under the BPCA, available, but Congress never contemplated the exhaustion of all the tools under BPCA before the rule could be invoked. This amendment makes clear that as long as the FDA has first asked a company to voluntarily conduct the study, the FDA will be able to invoke the rule.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I wish to speak to an amendment of mine and my friend and colleague, Senator DURBIN, to help organ transplant patients maintain access to the life-saving drugs necessary to prevent their immune systems from rejecting their new organs. Every year, nearly 6,000 people die waiting for an organ transplant. Currently, over 67,000 Americans are waiting for a donor organ. Those individuals who are blessed to receive an organ transplant must take immunosuppressive drugs every day for the life of their transplant. Failure to take these drugs significantly increases the risk of the transplanted organ being rejected. We need this amendment, because Federal law is compromising the success of organ transplants. Let me explain. Right now, current Medicare policy denies certain transplant patients coverage for the drugs needed to prevent rejection. Medicare does not pay for anti-rejection drugs for Medicare beneficiaries, who received their transplants prior to becoming a Medicare beneficiary. So, for instance, if a person received a transplant at age 64 through his or her health insurance plan, when that person retires and relies on Medicare for health care coverage, he or she would no longer have immunosuppressive drug coverage. Medicare only pays for anti-rejection drugs for transplants performed in a Medicare-approved transplant facility. However, many beneficiaries are completely unaware of this fact and how it can jeopardize their future coverage of immunosuppressive drugs. To receive an organ transplant, a person must be very ill and many are far too ill at the time of transplantation to be researching the complexities of Medicare coverage policy. End Stage Renal Disease, ESRD, patients qualify for Medicare on the basis of needing dialysis. If End Stage Renal Disease patients receive a kidney transplant, they qualify for Medicare coverage for three years after the transplant. After the three years are up, they lose not only their general Medicare coverage, but also their coverage for immunosuppressive drugs. The amendment that Senator Durbin and I are introducing today would remove the Medicare limitations and make clear that all Medicare beneficiaries including End Stage Renal Disease patients who have had a transplant and need immunosuppressive drugs to prevent rejection of their transplant, will be covered as long as such anti-rejection drugs are needed. In the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act, Congress eliminated the 36-month time limitation for transplant recipients who: 1. received a Medicare eligible transplant and 2. who are eligible for Medicare based on age or disability. Our amendment would provide the same indefinite coverage to kidney transplant recipients who are not Medicare aged or Medicare disabled. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and help those who receive Medicare-eligible transplants gain access to the immunosuppressive drugs they need to live healthy productive lives.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and fellow Ohioan, Senator Voinovich, to introduce a bill that would establish a National Aviation Heritage Area within our home state of Ohio. The year 2003 represents the 100th anniversary of manned flight. On December 17, 1903, Wilbur and Orville Wright, who are native Ohioans, invented controlled, heavier-than-air flight. This was the first step in the century-long progression of flight. The Wright Brothers' successful design and the science behind it were the forerunners to our modern airplanes and space vehicles. There is obvious historical and cultural significance to the birth of aviation, and one of the unique educational aspects of aviation is the opportunity we can give children to interact with the subject outside of the classroom. This is why I am proud today to be introducing the National Aviation Heritage Area Act. Our bill seeks to foster strong public and private investments in aviation landmarks. Some of these landmarks include the Wright Brother's Wright Cycle Company, located in Dayton, OH; the National Aviation Hall of Fame; the Wright-Dunbar Interpretive Center, where students of all ages can learn about the painstaking measures the Wright Brothers and many of their predecessors took to fly; and the Huffman Prairie Flying Field, where the Brothers perfected the design of the world's first airplane. Listed in the bill are several other important aviation sites that may be added into the Heritage Area at a later date, such as the NASA-Glenn Research Facility and the Captain Edward V. Rickenbacher House. Mr. President, flight has become another important square in the patchwork of our nation's history. We are reminded of this every time we look skyward and see the crisscross of jet contrails. We are reminded of this every time we walk through the Rotunda of our very own U.S. Capitol and see the last frieze square that depicts the invention of flight by the Wright Brothers. And, we are reminded of this by one of the symbols of America, the eagle, a flying bird that represents the freedom of a people. It is vital that we protect the sites that have played such an important role in aviation. Doing so, we can enhance the education and enrichment of our children and our grandchildren for many years to come. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and fellow Ohioan, Senator Voinovich, to introduce a bill that would establish a National Aviation Heritage Area within our home state of Ohio. The year 2003 represents the 100th anniversary of manned flight. On December 17, 1903, Wilbur and Orville Wright, who are native Ohioans, invented controlled, heavier-than-air flight. This was the first step in the century-long progression of flight. The Wright Brothers' successful design and the science behind it were the forerunners to our modern airplanes and space vehicles. There is obvious historical and cultural significance to the birth of aviation, and one of the unique educational aspects of aviation is the opportunity we can give children to interact with the subject outside of the classroom. This is why I am proud today to be introducing the National Aviation Heritage Area Act. Our bill seeks to foster strong public and private investments in aviation landmarks. Some of these landmarks include the Wright Brother's Wright Cycle Company, located in Dayton, OH; the National Aviation Hall of Fame; the Wright-Dunbar Interpretive Center, where students of all ages can learn about the painstaking measures the Wright Brothers and many of their predecessors took to fly; and the Huffman Prairie Flying Field, where the Brothers perfected the design of the world's first airplane. Listed in the bill are several other important aviation sites that may be added into the Heritage Area at a later date, such as the NASA-Glenn Research Facility and the Captain Edward V. Rickenbacher House. Mr. President, flight has become another important square in the patchwork of our nation's history. We are reminded of this every time we look skyward and see the crisscross of jet contrails. We are reminded of this every time we walk through the Rotunda of our very own U.S. Capitol and see the last frieze square that depicts the invention of flight by the Wright Brothers. And, we are reminded of this by one of the symbols of America, the eagle, a flying bird that represents the freedom of a people. It is vital that we protect the sites that have played such an important role in aviation. Doing so, we can enhance the education and enrichment of our children and our grandchildren for many years to come. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I rise today with my colleague and friend from North Carolina, Senator Edwards, to introduce the Nurturing Special Kids Act of 2002. Our bill would expand access to affordable, high quality childcare for children with disabilities or other special needs. We need this bill, because the reality is that children from low- income families are more likely to have disabilities or other special needs. They are twice as likely as children from higher-income families to have a significant disability, nearly twice as likely to have serious mental or physical disabilities, and 1.3 times as likely to have learning disabilities. Parents and the disability community continually report significant shortages in affordable, high quality specialized childcare for children with disabilities and other unique needs. Specialized childcare is costly to deliver and often requires additional training for caregivers. Furthermore, many childcare centers simply cannot afford to create a setting that is accessible for disabled children or equipped to meet the physical or emotional challenges of these children. Our legislation would help remedy this by providing technical assistance to help families locate specialized care. Additionally, the bill sets aside a portion of the Childcare and Development Block Grant funds specifically for special needs care. This funding could be used to increase a special needs child voucher, or enable states to provide specialized training to better understand a child's disability, provide proper care, or set up centers designed to provide specialized care to children with particular conditions, like autism, Down Syndrome, or Cerebral Palsy. Additionally, our bill help disabled children, but it also would help all children with special needs by providing technical assistance to help families locate specialized care. No one can replace a parent, but parents who work outside the home need to feel confident that the people caring for their children are giving them the same type of love and support that they would provide. In the case of a disabled child, parents also want to make sure that the caretakers of their children are trained to deal with special needs. This bill is necessary to ensure that when parents work, they have access to quality care. I urge my colleagues to join us in support.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I rise today with my colleague and friend from North Carolina, Senator Edwards, to introduce the Nurturing Special Kids Act of 2002. Our bill would expand access to affordable, high quality childcare for children with disabilities or other special needs. We need this bill, because the reality is that children from low- income families are more likely to have disabilities or other special needs. They are twice as likely as children from higher-income families to have a significant disability, nearly twice as likely to have serious mental or physical disabilities, and 1.3 times as likely to have learning disabilities. Parents and the disability community continually report significant shortages in affordable, high quality specialized childcare for children with disabilities and other unique needs. Specialized childcare is costly to deliver and often requires additional training for caregivers. Furthermore, many childcare centers simply cannot afford to create a setting that is accessible for disabled children or equipped to meet the physical or emotional challenges of these children. Our legislation would help remedy this by providing technical assistance to help families locate specialized care. Additionally, the bill sets aside a portion of the Childcare and Development Block Grant funds specifically for special needs care. This funding could be used to increase a special needs child voucher, or enable states to provide specialized training to better understand a child's disability, provide proper care, or set up centers designed to provide specialized care to children with particular conditions, like autism, Down Syndrome, or Cerebral Palsy. Additionally, our bill help disabled children, but it also would help all children with special needs by providing technical assistance to help families locate specialized care. No one can replace a parent, but parents who work outside the home need to feel confident that the people caring for their children are giving them the same type of love and support that they would provide. In the case of a disabled child, parents also want to make sure that the caretakers of their children are trained to deal with special needs. This bill is necessary to ensure that when parents work, they have access to quality care. I urge my colleagues to join us in support.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, today Senator Kennedy, my colleague from Massachusetts, and I, Senator Durbin, and others are introducing a bill designed to help protect children from the dangers of tobacco. Quite simply, our bill would finally give the Food and Drug Administration the authority it needs to effectively regulate both the manufacture and the sale of tobacco products. My colleagues will all remember that we visited this issue a few years ago, in 1998, when our colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, and others introduced the Universal Tobacco Settlement Act, which included a major section that provided the FDA with the authority to regulate tobacco products. Also, of course, during 1998, 46 States entered into an agreement known as the Master Settlement Agreement, MSA. They entered into that agreement with the major tobacco companies to settle all State lawsuits seeking to recover the Medicaid costs of treating smokers. Fast forward from 1998 until today. Tobacco proponents would have you believe this master settlement resolved the issue of tobacco use by imposing all these restrictions. But the truth is, it did not. Smoking among young people remains a huge national problem. Every day in this country, nearly 5,000 young people under the age of 18 try their first cigarette. In my own home State of Ohio, 33 percent--one-third--of children 18 and under smoke. These kids in Ohio, by themselves, go through 45 million packs of cigarettes each year. If that is not bad enough, look at it another way: 90 percent of smokers start smoking before the age of 19. More than 6.4 million children across this country will die prematurely because of a decision they will make as children, as adolescents--a decision to start smoking cigarettes. In my home State of Ohio, as I indicated, one-third of the children smoke. We know the statistics are that one-third of people who smoke in this country will die prematurely because of an alcohol-related illness. One-third of the one-third, therefore, in the State of Ohio will die prematurely. While States have limited options available for tobacco advertising under this 1998 Master Settlement Agreement, the reality is that the tobacco companies still are able to choose the contents of their advertisements. They are still able to get around this settlement. They are still able to run ads like this: ``Skol, A Pinch Better.'' Guess where that ad ran? In Sports Illustrated. How many young people in this country every week wait for that Sports Illustrated to come in the mail, or buy it when it comes to the store? The companies are savvy. They have really changed their marketing strategies. They have concentrated more money into different advertising markets. As a result, more than 3 years after the major tobacco companies agreed to stop marketing to children as part of this tobacco settlement, children are still twice as likely as adults to be exposed to tobacco advertising. Let me repeat that. Children are still twice as likely as adults to be exposed to tobacco advertising. This chart shows and represents a poll which was done. The question asked was: Have you seen any advertising for cigarettes or tobacco in the last 2 weeks? Among teens, 64 percent said yes; adults, only 27 percent. In spite of the claim that tobacco companies are not targeting children, for whatever reason that is the market that is hearing it; that is who is seeing the message; that is who is hearing the message; that is whom the message is affecting. According to the Federal Trade Commission's annual report on cigarette sales and advertising, the year 2000 represented the largest increase ever in tobacco companies' spending on ``promotional allowances''; that is, the money tobacco companies pay retailers to promote their products in prominent locations in stores, or for high visible shelf space. We know that is one of the greatest marketing techniques--put it somewhere I can see it when I walk in the store. It is right at eye level for kids near the cash register, in an aisle where the customer must walk by to pay the cashier. That same year--the year 2000--cigarette manufacturers spent a record $9.5 billion on advertising and promotion. That is an increase of 16 percent from the year 1999. Tobacco companies also spend billions of dollars advertising through enticing promotional items--lighters, hats, and other products--they give away for free at the ``point of sale,'' or, in other words, at the cash register or the place of checkout in the grocery store or the convenience store. In fact, spending on such promotional or value-added items increased by 37 percent between 1999 and the year 2000. Let us not fool ourselves. These promotional strategies and advertisements reach our children. Statistics show that 75 percent of our children visit a convenience store at least once a week. I ask my colleagues. The next time you walk into a convenience store, look at how many different times you see an advertisement for tobacco products. They are everywhere. You walk in the store, and it may be on the clock--a little promotional clock that says when the store is open and when the store is closed. They will be at eye level. They will be by the cashier when you check out. They will be everywhere--image after image after image. It is calculated, and it works. Convenience stores are a place--right or wrong--where kids go. Seventy-five percent of kids visit convenience stores, as I said, at least once a week. That is a target area. This isn't just about advertising and marketing schemes. It is also about to be manufacturers' failure to disclose the specific ingredients in their products. I realize full well that tobacco users and nonusers alike recognize and understand that tobacco products are hazardous to their health. Everybody knows that. That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about requiring the tobacco companies to list the ingredients in their products. They do not have to do that today. Tobacco is an unregulated product. I believe it makes common sense that tobacco companies should be required to list when they put arsenic--and they do--or put formaldehyde or ammonia in the cigarettes. They should have to at least list it. It just makes common sense. Yet the law today does not require them to do that. While simply listing the ingredients, toxic as they may be, might not seem like much, think about it this way. Current law makes sure that we know what is in products designed to help people quit smoking--products such as the patch or the Nicorette gum, which are regulated, but not the very product that gets people addicted in the first place, the cigarettes. Doesn't that seem absurd? Think about it this way: Right now, the Food and Drug Administration requires Philip Morris to print the ingredients in its Kraft Macaroni and Cheese. They have to print all of the ingredients. Pick up a box. Every single ingredient that is in there they have to print but not the ingredients in cigarettes, a product, by the way, that contributes to the deaths of more than 440,000 people a year. Right now the FDA requires Philip Morris, which owns Nabisco, to print the ingredients contained in Oreo cookies and Ritz crackers but not the ingredients in Camel or Winston cigarettes, even though cigarettes cause one-third of all cancer deaths and 90 percent of lung cancer deaths. It is unfathomable to me--and I think it is unfathomable to everybody--that we would require the listing of ingredients on these products. We even require the listing of the ingredients on bottled water. Yet we do not require the listing of ingredients for one of the leading causes of death and disease in this country. Right now, the FDA requires printed ingredients for chewing gum, lipstick, bottled water, and ice cream, but not for cigarettes--a product that causes 20 percent of all heart disease deaths, 90 percent of lung cancer, which is the leading cause of cancer deaths among women, and the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. Another way to look at it is if a company wants to market a food product as ``fat-free'' or ``reduced-fat'' or ``lite,'' that company is required to meet certain standards regarding the number of calories or the amount of fat grams in that product. You can look right on that package and find it. Yet cigarette companies can call a cigarette a ``Camel Light'' or a ``Marlboro Light'' and not reveal a thing about the amount of tar or nicotine or arsenic in that supposedly ``light'' cigarette. Not having access to all of the information about this deadly product just makes no sense. It is something we need to change. With the bill we are introducing, we can change it. It is time we finally give the FDA the authority it needs to fix these problems. The legislation that Senator Kennedy and Senator Durbin and I are introducing will do just that. First, the bill would make changes regarding tobacco advertising. It would give the FDA authority to restrict tobacco industry marketing-- consistent with the first amendment--that targets our children. Additionally, our bill would require advertisements to be in black and white text only, unless they are in adult publications, and would define adult publications in terms of readership. Next, our legislation would give consumers more information about the ingredients in tobacco products. Specifically, the bill would provide the FDA with the ability to publish the ingredients of tobacco products. It would require a listing of all ingredients, substances, and compounds added by the manufacturer to the tobacco, to the paper, or to the filter. It would require a description of the content, delivery, and form of nicotine in each tobacco product. It would require information on the health, behavioral, or physiologic effects of the tobacco products. Further, it would require tobacco companies to provide information on the reduction of risk to health available through technology. And finally, it would establish an approval process for all new tobacco products entering the market--new products such as advance with its ``trionic filter'', which claims to have--and I quote--``all of the taste . . . less of the toxins'' of other cigarettes. Obviously, we already know that smoking is a health risk. We all know that. But, what we don't know about is the harm caused by or what adverse health effects are created by the other ingredients in tobacco products or by how the tobacco is burned. We do not know all the details about that. Tobacco companies should share that. There are tobacco products on the market that are not conventional cigarettes. They have carbon filters running down the center of them. They are sophisticated products that burn tobacco differently, that affect the body differently, and that may cause people to smoke them differently. These are all things that should be examined, they should be reviewed, and they should be commented on by the Food and Drug Administration, so the public knows what they are choosing to consume. Here we have a pack of Eclipse cigarettes, which claims it will--and I quote--``Change the way you smoke.'' It also claims that it--and again I quote--``may present less risk of cancer, bronchitis, and possibly emphysema.'' This is what they say in the bold print. I don't know who ``they'' are, and I don't know where they got their information, but the public should know. Below the bold print in this same pack is the following, smaller print: Evidence suggests that smokers who already have cardiovascular disease and who switch to Eclipse may further increase their health risk. So in the bold print we have a statement that is not cited and not supported, and then in the fine print we have a statement that is supported by numerous studies. Which claim are you more likely to believe? And which statement should be broadcast in bold lettering to the consumer? By introducing this bill, we are finally saying we are not going to let tobacco manufacturers have free rein over markets and consumers anymore. Today, we are taking a step towards making sure the public gets adequate information about whether to continue to smoke or even to start smoking in the first place. We all know it is dangerous. But the tobacco companies no longer should be able to hide all the facts. With this bill, we are not just saying, ``Buyer beware''--we all know there are dangers--but what we are saying is, ``Tobacco companies, be honest.'' We are saying, ``Tobacco companies, stop marketing to our kids.'' We are saying, ``Tobacco companies, tell consumers about what they are really buying.'' Madam President, it is time we hold these companies to the same standards we expect from other producers. It is time to give kids a fighting chance when it comes to resisting cigarettes. It is time to finally just do the right thing. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. DeWine and Mr. Kennedy pertaining to the introduction of S. 2626 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, today Senator Kennedy, my colleague from Massachusetts, and I, Senator Durbin, and others are introducing a bill designed to help protect children from the dangers of tobacco. Quite simply, our bill would finally give the Food and Drug Administration the authority it needs to effectively regulate both the manufacture and the sale of tobacco products. My colleagues will all remember that we visited this issue a few years ago, in 1998, when our colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, and others introduced the Universal Tobacco Settlement Act, which included a major section that provided the FDA with the authority to regulate tobacco products. Also, of course, during 1998, 46 States entered into an agreement known as the Master Settlement Agreement, MSA. They entered into that agreement with the major tobacco companies to settle all State lawsuits seeking to recover the Medicaid costs of treating smokers. Fast forward from 1998 until today. Tobacco proponents would have you believe this master settlement resolved the issue of tobacco use by imposing all these restrictions. But the truth is, it did not. Smoking among young people remains a huge national problem. Every day in this country, nearly 5,000 young people under the age of 18 try their first cigarette. In my own home State of Ohio, 33 percent--one-third--of children 18 and under smoke. These kids in Ohio, by themselves, go through 45 million packs of cigarettes each year. If that is not bad enough, look at it another way: 90 percent of smokers start smoking before the age of 19. More than 6.4 million children across this country will die prematurely because of a decision they will make as children, as adolescents--a decision to start smoking cigarettes. In my home State of Ohio, as I indicated, one-third of the children smoke. We know the statistics are that one-third of people who smoke in this country will die prematurely because of an alcohol-related illness. One-third of the one-third, therefore, in the State of Ohio will die prematurely. While States have limited options available for tobacco advertising under this 1998 Master Settlement Agreement, the reality is that the tobacco companies still are able to choose the contents of their advertisements. They are still able to get around this settlement. They are still able to run ads like this: ``Skol, A Pinch Better.'' Guess where that ad ran? In Sports Illustrated. How many young people in this country every week wait for that Sports Illustrated to come in the mail, or buy it when it comes to the store? The companies are savvy. They have really changed their marketing strategies. They have concentrated more money into different advertising markets. As a result, more than 3 years after the major tobacco companies agreed to stop marketing to children as part of this tobacco settlement, children are still twice as likely as adults to be exposed to tobacco advertising. Let me repeat that. Children are still twice as likely as adults to be exposed to tobacco advertising. This chart shows and represents a poll which was done. The question asked was: Have you seen any advertising for cigarettes or tobacco in the last 2 weeks? Among teens, 64 percent said yes; adults, only 27 percent. In spite of the claim that tobacco companies are not targeting children, for whatever reason that is the market that is hearing it; that is who is seeing the message; that is who is hearing the message; that is whom the message is affecting. According to the Federal Trade Commission's annual report on cigarette sales and advertising, the year 2000 represented the largest increase ever in tobacco companies' spending on ``promotional allowances''; that is, the money tobacco companies pay retailers to promote their products in prominent locations in stores, or for high visible shelf space. We know that is one of the greatest marketing techniques--put it somewhere I can see it when I walk in the store. It is right at eye level for kids near the cash register, in an aisle where the customer must walk by to pay the cashier. That same year--the year 2000--cigarette manufacturers spent a record $9.5 billion on advertising and promotion. That is an increase of 16 percent from the year 1999. Tobacco companies also spend billions of dollars advertising through enticing promotional items--lighters, hats, and other products--they give away for free at the ``point of sale,'' or, in other words, at the cash register or the place of checkout in the grocery store or the convenience store. In fact, spending on such promotional or value-added items increased by 37 percent between 1999 and the year 2000. Let us not fool ourselves. These promotional strategies and advertisements reach our children. Statistics show that 75 percent of our children visit a convenience store at least once a week. I ask my colleagues. The next time you walk into a convenience store, look at how many different times you see an advertisement for tobacco products. They are everywhere. You walk in the store, and it may be on the clock--a little promotional clock that says when the store is open and when the store is closed. They will be at eye level. They will be by the cashier when you check out. They will be everywhere--image after image after image. It is calculated, and it works. Convenience stores are a place--right or wrong--where kids go. Seventy-five percent of kids visit convenience stores, as I said, at least once a week. That is a target area. This isn't just about advertising and marketing schemes. It is also about to be manufacturers' failure to disclose the specific ingredients in their products. I realize full well that tobacco users and nonusers alike recognize and understand that tobacco products are hazardous to their health. Everybody knows that. That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about requiring the tobacco companies to list the ingredients in their products. They do not have to do that today. Tobacco is an unregulated product. I believe it makes common sense that tobacco companies should be required to list when they put arsenic--and they do--or put formaldehyde or ammonia in the cigarettes. They should have to at least list it. It just makes common sense. Yet the law today does not require them to do that. While simply listing the ingredients, toxic as they may be, might not seem like much, think about it this way. Current law makes sure that we know what is in products designed to help people quit smoking--products such as the patch or the Nicorette gum, which are regulated, but not the very product that gets people addicted in the first place, the cigarettes. Doesn't that seem absurd? Think about it this way: Right now, the Food and Drug Administration requires Philip Morris to print the ingredients in its Kraft Macaroni and Cheese. They have to print all of the ingredients. Pick up a box. Every single ingredient that is in there they have to print but not the ingredients in cigarettes, a product, by the way, that contributes to the deaths of more than 440,000 people a year. Right now the FDA requires Philip Morris, which owns Nabisco, to print the ingredients contained in Oreo cookies and Ritz crackers but not the ingredients in Camel or Winston cigarettes, even though cigarettes cause one-third of all cancer deaths and 90 percent of lung cancer deaths. It is unfathomable to me--and I think it is unfathomable to everybody--that we would require the listing of ingredients on these products. We even require the listing of the ingredients on bottled water. Yet we do not require the listing of ingredients for one of the leading causes of death and disease in this country. Right now, the FDA requires printed ingredients for chewing gum, lipstick, bottled water, and ice cream, but not for cigarettes--a product that causes 20 percent of all heart disease deaths, 90 percent of lung cancer, which is the leading cause of cancer deaths among women, and the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. Another way to look at it is if a company wants to market a food product as ``fat-free'' or ``reduced-fat'' or ``lite,'' that company is required to meet certain standards regarding the number of calories or the amount of fat grams in that product. You can look right on that package and find it. Yet cigarette companies can call a cigarette a ``Camel Light'' or a ``Marlboro Light'' and not reveal a thing about the amount of tar or nicotine or arsenic in that supposedly ``light'' cigarette. Not having access to all of the information about this deadly product just makes no sense. It is something we need to change. With the bill we are introducing, we can change it. It is time we finally give the FDA the authority it needs to fix these problems. The legislation that Senator Kennedy and Senator Durbin and I are introducing will do just that. First, the bill would make changes regarding tobacco advertising. It would give the FDA authority to restrict tobacco industry marketing-- consistent with the first amendment--that targets our children. Additionally, our bill would require advertisements to be in black and white text only, unless they are in adult publications, and would define adult publications in terms of readership. Next, our legislation would give consumers more information about the ingredients in tobacco products. Specifically, the bill would provide the FDA with the ability to publish the ingredients of tobacco products. It would require a listing of all ingredients, substances, and compounds added by the manufacturer to the tobacco, to the paper, or to the filter. It would require a description of the content, delivery, and form of nicotine in each tobacco product. It would require information on the health, behavioral, or physiologic effects of the tobacco products. Further, it would require tobacco companies to provide information on the reduction of risk to health available through technology. And finally, it would establish an approval process for all new tobacco products entering the market--new products such as advance with its ``trionic filter'', which claims to have--and I quote--``all of the taste . . . less of the toxins'' of other cigarettes. Obviously, we already know that smoking is a health risk. We all know that. But, what we don't know about is the harm caused by or what adverse health effects are created by the other ingredients in tobacco products or by how the tobacco is burned. We do not know all the details about that. Tobacco companies should share that. There are tobacco products on the market that are not conventional cigarettes. They have carbon filters running down the center of them. They are sophisticated products that burn tobacco differently, that affect the body differently, and that may cause people to smoke them differently. These are all things that should be examined, they should be reviewed, and they should be commented on by the Food and Drug Administration, so the public knows what they are choosing to consume. Here we have a pack of Eclipse cigarettes, which claims it will--and I quote--``Change the way you smoke.'' It also claims that it--and again I quote--``may present less risk of cancer, bronchitis, and possibly emphysema.'' This is what they say in the bold print. I don't know who ``they'' are, and I don't know where they got their information, but the public should know. Below the bold print in this same pack is the following, smaller print: Evidence suggests that smokers who already have cardiovascular disease and who switch to Eclipse may further increase their health risk. So in the bold print we have a statement that is not cited and not supported, and then in the fine print we have a statement that is supported by numerous studies. Which claim are you more likely to believe? And which statement should be broadcast in bold lettering to the consumer? By introducing this bill, we are finally saying we are not going to let tobacco manufacturers have free rein over markets and consumers anymore. Today, we are taking a step towards making sure the public gets adequate information about whether to continue to smoke or even to start smoking in the first place. We all know it is dangerous. But the tobacco companies no longer should be able to hide all the facts. With this bill, we are not just saying, ``Buyer beware''--we all know there are dangers--but what we are saying is, ``Tobacco companies, be honest.'' We are saying, ``Tobacco companies, stop marketing to our kids.'' We are saying, ``Tobacco companies, tell consumers about what they are really buying.'' Madam President, it is time we hold these companies to the same standards we expect from other producers. It is time to give kids a fighting chance when it comes to resisting cigarettes. It is time to finally just do the right thing. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I thank my colleague. Mr. President, I congratulate my colleague from the State of Florida for his leadership on this amendment. Once again, he is correct. Once again, he is a leader on issues having to do with this hemisphere, having to do with the drug problem. We have a lot at stake in Colombia. Colombia is our neighbor. We do a lot of trade with Colombia. This is, I believe, the second oldest democracy in this hemisphere. It is a country that obviously borders the Panama Canal. It is a democracy, though, that is in peril. It is a democracy that has at least three very tough groups gnawing at it, trying to overthrow the Government, trying to grab pieces of the land of Colombia. These are three very tough, tough groups: the FARC, the ELN, and the paramilitary. So a lot is at stake in Colombia. Colombia is important to us because this is one of the countries that is a major supplier of drugs into the United States. So what happens down there is important. We have seen something develop in Colombia in the last few years that I do not know we have seen anywhere in the world; that is this very close relationship, over now an extended period of time, between the drug dealers and the terrorists. They are working literally hand in glove in a synergistic relationship. Unfortunately, as we try to help our friends in Colombia, we have created an artificial barrier in our law. That barrier creates a distinction between the use of our money to help to deal with terrorist problems or our use of the money to deal with narcotics problems. It says, in effect, we can use it for one but we cannot use it for the other. That makes absolutely no sense. It is time we take that artificial barrier down because really the problem is one and the same. And they are the same people. It is time we recognize that and that we stop handcuffing the use of our aid, handcuffing the Government of Colombia as it literally fights for its survival. So I congratulate my colleague on this amendment. It is time, frankly, that we face up to the reality of what is really going on in Colombia and help this ally of the United States to try to preserve democracy.

Mr. DeWINE. I would like to echo what my colleague from California has said. Providing humanitarian assistance is in our national interest, and it is also the right thing to do. We have a moral obligation to help ease the suffering that billions of people are facing around the world. We have an obligation to help those in the world who are suffering at the hands of evil leaders and corrupt governments. We know that chaos, poverty, hunger, political uncertainty, and social stability are the root causes of violence and conflict around the world. We also know that if used correctly, our foreign assistance is a vital foreign policy tool to prevent violence and conflict. Our foreign aid can be used to fight global terrorism and foster political stability, food security, rule of law, democracy, and ultimately peace around the world. When applied effectively, foreign assistance works. One of the many lessons of the tragic September 11th terrorist attacks is that we must not wait for a nation to implode before we take action. We must not wait for a nation's people to suffer from poverty, disease, hunger, despotic leaders, or corrupt governments. Yet, tragically, despite its importance and immeasurable value, our overall foreign affairs budget has been stagnant for the past 20 years. And in real dollars, it has gone down. That is a mistake. I ask my colleague from California, what level does U.S. foreign assistance spending stand at today?

Mr. DeWINE. I thank my colleague. Our foreign assistance is absolutely critical for people in war-ravaged, politically unstable, impoverished nations. The children, the elderly, and the civilian people are not responsible for the political and economic turmoil in their homelands, but they are the ones who always end up suffering the most. I look forward to working with you to continue to help these folks around the world. We have a moral obligation to stay committed to these people. litening pods

Mr. DeWINE. I yield to my colleague my minute.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of increasing funds to respond to the HIV/AIDS pandemic. I cannot think of a more pressing humanitarian and health emergency than this global crisis. That is why Senator Frist, I, and others have worked with Senator Helms to propose this amendment to significantly increase the U.S. contribution to the global AIDS fight. At the end of the day, all of us are working for the same objective: To substantially increase our overall funding level and to work towards alleviating the continued suffering caused by this epidemic. Quite simply, we have a moral obligation to do so. Many of my colleagues have already come to the Chamber and painted the very disturbing and realistic picture of the impact this disease is having worldwide, particularly on children. In the year 2000, the U.S. Agency for International Development released a study which concluded that over 34 million children worldwide have lost one or both parents to AIDS or related causes. USAID further estimated this number will increase to 44 million children--44 million--by the year 2010. Yet as alarming as these numbers are, they hardly begin to tell the whole story. Today, nearly 3 million children are infected with the virus. Last year, over 800,000 children contracted HIV/AIDS, primarily from mother-to-child transmission. While the problem is especially profound in sub-Saharan Africa, many children who are contracting the disease are living right in our own backyard in the Caribbean, in nations such as Haiti and Guyana. I have seen firsthand, as have many of my colleagues, the devastation this disease causes. I have seen it in Haiti, a nation with the second highest prevalence of HIV/AIDS in the world, second only to sub-Saharan Africa. In the year 2000, an estimated 250,000 Haitians, out of a population of only 8 million, are estimated to be currently living with AIDS. According to the Centers for Disease Control projections, Haiti will experience up to 44,000 new HIV/AIDS cases this year. That is at least 4,000 more than the number expected in the United States, a nation with a population nearly 35 times larger. In Haiti, HIV/AIDS already has orphaned 163,000 children, a number expected to skyrocket to between 323,000 to 393,000 over the next 10 years. Haiti also continues to suffer from an unbelievably high HIV transmission rate from mother to child, and, of course, 65 percent of the infants born with the disease, we know, will die within the first year. This truly is a tragedy because we know that the transmission of HIV from mother to child can be substantially reduced with proper counseling and proper medication. The reality is that millions of children are dying, and we can do something about it. We must do something about this. Now is the time to work to end the human tragedy caused by preventable, treatable diseases around the world. We have a moral obligation to fight HIV/AIDS, and I believe we must show the leadership today by tackling the problem in our backyard and around the world. I thank all of my colleagues who have come to this Chamber to talk about this issue and show support for dealing with this problem. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I yield back my time, unless someone wants the time.

Mr. DeWINE. Just a couple comments on the amendment.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, this is the time of year when our children across the country are getting out of school. It is also the time of year when many of our great teachers are leaving the classroom for the last time and retiring. I rise today to honor a very special educator from my home State of Ohio, Lorna Palagyi. Lorna is retiring this month after 25 years of dedication to Ohio students. When I think about her commitment to education, I am reminded of something Oliver Wendell Holmes once said: The main part of intellectual education is not the acquisition of facts but rather learning how to make facts live. For a quarter of a century now, Lorna Palagyi has been doing just that--making facts come alive for the elementary school children in Madison, OH. She is a graduate of Kent State University. She has taught grades 3 through 7 and tutored students afterschool, served as a mentor for teachers just starting, and helped secure funds for several school projects; one in particular that allowed her students to make a large colored map of the United States on their playground. Not only has she been very dedicated to her children at school, but she has also been a terrific mother to her children at home. The mother of three children--one of whom happens to be my legislative director, Paul Palagyi--Lorna once said the main reason she taught was to help her kids through college. But I also suspect the reason she taught was because she loved to teach and she loved the students. She is certainly dedicated to her family and maintains that she simply could not have done it, could not have taught as long as she has, without the love and support of her husband, Jim. We should all be truly proud of Lorna for her commitment, her dedication to quality education. As my own high school principal, Mr. John Malone, said many years ago when I was in high school: There really are only two things that matter in education: One is a student who wants to learn; the other is a good teacher. Lorna is certainly more than just a good teacher. Over the next decade we will need, it is estimated, at least 2.5 million new teachers. That is an unbelievable figure. That represents a real challenge but also an opportunity for this great Nation of ours to get more teachers like Lorna into our school systems, into the classrooms, teaching our young people. That is certainly how we will prepare our children for their great future. Today, we thank Lorna and we also thank teachers throughout our country for the great work they do every day for our children. We say to Lorna, you are a shining example of exactly the kind of teachers we need educating our children. Enjoy your retirement. You certainly earned it. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senators Kennedy, Gregg, and Voinovich, to introduce the ``Early Education and Care Act,'' a bill to help improve the quality of early childhood education. We all know that our children are the most vulnerable and valuable members of our population. As the parents of eight and grandparents of seven, my wife, Fran and I know the responsibility, time, and dedication it takes to ensure that children B especially very young children, live in a stimulating environment that will enhance their development. The first five years of a child's life are a time of momentous change. Research shows that a child's brain size doubles between birth and age three. I remember my own children during this time, and it seemed like everyday they were learning and doing something for the first time--walking, crawling, or learning another new word. Kids are like sponges, particularly at this early stage of life. That's why education is such an important part of our children's lives, not just when they reach kindergarten, but really from the day they are born. The bill we are introducing today would help reshape how states and American families view child development. I have worked with the other sponsors to ensure that information about the importance of child development, age-appropriate activities, and activities that increase a child's language and literacy development are all targeted at every home in Ohio and across the country. This information needs to go to our childcare centers, libraries, and pediatrician offices. Now, not every child less than five years of age goes to a formal pre-school or childcare setting. But, they all go to the doctor and our message needs to be incorporated into well-baby visits and ordinary check ups. Our legislation would enable states to provide training to health care providers on conducting child development analyses as part of a routine physical examination. Programs, such as ``Reach Out and Read,'' already have been successful in using the health care profession to spread literacy. ``Reach Out and Read'' gives books to parents to take home and share with their children. Doctors that participate in this program have incorporated literacy and language development into questions during physical evaluations, and they have emphasized the importance of literacy to the parents. Early learning programs play a pivotal role in preparing our children for kindergarten and beyond. First Lady Laura Bush has taken an important leadership role in this issue with her ``Ready to Read, Ready to Learn'' initiative, which has helped put early learning into the national spotlight. For example, when she testified before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, she described a great discrepancy that exists in our country. She explained that when children enter their kindergarten classrooms on the first day of school, they are not all starting from the same point. Some children are much more advanced than others. Kindergarten teachers could tell you on day one, which students received quality pre-primary education and which ones hadn't gone to a quality program or had ever been in an educational setting before. Research shows that children who attend quality early childcare programs when they were three or four years-old score better in math, language, and on social skills development in early elementary school than children who attend poor quality childcare programs. Furthermore, children in early learning programs with high quality teachers-- teachers with associate degrees or bachelor degrees--do substantially better. Our legislation would create incentives for states to enable those caring for our children to get the training and education they need to best teach our very young children. I'm very pleased with what my own home state of Ohio did in 1999, when we passed a law requiring that every Head Start teacher by the year 2007, have at least an associates degree in early childhood education. Currently, federal law mandates that only 50 percent of Head Start teachers have an associate degree. These are all very complex issues, Mr. President. We need to find a balance between quality pre-primary education programs and ensuring that we reach as many children and families as possible. The time has come for a more comprehensive program B one that reaches all children right from the start. I believe our legislation accomplishes this task, and I encourage my colleagues to support this effort.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senators Kennedy, Gregg, and Voinovich, to introduce the ``Early Education and Care Act,'' a bill to help improve the quality of early childhood education. We all know that our children are the most vulnerable and valuable members of our population. As the parents of eight and grandparents of seven, my wife, Fran and I know the responsibility, time, and dedication it takes to ensure that children B especially very young children, live in a stimulating environment that will enhance their development. The first five years of a child's life are a time of momentous change. Research shows that a child's brain size doubles between birth and age three. I remember my own children during this time, and it seemed like everyday they were learning and doing something for the first time--walking, crawling, or learning another new word. Kids are like sponges, particularly at this early stage of life. That's why education is such an important part of our children's lives, not just when they reach kindergarten, but really from the day they are born. The bill we are introducing today would help reshape how states and American families view child development. I have worked with the other sponsors to ensure that information about the importance of child development, age-appropriate activities, and activities that increase a child's language and literacy development are all targeted at every home in Ohio and across the country. This information needs to go to our childcare centers, libraries, and pediatrician offices. Now, not every child less than five years of age goes to a formal pre-school or childcare setting. But, they all go to the doctor and our message needs to be incorporated into well-baby visits and ordinary check ups. Our legislation would enable states to provide training to health care providers on conducting child development analyses as part of a routine physical examination. Programs, such as ``Reach Out and Read,'' already have been successful in using the health care profession to spread literacy. ``Reach Out and Read'' gives books to parents to take home and share with their children. Doctors that participate in this program have incorporated literacy and language development into questions during physical evaluations, and they have emphasized the importance of literacy to the parents. Early learning programs play a pivotal role in preparing our children for kindergarten and beyond. First Lady Laura Bush has taken an important leadership role in this issue with her ``Ready to Read, Ready to Learn'' initiative, which has helped put early learning into the national spotlight. For example, when she testified before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, she described a great discrepancy that exists in our country. She explained that when children enter their kindergarten classrooms on the first day of school, they are not all starting from the same point. Some children are much more advanced than others. Kindergarten teachers could tell you on day one, which students received quality pre-primary education and which ones hadn't gone to a quality program or had ever been in an educational setting before. Research shows that children who attend quality early childcare programs when they were three or four years-old score better in math, language, and on social skills development in early elementary school than children who attend poor quality childcare programs. Furthermore, children in early learning programs with high quality teachers-- teachers with associate degrees or bachelor degrees--do substantially better. Our legislation would create incentives for states to enable those caring for our children to get the training and education they need to best teach our very young children. I'm very pleased with what my own home state of Ohio did in 1999, when we passed a law requiring that every Head Start teacher by the year 2007, have at least an associates degree in early childhood education. Currently, federal law mandates that only 50 percent of Head Start teachers have an associate degree. These are all very complex issues, Mr. President. We need to find a balance between quality pre-primary education programs and ensuring that we reach as many children and families as possible. The time has come for a more comprehensive program B one that reaches all children right from the start. I believe our legislation accomplishes this task, and I encourage my colleagues to support this effort.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a very important environmental issue, not just to my home State of Ohio, but to our entire Nation, and that issue is the protection of our Great Lakes. These lakes are a natural treasure that hold one-fifth of the world's freshwater, produce $2 billion per year in fish, and provide drinking water to 33 million people. Yesterday, the GAO released a report on the progress of cleanup in polluted Areas of Concern. These Areas of Concern, or AOCs, are sites in the Great Lakes that do not meet water quality goals. Many years ago, the United States and Canada identified 44 AOCs in the Great Lakes and agreed to a cleanup process. In my home State of Ohio, there are four AOCs, the Maumee River, the Ashtabula River, the Black River, and the Cuyahoga River. These areas suffer fish and wildlife consumption restrictions, fish and wildlife reproductive problems and deformities, algal blooms, restrictions on drinking water consumption, and beach closings. These environmental problems need to be addressed as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, cleanup has been very slow. The GAO report found that the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, has failed to take oversight responsibility, Federal funding has declined steadily over the years, and States have abandoned the cleanup process. These results are disturbing to say the least. This is why Senator Levin and I, as Co-Chairs of the Senate Great Lakes Task Force, are introducing a bill today that would authorize $50 million per year in grants to States for the cleanup of Areas of Concern. Cleanup work includes monitoring and evaluating sites, remediating sediment, and preventing further contamination. This legislation would authorize the EPA to conduct research and development of innovative approaches, technologies, and techniques for the remediation of sediment in the Great Lakes and would authorize the Great Lakes National Program Office to carry out a public information grant program to provide information about the contaminated sediments, as well as activities to clean-up the site. Finally, as the GAO report recommends, our bill would require the EPA to submit a report to Congress on the actions, time periods, and resources that are necessary for the EPA to oversee the Remedial Action Plans at Areas of Concern. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and honor an international commitment to protect a truly great natural resource. We must honor our commitment to future generations and do all we can to protect the Lakes for our children and grandchildren. We owe it to them.